The critics of this movie have a couple things in common. One: They are non-Vets. Two: If it does not have a love scene w/half naked women, or someone shooting 60 rounds out of a 12 round magazine, it ain't no good. It's been 36 years since I was in the U.S. Army. I doubt if it has changed much. These critics have to realize that in war, there is no Chuck Norris-type running around piling up bodies for a 1 year tour. I'm no combat vet, but I estimate in a combat (war) a 1 year tour would consist of maybe a few days or so of actual combat (under fire). Contact w/the enemy is not 24/7, kids. Only in the Norris/Stallone-type movies. This movie, in my opinion, was probably as real as it can get. The soldier who went off base would only be A.W.O.L. if his commanding officer filed charges. It's not automatic. The best thing these critics can do is educate themselves. That can only happen if they serve. My advise is go to your nearest recruiter and join. No use in sitting here at your computer and typing in a bunch of anti-American drivel. Iraq, like Viet Nam does not/did not have the enemy running around with "enemy" painted on their foreheads. The enemy can be male or female, from 8 to 80 years old. Go Army! David F. 52B20 14th. Aviation Bttn. and 3/67th. Air Defense Artillery. 1973 to 1976.
Review of The Hurt Locker
