Saw it last night and loved it. Jeremy Renner was there and talked about the film and I hope this will lead to some opportunites for him because I think he’s a very talented guy who’s played supporting parts for a long time (apparently Bigelow wanted him based on his performance in Dahmer).
I’m not a fan of Kathryn Bigelow at all but I thought she did a terrific job creating tension and suspense. There were so many moments when I was on the edge of my seat and the way they handled the suspense, the bomb diffuses, just really worked for me. Usually with bombs and ticking clocks, so much emphasis is put on cutting the right wire and are they going to make it/aren’t they going to make it. In this film, they avoided those cliched cinematic devices and instead it felt much more real and intense.
I’m happy the reviews have been so good for this film, the screening that I was at was sold out, and I think it’s one of the very few films in the theater right now that’s even remotely worth checking out. My only complaint with this film, and maybe it was intentional, is that she chose to put well known actors in roles where the character dies. I think this was a mistake because from the beginning, as soon as I saw that it’s Guy Pierce, I knew he was going to die because he isn’t advertised as being in the film so if he was going to live, which meant his part would’ve been bigger, they would’ve marketed his name. Same for Ralph Fiennes. This is really my only complaint and it sort of ruined these sequences because I knew how it was going to end.
They talk a lot about the fact that there hasn’t been a decent Iraq film yet but I think The Hurt Locker will silence that talk. It’s a sad film, a very true account of what so many soldiers go through in terms of the perpetual cycle of returning to the battlefield. This film is by no means Apocalypse Now but a very worthwhile film and one of the best that I’ve seen so far this year.
I don’t like “The Hurt Locker”, but my opposition to the film has nothing to do with it’s Cinematography, or War Movie Cliche’s. The Cinematography works in a special way. The only reason to shoot a film the way “The Hurt Locker” is shot, is to make your film feel REAL. “The Hurt Locker” isn’t about Vietnam, it’s about Iraq. This war is going on RIGHT NOW. I KNOW PEOPLE OVER THERE. Bigelow’s film portrays what I see in them once they return, vividly. And, if I could go with them when they go back to Iraq? I’m sure it would feel like the battle scenes in “The Hurt Locker”. That’s something you have to think about while watching “The Hurt Locker”. Jeremy Renner & Anthony Mackie deliver great performances. Keyword being “Performances”. They’re actors. Everything they’re acting like they’re doing; RIGHT NOW, someone in Iraq IS doing. So Mrs. Bigelow made a good choice in Visual Style.
I like the ending, but I don’t love it. I think most people (people who went to see Transformers 2) would watch that ending, and think “That’s Bad-Ass.” When it’s really not, and shouldn’t be interpreted that way. It’s his JOB, and it sucks. So as cliche as Renner’s character might seem he works, and a lot better than that character has worked in plenty of cop-action movies.
“The Hurt Locker” is a very well made film. The only thing I don’t like about it, is that I didn’t vote for George Bush Jr. And if you did? “The Hurt Locker” is a great example of what you voted for. You voted for people to go to war & die. That sucks. There’s nothing cool, fun, or entertaining about “The Hurt Locker”. It’s a serious war film, that only portrays the truth. I give the film 4-stars, but I’m not rushing to see it again. I was not entertained by the truth this “War Film” portrays, and that’s the point.
“This is my Vietnam.” -Pink
@KOW3 – What a remarkable post. Completely unexpected. You start out by saying you didn’t like it then go into how well made it was. I was very taken by everything you said and appreciate where you’re coming from. This is probably the best post I’ve ever read on this site. The story of the war is a devestating one and this film is by no means entertainment. It’s a story about what’s going on right now, as you said, and a reminder that people are still going through this. It’s a film I recommend people see but not one I’d expect many people to revisit.
The only summer movie I wanted so see and they wont show it in my country because the ONLY theater chain here (they have about 200 screens) wont touch anything remotely political. What a fckng sham.
Francisco, no shit? That’s insane. This film is next up for me.
I can’t even imagine the guys who sign up for this job. What makes a person wake up and think, “Disabling explosive devices. Yeah, I got that”?
No fckng sht. I’m very angry. It’s not the first time they have done it. They only screen the most commercial sht on release.
So its DVDs for me my friend.
Francisco – What country is this?
Puerto Rico. Caribbean Cinemas is the chain.
Damn. That sucks.
You have NO IDEA. They are the ONLY theater chain here- a monopoly. That’s the main reason I have not been to a theater in months.
It is also bad for local filmmakers. If the chain won’t show it you are screwed.
I know nothing about Puerto Rico (even though my Grandfather was Puerto Rican) but I always thought it was so Americanized that they had essentially everything that we have. Although I suppose the middle of the country faces similar problems as you do, with a lack of art house cinema. I think it should be a requirement for all these giant mulitplexes that have 20+ screens, owned by AMC or Regal or some other giant corporation, to have at least one screen dedicated to smaller films, whether independent or foreign. Even if the screen loses money, it’s should be a civic responsibility.
Puerto Rico cinema does suck (I live here too), but at least the Caribbean Cinemas Fine Arts theater will be showing “Moon” this week and I’m sure they’ll acquire “The Hurt Locker” soon enough, maybe in two months since it is a pretty popular film. But yeah, the chain-monopoly cinema here does suck.
“Even if the screen loses money, it’s should be a civic responsibility”
:)
“The Hurt Locker” isn’t showing anywhere near me, but I’ve seen it. So, it sounds to me like you guys in Puerto Rico need to get into downloading. There’s an Italian DVD copy of the movie available on a few of the file sharing sites.
“So, it sounds to me like you guys in Puerto Rico need to get into downloading. "
I’d rather wait to rent it, thanks.
Wow. Puerto Rico—for the moment, makes me thank my lucky stars I’m living in Boston.
Anyway, I’m bringing us back to the Hurt Locker if you guys don’t mind—I saw it about an hour ago.
Personally, I’m sick of hand held camera war movies. I think it’s a short cut for “realism.” And I know people are very adamant about this movie being about something that is happening NOW—well, you guys are right, it isn’t entertainment, its a war. Which is why I don’t want to be a part of it. And so, hand held camera, well, personally I don’t want any realism, thank you (even though I don’t think the hand held necessarily does the best job of realism, perhaps lazy…).
And just as I was thinking this in the movie, they had one of those beautiful slow motion shots. To think that amidst all the chaos of the war, and the hand held camera, that there is a moment as slow, and precise, and willful as those slomo shots, was wonderful for me.
Something else that didn’t work for me was the script, which though lacked any interesting character development. There was no one character I felt connected, and as a result of the dispersion of my sympathies…no emotional attachment. I just felt on the outside of the movie, as opposed to really inside it.
Moment of ecstatic truth: This isn’t really a moment of ecstatic truth since it’s just a line of dialogue but…when in James’ final speech when he says that as you get older you love things less and less, until you only love one or two things—that moment brought me to tears. It made me so scared. I’m 19, I really hope this isn’t how my life will play out, but I can see it happening already.
Bunch of other things in the film I really like, some imagery, performances, little insights into a conflict happening on the other side of the earth, etc.
Here is a great snippet from Ebert’s blog talking about the film (I think he hits the nail on the head about this film):
The Hurt Locker" represents a return to strong, exciting narrative. Here is a film about a bomb disposal expert that depends on character, dialogue and situation to develop almost unbearable suspense. It contains explosions, but only a few, and it is not about explosions, but about hoping that none will happen. That sense of hope is crucial. When we merely want to see stuff blowed up real good in a movie, that means the movie contains no one we give a damn about.
…
The imagination of the audience is the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of any director of suspense. Bigelow is employing exactly the same technique as Hitchcock. We see what will happen when a bomb explodes. Then we spend the movie fearing it will happen again. Compared to this restraint, directors using unrestrained CGI effects are like children having a tantrum and throwing their toys around. It explains why a film like “The Hurt Locker” is objectively better than a gimcrack blockbuster.
…
But my purpose is not to praise “James,” as everybody always calls him. It is to praise Kathryn Bigelow, who comes into full focus in this film as an artist in the classical Hollywood tradition. She is, I wrote in my review, “a master of stories about men and women who choose to be in physical danger. She cares first about the people, then about the danger.” If we create a list of other directors who did that, even crusty old Howard Hawks and Sam Fuller, it is safe to say they would have admired, even envied, “The Hurt Locker.”
While I did like Hurt Locker, I don’t know if it’s great; a pretty damn good war film, and one of the better films of the year, but it’s early in the year for good studio films, and it’s also been a weak year.
I don’t know if I’ll call it the first good Iraq War movie. Lions for Lambs was pretty good considering it was an ‘argument’ film, (Richard Linklater’s Fast Food Nation film is the only comparable one I can think of, attempting to compress different arguments and viewpoints and inspire argument among the audience.) but the 2 or 3 other people I knew who sat through it found it to be irritating, preachy, Hollywood liberalism; I found it’s refusal to merely view current global issues from that perspective a strength, though I can see how Redford’s casting of himself as Wise Professor gave that impression.
I’ll also take up for The Kingdom as a good genre film set against the current Middle Eastern backdrop. And does Jarhead count? Hurt Locker seemed largely reminiscent of it in it’s attempt to nail the US military lifestyle, minus all of Jarhead’s meta, but with efforts at actual suspense and action.
I don’t know if Kathryn Bigelow is a great serious filmmaker, I have always felt her an underrated genre director. Hopefully Hurt Locker at least cements her place as that.
I think the 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 more at home in a movie like “Point Break”. (Apologies to fans of that thing.) He doesn’t break the rules because it’s effective, just out of 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. I like dramatic movies, where characters struggle to achieve objectives. I admit that there are great moments in 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 in it.
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.
Again I find myself largely alone in my sentiments regarding a war film. Oh, well.
I think The Hurt Locker is far and away Bigelow’s best film, and I didn’t see a lot of the problems many of you seem to have seen in it.
I didn’t dislike it, but…Bush’s little Fantasia In Iraq was the largest foreign policy failure in this sleepy nation’s history. As a consequence, we will be killing Arabs for a very long time, and losing our own young to this insanity. Not to say what other hell might come our way because of this. While I agree with the positive points about the strength of this film, I am disappointed that Bigelow chose to ignore the facts of this conflict. Given the magnitude of the fuck-up that is this ongoing war, I don’t see how any of this can be skirted. As it is, it’s a very strong film which could have been much more.
I didn’t like “The Hurt Locker”, it’s the best film Bigelow’s done. But that doesn’t make it good though.
I liked it partly because of some of the complaints listed here. The characters don’t have an arc and Bigelow rather deftly careens between drama, comedy and tragedy sometimes within the same scene. I agree that some may come away from the ending thinking it’s “bad-ass” but I feel it is clearly meant to be the opposite. Given the scene with his child one would have to be pretty simpleminded to miss the tragedy at the end and those folks can’t be helped.
On the other hand, it does seem like the mainstream press is falling all over themselves to declare this some kind of landmark achievement and it is not. It may be a quantum leap above the rest of the current offerings but that isn’t saying much. It’s a good movie and time will tell just how good.
“I didn’t like “The Hurt Locker”, it’s the best film Bigelow’s done. But that doesn’t make it good though”.
Very close to my thoughts. It turned out to be a very conventional movie.
A very bad summer for movies overall.
I’m glad to see this post as I didn’t love The Hurt Locker either. It’s this years emperors new clothes. Very overrated, some fine acting though, well directed etc, but I was just not moved by it. It seemed too repetitious, and the gimmick of killing off the two major actors in cameos give me a break. For me Apocalypse Now is the greatest war-anti war film made, and one of Coppola’s masterworks.
Yes, the Hurt Locker was severely overrated. I was bored throughout the whole entire film. I agree with Bell & Francisco that it’s her best film, but still not that great. Sorry! She doesn’t make my list of favorite female directors.
Near Dark is better than The Hurt Locker…
I had been re-watching “Generation Kill” - incidentally, also (co)directed by a woman, Susanna White — when I went to see “The Hurt Locker” and so I was already in the appropriate mindset to appreciate the film. I agree with Ebert’s view that Bigelow’s focus is on the people first, then the danger.
Someone commented earlier that the protagonist doesn’t go through a character arc, but (a) I don’t agree, and (b) it isn’t always necessary for a character to change to make a great film. James does acquire some self-awareness during his tour: going from not knowing or caring at all why he does what he does, to understanding that “why” is a valid question and the answer is that he needs it… to feel alive, to be in an environment that has a place for a man like him and his baggage. The polished veneer of a comfortable life and a wife who doesn’t want to discuss his traumas has no use for him.
However, even if James had not evolved over the course of the film, it would not make it an inferior piece of work. You can have stories where other people or events are transformed by a protagonist who remains constant, or stories that focus on a constant in order to unveil its layers one after another, examining it in depth.
I haven’t even seen it
yet
Fandorin-san
I feel if you take away the handcameras and non-conventional style all you have a left is a war movie that doesn’t offer anything new at all. It almost follows some genre movie cliches: the squad captain dying in the beginning, new guy who is crazy and not afraid to die and so on and so forth… The ending was very disappointing for me, too. It didn’t really work as a character study either. The reason I’m asking is because it got such good reviews from almost every critic.
What are your thoughts?