The Hurt Locker

I don't mind war movies, but my biggest complaint lies in how more often than not they resort to middling attempts at thrusting the film makers' political agenda in your face, and/or turn the horrors of war into almost laughable cliches with scenes that could be placed into any number of OTHER war movies with the same results. I'm sick of melodramatic slow motion shots of notable characters being shot down, and just before they die they say "tell my wife - *cough* - I love her." I don't like "sprawling, epic" battle scenes that inspire with a canned swooping orchestral score that tries to prove the contents' importance by the dramatic strength of the violins and drums alone. It's hard for war movies to be honest without sacrificing cheesiness or just pure boredom. There are ACTION war movies that go light on political commentary, and then the rest are usually heavy-handed inductions of wild-eyed laughter for me because it tries SO HARD to be honest that it falls into parody-like folly.
The Hurt Locker is a big surprise for me. Although it takes place in 2004 in Iraq, there is no mention of soldiers saying "why are we here, anyway? What's the purpose of all this?" It doesn't mention Bush, or spin any political views for the left or right. It hardly even pounds in that "war is bad". This is mostly about three guys who work in the same unit that have three differing ways of dealing with the stress of such a dangerous job.
Jeremy Renner was great as Doyle in 28 Weeks Later, and he spins his persona around this time as a low-key soldier when off the field who turns into a calculated monster while on duty. He isn't necessarily evil, but there are certainly a few screws loose in his head. Anthony McKee was excellent as SGT Sanborn. I could feel for the guy's situation, being stuck in the middle of the ranks, having to deal with both ends of the leadership chain. Geraghty fills out the trio as a Specialist struggling to cope with the overwhelming desire to do right and do well when perhaps he's not exactly cut out for this shit.

Outside of these three, most of the other players have small bits who come and go at different times, but not enough to leave a major lasting impact in screen time. Guy Pearce was great for his cameo; the accent was spot-on! I was surprised to see Ralph Fiennes popping in, and David Morse's quick roll as a Colonel was hilarious. Christian Camargo gave me some laughs because I've MET some counseling Officers just like him! It was a departure from his part in Dexter, too.

If you ever wondered what it would be like disarming bombs in a hostile environment, then this is certainly the movie to see. It starts out with a bang (well, I mean that it begins with little buildup to the meat and bones of the story) as the EOD team has to detonate an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) with a remote robotic machine that breaks down. Thanks, government contractors for providing such valuable products! The tension that arises from the knowledge of the IED exploding any given moment only gets stronger as each second passes. As more people stand around watching, it leaves more opportunity for any one of those bystanders to have a cell phone that will remote detonate the IED. It doesn't feel like a game, and it doesn't seem like a fun or romantic job in the least. It makes for a very intense viewing experience.
What also impressed me much was the detail put into not just the Army infantry-styled mentality, but with how convincingly these guys performed room clearing duties and the strategy employed with providing cover, etc... It's much more "vintage" feeling than most Hollywood war movies. You know that if someone is going to get shot in this movie, they are certainly most likely to DIE. Without a few quick sentences of redemption or farewell wishes to their loved ones.

I do have a few small complaints. There is a sniper scene that bothered me because after the insurgent sniper was obviously sighted in, they didn't change position or use alternate cover in an attempt to force the sniper to re-evaluate the target. It feels like a dumb move on their part. It was still a pretty decent scene, though. My other more dominant gripe is with the attempt at explaining one of the movie's main themes. It starts out with a quote that finishes with "war is a drug". This is a reference to how war can make adrenaline junkies who are always looking for conflict to get the next "high". This theme is already presented by the story itself, and doesn't need such heavy emphasis before the opening credits even start to roll. Also, in case you DIDN'T GET THE POINT, one of the characters presents his view on why he does what he does near the end of the movie, which makes me feel like they were afraid the audience wouldn't catch on to one of the most major themes of the movie. Well, yes I did get it. I got it before it really even started thanks to the quote "war is a drug". The monologue near the end only re-iterated my notion that their fears were the audience would be too dense to "get it".

My small gripes aside - a few that I haven't made note of - The Hurt Locker is one of the more honest and gripping war movies that I have seen in quite some time. It is much smarter than I expected. Some of the scenes are quite nerve-wracking, and the three leads are plausible and eclectic. I also give props to skirting any political outlook on war in general, or - especially - the Bush administration and the reasons for being in the Middle East, etc... This is about three soldiers doing their job and trying to live through it. I very much enjoyed this outing at the movies.

GRADE: A