Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  The Hurt Locker
Wednesday, June 24,2009

The Hurt Locker

Kathryn Bigelow's latest joins the short list of great Iraq War films

By Armond White
. . . . . . .
The Hurt Locker
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Runtime: 131 min.

ALTHOUGH BRIAN DE PALMA lost his artistic bearings on the anti–Iraq War bandwagon, director Kathryn Bigelow found her perfect subject.That’s the difference between De Palma’s confused, preachy Redacted and Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker. Bigelow (working from a script by Mark Boal) stays focused on the personalities of soldiers during Bravo company’s last 39 days of rotation in 2004 Baghdad. An early reconnaissance jest (“It’s my dick.”) between Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Sgt. Thompson (Guy Pearce) recalls De Palma’s ribaldry, but it also indicates Bigelow’s erotic view of masculine endeavor—here defining the propensity for violence and bravery during war.

Bigelow’s focus on male psychology won’t satisfy anti-war protestors, who have been curiously becalmed during the Obama administration. The Hurt Locker’s prologue, “War is a drug,” suggests it could be about any war.This is a breakthrough in the pop-war genre that, since Vietnam, has accustomed us to sentimental agit-prop.

Bigelow conscientiously streamlines her filmmaking. Avoiding portentous Kubrickian camera dynamics—which are only about self—she’s evocative and focused, unlike the showy, undisciplined Apocalypse Now.

Having already done poetic symbolism in the underrated K-19:The Widowmaker, Bigelow tells a Billy Budd–type story of Sgt.William James (Jeremy Renner), expert at defusing Improvised Explosive Devices, but, actually, constantly testing his mortality. James outrages and mystifies his comrades—especially Sanborn. Their white/black cultural differences are subtly highlighted by military equality. Their missions reveal suspicion, determination and inquisitiveness—authentically modern American traits as one would also find in westerns and urban noirs.

Bigelow shrewdly distills several genres, yet it’s all metaphor for personal involvement in policy. (The “hurt locker” is where James keeps souvenir detonators: “It’s fascinating to hold something that almost kills you.”) So far, the best fiction films about the Iraq War are Nick Bloomfield’s Battle for Haditha, Irwin Winkler’s Home of the Brave and John Moore’s allegorical Flight of the Phoenix remake, which Bigelow evokes in a stand-off scene between Bravo company, a group of British contractors and distant insurgent snipers. It’s sufficient praise to say The Hurt Locker joins that short list.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 08/16/2009 
 
Even though I must applaud Mr. White on positively reviewing a good film, a rarity for him, he is clearly misinformed and stating his beliefs as fact. Case in point; the title does not refer to the box of bomb parts under the bed. It refers to a poem written by Iraq Veteran Brian Turner. Look it up before you write it Mr. Head of the Film Critics Circle.

 

Posted at 08/15/2009 
 
It's a different viewpoint from the other (praised) Iraq War movies. I didn't buy the "War is a drug" message, but scenes with the shootout in the desert and the actors bonding play well. I don't know why you change your opinion but I suppose you saw the "light" weeks later. I'm apolitical, but I find this film's message silly- sure soldiers may come home feeling distance from their home life but going back to fill their spiritual void by killing again?- but this was probably based on true events and I guess this satisfies those liberals who rather snicker than empathy life.

 

Posted at 08/09/2009 
 
I'm disappointed to read Armond distancing himself from this rather glowing review. It's almost as if he saw that other critics were liking The Hurt Locker as well, and you know Armond can't possible agree with those other "moron" critics. It just gives credence to the idea that Armond's a contrarian, and being an Armond fan, I've lost a bit of respect for him.

 

Posted at 07/18/2009 
 
It's not as realistic as some people say and I disagree with some of the points. I believe the anti-war politics in this film are somewhat subtle, most notably the quote at the beginning of the film from journalist Chris Hedges: "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." This can be assosciated at the end with SGT James' return to Iraq because of his inability to cope with being back in the USA with people who don't understand what goes on Iraq. Is this being "addicted to war?" Of the soldiers I've worked with during my 3 deployments, there are very few who go back because war is an "addictive drug." The portrayal of the soldiers seemed very unrealistic. Besides the SPC, the were built to act like they were professional soldiers, but were scripted to do some very unprofessional and moronic things that would never be allowable in real combat (except for officers). Like doing things solo with no backup support (a continuously reused theme)? Give me a break! The movie is not bad though. The inaccuracies (which are many, but is typical hollywood) pale in comparison to the real-life ruthlessness of this hidden enemy we face and the weapons that they use (IEDs). Child suicide-bombs and innocent civilian shield/targeting is realistic and is just the tip of the iceberg. These terrorists clearly have a different moral system. If you're looking for real soldiers, I urge you to watch Generation Kill. Besides the officer-bashing, it shows you what real soldiers are like.

 

Posted at 06/28/2009 
 
Wow......I think we know the official state of cinema when there are 50 comments for a piece of trash like Transformers and none for a new Bigelow movie, no not a new Rob Schneider movie you useless morons, Im talking about Katheryn Bigelow. Might I also add that there was 1 review for the CINEMATIC LEGEND FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA'S NEW FILM TETRO? The guy who made The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, One From the Heart, Tucker, Dracula, The Rainmaker, Jack, The Cotton Club, and Dementia 13? Yea, remember him? The man who is known for transcending cinema by being one of the few hollywood mavericks who wants to take cinema to the ends of the earth? Yea, that guy. Well, I guess we can officially say that cinema is dead or that the people who now watch it are braindead. It is probably both, because my eyes glaze over and I fall into a deep coma when watching a Michael Bay film. UGH! Did I just write 'a Michael Bay film?' I think I just did...and I vomited on my keyboard while doing so. Is he really Frankenheimer's son? I sure hope not. I wouldn't want Frankenheimer's legacy tarnished because of that. I guess that disproves the theory of genetics, since obviously none were passed down to him that would allow him to create a film that has more than wall to wall explosions. Why is Michael Bay even a filmmaker? He would be better suited for a construction site demolishing buildings. He could have all the explosions he wanted and he wouldn't be contributing to the death of cinema.

 

Posted at 07/01/2009 
You might want to look into this thing called editing, because your "writing," if you even want to call it that, definitely needs it. You don't really write, what you do is quote, quote, and quote some more. We are very lucky that you have the scientific statistics of good versus bad reviews, because that is what cinema is, science, thank you for putting it in perspective for me. I always thought cinema was subjective, I guess I thought wrong. And we are also lucky to have a great cinematic scholar of excellence like Ebert....I just vomited in my mouth a little bit, hold on. I guess you need to look at things like Pulitzer prizes to determine who is and who isn't a good writer. We are so lucky to have the Academy Awards, because I do not think there is a good movie out there that wasn't nominated. If a movie hasn't been nominated for an Academy Award, that means the movie is bad, I am so glad that I am now using your thought process, it is so refreshing and limiting. Who were these friends you were talking to? Demented circus monkeys? Do you realize that there was no opinion or real position in your comment? It is all a bunch of quotes and lists of movies, why you listed 20 movies, I have no idea, but I guess that is what happens when you suffer from a severe case of mental retardation. Also, thank you for completely twisting the intentions of the comment to fit into your hateful bile. There was nothing in the comment about hating Armond White, I was talking about the state of cinema and how Armond is one of the few who loves and understands cinema, leaving only him, me, and a brain dead moron like you here talking about a great film.

 

Posted at 07/01/2009 
This doesn't really have anything to do with The Hurt Locker, which I saw and loved. This has more to do with the author of this review, Mr. Armond White. I was discussing "Up" with several friends. I've just seen the movie a few days ago and was talking about how fantastic it was. I opened rottentomatoes.com to find that it was clearly the best reviewed "major" motion picture of the year, at NINETY SEVEN PERCENT positive. 190 out of 195 were positive reviews. 5 were not. Many people insist that "people are entitled to their opinion", which is only an accurate statement if those people happen to not be idiots. Mr. White should not be entitled to an opinion, for he is, in fact, an idiot. Here we go: Mr. White: -A "rotten" review to "Up", which has received 97% positive reviews. -A "rotten" review to "Star Trek", which has received 95% positive reviews. BUT, he did manage to give a positive review to "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", a movie that currently has 41 positive reviews out of 203 - 20% positive. Check out this nugget: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is more proof [Bay] has a great eye for scale and a gift for visceral amazement." Well that's a movie poster-ready quote if I've ever seen one. This is the same film about which Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Roger Ebert, writes: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments. One of these involves a dog-like robot humping the leg of the heroine. Such are the meager joys. If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together. Then close your eyes and use your imagination." How can these 2 men possibly have watched the same movie? Oh..because one's an idiot, and the other is a brilliant scholar of the art of cinema. Because one has impeccable taste and writes eloquently about the joys of filme, and the other gave "Fresh" (Positive) reviews to "Dance Flick" and "Terminator Salvation". Movies currently standing at 27% and 32% on the tomatometer respectively. I then see that Mr. White agrees with the tomatormeter a whopping 51% of the time. In other words, Mr. White agrees with the most highly educated voices in film half the time. But we're talking only about Positive or Negative. There's no 3.5 stars, or 1.759 stars! It's plus or minus, green or red - and HALF the time he's on the other side? 200 critics. Citizen Kane. Casablanca. Rear Window. Psycho. Dr. Strangelove. HALF the time this idiot is going to give a disfavorable review? How does anyone even give this guy a forum? There's being independent minded, and then there's being without a mind. I happened upon Mr. White's wikipedia entry. Loved this stuff: "Since 1993, White has coordinated an annual program of music videos for New York's Film Society of Lincoln Center. His programs and interview-guests have included Hype Williams, Mark Romanek, Marcus Nispel and Ben Stokes. Though his lectures often drawn a large number of attendees he is generally regarded as small-minded and racist by his peers. In 1997, after giving a lecture at the University of Austin, White was booed off of the stage." Small minded - exactly what's needed in a film critic. I kept reading the wikipedia entry - More great stuff: Choice for best film of 2007: The Darjeeling Limited. Now, I love Wes Anderson. But this movie sucked. Even Wes Anderson will tell you it sucks. He was quotes in the Harvard Law Review as stating "The Darjeeling Limited sucked. Really, really sucked." 2007- I guess it was just a crappy year for film? Oh...wait. "No Country for Old Men", "There Will Be Blood", "Ratatouille", "Persepolis", "Once", "Atonement". And he went with "AI: Artificial Intelligence" in 2001, a film i consider to be vastly underrated. But 2001 brought "Mulholland Drive", "The Fellowship of the Ring", "Memento", "In the Bedroom", "The Royal Tenenbaums", "In the Mood For Love", and "Shrek". Did you see ANY OF THESE? Sadly, from what little I know about you, I figure ANGRY REACTIONS IN CAPS are exactly what you're after. well, you got one from me. I hope you're happy knowing there's one more person in the world who knows you exist, and that you're a nincompoop.

 

 
 


  • Sat
    7
  • Sun
    8
  • Mon
    9
  • Tue
    10
  • Wed
    11
  • Thu
    12
  • Fri
    13

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close