Endlessly fascinated by great and not-so-great films, I like to watch a broad range of genres. I normally heed the critics and general buzz, but not always.
The Hurt Locker is a perfect example of why you can't always rely on critics' musings. Of course there was also the year Shakespeare In Love won the Oscar for best film, so there's another prime example of critics being crazy.
I know, I know. It's about the Iraq War and the stressful, terrifying daily duties of brave soldiers. Also let's not forget the young Iraqi boy (named Beckham) transformed into a bloody, body bomb. I don't know what exactly it was, but this movie made me fall asleep (not literally, but almost).
IT WAS SOOOOOOOOOOOOO BORING!!!! Forget the gunfire and explosions (or lack thereof thanks to Jeremy Renner's bomb dismantling skills), forget the screaming, wailing Iraqi women and the sort of (it's a stretch) rugged, war-weary good looks of Renner, this movie was a complete snore. To me the film lacked a cohesive plot line, other than the countdown to the end of the unit's rotation. Also, it seemed quite trite (drunken wrestling as a means of male bonding to name one example).
To be fair, I should reveal that I stopped the DVD player after an hour and a half. That was enough wasted lifetime. That in itself is quite a distinction, because I almost always finish a movie that I've invested more than 30 minutes in, but I saw no light at the end of that tunnel.
I wonder what makes ANYONE think The Hurt Locker is a good (and award-worthy) movie. It's beyond me, and I made it through the 2002 remake of Rollerball. Given the option, I'd rather watch Rollerball again. Seriously.
C'est la vie.
No comments:
Post a Comment