Wayward Muse:

Adrenaline-pumping ?realistic? depiction of war on the ground in Iraq. ?War is a drug? is the opening quotation?specifically, in this movie, that drug is adrenaline, and the junkie is squad-leader James, assigned to head the Bravo bomb squad after the former leader gets himself blown up. The squad has only 38 days left on it's highly dangerous tour of duty, but with the arrival of the old-style, bigger-than-life, rough-and-ready action-hero, James, their odds of surviving to day 39 just got a lot poorer. This film works on a lot of levels. Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to know, without having actually been there, how accurate a portrayal it is of the life of a soldier on the ground in Iraq. As an action-packed, suspenseful war-thriller, however, this film is top-notch. The hero or anti-hero of the film, James, is an adrenaline junkie who can't function in the ?real world? where his wife and baby son live, but is only really at home on the edge of destruction. And yet James may indeed be just what the situation orders?a seemingly fearless comando who gets the job done no matter what. ?Body-bombs? (corpses wired with explosives), unwilling civilians wired as walking bombs begging to be saved, mercenaries seeking bounties on wanted terrorists, street-vendors and onlookers who may be carrying the trigger to the next buried bomb?determining who is a friend and who is foe becomes a minute-by-minute life-or-death situation. The acting is great all-around. The characters are fully fleshed out, and the pacing and dark humor are perfect. Jeremy Renner is truly someone to watch in the future. Whether the situation is real-to-life or not, I think where the movie does ?work? as a message film is in subverting the ?Rambo? mentality of war, giving a much more realistic depiction of what drives ?Rambo? and the consequences of putting ?Rambo? in charge. Beyond that, take it with a grain of salt, as hopefully you do all war movies. 05-10-09

WideStance:

After seeing The Hurt Locker I'm having a bit of a tough time seeing why the reviews are so great. It's a pretty solid Iraq war movie about a bomb squad diffusing roadside IEDs in Iraq, but not the modern masterpiece it's being hailed as. Director Kathryn Bigelow shows the bravery, danger, and skill it takes to dismantle a bomb and plenty of close ups of both sweaty, nervous faces and of red wires and blue wires and wire cutters carefully snipping just the right ones at the last second. But there's really not a whole lot else going on. After the first half hour it's lather, rinse, repeat with one action scene after another. They're well shot and edited and intense, mind you, but they get a bit repetitive after 2 hours and ten minutes. Apart from fleeting moments of camaraderie between soldiers and a rather thin plotline about a little Iraqi boy named "Beckham," it's one action set piece after another. We don't really know all that much about the characters in the film other than the lead American explosives guy is an adrenaline junkie who uses war to get his fix. And wait till you see the strange and distracting "blink and you'll miss him" Ralph Fiennes cameo. His three minutes on screen could have been played by anybody, he added nothing and only took me out of an otherwise involving moment in the film. And I still don't know what a "Hurt Locker" is either, it's never explained. A good, not great movie.

jlw21:

I?ve been having trouble articulating my thoughts about this film, and I think it?s because there are two conflicting elements at work within: The direction is fantastic, and Kathryn Bigelow masterfully pulls tension out of thin air. The writing, however, leaves much to be desired in the way of character development. As a result, I?m left feeling incredibly anxious not for the characters in the film, but for myself, as Bigelow unapologetically puts us at ground zero with the rest of the bomb-diffusing team, and relentlessly plays with our vulnerability throughout. Wrter Mark Boal and Bigelow have crafted a high stakes, self-contained world where nothing is certain, and everything and everyone can be a threat to one?s existence. Unfortunately, for a bomb squad, one?s existence in said world can get repetitive rather quickly. There are only so many things that a bomb can be strapped to, and Boal uses nearly every single instance. (Surprisingly, there were no false alarms? every scenario involved a real IED.) While the film starts in high gear, establishing its ?loose cannon? protagonist through these somewhat similar bomb diffusions, it quickly slows. By the second half of the film, we are following a character whose psyche we know little to nothing about, while the most interesting characters (Sanborn, Cambridge) fall into the background. It?s as if Boal conceived of Sgt. James? adrenaline-junkie character, then couldn?t find enough substance to explain his very being. The Hurt Locker works well as an action movie for the first half, but bites off more than it can chew in the latter half, and begins to drag on toward the end. A nerve-wracking experience to be seen on the big screen for sure? just don?t expect much character explanation.

qga 1189789:

More one dimensional hooey,all soldiers are earnest square jawed jocks,all contractors are crazy eyed psycho killers.Well, I call BULLSHI_! Bigelow could have talked to some people who have lived outside LA LA land and film school for a day or two,or even simply read a book or two,instead relies on the popular media stereotypes to populate this movie.A great example of over stylized,lazy,sloppy film making- to anyone who has left their sweat and blood and tears behind in that hellhole this movie cant hang.

DfwForeignBuff:

3 Men - Bravo Company's bomb disposal unit stationed in Baghdad. James is the tech team leader. When James arrives on the scene, Bravo Company has 39 days left on its current deployment. 39 days-long time to be together (Sanborn & Eldridge) these men whose styles do not mesh with their new leader. James is a renegade for who the thrill of the dismantlement seems to be the ultimate goal regardless of the safety of his fellow team members (himself/others). Sanborn is by the books: he knows his place & duty & trusts others in the army to carry out their jobs as he does his. Eldridge is an insecure soldier who is constantly worried that an error or misjudgment on his part will lead to the death of an innocent civilian or a military colleague. 3 members face their own internal issues; they have to be aware of any person at the bomb sites, some of who may be bombers themselves. As the men struggle to control their wild new leader, the city explodes into chaos, & James true character reveals itself in a way that will change each man forever. All aspects of film-making are top-notch, non typical screenplay vivid cinematography, well executed directing & well paced editing. Bigelow breaks with traditional Hollywood narrative techniques in this film. There is no clear antagonist, no rising action, no obvious character development & no climax. Bigelow making a powerful statement about the insane addiction that is war. This is a non compromising film. Bigelow has succeeded in creating an entirely memorable experience that will leave its mark as one of the very best war spectacles put to film. Katherine Bigelow is James Cameron's (Titanic Avatar) ex wife. Married 1989 to 1991. I did not particularly care for this movie-not enough plot. I hate war movies. I disagreed with the US invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan I dislike most films which use mostly hand held cameras (guerrilla-style like this one) They lose my interest. But I am glad she won best film Oscar. I loved Strange Days.

Loose360:

dont waist your time....this is absolutely a terrible movie. Not sure what movie the academy was watching.

DfwForeignBuff:

US Army Staff Sgt Will James, Sgt JT Sanborn & Spc. Owen Eldridge comprise the Bravo Company's bomb disposal unit currently stationed in Baghdad. James is the tech team leader. When James arrives on the scene, Bravo Company has thirty-nine days left on its current deployment. 39 days is a long time to be together (Sanborn &Eldridge) these men whose styles do not mesh with their new leader. James is a renegade for who the thrill of the dismantlement seems to be the ultimate goal regardless of the safety of his fellow team members (himself or others). On the other hand, Sanborn is by the books: he knows his place & duty & trusts others in the army to carry out theirs as well as he. & Eldridge is an insecure soldier who is constantly worried that an error or misjudgment on his part will lead to the death of an innocent civilian or a military colleague. While the three members face their own internal issues, they have to be aware of any person at the bomb sites, some of who may be bombers themselves. As the men struggle to control their wild new leader, the city explodes into chaos, & James' true character reveals itself in a way that will change each man forever. All aspects of film-making are top-notch, from the brilliantly subversive screenplay through vivid cinematography, masterful directing & 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 & no climax. & yet the film manages to be more interesting, tense & suspenseful while making a powerful statement about the insane addiction that is war. This is a non compromising film. Bigelow has succeeded in creating an entirely memorable experience that will leave its mark as one of the very best war spectacles put to film. Warning every time some clicks review "not helpful" a small kitten in the arms of a child dies!

ymj 1257707:

***SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW*** As a multi-tour combat veteran I was quite surprised to just how realistic this movie looked and the small details to realism (throwing a water bottle at a car infront of a convoy, arguing while buying DVDs etc) were great. Why couldn't they have continued this attention to detail when it came to the combat scenes? 1. When they meet up with the British contractors there are so many problems! a. Why did the Brits loose all their tactics and nerve as soon as the first bullet flew? b. There are very few certainties to war, but if you see your buddy get shot (the british sniper) don't go to that spot! you already know the enemy can hit that spot. c. once they had isolated the sniper, why didn't they get back up on the m2 and light up the building? Why did they insist on using the barrett? 2. The taxi driver and the spider web of 155 shells. The taxi driver goes through a check point and drives right at an EOD tech... why wasn't he shot multiple times? Who was pulling security? The girls scouts? 3. The big blast at night. Even the other actors realized how silly this was, "there are two platoons of infantry..." yeah, if one of my NCOs did this he would recieve a relief for cause NCOER and would be sent to the rear or discharged. Never do anything by yourself. There is a documentary coming out called Restrepo, it just won Sundance's best documentary award. If you though Hurt Locker was realistic, wait till you see the real thing! 173rd Airborne! Airborne All The Way!

simplygreg:

In a summer of mostly mindless crap is a film of real tension and action. Beautifully uncomfortable and thrilling, I want a separate magnet ribbon for my car to support this movie. Seek it out.

moviesorfilm:

I must say that this is not my normal genre of movie although I do normally like Bigelow's efforts. I have no clue as to how realistically this movie portrays combat or bomb detonation in a hostile environment but it was a very good suspenseful character study about war and it's emotional toll on people. Jeremy Renner was absolutely fantastic as the daredevil type soldier who, eventually, gives himself over to the "on the edge" life of danger. He is, as one soldier says, an adrenaline junkie. There are many good performances here and many well-known stars that come in and out of the movie. I gave this four stars based on Kathryn Bigelow's statement on the DVD extras--the way this movie is filmed we are made to feel "part" of the story. The shaky cam, the tight intimate shots of the characters--it all works to make us feel for the terrible plight of these soldiers. One of the best war character study movies I have ever seen and it just reinforces my opinion that Jeremy Renner has always been one of the most talented unsung actors. Very highly recommended!

phenotypical:

Why did this movie do so well? Crappy acting. Zero storyline. Intense and realistic, sure. But how hard is that to do? Anthony Mackie puts in some good scenes. The rest of the acting is pretty awful. This guy Jeremy Renner in particular looks about as natural in a war zone as dubya in the pilot seat.

SwearEngine:

I've read a fair share of not so great reviews of The Hurt Locker dealing with it's inaccuracies and poor script, and I think those reviewers missed the point. What I came away from this movie was a real sense of understanding of the pressure that IEDs in general present. It's practically impossible to fool most modern audiences on oblique threats but I think they really managed to convey the sense of constant, unending tension and that threats come from all directions. Except for one scenario that overplayed itself and telegraphed the threat I was almost always anxious as to what was going to come next. I think the goal of the movie wasn't to deliver an accurate procedural on EOD operations in Iraq but to provide an accurate portrayal of the stress that an ever present indirect threat provides. People seem completely bent out of shape on technical accuracies that they don't approach the characters as presented. I think the characters provided were quite consistent within the movie and provided a number of (at least to me) very interesting perspectives. Sgt James arc was originally antagonistic but I got closer to getting a grip on what drives him once he had that rather ridiculous night time escapade. It all starts to unravel from the consequences and implications of what happens from the point they find the weapons cache and it causes him to spin out of control from the certitude he approaches his life. The final few scenes really put him in context with what he's become compared to Sanborn was. The movie was inaccurate and they did things soldiers would never do, but I don't care. However, I do care if they presented a solid, suspenseful story with a strong emotional arc for the characters. And I think it managed that handily. I'd give it a 4* losing some points because of the rather telegraphed situation of the Colonel and a bit too much "mavericky" stuff from time to time.

BlueVoid:

Katheryn Bigalow's Oscar winning Iraq war movie that manages to stay away from political overtones and focus on individuals. This is the interesting part of war, the personal stories of soldiers. The stories of ordinary men trying to survive in a living hell, and how it effects them. In a word, this movie is tense. Bigalow is a master at building tension and executing each bomb defuse sequence as if the entire world depended on its outcome. One of the faults I did find in the film, was that it was repetitive. At its core its the same thing over and over again. The three men have to diffuse a bomb. And yet it is handled in such a way that it always feels new, and the threat is always real. The immersion into the war zone is perhaps the most effective aspect of the movie. Because of this, the characters connect more personally. When you feel as if you are there with them, their plights are more meaningful. This is every bit a character driven film. Lead by the adrenaline addicted William James, played perfectly by Jeremy Renner, each man in the group has their own distinctive personality. Each is important to the film and react to the environment in their own ways. The effect of war on a soldier is perhaps the most important part of the film and it is handled better than in most other war films. There is a feel of authenticity throughout the film, and the phycological toll that it takes on soldiers is all the more effective because of this.

kmq 742509:

Under normal circumstances I might have reviewed this DVD, but when NetfIix implemented the new DVD page design they removed friends' ratings, top 10 lists and the ability to send movie notes. That made it harder for me and others to find movies we'd like to see. If you are reading this, please call NetfIix at 1-866-716-0414 and ask them to give us the community features back. Thank you, and I apologize for this non-review.

RP 1373966:

To paraphrase my favorite film critic, Roger Ebert, this movie sucks! Best picture?!, best director?!, are you serious?! Wanting to see what all the hype was about I rented the movie. Now, normally I stay with a film till the end, no matter how bad I might feel that it is. This movie tested the limits of my patience to the fullest. I had to see it on two sessions, so emotionally ungrabbing it is. The movie aims to be "realistic" and "minimalistic" and it achieves those goals. However, the script fails at enlisting the viewer's empathy towards the characters. Personally, I really didn't care what happened to them or the story. Pretty much everything i this movie is bland, unsurprising, regular, and uninvolving. The viewer is neither left with a glimpse into a novel, interesting or unexamined aspect of human nature or character, nor with a factually or emotionally engrossing story. Instead one sees a lot of mundane military actions (not to be confused with action), some not that extraordinary characters, and a lot of the dust, sand and rubble that is a consequence of the war. If I wanted to see what this movie offers, or attempts to convey, I would have been better off with a documentary.

lastliberal:

Already 67 wins out of 111 nominations. Nine Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. This is the definitive film about action in Iraq. It's not a war picture, it's a soldiers who happen to be at war picture. It focuses on the men who are there doing a dirty job. It was bad enough watching the EOD specialist, SSgt James (Jeremy Renner) disarm one bomb, but then he found a half dozen more. He beats the terrorist, but others are not so lucky as people are just waiting to set the bombs off. When he finds a trunk full of bombs, you know his number has to be up. It's not a job any sane person would do. The excitement, the tension, it's all here! Excitement from beginning to end. A real winner.

Popsicle Stick:

I watched this film today with a friend who is ex-military and currently on a bomb squad in civilian law enforcement. We had heard good things about the film, and we both came away wishing that the film had been more technical in terms of the bomb disposal aspects, but also more complex in terms of character and plot. From a technical standpoint, my friend was especially surprised at the absence of Percussion Actuated Non-Electric (PAN) Disruptors, although he thought it was possible that the military does things differently. As far as the story goes, I had been hoping for characters with more interesting motivations. I had a hard time believing that people in this situation would become so psychologically shallow. Nevertheless I'd say it's worth seeing, but not as good as I was expecting.

Firewater:

THE HURT LOCKER deserves all of the praise it's gotten. The tension ratchets up during the first scene and doesn't really let up for the entire movie. In spite of the Iraqi setting, the IEDs and the military sorties, this is a movie about people in the end. Although it is the quintessential war movie, I almost hesitate to call it a war movie. Instead, it is a character study of men in the crucible of wartime pressure. Jeremy Renner chews up the scenery in this breakout role as the adrenilin junkie, Will James, and it is his story in the end. If you can call it an ending. [05-19-2010]

T-Bone:

One of the best movies of 2009. I hope that Jeremy Renner gets nominated for the Best Actor Oscar. Kathryn Bigelow seems to be getting most of the Oscar buzz, but it is Renner that carries this film.

GW 1110131:

This is about as good as it gets in movie writing, directing, production and editing for an independent movie and that independence allowed the director more freedom and latitude that made this an even better movie than the traditional studio backed movie. There are many scenes where the combination of the direction, cinematography and actors expressions, without the need for complicated dialog, were the most powerful I have seen in a movie in a long time. If you watch intently, it is filled with subtle but noticeable details that flow constantly from scene that would be normally be the boring parts of the movie. This kept the movie constantly fascinating. Those who found this movie boring must be mindless with no attention to detail. If all you want in a move is non-stop unrealistic Hollywood type explosions and totally impossible car chases through populated streets with popular actors giving synthetic dialog, this movie is not for you.

Jammin:

Great drama, with excellent video editing, good use of cameos and a compelling dynamic between the two lead actors

The Ben man:

This movie certainly feels like what I imagine what our brave heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan are going through (though of course we can never know because we are sitting on our living room couch while they risk their lives for us) but as far as a movie it doesn?t really hold up. I think this would have served itself better as some kind of docudrama. Interested in a feel for the life as and IAD detonator then watch this flick. Interested in a good war movie then keep marching.

PROZAC:

Hurt Locker is recieving ALOT of attention of late. Just short of four stars, this film is very well made and action in every scene. There are so many military films out there its tough to separate them from on another. While Hurt locker might be one of the best, unlike others, I cant say its any better than The Green Zone starring Matt Damon which I screened a few months ago. Jeremy Renner is great and the bis names in the movie mostly make cameos. You will have to see this to find out what the hype is all about but I enjoyed it, didnt love it but enjoyed it.

Skotto:

I am giving this movie one star as a protest against the heavy-handed (and evil) response to the producers hiring mercenary lawyers to extort money from Bittorent downloaders. It's like getting fined $3000 for shoplifting it at Target. The punishment completely outweighs the crime, if there is any. There is no missing physical item, just another copy of a copy for someone who most likely would not have bought or rented it anyway. My apologies to the people who liked the movie or disagree with my statement. I did not download this movie but I feel for those who got caught up in Hollywood's inappropriate response.

HisDudeness:

The Hurt Locker is a good movie. It is not, as most people are saying, a great movie. There's not enough there to be great. Without giving anything away, here's my plot summary: Tense bomb-diffusion, guys are sad, guys horseplay, tense situation, guys are mad, horseplay, tense situation, guys horseplay, bond, and get into another tense situation. Really, it's that simple. And that's why it's not great. It's neither small enough nor big enough. The "theme" that is epigramed at the start is barely even explored, much less even displayed. I will say that the scenes with the British convoy were excellent, though.

robowriter:

Kathryn Bigelow certainly deserved her Oscars for The Hurt Locker, a taut and nuanced tale of the adrenaline addiction of war as seen and felt through the eyes and ears of a U.S. Army bomb-defusing squad in Bagdad and esp. its leader (Jeremy Renner), who has defused 873 bombs (and counting). A bit of a cowboy, he savors the thrill and the challenge of his work, even stripping off his armored suit to defuse one particularly devious car bomb ("If I die, I want to die comfortable") and keeping a souvenir box under his bunk of "things that almost killed me." The soundtrack is exotic, lush, and reminiscent of Lawrence of Arabia -- but this is not your father's Lawrence of Arabia. Bagdad is a pummeled and pockmarked urban wasteland filled with oases of citizens and families trying to go about their daily lives -- yet also peppered with insurgents in citizen's clothing who lurk or loiter, ready to detonate a roadside bomb on a moment's notice (or to film the aftermath and post American soldiers' deaths to YouTube). The U.S. patrols' nascent, jacked-up paranoia often leads to tense, no-nonsense standoffs ("Well, if he wasn't an insurgent, he is now") and the billowing blooms of concussive detonations, poetically described by Guy Pearce, who with Anthony Mackie, David Morse, and Ralph Fiennes, fill out the antidemolitions team. The Hurt Locker is Full Metal Jacket meets Blackhawk Down as soldiers struggle to cope with the loss of their brothers in war and Renner's character tries to backtrack the 411 on a young Iraqi boy. You can almost feel the heat and taste the grit in your teeth. If you can stand the military's four-letter language and the tension of insurgent warfare, be sure to see this Oscar winner for Best Picture. 5 stars. (6-5-10)

xdp 1964909:

I think I've been spoiled by Dale Dye & the realism he helped provide to "..Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." If you keep in mind this is the same director who brought us "Point Break," and embrace it as a completely unrealistic but well-made cops-in-fatigues thriller, then it¿s great. It was independently financed and not supported by the US military, so those limitations may explain why the main characters are often in situations nowhere near the real world of EOD guys in the field -- solo in one Humvee most of the time, shooting it out with a sniper in the desert instead of calling air support, sneaking off a base to play detective, etc. Still, clichés abound that brought it down a notch for me ¿ bonding over fist fights, befriending the native kid, a LOT of nervous waving-of-rifles around on rooftops & chatter on radios, etc. Why no depiction of the horrors of what one EFP or IED can do to a Humvee and the soldiers in it is also a major missed opportunity to ratchet up the suspense, in my opinion. A great performance by Renner though, and as blockbusters go, not bad overall. Still, I¿d much rather see Dale S. Dye advise a film version of the great Iraq war book ¿The Good Soldiers.¿

fewstingscorpio:

Film did a good job keeping you on the edge of your seat, anticipating a crisis. This was all taking place within the Explosive Ordnance Team in Iraq. This was the most dangerous job I have ever seen, or felt part of. In this movie, you do feel like you have a front row seat, which why you become so involved with the characters and the intensity in each scene.

nua 704009:

Two scenes stick out in my mind, the opening scene and the sniper scene. Two of the most bug eyed moments I've ever had watching a film. Amazing

DfwForeignBuff:

US Army Staff Sgt Will James, Sgt JT Sanborn and Spc. Owen Eldridge comprise the Bravo Company's bomb disposal unit currently stationed in Baghdad. James is the tech team leader. When James arrives on the scene, Bravo Company has thirty-nine days left on its current deployment. 39 days is a long time to be together (Sanborn &Eldridge) these men whose styles do not mesh with their new leader. James is a renegade for who the thrill of the dismantlement seems to be the ultimate goal regardless of the safety of his fellow team members himself or others.On the other hand, Sanborn is by the books: he knows his place and duty and trusts others in the army to carry out theirs as well as he. And Eldridge is an insecure soldier who is constantly worried that an error or misjudgment on his part will lead to the death of an innocent civilian or a military colleague. While the three members face their own internal issues, they have to be aware of any person at the bomb sites, some of who may be bombers themselves. As the men struggle to control their wild new leader, the city explodes into chaos, and James' true character reveals itself in a way that will change each man forever. 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. 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.

KC 650222:

If you love war movies, see this. I don't even like war movies but thought this was totally amazing.

Peter Olafson:

God, this is intense. Every soldier is fair game -- roadside bombs, snipers, car bombs -- and you just don't know if any of the guys in Bravo Company are going to survive. The film makes a point of sacrificing both of its bona fide movie stars after maybe five minutes of screen time. The message is clearly: We're all the same. We're all human. We all die. It's wonderfully told, with few movie-making and virtually no Hollywood adornments. The one problem: Once you've established that kind of intensity, what do you do for an encore? Hurt Locker lacks a proper climax and it slides slowly to its ending with Sgt. James' question still hanging in the air.

Coarse Gold:

No war film I have seen provided me such non-stop suspense and tension as Kathryn Bigelow's "Hurt Locker." Without military experience, I can't comment on the realism of the situations in which these characters found themselves, but to me it looked real, felt real, and I felt the fear and uncertainty of not knowing who the bad guys are or where the next explosion is coming from. A sample scene finds our trio pinned down in a precarious desert location as Arab snipers pick off their compatriots one-by-one. Unit leader (Anthony Mackie) lies motionless in the hot desert for hours, with sand clinging to his face, looking through the scope of his gun trained on a mud building where the sniping is coming from. During this scene, my own throat constricted and I was overcome with a craving for cool liquid. In the midst of this tedious wait, his comarade belly-crawls up to him, provides him a few sips on a straw thrust into a foil juice pouch, and then my own throat relaxed. When a film affects me physically like this, it has to be called great film-making. Bigelow is to be congratulated, not only on camera work, editing, and pacing which gave the film such a visceral feel, but also for not using her Hollywood platform to politically moralize about war. There was no "should we be there?" moralizing as found in so many war flicks. The Hurt Locker simply shows military men doing their best to succeed under incredibly harsh circumstances, whatever their reasons for accepting such assignments. One social message does come through: The adrenaline rush of putting his life on the line makes it hard for a soldier to return to the banal suburbia of his state-side life. One scene has our hero (Jeremy Renner) home between deployments, shopping with his wife and child. Suddenly, he is gripped by a vertigo caused by the many grocer shelves with row after row of colorful breakfast cereal boxes beckoning him. No dialog necessary to drive the point home; simply smart film editing.

Andsav:

Ideally I'd give this film 3.5 stars but I'll round it up to 4 instead. I had mixed feelings about this film. THe acting was brilliant on all sides. Jeremy Renner was a real standout in this film. Sargeant James is an intriguing, complex, and sad example of what war can do to an individual. Bigelow is a very capable director, and she handles the action scenes very well. She may even go on to win the Oscar this year. My biggest gripe with this movie is that it left you hanging emotionally, and at times it was difficult to emotionally engage with the characters. Overall, it is a very unique vantage point into the conflict in Iraq. The reality that these soldiers have to deal with is absolutely terrifying and nerve-racking. A memorable albeit disturbing movie that is very worthwhile to watch.

Cato the Younger:

Churchill wrote that "there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without effect", a sentiment similar to that of former NY Times war correspondent Chris Hedges, who describes war as an "addiction" in a quote at the start of this film. The film goes on to illustrate why this is so, in the process developing a well-textured if not entirely accurate portrait of American fighting men fully immersed in the horror of war, taking tremendous risks every day, overdosing on adrenaline, and needing alcohol or other diversions to wind down after missions. The first 90% of this film is a straight-ahead action movie with one tense, perilous or tragic situation after another. In due course our main character gets back to a normal life where he finds love and peace. But he finds that war has made him unsuited for the routine and banality of peace and that he has come to love war and its daily life-or-death thrills more than anything. In my view, this isn't a deep enough story to merit all the critical praise it has received, though without a doubt it is the best Iraq war movie that has been made up until now. In all technical respects, particularly in terms of direction, cinematography and editing, this is one terrific picture. But beyond the gloss, this film is shallow and its central point concerning war being addictive is seriously overdone. It is more reasonable to say that a tiny few are addicted, many more are traumatized and become deeply averse to war, and the majority seem to get through it without any ill effects. This exaggeration along with several unrealistic plot elements that make veterans of the conflict wince mar an otherwise excellent effort.

Frank W:

Though director Kathryn Bigelow does ask some difficult questions about the cost of heroism and what the experience of war does to a soldier, her message never comes across as burdensome or heavy-handed. The film's focus is narrowed to dramatizing the dangerous work of the bomb removal squads, and the film does that exceptionally well. As the credits begin to roll, we slowly tear our fingers from the armrests, hoping no one notices the damage to the upholstery. Horror, western, psychological thriller, or war drama... pick a genre. The Hurt Locker is one of the most intense and thrilling representatives from any genre to come down the pike in quite some time.

Rosa&Colin:

The Hurt Locker contained striking visuals, an excellent score, great sound effects and top notch acting for what the film was - A military action film. Unfortunately the lack of realism is preventing me from giving this film five stars. Example: An EOD team deciding to hunt down the bad guys in the middle of the night without the support of an infantry platoon? (Never mind the fact that the infantry would be the ones to do that.) Or the EOD team going behind the wire with absolutely zero support or security. Aside from that however - I didnt feel like there was much political bias in it really. Not only was it well acted but it was pretty tense in parts. I felt my heart rate speeding up during a couple of scenes thanks in large part to the feeling of suspense Kathryn Bigelow gave the film along with the score and sound effects. Bigelow also did a great job at capturing the feelings and emotions that come from living through the horrors of war. She turned what could have been a typical bombs go boom film into a decent character driven story. So really, despite my complaints The Hurt Locker is worth watching if you arent expecting a completely accurate look of how EODs operate. Well acted, quite tense and suspenseful and visually striking, the Hurt Locker is a step above most other action films.

Marillion:

The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty is a suspenseful, edge of your seat thriller that draws you in from its first scene and never lets you go. The movie depicts the daily danger faced by a EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) unit whom are assigned a new team leader towards the end of their tour of duty. The team struggles to get a read on their leader who at times almost appears to be as much a threat to them as the devices they encounter throughout the film. The almost documentary feel of the film creates a realism that adds the already tense environment. The actors give tremendous performances and are convincing in their roles. Perhaps just as important though is the way that Bigelow goes about creating the environment in which they work. The tension that exists between the members of the team is amplified ten fold by the tension between the soldiers and the citizens of Baghdad. Every movement by the citizens around them is reason for concern. Every step they take could be their last. Every day brings them one day closer to leaving but one day further from the lives they left behind. On the negative side, I did find a couple of the scenarios were the main characters were out on their own a little unbelievable. I also felt there was one scene in particular that just did not fit in an otherwise well crafted film. The Hurt Locker is indeed one of the better films of 2009 and deserves the accolades given it. It gets 4.5/5 stars.

Supercords:

Fast paced and well made, but I would have liked a little more of a story arc. The movie is a string of events that take place in the lives of a bomb engineering crew. Movies like this are more suspenseful when you identify with the characters. It took most of the film before I had a reasonable idea who anybody was. It didn¿t help that I expected much more from a Best Picture nominee. But then again, The Blindside and Avatar were nominated, so there you go. Rating: C+

Milkbone:

This movie is just..wow. i never thought that war movies could improve or get any better but The Hurt Locker takes it to an entirely different level. Now i've never been to war or even attempted to join the army but if you didn't know any better you'd think what goes on in this film is what actually happens in real life. Every thing is just executed in a way that leaves you speechless for a while when you attempt to describe why this film is so good. They do a good job of making you care for the main characters and also they give you the feeling that every time the main group rolls out there's a chance that they may not make it back. If you're into war movies or you want a different take/viewpoint on war movies then you should definitely check this film out.

Skinless Tomcat:

I can see where the oscar buzz for this movie is coming from. This is definitely the best Iraq war movie I've seen. This film is a master of tension. With each bomb defusing situation you feel the heated anxiety of being within the killing zone of the blast radius of an armed bomb that could go off at any second, and to make matters worse you always have an audience of suspicious Iraqi onlookers- anyone of them could could have a detonation device. This movie gives a glimpse of the awful situation in Iraq, and how soldiers can become addicted to it- war is a drug. My only gripe is the slow pacing of some parts. 4.5*'s

N of Maud:

Some troops who enjoy this film has said it's is completely unrealistic it terms of the operation of the tight knit bomb squad at the same time as saying it's the best film of Iraq yet. This either says something positive re: Bigelow's effort or something depressing re: the state of US war coverage. I happen to think the former is true. The film lacks consistency, with sone parts stretching the believability to far and other scenes which are earth shatteringly powerful. The supermarket scene at the end accomplishes in communicating the experience of Modern Warfare in such a economical and moving way that Bigelow deserve an Oscar just for that alone. Also, watch for use of slow motion, a retro effect brought back beautifully in this film.

willschiff:

This isn't an Iraq War movie. This isn't JARHEAD or STOPLOSS. Instead, it's the year's best action film directed by the -woman- who brought you POINT BREAK and K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER. The movie speaks profoundly on what it means to be a soldier; a person who knowingly and willingly risks their life. This movie examines the psyches of these people, unflinchingly analyzing them all the while providing armrest clenching action. You owe it to yourself to check out this film, especially if you're a fan of action films.

KG 1982629:

Excellent, absolutely wonderful. Be warned, it's really a series of episodes, not one large plot. (In fact, I think it would make an excellent HBO tv series.) So real, so ambiguous, so smart. Scary and edge of your seat action. Relatable characters. A smart movie for smart viewers.

FS 1382983:

How did this movie win best picture? No plot, totally pointless, bad acting, horrible directing. I kept watching because it won all those awards, so I figured there must be a payoff in the end, but it did not happen. You are left with the fact that you just wasted 130 minutes of your life that you will never get back. The only upside is that I got it here instead of d/l it, so they can't sue me.

tntbaker1:

This movie gives a good depiction of what a military bomb squad goes through on a regular basis. A lot of insight to just how freaky these situations can be. I assume that it is fairly realistic due to the attention this movie got from various awards. While I found the movie to be good, I did not find it to be great. I would say that the acting was well done because during some scenes you really get a sense of the intensity. I would recommend this movie for a viewing/rental.

Juzie:

Probably the most realistic portrayal that a lot of us will ever see on how it really is over there. Kept my interest through-out, probably because the whole thing was so nail-bitingly tense. I never knew what was going to happen next. The ending disappointed me, however. Did it deserve Best Picture? Im not so sure.

BriGy86:

There are some funny parts and a lot of recognizable faces... But I ended up walking out on this movie due to the lack of story and how mundane it is. It reminded me of the movie The Thin Red Line (Another movie with a lot of big name people and no plot.)

gerrrg:

Let me first start off by saying, that this is one hell of a great wartime movie. It's a very well done exploration of the emotions behind those serving in Iraq, conveying the fear, anxiety, anger and sadness. The movie begins with the quote that defines the whole movie: "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." The Hurt Locker definitely sits up high next to Apocalypse Now, in terms of the power of the movie, the style of the videography, acting, and story. __ So why did I give it a one-star rating? Because I have to frown upon Voltage Picture's (producer of The Hurt Locker) Nicolas Chartier's comments about people who disagree with him on the issue of how to tackle piracy: "Keep being stupid, you're doing that very well." When Mr. Chartier suggested, "please do not download, rent, or pay for my movies," I had to take a long pause as to whether or not I wanted to keep this film in my queue. Turns out I'm glad I did keep it in my queue and watched it, but as a result of Mr. Chartier's insulting comments, I have given the movie a one-star rating to spite him.