2009 Best Picture nomineeRating: 14/20 (Rubber Duck: 14/20)
Plot: Hours and hours of bomb diffusion. It's an activity that, while it might not be all that interesting to watch on a friend's nice television set, is apparently like a drug to some guys.
I haven't run the new nickname by my friend yet, but I don't think he'll mind since it's from one of the greatest movies of the 20th Century. Convoy.
Here's another of those great movies whose greatness I'll need to have explained to me. I'll give director Deuce Bigelow one thing--she sets a tone and style early and never wavers. The movie is one almost-tense bomb diffusing scene after another, filmed with that ubiquitous handheld camera style. There's a realism to the goings-on, but after a while, I'd just had enough. By the time Bigelow is ready to mix things up by tossing in a shockingly grotesque scene that almost made me toss my cookies, I was ready for the whole thing to be over. The acting was really exactly what it needed to be, realistic and natural enough for me to believe these were real soldiers. Unfortunately, I didn't really like any of them, and two of them (probably because I was sleepy) I kept getting confused. This is the type of movie people will watch and automatically assume that it says something, but it really seems pretty empty. And it's long. Too long. I could have actually figured out that there wasn't a point to this in half the time. At least the unfortunate scene where the soldiers are wrestling and punching each other in the stomach could have been cut. This movie lacks tension (stretching scenes far longer than they should be stretched does not create real tension) and after a promising start, I got bored by the plotless structure, maybe because the movie's promising start actually continued through the entire movie. It was a fight to keep my eyes open at time. Rubber Duck will have to let me know if I snored at any point during The Hurt Locker.
8 comments:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't think you are giving the film's strengths enough credit, and I'm surprised you missed the main point.
It is too long, needs a tighter structure, and the defusing concept begins to become repetitive for the viewer (though the fact it never gets old for the lead is part of the main point). I agree that the thrilling suspense and originality of the first hour is hard to maintain, especially as the film begins to meander and get bogged down in overly melodramatic plotlines. Still, the terrific style you alude to, and a handful of tension packed and original scenes alone make "The Hurt Locker" a very good movie. It doesn't take political sides. It just does a great job at humanizing war and the jobs some soldiers are given. The quietly tragic scene with his son makes a profound statement and is the whole point. This didn't quite make my year's top-10, but I would give it a 16.
Sidenote: I was shocked that she won Best Director over Cameron. Say what you like about "Avatar", it is an incredibly innovative and ground-breaking movie which is all about the director. The "Hurt Locker" is a very good directing job on a good drama. I think Hollywood has simply had enough of the "King of the World" (and maybe his frightening skeletal wife).
I agree with Shanes review, and actually would rank it lower. Maybe an 11 or so.
Just boring actually. A plotless movie that had nothing to say except that if you are a recognizable hollywood star and you appeared in this movie, you were going to die.
I disliked this movie for a lot of the same reasons I disliked A Serious Man.
Interesting. You didn't think there were involving scenes or a meaningful point in this?
Interesting. You didn't care for any of the tense scenes, torn characters, or the point of the movie?
It didn't look like my comment had taken, so I did it again.
I didnt find the scenes that tense, after Guy Pearce got blown up. There were just so many of them...time and again we see the one guy whose name I never got, take too many risks, but still diffuse the bomb.
The only scenes in the movie that got any interest from me were the Ralph Fiennes scene, (Which sort of just died out) and the scene with the guy who had the bomb locked onto him, that they could not diffuse.
But it was so pointless....I know war is pointless blah blah blah...but again, I dont need a pointless movie to tell me war is pointless.
OK, I'll clarify...I meant that the quantity of these fairly similar bomb diffusing scenes after a while seemed pointless. I got the point. Luckily, there was a poem to help me out right at the beginning (the war's a drug thing). Did I need two and a half hours of this to get it? No. So must of the action was pointless. My poor writing skills didn't allow me to clearly make my point.
Barry agrees with me again. That should tell you something!
I didn't think the scenes were all that tense either. They tried really hard to be tense though.
I liked all the other twenty or so best picture nominees better than this with the exception of 'District 9' which I probably like a little less. There are at least three other movies from this year that I also liked more.
Oh, another thing re: the style. I haven't seen 'Avatar' but from everything I've heard, it's an imperfect story (actually, maybe even a sucky story) with innovative style and effects. I didn't think anything in 'The Hurt Locker' was new. It's that handheld camera thing with some slow motion worked in, and I felt like I'd seen it all before. Bigelow doesn't really do anything new with the Iraq war. At least Benigni has an original twist with the superior 'The Tiger in the Snow'. Anyway, a best picture should either offer something completely new or do the old extraordinarily well; I don't think 'The Hurt Locker' really does either.
Post a Comment