I’m sure I’ll get many a “what does this have to do with Defense Tech?” comments from the purists, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.
I rarely indulge in the Oscar back and forth, usually ignoring the whole spectacle as yet another chance for overindulged, undertalented phonies to reinforce eachother’s deep-seated lack of self-esteem by reminding themselves just how great they are — and making us all feel lucky that we can take a swipe at their self-licking icecream cone once a year.
(My favorite movie, maybe of all time, is Tropic Thunder…go figure)
Well, this year the best picture nominees include three films with gobs of defense tech, two of which I have reviewed for Military.com.
I’ll start with Avatar.
As you might remember, like everyone else, I loved the 3D effects, but bristled at the portrayal of human military force. The tech in there was mostly Aliens holdover gear, so that didn’t wow me either. After marinating in reviews since mine, I’ve gotten even more bitter about the whole experience, agreeing with critics who think what Cameron did just penned an allegory he thought was blatantly obvious about America’s image overseas. It was Hollywood at it’s most pedestrian.
Hurt Locker is another story entirely.
And I’m reluctant to let loose on this one as well, because I will say that I sat down with writer Mark Boal and director Kathryn Bigelow in DC before I wrote my review. Mark couldn’t have been nicer, though you could see that the former feature/culture writer was taking right too his new Hollywood halo. But he was earnest and excited about his project and genuinely interested in my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan with EOD units. Kathryn too was gracious, open and poised. My problem stems from their obvious lack of passion for the subject they put to film.
Mark, God bless him, spent about two weeks /with an EOD unit in Baghdad, spun the experience off into a Rolling Stone article, which popped in a Hollywood (where most people in the industry get their war news, I guess) casting around for a reason to show they weren’t ALL anti-war. The movie itself was a bit confusing and included some scenes that just flat out didn’t make sense at all (the sniper duel with the SAS/contractor head hunters?)…
I had already seen the movie when I spoke with Kathryn and Mark (be sure to re-read my REVIEW) so I asked them “if you were screening this movie to an EOD unit, what would you tell them it was about?” A softball, right? Anyone who went through the trouble to put together a movie on a particular subject should at least have some pat answers to questions like that. Long silence from Ms. Bigelow…Mark too, had some problems with the question. Which leads me to think their depth of passion for the subject they worked so hard to portray on film was shallow. It’s like a hardcore video gamer trying to get into the head of a SEAL. There’s no way.
So, in my opinion, those two shouldn’t have even made it to the Oscar process because they’re more reflective of Hollywood’s “we support the troops” guilt complex and antiBush-waronterror-protreehugger leftyism than any cinematic excellence. From a defense tech standpoint, it was great to see EOD guys get their day in the sun and some of the gear and TTPs were accurate — though I’ve never once even seen a full-on bomb suit in the AO.
Now for District 9.
Totally awesome. From both a technical standpoint and a cinematogrphy one, the movie was just amazing. Mean ass South African security contractors (they practically invented the modern soldier of fortune charicature), intersteller spacecraft that don’t get all FTL on us, a story that cut with a clean scalpel instead of a saw blade and casting that made us at once sympathic and uncomfortable (contrast the Distric 9’s off-putting “prawns” with Avatar’s elegant Na’vi). In terms of pure creativity, stellar acting and a gritty, realistic portrayal of an allegoric social conflict, District 9 hands down gets Defense Tech’s vote for best picture.
And the winner is…?
– Christian
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
District 9. Slightly off-topic. Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the new District 10's tent setup, and some of the tents sent to Haiti? Eerie.
Haven't seen Hurt Locker yet, but rather agree with Chris's take on both Avatar and District 9. Let's see what the Hollywood political machine ends up awarding to which.
Second for District 9.
The sniper scene was indeed a speed bump for Hurt Locker, left me thinking during it that it was a bit absurd for an EOD team to engage an enemy sniper position, without calling in support. Blood in the action? really? If it was really fouled, take cover, clean, and re-engage. Also the 3 of them running off into the dark near the end on a hunch without support or even alerting others to their "hunch" (or without NVG loadouts).
I still laugh at Tropic Thunder when thinking about Tom Cruise' character. Brilliant!
Agree with the conclusions, disagree with the analysis.
Avatar sets a new bar for F/X, combining them with an old plot that predates current politics. The Navi are tall, blue-skinned American Indians & the mercs are cavalry with flyers instead of horses. This movie has been made several times before, just with smaller budgets, less contrived endings, and much, much less box office.
I interpreted Hurt Locker as being about some of the experiences of troops in Iraq & their emotional impact. The result didn't make sense because the script had 1 guy having most of those experiences. It was made worse by the departures from reality, the sniper duel being only 1 of at least 4. Halfway through I was asking "How much will they put up with from Sgt James because he's great at EOD?"
Very much agree about District 9. No question 1 of the best sci fi movies ever made.
Loved Hurt Locker and I think you're missing the point of it Christian. It's more about a man and what he loves to do…no explanation of why, just that he loves it and he's a sort of adrenaline junkie.
There's a scene near the end that summed it up for me..and it's a very poignant and somewhat heartbreaking scene….the main char (Jeremy Renner) is talking to his young son and he says somethign to the effect of "As you get older, you lose things you love until you only love one thing…" and it's clear in that scene and what follows is that he loves his work…not his son or his family life. As a (relatively) new Father it was heartbreaking for me to see that but it sums up his character, he is obsessed and loves what he does.
Ultimately he is a tragic sort of Ahab character…always seeking his white whale. The setting could be an EOD unit or almost anything…
I did NOT like Avatar. It's "Dances with Wolves" in Outer Space. As usual, Humans and/or the USA are the bad guys (as it seems is required in every Hollywood movie). And wasn't it just wonderful how the main character was so enthusiastic to sell out and kill his Human buddies.
The movie is filled with completely ridiculous dialog (written by Cameron). I loved that whole "speaking to the earth" scene, I laughed out loud when I saw it. A HUGE disappointment were the weapons.
Think about this, the movie is set 150 years in the future, we have the ability to travel to other star systems and the weapons and aircraft look NO better than what you would see used in Iraq TODAY (in some cases, not even as good). Come on Cameron (a hack director if there ever was one. By the way he made only 3 good movies in his career:
Terminator, Terminator 2 and Aliens), where are the cool weapons? If there is one thing that the Human race is good at, it's making weapons. 150 years in from now and the best you can come up with are glorified M16's and those pathetic "exoskeletons" which looked like they were only good for lifting things, certainly not fighting. By the way, what were those aircraft windows made from, PLATE GLASS????
If you took one platoon of our current M1 Tanks to that planet, you could have wiped out every single one of the Aliens and not had a scratch to show for it. I was totally rooting for the Aliens to get blown away.
District 9 was interesting, especially considering the low budget.
I did not see Hurt Locker
I think the "technology" focus for Avatar was the 3d cinematography, not the prop design – which IS very much to the tune of Aliens, if not less advanced.
The key thing here – the script doesn't demand advanced military technology. Just One-Dimensional Grunts With Guns. And Aircraft With Intakes, as the climax doesn't work without 'em. We can nitpick the hardware till the cows come home but to me it's clear from the jump that Defense Tech (so to speak) isn't the focus – the Avatar technology and the Padora end of things are clearly what had Cameron by the short and curlies.
From a military technology standpoint, I think a runoff between Hurt Locker and District 9 would be a more interesting comparison.
I’m EOD, and I’ve worn a bombsuit in the AO. I also know a lot of guys that have, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some of the departures are pretty bad. No one is sneaking off base and running around downtown to find a local.
I think the movie did a lot of good as far as giving people some idea what we do. The downside is that it also makes us look like we’ve all got a death wish and that isn’t the case at all.
Thanks Ryan…I didn't have enough time to get into ALL aspects of the movie, but I agree 100 percent…it brought to light a gripping portrayal of what guys like you do and, stacked up against other attempts at Iraq or Afghanistan movies, it answered the mail for folks like me.
Wasn't saying the bomb suit wasn't worn in the AO, but I've just never seen one.
Thanks for the comment…
Interesting, so your complaints seem to orbit a concern that the reality of what really goes on in war is not accuractely portrayed. Well, whose fault is that Defense Tech? Hollywood has to invent a fictional reality to fill in the gaping holes left by would-be journalists like yourself that were supposed to infom us of what it is really like out there. Obviously you haven't done a good enough job. So maybe now you can start. Tell us, what it is REALLY like on an EOD team? Oh, and since you can't even relate the blatant and glaringly obvious parallel between District 9 and, ahem, <Israel-Palestine> or better GUANTANAMO, maybe you shouldn't be passing yourself off as some kind of knowledgable individual, for anything at all. Go back to what you do best, count your ammo.
So Dean, did you go to asshole school or are you just a natural?
Whoa…Dean…that hurts on so many levels I can't do my usual cheek turning.
I guess ten years covering the military as an independent journalist makes me "would-be"…And sorry you think I haven't done a "good enough job" in my hundreds of stories from three embeds in Iraq, two in Afghanistan … and oh, yeah, I've actually been to GTMO back in the heady Camp X-Ray days…but enough of my shallow resume…
Really like with an EOD team? Boring most of the time…read my defense tech and military.com entries from January '08 to get some idea. And did you read my Dist 9 critique closely? "Cuts with a scalpel instead of a saw…" the metephor is transcendant to a lot of segregation situations (how about S Africa's apartheid? it is a S African film after all.
I think I will go back and do what I do best…write…
District 9. Hands Down. Actually paid to see this one at the theater.
District 9 baby! Game over man. game over…
As many said, Avatar really was not anything new- just setting the stage for 3D flicks (although I did enjoy it thoroughly).
District 9 was something completely different and hit on many different "sore" ethical and politcal subjects which was great but also had that killer sci-fi and general badassery to it too.
Did not see Hurt Locker so can't comment there.
"And the winner is…?"
Id say disterict 9 i havent seen avatar gonna wait till its in DVD. Thought the Mech in D9 was freaking awesome.
Dean,
I didnt see a corelation between D9 and the Israeli palestinians conflict. Or as i call it the palestinian war of agression (sh&t storm i call you forth :).
Yea there were alot of wtf moments in hurt locker. It was good but like starwars good.
You cant ever go full retarded. Even tom hanks never went full retarded!
Having seen all three… and having LIKED all three…
I thought Hurt Locker was entertaining, except for the insufferably one-dimensional protagonist. I get that "macho" might be a part of EOD, but Hurt Locker rubs it in the way Avatar rubs in the Pretty…. only Pretty is easier on the brain. And Pretty is pretty much all Avatar was. I've also read – here, if memory serves – that HL had a lot of technical inaccuracies. These days, there's no excuse for that. There's even less excuse for Gross Insubordination Saves The Day… though that might be my Inner Scifi Nerd still feeling skeeved that it was the most overused plot trope of Space : Above And Beyond.
Another thing Hurt Locker has going against it – much like Lethal Weapon, it feels like a series of completely disconnected set-pieces stitched together with a 'back at base' narrative. It could just as easily been three or four half-hour episodes of an incredibly well-produced television show.
District 9 gets my vote – it's the best social commentary sci-fi I've seen since Robocop. While it cheaps out on the Body Horror elements (budget-wise, anyway – we had fingernails and teeth in Cronenberg's version of The Fly and damned if ain't the same thing 23 years later), the rest of it is top notch… and the story feels more "human" than the escapist undertones of Avatar.
District 9 was truly amazing. Serious and funny at the same time.
Proudly South African
Avatar was just a cartoon. District 9 was a proper sci-fi. And yeah, I also thought D9 was trying to portray the whole Israeli/Palis thing because the military even had guns that looked very much like the Israeli Tavor. In the end it was totally unlike what the reality is to be of any comparison to that conflict. If anything, Israel is like the Navi in the Avatar – Civilised people trying to live peacefully but under constant attack by a culture bent on their destruction.
District 9 was in my eyes not only the best movie of the year, but the best SciFi movie to come out in the last 5 years.
Other than the fantastic dialogue (i have a major weakness for south african accents) and story the coolest thing about it was the fact that ALIENS LOVE CATFOOD. It's the attention to all the little details that make this an amazing movie.
The Jonas Brothers: 3D Concert Experience beats em all. Take that Avatar. Yeah!
Although I love DT when I go see a movie I really don't care that much about how groups are played but in Avatar I was mildly aggravated but i'm going Army so I wasn't to mad at that. Never saw Hurt Locker from the reviews I read to confusing. District 9 was a dam good movie although I still prefer Avatar.
I actually didnt like District 9 at all. I suppose I am in the minority, but it just seemed a bit "forced" for some reason.
Avatar was a joke. If it werent for the 3D, I would at least hope people wouldn't be talking about it at all.
Agreed about Avatar. Funny thing: on one of the "fail Blog" sites they have a one page summary of Disney's "Pocahontas" cartoon. Someone went through and substituted the relevant Avatar stuff with the Pocahontas stuff and it is an exact, 100% match-up! Priceless.
These are all just movies, period. Neither Hollywood or the Left or the Right or even a military point of view have any particularly accurate view of life than the others. I heard that District 9 was allegory for South Africa, and Avatar is anti-military, and The Hurt Locker does stray a bit. I saw Avatar and was riveted, I saw The Hurt Locker and was also riveted to my seat. I will have to see District 9.
I've got to say I'm suprised, while I admitt that the technology in Avatar is a joke (where are the personal infantry mini-missiles, the UAV's the remote turrets on the construction units (which remove the need for the "grunts" to be exposed half the time, all of which are either already available or in development in real-life (and featured on DT at some point) what amazes me is that no one mentions the tactics. I understand he's (main character) a marine (no command experience refrenced and also renowned for taking the action head on) but when provided with an army of trackers and hunters in their natural environment he chooses to rush the enemy head on into their automatic weapons (how bout archers in the tree-tops behind, guys on the ground behind with something to obscure the mechs[windscreen wiper-less] screens and a charge from the other direction) and as for the aerial combat, they have a hiding place, a gunship and a larger force, so they drop down (albeit at the last second but still) right infront of the enemies nose, not on all sides, not in their midst (limitin fire for fear of blue on blue) and most of all not dropping the gunship down first and behind, where half of the human fleet could have been fired upon before they have the chance to return fire (no noticable rear guns). But the only complaints I hear on realism are poor tech (what about the evolutionary explanation for why they have natural tenticles that force them to be submissive? etc.)
The main scientific issue to me is the fact that the Na’vi are very different from the majority of other animals in the Pandora biosphere.
The Na’vi are humanoid, bipedal and four limbed (not counting the tail). The larger animals we see in the movie are mostly hexapedal (six legs, plus a tail).
Here on Terra, the human body layout is pretty much identical to the ones of other mamals, reptiles, birds, etc. Even the arrangement of our internal organs is similar.
So what did the Na’vi evolve from? Are they supposed to be indigenous to Pandora, or were they “imported” at some point in the past?
Just my personal thoughts on the issue.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
A lot of comments here about the weak weaponry of the human "military” in Avatar. Thought I should point out that this was not an army or even a mercenary army but corporate security. The Navi did not have firearms & were disorganized up until the events in the movie. An equivalent force in our own time would have assault rifles & a few machine guns – nothing like the firepower of the US Army or USMC. The big picture is that the real problems with Avatar were in the script. Better tech & better tactics would not have saved the poor script.
Agree with that. I might be in a minority here, but when I saw (and enjoyed) Avatar, I always saw the bad guys as CorpSec or PMC, never as an allegory for the US military.
Sure, the Avatar storyline is naive, but it is still a cool movie (starships, big guns, explosions, mecha’s, sexy aliens….come on guys, it was great :-) ).
As for the tech level: If you’re on some backwater colony world with limited support (a Capital Star class ISV taking what, some 5 years to reach Pandora?), I think it makes sense to go with the simplest (or even most primitive) technology that will do the job. The same happened in Africa and India during the colonial days here on Terra. So cartridge-firing small arms rather than railsguns, and ducted-fan aircraft rather than whatever.
And at least whoever designed the Capital Star class at least seems to have seen an actual spacecraft before….
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
What, no love for Up in the Air? I guess if you're not an Oscars lover than you aren't a lover of Jason Reitman and that whole Juno scene :). And Tropic Thunder IS an awesome movie…