The Hurt Locker

2010 March 11
tags: ,
by admin

Amazon.com Price: View Sale Price (as of 2010-09-04 18:08:02 GMT) Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are theme to change. Any price and availability information showed on Amazon.com at the time of buy will apply to the buy of this product.

User Reviews Send this to a friend
The Hurt Locker
 
Manufacturer:
Consumer Rating:
 
List Price: Varies based on product options
Sale Price: View Sale Price
Availibility: View Product Availability
Buy Now
 

Product Description

Product Details

No details are available for this product

Video Reviews

No video reviews found for this product.

Consumer Reviews

Taut war drama exploring the psychology of soldiering
 
Review Date: June 27, 2009
Reviewer: DarthRad, CA United States
The movie opens with the quote - "the rush of battle is often a potent and lethal obsession, for war is a drug" (a modern paraphrase of Churchill's older and more well-known maxim - "there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result")

This is a thriller of a movie about a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq and their daily grind in dealing with the IEDs and insurgents there.

This movie does have several stars - but Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pierce, and Evangeline Lilly all have honestly small roles. Blink, and you'll miss them. Their presence in this movie is more a testament to director/producer Kathryn Bigelow's status in the entertainment diligence than no matter what thing else.

Jeremy Renner is Sergeant James, a bomb tech. Unlike his genial predecessor, he is a wild man. He seems not only indifferent to the dangers of his job, he absolutely revels in the dangers. It is the ultimate in thrill in quest of actions, getting that dopamine surge in his brain. Near the end of the movie, Sgt. James gets accused of being an adrenaline junkie, but we know now that the neurochemical at work here is dopamine. Bomb disposal is not just a job for him, but his passion, his obsession, his reason for being in the Army.

Renner's character ends up like a cross between Elmer Fudd, with his perpetually placid and vaguely befuddled stare, and Bugs Bunny, with his wile and lust for excitement and danger.

His two partners in the unit, Sgt. Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge, who have to cover him and just want to survive their tour of duty, don't know quite how to deal with his determination to confront danger. One wonders at why Sgt. James puts himself in danger, why he takes the extra risks to defuse a bomb when detonating it would do. The scene that clarifies it all is when Sgt. James income home to America one day and we see him doing the mundane chores of life as a civilian, cleaning out the rain gutters, cleaning up the kitchen, shopping with his wife and baby at the grocery store. As he stares at an entire wall full of colorful cereal boxes stacked along a grocery store aisle, a look of utter void, boredom, and despair fills his face.....nope, not for him, this dull life as a civilian....

The movie's storyline is a series of daily missions, nearly like a documentary or a TV series, each episode standing alone and yet building upon before episodes, each one presenting a new danger, a new challenge, another piece of the puzzle that is the war in Iraq.

What makes this movie work is the recreation of Iraq in this movie - it was filmed in Jordan with local Iraqi expatriates. We feel the oppressive tension of the whole people, of not knowing who the terrible guys are and where the next bomb or bullet is going to come from. We feel the dread and uncertainty of the American soldiers, caught between their desire to be the excellent guys and wanting to make nice with the local Iraqis, while constantly needing to remain vigilant and suspicious, never knowing who is a excellent Iraqi, and who deserves to get shot. We feel the bewilderment and rage of the local Iraqis, who get pushed around at every turn by the American soldiers.

Unlike so many other recent Iraq war movies, this movie makes no biased statements, there is no right or incorrect here. These are just men at work, doing a treacherous and dirty job, and these guys are darn excellent at what they do for their people, no matter what the reasons are that they are doing it.

'Bout time........
 
Review Date: August 1, 2009
Reviewer: Master Blaster,
As a retired Army Bomb Disposal Team Leader I have to say it's right up there with 'Danger UXB' and A+++++to the writer and the director!!! A really well done depiction without the usual Hollywood hype/litery ticket/theater/BS.
Oh, yea, about 'not being able to adjust after the regimented life', it has nothing to do with 'not being able to' and everything to do with 'not wanting to'. You'll delight in the view into the lives of this very small brotherhood of military Bomb Disposers.
Brilliant routine by Jeremy Renner
 
Review Date: June 26, 2009
Reviewer: Senor Zoidbergo, Washington D.C.
I wasn't familiar with director Kathryn Bigelow's work prior to surveillance Hurt Locker (she aimed at Point Break, K-19, and others), but I am now a convert. She aimed at a brilliant and gut Iraq war movie, which unlike many of its peers, is also apolitical. It's not overly preachy (In the Valley of Elah or Stop Loss) or pure action (The Kingdom), but manages to strike its own ground. The scenes are gritty, shaky; thankfully the shaky cam/documentary style record is tastefully done here. The movie was filmed on location in Jordan, lending to the film's authenticity and immersivity. The viewer can nearly taste the dust in the air, and feel the stares from the unwelcoming populace. It's the first mainstream movie to highlight the work of bomb defusal technicians , and it's a thankless and extremely hazardous job. The movie is Black Hawk Down excellent, albeit on a more intimate level.


The movie follows three members of Bravo Company's Explosive Ordanance Disposal (EOD) squad, as they struggle to end the last few days of their year long tour of duty. Everyone copes differently; Specialist Eldridge (Geraghty) is overwhelmed at times with the death that surrounds them, Staff Sergeant James (Renner) is addicted to the rush of battle, and Sergeant Sanborn (Mackie) chains James as best he can. James is a complex, fascinating and tragic character; he's extremely competent, yet eccentric and even reckless to the point where his teammates premeditated fragging him in order to make it back alive. In a kind gesture, he excellent wishes the work of his adversaries and keeps all the trigger mechanisms of bombs he has defused in the past. Every date the soldiers encounter until their departure affects them, and we see every emotional impact.


Huge Hollywood names like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, and David Morse make small, but memorable appearances. Even LOST player Evangelline Lily has an extended cameo as James' wife. The bomb defusal scenes are nerve-wracklingly tense, and the consultation sweats alongside the defusing technician. The team constantly scans for snipers, or the suspicious civilian about to make a cell phone call to trigger an IED. The movie does an brilliant job of communicating the hazards of the EOD job, and one leaves with a deep appreciation of their work.


6 stars, highly recommended. It is an action filled, yet pensive movie.
Sweat inducing, claustrophobic, surreal war film, a really fantastic piece of cinema...
 
Review Date: February 19, 2010
Reviewer: Grigory's Girl, NYC
Katherine Bigelow's film The Hurt Locker is a fantastic war film. It's one of the best war films made in the last 10 years or so. It's also one of the most intense, sweat inducing films I've seen in a while.

The film ongoing out a small iffy. There was some overly macho dialogue at the commencement, and I felt that I may be disappointed at this film since there's a ton of hype on it.

My fears were misplaced. After the notch sequence (which isn't as terrible as I first thought), this film is really interest. Rarely has a film really given a sense of battle and of urban combat like Katherine Bigelow's The Hurt Locker does. The only other film you can really compare this to is Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (the 2nd half). That 2nd half and this film are very similiar in their attitude towards war. Both films just show how it is, and how crazy urban combat is. I would venture to say that Bigelow's film is stronger than Kubrick's in that you have a much more acute sense of place and time. Kubrick recreated Hue City in England (there was a bombed out gas works outside London that was converted). Bigelow shot her film on location in Jordan, and it's a much better approach. The film is also terrifying in that when you're in urban combat, cities can be like ghost towns. You can't tell who is your friend or who is your enemy. One person can be a friend one day and an enemy an hour later.

The performances are first rate. There isn't a fake note in the entire film. The film progresses from incredible setpiece to incredible setpiece. The film just cuts to the encounter of war and the nerve wracking being of men who disarm IED's for a living.

REVIEW MODIFIED ON 3/8/10....

Bigelow's management is masterful. She never resorts to any trivial or sentimentality. She also never talks about the reasons we're in Iraq. There are no politics on show here (Bigelow has no biased agenda, even though some who just despise Hollywood will insist that she does), which make this film much more effective. Bigelow won the DGA award for directing, and has become the first female director to win the Oscar for Best Director. The first female winning is all fine and everything, but the most vital thing is that Katherine will win for making a first rate film. To her credit, she's never played the PC, gender card (she's never played it in her whole career really), and she won it since she's really earned it. That's awesome.

Riveting and eye notch
 
Review Date: August 8, 2010
Reviewer: Irfan A. Alvi, Towson, MD USA
The ratings of this movie are surprisingly all over the place, so I read many reviews to try to be with you why. It appears that a major area of contention is whether this movie is sufficiently realistic. A number of people with military encounter, including some with encounter in Iraq, argue that the movie is too unrealistic, but their complaints often focus on technicalities which, though not always trivial, I don't know aren't too vital for the predictable non-military viewer. And there are also a number of military people who find the movie quite realistic, so it seems that the experiences of military people vary substantially. Taking into account all of this, my sense is that the movie practically faithfully describes at least the essence of the experiences of at least some military people, so it's accurate enough for its purpose.

If so, I found this movie to be a commanding and riveting depiction of why "war is hell," including "war" which is really occupation. On the American side, our troops face a situation where they often can't tell friend from foe, they can die very unexpectedly and abruptly, and they're constant witness to destruction and death, including the death of people who become their friends. On the Iraqi side, they have the natural rage, bitterness, and defiance of people who are being full by a foreign power. Never before have I had a such a clear sense of why war must be avoided unless there's truly no other reasonable option.

This leads to the issue of whether the movie has a biased message. Many reviewers have argued that it doesn't overtly have such a message, and I agree. But, at the same time, by depicting how pointless and detrimental the occupation of Iraq is, with suffering on all sides, the movie does help to clarify why we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and why we need to get out ASAP. Let's remember that inspectors had by now failed to find any WMDs after extensive incisive, there was never any credible link between Iraq and 9/11, and there was never any credible prove or argument showing that Iraq posed a genuine threat to the US. By going in there, all we've done is threaten Iraq and open the floodgates of civil war, cause a huge loss of life on all sides, expend many billions of dollars (which we obviously can't afford), and make America LESS safe. The only parties which seem to have benefitted are the defense contractors who have made tons of money at the deprivation of the American public (you and me). If we really want to "support our troops," we need to get them out of harms way and bring them home to their families, rather than asking them to endure enormous hardships and risk their lives for a conflict which makes no sense.

Anyway, getting back to the movie, my point is that the movie vividly illustrates the basis for my observations. Very highly recommended.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS