I enjoyed it, but it seemed more like an extended drama then an actual movie. I guess its meant to be informative rather then entertaining though, bearing in mind that all this crap is actually going on in Iraq and Afghanistan every day

Kathryn Bigelow who is the director of the Hurt Locker is the ex wife of James Cameron who directed Avatar. Oh and don’t think that Cameron taught her, because she is quite an accomplished director in her own right

Wow most people commenting on this video are just people that have played mw2. I have shot almost every military gun that is available, the barrette is a very strong, accurate gun. Could that shot with the man running be done in real life? Yes it can, but the chances are very slim. You have to think, these men are in full uniform in 100+ degrees weather, they are running, and they are very nervous. This movie was one of the best war movies I have seen in a long time.

Those are artillery shells that were connected to wires with blasting caps attached to the ends. Then the wires are attached to a radio, cell phone, transmitter, etc. When the object receives a transmission (ie., phone call, radio transmission) it sends an electrical charge to the blasting caps, thus, causing the explosion. SEMPER FI!

Completely right. It’s a sop. War is bad. War is addictive. Isn’t it tough? A whole string of politically correct cliches in a film that is repetitious and boring.

I don’t think we need a ‘rationale’ for the bombers. This is from the Americans’ P.O.V. and it is not for this unit to discuss why or how but simply to disarm bombs and save lives. She isn’t writing an essay, though at times it might feel like it.

That’s a legitimate aesthetic decision. It forces us to share the point of view of the soldiers who cannot tell friend from enemy, and who are unable to understand either. One of the film’s great strengths is its sense of immediacy, experiencing things in the moment through the eyes of the characters.

However, the answer to the “why” is self-evident — the bombmakers want the occupiers out of their country.

I don’t need to know the “nuts and bolts” about how an IED works in this film anymore than I need to know how an automobile engine works when I watch a car-racing movie. I’m more interested in what makes the characters tick. So was Bigelow.

With respect to characters, the film starts with identifiable stereotypes – just as Fuller & Siegel did (not to mention someone like Hawks who practically revels in his stereotypes), but those basic types are modified and occasionally subverted over the course of the film. See, e.g., the Iraqui kid character “Beckham” who at first seems like he walked straight out of one of Fuller’s war films, and the evolution of Sgt. James’ attitude toward that character. At first (spoiler alert?), James befriends him; then he becomes frantically obsessed with the boy after he thinks he has been killed (significantly, he can’t tell one Iraqui boy from another); and finally, when Beckham shows up again alive, James is offended, he wants nothing more to do with him – not the usual sentimental (or tragic!) outcome for a setup of this type.

The encounter with the mercenaries is anything but a cliche. How many other war films have we seen where American soldiers had to work side by side with mercenaries?

I certainly wouldn’t complain about the set pieces – some of them are comparable to the best of De Palma.

Sure the film has its weaknesses – what film doesn’t? – but, all things considered – including the competition – it was a worthy Best Picture choice.

I liked it, kinda. Certainly well-crafted–but I felt is was very cliché-heavy. It was one set-piece over and over. And over.

And, yes, it’s unavoidable that after a while, you’d want more background on the enemy. It’s a totally fair reaction for any viewer–yet it was surprising to see how many people skipped over that detail.

Thanks for the post!

Kasama during the summer had a rollicking discussion of “great communist movies (and movies communists like anyway)”: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/07/16/our-favorite-communist-films/

Another Marxist analysis of the Oscars appears here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/acad-m09.shtml
WSWS has a solid history of Marxist movie reviewing and shines a light on international film festivals of note, too.

Jay

Plum
Don’t Be a Plum

I dunno, Coppola didn’t really tell us anything about the vietcong in Apocalypse Now for it to be lauded as the ultimate vietnam movie, doesn’t Bigelow’s film just follow in that same tradition?