The Hurt Locker - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 07-10-2009, 06:04 PM

I just got back from The Hurt Locker (it's playing at Santana Row), and the movie was something else. I've never been a huge fan of films about the military, but when they're realistic, when they're not glorifying but simply trying to show us what it's really like, they can be sublime. Such a movie is Hurt Locker. Here's the trailer:

YouTube - The Hurt Locker - Official Trailer [HD]

(embedding disabled, click on it to view)

The premise is simple, a movie about an army EOD team in 2004 Iraq dealing with IEDs. The writing, directing, acting, and special effects are all really top notch.

I strongly recommend this movie. 9.8/10

yournamehere · 07-14-2009, 08:17 PM

I've heard nothing but great reviews of this movie. Glad you liked it.

SecretMethod70 · 09-03-2009, 10:24 PM

Just saw this at a second run theatre. Great movie.

I'm also not typically a fan of military movies, but this one really did nothing to glorify it. It was tense throughout, and quite emotional at some points. I highly recommend it.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 10:28 AM

I just watched the film The Hurt Locker recently. I didn't really know anything about it and it totally shocked me. What the hell?

First:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoid Fragmauck, Bomb Squad Expert

Last night night I watched The Hurt Locker and sat there and silently nitpicked about everything. Like the part when he yanks up all of those out of the ground and takes the time to individually unscrew each blasting cap, or the part where he's like "OH, THERE IS A CAR BOMB. IT'S MADE OUT OF ARTILLERY ROUNDS WITH DET CORD!" and then the dude goes on a super intense race against time to disarm it. Kids, if you ever find an IED and feel like disarming it... just cut the cords. Or wire, if it's an electric initiation. It takes like 2 seconds. And then he's like "Oh man, a dead man's switch! This guy was good." Cool, well a dead man's switch doesn't make any difference if it isn't connected to anything. Idiot.

Shit, I hope I'm around when someone finds a car bomb like that so I can look like an EOD hero. I'd be like "Don't worry, I WILL DISARM IT!" and then I would like frantically flap the det cord around like I was looking for a weak point in it or something, then I would run my hands up and down the length of it for no reason and everyone would be all biting their nails and sweating and looking worried and then I would be like "OH NO! TEN SECONDS!" and everyone would gasp and then I would cut the det cord in two and be like "Oh, so close!"

Not that I'm a super experienced bomb technician or whatever but... it's not a nuclear MacGruber device. Some angry fundamentalists with an education equivalent to that of an American 3rd grader put it together. Plus like 80% of the bombs they tried to disarm in the Hurt Locker blew up anyways, so that's dumb. They should have just shot them with a BAZOOKA from their FIGHTER JET.

Hahaha, one time in JRTC we were Opfor and we set up a mine field and an 11 row and these engineers tried to breach it so we let them go toss out their ring main and all that nonsense then we had a guy run across the road and he's like "CHYAH!" and whacks their initiation line with his e-tool and cuts it in half... and then we just shot whoever ran out to try to retie it. Hahaha, they were reservists, those guys don't know shit.

Also bullshit:

- Lone EOD team operations.
- Big bottles of whiskey on duty.
- Heading into town in a hoodie.
- Smoke grenade for no reason.
- EOD snipers with .50 M107s.
- Team of 3 men clearing huge buildings.
- Make-believe scary superbombs.
...and countless shit that's total fantasy.

I can go on for hours. I haven't been this offended by a movie in a long time.

...

I'm not an expert, but I used to do stuff like that for a living back in the day. Please know that this movie is a total two-flush turd. If I met the director of this celluloid piece of poo, I'd slap her across the face with my 5-34. Silly civilian... please consult an EOD adviser for a few of your thousands of dollars?

And if you liked this movie... you should be ashamed of yourself. Or at least realize that it's utter fantasy.

The problem with this movie is it becomes a tarp of truth for people that don't know about the military or this job in particular. They consciously or subconsciously associate those characters with guys like Fragmauck. I'm really tired of people making generalizations about the job and who we are as people because they've been educated by a piece of crap film. "You did that? You must be a dangerous PTSD alcoholic with a death wish! You're scary."

/unnecessary veteran rant

LoganSnake · 03-09-2010, 10:32 AM

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. I watched the movie and was underwhelmed despite coming into it with zero expectations stemming from not knowing anything about the film other than the title and the setting.

It had the pacing of Jarhead, which is about as fast as a turtle stampede through peanut butter and a story that didn't grab me at all. Basterds deserved an Oscar more.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 10:34 AM

Needless to say: Jarhead is far more accurate than The Hurt Locker.

telekinetic · 03-09-2010, 11:25 AM

I liked Jarhead better. This was too slow and the MacGuyvering was absurd. Not to mention the total breakdown in the chain of command and blatant endangerment.

SecretMethod70 · 03-09-2010, 01:15 PM

I don't mind the MacGuyvering - it's a story-telling device to create tension, and I'm capable of acknowledging it's not reality. That said, I enjoyed the first half of the movie a lot more, before he left the base. Not only did that go beyond my suspension of disbelief, but I think it cheapened what was an otherwise creative movie. I didn't need to watch some central conflict to escalated the tension and draw at my heartstrings. I would have been happy if the movie just stuck to defusing bombs.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------

Logan: The slow pacing is actually part of what I liked about the movie. For all the inaccuracies that can be criticized, I think The Hurt Locker did a decent job of not cheapening or glorifying war when compared to most other war movies. That's ultimately the important point for me.

They actually used a 28 year EOD veteran as military advisor when they made the movie, and he wrote an article defending some of the decisions that were made in the creative process. It's an interesting read:

Quote:

The Hurt Locker: A Vet's View click to show

I read with interest Kate Hoit's comments about The Hurt Locker. As the military advisor to the movie, I've read countless reviews, commentaries, and criticisms of The Hurt Locker in the last 18 months or so. Until now, I haven't felt it necessary for me to respond. Her comments motivate me to change that course.

As a fellow vet (I've served 30 years in uniform, 28 of those as an EOD Soldier, and nearly four years as civilian to date) I honor Ms. Hoit's service and I'm impressed by her passion for the United States Army. She obviously knows something that only those of us who serve know; that being a Soldier is an affair of the heart. And, that is just where Ms. Hoit misses the point of The Hurt Locker.

By making a list of what she surmises to be technical errors she demonstrates that she doesn't appear to understand the points of the movie. To counter each one individually is a useless exercise that will fail to convince anyone. People will believe what they believe and no argument to the contrary is likely to sway them. Rather than do that I will only say that each item she pointed out was a conscious decision made to focus the audience's attention. Not one of her criticisms detracts from the story. On the contrary, if understood it is obvious that most of them enhance the story without damaging the realism. Additionally I offer an alternative view.

The Hurt Locker is a story of a very special group of Soldiers in a very unique situation. The war in Iraq, and increasingly the war in Afghanistan, calls for the special skills of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine at an unprecedented extent. The nature of these wars has never before been seen in history. Writer Mark Boal and Producer/Director Kathryn Bigelow recognized that this situation was both unique and unknown to the average American. They had the vision to bring this to the public in the form of a motion picture.

In so doing they were presented with several challenges. The Explosive Ordnance Disposal mission is highly sophisticated and purposely cloaked in secrecy in the interest of safety and security for the EOD Soldier and the country. To lift that cloak too high would have been irresponsible. EOD operators defy definition. Each is as unique as a fingerprint while at the same time possessing the highest level of courage, dedication, self confidence, and integrity. Add to that an environment saturated by improvised explosive devices planted by terrorists and insurgents that hide among the populace and you have a seemingly impossible situation and the makings of great movie, if you can pull it off. Apparently most who have seen the movie think that Kathryn and Mark have pulled it off just fine. By most accounts The Hurt Locker is a highly entertaining movie that has enlightened the public to the idea that there is a group of Soldiers standing between them and the scourge of the improvised explosive device.

I will stipulate that Ms. Hoit's points are accurate, but they amount to differences without distinctions. Her commentary demonstrates that she has the vision to see the trees but appears to lack the judgement to see the forest. She is apparently unable to tell the difference between entertainment and education. The Hurt Locker is entertainment based on real situations.

As for her assertion that The Hurt Locker has "alienated most service members from enjoying this movie" I respond that Ms. Hoit does not speak for most, or even many, service members. She speaks for herself only. I'm certain that there are many who share her opinion but I caution that there are many others who disagree. In the past many months I've spoken to or corresponded with countless active or former soldiers. Many of those are EOD soldiers and many others are not. Many are veterans of our current conflicts and many served in earlier times. Most recognize that the movie takes some artistic license but none have told me that it distracts from the movie. But, as I said, I don't speak for those soldiers. I'd rather let the words of a real EOD veteran speak for themselves. Timothy Colomer, a Marine EOD Iraq veteran, when asked by The Daily Beast how he thought The Hurt Locker portrayed EOD technicians said it "took numerous Hollywood liberties but accurately captured the sensory experience of being an EOD soldier." This Soldier gets it. Ms. Hoit does not.

Army.mil also posted an article that was very open about criticizing the inaccuracies of The Hurt Locker, but ended with this:

Quote:

Jim O'Neil, executive director of the EOD Memorial Foundation, said the inaccuracies do not take away from the importance of the film.

"The vast majority of everyone I talked to enjoyed the film, and they appreciated there is a credible EOD movie. This very dangerous field in the military has been overlooked in the entertainment industry," O'Neil said. "It's a movie, not a training film."

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 01:36 PM

Smeth... I'm not saying I know anything about the film beyond the 2 hours of my life I want back for watching it. I just recently saw it and wrote this little blurb. Do I look like an idiot for making assumptions? Maybe... or maybe not in this case. I have zero desire to research a piece of Hollywood fiction... It'd be like trying to dissect the firearm errors in The Matrix: fun but pointless. As a guy who used to do a job similar to that portrayed in the film, I found it to be a horribly inaccurate account. The reality of the job is just as if not more exciting and would appeal even to the most truth-retarded media consumer. And I think their 28-year EOD advisor needs to get his head out of his 6 instead of catering to the napalm-'n-gunfights crowd or that the director needs to listen to their advisor more instead of just having one to say they had one (based on the goofy resultant end product).

...

Basically: I know the job, this ain't it. The movie is fiction and it pisses me off. People should realize that this is miles from the truth. Growl-growl.

Now... everybody shut the fuck up. I'm going to go home to my estranged wife and drink a handle of Jack Daniels out of my Camelbak.

Lasereth · 03-09-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

The movie is fiction

GG, ever heard of these things called movies?

I saw this movie in a theater after Roger Ebert praised it last summer. I enjoyed it and I thought it was a good movie (possibly even great) but I DO think it's slightly overrated and not deserving of best picture status.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 01:45 PM

Just for semantics, I generally refer to anything regurgitated from camera that's over an hour in length as a "movie" (feature-length motion picture)... fiction, non-fiction, B-flicks, porn, security camera footage, etc. I'll say a 2-hour NatGeo documentary on ancient Aztec sacrificial rites is a "movie," as is Predator and Debbie Does Dallas. Things that are less than an hour are "shows." Is that weird or do others tend to see things like that?

Jetée · 03-09-2010, 03:30 PM

Regarding the above: I rarely call anything I see a 'movie' (too 1920s, 1990s); instead, what may be below 40 minutes is a short subject, (tv episode, cartoon, music video, documentary short, PTI, etc.) anything above 44 minutes is a series' episode, what may be above an hour can be classified as a feature, and what is staged in theatres is a film or performance.

Regarding Plan9's OP: as simple as I can put it, the director exercised creative licensing to whatever was portrayed by the film in question. Bigelow used the emotion more than what may have been factual because in cinema, that is how you attract an audience, period. Not everyone who goes to opening day or a matinee is a historian nor a expert on the matters in which they see flashed before them; so, directors and their consultants use what is available to them in order to show, as a whole, with a few minor discrepancies (along with a few major ones the editors should have caught) to film the seemingly unbelievable.

To wit: I just recently read about the stage play, and the film that derived from it--Frost/Nixon--and how the playwright veered from what was "historically accurate" to what appealed more to his particular audience, standing firm to his vision of how this sequence of events should be portrayed. What helped his cause more than his determination was that he was aided by an extraordinary showman such as Frank Langella.

Here's an excerpt that can directly be applied as to how The Hurt Locker was portrayed, and ultimately received, by critics' and the very few who actually saw this film: (compared to $ grossed in comparison with the other nine Academy nominees)

In the end it is not about (Nixon or Watergate) at all. It's about human behavior, and it rises upon such transcendent themes as guilt and innocence, resistance and enlightenment, confession and redemption. These are themes that straight history can rarely crystallize. In the presence of the playwright's achievement, the historian—or a participant—can only stand in the wings and applaud. [Reston Jr.]

Pearl Trade · 03-09-2010, 04:04 PM

It is a movie, it should be viewed as such. No one said you must believe this movie. Directors and producers have to make some things false or stretch a few truths to get people to come and see the movie. To most people, movies would be boring without these discrepancies.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 05:00 PM

Jetee,

Those of us who know better don't have to applaud. Our lives aren't art.

...

Okay, now that a dozen generous individuals have stated the blatantly obvious...

I just want you guys to know this: cut the cords. That's anti-bomb magic.

LoganSnake · 03-09-2010, 05:20 PM

But the movies tell you that if you cut the wrong wire, the timer will just start counting down faster or just detonate the bomb!

Baraka_Guru · 03-09-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

I just want you guys to know this: cut the cords. That's anti-bomb magic.

"Cut the cords" doesn't only kill the bomb; it kills the plot.

After all, why didn't Gandalf's giant eagles just fly Frodo over Mount Doom to drop his payload of the One Ring into that chasm from whence it came?

That sure would have beat walking.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 05:27 PM

Pfft... it doesn't kill the plot in real life.

Baraka_Guru · 03-09-2010, 05:32 PM

Real life doesn't have plots; it has events.

LoganSnake · 03-09-2010, 05:33 PM

Also:

Jetée · 03-09-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Jetee,

Those of us who know better don't have to applaud. Our lives aren't art.

It's not my quote, and not all of it is meant to be absorbed, only reflected upon.

Also, all life is art. Whether or not anybody actually appreciates it, seeks it out, or defines it as "common", is another matter altogether.

Plan9 · 03-09-2010, 05:46 PM

Just commenting in general, brother. And maybe I'm a square, but I don't see life as art. I think art requires special effort.

/derail'd

07-14-2009, 08:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	I've heard nothing but great reviews of this movie. Glad you liked it. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

09-03-2009, 10:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Just saw this at a second run theatre. Great movie. I'm also not typically a fan of military movies, but this one really did nothing to glorify it. It was tense throughout, and quite emotional at some points. I highly recommend it. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

03-09-2010, 10:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about. I watched the movie and was underwhelmed despite coming into it with zero expectations stemming from not knowing anything about the film other than the title and the setting. It had the pacing of Jarhead, which is about as fast as a turtle stampede through peanut butter and a story that didn't grab me at all. Basterds deserved an Oscar more. __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques Last edited by LoganSnake; 03-09-2010 at 10:42 AM..

03-09-2010, 10:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Needless to say: Jarhead is far more accurate than The Hurt Locker. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

03-09-2010, 11:25 AM	#7 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	I liked Jarhead better. This was too slow and the MacGuyvering was absurd. Not to mention the total breakdown in the chain of command and blatant endangerment. __________________ twisted no more

03-09-2010, 01:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Smeth... I'm not saying I know anything about the film beyond the 2 hours of my life I want back for watching it. I just recently saw it and wrote this little blurb. Do I look like an idiot for making assumptions? Maybe... or maybe not in this case. I have zero desire to research a piece of Hollywood fiction... It'd be like trying to dissect the firearm errors in The Matrix: fun but pointless. As a guy who used to do a job similar to that portrayed in the film, I found it to be a horribly inaccurate account. The reality of the job is just as if not more exciting and would appeal even to the most truth-retarded media consumer. And I think their 28-year EOD advisor needs to get his head out of his 6 instead of catering to the napalm-'n-gunfights crowd or that the director needs to listen to their advisor more instead of just having one to say they had one (based on the goofy resultant end product). ... Basically: I know the job, this ain't it. The movie is fiction and it pisses me off. People should realize that this is miles from the truth. Growl-growl. Now... everybody shut the fuck up. I'm going to go home to my estranged wife and drink a handle of Jack Daniels out of my Camelbak. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

03-09-2010, 01:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Just for semantics, I generally refer to anything regurgitated from camera that's over an hour in length as a "movie" (feature-length motion picture)... fiction, non-fiction, B-flicks, porn, security camera footage, etc. I'll say a 2-hour NatGeo documentary on ancient Aztec sacrificial rites is a "movie," as is Predator and Debbie Does Dallas. Things that are less than an hour are "shows." Is that weird or do others tend to see things like that? __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 03-09-2010 at 01:59 PM..

03-09-2010, 03:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
Jetée The Reforms Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition	Regarding the above: I rarely call anything I see a 'movie' (too 1920s, 1990s); instead, what may be below 40 minutes is a short subject, (tv episode, cartoon, music video, documentary short, PTI, etc.) anything above 44 minutes is a series' episode, what may be above an hour can be classified as a feature, and what is staged in theatres is a film or performance. Regarding Plan9's OP: as simple as I can put it, the director exercised creative licensing to whatever was portrayed by the film in question. Bigelow used the emotion more than what may have been factual because in cinema, that is how you attract an audience, period. Not everyone who goes to opening day or a matinee is a historian nor a expert on the matters in which they see flashed before them; so, directors and their consultants use what is available to them in order to show, as a whole, with a few minor discrepancies (along with a few major ones the editors should have caught) to film the seemingly unbelievable. To wit: I just recently read about the stage play, and the film that derived from it--Frost/Nixon--and how the playwright veered from what was "historically accurate" to what appealed more to his particular audience, standing firm to his vision of how this sequence of events should be portrayed. What helped his cause more than his determination was that he was aided by an extraordinary showman such as Frank Langella. Here's an excerpt that can directly be applied as to how The Hurt Locker was portrayed, and ultimately received, by critics' and the very few who actually saw this film: (compared to $ grossed in comparison with the other nine Academy nominees) In the end it is not about (Nixon or Watergate) at all. It's about human behavior, and it rises upon such transcendent themes as guilt and innocence, resistance and enlightenment, confession and redemption. These are themes that straight history can rarely crystallize. In the presence of the playwright's achievement, the historian—or a participant—can only stand in the wings and applaud. [Reston Jr.] __________________ As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi

03-09-2010, 04:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	It is a movie, it should be viewed as such. No one said you must believe this movie. Directors and producers have to make some things false or stretch a few truths to get people to come and see the movie. To most people, movies would be boring without these discrepancies. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

03-09-2010, 05:00 PM	#14 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Jetee, Those of us who know better don't have to applaud. Our lives aren't art. ... Okay, now that a dozen generous individuals have stated the blatantly obvious... I just want you guys to know this: cut the cords. That's anti-bomb magic. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 03-09-2010 at 05:04 PM..

03-09-2010, 05:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	But the movies tell you that if you cut the wrong wire, the timer will just start counting down faster or just detonate the bomb! __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

03-09-2010, 05:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Pfft... it doesn't kill the plot in real life. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

03-09-2010, 05:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Real life doesn't have plots; it has events. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-09-2010, 05:33 PM	#19 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	Also: __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

03-09-2010, 05:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Just commenting in general, brother. And maybe I'm a square, but I don't see life as art. I think art requires special effort. /derail'd __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."