a vivid portrayal of... war-like situations

Rating: 7/10 (6 April 2009)

Hurt Locker comes storming out of the gates, portrayed by its trailer as a hard-hitting, rock music fueled, action packed war flick about men and bombs. Unfortunately, like many films that don't fit neatly into a specific genre, Hurt Locker will leave many perplexed and disappointed, thanks to the inflexibility of movie marketing. It's time that film creators be given full control of their promo reels.
Don't get me wrong, Hurt Locker is indeed a war movie, with nearly the entirety of the footage taking place within theatre (of war). Shot in Jordan, the scenery and environments are spot on, from barren desert-scape's to dense adobe urban settings. The camera work is varied, distance, stability, speed, motion, and focus are all played with at different times in the film to better and worse effect. The soundtrack is sparse, with mostly on-screen music heard, which adds to the viewer's sense of immersion into the character's colorless, sun bleached world.
Noteworthy is that the Jordanian military provided security during the filming of the movie. Jeremy Renner was quoted describing "two by fours with nails being dropped from two-story buildings that hit me in the helmet and they were throwing rocks... we got shot at a few times while we were filming". On this evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the seemingly inept Jordanian soldiers were also contracted as military advisor's based on some of the scenes in the movie (more on that later).
Unfortunately, Hurt Locker gets on my bad side immediately by killing off Guy Pearce, which had me hoping that the rest of the film would be told in a past tense narrative. No luck. Replacing Pierce is Renner's easy going, thrill seeking Sgt James. Renner does a good job in the role portraying the character's depth and inner turmoil... but for some reason stops smoking mid way through the film, which really bugged me, that post bomb diffusing "I'm not dead yet" cigarette looked epically enjoyable. The observant reader will notice that I am in the midst of quitting.
The rest of the cast is a mixed bag, the black Sergeant goes through a lot of transitions in the film, some of which come out of nowhere (pondering blowing up Sgt James), and we are denied a view of how the knowledge gained in Iraq affects him later, but the part is acted very well. Ralph Fiennes shows up to get shot (almost as frustrating as Pearce's death). The annoyingly reliant specialist and his doting medical colonel left me wondering if there were even one testicle between the two characters. Opinions on the characters aside, the acting was solid.
One factor that will divide many viewers is the way in which the war fighting/bomb dealings are depicted in the film. Those with military knowledge will scoff, those not focused on such details will (hopefully) not be distracted by many of the sometimes inexplicable lapses in logic and physics. The mercenary/sniper scene stands out as being particularly frustrating.
On that point, I really wish I could turn off that part of my brain that just can't get into a scene once the technical military/firearm stuff begins making no sense. I know that many similarly affected miss the simple pleasure of unquestionably cheering the hero and their 30-round magazine that supplies a seemingly endless hail of fire, or believing in the enemy that manages 3 one-shot kills in quick succession and then... knocks the scope off of their rifle? Looses their vision? Decided to take a nap? Was is tea time? Oh wait, nope, bad writing/lack of advisory... that's it. Pity the soldier for this bizarre cinematic handicap.
All in all a very solid film, it will test the patience of some as the pacing varies, and also is much stronger at the beginning and ending then in the middle. Good acting performances, some weak peripheral characters, and satisfyingly not preachy or opinionated on the war. See it for Jeremy Renner's performance, a solid showing.
That's a wrap on my first IMDb review! Happy viewing!