So with nothing better to do today then to watch movies, I found PASSENGERS on Stars On Demand and OMG.. it was GREAT!

I know.. a movie I actually liked, right?

This one has a cast of great actors: Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, Andre Braugher and David Morse to name a few.

Anne Hathaway is a therapist who is assigned to council a handful of plane crash survivors.

One survivor, Patrick Wilson, seems to be in deep denial and of course… being the little hottie that he is.. becomes more then just a patient :: wink wink :: ..

I’m not going to tell you anything more about the plot because there are twists :: some, ok, are a little far fetched :: and I really don’t want to spoil it if you get the opportunity to watch it.

A quick search on the internet looks like I’m probably the only one who actually LIKED this movie.. but I did.

Let me know if you do..

Hurt Locker, The, (2008) – Direção: Kathryn Bigelow – Elenco: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, Evangeline Lilly

Enquanto filmes de terror pra adolescentes tomam o espaço e lotam cinemas do mundo todo, um filme contundente sobre a guerra do Iraque é lançado estupidamente somente em DVD no Brasil. Mas engana-se quem acha que é mais um filme de guerra com ação incessante, heroísmos, maniqueísmos e sentimentalismo barato. The Hurt Locker é um filme que não se preocupa em promover a ação bélica, e sim mostrar o que ela pode fazer com os homens que ali estão, todas as conseqüências do dia-a-dia de soldados na linha de frente em situações que beiram a morte à cada passo que eles dão. Aqui o perigo é mais perceptível, pois ao mexer com detonação de bombas, a impressão é que tudo e todos irão a qualquer momento pelos ares.

Um esquadrão anti-bombas formado pelo persistente Sargento William James (Jeremy Renner, de O Assassinato de Jesse James pelo Covarde Robert Ford), o Sargento JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie de Menina de Ouro) e o inseguro Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty de Soldado Anônimo), soldados que estão diariamente lutando contra o terror que se resume aos passos mortais, um clique fatal, o inimigo sem rosto. A diretora Kathryn Bigelow (Caçadores de Emoção, K-19: The Widowmaker) é experiente em filmes tensos, e aqui, com uma câmera nervosa que não pára, ela registra como numa espécie de documentário, a angústia de homens que não vêem a hora de voltarem  pra casa vivos.

Podemos dizer que o coração do filme é mesmo Jeremy Renner, aquele que tem de encarar o suor frio da morte todas as vezes que precisa desarmar uma bomba. Renner está ótimo, num papel que pode lhe render uma indicação ao Oscar de melhor ator. Aliás, muito se fala sobre esse filme estar entre os principais finalistas ao Oscar ano que vem, nas categorias de filme, direção, ator, ator coadjuvante (Mackie), e os prêmios técnicos: montagem, fotografia, som, etc…, mesmo que seja do ano de 2008, ele só foi lançado nos Estados Unidos nesse ano, por isso sua chanche em concorrer aos principais prêmios é muito grande.

O filme traz rápidas participações de atores de peso como David Morse, Ralph Fiennes e Guy Pearce.

O final é fantástico, não há uma grande batalha nem grandes explosões, e sim uma reflexão profunda acerca de um dos combatentes, de uma guerra puramente insana.

4/5

Another bad run of unfortunate passings. I was really hoping the Ober story was a mistake, as it seemed to be this morning. But then MTV confirmed it.

"It's his basement, it's his rules, it's his game show..."

R.I.P. Ken Ober – I first encountered Ken Ober back in the early days of MTV, when it was actually strange for them to do something that didn’t involve music videos. The game show craze was making a comeback thanks to cable television’s insatiable thirst for content, and this oddball variation on a theme called Remote Control was an early hit for the network. Basically it was a trivia show designed to look like it was hosted in a suburban basement, with three contestants seated in recliners using remote control devices. It wasn’t so much the competition or even the subject matter (answering questions about television and pop culture)  but it was the way they were dismissed off the showwhen they lost that was classic! It also was my first exposure to the great Colin Quinn.

"I DO NOT...FORGIVE!"

R.I.P. Edward Woodward, the Equalizer -  Thinking back, how odd was it to have a literate vigalante-for-hire show be a success? Then again, a careful look at the programs of the day proves how little we observe about life at the moment we’re wallowing in it. But here was an accredited Shakespearian actor playing a smarter Baretta and championing the underdog. I’m not minimizing Woodward’s massive resume, but Robert McCall struck a chord. Probably the same reason I enjoyed David Morse and Andre Braugher – two of the finest actors walking the planet – on Hack. (Although as far as I know, their characters didn’t purposely kill people. Nor did they have Robert Mitchum (!) step in to cover for them when they were out ill…)

R.I.P. Kevin Knox - I’ll pass this along as a third person reference, since I didn’t know him personally. But I have spoken with a lot of comedians over the years, and there is a fraternal bond for those who deserve it. By all accounts this was a righteous and unselfish guy as well as a good comedian. You learn a lot about people when they are down for the count with their backs against the wall, and apparently Kevin’s battle with cancer just reaffirmed what his friends in Boston and beyond knew all along. And to think of the dozens of times I walked past Dick’s Beantown Comedy Vault at Remington’s, right in the heart of the Emerson College campus, and I never got to see him. 

Life is short. Savor every moment. Enjoy every sandwich.

hold still, I'm gonna pick you up by your head.

PG-13

Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson, David Morse

Claire: Anyways, these aren’t my normal office hours.
Eric: Well, I’m not a patient.
Claire: Nooo, you’re just a creepy guy standing at my door in the middle of the night.
Eric: A lovely man…intriguing.
Claire: Ok, goodnight.
Eric: You don’t think so?
Claire: I’m not going to stand here and debate your loveliness.

After a plane crashes and only a handful of people survive, Claire (Hathaway) is assigned to the group as their grief counselor.  When she gets differing stories on what happened before the crash, and some of the group members seem to mysteriously disappear, Claire begins to wonder if the airline is covering something up.

“When I grow up, I want to be an M. Night Shyamalan movie!”  That’s what I felt like this movie was screaming throughout its running time, especially at the end.  I don’t want to say anything spoiler-like, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that I hate twist endings that render the rest of the movie as essentially pointless.  Especially when it’s a pretty dumb ending.  Which this was.

It felt like a waste of some quality actors as well.  Hathaway and Wilson were both fine, but then you’ve got David Morse, Dianne Wiest, Clea DuVall, and Andre Braugher all in smaller, one-note roles.  I suppose Morse fared the best out of that group, with a creepy-turn-sympathetic role, but for the most part, this was Anne Hathaway’s show.

I will say that, after I adjusted to the silliness of the big twist, there were some legitimately touching moments in the last few minutes of the movie.  I just had to put it out of my mind that it wasn’t making much sense and enjoy it for what it was.

Still, it’s hard to say that a movie is worth watching when the entirety of it is just there to set up one final concept.  Especially when the set up is dark, slow, and riddled with almost non-stop moody piano music.  Atmosphere does not equal interesting!  There needed to be better dialogue and more well developed characters.  And less piano music!

Belinda Carlisle may have been right…

10 – 2 for not having very well written characters and dialogue – 2 for that silly ending twist – .7 for all the piano music and dark atmosphere = 5.3

Por tercera vez Michael Bay viene a engrosar esta sección (tras la infumable Pearl Harbor y la estrepitosamente fallida La isla) con un nuevo despropósito orgiástico de chapa, cristal y pintura hechos añicos para disfrute del personal, puro escaparatismo pirotécnico que envuelve una historia tan gratuita como absurda a la medida del más rancio y conservador patrioterismo de una sociedad esquizofrénica como la norteamericana y con los consabidos “héroes” de cartón piedra que son tan de gusto de Bay como protagonistas absolutos de un pestiño que los seguidores del cine de acción no vacilan en calificar de “obra maestra” (no reírse, que lo dicen en serio).

Revestida, una vez más, de la épica de andar por casa que imprimen Bay y el productor Jerry Bruckheimer a todas sus historias, nos encontramos con una narración sonrojante, no sólo por la, una vez más, histriónica, histérica, autoparódica, ridícula y peripatética interpretación de Nicolas Cage, sino por las incongruencias y tonterías que el guión va soltando aquí y allá sin orden ni concierto y sin que se moleste en ocultar el plagio argumental de Harry, el ejecutor (The enforcer, 1976), película de James Fargo en la que Clint Eastwood y su compañera se enfrentan a un grupo terrorista que amenaza a la ciudad de San Francisco. Nos encontramos con un prólogo típico “de soldaditos”: el coronel Hummel (Ed Harris, probablemente el mejor actor norteamericano vivo en su personaje más incomprensible, más lamentable, más horripilante, pero Dios, ¿cómo es posible que cayera aquí?) es un veterano de los Marines, múltiples veces condecorado, Estrella de Plata, Medalla del Congreso, etiqueta de anís del Mono…, que, no obstante, se encuentra resentido con el maltrato que los politicos y burócratas infligen a los veteranos de guerra que no disfrutan de su grado militar y, sobre todo, hacia la memoria, el recuerdo y las compensaciones económicas a los familiares de quienes perdieron la vida en misiones militares, muchas de ellas ilegales, al servicio del imperialismo norteamericano derrocando gobiernos o apoyando golpes de Estado. Así que al bueno de Hummel y otros patriotas de su mismo cuerpo se les ocurre una genial idea para protestar y hacer que el Gobierno tome conciencia de tan tremenda injusticia: ¿una huelga de hambre? ¿Una manifestación? ¿La denuncia en los medios de comunicación? ¿Un calendario todos en bolas? Nooorl. Nada menos que el robo, el secuestro y el chantaje.

Así las cosas, un grupito de marines mentalizados todos, oficiales y soldados, de la necesidad de hacer justicia a sus camaradas desaparecidos, asaltan una base militar americana (vigilada por lo que parece ser un grupo de boy-scouts incompetentes y torpes, hay que ver cómo vigilan las bases en América, para echarse a temblar) y roban dieciséis (no uno ni dos) misiles cuyas cabezas están dotadas de un gas letal, venenosísimo y fosforescente que viaja en pelotas de cristal hiperfrágil. Pero ojo, como son soldaditos leales a sus camaradas, sólo hieren a los guardias, dejándoles dormidos con dardos cargados de un potente somnífero. Eso sí, la vida de los civiles se la trae floja, porque amenazan al Gobierno con disparar los misiles sobre la ciudad de San Francisco si no aceptan sus demandas una vez que se establecen en la antigua prisión de Alcatraz y secuestran al grupo de visitantes que a esa hora hace el recorrido guiado por esa antigua prisión española. Eso es el prólogo, y de él pueden sacarse dos conclusiones que rayan el absurdo: en primer lugar, el hecho de que no elminen a los guardias en el asalto pero que no les importe intoxicar y matar a toda la ciudad de San Francisco, militares incluidos, algunos de ellos los mismos a los que acaban de salvar, y en segundo, el detallito consistente en que los militares no utilizan sus uniformes reglamentarios, sino que los sustituyen por un sucedáneo de centro comercial; la importancia de esta nimiedad es extrema, dado que responde al tacto de cierto cine de Hollywood (y de ciertos Gobiernos) a la hora de hacer ficción con las sediciones, golpes de Estado ficticios y demás, sobre todo si los asesinos y terroristas visten uniforme americano. Las películas que recogen este tipo de historias han de pasar controles muy férreos de guión y producción para ser vistas con buenos ojos, y de ahí que la trama tome las derivas que toma.

El caso es que a las autoridades no se les ocurre otra cosa que asaltar la prisión para rescatar a los rehenes y eliminar la amenaza de los misiles. Para ello, escogen un grupo de comandos de lo más experto (exterminado a la primera ocasión, no es de extrañar que las cosas vayan como van en Iraq o Afganistán) y a dos asesores cuyo concurso es imprescindible para el éxito de la misión: un especialista en armamento biológico (Cage) que pueda desactivar los chismes, y el único (que insulto a la desmemoria del cinéfilo, que sabe perfectamente que han sido varios los fugados de Alcatraz, cinematográficamente hablando) fugado de la prisión que (nuevo absurdo), a pesar de haber vivido allí recluido en su celda y de haber transitado una única vez por los lugares que atravesó para salir de ella al mar, se conoce la edificación como si la hubiera diseñado él mismo. Quiere la cosa que el preso sea un antiguo agente secreto británico (Sean Connery) enemistado con el director del F.B.I. y que accede a ayudar porque su hija vive, mira tú qué casualidad, en San Francisco y es una víctima potencial de la amenaza.

Y a partir de ahí, ¿qué? Pues eso, incongruencias argumentales de primera clase, testosterona a chorros, acción, persecuciones (muy bien rodadas, eso sí), tiros, diálogos fatuos y grandilocuentes, música apabullante, militarismo de cartón, épica de baratillo, una ironía de parvulario en ciertos diálogos y mujeres reducidas al papel de florero (la novia de Cage, que se plantifica también en San Francisco, embarazada y deseando que su chico la pida en matrimonio) o de tópico (la hija desasistida de Connery, el cual espera recuperar el tiempo perdido junto a ella). Es decir, más espectacularidad vacía en la que la deriva de la trama tiene que reconduciirse hacia el patrioterismo chufletero y por lo tanto el papel de villano termina recayendo sobre dos subalternos, dos cabezas de turco indignos de llamarse Marines, rescatándose en última instancia la memoria de los héroes para el honor y la patria, haciendo inútil, absurdo, estúpido, todo lo anterior que hemos visto y convirtiendo al delincuente y asesino potencial en honorable víctima de la corrupción política. Un asco aderezado con los habituales tics de Bay, sobre todo esas escenas ridículas de ese héroe incorporándose a cámara lenta mirando hacia el horizonte mientras a sus espaldas encontramos un paisaje de desolación… Estupidez supina ante la que hay que dejarse llevar sin hacerse preguntas. Lo contrario nos expone al riesgo de un cortocircuito cerebral severo.

Acusados: todos
Agravantes: Cage, beattlemaníaco en la cinta, para más señas, está más odioso que nunca
Atenuantes: la escena de persecución está bien, entretenida y ocurrente; sólo tiene una pega: que argumentalmente es absurda
Sentencia: culpables
Condena: sin excepción, encierro en Alcatraz a pan y agua a perpetuidad, excepto Harris, con condena revisable; Cage, Bay y Bruckheimer, sin celda, encerrados directamente en las duchas con el jabón clavado al suelo

I never thought Micheal Clarke Duncan could captivate me so much.

Adaptation of Stephen King’s supernatural tale is set on death row in a Southern prison, where gentle giant John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) possesses the mysterious power to heal people’s ailments. When the cell block’s head guard, Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks), recognizes Coffey’s miraculous gift, he tries desperately to help stave off the condemned man’s execution.

This film is directed by Frank Darabont, the same person who did The Shawshank Redemption, and once again he’s back in prison. Though that film was about mostly the prisoners this one is more about the guards and how the prisoner influences their lives. This is more of a fable than it is a real novel.

For the biggest disclaimer of this movie is that it’s way too long. Personally I’m not bothered by how long films are as long as their at least interesting and holds my interest, this film doesn’t quite do that. The film felt a little dragged at points, and really I don’t think it felt over 3 hours to tell the story of a prisoner. This film is very interesting by the last 30 minutes but the others 2 hours are just long side notes.

I also felt that the film was trying hard to show us a message about either suicide or how wrong the death penalty is. I felt like both sides were argued pretty evenly, I felt like this movie’s theme caused much more combustion, than it needed. The pace also adds insult to injury with it’s very slow storytelling and many key moments that take long to deliver.

Other than the those problems, I felt like this was one of the most touching films I have ever seen. The great thing is how you see all of these people on The Green Mile. From the gaurds to the prisoners, and also to the houses they live in. You really do get a full idea of how these people act and live by this movie and it connects us to these characters even more.

The added supernatural moments add a lot of emotion to this film, as you sense that Clarke Duncan character is really a good person. I also enjoyed how the whole film wasn’t so centered on him but the other prisoners with him on The Green Mile.

The star-studded cast does the best job in this film and does save this film from some bad moments. Tom Hanks does a really strong job, and doesn’t play his usual energetic performers as he always seems relaxed throughout the film and adds a lot more of heart to the film. Micheal Clarke Duncan is really the main reason to see this film as he steals every scene he is involved in. Clarke Duncan combines the physical look of big, strong, and scary but puts it along with much sweetness in his character where you know this person is kind at heart and you connect to him even more than any other character in this film. Sam Rockwell and David Morse also show off a lot of talent in this film.

Consensus: Though jumbled with a slow pace and a very long time limit of over 3 hours, The Green Mile is a captivating story that has touching performances that add to this emotionally powerful experience.

7/10=Rentall!!

Mos Def and Bruce Willis, what an odd pairing.

Tasked with escorting chatty prosecution witness Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) from police custody to a nearby courthouse, aging New York City cop Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis) reluctantly gears up for the 16-block trek. But with powerful forces intent on keeping them from reaching their destination, they’ll be lucky to make it there alive.

Bruce Willis like in many of his film’s as of date, has basically played that same hard-nosed cop who turns superhero when things go array. Director Richard Donner has directed all of the Lethal Weapon films and knows how to do these buddy-cop thriller action films, and this shows he hasn’t lost any of his touch.

The storyline to this so called “great concept” that I just stated could have been put together better than it was. I’m not a film writer or director so I don’t know what exactly could have made the storyline better, but I’m just saying that it could have been better. Some scenes did drag on a little bit too long and the film didn’t create too much of a character personality for the two leads to get us to care for them.

The performances from the trio of leads are great. Mos Def is really good in this film and does make this film if his voice doesn’t annoy you enough. He brings a lot to the table and is not like many other rapper’s turned actor’s that we have seen before, he’s actually pretty good. Bruce Willis I think does relive the Die Hard character within him a little bit too much but makes this one more compelling and more tragic to where we feel sympathy and root for him. The one great thing about the two is how their connection in the beginning of the film is not good but as the film progresses the two gain a great deal amount of chemistry between the two and it actually feels real. David Morse also does a very good job at playing the villain as usual.

A lot of the action scenes though do seem done before are actually well-played out and just create a step to have another clever twist in the story. The film is not very comedic but takes all that away with it’s over the top action. I enjoyed the ending and thought it was very sympathetic but strong at the same time and fully made this film.

Consensus: 16 Blocks features strong performances from it’s trio of leads and has some high-quality action but may seem a bit too predictable and doesn’t add much to thrillers.

6.5/10=Rental!!!

Possibly one of the greatest war films of all time.

In Iraq, a U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal( EOD) unit is forced to play a dangerous game of cat and mouse in the chaos of war in a city where everyone is a potential enemy and every object could be a deadly bomb. Jeremy Renner plays the leader of the EOD team, as he contends with not only defusing bombs in the backdrop of a war, but also the psychological and emotional strain that it inflicts.

This is the exact war movie for people who don’t like war movies. Director Kathryn Bigelow (Point Break), takes what you would expect from a normal Hollywood war movie and turn it on its side and provide a different angle and aspect on war, that makes everything more effective. Bigelow directs the film with such a real look, that at points I was wondering if this is actual real footage of the Iraq war itself. Its a great way of showing whats going threw that soldiers mind at that exact time.

The film gives a very deep close insight on one of the most nervous and skillful jobs in the army. The music during most of these scenes are used with such authenticity and one it comes in and out it is used during moments when they’re is nothing else but bomb defusing going on, and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Being stressed out during a movie is not very uncommon, but parts in the film are so nail biting that I was shaking by how stressed I truthfully was.

The acting is also incredible. Big kudos to Jeremy Renner who is amazing, so amazing at times that I forgot that he was even acting. He brings much humor and a great outlook of life to the film which is one of the main reasons it is so great. Anthony Mackie also does a very great job at capturing the man who is opposed to Renner’s character, but yet, sort of envy’s him and how he can move on with his life. Some of the big names like Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and David Morse aren’t put in the movie just to have big name cameos but more fpr support and they have a reason for being in the film.

The Hurt Locker pushes away a lot of the preaching that have plagued films of this Iraq War, and this makes the viewer more interested in what happened and what has been happening in that war zone of Iran. Easily one of the best films of this year possibly of the past 10 years. I pray to God that the Academy, come to Award time, doesn’t forget about this movie and gives some big nominations. I’m thinking if Kathryn Bigelow is nominated for Best Director she would win and be the first female to win in that category. Cause if anyone can do it, it is her.

10/10=Full Price!!

Kathryn Bigelow regressa com mais um filme de acção. Como esta mulher consegue dominar o mundo das explosões ultrapassa-me, mas fá-lo com pinta. Desta vez o cenário é a guerra do Iraque, e o motivo o dia a dia de uma equipa de desarmamento de explosivos. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie e Brian Geraghty são os principais personagens neste drama explosivo, constituíndo o núcleo duro da equipa que todos os dias é chamada a desmantelar bombas e minas. Ambiente claustrofóbico de desastre iminente, fantasmas de guerra e muitos cameos/pequenos papéis de gente conhecida, ah e sem esquecer as explosões e efeitos especiais de luxo. Com Guy Pierce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse e Evangeline Lilly.

Estás pronto para ir combater o Darth Vader.

Rapte a filha do projeccionista para arranjar uma cópia pirata

O Anjo Malvado era um dos filmes da minha infância, o assistia muito na Sessão da Tarde; eu ficava realmente aflito achando que o Elijah Wood ia morrer.

Fim do mês passado o Chico revisou suas listas de piores filmes de cada ano, e na de 1993, estava esse filme. Resolvi rever. Era mesmo assim tão ruim?

Descritivo: Filme começa, trilha triste – a mãe do personagem de Elijah Wood está no hospital. A mãe vê o filho e diz que vai estar sempre com ele. Filme continua, mãe morre, paizão quer animar o filho, TRILHA SONORA DE AVENTURA! Filho não se anima, pai para o carro, filho sai do carro: música de suspense… por três segundos.

Já deu né, com esse início me arrisco que o filme não valia mesmo a pena.

Title: The Green Mile
Year: 1999
Director: Frank Darabont
Writer: Frank Darabont, based on the novel by Stephen King
Starring: Tom Hanks, David Morse, Bonnie Hunt, Michael Clarke Duncan, James Cromwell, Michael Jeter, Doug Hutchison, Sam Rockwell
Music: Thomas Newman
Distinctions: currently #105 on IMDb’s Top 250
Length: 188 minutes
Synopsis: a condemned, “simple-minded” giant has magical wizard powers
How I saw it: in the theater, 1999; on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Subjective Rating: 4/10
Objective Rating: 5/10 (gets points for characters, dialog, cinematography, special effects/design and acting)

For about an hour it seems like it’s a reasonably good period prison movie – a little slow and cliched, but generally well made and with a great cast. Then Stephen King says, “Drama is hard. F*** it, I’m just gonna give one of these characters some magical wizard powers. That’d be cool, right?” No, no not really.

Entertaining enough. But ultimately predictable, riddled with stupid flaws. 5/10 [Lucy Glib]

Buy it

I spent the majority of  The Hurt Locker holding my breath.  I didn’t even realize I was until I got dizzy.  It is a deeply intense look into the lives of the soldiers who disarm bombs.  No matter your stance on war, this movie takes you to places we can’t even dream about.  It’s an unimaginable amount of pressure these brave men deal with as they walk into the face of death, over and over, each and every day.  

I found The Hurt Locker to be an excellent character driven story.  Unlike most war movies, we find ourselves within the blast radius along with the characters, the audience can feel the danger instead of just observing.  I like how the director didn’t show blood just for the sake of showing blood, there is a deeper meaning behind the violence.  It tells the story of people who put their life on the line in order to save others, even if it’s just one person.

I think it’s safe to say that this is by far one of the best movies of 2009.  I’m rooting for Jeremy Renner in hopes that he will be nominated for an Oscar.  And, to be honest if he is looked over I highly doubt I’ll even bother watching the awards show.  Jeremy shows incredible range as Ssgt William James, he brings in a vulnerability underlying the over-zealous way he works.  The entire cast was phenomenal, even the ones who only grace the screen for a moment or two.  The ensemble includes award worthy performances by Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, David Morse, and Christian Camargo, to name a few. 

If you only see one movie this year, this is it.  It takes you beyond action, it takes you beyond thriller, it takes you beyond drama, it takes you to the front line where for two hours your very foundation is rocked.  As humans it is ingrained in us that we keep our guard up to protect ourselves, but how does one do that when there is zero control over a situation?  How vunerable these soldiers must feel when they stand over a device which lacks any human emotion, yet has the power to take a life without any hesitation.

Rated R for war violence and language.

Sanborn: but you realize that every time you suit up, every time we go out, it’s life or death, you roll the dice…and you deal with it, you recognize that, don’t you?

James: Yeah yeah, yeah I do know.

[pause]

but I don’t know why though. Yeah…*sigh* I don’t know why JT, you know why? I am the way?

Sanborn: No, I don’t.

I had the privilege of seeing this film at TIFF last year, at Ryerson theater at 9am in the morning. Bigelow joked before the start of the film that this is not something that particularly whet most people’s appetite at 9 in the morning, but quite the opposite, I found that in my wary, freshly caffeinated brain, the Hurt Locker just burned into it with a clear ferocity that left me forever inked. I loved that movie. It probably stands shoulder to shoulder besides Slumdog Millionaire as my two favorites of the year. Funny if you think about it though – one is about as idealistic and hopeful as a drama can be, and the other is so so real, and realistic, and melancholy. Both however, carry a sort of sweetness that can only be tasted in the aftermath, with a touch of bitterness that enhance the flavor…most tenderly.

The Hurt Locker (2008), the most recent film by Kathryn Bigelow, takes place in Iraq, in the midst of war. A war that is not foreign, or imaginary, or historic, a war that is going on this very second as I’m typing this. In this age of lightening fast transmissions and instantaneous communication, it’s interesting to note that a war that costs billions of dollars in tax payer money, thousands in human casualty, and momentous changes in the laws that govern the society we live in, barely touches so many of our lives on a daily basis, visibly, at least.

I remember exactly the day I saw it. September 10, 2008. I stumbled out of bed at some ungodly hour, pulled myself together (sort of), and made my way towards Ryerson theater, large americano in hand.  The film opened with a bomb, and a team in the process of trying to disarm it – nothing I haven’t seen before in a war film about bombs. I was wary. I waited. And as the minutes passed,  I was sucked in, into the world of James, a bomb disposal expert who is so deeply absorbed in the world of bombs and explosions that he barely knows how to function in the human one that he resides in. I was fascinated, by the set up of a bomb squad, which only consists of three members, whose every action is intimately connected to each other’s survival. I was mesmerized, by the palpable tension in every shot, the solidarity of each character that brims each frame. There are so much that are unsaid, but everything is so blatantly in plain view.

I won’t go through the plot, because although it’s interesting and well written, it’s not the highlight of the film. The heart of the piece lies in its characters – James(Jeremy Renner), Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), the Colonel (David Morse), each playing his part in this game of war. It is a game, after all, isn’t it? Troops are sent in as pawns. Traps are set. Destruction is primed. People try to stop it or die trying. All for what? The overall purpose of winning….what exactly? For each of the guys who plays a role in this game of war, their personal purpose, the only one they can try to control, is just to survive today, until tomorrow comes.

It’s easy to like James.  He is the hero, saving lives every day. Jeremy Renner plays him with a tenacity that deserves an academy award nomination if not win. We see him being firm to the enemy, not brutal.  We see him playing heartily with a DVD selling Iraqi kid. We see his leadership, his quiet dignity in a scene where the squad is trapped in the sand, waiting out the enemy under the hot desert sun. Contrast his actions with that of Eldridge, and we see a man’s true color under fire.

In one scene, a Colonel approaches James after he disarms a bomb, high on glee and enthusiasm, asks to shake his hand and the number of bombs that he has disarmed. Upon hearing James’ answer he exclaims loudly that James is a “wild man”. I remember feeling incredulous when I first watched that scene…like I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh at the terrifying sheer joy that the Colonel takes from watching a man who just went to the brink of death and back, or cry at his oblivious ignorance of the underlying cause of James’ “wildness”, so to speak. He is not wild. He just doesn’t know how to be anything else. His whole life has succumbed to the ticking of time and the bid and tide of adrenaline and tension that winds it. Those are the rules that James lives by, the hills he run, the waves that he rides. I don’t think he thinks of himself as “wild”. Wild to me denotes a certain feeling of true freedom, and I think that is a notion as foreign to James as the winter is to the dessert. If anything, it’s a freedom that can only be translated in the lonesomeness of his self and his profession, which no one seems to be able to touch, even after all the armor has been stripped away.

In one particular moment, which I almost missed in the first viewing and only caught the second time around, James watches his son in play, and wonders how he loves so many things so easily. “By the time you get to my age,” He said,  “maybe it is only one or two things.” James pauses.  “For me I think it’s one.”

The Hurt Locker is a film about war, but it really is a film about the humanity in war, and the struggle between the two. We see a man who loves his country being entrenched so deeply into his role as part of the fabric of war that he no longer knows how to exists outside of it. He is a good man. A strong man. A brave man. But he is also just a shell of a man. A product of the system he serves. His survival depends as much on his ability to disarm the bombs as in their mere existence. What happens when the war ends? When he has to return home to face his child and wife, permanently? Will he know how to relate to his son the joys and sorrows of his life? Will he learn to love more than one thing in his life…again? I hope so.

When I first heard  the name “The Hurt Locker”, it immediately conjured up images of a world of pain, and being trapped within. Having now seen the film, I realize that it’s a place locked not from the outside, but from within – a cocoon. We all have our own hurt locker…you know, that dark, comfortable place that you go to, that space you sink into, a secret garden of your pain and sorrow and regret and guilt, growing into a forest too dense for anyone else to forge into. It is a cocoon of pain. But it’s also a familiar pain – you know how it feels, how it moves, how it molds, and it is yours, and no one else’s. And when the world can explode at any moment, being inside the vortex, inside the hurt locker, is maybe not so bad.

You are the sleeping beauty, and outside is just the functional façade that faces this cold, cold world.

Inside, it’s warm.

And Alone.

The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, focuses on an elite US bomb squad unit in the Iraq war. The unit consists of 3 men, and in short the depicts the tensions within the group, internal struggles within the characters and aftereffects on their mind to show us one thing: The disasterous effects war can have on the soldiers who fight them, and that these effects are not necessarily related to death or bodily injury. The tagline “War is a drug” clearly shows what we’re in for with this film – it depicts war as a drug, wreaking havoc on the people involved in many ways while still leaving them wanting more, unable to adjust to life without it after the fact.

It’s all very well done. The cinenamatography and direction seem to work well together and I don’t know whether it’s because we see it all so up-close or because the people in charge actually know how these things work, but I’ve never seen such accurate depictions of explosions in popular film. There’s also a great deal of shaky-cam involved, and for the first time ever in a picture, it didn’t bother me. Well shot all around. The acting follows suit, the three main actors do a good job of it (particularly Renner and Geraghty) and the supporting cast is, somewhat absurdly, even more star-strewn than the three main cast members. Casting well-known people in small supporting roles and unknown people in the major roles has is qinteresting, and although I’m heartbroken that there’s not more of Ralph Fiennes and David Morse I quite enjoyed the effect.

Overall this is the best Iraq-war-related film I’ve seen – it doesn’t glorify the American effort, it doesn’t undermine the Iraqi people, it doesn’t attempt to have much of a political agenda but it does, however, depict the effects of war on individual soldiers in a brilliant way and puts it in the context of the wars of today rather than of yesterday. Recommended.

4,5/5