The Hurt Locker Review
The Hurt Locker
Directed by: Katherine Bigelow
Written by: Mark Boal
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, Evangeline Lilly, David Morse
Movies about the war in Iraq have been notoriously unsuccessful with audiences over the past few years, and for the most part it makes sense: people go to the movies to escape reality, not to be preached to or to be reminded of terrible things that are happening in other parts of the world. Movies like Stop-Loss and The Lucky Ones definitely have a political slant, and on top of that, they all deal with soldiers who have returned home after serving in active duty. While I’m sure there are some stories worth telling here, it does seem a bit strange to cut out the most compelling part of a soldier’s life.
I guess I can understand why there haven’t been more modern war movies that put you in the middle of the action, especially since it’s so easy to be accused of exploitation or glorifying violence. But the fact is, war makes for some incredibly compelling drama and intense thrills, and veteran action director Katherine Bigelow is keenly aware of that fact. With her new film The Hurt Locker, she has delivered the first Iraq war movie that is truly built for entertainment first, and one of the must-see movies of 2009.
Centering on three members of Bravo Company’s bomb disposal unit, the story follows the arrival of Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), an experienced technician who is brought in to replace a fallen comrade. During their first assignment, however, by-the-books Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and naive Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) find out that James is a bit of a wild card: fearless yet unpredictable. Slowly, over time, they learn to trust each other and go about their work, but when a particularly gruesome assignment leaves James shaken to the core, his impulsive nature ends up throwing his fellow soldiers into a dangerous and unnecessary encounter.
The Hurt Locker is able to deliver both action and suspense without coming off as either pro or anti-war because its main characters are a group of soldiers performing a very specialized job. Their objective is to save lives, not take them, although some of the situations they find themselves in do require them to take up arms. This movie features scene after scene of tense, white-knuckle bomb investigations, which are captured with raw, handheld camerawork. You can feel the heat of the sand and the pressure they are under, not to mention the excruciating fear of the unknown. It’s not all about disarming IEDs, however, as one of the most unforgettable scenes involves a surprise sniper attack in the middle of the desert.
While the cast includes a number of recognizeable names including Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, and Evangeline Lilly, they only play peripheral characters, which helps keep the movie rooted in reality. It also gives people like Jeremy Renner a chance to shine, who, up until now, is probably best known for his appearances in 28 Weeks Later and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, plus the short-lived ABC series The Unusuals. Here he plays a man who is supremely confident and slightly unhinged, but certainly not crazy or stupid. The scenes of downtime in between assignments help flesh out these characters and make them believable. Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty provide great counterpoints to Renner’s performance, keeping him in check.
This is an independent film that has enough explosions and action to feel like a big budget studio picture, but without sacrificing character. Kathryn Bigelow directed Point Break and K-19: The Widowmaker (plus the cult vampire flick Near Dark), so she clearly knows how to keep audiences on the edge of their seat. She also isn’t afraid to exaggerate and have a little fun either, as the movie is not entirely free of action movie cliches, however, they merely spice up the proceedings without taking you out of the story.
The only misstep in the entire film is a plot twist toward the end where Jeremy Renner’s character decides to do something that takes matters into his own hands. It is a little hard to swallow and throws realism out the window, but fortunately it’s a fairly short sidetrack that is both exciting and an important lead-in to one of the movie’s key moments.
With all this talk of entertainment value, it’s important to note that The Hurt Locker is not completely mindless and empty either. It puts you inside the mindset of these soldiers who are just doing their job, concentrating on surviving another day. Their lives are in limbo and the real world becomes alien to them after a while. It doesn’t wave any flags and it doesn’t point any fingers, it just leaves it for you to decide if they are heroes or something else entirely.
The Hurt Locker is a movie that is easy to whole-heartedly recommend to just about anyone and everyone (well, except maybe kids… it is rated R after all). It is easily one of the best modern war movies I have ever seen, putting it somewhere between Black Hawk Down and the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. It’s a smaller film that deserves your support, but it can compete with any of the other blockbusters out there this summer for pure adrenaline and heart-pounding suspense. So if you get the chance to see this on the big screen, do yourself a favour and take the plunge. You won’t be disappointed. — Sean
SCORE: 
Recommended If You Like: Generation Kill, Black Hawk Down, Three Kings
Comments (37)
Excellent review. Agree with you on nearly every point. I really hope audiences will embrace this film enough for it to get a wider release. The directing, acting, and editing are among some of the best work I’ve seen this year.
Posted by John O'Neil on July 26th, 2009Just wish it would release in a theater near me. Thanks for the review.
Posted by Big Hungry on July 26th, 2009Why… Why… Why… does this and “moon” get such a small release????????
It is like the studios are training the general public not see original movies in theater.
The commercial makes it look interesting.
Posted by Tomas on July 27th, 2009I’m not sure why SUMMIT has rolled this movie out so slow, considering the buzz on it is White-Hot, at least if you read online or go to review aggregate sites.
I finally caught it last Friday and man, it is indeed one of the best films to be released this year so far.
Posted by Kurt on July 27th, 2009Studios see the returns on front loaded films like Revenge of the Fallen and G-Force and think, “Well, that’s what teh [sic] people want.” When movies like Moon and The Hurt Locker come around, movies that are very deliberately paced and require more particiaption from the viewer on multiple levels, studios take a shit and futz around. Plus it’s a matter of theater space, which is quite frankly regoddamndiculous given all the multiplexes populating North American cities. In my town, Regal designates one theater among all in the city to carry “independent” movies, and when that theater does it sticks them in an auditorium the size of a shoebox. Of course, it’s either cramped good movies or nothing but 4000 screen schlock.
When you really start to look at the mindset behind release schedules and logistics, all of it makes sense and none of it makes sense.
Bottom line is see Moon and The Hurt Locker if you can. If you can’t, they’ll hit DVD soon enough. These movies benefit from being good on their own terms.
Posted by Dave on July 27th, 2009The Hurt Locker is a lot more accessible than Moon though. It is currently playing in over 200 theatres, which is not bad… it might expand even further than that by the end of the summer.
Posted by Sean on July 27th, 2009Just saw the movie last weekend and really enjoyed it. Have always been a Kathryn Bigelow fan even though I find some of her movies to be extremely uneven. But her talent for action sequences are pretty awesome!
Hurt Locker was by far her best film with Near Dark at the top of the list. Hope more people see this film, I also highly recommend it!
Posted by 1138 on July 27th, 2009the roll out is working – everyone on line is talking about it and spreading the news. this is how it has to work when you don’t have the money for TV commercials. same as the roll out on The Wreastler, etc.
I loved the film and this review is pretty close to what I think.
I NEED HELP ON ONE POINT FROM THOSE THAT SAW IT:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
was the kid being used as a body bomb the same kid as before, selling DVDs? was the kid we saw after the body bomb scene a new kid? The answer really changes the film’s entire message, for me, and I feel Bigelow rush through that point a little.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009*******SPOILER************************* Same Kid. I’m 99% sure of that. Which futher probes into Renner’s characters desire to rationalize/submerge his risk-taking desires and do things much more ‘edge’ than actually requires of the situation to get the rush.
The kid when you see him again, clearly knows Renner and asks him specifically about Soccer and DVDs, so same kid, even though he is on screen for only a second or two.
The Bomb-Kid is some random other kid.
Posted by Kurt on July 27th, 2009*******SPOILER*************************are you sure? I was leaning the other way, and that all of his efforts to make a difference were futile? just like the IED – another kid has been drafted to take the previous kid’s place. The whole soccer and DVD talk is the just the play. what do others think?
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009*********SPOILER****************It doesn’t seem to make much sense to have the now scared out of his wits DVD retailer to bring in another similar kid. I do get the ‘cyclical’ nature of things, the movie is definitely structured that way. So I’m not completely disputing the you Rus, and the kid was only onscreen for a millisecond so it was to tough to get a good look. But it makes little sense that the kid-bomb would be made out of that kid. It’s a tough co-incidence to swallow, so I went the other way. Renner’s resentment of that kid upon his return underscores the ‘guilt/cowardice’ of acknowledging that Renner’s sense of purpose is dictated by his addiction, and not any righteous cause.
Posted by Kurt on July 27th, 2009*********SPOILER****************I looked on IMDB and they only list one “DVD Dealer”
either way it is a good way to show the depths of his character, and I agree having James assume the body bomb is the kid, therefore, he NEEDS to diffuse the bomb out of some sort of respect really makes his character so much more complex.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009once again we have hollywoods take on war.
having alot of friends and family in the millitary and armed forces, and talked to alot of people who have been in iraq and also who have seen this movie i will not be seeing it.
that being said i’m sure this is a very since dramatic character drived movie. i’m sure it hits close to home. and i’m sure it’s very well done. but i will have to say, i will not be seeing it.
Posted by rick on July 27th, 2009correction: IMDB lists an actor for “Beckham” and the “DVD Merchant” which I assume is the older guy??
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009*************SPOILER********** Rus, but the film is really more cynical than that, Renner’s character convinces himself that it is NEED to do it out of respect for the kid, but in reality it is just another excuse to take another unnecessary risk for the adrenaline Rush.
I love how you kind are hypnotized by Renner in the film, and his character is very, very good at what he does, but at the same time is not a very likable person, who takes the ‘easy’ road to his addiction every time, not considering anyone else in the moment.
Posted by Kurt on July 27th, 2009*************SPOILER********** I’m not sure “cynical” is the word I’d use because that comes from the stance that what he is doing is unnecessary or a waste. Does a fire fighter running in to a building for equal parts adrenaline rush and to save a life mean the act is cynical? Would any life be saved if there weren’t individuals that do things others deem crazy? You need to remind yourself that Sgt. James is doing what the position requires PLUS going above and beyond what it requires. He is good at what he does – men need to be good at something. The fact that he doesn’t adopt the safest and mininal effort we assoc. with most soldiers in Iraq is an interesting aspect of the film. Of course I agree his disregard for protocal in other scenes is selfish and gashly.
I think this adrenline rush versus proper “soldiering” is what is interesting in the David Morse scene, he being of the old school / John Wayne army were there is glory and achievement in “soldiering”, whereas, you feel Sgt. James character is more of a adreline junkie.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009I am an Iraq war veteran and I was very dissappointed by this movie. I found that a lot of the situations this EOD team were placed into were unrealistic. The biggest error throughout the movie was that the three of them were wandering alone in one Hummer through the middle of Iraqi towns. The scene where they were alone in the desert was ludicrous. Nobody ever went anywhere except in a convoy of multiple vehicles.
The scriptwriter didn’t know much about what it was like to be in the Army, much less serve a combat tour in Iraq.
Jeremy Renner was good and did an outstanding acting job.
Posted by Michael Whitehead on July 27th, 2009This is laughably innaccurate as Michael has pointed out above. If you know anyone who has deployed to Iraq/Afghan they will get a kick out of this movie – it’s like watching a saturday night live skit.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 27th, 2009yeah, will guess what – Apocalypse Now isn’t entirely true also. the author was an embed journalist and the filmmakers are clear its a fictionalize movie and not a documentary. to say its laughable is just plain wrong.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009Well, I’m in Iraq right now -
And I’m telling you it’s hilarious.
So now what?
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 27th, 2009In the Rock, when the first missile is launched towards Oakland, there is concern about it striking a stadium where a football game is being played. West Coast games have a 1pm start time for TV purposes, and generally do not open the gates until 12:15pm. If noon is the deadline, then no-one other then the players, stadium employees, and TV crews would be at the stadium. Yet when we see the stadium, the night lights are on, and the stadium appears full. The night lights would not yet be on.
Therefore, the Rock is not a fun action movie.
Posted by Goon on July 27th, 2009I can appreciate that people who have actually been there and experienced it firsthand don’t get the same thing out of the movie that the rest of us do. I think it needs to be grounded in some sort of realism for it to work. That said, the illusion holds up well enough for most of us common folk.
Ed, just curious, what are your thoughts on Generation Kill?
Posted by Sean on July 27th, 2009Ed that’s great you’re in Iraq, be safe. I don’t understand being so defensive about this movie due to some sort of entitlement to the subject matter.
I’m an architect and even though there are some inaccuracies in the The Fountainhead, I like how it used my area of work to describe a point of view, or character study.
I think this film is using an extreme line of work, not common to everyday society, to talk about the people that choose (or forced) to do that work. In the end, the film is really not about the army. Just as The Wrestler isn’t really about wrestling.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 27th, 2009I guess some people are just sensitive to how their profession is portrayed. I guess in a way it kind of aligns to that special interests argument about how people see things related to their specific issue of interest getting portrayed.
Posted by Goon on July 28th, 2009I heard an interview with Bret Hart last week where he was ripping on the Wrestler for only showing the hard times and not showing enough of the ‘joy’ or anything good about being a wrestler. Yes, indeed I think there really is something there when it comes to people seeing movies where their profession isn’t presented the way they see fit.
Posted by Goon on July 28th, 2009Yeah, most of the good times is when you hit it big. However when you are in Randy “The Ram”’s situation where you are getting old and too stubborn to move on, small wrestling venues are as good as it gets for has-beens. So really, Bret hasn’t been “there” yet.
As I’ve said before leading up to The Wrestler, it looks like a homage to Jake “The Snake” Roberts from Beyond The Mat.
Posted by Tomas on July 28th, 2009“small wrestling venues are as good as it gets for has-beens. So really, Bret hasn’t been “there” yet.”
He certain has been there. Ram is definitely partially based on Hart. The only major wrestler of what age to have a stroke, after all. And Bret’s making appearances with ROH. I just saw Bret last week at a tiny community arena in East Toronto.
Posted by Goon on July 28th, 2009I’m not bashing it for a millisecond, but these once unreachable stars of wrestling showing up in venues against local talents is kind of sad and awesome at the same time. I think the term is bittersweet. They are there because of the money available to bring them in. Fans don’t care about the wrestlers personal problems, its more, “Wow! It Brett Hart!”.
Eventually their bodies start to turn on them, resorting to steroids/pain killers to get throught one match after another causes more problems and even a chance at early death.
Look at Ric Flair, even though he lost his last match in Wrestlemania 24, he’ll probably completely retire from the actual wrestling part. I mean, the guy is like 60 now. Years of body abuse is showing. Tough guy nonetheless.
Posted by Tomas on July 28th, 2009Thanks for the review.
Posted by Pierre on July 31st, 2009They’re showing it at the Downer in Milwaukee:
4:00-7:00-9:55.
Re: Beckham. I asked the same question–was it the same kid ?? I think that it didn’t matter if it was the same kid or not….that the point was that kids should not have to get sucked into and used in any fashion in a war. ???
Posted by Patty K. on August 2nd, 2009“that the point was that kids should not have to get sucked into and used in any fashion in a war.”
that has no bearing on the character of Sgt. James. you are talking about a macro issue, we were talking about a micro issue – if he is the same kid or not. that micro issue has everything to do with Sgt. James character and his level of professionalism, desire for action and obsession.
Posted by rus in chicago on August 3rd, 2009Re: The Kid. It’s a different kid selling DVDs at the end. If it had been the same kid, he’d be referencing his previous experiences with Sgt James – “It’s me, Beckham! Let’s bet again! 5 dollar! I got better DVD for you today” etc. The merchant brought in another kid with the intention of keeping the Americans confused…or lulled into security, thinking it was still the same kid. So the kid on the table was indeed Beckham.
Posted by mike on August 4th, 2009Not according to the credits on IMDB..I can’t find a listing for a second kid and its a speaking role so it would be credited…
Posted by rus in chicago on August 4th, 2009After reading reviews and watching trailers on my PC, I could hardly wait to see The Hurt Locker. To my disappointment, it turned out to be another shaky movie. What the hay? I didn’t remember the trailers being shaky. Oh wait, the trailers I saw on my PC was probably no more that 6 inches across and, at that size, the shaky images seemed negligible. However, on a giant theater screen, even the tiniest shakes in the camera is noticed by the eyes, which then automatically work with the brain to smooth out the image. The key word is work. Thirty seconds into a shaky scene and my eyes needed a break and the only way to rest is to close my eyes for a while. Now, I’m not going to close my eyes for an extended time at a movie, missing out on something I wanted to see and paid to see. So I toughed it out, all the while wishing the camera would give me a rest and stop from almost constantly shaking, panning, zooming. When the movie was over, I had a big headache and a queazy stomach. Also, shaky camera hurt The Hurt Locker financially. This is a movie that I would gladly shell out more cash to see multiple times with friends in the theater and then buy the Blu-ray when it’s released. As it is, I will stop with one viewing and will not recommend it to anyone who does not like shaky movies. It upsets me that I cannot see a movie I like more than once and I sincerely hope this trend of shaky action movies stop.
Posted by siwallace martin on August 7th, 2009@siwallace martin..what you’re saying sounds so dated, it’s almost like hearing “tell the kids to turn down the music”…get over it..
Posted by pallbnksq on August 16th, 2009@pallbnksq, I wish I could get over it, the motion sickness from shaky camera works. I really do. I am not as lucky as those of you who can handle shaky movies. I mean… come on… a few shaky seconds here and there is tolerable. But, a whole movie? My butt is kicked and I have to tap out. Hmmm, maybe I can rent the DVD and watch the movie again on my laptop with the movie player screen shrunk to about a few inches across. That’s it! That’s the ticket!
Posted by siwallace martin on August 25th, 2009In Afghanistan now, and found The Hurt Locker to be unrealistic portrayals of real situations.
YES, it matters because I’m not talking about trivial time of day errors. Or the fact that in one scene SFC James had his name tape and “U.S. Army” tape switch (NCO’s notice that kind of thing). Or even as pointed out above, that nobody goes anywhere with only one HMMWV.
Or even the fact that you don’t just stroll back into Camp Victory claiming you just came back from a whorehouse and get back in without a court-martial.
Have the DVD, when back and forth between the beginning and final scenes with Beckham… IT’S THE SAME KID! Calls him Bomba just the same, looks disappointed too when James blows him off.
SFC James is a shining example of what not to be. Not heroic, stupid and crazy would describe him well and if critics would pay attention, they would know that he wasn’t a Staff Sergeant as they say but a Sergeant First Class.
Things that are important to the plot that would not happen in real life:
1) First IED: So the wheel broke, the robot has an pinching claw that could have carried the trailer the rest of the way. Plausible either way.
2) The cab driver would have been lit up as soon as he failed to stop BEFORE passing the cordon.
3) Many percieve SFC James to be REALLY GOOD at his job. Bull! He only clipped a few detanators, not exactly defusing complex rigs. Although finding the kill switch was good.
4) You just don’t EVER pull on det cord to un-earth 155mm Arty shells. NEVER!
5) Risking the life of his Specialist while at the EVACUATED embassy wasn’t saving anything but his adrenaline fueled ego (but I would imagine this being the director’s intent)
6) So many reasons why SFC James would have been reprimanded or court-martialed. Leaving base, going off alone to hunt insurgents that MAY have gone into a building, removing the “body-bomb” boy from what looked to be a treasure trove of evidence for Army intelligence.
Oh and the guy who called him CIA, what happened with that?
Posted by Joe G on October 11th, 2009Leave a Reply