THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: pilsner on 13 Jan 2010, 19:52
-
This movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/) is insane. Definitely one of the best war movies I've ever seen. Definitely the one that made me feel the most that I was actually there. Definitely the one that gave me some minor insight into how scary it can be to actually be over there. The movie is essentially 30 or so climaxes strung together with dialog.
-
Also, an excellent movie if you never want to sleep again.
-
The Hurt Locker was definitely one of the best 5 movies of last year. It's really, really good. Super high tension.
-
Is it sexist of me to be kinda shocked that this was directed by a chick?
-
Reading Ebert's top pics of the decade I was surprised half the movies he picked were directed by women. I mean no disrespect but honestly I couldn't even name five films directed by women up til that point. Directing is kind of a man's game I guess
-
Yeah, this gets commented on a lot although it's not obvious why the numbers are so lopsided. I'm like 99% certain directors don't direct with their dicks (except Tarantino obviously).
Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/kathryn_bigelow/) gave the movie a 97% (!) but says it only grossed a little over $12 million (!!!). As an indie film it apparently never made it out of limited release and got almost no promotion. Damn that is sad.
-
My friend just joined the Air Force for E.O.D., so I kind of want to rent this movie and worry about it for a while.
-
It's a very good film, one of the best of the year and certainly the best "action" film of the year. It loses a bit of steam in the last third though, as the first two thirds are essentially "slice of life" segments where we tag along with this bomb squad, and there isn't much of a thematic arc. Until that last bit, at least. What the movie does have (that not just action films but most films in general lack) is an uncanny ability to to put the audience in the shoes of the characters. We're nervous because they're nervous, and not just because of the obvious threat of the bombs they're supposed to disarm. The editing and direction convey a lot of messages without resorting to dialogue - when you see the shots of Iraqis observing the soldiers, you feel at once the tenseness the soldiers feel because they have no means of identifying their enemies in civilian clothing, and you feel the mutual mistrust of the people whose country it's supposed to be.
It's a little edifying that this film is getting such a push because there's no one thing that you can point at and say "oh, it's all just hype over this thing". The director's previous work is mainly known for being parodied in Hot Fuzz, the cast is all young character actors with no star power to speak of, and it's a war film without a Big Message to be conveyed. It sets out to show in detail the experience of this one soldier and it does so while making very few if any big-picture judgments. The only reason it's as acclaimed as it is is because it's so exceptionally well made. Which is to say it has everything and nothing. Come awards time it'll lose out to Avatar or Up in the Air, despite being superior to those two films in nearly every way.
Is it sexist of me to be kinda shocked that this was directed by a chick?
The ex-wife of James Cameron, in fact. Avatar made more money today than Hurt Locker probably made its entire run. Oh well.
-
I think the best phrase to describe the film is "emotionally exploitative". Possibly a perfect way to approach the subjects at hand, but not a good way to tell a story. Technically, the film was extremely impressive. I've never felt so tense in my life. But the story was extremely lacking, and that's what I go to a movie for.
-
There is an arc in terms of how William James goes from a nutty thrillseeker to a nutty guy seeking something more profound from the risks he takes. There was also a very traditional plot development in terms of how William James' unit progress from near hatred, through respect, through concern and finally end in resentment. While the movie lacked a strong plot structure to some, plenty of excellent movies (in my opinion) are not plot driven.
Take for instance Waltzing Waltz with Bashir, the animated documentary drawing on interviews from Israeli soldiers who were in the vicinity of a massacre of Palestinians by Lebanese Christian Fallengists. Even less of a plot than The Hurt Locker, but an equally significant emotional payload (and perhaps even more disturbing).
-
I have Waltz With Bashir, but I have yet to watch it.
In terms of non-plot driven movies, you still need to have something driving the movie. For instance, characters. There Will Be Blood has very little plot, but extremely engaging characters, and is one of my favorite movies. The Hurt Locker is in no way character driven, I can't remember a single one of the characters.
I'd also argue that what you described in the Hurt Locker, while plot development, is not necessarily plot. Saying "This is a movie about the members of a military unit's relationships to one another, and how it progresses over one tour of duty." sounds like a plot, but try to write that, and you'll soon feel like there's something lacking: Drive. There's only one thing motivating the characters, and that's survival. But in good plots, the main character acts on upon others, which leads to the next plot point. You can't just have a series of things happen to the main character.
I'm making it sound like I disliked the movie much more than I did. It would definitely be in my Top 10 for this year, and I'd definitely want The Hurt Locker to beat out Avatar in any award ceremony's. But in truth it's a movie I enjoyed the first time I watched it, and I will never watch it again.
-
Take for instance Waltzing with Bashir, the animated documentary drawing on interviews from Israeli soldiers who were in the vicinity of a massacre of Palestinians by Lebanese Christian Fallengists. Even less of a plot than The Hurt Locker, but an equally significant emotional payload (and perhaps even more disturbing).
Oh god, especially that ending with the track they used from the actual event
-
I have Waltz With Bashir, but I have yet to watch it.
In terms of non-plot driven movies, you still need to have something driving the movie. For instance, characters. There Will Be Blood has very little plot, but extremely engaging characters, and is one of my favorite movies. The Hurt Locker is in no way character driven, I can't remember a single one of the characters.
I'd also argue that what you described in the Hurt Locker, while plot development, is not necessarily plot. Saying "This is a movie about the members of a military unit's relationships to one another, and how it progresses over one tour of duty." sounds like a plot, but try to write that, and you'll soon feel like there's something lacking: Drive. There's only one thing motivating the characters, and that's survival. But in good plots, the main character acts on upon others, which leads to the next plot point. You can't just have a series of things happen to the main character.
I'm making it sound like I disliked the movie much more than I did. It would definitely be in my Top 10 for this year, and I'd definitely want The Hurt Locker to beat out Avatar in any award ceremony's. But in truth it's a movie I enjoyed the first time I watched it, and I will never watch it again.
I won't go into a full blown list, but there are many films without character let alone 'drive', unless of course I have misunderstood what you mean by drive, and many of those are great. The skill of the creators and the interest of the audience are the only drive concerns that really should be considered. Beyond that any sort of narrative, or lack thereof, state is fine. The quatsi trilogy for example, damn I said I wouldn't mention anything, is essentially just a group of still photographs. no drive, no characters, yet it is one of the most moving experiences I've had with a movie. That's an extreme example though. For your argument, specifically "There's only one thing motivating the characters, and that's survival. But in good plots, the main character acts on upon others, which leads to the next plot point. You can't just have a series of things happen to the main character," there probably needs to be a more traditional setup for me to make a convincing counterargument. I could go with Goodbye, Dragon Inn, but I suspect that is another one of those 'extreme' examples. Instead how about Wendy and Lucy? In that film the lead's doesn't even get a drive until about thirty minutes in. Even than the drive is just find Lucy. There's other characters there, but they bounce off each other more minimally than The Hurt Locker.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your criticism is too vague to really work.
-
Or Last Year in Marienbad or The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie or virtually all of Herzog's movies or a good half of Fassbinder's or most of Bergman's and Tarkovsky's or a hundred other movies among those considered by many critics to be the most important ever made.
While it can be said that RallyMonkey doesn't love movies without conventional plots (or indeed plots at all), an opinion to which he is certainly entitled, such movies are hardly unusual to the cinephile.
-
Obviously there is a wide genre of films that very easily get off with weak or non-existent stories. Though generally these films are made using non-traditional filmmaking techniques. I.E. a series of still photographs. I know I don't go to a movie like 8 1/2 and one like The Hurt Locker with the same goals in mind. And personally, I get a lot more out of an emotionally effecting story than I do from an emotionally effective artwork that has no story.
-
Fair enough, tastes are unique and I definitely can't judge taste. Just found your phrasing of your criticism odd.
-
The point which we aren't saying explicitly, of course, is that The Hurt Locker was done in mock documentary style. Most documentaries are not plotted, at least not in any conventional way.
-
What makes you feel it was done in a documentary style?
-
"Documentary style" is the wrong term, I think. "Cinema verite" seems better, for this film at least. It is minimally stylized.
-
What makes you feel it was done in a documentary style?
Shaky handheld footage, reliance on environmental noise with relatively few musical cues (although there were some), relatively few crane shots, lots of zooming in and out often obstructing a view of the action, and the general sense that a series of events is being depicted rather than a story.
Perhaps calling it mock documentary is a little strong, but Bigelow clearly directed this mimicking the "embedded journalist" footage we've all seen and it was so convincing that right until the slo-mo explosion in the opening scene, I wasn't sure if I was watching fact or fiction.
-
It's true that the opening scene was very much done in a documentary style. Though, as I remember (I saw the film the day it opened), it definitely loses that feeling for the majority of the film. It retains the shaky handheld feel, and unsteady zooms and such, but I don't think you would apply the same parameters to something such as The Bourne Ultimatum. There's more to a mockumentary style than just camera work. And I doubt you'd be defending District 9's lack of story (Not saying there is a lack of story, I have not seen it), because it was done in a mockumentary style.
Also, cinema verite would be a less right term, I'd say. If in reference to documentary films, than if you can't even call a film a mock documentary, you'd never get away with calling it a mock cinema verite documentary. In terms of fiction filmmaking, the finished effect may be similar to a cinema verite film, but it was not produced in a cinema verite style (Many cameras, obtrusive lighting, produced sets, scripted). And I'm willing to bet that many cinema verite directors would agree that the production is just as important as the finished film when it comes to cinema verite.
-
Just watched this movie and have to agree with most everyone on here. This should easily be one of the top 5 movies of 2009. Being in the army but not yet deployed it made me more than a little apprehensive about my role over there. I think some of it was exaggerated(sneaking off post) but most of it seemed pretty accurate to me. The portrayal of the SSG needing to go back over there to feel alive is more than accurate as i know people that are and feel the same way as he does. I dont claim to understand it but i know it happens. Amazing movie all around.
-
There is an arc in terms of how William James goes from a nutty thrillseeker to a nutty guy seeking something more profound from the risks he takes. There was also a very traditional plot development in terms of how William James' unit progress from near hatred, through respect, through concern and finally end in resentment. While the movie lacked a strong plot structure to some, plenty of excellent movies (in my opinion) are not plot driven.
Take for instance Waltzing with Bashir, the animated documentary drawing on interviews from Israeli soldiers who were in the vicinity of a massacre of Palestinians by Lebanese Christian Fallengists. Even less of a plot than The Hurt Locker, but an equally significant emotional payload (and perhaps even more disturbing).
I rarely stop watching a movie half-way through, but Waltzing with Bashir's animation was so fuck-ugly that I turned it off after about 10 minutes.
-
Waltzing with Bashir
(http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/hsirhan/2007/01/16/bashir.jpg)?
-
Jimmy.
Thank you.
-
It's... ah.... Waltz With Bashir. Probably should have edited that.
I rarely stop watching a movie half-way through, but Waltzing with Bashir's animation was so fuck-ugly that I turned it off after about 10 minutes.
I had a very similar experience with your mother. Eerie!
-
What I mean is, I was expecting rotoscoping and what I got instead was... animation. I was so disappointed that not even the amazing colour palette could save the film for me.
-
Apparently they used geometric shapes and Flash. A lot of people (blind people presumably) still think they used rotoscoping, which I thought was hilarious. Then again, A Scanner Darkly made some of my friends motion sick for some reason....
-
All I know about Waltz with Bashir is that the great Max Richter wrote the score for it. For that reason alone it has been on my "to watch" list for quite awhile now.
-
But Tommy! The smurfs are so pretty! THEIR PLANET IS SO BEAUTIFUL.
IF ONLY I COULD ABANDON THE LABOR AND DRUGSDGERY AND I HAVE HERE ON EARTH FOR SEXY SMURFS.
ONLY THEN WILL MY LIFE BE COMPLETE
-
But Smurfs don't have dicks?
Either way, just saw this movie a couple of days ago, it definitely surprised me.
-
I still talk about this movie and try to get my army buddies to go and see it. Something i found out today was that both James Cameron and the Female that directec Hurt Locker were married and he persuaded her to make this movie.
-
But Smurfs don't have dicks?
Sure they do. They've got prehensile tail-dicks that can fuck anything.
-
Haha so what you are saying is James Cameron is responsible for the biggest critical success of the year and the biggest financial success of the year in 2009?
-
Yes, and everything ever for that matter.
Seriously, buy stocks in Unobtanium, you'll be rich
-
I still talk about this movie and try to get my army buddies to go and see it. Something i found out today was that both James Cameron and the Female that directec Hurt Locker were married and he persuaded her to make this movie.
Pretty sure that was more of a "Hey James look what I've got, isn't it neat. I'm gonna make it an' it'll be sweet, what do you think of it?". Also her name is Kathryn Bigelow.
-
I believe this is the interview you guys are referring to. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0pv9XslEwg) Anyway, it's a stretch to give him much responsibility. I'm sure directors talk shop about scripts all the time.
-
Also, I don't understand why so many people seem to be saying that Avatar should get best film and Locker should get best director. If anything, I think it's the other way around. Bigelow made an excellent film, one that I personally like better than Avatar. On the other hand, I can't imagine anyone else managing to make Avatar work as well as it does, which has to count for something in Cameron's favor.
-
I don't know anybody who's saying that's how it should go, but that's the conventional wisdom on how it will go. Gawker put it best - most of the time, Best Picture is reserved for the movie Hollywood wants to pat itself on the back for (prestige films / war films / austere dramas / movies with "uglified" stars / biopics / movies fictionalizing the plight of minorities / whatever Harvey Weinstein wants to win. Or in Jimmy Cameron's case, movies that make unethical amounts of money) whereas Best Director goes to the movie everyone thinks is actually the best.
It might actually go to Tarantino, because Hollywood is full of cunts.
-
Sometimes I'm glad I don't understand hollywood.
-
Gawker put it best - most of the time, Best Picture is reserved for the movie Hollywood wants to pat itself on the back for (prestige films / war films / austere dramas / movies with "uglified" stars / biopics / movies fictionalizing the plight of minorities / whatever Harvey Weinstein wants to win. Or in Jimmy Cameron's case, movies that make unethical amounts of money) whereas Best Director goes to the movie everyone thinks is actually the best.
I wish I lived in a world where this was true. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it is. In 1998, for instance, Titanic won Best Picture against As Good As It Gets and L.A. Confidential, and Cameron won Best Director for Titanic against Gus Van Sant for Good Will Hunting and Curtis Hanson for L.A. Confidential.
Fuck Oscars.
-
Metacritic has an excellent article (http://features.metacritic.com/features/2010/the-oscars-how-to-predict-the-best-picture-winner/) on why Avatar is most likely to win. It looks for correlations between Best Picture winners over the years and a variety of possible indicators. Not surprisingly, having the highest metascore or the most awards among the nominees is shown to be meaningless, whereas being the highest grossing film pre-nomination is a virtual lock.
-
Apparently Avatar ends with a bunch of soldiers being massacred by the smurfs and its supposed to be the pay off. Between that, the story behind The Hurt Locker and Andrea refusing to blow that dude from the forces in the Relationship Thread, it's a tough year for the services.
-
Metacritic has an excellent article (http://features.metacritic.com/features/2010/the-oscars-how-to-predict-the-best-picture-winner/) on why Avatar is most likely to win. It looks for correlations between Best Picture winners over the years and a variety of possible indicators. Not surprisingly, having the highest metascore or the most awards among the nominees is shown to be meaningless, whereas being the highest grossing film pre-nomination is a virtual lock.
While BO is a major thing the game has changed drastically because of the ten nominees and new counting method.
-
im pretty sure that if there is a satan that james cameron sold him his soul
-
It's kinda sad that although a science-fiction movie might win best picture for once, it's going to be Avatar instead of District 9
-
Probably the least sad thing about Avatar winning Best Picture would be it beating District 9.
-
I read an interesting article today that brought up some key issues I had with this film.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/
Once you get passed some fairly inane nitpicking at the beginning, I think the author makes some fairly good points. No matter how the director and reviewers want to portray the Hurt Locker as a small little indie movie, all in all, it's still a fairly straightforward Hollywood war movie. Most of the topics brought up in The Hurt Locker were also handled particularly better in this year's much less lauded The Messenger.
-
I like how they're only objection was the fairly minor point that every scene in the movie is absurd and wrong. Huh.
-
It's almost as if we were watching a work of fiction.
-
On that note, let's all read this essay too:
Overthinking It: The Lethal Weapon in the Hurt Locker (http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/03/02/lethal-weapon-hurt-locker/)
As you can probably guess, points out a lot of the parallels between Hurt Locker and the Lethal Weapon films (and popcorn action flicks in general) and makes some intriguing points about why THL is lauded while other films with many of the same themes are snubbed. Make sure to read all three pages.
It's also worth nothing that Kathryn Bigelow directed Point Break, for fuck's sake.
-
The script for The Hurt Locker is solid, but it’s nothing spectacular. It’s episodic, and very little holds the episodes together. The characters are written a bit flat and erratic, but that makes sense, because this is an action movie. It has an uneasy relationship with plausibility that betrays that it was written by an embedded journalist – our culture’s fishmonger of hyper-real wartime fantasy passed off as truth. The dialogue is kind of cliché a lot of the time. The framing devices are a bit clunky.
That, minus the word "Solid", and a lot of the modifiers, is basically the reason people should dislike this movie.
It's also worth noting that Shane Black directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which isn't important to this topic, I just really like that movie.
-
As you can probably guess, points out a lot of the parallels between Hurt Locker and the Lethal Weapon films (and popcorn action flicks in general) and makes some intriguing points about why THL is lauded while other films with many of the same themes are snubbed. Make sure to read all three pages.
For the old school D&D fan – in the 80s, drugs were chaotic evil, madness was chaotic neutral. Whereas now, alignment doesn’t work the same way, and drugs and madness are just in some chic, morose vampire thing or something.
You've... to to be kidding me.
-
OK so the guy obviously isn't a professional journalist/is just some dude tapping out shit off the top of his head (the website is called Overthinking It, after all) but the points are still valid.
-
Yeah Avatar's pretty much gonna win this year. The Hurt Locker is the Juno of '09. Most people thought it would be Precious, but that movie didn't have the white people needed to gain traction enough for a backlash.
-
No, they probably just don't like having to say "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" every time they want to talk about it.
-
There's also the fact that the movie was a piece of crap.
-
You know i was reading an article about Kathryn Bigelow the other day and read that she directed one of my favorite vampire movies. Near Dark. Ya its cheesy and horrible but for some reasons growing up I loved this movie. I actually bought it for my psp a little while ago and eventhough it seems aged it still is a good movie IMO. Guess thats all the more reason why i hope Hurt Locker and Kathryn Bigelow win the Oscar.
-
Just watched this movie. Crazy
-
Aw dang it just won best picture and director.
-
At least it wasn't Avatar.
-
Suck it, AVADA
-
fuck yooooou james cameron your ex-wife is the shit and she will never love yoooooou
-
Apparently they are still really close friends, you fuuuucckkkk
-
baaaaaaaaaalls
-
James Cameron does not have friends. He is a hollow shell filled with precious gold coins.
-
James Cameron is a Christmas Tree Surrounded By Presents For Children Who Have Died
-
Somebody get Forest Whitaker another Oscar for keeping a straight face during his introduction of Sandra Bullock.
-
I have to admit, I lost a fairly large amount of respect for him when I learned he directed Hope Floats.
-
So are we talking about the Blahcademy Aboreds here now? 'Cause man George Clooney had his "I'm tired of all this bullshit" face on all night.
EDIT: also it was nice to see Jeff Bridges win. I always thought he was just acting in the Big Lebowski, but apparently not.
-
SANDRA BULLOCK?
SANDRA BULLOCK
-
yeah that was stupid
almost as stupid as avatar getting best cinematography. hello? it was CGI, folks.
-
i can't wait to hear james cameron crying long and loud how he should have gotten every award and other pissing and moaning. hurt locker deserved it just as much.
-
Uh, Cameron isn't three.
-
yeah that was stupid
almost as stupid as avatar getting best cinematography. hello? it was CGI, folks.
Doesn't mean it wasn't extremely well made. Depending on what definition of cinematography you are using, it might not count, but the "camera"work was done well.
Isn't there a best visual effects category? I know there was one at some point.
-
camerawork requires a camera. they won visual effects (and they deserved that one). but designing something on a computer is not comparable to composing, choreographing, and lighting a shot/sequence in real life. they did not deserve a cinematography award because quite simply, there was no cinematography in that film. like i said, they deservedly won visual effects. but giving them best cinematography would be like giving an editor "best original screenplay." it's just not applicable.
-
You're arguing semantics
-
maybe. but as a film student who understands how bloody hard it is for DPs to do their job, it's downright frustrating when someone with a fancy computer program swoops in and steals an award they have no business receiving. a programmer doesn't coach the actors, collaborate with the director, aim the camera, adjust lighting fixtures, get a dozen PA's to hold flags, or practice the move. he just presses a button and everything is magical and lovely. i'm not saying it doesn't have merit, i'm just saying it's not the same art.
-
And really, there's even a huge difference between Avatar and a film like Up. On 3D animated films, there's still someone (well, usually a team of two) that acts in almost exactly the traditional way of a cinematographer. They set the lighting, focus, angles, lenses, aperture, everything. I would rather see that win best cinematography than Avatar, a film in which you can just point a camera in the right direction, then have someone else make it look good in post.
Also, regardless of whether it's the same or not, the images on screen in both The White Ribbon and Inglorious Basterds were leagues better.
-
I'm gonna go make a Academy awards thread, hold on.
-
You're arguing semantics
You anti-semantic bastard!
-
Everything in Avatar was done with cameras then CGI.
So there.
-
So was A Scanner Darkly, but I sure as hell wouldn't give it a cinematography award.
-
The Oscars aren't awards handed out in the opinion of the film business
They are, actually. The public doesn't choose winners, members of the Academy do, and they're people who work in the film business.
-
While there is certainly a financial aspect I think you are overemphasising it. Just to name a reason and to keep it on topic, it makes no financial sense to have The Hurt Locker trounce Avatar; Avatar is a proven money maker while THH barely recouped during its theatrical run and has not become a smash hit after winning. Also keep in mind that the largest group of voters in the academy are actors themselves.
-
exactly the way it was when digital photography essentially took over in still image.
I think that's really your main flaw there. This is not the difference between digital photography an film photography. I don't care if the winning film was shot on 35MM or an iPhone. This is like a 3D generated image winning a best photography award because they used a photograph as a reference image. I think most photographers would be angry about that.
And frankly, that's not even the biggest complaint I have. I wouldn't care if an almost completely CG movie won best cinematography if the individual frames of the movie were better than the individual frames of all other movies. Avatar isn't even in the same league as many other films that came out last year in that criteria.
-
I don't think you understand how Academy voting works. Actors make up the largest voting block, but they only constitute 20 percent of academy membership. Only for best picture does every academy member get to vote. In all other categories, only the people who work in that field vote. So members of the academy who are directors vote for best director. Members of the academy who are actors vote for best actor. Members of the academy who are cinematographers vote for best cinematography. That is the main reason that the winner for best cinematography confounds me so much. Generally, I don't disagree with the winner for best cinematography, and usually, it's very tough competition. For instance, having Robert Elswit up against two Roger Deakins nominations. Though this year, I wasn't feeling the nominations, nor the winner.
-
But but but what if they're wrong
-
Look at this piece of shit. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gOJTtgoQ7zM/SwoPaGHhzvI/AAAAAAAAAOU/HEaidFs-OHU/s1600/chase-jarvis_punch1.jpg) It's an award winning photograph.
What the fuck surely they have awards for digital art/photomanipulation/whatever.
Like I mean I do not know if there is an award for whatever you would call what Avatar is (I guess it's a visual effects thing) but that is not photography but it is a whole other medium which is just as legitimate but it is not fucking photography argh what the shit
-
Like I mean I do not know if there is an award for whatever you would call what Avatar is (I guess it's a visual effects thing) but that is not photography but it is a whole other medium which is just as legitimate but it is not fucking photography argh what the shit
That is one of my main points. I'm not trying to disparage all of the hard work that goes into a movie like Avatar, what I'm saying, is that they won the award that goes for all of that work, Visual Effects.