I object to this as a conservative, but also as a movie-goer. Boal shot himself in the foot by writing dumb heroes instead of brave ones. It is much harder to root for reckless, arrogant pricks than it is heroes motivated by goodness. Maybe he has heard of Batman, Spider-man, Superman, etc. The audience becomes emotionally invested in these heroes because of who they are. Not so in “The Hurt Locker.”" End Quote.

Did it ever occur to you that your hero's, many of history's military hero's, were in fact no more high minded than these men? That same people fight because it's what they know, they like and they choose?
I've been an EMT, am a FireFighter, and will be a Soldier (No, I'm not making up my mind, I'm not deciding if its worth it to me to risk my ass… Already decided, scooter.) – I have my reasons for these professions, and running toward the sound of guns. If I were to detail those reasons, you'd probably call me a monster, not a patriot.
Has it ever occurred to you, or any of those who agree with you, that perhaps your hero's, as you know them, are actually fictions? That, in the bright light of day, they are actually monsters too? That they fought, warred, struggled and killed, less out of patriotism, less out of belief in something greater, than out of a simple skill and enjoyment? Or even, without enjoyment, no greater drive than a pragmatic assessment of their abilities, opportunities and situations, or even just sheer futility and "fuck it" attitudes? Not everyone who does these jobs does them for upbeat or inspirational reasons – Some do them for the blackest reasons possible. Society has simply come to depend on the existence of these people – And maybe these people depend on society, and really, in some deep biological/anthropological sense, that is why they do it. But some functional symbiosis between the flock, and the wolves who've evolved so that they'd rather bloody their fangs on other wolves than on the sheep, is still not really that pretty of an image is it?

You are, like everyone else, entitled to your fictions and idealisms. It makes many things easier to bear, prettier to imagine – Including heros. But don't tell us that something is wrong, or bad, because it sullies up your preferred idolatries.

Then do it or shut up.

I spent two tours in Iraq, this movie hit home for me.

Pity it didn't for a chicken-hawk film reviewer.

Wow, what an evaluation! This analysis is most impressive.

Of course, the term “drug” is clearly meant to be taken literally. Also of course, the opening epigraph clearly exists for no purpose other than to make a general statement. Naturally, those silly left-wing hippies would only compare war to something they truly hate, like drugs! I mean, it’s not like Sergeant James is addicted to the danger of war (namely, the danger of defusing bombs that is provided by war) as one might be addicted to a drug, and there’s no chance that the statement actually implies anything beneath the surface of the literal meaning of the words.

QUOTE
The Iraqis portrayed in “The Hurt Locker,” just like in every other Hollywood Iraq War blockbuster, are faceless, nameless, and utterly lame people who do nothing more than herd goats and sell bootlegged copies of “Pink Panther 2” to our troops. The way the Iraqis are portrayed in the film, I wouldn’t lend them my lunch money, much less lay my life on the line for them. These Iraqis weren’t even characters. They were extras. This was an Iraq War movie and it had nothing to do with Iraqis.

So true! Those god-awful war movies of the past were all the same way. Just look at that horridly unrealistic “Platoon”, which never thoroughly characterized any of the Vietnamese! And even worse: “Saving Private Ryan”. The European civilians had barely any screen time in that piece of trash. Just look at how many veterans loathe that movie! Of course, it’s just absurdly egregious for “The Hurt Locker” to focus only on American soldiers. There’s just something so very, very wrong with that. I am positively enthralled by the sharp criticisms of this review.

QUOTE
For you Fark folks: “War is bad” is a left-wing position. Left-wingers put “War is Not the Answer” bumper stickers on their cars. By contrast, conservatives think, on occasion, war is the answer. Some examples:
Revolutionary War
Civil War
World War II
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
War of the Worlds

I know! Just about every left-winger I’ve had the misfortune of knowing is one of those pacifists who hates every war and thinks war to never be the answer. I mean, just ask Obama, Clinton, or anyone, and they’ll tell you about how much they wish the US had never fought the Civil War or joined World War II or tried to help the people of Somalia.

Furthermore, those left-wingers saying “war is bad” or “war is not the answer” are obviously implying that war is never, ever acceptable. Nobody simply characterizes war as “bad” because they simply consider war to be a necessary evil needed only on occasion as a last resort.

QUOTE
War isn’t bad when you are defeating the Nazis, saving the Union, or freeing helpless countries from murderous, totalitarian dictators. In those cases, it is good.

It’s good to fight Nazis and murderous dictators? This is so profound! Don’t tell anyone, but I completely agree. Too bad about the liberal media.

SERIOUSLY, is this review a joke? If so I apologize for my comments. John Nolte’s review was fair, balanced, and meaningful. It effectively defended a thesis that I’m sure plenty of people will disagree with. This review is simply embarrassing.