“The HURT LOCKER” (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie & Brian Geraghty)
Those who are saying that this is the best movie they’ve seen this year are either really into war movies or have watched nothing but crap so far this year. ‘Hurt Locker’ doesn’t even crack my top 10 of 2009 & here’s why you shouldn’t like it – the entire premise deals with two soldiers in Iraq who are worried about losing their lives because their new ‘loose cannon’ leader puts them in dangerous situations with his ‘hot dog’ approach to their job – which is diffusing bombs. The reason this premise doesn’t make any sense at all is due to what takes place prior to the new Sergeant being added to their small troop; the old Sergeant was killed because one of the two soldiers didn’t do his job...
For those of you who haven’t seen it & are planning to, you should probably stop here – I am going to tell you what happens in the first 20 minutes or so; in other words the set-up,
so if you read on, the opening will seem boring to you because you’ll know everything that’s going to happen... Just a warning I felt I should put first.
The 3 best actors in this film only have cameos & none of them make much of a splash... I’ve got a gory joke line I could put in here, but I won’t.
The talents of Guy Pearce, David Morse & Ralph Fiennes are all wasted in this film. Pearce plays Sgt. Thompson, the initial leader of the bomb squad which includes the two soldiers mentioned earlier –
Anthony Mackie plays Sgt. Sanborn & Brian Geraghty plays Eldridge (The ‘Specialist’)
A bomb is found on an Iraqi village street, so Thompson, Sanborn & Eldridge are sent in to diffuse it. When their robot breaks down, Thompson has to put on the bulky protective suit & go in by foot to fix the mechanism. Sgt. Sanborn announces that Thompson is in ‘the kill zone’ when he reaches an area that is within 25 feet of the explosive device.
They call Eldridge ‘the Specialist’ – Why, I don’t know – throughout the entire film this wimp doesn’t do anything ‘special’ other than whimper & whine over every little thing.
Here’s why this movie doesn’t work – Eldridge sees a man pressing the buttons on his cell phone while Thompson is in the kill zone & he doesn’t shoot him. He yells ‘put down the cell phone or I’ll shoot’ several times, but the man keeps pressing buttons & Eldridge doesn’t shoot him. The bomb goes off & Thompson is killed...
Now, those of you who have seen this & think it’s the best film of the year so far – Why do you think that? The rest of the movie deals with Sanborn & Eldridge being afraid of Thompson’s replacement getting them killed, right? How can that be possible when Sanborn already knows that Eldridge can’t be relied upon to do the correct thing? For all intents & purposes Eldridge is responsible for the death of Thompson – he COULD have & SHOULD have shot the man using the cell phone to explode the bomb & he didn’t. Why isn’t Sanborn ‘uncomfortable’ going out on missions with Eldridge? Sgt. James (Jeremy Renner) didn’t get Thompson killed with his inability to react correctly to a dangerous situation, The Specialist did. The entire film made no sense after that because Sanborn should have insisted Eldridge be removed from duty. In fact, Eldridge’s act of cowardice should have gotten him discharged from the army altogether. So when I see scenes of Sanborn & Eldridge voicing their concerns over Sgt. James’ recklessness possibly getting them killed, I had to chuckle over how stupid those scenes were. Is Sanborn an idiot? No, quite the contrary. So why would he be concerned over Sgt. James & NOT Eldridge. . . To quote Johnny Cochran, “THAT does not make sense!”
Now, to the movie in general; it HAS some very intense scenes – the opening when Thompson is killed & an innocent man with a bomb attached to him were both memorable –but the rest of the film is not. This film could actual be used as the poster child for why the rest of the world hates America – As I watched scene after scene of American soldiers sticking their noses where they don’t belong after America has invaded a country where we don’t belong made me sympathetic to the innocent Iraqi citizens who have to put up with this bull----. Watching this film made me realize that by being there in such an invasive way the only result we are creating is a deeper hatred of our country. My feeling was that we are taking people who were neutral, or Pro-American & turning them against us & the ones that hated us before have no reason to like us now.
Sgt. James is presented as a psycho with a death wish – In other words a perfect soldier. The kind of individual we condemn when they play for the other team.
David Morse plays Colonel Reed who commends James for his fearless, ‘get out of my way & let me take care of this’ attitude because if we had more soldiers like Sgt. James we’d level the playing field with their suicide bombers. Distasteful to think about, but it is, if you’ll pardon the expression, ‘The Ugly Truth’.
After Ralph Fiennes makes his cameo appearance, there is an elongated ‘shoot out’ scene. Not that many rounds are fired, but the scene seems to drag on & on. I guess to add to the ‘reality’ feel of the movie. Which brings me to my latest pet peeve – sh*tty camera work. Once again, I’m sitting in a nice theatre (Kent Station) watching a film that looks as if it was shot with a $200 video camera! Is this the ‘next wave’ in filmmaking? If so, I want a new rating to be added to the system - SC. To warn those of us who want to watch professionally shot films that this movie contains Sh*tty Camerawork. Has the younger generation grown up on MTV videos & ‘reality’ TV shows so they don’t notice the poor ‘grainy’ picture quality & the shaky camera pans? Because it bugs the hell out of me, kids!
“The Hurt Locker” the best movie of ’09? Not by a long shot.
I’d really like those who feel this is a ‘worthy’ film to explain to me why you think that way. Hopefully my take on it will make you reconsider because I think my argument against it is valid. Why would Sanborn be afraid of James when it was Eldridge’s incompetence that got Thompson killed? Just give me a logical answer to that one...
5 comments:
I liked it. My top film of 09 so far. I thought the camera work was rather realistic. It works for a movie like that. Use of a steadicam throuoghout the whole film wouldn't have been realistic in that setting. Just wouldn't have. Things don't look steady when bombs are going off and people are getting shot at. But only certain kinds of film should that type of camera work be used. Not films like Rachel Getting Married, which had too much HH.
Also, with a film that has no political adgenda other than just showing how ordinance soldiers go about their work day, you brought your own political feelings and views about Iraq into it. Thart has nothing to do with the film. That's not what the picture is about. The why's and hows' of the war. They are there to do a job and that's it. And it depitec that. Also what made it realistic was that is glaringly shows you these aren't infantry men. They are not out on a mission to kill. That's another thing that seperated this movie from other Iraq films.
As for the soldier who didn't shoot the cell phone bomber, I read some excerpts from some real ordinance soldiers saying that scene was mentioned. And they said that's very realistic. And a soldier wouldn't be repremanded for it. Other soldeirs could have shot the cell phone bomber as well. He wasn't the only one out there. You may have not seen them, but others were in the perimiter. So he wasn't the only one that could have taken the bomber out.
This is also a group of very tight people. Possibly closer than to their own families. They are also wired much different than the avergae Joe walking down the street. Some are pretty crazy. Hell, you'd almost have to be. And the real ordiance guys mentioned that some of the best, are the craziest ( like Renner's character ) People die in that job. They know this. They don't sign up for it thinking it's safe. People freezing up has happened and will happen again. After all you are only human. Nothing goes perfect in war time.
How you couldn't personally put yourself in these men's life amazes me. You are right there in it. Another thing I read was that the director had real ordinance soldiers on set and also interviewed many to keep it as real as they could. They have all given the filn thumbs up for authenticity. I also think the filmmakers do a good job at not glorifying war and instead focusing on their job at hand.
So if the real people that do that for a living thought it was realistic, that works for me. They know that life better than anyone. Bigelow's main concern was not to Hollywoodize the film, and I think she did a great job of sticking to that.
Kurt, you did a fine job of relating why you found this movie 'interesting' - your comments don't really explain why you thinks it's the best film of
'09, other than it's 'realistic', which actually upholds my theory that today's audience is 'wowed' my reality TV. Going on your theory that 'Hurt Locker' is a great film because it's authentic means that every documentary ever made is fantastic & documentaries should be dominating the award shows year after year. & you never answered my question on how could you feel this film makes sense when Sanborn 'fears' working with Sgt. James & NOT Eldridge...
The camera work would be realistic IF this were indeed a documentary -it is not. I wouldn;t have been bothered as much by the 'video camera' feel of the film if it wasn't done so cheaply - it was during a scene in the barracks that I noticed how grainy the picture was - what was the point of that? When the film itself is of such poor quality that I noticed it, that's a big minus because I don't normally notice things like that unless they're irritating me.
Saying this film has no political agenda is a little silly - if they didn't want politics involve, why set it in Iraq? This story could have been set in Vietnam if they didn't want todays politics to be involved. & I brought my personal feelings into the review because that's what I was thinking AS I was watching the film. That is actually a positive thing in regards to 'Hurt Locker' - It made me think about how wrong it is that we are there; it encourages conversation after viewing. I feel bad for skewering this film because it isn't a bad movie at all - it just isn't 'great' & I found it hard to understand why anyone would think it is the best film of the year (so far) & I don't want to see 'Hurt Locker' become another 'Slumdog' because it is a much better film than that over-rated mess.
Saying that other soldiers called the scene where Eldridge gets Sgt. Thompson killed 'realistic' is scary.
You say 'other soldiers' were on the perimeter & that's why Eldridge couldn't be blamed for not shooting the guy with the cell phone, & then you say 'you may not have seen them'... So let's stick to what IS shown on the movie screen & that is Eldridge seeing the guy with the cell & running towards him shouting several times, "Put the phone down or I will shoot you!" Whether there were others hidden in the debris that could have shot the guy or not - Eldridge saw him & did nothing to stop him from killing his Staff Sgt.
I don;t see how you could be amazed that I couldn't 'put myself' in these men's lives, but I did - I saw what a coward Eldridge was & I didn't want him in my platoon. Hence, I found the whole concept of the film - Sanborn & Eldridge fearing going into combat with James to be ludicrous.
I do agree that they didn't glorify war by any means, it was a gritty depiction of an unwholesome situation - the fact that you loved it for being realistic & I was bothered by an obvious plot flaw means that we viewed this film from 2 entirely different perspectives. I just wrote down what I saw & felt as I watched the movie & for the most part, it didn't impress me that much. But I would encourage anyone to see it with others since it does leave you with plenty to discuss.
Both of you make good points. I too was pretty riveted.
I didn't get a political slant either. It's a story about ordinance men. The movie is about another side of the war that we don't normally see. You never hear about these guys. The news we read or the movies they make always show the infantry and them getting shot at or them shooting others.
This didn't have that premise. I thought it was very well made and right now direction and storytelling wise I'd have Katheryn Bigelow in my top 5 directors for a nomination. What she had to go through to make the film was very difficult and she had to take real life experiences from some men that aren't coping well now that they are back home. With so much bombing those men are around, when they get home they have permanant shell shock. They aren't coping to real life.
An E-4 enlisted sgt EOD makes 1800a month to start. I can't even get my mind around that. Every second you do not know who has a bomb. Anybody looking like a Aphi or Iraq citizen could be a possible bomber, let alone all the road size bombs.
These are the guys should be getting paid 5000 a month instead of the peanuts they put their lives on the line for us.
I really don't want to keep putting Hurt Locker down because it is a good film - but it has a major flaw that kept me from elevating it to 'great'. Kurt & Moviefreak are more than entitled to their opinions, but as I read your comments, I felt as though you both admire what the 'real' bomb squad soldiers do so much that you've translated that into praising the film tha depicts their lives. I'm the Un-American commie that feels this war was a mistake from the beginning & anyway paying attention to what the Bush administration was doing (Lying to the American public got impeachment proceedings started against Clinton & all he did was stain an intern's dress!)
So if these soldiers were truly putting their lives on the line for 'US', I'd be more on your side - & hey, maybe that's one of the reasons I didn't 'dig' 'The Hurt Locker' all that much. The machismo BS that went on in the barracks between Sanborn & James was childish to me & yes, I have no doubt 'real' soldiers behave like that - I find it to be immature & hard to 'look up to' jerks that behave in such a manner. & I never said the film had a political slant (At least I don't remember doing that) I just related the thoughts that were going through my mind as I watched the film - the invasive way the U.S. military was disturbing the Iraqi citizen's lives made me feel we were doing more harm than good by being there, which was for... what's the reason again, G.W.?
I'll stay out of any political talk. I'll just speak from a movie making analogy, and that I was impressed with that. It's the most realistic Iraq war themed movie that's for sure. It also showed you a job that us civilians way over here never really think about. I think when we think of " war " we tend to think about infantry men. EOD is a whole other ball of wax. They have more than one job to do, plus try to stay alive to boot.
So I applaud Katheryn Bigelow and her crew for giving us a different look at and perspective because she could have easily taken the easy route and made a cookie cutter, cliched war film.
Post a Comment