The Hurt Locker

It's a mystery to me how this brilliant flick didn’t get a wider audience response. What Stone's Platoon meant for an "alternative look" at the Vietnam conflict, Kathryn Bigelow's film means for the current U.S. Army mission in Iraq, and for its guys, who are there trembling for their lives and counting each day until the end of their tour of duty. The film doesn't moralise, it doesn't lecture, it just offers blood, sweat, frustration, the dust of Iraqi roads, fear of death and general paranoia, where even an Iraqi with a camera can be a potential terrorist. Not since Mendes's Jarhead has there been such a good military-themed film. (2009-05-13)

Quite intimate and unfortunately often also quite uninspiring. It has some truly revolutionary elements and some already seen a hundred times over. In the end, it’s average. A big plus is the fact that Bigelow doesn't lean towards any side. she works as an observer and doesn't add or subtract anywhere, and that’s not very easy – none of the great war movies I can think are 50-50. The sound design is excellent, and will surely be appreciated by connoisseurs and home cinema owners. The sniper exhibition and explosions are especially outstanding. The psychology is average, I expected more. Considering that the competitor was a pleasant, although relatively conceptually stale Avatar, I quite understand the Oscars. (2010-04-04)

I love Kathryn Bigelow's films, but The Hurt Locker disappointed me. The main character bothered me terribly (I just don't like these pompous supermen very much), but otherwise I had almost no reservations. The cinematography, the direction, the constant tension in the air, the final idea... Basically, the unknown actors (to me) act well, but it still wouldn't have hurt to have familiar names (!!!Ralph Fiennes!!!) warm up on screen for more than five minutes. Best scenes: A “long-distance" shootout in the desert, a bomb in a child, a shower, the end. Three and a bit. (2010-04-14)

I have a problem with this film. It derives all of its atmosphere and suspense from the banal fact that a bomb might (or might not) go off at any time. Its characters are uninteresting, the dialogue is horrible and the dramaturgical framework almost non-existent (it’s just a series of situations that the characters facing death have to survive). On the other hand, these very flaws make it all the more realistic and valuable as a testimony from the given places. Maybe all this movie needed was to decide whether it wanted to be an exciting thriller or an interesting docudrama. (2009-12-20)

The individual sequences are adrenaline packed and Kathryn Bigelow does a good enough job with the “will it explode or not” dilemma to push the viewer into their seat through the simple movements around the mise-en-scène. Unfortunately, the episodic scenes of the life of an elite unit are pasted together in an attempt at a story where the emotions don’t work due to the weak profiling of the characters, while the attempt at a moral insight is not very successful either. It is realistic, probably (fortunately, I can’t judge), but the constantly shaky camera doesn’t work as ingeniously as in other films and actually disrupts the leisurely built atmosphere of an environment where every movement is dangerous. Jeremy Renner’s performance keeps things afloat, providing the viewer some depth they can hold on to. 65% (2020-05-04)