n-56728 Overall a good movie but not worthy of winning best picture in my opinion. Having spent time in the sandbox, I thought the portrayal of the military lifestyle was lacking a sense of reality and had way too much hollywood flavor mixed in. The characters were cast pretty well and the story had drama that made it interesting. I was just left feeling empty and not moved by the overall them of the movie. I would watch it again and you should form your own opinions, but don't expect an oscar winning performance with this one. Reviewed: Marcus Drew - Bell Gardens, CA

windnacho Most of the negative reviews talk about how this film is grossly inaccurate. That is true. There are a lot a inaccuracies that I can see as being offensive towards veterans of the war. But if you look at it as a film, it does what it set out to do. The characters are interesting, the acting is good, the cinematography is good. Really the only problem with the movie is the factual errors. But other than that, it is an excellent piece of cinema.

scifiducky This movie is a solid 8, if you gave it a 1 you know you're wrong. And people who complain about it winning best director because they didn't like the story aren't getting 4 when they add 2 plus 2.

emuir-1 So many people gave this one star, and just as many or more gave it 10; therefore, it is very polarising. Those who only gave it one star are either members of a fan club of someone who did not get an academy award, or their prefer their war movies fast action,with the hero running up a ramp behind a tank to appear that he cleared the tank in one jump, assault weapon blazing away in all directions, and being American of course, he wins the battle. The action fans just didin't get it. This was not a full on gung ho action movie, but a suspenseful account of the daily grind of bomb disposal, where the men know that any second could be their last, and after a tense morning disarming an explosive, they have to go out and do it again. The people whose streets are being made safe hate their guts and don't want them there, and you get the feeling that many of the watchers just want to see the Yanks get blown up. I did keep asking myself why were the Americans there anyway - it's not their war. There were many criticisms, too many to tackle every one, but I will address a few. One was that the insurgents would not kidnap a business man and use him as a suicide bomber. Wrong! They do this and also with children. It is also used to extort money. Another gripe was that the bomb disposal unit would not have had a sniper with them. I disagree. As the several of the men were providing back up coverage, they would have been trained to shoot accurately as well as blasting away with all they had got. Another poster claimed that no Iraqi would be able to shoot so accurately from a distance. Perhaps that kind of thinking is what gets people killed! Never, never assume the enemy is inferior. Those who felt the new war junkie unit leader would have been disciplined or even thrown out of the unit may be right. In a perfect world he would, but in a world where results are all that matter, his callous recklessness would be seen as bravery. Whether or not there were inaccuracies doesn't really bother me. It is fiction. Even real life events are gussied up to sell papers. How many man shot down the Red Baron? How many Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden alone? There is hardly a film based on a true story which did not take liberty with the facts in order to make it more interesting. As long as the film conveys what it is trying to do, I am happy with it, and The Hurt Locker was a different kind of film which kept me glued to the screen for two hours. I took one star off because of the irritating boy selling fake DVD's. There always seems to be one hanging around in war movies. I was not sorry to see the back of him.