Thursday, February 04, 2010

the hurt locker [2008]

funny that imdb.com has the year for this flick as 2008 yet it was released last year and is up, as most everyone knows by now, for a few oscars. perhaps it did come out in 2008. there was only a very limited run at the local arthouse then it went pooft into the aether only to land into the laps of reverent and clamorous critics giving this movie every bit of praise that can be dreamed up between the screening room and the fingers hitting the keyboards.

perhaps 2009 was a paltry year for films which makes the hurt locker the critics' darling. not that this is a bad movie. director kathryn bigelow [a piece of trivia: she is the ex-wife of that other director who made the world's biggest grossing film ever, to date, and is up for a few academy awards himself, guess who that might be] is an immensely talented filmmaker. i've been a fan of her work for many moons now. she made the revisionist splatter/biker/white-trash vampire flick near dark [1987] that is so goddamned good that it makes all these rather fey vampires of today look like sissies.

which they are. notable exceptions noted of course. this is an intense movie, superbly directed, with gorgeous photography and crisply edited. the acting for the most part is nearly up to the level of bigelow's talent. almost. the lead character, a bomb diffuser, played by an almost local boy, he's from modesto which ain't too far from where i sit now typing, jeremy renner is addicted to the adrenaline rush of combat. he's cool under pressure but outside the kill zone he's wild as fuck. and his wildness, as essayed by renner, rings hollow. renner cowboys up too hard and it looks like he's acting rather than being the character. his body movement and his voice sound false. he seems too passive to be acting so aggressive and so makes up for it by being as over the top as he possibly can.

renner is a good actor. i've seen him play the lead in dahmer [2002] where renner's passivity is made up so creepily good in a character that is lost in a psychotic fantasy world of his own making. and i've seen renner portray another soldier in 28 weeks later [2007] which capitalizes on his strengths. but for this flick renner is stumbling toward a psychosis that never seems authentic. he's playing gung-ho crazy like it was another person's idea of gung-ho crazy.

plus the movie is so intense that it becomes monotonous, nearly washed out, almost grey. by the third act my attention began to flag. yeah, yeah, war is hell, it is an addiction, it will get you killed, yadda yadda yadda. not that the movie lacks realism. several set pieces work extraordinarily well. and there's a scene where renner's character heads to the camp's showers still dressed in battle gear after a very grueling mission and we see the blood and sand wash from his clothes and down the drain. damn that was a good scene.

perhaps it's because i'm pissed. the very charge levelled at my favorite movie of last year, which was also made in 2008 but not released until '09, the road, is that the monotony of grim intensity made the viewing unbearable and thus boring is the same quality i found in the hurt locker. only for me the movie version of cormac mccarthy's book was populated by two idiomatic characters who sere into your grey matter. that movie got fuck-all of a distribution and was roundly ignored by the movie-going public.

i wish kathryn bigelow the best and as for the oscars i hope she gets one. she really is that good of a director. bigelow has made only a handful of films ranging from the exciting to the sublime. and i wish jeremy renner more interesting projects to come his way. the technique and overall execution of the hurt locker is first-rate. there are some haunting set pieces that will have you replay them over in your head again and again. there is no big but as tho this movie does not deserve its accolades because it does. i was just whelmed with the experience of watching it and almost fell asleep near the end. the intensity is exhausting but not because it feels like you've run a marathon and your heart is racing and you feel so alive. it is exhausting because that intensity becomes monotonous. if one were to make a simple graph of this flick it would be a single straight line.

4 Comments:

At 9:19 AM, Blogger William Keckler said...

"renner is a good actor. i've seen him play the lead in dahmer [2002] where renner's passivity is made up so creepily good in a character that is lost in a psychotic fantasy world of his own making."

well-put. that was exactly my experience of that movie. how strange that a serial killer could come out of such passivity. but i guess that's the contained thing that explodes periodically, instead of regularly discharging throughout life as it does (healthily i'm assuming) for most people.

So he resurfaces and is acknowledged.

i'll have to see.

i figured an actor that accomplished would get recognized eventually...but i couldn't tell you his name until you put it down here. even though i had been so impressed with that performance.

my word verify is "froggero."

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger William Keckler said...

this is apropos of nothing, but you'll probably get it since you're such a careful student of movies...CUBE was on IMDB yesterday and Lee was watching it so I sat in for a bit and tried to get into it. I had seen it when it first came out (I was guessing '95 but it was '97) and I was just laughing like hell at the Italian principal (the evil character) because I couldn't really think of a FACE that overacted as much as his did in that movie since the twenties or something, and silent films, when it was deemed necessary. That guy was really awful...it was so stylized tho...almost as though he were trying to make Kabuki masks with his face...my main speculation yesterday was on how many sets there REALLY were..I'm guessing about four or five rooms endlessly recycled..to keep the budget low...they just changed the colors of the room sometimes, then I thought if those patterns on the wall could be removed and rearranged, they could visually alter rooms without really ever changing rooms....I think it's the sort of movie you might get a kick out of the first time around, but kind of blows its wad with that viewing, because I was already antsy after about five minutes of the thing and I still remembered the ending, which was a bummer. I think it was an Italian production (if I'm remembering correctly). I wanted to check Wiki to see if there were any odd facts about the movie given. I like reading odd facts about movies. I bet you do too. I thought it was funny that several crew and cast members of The Passion of the Christ had been struck by lightning (one guy twice!) during production. Well, not haha funny. I'm sorry it happened. But still. Maybe that was some editing from above. He did take some liberties with the stories lol.

 
At 9:25 AM, Blogger William Keckler said...

I mean IMC not IMDB...I was reading your post about IMDB...soz.

 
At 10:24 PM, Blogger richard lopez said...

you mean the independant movie channel? i missed it then since i loved the movie CUBE. sure it was a cheap-jack production, i think you've nailed how man rooms they used, probably no more than three or four. all they had to do was change the numerals on the opening and the deathtraps inside. i like how the filmmakers used math, all the safe rooms had prime numbers and that the mathematician was the young woman who told one of the characters who was so impressed with her abilities that it isn't magic, it's just calculations. pretty bleak ending sure but one with a kind of symmetry to it. haven't seen the flick in years tho and i know there are at least one or maybe two sequels.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home