SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 29th, 2024, 1:59am
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Reviews    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  ›  The Hurt Locker Moderators: Nixon
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 10 Guests

 Pages: 1
Recommend Print
  Author    The Hurt Locker  (currently 773 views)
JonnyBoy
Posted: August 28th, 2009, 12:41pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18
Let me begin with my conclusion, if that makes sense, before what I'm trying to say is lost in a sea of waffle: this is, without doubt, the best film I've seen this year. Right, now onto the review.

First, a brief synopsis: The Hurt Locker is a war film, set in Iraq - Baghdad, to be exact. It follows the missions of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team, who have only 30-odd days left 'til the end of their rotation. Their job is what their title suggests: they deal with explosive devices, either disarming or safely detonating them. The main plot involves the team members trying to adjust to their new team leader (Jeremy Renner), and completing their tour of duty in one piece.

Where do I start with the praise? It's excellent. Excellent in every possible way. The performances are all top-notch (look out for brief but great turns from Guy Pearce and Ralph Fiennes), particularly Jeremy Renner, who plays the protagonist Sgt. William James. I've already said I think Depp will get an Oscar nod for Public Enemies, and I'm going to place a similar prediction here: I think Renner will be up for Best Actor. He might even win. His character is fascinatingly impenetrable, a terrific screen presence no matter what he is doing.

I must admit I'd never heard of the director, Kathryn Bigelow, but she did an excellent job. Scenes where not actually a great deal was happening still felt tense and...REAL. Take the sequence with the sniper; nobody really moves for a good ten minutes, and yet not only are you not bored, you're constantly on edge. That was an important part of the overall feel, actually: it felt so authentic, so real. The screenplay was written by a freelance writer called Mark Boal who spent a year travelling with an EOD team, and his first-hand experiences have helped him create a truly authentic-feeling story. Suspension of disbelief wasn't required - there was nothing to suspend it for. THIS is what a true action film should be like, not giant robots punching each other, but characters you care about rolling the dice and risking their lives. It's the kind of film that gives you an adrenaline buzz that lasts long after the film has finished.

I'll stop now. I don't know if any of you have seen it, or have even had the chance to - seems they didn't get the word out very well. But if you have the chance, I highly reccomend it. I would definitely say it's one of the best war films I've ever seen - makes Saving Private Ryan look rather tame by comparison. And, as I said at the start of this review, it's the best film I've seen so far this year. I'd be amazed if I see a better one, actually!



Guess who's back? Back again?
Logged Offline
Site Private Message
bobtheballa
Posted: August 28th, 2009, 12:49pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



It's the best film I've seen this year not named "The Cove."

Everything you said matches my thoughts, but I'll throw out some additional praise for the direction. The shaky cam, the detail of the scenes and the phenomenal performances by every actor involved made me feel like I was there serving in Iraq. The tension was real, I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film and although I've gotten used to seeing gore and the like in films over the years, the scene towards the end (won't spoil anything) had me sick to my stomach hours after I left the theatre.

It's not your stereotypical Hollywood war film trying to critique the war in Iraq, our country, our country's leaders or anything else. It's about the people stuck in the middle of the controversy, the soldiers who put their lives on the line every day, as we watch their resolve slowly break down.

Haunting, affecting stuff. I'd definitely recommend everyone take a look.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 1 - 11
JonnyBoy
Posted: August 28th, 2009, 12:53pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18

Quoted from bobtheballa
It's not your stereotypical Hollywood war film trying to critique the war in Iraq, our country, our country's leaders or anything else. It's about the people stuck in the middle of the controversy, the soldiers who put their lives on the line every day, as we watch their resolve slowly break down.


Very good point - this isn't a film trying to sell you a message, unlike some of the recent attempts to handle the War on Terror (i.e. Lions for Lambs). It's just about men trying to do their job in impossible circumstances.


Guess who's back? Back again?
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 2 - 11
Aaron
Posted: August 28th, 2009, 1:38pm Report to Moderator
New


That's me

Location
Spring Hill, FL
Posts
425
Posts Per Day
0.08
I guess I'm in the minority-I didn't hate it but I don't see what the big deal is. Now there were some AWESOME scenes and in the beginning with the slo-mo shot of the car's roof bending-that's awesome. There were some greatly entertaining scenes but...I guess I was just bored. Part of me really wants to come on here and say I loved it but, guess I don't agree with the critics on this one. Now District 9 and Watchmen are this years top 2. At least for me.


Isle 10- A series I'm currently writing with my friend Adam and it will go into production soon. Think The Office meets 10 Items or Less.

Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 3 - 11
JonnyBoy
Posted: September 4th, 2009, 3:41pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18
I honestly can't understand how you were bored. I can't remember seeing a film more relentlessly intense...by the end I was exhausted, and all I'd been doing was sitting down!


Guess who's back? Back again?
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 4 - 11
Aaron
Posted: September 4th, 2009, 5:02pm Report to Moderator
New


That's me

Location
Spring Hill, FL
Posts
425
Posts Per Day
0.08

Quoted from JonnyBoy
I honestly can't understand how you were bored. I can't remember seeing a film more relentlessly intense...by the end I was exhausted, and all I'd been doing was sitting down!


Guess it was my expectations, just didn't do it for me. There's no denying that it almost everyone else loved it though.


Isle 10- A series I'm currently writing with my friend Adam and it will go into production soon. Think The Office meets 10 Items or Less.

Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 5 - 11
Andrew
Posted: September 22nd, 2009, 2:54pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32
Jon,

Glad you enjoyed this, and your views more closely reflect how the majority find this film than my own.

I must be missing something 'cos this is one of the most wildly overrated films to ever sit before me.

Ok, but definitely not great. It was just so fragmented. Where is the cohesion? We are loosely cannoned into a world where the majority of soldiers don't want to be at war. The lead guy was for large part completely without any clear reason for his personal recklessness and desire for war - the 'drug factor', I presume. The 'specialist' led to the killing of the doctor, and yet his emotional-coming-to-terms was brushed over - why didn't we see more of the fallout? Why didn't we see some conclusion to Renner's ridiculous Beckham mission?

Clearly, juxtaposing the 'doctor' with the war-hungry protagonist was obvious political commentary - it felt like some hackneyed right/left comparison, but only taking the extremes of those supposed views. No nuance whatsoever.

The realism, however, was excellent, and it scored big time with capturing what I presume the war to feel like. If the writer trailed an actual team, then it shone through.

That said, it had no discernible story as I say, and it felt as though the end scenes/opening SUPER were subsequently tagged on to give it some resonance. We never really got to know anything about the main characters, and the potentially striking 'Beckham' climax felt like a damp squid. In comparison to 'Syriana' and 'The Kingdom' it paled. Both of those films contextualise the essence of war, and its drain on society. 'Syriana' particularly went very deep into the rabbit's hole, and while not strictly a war film, it does tackle the same ground. I know 'The Hurt Locker' is more geared towards a personal account of the war, but it lacked the heart and glue of 'Saving Private Ryan' by a long shot. That's where a Tom Hanks will give you that extra 2% over a pretty lacklustre Renner. Aside from the touching 'Beckham' scenes, I never felt he was anything but reckless and selfish. He felt like a representation of  those who led us into this mess of a war - the recklessness with searching for the bombers, or the Beckham hunt, the lack of considered thought as to consequences and long-term damage of your actions. It mirrored perfectly what most feel about the decision to go to war. This film felt like it was using the characters as pawns to post a weak message re: the war, and its failures.

Back to 'Syriana', I believe it happens to be one of the best scripts I have read. Gaghan is a masterful writer, and his Lions Gate deal just announced should hopefully lead to more quality.

Andrew


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 6 - 11
JonnyBoy
Posted: September 22nd, 2009, 4:08pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18
Clearly there's a point about this film that you and I disagree over: whether or not it has a message. I agree that if you're trying to find a stance on war, or a comment on American foreign policy, then at best you'll find something confused and without a clear statement.

But I don't believe that this IS a film with a message. It's a depiction of a group of men whose job happens to be disarming bombs on the streets of Baghdad. Not a criticism of American foreign policy, but a story with a character at its core who remains a mystery to us, quite deliberately in my eyes. I disagree that Renner is lacklustre; Ebert has picked him out as a leading candidate for Oscar attention, and I completely agree with him (bit early to be making predictions, perhaps, but I forsee Depp, Renner and Vincent Cassel's names on the Best Actor list). The characters are not pawns at all, at least not in my eyes, because the idea isn't to drill into us that 'war is good' or 'war is bad'. The message just seems to be 'war sucks', and those in it know it too.

Quickly, about the Beckham bit: unless I'm remembering it wrongly, didn't Beckham turn up alive towards the end of the film? Meaning that Sgt. James' whole crusade to find who killed him ended up being entirely pointless? Unless you already knew that.

I'm almost tempted to say you ARE missing something. I don't know what it is, and I know responses to films are subjective, but I think this is excellent however you look at it. Its lack of message is a strength, not a criticism, in my eyes. I'd put it up there right next to Saving Private Ryan - in fact, I'd be tempted to say that this is actually a PURER exploration of war and its effects on those involved than Spielberg's film, which while excellent, is as much about loyalty and honour as it is about actual war. Spielberg's is a film about brotherhood; this is a film about isolation. And as I say, at least to me the two are comparably excellent works.


Guess who's back? Back again?
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 7 - 11
Andrew
Posted: September 22nd, 2009, 5:45pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1791
Posts Per Day
0.32

Quoted from JonnyBoy
Not a criticism of American foreign policy, but a story with a character at its core who remains a mystery to us, quite deliberately in my eyes. I disagree that Renner is lacklustre; Ebert has picked him out as a leading candidate for Oscar attention, and I completely agree with him


Yep, the beauty of film is the different things we can take from it. I recognise that it's a character-driven piece, but is woefully short of any character development. What do our characters learn? What makes any of them memorable? How are the multiple bomb diffusions linked to fleshing out characters? To my mind, there is nothing. There is a lack of coherence, either in character development, or storytelling. With each event, Renner becomes more and more reckless. The whole in-fighting scene with them grappling reinforced that this man was not fit to lead a team.

I know you think the story is devoid of any intended meaning, but Renner's character is pointedly an arsehole, I think. His arrogance, recklessness and bad decision-making directly reflects the general verdict on Bush's war and administration. I really cannot see how this film is without a message.


Quoted from JonnyBoy
Quickly, about the Beckham bit: unless I'm remembering it wrongly, didn't Beckham turn up alive towards the end of the film? Meaning that Sgt. James' whole crusade to find who killed him ended up being entirely pointless? Unless you already knew that.


He did, but to my mind, it was unclear as to whether this was reality, I thought. That whole relationship felt hugely mishandled. Message or no message, this relationship ended up doing nothing to reinforce the 'war is a drug' opening. Also, it did nothing to contribute how Renner had developed by the end to want to go back to war. The fact we knew nothing about him led me to feel empty. As a character study, it didn't do anything that say a 'There Will Be Blood' did, which was chart the rise and fall of a warped, and consumed mind. These characters are too unmemorable, and even remembering their name is a stretch.


Quoted from JonnyBoy
I'm almost tempted to say you ARE missing something. I don't know what it is, and I know responses to films are subjective, but I think this is excellent however you look at it.


That's cool. I thought 'Inglourious Basterds' was exceptional, and 'District 9' to be good, but hugely overrated, so I am often at odds with popular opinion. Ha, maybe I am missing it but to be honest, I just think this is an average film that is massively overrated

Andrew


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 8 - 11
Niles_Crane
Posted: September 22nd, 2009, 7:41pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I do find it very interesting that America is producing films on the "War on Terror" while they are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's in marked contrast to Vietnam, where the main cinematic comment did not come until the conflict was over for a number of years.

it does beg the question, however, of whether film makers are too close to events to create a true portrayal - whether it will in fact be a case of waiting until the conflict is over and some years have passed before screenwriters and directors are able to produce true masterpieces comparable to those centered on the Vietnam war (and, indeed, other conflicts).

I would also say that I find it very noticeable that the British, who are losing men daily in Afghanistan, and who have a history of socio-political film making, seem to be shying away from making any films regarding the subject whatsoever (off the top of my head I can think of none!). The most powerful comment on the whole subject has so far come through a stage play ("Black Watch"). In many ways, it is a sad indictment of the current state of British cinema.

Perhaps we'll have to wait until Richard Curtis produces "Kabul, Actually" with Hugh Grant as a British Army officer who finds love in Helmand Province!
Logged
e-mail Reply: 9 - 11
JonnyBoy
Posted: September 22nd, 2009, 8:09pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
London, England
Posts
994
Posts Per Day
0.18
I just don't think this IS a cinematic comment on the War on Terror. I firmly believe that. I was listening to Mark Kermode's review the other day, and he made the point that really you could transfer this narrative and these characters to any conflict - Northern Ireland, maybe even Vietnam - and its power would remain the same. This isn't a film about the War on Terror, which is actually to its benefit.

I also can't agree that Renner's character is a blunt metaphor for the clumsy foreign policy of the Bush administration. Does Renner = Bush? Both are arseholes? I find that far too simplistic. I actually quite like characters that I don't get to know much about (see the discussion I had with Jeff over Depp's portrayal of John Dillinger in Public Enemies). It leaves a lot of room for consideration.

My take on Renner's character? He should have died a long time ago. He knows that. By rights, he shouldn't still be here - the law of averages is against him. That's why he keeps the bomb compartments under his bed, because he can't get over the fact that he can't seem to die. And yet what has his continued survival done to him? He's bored. Restless. He's been in war so long that he can't live without it (there's a truly brilliant moment towards the end of the film where he's standing in the cereal aisle in the supermarket, trying to choose one, and somehow the row of cereal seems just as threatening as the bombs he's faced, just in a different way). He cares for nothing. It reminds me of a line in The Dark Knight: "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". If Sgt. James had died in action, maybe he'd have been called a hero. As it is, he's still around, losing more and more interest in his continued life. Even the people who don't die in war are changed forever.

I'm rambling, I know. But I saw tremendous depth to that character, and I think Renner's performance was terrific.

All just one man's opinion, of course. I can't convince you to agree with me...I can just encourage you to.

(P.S. Niles - surely budgetary concerns are as much a factor as anything? The Hurt Locker cost $11 million to make; I think British films rarely reach that level of budget. Especially for a film like this, which isn't exactly mainstream and has only just about broken even despite the critical acclaim.)


Guess who's back? Back again?
Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 10 - 11
James McClung
Posted: May 13th, 2011, 3:34pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients



Location
Washington, D.C.
Posts
3293
Posts Per Day
0.49
Caught this last night for the first time. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Whatever commentary there may or may not be, I don't care. Hurt Locker was a surprisingly entertaining war flick with a refreshing lack of somberness and guilt-tripping.

I can't say I'm all that interested in war torn Iraq as fiction nor what Bigalow has to say about it. Whether it's on the news or a topic of dinner table conversation, issues of Iraq and terrorism have saturated the U.S. for the past decade. I don't need another movie about it to tell me what's what. I took Hurt Locker simply as a day-in-the-life saga of soldiers with an interesting character (Renner) at it's center, snotty though he may be.

Well written, directed, acted, etc. A pretty well-rounded film overall with a gutsy ending as the proverbial cherry on the sundae. I don't even think it was all that bad a call for Best Picture. Perhaps not as good as Avatar or Inglourious Basterds but certainly had less shortcomings overall.

Good stuff! And thank you also, Kathryn, for Near Dark. <3


Logged
Private Message Reply: 11 - 11
 Pages: 1
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006