The Hurt Locker

Had I not served in Iraq in 2004, perhaps I could have maintained a suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the film. However, it is extremely irritating to have the producers of this film and high-level movie critics gush about an "accurate depiction of war" when it is about as close as 2001: A Space Odyssey is to an accurate depiction of NASA. The writer claimed he spent "some time" embedded with an EOD unit, but I can't imagine his time amounted to too much more than a week.

Let's start with some glaring discrepencies. In the film, all soldiers seen are wearing uniforms known as ACUs, which feature the digital camouflage pattern. In 2004, those uniforms had not yet been fully developed or issued. Soldiers wore the DCUs, which feature tan and brown woodland-style camouflage patterns. ACUs were being field-tested with select units, but the prototypes still retained the traditional camo. At that time, only the Marines were wearing uniforms with digital patterns, though their uniforms feature different color patterns and different cuts. Additionally, every soldier wears an American flag patch on the right shoulder. These were conspicuously absent throughout.

The presentation of humvees and other military vehicles add a further level of unreality. Military vehicles typically have unit and vehicle identifations stenciled on bumpers, doors, or hoods. The names of principle occupants are usually stenciled on each side of the windshield. The dashboard and area between the front seats is packed full of radio equipment. There are generally MREs and misc. mission oriented debris lying around the interior. Not much of this was evident. What was evident was the utterly and completely absurd medivac scene that featured HUEY helicopters. Yes, those same Hueys that saw a great deal of service during the Vietnam War, but have long been replaced by the ubiquitous Blackhawk.

The ridiculous misrepresentation, misuse, and absence of military equipment continues on down to things like night optical devices (NODs). NODs are those things soldiers strap to their helmets and flip down over their eyes to see in the dark. All throughout the movie, the three main characters are shown to have the NOD mounting plates attached to their helmets. Yet, when they tear off on a hunt for bad guys during a night mission they run around shining flashlights, which is tactically one of the dumbest things a soldier could do.

Running around with flashlights at night is but one example of things real soldiers would not do. They would not split up "to cover more ground." An enlisted soldier would not call a colonel "colonel." He would call the colonel "sir." A soldier would not sneak out of base disguised as a civilian, hijack an Iraqi's car at gunpoint, confront an Iraqi family, then weasel his way back on base with the lame excuse he'd been to whorehouse. There would have been serious consequences to his actions. The film gives the impression that the three EOD soldiers are gun totin' cowboys who answer to no one. In reality, there would be commanding officer who would, at the least, issue operation orders and hold the NCOs to a certain level of accountability.

The characters themselves are fairly unbelievabe. They don't talk like real soldiers. I didn't hear "hooah" uttered once. Nor did I hear much of the plethora of abbreviations and acronyms that comprises the military jargon spoken by soldiers. While SSG James' two sidekicks are cardboard cut-outs of Hollywood military cliches, James himself is an erratic, irresponsible, borderline-psychopath who would not last long in the leadership of men or the diffusement of bombs. His obsession/concern for the Iraqi boy he has unrealistically befriended is completely out of character.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. On the plus side, the landscape does look like Iraq, and the urban shots replicate the appearance of Baghdad quite well. The acting is adequate, I suppose, but I was not particularly enthusiastic about any specific performance. Quite frankly, it amazes me that they would make a film this sloppy and inaccurate, when correct information is so readily available. As it is, this is not a realistic war movie; it is a fantasy with nearly as much imagination as Avatar.

On a closing note, if you want to see an excellent film that provides an accurate view of the Iraq War in 2004, check out "The War Tapes." It's a documentary shot by soldiers themselves, and provides honest insight into the impact of war's daily grind.

The movie opens with the quote - "the rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug" (a modern paraphrase of Churchill's older and more famous maxim - "there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result")

This is a thriller of a movie about a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq and their daily grind in dealing with the IEDs and insurgents there.

This movie does have several stars - but Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pierce, and Evangeline Lilly all have fairly small roles. Blink, and you'll miss them. Their presence in this movie is more a testament to director/producer Kathryn Bigelow's status in the entertainment industry than anything else.

Jeremy Renner is Sergeant James, a bomb tech. Unlike his affable predecessor, he is a wild man. He seems not only indifferent to the dangers of his job, he absolutely revels in the dangers. It is the ultimate in thrill seeking behavior, getting that dopamine surge in his brain. Near the end of the movie, Sgt. James gets accused of being an adrenaline junkie, but we know now that the neurochemical at work here is dopamine. Bomb disposal is not just a job for him, but his passion, his addiction, his reason for being in the Army.

Renner's character ends up like a cross between Elmer Fudd, with his perpetually placid and slightly befuddled gaze, and Bugs Bunny, with his wile and lust for excitement and danger.

His two partners in the unit, Sgt. Sanborn and Specialist Eldridge, who have to cover him and just want to survive their tour of duty, don't know quite how to deal with his determination to confront danger. One wonders at why Sgt. James puts himself in danger, why he takes the extra risks to defuse a bomb when detonating it would do. The scene that explains it all is when Sgt. James returns home to America one day and we see him doing the mundane chores of life as a civilian, cleaning out the rain gutters, cleaning up the kitchen, shopping with his wife and baby at the grocery store. As he stares at an entire wall full of colorful cereal boxes stacked along a grocery store aisle, a look of utter blankness, boredom, and despair fills his face.....nope, not for him, this dull life as a civilian....

The movie's storyline is a series of daily missions, almost like a documentary or a TV series, each episode standing alone and yet building upon previous episodes, each one presenting a new danger, a new challenge, another piece of the puzzle that is the war in Iraq.

What makes this movie work is the recreation of Iraq in this movie - it was filmed in Jordan with local Iraqi expatriates. We feel the oppressive tension of the whole country, of not knowing who the bad guys are and where the next bomb or bullet is going to come from. We feel the fear and uncertainty of the American soldiers, caught between their desire to be the good guys and wanting to make nice with the local Iraqis, while constantly needing to remain vigilant and suspicious, never knowing who is a good Iraqi, and who deserves to get shot. We feel the bewilderment and resentment of the local Iraqis, who get pushed around at every turn by the American soldiers.

Unlike so many other recent Iraq war movies, this movie makes no political statements, there is no right or wrong here. These are just men at work, doing a dangerous and dirty job, and these guys are darn good at what they do for their country, whatever the reasons are that they are doing it.

As a retired Army Bomb Disposal Team Leader I have to say it's right up there with 'Danger UXB' and A+++++to the writer and the director!!! A really well done depiction without the usual Hollywood hype/litery license/theater/BS.
Oh, yea, about 'not being able to adjust after the regimented life', it has nothing to do with 'not being able to' and everything to do with 'not wanting to'. You'll enjoy the view into the lives of this very small brotherhood of military Bomb Disposers.

Do not bother with this film, especially if you are on active duty somewhere in the world (thank you). People like those that made this film, who have no direct experience in the military, much less with being ordered into combat, have no business writing about the very real and incomparable human truth of the experience. His characters are pinups pasted onto a fantastical and sheltered world view. There is no truth in this film.

Chartier is a moron and a thief. He twisted a true story from someone's personal experience into an absurd platform for Hollywood brand morals of self-importance. Complete waste of time if you want truth from art.

I wasn't familiar with director Kathryn Bigelow's work prior to watching Hurt Locker (she directed Point Break, K-19, and others), but I am now a convert. She directed a brilliant and visceral Iraq war movie, which unlike many of its peers, is also apolitical. It's not overly preachy (In the Valley of Elah or Stop Loss) or pure action (The Kingdom), but manages to strike its own ground. The scenes are gritty, shaky; thankfully the shaky cam/documentary style footage is tastefully done here. The movie was filmed on location in Jordan, lending to the film's authenticity and immersivity. The viewer can almost taste the dust in the air, and feel the stares from the unwelcoming populace. It's the first mainstream movie to highlight the work of bomb defusal technicians , and it's a thankless and extremely hazardous job. The movie is Black Hawk Down good, albeit on a more intimate level.


The movie follows three members of Bravo Company's Explosive Ordanance Disposal (EOD) squad, as they struggle to finish the last few days of their year long tour of duty. Everyone copes differently; Specialist Eldridge (Geraghty) is overwhelmed at times with the death that surrounds them, Staff Sergeant James (Renner) is addicted to the rush of battle, and Sergeant Sanborn (Mackie) supports James as best he can. James is a complex, fascinating and tragic character; he's extremely competent, yet eccentric and even reckless to the point where his teammates consider fragging him in order to make it back alive. In a thoughtful gesture, he respects the work of his adversaries and keeps all the trigger mechanisms of bombs he has defused in the past. Every engagement the soldiers experience until their departure affects them, and we see every emotional impact.


Big Hollywood names like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce, and David Morse make short, but memorable appearances. Even LOST actress Evangelline Lily has an extended cameo as James' wife. The bomb defusal scenes are nerve-wracklingly tense, and the audience sweats alongside the defusing technician. The team constantly scans for snipers, or the suspicious civilian about to make a cell phone call to trigger an IED. The movie does an excellent job of communicating the hazards of the EOD job, and one leaves with a deep appreciation of their work.


6 stars, highly recommended. It is an action filled, yet contemplative movie.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting a war movie to aim for epic, not a dainty, benign slice-of-life. It's worth noting that (in stark contrast to Private Ryan), many soldiers find this movie unrelatable, and in many cases, slightly offensive. Its tone, and unwillingness to go far beyond "Army Wives" style sentiment ("War is dangerous and hard. Some soldiers like violence"), is put to shame by anyone who has viewed the 2007 wikileaks video.

Were it not for the Academy's desire to put a stick to Cameron's eye, and Voltage Pictures' subsequent decision to sue thousands of Americans for viewing this movie, the Hurt Locker would quickly reach its sell-by date and rarely be mentioned again.

The producers of this movie decided to sue everyone who downloaded it from p2p networks. That's thens of thousands of people, most of them probably big fans of this very film. That is not a good idea and for that I give the movie a lowest possible score.

This movie is utter garbage. Nothing about it is realistic, its overly stylized and slow as molasses. They didn't even deserve the measly 16m they made. Because it was such a bust in the box office, they've decided to sue their fans now. This is the last bigelow movie I will ever see.

I wonder what sort of review I would have given "the Hurt Locker" had I not spent 11 years in the Army (about half active duty and the other half reserve and the Guard). I probably would have liked it a lot, but my military experience (which predates the Iraq War but did involve Yugoslavia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 1990 and 1991, and Panama in 1989 made the departures from realism (that were invisible to a lot of reviewers here) stand out like blinking neon signs:

1. I thought the idea of the "cowboy" EOD technician sneaking out of the base to go on his own into downtown Baghdad at night in 2004 was laughable, when you think about the fact that I'm sure every soldier over there knows that if they fell into enemy hands, they could expect extremely unpleasant deaths.

2. Set aside the unrealism in item 1, the fact that the cowboy didn't get in trouble for doing something so outrageously stupid and criminal (since he did force an Iraqi at gunpoint to take him downtown) was also ludicrous.

3. I will defer to soldiers and Marines who have served over there and especially to EOD technicians, but I found myself extremely dubious that those guys would be out by themselves in such a dangerous environment. No, they would have had security with them in the form of infantry who would keep watch and protect them while they did their work.

4. The absence of officers apart from one who gushes about the bravery of the cowboy EOD tech and the psychiatrist who gets himself blown up was unrealistic too. Those guys would have answered to a captain or a lieutenant, or a warrant officer in real life.

5. The whole interlude where they were out in the desert with some British mercenaries (or at least that's what I thought they were) was a jarring disconnect given the fact that these guys were EOD techs and not special forces operators. The fact that they were out there by themselves for a prolonged period made no sense since in real life, they would have been yelling on the radio for a quick reaction force or even support from a helicopter.

6. I also found myself thinking, "this is BS" when the two EOD technicians suddenly became a highly effective sniper team operating a weapon that I would imagine very few service personnel who aren't trained and designated snipers or SF operators would ever see (a Barrett .50 caliber rifle)

"The Hurt Locker" has some beautiful and striking visuals and there are some scenes with genuine tension like when the cowboy EOD tech discovers that the single IED he's found is only the first stage in a multiple IED set up...but as I said in my review title, these moments of genuine, realistic excitement got overwhelmed by the silly stuff.

Frankly, if you want to see bomb disposal work that looks more realistic to my eyes at least, you should try renting or buying the British series "Danger UXB." That seemed far more realistic than "the Hurt Locker"

DANGER UXB

Update: According to someone who works EOD who made a comment below, EOD teams sometimes use Barrett rifles to blow up devices, so the two guys playing sniper wasn't quite as silly as I thought it was ... but the overall interlude of them out there with the British mercs remained very silly in my view.

I was deployed as a Combat Engineer in Baghdad with the 1st Cav division Feb 04 - Feb 05. I found this movie was very Hollywood. They did a nice selection in the location of the film as it did look a lot like Baghdad. However, the story line was too flawed. I was a bit confused why the soldiers were wearing ACU uniforms as, while I was there, those were not issued. The film supposedly was taking place in 2004. Soldiers were still wearing the DCU uniforms in 2004. I was highly disturbed by the portrayal of the main character having no accountability. He seemed to go where ever he wanted, when ever he wanted and did what ever he wanted without having to answer to a higher commander. This of course, any veteran, anyone in the military, will tell you simply does not happen. There is always someone that you have to answer to for your actions. When he snuck off of post to find Beckhams father was just absurd and pure Hollywood. I was disturbed by the scene with the team of EOD guys drinking. Alcohol was forbidden and still is. Of course there were many soldiers who obtained alcohol, but by and large, most did not drink. To see an entire "team" sharing booze together just was not very realistic. The team also always seemed to operate independently. They never seemed to be with anyone else and never had support. Watching the three of them clear a building by themselves was silly. Why was ther enever any supporting infantry units? They traveled by themselves in a lone hummer. In 2004, if I remember correctly, we were not allowed outside the wire unless we were in a convoy of at least 3 vehicles. All in all, this was a pure Hollywood film and certainly does not live up to the billing as being the most "realistic" Iraq war movie so far.