Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Screenplay: Mark Boal
Producers: Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Ralph Finnes, Guy Pearce
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 131 min.
(4.5/5)Welcome to hell. A hell where you wake up daily not knowing whether you’re going to live or die; a hell where an explosion or a sniper shot could end your life before it even begins. That’s the reality for some but for others, they were made for this. Their heads are wired for the constant danger and the unknown; for the adrenaline rush of diffusing a trunk full of bombs as possible killers look on. It’s one of these renegades that we meet in Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker.
Staff Sergeant William James isn’t just a renegade, he’s reckless. The first time we meet him he’s asking fellow officer Sanborn to help him remove the plywood covering the window of his barrack. It’s there to protect him from flying shrapnel but James is having none of it and his explanation is enough to give anyone pause. It’s small moments like these combined with high tension and knock you out explosions that make The Hurt Locker such a fantastic film. Part action, part thriller, part commentary and all entertainment, this is the type of film I long for.
Written by Mark Boal who was also behind the story of Paul Haggis’ In the Valley of Elah, this is, all at once, a story of war, friendship, family, survival and politics. What’s most impressive is that with all of this meta information floating around the film never dwells on it. Present idea, let it sit for a moment and move on. As if that amount of restraint and faith in the audience isn’t impressive enough, there is also a little something to be said for the film’s entertainment quotient which is turned up to 11.
Shot by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd (of United 93 and The Wind That Shakes the Barley fame), the film puts you in the middle of the action, be that sitting in the Humvee with the guys, sharing an uncomfortable moment of quiet head butting, or out in open spaces surrounded on all sides by danger. Ackroyd expertly moves the camera along the surroundings, allowing the audience to take it all in while never highlighting the particulars; the way the buildings are falling apart, the garbage strewn along the streets and the fact that people are essentially living in squalor and rubble.
Though the film lacks any big names in lead roles, it gives a few familiar names some much deserved attention. Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie are the clear stars and they take their roles and expand the characters well beyond one dimension. The script asks that they swing from one extreme emotion to another and the duo, along with Brian Geraghty in a slightly smaller though no less important role, fill the characters with nuance and emotion which occasionally slips through their all business exteriors to create real people in realistic situations. And although the film is all Renner and Mackie, there’s also a surprising sprinkling of appearances from familiar faces which come and go with little fanfare.
Bigelow’s film is a lean machine. Frivolity is no where to be found and aspects like slow motion and amplified gunfire are sparsely and expertly used to heighten the overall experience. The result is a handsome, often white-knuckled, suspenseful film which sheds as much light into war and warfare as it does into the people who fight it. Yes, the shoot outs and explosions are exciting and fantastic but so are the characterizations and how these men interact. It’s almost as though the audience is granted access into the secret lives of soldiers. It may not always be pretty but among the head butting and machismo there is also an undisputable humanity; one which we may not fully understand but which we accept.
The Hurt Locker is, to date, easily the best film about the current war. It’s also a great candidate for acceptance into the war film hall of fame. Most importantly, it manages to be poignant and important without being reverent. There are a few directors who should be taking pointers from Ms. Bigelow.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for The Hurt Locker
Marina, you are a review writing champion! 3 in 3 days. Wow. I’ll be check out this review as soon as I manage to see the darn movie. Which, hopefully will be this friday afternoon!
finally one of us wrote a review for this great film… and for such a manly testosterone film, go figure it would take a woman to step up and do the job
well done, couldn’t have put it better myself. Its a film that has stuck with me.
Excellent review. Nice cameos as well which you mentioned. Didn’t we first see James as he difused his first bomb? The opening scene of the movie is also top, top notch. Makes you sit up at attention for the rest of the movie. Well done.
I walked out of this after the lame taxi scene. Diffusing bombs is about the most boring profession I can think of in a war, combining the worst of both worlds, overly set-up action scenes with boring professionalism.
I honestly don’t know how to respond to that last.
Literally. I’m trying to come up with something to say that counter balances all of the stupidity in that comment but I can’t come up with anything.
if you left after the taxi scene than how do you know what happened in the movie?
the sniper scene is awesome, and while you Henrik would still bitch about professionalism, that to me is its strength. I would have thought you would of appreciated the lack of rah rah patriotism in the film, the over the top aggressive America war-mongering bullshit we are accustom to. Something like the sniper scene, takes all that away, forget everything you ever thought about war, now it is just patient professionalism, calm under pressure, calculating angles, steady hand, and kill.
No I agree with Marina, this is the best film on the Iraq War.
Yeah I would have loved a movie that was about professionalism, but when I say it combines the worst of both worlds, it is because they still feel the need to add ridiculous scenes of “bomb-tension” seen a million times before.
I don’t pretend to know what happened in the movie after I left.
“this is the best film on the Iraq War.”
This could very well be the case, but who cares? It still has to be interesting, instead of boring. Being less boring than “The Lucky Ones” or whatever else is being released, isn’t enough, for me at least.
That sniper scene is by far my favorite scene in the movie. For most of it nothing happens. But it’s still awesome for lots of reasons. Jeremy Renner in that scene is particularly good in this bit.
I was going to catch this the other day after seeing Girlfriend Experience, but i failed to account for the trailers, which were more numerous than expected, so I didnt get to the other theater with enough time to spare.
I may wait to DVD. I must admit even my favorite war movies are hard to get me into the theater. I am one of those people that has a problem telling people apart or in some cases identifying with certain characters in war movies because of uniforms blending everyone together. I prefer DVD for a lot of them so I can rewind a lot of certain things. It happens.
This is Hitchcock tension, this is set-pieces that are worked out carefully to elicit the most tension they can get from them. I am fine with it being a suspense film as much as a war drama. The apt comparison is Clouzot’s Wages of Fear, a movie that keeps you tense on the premise that the main characters are driving trucks full of nitroglycerine across dangerous jungle terrain, and like Hurt Locker, there are deliberate set-pieces laid out, each more extravagant than the last. You really feel that at any moment destruction can ensue.
Yeah, everything else aside, the film is about the tension, and for me it fell flat on its face. I simply could not feel any tension from diffusing bombs anymore, seen it too many times.
I have to say that I didn’t LOVE this movie as much as everyone else did. I think other than tension, it doesn’t really have much going for it. I mean it’s here’s a scene that is intense – cut to grab ass in the barracks – here’s another scene that’s intense – cut to grab ass in the barracks – here’s another scene that’s intense – Renner traumatizes an innocent family – cut to grab ass in the barracks.
That isn’t to say I didn’t like the movie a lot. It’s just not a film I would watch over and over again. Each scenario is great on its own terms, but other than that its pretty standard – even cliche – fare.
The weird cameos that served very little purpose irked me too – especially the David Morse bit. A major wtf moment.
See Cinecast #130 for more in depth on Matt and my thoughts on this.
let’s be clear though, just because a film may not be something you watch over and over, shouldn’t weigh on the judgment of its value. Unless you are evaluating it as a commodity.
Even if seen only once (and come to think of it, most suspense films are usually one-offs) it has the impact on that first viewing it needs to, or at least according to me. Also it takes a worn out genre and brings something new to the table. You have had the ‘wild man’ rogue army dude before, but not this level of attention to the psychology underlying that behavior. I know Matt didn’t like the ending but for me, the ending makes the movie.
Wether or not you would watch it over and over is a valid judgment when it comes to mindless action. If the set piece doesn’t hold up as entertainment, in a movie that is meant to entertain, it’s not as good as if it did.
In generel, I would agree with rot, but not when it comes to a film like this. The greatest action films, like The Adventures of Robin Hood, Stagecoach, Terminator 2, things like that, you can watch over and over again and not get tired of, because you are enjoying the same things, the craftsmanship, the captured stunts, and set piece. But I would rip the guy a new asshole telling me that 2001 is worse, because you don’t want to watch it again and again. Same with a lot of movies, all the ones that really matter.
The funny thing is, The Hurt Locker did NOT have that big of an impact on me. I liked it (my abandoned review gave it 3.5/5 stars) but I got a little antsy through some of it. It’s a little bit too long and some of the side story felt a little clumsy and unnecessary. Also the lameness of the preachy ending kind of got to me. I’m not saying the message is lame. I’m saying the way it is spelled out is lame.
I guess I’m just surprised at the unbelievable critical reception to this movie. I’d rather watch Black Hawk Down again for a modern warfare film.
but Hurt Locker isn’t an action movie, its suspense… action is having bombs go off every five minutes, suspense is the impending expectation of a bomb going off for the duration of a film… different genres, different expectations.
This is more Hitchcock than Michael Bay, and deliberately so.
it is slow and methodical by design.
Black Hawk Down is equally as terrible as this. Black Hawk Down is for guns what The Fast and The Furious is for cars, and that’s all it is.
I will give you your point rot, it seems valid enough. The action scenes sure do drag alot. Hitchcock didn’t need explosions though, all he needed was Bernard Herrman and a strange angle to deliver the punch, Hurt Locker needs the explosion and fails at delivering it succesfully.
The Hurt Locker is the antithesis of Black Hawk Down, which I still don’t understand your fascination with Andrew.
I also don’t get the preaching of the ending opinion, it merely shows how a person is unintentionally affected by prolonged involvement in a war environment. The idea of murder and its repercussions on the soldier have been examined to death in the genre, but I can’t think of another film that has so directly addressed the adrenaline addiction of war that stifles the character’s ability to live a normal life. I suppose Jamie Foxx’s character in Jarhead represents that, but it is fleshed out more in this film I think.
In the rear-view, Jarhead is looking better and better as a film.
I’ll be checking out The Hurt Locker tomorrow afternoon.
“adrenaline addiction of war”
Exactly. I don’t think THE HURT LOCKER is trying to be everything to everyone. It has a clear direction and stick to it.
And I disagree that it’s built as tension/grab ass/ tension. Even the “quiet” scenes carry a weight of tension.
The sniper scene is memorable for me not just because it so realistically portrays the profession but also because it gives us a look at the characters beyond the job – especially James. He might be an ass but when it comes right down to it, he’s responsible and professional.
Goon – you shouldn’t have too much trouble telling the guys apart in this one. There aren’t that many characters to keep track of.
Preachy ending? Andrew I’d love to hear your view on that (or if it’s on the podcast I’ll check that out). I’m mystified how it could be preachy.
Why I think it works and hits all the right nerves (save Henrik’s.. oh, Henrik… how are we suppose to respond to your comments?) is that it is so grey. No one is really likeable. No one is a good guy. When we do start to care about someone, they shift back to the greyness. But, keeping them there, keeps ‘the work’ being done for what appears to be the better.
The acting is phenomenal. I was floored by Jeremy Renner. What a performance.
The promise was certainly there in both A LITTLE TRIP TO HEAVEN and 28 WEEKS LATER, but kudos to Kathryn Bigelow and her casting folks for really giving Renner his due on the big screen.
Matt send this tidbit along to me yesterday:
“For The Hurt Locker, I was lucky enough to work with a brilliant screenwriter, Mark Boal, whose direct, vivid writing about the inner life of men in the bomb squad had the ring of truth and honesty that can only come from first-hand observation. Mark is also a journalist, and he’d been in Baghdad with the Army, and seen with his own eyes the intense bravery and fear these men live with on a daily basis. In William James, he’d created an extremely complex fictional character rife with vivid paradoxes—both a thrill-seeking cowboy and a calm professional, at once a hero and a man adrift in his own isolation.
My problem? Finding an actor with shoes big enough to fill such a nuanced role. I needed a young Sean Penn or a young Russel Crowe. I needed, in other words, a miracle.
I looked and looked for quite some time and then happened to see a small independent movie called Dahmer, in which this terrific actor named Jeremy Renner gave an incredibly nuanced performance, eliciting compassion and revulsion in almost equal measure. It was an arresting display of major talent, and from that moment forward I was determined to work with him. I cast Jeremy as James.
Some folks involved in the financing of the movie were a bit concerned by the choice because Jeremy wasn’t (yet) a household name. They felt they’d have to work extra long hours to bring this bright new star to the public’s attention. But to be perfectly honest, I wasn’t all that worried. Though I still had to go and actually film the movie—and spend six months in the Jordan heat and sand—the hardest part of my job was done.
– Kathryn Bigelow, director “
SHANNON – “preachy” is maybe the wrong word. There is a scene near the end where the two guys are riding in the truck and the passenger basically spells out the fact that “war sucks” (in fact I think he actually uses those words) in the most contrived way. It is lazy lazy screen writing and didn’t need to be there.
I guess I like the idea of Renner feeling more comfortable disarming bombs than with his family, but it is put together so quickly and haphazardly at the end. That particular plot point could’ve almost been an entire movie in and of itself but it was kind of glossed over. – And yeah, Matt and I go over it in Cinecast #130.
And I’ll ask again, does anyone know why David Morse was in this?
Why not, I thought Morse was awesome in a small role,********************SPOILERS******************** if nothing else he serves the point that all the recognizable faces are not destine to get shot or blown up!
“Why not, I thought Morse was awesome in a small role,…”
I don’t believe I said he wasn’t awesome, I said it was pointless. “Wow. you’re really hot shit! Ok see ya, I won’t be back for anything else in this movie. I’m David Morse. Good night.”
Pointless.
Ha, I should have listened to the cinecast before commenting, as Matt goes to town on the same concept as the above comment.
On a similar note, ****Firefly/Serenity SPOILERS**** the death of Wash right before everything is on the line serves to de-stabilize the audience while watching it for the first time.
In the rear-view, Jarhead is looking better and better as a film.
You’re an idiot.
This is Hitchcock tension, this is set-pieces that are worked out carefully to elicit the most tension they can get from them.
The film this reminds me most of is Touch of Evil. The Hurt Locker is simply doing the opening scene 5 different times in 5 different ways. That is outstanding film making. And while Andrew didn’t like the cameos, I think they really served the film well in that they left the audience completely in a state of flux on just who would survive. Every single person in this film was at risk at any moment, and the cameos were the fuel that helped push that chaotic fire.
My biggest problem with the ending is how heavy handed it is, especially compared to the rest of the film. Rather then rely on subtlety and ambiguity it smacks you in the face with James’ cowardice and his cure for those fears. Its the cinematic equivalent of rubbing my face in the moral of the story. I got it. I don’t need it read back to me.
But like, say, Children of Men, the stumble at the end isn’t enough to take away from what I thought otherwise was a damn good film. I think it could have been done better, but the issue isn’t glaring or bad enough to take away from the film. Its a glitch, and if such a thing had happened anywhere else in the film it would have been insignificant, and it is only easily highlighted because it is the ending.
“Its the cinematic equivalent of rubbing my face in the moral of the story. I got it. I don’t need it read back to me.”
Exactly.
Its not pointless. It is directly tied to the other cameos and their fates were as at risk as anyones. Just because he is David Morse doesn’t mean his character won’t die. When you put your audience on edge like that, it builds tension.
It then directly ties into the third major cameo of the film, because by that point it is a 50/50 chance of whether or not he lives based on past events in the film. Because of this that scene because even more impressive directly due to the earlier setups.
Maybe I’m forgetting a scene. When was Morse ever in a position to possibly die? They meet up next to a Hummer at base camp and say two lines to each opther. Morse shows up, I say, “awesome. David Morse is in this.” Oh wait, no he’s not.
Just by being in the film he is in a position to die, and it works as a setup to the later scene when it initially plays as just a brocen down Hummer that all of a sudden turns into a sniper fight. That scene doesn’t work anywhere near as well without the Morse cameo from earlier.
I don’t see it. I think you’re stretching. But whatever; glad it works for you.
I still don’t see the ending rubbing your face in it, I guess because I WANTED to see that layer to the story, afterall various times throughout the film it would elude to this event, and if anything it made the film better. If you are looking for something to carry with you other than cheap thrills, its that ending realization of character that is the essence for the whole story being told at all. I suspect as a pitch, THAT was a key element, the theme as it were.
Like I said before, the film has stayed with me… most things evaporate but I like the film more and more as time goes on.
I think this is simply one area where we differ. After alluding to it, I prefer it isn’t actually shown. I like the mystery, to me it shows confidence in your audience to grasp your theme and take the idea where they want it to go. When the film shows it to you that freedom is lost.
I don’t think either way is actually better,it is an artistic choice after all, I just personally prefer that things aren’t shown. And like I said before, the ending certainly doesn’t ruin the film at all. It just is easier to focus on because it is the last images you are left with.
I though Renner’s character going home and trying to make a realistic go with his wife and daughter was needed by the story, after all the “Pointless, War Sucks” scene that Andrew was talking about was not so much about “WAR SUCKS AND IS STRESSFUL”, but more about the fact that Sanborn has hit the point where he is ready to drop the crazy tension of special ops and go home and make a family. This is of course reflected on the fact that Renner’s character has failed in this regard. That scene actually reminded me of the Samuel L. Jackson / John Travolta scene in Pulp Fiction where Jackson says the near-death experience while on the job has been interpreted as a sign to move on to other things (Walk the Earth, Like Caine in the Kung Fu), wherease Travolta’s Jules keeps on doing the usual (and is killed on the toilet indirectly due to pop-tarts!).
There is a lot of subtlety in the film in how the characters behave (particuarly the vibe of the team under Guy Pearce vs. the behaviour of the team under Renner’s character.) This more than makes up for the obvious wearing of the themes in the closing minutes. I actually liked the ending, I liked the message, and I liked the fact that you certainly do not think that Renner is a model human being, despite being very, very good at his chosen profession. All in all, a very solid war movie that captures (from my limited viewpoint) some of the spirit and tone of Gulf War II.
Thanks Andrew, now I know the scene you are referring to – I can see that pov and I’ll have to check out the cast for more!
agree with Kurt, the scene in context has a function and is not an arbitrary War Sucks lecture. Also to focus on the ending again, I love the contrast effect, that you have been bombarded with very intense war scenes over and over, and you are like the main character now programmed to accept this condition of the world (film), and when you are taken out of that context, it hardly needs to be dramatized (and I think for the most part it isn’t), you immediately sense why the character is the way he is, you feel your body recoil in the supermarket, or I did.
Plus on the Supermarket scene, when he has been disarming bombs again and again under intensely focused – down to a single all consuming thing, find the end of the wire and cut it – the simple act of the volumonous choice of breakfast cereals in that aisle makes a great point. I like that image, although somewhere I was reading that Bigelow ‘borrowed’ that imagery from another film, to make a similar point….
the closing shot worked for me, but the scene before that with Renner talking to his ugly baby was brutal. Could have used more subtlety there. Didn’t ruin the movie, though.
The movie was very, very solid, but wasn’t great for me. The visual/technical aspects were awesome, but I think the tension starts to wane big-time in the latter half of the movie. After the first couple of set-pieces, you pretty much know that none of the three main characters were gonna die, and you could start to easily predict who was (i.e. the psychiatrist). It was still fun to go through those sequences, though.
Him talking to the baby is an explicit acknowledgement that the character is aware of his flaws and yet makes no effort to meet his fears. It goes nicely with “We’re all a coward with something” – it also contrasts with Sanborn’s decision to beat his fear of starting a family and cling to the adrenaline rush of war.
It’s an interesting anti-war movie with the message that the war is somehow a ‘dodge of life’ by its soldiers, preferring the structured chaos of the military life (This isn’t Nam, Donnie, there are rules here!) to the big-life decisions of civilian life. It was this aspect of the HURT LOCKER that in my opinion waaaay elevates it out of the “War-Genre” and into something else. This is certainly one of my favourites of 2009.
I agree with Dan on one thing though, who was going to die and who wasn’t going to die was pretty much a forgone conclusion with most of the characters (Despite the best intentions of inserting in David Morse)
The Psychiatrist had “I’m Dead” marked all over him from the first conversation with the young soldier.
That being said, I liked what they did with the soccer/DVD selling kid though, and how he factored into Renner’s characters psychosis/addiction late in the film.
“Him talking to the baby is an explicit acknowledgement that the character is aware of his flaws and yet makes no effort to meet his fears. It goes nicely with “We’re all a coward with something” – it also contrasts with Sanborn’s decision to beat his fear of starting a family and cling to the adrenaline rush of war.”
I agree that the scene further fleshed out Renner’s character and, with the closing shot, fleshed out the “war is an addiction theme” (book-ending with the opening quote), but it was a little too “explicit” for my liking. His baby speech was majorly cheesy, as was Sanborne’s “I want a son!” line. Too obvious a way to show his character arc (he didn’t want a son before, now he does–he has changed, audience), made me groan. My dislike of children may have influenced my opinion, though. These were only minor quibbles in an otherwise very enjoyable flick.
Nice review! The main characters are enlisted personnel, not officers. EOD bomb techs have a thankless job. The movie does a good job of portraying the comraderie of men at war. But in typical Hollywood fashion, the movie’s officers are portrayed as gung-ho idiots or out of touch morons that get killed because of their stupidity.
The movie had several good qualities… reality is not one of them.
Sniper scene… complete hollywoodish and not realistic… maybe for a true sniper team, but not for combat engineers.
An adrenaline junky Marine is one thing. A death loving one is another and does not portray not only the average Vet, but this one borders on a unique case.
Going half-cocked into a self imposed search-n-destroy mission after unknown asailants with nothing other than a thought ‘they watched from right here’… malarky. There would be a court-martial.
Going half-cocked, on his own, not only into a non-green zone area, but raw Iraqi subburb… just stupid.
… I could go on, but for the case of watching a well acted, great cinematography, hollywoodish quotes, its a good movie, but it is not representitive of Iraq, the war, our brave soldiers or… reality no, compilation of every unique military fantasy discussed, FMJ all the way.
Definitely a good movie, but not nearly as great as I expected, considering all of the praise being thrown on it, including, where I read somewhere, the “platoon of the Iraqi War.”
a pretty good article by an iraq war vet