Customer Reviews

The Hurt Locker

5 star:		(181)
4 star:		(71)
3 star:		(85)
2 star:		(60)
1 star:		(137)

 

 

The movie opens with the quote - "the rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug" (a modern paraphrase of Churchill's older and more famous maxim - "there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result")

This is a thriller of a movie about a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq and their daily grind in dealing with the IEDs and insurgents there.

This movie does have several stars - but Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pierce, and Evangeline Lilly all have fairly small roles. Blink, and you'll miss them. Their presence in this movie is more a testament to director/producer Kathryn Bigelow's status in the entertainment industry than anything else.

Jeremy Renner is Sergeant James, a bomb tech. Unlike his affable predecessor, he is a wild man. He seems not only indifferent to the dangers of his job, he absolutely revels in the dangers. It is the ultimate in thrill seeking behavior, getting that dopamine surge in his brain. Near the end of the movie, Sgt. James gets accused of being an adrenaline junkie, but we know now that the neurochemical at work here is dopamine. Bomb disposal is not just a job for him, but his passion, his addiction, his reason for being in the Army.

Renner's character ends up like a cross between Elmer Fudd, with his perpetually placid and slightly befuddled gaze, and Bugs Bunny, with his wile and lust for excitement and danger.

His two partners in the unit, Sgt. Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge, who have to cover him and just want to survive their tour of duty, don't know quite how to deal with his determination to confront danger. One wonders at why Sgt. James puts himself in danger, why he takes the extra risks to defuse a bomb when detonating it would do. The scene that explains it all is when Sgt. James returns home to America one day and we see him doing the mundane chores of life as a civilian, cleaning out the rain gutters, cleaning up the kitchen, shopping with his wife and baby at the grocery store. As he stares at an entire wall full of colorful cereal boxes stacked along a grocery store aisle, a look of utter blankness, boredom, and despair fills his face.....nope, not for him, this dull life as a civilian....

The movie's storyline is a series of daily missions, almost like a documentary or a TV series, each episode standing alone and yet building upon previous episodes, each one presenting a new danger, a new challenge, another piece of the puzzle that is the war in Iraq.

What makes this movie work is the recreation of Iraq in this movie - it was filmed in Jordan with local Iraqi expatriates. We feel the oppressive tension of the whole country, of not knowing who the bad guys are and where the next bomb or bullet is going to come from. We feel the fear and uncertainty of the American soldiers, caught between their desire to be the good guys and wanting to make nice with the local Iraqis, while constantly needing to remain vigilant and suspicious, never knowing who is a good Iraqi, and who deserves to get shot. We feel the bewilderment and resentment of the local Iraqis, who get pushed around at every turn by the American soldiers.

Unlike so many other recent Iraq war movies, this movie makes no political statements, there is no right or wrong here. These are just men at work, doing a dangerous and dirty job, and these guys are darn good at what they do for their country, whatever the reasons are that they are doing it.

I wasn't familiar with director Kathryn Bigelow's work prior to watching Hurt Locker (she directed Point Break, K-19, and others), but I am now a convert. She directed a brilliant and visceral Iraq war movie, which unlike many of its peers, is also apolitical. It's not overly preachy (In the Valley of Elah or Stop Loss) or pure action (The Kingdom), but manages to strike its own ground. The scenes are gritty, shaky; thankfully the shaky cam/documentary style footage is tastefully done here. The movie was filmed on location in Jordan, lending to the film's authenticity and immersivity. The viewer can almost taste the dust in the air, and feel the stares from the unwelcoming populace. It's the first mainstream movie to highlight the work of bomb defusal technicians , and it's a thankless and extremely hazardous job. The movie is Black Hawk Down good, albeit on a more intimate level.


The movie follows three members of Bravo Company's Explosive Ordanance Disposal (EOD) squad, as they struggle to finish the last few days of their year long tour of duty. Everyone copes differently; Specialist Eldridge (Geraghty) is overwhelmed at times with the death that surrounds them, Staff Sergeant James (Renner) is addicted to the rush of battle, and Sergeant Sanborn (Mackie) supports James as best he can. James is a complex, fascinating and tragic character; he's extremely competent, yet eccentric and even reckless to the point where his teammates consider fragging him in order to make it back alive. In a thoughtful gesture, he respects the work of his adversaries and keeps all the trigger mechanisms of bombs he has defused in the past. Every engagement the soldiers experience until their departure affects them, and we see every emotional impact.


Big Hollywood names like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, and David Morse make short, but memorable appearances. Even LOST actress Evangelline Lily has an extended cameo as James' wife. The bomb defusal scenes are nerve-wracklingly tense, and the audience sweats alongside the defusing technician. The team constantly scans for snipers, or the suspicious civilian about to make a cell phone call to trigger an IED. The movie does an excellent job of communicating the hazards of the EOD job, and one leaves with a deep appreciation of their work.


6 stars, highly recommended. It is an action filled, yet contemplative movie.

Had I not served in Iraq in 2004, perhaps I could have maintained a suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the film. However, it is extremely irritating to have the producers of this film and high-level movie critics gush about an "accurate depiction of war" when it is about as close as 2001: A Space Odyssey is to an accurate depiction of NASA. The writer claimed he spent "some time" embedded with an EOD unit, but I can't imagine his time amounted to too much more than a week.

Let's start with some glaring discrepencies. In the film, all soldiers seen are wearing uniforms known as ACUs, which feature the digital camouflage pattern. In 2004, those uniforms had not yet been fully developed or issued. Soldiers wore the DCUs, which feature tan and brown woodland-style camouflage patterns. ACUs were being field-tested with select units, but the prototypes still retained the traditional camo. At that time, only the Marines were wearing uniforms with digital patterns, though their uniforms feature different color patterns and different cuts. Additionally, every soldier wears an American flag patch on the right shoulder. These were conspicuously absent throughout.

The presentation of humvees and other military vehicles add a further level of unreality. Military vehicles typically have unit and vehicle identifations stenciled on bumpers, doors, or hoods. The names of principle occupants are usually stenciled on each side of the windshield. The dashboard and area between the front seats is packed full of radio equipment. There are generally MREs and misc. mission oriented debris lying around the interior. Not much of this was evident. What was evident was the utterly and completely absurd medivac scene that featured HUEY helicopters. Yes, those same Hueys that saw a great deal of service during the Vietnam War, but have long been replaced by the ubiquitous Blackhawk.

The ridiculous misrepresentation, misuse, and absence of military equipment continues on down to things like night optical devices (NODs). NODs are those things soldiers strap to their helmets and flip down over their eyes to see in the dark. All throughout the movie, the three main characters are shown to have the NOD mounting plates attached to their helmets. Yet, when they tear off on a hunt for bad guys during a night mission they run around shining flashlights, which is tactically one of the dumbest things a soldier could do.

Running around with flashlights at night is but one example of things real soldiers would not do. They would not split up "to cover more ground." An enlisted soldier would not call a colonel "colonel." He would call the colonel "sir." A soldier would not sneak out of base disguised as a civilian, hijack an Iraqi's car at gunpoint, confront an Iraqi family, then weasel his way back on base with the lame excuse he'd been to whorehouse. There would have been serious consequences to his actions. The film gives the impression that the three EOD soldiers are gun totin' cowboys who answer to no one. In reality, there would be commanding officer who would, at the least, issue operation orders and hold the NCOs to a certain level of accountability.

The characters themselves are fairly unbelievabe. They don't talk like real soldiers. I didn't hear "hooah" uttered once. Nor did I hear much of the plethora of abbreviations and acronyms that comprises the military jargon spoken by soldiers. While SSG James' two sidekicks are cardboard cut-outs of Hollywood military cliches, James himself is an erratic, irresponsible, borderline-psychopath who would not last long in the leadership of men or the diffusement of bombs. His obsession/concern for the Iraqi boy he has unrealistically befriended is completely out of character.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. On the plus side, the landscape does look like Iraq, and the urban shots replicate the appearance of Baghdad quite well. The acting is adequate, I suppose, but I was not particularly enthusiastic about any specific performance. Quite frankly, it amazes me that they would make a film this sloppy and inaccurate, when correct information is so readily available. As it is, this is not a realistic war movie; it is a fantasy with nearly as much imagination as Avatar.

On a closing note, if you want to see an excellent film that provides an accurate view of the Iraq War in 2004, check out "The War Tapes." It's a documentary shot by soldiers themselves, and provides honest insight into the impact of war's daily grind.

I wonder what sort of review I would have given "the Hurt Locker" had I not spent 11 years in the Army (about half active duty and the other half reserve and the Guard). I probably would have liked it a lot, but my military experience (which predates the Iraq War but did involve Yugoslavia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1990 and 1991, and Panama in 1989 made the departures from realism (that were invisible to a lot of reviewers here) stand out like blinking neon signs:

1. I thought the idea of the "cowboy" EOD technician sneaking out of the base to go on his own into downtown Baghdad at night in 2004 was laughable, when you think about the fact that I'm sure every soldier over there knows that if they fell into enemy hands, they could expect extremely unpleasant deaths.

2. Set aside the unrealism in item 1, the fact that the cowboy didn't get in trouble for doing something so outrageously stupid and criminal (since he did force an Iraqi at gunpoint to take him downtown) was also ludicrous.

3. I will defer to soldiers and Marines who have served over there and especially to EOD technicians, but I found myself extremely dubious that those guys would be out by themselves in such a dangerous environment. No, they would have had security with them in the form of infantry who would keep watch and protect them while they did their work.

4. The absence of officers apart from one who gushes about the bravery of the cowboy EOD tech and the psychiatrist who gets himself blown up was unrealistic too. Those guys would have answered to a captain or a lieutenant, or a warrant officer in real life.

5. The whole interlude where they were out in the desert with some British mercenaries (or at least that's what I thought they were) was a jarring disconnect given the fact that these guys were EOD techs and not special forces operators. The fact that they were out there by themselves for a prolonged period made no sense since in real life, they would have been yelling on the radio for a quick reaction force or even support from a helicopter.

6. I also found myself thinking, "this is BS" when the two EOD technicians suddenly became a highly effective sniper team operating a weapon that I would imagine very few service personnel who aren't trained and designated snipers or SF operators would ever see (a Barrett .50 caliber rifle)

"The Hurt Locker" has some beautiful and striking visuals and there are some scenes with genuine tension like when the cowboy EOD tech discovers that the single IED he's found is only the first stage in a multiple IED set up...but as I said in my review title, these moments of genuine, realistic excitement got overwhelmed by the silly stuff.

Frankly, if you want to see bomb disposal work that looks more realistic to my eyes at least, you should try renting or buying the British series "Danger UXB." That seemed far more realistic than "the Hurt Locker"

DANGER UXB

Update: According to someone who works EOD who made a comment below, EOD teams sometimes use Barrett rifles to blow up devices, so the two guys playing sniper wasn't quite as silly as I thought it was ... but the overall interlude of them out there with the British mercs remained very silly in my view.

As a retired Army Bomb Disposal Team Leader I have to say it's right up there with 'Danger UXB' and A+++++to the writer and the director!!! A really well done depiction without the usual Hollywood hype/litery license/theater/BS.
Oh, yea, about 'not being able to adjust after the regimented life', it has nothing to do with 'not being able to' and everything to do with 'not wanting to'. You'll enjoy the view into the lives of this very small brotherhood of military Bomb Disposers.

I wanted to like this movie...I really, really did. I had seen and read alot of hype for it, rave reviews, and alot of talk of Oscars. After watching it however, I can't see why.

There have been alot of war movies over the years, but there has yet to be anything worthwhile watching for Iraq. This is not Platoon, the Dirty Dozen, the Battle of the Bulge, it isn't even Inglorious Basterds. True, other Iraq fair has fallen flat or just plain sucked. This wasn't as bad (Over There) and didn't have an idiotic and misguided political statement (Redacted...Marc Cuban burn in hell) but it wasn't all that good.

There's the typical military irregularities, such as uniforms (US flags are worn on the right shoulder of soldiers but in the movie they're either on both or none), equipment (magazines disappear and reappear between scenes, and the 6 wheeled APC used by US soldiers is in fact an APC used by the South Africans, not Americans) and overall impossible situations (a single vehicle by itself? REALLY?). These SERIOUSLY detract from the movie, so anyone not familiar with anything military get a somewhat twisted inaccurate view of operations in country.

The storyline overall really has no point, as all it is are daily missions, almost vignettes, of the EOD team's daily ops.

The last 15 minutes is the only thing that saves this movie and gives it a star. the acting, emotion and theme (I won't spoil it) would've made this an AMAZING movie, had it been a constant throughout. Sure, there's small snippets of emotion and feeling, but at times too brief to really feel it.

Yes, I can see this movie receiving some nominations, such as best actor for Jeremy Renner, but to win it I think is a bit much. As an active duty soldier with over 8 years service and 2 deployments, this movie just seemed lackluster and some of the situations too far fetched to really appreciate the movie, although it wasn't the total crapfest of other movies (Home of the Brave)

The ratings of this movie are surprisingly all over the place, so I read many reviews to try to understand why. It appears that a major area of contention is whether this movie is sufficiently realistic. A number of people with military experience, including some with experience in Iraq, argue that the movie is too unrealistic, but their complaints often focus on technicalities which, though not always trivial, perhaps aren't too important for the typical non-military viewer. And there are also a number of military people who find the movie quite realistic, so it seems that the experiences of military people vary substantially. Considering all of this, my sense is that the movie reasonably faithfully portrays at least the essence of the experiences of at least some military people, so it's accurate enough for its purpose.

If so, I found this movie to be a powerful and riveting depiction of why "war is hell," including "war" which is actually occupation. On the American side, our troops face a situation where they often can't tell friend from foe, they can die very unexpectedly and suddenly, and they're constant witness to destruction and death, including the death of people who become their friends. On the Iraqi side, they have the natural resentment, bitterness, and defiance of people who are being occupied by a foreign power. Never before have I had a such a clear sense of why war must be avoided unless there's truly no other reasonable option.

This leads to the issue of whether the movie has a political message. Many reviewers have argued that it doesn't overtly have such a message, and I agree. But, at the same time, by depicting how pointless and detrimental the occupation of Iraq is, with suffering on all sides, the movie does help to clarify why we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and why we need to get out ASAP. Let's remember that inspectors had already failed to find any WMDs after extensive searching, there was never any credible link between Iraq and 9/11, and there was never any credible evidence or argument showing that Iraq posed a genuine threat to the US. By going in there, all we've done is destabilize Iraq and open the floodgates of civil war, cause a huge loss of life on all sides, expend many billions of dollars (which we obviously can't afford), and make America LESS safe. The only parties which seem to have benefitted are the defense contractors who have made tons of money at the expense of the American public (you and me). If we really want to "support our troops," we need to get them out of harms way and bring them home to their families, rather than asking them to endure enormous hardships and risk their lives for a conflict which makes no sense.

Anyway, getting back to the movie, my point is that the movie vividly illustrates the basis for my comments. Very highly recommended.

This wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't recommendable either. I viewed this knowing that it won some awards and drew a lot of attention so I expected something that was well done, but unfortunately it wasn't. The writing was pretty darn bad. Everything the characters say has been said in other movies, they are more stereotypes than not, and I think anyone with a cursory knowledge of the military (and by that I mean someone familiar with Call of Duty video games and the History channel) will find all kinds of Military inaccuracies; I can only imagine what some of our servicemen thought when watching this. In all I must have missed something because the characters are more caricatures (not particularly likeable) and the story was aimless, more of a day in the life kind of thing with no point other than a series of happenings. Unfortunately I think this film is the product of hype rather than quality, and at around two hours and twenty minutes I'd recommend checking something else out.

"The Hurt Locker" is about Sergeant First Class William James and his explosive ordinance disposal unit's adventures in Iraq. While James is an interesting character and there are certainly many suspenseful moments in the movie when bombs are being defused and the unit is being shot at, there is no real compelling storyline to this movie at all. Instead, the movie watcher is taken from one stressful Iraq experience to another in a constant onslaught of tense situations. Unfortunately, even most video games out there nowadays have just as much suspense as "The Hurt Locker," but with better storylines. I have absolutely no idea why this movie is considered one of the best movies of 2009, and can only attribute it to the inherent positive bias that movie critics have for any movie that has a theme of "War is Bad," even if there is no story that goes along with it. Still, "The Hurt Locker" is a good watch on video and much better than the average action movie being made today. However, I don't think that it's anything special. Hopefully, someday a movie can be made that combines the tension of the Iraq War experience with a great story. "The Hurt Locker" is just not that movie.

I knew in advance that there would be serious technical flaws in this movie, but I did expect a great movie given the hype and the statue. I just saw nothing particularly redeeming other than the quality of the filming, set dressing, and effects.

Where to start? The lead character is both unlikeable and unsympathetic. Those characteristics by themselves would not be such a problem if he wasn't also so unrealistic. Tom Cruise as Maverick in Top Gun was more believable as a Naval Aviator - and that is saying something.

The story is just not that interesting. Action substitutes for plot.

Finally the technical aspects stink. The closest thing to realistic EOD was the opening sequence. Real EOD techs are cautious by nature, they have to be. They rarely "cut the red wire", preferring to BIP (Blow in Place) an explosive especially an IED. Some dramatic license is expected in a Hollywood effort, but at least a nod to reality is expected.