User Reviews (923)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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!
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There's a good reason why this film pulled in only $16M at the box office. "A full-tilt action picture", "Ferociously suspenseful." Yeah right. If the hype on the DVD cover were true, this film would have rocked the box office. This movie was irritating with it's inaccuracy and boring with it's lack of plot.

    It started with the opening scene. It was very gritty, suspenseful and tense... until the guy with the cell phone showed up. "Put down the phone!" Really? I've never been military but even I knew at this point that man would have been instantly shot, as proved by the reviews I've read on here by military types.

    And this continued throughout the movie. Time after time this three man bomb squad behaving as if they were the Justice League of America (except for the one time when the nut case on the crew went into Baghdad by himself. At night. For no particular reason, as it turned out.) By the time we got through the sniper scene I was seriously annoyed and just wanted the movie to end so I started fast forwarding in tiny increments.

    What a complete waste of time. Why is the Hollywood hype machine pushing this so madly? Is it a longing to make sure James Cameron doesn't win again?

    I'm glad I didn't pay to watch this.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I am so surprised that this movie is getting awards for absolutely nothing....

    This so called realistic and objective movie seems like a propaganda filled stupidity that insults both peace advocates and solders...The Iraqis are portrayed as crazy bombers and the solders are portrayed as independent thrill seekers.

    When discussing realism I must say that I'm not in favor of the war down there, I haven't been in the military and have no idea how things are done but...I 'm pretty sure it is not like this. Except for the first scene of the movie the rest seems ridiculous and fake.The squads seem that they don't follow a single rule and do not have a single superior to keep them under control or give them hell because of their stupid heroics.And I may not be a military man but I am an engineer and i know that cars cannot catch on fire by a single bullet and that a butcher doesn't have to get out of his shop and wave his cell phone( so that the men he is trying to kill see him) to detonate a bomb. And if someone thinks "Well its not realistic because its poetic" I tell him: There is a difference between poetic and stupid. The scene when Clive Owen gets out of the building and no-one shoots because of the baby in "Children of Men" is unrealistic because its meant to be poetic.Certainly you don't see something like that in this movie.

    From a Cinematic point of view the script is just a series of missions without any reason,The characters do not progress at all and the story is full of clichés. The unexperienced military doctor that does crowd control like an English butler and then dies horribly, the scared solder, the thrill seeker with an underground sense of sensitivity and the list goes on....

    As a conclusion...WHY OH WHY DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE THIS MOVIE...Even if I was a solder i would probably be insulted by this....
  • jhajala29 January 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad.

    I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????

    I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There is nothing worse than a hugely overrated movie, indeed a bad movie is infinitely better. If the list of overrated movies were to made right now, the hurt locker would be the runaway winner. Popular with the critics, for what reason, I cannot fathom. One assumes that to be a professional critic, you need to have seen a movie or two, but here they are, people who have watched the likes of the hurt locker a million times and give it disproportionate praise. Something is fishy. The movie is not making any statement beyond what is known and hasn't been packaged better by far superior movies of the past. Friend and foe are very sketchily described. By the end of the movie, we know nothing more of the protagonists beyond the fact that the lead character is a nut job, who shouldn't even be in the army let alone as a leader of any sort.

    To add insult to injury the academy has added it's blessings and voted this picture, best picture. The academy's decision is a bit easier to explain once you take the academy as a body that is more interested in making statements rather than one that actually rewards merit. The statement here is that it was high time a woman won the coveted best director award (Streisand more or less said so). Not much beef from anyone there but just giving her the award would have exposed it for the token sham award it was, so her average run of the mill, been there, been done a million times before and much better,see Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down (Not even nominated for best picture, in it's time), had to be given the most prestigious award in the whole of cinema, in order to give the best director nod more weight. Indeed the only award that mattered until now. In the words of Jay-Z, we are not fooled, they need many more people. The academy was already on shaky ground to begin with by giving Scorsese's The Departed best picture as a reward for past glorious achievements and oversights - The critically acclaimed Raging Bull and the truly masterful Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. Next was the award going to another average run of the mill affair called Slumdog Millionaire, which had the cinematography and look lifted straight out of City of God, a film which truly deserved best picture status, the year the award went to mediocre Chicago. I won't be taking any of these cinematic awards seriously anymore but in their own interests this sort of gestures are much more meaningful when they are merited and thus cannot be viewed as some sort of affirmative action. When they do decide to reward the first black director, I hope they choose a work that stands to very close scrutiny like Spike Lee's Malcolm X that should have won that honour in 1992.

    As for the film itself, my sentiments are already expressed above. The only thing that would make it special are not anything on screen but the fact that it's an explosive filled war flick directed by a female director. I gather there are so few of these around that the first one that comes along has to be given crowning glory. People talk of suspense.What suspense? You have the lead character dragging about 20 bombs on the ground and he emerges out of that situation virtually unscathed! Not only that he has time to find and cut the right wires while the shadowy figures who planted the bombs patiently wait for him to finish his job. If you are looking for suspense after that, I suggest watching more movies. No, this is John Rambo or that chick from Kill Bill. Basically a bullet proof character, who is wholly unlikable and continually puts the lives of everyone around him in danger and is extremely arrogant to boot. The only reason he is alive at the end, is because, well, it's a movie and a poor one at that. Talking of reality then becomes academic unless we are talking of reality in a superman/seinfeld-like Bizarro world. In the world where I live in, this is just another pop-corn flick that should not be taken too seriously. It neither transports any amazing insights into the human condition nor describes any sequence of events that can be related to reality. It has no interesting protagonists but cardboard like figures whose archetypes have been long been established in Hollywood and the narrative is neither imaginative nor innovative. Only because every one and their mother is so willing, so eager to dish it with awards is it even gaining attention. Otherwise it would have sunk in the long list of utterly forgettable, inane films, perhaps popular with a certain group, where it invariably belongs.
  • 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.
  • Technically, there's nothing wrong with this movie. But nothing spectacular either, I might add.

    I have no particular views on "The Hurt Locker" winning the Academy Award for Best Movie, considering that 2009 was a spectacularly dull movie going year (don't even get me started with Pocahontas-cum-Smurfs!)

    This movie hides behind a thin veneer of "war is hell", but never for one second - like most American war movies - veer from the "support the troops" discourse (in fact, the people in the US armed forces are described as "superheroes" in the supplemental material on the DVD). Although war might be hell, we always are supposed to sympathize with those (supposedly) brave and gallant men and women who are fighting it, never portraying them in a negative way, or even delivering the slightest criticism towards the actions of US troops.

    This, of course, is true of most movies claiming to be anti war. Those who dare step outside the propagandist "support the troops" framework and deal with the atrocities perpetrated by US soldiers are punished by being accused of treason (like Brian De Palma who did "Redacted", a fictionalized account about the Mahmudiyah killings, where an entire Iraqi family was murdered and a 14 year old girl gang raped and murdered by US troops) or punished economically (like Nick Broomfield's "Battle for Haditha", a movie about the massacre where 24 civilians where massacred in their homes by US troops, being shown in one single theater, raking in a whopping 10,000 dollars in its theatrical run).

    Whenever someone from the US military is a bad guy in a movie, it's always some rogue element - never that the military in itself is bad and commits atrocities directed towards civilians on a regular basis. This criticism isn't limited to movies dealing with the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, but it's valid for just about any military conflict in which the US armed forces are engaged. And of course there are examples like "The Rock" where the military bad guys really turn out to be good at heart, fighting for their brethren who have been betrayed by the government (it's funny how movies are critical towards some nondescript behemoth "government", but are silent when it comes to the armed wing of the same).

    In "The Hurt Locker" the US troops might as well have been wearing white hats, and all the cardboard cutout Iraqis black hats, because this movie is about as multidimensional as an old western when it comes to good guys and bad guys. In this movie Iraqis fulfill the same function as the Somalis in "Black Hawk Down" - a faceless crowd of bad guys ready to be gunned down in scores (except for one token character; most likely a result of liberal guilt).

    In the DVD extras, Bigelow claims to want to "put the audience into the soldier's shoes". Her lack of interest in the plight of the Iraqis under occupation is blatantly obvious. In fact (if memory serves me right), all violence directed towards Iraqi civilians is perpetrated by other Iraqis. The US soldiers are just there to protect Iraqis. The movie is well in line with the talking points of the US regime (it doesn't matter if it's run by Republicans or Democrats - same sh*t, different suit).

    This movie is just another example of a cowardly movie industry, resulting in a film which is anti war in name only. Always a good way of getting movie going liberals to ease their guilt.
  • reppageki28 April 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    Some unrealistic movie spoilers included.

    From real life experiences, this movie continued to disappoint from the very beginning. I'm currently deployed on my second tour to Iraq as an infantry man. This film has nothing near what would happen in real life occurrences. From the very start to name a few: the bomb cart, the EOD elements rolling out solo with no escorts, the EOD staff sergeant sneaking of VBC, having sleeves rolled the entire time in ACUs, to where i had to call it quits on my 2 dollar haji copy, the sniper scene. The list would continue, however, it is unnecessary to list things wrong happening with a time span of 2 minutes before more things were incorrect; and the point was made.

    This movie is for people and critics to watch that have no understanding or experience with deployments or the military.

    People with military background or knowledge of the military will be disappointed with the inaccuracy.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named.
  • 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
  • jcox71310 April 2010
    Oh. My. God. Please rent this so you can see why everyone with sense hates this movie (all except the Clique Elites of the Academy of course) Things I'd like to share off the top of my head: 1. The fact that this beat Inglorious Basterds for best picture simply astounds me. 2. Tarantino was completely shafted. 3. It was more like a "Made for TV" show than a major motion picture. 4. It won because of stupid left-wing politics...( it was about the Iraq war and it was a war movie directed by a woman. 5. It had constant non-steady cam filming (like a made- for-TV show). 7. A lot of the acting stunk 8. The plot was hollow and insipid. 9. Stupid. 10. Dumb. 11. Bad. 12. Not good. 13. Not realistic. 14. Shallow 15. Annoying. 16. Boring. 17. Weak. 18. Awful. 19. Boring. 20. Stoopid. Terrible. 21. poor. 22. Help me. 23. If I were Tarantino I'd release the Bear Jew on the Academy.
  • I have to add my voice to the list of people who really disliked this movie. Imagine a German director making a movie in 1948. Imagine the director asking us to feel sympathy for the soldiers because it was very cold in Russia. (I'm not saying that the United States is a perfect analogy to Nazi Germany, because that would be a grotesque exaggeration.) I actually do have sympathy for all of those young Germans who lost their lives in WWII. But the rest of the world would be appalled to find that this was the take-home message from World War II for the Germans. Bigelow asks her viewers to feel this very emotion for Americans in Iraq.

    If there were other scenes that provided a different take on the situation, the hot desert scene would be insignificant. But every Iraqi in the movie is used simply to show how sensitive an American is, or how afraid an American is, etc. The Iraqis are allowed no existence of their own, they are simply plot devices. Don't America's major critics see this?

    Some have said that this movie isn't political. By this, they seem to mean that it doesn't criticize the war. This movie is in fact deeply political in that it completely objectifies the "enemy," and glorifies war as a potentially exciting escape from domesticity.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was taken by surprise yesterday as I was watching the Oscar, and saw The Hurt Locker winning so many statuettes. I was so disappointed on the event, that I decided not to ever watch it again.

    I think the only reason for this movie to win the best picture award is because North America needs it right now: it shows Americans as the "good guys", while Avatar - which is indeed the great movie - didn't win it because it shows the opposite.

    Not only is it a boring movie, but it also has completely stupid scenes - like the one with the psychiatrist which is totally predictable.

    Definitely not worth seeing!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    year after year and the academy show, once again, how unworthy of credit they really are.6 Oscars to a movie that cannot express a sense of reality it's too much.

    There's no deep reasons for this specific character does what he does.The bomb scenes are superficials and the camera shakes like a pinball machine.Best director for Kathryn Bigelow ? deserved...maybe the actors tried to make they part...or it's because of the International Women's Day ? make your choice.

    but i don't recommend this to anyone.

    1/10, Avatar, now, is the greatest wronged movie in history.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I love a good war film and I fall into the "been there, done that" category. So I would like to think my review is an accurate one (IMHO). Having just watched this film on DVD I can safely say that it was a pile of rubbish. There is no way I can recommend this film to you.

    It started off with me shouting at the TV saying "you wouldn't do that" etc...but I soon realised that having a bit of job experience would be a hindrance so I chilled a bit. But on the opening scene when the trailer wheel fell off I got a nasty feeling that this film would be a predictable dud...I was right.

    There simply wasn't any logic to the EOD scenes. I just know that the army team had some of the most patient insurgents ever at the other end of the command wire or remote trigger. So much so I was left scratching my head all the time. Then just when you think you know where the story is going the guys in the Humvee are off out on their own driving around the desert. One of the most valuable assets in theatre out on a jolly bumping into some SAS wannabe contractors.

    The sniper scene was just so laughable. It just made no sense at all and made me want to switch off there and then. Then for them to drag it out so long really did test my patience.It started with the "Contact Right" and went down hill fast. If you had a Brit accent then you got shot but if you were part of the EOD team then suddenly you were a great shot and saved the day. Then just as you thought it was over it stretched on for an inexplicably long period without adding anything to the story at all. You are just left watching and asking why hasn't it ended yet?

    Then we had the booze scene where they just hit each other for a laugh..another scene where you just wanted it to end. It added nothing to the film.

    Then just as my life seemed very dull the main star went outside the wire to hunt someone down. This most be the most ridiculous scene I have ever watched. It defied all logic and ability to write a good was senseless and awful. I still don't understand why they wasted time on it. Then to watch him just jog through the busy streets heading back to camp had me rolling on the floor with laughter. Pure comedy :)

    The sad fact is that this storyline is all over the show without really deciding what it wants to be. I thought it was going to be stupid illogical EOD scenes but then it kept going off on tangents trying to be something different. But as hard as it tried it just bored me to death. All I wanted was for it to end. It was a messy compilation of stupid scenes mixed into a batch of stupid, senseless, action(ish) scenes.

    There is no way I can recommend this. Maybe my work experience compromised the enjoyability but even the naive must realise this just doesn't make sense. The only thing more stupid than this film is the artificially high IMDb rating...which must be the 24/7 work of the box office PR team who seem to use this website as a way of making everyone think it is good. Sorry just ain't!

    Not will just bore you.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There is no artistic value in this movie to deserve any award. Well, it does not deserve an audience as well. Ironically, one of the awards is for cinematography but frankly, the camera movements are disconcerting to say the least. Every frame, you feel you are getting the "full picture", its like someone is "cropping your view" from the edges. The story is pathetic. Well, I will be honest, I could not bear to watch the entire movie. The part that sucked the most was when I saw the soldiers partying in their barracks and one of the soldiers coaxed to drink liquor. These and many other similar scenes reminded me so much of Steven Seagal.

    Take my advice, stay away from this piece of crap.
  • This movie won the Academy Award for "Best Picture of the Year?" Seriously? Are you kidding me? I think that tells a lot about the Academy Awards and how completely stupid, pointless, useless, and misleading they are.

    Watching this movie was like watching paint dry, but thinking that at any moment the paint could explode. But then, when it does explode, you don't really care.

    I have noticed that "action" movies that are directed by women are usually not great. When I started out watching this movie, I had high hopes for it because I had heard good things about it, and of course it won an Academy Award (for whatever that is worth). And I thought it would be interesting to finally see a good action movie directed by a woman (Kathryn Bigalow). But instead it was a total let down. Maybe Kathryn Bigalow should get a job making movies for the Lifetime Network, and stay the hell out of the action genre because "HURT LOCKER" sucked.

    Watching "The Hurt Locker" made me feel like I was INSIDE a Hurt Locker! And all I wanted to do was get out of that locker and go do something else. Every time the movie built up any suspense or tension, Bigalow manages to slow down the pace and kill the scene. Also, there a lot of times when you think the movie is going to take a new direction, and really get into a decent subplot, but then it just simply goes NOWHERE.

    Don't believe the hype on this movie. Stay out of the Hurt Locker, save yourself two hours of life. Somebody should put an explosive on this movie and blow it up. Funny, a movie about a bomb squad that is, itself, a total bomb. How ironic.
  • With all of the drama and suspense that the Iraq War has produced, it is difficult to understand why the producers paid for a fantastic script such as the one used in this film. Beginning with the arrival of the maverick member of the bomb squad, the mood is set for an individual who does not want to play by the Army rules. The film goes downhill from there. None of the military engagements made any sense, neither military sense nor common sense. Following the first attempt at suspense, the main character (Sergeant William James - played unconvincingly by Jeremy Renner) removes his protective clothing saying "If I am going to die, I might as well be comfortable." He then removes his communication equipment. Afterwards, he was punched in the face by the platoon leader who rebukes him saying "Never take off yours ears again." Sgt. James just takes the punch neither saying nor doing anything. The scene where Sgt. James calls his wife, but says nothing, was difficult to understand, and the wife asks "Hello?" four, well-spaced times. The military confrontation that occurred after they encountered a British patrol was the best part of the film, although their poor marksmanship was hard to believe. The enemy only fired four shots, each of which killed someone. The idea that the tire wrench was ruined trying to change the tire, and the same thing happened with the second tire iron, and that the US patrol had another tire iron, should have been eliminated. The idea that three soldiers would undertake an unauthorized pursuit at night was incredible. The technique of scanning the surroundings, and showing how the locals watched the events was effective, and clearly demonstrated the terror of guerrilla warfare. In spite of the inconsistencies, poor acting and improbable scenes, this film was awarded six Oscars. Who would have guessed?
An error has occured. Please try again.