The Hurt Locker (2008) User Reviews

Kathryn Bigelow's Masterpiece

[The_Fifth_Echo · 9/10 · 17 June 2010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An engrossing film that takes one's breath away.

[toqtaqiya2 · 9/10 · 12 August 2010]

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

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

[transporter1492 · 9/10 · 12 July 2009]

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

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

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

Best regards from Slovenia

Strong contender for best movie of 2009

[Dogwhiz · 10/10 · 15 August 2010]

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

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

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

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

--The Motion Picture Underground

A Perfectly Shattering Film Going Experience

[agmancuso · 10/10 · 28 June 2009]

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

The Brilliant Explosion Of Kathryn Bigelow

[carlostallman · 10/10 · 28 June 2009]

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

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

[Cinemadharma · 6/10 · 13 January 2010]

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

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

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

The work of a master filmmaker

[krigler · 10/10 · 18 March 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overrated overacted did not deserve the Oscar

[ssfandad · 6/10 · 7 April 2010]

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

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

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

[corstay · 10/10 · 10 September 2008]

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

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

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

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

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

A Movie to See -- Not to Enjoy

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 26 July 2010]

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

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

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

The exciting field of bomb technician

[markusws · 9/10 · 20 August 2009]

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

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

Waste of time

[mallitch · 10 March 2010]

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

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

Sub-par to Decent

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

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

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

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

Best war movie in long time...

[ibalog · 9/10 · 4 December 2009]

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

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

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

A really good movie...

A Brilliant Piece of Work

[Sanjay33 · 9/10 · 24 January 2010]

War movie lovers... Your search ends here.

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

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

With its subtle climax the movie wins more on account.

Worth watching flick........

An excellent film

[t_baker · 9/10 · 9 August 2009]

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Anyone Who Didn't Like This Movie

[admello · 10/10 · 29 April 2010]

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

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

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

Exciting, if somewhat implausible, 'men-at-war' film

[jamesrupert2014 · 7/10 · 18 March 2019]

On the last few weeks of their tour in Iraq, a U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit loses one of their team to an IED. The replacement (SFC James, Jeremy Renner) seems either suicidal or strung out on the 'thrill' of bomb disposal. I enjoyed the film and found much of the 'combat' footage riveting (but I have no experience by which to judge its realism). Renner is generally good but I found his character's behaviour a bit hard to accept ('believe'?) at times (especially the AWOL scene). Director Bigelow does a good job of staying neutral considering the controversies surrounding the recent US interventions in the middle-east - the film is neither jingoistic nor stridently anti-war. I would have rated the film higher if I had not read the comments pertaining to its inaccuracies (many of which supported my uninformed suspicions).

Putting Bombs Away

[shariqq · 7/10 · 10 January 2009]

Kathryn Bigelow is one of the few woman directors in Hollywood who can make a good action movies for the boys. With Heat Locker, this protégé of James Cameron turns up the heat in a movie clearly for the testosterone audience. Set in Iraq, the movie looks at a bunch of Bomb Disposal experts who are stationed in Baghdad for a count of days. As these men go through bomb after bomb losing fellow-soldiers along the way, the movie impresses upon the hopeless state to which the war-zone has fallen, and the mostly thankless high-risk job of the soldiers that risk their lives there. Yet the movie is not about the war, or its politics, but a zoned in look at one team's existence in it. While one soldier counts his days until they're relieved from duty, another lives at the thrill that the risk of their job brings them. Some great bomb sequences, a supremely-confidant lead performance by Jeremy Renner and a few awesome great cameos make this a great time at the movies. At least for the boys.

Never deserved the Oscar for best picture

[hemant_balz · 7/10 · 14 March 2010]

The Hurt Locker might have won the Oscar for the best picture.But what amazes me is how??The rest of the films were even worse i suppose thats the reason why.The director Kathryn Bigelow has done a good job.No doubt she won the Oscar for her directing.Direction was very good. The casting is good with Jeremy Renner leading from the front.His acting was special in this film.Anthony Mackie also gives a good performance but what was weak was the plot.Its perfectly fine depicting American soldiers having different perception in Iraq,but what was the point.Even the ending was a bit abrupt to say.I never got the hold of the movie & how it won the Oscars.The camera-work is too good.I give this movie a thumbs down 7 specially due to great camera-work i have seen after long time.You can't call this a thriller.Just few men trying to survive in the war going Iraq.Oscar critics.I don't know what they are doing.

Fantastic story, flawless film

[barbie-pombo · 10/10 · 12 February 2010]

We don't always have the chance to appreciate great films, at least not from actual times. But this should be considered at least a jewel of the latest motion picture history.

This is a near-perfect kind of film that shows the difference between some men who are used to work as a team and other man who rather play hero on such a dangerous situation as war itself. It also says a lot about war becoming an addiction for someone, and how that can turn into the most important thing in someone's life.

I don't think these are words enough to describe how great this film is. Kathryn Bigelow, in my opinion, deserves the Oscar due to a wonderful development of her job as film director and, i probably think this should also be the best film winner too(i have no problem with Avatar or James Cameron, i do think they deserve the best special effects academy award, among others...).

Jeremy Renner is another pretty amazing discovery, i can't make up my mind between him or Colin Firth(A single man)on who should win the best actor academy award.

Has weaknesses in the story/characters but is mostly tense, urgent and engaging in its depiction of the job

[bob the moo · 6 September 2009]

The Hurt Locker caught my eye while I was in America earlier this year as the worst review I saw gave it 4 stars and many seemed happy to give it the full 5. I never got round to seeing it then but when it came to the UK (to similar reception) I made a point of getting to see it in the cinema. Seeing it leaves with the conclusion that going off star ratings is no way to go about summarising a film because in some ways this is a quite remarkable and gripping film but then, in other aspects, it is surprisingly underdeveloped and wanting. The good news is though that the strengths it has outweigh the weaknesses and, while they remain in your head as an issue, they are not what you take away from the film.

What you do go away with is a memory of very tense and engaging film that puts the viewer right into the action. Or rather, lack of action because the film is at its best when nothing happens because it manages to capture the sense of threat and urgency associated with having civilians who may be insurgents watching while the defusing is going on and time is of the essence. Quite how realistic it is when it comes to the specifics I guess is questionable (the forums are full of people discussing the minutiae of this scene and that scene) but in terms of translating the feelings to the viewer it is certainly very good. There is a tension to all these scenes combined with an excitement to be working against someone for the "win" – that someone being the bomb manufacturer and the "contest" being to see which person can achieve their goal for the bomb – defuse or go off. On top of this we also get the suddenness and pointlessness of death in this situation, where the enemy can come from nowhere and is hard to identify, leading to this constant edge that sets the film off nicely.

Contrary to some opinion, the film doesn't really have much to say about Iraq and indeed the same film could be set in any modern conflict zone because of the relative unimportance of specifics. This is a good thing because it puts the focus on the men doing the job and, as suggested by the title card quote, what drives them to do it. Unfortunately it is in this area where the film doesn't quite work as well as it does when dishing out scenes of the job and the dangers inherent in it. The characters are characters and don't manage to become people for any length of time so, despite the more worthy goal of the film, we never really get into their heads beyond the obvious. Similarly the film doesn't have a great "story". This doesn't matter for the vast majority of the film because the tension of the job is everything, but later in the day we have several sections that don't work particularly well because they seem to be heading off from "the job" as if in search of a character-development point or a direction to provide narrative flow beyond the episodic.

I refer to the stuff involving Beckham and also the "beyond the blast perimeter" stuff towards the end. Both of these are OK but both seem to occur without a lot of justification and don't seem to add a lot to the story or character. Bigelow direction matches the weaknesses in the material because she is at her best when dealing with the action on the ground. The cast manage more consistency in their characters to the point where I wanted them to have more opportunity to develop their characters because it was clear they could. I've seen Mackie many times before but this is the first time I remember being impressed by him as he is very good and has the "most real" scene in the film. Renner plays the driven-part bang on but maybe doesn't have much to do to show his addiction, regrets etc – the scenes that do are generally pretty obvious. He is also strong though while Geraghty is a good third player albeit the film doesn't give him more than a few minutes to convey the feelings that are big part of his character. The supporting cast are solid as well as all of them play into the intensity of the film rather than the complexity (or lack of).

Hurt Locker is not the brilliant film that many claim it is – it has too many gaps/weaknesses in the narrative and material to really stand out as that, but these are covered by the qualities that you will remember the film for. It is the ground where the film is strongest, where the threat (or perceived threat) is everywhere, where death is sudden and without any "death scene" fanfare or trimmings and most of the movie is spent hoping there won't be action rather than just waiting for the next being CGI action sequence. The tension and excitement of these scenes are what the film is about and they do make the film worth seeing to the point where they carry it across the weaker aspects that come in the second half.

The Hurt Locker... Not even close to Best Picture

[lchazbits30 · 6/10 · 10 March 2010]

Do not get me wrong. I do not think this film was bad by any means. However, I absolutely do not think it was great whatsoever. I do not think it merited the praise it received. I could not get into this movie. I did not find any character particularly riveting. Instead, I believe everything was oversimplified. There are three significant characters who can all be fully described in one word. William James(Jeremy Renner) is reckless, JT Sanborn(Anthony Mackie) is rational and Owen Eldridge(Brian Geraghty) is a whiner. Talk about simple and boring. It is a complete misconception to call the "protagonist" William James anything more than an action junkie placed in a dramatic film. He does not fit. Sure he disarms bombs and saves lives but you get the idea throughout the film he just does it for the thrill. His experiences are nothing more than him indulging in his cravings for adventure, which makes it very difficult to connect with him in dramatic scenes. The overall point of this story was to connect with this character and how he is consumed by "war". I feel like I did not have this connection and the actual story was not strong enough to support where the characters were lacking. I could see how war veterans could connect because they probably have had similar experiences to relate making this film an involved reminiscence. I do not see how your average moviegoer could call The Hurt Locker a "great" film/experience when it lacked great dialogue, a great story, complex and diverse characters, great acting. The Hurt Locker is an average film. There is nothing about it that makes it stand out above and beyond any other war film I have ever seen and it certainly did not deserve the Academy Award for Best Picture.

The suspense is killing me

[briancham1994 · 7/10 · 4 June 2020]

This film is one of the best examples of suspense. The way it is shot and the way the characters react really hit home the fact that anything anywhere can kill you without warning. Once the tone is established, there is a rather human story involving the soldiers interacting with the locals. This film shows the Iraq War from an interesting perspective although sometimes it dragged on too much.