Support NeoGAF

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I guess pulling for Up in the Air is a pretty hopeless cause eh?

It's the type of film that would always be the #3 or so choice in any given year.

 

[Snuggles]

I haven't really been following any of the Oscar coverage, but if I had to put money on a winner for Best Pic I'd go with Up in the Air. I still haven't even seen it but I guess I have a hunch or something.

If it were up to me, District 9 would win. I fucking loved that movie, definitely gets the SNUGGIE for '09.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I think New Moon is the best movie of the year, because it was able to connect with a whole lot of girls across the world. Probably the hardest demographic out there.

It did so, not by splashing insane visual effects at your face, but by simple story telling, making girls fall in love with sparkling demons and muscled wolves. With 50 million and the power of love, the movie made over 700 million worldwide.

But did it touch their hearts? Did it make them love themselves and others while being respectful of the Navi and their peaceful wishes? Did it make them want to committ mass-suicide for fear of not being able to live in Pandora forever and be with Neytiri? http://tinyurl.com/ygt8jdx But wait! Are vampires even meant to be human? These are the tough questions the Academy will have to answer tomorrow. Avatar really is the Justin Bieber of our generation. It just connects with everyone.

 

[Chichikov]

Chich, I could never hate you.

You realize I take such posts as a challenge, right?

I guess pulling for Up in the Air is a pretty hopeless cause eh?

It's weird, it was somewhere between a front-runner and a lock late last year, but somehow it got passed by both The Hurt Locker and Avatar.

 

[Veidt]

But did it touch their hearts? Did it make them love themselves and others while being respectful of the Navi and their peaceful wishes? Did it make them want to committ mass-suicide for fear of not being able to live in Pandora forever and be with Neytiri? http://tinyurl.com/ygt8jdx But wait! Are vampires even meant to be human?

These are the tough questions the Academy will have to answer tomorrow.

Again, I can't believe you guys are comparing Avatar to TF2 and New Moon. :lol

This thread is getting more and more bizarre by the reply.

 

[EviLore]

Funny, that's how i feel about your points about The Hurt Locker.

Kay. I'll justify mine, though. IB being Tarantino's worst directed movie and The Hurt Locker being better written? I'd expect some combination of drooling and hissing in that guy's explanation, with an emphasis on the saliva.


So, why is The Hurt Locker shallow, at times farcical, and poorly shot?

It's shallow because its characters are shallow and the film is just an exploration of how they're reacting to stressful situations, so the characters are everything. The three main soldiers are, respectively, scared, annoyed, and "HUAHUAHUAHUAHUA" (you can take a guess which that one is). HUAHUAHUA guy fears nothing except normal life and lives on the edge because it's the only way he feels alive, scared guy is scared because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed, and annoyed guy is annoyed because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed. Cue two hours of HUAHUAHUA guy making his own rules at his team's expense and generally being an asshole, getting away with it while his squad freaks out, and even getting away with the farcical parts that don't belong in the film.

As for the farcical parts:

-Night solo commando mission.

-"THEY'RE PROBABLY WATCHING US RIGHT NOW LET'S SPLIT UP DOWN THESE DARK ALLEYWAYS ALONE AND GO GET 'EM" climax mission.

-Sniper scene, which is both the highlight of the film (since in this case it is able to build some tension successfully) and total nonsense. Every single event that transpires is totally bogus, from the totally incompetent SAS guys who stand around firing at the hip forever at enemy snipers they can't see to annoyed guy having to make 20 meter corrections between each shot but then magically hitting a moving target at the end. There's dramatic license and there's Pierce Brosnan surfing in Die Another Day, and this is the war movie equivalent.

And finally, the film's poorly shot thanks to its completely counter-productive use of shaky cam throughout. It's probably intended to add a visceral rawness to the aesthetic, but ultimately it makes little sense. The Hurt Locker's scenes are mostly about tension: static tension-building scenes where expectation is everything, lingering camera shots, waiting for the worst outcome (as set up by the opening scene). So why the hell is the camera shaking around all over the place? Inglourious has an infinitely better idea of how building tension on-screen works, and it's not by shaking the camera around like Bourne Ultimatum does. At least Bourne Ultimatum was effectively one long action scene; this is like taking the parts where Greengrass keeps the camera shaking during scenes with a guy sitting in an office chair explaining shit, and making a movie out of that.

 

[silverbullet1080]

crazy at people comparing avatar to TF2 and New Moon :lol

bizarre thread indeed.

I'd say that Avatar totally deserves best pic only if the script and story weren't so derivative and cliche.

 

[Veidt]

I'd say that Avatar totally deserves best pic only if the script and story weren't so derivative and cliche.

That's how many of us feel. It's an alright film. And deserves to be nominated, but not win, never win.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

http://tinyurl.com/ygt8jdx

Dear God, that's the worst thing I've seen in many years. The last thing that came close was many years on the old corona coming attractions board for Burton's Planet of the Apes. Someone started a thread asking people to write what they're final words would have been to that ape played by Helena Bonham Carter before leaving her planet forever. Some of them expressed profound love for her, and it was quite scary.

edit: On topic: haven't seen all the nominated films but of the ones I've seen (Basterds, Up, and Avatar), Bastards definitely deserves to win.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Kay. I'll justify mine, though. IB being Tarantino's worst directed movie and The Hurt Locker being better written? I'd expect some combination of drooling and hissing in that guy's explanation, with an emphasis on the saliva.


So, why is The Hurt Locker shallow, at times farcical, and poorly shot?

It's shallow because its characters are shallow and the film is just an exploration of how they're reacting to stressful situations, so the characters are everything. The three main soldiers are, respectively, scared, annoyed, and "HUAHUAHUAHUAHUA" (you can take a guess which that one is). HUAHUAHUA guy fears nothing except normal life and lives on the edge because it's the only way he feels alive, scared guy is scared because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed, and annoyed guy is annoyed because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed. Cue two hours of HUAHUAHUA guy making his own rules at his team's expense and generally being an asshole, getting away with it while his squad freaks out, and even getting away with the farcical parts that don't belong in the film.

As for the farcical parts:

-Night solo commando mission.

-"THEY'RE PROBABLY WATCHING US RIGHT NOW LET'S SPLIT UP DOWN THESE DARK ALLEYWAYS ALONE AND GO GET 'EM" climax mission.

-Sniper scene, which is both the highlight of the film (since in this case it is able to build tension) and total nonsense. Every single event that transpires is totally bogus, from the totally incompetent SAS guys who stand around firing at the hip forever at enemy snipers they can't see to annoyed guy having to make 20 meter corrections between each shot but then magically hitting a moving target at the end. There's dramatic license and there's Pierce Brosnan surfing in Die Another Day, and this is the war movie equivalent.

And finally, the film's poorly shot thanks to its completely counter-productive use of shaky cam throughout. It's probably intended to add a visceral rawness to the aesthetic, but ultimately it makes little sense. The Hurt Locker's scenes are mostly about tension: static tension-building scenes where expectation is everything, lingering camera shots, waiting for the worst outcome (as set up by the opening scene). So why the hell is the camera shaking around all over the place? Inglourious has an infinitely better idea of how building tension on-screen works, and it's not by shaking the camera around like Bourne Ultimatum does. At least Bourne Ultimatum was effectively one long action scene; this is like taking the parts where Greengrass keeps the camera shaking during scenes with a guy sitting in an office chair explaining shit, and making a movie out of that.

Don't worry. You'll get to watch Greengrass do real shaky cam with THL's cinematographer next week? Also FYI, there's nothing more annoying about THL complaints than those who nitpick the realism of the film. It's an action movie not a documentary. I'm so tired about hearing about how the movie was nothing like what an EOD would do. That's right - it's not. And that movie doesn't exist but it would be boring as fuck.

 

[brianjones]

to continue with the comparisons: City of God = Los Olvidados with added pandering to modern sensibilities.

how does city of god "pander to modern sensibilities" ? because it happens to be more current than whatever that movie you linked is?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You realize I take such posts as a challenge, right?


It's weird, it was somewhere between a front-runner and a lock late last year, but somehow it got passed by both The Hurt Locker and Avatar.

1. If you feel challenged, feel free to try me. I'm not much of a hater of people, so I am a formidable opponent.

2. Up in the Air's fall is really strange. I think that the problem is that it's an 'overall package' kind of film, which does not do anything to help it win at the various awards shows leading up to the Oscars, a common source of 'momentum'. I think that it would be faring better if Crazy Heart hadn't been released, actually; Clooney's seeming lock on the Oscar was giving UitA a lot of momentum, but Crazy Heart was released very quietly and seemed to take all of the wind out of Clooney's sails, which has, I think, hurt UitA's overall momentum.

 

[FlawlessCowboy]

Not gonna go into the whole Avatar debate again, but seriously man?
You can't really think that, right?


I didn't say every high grossing film wins, I say that the Academy has no problems giving awards to very popular ones.

Give me a break, dude. The Dark Knight held every box office record last year and it didn't even get nominated.

 

[EviLore]

Don't worry. You'll get to watch Greengrass do real shaky cam with THL's cinematographer next week? Also FYI, there's nothing more annoying about THL complaints than those who nitpick the realism of the film. It's an action movie not a documentary. I'm so tired about hearing about how the movie was nothing like what an EOD would do. That's right - it's not. And that movie doesn't exist but it would be boring as fuck.

And I'm tired of the movie getting a free pass for being completely fucking retarded by people with no standards. Guess we're all in need of some energy drinks, huh.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Give me a break, dude. The Dark Knight held every box office record last year and it didn't even get nominated.

You miss his point. The Dark Knight didn't go unrecognized because it was popular; it went unrecognized because the Academy has not, historically, given much credence to the superhero genre. His main point is just that popularity does not hurt a film's chances at an Oscar.

Edit: I actually agree with EviLore that the characters of The Hurt Locker are kind of shallow, but I think the movie works better as a commentary on war (not the Iraq War but war itself) and on action movies as a genre than as a character study.

 

[Femmeworth]

I really hope Avatar doesn't get it. Inglorious Basterds or Up in the Air, please.

 

[Zeliard]

The Hurt Locker was entertaining but it does strike me as puzzling overrated. Does anyone believe it holds a candle to a relatively recent war film like Saving Private Ryan as a Best Picture candidate? Or is it just because it's a competently made modern Iraq War movie?

I'm not seeing the greatness in Jeremy Renner's performance either. Similarly to the movie, he was solid but unexceptional. I think Sam Rockwell in Moon had a much more difficult job and was far more deserving of the nod.

And Inglourious Basterds, go. Surprise us all.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Kay. I'll justify mine, though. IB being Tarantino's worst directed movie and The Hurt Locker being better written? I'd expect some combination of drooling and hissing in that guy's explanation, with an emphasis on the saliva.


So, why is The Hurt Locker shallow, at times farcical, and poorly shot?

It's shallow because its characters are shallow and the film is just an exploration of how they're reacting to stressful situations, so the characters are everything. The three main soldiers are, respectively, scared, annoyed, and "HUAHUAHUAHUAHUA" (you can take a guess which that one is). HUAHUAHUA guy fears nothing except normal life and lives on the edge because it's the only way he feels alive, scared guy is scared because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed, and annoyed guy is annoyed because HUAHUAHUA guy is insane and will likely get them all killed. Cue two hours of HUAHUAHUA guy making his own rules at his team's expense and generally being an asshole, getting away with it while his squad freaks out, and even getting away with the farcical parts that don't belong in the film.

As for the farcical parts:

-Night solo commando mission.

-"THEY'RE PROBABLY WATCHING US RIGHT NOW LET'S SPLIT UP DOWN THESE DARK ALLEYWAYS ALONE AND GO GET 'EM" climax mission.

-Sniper scene, which is both the highlight of the film (since in this case it is able to build some tension successfully) and total nonsense. Every single event that transpires is totally bogus, from the totally incompetent SAS guys who stand around firing at the hip forever at enemy snipers they can't see to annoyed guy having to make 20 meter corrections between each shot but then magically hitting a moving target at the end. There's dramatic license and there's Pierce Brosnan surfing in Die Another Day, and this is the war movie equivalent.

And finally, the film's poorly shot thanks to its completely counter-productive use of shaky cam throughout. It's probably intended to add a visceral rawness to the aesthetic, but ultimately it makes little sense. The Hurt Locker's scenes are mostly about tension: static tension-building scenes where expectation is everything, lingering camera shots, waiting for the worst outcome (as set up by the opening scene). So why the hell is the camera shaking around all over the place? Inglourious has an infinitely better idea of how building tension on-screen works, and it's not by shaking the camera around like Bourne Ultimatum does. At least Bourne Ultimatum was effectively one long action scene; this is like taking the parts where Greengrass keeps the camera shaking during scenes with a guy sitting in an office chair explaining shit, and making a movie out of that.

Completely and utterly disagree.

Are there stereotypes in Hurt Locker? Sure there are. But i completely disagree with you, in that i think the characters are interesting. It's almost hard to counter what you say about the characters, because all i would be saying would be the opposite of you. You describe them as shallow, i think they are not shallow at all. I cared for the characters, i felt danger for them, i connected to them. It's not about writing the most wacky and unrealistically interesting character out there, those characters are touchable. I as a part of the audience, dive right into their footsteps.

Night Solo mission, was crazy, and decisions taken questionable but that said you are getting hung up on technical details, favoring them over drama, like you do with the Sniper Mission. You are looking at it as someone who probably, for some reason, spent time of his life reading about how special military units go about their life. Why? Favoring choreography over good drama. The sniper sequence is amazing.

Your argument about why its poorly shot, besides the fact i've seen you bickering before about shakey cam, and made it seem like you just outright hate it, is completely unfounded, and in someways it's just crazy talk. The way the movie is shot AND edited happens to be one of its greatest strengths, would it not be for the fact that people often feel their hearts pounding during the more impressive sequences of the movie. There's more than one way to shoot a movie, and you seem be all about one of them, well that's just your fault, its your shortcoming for not liking a movie to be shot in a documentary like style. To be perfectly clear, there's never any point in the movie where the action on screen is hard to follow, or we as an audience don't get a clear answer at what the important elements in the scene are, where they are geographically placed, and what they are going through.

I infinitely disagree with you.

And I'm tired of the movie getting a free pass for being completely fucking retarded by people with no standards. Guess we're all in need of some energy drinks, huh.

Movie gets a pass as a movie. And it's not with insults that you are going to get anybody at your side.

"People with no standards". Come on.

 

[Chichikov]

Give me a break, dude. The Dark Knight held every box office record last year and it didn't even get nominated.

Not sure how that's a counterpoint to what I said, but let's play.

First the facts:

• Plenty of high grossing films were nominated and won Best Picture (including numerous highest grossing films of a given year and the two highest grossing movies of all time).
• No superhero movie was ever nominated for best film.
• The Dark Knight is the highest grossing superhero film of all time.
• The Dark Knight was nominated to more awards than any superhero film in history.

Now, do you think these facts supports your assertion that the academy somehow hates successful movies?
Or maybe there is another, more straightforward explanation?

 

[Chichikov]

Are there stereotypes in Hurt Locker? Sure there are. But i completely disagree with you, in that i think the characters are interesting. It's almost hard to counter what you say about the characters, because all i would be saying would be the opposite of you. You describe them as shallow, i think they are not shallow at all. I cared for the characters, i felt danger for them, i connected to them. It's not about writing the most wacky and unrealistically interesting character out there, those characters are touchable. I as a part of the audience, dive right into their footsteps.

The problem is that the main trait of the main character, and the engine driving the film is complete and utter Hollywood cliched bullshit.
It wouldn't be too bad if this was a random action film, but this film pride itself on its supposed realism.
The whole "adrenaline junkie with a death wish" is just divorced from reality.
And speaking of divorced from reality, I'm sure any person who ever was deployed laughed his/her ass at the whole "civilian life is boring, I miss the action" scene.
The day to day life in the field is such shit, that just being able to take a dump in a toilet is going to keep you content for a solid year.
Not to mention that the whole "cut the red wire" approach to bomb removal just doesn't happen in real life.

 

[Dead]

I think its sad that Pixar will once again be fellated and win Best animated feature

Would much rather see Mr. Fox or Coraline win.

 

[EviLore]

"People with no standards". Come on.

Non-satirical answer: it's about context. District 9's action scenes are just as implausible as what was mentioned from The Hurt Locker, but in District 9's case I don't really give a shit that it makes no sense that the desk jockey main character is winning all these firefights against trained soldiers just because he has a huge unwieldy science fiction zap gun that's functionally inferior to an assault rifle. It's a scifi movie about him turning into an alien, and the nature of these action scenes is incidental.

In a military flick done documentary style and taking place in what is ostensibly the real world, that sort of crap can permanently murder any sort of suspension of disbelief and induce some serious eye-rolling.

 

[WrikaWrek]

The problem is that the main trait of the main character, and the engine driving the film is complete and utter Hollywood cliched bullshit.
It wouldn't be too bad if this was a random action film, but this film pride itself on its supposed realism.
The whole "adrenaline junkie with a death wish" is just divorced from reality.
And speaking of divorced from reality, I'm sure any person who ever was deployed laughed his/her ass at the whole "civilian life is boring, I miss the action" scene.
The day to day life in the field is such shit, that just being able to take a dump in a toilet is going to keep you content for a solid year.
Not to mention that the whole "cut the red wire" approach to bomb removal just doesn't happen in real life.

Well the screenplay was written after a journalist piece (for playboy lol), from a dude that spent time with a bomb squad in Iraq.

Apparently, the guy in which the main character is inspired, thought it was so real that he decided to sue the production company, because nobody asked him anything about using his persona for the movie.

So i guess you're right, it's all Hollywood bullshit, people like that don't exist.

Non-satirical answer: it's about context. District 9's action scenes are just as implausible as what was mentioned from The Hurt Locker, but in District 9's case I don't really give a shit that it makes no sense that the desk jockey main character is winning all these firefights against trained soldiers just because he has a huge unwieldy science fiction zap gun that's functionally inferior to an assault rifle. It's a scifi movie about him turning into an alien, and the nature of these action scenes is incidental.

In a military flick done documentary style and taking place in what is ostensibly the real world, that sort of crap can permanently murder any sort of suspension of disbelief and induce some serious eye-rolling.

It didn't murder anything for me, and i thought yes there were some improbable situations, but even then, they were based on true incidents. According to the writer anyway.

Touching them up with a bit of action and drama didn't hurt the movie.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The problem is that the main trait of the main character, and the engine driving the film is complete and utter Hollywood cliched bullshit.
It wouldn't be too bad if this was a random action film, but this film pride itself on its supposed realism.
The whole "adrenaline junkie with a death wish" is just divorced from reality.
And speaking of divorced from reality, I'm sure any person who ever was deployed laughed his/her ass at the whole "civilian life is boring, I miss the action" scene.
The day to day life in the field is such shit, that just being able to take a dump in a toilet is going to keep you content for a solid year.
Not to mention that the whole "cut the red wire" approach to bomb removal just doesn't happen in real life.

For me, though, the film works very well as a commentary on the action film genre. The main character is basically a typical action hero set down in the real world, and we as the audience are made to see that the sort of dickwaving cowboy heroes that inhabit action movies are, in fact, totally irrational people that needlessly put themselves and others in danger and yet are rewarded for their blind luck.

Plus, adrenaline addiction is an actual phenomenon, if my quick search of Google is to be believed. How, exactly, is that 'divorced from reality'?

At what point in the movie is there an 'I don't know which wire to cut' scene? Renner's character was always shown as being very competent at defusing bombs; it's been a while, but I don't remember any scene that seemed typically Hollywood in that regard.

 

[Timber]

how does city of god "pander to modern sensibilities" ? because it happens to be more current than whatever that movie you linked is?

because despite all the destitution and brutality of its subject matter, there's an awful lot of flashiness in its directing and cinematography. it needs to have breakneck pacing, offbeat segments and thrilling action sequences. but when i say that it panders to modern sensibilities, i don't mean it entirely as a perjorative, as a lot of that stuff aptly serves a purpose.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

because despite all the destitution and brutality of its subject matter, there's an awful lot of flashiness in its directing and cinematography. it needs to have breakneck pacing, offbeat segments and thrilling action sequences. but when i say that it panders to modern sensibilities, i don't mean it entirely as a perjorative, as a lot of that stuff aptly serves a purpose.

I get what you're saying, but I think that the word 'pandering' is fraught with almost entirely negative connotations to most people.

 

[WrikaWrek]

The Hurt Locker was entertaining but it does strike me as puzzling overrated. Does anyone believe it holds a candle to a relatively recent war film like Saving Private Ryan as a Best Picture candidate? Or is it just because it's a competently made modern Iraq War movie? .

Well besides the fact that Saving Private Ryan also didn't win best picture (lol), no i don't think the Hurt Locker is as good as Private. But isn't that stupid? I mean, should any nominee then, be only nominated if they are as good as movies of other years? And not because they are better than movies of its own year?

In retrospect, i'm a huge huge fan of Black Hawk Down, and i think The Hurt Locker is at the same level of quality.

 

[Naked Snake]

I hope Inglorious Bastereds nabs a few/most of the oscars its nominated for. Absolutely loved that film.

 

[EviLore]

It didn't murder anything for me, and i thought yes there were some improbable situations, but even then, they were based on true incidents. According to the writer anyway.

Touching them up with a bit of action and drama didn't hurt the movie.

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOURS?!?!

 

[DY_nasty]

The lack of a commanding officer to rain down WTFs on the characters in Hurt Locker almost ruined the movie for me.

 

[WrikaWrek]

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT FROM YOURS?!?!

I'm not debating otherwise. I believe we were trading impressions we have on the movie.

 

[Chichikov]

Well the screenplay was written after a journalist piece (for playboy lol), from a dude that spent time with a bomb squad in Iraq.

Apparently, the guy in which the main character is inspired, thought it was so real that he decided to sue the production company, because nobody asked him anything about using his persona for the movie.

So i guess you're right, it's all Hollywood bullshit, people like that don't exist.

I have not read the Playboy piece, so I can't comment on it or its accuracy.
I have however spent 6 years in the military and I have seen the bomb disposal unit (both civilian and military) at work numerous times, and I stand by my assertion.

For me, though, the film works very well as a commentary on the action film genre. The main character is basically a typical action hero set down in the real world, and we as the audience are made to see that the sort of dickwaving cowboy heroes that inhabit action movies are, in fact, totally irrational people that needlessly put themselves and others in danger and yet are rewarded for their blind luck.

I have to admit, I have never thought about that movie that way, I can't say I see it, but I'll have to give it some thought.

Plus, adrenaline addiction is an actual phenomenon, if my quick search of Google is to be believed. How, exactly, is that 'divorced from reality'?

Oh, I know all too well about being addicted to adrenaline, fuck, I'm afflicted by it.
But you see, military service is poor supplier of adrenaline, the reality of low intensity conflict is hours upon hours of boredom, bookended by short and unexpected spurts that governed mostly by confusion.
Also, I said "adrenaline junkie with a death wish" as I was aiming at the archetype; but I should've been clearer and said "divorced from military reality"; such people exists (though probably not the Lethal Weapons-esque levels described in this film) but they can't survive in the Army very long.

At what point in the movie is there an 'I don't know which wire to cut' scene? Renner's character was always shown as being very competent at defusing bombs; it's been a while, but I don't remember any scene that seemed typically Hollywood in that regard.

By and large, you don't disarm bombs, you blow them up.

 

[brianjones]

I get what you're saying, but I think that the word 'pandering' is fraught with almost entirely negative connotations to most people.

yeah, sorry if I seemed snappy it just seemed like a harsh dig on one of my favorite movies :~

 

[threenote]

I really hope Avatar doesn't get it. Inglorious Basterds or Up in the Air, please.

.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

More of my action movie analysis of THL for anybody that wants it:

-We see at the beginning that even somebody exercising care in how he disarms bombs (note: I was not aware that this is not actually done all that often) can be killed.
-Jeremy Renner's character comes in and does pretty much nothing but really stupid things (including picking up a string to which a series of bombs are attached) without ever getting killed. He seems to be impressively talented at his job (as most action movie cops are), but he also has a ton of blind luck.
-We see through his two fellow soldiers how stupid and dangerous his actions are; they are basically the 'partners' that follow different methods than our scrappy hero.
-There is even a 'chief' (the UN guy) who praises Renner's character for his impressive record, unaware of the dumb risks that he had to take to acquire such a record.
-And, in the end, our hero comes back for a 'sequel', likely to continue defying the laws of probability that we have been shown govern everybody else.

 

[WrikaWrek]

I have not read the Playboy piece, so I can't comment on it or its accuracy.
I have however spent 6 years in the military and I have seen the bomb disposal unit (both civilian and military) at work numerous times, and I stand by my assertion.


I have to admit, I have never thought about that movie that way, I can't say I see it, but I'll have to give it some thought.


Oh, I know all too well about being addicted to adrenaline, fuck, I'm afflicted by it.
But you see, military service is poor supplier of adrenaline, the reality of low intensity conflict is hours upon hours of boredom, bookended by short and unexpected spurts that governed mostly by confusion.
Also, I said "adrenaline junkie with a death wish" as I was aiming at the archetype; but I should've been clearer and said "divorced from military reality"; such people exists (though probably not the Lethal Weapons-esque levels described in this film) but they can't survive in the Army very long.


By and large, you don't disarm bombs, you blow them up.

I respect your view.

I don't agree though with the notion that the movie tells you "This is how everybody is". I believe the movie clearly makes the characters distinguishable of each other, each one has a name, and the character with a death wish is called on it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...akers-of-The-Hurt-Locker-stole-his-story.html

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/36526

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272630680.shtml

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/tag/master-sgt-jeffrey-s-sarver/

And again, "unrealistic". It's based on true events, true incidents, and true people.

 

[EviLore]

More of my action movie analysis of THL for anybody that wants it:

-We see at the beginning that even somebody exercising care in how he disarms bombs (note: I was not aware that this is not actually done all that often) can be killed.
-Jeremy Renner's character comes in and does pretty much nothing but really stupid things (including picking up a string to which a series of bombs are attached) without ever getting killed. He seems to be impressively talented at his job (as most action movie cops are), but he also has a ton of blind luck.
-We see through his two fellow soldiers how stupid and dangerous his actions are; they are basically the 'partners' that follow different methods than our scrappy hero.
-There is even a 'chief' (the UN guy) who praises Renner's character for his impressive record, unaware of the dumb risks that he had to take to acquire such a record.
-And, in the end, our hero comes back for a 'sequel', likely to continue defying the laws of probability that we have been shown govern everybody else.

It's a fun point, but probably giving the film too much credit.

 

[Timber]

I get what you're saying, but I think that the word 'pandering' is fraught with almost entirely negative connotations to most people.

haha, yeah, that's true. and i did mostly mean it that way, but i felt i needed to add a bit of a disclaimer. i don't want to go into this too much, because it doesn't really have much to do with the 2010 oscars, but just a few more clarifications: a scene like the one that details the history of a room that's a hub for drug dealing is an example of the aforementioned flashy, off-beat filmmaking, but it has a right to exist because it demonstrates how ingrained the problem has become in that neighbourhood/society. but the thing is that when you keep stacking these kinds of touches on top of one another, it doesn't matter how filthy what you're showing actually is because you ultimately produce something that comes off as 'cool', and that's not in line with what the film is about at all. so even if some of these things work well as stand-alone segments, as many parts of a larger whole they end up creating an adverse and undesired effect.

edit: oh yeah, and obviously Olvidados doesn't do these things, and as a result it's even more bleak and much more hard-hitting than cidade de deus, which falters a bit because of its excessive stylistic touches.

 

[charsace]

The Hangover should have been nominated for best picture too. If Avatar and The Blind Side are nominated then why not The Hangover?

 

[DY_nasty]

The Blind Side being nominated is a joke or an insult, not sure which...

 

[tekumseh]

I expect no less than 5 awards for Avatar.

Avatar can, and should, win all the technical awards it's up for. The story, however, was incredibly pedestrian and fairly forgettable...

Oh, and The White Ribbon is easily the best foreign film nominated this year. If it fails to win, it will be the biggest travesty of the night, with the second biggest occurring should IB NOT win the best original screenplay...

 

[Dresden]

The Blind Side being nominated is a joke or an insult, not sure which...

It's a nod at the common white housewife who dreams of taking in a strange black kid into her home, and beyond.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Avatar can, and should, win all the technical awards it's up for. The story, however, was incredibly pedestrian and fairly forgettable...

Oh, and The White Ribbon is easily the best foreign film nominated this year. If it fails to win, it will be the biggest travesty of the night, with the second biggest occurring should IB NOT win the best original screenplay...

A Prophet.

 

[shintoki]

It's a nod at the common white housewife who dreams of taking in a strange black kid into her home, and beyond.

The feel good movie of the year for white people was what I got out of the trailer. :lol

 

[Dresden]

The feel good movie of the year for white people was what I got out of the trailer. :lol

It's like nominating Will Smith!

 

[noisome07]

It's like nominating Will Smith!

 

[cashman]

let's not go crazy

I actually liked City of God a little better. Both are in my top 5 though.

 

[erlim]

Why did the pics that make you laugh thread close?

 

[EviLore]

Wait wait, The Blind Side is that football movie with Sandra Bullock? Wow. Hell, put Crank 2 in there then.

 

[cashman]

Oh please. Outside of the shooting style and the surface narrative glimpses of of children growing up in poverty and crime-stricken areas the two films are completely different. Don't get me wrong, I think City of God is a better movie, but I think comparing the two is wrong.

anybody notice the opening scene of the childhood in slumdog, is almost a complete rip off of city of god?