The masterpiece they say it is? No. Great film? Yes!

Rating: 8/10 (6 April 2011)

Jeremy Renner is the man! I thought I would get that out there to start with, just to emphasise how much he brings to "The Hurt Locker". If Sgt William James had been played by somebody with less presence of character, the film would not have worked anywhere near as well, despite what other praise one could give it.
Sgt First Class William James steps in to lead a bomb disposal team in Iraq; they have only a month left on their rotation, but the loss of their previous leader, Sgt Thompson, has left them shaken, with a gap that seems hard to fill. Sgt James's methods and general view of his job seem to Sgt Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge to be irresponsible and dangerous; this does little for Sanborne's requirement for order and discipline, and is especially threatening to the fragile Eldridge, who is already talking regularly with Colonel Cambridge, the group psychiatrist.
Not unlike "Jarhead" in its approach, it features very little violence for a war film, and no elements of what one might think of as "machoism" whatsoever. The whole thing focuses fully on the psychology of these men who step out every day ready to die, "rolling the dice", as Sanborne says in a key scene. Even one moment which does involve them volunteering themselves to each others physical violence is not actually about the macho violence, but about what is going on between the characters, the dynamic shifts occurring within the team, and how they view each other; in this regard, the scene brought to mind "Fight Club". There are numerous parts that rely on subtext, or on the audience's ability to read between the lines of what is being said and recognise that this is a character piece, not a "wham bam" action movie. One central scene in particular has a lot going on with very little dialogue; this is the nature of the film in general, asking us to recognise what is not being said as well as what is, and to pay close attention to the characters' interaction.
The film does not adhere to conventions very much; it is shot in a way that is suggestive of a documentary, with a feeling of not so much telling a story, but rather following a set of events. That said, it is cinematic, with some scenes where performance and subtle, clever use of sound ratchet up the tension very well. It is an unusual feeling, and it takes the first act of the film for us to get completely comfortable with the groove. Once we are, however, it makes for a notably unique experience, and the fact we are focusing on a group of guys that other war films have never really looked at only adds to the freshness.
As for criticisms, there are people such as David Morse, Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes in this movie, but they border on "blink and you miss them" roles, which is a shame. It could also be argued that when all is said and done, it does not feel like the film, for all its accolades, is really saying that much beyond its opening quotation; contrary to the hyperbole surrounding it, it is not a film trying to set the world on fire; it does not have any obvious political stance, it is not "anti-war", it is simply an exciting look at the psychology of the men we follow. There is a section of the last act of the film where it feels like the whole thing drops a gear, but it picks it back up again for a great ending, in which the look on Renner's face, and the final shot as Bigelow brings in a track by the band Ministry to introduce the credits, perfectly underlines the point of Sgt James's final monologue!
Not the astounding masterpiece some people might have had us think, and certainly not "the best war movie ever made", but very, very good.