(Editor's Note: This blog has no qualms about reviewing a movie in total after only seeing part of the sum. This does not reflect the ethical standard of The Saratogian.)
The movie follows a small unit of soldiers in Iraq whose sole responsibility is to deal with bombs, before they explode and after they explode. The Sergeant of the group, William James (Jeremy Renner, a B-list actor you might recognize), runs the little unit with no fear. He is an adrenaline junkie who will go to any lengths to get his fix, no matter what the cost or the risk.
I will concede that the movie offers nice aesthetics. And yes, the movie does escalate some scenes to a tumultuous boil. For the most part, though, the movie is pretty ho hum and doesn't feel that special.
Renner is pretty cool as our protagonist, but he doesn't seem to possess any special swagger that differentiates him from someone like Keanue Reeves in Speed. The main difference in the two movies is that Speed embraces its action label, while HURT LOCKER is content to offer only a commentary on the men action movies are based on. To be fair the action is of a different vein in HURT LOCKER, so maybe it was just the medium I found boring. That would be an indictment of the films I grew up on, which have negatively skewed my perception of what's good.
This understanding is possible, but I think anytime you have to rationalize why a movie is good then you don't really have a good movie on your hands. That makes sense, right? I mean you can appreciate art without understanding it, but that doesn't make it fun to look at. That may be what happened here, since I just didn't care for the story.
The biggest stars of the movie appear only briefly, in cameos that are concluded in death. The appearances of Guy Peirce and Ralph Fiennes serve as alternate endings for Renner's character, who survives his search for an adrenaline rush while they do not. Is that supposed to say something? Maybe.
I guess this post is more of an admission of my own limitations as a reviewer. I will stand by my assertion that this is not an entertaining movie. At the same time, I would recommend that people with a more nuanced appreciation of film try this movie.
Oh yeah, the big deal with this movie is that it is directed by a woman. That's significant because this is a traditional "Guy Movie." As a consequence of this contradiction, director Kathryn Bigelow is being considered for a Best Director nomination at the Oscars. Maybe she deserves it. The movie wasn't that suspensful or remarkable. I actually think she might win because a woman has never won, and the voters will want to acknowledge her now. Seems dumb to me. Won't argue with a nomination, but the directors of UP IN THE AIR, DISTRICT 9 and INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS were all more deserving.
No comments:
Post a Comment