MovieChat Forums > mav100000 > Replies
mav100000's Replies
Agreed with the topic of your post. I basically hated the movie the first time I saw it until the SEALs showed up. Bored outta my skull. But, a year or two later, I gave it another shot. Loved it the second time! My expectations were re-aligned that time (as in, what I expected to see, not my hopes for the film) and I was able to better understand the pace and actual intensity of the film, while still enjoying the SEALs scenes (and the familiar faces of some of the SEALs and other actors).
So I definitely am a fan of Hurt Locker because I think that the movie is crafted very well with tons of suspense... as long as you have never been in the service (I have not, but I have a few buddies who have).
1. Uniforms were screwed up and actually the digital camo they were may not have been in circulation in 04.
2. Falcon (from the Avengers movies) punches out Hawkeye. Hawkeye outranks him. Would not happen.
3. EOD operates in tandem with a squad or other size unit. The infantry unit clears the area of combatants, then EOD goes in.
4. EOD does NOT clear buildings. Hell, they don't clear dark alleys at night either.
5. EOD does NOT take over sniper watch and typically are not trained snipers, as that is a different military specialty (one of those vet buddies of mine was an army sniper who worked with the Barrett .50 as shown in the movie).
6. No one, EOD or otherwise, would go outside the wire by themselves on a revenge mission EVER. Now, there are likely exceptions to this such as CIA or some type of special forces personnel who may operate alone, but it is RARE and certainly not an EOD guy.
7. Any EOD guy operating the way the main character does would be kicked out immediately.
8. If possible, EOD NEVER puts on the suit. They will do anything else first. I read the book by the guy who consulted on the movie and I don't remember him ever putting the suit on. He used the robot from the beginning, which has specialized tools including the water disruptor, to disarm the charges. But he also operated in a team where the cowboy stuff depicted in the film would never work.
9. Don't pull the daisy chain wire! (Yes this was an amazing visual - like I said, as a film, this works well, but as a depiction of real life, it is basically shit.)
Exactly 2 years later, I shall respond by saying Happy St. Paddy's to you as well!
BHD is much better than Hurt Locker due to attempted accuracy and depiction of battle. Hurt Locker is better directed (sorry Ridley!) and works better from a film and story standpoint, but has a lot of bullshit and inaccuracies. Apparently vets really like BHD (including one I know who participated in the actual battle with the rangers and is cast in the film and another I know who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan) but vets hate Hurt Locker due to the inaccuracies of plot, of depiction of EOD, and of small things like uniforms, ect.
I did too, but I was in grade school at the time. I don't remember much about it, frankly, except that I think I liked it and found it mostly cool and fun. Subsequent viewings did not hold up, however, and I find very little to like anymore. I don't like the visual style, I hate the chunky blood, and the human hybrid was a bad idea. I liked the pirate team OK, but even then they could have been better, with the exception of the leader and Ron Pearlman.
If they don't already exist then I doubt it. Unfortunately this series wasn't that well known at the time, or so I hear, and the only person I met who didn't hear about this from me was an old neighbor who probably also found it in reruns on TNT after school in high school back in the early aughts.
I don't think we'll ever see a remastered version, let alone subtitles.
I see what you did there! Can't freeze ice cream either!
30 round magazines for the AR-15 (and M-16, ect.) were invented during the Vietnam war, but they were not seen in large numbers in Vietnam. I believe I read somewhere that some special forces troops actually ordered their own and had them shipped to firebases. They were not standard issue by the military until after Vietnam ended.
Exactly. He didn't set out to hurt them, but he had been completely reprogrammed by the military (or this contractor group or whoever). He had some of him in there, but much of that was replaced. He meant well and it is likely his friend was involved in the whole mess too but died. He goes to comfort the family, possibly fulfilling an agreement with his friend. They get him to stay. He does. With his lack of empathy, he kills those around the family, but his mission is to help the family. Gov't shows up and gunfight ensues. Reprogramming kicks in. Mission is now to tie off all loose ends. That means kill the family. He doesn't want to but doesn't have a choice, according to his programming.
This! I'm not saying Pascal is bad, but the treatment of Carano, who is a total badass and who is also entitled to her opinion, is abhorent! Isn't she an ethnic minority? Doesn't that grant her royalty as far as the (tolerant) liberals are concerned?
But Two has a point, don't he? She was fired for political beliefs. Whether or not you believe her, she didn't say anything bad (I've read the original tweets and they actually aren't offensive if you understand them - I TEACH this as a Krav Maga instructor (low level) and I teach, in the intro-level class, the background, which is Imi Lichtenfeld's first thoughts about Krav. This started as a way to combat early Nazis before the Holocaust truly started. As she was trying to say, it started as harassment in media (for what it was at the time) and neighbors closing in on the Jews before more happened. Two is trying (poorly, yeah?) to say that some people are not interpreting this right (possibly purposely) and are trying to say that she is bad because she made certain comparisons, but really the people who fired her were after for months because she is conservative!
Agreed. Well put! Media has been after her for a bit now. Ok, it wasn't the best comparison, nor was it overly smart of her to make it, but it wasn't making light in any way of the holocaust... She was making a parallel to the early days and she isn't exactly wrong, anyone with a brain can see that there is a minor comparison which could be made there.
Not a good one! Everyone had motive so it really could be any of them. However, I don't think it was Jamie. He at least would have killed Rip too, to be safe.
Good insights! Ok, as for the Godfather reference, who tried to kill everyone in the family off in simultaneous strikes? (I do recommend the original Godfather, btw, but I find 2 to be slow as hell, though about half of the movie is a masterpiece, but all of part 1 is a masterpiece.) We have been speculating as to who actually attacked the family. Note that the last episode gave everyone motive!
Here's a thought: what if Beth's belittling of Jamie coupled with their history (ie: the abortion / sterilization) is actually what keeps Jamie from getting close to a woman (or guy, if in fact he is gay)? It was more traumatic for him than he realized / let on and subconsciously keeps him from getting close to a woman and potentially getting her pregnant...
Also, since you are a fan and I love the show, your thoughts on who played Godfather at the end of season 3? Who is actually to blame? My wife, my parents, a really good friend, and I have gone back and fourth since the end of the season on this and still have no true consensus!
Dude, that is a really good summation! My wife is saying from the other room that we do have to remember that Beth is not emotionally mature, even in adult level, and when you experience intense trauma at a young age, your emotional development stops. Until she deals with the trauma of her mother and family blaming her for the death of her mother, she will not actually, emotionally, deal with the rest and mature.
So, while you are totally right about Jamie, Beth is remembering things from her own perspective and that is really from a child's perspective, emotionally.
Still, such a great show!
I understand how big it is, but keeping it relevant is problematic if they wait too long. Plus, again, like other films, we will remember it more, not less, if released during COVID with so little competition! Give it to streaming or whatever and it will still be well remembered!
See I'm a big Bond fan and watch nearly all of them (I might have 5 or so I don't own) every Nov. - Dec. I was looking forward to this one as Spectre was underwheming, but at this point, should I care anymore? MGM doesn't give two shits about the fans anymore, clearly. It is all about the money. I doubt I'll see it in theaters, though I've seen a good few there!
I definitely agree that the movie could have been trimmed, but other parts could have been given more time to create a better story. It did feel a bit like the writers couldn't decide on anything so they tried to throw it all in. Unfortunately they didn't have someone there to say no once in a while!
I can see that, though I don't think I would agree to split the film into 2. I think we needed to end it where we did, and thematically it did make some sense. But I agree that there were things they could have done to help the film along. Also, they could have just made Talia a partner for Bane instead of his superior, and that would have helped a good bit.