Cinemadharma

(2012-04-29 16:11:39)

Just like the war it portrays, this film lacks direction, focus and clarity of purpose.

This is a different kind of war movie for a different kind of war thatultimately fails in the same ways the war fails - in that it lacks asingular focus, it has no direction or goal, and the purpose is notclear. It's not a bad movie, I just couldn't find anything to connectto or engage with - and when a moment would arise in which I thoughtthat thing to connect to was coming... it didn't.The film drags along at a snail's pace at times, which works for somescenes, such as a great scene wherein the main characters are pinneddown for several hours by insurgents in the middle of the desert - butmostly the slowness just feels slow. There is no real story here, yetit isn't just a docudrama, either. It doesn't seem to know what kind ofa 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 ita much more interesting film) was of the drug-like addictive nature ofhigh risk behavior, and how people who engage in that sort of thing inwar will return to civilian life only to find other dangerous, highrisk behavior to engage in... which is not dissimilar thematically toanother of director Kathryn Bigelow's films, "Point Break". Alas, itseemed as if she forgot about that angle halfway thru the film. Theworst part of the film is the ending, which after 125 minutes of slowpacing suddenly races past what should have and could have given thefilm its purpose. If I had seen this film back when it first came out, I think I wouldhave said, "OK. A well-acted, decent film despite its problems." Thethought that this film would be nominated for and would win so manymajor awards, including being the front runner for any Oscar whatsoever-- would not have even crossed my mind, and it is mindboggling to menow that that is the case.

(2012-04-29 13:38:26)

Not the Great Iraq War Movie, but tense and gripping

Jeremy Renner is a fine actor who deserves more exposure (his ABC cop show was canceled way too quickly!) and he eats up the scenery as the bomb disposal tech with nerves of steel. But his character is a bit too cool, almost inhuman in his calm approach to terrifying danger, and this portrayal constitutes the main flaw that makes this merely a good movie instead of a great one. Nevertheless the film does an excellent job of capturing the ambiance of a nervous occupation army surrounded by a sea of uniformly hostile Iraqis, commendably reinforcing the magnitude of America's colossal strategic error. The plot has few surprises but then so does life, most of the time.

ilikeimdb

(2012-04-28 12:33:48)

Bombs can be boring

Sad, bad; made me mad that I spent time watching this half-baked warflick. What's the problem? No real plot, nothing too interesting goingon, hyper-realism that's both essentially boring and at the same timeall too real...so it's more like a documentary highlighted by typical"illuminating" contrived back stories. The entire movie felt very phonyin its pretensions. That said, it wasn't preachy, at least notdirectly, and the acting was credible. I give lots of credit to thedirector for getting this movie made, but it's not much of a movieeither. How could it have been improved?- by adding a politicalframework for the Iraqi point of view...are we just supposed to assumethe usual contagion/animosity and all its stereotypical components?What about the sectarian strife between Muslim factions, etc? Is thismerely a bomb squad movie that happens to be set some place in theMiddle East?

waltond2

(2012-04-28 09:27:51)

unrealistic.

5/10. This film was a disappointment. I've never been in the army, butI just didn't get this at all. Would Williams be allowed to wanderaround Baghdad defusing bombs in such a reckless unprofessional manner?I just don't see it. Wander off searching for a supposed person who'ddetonated a bomb with just 2 other men? Hijack a car with a 9mm andbreak into someones house? Wander back to base? They seemed to actseparate from any chain of command, who's in charge here? No oneapparently, like I said the supposed strength of the movie is itsrealism but it just seemed very unrealistic to me. Sergeant Sanbornsuddenly turns into a expert sniper? Really? The moments of realtension were done well, but that's about it for me. A bigdisappointment given the films reputation.

charsobees

(2012-04-24 05:18:59)

Excellent movie but is it misunderstood?

I saw this movie when it first came out, and absolutely loved it --that is, my opinion, expressed below, is not swayed by hype, awards,etc. That said, I'm surprised that this movie is getting so much flackin the comments here. Many are complaining that this movie is notrealistic: very few movies/ war movies/ movies about war are, but sincemany of us are actually living through the Iraq war, it is easy topoint out inaccurate details. Still, it's a movie, it should NOT betaken as a documentary. (Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, and Full MetalJacket: which of these is at all realistic?). And if one ignores theinaccuracies, this movie is absolutely amazing. For me, although itremained silent politically and morally, it really bluntly addressedthe question that almost 99% of all action movies avoid to answerhonestly: it answered the question, "why do they do it?" Countless(hollywood) movies are devoted ONLY to the depiction of the conquest ofa powerful male over an equally powerful enemy. Their motivation can beanything from altruism to saving a loved one. Hurt Locker answered thisquestion in a rather original way (ie, they do it because they like it-- war is a drug). For the people who say it is boring -- I can onlyimagine that they thought ice cream was boring when they were children.The scene where James pulls up a wire-- and five bombs, connected toit, surface...and then he says "interesting" -- that scene is amusing,hilarious and cutting in how tense it is. It is a great scene amongmany other great scenes. Take the famous slow motion explosion as well.When you look at a mediocre movie like Sherlock Holmes, where a massiveexplosion makes you feel nothing visceral or mental, and when you lookat the showering and ripples of gravel in the explosion in the hurtlocker, you know which movie towers over the other. I am also verysurprised by the subjectivity of judgment this movie is inducing inpeople. Comments are either complaining about the movie depictingsoldiers as loathsome and brutal, or as overly cool and virtuous. Tome, the characters were neither truly good nor evil, and very muchbuilt around the idea of an action movie (in fact, one can say thatHurt Locker is more about the idea of an action movie than it is aboutthe Iraq war). They do not express tender emotions, and their moralsare largely the morals of someone built for war and conflict: they donot shrink from fighting and killing. Sure, these are the traits ofpsychopaths, but they are really the hallmarks of most action movies,except most action movies also have another thing to balance out thebloodlust: the people being killed are "evil." Hurt Locker is not acontemplative movie, it is not uplifting, and it not the depiction of afight between good and evil. It is a depiction of pure conflict andviolence, from an arbitrary side and of a more or less arbitraryindividual. My best guess is that this movie annoyed people becausethere was no one really to root for or comfortably identify with.Greenzone (which is a darn good movie) might be better for them, Iguess.

peter kobryn

(2012-04-23 19:30:48)

War is dangerous and mundane and random and brutal

If it is all possible I would recommend that you put out of your mindyour opinion of the situation in Iraq before seeing this film.It would be ludicrous of me to suggest that it is possible to make anapolitical film about Iraq but Kathryn Bigelow has come very close withthis film.The Hurt Locker seems to show ( and I only say seems as I have nomilitary experience with which to contrast ) in meaningful detail thebrutality and random nature of death and the impact it has on those atthe forefront, both those in uniform and those not.The focus on the working and personal relationship between Sgt James,Sgt Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge is very well drawn and makespersonal the different ways individuals cope with the never endingstress and trauma of the situation they find themselves in and how thisimpacts upon the people they live and work with.Brian Geraghty is impressive as the naive and callow Eldridge,expressing his fears openly that he will not make it home alive and thelack of control he has over his fate. I also found Anthony Mackieimpressive as the thoughtful Sgt Sanborn.Watching this film I did find myself seeking subtext more closely thanI would for other films because of the subject matter, but I am hardpressed to point to any scene or dialogue that appeared preachy, flagwaving or at Political with a capital P.Of course the personal is political and I found this to be animpressive film for convincingly portraying the impact that decisionsmade thousands of miles away have on real lives.Recommended

Guy

(2012-04-20 09:59:17)

Loud, stupid and false

Plot: A cowboy bomb-disposal tech in the Iraq War endangers hiscomrades through his love of war.The problem with this film is that it is stupid. It is essentially aseries of set-pieces involving a war-happy EOD tech in Iraq. There wasmuch hype about realism but this is rubbish. Every character is anarchetype (cowboy hero, amiable black buddy, hick buddy) and theiractions are pure Hollywood.So, nobody can run a proper cordon (Iraqis get through cordons mannedby soldiers twice). A 3 man EOD team searches and clears hostilebuildings on their own. When engaged by a sniper out in the boondocksthey indulge in a sniper duel that leaves a number of men dead, ratherthan just calling an airstrike on the place. Nobody accepts orders,everyone argues.Meanwhile the hyper-kinetic camera work moves so swiftly and so oftenthat it sucks the tension out of every scene. Only during the sniperscene, where there is room to breathe, does the film grip. Occasionalflashes of visual brilliance - rust leaping off a car wreck during abomb blast, the wire-festooned concrete buildings, a tech pulling awire that reveals a half-dozen IEDs at his feet - are subsumed into thegeneral mediocrity.The script is a rambling mess that notably fails to develop, lacks anysort of goal and ultimately provides a rather banal conclusion: war'sfun - well, who'd ha' thunk it? Ostensibly the whole thing isapolitical, which is itself a political stance. It's a chicken claimfrom a chicken script that prefers hyper-macho pretensions to seriousthought.The whole film rings false. Instead of watching this, watch a BritishTV series, low on heroics but high on drama, called "Danger UXB!".

(2012-04-19 16:20:06)

overrated

This review is from: The Hurt Locker (Amazon Instant Video) The movie was completely overrated. It was ok, a little bit cheesy when they hit the soliloquies. I don't get the whole Oscar thing. It just wasn't that good. It's a Sunday rental not a keeper.

(2012-04-11 09:32:09)

"You are in the kill zone."

"The Hurt Locker," brilliantly directed by Kathryn Bigelow from a script by Mark Boal, is set in 2004 during the Iraq War. Baghdad is a tense place for the American soldiers whose mission it is to identify and defeat the insurgents. Their task is made even more difficult by the fact that anyone could be a potential suicide bomber; any car could be wired to blow up without warning; and IED's (improvised explosive devices) are cleverly hidden. Staff Sergeant William James, played by Jeremy Renner, is a swaggering, chain-smoking bomb tech who takes insane risks as the team leader of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in the U.S. Army's Bravo Company. His disapproving fellow soldiers are Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), who prefers following protocol to improvising, and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), a young man who fears that each day will be his last. Sanborn and Eldridge worry that Sergeant James, who is unbelievably arrogant and reckless, will get them all killed.Bigelow effectively used hand-held cameras to give her film the look and feel of a documentary. We hold our breaths as the soldiers embark on one dangerous operation after another. Each time the men approach a possible bomb site, they must be on the lookout for booby-traps and snipers. Sanborn and Eldridge provide cover for James, who attempts to defuse the device without blowing up the entire neighborhood. Needless to say, this is not a job for the faint of heart.The performances are uniformly excellent. Renner is superb as a man who enjoys taking apart complicated bombs; he even saves pieces of them as souvenirs. James briefly shows his human side when he chats about his family back home and befriends a garrulous and brash Iraqi boy. While on duty, however, he is possessed, sometimes stripping off his protective gear so that he can perform his hazardous undertaking more comfortably. Sanborn is a cool customer who gradually succumbs to the stress of living on the edge. Eldridge is in over his head; he cannot believe that he is stuck in this filthy, stifling, and inhospitable place, fighting a war that cannot be won.This is a terrifying, disturbing, and intensely moving film, in which Bigelow puts the viewer on the mean streets of Baghdad, where the difference between friend and foe is not always clear. We feel sorry for both the American soldiers and the innocent Iraqi civilians who are caught in the crossfire. The movie is slightly marred by an unfortunate scene towards the end in which two characters engage in conversation that is so preachy and heavy-handed that it stands out because of its lack of subtlety. Still, "The Hurt Locker" is a timely and provocative film that challenges us to consider the huge toll that war takes, both emotionally and physically, on the brave men and women who serve their country so unselfishly.

Mike Reymond

(2012-04-10 22:03:13)

This actually won awards?

I was a little iffy whether to go see this movie when it came out. ButI few days later I read a review that said it was one of the best warmovies that they had seen. So I went to go see it the next day or so. Iwas blown away of how much I didn't like it. It just didn't seemrealistic. Felt like I was watching a movie produced by a ten year old.Another thing, the sergeant goes AWOL, armed with a pistol, andventures out into the Iraqi village. Seriously, what was that? And whenthey're trying to clear that car he just takes off his suit? Now whatwas that? And around the end when they just take off into the villageto find the person that might have detonated the bomb. Since when canyou just wander off when you're in the frickin' army. I wasn't sure ifit was just I didn't get it the first time when I saw it so I went togo see it again with my friend. Big mistake. If anything, I think evenless of this movie now. My friend even said he didn't like the movie.

(2012-04-09 20:17:43)

From a veteran this is a fake depiction of iraq

Please see this movie knowing that everything they do here is fake. EOD does not go out on their own. We have ROE and standards our professionals abide by and not this wild west crap. I saw this while I was in Iraq and it is a load of crap. This is a disgrace to the men and women serving our nation and should only be seen with a realization that this movie is based on fiction and not what our soldiers are going through in Iraq.

MARIO GAUCI

(2012-04-09 06:43:03)

THE HURT LOCKER (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008) ***1/2

Presciently, I caught up with this on the same day as it emergedvictorious at the Oscars. I had watched a few films about America'slatest conflicts – BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001), JARHEAD (2005) and REDACTED(2007) – but, in spite of the little-known cast (apart from nice cameosby Ralph Fiennes and Guy Pearce), it is easily the best of the lot.Incidentally, I was familiar with only a few of Bigelow's previousefforts but I plan to make amends throughout this week: it is ironic,however, that for a woman to win an Oscar it took her making a man'skind of film! Anyway, echoing the feeling of some others here, Iapproached this with some trepidation believing it had nothing new tooffer; to be sure, the idea of a reckless boffin was not reallyoriginal (in fact, it has been a good 60 years since The Archers dealtwith this very subject within a WWII context in THE SMALL BACK ROOM!)but, for a modern film, I admit it is well above average – while I amat it, I also intend to catch up with several titles of recent vintageI missed out on for whatever reason. I still need to check out AVATAR(2009), by the way – it is also scheduled for this week, hopefullyalong with James Cameron's Extended Version of THE ABYSS (1988) – but Iwas glad that the subtle, if all-important, work performed by the sounddepartment on THE HURT LOCKER was recognized at the expense of the morebombastic{sic} aural experience that AVATAR is bound to be. To get backto the film under review, Jeremy Renner's showy role notwithstanding,it was also atypical – thus highly commendable – for the leading actorfrom a war film to elicit this kind of attention…but, then, ChristophWaltz from INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (2009) had it even better since he didwin the Supporting award! The film's episodic nature results in many atense situation (not least because the bomb-disposal unit's delicatejob is forever being observed by the obviously disapproving and vaguelymenacing locals) but also a few smaller moments (including Renner'srelationship with a native boy) – all of which, however, are vital tothe characterization (smoothing over some of its more predictableaspects) which, as already intimated, is what has singled this one outfor praise (hence, the Best Original Screenplay Oscar win was just asdeserving as the technical side of production). Finally, I found ithighly refreshing that THE HURT LOCKER refrains from really takingsides in the conflict or become a blatantly anti-war film; on thecontrary, it acknowledges the adrenalin rush that hardened war veteransget addicted to over time and are willing to sacrifice their lives (andsanity) to attain!

(2012-04-05 03:24:44)

excellent

The Hurt Locker is about the fog of war. The modern fog of war, with explosives, insurgants, cell phone detinators, where a servicepersons death can lay in the next trash pile, in the next pale blue Honda Civic. Any object we see every day. The story is about a bomb squad in Iraq, and you see them in constant danger under such circumstances. The acting is terrific. The story does not have a traditional arc, but that is really not what Hurt Locker is about. It is about the constant danger, over there.A lot of reviewers here who were there say this was not how it is. I am in no position to argue with them. But for a basic idea of how deadly the Iraq war can be--and for that matter any insurgent war we are now involved in--this is the movie to watch.Policy differances don't matter. For the Iraq war or opposed, we should all as Americans see this film

ASAx2345

(2012-04-04 15:18:49)

Unbelievably disappointing

Though this movie incorporates a wonderful message (war is a drug)andhas very good character development, "The Hurt Locker" has probably thepoorest writing I have ever experienced from any form of media, be itbooks, television, or movies. This script fails to incorporate thebasic fundamentals of the English language. This script also containsmany phrases intended for laughs, but all of them intensely fail to befunny. Honestly, was this your first-grade writing project?My biggest concern with this movie is that it has no identifiableconflict. Sure, their new leader was kind of a pain to deal with, butin the movie (spoiler): he has no change of heart and continues to dothe things he would normally do, and the others just out of the bluebegin to deal with it. Not that they tried to fix this about him atall. This movie was basically just a bomb squad walking around Iraqputting out IEDs, which is fine if you want if you want to make adocumentary, but that's obviously not what Bigelow and Boal intended,and for that, they failed in making this movie.

Simon Hjetting

(2012-04-03 13:41:42)

6/10

A different kind of war movie. Its not just BOOM head shot BOOM,explosions all the type, this movie really goes into the differenttypes of operations the soldiers are doing during war.I liked the movie a lot, it just has some minuses. You cant reallyfigure out what the movie actually is about for an example. Also it wasquite too long. They could have sliced like almost an hour of thisfilm!Except that, a great movie with great characters and some nice actionscenes. This movie is defiantly a watch worth, but if your looking for somepure entertainment putted in to an war film ,you shouldn't watch this,as i said, quite too long.

gautam trivedi

(2012-04-03 00:59:43)

disappointing stuff with respect to academy award wins

well i had high hopes from this movie considering it has taken 6awards. However it does not come close to show it deserves that. It hassome good moments specially the last 4 minutes but overall it isdisappointing fare. It is an OK movie, but thats pretty much all aboutit. Lacks any story and does not grip the viewers. It seems like adocumentary without any narration in about 70% of it's play.i have seen much better war movies produced in Hollywood which neverwon any academy awards. I am not being judgmental but it seems to methat some great lobbying went behind its academy wins. :-(

gokhan-22

(2012-03-25 00:10:13)

Not An Oscar Winner

After this movie won the Oscar, I watched the movie. At the beginning,I recognized that this is another American movie that shows AmericanArmy as not like an invader in Iraq. I hated it. Throughout the moviethere is nothing but disarming bombs. I do not know anything aboutbombs or I've never been in army, but I can easily realize that thereare a lot of cracks in this movie. First, why that sniper did not shotthe EOD soldier instead of shooting the car. Is this the way of tryingto detonate the bomb? Are you serious? Also why he was trying to enterthat house and then how the lady in the house kicked an armed man'sass? At the end of movie, director thought that she gave a bigimpression on the viewer. She believed that she showed an AmericanSoldier life in Iraq. I don't think so. This movie has a lot of holes,and I do not understand why this movie was nominated for an Oscar andhow it won the Oscar. Up, Inglorious Bastards and District 9 are muchbetter movies that this crap.

jkbcorp

(2012-03-24 04:54:17)

Hurt that this wasn't put in the AVERAGE movie locker !

Hurt that this wasn't put in the AVERAGE movie locker ! No it shouldnot have won best picture nor any of its other nominations. OK OK iunderstand that there is this whole respect to absolutely any moviethat surfaces regarding the war in Afghanistan/Iraq phase occurring butthis movie was quite simple average. Although i enjoyed certain partsand the suspense was enjoyable to say the least, the story line wasjust to unpredictable and there was certainly not enough depth in thewriting. The story was saturated with hyper tensioned egos and overacting. I would recommend seeing this film for the action and suspensequalities however, but earning it the best movie award i think not.This was not a masterpiece as 'Best Movie' should imply, rather it wasan entertaining insight into the role of the bomb disposal unit.

Connor Monteith

(2012-03-24 11:02:59)

A totally thrilling and intense ride through army way of life

"The Hurt Locker" is about a sergeant that takes control of a highlytrained bomb disposal unit. His unqualified past makes him constantlyrisk his own life, and the lives of people around him, in order todispose each individual bomb. Without thinking, he attempts to disarmbombs using suicidal methods, disregarding danger.Kathryn Bigelow has created a masterpiece. This film is professionallycrafted, with no negatives. It shows us exactly how soldiers lived, andhow hard it was coping with all the near death experiences ofthemselves and their friends. Soldiers have risked their lives to saveus, and this film truly represents it.The film is a true success, and one of the best thrillers currentlyaround. It showed suspense and drama the whole way through. It alsoallowed me to see exactly just how hard it is to cope in the world ofwar. The result of this intelligent film, is an action-driven ridethrough war.The movie clearly shows how the drug of war grabs the viewer in, andkeeps them watching a brilliant creation of classic war.Every scene is tense, and I would highly recommend this film to anyonewith a like for action, thrills and suspense. It excited me from thefirst minute. The best film in years!

(2012-03-24 03:48:51)

Boring ... very boring

very boring simple minded movie....unbelievable that it won the academy awards against Avatarhow in the world can they even compare Directing of this to theincredible job Cameron did (through all these years) on AvatarMovie history was made but they call this the best movie and directing of the year...what a joke...kathryn bigelow was great with Point Break but this is very boring....