The usual US propaganda

Rating: 1/10 (7 May 2010)

Technically, there's nothing wrong with this movie. But nothing spectacular either, I might add.
I have no particular views on "The Hurt Locker" winning the Academy Award for Best Movie, considering that 2009 was a spectacularly dull movie going year (don't even get me started with Pocahontas-cum-Smurfs!)
This movie hides behind a thin veneer of "war is hell", but never for one second - like most American war movies - veer from the "support the troops" discourse (in fact, the people in the US armed forces are described as "superheroes" in the supplemental material on the DVD). Although war might be hell, we always are supposed to sympathize with those (supposedly) brave and gallant men and women who are fighting it, never portraying them in a negative way, or even delivering the slightest criticism towards the actions of US troops.
This, of course, is true of most movies claiming to be anti war. Those who dare step outside the propagandist "support the troops" framework and deal with the atrocities perpetrated by US soldiers are punished by being accused of treason (like Brian De Palma who did "Redacted", a fictionalized account about the Mahmudiyah killings, where an entire Iraqi family was murdered and a 14 year old girl gang raped and murdered by US troops) or punished economically (like Nick Broomfield's "Battle for Haditha", a movie about the massacre where 24 civilians where massacred in their homes by US troops, being shown in one single theater, raking in a whopping 10,000 dollars in its theatrical run).
Whenever someone from the US military is a bad guy in a movie, it's always some rogue element - never that the military in itself is bad and commits atrocities directed towards civilians on a regular basis. This criticism isn't limited to movies dealing with the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, but it's valid for just about any military conflict in which the US armed forces are engaged. And of course there are examples like "The Rock" where the military bad guys really turn out to be good at heart, fighting for their brethren who have been betrayed by the government (it's funny how movies are critical towards some nondescript behemoth "government", but are silent when it comes to the armed wing of the same).
In "The Hurt Locker" the US troops might as well have been wearing white hats, and all the cardboard cutout Iraqis black hats, because this movie is about as multidimensional as an old western when it comes to good guys and bad guys. In this movie Iraqis fulfill the same function as the Somalis in "Black Hawk Down" - a faceless crowd of bad guys ready to be gunned down in scores (except for one token character; most likely a result of liberal guilt).
In the DVD extras, Bigelow claims to want to "put the audience into the soldier's shoes". Her lack of interest in the plight of the Iraqis under occupation is blatantly obvious. In fact (if memory serves me right), all violence directed towards Iraqi civilians is perpetrated by other Iraqis. The US soldiers are just there to protect Iraqis. The movie is well in line with the talking points of the US regime (it doesn't matter if it's run by Republicans or Democrats - same sh*t, different suit).
This movie is just another example of a cowardly movie industry, resulting in a film which is anti war in name only. Always a good way of getting movie going liberals to ease their guilt.