@kowenicki:

The soldiers ARE americans, but they are JUST soldiers.

Aren't the soldiers the ones doing the fighting in the war?

This is about the soldiers, not about the bigger picture.

The soildiers are part of the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is all that really matters. Plus this is a strategy of reducing one side to a few sympahtetic individuals and the other as the threat to those individual's lives. It's a subtle form manipulation.

If the story was about Romanian freedom fighters of the 1980's it would be ok if they gloried in their jobs and seemed a little unhinged at the blood and guts they witness on a daily basis?

Those freedom fighters that you talk about activated in the 40s, 50s and 60s. They no longer existed in the 80s. Plus, they were Romanians, fighting against the Communist Government in Romanian. They were not foregin invaders, if anything they were fighting against invaders (the Russian communists). However killing other people isn't glorious nor noble no matter what the purpose and anyone who thinks otherwise and can do this with no remorse is something less than human.

Or perhaps Romanian soldiers in Afghanistan... there are some there you know.

Well, I knew that joining NATO was a bad ideea. America should fight the wars it starts by itself.

This ain't my type of movie. That still doesn't change the fact that I personally didn't think it was well done (despite my not liking this genre). Just a compilation of action sequences (like something out of a war video game), and a couple of scenes at the end that were meant to give some meaning to the whole movie. If it weren't a pro-american move it wouldn't have gotten all the praise it received from American and British critics. I just generally get worked up when people say that this movie isn't propaganda, or is apollitical.

This film was not really about Iraq itself. It rather shows that there are people who live for war itself and (therefore) can't function normaly in the normal society. It also shows how nasty war can be (e.g. scene where they get ambushed). 

I don't think it was a hollywood blockbuster, since it started to gain a big audience after it was nominated for a Golden Globe/Acadamy Award. 

I don't ususally like "war" movies but thought The Hurt Locker was great, mainly because it didn't really seem like a war movie. It just used the setting to create tense situations and show how three characters responsded to the situation on a scale (1 was constantly terrified, with the main guy seeming to get thrills from it), but the film never promotes that enjoying fighting or being an adrenaline junkie is a good thing. Overall the movie had great directing, acting, pacing, cinematography, score etc.  It deserved the oscar based on being high quality and lack of competition for the year (its not like Avatar was actually deserving of winning an Oscar).

Although I will add that I think part of the reason the movie got such high reviews was because it released during the summer. Critics seem to get tired of the mindless entertainment blockbusters during the summer, so I think they were happy to see something like The Hurt Locker during that time.

I thought it was a pretty good film, a bit long if you ask me but I don't see much politics behind it. It doesn't justify the war nor against it, just another one of the many Hollywood films to make us feel sorry for US soldiers.

@kowenicki

It isnt propaganda, but it is almost impossible to be apolitical.

Army recruiting sites thought it was a viable choice for propaganda.

Critics were gripped by the "convincingly blunt" action sequences and Bigelow's "penetrating study of heroism", but several criticised the decision not to take an ideological viewpoint on the Iraq War.

What was "heroic" about the characters/movie? And she did take a stance on the war. The movie itself is a stance, and her oscar speech is one also.

Bigelow contended the film was "not a documentary", maintaining that her intention was to highlight the plight of soldiers in a war she felt had been "under-reported" in the US media.

I think everyone knows that was isn't a piece of cake. And what exactly has been "under-reported" about the war in the US media?

She added that the script was informed by war correspondent Chris Hedges' polemic War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning - which argues that war seduces entire societies, like a powerful drug.

And she did a poor job of portraing that in the movie.

Yeah, because your opinion is a fact.

In other words it's pro-war.

In no way did I imply that my statement was fact. I even said the word "thought" in the first line of my post, I guess in order for it to be apparent I'm talking about my opinion I need to write imo every few words?

Also what does not winning technical Oscars have to do with anything? Is it just that you are such a big Avatar fan that is why you are so upset that about the Hurt Locker? Also, I'm not even saying Avatar is a bad film, I enjoyed it wtched it in 3D on an imax screen which was amazing, own it on DVD, but it is not the type of movie to win an Oscar.

Not really because there are other Hollywood films which were anti war but through the prism of making us feel sorry for US soldiers (as opposed to the death and destruction wrought upon the native population). The numerous Vietnam War films spring to mind.

http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329826& - Interesting read.