Review: ‘The Hurt Locker’
by Alexander Marlow
Updated.
Epigraph: a quotation set at the beginning of a literary work or one of its divisions to suggest its theme.
Epigraphs crop up occasionally in literature and film, but more frequently on the SAT exam. In fact, I am using the definition of epigraph as the epigraph for this review. If you are to the right of Bill Clinton, all you need to know about “The Hurt Locker” is its epigraph: “War is a drug.”
Incredibly, the mainstream media is trying to position “The Hurt Locker” as politically neutral. The mainstream media are dense. “War is a drug.” Drugs are bad. Thus, war is bad. This is a left-wing film. End of story. Witness the first five seconds of the movie and read the epigraph; if you still have the audacity to trumpet its neutrality, you should be committed to an insane asylum or the newsroom at MSNBC.
From Director Katherine Bigelow (Point Break) and Screenwriter Mark Boal (whose previous credit is “In the Valley of Ellah”), “The Hurt Locker” is an artificially suspenseful and episodic Iraq War film about an elite Army bomb squad led by Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). I say artificially suspenseful because all the tension is developed over the course of each scene with a manipulative soundtrack. Unfortunately, the tension isn’t sustained from one scene to the next. There is no plot. Just a series of unrelated missions. Much like my high school dates, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this thing wasn’t going anywhere.
The characters are color-by-number. James is the cowboy. He’s willing to be reckless, abandon protocol, and bone-headedly puts himself and his men in harms way time and time again. If war is a drug, this guy is Ozzy Osbourne. Sanborn is the dude who plays by the books, has a business mentality, and is always the one who says, “I don’t know, maybe this isn’t such a good idea…..” If you’ve seen “NYPD Blue Shield Law” and “NCIS Cold Case Order” you’ve seen these same characters again and again.
John Nolte was my man-date to the screening (our rapport is budding into an epic bromance; we are in line to co-star as “Dumb, Lazy, Over-Grown Kid 1” and “Dumb, Lazy Over-Grown Kid 2” in the next Judd Apatow movie), and we shared a lot of the same opinions on the politics of the film (see his take here). We agreed the filmmakers didn’t bother to answer several important questions, not the least of which:
1) Why are these men in Iraq? Especially in the particularly dangerous field of bomb diffusion? I am a young man, athletic, and of military age. I routinely ask myself what is it that drives the incredible men and women who serve our country in combat? Staff Sergeant James does it because he is a junkie for war, his heroism emanating from his addiction to the adrenaline rush, not from his character. In fact, none of the characters were motivated by anything upbeat or inspirational. Nothing about fighting for something bigger than oneself, quashing evil around the world, or saving innocent, oppressed people from tyranny.
2) Who are the Iraqis? Boal and Bigelow don’t seem to care. The Iraqis portrayed in “The Hurt Locker,” just like in every other Hollywood Iraq War blockbuster, are faceless, nameless, and utterly lame people who do nothing more than herd goats and sell bootlegged copies of “Pink Panther 2” to our troops. The way the Iraqis are portrayed in the film, I wouldn’t lend them my lunch money, much less lay my life on the line for them. These Iraqis weren’t even characters. They were extras. This was an Iraq War movie and it had nothing to do with Iraqis.
There are other moments in the film that are blatantly anti-war. David Morse makes a bizarre cameo as a Colonel who makes a decision to let a just-wounded Iraqi civilian/suspect die for no apparent reason—implying, of course, that the field commander is a hate-filled bigot air-raiding villages and killing civilians. This is 100% incidental to the plot and only serves to prop up the anti-war agenda.
Despite the universally glowing reviews the film is receiving in the mainstream media, the movie itself has flaws beyond it’s ideological portrayal of our military. Particularly, no scene is related to the next and it is almost tension free except when they play the “Jaws” music. The troops are caricatures rather than realistic American servicemen, but performances by Renner and Mackie are impressive nonetheless.
Yet, for those of you who view war movies with a heightened sense of Hollywood’s political agenda, for those you who still have Hollywood’s previous Iraq War offerings fresh in your minds, for those of you who anxiously await the Iraq War film finally portraying our troops as the heroes and liberators all but a few of them are, this is not the movie for you. You’ll see the matrix as soon as that epigraph hits the screen and it will be a malignant distraction until the credits roll.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
48 Comments
I D not working.
Welp. Here's another film I yank off the ole Netlix queue.
Welp. Here's another film I yank off the ole Netlix queue.
This is a movie about Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians. Being an EOD tech, I figured I'd watch it for all the dumb stuff they do wrong. All I have to say is that this crappy movie is painful to watch. Do yourself a favor and find the old British series "Danger UXB."
Too bad. I had hopes for this one.
This was an Iraq War movie and it had nothing to do with Iraqis.
Making it about Iraq would shatter the liberal world view. Perhaps it would be too "Judeo-Christian".
Too bad the movie will be ultimately disappointing.
I must say from the still photo at the top of the column, the sets look about like Iraq did when I was there, still to clean, but realistic enough.
I haven't seen the film – but I've read rave reviews at other conservative sites incl hotair and wsj. Bigelow is a brilliant director, and considering Marlow included VMars with a bunch of interchangable shows, not sure he's a reliable critic.
This was the same complaint waaay back when "Mississippi Burning" came out…all about the FBI agents, not about the locals.
Every time I hear "non-political war film", I know that actually, it's not.
[...] Alex Marlow Doesn’t Like “The Hurt Locker” June 28, 2009 Posted by Jehuda in Uncategorized. Tags: Entertainment, Film, News, Politics trackback “Incredibly, the mainstream media is trying to position “The Hurt Locker” as politically neutral. The mainstream media are dense…This is a left-wing film.” [...]
(Sirius)/XM's Cinemagic station has "The Hurt Locker" for this week's "Reel Time."
Once host Dave Z. introduce Mark Boal, all hopes that I had for this film were dashed. I know who he is: formerly imbedded-with-the-troops screenwriter for "In The Valley of Elah."
Even the single-minute snippets of the film that were played through the one-hour "Reel Time" more than conveyed the liberal slant of the film.
It's why I'll see "Transformers 2" before I'll see "The Hurt Locker."
Go, Michael Bay!!
I saw the movie last night, with great anticipation, after seeing the reviews and reading Ed Morrissey's Hot Air tip. As a veteran from Iraq, from the period the story took place, the movie was a horrible disappointment, but completely understandable why it will be HUGE in the box office. And unlike what others have said how the movie is apolitical, when the Colonel (which Marlow just wrote about) in letting an insurgent unnecessarily die for what seems to be no reason other than the thirst for blood, and later on a psychiatrist whose therapy includes telling a soldier "War can be fun", it was ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. As a veteran, I could nitpick any military movie, non matter how great it is, to make it unwatchable, so I go in with a certain attitude knowing that mistakes will be made, in order to provide a more exciting narrative and story. But when things happen that are so absurd (leaving the wire alone and coming back with no repercussions, patrolling streets LITERALLY alone, entering situation that NO soldier would ever find themselves in) it's extremely hard to like this movie.
What you watch isn't a movie about Iraq or the war (as others have already stated), it's still an outsider's imagination of what they THINK it's like to be in war, which is, addicted to something; unnaturally desiring to be there; "war is a drug".
At the end of the day, it's extremely dissappointing because, the movie, at its premise could have been terrific. It could have made a great story about and EOD Tech, without being political, and mistakes that could easily been overlooked. Instead, what we got was a story about an EOD Tech who masquerades around as the Lone Ranger, with a thinly disguised "soldiers are addicted to war" and "officers are stupid" message.
My recommendation? Go see Taking Chance and Brothers at War again and let AO Scott and the New York Times think they've found their Iraq movie that they can push onto America.
I remember seeing promos for Danger UXB (UneXplodedB*mb) in Canada years ago but never saw it. Thanks for the memory refresh.
being in the Air Force, I felt the same way about Iron Eagle.
So, if you're trying to say "War Sucks" is the liberal position, "War is Awesome" must be the conservative position, right?
Thank you for illustrating again why the Republican party is a so much trouble.
War IS Bad. I mean, you can argue that it's a just cause or necessary evil, but I don't think you'd find anyone who ever fought in a war saying, "man, war is so good! I wish we could do it all day!"
Idiot.
Making a movie about Iraq would have been to Judeo-Christian? What in the hell are you talking about?
I'm trying to speak in small words and in simple phrases since complex thoughts and theories make your little head hurt.
If you understood what I said then you might understand that I'm not saying "war is unnecessary." War is necessary sometimes. Just because something is necessary doesn't mean it's GOOD. War is hell, a horrible thing that ends lives and destroys countries. War causes the deaths of countless innocent men, women and children, destroys homes, shatters minds and causes inconceivable damage for generations on. That's not a good thing.
No matter how just the cause the war is still 'bad" for the people fighting it. (Which is who The Hurt Locker is about). They're the ones away from their loved ones, out risking their lives for a cause they might not even agree with or understand, helping people who would prefer them dead. They're the ones who have to kill other human beings, see their friends die and come home permanently scarred because of what they saw/did. Making it even worse, many of these people become addicted to this misery, this horror that they see everyday because of the adrenaline rush, the power, the excitement that it can give them.
Is that good? Have I gotten it through your pathetic little head yet? Or are you to stupid to realize that the point of the damn movie was that war is hell and that soldiers find themselves addicted to it because it's what they're surrounded with day-in day-out?
"War is good"….I have never heard anyone ever say anything so mind-numbingly stupid. So ignorant of history, so brain-damaged from countless talking points from moronic politicians.
You know what else is bad? Suicide. But sometimes that's necessary too. I hope you get the hint.
Very good series, I remember watching it in the 80's on PBS.
Correct, now open your history book and tell me who was instrumental in keeping most of the world free and how did we accomplish it.
Also look around you and take into account the modern conviences that came about from war and the military.
Roflol Marlow. You are either being a satirist or believe the hollywood version of history. In either case work on your presentation or take some serious courses in history.
I'm guessing this review is satire
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
If "war is bad" is a liberal message, what commie pinko libtard said that? Was it that flip flopper John Kerry? Maybe George "Amnesty, Abortion and Acid" McGovern? Which leftist ex-soldier traitor said that?
Oh, that was republican president, and five star general, Dwight Eisenhower. But I'm sure you know more about war and conservatism than him, right?
Well, you asked me a history question, which I love, but then you answered it yourself when you used the "we" pronoun. No fair! I was going to say that Americans got their concept of Democracy and a Republic from the Greeks, Romans, and Iroquois Confederacy respectively (with a little help from French Enlightenment writers).
Of course I was wrong. silly me. I should have known that WE, the good ole USofA are responsible for all that is good and pure in the world, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a commie-loving liberal terrorist bastard! USA! USA! USA!
As for modern conveniences that came from war, I'm not sure what you are refering to (or what your point is), but that isn't to say they don't exist. By your logic, if it weren't for the Black Plague, we would have never gotten the Magna Carta. Therefore, DISEASE IS AWESOME.
Bravo.
Funny that it's the guys who have never joined the military or seen any real action that think wars are "good."
Yes, Mr. Marlow, there are just wars, but only a complete idiot would ever characterize them as "good." You seem to be quite proud of your ignorant stance on this. I encourage you to test the strength of your convictions and go to your local recruitment office immediately. Tell them you want to be put on the front lines.
I look forward to your updates after you've completed your service. If you make it that long. Good luck!
Do me a favor and read this relevant article before you spout crap about the "War is a Drug" epigra
http://www.newsweek.com/id/200859
Seriously, educate yourself about what goes on in the minds of real soldiers before you mouth off.
Interesting dialog, and a great post! I have some stake in you enlisting or not, and I vote for anything to promote and defend the values traditionally associated with the USA. Love, Mom
Hey Mr. "Dumb, Lazy, Over-Grown Kid 1/2":
One thing only. You said "in its history, America has used it as an alternative to combat evils much, much worse." … …
If you seriously believe that, please consult a history textbook. I don't mean an American history textbook, we're not far enough removed to get an objective view. Look at ancient history. You'll see that every major power has always given its people some excuse for declaring war on another nation. And you'll see that, by and large, people buy it. They had to – who else could they buy news from, back then?
Anyway, let's summarize. In a few hundred years' time, we (the future 'we') will be able to look back and see what a bunch of idiots we ( you) were to believe what Fox news told you about the wars we (Americans) fought.
I'll give America one thing though, at least we've never waged war with someone else just because their skin is darker and they don't have guns.
Wait, nevermind.
No, making a movie about why we feel compelled to leave the Iraqis better off. Throughout our history, we kept doing that. I say that compulsion is rooted in Judeo-Christian values, whether we realize it or not. If you have a better explanation why we do not expect such a behavior from secular or non-Christian societies, please give it to me.
That nonsense about the Iroqois Confederacy proves where you get your "knowledge". Also note that our Republic is quite unlike the Greek or Roman systems and you left out the British experience, which was far more important. The American constitution is in fact a unique and special system and you are the product of a flawed education system.
No reason to make a silly movie that implicity smears the soldiers doing a hard and necesary job. Even an idiot can see that…
Most war movies are simply movies about other war movies. And that is true of other genres as well.
I'd say a lot of freedom can be accredited to oppressed people standing up for their rights. Much of that was without the help of the military and sometimes (Civil Rights- Little Rock) those guns were pointed at those seeking freedom.
Yes! Draft Marlow!
"Nothing about fighting for something bigger than oneself, quashing evil around the world, or saving innocent, oppressed people from tyranny."
We have to be careful about promoting an ethic of self-sacrifice. I am not trying to be "one of those" Randian bring-downs, but we should instead emphasize that soldiers are defending themselves and their country from threats. 'Sacrificing for a higher cause' indicates that human beings are expendable, an ethos that the Left adores.
Ultimately, war is neither good, nor bad. Sometimes they are necessary though.
I was a Cold Warrior, post Nam. Because of that, I have personal experience, and I generally don't watch military movies, because they are mostly bad, and certainly when shot for the political pay off, they are un-necessary.
This is the best war movie in a long, long time. The reviewer is so blinded by ideology it's insane.
A lock for a best picture nomination.
"I have not ruled out a stint in the military. The question I ask myself frequently is why would I put my life on the line?"
LMAO. Typical chickenshit stuff from a guy who thinks war is great… as long as someone (usually a poor minority) is doing all the fighting.
Recently saw The Hurt Locker. It is a masterpiece. Brilliantly directed and edited. The characters seem like cliches but actually have an entire third dimension to them. It's "artificially suspenseful" as opposed to what? This is one of, if not the most suspenseful movie I've ever seen. It is certainly the best action movie of summer.
The characters: You don't have to like them in order to root for for them. All you have to do is empathize with them which is absolutely what this movie allows you to do. You don't have to sympathize with them, which is what it seems like you're saying.
And as far as the epigraph goes. "War is a drug". Christopher Hedges meant that metaphorically. If you turn the premise/conclusion model around: War is Bad, Drugs are Bad, therefore War is Drug. It makes no sense. You can't apply that type of logic to a metaphorical premise. Therefore I stand beside the belief that this movie for all intents and purposes it apolitical. Or maybe it was made that way and failed to be able to completely depoliticize itself, which in the end is impossible anyways; because you can always rationalize some amount of political statement from anything.
"And the film ain’t good neither. It’s boring. No scene is related to the next. It is almost tension free except when they play the “Jaws” music. The troops are caricatures rather than realistic American servicemen."
The film is in no way boring. Saying it is tension free should be a crime. If you haven't seen this movie, search on the internet for "the first 9 minutes of the Hurt Locker", watch them, and then come back and say if it's tensionless. No scene is related to the next? Please. The reason you are saying that is because it seems as though there is no closed-narrative bad guy. But that isn't what EOD does, they don't have a big vendetta with the master terrorist. Having James, Sanborn, and Eldridge chase after a whole terrorist ring that they eventually destroy or one master bomber would be false and over the top.
"Just a series of unrelated missions". A. Maybe that is what EOD is like, maybe everything isn't completely connected. And, B. Each mission is connected by the fact that each set piece uncovers an entire new layer to each character. Each set piece examines the psychological and moral complications of being in a war and being an American Soldier. And, C. Each mission is connected by the changing dynamic in the team. Sanborn and Eldridge and how they get along with their new team leader James.
Check out my review at: http://www.wildclementines.com/?p=2661
Third, the soldiers interaction with each other and the Iraqi populace was accurate and right on. The Report above said the soldiers were cold to the thought of seeing a boy dead and discarding him instantly, calling him a "base rat". These men have to live like that to a certain extent to keep mentally stable. They can't cry over every upsetting event that happens there, like the sheltered viewer probably wants to see, or he'd go crazy. The Colonel letting an insurgent soldier bleed might not be as far in left field as Marlow, the above writer, says.
There are some negatives though, including The lead character leaving the base for a suicide mission to confirm a boy’s death or A Commanding officer encouraging crazed behavior on the battlefield. The last 10 minutes of in country film were sketchy at best. The positives outweigh the negatives though. The soldiers get caught in places they would never be, as far as I (a Civilian without a clue) would know, patrolling a street with three men and then splitting up again! Inaccuracies probably riddle this film, but it illustrates the awful hell that is out there that someone else is facing to protect me. I respect that more than they will ever know.
In Conclusion, this still a must see movie. Love it or hate it, it will raise questions and show a new perspective on modern warfare and the modern soldier. It brings to light a view to war that has never been shown before with bomb defusal in the EOD. (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) Some new horrifying techniques of war like body bombs, which was new to me, and the mechanical robots used for defusal was new and interesting. All the scenes make sense if you view the movie from the perspective of "you are the soldier and this is what happens when you are at war". This is the reason there is no viewpoint from the Iraqi perspective. It is a soldier’s movie, not an Iraqi sympathizer movie. The change of pace during the movie was great. It wasn't formulaic, where every bomb defusing situation starts and ends the same way. What our soldiers do and what they experience is shown here powerfully. This is a must see for anyone who is old enough to handle the subject content.
P.S. Alexander Marlow is a Left wing hippy if he really believes what he wrote. His agenda was so slanted he missed the heart of the movie and really highlighted the few subpar plotlines. This is not an accurate review of this movie.
[...] read are largely without merit. From Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, dueling bozos of bromance Alexander Marlow and John Nolte both decry the characterization of Iraqis in the movie. This is a part of the [...]
[...] Breitbart's Alexander Marlow, who describes his credentials for reviewing the film [...]
Whoa there! … now I know why I left the Democratic party after 20 years. If the critical thinking part of your brain has died, don't embarrass yourself anymore. I'm hoping, truly that you were joking, about "War is Awesome" must be the counter to "War Sucks". If you weren't, I can only take comfort in the fact that my vote will cancel yours. The dems are all about feeling. It's kind of how kids look at the world. I like kids.. but I can't let them run the show.
War is always horrible.. but never always wrong. I think the over 6 million murdered Jews would have agreed with me. War wasn't awesome … or quick enough for them.
" “War is a drug.” Drugs are bad. Thus, war is bad. This is a left-wing film. End of story. " -Marlow, your thinking is contingent on the fact that ALL DRUGS are bad. Insulin is a drug, it keeps people alive (my brother is one who depends on it to live). I think that this movie wasn't as politicized as most these day, certainly there are aspects of politics in everything, but on the whole I like this movie. I gave me respect for the men and women who risk their lives (rashly or otherwise) for the lives of others. I'm not American, but I think this movie is at least a good incentive to keep the troops that fight in the middle east in mind.
I agree, I'm a conservative and I really enjoyed this movie. Not everything needs to be boiled down into liberal diatribe, if we did that, what on earth would be left to watch in this sickeningly PC world?
You must be logged in to post a comment.