really?

Rating: 3/10 (16 March 2010)

Having seen this film I must say that the only reason it won the top two Academy Awards is very simple, the Academy traditionally does not like to give Best Picture and Best Director to science fiction films and their directors. And the other nominees just didn't cut it so Hurt Locker and Kathryn Bigelow respectively won. The movie doesn't grab you as Kathryn claims it does, I was insanely bored from the very first second. The only reason I gave this movie a 3/10 is for the cinematography. So maybe Bigelow deserves some credit for that, but really, how much?? Jeremy Renner was fine, not great, not terrible, fine. Some people say that this is a very fair and realistic depiction of war versus, say, the dramatized Saving Private Ryan. Don't get me wrong, I love Saving Private Ryan, but the actual storyline is one that would never actually take place. And maybe that's why people love The Hurt Locker, because it seems like it's so true to life. This isn't something I can accurately comment on having never served in the armed forces; just throwing my thoughts out. While on that topic, however, what is happening with that soldier who said the reporter who wrote the screenplay stole his life experiences, his story, about his time in Iraq? I'm interested to see what happens with that. At any rate though, this movie was not deserving of any Academy Awards, and certain not Best Picture and Best Director. And if you've ever seen Kathryn Bigelow in interviews, she has this very cocky attitude, an undeserved sense of accomplishment. Now she has two Oscars that were given to her because she and her film were the lesser of two evils to make her even more obnoxious. All in all, don't see this film, don't waste your money or your time.