|
|
|
eSale-Accounts - The Hurt Locker [Blu-ray]
![The Hurt Locker [Blu-ray]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XT9SJVA0L._SL160_.jpg)
|
List Price: $34.99
Our Price: $22.99
Your Save: $ 12.00 ( 34% )
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Summit Entertainment
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Ralph Fiennes, Evangeline Lilly
Directed By: Kathryn Bigelow
|
Average Customer Rating:   
|
|
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: Blu-ray
Brand: Universal
EAN: 0025192048562
Format: AC-3
Label: Summit Entertainment
Manufacturer: Summit Entertainment
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Summit Entertainment
Region Code: 1
Release Date: 2010-01-12
Running Time: 130
Studio: Summit Entertainment
Theatrical Release Date: 2009-06-26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Editorial Reviews:
|
Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (summit) Release Date: 01/12/2010 Run time: 131 minutes Rating: R
|
|
|
Spotlight customer reviews:
|
Customer Rating:
Summary: There's no "there", there............
Comment: I was absolutely shocked that this film received the 9 nominations that it did, and then I was equally shocked when it took home 6 Oscars! WHAT A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL THE OTHER GREAT MOVIES IT IS SUPPOSEDLY BETTER THAN!!!!!! WHAT FILM WHERE THESE PEOPLE WATCHING? There were at least 5 other films that were far better this year alone. I am not an Avatar fanatic by a far stretch, but it was way above and beyond anything the Hurt Locker could provide in entertainment. Are they to tell me that the Hurt Locker is a better film than "UP", even "Inglorious Basterds" was a much better film! And how's about "Up in the AIr"? There is no there in this film, there is not one interesting character.
There is no tension in those extremely unrealistic situations they unrealistically "stumble" into. How did they get there? What was the motivation, what was the story line? Who in Iraq goes out of the green zone in just one vehicle and just a couple of support soldiers, with no one from higher up having any say? One unreality after another in this film. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.........
As far as a war film is concerned, it is another slap in the face to all those other great war films that this film can't hold a candle to, films like Apocalypse Now, Platoon, The Big Red One, and how many other great war films out there that are far better than The Hurt Locker. Any single episode of the "Band of Brothers" is far superior to the Hurt Locker.
I always had reservations about the selection committees, usually I just went with the flow, but the fix was in on this one! It did not deserve one single Oscar. I had to watch it three times to see if I was missing anything that others were seeing, all I have to say to anyone that thinks this film was good in any way, needs to remind themselves of the great films that preceded this one and truly ask themselves if it really deserves to be anywhere near the same class in respect to any of the others. A BIG SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL THOSE OTHER GREAT FILMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Customer Rating:
Summary: OSCAR WORTHY?
Comment: I've grown accustomed to being disappointed in the wins for best picture at the Oscars over the last few years. It seems those who make the decisions are so dead set on being taken seriously as artists that they fail to choose films that are popular as well as artistic, going for the dramatic punch that they feel shows how serious they are. When you discount one aspect of a film in an attempt to look at another, you lose perspective of the whole meaning of the award. I always looked at the Oscar as rewarding the best and the brightest. It seems that stopped a few years back and continues to do so this year with THE HURT LOCKER.
Don't get me wrong. The movie is a good look at the world our military goes through on a day to day basis in war torn countries, this one being Iraq. But with all the movies I saw this past year, this was not the one that I though came near being the best. And Kathryn Bigelow has long deserved notice in Hollywood. Her work in the past was ignored and the making of this film wasn't done by a major Hollywood studio. That shows how much they truly respect her. The nicest thing about it is that she will now have enough clout to get more of her movies off the ground.
So the story. The film opens with a group of soldiers in an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. Their job is to dismantle, disarm or explode any bombs that are found in the area they are stationed in. The weapons of choice they most often come into contact with are Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and they have one here. As they attempt to prevent the bomb from exploding, an insurgent with a cell phone explodes it, killing the group's leader.
The film moves on to the new leader of the group, the new bomb expert Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner). Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), one of the remaining soldiers, welcomes James to Camp Victory which was Camp Liberty but they decided this sounded better. In his quarters, James has taken off the boards covering the windows to let light in. When Sanborn points out they were installed to keep mortar fire from coming through, James points out that the mortars could easily come in through the roof and he prefers the light. As the film progresses, this becomes a telling moment into the psychological state of mind of James.
With only 38 days left of service, the team is sent out to do their job in the city. Completing the group is Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), also witness to the first death. As they arrive at locations throughout the film to disarm bombs, the cautious Sanborn and Eldridge are perplexed by James willingness to confront danger head on. His unwillingness to follow protocol or to listen to Sanborn leads to a confrontation as well as several hair raising sequences where they set out to save lives by taking the bombs out.
The differences in these men are what make up the meat of the film. Sanborn wants to follow orders and wants to survive, yet he doesn't see that in James. Eldridge is the most apparently mentally disturbed of the trio, talking with the camp psychiatrist as he deals with the death that surrounds him. But it is James that is the most frightening of the group, living without fear of death, taking apart bombs as if there's nothing more thrilling to do, trying to find solutions to each one he comes across.
James character is so in tune with his love of danger that he keeps a box of bomb parts and detonators under his bed. It is James' story that is the focus of the film. He has become so involved in his position that he seeks out danger, that adrenaline rush that comes with it. The problem is that at the same time he puts his men in harm's way as well.
While the trio evolve into a sense of camaraderie, they also begin to come apart in thanks to James' need for the rush. With days counting down as the story moves forward, the tensions mount.
Sound like a good movie? Well, it sort of is. But at the same time the tenseness of the situations these men find themselves in is played out in a semi-real time mode. The viewer is required to sit and painstakingly wait as the clock ticks by while bombs are taken out.
While each actor and character are played well, the main focus on James by Renner is exceptional. A young actor just getting notice, Renner portrays a complex series of emotions in James, from the thrill junkie to the tender hearted man who weeps at the sight of a young boy he got to know who appears to be murdered with a bomb planted inside of him later on.
The film confronts some tough issues concerning war and the world we face in Iraq. But the best thing that it does is not take a major stand on the issues. It doesn't go right or left politically but tells the tale of the men in uniform straight on.
So why didn't I think it deserved the Oscar for best picture? Because it was long and drawn out, it moved at a snails pace and it didn't entertain me. Yes, it was well made (with the exception of the hand held jostling camera that seems to have become a favorite lately) and yes it told a compelling story. But I never felt involved, never invested in the characters enough to get into the film.
I know, many people will take exception with my views as to this not being deserving of the award. But when did we decide that gritty, hard tempered films were the only ones deserving? When did films that contained hope become the black sheep? When did movies that made us laugh or sing suddenly become unworthy?
I am a firm believer that most people go to movies to escape the world they live in, to get away from the moments of pain, poverty, anger and down right meanness they are exposed to daily. Those are the movies that inspire and give hope. They deserve to be rewarded. And yet Hollywood continues to choose message films instead. It is because of this that I can't say this movie deserves the award.
As for a viewing, I'm not even sure I can recommend it for that either. It is tedious at worst and contains fine performances at best. The only way to choose viewing this is making the choice on your own, knowing inside what it is you expect from a film, what you want from one. I know I couldn't sit through this one again, not due to the content but due to the slowness of it.
Customer Rating:
Summary: What a Lovely War
Comment: This is what Hollyweird thinks of as authentic. It makes them get goose bumps and shed tears. They give it every Award they can but in the end you are stuck with a box office failure that made less than $15 million in North America. By winning the Oscar it beat out CRASH as the least commercial film to win best picture. But that is the modern nature of the Oscars -- to celebrate movies that no one wanted to see and didn't. The errors in this movie have already been documented. To honest Kathryn Bigelow did her best film over 20 years ago with NEAR DARK.
Customer Rating:
Summary: HATE IT
Comment: terrible movie, dont waste your time with it. not sure what the oscar was about at all.
Customer Rating:
Summary: Alice in Wonderland
Comment: I hadn't planned on watching this as I am a pacifist but a neighbor wanted to see it so rented it for me too. I returned it to Block Buster and was told that a woman directed it and was the first woman director to get best director. It struck me odd that a movie would win best director just because the director was a woman and not because of the movie's merits. I watched it and tried to understand it but got lost as to the plot and I didn't understand why the title "The Hurt Locker". The Hurt Locker sounds like a woman's fantasy. I think the director's imagination got the best of her and hopefully her next film will be less opinion and a little more factual. BTW I was 4 years in the Marines and not once did we act the way portrayed in the movie. There were other discrepancies like where did all that equipment appear from and the accuracy of the sniping was unbelievable. Off a mile on first shot and a kill on the second shot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
