A very formulaic and overrated film
I just watched this film for the first time and I was distinctly underwhelmed. To me the film wasn't very engaging and was very formulaic. How on Earth this won 6 Academy Awards I will never know!
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Hurt Locker (2009) Discussion > A very formulaic and overrated film
Ironic title, considering how formulaic both this thread is, and use of the word "overrated" to describe a movie that one dislikes.
shareYeah, to label a film "overrated" simply because you don't like it is about as fomulaic as you can get.
share[deleted]
It clearly is overrated by critics. People didn't watch it at the cinema and I should imagine it's hardly a DVD-best seller.
It's the lowest grossing film to win best picture at the Academy Awards. EVER.
Don't project. And stop equating box-office sales with quality. Terrible argument, and makes masterpieces out of "Avatar," or "Inception."
shareIf box office success was a barometer of quality, we'd have Transformers or Twilight taking "Best Picture" honors.
shareOk. Rather than just snipe and attack me, explain to me what's so good about the film?
shareOr, how about you give a proper analysis of this film? Reducing an entire film to multiple attributes hardly conveys substantive thought, and it seems somewhat unfair to demand that one explain what's good about this movie when you can't even communicate the same courtesy.
share[deleted]
To complain about others calling a movie overrated is as formulaic as you can get.
shareI thought that this movie was about as UN-formulaic as they come. I think you're way off, OP.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c
[deleted]
I don't think you understand what formulaic means.
shareI finally watched this film. For most of this film, I felt bored and disengaged. I wasn't that interested in watching the film to begin with, and it was actually worse than what I was expecting.
I guess if you don't like war movies, you won't like this movie.
I like war movies, but I have been very disappointed lately. I watched Argo and was bored through and through. Neither of these movies did anything for me.
Headstrong guy gets his own men killed by being a Jackbutt, and then can't go home and be a good father. He cared more about the DVD Iraqi kid than his own son. Cinematically I didn't see how it broke ground, the story wasn't unique at all, and there really wasn't much room for great acting to even matter. It was pretty bland for me.
I didn't hate this movie. It was only semi-entertaining for me. It is like Die Hard but without the suspense and over the top action.
If it won awards, I feel it was undeserving or the competition was severely lacking. I am not concerned with the "realism" in the film. My view is that if a movie is going for realism, do it well. If the film is more "action" then go for broke. This film seemed to sit in the middle for me, it didn't feel realistic nor did it feel fun. I didn't know the director was female until reading the boards, I just don't care about those extraneous details.
In the end I don't know who I would recommend this film to. I don't think it will satisfy the action buff, and it lacked in action for the war buff. I can't fault the fanboys as I didn't glaringly hate it, but I certainly wouldn't watch it again if one of my friends were an avid fan. I didn't see enough controversial content to see how anyone could be a HUGE fan or a HUGE critic.
There were too many detail-oriented factual errors in this film for me - beginning with the fact that the film opens saying that it is 2004 and all the soldiers are wearing ACUs, when they should have been wearing DCUs. (ACUs weren't standard issue until mid-2005). Things like that were just distracting for me.
shareTruth. It was dull to average, at best. There is really nothing outstanding about it, the story, the plot or the performances.
shareThis film is just awful. Laws must have been broken with how overrated it is
shareI have been amazed to read the criticism of this film on the IMDB. This is because I saw the film for the first time three weeks ago, unfortunately, on the small screen, but I was impressed with the film, and thought that it fully deserved the Oscars that were given to it. I have not seen "Avatar" so I cannot comment on that film whether it is good or not.
What is astounding to read is that many viewers on the IMDB keep on saying that the film is not realistic, not true to life. But not one viewer has mentioned any war film that is true to life, because I believe not one war film made is true to life, and liberties would be taken if any film tried a very realistic approach.
Coming back to the film, I cannot comment whether the film is true to things that happened in Iraq, but as a simple cinematic film it worked for me. The direction was first-rate, so was the acting. The hand-held camerawork made the film more realistic (to me). The cinematography was good.
The two problems with the film to me were the sentimental episode involving the boy "Beckham", and the "sniper scene" was obscure ( I could not understand whom Ralph Fiennes and his company were).
I avoided this film for a long time because I thought it was going to be this century equivalent to John Wayne's "The Green Berets". But it was not. It is more a character study of three different individuals caught up in a very dangerous war situation.
All those viewers whom say the film is not realistic - please inform me of any film that you consider realistic to a war or war situation.
I just finally watched this movie this morning. Without searching the Interwebs, I am assuming Ralph Finnes crew were one of the many professional outside contractors who have worked in the war areas since The War on Terror has commenced. Somewhere between a Blackwater & just people who show up to fight.
I liked the movie overall, but this was one of the pieces that felt odd. I understand you want to follow Bravo Company since they are the focus. But I would have liked something on contractors to maybe explain why they are there. Another part was David Morse's character. He had a scene where they murdered a injured man and then he was impressed by James. He didn't really feel necessary or have a major reason to move anything along to me.
As to realistic films of war. I saw some on the Rambo message board say that was. It was very violent to me, but that felt more like Hostel meets a War movie. Granted I've never served, so maybe I am wrong.
drew
I'm a person just like you
But I've got better things to do
- Minor Threat
At the time of this movie's release.. there is nothing quite like it, nothing formulaic like it. What am I missing here? What movie that came out before this movie was like it?
shareThe rebel without a cause falls in love with war and becomes an adrenaline junkie, forsaking everything else? Yeah...that's never been done before.
This movie was a generic, cliché ridden pile of Hollywood crap, it's about as authentic as the Rat Patrol was to WW2. It got the academy nod for two reasons - the academy wanted to hang their hat on a bit of support the troops crapola while still having a bit of an anti war message and they want to rub James Cameron's face in it by giving the nod to his ex wife over his stunning and ground breaking Avatar.
I was back from Iraq two months after this came out, touted as being like no other war movie and telling it like it was in Iraq. I left the theatre muttering, 'wtf, was that' it was just a bang bam boom action flick.
Completely disagree. Is it overrated? Perhaps, but AVATAR was touted as an anti war movie more than Hurt Locker. Avatar was supposedly a thinly veiled knock on the war in Iraq with unobtainium being oil. I don't know if I buy that theory but that was the knock on it when it came out.
Best Picture awards are judged against the movies that came out the same year and Avatar and Hurt Locker were pretty clearly the best movies that came out that in year in the critics (and my opinion). It could have went either way. Avatar had groundbreaking visuals, that's about it otherwise it was cliché as well. "A guy falls for a woman of a different kind and stands with her against his own."
Your opinion is valid, as are everyone's and I respect it, but I disagree.
I think Avatar was the even more formulaic - native (American) inhabitants slaughtered and/or enslaved by greedy foreign interests. The romantic hero saves the culture and of course his girl.
I'm not saying Avatar was or was not whatever. What I was saying is that Hurt Locker was/is a formula driven pile of crap - crap being of course subjective. That the reason why it got the nod over Avatar is Hollywood's aka the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences almost universal dislike of James Cameron. That Hurt Locker was directed by his ex-wife was a very unsubtle dig.