Summit Entertainment | Release Date: June 26, 2009
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1356 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
987
Mixed:
141
Negative:
228
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
4
RoeylSep 2, 2013
This movie works only because it appears so real, it's the source of the suspense, the action, the atmosphere, characters, plot... etc. This is also why it fails. While it may be more accurate than many other war movies, this one was built onThis movie works only because it appears so real, it's the source of the suspense, the action, the atmosphere, characters, plot... etc. This is also why it fails. While it may be more accurate than many other war movies, this one was built on realism. However an informed viewer will note that the movie does not portray well the soldiers' lives and the Iraq war. Many bomb squad members said so themselves, including the ones that were interviewed by the movie makers. All the portrayed military operations are inaccurate. This movie is a lie. However can it still be viewed as a regular war action movie? I'm afraid not. Without the sense of reality the movie loses all interest. To conclude, not only does this movie fail at what it sells for, which is a close enough portrayal of wartime, it also fails as an action movie. The only praise I can give is the amazing work achieved by the actors. You will enjoy this movie though if you do not know much about the Iraq war, like most Americans unfortunately. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
G_Thomas_BostonApr 25, 2013
This is a movie about bombs. Lots of bombs. Desert bombs.

The End. That's pretty much it. Oh sure, a few other things happened. You wanna hear about 'em? OK. I'll provide you with a little more, oh faithful reader. I'm still not sure
This is a movie about bombs. Lots of bombs. Desert bombs.

The End.

That's pretty much it. Oh sure, a few other things happened. You wanna hear about 'em? OK. I'll provide you with a little more, oh faithful reader.

I'm still not sure what the title The Hurt Locker refers to. It's not about well-secured first aid kits, nor is it about gymnasium facilities for actors William, John, or even Mary Beth.

This celluloid endeavor was directed by Kathryn Bigelow; the deft hand behind such legendary screen classics as Point Break and Blue Steel. It stars Jeremy Renner as Staff Sergeant William James, an expert at diffusing bombs. Joining him on the Explosivity Disposaling Unit are Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Owen Eldrige (Brian Geraghty)

Renner has been nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. I'm not sure why this is. The supporting performances most notably Mackie's were, in my opinion, superior. All Renner did was act "cool". Oh, so "cool". Desert "cool". But if looking "cool" is the only criterion used for award recognition, then David Caruso should be nominated for a Nobel Prize.

The film centers mostly on the antics of Sergeant James. James loves dismantling things that can blow you into a zillion pieces. He'd rather do that than live a peaceful life in a nice home with his beautiful wife. We're shown some of his domestic life, but the movie doesn't show the good stuff. No. Instead we see him cleaning out the eavestrough of his house.

Now I've cleaned out a few roof gutters in my time, but the one depicted here has to be the gunkiest gutter in the history of home maintenance. And he's cleaning it out with his bare hand!!! C'mon, use a scoop, or a trowel, or a toy shovel, a stick, a shoe, anything. I'd rather diffuse bombs in Iraq than have to clean out that gutter in that fashion.

Another scene worth mentioning shows the guys after getting a little snockered engaging in an activity where good judgment and mental acuity would be a distinct disadvantage. The "game" involves taking turns hitting each other as hard as possible in the stomach. My wife, while watching this powerful and touching scene, turned to me and asked, "Why do men do those kind of things?"

You know, we men just have to chuckle when women ask us such questions. It was obvious to me, but I patiently explained it to her that this was a gesture of endearment. Women hug. Men try to smash the bejabers out of each other. It's their way of saying, "You're OK in my book." And nothing says it better than a ruptured spleen.

A word of warning here to those prone to seasickness: the camerawork in this film is of that hand-held style that so many directors are wont to use these days. I suppose they feel it gives their movies that gritty, realistic, documentary look which is ironic, since documentary filmmakers rarely use the technique anymore. Besides, if it's supposed to look realistic, then why don't I see the real world that way through my eyes? Although if I did, I'd be making an appointment and pronto with an ophthalmologist or a brain surgeon.

If you have a tough time watching this film due to that camera style, then avoid The Bourne Ultimatum at all costs. You would not survive. Its visuals are worse than any bone-jarring experience you could imagine

I once took a ride on a gigantically tall roller coaster. Its peak disappeared into the clouds. It was called the Red Ripper, or the Brown Streak, or the Green Puker something like that. Anyway, all I know is that I was smiling after that ride. I wasn't smiling after The Bourne Ultimatum.

In closing, I should say that even though I had some reservations about renting the DVD of The Hurt Locker, I was able to take something positive from it a lesson.

The lesson learned is, pay attention to your reservations.
Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
wisertimeJan 16, 2013
Overrated movie, with unrealistic characters and no real story. Too much stupid Bravado and machismo. I am reviewing this because Zero Dark Thirty is out and while Katherine Bigelow is sexy, she only got to be a director, because she wasOverrated movie, with unrealistic characters and no real story. Too much stupid Bravado and machismo. I am reviewing this because Zero Dark Thirty is out and while Katherine Bigelow is sexy, she only got to be a director, because she was married To James Cameron. Nepotism. I have no interest in seeing more fictional US military drama. I'll pass. Hurt locker was not that good. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
6
NathanFlynnJun 4, 2011
This is a great set up for what could be a killer war movie. But it isnâ
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
contractNov 6, 2013
Entertaining, yet not anywhere near to reality. You wouldn't go off base by yourself without your gear. You wouldn't do half of the things they they did in this movie.

And action movie this is, an accurate one it is not. The portrayal of
Entertaining, yet not anywhere near to reality. You wouldn't go off base by yourself without your gear. You wouldn't do half of the things they they did in this movie.

And action movie this is, an accurate one it is not. The portrayal of pstd was abysmal at best, and they way they wrote it off was sickening.
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
ReubenHApr 25, 2010
Bottom line on the hurt locker is that it s OK, but clearly did not deserve the Oscar In 5 or 10 years, nobody will be talking about the Hurt Locker. The story was not especially original. The cinematography will not be referenced in other Bottom line on the hurt locker is that it s OK, but clearly did not deserve the Oscar In 5 or 10 years, nobody will be talking about the Hurt Locker. The story was not especially original. The cinematography will not be referenced in other movies, and the film won't be parodied by cartoon shows as cultural icon. It was totally forgettable. IMO inglorious bastards should have won. Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful
5
JimmyRMar 12, 2010
This movie was average at best. To compare this with Platoon is a complete joke. I only gave it a 5 because of the last 15 min, best part of the movie. You dont even need to be in the military to see what crap most of this movie was, the This movie was average at best. To compare this with Platoon is a complete joke. I only gave it a 5 because of the last 15 min, best part of the movie. You dont even need to be in the military to see what crap most of this movie was, the sniper scene was hysterical, what were they doing out there to begin with? Why did they need to stay out in the sun all day? How long does it take to determine there is no more threat? All day I guess..LOL And the best, how is that guy so accurate with that sniper rifle..What BS..still laughing..hahaha. Expand
3 of 8 users found this helpful
5
charlesnMar 10, 2010
This is a very average movie - I don't understand all the hype. The story is cliched and simplistic, the acting is adequate. The actions of the protagonist are barely believable. Visually, very pretty, but really, nothing we This is a very average movie - I don't understand all the hype. The story is cliched and simplistic, the acting is adequate. The actions of the protagonist are barely believable. Visually, very pretty, but really, nothing we haven't seen before. Can anyone honestly say they would look forward to watching it a second time? Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
4
hzacOct 10, 2009
This movie was good for the first 20 minutes of the movie suspenseful then the rest had me rumbling my lis and slouching in my chair don't see it
1 of 3 users found this helpful
4
TheQuietGamerMar 26, 2011
I was extremely disappointed with this movie, the story is boring and the characters are impossible to like, there was only one good part and it was extremely short and had all of the movie been like that moment it would have been fantastic,I was extremely disappointed with this movie, the story is boring and the characters are impossible to like, there was only one good part and it was extremely short and had all of the movie been like that moment it would have been fantastic, but instead it's a bad movie that isn't enjoyable. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
eduardopoApr 26, 2011
Full patriotism without good history.
The direction very slowly and with clear focus on the heroic nonexistent.
Not deserve any award.
It is understandable that did not win any other competition except the American: Oscar.
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
5
Fistsoflove69Jan 17, 2010
It was not what I would call an action movie, it was a good drama but not an action movie. The ending is sadly more true to life than you'd imagine.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
BrianYApr 21, 2010
Difficult to identify or care about the characters. Strange mix of pro and anti-war propaganda. Seemed like it was purposely trying to send mixed messages and it wasn't very enjoyable. Looked like a made for TV documentary with shaky Difficult to identify or care about the characters. Strange mix of pro and anti-war propaganda. Seemed like it was purposely trying to send mixed messages and it wasn't very enjoyable. Looked like a made for TV documentary with shaky hand held footage for 'authenticity' but was actually more annoying. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
MoviebuffreviewMar 5, 2011
This is the most overrated film of last decade in my opinion. How did this win best picture? Sure, the movie gets the intensity of the Iraq war on screen in a good fashion, but with awkward pacing, boring situations, and most importantly, aThis is the most overrated film of last decade in my opinion. How did this win best picture? Sure, the movie gets the intensity of the Iraq war on screen in a good fashion, but with awkward pacing, boring situations, and most importantly, a nonexistent story, The Hurt Locker really is "Hurt" by many of its flaws. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
Jack97Jan 1, 2014
Jeremy Renner is great in his role, but for me the film didn't live up to my expectations due to its length and not having as much action as the trailer showed.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
CraigLJan 25, 2010
Don't believe the hype very average.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SarahMar 8, 2010
What a disappointment. Like others have already said it lacked a real plot line, the acting seemed too "cheesy" and "artificial", the script was boring, and to me it actual gave off a negative representation towards the US military. I have What a disappointment. Like others have already said it lacked a real plot line, the acting seemed too "cheesy" and "artificial", the script was boring, and to me it actual gave off a negative representation towards the US military. I have to say though that the idea did have potential; some parts were believably realistic, but others were just over the top and almost "awkward". I understand it's not "your typical movie" but it can't be classified as a "documentary" to me either. I'm still unsure of what to think... and I am SO surprised it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I think the recent hype with the US military's involvement in that country is the one thing that fed it's popularity. It seems everyone has been brainwashed with that topic. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PatrickMApr 2, 2010
I spent two tours in Iraq. Way too many military inaccuracies -- smoking in the barracks, drinking, the Colonel outside the wire and being called a colonel while outside, and carrying an M16, getting outside the wire with a handgun and then I spent two tours in Iraq. Way too many military inaccuracies -- smoking in the barracks, drinking, the Colonel outside the wire and being called a colonel while outside, and carrying an M16, getting outside the wire with a handgun and then returning to the gate without getting in trouble, and the list goes on... -- for this picture to be rated anything better than an average. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RichardBJul 20, 2009
This was a taut, well-acted, intense movie which could have been better if the director had not used the hand-held camera method for much of the film. People shouldn't have to take doses of Dramamine before seeing a movie in order to This was a taut, well-acted, intense movie which could have been better if the director had not used the hand-held camera method for much of the film. People shouldn't have to take doses of Dramamine before seeing a movie in order to keep their last meal in place. I propose a rating system that let's viewers know in advance that jerky camera techniques are used in a movie so that those of us who are subject to motion sickness can avoid the film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
HugoSSep 1, 2009
The Hurt Locker is another pointless attempt at glorifying the act of bravery and the demon that is war but it fails as a reflection of it and as a movie. I'm not an army guy, you could say i'm actually the opposiste of it and was The Hurt Locker is another pointless attempt at glorifying the act of bravery and the demon that is war but it fails as a reflection of it and as a movie. I'm not an army guy, you could say i'm actually the opposiste of it and was incredibly hyped to watch this film; what an incredible dissapointment. I'm not an expert on how the military works but I can see where the army guys in the comments section are coming from, it really feels like they had a series of unrealistic set pieces before having a script and that's what they went for. It simplifies a conflict, it shakes the camera constantly missing the point of shaking a camera on a movie. It is extremely pretentious and goes on and on without any form of narrative. When it looks like an interesting idea is about to start and develop a plot it just stops and moves on into another annoying moment of camaradery and funny portraying of one of the most annoying main characters of the year. Don't believe the hype, this is just another example of how critics tired of being forced to watch Dance Flick and any other film their boss asks them, watch a movie that it's not awful and think it's the second coming of Christ. This is just another movie with a few ideas but poorly executed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeSJan 13, 2010
Has two or three memorable set pieces that have one or two memorable action sequences. All the Iraqi's are little more than placeholders to move the story along ("cowering moron," "fawning kid who likes soccer," "guy with cell phone and Has two or three memorable set pieces that have one or two memorable action sequences. All the Iraqi's are little more than placeholders to move the story along ("cowering moron," "fawning kid who likes soccer," "guy with cell phone and bad timing," etc.) The American soldiers' behavior and their repercussions make no realistic sense either. An action movie with better pedigree than Michael Bay, but hardly the film that the critic's are gushing about. Lower your expectations and you'll be fine. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnB.Jan 18, 2010
Very average movie, not sure what all the hype is about.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BullittJan 3, 2010
Was suspicious from the start, this could have been a good film if there was at least a plot. But it also seemed totally inaccurate to me, and I'm no soldier, but I'm smart enough to identify this film has more in common with point Was suspicious from the start, this could have been a good film if there was at least a plot. But it also seemed totally inaccurate to me, and I'm no soldier, but I'm smart enough to identify this film has more in common with point break than anything in real world war conflicts. Avatar has more realism. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JamesJan 8, 2010
I absolutely cannot figure out why the critics are raving over this. It was a suspenseful made for TV drama with no plot, unnecessary scenes, mediocre acting, little character development, no deep probing as to their cause - AND TOTALLY FAKE I absolutely cannot figure out why the critics are raving over this. It was a suspenseful made for TV drama with no plot, unnecessary scenes, mediocre acting, little character development, no deep probing as to their cause - AND TOTALLY FAKE and UNBELIEVABLE SCENES. All you people saying it was 'realistic' need to read the reviews by ex-soldiers who say it was not only tripe - but that they were borderline offended by it - and in fact it poorly portrayed Iraqis as well. 5 points for keeping me on the edge of my seat, 0 for everything else. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AlbertaPMar 12, 2010
This wasn't a movie - it was the most horrific human video game imaginable where the goal is to kill or be killed and to immensely enjoy the adrenaline rush caused by that type of behavior.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RickhMar 24, 2010
You get a 10 for the story but a 0 for technical accuracy. I was a Military Analyst in Baghdad from 2004 to 2005. At the beginning the movie say Baghdad 2004. They should have said Baghdad 2006 and maybe you would been better. In 2004, we You get a 10 for the story but a 0 for technical accuracy. I was a Military Analyst in Baghdad from 2004 to 2005. At the beginning the movie say Baghdad 2004. They should have said Baghdad 2006 and maybe you would been better. In 2004, we weren't wearing the Advanced Combat Uniforms, we were in the Desert Camouflage Uniforms. The soldiers or even elite soldier didn't have M4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) most just had the M16 some had the plain M4 with the carrying handle without a scope. We didn't drive up-armored HMMWV's (HUM-V's), we had basic issue HMMWV's. Then we took steel plate and strapped it to our vehicles, we called it Hillbilly Armor. Up-armored HMMWV's until the middle of 2005. Then one thing they got totally wrong that didn't change with time was t name of the camp. There was a time when Camp Victory grew expanded and grew into two camps North and South Victory, South being the original Camp, the huge PX going into the North. Later they changed the name of the camp to Camp Liberty. In the movie they said the opposite, the name went from Camp Liberty to Camp Victory...Wrong. Next time get a technical advisor who is either a Military Analyst or was there. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JesseJMar 7, 2010
Not a very good movie. No were near as good as some critics say it is. And it definetly did not deserve 6 oscars. Best Director: Inglorious Bastards Best Picture: District 9 Best Sound Mixing: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Writing Not a very good movie. No were near as good as some critics say it is. And it definetly did not deserve 6 oscars. Best Director: Inglorious Bastards Best Picture: District 9 Best Sound Mixing: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Writing (original): Inglorious Bastards Sure maybe it deserved the other 2 as I am not a professional in those areas but it definitely did not deserve these 4. The voters were all biased since its a movie based on war and america's so called glories. I can already think of many (MANY) war movies that are so much better than this, Pearl Harbor, Black Hawk Down, etc. etc. etc. The academy is so biased towards animation movies, anti american movies (including District 9) and movies with a lot of action. Seriously, last year I was greatly disappointed in the oscars, but I still stood by their side, but from this year on, I am never watching the oscars again as they make the most stupid and sadistic choices. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ChrisSJun 2, 2010
The problem with this movie is that it keeps up the suspense until the end, and you keep thinking something is going to happen, but then it starts a whole new story. The only reason this won the oscar is because Hollywood is desperate for The problem with this movie is that it keeps up the suspense until the end, and you keep thinking something is going to happen, but then it starts a whole new story. The only reason this won the oscar is because Hollywood is desperate for movies that are boring enough to look deep. Anything so they wouldn't need to give it to Avatar. Overall, 09 was a crappy movie year. Just give the award to MW2. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JohnS.Jun 9, 2010
This movie was reasonable for a war movie, but it shamefully pushed the director's media based view any chance it got.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
KevinVOct 31, 2009
The Hurt Locker has been done before, only not in Iraq, and perhaps not so intelligently. The conflict between strict protocol and an independent rule-breaking soldier is nothing new. In fact, none of the characters in The Hurt Locker break The Hurt Locker has been done before, only not in Iraq, and perhaps not so intelligently. The conflict between strict protocol and an independent rule-breaking soldier is nothing new. In fact, none of the characters in The Hurt Locker break army stereotypes. This doesn't make the movie any less poignant, but leaves it feeling stagnant. The only way this movie breaks new ground is by setting the story in Iraq. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ShazK.Jul 10, 2009
Morally, is it fair to fashion an action/thriller out of misery (American or Iraqi)? Or we are supposed to ignore that, as well? If you praise this film because it is ambivalent or not passing any "facile" judgments about war you admit war Morally, is it fair to fashion an action/thriller out of misery (American or Iraqi)? Or we are supposed to ignore that, as well? If you praise this film because it is ambivalent or not passing any "facile" judgments about war you admit war is too complex, is that not an opinion too? Are American critics falling over this film and calling it the "best american film about Iraq war" because it does not show the torture and the suffering gone through by the Iraqi people? Oh, that would be passing a "facile judgement" right? By focusing on a group of American bomb squad is maybe a good cinematic decision. It makes the film more tense and compact but ignoring the plight of the invaded and make them come across as a tribe deserving of such treatment makes this film more dubious than ambiguous. While I did enjoy the film's various action set-pieces, I find the idea that it took a film about the plight of the soldiers rather than the other sides to get the critics sympathy flowing, disturbing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
LeifJ.Jul 17, 2009
This film is a very weakly scripted, so it is hard to find anything compelling in the film... except for the action which revolves around a character's private obsession with stoic victory in battle. A manipulatively gloomy soundtrack, This film is a very weakly scripted, so it is hard to find anything compelling in the film... except for the action which revolves around a character's private obsession with stoic victory in battle. A manipulatively gloomy soundtrack, lipstick-red blood show and slow-motion blow-ups say "Yes ma'am" to the director's vision. What we get is an inadvertent picture of a military bending toward breakdown in discipline; there's no sense of higher command or political certainty. The audience I sat with lightly applauded the end of the film. It was hard to tell if they were glad it was over, or were swept up in the fictional heroics. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
StephenJ.Jul 24, 2009
I didn't hate it, but was never grabbed by it either. Some meandering sub-plots overly long sequences. Wait for it on DVD.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
NormGJul 28, 2009
Maybe I have seen too many war movies. Too many World War II movies, too many Vietnam War movies, too many Iraq War movies. I get it. War is chaotic, terrible, brutal and attracts wackos. The Hurt Locker taught me nothing new. I didn't Maybe I have seen too many war movies. Too many World War II movies, too many Vietnam War movies, too many Iraq War movies. I get it. War is chaotic, terrible, brutal and attracts wackos. The Hurt Locker taught me nothing new. I didn't care about the characters and I certainly didn't learn anything about the U.S. mission in the middle east. I am not an expert on combat operations but I would guess some of the activity was unrealistic. I was bored and the movies seemed way to long. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
BMAug 14, 2009
Overrated. The movie is basically a series of well crafted set pieces without anything to hold it all together. The director attempts to fill in those gaps with much pontificating about what war means and how it affects those involved. Overrated. The movie is basically a series of well crafted set pieces without anything to hold it all together. The director attempts to fill in those gaps with much pontificating about what war means and how it affects those involved. It's all been said before, but in much more effective ways. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
VMAug 24, 2009
I thought this movie dragged on without much of a plot. I also thought some of the things they did were implausible. I'm an Army and have been to Iraq.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
EdSAug 3, 2009
As a movie, it's hugely thrilling and entertaining, full of atmosphere, menace, and grit. But the comments of other viewers who seem to have first-hand experience indicate that the story is quite unrealistic, which is what I suspected. As a movie, it's hugely thrilling and entertaining, full of atmosphere, menace, and grit. But the comments of other viewers who seem to have first-hand experience indicate that the story is quite unrealistic, which is what I suspected. I have not served in the military, but I find it hard to believe that a three-man EOD unit in a Humvee could operate with such autonomy, with so little direction by senior officers, for example roaming around the desert and just happening upon an SAS team. I'd bet that real EOD specialists are more likely to be Bible-reading born-again Christians than binge-drinking brawlers. I'm motivated to seek out the 1970s British TV series with Anthony Andrews (of "Brideshead Revisted" fame) called "Danger: UXB," which I bet will stand up well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
BrentSJan 17, 2010
I decided to check out this movie based on the ridiculously high score this film received on Metacritic, and when I watched it, I was shocked at how overrated this movie was. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a decent movie, and I I decided to check out this movie based on the ridiculously high score this film received on Metacritic, and when I watched it, I was shocked at how overrated this movie was. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a decent movie, and I enjoyed it for the most part. But it is far from one of the best War movies I've ever seen, and there wasn't even really a plot, not to mention the ending was sudden, and it sucked. Usually the critics are harsh and the average viewer can enjoy a movie for what it is. But this time, the Critics seem to really like it and the average viewers are walking away disappointed because its not nearly as good as the critics are claiming it is. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TsarB.Feb 12, 2010
It really doesn't live up to all the hype. Not sure why the critics fell in love with this very average film.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JohnHMar 14, 2010
Truthfully this movie is very average.... I have no idea how this won a single Oscar. Go watch a better war movie like Saving Private Ryan.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SteveCApr 14, 2010
Emotionally unmoving. The characters had little in the way of redeeming features & the episodic content was a bit contrived. Doesn't seem to push many envelopes... there were some cool moments but it felt like i'd seen it all before?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FrankM.Apr 18, 2010
Please, oh please, stop shaking the camera. I don't mind it in an action scene, but what you guys are doing to films today is making me sick. I feel like I have "Shaking Banby Syndrom". And the unnecessary zooms, UGHHHH. You're Please, oh please, stop shaking the camera. I don't mind it in an action scene, but what you guys are doing to films today is making me sick. I feel like I have "Shaking Banby Syndrom". And the unnecessary zooms, UGHHHH. You're making films to look like they are made by amateurs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DaveTMay 19, 2010
Mediocre guy action flick, nothing special. The only reason American professional reviewers gave this thing good reviews is to please the papers the write for so they wouldn't be labeled as "against the troops". Better acting and action Mediocre guy action flick, nothing special. The only reason American professional reviewers gave this thing good reviews is to please the papers the write for so they wouldn't be labeled as "against the troops". Better acting and action in any WWE produced flick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
cjjNov 16, 2009
As an EOD tech i can tell you ther are many unrealistic things in the movie. Back when this story actually took place and the reporter was embedded with the unit EOD did run around without much security and did do most IED's without the As an EOD tech i can tell you ther are many unrealistic things in the movie. Back when this story actually took place and the reporter was embedded with the unit EOD did run around without much security and did do most IED's without the robot. The scene with the snipers took place on the demo range and EOD did regularly go without a convoy as it was accross the street from the base and security if it was there stayed up range. EOD did not have dediicated security back then. All the crap about leaving the base alone at night and breaking into the families home was crap. the smoke grenade scene was crap. the VBIED scene was crap. The brittish guys were suposed to be blackwater or something. EOD does carry a .50cal sniper rifle but not for shooting people. The blackwater guys shouldnt have been there either way. While EOD are not special forces they do have training from one of the hardest schools in the military as all branches attend the same school.It has about a 57% attrition rate the last i checked and it is 9-12 months long with 12 hour days and you cant even take notes home to study because they are classified and locked up each evening. While much of the movie is far fetched and turned hollywood, do give EOD their due because it is an incredibly difficult job that many even if willing, dont have what it takes to perform anyway. Aside from all that the acting was pretty good, but didnt deserve all the rave. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AlexK.Oct 17, 2009
The movie was fairly exciting and suspenseful, but the ending left me feeling detached from the characters. Seriously, if the film is trying to be deep and thought-provoking it shouldn't fall back on cliches of heavy metal listening, The movie was fairly exciting and suspenseful, but the ending left me feeling detached from the characters. Seriously, if the film is trying to be deep and thought-provoking it shouldn't fall back on cliches of heavy metal listening, liquor swilling, and punching contests. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JimSAug 16, 2009
Expected much more, given the reviews. It was mostly a dull and predictable film with an implausible storyline. It had a few redeeming moments, but overall, it was just another unrealistic war movie. It did not deliver as billed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AndrewRSep 21, 2009
This movie was not nearly as good as the critics seem to think it was. Not absolutely horrendous but not that great.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
opticAug 21, 2010
This movie is like a 4 day old pizza. Bland, run of the mill, and generally lucklustre. The fact that it scored the Oscar nod only confirms the suspicion that politics, rather than substance, is the name of the game when the red carpet isThis movie is like a 4 day old pizza. Bland, run of the mill, and generally lucklustre. The fact that it scored the Oscar nod only confirms the suspicion that politics, rather than substance, is the name of the game when the red carpet is concerned.
Non-existent character development, zero story arc, and cliched scripting make this a thoroughly forgettable movie.
...I'll add this to the growing list of movies that make me wanna jump behind the lens and avenge the egregious wrongdoings that have been leveled against a tired movie-going public.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
JonnyFendiJan 16, 2011
I think hand-held camera is a modern technique in nowadays cinema. Thiz movie was using a lot of those shaky-camera techniques. The picture painted by no specific tone. All we saw just what we saw through our naked eyes. I knew that maybeI think hand-held camera is a modern technique in nowadays cinema. Thiz movie was using a lot of those shaky-camera techniques. The picture painted by no specific tone. All we saw just what we saw through our naked eyes. I knew that maybe they just wanted to capture things as realistic as they could get. But is that effective? Personally for me, I do not like it at all. The conventional movie makers had been trying to brush their picture into some kind of atmosphere. There is the art. If we let everybody treats the movie like thiz. I think anyone could make thiz kind of movie as long as they had their expensive digital camera. The movie played by second-class Actors which the most proportion went to two characters (Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie). Their performances were adequate. The other Casts were: Brian Geraghthy, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse, etc. The story itself contains no main-plot. We are just watching case by case about what is happening. The only thing that I respect on thiz movie is how the action scenes go. Previous warfare movies relied on big battle scenes with Big Boom Bang, like we saw on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998) and BLACK HAWK (2001). But thiz movie was using The Horror Formula (That was what I called). The scenes had been trying to create the tension by waiting something to happen next. Some of scenes were successfully pace our adrenaline. The movie directed by Kathryn Bigelow, The Director of POINT BREAK (1991) and K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER (2002). Overall, it is not a great warfare movie ever made compare to legendary APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) or FULL METAL JACKET (1987). Although I am fully support a woman Director to direct thiz kind of genre.

Visit My Blog on JONNY'S MOVEE: http://jonnyfendi.blogspot.com
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
jakub02Jan 13, 2012
This is a prime example of an over-hyped movie, that in all cases did not deserve an Academy Award. The plot is incoherent - each and every scene is pretty well executed and tense, but the story just drags for too long and just does not makeThis is a prime example of an over-hyped movie, that in all cases did not deserve an Academy Award. The plot is incoherent - each and every scene is pretty well executed and tense, but the story just drags for too long and just does not make sense as a whole. The acting was pretty good though - Renner's performance as an adrenaline addict was pretty remarkable. All in all not bad, but not very good either. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SpangleJul 31, 2013
It was honestly nothing more than ok. The acting was really good and the directing was good, but at the end of the day, I'm not entirely sure what the plot was (yes, he disarms bombs, but it leads to nothing), which is an obvious turn off andIt was honestly nothing more than ok. The acting was really good and the directing was good, but at the end of the day, I'm not entirely sure what the plot was (yes, he disarms bombs, but it leads to nothing), which is an obvious turn off and it's honestly really slow at times. Unsure how this won an Oscar. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Tupe_NFeb 8, 2013
At its best, Hurt Locker totally captivates the feeling of being there alongside Jeremy Renner and defusing the bomb rigged to explode. But sadly if you look past it's peaks moments, you find confusing scenes and poor acting. As an European,At its best, Hurt Locker totally captivates the feeling of being there alongside Jeremy Renner and defusing the bomb rigged to explode. But sadly if you look past it's peaks moments, you find confusing scenes and poor acting. As an European, Hurt Locker doesn't really give you that much content or make you attached to the characters. I had absolutely no feelings towards Sergeant James (Jeremy Renner) and his crew, and because of this the tension about the bomb exploding or not was weak. It doesn't help at all that the characters have almost no background, especially the lead character was left blank. There are some great scenes like the sniping on the desert and defusing of the car bomb. but to balance it out there are some odd ones like the scene in which they have a drunken brawl in the barracks. Also the plot is a confusing mess of highlights, that doesn't seem to start or end. The shots are beautiful and sharp, and the scenes are very real-like. A lot of the credit for the movies success goes to the film editing and cinematography departments. Somehow i still feel the movie is widely overrated, and doesn't really bring anything new or make the existing better. I think this is a national matter and Americans do enjoy this film more than us Europeans do, the subject of Iraq war is somehow reluctant to us, and bonding with the EOD-squad in two hours is very hard. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews