Wow pretty disappointing

Rating: Null/10 (12 March 2010)

Well, I ignored this film in theaters.
I just saw it at home, and was excited. I figured it had to be at least pretty good if it won best picture for a war film.
It retained my interest for 20 minutes or so. after that, i kept waiting for something remotely interesting, that would classify this as a truly great film to occur. it just never happened.
Then, I kept waiting for it to end, looking at the time remaining bar, thinking what a bad choice buying this on PPV was.
Let me say first, to defenders who say "it's not supposed to be a documentary" to excuse inaccuracy. True. i have no problems with artistic liberties & creating a story. That is interesting. What bugs people like me, is that it was not historical inaccuracies, it was non-realistic silliness in terms of how soldiers fight etc. I support our US/allied troops, am not political and want them all to come home safe, but seeing them portrayed so irresponsibly is disgraceful.
Happily, there was no "USA #1" jingoism, as that annoys me too. the problem, was the totally unrealistic portrayal of those units in the military. It was like a more serious, better done Top Gun with IED's
It became silly watching the main character flout rules & the chain of command. It was nonsensical watching 3 guys just cruise around Iraq alone, without any type of escort.
Even more annoying, they are all alone somewhere in the desert with no support whatsoever. they see a group of British SAS operators, who are some of the most elite special forces on earth.
A small firefight breaks out, where the SAS team is essentially wiped out, by 3 insurgents from over one half mile away. but the American bomb disposal unit survives totally unscathed. an elite SAS man with sniper training cannot hit a target 850 meters away, but Sgt. Sanborn, with no sniper training takes them all out? including a head shot on a guy running, 850 meters away? With a weapon he has likely never trained on? There is so much of that type of nonsense that it is maddening.
I do not expect rigid adherence to detail or no leeway for artistic interpretation.
But i do expect semi-*realistic* situations in a film that won "best picture" for a war film! Running around alone off base at night? three guys with limited combat training splitting up all alone to "go rogue" in Baghdad at night? Rarely ever staying in touch with command on the radio? It becomes ludicrous.
As for "best original script" - Wow. shocked. I thought it must have been one hell of a script, for it to win over Tarantino for Inglorious Basterds.
I kept waiting for great dialog, some humor, interesting twists & turns, characters, conversations. Any hallmarks of a great script. Some insight, an original idea...anything.
I did not hear one single line of dialog that did not sound regurgitated. No inspiration. Nothing.
And the story was not *THAT* original. Compared to Tarantino's writing this was amateurish. this was the writing of a reporter, not a screenwriter. Just awful.
As for Kathryn Bigelow, well, it is pretty obvious that all the hype was to get her an award, which worked. It was a "time for a woman to win" selection.
She offered *NOTHING* new to the genre. nothing that would qualify her directing as the "best" of the year. Honestly, what did she do? She used shaky cam so much that i thought the camera had epilepsy. Shaky cam once in a while is interesting. It has now been going on for 20 years and has become a crutch for mediocre directors who can only do action/thrillers.
Using a shaky cam, first person approach to combat, has now been done umpteen times, in better, more engaging combat movies.
It is as if she is saying "Shake it more! This is supposed to be intense".
Let's face it...it was a woman, directing a war movie, and that was like manna from heaven for lots of folks in the academy who want to bestow plaudits based on what's "right", not based on what's best.
It is not as if she was some genius overlooked year after year, for amazing films and provocative and searing stuff that was changing cinema, but going sadly unnoticed by ignorant meanies. She's 58 and has directed 7 films in 27 years including such horrible flicks as Blue Steel, Point Break & K19.
Sofia Coppolla did *FAR* better with Lost In Translation.
I voted a 4, cause of decent acting, high production values and being an important subject about the soldier on the front lines. I did not give it a 1. it is not Gigli bad.
It was a war thriller, not much different than "The Kingdom" albeit more serious.
I don't know what the critics who praised this to the moon were thinking. normally i regard the critics overall as being right most of the time with some latitude. i could see calling this a good thriller, but best picture? Something stinks and it is the politics of Oscar season.
as far as war movies go, it is nowhere near The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Saving Private Ryan.
For the record, i am not an Avatar lover, i did not see it. I find Cameron's technical nous to be impressive, but his story & characters are not interesting & his writing leaves much to be desired, so my grudge is not Avatar-based. Also I have not yet even seen 7 of the other 10 nominees. I have no ax to grind other then the money i just wasted when i could have seen it on HBO in a few months for free.