THE HURT LOCKER (2009) - Kathryn Bigelow

The Iraq war is a sensitive subject in... well, every medium. It’s a shady conflict with no clear and definable enemy and despite it being in the news nearly every day, it’s a subject filmmakers are hesitant to touch. The majority of films that deal with the war concentrate on the effects of the conflict on the soldiers or the families and friends of soldiers once they have returned from the conflict. Few films actually deal with the war on a day to day basis. But now we have The Hurt Locker, a film that deals with a bomb disposal unit, stationed in Iraq in 2004. Does it shed any new light on the war?

SSgt. William James newly appointed to an Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit in Iraq. He’s seen his fair share of duty in Afghanistan and has disposed of countless explosives. Iraq is littered with Improvised Explosive Devices. James is teamed up with Sgt. JT Sanborn and Spc. Owen Eldridge, soldiers just counting down the days until they go home. They hate Iraq and fear for their own safety. But James is reckless, and doesn’t care for his own safety, nor that of his fellow soldiers. And his recklessness puts him at odds with Sanborn and Eldridge.



Well, The Hurt Locker has arrived on a veritable tidal wave of positive reviews and unrelenting praise. And as I walked out of the cinema I couldn’t help but ask... why? Before the film began, I was sure I was walking into something that would... blow me out of my seat. Heh. But I was very underwhelmed. The first hour of the film had me gazing through the screen as the film failed to grab me by the balls and force my attention on the screen. It seems to follow the consensus that films that deal with the Iraq war are just not that very good.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are some great moments in the film. A lot has been made of the tension that runs throughout the film. And there are some extremely tense moments in the film. But overall, I felt the film just fell a little flat in places and didn’t really hold my attention for long enough. And at a running time of 131 minutes, that is a problem. To the film’s credit, it doesn’t present the three central characters with an enemy they have to hunt for. This would have been cliché. Instead, their enemy is boredom and the situation they’re in. There are themes of heroism, fear of death and brotherhood in the film, but these aren’t touched upon nearly as much as they should have been. Maybe the canvas is too big, or maybe the writing wasn’t strong enough, but I felt there should have been more.

The performances, on the other hand, are excellent. The three central actors, Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty all play their roles with conviction. None of the characters are too similar, and they all have their demons to battle with. Despite glossing over a lot of these, other than for Renner’s James, the actors do their best with what they have and are convincing. There are cameos from heavyweights like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and David Morse, but these cameos are fleeting and don’t give the actors much to work with.



Kathryn Bigelow is most famous for Point Break, a film that is basically testosterone on screen. And there’s no shortage of it in The Hurt Locker. But in no way is The Hurt Locker a comparable film to Point Break. It is far more serious. As it should be. Bigelow’s direction is sketchy. At moments, she builds the tension brilliantly. And she does get great performances from her actors. But her cinematic flourishes aren’t anything incredibly innovative. And the very last shot of the film is shockingly misjudged and out of place within the context of the rest of the film.

Overall, The Hurt Locker isn’t a bad film. It’s just a little better than average. It’s saved by it’s actors. And yet the first great Iraq war film hasn’t been made. It certainly isn’t this film. A far better document of the war is the television mini-series, Generation Kill. Obviously, being a mini-series, it has a greater canvas to work on. But many great individual films have been made about World War 2, and wars don’t get bigger nor more complex than that. Ignore the hype and maybe you won’t be disappointed like I was. It’s good, but not great. I just hoped for more from The Hurt Locker.


7/10

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007) - Andrew Dominik

The resurgence of the western takes one more step forward with the release of Andrew Dominik’s The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. After 3:10 To Yuma, you’d think that lightning wouldn’t strike twice for this, the genre that seems to produce the least amount of films. However, this western surpasses James Mangold’s film and is possibly the best film of 2007. In fact, it’s probably no exaggeration to say that The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is a western that belongs with the greats, and certainly the best example of it’s kind since Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven.

The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is not a biopic of the famous folk-hero Jesse James. In fact, the early part of the film depicts Jesse and his brother Frank’s last train heist. With the brothers for the heist are a gang of men recruited from the hills in Missouri. Among the outlaws are the Ford brothers, Charlie and his younger brother Robert. Robert Ford has spent his life idolising Jesse James through magazines and stories. He sees this robbery as his chance to get closer to his hero.
After the robbery, James’ paranoia leads him to hunt down his former gang. Eventually James catches up with the Ford brothers. They have good reason to fear James. Despite this, they join him in his journey to catch up with his former gang. But as Robert Ford’s attempts to get closer to his hero are met with rejection and laughter, his obsession intensifies. If he cannot become close to James, he figures there must be a way to best him.



It’s impossible to know where to begin when analysing a film like this. There are so many elements that contribute to it’s greatness. Essentially, it’s an examination of the cult of celebrity and the effects it can have, not only on a ‘fan’ but on the celebrity him or herself. It’s fitting that Jesse James, one of the most famous men of his time should be played by Brad Pitt, one of the most famous actors of our time. James, in the film, is a figure who lives an almost mythical existence. In an early scene, Ford and James sit and share cigars. Ford is literally gushing over the stories of his hero, who turns to Ford and tells him they’re all lies. Instantly, you see Ford’s embarrassment at his attempt to get closer to his hero. Even way back when, stories of celebrity are blown out of proportion.

Yet it’s this celebrity status that makes Jesse James a melancholic and paranoid character. Brad Pitt, who I’ve enjoyed in maybe a handful of roles delivers a career-best performance as the outlaw. James is a quiet, contemplative character, yet underneath his outward control of every situation lies a man who is incredibly dangerous. The slightest provocation turns James from a quiet man into a cold-blooded murderer. When the Ford brothers are exposed to this side of James, they begin to realise how close they are to death. But despite this, James seems to be in a perpetual state of embracing death. It’s almost as if he expects it at any moment. Pitt conveys every side of James character so convincingly that it would be very surprising if his performance is overlooked come awards time.



Playing against Pitt is Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. It’s his performance that is central to the film, and he is outstanding as Ford. His character is in awe of James. He’s a young man who’s life has been shaped around the exploits of Jesse James. When his time comes to meet his hero, he’s does everything he can to endear himself to the outlaw. Yet his attempts are rejected outright. In fact, he’s laughed at by everyone from his own brother to James himself. And with each rejection, Ford descends deeper and deeper into resentment. After he kills James, in what is a cowardly manner, Ford builds a career riding on this one incident. Yet he finds that the celebrity he has garnered brings him nothing but misery. Instead of being a hero who brought down Jesse James, Ford is regarded as a coward, and finds himself as paranoid as his hero once was. It’s a brilliant contrasting performance to Pitt’s James. One of the film’s highlights is a scene involving Ford comparing his life to that of James. His adoration for his hero is met with ridicule bordering on contempt, and watching the two actors face each other is fascinating.

The rest of the cast, including Sam Rockwell, Sam Shepard, Jeremy Renner, Paul Schneider, Zooey Deschanel and Mary-Louise Parker all deliver brilliant performances. Yet in the face of the two central characters, these performances play second fiddle.

Aside from the brilliant cast, the other highlight of The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is the direction and cinematography. This film is probably the most beautiful film of the year. Shot by Coen brothers collaborator, Roger Deakins, the film is incredibly reminiscent of the films of Terrence Malick, in particular Days Of Heaven. The west has rarely looked as beautiful and mythical. Andrew Dominik’s direction is sublime. The tone of the film is quiet and melancholic, like the title character. Dominik’s previous film, the brilliant Chopper, also dealt with a character who was almost a folk hero. Another outlaw who has achieved almost mythical status. There are some outstanding scenes, including a brilliantly shot train robbery. But it’s the character interaction that is in focus here. It’s a long film, running two hours and forty minutes in length. Yet, it’s not a minute too long or a minute too short and is edited perfectly.

The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford is possibly film of the year. I’d previously thought Eastern Promises would be the film that would emerge as the film of 2007. But after seeing this film, it’s a very difficult choice. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford might have the edge. It’s just a stunning looking film with two incredible performances. What’s definite about it, however, is that it is absolutely memorable in every way, and that's the key to a brilliant film.


9/10

28 WEEKS LATER... (2007) - Juan Carlos Fresnadillo

In 1968, George A. Romero introduced mass audiences to the zombie in his brilliant Night of the Living Dead. Since then, the zombie has evolved and changed, going through many incarnations and changes. 2002 saw the release of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later... with a different take on the classic lumbering undead. This time, the 'zombies' are not like their classic forefathers. These are people are not the undead. They're very much alive, however, they're infected with a virus called 'rage' and behave quite differently to zombies. This month sees the release of the sequel to 28 Days Later... 28 Weeks Later...
28 Weeks Later... picks up six months after the events of 28 Days Later... By now, the rage virus has been contained and eradicated and the US army is taking steps to repopulate London. They concentrate on first repopulating an area of London designated the Green Zone, the Isle of Dogs. Outside this area is still undergoing clean up operations and thus is forbidden. Among the first people to reenter London are siblings, Andy and Tammy, eager to be reunited with their father, Don (Robert Carlyle). Don is one of the people who survived the virus and the onslaught of infected, something we're shown in the prologue. Things seem to be returning to normal. But after going for a jaunt in the forbidden zone, Andy and Tammy set in motion a series of events that lead to a reemergence of the rage virus with disastrous consequences.



I really enjoyed Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later... The film was a brilliant sleeper hit that managed to be fresh and original to the horror genre, something that is quite rare these days. When 28 Weeks Later... was announced, I was apprehensive. But director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has created a very worthy sequel in this film. The early part of the film takes up the mantle left by Boyle (now Executive Producer) and shows us more images of deserted London but now with US soldiers cleaning up the carnage left by the disaster. However, once the action starts, the film takes off at full tilt and doesn't let up until the end.
The major criticism with the film, is that there is little room for character development. While we're given a brief insight into Don, Andy and Tammy's family, once everything kicks off, this is abandoned. The film favors action and spectacle over story, but this isn't too bad a thing, and provides plenty of quite impressive entertainment. There's even a nod to George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead, but taken to quite a gory level!
The performances are quite good, given that there's not much to be done once the chasing and shooting begins. Support from Rose Byrne as a US doctor named Scarlett and Jeremy Renner as a sniper named Doyle are quite good, and Robert Carlyle, as always, is fantastic. Fresnadillo's direction is a little distracting at first. He favors the low-lit frenetic approach to the scenes of close proximity to the infected. This is a little jarring, but I suppose that's the effect, to confuse and frighten the viewer. However, he doesn't always rely on this technique and the action is quite enjoyable. The violence and gore factor is extremely high too, which is expected in these types of films.



It's been quite a while since I've enjoyed a horror film at the cinema. And it's great to have a film that is extremely entertaining, though not without it's faults. There is an undercurrent that draws parallels with the US and British invasion and occupation of Iraq, but this isn't too prevalent as the film is dedicated to the spectacle over the message. Overall, a great piece of entertainment. A little light on story, but a visceral, loud, violent, gory piece of filmmaking.

7/10