Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

War movies

I hate when movie reviewers assume that if a movie's setting is a war, then it is necessarily a "war movie". Sometimes it is just a setting, and it's okay if there are inaccuracies because it's not a fucking documentary. The Hurt Locker, to me, wasn't trying to be anti-war or pro-war. I don't think it was trying to portray war in any particular way, or even at all, except as simply a backdrop or a symbol - something within which the characters could be encased. Yes, perfect adherence to the realities would be nice, but how often does that ever happen in a movie? And why does that have to happen in order for the movie to be enjoyed or taken seriously? What happened to suspending your disbelief? I'm sure it becomes increasingly difficult to do that as the subject matter becomes more familiar to you. But it is almost always necessary, to some degree, in order to enjoy a story. Fiction deserves some leeway. Non-fiction? Not so much.

But never mind. I am only defending this movie because it was directed by a woman.

Don't be the product, buy the product!