The Hurt Locker
 

The Hurt Locker is pretty darn good, I want to get that out of the way up front. Despite my prior service, I usually avoid military movies given the cliched and message-bound nature of most of them. The glowing reviews I'd read convinced me otherwise about The Hurt Locker; director Kathryn Bigelow has a strong record of thoughtful action movies including Point Break and K-19: The Widowmaker (which I didn't see due to my previously mentioned distaste for the genre). Going in I expected some non-mindless action against the backdrop of war-torn Iraq, and I was not disappointed.

The story sounds familiar: a new platoon member swaggers into a military unit and makes a splash because of his maverick ways and disregard for "the rules." Sound familiar? In this case, the unit is an Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal team - the unlucky souls who have to defuse the improvised explosive devices plaguing the troops in Iraq. This film is interestingly apolitical (at least from my perspective - perhaps I'm a raging liberal now that I am of the unemployed persuasion); the situation appears pretty grim for all involved parties: the U.S. soldiers, the Iraqi citizens and the members of the militant resistance. The relationship between the EOD teams and the citizens is particularly intense, as everyone in the vicinity of an identified bomb is a potential ignitor, and thus they are in danger of getting their ass shot by the EOD guys if they make any questionable moves.

The story is narrowly focused around three main characters - James (Jeremy Renner), the new squad leader, who joins the unit and flaunts his disregard for Army standard procedure, prefering a wild west approach to disarming various big-assed bombs. His right hand man is Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), a rule-abiding sergeant who is nervous about surviving the 30ish days they have left in Iraq under James' adrenaline-charged direction. Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), is the most junior member of the team and is riddled with a combination of guilt and fear. The whole premise of the movie is "Will these guys survive their final thirty days in Iraq?" The movie is pretty intense; even the male bonding sessions have an edge to them - you won't really relax until the credits roll.

The acting is uniformly excellent among the three leads; they maintain an uneasy comraderie despite different perspectives/motivations as to what they are doing and why. The story mostly focuses on James, an atypical rogue who doesn't seem to be looking for external validation or glory for his heroic/risky efforts. It's unclear what his motivation really is - nine times out of ten in this type movie it's Some Tragic Event From My Past. James' epiphany is pretty perfect, I won't say more than that. Overall, an extremely interesting take on the relationship between fear and the things you hold most dear in life (and how the latter can differ dramatically from one person to the next).

The script, from a writer who spent time imbedded with a unit in Iraq, was solid - the dialogue wasn't forced or overly acronym-laden. Some of their leisure activities (kicking each others asses) didn't quite ring true to me, but perhaps that's because I spent my time on a submarine, where we mostly lounged in our smoking jackets, drinking lattes and eating crumpets. Apparently, the script was intended for Renner and it shows; he is destined to become a tentpole character soon. There are a few other familiar faces that pop up, including Guy Pearce and that dude from St. Elsewhere, but the story centers on the bomb unit. They actually filmed the movie in Jordan, and it was apparently 110-115 degrees. Wearing a 100 lb lead suit in 115 degree weather shows real dedication to your craft.

It's ridiculous how thinly distributed this movie is - even in NYC it's only showing at like three theaters. I saw it in the same backhallway theater (seating capacity: 30) of the megaplex that I saw The King of Kong at. It's a shame that people pay their $12 to see garbage like Transformers II and a quality "action" movie like The Hurt Locker is relegated to the local indie theater. Go see it, you will enjoy it. (On the off chance you enjoyed Transformers, you still may like it because stuff blows up and stuff)

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Sounds interesting , I wouldn't worry about the distribution it's getting around to other places slowly - Moon took awhile to get in Milwaukee and this one is coming in around a month or so.

Yeah i have seen the trailer for this one, looks really good, cant wait for it.

I am going to see this tomorrow and have great hopes for it.

I believe the movie was originally shown at the 2008 Toronto film festival, where audiences and critics alike were both highly favorable to it, but no one picked it up for distibution. This was because it was a film about the Iraq war (even though the picture is apolitical), which to the money people is box office poison and realistically they are probably right. It is only playing in one theater here in Seattle, part of an independant chain.

I hope many people will get a chance to see it since what I have read from the critics is that it should be on the short list for the Acadamy Awards for best picture and best actor.

Great post Chilly17!

Nice to see you posting Erasmus Folly!

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I figured this one to be another typical modern day war flick with the bomb defuse portion as a twist to it, but this has been getting really good reviews. Might change my mind on this on.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

The American Film Institute put The Hurt Locker in the Top 10 movies of 2009. And some websites are already saying The Hurt Locker will sure be nominated for the Oscar.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I understood (1) that they thought there were only bombs in there, that`s why they went alone, until they saw the lighted cigarete. And (2) apparently not, we saw Beckham later in the film trying to speak to James.
It`s a good film, it was first presented at Venice festival in 2008, and won the audience awards (The wrestler won jury prizes), I liked it very much, and maybe for the first time since 1998 we will have 2 war films nominated for best picture award, tihs and Basterds, I`ll be happy if one of them wins, both are great films.

excellent review. Just seen the film and agree with your thoughts. Loved your quote! :D

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Just watched this on dvd. I don't normally watch war films either, but having heard good things about this, I thought I should see it. And it was pretty good.

I couldn't help comparing it to Avatar and I really hope Bigelow beats Cameron to awards because I felt that this film respected the intelligence of the audience as opposed to Avatar which was beat you over the 3D-specs-wearing head with 'these are the goodies and these are the baddies'. It would be lame to say this was more real, because obviously it's about something real, but it doesn't always follow that a film about something real is in any way realistic so I thought this did a good job. The dialogue was good, believable and often wryly humourous.

One thing that bothered me slightly was the shifting viewpoint. At first we're following Sandbourn's reactions to the newcomer, but by the end it's focussed almost entirely on James. During some combat scenes the camera viewpoint flips to the viewpoint of the enemy for no apparent reason and then flips back.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Yeah, I thought it was a decent movie too, but a few things significantly diminished my enjoyment of it, for one thing, Jeremy Renner just doesn't seem like an actor for a leading role to me. And I don't like his face. I think he probably had a role I didn't like (and couldn't be bothered to remember) and which I'll continue to begrudge him. I think Guy Pearce is completely wasted in the film (and would/could have made a better, more charismatic leading man?). Also, Ralph Fiennes makes for the least convincing soldier ever. He really shouldn't be holding a rifle in any capacity. Also also, the scene where he appears was for some reason the most problematic for me, logically.

Other than that, I thought the lead character was annoyingly self-destructive which made it really difficult to relate to anything he was going through.

So decent, but nothing that would separate it from the dozens of other war movies (maybe I'm just not a fan?).

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

There's always room for more Guy Pearce in a movie ;)

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Ralph Fiennes made about the most convincing Nazi I ever saw. But that was another film.


The Hurt Locker. Why do they call this "a near perfect movie"?
a) maybe the camera is a tad jumpy; just a hair too much the journalistic approach.
b) Brian Geraghty ... Spc. Owen Eldridge was a crybaby and needed Patton to slap him.

Other than that, it was perfect.

I found Jeremy Renner completely convincing in his role. Being a Navy vet and knowing many in the EOD community, and also having recently spent some time with some ex-Ranger (now private contractors) doing this exact type of work in Iraq - I thought Reinner dead-on in his performance.

In terms of filmcraft, I could not find any production flaws. Looks real, all the way around. Sounds real, feels real.

One thing I liked about the film is it never became a Hollywood movie. It remained true to life and to the character of the man it was about. Uncompromising and without tabloib social messaging. This movie is about a guy who defuses bombs - a Ranger. Its pretty solid, through and through. Rare meat on a bun with not cheese.

I give it 10/10 and say it will last in film for the history of media - for all time.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I agree with most of what you say, except that I think it's a film about three guys. I think you need the other two soldiers [Spc Eldridge (Geraghty) and Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie)] to compare and contrast with Renner's kamikaze SSG James. That's what paints an entire picture of what could be going on over in Iraq. In fact, I think that Mackie should have been nominated Best Supporting Actor.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Thought it was outstanding. To me, it felt like the movie gave some truth to the war in Iraq. Where im from, it's become a common misconception that we are winning this war in a domminating fashion, and it's just not so. All other war Iraqi war movies paint a picture of us controlling the tempo of the war. This movie showed that the enemy has adapted, evaded, and evolved into a worthy opponent. I thought the sniper scene was dead one. All in all, I enjoyed the movie and it has worked it's way into my top 100.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

No war has ever been won, by anyone.
There is no self - the individual is illusion.
War is humanity beating its head on the pavement.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

If the individual is illusion, how come I don't know what you're thinking right now? Other than a bunch of really harsh things about James Cameron, that is. Also, we totally won World War II.

Anyway, I should finally be seeing The Hurt Locker tonight. Yay.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Who is we? :)

Sorry, I was reading Catching The Big Fish, by David Lynch.
I'm better now.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I do not see James as simply a Kamikaze. The Kamikaze were brainwashed patriots. James knows he can save lives.

When he dismantles the "body bomb" on the small boy's dead body it is because James does not want to see that body desecrated. It is out of respect and the love for his own son that he puts himself through the horror of defusing that bomb. You could view from the perspective he could pass up difusing a bome, but I didn't see it that way.

Sanborn and Eldridge worry about their own survival, even considering killing James to insure their survival. They are not the same calibur of spirits.

During the sniper scene, James feeds Sanborn the packet of juice while we know he is choking from his own thirst. He gives Eldridge comfort. He is a born leader.

So, while I see no overt message in this film, James is clearly, from my POV, a Brahman. Or maybe he's just a nice hot shot Adrenaline junkie. Ultimately his "one love" is his work. So ... "war is a drug", as the movie starts, comes back to us.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Thought it was pretty average, but it could've been substantially better with more competent actors. Due to the weak acting, all of the emotion is nearly sucked out of the film. I also found it distracting that Bigelow made an attempt to add a certain level of psychology into the film that felt flimsy and weak. To be honest, it would've been much better if these scenes had been removed entirely.

It is certainly a very tense film with terrific scenes of James defusing the bombs, but it doesn't really work in any other way. Despite the flaws, The Hurt Locker is still definitely worth seeing.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I couldn't really tell that Jeremy Renner or Anthony Mackie did any acting at all. They seemed completely real to me. Absolutely believable. No posing in this film - just real folks in real situations.

I have watched this film ten times now. It's awesome. My favorite film of the 21st Century (top 3, anyhow).

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I finally saw this last night, and I'm kind of between Justin and GOM. I admit, when it ended I was underwhelmed, but only because I'd heard so much about it and it seems to be the favorite for Best Picture at this point. That said, remove the expectations and it's quite a good film.

I agree that the acting was good; it didn't give the actors opportunities for the kind of histrionics that sometimes make performances look more impressive than they are. The performances are necessarily subtle, and work on that level.

I think the screenplay spent a bit more time going from one dangerous situation to the next, and while this breakneck pace benefits the film in many ways, when the film reaches its emotional conclusion, it feels a little sudden. I feel like the quote at the beginning is asked to bear a lot of the weight of explaining Will's disorder (for lack of a better word); more than is reasonable. I like the conception of Will's character more than I like the actual execution. I think they left a lot of personal exploration on the table to make the film more conventionally entertaining.

That said, I think it did a tremendous job of putting the difficulty of modern war into context. I think it's easy to look at the news and wonder how things can go wrong, but when you see what these kinds of conflicts look like, you're left wondering why it doesn't go wrong more often. I like that, in some situations, we never find out if some guy on a balcony with a camera was actually an insurgent, or just someone fascinated by the soldiers. We don't know because they don't know, and there's almost no way to tell who's just curious about what's happening, and who wants nothing more than to murder them. It established this general sense of paranoia very well.

All in all, I'd give it a .

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I think people would be surprised at how many Rangers go back again and again to Afghanistan and Iraq. They'll do three, four tours. Then many go back as private contractors.

Loved this one. Great surprise as I was not expecting much. Highly recommended.

I just saw this movie.. and sincerely is worthless, bad movie.

What did you find so worthless about it? I thought it was pretty good even though they took numerous... what I think they call... artistic liberties as to how the military actually operates in it...

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I can say The hurt locker is a one of the best war movie.United States Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team during the Iraq War.Direction was so good. all the character played very good role.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

The sound effect when he punches him is the worst sound effect ever. This ruined the entire movie for me.

I don't know if you're serious or not, but that is the most ridiculous comment ever.

remarkable film...

The Hurt Locker (2009, Kathryn Bigelow)

http://theoscarboy.files.wordpress.c...ker09-6-27.jpg

The EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) units must be one of the more tense jobs in the United States military. Their job is to uncover, disarm, and then safely detonate improvised explosive devices (IEDs). This film is quite remarkable in the documentary style it's presented through. The screenwriter of The Hurt Locker is Mark Boal, who spent time in Iraq as a journalist with several bomb crews. That first hand experience from the writing perspective tends to shift the film toward a more realistic and somber fair and away from an action and bells and whistles type of war-film. The film was extremely refreshing and tense and will certainly rank up there in my mind with the great war films; Paths of Glory, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, Apocalypse Now, and so forth. Now we finally have a great film about the struggle in Iraq.
There is no huge story to be found here. The Hurt Locker follows the last 30-some days of Bravo company after their team leader (Guy Pearce) is killed in the amazing opening 10 minutes of the film. The replacement team leader is Sgt. James played to perfection in one of the great performances of film by Jeremy Renner, a relatively unknown actor. Certainly the fact that director Bigelow filmed the movie in Jordan and in horrible conditions right next door to Iraq, helped Renner and the other actors achieve that sense of tension and somberness in their parts. There's no glory to be had, or any message in The Hurt Locker, just a small group of men doing their job to save lives. Renner has some excellent moments, and as they say embodies the part. He smokes, jokes, and doesn't follow the rules because the rules are in part meant to protect him, whether it's wearing a cumbersome "protective" suit or setting a time limit to the detonation. He ignores the rules when the rules don't help him get his job done. There's no bravo or machismo hint in his performance whatsoever. This is one of those films that you watch and you believe the actors are their character. Anthony Mackie plays his second, in charge of having his back and covering him while in the open. Brian Geraghty plays the third member of the small crew, as a jaded and death-phobic shooter. None of these "stock" war-film parts drift into parody or cliche'.
The cinematography is excellent, The Hurt Locker is simply a beautiful film to watch, and the amazing action sequences kept me at edge for the films two plus hour length. Certainly one of the best films of 2009, and it breathes new life into a stale genre of film. There's no sentimental musical score telling us to feel nervous. We simply watch and that's enough. The editing is pitch-perfect, we know exactly what is going on and when and this isn't sacrificed in the name of fancy and frantic Michael Bay-esque camera work. This is simply an amazing film and amazing story-telling with little undermining manipulation to the viewer.

Grade: A

yes really. And welcome to mofo

I thought it was fine... scratch that... perfect. Acting should look like it isn't acting, which is what the film accomplished for me. Do you have specific examples?

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Nice review Chilly :yup: I usually avoid war movies myself :yup: thought the Hurt Locker was great :yup:

There are a couple that come to mind. One of the absolute worst scenes in the film is where Sanborn and James get into a fight and roll along the ground -- that was hilariously bad. "Geez, you really are insane." Maybe I'm alone in this, but was this line even necessary?

I also seem to remember a really cliche scene where James runs into the shower, and stands there pondering what has happened -- he looked like someone trying too hard. This should've been a key moment, instead, it looked as plain and unemotional as they come. It was also one of the most tame and stereotypical ways of illustrating how a character feels. Was there no other way of showing this?

Another scene that comes to mind is where one of the survivors of the explosion in the opening scene is in the midst of a session with his therapist. It was almost a little difficult to take seriously. There was just nothing "real" about the scene, aside from the documentary-style aesthetics. And even that can only help the "realism" element so much.

Renner just isn't that great of an actor. Sure, he may be good for an action film, but every scene where Bigelow tries to take us elsewhere -- away from the "thriller" aspect -- it falls completely flat. Like I said earlier, it should've just stayed away from the psychology, because it was ultimately just distracting and even painful to watch -- not in a good way, either. I've never found Bigelow to be that great of a director, but this sort of proves that she's just above average.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be too hard on the film, because, after all, I did still like it; it's a good film with terrific sequences of suspense. But one of the best of the year? Not even close.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Cant wait to add this to my Collection its a great film

One of the best war films I've seen, rented it last weekend. Jeremy Renner is excellent. The direction is outstanding, love the hand-held camera work. Really an impressive film, I'm glad Bigelow won the Oscar for direction, she deserved it.

The hurt locker
 

A SLICE OF WAR

Few films leave me riveted. This one did. Katherine Bigalow’s slice of life war movie doesn’t confuse itself with political commentary or take sides in the fight. This film doesn’t pretend to answer questions as to why the war is taking place, but instead allows us to walk in the shoes of Bravo Company, as they follow orders and ask themselves, “why do I choose to fight today?”

The Hurt Locker centers around a team of soldiers led by a “bomb tech,” who has the dubious job of dismantling roadside explosives (IED’s). If the team can’t send in a robot to shut down a device - which can be concealed underground, hidden in the trunk of a car, or even in a decaying human body – they send in the tech. The space-like protective suit these guys wear doesn’t ensure survival if there’s an explosion, as we learn in the first ten minutes when Bravo’s tech is killed.

He’s replaced by the rebellious and stubborn, but talented SFC William James (played seamlessly by Jeremy Renner). With over 800 devices safely dismantled, James is determined to get the job done his way. He refuses to use the robot, taking matters into his own hands and dismantling the most threatening bombs without wearing his helmet so he can “die comfortably.”

You could cut through each scene’s palpable tension as pressure builds with every mission in which Bravo’s involved. Nothing distracts from the drama in this film. Ms. Bigalow didn’t deliver an ostentatious, 2 hour music video, nor did she cast big name heavy-hitters in the main roles. With only a few beautiful shots that call attention to her exquisite direction, and two recognizable actors in supporting roles (Guy Pierce and Ralph Fiennes), the movie never shows off.

This film takes a non-compromising look at the day-to-day struggles American men experience being soldiers. Spc. Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) already seems to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, distracting himself with violent video games in his spare time and seeking counsel from a psychologist soldier. After the team survives an explosive strapped to a civilian they can’t rescue, Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) breaks down and questions the validity of his life.

While his partners air on the side of caution and follow orders, James continues to push the envelope. When a young boy he mistakes as his friend is killed to play host to a body bomb, James seeks revenge – tearing through a local house and threatening innocent citizens. He later orders his team off course of a mission to figure out who may have been responsible for a tank bombing, jeopardizing their lives and causing Eldridge to get injured. These men have wittingly signed up for a situation that gives them no control over their daily lives– and renegade James wants some.

At the end of the day, when the job for which you’ve signed up is filled with fear and uncertainty at every turn, how does one breathe easy? When soldiers normally safely confined to an office decide to take a ride into the field and get killed by IED’s, when enemies strap explosives to innocent civilians as bait and you risk losing your lives to save one; how do you keep up the fight within yourself to keep fighting the war?

Because soldiers don’t quit, these characters go on in different ways. When the sink can’t aptly wash off the blood of battle, James walks fully-clothed into the shower and lets the water turn crimson. When he calls his girlfriend back home and can’t find the words to speak, he simply hangs up. After the team nearly gets killed by the human bait bomb, Sanborn asks James how he “takes the risk” of being the bomb tech. James’ answer: “I don’t think about it.”

The purpose of the plot and the sum of the stories in The Hurt Locker don’t add up to a big blow-out finale. Every second of the movie is fraught with tension – dramatic and action-packed. Its character-driven theme peeks into the fears of the men carrying sniper rifles. It shines a light into the minds of men who dig in the sand to unveil a mess of wires about to destroy everything around them. Why do they do this? For some: duty. For a few: an adrenaline rush. Or maybe because it’s the one thing they really love to do.

The Hurt Locker is recent American filmmaking at its finest, leaving its grip on you long after you return home from the theatre. Poignant and telling, honest and raw, it’ll leave you riveted.


-Hillary Smotherman

I didn't want to start a thread purely for this, so I tacked it onto the review thread. Hope that's ok.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/n...lesharers.html

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I've wanted to see this movie ever since it won an award for its script. I guess it has been one of those movies which has just popped up with out warning, and scooped up a fair bit of awards in the process. James Cameron must have a little annoyed when his ex-wife's film got the award for best picture over Avatar though haha.

So, I finally saw this movie. Disappointed, but before you start criticizing me, let me just say it was a solid movie. I'm not person who's easily dragged into numerous discussions about huge movies,oscar winners etc..Because it's details I look the most.

What can I say, I simply expected more. Not talking about the ending or casting. Maybe it should have more dialogue.
On the other note, I just didn't get the behavior of the main character. I can understand it is what he does the best, but in my opinion it is totally opposite of the reality. In reality, he would have been talking some responsibility for his actions and reckless behavior, knowing he's putting himself and the others to a death threatening situation.

So, was it just some kind of encouragement for the young Americans to join the war of profit and filth? 3 buddies, drinking, hanging around etc while the innocents die every minute.

I just can't see how this movie got so many oscars? Personally I would give them for directing and editing. Others, really should have gone to someone else.

All in all, this movie wasn't bad, but it is HIGHLY overrated.

The Hurt Locker
 

Last year, previous to any major award shows, I found myself very excited to watch the much anticipated Hurt Locker. However, even halfway through viewing, I was already disappointed, mostly because the movies premise was much different than advertised.
It had not been demonstrated to the public as being a documentary or even a movie "based" off of a true story (which it wasn't either). I felt as though it tried to tie together the themes of a regular film and a documentary to portray even more dominant themes of patriotism present in today's society. However, that type of film is not what I hoped I'd signed up for. It tried so hard, that it didn't seem to accurately hit any of these themes.
The acting was done fairly well, however the unrealistic visions of war present weren't enough to make me believe what was going on. Unfortunately, I whole-heartedly believe the reason this controversial movie made the cut to win for Motion Picture was due to the fact that American's believe if they didn't like it, they weren't supporting our fellow army men and women. WHich, obviously, isn't the case at all. Strictly movie wise, I could have had more fun watching a documentary rather than this unrealistic and fairly poor done representation of the current war situation. Hence, my view is that it did not truly deserve not only its nomination, but ultimate win.
Any thoughts?

So, you're saying that the voting members for the Oscars felt they had to let this picture win, because if they didn't, they would not be supporting the military?

:goof:

How do you know these "visions of war," as you call them, were unrealistic? Have you been on a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan? You don't believe that a bomb can be set off with a cell phone?

The writer of this, did "embed" himself with an EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) team, and wrote a story about it, which was published in a Playboy magazine, and is what is the basis for this movie.

Still, these "unrealistic visions of war" are very real to a lot of men and women returning from tours of duty in that area. Just because it doesn't get reported on every major news network, doesn't it mean it didn't happen.

So, you were saying?

Spudracer pretty much summed up my thoughts...

Hurt Locker was a good movie. I wanted that or Precious to win Best Picture that year.

This is more of what I was going for. No, I am not saying that no military technology exists that I am not aware of, or that it is impossible for it to be complex(such as a bomb being detonated from a cell phone), but I am saying that certain actions of the characters were unrealistic. True, they might had references from people with experience in the situation, but you must remember that all stories "based off of real life" must be somewhat exaggerated. That's what film does, unless it is coined a documentary. There needs to be some elements of a traditional action-adventure/war film that we are used to seeing, that or need to see to fully support it in order for the audience to keep passing on the movie by word-of-mouth.

The main character didn't seem to make decisions, except ones that put others into danger, and no, I cannot help but think that is a tad unrealistic. Especially when no serious repercussions were met after.

My point, overall, was that there is more politics involved in areas of entertainment than we realize, or choose to realize. Although many areas of this film portray the war in Iraq, and real-life struggles that must be overcome, I think many filmmakers know how to twist them in certain ways in order to make a film more enjoyable to the reader. When the guild sees films like this, and our country needs a sense of patriotism to tie us together (which, after all, is really all we have), wouldn't this film be seen as a great American documentary? Politics plays a role everywhere in our society, even in places we don't see it interfering. Movies, songs, etc. are often chosen to represent what the government and leading organizations want their citizens up uphold. Who could disagree that things "America" should like are the ones highly advertised to the general public??

As far as meeting the requirements for a FILM, this definitely fails. There is no character development (which, normally should occur over the course of a long period of time), and the characters don't seem to make decisions that would really occur in these situations (with few exceptions). The only things it follows would be the explosions that people miraculously live through, and the limited sense of danger they all seem to be placed in in public. Overall, there was some added drama to make it faintly more interesting. There was no climax to the story, and the ending did not satisfy any major dilemma or leave the watcher with a sense of closure to the characters or their story. I understand that this is maybe where one would leave off hearing about a war group in real life, but then this movie should follow more of the writing characteristics of a documentary.

Just because someone "embedded" themselves in this story, and claims these things to be real, doesn't necessarily mean they are. Like I said above, I'm sure some are, but the others are exaggerated or changed. After all, the writers, directors, and producers have the final say on what to emit to audiences don't they? We have no idea about many true accounts until we hear them from numerous amounts of sources.I fully support the troops, and many things about the struggles here may be experienced by them, which I do not deny, or wish to put down. However, this film was not exceptional in any way, other than it made us believe that we know exactly what life would be like in war, which we cannot by a film with added moments of uncertainty.

That was the entire point of the movie: he's an adrenaline junkie. He makes terrible decisions, and he gets out of them because he's extremely good at what he does. But he's a loose cannon and takes chances, etc. Just because he's the primary character it doesn't mean you're supposed to love everything he does.

The film makes war look terrifying and brutal. This is not a rah-rah-rah military flick by any stretch of the imagination. You could make a better case that it's an anti-war film, for crying out loud, but in reality it's neither.

All this stuff about politics is well and good, but I think people reading politics into places it isn't happens far more often than directors smuggling in political undertones that we're not aware of. If you want to make the case that this is an overtly political film, let's get into some specifics, eh?

As far as the main character goes, I am aware that we are not supposed to always like them. But, if this film is supposed to show the realities of war, shouldn't be be a soldier that doesn't represent all of those qualities? After all, how many do, and get away with it? Certainly not those specifically trained for such important jobs. This was simply to make the movie, a movie.

It does indeed make war look brutal, which I cannot say that it is from experience, yet still know that it is. However, if they wanted to make a movie that would accurately portray events, jobs, or actual stories, they should have made a documentary. This film, in my opinion, was partly made to be controversial. In this way, it is still talked about today, unlike other war films made recently. We could argue all day about politics, but no matter what your opinion might be, politics runs the world, and majority of the influential media. Sorry, but that's reality.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Well, how do we know that's unrealistic? I've never defused bombs for the military. I'm guessing you haven't. I'm also guessing such people are really, really hard to find and recruit, so I'd guess it takes a lot to get rid of one when a) they're really great at what they do and b) we're fighting two wars involving insurgencies. I won't pretend to know either way, but it didn't strike me as terribly contrived. And even if it did, it's a movie! You keep pointing out that it's not a documentary, but doesn't that mean it gets granted a reasonable amount of dramatic license? So long as it's not slandering people or misrepresenting crucial facts, of course.

Re: "politics runs the world." Nobody's disputing that, but that doesn't mean every film is overtly political (we can see that many are not), and it certainly isn't a defense of a specific political interpretation.

Yes, it should receive a certain amount of dramatic license for being a movie. Therefore, it is fine as is. However, it did claim to be an accurate portrayal when first advertised, and this is what many film critics review it as. Therefore, I see it being a tad bit of a stretch. "It's just a movie..." is a good comment. It is. Therefore, it should be evaluated as a movie/film, which by normal, recognized film-making conventions, is not properly executed. Like I said before, there is no climax, severe character development, or clear resolution that make this film worth watching. It is like watching a few days out of someone's life... which does not make for a film, but instead an excerpt or sorry, documentary. It does succeed in breaking such normal conventions and giving us something we are not used to, but unfortunately doesn't make sense as a progression of characters or plot that make a story worth getting lost into.

Who claimed it was accurate or very realistic? All these claims are so vague. And, again, how do we know it isn't accurate? This is all just guesswork, right?

Wow, we'll have to totally disagree about this. There is nothing inherently wrong with a film that simply tries to show you a "few days out of someone's life." Many films fit that definition. Most stories are told in a certain way, sure, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a fictional film telling its story in a different way. Films, thank goodness, are not restricted to either some predictable formula, or else turning themselves into documentaries. There are no "rules" about this, and I found The Hurt Locker quite compelling with any of the staples of "recognized film-making conventions." Though I suspect we'd disagree about what those are, anyway.

All that said, whether or not it's "something we are not used to" depends on what each of us watches, yeah?

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Why is it that when a film doesn't follow the predictable structure of protagonist/antagonist, protagonist develops (because that's realistic 100% time, but not really), audience likes protagonist, blah blah. Movies don't need to follow these stereotypes of what a movie is supposed to entail.

Movies don't NEED to do any of these things.... but in an analytical course that I just finished, we analyzed films like this, and how they differ from the norm of conventional film making. And it did indeed differ from how it was originally portrayed to follow. I just didn't see it as a film I was expecting based off of this. Therefore, I was disappointed.
There's obviously nothing wrong with a film that does this, I was simply saying I didn't enjoy it. You did. Congrats.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

Why hold expectations for anything? Also, whatever you learn from a course shouldn't be the only foundation you go by when it comes to applying knowledge. Just because a film course says this doesn't mean it's 1. correct, or 2. objective or even realistically applicable. The idea of a course, in any topic, is to provide background for your jumping-off point where you make up your own mind about those concepts you learned about rather than following them blindly. Roger Ebert isn't always right, neither am I, but that's the idea isn't it? To dissect the tools of examination finds one better equipped and more aware that things like expectations hold little relevance to the actuality of something.

What do you mean?

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

I think the point of all this is that, when someone is "surprised" by an unusual film (though, really, The Hurt Locker isn't all that unusual), it's more a statement about them and what they watch than a statement about the film. And that's not necessarily a slight, just an observation.

Anyway, the "you liked it, I didn't" response is all well and good, but it's a slight change from earlier, where you were suggesting that any film that's going to have a structure like this should be a documentary. Can't agree with that at all, but hey, to each their own.

Simply meant that analytically, a film with these conventions and they way in which they follow people would have worked better for a well-done documentary. Again, that is simply my opinion. But, some critics seem to agree...

But they weren't making a documentary, so what you're saying is merely that you think it's shot and laid out kind of like a documentary, yes? You used the word "conventions," which in another thread you seem to be defining as shooting style, in which case I would point out that feeling like a documentary is the point of the film. When a film deals with realistic subject matter, or is loosely based on actual accounts, it's reasonable to shoot that film in a way that reminds us of actual footage, to emphasize this point. I don't see a problem with this.

Re: critics. Which ones are you referring to? Because it got 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. It's critically adored.

EDIT: sorry, it's 97%. Yowza.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

No wonder you didn't like it. You spent the entire time analyzing the movie instead of just watching it. School ruins film, I says.

It gives you the tools to choose to ruin or increase appreciation for, up to the person.

So your main problems are that the film doesn't go anywhere, lack of character development and the fact that it's unrealistic when it's supposed to be a realistic portrayal of the war.

I don't get what's wrong with the fictional following of the lives of a number of soldiers in Iraq. I thought it was very entertaining and very exciting.

Moreover, it's original in its approach. No preaching like In The Valley of Elah or Lions for Lambs, no clichés and no blown-up, exhausting themes. It offers an intriguing look on the men in the demining force and their daily routines, where one wrong decision can have fatal consequences. You see, that is what you think it is. But after a while, I began to understand that I wasn't going to learn about the sense of camaraderie that lives among these men or the mental problems they face. No, it's the story of one man who is addicted to his job. Like it says at the beginning of the film: "war is a drug". To this guy, every demining job is like a replacement of an extreme sport in the sense that it offers the same adrenalin rush. Without it, he feels empty.

Now that sounds pretty darn original to me.

Also, no climax? What? The climax is that while others are happy as can be to get back home, this guy dreads the thought of having to shop for groceries like a "normal" man. He can't live without the war. That sounds like a climax to me.

To say that The Hurt Locker "fails" to meet the requirements of a film, is ridiculous. It's clear that you didn't like it, I'm not trying to change your mind here. But don't come up with this kind of stuff, man.

Have you seen Man On Wire? That's a documentary that is almost constructed as a classic caper movie. I sometimes forgot that I was watching a documentary; that's how much it sometimes felt like a real film. Does that mean that it isn't a documentary?

*head explodes*

I'll have to pop this in and watch it again, but I found it to be a pretty accurate telling of what it's like over there. I haven't personally served a tour in either area, but I have plenty of friends and family who have, and have told me all about it.

I didn't really see any liberties taken, in terms of Renner's character and his need for action. Some people are like that. You have to be a nut-job to begin with, if you're in a unit that deals with defusing explosives. Think about it. If you just defused a bomb you know for a fact could have killed you, how would you act afterward?

A buddy of mine served with an explosives disposal unit, and he'll tell you point blank, the guys are good at what they do, but they are unstable when it comes to normal things.

Re: The Hurt Locker
 

5/10!!!!! Overrated but still a decent watch.

My full review can be found here.... http://www.movieforums.com/community...d.php?p=852944