By Brett McCracken
July 24, 2009
Seeking a film packed with action, suspense and human drama? Look no further.
The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break), is far and away the best film about our current war in Iraq. And it’s easily also one of the best films of the year. If you’re looking for nonstop action, white-knuckled suspense and emotionally draining human drama this summer, I doubt you will find any film more satisfying than this.
The film is set in and around Baghdad in 2004, at a time when the war was devolving into a hellish quagmire of roadside bombs and unexpectedly forceful insurgent resistance. Locker follows a trio of highly apt American army specialists who are part of Delta Company, whose harrowing task it is locate and defuse bombs and I.E.D.s before they blow up and kill bunches of citizens and soldiers.
The film’s three main characters are the levelheaded Sgt. J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), the chronically unnerved Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), and “wild man” Staff Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), who is sort of like Macgyver-meets-Mad Max. The three men have vastly different temperaments, psychological hang-ups, and personalities, and yet thrown together in the high-stress hell of war, they are as close and brother-like as a band of soldiers could be. Of course, this also means that they fight and sometimes want to kill each other as much as they want to kill the enemy. Indeed, one of the sources of this film’s uncommon intensity is that Bigelow and her three main actors (each of whom is deserving of Oscar accolades, in my view) recognize that the “always-on-the-edge” melee of war has as much to do with psychological, spiritual and interpersonal strain as it does with the tangible ubiquity of carnage and death.
Where countless other Iraq war films have only superficially attempted to truly understand the psychological experience of soldiers, Locker puts us right there, in the midst of the throbbing realization that this war—beyond politics and PR and ideological clashes—is a life and death thing for the people actually on the ground fighting it. Largely ambivalent of anything political, Bigelow and her impressive teams of set designers and technical craftsmen instead focus the film around the experiences of the soldiers who are forced to perform at high levels of no-errors-allowed competency even amidst unthinkably stressful circumstances.
Structured episodically, the film immerses us in one nightmarish bomb-defusing scenario or sniper gun standoff after another, where the odds of survival are almost nil in each and every instance. Each heartpounding sequence of near-death is accompanied by a timeline reminder of how many days left our heroes have before they can safely leave Iraq (e.g. “60 days left in Delta Company’s Rotation”). It’s a countdown to their survival, and yet with each passing day and with each new I.E.D. the odds become slimmer that all three of these men will make it out alive. Part of the reason why the film works so well is that we desperately want these characters to survive. We care about them and feel existential solidarity with them. We feel the cold horror of death and the numbing tension of life on the brink—embodied in everything from a buzzing fly to a Capri Sun juicebox—and we sweat and flinch and grimace right along with them.
The Hurt Locker is not as grandiose as Saving Private Ryan or as philosophical and luxuriant as The Thin Red Line, but I do think it is one of the best war films I’ve seen in recent years. It’s a visceral, affecting action film about contemporary urban warfare (perhaps most akin to something like Blackhawk Down) and it will leave you utterly drained and yet thoroughly satisfied, with a newfound appreciation for the complex and frightening experiences of our servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Brett McCracken is a writer and editor in Los Angeles and blogs regularly at The Search.


3 Comments
81,149
Timmy K reviewed…
It is probably one of the most accurate portrayals of our current military member, and the war in Iraq. It didn't have over the top scenes of soldiers being unprofessional or unrealistic like many films in recent history (3 Kings comes to mind).
I was trying to dissect it with my roommate, who went with me. We weren't really sure what the "moral of the story" was. The movie didn't feel like it had an outcome, or finality. But it really did show the psychological aspect of the war very well. And maybe that was the point.
The Iraqis were portrayed in four different lights (that we could easily identify): 1. The "lookie-loo" type. I.e. people who were passive about the U.S. military presence. 2. The entrepreneur type. I.e. those who were bartering with the troops to make some quick cash. 3. The suspicious type. I.e. those who's motivations were unknown, but one could assume they were up to no good. 4. The militant/ aggressive type. I.e. Those throwing rocks at the troops, sniping them, or blowing them up.
Interesting was there wasn't really a portrayal of a "triumphant entry" like our media has told us about time and time again.
I caught myself yawning a couple of times throughout the film. Maybe I wasn't ready for another war movie. Or maybe my life is more exciting. Ha Ha, either way it was an ok film. I'm just not ready to say it was "the best film of the year". There are still films like Sherlock on the horizon, and I can't wait to see the indie film gone mainstream film, (500) Days of Summer.
81,149
Timmy K reviewed…
The film opens with this quote, "The rush of battle is a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug. (Chris Hedges) This is something I've been thinking about ever since.
81,149
Timmy K reviewed…
The film opens with this quote, "The rush of battle is a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug. (Chris Hedges) This is something I've been thinking about ever since.
Please log in or register to review