Ah now I understand better, Duke, u are an avatar lover and I was right you are bitter that it lost to Hurt Locker for best picture so u come on here to trash it. Grow up and get over it. I will not trash avatar however, it too is a fine movie. Difference being of course that Avatar had a titanic sized budget & much wider release.
The Hurt Locker is a terrible film. It has no story, no direction, no point and lacks interesting characters with depth. The whole thing lingers on for two hours with no goal in mind. It's the most boring and worst war film of all time. It's also the least successful and least deserving Best Picture winner of all time. It only won because of it's underdog hype. This year's Oscars was the year of the underdog. Unfortunately, just because something is independent or an underdog doesn't mean they deserve the Oscar. The Hurt Locker is a great example of that. Jeremy Renner should never have been nominated for Best Actor over Daniel Day-Lewis (Nine), Hal Holbrook (That Evening Sun) or Jamie Foxx (The Soloist).
actually Avatar sucks. All it did was revolutionize visuals (which it got an oscar for) and make 720 Million dollars. The story was bottomless and stolen from Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. Its been done before. Not original. Just "Original" visuals Hurt Locker deserved it By far. At least its real life and hits home more than Fantasy Epic that is too political and spirtual
At least it had a story where as the hurt locker repeated the same incident 3 times and had no real story or plot. It was an ok movie but not one of the best 25 or 30 films of the year. Regardless of my feelings on Avatar I would have picked Inglourious Bastards, District 9, or Up over it and possibly Up in the Air.
I have to agree that The Hurt Locker did not deserve to win best picture. Well done, but not best picture material. Avatar didn't really deserve it either in my opinion, but i would have given it to Avatar over the Hurt Locker.
Both Avatar and Hurt Locker are great movies. I enjoyed watching both of them. Comparing them is like comparing apples with oranges as each has its own plot and different effect on the viewers. Based on my own experience, when i was watching Hurt Locker, i didn't want to see the rest of the movie because every time the guy goes to his mission made me so "nervous." The movie made me feel as if i was physically present at the scenes. It was really a nerve-wrecking experience for me. But then again, my subconscious mind wanted to know how the movie will end so, i finished watching it. Because Hurt Locker is a movie, it is expected to have some mixture of theatrics and a touch of hollywood embedded to the story, otherwise, it will be classified as "documentary." Avatar on the other hand, is rich with "effects," which i think the best i have watched ever. The story gave me a warm and fussy feeling towards the end. It was really a great movie to watch.
this movie isn't about story as much as it is about character. this is a mover, not a shaker. whether or not its better than avatar is an odd debate to be reading on this page. "better" is the wrong word. try using the word entertaining. avatar was a billion times more entertaining than hurt locker, though it's simply a re-hashing of "dances with wolves" "pocahantas" and to a lesser extent "the matrix".
and as to who deserved the best picture award; my vote went to "district 9". watch all three of them and maybe you'll see why.
I started watching this movie 4 days ago. It is still in my Blu-ray player.... So far I have watch the first hour, and I still am not getting any Oscar winning thrill. The story is really dull, the characters are not deep and besides the acting I really am not engaged... I am still questioning if I should continue watching or just give up and not see the rest.
I have never served in the military, however I have a sibling who does, and says that there are many inaccuracies in the film. It is sad to see that maybe the Oscars for this movie were only given to it in order to irratate James Cameron, I really don't see why this movie won anything.... There were 9 other movies that were nominated this year, any of those DESERVED to have won but this one...
Well, I liked "The Hurt Locker" quite a bit, but the action-hero'ish ending really ruined the film for me - it was superfluous and without the depth it needed - I'd like to see THL's alternate endings. THL was well made cinematically, however, it was nowhere near the film of "District 9," an underrated masterpiece and especially, the cinematically-transforming "Avatar." Either of the latter films deserved the Oscar over this one - and I LOVE war films as much if not more than sci-fi. IMO, "Saving Private Ryan" way more than deserved Best Picture over "Shakespeare In Love" which was a good movie, but not great or spectacular as SPR looked on Blu-ray. The true test of a film's 'greatness' is its 'rewatchability' seeing it at home without 100 foot screens, 'million dollar' sound or hundreds of others' energy and auras to feed off of - and well, at home, Blu-ray gives us our best 'personal' cinematic experience to date. THL was engrossing, but it is not something I will watch more than twice, while "District 9" and "Avatar" I already own on Blu-ray and plan on watching a few times, especially the very entertaining "Avatar." THL is no "Platoon," no "Deer Hunter," no "Bridge On The River Kwai" or any other Best Picture war film. It was pretty good, just not awesomely 'great' and thusly, not deserving of the Best Picture Oscar. Its current rating of 4/5 stars is right on the money, while the aforementioned winners are all 5-star.
To be perfectly objective, Platoon didn't have much of a plot either. I think The Hurt Locker is a fine film. Whether it deserved Best Picture... I can't say for sure because I haven't seen most of the other nominees (I only saw Up and Avatar). So far all I can say is it was definitely better than Avatar. I have seen THL four times in the last six months, and I have to admit I don't get tired from it, even though I know every plot detail. And to my surprise, Iactually feel more tense during repeat viewings. (maybe there's something wrong with me). I don't think a movie obliogatorily must be plot-driven to be successful. THL is a character-friven piece, and IMO it excells at conveying the emotions, or lack thereof, of the characters. It is a story about people, not about the war. Nor is it a story about the Iraq war. I think if you change the setting to Afghanistan or Kosovo or Chechnya, the effect would be the same. What I really liked is how similar THL is to a drug movie like Trainspotting. What I mean is not only the opening quote.Danny Boyle's movie explored not just the devastating effects of addiction, but also the ecstasy of being high. Because if you don't show the enjoyment, however momentary it is, then you will always hear questions like "If drugs are bad, why do so many people take them?". The same approach is taken here. Also I liked how Bigelow and Boal use the three leads as examples of war can change a person. Eldridge becomes physically broken (and it is bitterly ironic that, for all the chances he had of getting shot by insurgents, the bullet that crippled him came from James). Sanborn is broken mentally. And even though he survives the ordeals that the conflict (and James) puts him through, and he drastically changes his attitude toward starting a family, I'm doubtful whether he will be able to truly experience the joy he so desperately wants. James is also changed, although in the most unexpected way. He is not damaged, he is addicted. Like a junkie always looking for a greater high, he constantly increases the risk. And even after he miraculously survives the explosion in the end, and supposedly settles down at home, he remains forever changed. And his final conversation with his son is one of the most shocking and heartbreaking scenes I have seen in recent times. They say gthat in order to defeat the beast, you must become a beast yourself. In James' case, if your living is disarming mechanisms, you have to become a mechanical person yourself. And that is exactly what happens to James by the end, He becomes a machine, soulless. I cannot imagine a human being, able to turn his back on his family like that. But then again, when you are addicted to something, it is exactly what you eventually do. And to be honest, I didn't see any action-hero notes in the final shots of James walking out of the plane. Although he probably thought so. In his mind, the Ministry song probably sounds like fanfare. To me, it sounded like a requiem. Whoa. Gone on a bit of a rant here. Sorry if it was too highfalutin. Just sharing my thoughts, not in any way imposing. Thank you for reading.