[GerryD]

Has anyone else seen this movie?  I highly recommend it for it's interesting perspective on the Iraq war.  Very intense and suspenseful....keeps you on the edge of your seat!

[rajacat]

I just saw it. It is definitely not for queasy but I enjoyed it anyway. It really gave you an idea of what it must be like as warrior on the streets of Baghdad. It absolutely pulled no punches in depicting the brutality and extreme conditions many soldiers have to tolerate on a day to day basis. The adrenaline charged existence of the three man bomb squad is so intense you wonder how they can stay sane. Adrenaline addiction would be a virtue in these conditions that demand a high state of energy and awareness.

Excellent cinematography, sound effects, attention to detail and seamless special effects.

R rated for the extreme graphic violence which which even exceeded my jaded expectation.   

I even left the theater with an adrenaline high.

-Roy

[santacore]

Glad to hear you guys enjoyed it as much as I did. I was part of the post production sound crew and recorded all the Foley for the film. It was a fun and challenging project, with the end result exceeding my expectations. I think the director did a great job of getting us into the head of the soldiers, and giving us a fairly realistic interpretation of what's it's like to be deep in the war. I certainly have a new respect and appreciation for everyone fighting for us.

[reddmadder]

I had a different experience of the film...basically I thought it was a series of very well directed and edited suspense/action sequences but it was lacking in character development. The Jeremy Renner character doesn't develop in any way,he's the wise guy ,macho character from his introduction to the very end of the film.It would have been so much more powerful if he started out as an S.O.B and then arched into a comrade in arms who really questions his motives for putting his fellow brothers in arms and himself in such dangerous situations.
In a nutshell it plays like a violent video game,which is probably enough for most audiences.

[rajacat]

I had a different experience of the film...basically I thought it was a series of very well directed and edited suspense/action sequences but it was lacking in character development. The Jeremy Renner character doesn't develop in any way,he's the wise guy ,macho character from his introduction to the very end of the film.It would have been so much more powerful if he started out as an S.O.B and then arched into a comrade in arms who really questions his motives for putting his fellow brothers in arms and himself in such dangerous situations.
In a nutshell it plays like a violent video game,which is probably enough for most audiences.

I thought that there was some character development in that Renner entered the action as a seemingly empty headed macho character that didn't have the respect of his comrades but that changed when he proved himself in a number of situations and soon he established his dominance.
He was there to do a job and he had the rare combination of character traits that made him good at his job. He enjoyed it, whereas the other characters including fellow members of his team didn't have the specific traits to "wear the suit".

If you want finely honed character development, look elsewhere. I look at this movie as a character study not a study of character development. I'd imagine that Renner might have more time for questioning his motivations after his tour of duty is finished  when he's fighting post traumatic stress syndrome. The military shrink character in the movie would be the type of character to have finely honed philosophical insights and he ended up dead.

I think that this film is certainly a couple of steps above your characterization of it as just a "violent video game". Superficially you could judge it as just another war movie but I think it's an anti-war movie because it shows war as it really is not some sanitized version where right and wrong are clearly delineated.

ed.  Also his character did undergo a change when he developed a relationship with an Iraqi boy who he mistakenly thought was killed during an surgical operation to create a human bomb. Afterwords when he found out that it was another boy but he didn't want to continue the friendship. This was probably because any personal relationship, outside of his squad, would interfere with doing his job. Also an empty headed macho character would've just shot the Iraqi with the locked body bomb rather then attempt to rescue him. The Renner character wasn't quite as simple as you seem to think.

-Roy   

[guest48077]

I had a different experience of the film...basically I thought it was a series of very well directed and edited suspense/action sequences but it was lacking in character development.

I agree, with the statement above.

As well................. The cinematography and sound were very good but the Story really sucked. Nothing really happened. As far as War movies go this was not a good one. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate it a SOLID 4

Remember this is just MY opinion.

[rajacat]

You guys that didn't like the movie or thought it superficial really seem to be in the minority. All of the professional reviews that I've read seem to be very positive. Here's one from David Denby of the The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/06/29/090629crci_cinema_denby?currentPage=2

Here's the  Metacritic survey of 35 critics.
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/hurtlocker

-Roy

[ooheadsoo]

No Spoilers, Please.

[reddmadder]

If you look at the film from a structural/character p.o.v the Renner character never underwent any emotional transition.
In a well written "archtypical " story the hero must face up to and survive an experience that transforms him.
From the very beginning the Renner character was a cocky,macho guy with a dangerous job that was the only thing in his life that made him feel "alive".
IMHO, that character began the film with that knowledge and ended the film in the same way.
For me, I can enjoy that story line and character up to a point,but I want more than that from a film.
Also ,as in all art forms,trust your own opinion and reactions.
Reviews only legitimize the reviewers reactions.

[reddmadder]

3 good examples of what I'm talking about:
Apocalypse Now
Platoon
The Deer Hunter

[rajacat]

BTW did you read the New Yorker review? Like I said it was more of a character study not a movie of character development. In addition, there were scenes in which the Renner character acted contrary to his macho facade.

 The scene with the suicide bomber locked/forced into his mission and his relationship with the little boy which was bringing out the father in him and perhaps because he missed being with his own newly born.  I also think that there was some character development in that he did seem to improve his leadership qualities throughout the film by winning the respect of his comrades. Perhaps this is closer to real life that having a total character changing experience in such a short time span. Also when they asked him how many bombs he has disarmed ihe mentioned 800+. Well....this seems to imply that he is the bomb guru, hardly someone who is going to undergo a life changing epiphany in order to fit in Character Development 101 . Like you said it's just your opinion but I judge, and most pro. reviewers try to judge films within their own logical constraints. I would have been more critical of the movie if the main character acted artificially out of character.

-Roy

-Roy 

 

[rajacat]

No Spoilers, Please.

See the movie first and then read the thread.

-Roy

[reddmadder]

A character study by definition involves character development.The audience will learn about the character as we experience his/her actions,thoughts and deeds throughout the film. So he/she "develops"...the character has to move from point a  to b in order for us to invest any emotion. It's not ,strictly speaking, the same as the "Hero's journey " as seen in the 3 films I listed below, but it could be.
I'm not trying to start a flame...just my opinion.

[rajacat]

A character study by definition involves character development.The audience will learn about the character as we experience his/her actions,thoughts and deeds throughout the film. So he/she "develops"...the character has to move from point a  to b in order for us to invest any emotion. It's not ,strictly speaking, the same as the "Hero's journey " as seen in the 3 films I listed below, but it could be.
I'm not trying to start a flame...just my opinion.

No flame alert necessary. I think it's OK to be interested and excited about movies.

Here's another rave review of The Hurt Locker. Look for Jeremy Renner to get an Oscar nomination for Best Male Actor and possibly Kathryn Bigelow for best director. Best cinematography a possibility too as well as special effects.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/movies/26hurt.html