Guerra ao Terror

It's not the job you want your kids to aspire to. Or your spouse. Or anyone you care about. But we are so thankful there are people who do this.

This sad tale is centered on the unique skills of the tragically necessary field of bomb technician. Bomb techs, of course, are those heroic individuals who get called when a bomb or other explosive device is discovered. Their job, under life and death pressure daily, is to defuse the bomb and make things safe for the rest of us. Unfortunately, in war environments, this is a daily occurrence. What kind of person can do this kind of work? How do they do it day in and day out? Someone has to be a little crazy to do this in the first place, don’t they? These are the questions this movie explores. The movie evokes sadness, inspiration, sympathy, concern, and even awe as we watch the heroes of this movie struggle with their daily grind.

I liked this movie very much because, apart from being a good thriller, I believe it is a quite good psychological comment of how people function under extreme circumstances such as war.

Basically the movie introduces few different types of character and then inspects them. Firstly SSgt. James who as he says "loves only one thing..". He is a person who loves war because it gets his adrenalin pumping. Anybody who ever loved doing anything can easily understand what keeps him going, except in his case it is something, hm..., not so nice and widely excepted. This results in creating extremely dangerous situations for all the people (soldiers) that surround him. He is aware of that, and is torn by that fact but he really cannot help himself, he has no choice because he is the way he is. He seeks danger on one end, and when he finds it, he appears to be the best person to be around. A nice touch in the movie was the way in which he tries to rationally "validate" his actions by taking a righteous stand regarding the death of an innocent (not to go into the details)...

Other soldiers are a wide specter of human beings with feelings of regret, fear, compassion etc.. The people who are very much affected by the war and are changed by it. Two supporting roles of Sgt. Sanborn and Spc. Eldridge are well placed in contrast to SSgt. James for being "human". Acting is great, and all the important characters convey their state of mind very well. David Morse was in the movie for just a few seconds and played his role of a "hillbilly cowboy" marvelously as Col. Reed.

A really good movie...

For some of my friends this was just a solid action movie, nothing else. I watched it yesterday and for me it was much more than just action, this movie was a deeply affecting series of shots that make truly feel the war in Iraq and make you see the sacrifice that's going on out there.

There are a few things that everyone must notice while watching the movie. There is some superb acting present throughout the whole movie, especially by Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie and I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more Oscar nominations for acting. There are also some pretty extreme editing achievements, that even I, an amateur movie-lover, could see. Cinematography and some other technical achievements are stunning as well. As far as technical part of the film goes, this movie is more than successful, it is to be expected that there will be some technical Oscar nominations as well. Writing is simple but that's the way it is and all my congratulations go to Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow for creating such a powerful war-drama that sticks with you even long after watching this film.

I honestly hope that the Academy members won't forget abut this phenomenal movie achievement. I recommend everyone to watch this "tool" that allows us to see what the word WAR really means.

Best regards from Slovenia

Do not get me wrong. I do not think this film was bad by any means. However, I absolutely do not think it was great whatsoever. I do not think it merited the praise it received. I could not get into this movie. I did not find any character particularly riveting. Instead, I believe everything was oversimplified. There are three significant characters who can all be fully described in one word. William James(Jeremy Renner) is reckless, JT Sanborn(Anthony Mackie) is rational and Owen Eldridge(Brian Geraghty) is a whiner. Talk about simple and boring. It is a complete misconception to call the "protagonist" William James anything more than an action junkie placed in a dramatic film. He does not fit. Sure he disarms bombs and saves lives but you get the idea throughout the film he just does it for the thrill. His experiences are nothing more than him indulging in his cravings for adventure, which makes it very difficult to connect with him in dramatic scenes. The overall point of this story was to connect with this character and how he is consumed by "war". I feel like I did not have this connection and the actual story was not strong enough to support where the characters were lacking. I could see how war veterans could connect because they probably have had similar experiences to relate making this film an involved reminiscence. I do not see how your average moviegoer could call The Hurt Locker a "great" film/experience when it lacked great dialogue, a great story, complex and diverse characters, great acting. The Hurt Locker is an average film. There is nothing about it that makes it stand out above and beyond any other war film I have ever seen and it certainly did not deserve the Academy Award for Best Picture.

This is a different kind of war movie for a different kind of war that ultimately fails in the same ways the war fails - in that it lacks a singular focus, it has no direction or goal, and the purpose is not clear. It's not a bad movie, I just couldn't find anything to connect to or engage with - and when a moment would arise in which I thought that thing to connect to was coming... it didn't.

The film drags along at a snail's pace at times, which works for some scenes, such as a great scene wherein the main characters are pinned down for several hours by insurgents in the middle of the desert - but mostly the slowness just feels slow. There is no real story here, yet it isn't just a docudrama, either. It doesn't seem to know what kind of a movie it is, or from which characters' view point it is being told. In my opinion the story that it started to tell (and would have made it a much more interesting film) was of the drug-like addictive nature of high risk behavior, and how people who engage in that sort of thing in war will return to civilian life only to find other dangerous, high risk behavior to engage in... which is not dissimilar thematically to another of director Kathryn Bigelow's films, "Point Break". Alas, it seemed as if she forgot about that angle halfway thru the film. The worst part of the film is the ending, which after 125 minutes of slow pacing suddenly races past what should have and could have given the film its purpose.

If I had seen this film back when it first came out, I think I would have said, "OK. A well-acted, decent film despite its problems." The thought that this film would be nominated for and would win so many major awards, including being the front runner for any Oscar whatsoever -- would not have even crossed my mind, and it is mindboggling to me now that that is the case.