Watched “The Hurt Locker” last night. It was good. I’m going to give it three stars on Netflix.
But you know, I would think that a “Best Picture” winner would be a four-star, if not five. So I was disappointed on that count. Among movies I’ve seen recently, it was better than “Men Who Stare At Goats,” “Public Enemies” and “The Invention of Lying,” but not as good as “Up In The Air” (which was awesome) or “Lars and the Real Girl.”
Not that I expect much from the recommendation of Oscar. I’ve pretty much discounted the judgment of the “Academy” ever since it chose “Shakespeare In Love” as Best Picture over “Saving Private Ryan” and “Life is Beautiful.”
SPOILER ALERT: While the makers of this film worked hard to avoid conventions and surprise you, I saw the surprises coming, and saw how the director was working unsuccessfully to prevent me from seeing it. For instance, in the first scene, as you’re being introduced to this bomb-disposal unit, the viewer is manipulated into seeing a certain character as the protagonist: The camera lingers more on his face, he does and says more to reveal character, his words and actions drive the action forward. Also, he’s the only actor I’ve seen before, although I couldn’t quite place him (turns out it’s Guy Pearce, who starred in the very impressive “Memento”). And of course HE is the one killed, which hits you with more impact than if he were a faceless extra, and brings home to you from the very start that any of these guys could be blown to bits at any moment through the rest of the show. Well done, but I saw it coming.
Other things are done well: David Morse in a bit part as the overbearingly enthusiastic, ubermacho colonel who is deeply impressed at an exhibition of bravado by one of the main characters. (That guy always impresses me, from the bad cop on “House” to understated dignity he brought to George Washington in “John Adams.”)
It’s arty — which might be what appealed to the Academy. And thankfully, it’s free of antiwar preachiness, which I have to admit I sort of expected, given Hollywood’s enthusiasm. (Yeah, some might see the violence and the constant tension not knowing which of the civilians around you is really an insurgent as being an argument against our being there, but it’s exactly what I expect war to be like. Antiwar folks probably expect folks like me to think war is like a John Wayne movie, but I probably have an uglier picture of it in my mind than they do, because I read and think about it more. I’m reading Flags of Our Fathers at the moment, and rewatching “The Pacific.”)
But in the end — and yeah, I saw the ending coming, too (you knew what that guy was going to do) — I’m just not going “Wow.”
Have you seen it? Thoughts?
Related Posts
This is the movie that military bomb squads laughed at. Nothing in their duties is done in the cowboy manner that was portrayed in this movie. Had one bomb squad technician even thought of doing anything like what’s shown in this movie their MOS would have been quickly changed to PLO (Permanent Latrine Orderly). They might as well have cast the three guys from Delta Farce to play the lead roles.
Speaking of John Wayne, see “They Were Expendable,” one of the best WWII era movies.
“No Time for Sergeants!” I love it! Permanent Latrine Orderly! (Over the last few months, with my house on the market, my wife followed me around the house making sure I closed toilet lids and policed the area thoroughly wherever I went, especially in the bathrooms, and I felt like I was the PLO.)
And Michael, you point legitimately to another problem with this film: My Dad, a Vietnam veteran with multiple Bronze Stars, had one complaint about the movie: “Too macho.” Which speaks to the same thing you’re complaining about.
Mind you, my Dad served in the Rung Sat Special Zone, with both Marines and SEALs under him (back when SEALs were still top secret). “Rung Sat” means “Forest of Assassins.” So for my Dad to dismiss a movie as “too macho” has meaning.
We watched A Woman in Berlin on Netflix Watch Instantly last night. It takes place in Berlin in April and May of 1945 and is based on the journals of a woman who lived through it. An eye-opener (and not just because you have to read subtitles unless your German is up to par)–the effect on the civilian populations in a war zone–breaks very different ground.
Sounds like a real feel-good funfest — not. Seriously, it sounds like something I might like to see. Did you see “Downfall”?
Not yet.
Actually, the film ends up okay-ish–not all dark–it’s apparently quite accurate, per the reviews. When the journals were published in 1959, the author was reviled as defiling the honor of German womanhood. She nixed any future editions during her lifetime. I actually thought it was a very uplifting view of how resilient people can be.
So… it’s one of those “woman sells her virtue for a pair of nylons and a can of Spam to survive” kinds of war stories?
Not quite—think Fascist well-educated Scarlett O’Hara and her motley crew of variously aged fellow residents meets the many flavors of the Soviet Army. Germany doesn’t come off so hot at all….which may have been part of what the furor –oooh auditory pun there– was about.
When I signed up for Downfall, Netflix suggested I also consider The Lives of Others–set in East Germany in the 80s—very very very good. Totes five stars.
If I have to sit through subtitles, there better be nudity.
LOL, Michael.
“The Lives of Others” is indeed awesome, although I only gave it four stars. But I seldom rate anything that high. The only two I’ve rated that high in the last six months or so were the aforementioned “Up In the Air” and “Lars and the Real Girl.”
Maybe I should give it another look. Maybe it should have been five stars. Although it’s hard for me to say, when it’s in German. I also gave Das Boot only four stars.
Michael–There is.
The Lives of Others raises great questions about personal responsibility vs. following orders.
I had a bit of eye surgery this morning, and didn’t feel like doing much this afternoon, so I watched all five-plus hours of “Red Cliff” and enjoyed it immensely.
Up in the Air? While definitely a cool movie with lots of style and Clooney wit, it was ultimately pretty depressing. I guess The Hurt Locker was too, but at least the subject matter was a little more interesting than watching people get fired by a smartass. While the main character in The Hurt Locker was absolutely a cowboy, there are Marines like that, who seem to defy the odds and can survive in situations where other would get killed. Read about Col. Edson and Edson’s Raiders sometime. He was a badass. But doctrine will never reflect those types of Marines because they are too few and far between.
I’ve not seen “Downfall” but am afraid that I won’t be able to avoid laughing during the scene that has been parodied so many times via YouTube.
Speaking of movies on 20th century German history, Goodbye Lenin is funny and moving.
I’d be very interested to see “A Woman in Berlin,”…my mother lived in Berlin from 1938 until she was lucky enough to be transferred in her job to Spain in the middle of 1943, and thus escape the most intense time of the war’s end.
Burt, yes there are Marines who are cowboys… but the majority of the time in non-Hollywood combat situations they are also the ones who get people killed. As disciplined as bomb disposal units are, crap pulled in this movie would get them taken off this unit and placed in general infantry units. If this movie were a documentary, they’d all be Privates by the end of the movie…or dead.
Quite a generalization of how the military works, but thanks for the response, Michael P.
Red Shirts! First to die on a Star Trek mission.