The Hurt Locker (B+ or 3/4 stars)
'The Hurt Locker', by definition, is one who inflicts physical, mental, or emotional pain on someone else; they are said to be "putting them in the Hurt Locker". It also means "a world of hurt". This term applies to 3 particular men in Kathryn Bigelow's new war film of the same name. War is Hell. We comprehend this. But there's no way we can truly know what it's like to be in it. Set in 2004, against the backdrop of the Iraq War, this movie gives us an intense portrayal of some elite soldiers who have one of the most dangerous tasks: disarming bombs. When Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner), takes over a highly trained bomb disposal team, he surprises his 2 subordinates, Sanborn & Eldridge (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty) by recklessly throwing them into urban combat.
Sanborn is 2nd in command to James; always wanting each bomb mission to run smoothly. He hopes to leave Iraq for good & start a family. Eldridge is a disillusioned back-up man. He is visited regularly by an on-site psychologist who tries to boost his morale. Sgt. Will James is their hot headed chain smoking commander; & unlike his 2 fellow soldiers ... indifferent to the prospect of death. James takes risks; nearly getting himself obliterated on several occasions. As Sanborn & Eldridge struggle to control their unhinged leader, Baghdad explodes into chaos, & James' true inner character reveals itself to them, himself, & us. Every corner of the city offers threats, everyone is an enemy, every deserted object could contain a deadly bomb, & every soldier's life is on the line.
One of the stand-out aspects of 'The Hurt Locker' is that while it's a war movie (through & through), there is NO political agenda attached, & very little violence. How's that for originality? Nowhere is there a discussion of what's right & wrong (the invasion, killing civilians, etc.). All that matters here is that our troops are over there, their enemies include the Iraqis, the bombs, & the snipers. They each have tasks to accomplish. And the most important thing is for every soldier to reach the end of his/her tour of duty alive, but not necessarily well. That's the reality. And it's depicted extremely well, here.
The performances are very strong. Jeremy Renner's Sgt. James is a man who plays by his own rules (his more rebellious scenes felt a tad implausible to me, but I digress. Who am I to know what really goes on over there?). He loves being the heroic bomb-diffuser, but has no respect for anything but war. That's a complex role to handle, & Renner excels with it. Anthony Mackie is excellent as the well-trained subordinate who just wants everything to go smoothly. His dream of having a family is drawing near ... or is it? Brian Geraghty is also stellar as Eldridge, a somewhat inexperienced soldier who lacks the necessary nerves of steel which would allow him to prosper in combat. The character depth in this film is minimal, but the actors really bring subtlety & intuitive nuances to their archetypical roles.
This is an action film. So, how's the action? Well, it's brilliant ... in parts. The opening 20 min. or so is superbly immersive; setting the stage, time, place & characters - that I felt like I was there. There are 2 or 3 bomb situations which made me want to turn my head away; the suspense was killing me. Then the film sort of falls into place. We learn trivial bits about the 3 main characters. They drink. They curse. We watch them skulk around Baghdad's streets. They find bombs. They make brief, uneasy conversation. They find another bomb. Then repeat (with waning interest as it goes). The cinematography is decent. The editing (especially in slow-motion sequences) is spectacular. The direction is assured. And I pondered the film a lot in my bed last night.
But I must tell you, I started looking at my watch with about 40 minutes to go in the movie & couldn't believe we were only at that point. After 130 min. in the theater, I was exhausted; not from the intermittent bursts of effective filmmaking, but from fits & starts of boredom. Aside from some wonderfully intense scenes & some great acting, I found the narrative style of 'The Hurt Locker' to be too slow, and really, too dry. I respect the movie greatly. I admire it (to show how war can be a drug; and how man can lose his love for life). It has a pseudo-documentary feel; which is commendable. But when compared to a more kinetic, dramatic, full-bodied Middle-Eastern adventure like 2007's The Kingdom, this film pales a bit. And I'm surprised by the rave reviews it has received.
Sanborn is 2nd in command to James; always wanting each bomb mission to run smoothly. He hopes to leave Iraq for good & start a family. Eldridge is a disillusioned back-up man. He is visited regularly by an on-site psychologist who tries to boost his morale. Sgt. Will James is their hot headed chain smoking commander; & unlike his 2 fellow soldiers ... indifferent to the prospect of death. James takes risks; nearly getting himself obliterated on several occasions. As Sanborn & Eldridge struggle to control their unhinged leader, Baghdad explodes into chaos, & James' true inner character reveals itself to them, himself, & us. Every corner of the city offers threats, everyone is an enemy, every deserted object could contain a deadly bomb, & every soldier's life is on the line.
One of the stand-out aspects of 'The Hurt Locker' is that while it's a war movie (through & through), there is NO political agenda attached, & very little violence. How's that for originality? Nowhere is there a discussion of what's right & wrong (the invasion, killing civilians, etc.). All that matters here is that our troops are over there, their enemies include the Iraqis, the bombs, & the snipers. They each have tasks to accomplish. And the most important thing is for every soldier to reach the end of his/her tour of duty alive, but not necessarily well. That's the reality. And it's depicted extremely well, here.
The performances are very strong. Jeremy Renner's Sgt. James is a man who plays by his own rules (his more rebellious scenes felt a tad implausible to me, but I digress. Who am I to know what really goes on over there?). He loves being the heroic bomb-diffuser, but has no respect for anything but war. That's a complex role to handle, & Renner excels with it. Anthony Mackie is excellent as the well-trained subordinate who just wants everything to go smoothly. His dream of having a family is drawing near ... or is it? Brian Geraghty is also stellar as Eldridge, a somewhat inexperienced soldier who lacks the necessary nerves of steel which would allow him to prosper in combat. The character depth in this film is minimal, but the actors really bring subtlety & intuitive nuances to their archetypical roles.
This is an action film. So, how's the action? Well, it's brilliant ... in parts. The opening 20 min. or so is superbly immersive; setting the stage, time, place & characters - that I felt like I was there. There are 2 or 3 bomb situations which made me want to turn my head away; the suspense was killing me. Then the film sort of falls into place. We learn trivial bits about the 3 main characters. They drink. They curse. We watch them skulk around Baghdad's streets. They find bombs. They make brief, uneasy conversation. They find another bomb. Then repeat (with waning interest as it goes). The cinematography is decent. The editing (especially in slow-motion sequences) is spectacular. The direction is assured. And I pondered the film a lot in my bed last night.
But I must tell you, I started looking at my watch with about 40 minutes to go in the movie & couldn't believe we were only at that point. After 130 min. in the theater, I was exhausted; not from the intermittent bursts of effective filmmaking, but from fits & starts of boredom. Aside from some wonderfully intense scenes & some great acting, I found the narrative style of 'The Hurt Locker' to be too slow, and really, too dry. I respect the movie greatly. I admire it (to show how war can be a drug; and how man can lose his love for life). It has a pseudo-documentary feel; which is commendable. But when compared to a more kinetic, dramatic, full-bodied Middle-Eastern adventure like 2007's The Kingdom, this film pales a bit. And I'm surprised by the rave reviews it has received.