Tuesday, July 21, 2009

THE HURT LOCKER

Without question, the Iraq War/War on Terror-era has been host to some of the worst wartime cinema in history. Just make a list: Syriana, The Kingdom, In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, the Bourne movies, United 93, A Mighty Heart, The Road to Guantanamo, Traitor... the list goes on. However, somewhere around two years ago, things started to change. We got a rush of average-to-good films (ie, improved and undeniably better than the aforementioned) that shifted focus away from the grandstanding Hollywood types who just wanted to show-off their smarts, to the actual impact that the war has on soldiers and their families. In short, the "Iraq War movie" got a personalized makeover. Among this new batch of films were Grace is Gone, The Lucky Ones, Home of the Brave, and Battle for Haditha.

Perhaps, as a blogger friend once offered up, the poor quality of these films - and, thus, the public's shrugged reaction to them - was all just a matter of poor artistic digestion. Meaning, it's possible that many of our modern-day war films were just prematurely made in the shadows of 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, in a time where we all were still scrambling to get a foot hold on our own political feelings and beliefs. If the lawmakers in Washington took advantage of our unsettled natures, at the time, to make decisions and pass legislation, then so did our filmmakers push their agendas on us in films, that in hindsight, look a lot like propaganda. But it's my prediction that, since the dust has settled (relatively speaking), we shall begin to see more textured and thoughtful films about the experiences and trickle-down effects on Iraq War veterans and active duty soldiers. Of course, it's easy to make such a statement after seeing Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, not only the best Iraq War film to date, but one of the best war films, period.

Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal (who was embedded with a U.S. military bomb squad for a period of time) part the seas of loud politics and media noise that compromised so many of those early Iraq War films, and focus their lens & pen square on the soldiers of a bomb disposal unit in Iraq. There is little talk of politics, foreign policy, or current events amongst the soldiers outside of the events that dominate their days of surviving. Bigelow's idea to play The Hurt Locker as a kind of thriller doesn't harm it at all. In fact, it enhances it. It would be disingenuous to try and replicate the experiences of ground combat and then ask the audience to empathize with it. Most of us can't. By narrowing the focus down to a single bomb squad, Bigelow still doesn't make the the tensions, fears, and victories that these three men experience relatable, but they do feel instantly identifiable.

A lot of the early hype surrounding The Hurt Locker singles-out the performance of Jeremy Renner. Well, believe the hype - I suspect the guy will be a shoo-in for Best Actor nominee - but don't discount the character work that both he and screenwriter Mark Boal fleshed-out together. In a way, Renner's Staff Sergeant is every part the typical Kathryn Bigelow cocksure male, but, in addition to that, he owns a kicked-back sensitivity that pushes the character beyond the awesome cartoonish-ness of, say, Bodhi in Point Break or Severin in Near Dark.

Our introduction to Renner's character is big-screen macho poetry. While listening to some heavy metal as Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, also great... the two actors share on screen chemistry that rivals that of Sally Hawkins and Eddie Marsan from last year's Happy-Go-Lucky) approaches him for reassignment, Renner gets off a line about the trade-off of sunshine coming through the window versus mortar shells penetrating the roof. In many, many other hands, this scene would have flirted with the embarrassingly dramatic, but Bigelow's respectfully backed-off camera capturing Renner's posture and dialogue brings home a 2009 moment-to-remember.

If I have one beef with The Hurt Locker, it's in the quote that Kathryn Bigelow uses to open her film with. I don't recall it word-for-word, but the last part reads something to the effect of, "war is an addiction". It comes from socialist historian/field reporter Chris Hedges, who, in knowing his opinions on war, most likely penned the phrase in dramatically different terms than the sentiment that Bigelow expresses in her film. While Bigelow undoubtedly traces the addictive nature of combat, that adrenaline fix of "rolling the dice on life or death", she also portrays the soldiers as heroic (the tag line on The Hurt Locker's poster is "YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A HERO TO DO THIS JOB, BUT IT HELPS"). However, Hedges' reflections on war often speak of red-fanged warmongers and hawks getting pumped on carnage and power. That's not the kind of adrenaline Bigelow is tapping here, and the quote feels sorely misplaced.

Otherwise, 2009 is feeling mildly special to me in that it's marked the "return" of both Sam Raimi and Kathryn Bigelow, two old-time favorites who had disappeared - either entirely off the radar, or down the hole of lame film franchise - but now return, perhaps, stronger than ever.

24 comments:

Rick Olson said...

Fox, have you even SEEN a Bourne movie? (Just getting back at you for the comment over at TOERIFC ...)

But really, I don't think you can classify them in the same breath as "Rendition" They're just crappy movies, I don't think you can count on them to carry the full weight of your disdain for the Iraq movies.

What burns me about the reception of the Iraq movies is it seems to have little to do with their quality (most got fair to middlin' reviews) and everything to do with their politics. You seem to have betrayed some of the same with your dislike of the Hedges quote, which if I read you right, is based on your knowledge of Hedges' politics. I may be wrong -- I know that would shock you -- but you seem to base your judgment on the quote's appropriateness on Hedges' other work, unrelated to the movie. How fair is that?

And while we're on the subject, how in any way is the opinion that war is an addiction incongruent with a film that shows the uncontested heroism of our soldiers over there?

Since when have political, anti-war movies become verboten? That is the real driving force about the disdain for the Iraq movies, that they dare to opine that there is something wrong with our foreign policy, and contradict the carefully constructed national narrative over the Iraq war. It reminds me of the sad, almost un-lamented death of the protest song, a staple of my growing-up days in the 60s and 70s. Now criticizing the government in a song can ruin your career; witness what happened to the Dixie Chicks.

Fox said...

Now criticizing the government in a song can ruin your career; witness what happened to the Dixie Chicks....

You mean they had a #1 album that went double platinum and won them arms loads of Grammys?? Yeah, their life is tough.

But you're reading me a bit wrong here, I think. I'm not ranting against anti-war films. Quite the opposite, in fact. Grace is Gone and The Lucky Ones are anti-war films (in my opinion). They succeed because they focus on the personal, the effect that war has on people, on the soliders, and not broad generalized, polemical swipes that just preach to choirs.

That's not to say that war films shouldn't be political, there just haven't been any films to do it well in our current era as of yet. In that way, the quality of a movie like, say, Syriana does have to do with it's politics, because it's bumbling and preachy and distancing from the audience. That's why I think a movie like it will be perceieved as propaganda in 20 years. When the focus is narrower, when it's on say, the soldiers or the families, I think Iraq War films hit the right notes and succeed, and I think that's where we are headed... thankfully.

My problem with Hedges' quote being used in the film - and mind you, it's a minor problem since I've made clear that this is one of my favorite films of the year, so far - is that he is not a writer that champions (or even simply recognizes) soldiers and war heroism in his writing. Which is fine, he doesn't need to, but it just doesn't make since to me to use a quote from a virulentyly anti-Iraq War guy in a movie that is essentially non-political.

But you're correct that I haven't read the bulk of Hedges' work. I've only read from his columns and reporting, and I've never read a book of his. (It's my understanding that the quote in The Hurt Locker is from one of his books). So, if my assesment of Hedges is off, I will gladly eat crow, because my impression of him is only built from a portion of his work. That's a fair point by you.

Rick Olson said...

No, my point was that in your piece -- which I really liked overall -- is that you seemed to judge the appropriateness of the quote by who Hedges is rather than what the quote said and whether it was appropriate to the film.

In your answer to me, you do it again:

Which is fine, he doesn't need to, but it just doesn't make since to me to use a quote from a virulently anti-Iraq War guy in a movie that is essentially non-political ...

What difference does it make what Hedges' politics are if the quote is apropos? If you'd have said "This quote is really out of place, its sentiment doesn't fit with the movie" then I wouldn't have a problem. But instead, you say in essence that the quote is inappropriate because it comes from a guy who is anti-Iraq war.

If the same quote had come from, say, Robert Gates or another Iraq-war supporter, would you have had the same problem? I myself would judge the appropriateness of the quote on its own merits, i.e., whether it's a good fit with the flick rather than who said it. To do otherwise is to politicize your review.

Rick Olson said...

And what I mean about the Dixie Chicks is that their lives were threatened multiple times and they were banned from entire markets because they expressed an opinion in a country where free speech is supposedly protected.

So there.

Fox said...

you seemed to judge the appropriateness of the quote by who Hedges is rather than what the quote said and whether it was appropriate to the film....

Well, you can't separate the quote from the person, can you? If the quote had come from Bill Cosby, Walter Mathau, or Adolf Hitler instead, I would have judged it on the fact that it came from their mouths. If it would have come from Robert Gates, I would have judged it in that context as well.

But I wouldn't say that The Hurt Locker is a film that is in support of the Iraq War. I think it's about soldiers, specifically soldiers who are considerably closer to death at every active moment than most of the others. So, I don't think an open supporter of the war would have been appropriate source to quote from either. But Gates is a soldier, so it might have worked in that respect. But I just can't say.

My thing is that I don't think Kathryn Bigelow is trying to polticize with her film, so a quote coming from Hedges' just feels misplaced.

The words, on there own, certainly apply to the movie. I agree with you on that. But my guess is that the context of Hedges' words from his book is not the same context that Bigelow gives us in her film. I could be wrong. But yes, my hunch is driven my feelings about him.

As for the Dixie Chicks, I detest anyone who would send them death threats, but their whole "woe is me, I don't have free speech" thing was a crock. If a radio station chooses to ban your music, that's their own business decision. If the FCC does it, then THAT is suppression of speech. Their first ammendment rights were never threatened, and the fact that they became martyrs for that cause - while ironically receiving more press than they ever had previously - just drove me crazy.

Marilyn said...

In fact, the Dixie Chicks were hurt financially by the boycott, which was not a business decision, but rather a political one. I'm sure some of the radio stations' listeners agreed with the ban, but the fact is that they were enormously popular and probably still had a lot of fans who didn't care what they said (and maybe agreed with them). That's not a free-speech issue, per se, but it is part of the ideological war that media uses to suppress differing opinion.

It was not my impression that the DCs were pulling the "woe is me" routine. They are, none of them and especially not Natalie Maines, who made the remark, shrinking violets given to self-pity.

Fox said...

Marilyn-

I find it laughable that the Dixie Chicks' differing opinions were "suppressed" in any way. They were all over the place!

If a radio station chooses not to play an artist's music based on their opinions, then it can be just as much a political statement as the Dixie Chicks saying what they said, but I still don't see how your review shows that some radio stations decisions to not play their music wasn't of the business kind. If listeners are saying they will boycott your station and sponsers, then it is a business decision to not play a specific artist.

As for "woe is me", well, I point to that EW magazine cover that is posted in your review.

With some of the mainstream country music listeners they may have lost, the Dixie Chicks also picked up many new listeners on the pop-rock scene. And while I don't doubt that they were hurt financially by losing some of their country music fans, that's just what happens when you step into the arena of ideas. Some people will choose to not like you because of what you say or who you are outside of your art, and that's their right.

Marilyn said...

FOX - The media has become increasingly politicized and polarized. I don't think it was a tough decision for country music stations to boycott the Chicks, even if they might have lost money doing it. That's why I don't think it was mainly a business decision.

Rolling Stone set up that cover shot, not the Chicks - what is so woe-is-me about it? They got some attention with a nontraditional fan base. That's smart.

Fox said...

Rolling Stone set up that cover shot, not the Chicks...

Well, regardless of who set the shot up, I find it hard to believe that the Dixie Chicks didn't have say in whether they went through with it or not. Surely they knew it would be an iconic image that would follow them around for the rest of their careers.

- what is so woe-is-me about it?...

Portraying youselves as stripped naked victims branded with TRAITOR on your body strikes me as a plea for pity.

And I agree that it was smart that they used the conflict to recruit Rick Rubin, to morph their image a bit, and then to cross-over to a more rock/pop audience. That's good business thinking. I give them major credit for the way they dealth with the anger/backlash from their older fans by appealing to a different segment of consumers. They adapted and survived. And of course it helped that they are good songwriters.

Jason Bellamy said...

I had hoped to avoid reading this review until I'd written mine, but then I saw all those comments popping up and I couldn't resist the unfolding debate ...

* I believe the quote is, "War is a drug." And I think both Rick and Fox have made good arguments as to whether it matters who authored the quote. Clearly if someone has a gut reaction to the author, as Fox does to Hedges, it can suggest in the very first frame of the film that it's some kind of political statement, rather than just a statement about what it's about. I'm not familiar with Hedges beyond the name, so all I saw was the quote. Thus I felt the quote wasn't "sorely misplaced" at all but was absolutely appropriate. This is a war movie, yes. And it's a mostly apolitical one, yes. But it is absolutely a film about addiction, too.

* On the Dixie Chicks debate... Fox, I think you're misremembering or accidentally misrepresenting things here. I don't remember the Chicks saying anyone took away their free speech in any Constituional way. What I remember is the Chicks complaining about an environment wherein questioning our country was likened to anti-Americanism.

Likewise, they complained about the way they were outcasted by the country music industry. You can call that a business decision, that's fine. But then when the Chicks fight against the gutlessness of that decision (an outright ban? I mean, come on!), that's not "woe is me."

Most importantly though, you're getting things out of order: Yes, their album went on to be a huge success. But that success was by no means guarunteed. And the fact that they endured and came through it because of their talent doesn't somehow excuse the acts they suffered.

Now, having said that, sure, by the end of it all were you ready for Natalie Maines to go away? Probably so. Per usual, did it turn into media hype that went on too long precisely at the point that it wasn't really news anymore? You bet. But a few of your arguments suggest that the Chicks had the end result in view when the whole mess started. And that's misleading.

Good passionate debate at Tractor Facts, as always.

Marilyn said...

Portraying youselves as stripped naked victims branded with TRAITOR on your body strikes me as a plea for pity.

Of course they agreed to do the cover. All I'm saying is the RS conceived the idea - always ready for a little cheesecake from the womenfolk. If you look at the words, they don't just say "Traitor"; there are affirmative labels, too, like "Hero". I think, if anything, the cover shows what an ideological battleground they became. And don't forget the death threats. That's serious stuff.

Fox said...

Jason-

The only acts they suffered that were "inexcusable" were the death threats.

I don't agree with boycotts myself (I personally refrain from giving specific people my business, but I never get into large scale boycotts), but it's still the right of people to do it. I don't agree with the way some people in Hollywood created a "no-buy" list of businesses/people that supported Prop-8 in California, but it's their right to do so.

What I'm saying is that I don't think those actions are "inexcusable". I may not like them, but I don't think they're out of bounds.

Fox, I think you're misremembering or accidentally misrepresenting things here. I don't remember the Chicks saying anyone took away their free speech in any Constituional way....

You may be right. And I don't mean that as a slight acknowledgment of you being right, I just don't have the time to look for quotes from them. However, you must admit that that's how their story was portrayed by a media that wanted to fluff the story up. Again, I hate to keep bringing up that EW cover, but centered in that image on Natalie's arms is "FREE SPEECH", as if it's the central issue at hand. It wasn't.

What I remember is the Chicks complaining about an environment wherein questioning our country was likened to anti-Americanism....

OK, but what I would say to that is big deal! I would argue against someone who called the DCs anti-American based on Natalie's comment, but that's one of the great things about free speech. All of us have been called natsy things on our blogs (granted, not to the level of The Dixie Chicks), but it's one of the consequences of speaking your mind.

Likewise, they complained about the way they were outcasted by the country music industry. You can call that a business decision, that's fine. But then when the Chicks fight against the gutlessness of that decision (an outright ban? I mean, come on!), that's not "woe is me."...

I know of no outright ban from the Country music industry at all. I don't even know what that means, really. Outcasts? Maybe a bit, but I know they're still friends (and work) with alot of Nashville musicians and industry types.

Now "outcasts" from Country radio and "banned" from various country radio stations, yes.

But a few of your arguments suggest that the Chicks had the end result in view when the whole mess started. And that's misleading....

I'm a little confused on what you mean there, but if you took my complimenting them on their Rick Rubin transformation as a sarcastic swipe of them having some long-planned calculated agenda, I really wasn't. I really was saying that I think they handled their career in a very smart way (as Marilyn said) after the whole incident(s). I mean, The Dixie Chicks were already moving towards an "LA country"/pop-country crossover sound (a la Taylor Swift) way back on their Fly album as it was, so their shift wasn't so surpising. But the controversy surely helped them with it.

Jason Bellamy said...

Fox: Last part first.

I was mostly responding to this comment: "You mean they had a #1 album that went double platinum and won them arms loads of Grammys?? Yeah, their life is tough."

Yes, that's how things ended up, but there was a time when the Chicks were being frozen out of country radio and had no reason to think that the boycotts and no-play campaigns were going to be to their ultimate benefit. My point is simply that just because the controversy may have helped the Chicks in the end, it could have proved to be there undoing. They were fortunate it turned out the way it did. It's not as if they had awards in hand when country radio is tearing down their reputation. And even then, wrong is wrong.

To clarify a different point: Yes, by "ban" I was referring to the network of country radio stations that banned the playing of Chicks music. Not the best wording choice. My bad.

As for the free speech issue ...

While I disgree that the Chicks were complaning about constitutional rights, there was indeed a "free speech" issue to the debate in that the "You hate America" mobs effectively managed to create prior restraint, which is an element of free speech.

Now, to be clear, no speech is "free." I understand that. It can have consequences, and that's OK. But if the mob gets big enough, and their ability to punish the speaker gets strong enough, then essentially the mob has the power to issue punishment for speech. The reaction to Maines' comment didn't just punish the Chicks, it sent a message to anyone else who might have a similar opinion and dare to voice it. So in a social way, if not quite a legal way, it was a free speech issue, I think.

Anyway, this could lead into more tangents, but I've run out of time. Sorry if the thoughts above aren't fully formed.

Fox said...

Jason-

You're points were fully formed, I just disagree. (Although I sympathize with the time crunch on the thoughts you may want to get out... again, wouldn't it be nice if we got paid for this???)

Now, maybe it's b/c I live in a city (Austin) where people stand at the capital and on street corners and in coffee shops and yell whatever they want almost every day, but I really never felt that a message was sent across the country to "shut up". Further, I'm not so sure people did shut up. Tons of celebs ripped into Bush with regularity over his 8 years (even the freakin' Rolling Stones referenced Brown & Root in one of their songs for chrissakes!).

Anyways, it always seemed pretty loud from where I was standing. (Where has that noise gone NOW is what I'm really curious about?).

The below comment that you made is a very rich one to comment one (it could create a whole new thread, in fact):

But if the mob gets big enough, and their ability to punish the speaker gets strong enough, then essentially the mob has the power to issue punishment for speech....

But it depends on what you mean by "punishment". Because in its legal sense (for example: a group bulldozing Dixie Chicks cds), people gathering to fight against something is just "people power". And that's kind of the purest way to change things. Now, I think using that type of group strength to go after a band is really stupid and silly, but in its simplest form, it is just another type of speech going up against another type of speech. If I say "Jason sucks!" and then 50 other people say, "no he doesn't... YOU SUCK AND WE'RE NEVER COMING TO TRACTOR FACTS AGAIN!!!" that is just speech vs. speech. That's kind of how I view the whole Dixie Chicks contro.

Now, physical violence? Death threats? That's another kind of "punishment". A despicable kind.

As long as that "punishment" is not criminal (ie violence) or that "punishment" doesn't come from the government, then I don't see how someone can say their free speech was taken away.

Lastly, on their success...

Yes, that's how things ended up, but there was a time when the Chicks were being frozen out of country radio and had no reason to think that the boycotts and no-play campaigns were going to be to their ultimate benefit. My point is simply that just because the controversy may have helped the Chicks in the end, it could have proved to be there undoing. They were fortunate it turned out the way it did. It's not as if they had awards in hand when country radio is tearing down their reputation. And even then, wrong is wrong....

Mmmm... maybe. We'll never know, and let's be sure to be fair here and mention that not every single country radio station did a blanket ban on the Dixie Chicks. Personally, I think the "lock-out" of them was blown out of proportion, but it's been so long since it happened, that maybe I am wrong. I don't care to try and remember at this point.

I don't know how I feel about the use of "wrong" in "wrong is wrong" (maybe we're splitting semantic hairs at this point, but, oh well...), but I would agree with you about the asshole-ish behavior of someone like Toby Keith. Here's a guy in a position of influence that rallied his troops against fellow artists. Again, he can surely do that if he wishes, but I think he's a scummy jerk to do so. Plus, I think he was purposely cashing in on their controversy.

Jason Bellamy said...

Quick backs ...

"Wrong is wrong." It's just a general statement. The point is to disagree with the notion that if everything ends well, wrongs against you are moot. To the point that the treatment of the Chicks was in any way wrong, inappropriate, unjust, unfair, stupid, whatever you want to call it, then it is, even if there's a fairy tale ending.

I really never felt that a message was sent across the country to "shut up".

Really? Then you never saw Bill O'Reilly (who, yes, ripped the Chicks on more than one occaision). As recently as the 2004 election it was still political suicide to oppose the war in Iraq, for example. Remember the whole "They want us to lose in Iraq" garbage? My point is that Maines was labeled as part of that crowd. When the angry mob -- and Fox is fucking influential -- has pitchforks sharpened and at your throat, how free is your speech? Follow me? Yes, you still have a right to it. You can't go to jail for saying something. But the effort that was made was to undermine the Chicks' careers. That's not just words against words.

As long as that "punishment" is not criminal (ie violence) or that "punishment" doesn't come from the government, then I don't see how someone can say their free speech was taken away.

I addressed that: "in a social way, if not quite a legal way, it was a free speech issue."

So, yes, there was nothing illegal about the treatment of the Chicks. But that doesn't mean people weren't trying to quash their speech.

Fox said...

When the angry mob -- and Fox is fucking influential -- has pitchforks sharpened and at your throat, how free is your speech? Follow me?...

I think that's a little dramatic, but I doubt we will convince each other otherwise.

I probably didn't make this clear enough in my last comment, but my point on the "shut up!" message sweeping across the country was that yes it was "sent out", but it certainly didn't effect anyone from where I was sitting. Sure, Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher and all those cable characters do their schtick (even that little weasle Jeffrey Wells said last year that if he had his druthers he'd make sure Jon Voight didn't get hired for calling Obama a socialist) and all those guys will do what they do, but who cares.

I mean do you really feel that there was a hush over America during the Bush years? I've always seen that claim as some straw man that young people set up so they can feel like they're at Kent St. all over again. I mean, dude, everyone and their mom ripped into Bush over his 8 years. And, you know what? Good for them!! Politicians need to be ripped.

It just feels like we're in an era where when one guy is in office, the other ideology will side will automatically scream "we're being silenced", when no, really, you're actually not.

Jason Bellamy said...

OK, last points and then I'll surrender.

It just feels like we're in an era where when one guy is in office, the other ideology will side will automatically scream "we're being silenced", when no, really, you're actually not.

I agree with the general spirit of that argument but not in this specific case.

True, O'Reilly never made me afraid to call Bush an idiot, for example. But he doesn't know me. Can't call me by name.

Just because anonymous people might not have felt intimidated, anyone with a public voice had to look at the treatment of the Chicks and take pause for what might happen to them.

It was absolutely intimidation. Intimidation creates prior restraint, at least in the practical sense, if not a legal one.

OK. Back to our corners.

Fox said...

Corners? Nah... it's time to go get some ice cream. You buy!

Hokahey said...

"The Hurt Locker, not only the best Iraq War film to date, but one of the best war films, period." Wow, that's high praise. I'd rather give the "best Iraq War film" distinction to the much better constructed and more powerful Battle for Haditha. As for "one of the best war films" - I can't agree with you there. I felt the film wandered, and my mind wandered. I feel it started out well, but then the latter half seemed disjointed and aimless to me.

PIPER said...

Fox,

I caught this over the weekend, and thought it was great.

I completely agree with you that the quote stuck out to me as not necessary. I think it was something like "war is a drug." It's the only part that felt like I was being spoon fed a "message."

When I was at Cub Scouts with my son at an overnight, another father was one who had just completed his tour. He was in full camo and had a camelback attached which I thought was kind of funny since we were about 15 minutes from a gas station. He was talking to another father about missing it. That he felt like over there he was really doing something important. Never mind that he was a husband and father of two. It was a really depressing conversation that I overheard and The Hurt Locker made me feel the same way. An excellent scene in the cereal isle hits this home perfectly without being too much.

To me, the message was that War isn't necessarily a drug, it's just something that people are more cut out for than others. That the regimen of war is something people like. In a way, it's a much more simple life. That is when you're not diffusing bombs that will blow up square blocks.

On a separate note, I continue to have a problem with war as entertainment. I feel kind of guilty enjoying it. Not unlike our conversation about The Black Book. It should feel historic for some reason. But that's just me and I'm fucked up that way. Because on the other side of my mouth I will say that Three Kings still remains my favorite of these current war movies. And that's all entertainment.

Moroccan said...

This blogger is an apologist of war, government sponsored murder, torture, napalm bombs, abuse of civilians, wanton destruction of property, violation of international law, violation of morals and ethics, violation of the rights of millions of innocent people with weaker guns, violation of human dignity, imperialism and military occupations.

People like the blogger are the Nazis of our time.

They think they are better than everyone else, everything else, in the past, now and forever

They think they are entitled to murder, destroy and subject anybody, anything whenever they feel like.

Their righteousness is not based a moral standards but on the standard of violence, bigger bombs, more advanced weapons and bigger armies of imperialism.

Let it be known despite the bigger guns, the neo-Nazis of today will not be able to force us into submission and that the world will not submit to this violent supremacist ideology that thrives on killing anything in its path (shock and awe).

The neo-Nazis believe they own our lives, the planet and the universe.

History is recording and one day justice will be served like it served the Nazis of Germany.

Jason Bellamy said...

Fox, I didn't know your mom's name was Moroccan.

Anonymous said...

Mark Boal has a history of taking other people's ideas and running with them. Why the mad rush to make an "Osama Bin Laden movie!!" with the not-so-innocent Kathryn Bigelow? Why are they still rushing to write it and hurry into production? Could it be that they have someone else's work told to them and "gotta get it first'? Please. I walked out half way through Hurt Locker. Horrible movie -- slim pickings at the Oscars that year.

Viagra Online said...

That list of movies is too perfect for me because I like films where I can see action and those ones aren't the exception.