Plenty of explosive noise and situations, but

Rating: 5/10 (9 January 2010)

There is a misunderstanding than having a message is 3/4 of the entire product. In most situations, engaged and intelligent audiences expect some type of emotional link to the theme in the movie. Most of us love recommendations, and many a film has benefited from incredible word of mouth when it had been previously dismissed or ignored by either critics or studios, and many classics were born. In fact, this is a situation that occurs more often than one realizes. Movies like "The Breakfast Club" are proof of that. The problem is when the opposite occurs and suddenly the hype is so intense that one can't help but feeling confused as to what could be missing from what the screen shows.
"The Hurt Locket" has some impressive scenes, some camera-work that a few would believe resembles cinema verite, more documentary style than feature presentation. There is also a very impressive performance by the lead actor, who should be credited with doing wonders with his limited screenplay, one that demands too much from an audience, who seems to be disconnected from the drama in the screen, full of shocking situations, but so devoid of emotion and drama. For a while, I was wondering if it was because there is so little depiction of non military faces; most of the times the camera was focused on the soldiers, and true, most of the perspective should be theirs, but it is like having a good piece of steak without any good seasoning.
We're literally bombarded with horrifying situation after situation, but we never leave our state of numbness. Here is selfishly addicted human being who seeks instant highs from a job that many would rather die than perform. In fact, I think in the end that might be the message of the film, that it is all irrational, and that people like the central figure of the film is what perpetuates the tragic conflicts.
We have suicide sacrifices, night holocausts, one of the dullest chases in history, a face off with a mysterious taxi driver. All of these intense moments fail, and one is only disturbed when the camera strays from the soldiers and takes a quick glance at those people who might be the most dangerous element of all. This is where the movie flounders, when there is so little emphasis on showing the two sides of the mix. One just doesn't work without the other.
There are some very effective moments, one of them has our antihero facing a DVD salesman, and it is an opportunity that is not fully utilized because once again because we really never know what his involvement might have been. In fact, as he departs the story, we get into a household, and tension skyrockets because we finally have a potential exchange of points of view, and it all degenerates into a comical escape from an upset housewife.
This is a film so out of kilter that it is the quiet moments that impact the most and will probably be the ones we will remember. We know war is irrational, that it might lead to even worse outcomes than most believe, but we have seen enough of the violence, the hardware, the testosterone moments before. This is like having a perfectly good musical piece ruined because someone believes that having every possible instrument play simultaneously will make a bigger impact. It is not the case. There has to be a balance, and the only thing hurting at the end of this film is the fact our intelligence has been insulted again by a group of people who can't see beyond the fog, the dust, or hear anything beyond the noise. Go back and see what the best moments were in war films, those when the noise disappeared and we looked straight into the eyes of those who were in hell. Screaming never made anyone feel, it just made us look.