Films, and such.

The Hurt Locker - a review

Inspired by the recent favourable press it received, I decided to watch The Hurt Locker. Notable critics like Roger Ebert were calling it the best film of the decade and it also received Best Film and Best Director accolades at the BAFTAs recently.

The film follows an elite bomb disposal squad of three members during their tour of duty in Iraq, and how the team dynamics change when a new member is introduced to the squad. Whilst I thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought highly of it, i did find it a bit undeserving of the astonishingly high praise bestowed upon it.

Direction of the film was capable and clever. The first half of the film flies by, as you are thoroughly engaged by the events in the film. Bigelow pulls you in right from the get go, choosing to start with a tense bomb disarmament scene. The tension and stress on the audience is maintained for much of the first hour of the film. The pace of the film falls rather noticeably after that first hour, as character development starts to take place outside of the missions through interactions with some side characters. This left me with mixed feelings. Whilst I appreciate it is not always desirable to maintain a high level of tension throughout the film, the lack of it in the second half of the film caused my concentration to waver slightly. In the end, it gave a sense that the film peaked at the halfway point, which was a bit disappointing.

Bigelow chooses to focus her film almost entirely on the three characters, meaning to say there are few minor characters. It is a great decision, as the story is de-cluttered and is able to solely concentrate on establishing the dynamics amongst the three soldiers. It is also an under-rated decision because too many films about wars (in my opinion) tend to be none too subtle and tired political rants. It still has a slight anti-war slant, but Bigelow achieves subtlety and the film offers such a great perspective of the Iraqi war by concentrating on soldiers who actually sound like soldiers.

Which brings me to my next point: the film is remarkably realistic and easily the most realistic war film I’ve seen thus far. The setting for the film is bleak and provides a sharp contrast to the scenes later in the film. It’s almost like an empty canvas, waiting for the people caught in the war to paint scenes of urgency and despair. The desperation and the anger in the country can almost be seen in the air, as film does a great job of carrying over the grittiness of the situation in Iraq.

The acting is solid, and the actor portraying Lt. James turns in a wonderful performance, in a role that is not the easiest. He is believable and communicates with some subtlety. He is supported by a capable cast, who turn in respectable performances (a slight complaint is that the main actor and the actor in the Eldridge role look too similar, but it could be that I’m just bad with faces).

Unfortunately, the Hurt Locker does suffer from certain noticeable flaws. For starters, I had mixed feelings about the much-heralded cinematography by Barry Ackroyd. He does a fantastic job of giving some really unique, creative and varied perspectives of the different scenarios. Unfortunately, he also indulges in several slow-motion shots of random events, which adds little to the film’s artistry and affects the pace of the film.

The story is also slightly clichéd in terms of developing the personality of the soldiers. The side story between the Iraqi refugee and the male lead is a nice addition, but other side stories to flesh out characters are almost under-written and poorly developed. I take great issue with the entire storyline concerning the psychologist, which adds nothing, was disappointingly clichéd and almost ruined my opinion of the film. The last few scenes are also poorly developed, which is disappointing as it could have added so much more value to the film. The revelation that comes at the end of the film, if it is revelation at all, is anti-climatic and you end up feeling with a sense of ‘so what?’

All in all, a film that is enjoyable and easily one of the better films I’ve seen. The debate here is not whether it is a top film. It is. The debate is whether it is worth the plaudits it has received, and in my opinion it does not quite meet the high level of praise it has received. With that: don’t go into the cinema expecting perfection.

P.S. With regards to the ‘fight’ between Avatar and Hurt Locker, I have to say I’d prefer if Hurt Locker wins. As Sarah said to me, they are very different films of course. However, Avatar is remarkable only for its sense of imagination and ambition. The story was more than a tad clichéd. On the other hand, Hurt Locker contains far more subtlety and variation in storytelling – skills that indicate a skilled director. Yes Avatar possibly pushed the envelope in the medium with its technology, but a film is a combination of various factors. For the Hurt Locker, the sum of all its parts just trumps Avatar’s shiny but disjointed parts. Alright It’s a lengthy debate worth its own post so I’ll stop here as I’m pressed for time.