The Hurt Locker

2008

Action / Drama / History / Thriller / War

322
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 97%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 84%
IMDb Rating 7.6 10 410493

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
September 10, 2011 at 02:23 PM

Cast

Evangeline Lilly as Connie James
Ralph Fiennes as Contractor Team Leader
Anthony Mackie as Sergeant JT Sanborn
Jeremy Renner as Sergeant First Class William James
720p.BLU
800.11 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
R
23.976 fps
2 hr 11 min
P/S 33 / 313

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by truthandlit 1 / 10

an apology for imperialism

The Hurt Locker is really an abominable film. It presents itself as an apolitical portrayal of the difficult lives of some US troops in Iraq--and it portrays those lives as incredibly difficult and the soldiers as meriting much sympathy. However, the film can only do this by narrowing its focus so extremely that it completely falsifies the situation that it describes.

The basic problem, as with virtually all American films of imperialist conquest, is that although 99% of the people in the situation portrayed in the film are Iraqis, they exist merely as a backdrop for the wondrous portrayal of the American occupiers.

The significance of this can be seen easily if you imagine a film about the WWII Nazi occupation of, say, Poland, or the Japanese occupation of north China. A film about this, that focused with intense sensitivity on the sorrows and travails of the imperialist troops while just shedding a generalized tear over the difficulties of the local civilians caught in a war zone--the imperialist propagandistic character of such a film would be perfectly obvious--would even eclipse everything else about the film. But in The Hurt Locker, we're supposed to see the film as non-political and only focus on the poor American soldiers. This focus of the film is carefully built in to the mission of the soldiers shown: they're not fighting Iraqis, they're just defusing bombs.

I'm not denying the sorrows of the soldiers. Yes, to be in that situation is absolutely horrible. But the Americans are not there doing a good deed at the behest of their friends the Iraqis. The Americans are invaders. Of course, the ordinary soldiers didn't decide on their own that they wanted to invade Iraq, but they have been caught up in the war deliberately started and continued by their government. The great horror of the war that is completely absent from the film is the horror of naive young people who are tricked into participating in the imperialist subjugation of another country. The American soldiers are victims, but they must also be held responsible for their actions, which are criminal. As the war continues, their experience gives them some insight into this terrible dilemma, which appears toward the end of the movie when the most balanced of the soldiers says that his life there is meaningless: 'I hate this place.' The utter futility of their situation can also be appreciated if you compare it to my example of WWII imperialist occupying troops. The Iraqis are more effectively hostile to the American soldiers than the people of occupied France or Poland were to the Nazis. Occupying troops know that any friendly or accommodating civilian can actually be a supporter of the resistance. But the Iraqis are more committed and more organized and more lethal: the friendly civilian can also be a suicide bomber, and any onlooker can dial his cellphone at the proper moment and set off a bomb hidden in a pile of trash. Yes, the American soldiers in Iraq have it worse, in many ways, than the German troops in Eastern Europe, and this shows the weakness of the US policies and the strength of the Iraqi people's resistance. The German army was driven out of Poland and France by the attacking armies of the Allied countries; the American army is getting driven out of Iraq by the Iraqi people (even the US media have pretty much given up on the idea, once pushed very strongly, that the Iraqi resistance was armed, organized, and directed by the Iranians).

But all of this is of course far outside the tiny focus of The Hurt Locker, which tries to show that the angst of the American soldiers is far more important than the political situation or the agony and heroism of the Iraqi people, which is the actual source of that angst.

So The Hurt Locker is a film about the white man's burden. Gosh, imperialist conquest is so hard and takes such sacrifice--but imperialist conquest is a given, not to be examined or questioned. The Hurt Locker is an abominable film.

Reviewed by toqtaqiya2 9 / 10

An engrossing film that takes one's breath away.

Here we have one of the best films of the last decade. A war film that succeeds in showing what it's like to be in the armed forces nowadays. It was directed be the underrated Kathryn Bigelow. The focus is on American soldiers in the Iraq war. But it's not about them being involved in assaults or shootouts. Instead we're shown the lives of a bomb squad. Jeremy Renner is commanding as Sergeant First Class William James. He provides an excellent performance. So do Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as his partners. They really do act like real soldiers. The Hurt Locker consists of a series of bomb threats that the team have to overcome. These are all thrilling, tense. What makes the film really shine, however, is its anti-war messages. In the tradition of Apocalypse Now (1979) and Come And See (1985) The Hurt Locker shows that people get hurt and killed in wars, even if they don't deserve it. It shows that the victims are just like anyone else except that they're in a war zone. The film doesn't directly criticize the American war effort. There are no discussions about whether the Iraq war is moral or immoral. Bigelow's direction is truly impressive. She certainly knows how to work with actors. The acting is obviously superb, and this is the film's greatest strength. Also notable is the cinematography by Barry Ackroyd. The war hasn't looked this realistic or this interesting in cinema until The Hurt Locker. The images captured are thoughtful and memorable. No wonder the film was the big winner at the 2010 Academy Awards. Some films that win Best Picture don't deserve it, but The Hurt Locker sure did deserve it. It's one of the best war films ever, and I highly recommend it.

Reviewed by Katie28217 1 / 10

What the heck??? Best picture? Not even close!

As usual, I am making a mad dash to see the movies I haven't watched yet in anticipation of the Oscars. I was really looking forward to seeing this movie as it seemed to be right up my alley. I can not for the life of me understand why this movie has gotten the buzz it has. There is no story!! A group of guys meander around Iraq. One day they are here diffusing a bomb. Tomorrow they are tooling around the countryside, by themselves no less and start taking sniper fire. No wait here they are back in Bagdad. There is no cohesive story at all. The three main characters are so overly characterized that they are mere caricatures. By that I mean, we have the sweet kid who is afraid of dying. We have the hardened military man who is practical and just wants to get back safe. And then we have the daredevil cowboy who doesn't follow the rules but has a soft spot for the precocious little Iraqi boy trying to sell soldiers DVDs. What do you think is going to happen??? Well, do you think the cowboy soldier who doesn't follow rules is going to get the sweet kid injured with his renegade ways?? Why yes! Do you think the Iraqi kid that cowboy soldier has a soft spot for is going to get killed and make him go crazy? Why yes! There is no story here. The script is juvenile and predictable! The camera is shaken around a lot to make it look "artsy". And for all of you who think this is such a great war picture, go rent "Full Metal Jacket", "Deerhunter" or "Platoon". Don't waste time or money on this boring movie!

Read more IMDb reviews

10 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment