Completely agree with Reasonable.  Wouldn't say that most war films are fair and balanced, but Hurt Locker isn't a propaganda film.  Very telling how the OP tries to manipulate the poll the way the options are laid out, even before the ranting begins. 

I know this Movie has to do with the Iraq War but what does it Matter it was good but seriously why do u car if this is fair and balanced or that its a war propoganda film why dont u try and enjoy the movie i mean thats why it was made ... For your enjoyment ...... CANDY !!!!

The movie had flat characters. It didn't show anyone becoming addicted to war, as the main character was already addicted, and for all we know joined the military because he liked action and was an adrenaline junkie (plus he was the only such character in the movie).

Plus any war movie about an ongoing conflict that focuses on just one side (even if it's only a small number of men from that side) is a war propaganda movie (heck, military recruiting sites were even advertising it).

It's real.

War movies don't have to be about politics, logic, or what have you.  The Hurt Locker was about the experiences of its one group of main characters.  Soldiers often don't question what they're going into (not publicly, anyway).  They just perform.  And upon being released from the military, they have to be re-introduced to society.  That's not an easy thing to do.  To go from living a crazy life like that where you're somewhat programmed to a "normal" life.  Ask anybody that's been in the military for any amount of time.  They may be reluctant to tell you but many (including me) will tell you about times where they jump up in the middle of the night and stand at attention by their bedside. 

In my current job, there's a guy named R. Lindsay  that has been blown up repeatedly.  He's missing a testicle, his tail bone, his wrist is all fucked up, and something is wrong with his leg.  He looks like a fucking teddybear but when he tells the stories about the first person he killed (most guys won't talk about their experiences), he turns into a different person.  Then, when his stories are over, he reverts back to his normal joking self.  He kept going back because that's what they made him.  He kept going back and getting blown up and shot at because of this.

I don't think the movie was propaganda.  It showed good and bad on both sides (like that kid Beckham or the main character's own teammates debating blowing him up or US soldiers killing a man who could have survived).  From what I know, the movie wasn't politcal.  It was just a portrait of reality.

@d21 lewis

War movies don't have to be about politics, logic, or what have you.

It's pretty hard for a war movie to not be political, as wars themselves are political.

Soldiers often don't question what they're going into (not publicly, anyway). They just perform.

SO they're esentially tools, right?

Ask anybody that's been in the military for any amount of time.  They may be reluctant to tell you but many (including me) will tell you about times where they jump up in the middle of the night and stand at attention by their bedside.

No one made you join.

He looks like a fucking teddybear but when he tells the stories about the first person he killed (most guys won't talk about their experiences), he turns into a different person.

So esentially he's a psychopath?

It showed good and bad on both sides

No it didn't. It esentially reduced one side to a couple of individuals (to make it easier for the audience to emapthise) and portrayed the other side as the danger threatening the individuals (the US).

Wooooah!  Calm down there little buck-a-roo.  Take a deep breath.  Now, relax.

Ok. Should I start meditating now?

I don't dispute anything you posted in your response.  Soldiers are tools.  Nobody made me join.  Lindsay can be considered.....a little crazy.  It's still pretty realistic from my point of view.

So, sapphi_snake, is it fair to assume that you'd give this movie a 10/10 review?