The Hurt Locker (K. Bigelow) [Archive]

Sven

07-03-2009, 12:38 AM

This is a very, very good movie, but unfortunately it is also rather annoying. I know it's all about getting into the heads of the characters, but any film that makes me suspicious of every Middle Easterner I see is probably doing something wrong. Also, I feel bad for any actor who is relegated to a "You have to follow protocol!" role, especially when they're given as much screen time as Mackie. Also, the third soldier is way too literary a character: his trajectory wreaks of construction where the rest of the film is fairly agile in circumventing such didactic characteristics. Also, a few narrative points are muddied, which makes some of the drama rather ineffective. And WTF, Ralph Fiennes? I hate that shit.

However, the first half of the film, focusing on the procedure of their job, is tip-top high-qual cinema.

number8

07-08-2009, 10:23 PM

Saw it, loved it. Intense as all get out. This is how you make military guys look like heroes, Michael Bay.

number8

07-08-2009, 10:24 PM

I think I'll watch this again tonight. I was a little sleepy watching it at midnight last night after day at work + screening of $9.99. Wouldn't want to shortchange it.

origami_mustache

07-08-2009, 11:09 PM

I thought the trailer looked surprisingly cheesy considering the good things I've heard about it.

Morris Schæffer

07-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Max Payne - ***1/2.

Whoa, for realz?

Ezee E

07-09-2009, 05:42 PM

Seeing this tonight!

Sven

07-10-2009, 12:05 AM

Whoa, for realz?

'bout halfway down the page. (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=14&page=781)

Sycophant

07-11-2009, 01:43 AM

So, this was pretty incredible. The last time I remember experiencing this much tension while watching a film was the mall scene in Johnnie To's The Mission, and that's no small compliment.

Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to the right cues, but for about the first half of the movie, I actually thought that Mackie's character was the main character. And then I thought it was that he and Renner were both main characters and it wasn't till the very ending that I was convinced that Renner was actually the lead.

number8

07-11-2009, 02:02 AM

Haha, we need someone to hate this movie.

Morris Schæffer

07-11-2009, 07:13 AM

Haha, we need someone to hate this movie.

Have you tried Armond White?

transmogrifier

07-11-2009, 07:24 AM

Have you tried Armond White?

He likes it. I want to see this movie. Not to hate it; I like Bigelow. I even though her submarine movie was pretty good.

Boner M

07-11-2009, 07:53 AM

That was a weird move on Morris' part, since he linked Armond's positive review just a couple of posts up the page.

number8

07-11-2009, 04:46 PM

Belgians have very short memory.

Ezee E

07-18-2009, 10:31 PM

Definitely a good one. I was curious if the movie was going to have anything to say after a while, but the final few scenes made it click for me.

Haven't seen a sniper scene this effective in a long, long time.

DrewG

07-22-2009, 04:19 PM

I definitely liked and admired this movie but I'm not going to be sure if I really love it until I see it for a 2nd time. The film is draining to say the least, namely due to a really pitch perfect blend of the erratic cinemtography and swift editing. It also helps that the script doesn't have any of that gung-ho military bullshit, everything comes off as real and natural, a tremendous compliment to a film where people are disarming bombs, dodging snipers and slowly losing their grasp on mental stability in a tense environment. I thought all the performances were suitable and the interplay between the characters works with the exception of Eldridge who seems like more of an afterthought than an actual drawn out character or symbol. I'm not quite sure what to think of the ending,

...other than the opening quote really summing up what would happen,

but there is something about that final shot that lingers long after I left the theater.

One more thing:

What did people take on the scene when he sees Beckham again and ignores him? Do you think he saw the dead child he removed the bomb from as a representation that all the children are quite simply, screwed?Renner of the bunch seems like the most black/white kind of guy in that he was very steadfast when he had a belief or had a plan of action. Maybe he just was unable to accept that his grief was misplaced?

number8

07-22-2009, 04:30 PM

What did people take on the scene when he sees Beckham again and ignores him? Do you think he saw the dead child he removed the bomb from as a representation that all the children are quite simply, screwed?Renner of the bunch seems like the most black/white kind of guy in that he was very steadfast when he had a belief or had a plan of action. Maybe he just was unable to accept that his grief was misplaced?

I thought it was him realizing that grief compromises him, because his grief over the boy he thought was Beckham led to him getting Elridge captured and shot. So when he saw Beckham alive, he decided not to let the same thing happen again by severing their ties.

DrewG

07-22-2009, 04:58 PM

I thought it was him realizing that grief compromises him, because his grief over the boy he thought was Beckham led to him getting Elridge captured and shot. So when he saw Beckham alive, he decided not to let the same thing happen again by severing their ties.

Yeah definitely...good call. I think any genuine emotion really compromises his edge. Near the end when Sanborn is spilling his guts about everything he thinks of Iraq, the conflict, etc. he seems relatively indifferent to the confession despite the fact that their companionship has come remarkably far since their initial hesitancy towards each others methods and character. I think it's perfect (and fitting) that the shots that follow that are of remarkably mundane aspects of a normalized life: picking the cereal, cutting up the food, taking the leaves out of the gutter. The only thing that has any emotional pull or meaning in his life in fact the war, everything else is just filler. I think in retrospect that in this light he works as a perfect foil to Eldridge who gets TOO attached to his connections throughout the city of Baghdad.

Sycophant

07-22-2009, 05:31 PM

DrewG, welcome back. I wouldn't mind if you stuck around for a bit.

Mysterious Dude

07-22-2009, 05:44 PM

Definitely a compelling, well-crafted film. I don't think it has much new to add to the war film, though. The "enemy" is always depicted as faceless.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 05:01 AM

Saw it. It was decent. It was tense. Thought it could have communicated a bit more. I wish it had been more ambitious narratively/thematically.

Mysterious Dude

07-23-2009, 05:14 AM

Thought it could have communicated a bit more. I wish it had been more ambitious narratively/thematically.
I thought about this, but by taking a more simple route, it avoided being too heavy-handed, like In the Valley of Elah and other Iraq films. On the other hand, by the end of the movie, it almost seemed pro-war.

After the guy discovers how dreary and dull his life is back in the States, he decides to go back to Iraq, where things are bright and exciting, and he can feel important.

Most Americans are so disconnected from this war, I wonder if we will ever have a really good film about it.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 05:30 AM

I thought about this, but by taking a more simple route, it avoided being too heavy-handed, like In the Valley of Elah and other Iraq films. On the other hand, by the end of the movie, it almost seemed pro-war.

I didn't see that one but given that I hate Paul Haggis I'm sure you're right that this is better. The thing is I just feel that I've seen so many 'war' 'films' like this one lately that are focused on telling a very focused/procedure based story (Jarhead, Generation Kill, Elite Squad, etc). This for me is both a strength and a weakness. It gives the film a narrow scope and all three of these examples succeed fairly well within their respective parameters. But I can't help wishing for something broader (an Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line, Ashes and Diamonds, etc)... or even something that remains tightly focused but delves into character psychology more deeply or as you point out is more even handed in the way in which it approaches the enemy.

Mysterious Dude

07-23-2009, 05:41 AM

I didn't see that one but given that I hate Paul Haggis I'm sure you're right that this is better.
I haven't seen it either; I'm just assuming it sucks.

Actually, The Hurt Locker is the first fiction film I've seen about the Iraq war, so I could be dead wrong about everything I said.

B-side

07-23-2009, 07:52 AM

I thought about this, but by taking a more simple route, it avoided being too heavy-handed, like In the Valley of Elah and other Iraq films. On the other hand, by the end of the movie, it almost seemed pro-war.

After the guy discovers how dreary and dull his life is back in the States, he decides to go back to Iraq, where things are bright and exciting, and he can feel important.

He wanted to go back because he's become addicted to it. The title card in the beginning tells all. He had defined himself by his work. War is machismo. Renner's character radiated machismo. He's the "ideal" soldier, except of course when he starts showing emotion, then he's compromised. It's a form of disconnection. Even being in such danger, the only one you're putting in harm's way when doing his job, really, is you.

Sxottlan

07-23-2009, 08:02 AM

Is this still opening wider on Friday? Because I'm not seeing it listed anywhere near me and that's a bit unusual.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 08:34 AM

Even being in such danger, the only one you're putting in harm's way when doing his job, really, is you.

Ehh...

B-side

07-23-2009, 08:37 AM

Ehh...

The others are usually far enough back to survive the blast. They clear out the entire surrounding area. I'm speculating, of course, but I'm assuming if the area were clear, then he'd be the only one to die.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 09:03 AM

The others are usually far enough back to survive the blast. They clear out the entire surrounding area. I'm speculating, of course, but I'm assuming if the area were clear, then he'd be the only one to die.

His attitude towards the entire affair (before he was 'emotionally compromised') unnecessarily endangered two of his comrades (car bomb disarming, suicide bomber)... and the suicide bomber was also in harms way in the midst of his job.

B-side

07-23-2009, 09:09 AM

His attitude towards the entire affair (before he was 'emotionally compromised') unnecessarily endangered two of his comrades (car bomb disarming, suicide bomber)... and the suicide bomber was also in harms way in the midst of his job.

They were well out of the way by the time he was disarming the bomb, no? Plus, being as his vision was so narrow and focused on his attraction to danger, he paid little to no attention to where anyone else was or whether or not they approved. The suicide bomber was in harm's way anyway. Wasn't really any way to avoid that.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 09:26 AM

They were well out of the way by the time he was disarming the bomb, no?

No, he disarmed the car bomb without his suit and one of his guys was right nearby him. With that much explosive in the trunk he could have easily been killed, the character soon after complains about how he could have been killed.

Plus, being as his vision was so narrow and focused on his attraction to danger, he paid little to no attention to where anyone else was or whether or not they approved. The suicide bomber was in harm's way anyway. Wasn't really any way to avoid that.

Then only he was in harms way... how? He also uses gas at the beginning obscuring his teams perspective and endangering lives. He's pretty much a loose cannon throughout the entire film.

Sven

07-23-2009, 10:59 AM

I didn't see that one but given that I hate Paul Haggis I'm sure you're right that this is better. The thing is I just feel that I've seen so many 'war' 'films' like this one lately that are focused on telling a very focused/procedure based story (Jarhead, Generation Kill, Elite Squad, etc). This for me is both a strength and a weakness. It gives the film a narrow scope and all three of these examples succeed fairly well within their respective parameters. But I can't help wishing for something broader (an Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line, Ashes and Diamonds, etc)... or even something that remains tightly focused but delves into character psychology more deeply or as you point out is more even handed in the way in which it approaches the enemy.

Hmmm... I don't understand criticizing a film for what it is not. Perhaps this is a reason why it seems you dislike so much of what you see. It's not like the film was psychologically shallow or lacking in meditative poetry like the films you mentioned. It's got pretty complex characters and many scenes that elevate reality to an expressive plane.

B-side

07-23-2009, 11:25 AM

Then only he was in harms way... how? He also uses gas at the beginning obscuring his teams perspective and endangering lives. He's pretty much a loose cannon throughout the entire film.

I worded that poorly. He has a narrow vision, but in sustaining that narrow vision, he's mainly concerned with himself. He's addicted to the danger, but the lack of scope in his vision doesn't allow him to see beyond the now. The now for him isn't terribly concerned with anyone else, it's concerned with its addiction. An addict's addiction doesn't directly harm another person, it only harms them, so they often wonder why anyone else would be upset with them for being addicted. Renner's character's addiction is to danger. He approaches it as if it's all that's in his view. By not concerning himself with others, he feels he's only hurting himself, if that makes sense.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 06:46 PM

Hmmm... I don't understand criticizing a film for what it is not. Perhaps this is a reason why it seems you dislike so much of what you see.

Or perhaps not, perhaps I'm just more critical (C's and B's also do not represent dislike). I just explained what I feel to be the limitations of war films of this nature although I probably could have gone into greater depth. I find all three of the films I mentioned to be competent but lacking as a result of their focus. But I see your point and did amend to clarify that perhaps the scope issue was not my primary complaint but something else (psychological/narrative/thematic depth)... essentially I found the film to be a worthy addition to the war genre, but not a great one.

Although now that you mention it I'm not sure we should never criticize something for what it is not. Have you ever seen that short cartoon of a stick character bleeding from it's anus and screaming about that? That film is exactly what it wants to be but I can still criticize it for what it's trying to be.

It's not like the film was psychologically shallow or lacking in meditative poetry like the films you mentioned. It's got pretty complex characters and many scenes that elevate reality to an expressive plane.

It's not psychologically shallow but it's not psychologically deep either. It has some thoughts on the issues it examines but in my eyes it never cuts that deeply into any especially poignant commentary about war. The primary imagery I can think of that elevated reality to an expressive plane were the slow-motion shots of explosions and while these shots are visually attractive, cool and tense... they're not much more than that.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 06:52 PM

I worded that poorly. He has a narrow vision, but in sustaining that narrow vision, he's mainly concerned with himself. He's addicted to the danger, but the lack of scope in his vision doesn't allow him to see beyond the now. The now for him isn't terribly concerned with anyone else, it's concerned with its addiction. An addict's addiction doesn't directly harm another person, it only harms them, so they often wonder why anyone else would be upset with them for being addicted. Renner's character's addiction is to danger. He approaches it as if it's all that's in his view. By not concerning himself with others, he feels he's only hurting himself, if that makes sense.

Yeah that makes sense, I was just disagreeing that he doesn't endanger other lives by not following protocol.

Sven

07-23-2009, 06:54 PM

in my eyes it never cuts that deeply into any especially poignant commentary about war.

The film is not about war, it is about people in war. I, too, would be hard-pressed to find much commentary in the film about war itself, but I believe it provides ample information about people dealing with war situations. Here I think I would have to reiterate what I said initially: I think you're hesitance is founded on looking for something that the film is not trying to do. And you didn't really say much about why the narrow focus is inherently a problem.

I will agree with your amendment, though, that the strong subjectivity of the film's attitude towards the enemy was a bit uncomfortable in a way I do not think was intended.

Sven

07-23-2009, 06:56 PM

The primary imagery I can think of that elevated reality to an expressive plane were the slow-motion shots of explosions and while these shots are visually attractive, cool and tense... they're not much more than that.

I'm not saying you've hit it on the head, but is that not enough?

Sven

07-23-2009, 06:56 PM

Although now that you mention it I'm not sure we should never criticize something for what it is not. Have you ever seen that short cartoon of a stick character bleeding from it's anus and screaming about that? That film is exactly what it wants to be but I can still criticize it for what it's trying to be.

I'm not sure you wrote this correctly, because i can't follow what you're saying.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 07:11 PM

The film is not about war, it is about people in war. I, too, would be hard-pressed to find much commentary in the film about war itself, but I believe it provides ample information about people dealing with war situations. Here I think I would have to reiterate what I said initially: I think you're hesitance is founded on looking for something that the film is not trying to do. And you didn't really say much about why the narrow focus is inherently a problem.

Well to clarify I do not mean the narrow focus such as limited characters and plot threads I mean a narrow thematic focus as well as the limitations of the subjectivity you mention below. Also just a general sense of narrative redundancy. This redundancy is a double edged sword because while it does communicate the pattern of these characters lives it's also just kind of well, redundant. I suppose for the focus of this particular film I would have appreciated a few more introspective character moments interspersed throughout (most of them come close to the end) for some of the secondary characters.

I will agree with your amendment, though, that the strong subjectivity of the film's attitude towards the enemy was a bit uncomfortable in a way I do not think was intended.

I find Bigelow's voyeuristic approach to be simultaneously a strength and a weakness for her (with Strange Days also). In both films it amps up the tension but it also keeps the 'other' at an (as you mention) uncomfortable distance. In both films it sort of meshes with the material... Strange Days these character possess a disconnect between the imagery they're viewing and the people who originally experienced it which is part of the point of the film... and in The Hurt Locker these characters are conditioned to be suspicious of the other because if they're not, they're dead. But despite this element of effectiveness her approach does not quite work for me as based upon your above quote I think you agree.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 07:12 PM

I'm not sure you wrote this correctly, because i can't follow what you're saying.

It seems clear to me but it's not a discussion I really want to delve into so let's just sidle passed it.

Sven

07-23-2009, 07:14 PM

I think I largely agree with everything you've written. Thanks for clarifying.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 07:15 PM

I'm not saying you've hit it on the head, but is that not enough?

It could be more somehow.

Qrazy

07-23-2009, 07:15 PM

I think I largely agree with everything you've written. Thanks for clarifying.

:pritch:

Pop Trash

07-29-2009, 09:13 PM

This was good, but I didn't quite love it. I think my own personal taste for more subdued formal filmmaking came into account. A little too much of the Paul Greengrass style shakeshakeshake cutcutcut. It certainly was tense as hell but I think the tension would have been there just as much without the herky-jerky filmmaking style and with more master and longer takes and such. Sound and music were great though.

Form aside, content-wise this was good and very original. I can't think of another film that goes into as deep as to why people would actually want to be at war. Perhaps Sgt. Barnes from Platoon comes the closest but he is presented in a more negative light than Jeremy Renner here. For some of these types its simply just a big high and addiction to their own anxiety and paranoia. We might not understand it, just like we might not understand why someone would stay up all night high on meth and peeking out their window for cops or whoever they perceive is after them, but it doesn't mean those people don't exist.

I might give this a second viewing on DVD. I think my opinion might improve upon multiple viewings.

Also, are Bigelow's other films as shakey and cutty as this one? I've seen Point Break (which I loved but its been awhile since I've seen it) and Near Dark but I don't remember them being quite as cracked out as this one. This was almost like a Crank movie at times.

baby doll

07-29-2009, 09:42 PM

I don't have time now to go through all the comments, but has anybody mentioned just how much the lead actor looks like Jason "Teen Wolf, Too" Bateman?

Also, that scene where they get drunk and start punching each other. What's up with that?

Pop Trash

07-29-2009, 09:44 PM

Also, that scene where they get drunk and start punching each other. What's up with that?

Examination of masculinity. One dude literally rides the other like a horse, putting him in his place. The other pulls out a knife because he won't be made a "bitch." Things like that.

baby doll

07-29-2009, 09:47 PM

Examination of masculinity. One dude literally rides the other like a horse, putting him in his place. The other pulls out a knife because he won't be made a "bitch." Things like that.I got all that. It was just kind of creepy, and not really related to anything else in the film. It just kinda comes out of nowhere.

Qrazy

07-29-2009, 09:56 PM

I think it was also to show the effects of war, the emotional fallout, and how these guys are constantly on edge. There's a similar scene in Generation Kill where people are playing football and then it turns into a fight. There's the specific power struggle between the two characters, the microcosm/macrocosm statement about escalation (you pin me down, I pull out a knife) and then the abstract, generalizable nature of hatred/anger/depersonalization. Once you start viewing people (the enemy) as objects or as objects of hatred (which you must in order to be able to kill), this outlook can easily translate over to the way in which you view your allies... or not view but react... pulling out a knife becomes almost a conditioned response.

MacGuffin

07-29-2009, 10:00 PM

I've heard that this movie is one of the two things that I feared it to be: a borderline recruitment; a "this-is-how-you-guys-should-be-for-your-country" instructional film.

Pop Trash

07-29-2009, 10:06 PM

I've heard that this movie is one of the two things that I fearedit to be: a borderline recruitment; a "this-is-how-you-guys-should-be-for-your-country" instructional film.

Only if you're stupid.

baby doll

07-29-2009, 10:06 PM

I've heard that this movie is one of the two things that I feared this movie to be: a borderline recruitment; a "this-is-how-you-guys-should-be-for-your-country" instructional film.It's closer to a crypto-remake of Only Angels Have Wings.

Raiders

07-29-2009, 10:38 PM

I've heard that this movie is one of the two things that I feared it to be: a borderline recruitment; a "this-is-how-you-guys-should-be-for-your-country" instructional film.

I don't know how this film would recruit anyone but it is a film that most certainly respects the soldiers it depicts, as I would imagine almost any film would.

It isn't a very heroic film and I think the brilliant final few minutes may be lost on some people unfortunately.

Ezee E

07-30-2009, 11:30 AM

It isn't a very heroic film and I think the brilliant final few minutes may be lost on some people unfortunately.

That's what bumped the movie up for me.

Kurosawa Fan

08-13-2009, 01:33 PM

Seeing it this afternoon. Can't wait.

Kurosawa Fan

08-13-2009, 09:04 PM

Oy. What a disappointment. Am I the first to give this a mediocre grade? Probably not, I'll look back through the thread later. Anyway, I found the first 90 or so minutes very tense and well made. From that point forward, basically when they go to survey the possible suicide bomb area, the film just fell apart for me. That sequence was messy, as was the conclusion and aftermath (especially the scene at the departing helicopter). Fell into silly cliches with James (showering with clothes on, sitting in front of TV with static, etc.), and kind of floundered to its conclusion, which was inevitable. Lacked the emotional punch the film deserved. Not a bad film, but not one I was impressed with either.

Kurosawa Fan

08-13-2009, 09:11 PM

Nevermind, Sven comes through again! We shared some of the same complaints (especially about soldier #3, which is basically the reason why the helicopter scene was so corny). I think you liked it a bit more than I did (I found the last half hour a bit more damaging, it seems).

Qrazy

08-13-2009, 09:25 PM

I think I shared your reaction more so than anybody else so far.

Pop Trash

08-13-2009, 09:36 PM

Kurosawa Fan

08-13-2009, 09:39 PM

I think I shared your reaction more so than anybody else so far.

Reading through the entire thread, it seems you did.

Pop Trash, I'm not sure about his rating (which is why I said I think he liked it more than I did), but his post on the first page of the thread states a lot of the same criticisms I had with the film.

Sven

08-13-2009, 10:09 PM

Yeah, any movie that relies so completely on the visceral impact of its sequences is almost surely going to weaken in one's mind with time (because those moments, while brilliant, are fleeting). I did like the film (yes, I gave it 3.5, which translates to "has many merits" more than "near masterpiece" or whatever), but I'm not in a hurry to see it again. I doubt it will be as good a second time.

Raiders

08-13-2009, 11:09 PM

Showering with your clothes on is a cliche? I also don't think the film is ever, ever messy. I do understand the desire for James to stay a bit more of a cipher in the second half (the relationship to the boy my least favorite aspect of the film), but technically I can't think of any moment it falters.

I love the scene where they investigate the suicide bombing because I think it shows the desire James in particular feels for war itself. If you think about it, most of the action is a peculiar type. Defusing those bombs is a rather alien task for most war accounts (I love the look of the protective suits which almost posits the men as in outer space) and I think you can feel helpless in that role, set apart from the action of war. That scene shows a messy attempt to bring them back to Earth, so to speak. To the gritty combat of war. It's a rash decision made in the mind of a man on a rush.

I still think the final few minutes are pretty perfect. The quiet of those scenes contrasted with the rock music over the final montage is startling, as is the sad realization of what that music encompasses.

Pop Trash

08-13-2009, 11:16 PM

Showering with your clothes on is a cliche?

Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing about watching static on TV. When has that ever been a cliche?

I also think the shot where he tries to pick out a box of cereal and finds it to be as difficult as diffusing a bomb is quite brilliant.

Qrazy

08-13-2009, 11:36 PM

I also think the shot where he tries to pick out a box of cereal and finds it to be as difficult as diffusing a bomb is quite brilliant.

It's presented as much more difficult for him. That's what he likes about the simplicity of his job. He knows exactly what he's doing. I however found it to be not that brilliant and rather on the nose.

Qrazy

08-13-2009, 11:37 PM

I love the scene where they investigate the suicide bombing because I think it shows the desire James in particular feels for war itself. If you think about it, most of the action is a peculiar type. Defusing those bombs is a rather alien task for most war accounts (I love the look of the protective suits which almost posits the men as in outer space) and I think you can feel helpless in that role, set apart from the action of war. That scene shows a messy attempt to bring them back to Earth, so to speak. To the gritty combat of war. It's a rash decision made in the mind of a man on a rush.

Yeah I agree that the suicide bomber scene is necessary and valuable.

Derek

08-13-2009, 11:39 PM

It's presented as much more difficult for him. That's what he likes about the simplicity of his job. He knows exactly what he's doing. I however found it to be not that brilliant and rather on the nose.

I think it's less about "difficulty" than the meaninglessness of the decision because there is nothing at stake, no thrill or adrenaline to be gained or lost.

Qrazy

08-13-2009, 11:48 PM

I think it's less about "difficulty" than the meaninglessness of the decision because there is nothing at stake, no thrill or adrenaline to be gained or lost.

Yeah maybe that as well, but studies have been done about choice with consumers and if a consumer is given too many options they tend to find it more difficult to make a decision about what to purchase than if they're given fewer choices. His job requires thought but it's also very systematic. The choices he tends to make are simply to ignore everything around him and focus on the task of defusing the bomb. I think both elements that we're discussing say something about his psychology.

Derek

08-13-2009, 11:54 PM

I think both elements that we're discussing say something about his psychology.

I agree, which is why I don't find that moment to be overly blunt.

number8

08-14-2009, 04:05 AM

This might be strange, but my favorite moment of this film is the pseudo match cut from him looking at Iraqi children through his jeep's window to him looking at frozen food in glass fridges.

I love that. The instant transport that just absolutely sucks the life out of this character.

Qrazy

08-14-2009, 05:49 AM

I agree, which is why I don't find that moment to be overly blunt.

http://www.harrietcarter.com/resources/harrietCarter/images/products/processed/8445-1.zoom.a.jpg

NickGlass

08-14-2009, 01:49 PM

The film is not about war, it is about people in war.

Nailed it.

The supermarket scene is really fantastic. The rest of the film was pretty good, too (and I'll agree it's intermittently annoying--that rock music at the end? Puh-lease.)

Ezee E

01-14-2010, 12:34 AM

Adam

01-14-2010, 04:09 AM

I like this movie. However, I am surprised that it's the unanimous pick from the critics this year. For the most part, it's one situation to another.

It is very episodic, but why would that be a knock against it

Morris Schæffer

01-14-2010, 10:42 AM

Watched it again. I like this movie. However, I am surprised that it's the unanimous pick from the critics this year. For the most part, it's one situation to another.

With that, I really like Renner's character.

Yeah I don't disagree, but creating bucketloads of suspense and thrills in the process. And wouldn't that be awesome? A bonafide action/war movie collecting the major Oscars? Rather than something with, oh I dunno, "drama?"

I'm rooting for The Hurt Locker. Or Inglourious Basterds.

Ezee E

01-14-2010, 12:48 PM

Yeah I don't disagree, but creating bucketloads of suspense and thrills in the process. And wouldn't that be awesome? A bonafide action/war movie collecting the major Oscars? Rather than something with, oh I dunno, "drama?"

I'm rooting for The Hurt Locker. Or Inglourious Basterds.
I'd prefer this over Avatar which is similar to the standard you're looking for.

Robby P

01-18-2010, 01:03 AM

I thought the movie was a pretty clever subversion of masculine archetypes.

For example, Specialist Eldridge is portrayed as the most effeminate, weak and emotionally unstable character and yet he displays the clearest signs of conscience as well as the highest capacity for self reflection and moral judgment. These traits would be highly desired of any participant in civil society but in combat they are regarded as crippling signs of weakness and evidence of a lack of maturation. Eldridge does not officially "become a man" in the movie until he gathers the "courage" to fire his weapon at another person (perhaps the most subtly brilliant sequence in the movie, in my opinion). Meanwhile, the "courage" that he displays in expressing his deepest emotions to his commanding officer is met with complete discouragement. Men don't confide in each other during times of crisis, they are supposed to instead find an outlet for their concealed emotions. Men express themselves through physical displays of dominance and attain manhood through rites of passage.

In the case of Sergeant James, his masculinity is "proven" through his reckless displays of completely irresponsible showmanship. His refusal to stick to protocol puts the lives of his teammates in immediate and unnecessary danger but he is regarded as a heroic "wild-man" who saves lives by completely disregarding his own (as well as those around him). His suicidal tendencies are portrayed as the apex of heroic masculinity, his brass and swagger are considered as the ideal traits of the ideal man, no matter the consequences. While Specialist Eldridge is emasculated for expressing fear and uncertainty, Sergeant James is lionized for showing no emotion, for showing no signs of thoughtful reflection whatsoever. Men act, they don't think. More importantly, the concluding sequence of the movie shows Sergeant James triumphantly returning to where he belongs, to where he can attain his glory and his manly accolades. However, in order to do so he must first leave his family behind. But, of course, it isn't his duty to take care of his child (that's what his wife is for). It takes a much bigger man to place duty to country above family. It takes a much bigger man to help save lives (or, alternatively, to take them) than to help raise one. Men who stay at home and raise children are effeminate, men who fight wars and save lives are heroes.

And, of course, the most brilliant sequence in the movie involves the final conversation between Sergeant James and Sergeant Sanborn. The latter is reduced to tears as he hopelessly babbles about wanting to return home and start a family. His stoic demeanor is stripped away to an emasculated, emotional mess of a once proud and manly warrior. Sergeant James, meanwhile, remains completely unaffected and incapable of sympathizing. Ever the man's man, he refuses to sink to such depths of emotional nakedness and raw weakness. Sanborn says he is incapable of understanding James and James remains incapable of explaining himself because they are not, clearly, operating at the same level of "manliness". The only way James can express affection toward his comrade in arms is by giving him a drink from a canteen or engaging in a half-naked drunken wrestling match. It's a profoundly tragic scene that shows the difficulties involved when men conditioned to be "men" try to share their emotions with each other.

I loved the movie quite dearly. I think it's much deeper than most people are willing to give it credit for.

Chac Mool

01-19-2010, 02:15 AM

It is very episodic, but why would that be a knock against it

It's a knock in its favor -- the movie is episodic because the life of an Iraq vet is episodic. It's one gunfight after another, one bomb after another, hence the box full of detonators.

Dead & Messed Up

02-14-2010, 08:04 AM

I just watched this film, and I really enjoyed it. Some terrifically gripping sequences (the sniper shoot-out especially), and a sense of cinematic grammar that outpaced the occasionally irksome jitter-cam. I also appreciate the film's refusal to examine any of the larger consequences of the war; there's a nice, clear focus, and the story never overreaches.

My favorite moment: the split-second before the suicide bomber blows, when he sings a swatch of what I assume is a Muslim hymn. For some reason, that really moved me. Probably more than anything else in the film.

number8

03-02-2010, 03:56 PM

Though I’m back in Iraq now, I put off seeing the movie, partly because I felt no need to be disturbed by memories that its graphic images would surely raise. But I mentioned the movie to a few soldiers. Predictably, none liked it. A group from the 2nd Infantry Division laughed uproariously, recalling the scene where a blood-soaked bullet jams a massive .50-caliber rifle. “A fifty cal? Blood would just lubricate it!”

Another soldier: “Remember the scene where the dude is running alone through Baghdad? Ridiculous!”

Finally, a few nights ago, I sat down to see “The Hurt Locker” for myself.

This time, the soldiers were right. The film is a collection of scenes that are completely implausible — wrong in almost every respect. This time, it’s not just minor details that are wrong.

Very interesting read:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/

Ezee E

03-02-2010, 04:49 PM

Very interesting read:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/
Henry Engelhardt on
THE HURT LOCKER

I was in bomb disposal for 20 years, and this was pretty accurate considering it's a movie and not a training film. The story centered on the final days of a guy over there in Iraq, with him working on his last jobs before heading home, and it showed him as a very knowledgeable and dedicated man, and as someone who's very focused -- maybe even over-focused -- on doing the job.

It also did what I think are some very important things. It showed the relationships and the support necessary between the individuals working on bombs, and it showed that bomb disposal work is a very episodic thing. When you go out and render safe maybe 800 bombs a year, you're going out three, four times a day, and each one is different with its own hazards. Sometimes they're funny, sometimes they're just very scary situations, and "The Hurt Locker" showed all of this very clearly and handled the material well.

Of course, no film is realistic in all its details, but the important things were done very well. And it showed things that people might say are inaccurate, like removing a flak jacket or bomb suit to work on a bomb, which happens, because if that bomb's going to explode and kill you, it doesn't really matter whether you're wearing the suit or not. But the scene where they chase terrorists down alleys? That was pure Hollywood, and it would never happen. But given the story about the kid, it was emotionally effective and worked within the movie's storyline.

Henry Engelhardt is an adjutant with the National Explosive Ordnance Disposal Assn.

Morris Schæffer

03-02-2010, 04:49 PM

If there is one rule with the military, it is that there is strength in numbers. No one soldier, no one vehicle, goes out alone.Is it also a rule of the military that unarmed enemy soldiers are to be chained to the legs and thrown together on a big pile while the Americans look on with amusement how the adversaries (barely human at this point) eat their own feces? No doubt at gunpoint?

It's a stupid article by some moron who doesn't even begin to comprehend the idea of a movie.

Morris Schæffer

03-02-2010, 04:58 PM

But the scene where they chase terrorists down alleys? That was pure Hollywood, and it would never happen. But given the story about the kid, it was emotionally effective and worked within the movie's storyline.

I generally think he's right on with the comments, but this? Blanket statement or truth? Has he been to every place in the world to make such a claim? Weren't there reports of one American soldier raping (murdering?) an Iraqi or Afghan woman? I remember a scandal not too long ago. So I'm only assuming this guy or these guys have strayed from the beaten path which is precisely what the guys from THL have done when they decided to give chase.

Ezee E

03-02-2010, 05:14 PM

I generally think he's right on with the comments, but this? Blanket statement or truth? Has he been to every place in the world to make such a claim? Weren't there reports of one American soldier raping (murdering?) an Iraqi or Afghan woman? I remember a scandal not too long ago. So I'm only assuming this guy or these guys have strayed from the beaten path which is precisely what the guys from THL have done when they decided to give chase.
Yeah, in the movie's context it makes sense, because they were separating from their troops anyway, which they knew was a no-no. I don't have a problem with that scene at all.

This goes for any movie though. Backdraft and Ladder 49 both are horribly inaccurate when demonstrating fire scenes. Yet, many firemen still love both movies. I think both are awful, but not because of its inaccuracy.

Qrazy

03-02-2010, 05:36 PM

I generally think he's right on with the comments, but this? Blanket statement or truth? Has he been to every place in the world to make such a claim? Weren't there reports of one American soldier raping (murdering?) an Iraqi or Afghan woman? I remember a scandal not too long ago. So I'm only assuming this guy or these guys have strayed from the beaten path which is precisely what the guys from THL have done when they decided to give chase.

So both the guy against the film and the guy defending the film who have been in these situations state that something would never happen... and yet you're still arguing the 'realism' of the film... because why? Even the guy defending the film seems to be saying... yeah it's not realistic... but I didn't mind much.

Anyway, personally I felt the film's supposed realism was one of it's few strengths. If it's not realistic anyway they could have made it a hell of a lot more narratively interesting.

Raiders

03-02-2010, 05:51 PM

A film using a realistic style does not equate to a plot or specific plot points being realistic. I'm not sure why those two would ever have to be linked.

Qrazy

03-02-2010, 05:58 PM

A film using a realistic style does not equate to a plot or specific plot points being realistic. I'm not sure why those two would ever have to be linked.

I'm not sure why someone would make a faux-realistic film about war. To get closer to the truth and reality of war except... not? The value of the wiping the blood off the bullets scene to me was that it seemed to approach reality in some way. If it's not accurate and it's just another contrivance, then it's just a stupid scene.

Raiders

03-02-2010, 06:11 PM

I'm not sure why someone would make a faux-realistic film about war. To get closer to the truth and reality of war except... not? The value of the wiping the blood off the bullets scene to me was that it seemed to approach reality in some way. If it's not accurate and it's just another contrivance, then it's just a stupid scene.

Maybe the point of the film is not really the war. Or rather, maybe the point is in the feeling of isolation, the adrenaline that war can inspire and fuel and the fuzzy allegiences that can build. Maybe a filmmaker's concern should be to their own motivations and to depict a specific feeling and emotions rather than becoming slaves to the critiques of those who "have been there," nevermind that everybody has their own unique story and viewpoint.

Qrazy

03-02-2010, 06:28 PM

Maybe the point of the film is not really the war. Or rather, maybe the point is in the feeling of isolation, the adrenaline that war can inspire and fuel and the fuzzy allegiences that can build. Maybe a filmmaker's concern should be to their own motivations and to depict a specific feeling and emotions rather than becoming slaves to the critiques of those who "have been there," nevermind that everybody has their own unique story and viewpoint.

Well given the gamut of cliches the film ran in the emotional honesty department (shower, kid, dynamic in the team, presentation of the enemy) I was hoping it had at least delivered in the naturalism department.

An isolation (20+ people in reality for these jobs) and adrenaline (the guy would be demoted for his behavior) that apparently does not actually exist in that context. If the film is as you say about something other than what it seems to be about then perhaps they should have made a different film not set in Iraq.

I was trying to think of another film with a realistic style and unrealistic plot points. I think Crash (2004) fits that criteria nicely.

Raiders

03-02-2010, 07:03 PM

An isolation (20+ people in reality for these jobs) and adrenaline (the guy would be demoted for his behavior) that apparently does not actually exist in that context.

According to some. Mark Boal, the film's screenwriter, was also a journalist embedded with an EOD unit. It seems natural he likely took some of the feelings and emotions he encountered and turned them into a cinematic draft which has a more narrow focus and combines some disparate details and allows some creative freedom in order to efficiently get across those points.

If the film is as you say about something other than what it seems to be about then perhaps they should have made a different film not set in Iraq.

What I meant was the film was more about certain mindsets and certain feelings that eminated from this type of warfare. The drama of this film pretty much has to take place in Iraq because unlike previous wars, IEDs are such a large part of this type of warfare.

Qrazy

03-02-2010, 07:44 PM

Fair enough.

Grouchy

03-02-2010, 08:44 PM

I've never been done any military training or been nowhere near armed conflict, but I could sense the movie wasn't realistic. The mere fact that they followed James in a wild goose chase through dark Baghdad streets, guns up like Mulder and Scully entering a murder scene, should be telling.

I will agree that the movie is well directed enough to convince people that it could be realistic.

Raiders

03-04-2010, 01:49 AM

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2010/03/03/hurt-locker-law-suit/

The defense to this seems easy and already provided by these "experts" arguing how fake the film is and how this stuff could NEVER happen.

Ezee E

03-04-2010, 04:30 PM

Well, looks like the DVD has certainly gotten seen by people.

number8

03-04-2010, 05:10 PM

People in the news really can't agree whether The Hurt Locker is a typical Hollywood movie designed to make millions of dollars or a risky movie that wasn't expected to make any money.

Adam

03-04-2010, 07:16 PM

People in the news really can't agree whether The Hurt Locker is a typical Hollywood movie designed to make millions of dollars or a risky movie that wasn't expected to make any money.

How strange is it that The Hurt Locker didn't get a bigger release/marketing push? For all the things I find tedious or lame about the film, it definitely works as straight, edge-of-your-seat entertainment. Teenage boys aren't interested in pulse-pounding set-pieces where things get blowed up, anymore?

And to shift gears a little, Slant's doing their running Oscar predictions right now and they touched on the idea that maybe academy voters will vote for Bigelow purely out of some self-fulfilling nonsense where they can say they pushed along the first ever female to win a Best Director Oscar. Not to get all "Heath Ledger wouldn't have won if he didn't die" here, but do you guys think The Hurt Locker would've gotten this kind of universal acclaim if it had been directed by a fella? And that's not to say Bigelow didn't do one of the top 5 or 10 directorial jobs this year, but still, it's not like the academy or critics groups in general are in the habit of handing out awards to action movies

number8

03-04-2010, 07:20 PM

How strange is it that The Hurt Locker didn't get a bigger release/marketing push? For all the things I find tedious or lame about the film, it definitely works as straight, edge-of-your-seat entertainment. Teenage boys aren't interested in pulse-pounding set-pieces where things get blowed up, anymore?

They're learning from the mistake, that's why Universal is now ballsier with marketing/releasing Green Zone.

MadMan

03-05-2010, 07:29 AM

I'm rooting for this to win Best Director. A Serious Man should get Best Picture, but Bigelow deftly handled this movie. Jeremy Renner was fantastic as well.

Morris Schæffer

03-05-2010, 11:01 AM

I'm rooting for this to win Best Director. A Serious Man should get Best Picture, but Bigelow deftly handled this movie. Jeremy Renner was fantastic as well.

Have you seen Inglourious Basterds?

MadMan

03-05-2010, 06:10 PM

Have you seen Inglourious Basterds?Yep. Its in my Top 5, but its not better than the latest brilliant effort by the Coens.

Scar

03-05-2010, 10:43 PM

I really enjoyed the sniper scene, but groaned rather loudly at the 'blood jamming up' the Barret .50 cal. Give me a fucking break....

Scar

03-05-2010, 11:00 PM

I'm guessing I'm the only one on the boards who noticed that the Aimpoint CompM2 was shown to have zoom capabilities? It's a badass red dot, but the only way to zoom is to attach a magnifier to it, which it obviously didn't have.

/gun nut

Dukefrukem

01-04-2016, 10:33 PM

Is this the most overrated film ever made?

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 10:40 PM

No.

Spinal

01-04-2016, 10:42 PM

You ask this when Avatar was released the same year?

Dukefrukem

01-04-2016, 10:42 PM

You sure? Because I kinda feel like this is the most overrated film ever made.

Avatar was released in Christmas of 09 if I recall. This was 08.

Irish

01-04-2016, 10:46 PM

Is this the most overrated film ever made?

By MC or everybody else in the world?

I don't think much of the film. I've never had the desire to see it again. But still, there's a few scenes that stick with me after all these years. That has to say something, doesn't it? So much stuff out there is totally forgettable.

On the other hand, dunno about "Best Picture." But it's probably better than some winners from the era (Chicago, The King's Speech, The Artist, etc).

Skitch

01-04-2016, 10:49 PM

Is this the most overrated film ever made?

Pretty much.

Dukefrukem

01-04-2016, 10:51 PM

It's a movie that barely anyone talks about today but was praised to hell and back during the Oscars and a few years following. Does anyone ever say "Hey let's watch the Hurtlocker tonight?"

Took me 8 years to see it. But wow. This won best picture? The realism of this film is about equal to Rambo. Arya was calling out Michael Bay earlier in this thread? I bet 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi looks just like this. Very mediocre.

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 10:52 PM

I saw it once when it first hit DVD, and think about it quite a bit. Found it incredibly engaging, suspenseful and memorable.

I'll take a thousand films like it over another fucking superhero film any old day.

Dukefrukem

01-04-2016, 10:54 PM

I'll take a thousand films like it over another fucking superhero film any old day.

You're an outlier as evidence of the quote in my sig.

Spinal

01-04-2016, 10:56 PM

Avatar was released in Christmas of 09 if I recall. This was 08.

They were up for the Oscar at the same time.

Spinal

01-04-2016, 10:57 PM

Does anyone ever say "Hey let's watch the Hurtlocker tonight?"

You did.

Anyway, of all the Best Picture embarrassments of the past 20 years, this is one of the last ones I'd complain about.

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 10:59 PM

If someone said "Hey D, let's watch a movie tonight. The new Star Wars or Hurt Locker?"

I'd pick Hurt Locker.

Dukefrukem

01-04-2016, 10:59 PM

You did.

Anyway, of all the Best Picture embarrassments of the past 20 years, this is one of the last ones I'd complain about.

I watched it alone, in my room, after a Pats loss because iCheckmovies told me to. Not because I wanted to.

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 11:00 PM

Sports lol.

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 11:07 PM

Since 2005, The Hurt Locker is my favorite best picture winner, but I haven't seen Birdman or 12 Years a Slave.

Mr. McGibblets

01-04-2016, 11:13 PM

It's one of the better recent BP winners. The King's Speech and Argo have won since then.

D_Davis

01-04-2016, 11:18 PM

Ezee E

01-05-2016, 03:33 AM

I like it a lot and have watched it in the last year. Probably a fourth or fifth viewing. I MAY even say it's the best Iraq War movie (not including Gulf Storm), but I'd have to think on that some more.

transmogrifier

01-05-2016, 06:25 AM

It's one of the better recent BP winners. The King's Speech and Argo have won since then.

I like Argo much better than The Hurt Locker. FWIW.

Morris Schæffer

01-05-2016, 10:51 AM

Is this the most overrated film ever made?

I don't see how. It's a tremendous action/war film. That it won best picture can only be applauded because that is precisely the sort of thing the academy would normally never do, instead giving it to "important" movies.

There isn't much story, but there isn't much story to what these guys do either. It's repetition, grind and absolutely lethal each and every second.

Morris Schæffer

01-05-2016, 10:53 AM

baby doll

01-06-2016, 08:04 AM

I'm glad it won. Finally, just a well made, solid action film. It didn't feel like it was pandering to the Academy, wasn't some period drama, had nothing to do with mental illness, racism, politics, etc. I also tend to like Bigelow's movies. Point Break, Near Dark Strange Days, Hurt Locker....man those are some great films. Totally my style.

It's like if Mad Max: Fury Road won this year.

That would be awesome.Was Mad Max: Fury Road set during the Iraq War? To say The Hurt Locker had nothing to do with politics is kind of crazy. Yes, it strategically avoids any serious criticism of the US military, but then so does The Deer Hunter. So it's not a total break from the Academy's standard behaviour. Also, giving a best director prize to a woman for the first time ever was itself political.