CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

[Curt Palme]

So I picked out The Hurt Locker to watch last night. I thought it would be a pretty good movie. No question it was intense... but there really wasn't much character development or a plot, was there?

It got me to thinking that recently I've seen a bunch of movies that people raved about that I thought were mediocre at best. One of the reasons I picked the Hurt Locker is because it was movie of the year last year. Really? Wasn't there anything better out in 2009? Did the academy pick it to piss off James Cameron?

Ditto for Inception, I thought that was stupid. Ditto for Get Him to the Greek. The radio show I listen to raved about it, and again, I thought the acting was mediocre, that the story line was good, but Russell Brand didn't do squat with his character, and frankly, Jonah Hill can't act.

On the flipside, I loved Social Network, and the g/f thought it was average at best. I saw a couple of minutes of Robin Hood at Dragan's place in the fall, and it looked really good.

So, is it just my personal taste, or are there a bunch of crap movies out there recently that people rave about?

[Curt Palme]

So I picked out The Hurt Locker to watch last night. I thought it would be a pretty good movie. No question it was intense... but there really wasn't much character development or a plot, was there?

It got me to thinking that recently I've seen a bunch of movies that people raved about that I thought were mediocre at best. One of the reasons I picked the Hurt Locker is because it was movie of the year last year. Really? Wasn't there anything better out in 2009? Did the academy pick it to piss off James Cameron?

Ditto for Inception, I thought that was stupid. Ditto for Get Him to the Greek. The radio show I listen to raved about it, and again, I thought the acting was mediocre, that the story line was good, but Russell Brand didn't do squat with his character, and frankly, Jonah Hill can't act.

On the flipside, I loved Social Network, and the g/f thought it was average at best. I saw a couple of minutes of Robin Hood at Dragan's place in the fall, and it looked really good.

So, is it just my personal taste, or are there a bunch of crap movies out there recently that people rave about?

[ecrabb]

It's your taste!

Hurt Locker was an excellent film all the way around. No character development? WTF? It was practically a character study of the main character and the plot was excellent! Technically, it was shot and edited beautifully, and the sound was excellent.

And what do you mean "to piss Cameron off"? Avatar was NOT film of the year material. It was impressive technically and NOTHING else. Period.

I haven't seen Social Network, but I heard it wasn't anything to write home about.

SC

[draganm]

[WanMan]

[Curt Palme]

ecrabb, I'm more with Dragan's opinion on the Hurt Locker. I think I will watch it again though, as I watched it on a small (32") TV at the g/f's place.

My taste in movies is all over the map. I just want to be entertained. It just seems lately that the flicks I rent on the recommendation of others stink.

Funny Dragan, I fell asleep about 1/2 way through the Green Zone, and the g/f hated it. I should watch both back to back while fully awake..

I guess I really liked the Social Network due to a nerd doing well. I can relate to the nerd part. Ha! To me, movies are an escape. I don't want to think too hard, and I don't want to ponder over a message that's within a movie. I get bombarded enough by messages by the media, and on this damn forum.

As for the comedies, a bunch in recent years have fallen flat compared to what I liked when I was younger, like Fast Times or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, to name two. Ger him to the Greek was lame, as was Clerks. Both Fast Times and B&T were original (I thought), and well put together.

Anyways, it's just my opinion, but given that I haven't had a lot of time this year to sit through movies whatsoever, I feel doubly disappointed if I sit through 2 hours of crap.

[Curt Palme]

ecrabb, I'm more with Dragan's opinion on the Hurt Locker. I think I will watch it again though, as I watched it on a small (32") TV at the g/f's place.

My taste in movies is all over the map. I just want to be entertained. It just seems lately that the flicks I rent on the recommendation of others stink.

Funny Dragan, I fell asleep about 1/2 way through the Green Zone, and the g/f hated it. I should watch both back to back while fully awake..

I guess I really liked the Social Network due to a nerd doing well. I can relate to the nerd part. Ha! To me, movies are an escape. I don't want to think too hard, and I don't want to ponder over a message that's within a movie. I get bombarded enough by messages by the media, and on this damn forum.

As for the comedies, a bunch in recent years have fallen flat compared to what I liked when I was younger, like Fast Times or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, to name two. Ger him to the Greek was lame, as was Clerks. Both Fast Times and B&T were original (I thought), and well put together.

Anyways, it's just my opinion, but given that I haven't had a lot of time this year to sit through movies whatsoever, I feel doubly disappointed if I sit through 2 hours of crap.

[kal]

[kal]

[AnalogRocks]

/I just saw Hurt Locker I didn't like it either. Film of the year? WTF?

The other "critically acclaimed" movie I saw was "Gone Baby Gone" which is how I describe the two hours of my life I won't get back because of that POS movie.

Also just saw "Men who stare at goats" weird and funny. Especially the Star Wars references. I liked it.

[AnalogRocks]

/I just saw Hurt Locker I didn't like it either. Film of the year? WTF?

The other "critically acclaimed" movie I saw was "Gone Baby Gone" which is how I describe the two hours of my life I won't get back because of that POS movie.

Also just saw "Men who stare at goats" weird and funny. Especially the Star Wars references. I liked it.

[ecrabb]

Gone Baby Gone was actually very good. The human story was interesting, but the moral dilemma was pretty vexing: Which is worse? Taking a child from an abusive parent and putting it in a loving home, or leaving the child in an abusive situation. The story and characters actually stuck with me for some time after my wife and I watched it. Perhaps people who have children would find it far more poignant than those without.

Regardless, Gone Baby Gone was definitely NOT a "POS". That's not even debatable. You can say you didn't like it or that you weren't interested in it, but you have no basis for calling it a "POS", Jeremy. None.

Men Who Stare at Goats... I don't even have any interest in watching it. I even like the actors... But, for some reason, I can't get up the interest to pull the trigger. The title? The trailer - that sucked. I even like weird/quirky... I'll have to see it at some point.

This is funny... Just goes to show how much personality plays into your like- and dislike for certain films. Given our clear personality differences, I'm not surprised at all that I'd really like a couple of films that Jeremy and Dragan don't like at all.

OK, given that... Here's a little exercise that might be fun if you're interested... Name off a couple of movies - say, three - that you think are just really, really good movies. I don't mean your favorite movies (for whatever reason, like your favorite hot actress is in it)... I mean, when you think about your personal criteria for what makes a really, really, good movie a really, really good movie, what movies fit that criteria?

Don't just rattle off the all-time, best-known, go-to classics like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or The Godfather... Everybody knows those are excellent films by any standard. Instead, pick a couple that aren't so arguably at the pinnacle of film-making, and explain why you think it's a damn good movie. A sentence or two is fine. It might be interesting to hear what people think are great movies, and why...

SC

[WanMan]

[AnalogRocks]

[AnalogRocks]

[ecrabb]

Hey, wait a second, Jeremy... I just realized that's THREE movies you've watched recently. I didn't think you ever watched a whole TV show, let alone a movie! No wonder you weren't on the forum as much! How did it feel to actually sit down and watch a movie?

I still disagree on Gone Baby Gone. I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes "boring".

SC

[AnalogRocks]

[AnalogRocks]

[Curt Palme]

OK, I watched Hurt Locker again, fully awake this time, and I've got a bunch of comments. Hopefully a few people here involved with the US military can comment, as some of the events seem to be way off from what I know of military, but since I have no personal experience in military operations, all I can do is ask questions.


But let's start with the technical stuff first. That I know more about.

So we have William the bomb tech. He finds some buried bombs, removes the detonator, and cuts the wire. He follows the wire back, and finds about 7 more bombs, and lifts up the bombs by the crude splice point. Seems to me that those bombs should weigh at least 50 lbs each, but he is able to pull the detonator out of the first one by hand, yet a simple pull exposes 300-350 lbs of more bombs. Technically flawed.

So, onto the next scene in the movie. His crew and the HumVee (sp?) are out in the desert somewhere, no explanation as to why, and they run across some suspicious persons. After a bunch of yelling, screaming and gesturing, it turns out that they are on the American side. Now, if I was a Canadian in the desert somewhere, and I was yelled at by Americans with weapons, wouldn't the first thing I would do is yell back that I'm Canadian? Yet these jokers stand there with their weapons, say nothing until such time that they are almost shot at. WTF?

Now, as an aside, you've got William, Sanborn and Eldridge. There seems to be no leader of the team (reading imdb just now shows me that both William and Sanborn are sergeants, yet no one really leads the team. Is that normal?

Back to the scene, they look at that shack with the insurgents in it for hours, but no real explanation as to why they are there in the first place. Also, since they are far away from the shack (850 meters?), they see the enemy's muzzle flash about a second before the bullet arrives. Would it not stand to reason that they DUCK into the gulley rather than take a direct hit? Seems kinda stupid to me.



Third scene is more or less a fight club type scenario, no real explanation as to why, I don't really see it tying into the rest of the movie...

Cut to another scene where they find the human bomb. Again, no explanation why they are there, who stole the US artillery, they just reclaim it.

Next scene, William decides to go more or less AWOL to go look for Beckham's father. Would the military REALLY tolerate such behavior?

Next scene: They go investigate a tanker explosion, and William decides that it was remotely detonated, and drags his partners on a wild goose chase to find said person(s) that detonated the truck. No explanation once again. Again, this individual just goes off on his own without reporting to anyone? Really? No one is in command?

Finally, it's revealed that his only love in life is to defuse bombs, and he abandons wife and kid to go back to defuse more bombs. OK, I can sorta relate to that, in a weird parallel, that's my life when it comes to fixing electronics. BUT.. the big difference is, I still get excited once I fix something rare or unusual. WIlliam shows no emotion after he defuses his bombs.

So.. I go back to my original statement. None of the characters are really built up to explain why they do what they do, and we're supposed to tie it all together in the last 5 minutes of the movie without knowing much about the characters.

NOw I gotta see "Green Zone' again, as I fell asleep during that one too, and thought it was boring.

[Curt Palme]

OK, I watched Hurt Locker again, fully awake this time, and I've got a bunch of comments. Hopefully a few people here involved with the US military can comment, as some of the events seem to be way off from what I know of military, but since I have no personal experience in military operations, all I can do is ask questions.


But let's start with the technical stuff first. That I know more about.

So we have William the bomb tech. He finds some buried bombs, removes the detonator, and cuts the wire. He follows the wire back, and finds about 7 more bombs, and lifts up the bombs by the crude splice point. Seems to me that those bombs should weigh at least 50 lbs each, but he is able to pull the detonator out of the first one by hand, yet a simple pull exposes 300-350 lbs of more bombs. Technically flawed.

So, onto the next scene in the movie. His crew and the HumVee (sp?) are out in the desert somewhere, no explanation as to why, and they run across some suspicious persons. After a bunch of yelling, screaming and gesturing, it turns out that they are on the American side. Now, if I was a Canadian in the desert somewhere, and I was yelled at by Americans with weapons, wouldn't the first thing I would do is yell back that I'm Canadian? Yet these jokers stand there with their weapons, say nothing until such time that they are almost shot at. WTF?

Now, as an aside, you've got William, Sanborn and Eldridge. There seems to be no leader of the team (reading imdb just now shows me that both William and Sanborn are sergeants, yet no one really leads the team. Is that normal?

Back to the scene, they look at that shack with the insurgents in it for hours, but no real explanation as to why they are there in the first place. Also, since they are far away from the shack (850 meters?), they see the enemy's muzzle flash about a second before the bullet arrives. Would it not stand to reason that they DUCK into the gulley rather than take a direct hit? Seems kinda stupid to me.



Third scene is more or less a fight club type scenario, no real explanation as to why, I don't really see it tying into the rest of the movie...

Cut to another scene where they find the human bomb. Again, no explanation why they are there, who stole the US artillery, they just reclaim it.

Next scene, William decides to go more or less AWOL to go look for Beckham's father. Would the military REALLY tolerate such behavior?

Next scene: They go investigate a tanker explosion, and William decides that it was remotely detonated, and drags his partners on a wild goose chase to find said person(s) that detonated the truck. No explanation once again. Again, this individual just goes off on his own without reporting to anyone? Really? No one is in command?

Finally, it's revealed that his only love in life is to defuse bombs, and he abandons wife and kid to go back to defuse more bombs. OK, I can sorta relate to that, in a weird parallel, that's my life when it comes to fixing electronics. BUT.. the big difference is, I still get excited once I fix something rare or unusual. WIlliam shows no emotion after he defuses his bombs.

So.. I go back to my original statement. None of the characters are really built up to explain why they do what they do, and we're supposed to tie it all together in the last 5 minutes of the movie without knowing much about the characters.

NOw I gotta see "Green Zone' again, as I fell asleep during that one too, and thought it was boring.

[AnalogRocks]

Can I interest you in "Gone Baby Gone to sleep?" Someone tells me it's a good movie.

[AnalogRocks]

Can I interest you in "Gone Baby Gone to sleep?" Someone tells me it's a good movie.

[WanMan]

Curt, I am the one always chastised for analyzing movies for continuity, technical accuracy, etc. I know you are seeing decreasing work in CRTs, but stay away my other job--picking on movies.

[MikeEby]

I watched The A-Team last night...

It was a lot of fun, simple mindless entertainment.


Mike

[HaydnG90]

[MikeEby]

[draganm]