THE HURT LOCKER

2.5 Stars
Year Released: 2009
MPAA Rating: R
Running Time: 127 minutes
Click to Expand Credits:

I was really excited for “The Hurt Locker” because I’m a huge fan of one of director Kathryn Bigelow’s early films. Maybe you’ve heard of it. It’s about an FBI agent who learns to surf so that he can infiltrate a gang of moondoggies who also happen to be bank robbers. Do you know the film I mean? It stars the guy from “The Matrix” and the guy from “Dirty Dancing” and it’s amazingly awesome.

I wanted so badly for “The Hurt Locker” to have the same energy as “Point Break.” But it just…didn’t have it. Well, it was on a certain level. Like “Point Break,” it’s about an out-of-control adrenaline junkie and features some pretty outlandish dialog. Yet the script just isn’t as serious as the subject matter. Plus, it’s about a war that is still going on, which is kind of a sore subject.

“War is a drug,” so says the opening statement. What follows is a film about a bomb squad in Baghdad called Bravo Company who only has 38 days left in its yearlong tour. Consequently, they aren’t pleased when their leader (Guy Pierce) dies during a routine mission and is replaced by a loose cannon named William James (Jeremy Renner). The dude has two first names so he’s obviously not into “rules.”

On his first day, he marches headlong into a bomb-ridden area without using the scout robot first. It ends with him in a standoff with a shady cab driver. “He’s reckless,” observes his astute colleague. On his second day, he takes off his protective gear because he’s hot, declaring “If I’m gonna die, I might as well be comfortable.” “He’s a wild man,” observes his colleague astutely. Are you beginning to get the impression that Sgt. Bill Jim is a bit on the rash side? You would be correct. At some point someone actually states, “I’m too old for this shit.” Needless to say, it’s a little on-the-nose.

Granted, absurd dialog can be pretty entertaining. But here’s the trouble with “The Hurt Locker”: the violence doesn’t match the lines. Horrible things happen to old men and kids. Because the movie takes place in present-day Iraq, you can’t help but think about the reality of the violence. Again, a realistic war story can also be great cinema. But the language doesn’t marry well with the violence. It makes for a pretty schizophrenic film-going experience.

I don’t know if we’re supposed to like Sgt. Jim, but he’s certainly no everyman. He keeps mementos from each of the bombs he’s dismantled in a box full of “things that almost killed [him].” It also contains his wedding ring. He has a son at home, but he doesn’t seem to care too much about the boy growing up without a father. For fun, he gets drunk and punches people. He does show some affection for a local boy who calls himself Beckham. But it’s not enough to endear him to me or to help make sense of why the hell we are over there in the first place. Sgt. Jim thinks that war is easy and that real life is the hard part. That is pretty fucked up.

In short, “The Hurt Locker” is a modern war movie that doesn’t exactly glorify war, but doesn’t vilify it either. The film’s thesis is that some people are meant for war. I find that notion unsettling. What can I say? I like my war movies strictly anti. I also really like the musical “Hair!”



Posted on June 30, 2009 in Reviews by
Buffer


If you liked this article then you may also like the following Film Threat articles:
Popular Stories from Around the Web
4 Comments on "THE HURT LOCKER"

  1. Olivia on Sat, 27th Feb 2010 7:45 pm 

    I wouldn’t say that “The Hurt Locker” is one of my favorite movies, but I also wouldn’t criticize it for things that obviously are not relevant.

    For starters, the movie was about the effect that war has on soldiers. You say that it’s “fucked up” for Sgt. William James to think that real life is hard and war is easy? Sure, maybe it is. But that is the reality for him. There have been many cases of physcological problems caused by war, and maybe this movie is trying to shine some light on that.

    It is NOT a movie that is supposed to tell us why we’re “over there in the first place.” They’re over there. That is that. Now focus on the real point, the EFFECTS of the war on the soldiers. Your critique seemed silly and sloppy. You completely missed the mark.


    Report Comment

  2. Eric on Sat, 3rd Apr 2010 12:33 am 

    Combat is much simpler and easier than real life. All you have to worry about is what’s going on around you, or what’s going to happen in the next several hours. Plenty of veterans would agree with that opinion, including myself. If that’s “unsettling,” maybe it’s worth exploring why that’s true?


    Report Comment

  3. D on Wed, 12th May 2010 3:13 pm 

    Yep it messed up that many soldiers find going home harder than staying. Friend of mine put a bullet in his brain a month after coming home, cos he couldnt handle the normal world.

    Its messed up as hell, and we have to start working out why or we’ll lose more young men to the fact.


    Report Comment

  4. Stina Chyn on Thu, 13th May 2010 12:36 am 

    I loved The Hurt Locker. I’m not sure that the viewer is supposed to feel obligated to like Jeremy Renner’s character. He may be the central figure but Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are featured prominently, and even take on the viewer-identification/sympathy burden.

    I didn’t get the impression that the film suggested that civilian life is hard and soldiering is easy. One faces different risks, odds, and choices in war. The probability of anything is 50/50. Live/die. Now/later. Move/stop. Confronting those parameters isn’t any easier, but for Williams, it’s preferable.


    Report Comment

Tell us what you're thinking...





Comments are governed by the Terms of Use of this Site. Click on the "Report Comment" link if you feel a comment is in violation of the Terms of Use, and the comment will be reviewed appropriately.