The thing that's most baffling to me about the Hurt Locker Incident is that it was pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that regardless of what other people thought about the film - whether positive or negative - much of LK's distaste for it revolved around his own experiences in the US military and in Iraq* and the fact that Katherine Bigelow intended the film to be realistic, regarded it as being realistic and had filmed it in an almost-faux-documentary style. Now, I enjoyed 'The Hurt Locker' for what it was (which wasn't necessarily what Katherine Bigelow thought it was) and I recall defending it in that thread but - and I mean absolutely no disrespect - I pretty much disregarded that aspect of LK's criticism because I figured he was too close to the subject matter to be able to look past the flaws in its 'reality'. I'd do the same if it was a medical drama and LK was a doctor, a police procedural and LK was a detective or a vignette of rural life in 1980s Ireland and LK was a died-in-the-wool, aran-wearing bog-snorkeller. And for the life of me (and this is the baffling bit), I could never understand why Tom couldn't see the same thing. * apologies to LK if I'm putting him somewhere that he never was, but I think that's correct. Apologies also if I'm mis-representing his opinions as well.