It's like fast food restaurants asking you to be healthy. But it's good.

Rating: 9/10 (25 February 2010)

9.1
What kind of movies do you like, and why do you like them? Why do you like movies at all? Do they offer escape, adrenaline, humor, arousal, self-reflection, or intrigue? Is it an aesthetic pursuit? Which of these does The Hurt Locker offer? If escape, then you would escape into war, which you might expect people would want to escape from. It offers it's fair share of adrenaline. Enough to not dull the effect. It offers a little humor, enough to ease the tension. It offers self-reflection, mostly in men, but not limited to. It also appeals to women who ponder and consider the military, as well as combat-like scenarios, including violence. Now, the last, and most important one: intrigue. Does The Hurt Locker make you feel intrigue? Does it make you feel interested in the settings and scenarios depicted? If the answer is "yes", the real question (which is the entire purpose of the film), is "why"?
This is what The Hurt Locker asks you as a film. Why are you attracted to violent spectacles? To combat? It's a very good question. And the interesting thing is, The Hurt Locker also does a very good job of delivering that adrenaline and intrigue of violence that you (may) crave. It's an almost unavoidable paradox. In order to avoid this, they would have had to have no violence, no action, no explosions in the film. It would have been a commercial failure. But hey, it was pretty indie/"limited" to begin with. If it was given a wide release in theaters, it would have been commercially successful. I am sure of it. Why? Well, because it seems like a movie where people can pay the ticket price and receive their compensation of adrenaline and action. The very thing that the movie is questioning you about. It's like when fast-food restaurants try to get you to think nutrition and eat healthy.
But The Hurt Locker is not a failure. In the aesthetic sense, it delivers. Its setting and plot require no specifics. No name-dropping. You, as the contemporary audience, know where it takes place, and why. War. That's all you need to know. There is an atmosphere of hostility, with low visibility and a near monotone color scheme. The only standout colors are blue skies and red blood. The shots are paced slow when they need to be, allowing rest from the tenser scenes, but still maintaining suspense at times. The adrenaline packed scenes are much faster, with quick cuts and swinging cameras. The tension builds up like a bomb. Usually, the bomb is defused. But sometimes, it goes off.
The film also does a good job of portraying its characters. The characters being, of course, the young men and women who enlist in the military and experience combat. At one point, a character, stuck in a foxhole like ditch, is drinking some juice. He appears to be sucking on it like a warm bottle of milk, as if delivered straight from mother. The character becomes aware of danger, tosses the juice aside, and grabs his weapon, or rifle, which we can assume his father handed him (metaphorically, of course). The character then beings to defend himself. But not without hesitating and experiencing fear. He did more in conquering that fear than if he would have just simply acted out of the influence of adrenaline. One thing I want to add, is that the pacing in this scene, as well as others of the better moments of the film, are excellent.
The Hurt Locker is a good war film. By that I mean two things. One, it's a good film about war. And two, more importantly, it's a good war film. It makes you question why you are intrigued by war and violent spectacles (if you are). Just as the characters in the film find themselves questioning why they do the things they do, you might find yourself questioning why you wanted to see The Hurt Locker. If you didn't, then your answer is very simple: adrenaline rolled up in action. And just like the beginning quote of the film says, "...war is a drug."