"The Hurt Locker" with emphasis on "HURT"

Rating: 3/10 (4 April 2010)

I was watching the Oscars, and I thought "WOW" because AVATAR didn't win best picture. I honestly thought that it would be a clean sweep for AVATAR, it would win pretty much everything that it was nominated for. AVATAR was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, it won three. This film was also nominated for 9 Academy Awards, it won six, including Best Picture and Best Director. It won for writing, sound, editing and sound editing. I watched it with high hopes that it would truly be the best film of the year. I was disappointed to say the least. I wondered how it won those Oscars. So lets analyze this.
Writing- There was no clear line from point A to point B. It was simply a series of events in combat. That COULD'VE worked, but it didn't. The character depth was shallow and they were very unlikable. Plus, it had a pretty stupid and pointless ending.
Sound & Sound Editing- I don't fully understand the categories, but I guess it sounded alright.
Editing- It was alright, but it shouldn't have won.
Direction- Are you kidding me? How was this the best directed? Do you think that the Academy just didn't want to be sexist, and give the Oscar to a woman? Maybe. Kathryn Bigelow is a good director, but she wasn't the best director. The Queasy-Cam was seizure inducing, and I get that she was trying to give a real war-like feel, but it just didn't work for me. It was basically shot in second person.
Picture- Now I haven't seen Precious, A Serious Man, and An Education, but i've seen the other nominated films, and they were all superior to this film. Up, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds, The Blind Side, and District 9. Even though AVATAR was just a piece of eye-candy, it was still WAY better than this.
It was also nominated for Best Actor, Jeremy Renner, who I can honestly say did a pretty bad performance. Not Razzie worthy, but not Oscar worthy either. Cinematography (refer back to Queasy-Cam) and the music, both nominated, were awful. There was actually no music that comes to mind.
Either way, don't believe the hype. Roger Ebert's 4 star rating, RT's 97% fresh rating, IMDb's 7.9 rating, and the best picture win doesn't mean anything. For anyone who calls it a redefining of the action genre, there is no action in this. Go watch T2, True Lies, Die Hard, and all of the Indiana Jones flicks so you can immerse yourself in REAL action.
The final word: I would give it a 6 or 7, but the fact that it is HUGELY overrated makes me deduct points. 3/10. Go watch it, get disappointed, then watch a real action movie.