I really did not like this movie. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. I'm not an army guy but this movie was clearly ridiculous.

*spoilers*
First, them casually walking up to the bombs, they have those robots for a reason. But this is far from the worst.
They meet a special forces team and come under attack from an enemy sniper, presumably using a low tech sniper gun. The special ops fire back with a Barret 50 cal and miss. Then the special ops guy is killed by the enemy sniper. Now the guy from the EOD takes over the sniper rifle and sits in exactly the same place. He can't fire because there's blood on his bullets so he casually waits there (in the sight of the enemy sniper) till the bullets are cleaned. He misses a few shots and then finally gets the sniper. Then suddenly his skills increase tenfold because he hits a running Iraqi in one shot. EOD are not snipers!
Then there is the part in the city to a bomb site, and then run into a random city block looking for the bombers. And then they split up. WTF?
I'm sure there was more crap that I can't think of at the moment.

The movie tries to convey this gritty realism but then fails big time. I really can't understand all the praise it gets.

Critical review by a veteran:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234064
The Hurt Locker tries to articulate that experience, but those of us who have served in the military couldn't help but be distracted by a litany of inaccuracies that reveal not only a lack of research, but ultimately respect for the American military.

NPR approached from this angle.

>> ^cybrbeast:
. EOD are not snipers!


From what I understand, EOD personnel are trained in the use of the Barret for long range explosive detonation. I can buy them taking out an entrenched enemy sniper, especially one bunkered in a lone structure out in the middle of nowhere (although this particular enemy sniper was pretty damn effective), but yeah...I agree that tagging the runner was a bit of a stretch.

Reviews may be a fun distraction to reinforce the views and opinions you already hold, but they're ultimately pointless when it comes to trying to determine the value of something. Nowadays, people tend to know beforehand if they're going to go see a movie, and in the past it was more effective to ask friends and family, people who's opinion matter and whose tastes in film you know and can make a decision on.

I see professional to semi-professional reviewers as a form of entertainment separate from their supposed role of trying to determine for you if you want to see what they're scrutinizing. It's simply that on just about any given film, two reviewers can look at the same scene and come to two diametrically opposed conclusions, so the actual value of their work is questionable at best. In the end, they tend to make people feel bad about having different opinions on the thing that is reviewed, and that's inexcusable in my mind.

Kreegath, sometimes you can find reviewers who have a similar taste to your own and use them as a guide.
I really wish that IMDb had a feature where it keeps record of my votes and compares it to other peoples votes, and then gives an extra rating based on what people like me rate the movie.

>> ^Djevel:
>> ^cybrbeast:
. EOD are not snipers!

From what I understand, EOD personnel are trained in the use of the Barret for long range explosive detonation.

I guess you're right

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php
However I doubt they would have the skill and endurance of real snipers. And it's still ridiculous that the British special ops were taken out like pansies and couldn't even repair their own tire.

There was an excellent article about US Army EODs in Playboy in 2005. Though some of the information is surely outdated by now (we have made some amazing advances in warfare in the last 6 years) it's still worth a read for anyone interested in this aspect of the war.

Here's a link to a censored, reasonably SFW copy of the article: http://www.brownorigin.com/ArmyEODNews/Armyeodonplayboy1.htm

>> ^cybrbeast:

They meet a special forces team and come under attack from an enemy sniper, presumably using a low tech sniper gun.


I don't think they were meant to be SAS, but private contractors. At one point I remember him shooting the prisoners as they were trying to escape and talked about a reward. I've read a lot of non-fiction about the SAS over the years, there's no way the SAS goes around collecting bounties. Though it's not really said in the film, I don't think that's what they're implying. So feel safe in that knowledge!

On the other hand, I did have problems with the film also, despite how well it portrayed the 'addiction' to war. Chris Hedges has described this phenomenon vividly, something that is never talked about.

In the film it is never even mentioned WHY the Iraqis attack American forces. That their entire army was disbanded when it was standing ready to assist, or de-Baathification which had thrown many out of work, for a couple of examples. So we're left to conclude, if we know nothing else about the history of the country, that they just simply hate Americans for no reason. It's not at least suggested that might be a more complicated answer.

Shooting a target that is on the move is not very hard provided you've practiced it enough.

It's all very complicated, I think Gunny Hathcock called it SWAG. In a book called One Shot one kill.

Now as I understand it, once a sniper has taken a shot they EXFIL their hide depending on how bad the situation is. If shit hit the fan I'd imagine they GTFO, but if it was a successful one shot one kill job then they would make their way to the extraction point very slow like. So as not to give away their positions and fuck up on the one yard line.

Sniping you have a lot of shit to deal with. Weather, range, ballistics, and trajectory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper

Once you understand how a scope works, and how to deal with the ballistics of the shell you've chosen for the job the rest is practice.

Looking at the targeting section of the Wikipedia entry on snipers I can't say that is easy. Because I sure as hell don't understand it with just a cursory glance.

I would wonder why the "special forces" in the movie are called special at all. They looked like a ragtag team of douchebags to me.

Moving this video to cybrbeast's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I would wonder why the "special forces" in the movie are called special at all. They looked like a ragtag team of douchebags to me.
Maybe they weren't special forces. But I thought they were because it looked like they were disguised in local clothing, which you wouldn't expect from normal forces.