The Hurt Locker

[Collier11]

I didnt see a thread about this movie yet?

Watched it tonight, the movie is very good. Very well done, very intense. From what I hear and what ive read it very accurarely depicts what it is like to be in the middle of a war.

I highly recommend it

[Crucifax Autumn]

The movie is excellent. Great action, great characterization, and overall good plotting.

However, the biggest criticism of the movie comes from veterans and active military who were actually there. The complaints are largely that the characters do things that WOULD NOT be allowed such as leaving the green zone alone, etc.

I enjoyed it, but here are 3 comments from actual military people:


For the life of me I can not understand the blind hype and devotion to this totally unbelievable movie......and I think I have the qualifications to say so.... I am a former Special Operations soldier with 14 years in the "lifestyle" ... This movie was totally totally unreal and obviously written by someone that did very little research into life in the Army, in combat or at a team or platoon level.

Three EOD guys trouncing around Bagdad on their own????? Get Real... No chain of command????? Get Real... EOD clearing buildings??? Get Real....EOD/ Military Intelligence / Sniper qualified buck sergeant???? Get Real.... Wait... I shot and killed a bad guy and then let two guys take me without firing another shot or being injured at all???? Get Real....I carjack an Iraqi civilian, while I am only armed with a 9 mil, break into another civilians house, get punked by his wife then make it back to camp on foot in the middle of Bagdad at night without as so much as a scratch or confrontation???? Get Real...

There is absolutely no adherence to military protocol {Army} and no resemblance at all to any Army unit that I have even encountered. Totally unbelievable and disrespectful to the men and women of EOD who contrary to this poor film are not wild adrenaline seeking yahoos but extremely qualified professionals doing an incredibly hard job.

And:


I want my money back from watching this movie. I have never been so embarrassed for the military as I was tonight. I have been in the Army for over 5 years and have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This movie is complete BS and the director should never be allowed to utilize military equipment again. Along with that, whoever the "military advisers" were - if there were any - they should never be allowed to work in Hollywood again. Next time anybody on this crew decides to make a movie, make sure you ask a Private with at least 1 week's worth of training for advice.

There is nothing remotely accurate in this movie - save for the first scene with Guy Pierce (even though there is no way a Tech would walk out there to "recover" the charge). I am all about keeping our tactics and procedures out of the public eye because I can appreciate keeping them secret, but even an idiot can look at this movie and know it is totally false (I apologize for insulting anyone - a little).

An EOD team is not an Infantry squad; they are not Special Forces; they are not snipers; they are not Intelligence experts... They are bomb disposal and disarmament specialists. That is their job, and no one can do it better. Not since "Commando" came out in the early '80s has there been a movie further off the mark (I do like "Commando" very much because there are no false impressions as to what the movie is - total '80s action with lots of ridiculous explosions and dudes killing everyone with pinpoint accuracy while shooting from the hip).

In this era of historically accurate movies ("Blackhawk Down" - sorta, "Saving Private Ryan" - very close, and "We Were Soldiers" - Hal Moore loves himself, but that Battalion accomplished something unprecedented) there is absolutely no excuse for a movie that portrays itself as being accurate and - dare I say - honoring the modern Soldier to be this hokey. I'm sure G.I. Joe is a more accurate depiction of the military in action than this, but I digress.

There are way too many inaccuracies for me to name, but I am sure others before me have listed them well.

1. No vehicle or individual moves alone. Period. 2. Former SAS types do not run around like a bunch of p-----s, and they sure as heck know how to protect themselves in a fight. 3. An E-7 bomb tech would not be "operational" unless we were in dire straits. 4. The digital cameo in the movie came out at the end of 2005 - and even then it was only the uniforms not the body armor, duffel bags, poncho liners, etc. Do your freakin' homework you idiots. 5. A Colonel would not stick around on a suspected IED site (he has other, "more important," things to do. Although, I did enjoy the dialogue between him and SFC James - that was spot on... 6. Etc, etc, etc...

What someone should take away from this rambling is this: If you have any respect for the American Soldier and the jobs that he/she performs, you will not see this movie. It is as inexcusable (to me) as telling someone their baby is ugly or their mother is a whore. If you do watch it, I hope that you feel terrible about wasting your money and time. And for the love of God - if you like it, I hope you burn in hell for all eternity because you, my friend, are a moron.

And:


I am on my second tour in Iraq as a Cavalry Scout, currently living at VBC, as mentioned in the movie. I have provided MANY EOD escorts to IED sites. There are some key factors that his movie really gets wrong.

First, EOD almost never, ever disarms IEDs. They blow them in place, using C4, much like the first bomb scene. This is because it is much safer for the EOD team than disarming the bombs, many of which are set with the sole intent of killing EOD, and to prevent another insurgent from coming along and reusing the bombs. Also, the explosion usually will set off any secondary IEDs that may be wired into the first ones, stacked beneath it, etc. Of course, that bomb really only needed one block of C4 to detonate it, and the robot could have easily taken that out in it's claw, but I can buy the excuse as the director needed to kill a character off for the plot. I've seen the guys in the suits as much as with th robot, it all depends on the situation, however none have ever sat around with a Gerber multi-tools, puling on the wires and dragging the bombs around. These are very volatile substances and yanking on the blasting caps can easily set them off.

EOD always has a cordon of security out before going to work. Snipers and IEDs as ambushes to lure EOD techs into the open are very common. Watching his two other soldiers as they stand on HMMWV hoods, stand in the open street and wait to be taken out with a sniper shot is just grating.

A soldier with an M4 carbine is no security against vehicles, as the car scene shows. A vehicle crew would never, ever dismount the heavy machine gun in the turret to stand about with an M4 on the ground. That is just ridiculous. It seems that every time this EOD team rolls up to another bomb, all the crews have dismounted away from their heavy weapon and hide clustered in buildings. There is no security cordon whatsoever.

The car bomb scene was a disaster. First is the sniper using the Chinese AK that sets the car on fire with a seemingly well placed shot to he gas tank? The ca, full of bombs (which are wired together), need to be set off by lighting the car on fire? If this Arab was such a good shot, perhaps e could have just been shooting the EOD team standing out in the open. As it is, he shoots over the heads of these guys just to hit the car. And if that was the method of triggering the bombs, what were they actually wired to? And the wire appears to be thick, like det cord, not electrical wire. Det cord would detonate in a fire... Anyway, EOD, instead of backing off and letting the fire do it's job and destroy the bomb, grabs the fire extinguisher from their HMMWV to put out the VBIED? So if they are ambushed or blown up on their way back to base they won't have anything to put their own vehicle out with because they used it all on a bomb?? So after the sniper shoots the car, a single EOD team member goes in an clears the roof tops, without the aid of the squad of soldiers nearby. He just rushes through a place that is known to have had at least one insurgent in it, by himself. That is just asking to get shot, or worse.

My favorite line at the VBIED scene is when the black soldier radios up that the building is evacuated, and tells the guy ripping through the car looking for the initiator (why?) to leave it for the engineers. WTF? EOD leaving bomb disposal to the engineers? That is what EOD IS FOR! Then there's the disregard for rank structure. The Specialist that refuses to say Sir to a Lieutenant Colonel, when E5 Sanborn slugs E7 James with no repercussions, standing at Parade Rest for officers (never mind they are in a hot area still...). The uniforms bug me, like an American flag on both sides of the ACU top, the green subdued cloth lag is unauthorized for wear according to AR670-1, the sleeves are never rolled up on an ACU top...

And who exactly is this O5 with the 1st ID patches? Is he supposed to be mental health, chaplin, or something like that? Then there's the sniper scene. WTF is happening here? EOD suddenly just goes off somewhere near Najaf, because guess what, there isn't a lot of desert like that near VBC. And who goes off without an escort? And the mercs, the Barret scene... oh God, it just goes on and on painfully.

All this and the movie isn't even half over yet. From my time working with the EOD teams in our areas I can say that this movie is crap. It would be much better as a police story in a busy city, not in a warzone. Then I could buy into why this guy is disarming bombs. I am glad I saw this on a $2 burned Haji copy. If I'd paid real money for this movie then I too would have a death-wish.


Again I say...I thought it was good. The praise it receives for realism is a bit much though, obviously.

[Collier11]

Well the person who wrote it spent a good amount of time with the military on a tour, I would imagine some of it was probably done up a little bit for movie purposes.

I think the stress level and monotony(sp?) were very well depicted

[Crucifax Autumn]

The stress level is fantastic and I'm sure a large part why it's been getting so many awards.

[Collier11]

I liked that one also a few yrs ago that had Gyllenhall in it, cant remember the name? Thought it was really well done

[Crucifax Autumn]

That was Jarhead.

[Collier11]

Yea, I really liked that one as well...I just like war movies that follow how it all affects the individuals

[SunnySooner]

I wanna see it when Mr. SS gets back from the sandbox, I'm actively avoiding crap like that right now, and consuming mass quantities of romantic comedies instead.:P

[LosAngelesSooner]

Arguably the best movie of the year. I loved it. Quality on all levels.

[yermom]

i saw it last night, and while the scenes were tense, and the effects and shots were awesome, the story was lacking.

i'm not a military expert or anything, but there just wasn't any reason to take the risks they were taking. i kept trying to suspend my disbelief to see it was going to pay off somewhere, but it didn't.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The movie is excellent. Great action, great characterization, and overall good plotting.

However, the biggest criticism of the movie comes from veterans and active military who were actually there. The complaints are largely that the characters do things that WOULD NOT be allowed such as leaving the green zone alone, etc.

I enjoyed it, but here are 3 comments from actual military people:



And:



And:




Again I say...I thought it was good. The praise it receives for realism is a bit much though, obviously.People need to get over this whole "THAT ISN'T REAL!!!" crap.

It's a freakin' movie. It's meant to entertain, not inform.

You want to be informed? Go to Fox News. :D

[picasso]

People need to get over this whole "THAT ISN'T REAL!!!" crap.

It's a freakin' movie. It's meant to entertain, not inform.

You want to be informed? Go to Fox News. :D

Yeah but when you portray it as a real story or based on actual events then things can be perceived as being real, no?

Then you have the power of persuasion.

[LosAngelesSooner]

"Based" on real events still means FICTION.

And again, unless something claims to be a documentary or educational film, it's fiction. The point is to a) make money and b) entertain an audience.

Anything else is icing.

So, yeah...you can perceive things as real, and in truth those things in the movie WERE real, real uniforms, etc, but to complain that they used the "digital camouflage two years before it was issued" and then bitch about accuracy is fannoyishly nerdy.

For instance, on Spartacus some guy was all over every message board complaining about how the SHIELDS that the romans were using weren't accurate since Roman soldiers didn't start using rectangular shields until about 200 years later and at THAT time they should have been using oval shields. Seriously Nerd-Boy? You deserve a SMACK for worrying about that crap.

Sit back, eat your popcorn and (hopefully) enjoy the ride.

[Okla-homey]

Arguably the best movie of the year. I loved it. Quality on all levels.

Very good film. Unformuliac and unpredictable. Gritty and realistic. Me likey. Mrs. Homey? Not so much.

[Collier11]

I think some of the stuff in the movie that we see as unrealistic the movie was trying to portray as happening due to the stress and emotion of it all

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Movies are a slice of life or a piece of cake.

-- Alfred Hitchcock

[picasso]

"Based" on real events still means FICTION.

And again, unless something claims to be a documentary or educational film, it's fiction. The point is to a) make money and b) entertain an audience.

Anything else is icing.

So, yeah...you can perceive things as real, and in truth those things in the movie WERE real, real uniforms, etc, but to complain that they used the "digital camouflage two years before it was issued" and then bitch about accuracy is fannoyishly nerdy.

For instance, on Spartacus some guy was all over every message board complaining about how the SHIELDS that the romans were using weren't accurate since Roman soldiers didn't start using rectangular shields until about 200 years later and at THAT time they should have been using oval shields. Seriously Nerd-Boy? You deserve a SMACK for worrying about that crap.

Sit back, eat your popcorn and (hopefully) enjoy the ride.

Hey, I'm really working on it. I'm cool with stuff that's sci-fi and things like Hellboy and such. It's just crap that's supposed to be based in reality but for the life of me I can't do it. Like the flick Demi Moore made years ago about being an elite soldier.:D
I'm really bad with books. I'm strictly a history or biography type.

I know, I need to drink more.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'm not saying that legitimate gripes aren't warranted. And when they ask you to suspend your disbelief too much, I get it.

But complaining about the type of cammo that the soldiers are wearing because it didn't get issued until TWO YEARS LATER?

Get a life! (to the dude who was quoted above, not you) :)

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hey, I'm with you. I was just pointing out the criticism, not saying it was warranted. A lot of it should have been caught during production, but I really don't give a shat either way. I'm more a critic of films that don't stick to their own internal logic.

[picasso]

Ahhh yeah I agree. My only beef would probably be some inaccurate portrayal of a plains Indian. But that's my nerdy specialty.

Oh and the southern drawl on the mom in August: Osage County.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Accents in movies and TV drive me crazy. A prime example would be how so many actors do this weird Okie-Texan-Alabama-Lousiana thing no matter where their character is from as long as it's somewhere south and/or east of Kansas.

[Collier11]

ive got to poop yall

[Lott's Bandana]

Arguably the best movie of the year. I loved it. Quality on all levels.


LAS, I think the OP was pointing out that people who have been through what was being depicted on the screen and lauded for being realistic, don't agree with your "Quality" comment.

Good example:

The Hunt For Red October - obviously a fictitious portrayal of Cold War Submarine chess-playing with all the pretty lights, shiny metal and Hollywood special effects, meant to entertain and like THL, showing a world most people never see.

Crimson Tide - not so obviously fictional portrayed political statement designed to create a question in the viewer's mind about the wisdom of granting "absolute power" to a ballistic missile submarine Commanding Officer.

Both movies, like THL, released at a time when the events in each movie could be considered current...THL during the occupation of Iraq, both submarine movies during the Cold War.

Referring to the submarine movies, I was assigned to a nuclear submarine at the time I viewed each of them.

Red October was pure entertainment, not trying to take itself too seriously and therefore neither did the audience.

Crimson Tide was a lame attempt at creating a "conversation" about US military policies (which it unfortunately did) and used ridiculous, unreal depictions of "submarine life" to attempt to support it's argument.

The typical Servicemember appreciates all the support he/she can get while serving their country, performing mundane/terrifying tasks that the average joe, living in an enormous, vibrant city and pontificating about things he really could not possibly understand, could not possibly understand. When there is a vehicle which attempts to illuminate that life for others to see, the Servicemember sees a piece of them in that vehicle and demands that it portrays their service accurately...from technical details like the uniform, and dogs on a submarine, to philosophical issues like EOD squads acting entirely independent and submarine CO's allowed to independently launch their SLBMs at their own discretion.

I enjoyed the movie because it showed a current depiction of what could be happening now in Iraq, however, after reading the outrage of the G.I.'s and the reasons for their outrage, I completely understand it and I now have a revised viewpoint regarding the quality of the film. As should anyone.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I disagree. Regardless of how the hype may be trying to say that the movie is somehow MORE than a movie...it's STILL just a movie. And movies, by their very nature, are meant to a) make money and b) entertain. Look at it this way...if it failed in EITHER of those two goals...the whole "creating a conversation" wouldn't count for ****, right?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Again, look at it this way, the TV series Rome was lauded for being SO realistic and SO historically accurate...but even then...I CAN ASSURE YOU...story always takes precedence over accuracy. If you need to do A with your story in order to make it make sense and be thrilling, then accuracy gets tossed out the window in order to accomplish A, regardless of what your historian or military consultant is screaming about. No matter what, it's always a guess. Especially with regards to historical fiction.

[Lott's Bandana]

I never disagreed with the premise that movies are made to A. collect ducats. B. provide a vehicle for someone's "art". Mostly A.

However, you can't argue about a Centurion's shield because you ate, slept and died with that shield with you for years. You can however, get quite upset if you ate, slept, etc. with a uniform on...using certain equipment, following life or death procedures to keep alive.

Big difference between the Star Trek geek and the actual experiences of a military Servicemember when it comes to calling foul on how life is actually depicted, don't you think LAS?

[King Crimson]

i thought Hurt Locker was pretty good. it mos def played to it's strengths...the unbearable tension of IED/bomb de-fusing. the scene in the super-market after coming back to the states was pretty powerful, but i think largely misunderstood by many.

i thought Jarhead was pretty average.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But you must admit, it wasn't fully accurate despit the accuracy of the message.

[delhalew]

I'll watch it, and I'll probably enjoy it. When it comes to criticing the film, I'll defer to the Vets. Real wartime experience is infanitely more serious than whether or not explosions are possible in deep space.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Heh...But can you hear them scream?

[delhalew]

Heh...But can you hear them scream?

LOL.

[King Crimson]

But you must admit, it wasn't fully accurate despit the accuracy of the message.

to be honest, while i don't really like this angle since i think war films are always political or ideological (even when the "good guys" win)....i thought it was a good film. i didn't take it for fact or overt comment....the latter being a reputed strength of the film that it was somewhat (insofar as possible) fairly depoliticized by today's standard where everything is black/white, right/wrong.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I never disagreed with the premise that movies are made to A. collect ducats. B. provide a vehicle for someone's "art". Mostly A.

However, you can't argue about a Centurion's shield because you ate, slept and died with that shield with you for years. You can however, get quite upset if you ate, slept, etc. with a uniform on...using certain equipment, following life or death procedures to keep alive.

Big difference between the Star Trek geek and the actual experiences of a military Servicemember when it comes to calling foul on how life is actually depicted, don't you think LAS?If we're talking about a documentary or an educational film, yes. If we're talking about a movie, absolutely not. No way.

A movie is fiction. FICTION. Even if it is "based on actual events," the FULL sentence is "FICTION which is based on actual events."

People seem to have forgotten that.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I remember a bunch of Okies whining about the movie Twister not getting stuff right. I had the same argument with them back then.

It's difficult for someone involved to divest themselves of their own reality and engage in the world created within the fiction. I get that. Shoot, I'm sure that if Richard Nixon had seen Frost/Nixon he would have issued a statement condemning the movie for being inaccurate and dishonest.

For realz.

[yermom]

my coworkers were laughing about Twister a day or two ago :D

[Lott's Bandana]

I remember a bunch of Okies whining about the movie Twister not getting stuff right. I had the same argument with them back then.

It's difficult for someone involved to divest themselves of their own reality and engage in the world created within the fiction. I get that. Shoot, I'm sure that if Richard Nixon had seen Frost/Nixon he would have issued a statement condemning the movie for being inaccurate and dishonest.

For realz.


Ok, I'll concede your "fiction" point. When it is all stripped down to the bone, you are correct.

However, I will maintain that it is often very easy to depict something correctly, especially when it deals with a group of people you are trying to portray that carry a particular deep passion about the subject. Not making the attempt is lazy and, although they say bad press is better than no press at all, these critiques from representatives of the military are particularly damning to the perception of the film.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Ok, I'll concede your "fiction" point. When it is all stripped down to the bone, you are correct.

However, I will maintain that it is often very easy to depict something correctly, especially when it deals with a group of people you are trying to portray that carry a particular deep passion about the subject. Not making the attempt is lazy and, although they say bad press is better than no press at all, these critiques from representatives of the military are particularly damning to the perception of the film.It's not nearly as damning as you, or the soldiers whining, would like to believe.

What would be damning was if the story was boring. And to sacrifice story and plot for nit-picky accuracy is absolute stupidity. You want an exciting, engaging story FOR THE MASSES. If that means you make someone walk alone and vulnerable outside of the Green Zone instead of in an armored convoy that no idiot terrorist would attack, as would probably be the reality, then you go with the solo soldier and keep the audience on the edge of their seats.

As for the ease of keeping things accurate, I would postulate that it isn't nearly as easy as one would believe. Everyone perceives things differently. There are always disagreements and different sides to a story. So while they may end up satisfying some soldiers, there would be others yet who would be angered by the changes since it wouldn't jibe with THEIR experiences.

And the ones whining about this are by far in the minority.

[WildBlueSooner]

It's not nearly as damning as you, or the soldiers whining, would like to believe.

What would be damning was if the story was boring. And to sacrifice story and plot for nit-picky accuracy is absolute stupidity. You want an exciting, engaging story FOR THE MASSES. If that means you make someone walk alone and vulnerable outside of the Green Zone instead of in an armored convoy that no idiot terrorist would attack, as would probably be the reality, then you go with the solo soldier and keep the audience on the edge of their seats.

As for the ease of keeping things accurate, I would postulate that it isn't nearly as easy as one would believe. Everyone perceives things differently. There are always disagreements and different sides to a story. So while they may end up satisfying some soldiers, there would be others yet who would be angered by the changes since it wouldn't jibe with THEIR experiences.

And the ones whining about this are by far in the minority.

I agree with you about the fiction thing, but my biggest quip is this....speaking from expirence I can tell you there is plenty of real drama in the war zone, and people are very interested in this drama...why not make a movie that plays to this? I know what you are thinking...that would be a documentary. No, I am talking about fictional characters, but not so unbelievable. I think a more believable film would appeal more to these MASSES you speak of. Thoughts?

[Collier11]

Well from what ive heard from people who served, Saving Private Ryan was about as realistic as it gets and it is beloved

[King Crimson]

Well from what ive heard from people who served, Saving Private Ryan was about as realistic as it gets and it is beloved

before he died, that's what my graddad said. he flew 2 of the allied highest casualty missions (including Ploesti--which he said was just unreal) and he saw a little on the ground heat too in Italy. Purple Heart and Air Corps Medal of Honor. beloved, though, might be a little less spicy than the words he would use. and he was a solid Baptist man and taught a bible study class that included Danny Hodge.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well from what ive heard from people who served, Saving Private Ryan was about as realistic as it gets and it is belovedBut how many of those people stormed the beaches of Normandy? I'll bet not very many. So many are probably just imagining what it was like to be there that day.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I agree with you about the fiction thing, but my biggest quip is this....speaking from expirence I can tell you there is plenty of real drama in the war zone, and people are very interested in this drama...why not make a movie that plays to this? I know what you are thinking...that would be a documentary. No, I am talking about fictional characters, but not so unbelievable. I think a more believable film would appeal more to these MASSES you speak of. Thoughts?Yes. Absolutely. And that's where the "based on a real story" or "based on real events" line comes from.

But telling the EXACT events as they happened may make a great PART of a movie, but not have all the dynamics for an entire script. You see? You still need set up. You need character background, otherwise you don't care for these characters. You need certain dramatic elements to be there or occur or else you won't have a compelling and interesting story.

For instance, in Hurt Locker MOST of the story IS very accurate...most of what people are complaining about are the little bits around it, the glue between scenes or the nit picky things in the story.

But overall, the story is quite compelling and accurate.

Same goes for Black Hawk Down.

[WildBlueSooner]

Yes. Absolutely. And that's where the "based on a real story" or "based on real events" line comes from.

But telling the EXACT events as they happened may make a great PART of a movie, but not have all the dynamics for an entire script. You see? You still need set up. You need character background, otherwise you don't care for these characters. You need certain dramatic elements to be there or occur or else you won't have a compelling and interesting story.

For instance, in Hurt Locker MOST of the story IS very accurate...most of what people are complaining about are the little bits around it, the glue between scenes or the nit picky things in the story.

But overall, the story is quite compelling and accurate.

Same goes for Black Hawk Down.



LAS,

Don't get me wrong...I agree with you. I am just saying some of the great and most popular movies of all time were so because of their realism, people seem to appreciate and get into the emotions more knowing it is close to what happened. As far as uniforms and stuff like that, I could care less, that is nit-picking.

WBS

[LosAngelesSooner]

LAS,

Don't get me wrong...I agree with you. I am just saying some of the great and most popular movies of all time were so because of their realism, people seem to appreciate and get into the emotions more knowing it is close to what happened. As far as uniforms and stuff like that, I could care less, that is nit-picking.

WBSI'm not getting you wrong. I totally understand. But I would also offer that many of those popular movies that had such great "realism" were still not nearly as "100% accurate" as many believe if they were to be picked apart by a group of experts.

You can ALWAYS find a critic, a hater or a nit-picker. My argument is that nobody would care if the movie was boring.

That's why Bowling for Columbine got a ton of anger and press while Fahrenheit 9/11 went largely ignored. One was entertaining and engaging while the other one was boring...facts and accuracy in both cases were secondary to this...even though they were both documentaries.

[Collier11]

If only they could all be as realistic as Pearl Harbor

[picasso]

Well from what ive heard from people who served, Saving Private Ryan was about as realistic as it gets and it is beloved

Except for the part with 30 and 40 something actors playing the part of 18-24 year olds.;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Except for the part with 30 and 40 something actors playing the part of 18-24 year olds.;)^^^ See what I mean? :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

The 18-24 year olds are too busy playing 14 year olds in shatty teenager movies.

[picasso]

Hey man, the wife and I laugh at all of these shows on the WB with 24 year old's playing high school kids. I know that's how you have to cast it and all but it's still funny.

[Collier11]

why are you watching the WB picasso?

[picasso]

why are you watching the WB picasso?

My wife watches it ya freak.

[Collier11]

Sure, enjoy Charmed ya weirdo

[Crucifax Autumn]

Charmed? Catch up man, that show's been off for years thank God.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Hell, for that matter WB has been off the air for a few years now! It's the CW now, which is WB mixed with Paramount minus the black shows.

[Collier11]

Regardless, we are making fun of Picasso here dammit

[picasso]

Let's see, I hate to admit that I've had to watch Gossip Girl and One Tree Hill, but there's some hotties on the latter.:D

[Crucifax Autumn]

That's what porn is for. I'm not gonna watch bad TV for hotties that aren't gonna get naked and slob some knob anyway.

[picasso]

That's what porn is for. I'm not gonna watch bad TV for hotties that aren't gonna get naked and slob some knob anyway.

Well I'm not watching Sophia Bush to get aroused and beat the bishop. One can appreciate a fine babe without seeing her cooch.

[Collier11]

BS! Atleast not on some lame azz tv show





:D

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'll excuse the whole thing if you say you mute the sound and turn on the stereo while you watch.

[Collier11]

No no no, he just tells his old lady that "she is so like, rad and phat and allsome"

[Harry Beanbag]

Well from what ive heard from people who served, Saving Private Ryan was about as realistic as it gets and it is beloved

Perhaps in the general depiction of combat, but other than that, the story was completely make believe. If you watch SPR enough, you will see several holes, mistakes, and inconsistencies.

[Lott's Bandana]

Well I'm not watching Sophia Bush to get aroused and beat the bishop. One can appreciate a fine babe without seeing her cooch.


It's not a real Bush...its FICTION!

Haven't you read anything LAS had to say about this??!!

[LosAngelesSooner]

It's not a real Bush...its FICTION!

Haven't you read anything LAS had to say about this??!!Merkin-fail.

:D

[Collier11]

Perhaps in the general depiction of combat, but other than that, the story was completely make believe. If you watch SPR enough, you will see several holes, mistakes, and inconsistencies.

Thats what I was referencing, the battle scenes and protocol

[IronHorseSooner]

As someone who has spent two years of his life over there, I can say that the battle scenes were good, and accurate to a point, but it was overplayed in some parts because it was a movie. Most military folks I know liked the movie, and realize that it is just that, A MOVIE, and not a documentary. If you want that, go watch the Military History Channel or the Pentagon Channel.

[KC//CRIMSON]

As someone who has spent two years of his life over there, I can say that the battle scenes were good, and accurate to a point, but it was overplayed in some parts because it was a movie. Most military folks I know liked the movie, and realize that it is just that, A MOVIE, and not a documentary. If you want that, go watch the Military History Channel or the Pentagon Channel.

As someone who has an actual EOD officer in the family and has said the same thing as you, I agree.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135006

[StoopTroup]

Could the real Picasso even draw anything that resembled a cooch?