New York Post film critic Kyle Smith lists the ” Five Most Idiotic Oscar Nominations of the Year ” and references one of my favorite books in his savagely spot-on take of the most disappointing movie of the year:
Best Picture for “The Hurt Locker.” C’mon people: This movie is one great scene (which is essentially repeated three times, just to be sure we caught it) and a shapeless second hour. We get it: War is a drug. Four words do not a story constitute, let alone a great story, let alone a great movie. This movie reminds me of Tom Wolfe’s comment, in “The Painted Word,” that a postmodernist painting like something by Jasper Johns was essentially a rebus leading you to a single, simple message.
After hearing months of effusive praise by critics, I was so excited to see The Hurt Locker that I watched it the day it came out on DVD. It was a huge letdown. Contrary to the critic’s claims, it wasn’t particularly riveting, suspenseful, or accomplished. It was a passable, though unenlightening, war movie that didn’t seem to have much fresh to say about either soldiers or combat. The fact that it wasn’t a America-loathing caricature of the Iraq War likely accounts for much of the acclaim and is worthy of applause (or at least a golf clap). But as Smith notes, as a story it was flat and simplistic and as a movie it falls far short of being Oscar-worthy.
Anyone see it have a different take?
