Perhaps it is the focus and appraisal of the heroics of a US soldier which provides a more emotional and patriotic connection for American audiences that others may not share

Rating: 6/10 (13 February 2010)

This film is set in Baghdad during the occupation of Iraq. Following the death of a bomb disposal specialist (Guy Pearce), a reckless defusing expert named William James (Jeremy Renner) is brought in as a replacement. Will's neglect for protocol and disregard for his fellow soldiers makes him particularly difficult to work with. During his first task with his new company he insists on carrying out the job by himself, rather than using the defusing robot and he also purposely blocks the visibility of his fellow soldiers with a smoke grenade to cause a diversion. His odd behaviour leads the other members of the unit, such as Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), to question whether they want him risking their lives. They are forced to work together through a series of dangerous missions, regularly trying to come to terms with the random occurrence of death and the chaos on the streets of Iraq that cannot be contained.
The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, was due to be released straight to DVD in Australia before a distributor was able to grant it a cinema release. Much like the September 11 docudrama United 93, Bigelow's film is one that sacrifices the depth of its narrative to immerse and focus the audience in a claustrophobic space of endangerment. Working with a screenplay by Mark Boal, a journalist who attributes much of the film to his own observations in Baghdad, Bigelow was able to shot the film in Jordon with highly gritty and realistic visuals. The dizzying hand-held camera work does not make for attractive framing but its erratic nature expresses the almost overwhelming sense of danger faced in combat by US soldiers. It is through these suspicions by the troops, some of them justified, that this becomes a highly intense film at times. A moment where Will insists in staying behind to defuse a car bomb, while an Iraqi civilian continues to film the soldiers, is one of the early sequences that is impacting in its intensity and also because of the way it portrays risk as a form of adrenaline.
Yet beyond this notion of risk and one's immersion into the spontaneity of combat, the film's narrative lacks the depth, intellect and morality of modern war classics, such as Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. This is not a film that ever seeks to explore the politics of the war, the role of religion or the minds of the insurgents. The persistence to focus primarily on bomb defusing for the duration of the film ensures that its episodic nature and reliance on climaxes becomes rather repetitive. After the second mission one has to question where the film is going and exactly what the point is. Perhaps this is reflective of the ongoing nature of war itself, or war as a drug the audience is told early on, but it makes for a less interesting narrative, given the attention to velocity rather than development. If the film had persisted with ethical questions, like when Sanborn considers blowing up Will, this might have been a much more thought-provoking film.
The final quarter of the film particularly wavers, with thinly veiled patriotism sinking in more obviously. Bigelow begins to view the character of Will with self-righteousness, having him try to track down the family of a little boy who he believes was used as a suicide bomber. Similarly, Will is abused by a fellow soldier he accidentally wounds in saving his life and he is ignored at home by his wife when he tries to tell her about a deadly combat experience. It is as though Bigelow feels the need to express how under-appreciated soldiers are in the risks that they take. Limiting the home scenes till the very end is also a missed opportunity to explore the disorientation and the isolation from the battlefield. Despite the weaknesses in the narrative and the minimal back-stories of the character, the performances are still impressive. Renner offers a natural performance, shifting between supreme confidence and utter frustration during his tasks. His arrogance is visible in his actions rather than through any smugness, which might have made him unlikeable. Anthony Mackie finely matches Renner's performance as Sanborn though, demonstrating his skepticism and frustration with credibility. It is a shame that the relationship between these two men is not as rounded as it could have been in the screenplay.
For much of the hype and the future accolades that The Hurt Locker is almost certain to receive, this is a strangely underwhelming and forgettable film. It immerses one into the tension and atmosphere of a war zone sufficiently, but the repetitive nature of this means the film is not as intellectually stimulating as one would like it to be. This is an action film, largely interested more in velocity rather than any deeper conclusions about the Iraq war. Perhaps it is the focus and appraisal of the heroics of a US soldier which provides a more emotional and patriotic connection for American audiences that others may not share. It might just be one of the reasons why this intense but hollow film almost failed to find a cinematic release in Australia.