Lacking in several areas

Rating: 7/10 (1 April 2010)

I have heard this film being praised more than once as "the best war movie ever made." It most certainly is not. As well it undeservedly took a lot of awards at the recent Oscars.
Coming from a civilian who has read non-fiction novels on many wars I have only a tenuous point of reference as to exactly how real this movie tried to be. I do know that a regular EOD guy wouldn't just offhandedly know how to use a Barrett sniper rifle. Though, that scene was cool in its own right, it really hurt that realism this movie was obviously trying to go for.
A lot of the action that took place was interesting and exciting to follow. However, every single scene that tried to be meaningful sort of fell flat. The whole "war is a drug" thing was tacked on poorly near the end. I guess what the director was trying to say was that soldiers are selfish renegades who don't care about the rules. A message like that is probably a poor example of how to try to appease an audience that might actually be made up of people currently in that war.
Though The Hurt Locker was a good watch, I felt that this movie could have really used some Rah Rah BS. A good war movie needs: heroes, monsters and jokers. The Hurt Locker lacked in the first 2 and so that made the film feel a little thin in content.
7/10, baby