Up until tonight, I had never seen *The Hurt Locker*.
The Oscars just recently told it's viewing audience that this was the picture that deserved the best picture award, as well as a slew of other awards. I've never cared that much for The Oscars, or who won a nomination all that much. I do care in this instance because the film that received critical hype beyond belief is actually a boring and tedious waste of time.
The film, which was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, follows William James (Jeremy Renner) a Sergeant First Class who is assigned as team leader of a bomb squad in Iraq after the original team leader (played briefly by Guy Pierce) is killed during the removal of a bomb in Baghdad. He's a reckless individual who finds the thrill of removing bombs to be exciting. Eventually his humanity begins to show as he begins to connect with the people of Iraq who live everyday with the very bombs they have to remove.
I won't spoil the ending, but that doesn't really matter. I didn't care for anyone in the film, nor did I care about the many "tense" scenes of the soldiers removing bombs. For a film that deals in a subject like war, characters I would think would be the most important factor in this. When that fails and you are left with the bomb scenes, you are left essentially with a military version of watching paint dry.
I honestly believe the only reason this film won any awards during The Oscars was that the academy wanted to shaft James Cameron and his billion-dollar box office smash *Avatar*. Once the film won the final award for Best Picture, people all over the internet were claiming that this was a victory for the underdog filmmaker. Technically, James Cameron's *Avatar* was largely produced with his own money and was able to gain it's money back (and more) because of word of mouth.
Sure, *Avatar* had 3D effects and very lush visuals. *The Hurt Locker* could have done the same thing to make it's supposed "original" storyline work. Bigelow didn't do that. She should have taken a look at a film like *Lawrence Of Arabia*, which took the desert and made it a character as opposed to merely being a simple setting.
Since Bigelow was merely taking the documentary approach *The Hurt Locker*, she ended up with the classic problem -- a limited story.
Once you get the general idea of what the bomb squad does, and how it's rather reckless character ticks, the film becomes a series of events rather than an examination into the psyche of soldiers in war. When the eventual turning point happens in the film, it's not really a surprise. Reckless individuals eventually realize they are human. Once they realize that, they lose that edge.
The ending, which was spoiled for me when the director was interviewed on 60 Minutes, while fitting for a character of this type, felt completely wrong. In my mind after that much time spent in tense situations, the last thing I'd want to do is return to that state of mind and the situations that bring about that nature.
On the other hand the academy choose this as their star champion to succeed. Maybe they know more than I do. Maybe the critics see something that I don't.
This film critic however, much like the critics who rode against Avatar, isn't buying into the hype. After seeing the film for myself, I have confirmation for myself why I shouldn't. If the academy wanted to shut James Cameron down, they picked a rather tame movie to stand behind to go against *Avatar*.
Tags: avatar, james cameron, kathryn bigelow, oscars, the hurt locker
So if you didn't like The Hurt Locker, what was your choice for the best movie of 2009?