The Hurt Locker

Quite easily the best movie of 2009 and the best war movie since Black Hawk Down and maybe even beyond that, The Hurt Locker does something that few other war movies seem to be able to do. Rather than focusing on rapid-action combat scenes and the oh-so-emotional mental breakdowns that all soldiers seem to dramatically endure in Hollywood (Platoon, much?), it emphasizes the relationships of soldiers and the intensity of everyday living in Iraq– intensity that doesn't diminish when the guns are holstered. And that's where you'll see the real difference.

The film introduces a seemingly new and unique idea by following a U.S. Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team as they go around defusing potential bombs all around town– a concept that allows the typical fast-action war theme to take a backseat to the dramatic intensity of the three team members' escapades and arguments. It's all about survival and this time around, it's the calm, isolated atmosphere and the feeling of never being truly safe that creates the ever-present suspense. The exceptional editing is partially to thank for such constant energy and pace. Quick transitions ensure that there is never a dull moment and the audience is always thrust into the middle of the action. Plus, director Kathryn Bigelow employed some amazing cinematography (thanks to Barry Ackroyd, United 93) and some of the best shaky hand-held-cam and zoom work I've seen yet. It seems that, for some, this might be a turn-off, but personally, I believe those who complain about shaky cam need to take a closer look at its purpose and realize that it's far more effective in establishing a documentary-like feel for raw and engaging films such as this one.

The interaction between the soldiers is a key point of the film and the entire project is clearly intended to be largely character-driven. You will more than likely find yourself sympathizing with all of the main characters at some point and several others along the way. More than just observing a character's breakdown at the scene of war such as in films like Jarhead, The Hurt Locker immerses the viewer in the world of the characters themselves and practically forces you to care for them– and I mean that in the best way possible. And perhaps the difference is also partially distinguished by the quality of acting. And if there's anyone who deserves recognition for their acting, it's most certainly Jeremy Renner, who surprises with a top-notch performance as Staff Sergeant William James. His performance will have you laughing at bits of humor scattered throughout, gasping in disbelief at one point, shedding a sympathetic tear at another, and yelling at him in exasperation in yet another scene. The characters are never two-dimensional and the film always manages to provide constant reminders that all of the soldiers are just normal people in war situations, driving its purpose home even more effectively. Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are impressive in their own roles and share great chemistry both with each other and with Renner. The relationships between the three follow no stereotyped guidelines and their interactions are almost always unpredictable. Further down the billing, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes also give solid performances worth mentioning.

Overall, The Hurt Locker is a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way through and packs a visual and cinematographic punch without the over-the-top Hollywood action scenes and special effects. While the storyline may be inaccurate when it comes to certain little details (as many war vets have noted), it's a unique one and allows for much more realistic and well-rounded characters. You'll walk away with your heart still beating fast for a good while after the credits roll and it'll make you think for an even further extended period of time. Everything about its design and execution will stick with you.

--The Motion Picture Underground

I've been reading a lot of the comments on this website from people and I don't understand what they are coming from. Calling it overrated and inaccurate. Don't believe a word. All the awards, honors, #1 spots The Hurt Locker has gotten, it deserves it.

The film explores the clichéd "War is hell" approach, but in a totally different way. We explore our characters and they do act like many army men. Anthony Mackie as Sergeant Sanborn is the normal army man who shows no emotion until the film ends. Brian Geraghty as Specialist Eldridge is the kind of army man who questions about what's going on there. The only one different from the pack is Jeremy Renner as Sergeant James. He's an adrenaline junkie, and he plays his character so well. He definitely deserved his Oscar nomination.

The direction is so good as well. The way this film was shot is like you are there, in the action, experiencing what the characters are experiencing. The film taps into humanitarianism.

I also really enjoyed the cameos from Guy Pearce, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes. I know some people have complained about this, saying they didn't have enough time, but they're cameos. That's why they are so short.

Many films have been made about the War in Iraq...very few have been as good as The Hurt Locker. Overall, in my opinion, this was the best film of the year and one of the best films possibly ever.

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.

I couldn't help compare this film with Ridley Scott's "Blackhawk down". Both films are military action flicks. But when Scott's film shows the seemingly psychologically indifferent amount of cruelty of war (it just happens as inevitable part of it), when all involved and their loved ones are simply victims, this one tries to build up an overview of human psychology. This policy of treating us a target of social manipulation has always made me upset.

It has failed as far as I have been concerned because it is overly politically correct (which I do not condone because of its clearly manipulative goals). They want to pass a clear message, not a view to think over. I could call this a propaganda. In fact I do.

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.