"People obsessed with spoiler alerts, you have been alerted."

Gee, like it's such a burden to be considerate...

Great post - I definitely enjoyed being so absorbed by the scene in front of me and the main character, that I didn't know/care where the movie was going. Though the movie was suspenseful, it wasn't a traditional suspense movie (where tension is created by the plot, and then resolves itself). It also felt like it mirrored real life in that sometimes there's no neat, clean narrative arc (god, that sounds cliched, but it's true). There was no bad guy in the end who died a cathartic death...

I thought the character was unbelievable. I don't know a lot of people in the military myself but I know a few and they don't act like this guy did. He is Mr. cowboy hero dude who runs through the streets of Iraq wearing western dress and a fucking hood. That doesn't happen. How did everyone think this movie was so immersive? I couldn't help but have my immersion ripped away when the character is behaving so completely fake compared to what I know about people in the military.

Sure enough the guy who the film is based on even pointed out the movie is about his life but the character is way out there and unbelievable. The movie was a good movie but it was not some gritty snippet of what a "real soldier" goes through. I enjoyed watching a different kind of war movie but I think it only won bet picture because it is at the right place at the right time.

Grammar police: "For all the the talk about how "lifelike" Avatar is,"

@5 -- Thank you, typo police. Fixed!

I watched it last night on DVD, and I really enjoyed (?) it. More of a series of beautifully constructed vignettes than a narrative feature film.

The underlying plot is quite silly. It creates tension, but isn't very imaginative. To wit, Will the bomb go off or not? That's it. It's used multiple times in the movie. It takes a very real and simple situation and explores it, perhaps that's why it is a good film.

But it isn't a radically new film. In fact it has a standard arc. Old reliable leader killed. Hot shot new guy replaces. The "team" dislikes him. Hot shot and "team" fight (drama). Through skill and courage he wins over the team. Team begins to trust him. Hot-shot guy has self-doubt. One team member injured and again hates hot-shot. Hot shot new guy is again alone. Hot shot can't live civilian life because war is in his blood!

Sub-plot. Hot shot befriends little boy. Little boy's allegiances are unknown. Little boy is harmed. Hot shot is sad wants revenge/sees uselessness of war. I"ll concede the one twist is the boy turns out not to be harmed.

Those cliches are in countless war movies and sports movies.

most troubling for me is the fact that i know guys who've never served in the military who think they're like the the hurt locker's main protagonist, they identify with him even through the ending. the movie turns out to be a romance for them, the latest in a long history of manly cinematic romances with war ( in my past i've gone on dates with these kind of guys to saving private ryan and the deerhunter - still the most romantic of them all). its tension heightens the authenticity of the romance and makes it 'real'. and i think this is the sentiment that makes many of them volunteer despite the politics or the risks.

You make a lot of assumptions about how I experienced Hurt Locker, Christopher.

When writing about a movie how about you use a bit more "I" statements and few less "you" statements?

I enjoyed Hurt Locker a lot, and it's a very good movie, but I think you're giving it a bit too much credit here. The soldier who only knows how to live while at war is a pretty well-worn cliche. And whether the viewer could tell that wasn't the same kid or not isn't really a test when there's not really any good shots of the second kid's face. We accept that it's the same kid because James says it is, not because we recognize him.

@4 Bingo! The majority of the film felt like it was going for gritty realism, yet they stuck this fucking cowboy action movie hero in the middle of it, ruining any sense of immersion it might have had. It also ruined any suspense they were trying to generate, since you know in the back of your mind that the action hero isn't going to die until much closer to the end, if he dies at all.

Personally, I think the sequence with Renner running through the streets by himself and the sequence with two of them searching for the third teammate (only to have him get shot in the leg by Renner's character) should both have been cut. Both rely too heavily on the poor decisions of the main character to find any true suspense in them. I also didn't care for the final shot of the film, with Renner in the bomb suit marching toward an uncertain fate with the hard rock guitars chugging over the scene. That felt uncomfortably reminiscent of those goarmy.com commercials.

There could have been a great movie here if they'd dialed down Renner's character, but as it stands, The Hurt Locker is a thoroughly mediocre movie that has joined the ranks of confusing Best Picture winners.

Also if you want to talk about interesting filmmaking, Inglourious Basterds is far more innovative and daring than Hurt Locker, IMHO.

When I hear people say this movie wasn't cliche I want to slap them and ask them how many action movies they've seen in their life....or if they've been smoking too much pot the past couple years.
Honestly people, do I have to make a split-screen youtube video of the entire 2 hour film paired with its cliche? its absolutely bursting with them.

Also, that fire extinguisher scene made me laugh for days......ohhh boy, why do they even bother sending fire trucks to fire engulfed cars on the interstate?....just send a cop with a tiny fire extinguisher.....he will take care of it!

also, i <3 slog commenters, you guys are awesome

I was thoroughly impressed when I saw the Hurt Locker during SIFF and was really happy for Bigelow et al last night.

That said, I'm wondering if you saw this piece by a NYT war photographer arguing against the film's much-lauded realism (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01…). Rather than diminish my appreciation for the movie, it reinforces the complicated, unresolved messiness of a war that still looks this messy, convoluted, and even after numerous cinematic liberties are taken.

@11 Yes, i completely forgot about the final scene with the heavy rock music and soldier walking into the sunset in slow motion....

holy puke

I sent my wife this article - her response:

"I still get don’t what the big deal about this movie is. It didn’t seem to be about anything. Just a bunch of macho Americans parading around drunk and beating each other up while not working and then being typical cocky soldiers disobeying orders while working, and don’t forget the token “sensitive guy” going psychotic because he can’t handle the horror of war – what is new about any of this? The one guy you expect to get killed, gets killed – gee didn’t see that coming and the rest was unimpressionable/very forgetful fluff, bomb set in a car, bomb set on a man, bomb set in a kid yada yada, big long, boring gunfire scene, everybody dies except the main characters yada yada. It didn’t go anywhere, I didn’t learn anything and I did not find it entertaining. I wouldn’t call it an anti-movie, I would call it an un-movie. But apparently I am the only person in the world that thinks that."

Check out Generation Kill. Terrible name, FAR better story.

@12 Bullshit. Basterds was not daring or innovative. It was barely even clever. Self-indulgent, i will give. But, really, Basterds is merely a retro comic book edition of a Hogan's Heroes or M*A*S*H type anarchistic view through a Western lens with a fractured frame a la Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill.

You want to talk familiar and done? Basterds was that in spades. And, it was sloppy with a dragging 2nd act where nothing happens for 40 minutes except a Creme Brulee.

I love Tarantino, but this was not A-game work.

@18: Yes, Generation Kill is fantastic.

@19: If you're such a dumb-dumb that you think the "2nd act" (Basterds is not in a traditional 3 act structure) is boring, you're beyond all hope and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you that Basterds is as amazing as it really is.

Say what you will about the well-worn and predictable narrative terrain of Avatar, but even if your point wasn't true--even if convention didn't tell you what was coming next--its story is still airtight. It might have been told a thousand times before, but Cameron writes it as if he's the first. It's not some mindless blockbuster with who-gives-a-shit plot holes like fucking Transformers 2. Cameron invested in creating a self-contained and fully-formed universe, even if he leaned on familiar tropes.

Meanwhile, you indicate that The Hurt Locker, with its gaps and points of confusion, is intentionally subverting the usual cinematic cliches, and that very well might be true. There's certainly no question that it explores much richer emotional ground and features much better characters and performances than Avatar.

But from a narrative point of view, the line between "what some lives are like," as you call it, and plain old lazy storytelling is thinner than you seem to think.

(whispers) I see blue people.

In ten years, "Hurt Locker" will be the new "Shakespeare in Love"--remembered not for what it was, but for beating the clear favorite at an awards show. It's a fine movie, but half the other nominees for BP were more elegant, appealing, exciting, artistic and satisfying. And I include "Avatar" in that 5, because however formulaic it may have been, it was near-flawlessly executed and visually stunning. I know we're supposed to be in full "Avatar" backlash mode these days, but it's a very satisfying movie.

@21 If you don't think that Basterds is in a traditional 3-act structure with a prologue and epilogue [or, some may even call it a 5 act structure, but I wouldn't], you've been smoking way too much crack. Sure the timing of the acts is not equal (never has been since Shakespeare), but it is traditional and conservative in all its mannerisms. As were its primary influences.

Keep in mind, you're talking to a Tarantino fanboy (apologist?) who believes this was his first slip-up (unless you count his acting in...well...anything).

@25 Death Proof was good???
(i'm befuddled)

maybe i've just had it up to here (reaches above his head) with car chases though.....

repurposed ramp-like structure turned into car jump in 3.....2......1......

@26

These guys must be rebels in the car-fire world then?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1igu6i1UT…

it was just the first thing that popped up for "extinguish car fire"

By the way, not that it matters, if I could have given the award to any of them, it would have been Inglourious Basterds. I'm not arguing here The Hurt Locker should have won, or is likable, or doesn't have any cliches in it; all I'm saying is that it's interesting, certainly more interesting than [title of most successful movie of all time omitted].

So the best thing about The Hurt Locker is that it isn't about anything? It's like the Seinfeld of war porn.

@27 Death Proof ended up being enjoyable, but mainly because of the edits due to the length of Grindhouse (in the full version it is a bit dull a la Inglorious Basterds). The car sequence was amazing and old school. Yes, it's self-referential, and it definitely could have stood to be the first of the double feature [it is much more enjoyable when not placed after a fast-paced adrenaline ride that is far more hyper than anything ever created in the '70s or '80s], but I wouldn't say it was Oscar-worthy. Nor, would I say it was trying to be.

Death Proof and Basterds suffer from the exact same pacing problems. They are both too in love with their own dialogue, and forgot how to edit conversations about nothing to keep the movie going. If you've seen the original version of the cab scene with Butch and Esmerelda de los Lobos, you know that Tarantino was always overindulgent, but he had a great editor, or once had an editing eye.

Tarantino's current problem is that he bought his own hype and abandoned his editing eye.

@25: Being Tarantino "fanboy"/"apologist" doesn't count for much in my book, because people who don't like Tarantino are boring assholes. Which is not to say his work does not have faults, but if you don't at least like a couple of them, you're a boring asshole.

And if you don't appreciate the "slow" parts of Death Proof and Basterds, then I hope you're still a teenager because there's no excuse for that kind of ADD attitude toward movies as an adult.

@32 You're so cute when you're thinly veiling insults at me as something meaningful.

What veil? :P It wasn't really that bad of an insult anyway.

Seriously, though, the "slow" parts of Basterds are the best parts.

true, the slow parts are the best.

I enjoyed reading the excerpts in The New Yorker.

@33 - The first time I saw IB I didn't care much for it. It was one of those situations where I was in the wrong mood for what I rented.

Seeing it a second time changed my opinion of it. That scene in the basement - where the spies are meeting and the German soldiers are celebrating - is flawless. Same with the opening scene in the farmhouse. I wouldn't cut a word from either one. I hope your pacing or dialog issues aren't with either of those scenes.

Anyhow, I'd recommend seeing it again and see if anything changes.

Hurt Locker was a very good action movie. Too many cliches. I like my war movies more anti-war. The soldiers were hot, especially the white one that is not Jeremy Renner. My fave best pic nominee is District 9.

@26 forgot to add to his response to @13:

after the fire engine arrives, they use FIRE EXTINGUISHERS to put out the car fire.

the hurt locker at it's best was pretty good and at its worst was not nearly as bad as shutter island, and for that i'm thankful. it definitely had the requisite overdone give-me-an-award- scene where the dude might as well have been whining about how all he ever wanted was an oscar.

i would watch generation kill all the way through twice before watching the hurt locker again though.

Up was better than both of them put together. It at least had the good grace to be funny on purpose, unlike the other two.

@41 I'm bummed it took 41 comments for someone to mention Up. I haven't seen all the movies that were nominated for BP (although I won't say which), but I did see The Hurt Locker and found myself entertained and almost upset when they were pinned down in the desert and he helps the anxiety-ridden comrade feel empowered. Thankfully they fixed any possible slips in his cold-hearted bravado by having him shoot said comrade.

Back to my main point: Up was, in my opinion, the best crafted movie of the ones I saw nominated. Yes, it's a cutesy movie. No, it doesn't deal with war, race, or many other "hot movie topics" (unless you want to say that finding a way to move on in life after the loss of a loved one fits this category). It was refreshing to see a movie that strove to be of quality even when targeted at a HUGE audience range. The level of nuance and subtlety displayed so consistently in this movie is astounding.

Sure, complain all you want about the SPOILER ALERT talking dogs (or for that matter the *ahem* dog-fight in the skies at the end). The gripes are there that they took it a bit far. I can't necessarily disagree, but I can also sympathize that it can easily pass as tongue-in-cheek humor that is easy to take in stride.

This movie was simply out-classed by hype for the bigger blockbusters and it is a terrible shame to me that such concrete story-telling and presentation can be so easily over-shadowed by people thinking that depth has to coincide with grit, realism, or hyper-immersion rather than a compelling narrative.

the best film of last year was the fantastic mr. fox and it wasn't even nominated!

Christopher,
Good post. I viewed "The Hurt Locker" yesterday. I thought it outstanding. And, it was one of the few largely apolitical "war" films I've ever seen. In fact, I believe it to be the one of the best films about direct combat (some others being "Full Metal Jacket" & "Seven Samurai") ever. Yeah, Bigelow did a fine job. "The Hurt Locker essentially is how 21st century battles look like.
A fine film.

A movie is about what a movie is about. What ties cinema and literature together is a dramatic sense of storytelling, with one that stimulates the senses from the outside and one that inspires perspective from the reader, sometimes one in the same.

This movie has symbolism that a few people have commented on: the jack-in-the-box.
When one grows up and looks back at their childhood, there is a sense of loss for most people, the innocence, discovery,shimmer of youth is replaced by reality, a reality some people would like to escape. In a way, the toy represents James search in life to find out what makes things pop. If he can arrest the situation he can continue with his child-like behavior.

As for the article written in Playboy and the plot lifted from that,..why not? I've written more than a few stories where the impetus was an article or news clipping. Great stories mimic real life, and gives us something familiar to identify with. A tape of my uncle talking about his experience in the war was the catalyst for a WWII story that I wrote about soldiers entering an area of Romania that was,...not on any map in Europe. On the tape he describes liberating Dachau, a horror story all it's own. My story reminds us that not everything can be explained, and in The Hurt Locker there is a sloppy moment in the screenplay that follows the rule of avoiding flashback with what seems like flash forward- or is it? The last time we seem James after the explosion he's coughing up blood and then suddenly he's driving the Humvee with Sanborne in the passenger seat, then back home, his ex-wife smiling at him, immaculate rows of cereal boxes
gleaming, fresh carrots in the sink, his little boy back in his hands-perfect, right? A better movie, like Jacob's Ladder, handles the idea that the main character MIGHT be in limbo, and uses flashback as an effective tool to advance the story forward. From my perspective, James (like Jacob Singer, and Lola, and more than a few characters in recent film that revisit their life through purgatory)is cleansing his soul before he goes to the afterworld. The screenwriter for The Hurt Locker( Oscar winner, true, but let's not forget, Cher wins them also), if he's worth his salt, has probably been tortured with fitting the main theme in somewhere in the movie. I see a Directors/Screenplay edition somewhere down the line where a commentary track addresses this issue.