Reply #4: This writer is an idiot. It is that simple. [View All]

[Bluenorthwest]

The writer does not understand film, much less how to write about film. And of course the irony of journalist pointing fingers at artists for not telling the truth about war at this time in history is startling.
This drooling coward is not talking about the Hurt Locker, he's whining about the film he imagines it should be, not the film Bigelow made, the film the author never bothered to make, the one he could not make, that was different from, and would have been better than Hurt Locker, had he actually been capable of making it. The Hurt Locker simply is not the film this writer wanted it to be. He demands a film about the 'debate on intervention'. Ok. He should make one. The Hurt Locker is not that film, does not need to be, should not be, and is perfectly sufficient as the film it wanted to be and the film it is. Like the 'critics' who hated Stone's WTC film because it was about people not about politics, or those that whine that while Woody Allen shows NY beautifully, he never addresses the transportation or housing issues of that metropolis, he is failing his job, because he is not talking about the film at hand. Do we complain about Shrek not addressing divorce, or about Citzen Kaine not having musical numbers? Same thing.
The author should get up and make the didactic, pedantic, plodding, debate movie he envisions as being 'the right movie'. A film all about the debate over invasion. Seems the author dreams that those who defuse bombs do so while debating fine points of geo politics. He should make that film. He really should. If he is able to. Or, he could do some reporting on the war, the debate, the crimes. Instead, he 'reports' on films. Whatever. I think this review should have been a look at the reasons for the continued invasion, as seen from the perspective of a tea vendor in Bagdad, but it was not. It was a whining film 'review' instead.