Unrealistic and not believable piece of filmed trash

Rating: 2/10 (10 January 2011)

The Problems with "The Hurt Locker":
1) Not realistic: It appears as though the writer, and subsequently the director, did NOT research the men who conduct these types of missions. There are so many "film stunts" and unrealities, solely to heighten the tension of this movie, than one must suspend their disbelief way too many times, to go with the ride being told. Examples to follow....
2) Explosives must be handled with care, right? That's established in the very first scene of the movie. So why does Renner's character, when he encounters the Secondary that has 6 or so bombs attached (the one in the movie's poster), do this? He pulls the red wire up, that is attached to all the bombs (...that's OK, perhaps), but then he continues to pull the wire, lifting the bombs out of the ground. What???? What bomb expert would ever do this? And what bomb expert COULD ever behave this way in a "career" of deactivating 800+ bombs, and still be alive? I'll tell you: None. Extremely unreal.
Perhaps the director wanted to heighten the tension of this scene? But then why blow the reality? Any person in their right mind would say, "Are you kidding me??" Bombs can go off any second, even if timed. That was set up in dialogue the very FIRST sequence in the movie!
3) Backtracking in the story just a bit, how was the Thompson character actually killed in the opening sequence? He's at least 20 yards away from the explosion, and we see NO debris or shrapnel hitting him. All we see is he's knocked to the ground by the explosion's shockwave. If shrapnel penetrated his bomb suit, we should have seen this. Or it should have been explained. For a movie that had a $15 Million budget, this is quite lame.
4) In opening sequence, the Army is clearing people from the area where the bomb is. One Iraqi shopkeeper argues as he's pushed away from his shop area, and the second or third time we come back to the soldiers pushing/shooing people from the area, we see him get by one of the soldiers, who couldn't stop him. So... you're telling me, this soldier just lets it go? He doesn't chase after him? He doesn't "call it in" to his superior on the scene? NOT REALISTIC. They would keep the scene clear, particularly if they're worried about devices being set off by remote control. (Which they should be, as by 2004 -- the date shown on screen at beginning of film, IEDs were being set off by remote control.)
Then, somehow, no one knows this guy is there -- despite all the soldiers all over the place keeping a perimeter -- until he attempts to set off the bomb with his cell phone. Puulllleease!
5) Renner's reaction to the kid being dead with a bomb sewn inside his body was NOT believable. He had 2 very brief interactions with this kid up to this point; how could he be so emotionally wrought over this? He's a veteran and see lots of death. Now, suddenly, he's distraught about the kid being dead and about to be used as a "body bomb"? Gimme a frickin' break.
This phony "character motivation" is so that he will decide not to blow up the building (and dead kid), but instead, disarm this bomb. Can I just say, "gimme a frickin' break" again? And then be "motivated" to go on a "mission" of tracking down the possible perpetrators behind this, putting himself and his team at great risk. Oh yeah, VERY believable.
6) He carjacks a guy he thinks is involved (or who might know is involved) by himself, and travels into the heart of Baghdad. (Would never happen.) He then exits the car, telling the guy don't leave. LOLOL. Riiight. But then doesn't take the guy's car keys. So as he walks toward a house, the guy drives off. (Very convenient for stranding him.) He goes into the house, finds an older guy who clearly appears not to be a terrorist, but then his wife (also older) starts haranguing & accosting him, when he's holding/pointing a gun. What??? What Iraqi woman is going to do this, in an occupied country? NOT realistic.
7) On a bomb disarming mission after this, he decides that the perpetrators might be in one of the buildings on one of the blocks nearby. And it's night. He decides he's going to go after them, with or without his 2 team members. OK, he's crazy, maybe that would happen (although extremely unlikely, as this would not be following protocols in Iraqi engagement, and would likely result in disciplinary measures). But he's going, and his 2 team members go as well. Sorry, this is extreme BS and would not happen. One loose cannon, OK, but now the other 2 reasonable guys, WITHOUT BACKUP? Without full teams for block by block clearing? Would NEVER happen.
But hey, we gotta keep the tension in the story going, 'cause that's all there is to this movie!
I wonder how many soldiers who've served in Iraq, can appreciate such a flawed story about what it's like there, and how there is no chain of command of "oversight" of the bomb disarming units.
There are more BS things about this story, but if you've read this review, just do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Or, grab some beers, get buzzed, and have a good laugh at this total piece of sh*t.