MUBI

Kathryn Bigelow est bien une femme. Si si, c’est vrai que de prime abord, on pourrait penser à un homme tant sa filmographie est loin d’être faite de comédies romantiques ou de romances tout simplement.
Plus sérieusement, la cinéaste s’attaque avec Démineurs à une unité présente en Irak durant la seconde guerre dans ce pays menée par les USA.
Directement, la cinéaste nous plonge dans l’ambiance, avec caméra tremblotante. On est évidemment fort proche du docu-fiction et on le sera tout le long du film.
La cinéaste ne nous livre pas un film politique ou une réelle critique de l’intervention américaine sur le sol irakien. Non, elle se contente simplement de nous montrer des soldats du déminage faisant leur job. Mais le problème, c’est que ça manque clairement de tension alors que c’est censé être le point fort du film. Comme grosse scène, il y a celle du sniper embusqué dans le désert. Et peut-être la dernière. Pour le reste, j’y crois assez moyennement. En cause aussi à cause d’un personnage principal trop flambeur dans ses interventions que pour être réaliste à mes yeux. Et pourtant, le réalisme, c’est bien là aussi un des pions majeurs de l’oeuvre.
Le casting n’est pas nécessairement à remettre en cause. Il est même plutôt convaincant. Mais on soulignera simplement qu’à force de vouloir ne montrer que ce qu’ils vivent là-bas, le film manque clairement de profondeur que pour susciter un réel intérêt. Au mieux, il se laisse un peu regarder.

There are two moments in Kathryn Bigelow’s cinematic sledgehammer that is Hurt Locker that articulate better than anything else the dehumanising effect of war. The first comes when Staff Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner), newly recruited leader of the EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) unit, rejects the use of a robot device to monitor a potential bomb threat, electing instead to suit up and face it head on: Saint George to his detonator dragon.

An act of foolish bravado, one might think. To his colleagues Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) it’s certainly a serious bone of contention, but it’s not until the final scene in the movie that we realise the truth.

These are not the reckless sociopaths we’ve come to expect from Hollywood nor the braying and brain-dead soldiers indoctrinated by the media into thinking their actions good and just. These are barely men. And certainly not heroes – at least, not self-styled heroes. His superiors might want to paint Sergeant James as one, counting off the bombs he’s disposed of like enemy kills, but he rails against it.

As the insert quote that opens the movie rather pointedly suggests, he is an addict. But not one of flesh and blood. He’s a desensitised machine. Disconnected from family and his past and living solely in the moment, cocooned in armour and wired into rituals that create the rush which allows him to function in the face of terror.

And war is terror. Bigelow turns the streets of Baghdad into adrenalised arteries at the end of which lie true hearts of darkness. Where no sermons are spoken, the ears too deafened by the precision cacophony to hear anyway. It’s a battlefield where James’ Zen Cowboy swagger butts heads with Sanborn’s rigid adherence to military script. So good are the performances of Renner and Mackie that they recall the opposition of Dafoe and Berenger in Platoon. The mysticism jettisoned, but the violent antagonism still evident with Geraghty’s raw recruit, Eldridge, caught in the middle.

While cameos from all-too-familiar faces like Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes threaten to disrupt the carefully orchestrated reality – along with an on-the-nose subplot involving an army doctor counselling Eldridge, unnecessary Hollywood compromises – the main trio are magnetic enough to keep the momentum going.

A good thing, as they appear to be the only signs of existence on what feels like a barren moon patrolled by camo’ed astronauts. Where the only acknowledgement of time and its passage is in the countdown of the unit’s tour of duty and a suicide bomber’s timer. What life there is beyond the shades of people devastated by the liberation, the cackle of children poking out from doorways, is diminished when you realise the horrors we see are their entertainment. The EOD unit moving inch by nail-biting inch past buildings occupied by distant spotters, their features obscured to the point they become little more than slabs of meat attached to detonators.

Bigelow captures the kinetics of war, not the empty, contrived catharsis. Her camera undulates like a desert cobra before striking, seemingly missing its target, only for it to connect moments later when you least suspect. The edit also dupes you, settling at first for the kind of familiar rhythm that seems to tip you to the action, but just as the tension is subsiding it detonates again. It’s such a violent, primal sensation, you realise, with the dearth of quality thrillers, how unprepared people will be for this. And how exhilarating that is.

But to call this simply an action movie is to do Bigelow a huge disservice. She fetishises action and forces us to confront it in the same way Peckinpah did. An explosive bloom radiating outwards as if it were something communicable: an anti-life wave. Pockets of shrapnel rising from the ground in slo-mo, like spores from some terrible seed. The body horror of disarming a child flesh bomb. The gooey slurp of a detonator being pulled from the core of an incendiary. A shell casing impacting on the dirt like a raindrop in a nature program. It’s her ability to translate the inorganic into the organic, whether in the opening tragedy or the agonising tension of the sniper sequence that makes events all the more dreadful and all the more gripping.

his film, insofar as an action flick, absolutely does not disappoint. Just don’t sell it any further past that. It delivers on offering a heart-pounding war film coupled with a psychological dissection of what goes on inside a soldier. It gives us characters who at face value seem like interesting characters, but they never play out that way. It never explains the reasons why these characters act the way they do, it just tells us that they do. The film makes a statement about war and the psychological effects that it has on soldiers, but instead of showing that to us it just repeats that statement to us over and over. It doesn’t make for good plot depth. The film throws us from action sequence to action sequence with little to no down time in order to catch our breathe or see the emotional impact on these characters.

I feel like I’m picking the main thing that bugged me and writing a review on that which isn’t what I intended to do at all. The film is amazing and it is a power punch straight through to the end. It contains some of the most remarkable acting from the entire year and has near-perfect cinematography. I just had some problems with how the characters were developed and explained.

Sometimes, we take war for granted. Between arguing about its inevitability and lack thereof, there is also the constant debate over wars’ similarities to previous engagements, the historical justifications, mistakes, and results of previously wars, and the analysis of wars’ evolution through theory, technology, and influence. Since filmmaking arrived, a social relationship to war has changed as visions of the actual carnage have been brought back to viewers, a constant redefining of social relationships between cultures during wartime up to the infamous Desert Storm, the ultimate post-modern climax point of war AS entertainment, virtual reality, and institutional product wrapped up in full media exposure and alienating digitized distance. However, the essential thing people miss when they get caught up in these ideas is the point where regardless of whatever people believe about the “essential nature” of war or otherwise, and no matter how planned out the engagement from the military’s side, or the training of the military thereof, each war, unfortunately, is very different.

Iraq has provided filmmakers with another opportunity to bring up age-old questions about wars anew, but the relative failure of previous Iraq War films to stick, I believe, is because most of the new films are fundamentally structured around previously developed war films and their respective themes, meaning for the last seven years people have been desperately trying to turn Iraq into a visual desert-arena Vietnam. With a new arena, however, comes a new structure, and Bigelow actually points directly to the specific difficulties in this contemporary engagement. Choosing to relegate thematic statements to second-tier, Bigelow’s interest is in the arena itself, and the anxiety and fear of a core group of soldiers attempting to navigate a foreign maze of booby traps among a foreign civilization of nearly undecipherable motivations.

The Hurt Locker is a thriller structured with a classic horror trope: within the first five minutes, the film’s arguably biggest name star is killed off, and from there the audience is invited to guess at the rate of survival of the remaining cast. However, in most horror films the unknown revealed is the first step towards resolution and understanding of the “monster”, whereas in The Hurt Locker, the soldiers’ dawning understanding of the source of their conflict is met with uncertainty, indecision, and downright paranoia. James begins brash and under control, with enough experience to navigate the most web-like of demolitions, only to slowly fall apart as even the simplest relationships become a cross-confusion of static and misinterpretation. His impatience with radio communication at the beginning, in that regards, is significant: he goes into this engagement with no desire to understand, but only to do a mission. By the end, his own motivations and emotional addictions are in full question, and he is unable to remove his sense of mission from his own identity from the trauma of constant uncertainty.

As for the actual motivations of the Americans themselves, the movie is a little more straight-forward. Bigalow’s presentation of them is balanced basically because she lets them be selfish, kind, arrogant, and completely disturbed as the action goes along, rather than firmly placing any character into type from frame one. More importantly than tracing a specific character arc, Bigelow instead makes the movie a series of specific engagements, from IED set-ups to cross-sniper fire, from kidnapping to being kidnapped, and then formulates the characters’ relationships to each other from there. In each new “day” presented as the end of their service draws near is a new set-up for the characters to begin trying to understand again, both with the enemy and each other, and ultimately no clear standard of engagement is presented. This is exactly representative of the strenuous advance as it has been reported in Iraq, as each and every new day provides completely new conflicts for the soldiers to work out.

—PolarisDiB

Es conocido de sobra que el hecho de ganar un reconocimiento como los premios Oscar no es, ni lejanamente, sinonimo de que la pelicula premiada sea una obra maestra. Cualquiera sabe que este premio es el modo como la Academia de artes y ciencias cinematograficas de Hollywood suele rendir tributo a aquellos films que mas ingresos economicos han redituado a la industria del entretenimiento (barato ideologicamente, excesivamente caro en su manufactura) cinematografico de la union americana y, asimismo, es historia antigua esa aficiòn de la Academia por sorprender a propios y extraños con premios (casi) totalmente inesperados las mas de las veces, lo que, para el caso que nos ocupa, hacen de una cinta como “The hurt locker” la (pequeña) gran curiosidad de este año. Con una corrida comercial poco menos que efimera en los Estados Unidos, y a unas cuantas horas de desaparecer sin pena ni gloria de las carteleras comerciales mexicanas, va resultando que este, el mas reciente trabajo de la realizadora Kathryn Bigelow se alza como la gran triunfadora (con seis estatuillas, ni mas ni menos) de la mas reciente entrega de los Oscares, imponiendose de manera contundente sobre la gran favorita de la noche (desde los puntos de vista mas importantes que suelen considerarse en estos casos: el ideologico y el financiero) el Avatar de James Cameron (algo con lo que los tabloides de los espectaculos se dieron vuelo muerde y muerde las semanas anteriores al evento, ya que Bigelow fue esposa de Cameron y este la mando a chingar a su madre por Linda Hamilton, su co-protagonista de Terminator), lo que inmediatamente diò de que hablar a todo mundo; sobre que si este premio a la realizadora significaria, por fin, el esperado desde hace mucho tiempo ingreso con el pie derecho del sexo femenino a terrenos comunmente considerados exclusivos para cabrones; o bien, el inicio de la debacle tanto animica como monetaria por Avatar, aunque, hay que decirlo, dificilmente esto ultimo le ha de quitar el sueño a Cameron, teniendo en cuenta que, al dia de hoy, los ingresos de su film son estimados en poco menos de 3,000 millones de dolares, en espera aun de lo que esta logre recaudar durante su proxima segunda corrida comercial a mediados de este año, mas lo que se sume por su proxima apariciòn en DVD y Bluray; pero cuidado, que no faltan los pendejos quienes incluso sugieren sus propias “teorias de la conspiración”, asi como nuestro pseudo-periodista y pseudo critico cinematografico Rene Franco: para este pinche pelòn maricòn( y si, me vale pa` pura verga la correcciòn politica; le digo maricòn considerando esta palabra como algo despectivo, de mi parte, que chinguen a su madre todos los putos!) el galardòn a The Hurt locker fue una imposiciòn orquestada desde las mas altas esferas gubernamentales del gobierno norteamericano (sic !) preocupados por el mensaje pacifista de Avatar (sic !) y al ser el cine la segunda fuente de ingresos mas importante para los gringos despues de la industria armamentista, el gobierno de Obama le arrebatò el galardon a Cameron para darselo a Bigelow y a su cinta, simpatizante con la guerra (sic!!) y de este modo influir psicologicamente entre los ciudadanos para que estos no dejen de apoyar la intervenciòn armada en Medio Oriente (re-sic !!!).

Despues de prestarle inmerecido espacio a pendejadas de ese calibre, me resulta oportuno expresar mis propias pendejadas y tratar de analizar la cosa objetivamente (bueno, no mucho: francamente, con tantos desmadres que tenemos en Mexico, esto de la guerra en Irak me vale madres). Es dificil que cambie la percepcion tanto del pueblo estadunidense como del resto del mundo sobre la absurda (para el raciocinio de cualquier persona comun; para los obscuros intereses del gobierno americano, no ha de tener nada de absurdo) intervenciòn armada en Irak; ni aunque nombraran a este film memoria del mundo por la Unesco, se lograria cambiar la idea del desperdicio tanto de vidas como de millones de dolares que esta guerra representa, especialmente, para los norteamericanos, ni para mejorar la imagen publica de Obama (quien no solamente no ha cumplido su promesa de retirar COMPLETAMENTE a sus tropas del medio oriente, sino que, recientemente, autorizò el presupuesto mas grande de la historia para fines de continuar con el desmadre. Bien dicen por alli: no tiene la culpa el negro, sino quienes lo hacen su presidente.

Ahora bien, refiriendonos ya de lleno a la pelicula en si, lo que es evidente y totalmente opuesto a la percepciòn de aquellos quienes opinan que esta cinta, por abordar la reciente guerra enaltece al conflicto belico en medio oriente, resulta completamente equivocado. Lo que prevalece en la cinta de Bigelow es una mirada un tanto distanciada, fria a pesar de los violentos y esquizofrenicos movimientos de camara en mano y una enloquecida puesta en escena que la directora consigue sacar adelante con virtuosismo. No hay casi espacio para los heroismos,asi como tampoco se percibe alguna intenciòn de critica o juicio alguno por parte de la realizadora; lo que prevalece, en cambio, es una constante sensaciòn de ruptura, de desencanto, de cierta frustaciòn en los aridos ambientes en los que se mueven los personajes y en la percepciòn que estos guardan del entorno y la situaciòn en que se encuentran. Como bien advierten los titulos iniciales con los que abre el film, “la guerra es una droga” y esto resulta indiscutiblemente cierto para el personaje interpretado por Jeremy Renner. Su sargento William James es un “outsider”, un alienado, quien siente que el ambiente belico es su elemento, y la adrenalina y la necesidad de esta son sus unicos alicientes para seguir viviendo. La sensaciòn provocada por el peligro de morir saltando en mil pedazos en cualquier momento (la principal labor de William James y su equipo consiste en deactivar bombas y minas terrestres) le resulta una forma de vida mucho mas atrayente que vivir una vida rutinaria, normal, al lado de una bella esposa e hijos (como la logradisima escena en el supermercado: se siente tan fuera de lugar escogiendo que cereal llevar de compras como un pinguino caminando sobre pleno Madison Square en hora pico (en este aspecto, recuerda al Capitan Willard de Apocalypse Now (Coppola,1979): “Cuando estoy aqui (Saigon) quisiera estar alla (EUA); cuando estoy alla, en lo unico que pienso es en regresar a la jungla…”), y si bien es cierto que The hurt locker se mantiene fiel a ciertas situaciones planteadas tanto por la cinta de Coppola (la esquizofrenia y aparente valemadrismo del personaje principal) asi como a algunos lugares comunes caracteristicos del cine de guerra tradicional (el enemigo se mantiene invisible las mas de las veces; no faltan las muestras de camaderia viril entre los personajes (como la amistad que desarrolla James con Beckham, el niño vendedor de DVD’s piratas); algunas veces, estos exponen tanto sus propios demonios internos y los conflictos existenciales inherentes a estos, o bien, pensamientos absurdos (“Resulta interesante tener en la palma de la mano algo que sabes que puede matar a decenas de personas en un instante” cavila James mientras sostiene un detonador durante una buena peda) lo que diferencia a esta cinta belica de otras (y esto, seguramente, motivo de decepciòn para aquellos que esperaban una nueva Black Hawk Down (Scott,2001) es que se trata de una pelicula en la que, practicamente, no hay escenas de acciòn (las escenas de explosiones y balaceras salen a cuenta gotas), ni existen los hèroes del tipo John Rambo, capaces de liquidar un ejercito enemigo por si solos sin casi despeinarse, sino todo lo contrario, (como queda demostrado en la secuencia del ataque de los francotiradores enmedio del desierto: James y su equipo reaccionan de manera mas bien torpe ante el embate del enemigo, y aunque ganan esa batalla, la victoria les cuesta un buen numero de muertos, bastante superior al del enemigo) ni son infalibles en sus decisiones (como la pesquisa que James decide llevar a cabo para encontrar a los culpables del supuesto asesinato de Beckham, quien James descubre ha sido convertido en una bomba humana, en la que es, quiza, la secuencia mas intensa del film: al final, su investigaciòn resulta inutil: es literalmente echado a patadas por la rolliza esposa de un maestro escolar de su hogar y, al poco, se da cuenta que el niño asesinado no era Beckham (“Todos los Irakies se parecen” razona el sargento J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie).

Es dificil saber si esta pelicula sera la tarjeta de presentaciòn (como opinan los mas optimistas) para que, de ahora en adelante, las Jane Campion, las Lexie Alexander, las Mimi Leder o las Catherine Hardwicke, etc., puedan, ahora si, competir en igualdad de condiciones con sus colegas masculinos y obtener reconocimientos (ganado a pulso y por derecho propio durante decenas de años) tan notables como el Oscar de la Academia (que todo el mundo dice renegar de este premio, no obstante, no existe un cineasta en este mundo que las nalgas no diera mil veces por presumir de al menos un premio de estos en su trayectoria) asi como ubicar la magnitud del triunfo de esta pelicula en su verdadera dimensiòn, ya que, a pesar de haber contendido contra nueve peliculas (un hecho insolito) en busca del preciado galardon, en una primera vista, este no se antoja como un triunfo dificil o encabronadamente competido, ya que la calidad de las peliculas, si se trata de ponernos “exquisitos” era bastante irregular: este año, no habian grandes nombres, no habia ningun Scorsese (a pesar de su decepcionante Shutter Island), ningun Paul Thomas Anderson, ni tampoco ninguna L.A. Confidential (Curtiss Hanson, 1997), y, habiendo en la terna por mejor pelicula, cosas como District 9, Inglorious Basterds, Up, etc., el hecho de derrotar a Avatar no parece demasiado meritorio (viendo la lista de las peliculas en competencia, el que hubieran agregado a la pelea cosas como Transformers 2 ò G.I. Joe no hubiera sonado descabellado). Sin embargo, y esto es algo en lo que cabe hacer incapie, lo mejor de todo fue, sin duda, el que la Academia (y los cinefilos alrededor del mundo) se enterasen de la existencia de una directora con una trayectoria bastante sobresaliente en su campo (capaz de filmar cintas de acciòn con una garra mucho muy superior que la del mismisimo Quentin Tarantino) responsable de cintas tan disfrutables como Near Dark (esta si, una muy interesante aportacion al genero del cine de vampiros) la estupenda Strange Days (escrita por James Cameron) y un no demasiado amplio etcetera, que, no obstante, invita a seguir mas de cerca la carrera de una de las que, afortunadamente y como todo parece indicar, puede llegar a ser una de las personalidades mas atrayentes e interesantes del cine de la decada que recien comienza. Enhorabuena.

Haber comenzar haciendo una critica a esta pelicula seria como aventurarme a un terreno del cual no domino en su completa totalidad como lo es las peliculas de Guerra , pero a treves del entendimiento que me dio ver las peliculas de Eastwood , como lo fueron " LETTERS FOR IWO JIMA " y "LA CONQUISTA DEL HONOR " , puedo ç dar una mejor critica hacerca de esta pelicula vi su trailer en CNN y pense wow esta pelicula da que hablar y despues de los oscars dije o wow en serio si gano tanto es por algo , llege al cine y empece a analizar esta pelicula y sin mentirles mucho no encontre mucho es cierto el personaje principal maneja una buena cantidad de emociones durante la pelicula y eso nos da una buena cantidad de emociones que nos dejan en un estado de coma o shock emocional bastante respetable , con escenas que salen de lo comun en una pelicula de guerra ( como lo es la escena del protagonista desactivando la bomba dentro del niño muerto ) , mas adentrarnos en esta pelicula es terreno para mi un poco riesgoso dado la gran cantidad de variable s que tiene la pelicula en lo que se refiere a los tres personajes principales , mas en lo emocional es una pelicula que te lleva por vgran cantidad de emociones y en eso esta bien logradac la pelicula , la directora con un gran manejo de camaras nos muestra muy desde cerca lo que es la guerra y realmnete desde otra perspectiva como lo es el desarme de una bomba , cool , mas que pasa con esta pelicula realmente la ultima escena se las dejo a ustedes veanla y diganme , wow USA people is fuck uppp , con su patriotismo que esta bien mas no para una pelicula que iba por buen camino y se desvario completamente con su final
VICTOR

Incredibly thrilling and heart pounding. Near the end you get to see Renner’s character return to family life. I love this theme of soldiers adjusting to civilian life, but you don’t often see a movie that shows the difficulty veterans have in adjusting to home life and then shows them going back to what they are good at through life risking missions. Renner’s character is someone who loves his job.

I think a friend was right when he suggested there was a Kirk and Spock dynamic to the characters played by Renner and Mackie. Renner plays James as an anti-hero with a special skill for disarming bombs. Mackie plays Sanborn as a high strung, by the book kind of guy. Geraghty is memorable too as the lower ranking soldier with fear of death always on his mind. The three men at the center of this story need each other, especially James and Sanborn. Without both types defending the safety of everyone their efforts would not be as successful. Once we get a glimpse of hell on earth when the men are called to investigate an area where a bomb has already detonated, and there is fire and carnage all around. But the symbolism through the story is that the team of specialists are there to defuse bombs. It’s very hopeful to know that there are people trying to prevent explosions and damage from creating hell on earth. On the other hand this illustrates that there are a lot of people not to be trusted. A tense independent film.

“The Hurt Locker”: A explosive meditation

One of the top contenders in the Oscars race this March, Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” is one of the most visceral cinematic experiences ever committed to film.
“The Hurt Locker” is set in 2004 Baghdad and chronicles the last thirty-nine days of a U.S. Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal squad assigned the dangerous task of defusing roadside bombs.
When a bomb unexpectedly explodes and kills one EOD technician, Staff Sgt. William James (Best Actor nominee Jeremy Renner) is called in to take over as the new disposal expert.
James, a wild man who approaches his profession as more of an art than a science, scoffs at military protocol. His fellow squad members, Sgt. J. T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), both fear that his general disregard for safety might get him and/or others in his unit killed.
Shot on hand-held cameras, documentary-style, each scene has an intensity that feels like a string that tightens . . . and tightens . . . and tightens, seeming as if it will never break.
The film is simply filled with tense action scenes—but they aren’t just action scenes. The difference between the action in “The Hurt Locker” and the action in so many run-of-the mill thrillers is that the action here illuminates the characters, particularly James.
“The Hurt Locker” also fills a gap in the cinematic treatment of the war in Iraq.
For years now, filmmakers from both Hollywood and the independent arena have jumped on the anti-Iraq war bandwagon, preaching about war’s immorality and its effect on public officials without ever truly telling the story from a soldier’s point-of-view.
In focusing on the day-to-day stresses and struggles of James, Sanborn, and Eldridge, screenwriter Mark Boal, also one of the writers behind 2007’s Iraq war-influenced “In the Valley of Elah,” perfectly captures the adrenaline-drenched chaos of front-line participants.
Throughout her thirty-year directorial career, Kathryn Bigelow’s name has been synonymous with an obsession with the human affinity for violence. “War,” the film’s epigraph reads, “is a drug.”
“The Hurt Locker” is by far Bigelow’s best work, a brilliant display of filmmaking, a character study and morality play about how war really is a drug to some of those most closely involved in it. I highly recommend it.

My Rating:

FULL PRICE!!!!!

Iraq war drama is mostly a vehicle for some particularly gripping action set pieces, and is at its best when the tension is most spontaneous in its first act. Yet the initially exciting moments quickly turn into something of a tiring ordeal, as the hackneyed episodic nature of the narrative grows into droning redundancy. There’s only so much bomb defusing/sniping/fighting/exhaustion you can take, and despite the picture’s bold intentions in depicting a side of war we don’t usually see, The Hurt Locker wears increasingly thin, playing off action thriller tropes that do nothing to contribute to the film’s purported realism. By the strangely misguided closing shot, you feel less moved or satisfied than you do merely numb.

The Hurt Locker is regarded by film critics as being the best film of 2009. While it is certainly a good film and a cinematical achievement for director Kathryn Bigelow, there are just some things that didn’t sit well with me, but let’s get to that later. For now, let’s relish in what may be the most important film of the year.

From a film maker’s perspective, The Hurt Locker is absolutely beautiful to look at, especially on Blu-Ray. The opening sequence alone is a marvel to view, as after the explosive goes off we are treated to a slow-mo sequence of dirt flying into the air and rubble vibrating off of an abandoned vehicle. With the use of S16mm cameras we get a very gritty feel, which works well with the locations and action. Speaking of action, there is barely any of it in the entire film, yet, at the same time, this is one of the most intense and suspenseful films I have ever seen. Not since Hitchcock has someone been able to create real suspense, a feeling that had my on the edge of my seat. The sniper shootout is probably my favorite scene from any film of 2009, as it really recreated what it must have felt like to be in that situation.

I’ve heard that if you’re in the military then you won’t like this movie, which became apparent as one of the people I watched it with has been to Iraq and told us how they went about every procedure wrong. That doesn’t really bug me, but the third act did. It seemed that it went the route of Sunshine, but instead of becoming Jason X it turned into a recon mission that would sit nicely in a straight-to-DVD Tom Berenger movie, like the plot to Sinper 4 or something.

That being said, this will be one of the most intense and suspenseful films you’ll see all year. It’s amazing how Bigelow has grown as a director (even if it was James Cameron who really pushed her to direct this). That being said, it’s definitely up there for best of ’09.

first things first: this is one of the most suspenseful films i’ve ever seen. imagine the climax of any given well-constructed action film, and chances are, the suspense culminates with a nail-biting time-bomb scene. now string together about 12 of those scenes in a single film, all made cohesive and unnerving by a very competent director and incredible sound design.

so, the hurt locker is a good action film. but action films are a dime a dozen. this movie is more than an action film. it’s a very smart, albeit flawed, film about certain elements of war. by choosing to focus on a handful of soldiers with a specialized profession (explosive experts), the film is able to make profound statements regarding war, without rolling out sparkling generalities prominent in most hollywood war pictures.

most of the hurt locker’s shortcomings fall at moments where it is obvious that the filmmaker is attempting to circumvent war-film cliches. even when the pacing seems odd or a twist seems like a lazy excuse to avoid a plot hole, the film never gives in to manichean oversimplifications.

here’s an example: an american soldier leaves his camp and roams the streets of iraq in a hooded sweatshirt looking to avenge the death of an innocent child. while quite heart-wrenching, the scene unravels in an increasingly unbelievable series of events; however, the complexity of the scene (especially regarding the soldier’s interaction with an iraqi professor in the intellectual’s home) seems to justify the entire scene. so, while it lacks the realism that the film’s documentary-esque formal elements seem to rely on, it’s not ultimately “realistic” sequences that matter: it’s the characters’ relationships and the emotional effects of war.

the film later works to avoid cliches when the soldiers go on a renegade mission to hunt down bombers responsible for the death of innocent civilians. i won’t spoil the story, but the soldiers don’t simply eliminate evil in a hail of gunfire to a swelling soundtrack. to reiterate: this isn’t a cliche war film.

this film will stick with you. you’ll remember its shortcomings, but they’re really ancillary in the long run. absolutely worth watching.

Do yourself a favour before sitting down to watch Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker. Take a deep breath, a very deep breath. Trust me your going to need it. Imagine the most tense bomb disarming scene from thillers of the past and then imagine it done for two hours. That is the experience we find ourselves in, and thats the situation that the bomb disposal team in the film feel as well, lurching from one set piece to another attempting to carry out the world’s most dangerous job made even more dangerous by the fact they are in the middle of a combat zone. Some may find Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal’s ignoring of the politics of the controversial conflict a deriliction of responsibility but in cutting through the endless, murky waters surrounding the war and going straight to the men on the ground they have made arguably the most honest and affecting film about the conflict made yet. Bigelow’s direction is nothing short of stunning. Her ex-husband James Cameron may have all his 3D toys, yet Bigelow and DOP Barry Ackroyd know how to pull us into the frame by sheer filmmaking force alone. Every bead of sweat, every fleck of blood, every teeth shattering explosion can be felt by the audience. As the bombs go of all around the character framework is what keeps us hooked. Jeremy Renner deserves star status as the reckless James. He has exactly the right mix of charisma and danger that you cannot take your eyes off as his character hurls himself into suicidal situations. He is given great support by Mackie and Gerahity who do tremendous work humanizing what could have been cliched, dull characters. Also notable are a brief but memorable cameos from the Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes whose apperance subverts audience expectation wonderfully. Like I said, take a breath…

My review from seanax.com

“So many war movies get the chaos of battle and the suddenness of death. Bigelow is just as interested in the stillness, the patience, the importance of waiting until you have some certainty that there is no one else out there waiting to kill you. These guys do their jobs, trust one another to do their jobs and stay vigilant, and team leader James, up now seen as just a maverick without rule, shows himself to be an authentic leader and a crack soldier.”

http://www.seanax.com/2009/07/09/new-review-the-hurt-locker/

a little bit below expectation (just a tiny bit..)
This is Star trek disguised as a middle east war movie. The films depends completely on the relationship of two main characters, Sgt William James,the cocky kirk-like adrenaline junkie (played with a certain charisma by one of the underrated actor this decade, Jeremy Renner),and Sgt. JT Sanborn, the more rational thinking by-the-book Spock-like persona (played with such intense proportion by Anthony Mackie) during their day in iraq. Bigelow approach for reality action also help the movie from falls into a typical war movie.this is different,and definitely one worth to watch

Teeming with suspense from beginning to end, The Hurt Locker reminds me of Platoon in it’s very personal portrayal of what war can do to a person, but in a very different light. Here, we catch a glimpse into the life of a certain bomb specialist who is a thrill seeker, whether he likes it or not. I must say, above all else, the cinematography in this film was nothing short of breathtaking. There were a couple scenes in particular that while I could feel a bit of a Bourne Ultimatum meets Cloverfield aesthetic, it felt fresh in this setting and complimented the story perfectly. I also have to say that the choices of music in this were impressive. Few times have I heard heavy metal score a movie to success, but here it really gelled with the tone of the story. Nothing here felt out of place, and while the end seemed strange, after re-evaluating the story as a whole I’m happy where it ended. My hat is off to Kathryn Bigelow for this one, now having directed two favorite movies of mine (this and Point Break, but Point Break rules for very different reasons). I’m not sure I’d call this the “best film of 2009”, but it’s a close second.

The story of a foolhardy thrill-seeker who puts himself and his unit repeatedly (and unnecessarily) at risk, injuring his friends in the process. His self-destructive selfishness reaches a nadir of ridiculousness when he ultimately abandons his family to go back to Iraq to continue his unprofessional juggernaut of extreme negligence. There is nothing romantic about it. It’s just the portrait of an asshole who does not change.

I think this movie has some screenplay problems: the protagonist doesn’t change or seem to have any goal beyond taking unnecessary risks. At the end of the day, he is a stereotype macho-shit who doesn’t-play-by-the-rules who would be right at home in a movie like “Point Break”. (Apologies to fans of that thing.), but this guy doesn’t break the rules because it’s gets him to his goal; he just does it out of garden variety foolhardiness. He puts his team in peril repeatedly and actually shoots his comrade! This guy is a loose canon, and in the big scene in the third act when we finally get to see what makes him tick, we get a shrug and a line that basically amounts to, “I don’t know.”

There’s no arc for this guy. He arrives reckless and leaves reckless. His hazardous actions are not sacrifices made for others, but are in fact directly harmful to those around him.

I ask people what the film is about, thematically, and nobody seems to have an answer. I get back vague statements about how war is absurd, and that crazy circumstances lead to crazy behavior. They mention that the movie is a glimpse into what war is really like (I don’t think so!), and that it conveys a feeling of the futility of it all. Call me simple, but I like dramatic movies, where characters struggle to achieve objectives. I admit that this films contains great moments and great scenes, but there is an overall lack of progression, a lack of drama in the structural sense. It’s merely a series of vignettes. A good development exec would call this script “episodic”. I wonder if at any point this was recognized?

I also think there’s some very clunky directing and editing in this picture – lots of broken fourth wall.

I am baffled at the film’s positive reception. It reminds me a lot of “The Thin, Red Line”, which I also found muddled and lacking dramatic progression. Perhaps it reflects America’s relationship with the War in Iraq itself: confused, lacking reason, and haphazard. The protagonist, like a bull in a china shop, careens through his world, deliberately refusing to think about the consequences of his actions or the impact they have on those he loves. I suppose that could be read as an apt metaphor for America, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. In fact, I think the filmmakers bent over backwards to avoid giving us any political or philosophical context in order to maximize box office potential. I do not require meaning or message when I view a film, but nor do I find cowardly dodging of controversy is not praiseworthy. The film does not say that this or any war is crazy-making. It just shows a crazy guy doing crazy shit over and over again for no apparent reason.

Again I find myself largely alone in my sentiments regarding a war film. Oh, well.

ADDENDUM: I have heard the term “existentialist” thrown around in regard to this film. The film is not existentialist. The Existentialists believed that life was essentially meaningless, and that people have to create meaning for themselves. This guy doesn’t create anything but shrapnel wounds in the asses of the guys in his unit.

I was somewhat disappointed by this film. I must admit I had high expectations. Still, most of the film felt like a Videogame, where the soldiers were going one mission after the other. However, I loved the ending, where we got a glimpse of how James’ life is in America. I especially love the scene in the Supermarket, it reminded me of the photos of Gursky. Just brilliant! However, I think it took way too long for the movie to get to this ending and showed us the contrast btwn James’ life in the army vs. his life at home in America.

I was at first hesitant to watch this film because it gives the impression that it may just be like the other war films out there about Iraq.

When I finally did see this film, I was surprised that it was good.

Heart-pounding and breathtaking, The Hurt Locker will be one of the best films that will be remembered for many years about Iraq.

Renner’s acting is brilliant.

Kudos also to Katheryn Bigelow.

Having served as an EOD Tech in a number of operational theatres and being in Iraq during 2003/2004 I can honestly say that this movie comes very close to recreating the ‘feel’ of such operations. Although I did think there were a few too many obvious, and now hackneyed, stereotypes amongst the civilian population there was still a feeling that this was shot on the streets of Baghdad during 2004. The film also accurately illustrates the feeling of being ‘lost’ in the real world after returning from a life of risk to be faced with the mundane reality of life at home. Very authentic and very atmospheric. Excellent acting from Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie.

War is realized here as the monstrous force its always been- jarring, unpredictable, unfavorable, high stress engagements.The danger is lent to the 2004 American military occupation in Iraq- and some natives will off themselves if it damages the American force. For the EOD squad (explosive ordinance disposal), the risk is elevated to dizzying heights. Characters are drawn realistically, without a tinge of obtrusive development or forced dialogue, amidst Kathryn Bigelow’s heroic, all-too-real direction. Her artistic effect is deliberate, ultra-focused…and in this movie, pretty much perfect. The cast serves the story, while the story serves the cast- neither is bigger than the other. BOTTOM LINE: The Hurt Locker is an award-worthy film on several fronts, where a majority of the suspense and storytelling cliches are canned, allowing it to 1-up the mere ‘which wire do I cut-’ type tension as a result.