THE HURT LOCKER (2008)

DIRECTOR: Kathryn Bigelow
STARRING: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty

Considering this won Best Picture, among a million other things, at the Academy Awards, I figured it should be at the top of my list of films to see. I usually make a point of avoiding war movies but I decided to give this a shot anyway, just to be able to make a legitimate statement about whether or not I think it deserved its wins. I’m glad that I sat through it and I agree on some of its wins, though not on the more significant ones.

The Hurt Locker opens with the following quote: “The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.” The setting is Iraq in 2004, centered upon three soldiers specialized in dismantling IED’s. When the unit’s leader is killed in an explosion, Sergeant William James (Renner) steps in to replace him. Despite claiming to have dismantled 800+ bombs in the past, James’ unorthodox methods immediately rub Sergeant Sanborn (Mackie) and Specialist Eldridge (Geraghty) the wrong way. Eventually, however, the men bond together through the trials of war as they each battle their own personal demons.

As mentioned above, I haven’t seen a lot of war movies so I don’t have much to compare this to. I believe, though, that a film should be able to stand on its own apart from its genre, so maybe my lack of comparisons is for the better. The Hurt Locker was in a lot of ways what I expected. It was tense, loud, and, like the lead character, pumped full of adrenaline. However, none of these things made the film particularly unique or special. There were some interesting explosion sequences that used slow motion fairly well, but nothing stunning or even creative as far as cinematography goes. Not worth a nomination, anyway.

As far as acting and character development goes, the acting isn’t anything to complain about. It’s fine, but that’s all. The characters, on the other hand, were a little flatter than I’d have liked and not entirely original. In the case of Sgt. James, we aren’t offered a lot in terms of range; early on, the audience is informed that he is “reckless” and therefore someone we should feel anxious about. He is a man who thrives off the rush of war and cannot seem to function without it, but any other aspects of his character were hard for me to buy. In spite of his high record of disarming bombs, this was hardly a man I could believe would be trusted to protect the lives of his team; he is solely invested in his own thrills, acting more like a macho cowboy hero than a trained soldier. Still, audiences are sure to love that invincible-man complex, and the film plays that up to the highest degree.

The bottom line of The Hurt Locker is that from the very beginning, when that quote is revealed on the screen, it declares that it is making a statement. It has a statement about war, about man’s reactions to how he experiences war, and the contrast between home life and the thrill of combat. It wanted to say so many things but didn’t bother to look beyond the exciting rush of the surface. All in all it wasn’t a bad film, nor was it necessarily a good film — it was just an unremarkable film, and, in my opinion, certainly not a Best Picture winner.

FINAL GRADE: B