I’m probably not going to see it (I generally don’t go see movies, period), but I do have a question about the tv ad. Near the end of the ad, there’s one soldier/marine standing in sand, and suddenly it looks like four bombs(?) come up out of the sand around him. What’s going on there? Are there really mines/bombs that pop up like that, in unison?
They’re all wired together in a cluster, but buried. The demolition expert has found the lead wire where they are joined, and by gently pulling on them, they all begin to emerge and become visible (which is necessary because he has to defuse each one).
I just saw this movie, it was phenomenal. The performances were great and I am glad to see Kathryn Bigelow doing well.
William James is a fabulous character, and the answer provided for why he is the way he is at the end is heart wrenching. The range of his emotional performance was very impressive, from adrenaline soaked jubilation to despair.
There was one jarring moment which was seminal to the plot where:
All of the Brits are getting killed off immediately and they hold the same positions as the brits for quite some time and don’t get shot. I just didn’t like the way they glossed over the existance of the SAS group in order to show their family bonding moment.
All in all it was a fantastic film.
I saw it opening week and really liked it. The audience in my theater had a lot of inappropriate laughter going on (not during the honestly unny parts but in some pretty non-funny bits). I’m glad I went in only knowing a little bit about it.
Yeah, I loved not knowing much about it. In the beginning when I saw Guy Pearce I was like, “Well I know they won’t kill him because he’s the biggest name actor on screen, he must be the star.” By establishing is rapport with the team and playing off of his camera presence they really setup the disruption that Will James brought to the table. 
I assumed that those guys were mercenaries and not SAS or any other part of a nation’s military. The one guy shot the captives when they tried to escape and said he gets the reward if they’re dead or alive. Though I don’t know if that really changes your point.
The main character was not a team player and took unnecessary risks (too many to name). I don’t think those guys get command slots/last. It should also be noted that alcohol use by American troops is forbidden and will land you in the brig - not that it doesn’t happen. I have lots of military family, most with time in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve only talked with a few of them about this and my statements regarding the films “realism” is based on their assessment, not mine. I am sure parts of it are spot on. I liked the film overall and agree it’s worth seeing.
I saw it last night and it was pretty good. There were a couple of scenes that really tested my suspension of disbelief though. Particularly [spoiler] When he car jacked that Iraqi, pulled up his hooded sweatshirt and drove off base, down town and then ran through downtown Baghdad to get back to post. There is ZERO chance that he would have even gotten off base. No chance in hell. It’s not like these guys just drive on and off post at will. He would have gone through a checkpoint on the way out where he would have been seen with his dark, american hoodie pulled up over his head…
No chance that he wouldn’t have been locked up when he came back either. After the huge scene the gate guards made he would have been far to visible to avoid formal reprimand. That entire sequence was unnecessary.
I also could have done without the last 5 minutes.
[/spoiler]
Otherwise the performances were all really good. Shaky cam made me nauseas a few times. Did a good job of making you feel the desolation of that region.
Yeah, doesn’t change my point, but it’s a good observation, I missed that little detail.
Part of what I think of the main character is that he was such a hot shot in such a dangerous job that he might be able to get away with more, but yeah, that one scene was pretty ludicrous. That whole interlude honestly could be cut from the film and it would still be a great film. Probably a better one honestly.
Oddly, this was one of the things I was told could happen up to a point. In other words, the character could have gotten off base and out into the town, done what he did, and returned the way he did with the reaction being the same but that’s where things change - there would have been some sort of questioning, report, etc. Remember, only a few years ago an soldier threw a grenade into a group of ther soldiers. I don’t think they overlook the possibility of someone turning
there’s more to it than that interlude, though
thinking about the three of them chasing the bomber toward the end when the blond soldier’s leg gets shot
Like I said, good flick, save the last five (maybe even two) minutes. I wouldn’t be so critical otherwise. You won’t find me quibling over the realism of Point Break, to again mention a lessser Bigelow picture.
whole bean, the parts that you are saying were unrealistic have one thing in common…
That James is a loose cannon.
Isn’t that largely the entire plot of the movie?
which goes back to my earlier statement:
So, maybe this is an example of a well executed film that tells a stupid story. Wouldn’t be the first.
I hate to say it but if you find the ending of the movie to be poor then I daresay you didn’t get it.
The last few minutes were the answer to Sergeant Sanborn’s question regarding why he is the way he is. The ending was perfect.
Tell his son that he loves only one thing, and it turns out that one thing is not his son or his wife, was particularly poignant. The last 5 minutes show us that he has no place in civilian life.
Right, but the problem with them was not what they were portraying but that they were executed poorly.
Point taken. If that’s the case, then the entire premise is faulty, much like the very awful Double Jeopardy. But my own opinion – as a confirmed civilian, mind you – is that James is an exceptional character, and very very lucky. Most movies are about exceptional characters, in fact.
I got that. I just didn’t like it - and by “it”, I don’t mean that that’s the way James is (i.e. reckless, selfishness, “not cut out” for civilian life). I mean that in the final scene, there was (to me) approval and endorsement of this - not indifference, not condemnation, active approval. Prior to that point, there is ambiguity toward, if not disapproval of, James’ ways, e.g. when the injured kid is boarding the helicopter. But at the end, it’s all like “Team Amercia, Fuck Yeah!” It looked like the opening scene in a video game.
I agree with the exceptional character bit. And I can give the idea a chance, really. It’s the end that gets me.
I didn’t get that from it at all. I got that it was like, “Holy shit that dude really is that nuts.” I left it with a feeling of profound sadness for him, and that Ministry track at the end yes spoke to him being a badass but:
The Delta Company 365 days on rotation tells us he’s probably going to die doing this, and his son will be left without a Father because his Father doesn’t love him, he only loves disarming bombs.
And yeah, despite being dangerous, disarming IEDs is a good thing, so there should be SOME approval.
sure, never said it wasn’t.
[spoiler] but it doesn’t have to be, and in reality most likely isn’t, performed by suicidal, careless, reckless badasses. Like I said, prior to the end, we’re given a lot reasons to dislike James. And I, like you, was sad for the people James would inevitably leave behind. I don’t think that’s what the filmmaker was after though. The last scene seems to be engineered to effectively erase any ambiguity and replace it with “Fuck Yeah.”
But, now that you mention it, that effect is largely a product of the music. I mean, had he walked down the ramp to some nihilistic, suicide-themed song, I would probably have nothing but praise [/spoiler]