The Hurt Locker (2008) User Reviews (1,057)

Kathryn Bigelow's Masterpiece

[The_Fifth_Echo · 9/10 · 17 June 2010]

I am truly sadden that this film got bashed so much. I hear reviews saying this film "sucks" or it has too many inaccuracies. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List have also "some" inaccuracies in them. (They are Masterpieces) It is pretty sad this film has been getting this bashed. It doesn't deserve to be.

The Hurt Locker is full of suspense and is directed beautifully by Kathryn Bigelow. I'd have to say this is movie truly captures the Iraq War. What a dangerous war it was for our soldiers. This movie shows us what our soldiers went through. This isn't bashing the American soldiers at all or even War. It gives us a great deal of appreciation for our troops who are risking their lives every single day for Us, Freedom and the U.S.A.

The true purpose of this movie is to not just praise the soldiers. But for one of the military's unrecognized heroes which are the technicians of the bombs squads who risk their lives to save others. This is the purpose of the movie to let everyone know what these people do.

This time and I know all of you out there, don't want to hear it, the critics are actually right. This movie is fantastically directed by Kathryn Bigelow and she rightfully deserved her Oscar for best director.

I know many Avatar fans out there probably rated this movie a 1, without even seeing it because it won Best Picture and Avatar didn't. This movie seems its suffering from the curse of Best Picture. More people have watched Avatar than the Hurt Locker. So of course this film has gotten bashed by so many. I think SOME of the bad reviews are the Avatar Fanboys who are just angry Avatar didn't win Best Picture.

Please don't just go along with the bad reviews this film has gotten from IMDb. Just try and watch this film.

The Hurt Locker is a war epic, that I hope it becomes appreciative as time passes. 9/10 Highly recommended.

An engrossing film that takes one's breath away.

[toqtaqiya2 · 9/10 · 12 August 2010]

Here we have one of the best films of the last decade. A war film that succeeds in showing what it's like to be in the armed forces nowadays. It was directed be the underrated Kathryn Bigelow. The focus is on American soldiers in the Iraq war. But it's not about them being involved in assaults or shootouts. Instead we're shown the lives of a bomb squad. Jeremy Renner is commanding as Sergeant First Class William James. He provides an excellent performance. So do Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as his partners. They really do act like real soldiers. The Hurt Locker consists of a series of bomb threats that the team have to overcome. These are all thrilling, tense. What makes the film really shine, however, is its anti-war messages. In the tradition of Apocalypse Now (1979) and Come And See (1985) The Hurt Locker shows that people get hurt and killed in wars, even if they don't deserve it. It shows that the victims are just like anyone else except that they're in a war zone. The film doesn't directly criticize the American war effort. There are no discussions about whether the Iraq war is moral or immoral. Bigelow's direction is truly impressive. She certainly knows how to work with actors. The acting is obviously superb, and this is the film's greatest strength. Also notable is the cinematography by Barry Ackroyd. The war hasn't looked this realistic or this interesting in cinema until The Hurt Locker. The images captured are thoughtful and memorable. No wonder the film was the big winner at the 2010 Academy Awards. Some films that win Best Picture don't deserve it, but The Hurt Locker sure did deserve it. It's one of the best war films ever, and I highly recommend it.

A mind-blowing war drama, a must-see!

[transporter1492 · 9/10 · 12 July 2009]

For some of my friends this was just a solid action movie, nothing else. I watched it yesterday and for me it was much more than just action, this movie was a deeply affecting series of shots that make truly feel the war in Iraq and make you see the sacrifice that's going on out there.

There are a few things that everyone must notice while watching the movie. There is some superb acting present throughout the whole movie, especially by Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie and I wouldn't be surprised to see one or more Oscar nominations for acting. There are also some pretty extreme editing achievements, that even I, an amateur movie-lover, could see. Cinematography and some other technical achievements are stunning as well. As far as technical part of the film goes, this movie is more than successful, it is to be expected that there will be some technical Oscar nominations as well. Writing is simple but that's the way it is and all my congratulations go to Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow for creating such a powerful war-drama that sticks with you even long after watching this film.

I honestly hope that the Academy members won't forget abut this phenomenal movie achievement. I recommend everyone to watch this "tool" that allows us to see what the word WAR really means.

Best regards from Slovenia

Strong contender for best movie of 2009

[Dogwhiz · 10/10 · 15 August 2010]

Quite easily the best movie of 2009 and the best war movie since Black Hawk Down and maybe even beyond that, The Hurt Locker does something that few other war movies seem to be able to do. Rather than focusing on rapid-action combat scenes and the oh-so-emotional mental breakdowns that all soldiers seem to dramatically endure in Hollywood (Platoon, much?), it emphasizes the relationships of soldiers and the intensity of everyday living in Iraq– intensity that doesn't diminish when the guns are holstered. And that's where you'll see the real difference.

The film introduces a seemingly new and unique idea by following a U.S. Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team as they go around defusing potential bombs all around town– a concept that allows the typical fast-action war theme to take a backseat to the dramatic intensity of the three team members' escapades and arguments. It's all about survival and this time around, it's the calm, isolated atmosphere and the feeling of never being truly safe that creates the ever-present suspense. The exceptional editing is partially to thank for such constant energy and pace. Quick transitions ensure that there is never a dull moment and the audience is always thrust into the middle of the action. Plus, director Kathryn Bigelow employed some amazing cinematography (thanks to Barry Ackroyd, United 93) and some of the best shaky hand-held-cam and zoom work I've seen yet. It seems that, for some, this might be a turn-off, but personally, I believe those who complain about shaky cam need to take a closer look at its purpose and realize that it's far more effective in establishing a documentary-like feel for raw and engaging films such as this one.

The interaction between the soldiers is a key point of the film and the entire project is clearly intended to be largely character-driven. You will more than likely find yourself sympathizing with all of the main characters at some point and several others along the way. More than just observing a character's breakdown at the scene of war such as in films like Jarhead, The Hurt Locker immerses the viewer in the world of the characters themselves and practically forces you to care for them– and I mean that in the best way possible. And perhaps the difference is also partially distinguished by the quality of acting. And if there's anyone who deserves recognition for their acting, it's most certainly Jeremy Renner, who surprises with a top-notch performance as Staff Sergeant William James. His performance will have you laughing at bits of humor scattered throughout, gasping in disbelief at one point, shedding a sympathetic tear at another, and yelling at him in exasperation in yet another scene. The characters are never two-dimensional and the film always manages to provide constant reminders that all of the soldiers are just normal people in war situations, driving its purpose home even more effectively. Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are impressive in their own roles and share great chemistry both with each other and with Renner. The relationships between the three follow no stereotyped guidelines and their interactions are almost always unpredictable. Further down the billing, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes also give solid performances worth mentioning.

Overall, The Hurt Locker is a movie that keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole way through and packs a visual and cinematographic punch without the over-the-top Hollywood action scenes and special effects. While the storyline may be inaccurate when it comes to certain little details (as many war vets have noted), it's a unique one and allows for much more realistic and well-rounded characters. You'll walk away with your heart still beating fast for a good while after the credits roll and it'll make you think for an even further extended period of time. Everything about its design and execution will stick with you.

--The Motion Picture Underground

A Perfectly Shattering Film Going Experience

[agmancuso · 10/10 · 28 June 2009]

Kathryn Bigelow concocts a masterpiece of a film without tricks or gimmicks, at least none to be detected and that in itself is a triumph. Realistic yet poetic like the works of the great masters. It enters and fits a genre and at the same time is unique, unexpected. It shutters, moves and alters every sense, like a powerful drug. I saw it last night and I'm going to see it again tonight. Last night Jeremy Remmer came to speak to the audience in a face to face moderated by Sam Rockwell, great idea but it change my perception of Remmer in the film, of his character. Although he praised Kathryn Bigelow, he said things like "I don't tell her how to direct and she doesn't tell me how to act" Watching the film I felt that childish arrogance belonged to the character by his personal appearance showed it belonged to the actor. In any case, it works on the screen. A character you warm up to almost immediately in spite of his contradictions. Remmer will remind you at times of Robert Redford and others of Michael J Pollard. He is truly terrific so try to avoid his personal appearances not to contaminate that impression. The rest of the cast works wonders and the brief cameos by Guy Pearce and Ralph Finnes are the most organic and unobtrusive cameos I've ever seen in my life. All in all extraordinary. I predict, even if we're only in June, that Kathryn Bigelow risks to be the first female director to win the Academy Award. She certainly got my vote.

Boring, unrealistic, ridiculous non-authentic main character

[InvisibleXXI · 6/10 · 8 March 2010]

I can't believe this movie won the Oscars. back than at the release, i gave it a 6 out of 10, not knowing that this movie would even be considered for nomination. i'll tell you why i rated it that way:

first of all, the main character is so damn NOT authentic. seriously, such an adrenalin addict would never ever made it into a position in which he had to defuse bombs... nor would he be very long in the military, if he would constantly get into other guys, or get drunk on the base. he's such an ass and i'll get angry just seeing him. not the actor, the character! if you'll get connected to him in any way, than in getting to hate him. great job! :P

than there is the shaky cam. i really hate that. i assume the directors want to distract from or hide the flawed scenes?! damn it, i want to SEE whats going on!! not to get a headache figuring out, what COULD be going on the screen!

many reviews have told this already: almost everything is so far away from reality. yeah i know, it's only a movie, but it's meant to be a somehow realistic depiction of war. one team going out alone? hunting bad guys in the streets and buildings, doing almost everything on their own? thats a joke. even better (watch out for the irony here): one guy running around all alone in the streets... sure, why not?! :P

the whole movie feels very slow. it's so slow, you have to try not to fall a sleep! in fact, you just want it to end. there is no real climax and i didn't feel any suspense... that's not what you want from an action movie. an if it's not meant to be an action movie, why do they constantly try to get so much action in it?!

in my opinion, this movie is on the same level as the usual steven seagal movies. i like the seagal movies for its "easyness" and plain, (often) stupid action plot and characters. you can relax and laugh here and there about how silly or dumb some things are, but the action is quite enjoyable. but that's exactly what you'd expect from a seagal movie, not what you'd expect from an Oscar winner! that's for sure.

The Brilliant Explosion Of Kathryn Bigelow

[carlostallman · 10/10 · 28 June 2009]

I spent the entire film grabbing the arms of my seat. I was there in Irak, steps away from my death and the death of those around me. The tension, the suspense is at times breathtaking, literally. "The Hurt Locker" is a miracle and the definitive consecration of a great filmmaker, Kathryn Bigelow. This is also a rare occasion in which I went to see the film without having read a single review or knowing anything about it. One should try to do that more often because the impact of the surprise translates into pure pleasure and in this case, sometimes, you have to look away from the unmitigated horror. Jeremy Renner is a real find. He is superb. A kind soul, wild man with enough arrogance to make him appear reckless and yet his humanity precedes him. People may commit the mistake of avoiding this gem thinking that it's just a war film. Don't. It isn't. It's a great, engrossing film about human emotions, not to be missed.

Inaccurate overrated movie

[countvonbarron · 25 August 2009]

First off let my start by saying that I am a 3 time veteran of Iraq. This has been called the "definitive" Iraq film. Is is not. The definitive Iraq film has yet to be made and probably won't ever be made. It always amazes my how the critics laud the inaccuracies in these films and call them "masterpieces". To us vets, however they are as phony as can be. To cite just 4 examples of what is wrong with this movie: 1. When the lead character Sergeant James encounters a car bomb filled with explosives he immediately removes his protective suit and begins to rummage around looking for the trigger wire. I have met EOD guys and have a lot of respect for them but I know for a fact that they WOULD NEVER EVER DO THIS. If any self respecting EOD soldier did that he would be court- martialed. No soldier would ever remove all his gear especially in the middle of a city. The critics showed his as being brave but this was plain out stupidity. 2. When James encounters the body of a young Iraqi boy he had befriended and sees that explosives have been placed in his abdomen, he attempts to find out who killed him. He does this in the most implausible way possible. He gets into the car of an Iraqi merchant dressed only in his fatigues and with no gear on points a pistol at his head and orders him to drive him to what he thinks is the boys house. Upon arrival there he finds nothing so what does he do then? He WALKS ALL THE WAY BACK FROM THE HOUSE TO HIS BASE WITH NO PROTECTIVE GEAR IN THE MIDDLE OF BAGHDAD AT NIGHT AND NO ONE NOTICES HIM?! This defies belief. Again no soldier would ever or has ever in 6 years in Iraq ever done this. It could not happen. 3. After defusing the car bomb his fellow soldier a subordinate punches him for taking off his radio headset. In real life that soldier would be done. He struck a superior?! No way. 4. During a climactic battle sequence the aforementioned soldier takes off his helmet while firing a sniper rifle. Again this would never happen. 5. Last but not least at the end of the movie the lead character has returned to Iraq after an unspecified amount of time at home. The scene shows him walking towards another bomb with his suit on. The caption reads " Days left in Alpha company's rotation-365. This is also wrong as all soldiers coming to Iraq train at least 2 weeks in Kuwait and this is counted as part of your year there.

At the end of the movie the credits list the main character as a Staff Sergeant but in the movie he is wearing the rank of Sergeant First Class. This may have been an intentional error but it is still an error.

When "Apocalypse Now" came out critics called it a masterpiece, the definitive Vietnam movie. Vets I talked to however said by and large it was garbage phony as hell. It wasn't until "Platoon" came out that the vets were pleased. "Platoon" was written directed by Oliver Stone who was a veteran. To me it is the definitive Vietnam movie. I believe when and if the definitive film about the current conflict comes out it will be made by a veteran someone who really knows what went on over here. I believe this film does not portray these soldiers heroically but rather as gung-ho reckless cowboys. The real heroism displayed by these guys every day is not shown at all. Hollywood owes it to us veterans to make a film that is honest about this war and not resort to phony heroism when there is plenty of real heroism out there every day. "The Hurt Locker" is well acted and well made but utterly preposterous and not a realistic portrayal at all.

Just like the war it portrays, this film lacks direction, focus and clarity of purpose.

[Cinemadharma · 6/10 · 13 January 2010]

This is a different kind of war movie for a different kind of war that ultimately fails in the same ways the war fails - in that it lacks a singular focus, it has no direction or goal, and the purpose is not clear. It's not a bad movie, I just couldn't find anything to connect to or engage with - and when a moment would arise in which I thought that thing to connect to was coming... it didn't.

The film drags along at a snail's pace at times, which works for some scenes, such as a great scene wherein the main characters are pinned down for several hours by insurgents in the middle of the desert - but mostly the slowness just feels slow. There is no real story here, yet it isn't just a docudrama, either. It doesn't seem to know what kind of a movie it is, or from which characters' view point it is being told. In my opinion the story that it started to tell (and would have made it a much more interesting film) was of the drug-like addictive nature of high risk behavior, and how people who engage in that sort of thing in war will return to civilian life only to find other dangerous, high risk behavior to engage in... which is not dissimilar thematically to another of director Kathryn Bigelow's films, "Point Break". Alas, it seemed as if she forgot about that angle halfway thru the film. The worst part of the film is the ending, which after 125 minutes of slow pacing suddenly races past what should have and could have given the film its purpose.

If I had seen this film back when it first came out, I think I would have said, "OK. A well-acted, decent film despite its problems." The thought that this film would be nominated for and would win so many major awards, including being the front runner for any Oscar whatsoever -- would not have even crossed my mind, and it is mindboggling to me now that that is the case.

The work of a master filmmaker

[krigler · 10/10 · 18 March 2009]

The Hurt Locker is a serious character study and a taut, suspenseful action thriller at once.

The subject matter itself - the work of a bomb expert, possibly one of the most nerve-racking jobs on the planet - yields most of the suspense but Bigelow manages to squeeze out every bit of tension of the premise.

This film to me was very apolitical - though set in Iraq, it is distinguished from most of the Iraq-themed war films in that it concentrates much more on the job itself than the political environment. Iraq seemed more like a backdrop - any other war would do, The Hurt Locker does not preach about this one specifically.

The story is deeply emotional, depicting a thoroughly disturbed individual's life in hell. Jeremy Renner gives an incredibly powerful performance as an EOD officer completely hooked on adrenaline stemming from his everyday close shaves with death.

All aspects of film-making are top-notch, from the brilliantly subversive screenplay through vivid cinematography, masterful directing and perfectly paced editing.

In its storytelling the filmmakers wisely break with traditional Hollywood narrative techniques. There is no clear antagonist, no rising action, no obvious character development and no climax. And yet the film manages to be more interesting, tense and suspenseful than any Hollywood action thriller I've seen in years while making a powerful, yet subtle statement about the insane addiction that is war. Kudos for everyone involved for making this film without compromising.

This is pure quality, cinematic storytelling at its best, a thinking man's actioner.

Overrated overacted did not deserve the Oscar

[ssfandad · 6/10 · 7 April 2010]

OK, I enjoyed watching it and it showed us something of what faces the IED dismantling teams in Iraq. But, I heard from a reliable source, ie someone who has actually served out there that it is grossly overplayed and the key character, I hesitate to call a hero is way over the top. This reminded me of Black Hawk Down in feel and I actually enjoyed the tension of the earlier movie better.

I have to say, this looks like a typical Oscar political win, because they needed to give a female director the nod this year - it's like the year that Halle Berry, Denzel Washington and Sidney Poitier all got awards! A lot of people were up in arms because Avatar did not win best film, but I thought that District 9 and Inglorious Basterds were both better films than this rather pedestrian war flick.

TIFF 2008: The Hurt Locker - World class war-action cinema

[corstay · 10/10 · 10 September 2008]

Simply put, action ace Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker" is a near masterpiece of suspense and unrelenting intensity.

Her first film since 2002's "K-19: The Widowmaker," The Hurt Locker is definitely a return to form from the director of probably the greatest (in this man's humble opinion) surfer-action movie of all time "Point Break." The film follows Bravo company, a team of bomb technicians situated right in the heart of the Iraq war's modern IED warfare. Jeremy Renner, mostly known for impressive performances in "S.W.A.T" and "The Assassination of Jesse James," gives his most riveting performance yet as the lead, Staff Sergeant William James, a reckless but brilliant soldier who has taken down almost 850 bombs.

What separates this film from the bulk of mainstream cinema that has tackled the Iraqi situation is that it doesn't simply exist as a political polemic, or even a reminder of the humanitarian horrors that plague the Iraqi people.

Instead, Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal give us a story that transcends politics and can be seen as almost a straight up kick-ass action pic. The film is plotted by increasingly dangerous and fully realized defusion sequences, all of which were shot from beginning to end in single takes with DOP Barry Ackroyd's cameras continuously roving around set in order to create a tense realism that translates well to the screen.

Very elaborate attention to detail and mise-en-scene is in every frame of the pic, with Bigelow choosing to shoot in Jordan and locations being less than 10 KM away from the Iraqi border. And from a searing heat wave ranging up to 49C to actual Iraqi refugees used as extras to impeccable sound design and special guest cameos by Guy Pearce, David Morse and Ralph Fiennes, Bigelow has succeeded in creating an entirely memorable and visceral experience that will surely leave its mark in the pantheon of the very best war spectacles put to film.

Not A Very Good Movie

[bobcolganrac · 6/10 · 8 March 2010]

Honestly.

This film the best of 2009?

An Oscar winning effort?

Not to me. I didn't like it.

It didn't engage me. The first job of a movie is to pull in the viewer. Without active participation by the viewer, the movie stays only a set of images----and like a newspaper front page can be thrown away once read. The reason I didn't feel engaged ...? The characters and situations did not seem that credible.

I haven't served in the Mideast wars but it seemed to me that the situations the human was being placed into were unrealistic : in today's war room, I would think Americans relying more on robotics, and then remote detonation of explosives. So I didn't get that part of it.

The characters were not that interesting to me. Maybe they were just not the type I would associate with... I don't know. These characters just didn't speak to me. The obligatory male bonding drunken fight scene left me cold. The relationship between the protagonist and the native child was a little better . . . at least I had a sense that he cared about the little boy, (or by Freudian displacement his own inner child), but at least I could identify with his feelings. In the scene when the soldiers go into a very dangerous area at night, ill-equipped, it seemed totally unreasonable. A person would have to be truly stupid to do something like that.... and the characters were not portrayed as that ignorant. So it didn't fly with me.

Really . . . did ANYONE believe that this movie was a better movie than Avatar which it beat for the Academy Award?

You're kidding, right?

The only mark I give this movie is for its portrayal of the Iraq war as distorted and confused violence without a clear sense of ultimate outcome. In that, it succeeded in buying my belief. But not a very good movie. There are far better war movies. This wasn't Oscar material.

How did this win Best Picture?

[rbstern · 3/10 · 11 April 2010]

When a movie as seriously flawed as this one wins, you know the integrity of the Oscars is dead. Dead.

Bad script. Bad character development. Totally ridiculous plot lines worthy of a B movie. Artificially drawn out encounters with suspicious people to ramp up tension. Repeated ad nauseum.

Silly.

The three soldiers depicted in this movie: One adrenalin junkie nut case, one uptight control freak, and one clueless junior team member caught between the first two. They're unrealistically isolated from the rest of the Army and seem to define and riff their own missions, completely detached from any type of command structure that everyone else in the military deals with. I think there are two officers in the entire movie, both colonels: One gung-ho Rambo type, the other a genteel psychologist, who practically wears a sign on his back: "I'm a hopeless stereotype, please martyr me somewhere in the middle of the movie." Otherwise, I guess the Army forget to deploy any lieutenants or captains to Iraq, because the bomb squad didn't seem to be taking orders from anyone.

On and on it goes, one implausible situation after another. The more I reflect on this movie, the more I dislike it, and the more upsetting it is that the movie received the most prestigious award Hollywood gives itself.

A Movie to See -- Not to Enjoy

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 26 July 2010]

Except for the first few minutes of "Saving Private Ryan," no film I've ever seen comes closer than "The Hurt Locker" to portraying the randomness, senselessness, brutality and -- yes -- the excitement of battle. With the exception of Ralph Fiennes who makes a brief appearance early in the movie, there are no stars and few recognizable actors in this story about a small group of men whose mission is to defuse improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq. Frequently under surveillance, though not always certain whether it is by curious bystanders or enemies in civilian clothing, these men are at risk every moment they are in the field.

The principal character, Sgt. First Class William James (Jeremy Renner) is one of those who seem to get an adrenaline rush in the face of danger. His colleagues, Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackle) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geaghty), see no glamor in their task. Sanborn is a workman-like soldier, trying to do his duty in as safe a manner as possible. Eldridge is in a near-constant state of panic, eager to be somewhere else, any place else. They are not presented as stereotypes, however, nor is anyone else in this absorbing movie. Everyone in the field knows he may die at any moment, and how they manage to hold up in the searing heat of Iraq in a war they aren't asked to understand may be the main point of this film, if indeed it has any point other than War is Hell and the Iraqi War is a particularly terrible slice of Hell.

Kathryn Bigelow deserves every award she won for "The Hurt Locker." It is completely unsentimentalized. There is no moral drawn, except what the viewer concludes based on the judgments he or she brought to the movie and the impact of the story on those judgments. Of its type, it is far and away the best war movie I've ever seen.

The exciting field of bomb technician

[markusws · 9/10 · 20 August 2009]

It's not the job you want your kids to aspire to. Or your spouse. Or anyone you care about. But we are so thankful there are people who do this.

This sad tale is centered on the unique skills of the tragically necessary field of bomb technician. Bomb techs, of course, are those heroic individuals who get called when a bomb or other explosive device is discovered. Their job, under life and death pressure daily, is to defuse the bomb and make things safe for the rest of us. Unfortunately, in war environments, this is a daily occurrence. What kind of person can do this kind of work? How do they do it day in and day out? Someone has to be a little crazy to do this in the first place, don’t they? These are the questions this movie explores. The movie evokes sadness, inspiration, sympathy, concern, and even awe as we watch the heroes of this movie struggle with their daily grind.

Waste of time

[mallitch · 10 March 2010]

I couldn't help compare this film with Ridley Scott's "Blackhawk down". Both films are military action flicks. But when Scott's film shows the seemingly psychologically indifferent amount of cruelty of war (it just happens as inevitable part of it), when all involved and their loved ones are simply victims, this one tries to build up an overview of human psychology. This policy of treating us a target of social manipulation has always made me upset.

It has failed as far as I have been concerned because it is overly politically correct (which I do not condone because of its clearly manipulative goals). They want to pass a clear message, not a view to think over. I could call this a propaganda. In fact I do.

Sub-par to Decent

[yungbuffwan-468-315521 · 7/10 · 18 December 2012]

Heading in, I was very stoked for an epic war movie. Heading out, I was disappointed.

The movie had no real point: you had one man and his endeavors in his bomb squad. He made his fair share of mistakes, but in the end, there was no redemption, or much less, point to his existence. While the war scenes were very intriguing, one man's apathy made the movie look bad.

Any good elements of this movie were overshadowed by high expectancy and bad execution. In the ending moments you knew that you had just wasted 2 hours of your life that you would never get back. The movie took turns for the bad, and it dug itself into ruts that it never got out of.

Best war movie in long time...

[ibalog · 9/10 · 4 December 2009]

I liked this movie very much because, apart from being a good thriller, I believe it is a quite good psychological comment of how people function under extreme circumstances such as war.

Basically the movie introduces few different types of character and then inspects them. Firstly SSgt. James who as he says "loves only one thing..". He is a person who loves war because it gets his adrenalin pumping. Anybody who ever loved doing anything can easily understand what keeps him going, except in his case it is something, hm..., not so nice and widely excepted. This results in creating extremely dangerous situations for all the people (soldiers) that surround him. He is aware of that, and is torn by that fact but he really cannot help himself, he has no choice because he is the way he is. He seeks danger on one end, and when he finds it, he appears to be the best person to be around. A nice touch in the movie was the way in which he tries to rationally "validate" his actions by taking a righteous stand regarding the death of an innocent (not to go into the details)...

Other soldiers are a wide specter of human beings with feelings of regret, fear, compassion etc.. The people who are very much affected by the war and are changed by it. Two supporting roles of Sgt. Sanborn and Spc. Eldridge are well placed in contrast to SSgt. James for being "human". Acting is great, and all the important characters convey their state of mind very well. David Morse was in the movie for just a few seconds and played his role of a "hillbilly cowboy" marvelously as Col. Reed.

A really good movie...

Hurt to say this, but Hurt Locker might not be 'da bomb' as what people think it is. Still a good movie.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 4 June 2013]

Don't get me wrong, I thought this movie was one of the most accurate depictions of the war in Iraq. The look and feel of living on the edge as a bomb disposal team during the Iraq War seem realistic, but once again, Hollywood love portray soldiers as undisciplined suicidal cowboys. Most bomb disposal are 99% detonate by remote controlled robot, not a guy in a bomb suit. Still, homemade bombs, or Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) were such a problem that most of the deaths of Iraq War for American soldiers was cause by them. During the summer of 2004, Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner) had to deal with them with his partner team of Sergeant J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Elbridge (Brian Geraghty) and that's pretty much sums up the plot. In my opinion, I don't know if this movie really deserve the Best Picture Award that year. It was a good movie, but not it's no way the best film that year. Up didn't win because it's hard for animated movies to find Best Picture. Inglorious Basterds was probably too out there for the Academy and last Avatar was probably too much of a sci-fi. Most of the other movies didn't have much of a fighting chance. I wouldn't say the character of William James is likable, he is just a 1991's Point Break character put into the Iraq War just there to search for the ultimate physical rush. He is egotistical fool who runs into danger not caring about how it impacts those around him and couldn't give two craps about his family. I just found it so anticlimactic. It's not like he learn anything new by the end of the film, like valuing his life, or the lives of others. At less, they could have gave him a good reason to be such a war buff similar to Eric Bana's character of SFC Norm "Hoot" Gibson in 2001's Black Hawk Down. He is not a hero in a conventional sense. At less, this movie help discover the actors Jeremy Renner, and Anthony Mackie. The movie nearly didn't get made, due to production problems while filming in Jordan, but Director Katherine Bigelow got it done. The action scenes were pretty good in my opinion. I think the movie is great would been better if they use more of the paranoia of bombs going off any minute. While I do like the sniper scene toward the middle of the film, I think its turn away from what made this movie interesting. It's a war movie about the bomb squad with a lot of suspense. That sniper scene would work better in a normal war film about infantry soldiers, not here. Plus that scene made the British SAS (Special Air Service) look horrible compare to the U.S Soldiers. The movie isn't pro war or against the war in Iraq, it's just tells the story of the soldiers who happen to be there. I do have to agree that the film serves as the most effective recruiting vehicles for the U.S. Army bomb squad for anybody seeking an adrenaline rush. Response among veterans are mixed, as most of them think it's a good film with a few military inaccuracies. The dialogue in the film is very limited. There is a lot of scenes with little to nothing said. I do like the scene with Colonel Reed (David Morse) and William James talking about his career. Overall: it was well-acted, probably one of the best film about the Iraq War, but just need a little bit of retouching to make it as good as other war films.

A Brilliant Piece of Work

[Sanjay33 · 9/10 · 24 January 2010]

War movie lovers... Your search ends here.

When I saw this movie, I found I have ended up watching not only the movie but something more than that. The Director Kathryn Bigelow has been fully able to depict the psyche of Bomb disposal squad and their breathtaking game. Though the movie lacks a firm story line up but here it is not needed. Breathtaking sequences, one by one, is the hallmark of the movie.In a war trodden place like Iraq, all aspects of war-psyche has been exploited to give meaning to the daredevils (Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie) and their work of disposing the bombs. The chemistry between the duo has also been fully depicted. The Director has not forgotten the emotional angle and the arouses definite kind of emotions and make you think after every sequence.

Though some sequences remind you of "Enemy at the gates" but rest assured the movie in itself is masterpiece.

With its subtle climax the movie wins more on account.

Worth watching flick........

An excellent film

[t_baker · 9/10 · 9 August 2009]

Military and war movies are problematic for me, at least modern-era ones; I wasn't in World War II or Vietnam but the post-Desert Storm era Army is a very well known quantity for me, and military movies set in this period (to include those set in the current Iraq / Afghanistan wars) almost always get some nagging thing wrong. Lieutenants and Captains don't call Colonels by their first names, and no one would ever wear a class-B wool sweater into a jungle at night, just to name two examples I've actually seen on screen in recent years.

"The Hurt Locker" slips up a bit, too, but to my surprise, I was able to forgive those missteps almost completely, because the movie on the whole is the most compelling war movie in many years, and just a great movie, period: terrifically acted, brilliantly conceived and directed, a work of true cinematic art. Like the committed professionals that it portrays, "The Hurt Locker" as a movie shows what movies are capable of when knowledgeable, experienced professionals are on top of their game.

"Saving Private Ryan" is generally regarded as THE modern war classic, and just about any picture set in war is going to draw at least a peripheral comparison to Steven Spielberg's flawed masterpiece, thanks to the still-detonating power of that film's master-class opening sequence, which took filmed combat to levels of never-before-seen verisimilitude. "The Hurt Locker" doesn't have that level of intensity, because it works on a smaller scale: the majority of the action is between individuals, not battalions. But there are extended sequences in "The Hurt Locker" that rival "Ryan" for impact, tightening the screws more slowly, more claustrophobically, until you feel as though you've been holding your breath even when you haven't. There are at least three of these sequences in "The Hurt Locker," all done in their own pace without dragging, all expertly performed, all showing a face of war that we haven't seen on film before.

There are bit roles from recognizable actors like David Morse (brilliant in his few moments on screen), Guy Pearce, and Ralph Finnes, but the majority of the acting load is shouldered by lesser-knowns Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie; they're both excellent. In a just world, this movie would be earning four hundred million in the US, not "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." But while the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has pulled plenty of "say what?" moment in the past ("Crash," really?!?), they still have a chance to do right by this film and quality cinema in general: Best Picture nomination, a Best Director nod for Kathryn Bigelow, Best Screenplay (of some sort; this is based on journalism by the writer, Mark Boal, which may qualify it as "adapted" work), and acting nominations for Renner and Mackie. Yes, it's that good.

It's still only August and there's a lot of film to come in the ramp-up months to awards season, so this may be a stretch. But any movie that's going to top "The Hurt Locker" as my favorite of 2009 certainly has its work cut out for it.

BONUS POINTS: Unlike so many lesser films ("Crash," again looking in your direction), "The Hurt Locker" feels no need to explain its title on screen. There's never a point (at least that I recall) in which a character earnestly says, "Man, we're really in the hurt locker now" or words to that effect. A small point, sure, but just another nod to the creativity and confidence of the filmmakers.

Different war movie, but how did it win all those awards?

[Enchorde · 6/10 · 7 April 2010]

Recap: A military bomb squad, consisting of three soldiers, is busy going into the last stretch of days before they are sent home. But with only 30 days left none of them dare to believe they will survive in an environment where everything might be a trap. But the squad has some internal problems when the squad leader is taking more risks than necessary. And how are they going to deal with this when they come home?

Comments: With as many as six Oscars, The Hurt Locker comes with high expectations, and unfortunately doesn't really manage to live up to them. It is a very detailed and meticulous movie, not told with a overall story or a defined individual enemy. Instead it is told in episodes where the squad is thrown into one unknown after another, and because of it is much more realistic.

Realism and plausibility is the key for this movie. There are no defined overly evil to combat, there is just war. There is no unnecessary or exaggerated effects or fights, but when used it is not low key. The soldiers are no super human heroes, but humans struggling to do their best. Therefore it is surprising that the movie abandons this now and then. In a few scenes realism is abandoned totally and simple mistakes are made knowingly or unknowingly, and it affects the entire movie. What disturbs me most is the tactics and organization used by the soldiers. If the USA Army sends it's squads, especially it's specially trained soldiers with a particular mission like in the bomb squads, without backup or support it the casualty rate would have been much higher. Sometimes the tactics used were just plain stupid. Other details just seem sloppy, or are we to believe that one is able to put out a car on fire with a normal hand extinguisher? I don't believe it for a moment, I know it to be impossible. If not it is a special almost magical extinguisher. That gives the movie a problem with credibility, and with a movie that aims for realism, that is a major problem and flaw.

A few odd choices from the awarded editing and directing crew too. In the middle of intense scenes where the soldiers are under heavy pressure, suddenly the scene is cut with a shot of gravel or casings in slow motion. Both the momentum and narrative of the scene is cut, and have to almost start over. In some movies such moments can augment the scene, here it just interrupts it.

It is a good movie, especially for those who wants to see a little different war movie. But there are enough flaws to disturb it's flow, and I can't really say it deserve all those awards. At least not in my opinion.

6/10

What the heck??? Best picture? Not even close!

[Katie28217 · 1/10 · 5 March 2010]

As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!

For Anyone Who Didn't Like This Movie

[admello · 10/10 · 29 April 2010]

Okay, I am growing very angry over how many people are giving this film such low ratings and terrible reviews saying it was a horrible movie.

What was the movie about? it wasn't about the war in Iraq (this was just the setting), it wasn't about being a leader in combat on an EOD team. It tells you right at the beginning. What is the first thing seen on the screen? "War Is A Drug" it was at the beginning of the movie because That's What It Was About! Please, take the time to watch it again and ask yourself this question. Did the film accomplish its task: of showing the audience how being addicted to the adrenaline rush the main character receives in combat affects his life? Yes it does. this was what the entire movie was about, besides the smaller subtle parts which i loved. the same theme could be applied to plenty of other professions, but the role of a soldier was chosen because the writer spent time as a reporter in Iraq.

So please stop complaining about how unrealistic the damn sniper scene was, and watch it for what its worth. There is a reason it won 6 Oscars, and why all of us IMDb members aren't in the Academy.