A JOURNAL FOR JORDAN – Review

*Dana Canedy (Chante Adams) and Charles Monroe King (Michael B. Jordan) in Columbia Pictures’ JOURNAL FOR JORDAN.*

Denzel Washington directs this true-story based drama about love and loss, starring Michael B. Jordan and Chanté Adams as a mismatched couple who meet and fall in love. Career military man Charles and Dana Canedy, an editor at the New York Times, who meet and unexpectedly fall in love, and the journal of fatherly advice the soldier leaves behind for his son. The film opens with a single mother, Dana Canedy (Chanté Adams), in New York struggling to balance her high-pressure career and the responsibilities of caring for her toddler son Jordan while grappling with grief. Over the course of the two-track film, we see Jordan grow up along side flashbacks to his parents’ romance.

The film is based on Dana Canedy’s non-fiction book “A Journal for Jordan” on love and loss, and which was an expansion of her 2007 article. At first, director Denzel Washington focuses on Dana’s hectic life, alternating with a romantic, slightly comic portrait of the their romance. Later on, the director leans into the tragedy, family themes and patriotic ones of the story.

When they first meet at a birthday barbecue, Sgt. Charles Monroe King (Michael B. Jordan), a career soldier, and Dana Canedy (Chanté Adams), a New York Times editor, couldn’t seem more mismatched. The birthday barbecue is for her father, a drill sergeant with whom Dana, a sophisticated New Corker, has a testy relationship. The news that yet another of her drill Sergeant dad’s young soldiers is going to be there induces some eye-rolling on Dana’s part. Yet when she actually meets handsome Charles Monroe King, sparks fly. The two start an on-and-off long distance relationship, despite her New York sophistication and his penchant for corny dad jokes, that deepens over time, as Charles achieves his ambition to be a career drill sergeant and Dana’s journalism career soars.

Michael B. Jordan and Chanté Adams have a nice chemistry together, and her more outgoing, big-city character makes an appealing contrast to his ramrod straight, country boy sincerity. When a driver at a traffic signal fails to respond quickly when the light changes, Adams’ Dana reaches over and leans on the horn. By contrast, polite rule-follower Charles instructs her on the proper way to keep hands on the steering wheel at all times. While Dana is happy to drowse in bed in the morning, Charles bounces out of bed and starts doing push-ups on the floor. Michael B. Jordan fans will appreciate the many times the actor appears without his shirt, showing off his fine physique. Since a lot of the story seems to take place in Dana’s apartment, there are ample opportunities.

At first there is a romantic comedy vibe to the film. But just as the couple prepares to welcome their son Jordan and to wed, 9/11 happens. When Sgt. King is deployed to Iraq, Dana sends Charles off with a journal, and instructions to write in it every day he is gone, as a record of advice to his son.

That is, of course, the journal in the title, although Dana waits until Jordan is older to share it with him. The romance thread’s earlier romantic comedy bent yields to a more serious tone, as they anticipate the birth of their child and get engaged, and then tensely dramatic as the events of 9/11 unfold. The story of the romance unfolds along side scenes of Jordan growing up, hitting familiar milestones, but also painting a portrait of a woman working through grief. The two thread come together in a moment of grief, family and sense of duty at the end.

However, not every great, moving true story makes a great movie. The translating of this story to the screen loses some of the poetry of Canedy’s writing and the sentiment is heavy in this three-hankie tragic drama. Director Denzel Washington leans into the sentimental, although the romance has some nice comic turns early on, but the sentiment gets more ponderous as the story goes on. Fans of romantic weepers may be the best audience for this sentimental film, while others might find it too Hallmark Channel for their taste.

A JOURNAL FOR JORDAN opens Saturday, Dec. 25, in theaters.

RATING: 2 out of 4 stars

THE WALL – Review

*Aaron Taylor-Johnson in THE WALL. Photo credit: David James.*
*Courtesy of Amazon Studios and Roadside Attractions ©*

Director Doug Liman’s THE WALL is not about Donald Trump’s wall on the Mexican border, the Berlin Wall that symbolized the divide between communist and capitalist countries in the Cold War, or even the Great Wall the Chinese built along their border. No, this wall is the crumbling remains of what was once a building in a contemporary desert war, zone a wall behind which a sniper may be hiding and which later shelters an American serviceman pinned down in that dusty war.

Liman is a skillful film maker but this a decidedly smaller film for the director behind THE BOURNE IDENTITY and many others. The intimate war drama THE WALL starts out in a contemporary desert war zone with a pair of U.S. Army Rangers, Sgt. Allen Isaac (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Staff Sgt. Shane Matthews (John Cena), trying to determine if the enemy sniper that killed everyone at this remote location is still alive, and to kill him if he is. It is easy to assume the gritty, rocky spot is in Afghanistan but we shortly learn, no, it is Iraq. Very quickly, Cena’s character is wounded and the young soldier played by Taylor-Johnson takes shelter behind a crumbling wall, where he remains pinned down by the unseen sniper. Hampered by a partly broken radio, the young American finds himself stuck behind the wall talking by radio to the sniper who holds hum there.

The action in this film is realistic and graphic but actually there is not much in it. Anyone expecting the taut thrills of SOLE SURVIVOR will be disappointed. THE WALL is a war drama on a small-scale and the largely static situation in Dwain Worrell’s script could almost be on a stage. For most of the film, the focus is on Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Sgt. Allen Isaac trapped behind the wall as he talks to the sniper who keeps him there. The situation is of one or a handful of soldiers pinned down is doubtless one in which many soldiers in countless war have found themselves. But this specific premise is similar to another film, PHONE BOOTH, in which a man is trapped in a phone booth by an unseen sniper who speaks to him through the phone, although other thriller films have used a similar device.

However, THE WALL is not very thrilling. There is some action but the film is more psychological drama than action thriller, with most of the screen time occupied by the young soldier trapped behind the wall, as he and his unseen enemy talk, each trying to learn something that will give them an edge. The problem is that we know so little about the American soldier before he is stuck behind the wall that is harder to feel involved or care what is happening on-screen.

THE WALL is both dull and depressing to watch. By setting the film in Iraq rather than Afghanistan, Liman’s main purpose may have been to remind us that American troops are still there, long after the war supposedly ended. Liman uses the story and dialog to remind us of several facts in this long-running war but we learn nothing new about it. The wall is the remains of a school and the site appears to be a place where oil company contractors were constructing a pipeline, but now is strewn with dead bodies of construction workers, private security and American soldiers. The plot about the Iraqi sniper reportedly was inspired by real events, in which an Iraqi translator who did a good American accent switched sides, but that little twist is not enough to sustain interest. The story is resolved in a way that seems inevitable, as well as depressingly grim.

Liman may have intended this grim film and its static situation as a metaphor for American soldiers stuck in the seeming endless war in Iraq, but it makes for a dull film. Despite its rather short running time of just over 80 minutes, THE WALL feels much longer. Action and movement are limited and for most of the time, it is a single character on-screen talking to another character we do not see..Liman uses his considerable skill to build a sense of place and desolation visually, focusing on the blowing wind, the sand, the dust-covered bodies and blasted equipment, and cinematographer Roman Vasyanov does a good job evoking the sense of being in the war zone.

Audiences are likely to feel like they want to escape as much as the American soldier does. Part of the problem is that we know so little about the character before the stand-off starts, so it is harder to care what happens on-screen. Ironically, we actually learn more about the sniper in the in course of their conversations, but even what we learn about him feels rather generic. The trapped soldier may have been intended as an Every Man but Liman does not tap into any philosophical potential the story may hold.

THE WALL is an unsatisfying, depressing film, with too little happening, little new to say, and characters that we do not really get to know. Audiences might feel as trapped as the soldier behind the wall, and just as eager to escape.

RATING: 2 out of 5 stars

BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK – Review

Ang Lee is a brilliant director but he seems to being aiming more at recapturing the technical innovation magic of his film PI than making a good film, in his latest BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK, with less successful results. BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK focuses on a decorated Iraq War soldier and his squad in 2004, who are back in the U.S. making a good will tour, which includes a part for them in the Thanksgiving Day football game’s halftime show. But the real point of this film seems to be its 3D photography and an amazingly high frame rate. However, the film’s technical wizardry will only be seen by audiences in New York and Los Angeles, not in the Midwest. Seen without the gimmicks, BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK does not measure up to the director’s previous work.

Billy Lynn (Joe Alwyn) is a young soldier decorated for bravery, after his heroic efforts to rescue one of his squad during battle were accidentally caught on tape. The 19-year-old hero and his fellow soldiers in Bravo squad are being squired around in luxury, there is talk of a movie deal, and they are clearly riding the emotional high of being the heroes of the moment, tapped to play a part in the Thanksgiving Day football game’s halftime extravaganza. The fact that Billy Lynn’s act was caught on camera makes it PR gold. The story takes place at a pivotal time for the Iraq War, with no weapons of mass destruction found and a presidential election looming, so the government is eager to show off these young soldiers. The men of Bravo squad are put up in a nice hotel and assigned a public relations handler, who seems to always be on his phone, trying to seal a movie deal. The guys are in high spirits, ready to swill champagne and kidding around mercilessly, often treating the civilians they encounter with a knowing disdain. Billy himself feels more conflicted about what happened, as his heroism failed to save his beloved commander, nicknamed Shroom (Vin Diesel). As the young soldiers are pampered and prepared for their halftime moment, we see flashbacks to the battle itself, retold from various points in time and camera angles but always Billy’s point-of-view.

The problem is not the subject matter but how the story is told. Billy Lynn’s tale is told is in such an unrealistic, even surreal fashion, that one expects to discover it is a dream at any moment. Few scenes are presented in a believable way, the pacing is glacial and some of it is so strange as to be simply puzzling.

Strangeness is a major sense in this film. Kristen Stewart plays a character that at first we think may be Billy’s girlfriend but then seems to be his sister. The awkwardness of her performance is part of the problem, but the director and script deserve some blame for this bit of weirdness. As the young soldiers are pampered and prepared for their halftime moment, we see a lot about the PR person angling for the movie, without figuring out exactly who he works for – the soldiers? the military? While the hotel and limo are very organized, the soldiers’ role in the halftime show almost seems improvised. There is no rehearsal and they are given only vague instructions just before going on stage before the crowd. It is completely unconvincing that the highly-produced, carefully choreographed Thanksgiving Day football game halftime event would be run in such as haphazard manner, making it seem more fantasy that reality. An instant romance with a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader likewise seems like a dream rather than reality. There are other instances throughout the film.

The film also seems too much like Clint Eastwood’s FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, in which a traumatized soldier is exploited for a patriotic public relations stunt. Is Ang Lee’s film derivative or is the similarity a deliberate reference to the earlier film? The most realistic scenes in the movie are of the remembered battle but it is not clear if that is a deliberate choice on Ang Lee’s part.

There are a number of political or social issues that the film could have addressed, about young men carrying the heavy burden in this war of choice and growing concerns about soldiers sent for multiple combat tours, a new policy not used in previous wars. But those topics are hardly touched, rather surprising from the director of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Further, one often has the nagging sense something is missing. It is a hallmark of a film built around visual techniques most audiences do not get to see, and it leaves an odd hole in the film.

The real point of the film seems to be its technical innovations, largely unseen by audiences in most locations. The film uses an extremely high frame rate, an astonishing 120 frames per second to the usual 24 fps, which renders the images hyper real. Combined with being shot in 3D and high definition, the film must be a marvel to see, which might distract from shortcomings in its plot and characters for the few audiences that see it that way. The focus on the technical seems to reduce it to a gimmick film.

Newcomer Joe Alwyn does well as Billy, a sweet innocent haunted by the death of his commander and mentor, a Buddhist who introduced the young small-town Texan to a new world of ideas and possibilities. Vin Diesel is good as Shroom, with a nice touch of dry humor with his fatherly guidance. The chief master of veiled sarcasm is Dime (a marvelous Garrett Hedlund), who gets many of the best lines and whose performance is one of the rare highlights of the film. Another is Tim Blake Nelson, in a single scene as a clueless and insensitive Texas businessman in the natural gas drilling business. The other members of Bravo squad hardly are given enough material to get beyond familiar war movie stereotypes.

In the end, what is one to make of BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK? Is there a missing scene at the end in which Billy wakes up, or a similar movie trick?

Ang Lee is a brilliant director but this puzzling, flawed film is not his best. For those who see it in LA or NY with all the technical bells and whistles intact, it maybe worth with the ticket price. But for those of us in fly-over country who will not see the whole package, BILLY LYNN’S LONG HALFTIME WALK remains an unsatisfying, incomplete gimmick film, and a missed opportunity to be something more substantial.

RATING: 2 out of 5 stars

WAR DOGS – Review

The kids are heading back to school, it’s getting a touch cooler (the multiplex is still a great place to beat the heat), the superheroes have packed it in (for a couple of months), so are we ready to return to the Middle East, or at least the big conflicts in the sand? That’s how we started out the year, with Michael Bay’s Benghazi docudrama. Well, there were two little films that followed, set in that hostile local. Two “dramadies”, one fact, the other fiction, to be precise. Tom Hanks was a “fish-out-of-water” in HOLOGRAM FOR THE KING, while Tina Fey was a TV news reporter (based on a real person) in WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT. Yes, this new flick is a comedy, or at least that’s what the near constant onslaught of trailers and TV spots have been hammering home for the last several months. Hey, it’s from the director of the HANGOVER trilogy and it stars a full-fledged member of Judd Apatow’s ensemble. Now to be fair, the Middle East isn’t the only global territory that’s “marked” by these two self titled WAR DOGS. They’re bouncing across the globe, but we first meet one of them in…

Albania, around ten years ago, and David Packouz (Miles Teller) is having the worst morning of his life. Just how did he get in this spot? Well, we’ll need to flash back a few years to the Miami area. David’s barely making ends meet as a personal masseuse, schlepping his foldable cot back and forth to the homes of the wealthy. He’s ambitious, so he buys high-quality wholesale bed sheets and blankets, thinking he can sell them to the many retirement centers. This plan is a bust and the apartment he shares with his gorgeous gal Iz (Ana de Armas) is clogged with cases of the stuff. Then, at the funeral for an old school chum, Dave re-connects with an old pal, Efraim Diveroli (Joanh Hill), who is living the high life, having made a fortune selling high powered weaponry on-line. But now Efraim hopes to become a major player, thanks to the conflict in Iraq. After the scandals over “no bid” arms deals, the doors have been opened to all military suppliers, thanks to a government website listing all weapons needs and entertaining bids from anyone. Efraim offers to make David a partner. When Iz becomes pregnant, David accepts, but he lies to her about the new job, since Iz despises war. Their company, “AEY” scores it first big sale, a huge shipment of Beretta handguns to Iraq. When local laws strand the guns in Jordan, they guys fly in and personally transport the guns via a beaten-up truck to its destination (at great, great peril). They’re ready for a much bigger deal when AEY lands a 300 million dollar contract to outfit the new Afghan army. Efraim and David head to the big arms show in Vegas to find a supplier. They get more than they bargained for when David runs into the shadowy (he’s on the “watch list”) arms dealing legend Henry Girard (Bradley Cooper). He agrees to broker a sale with the government of Albania. They need to quickly unload literally tons of weapons and ammo. After traveling there, the guys believe everything’s on the “up and up”. Of course, many problems arise, needing David to stay there to supervise, leading to that awful morning in the first scene. Are these twenty-something hot shots in way over their heads?

Teller gives another complex performance in a worthy addition to his impressive resume (THE SPECTACULAR NOW, WHIPLASH). He brings an everyman vulnerability to Packouz. He’s a decent person, who chooses the wrong path, that of quick returns reaped from the misery of others. Teller shows us that David is keenly aware of the danger that awaits each step forward, a man full of regret and guilt over deceiving his love. He’s truly conflicted, unlike his partner Efraim, played as an uncontrollable force of nature by the energetic Hill. We think that this role will be one of his blustery buffoons, but Hill surprises us by going into very dark territory. Efraim creates a doppelgänger to seduce every new “mark”, but once the cash and drugs are flowing, his inner demons of greed and paranoia are unleashed. He’ll turn on anyone within striking range. In a terrific supporting performance, Cooper also flips his charming screen persona on its ear, with this true “lord of darkness”, digging his claws into the brash duo, and dragging them down into the fiery pits. Hiding behind massive, tinted glasses. Cooper’s Girard is cold, dead-eyed evil incarnate, a ghost suddenly materializing to wreak havoc. Kudos to de Armas for making Iz the strong-willed conscience of David, and to the ever-dependable Kevin Pollak as Efraim’s affable, clueless investor.

And bravo to director/ co-writer Todd Phillips for leaving the cinematic “comfort zone” of gross-out, hard-partying comedies, to deliver a film with a stinging satiric edge, one with an unapologetic political slant. In the film’s opening segment he fires his own “hypocracy-seeking” movie missile at Washington’s power players (and one recent presidency) with the clever use of graphics showing us a solider’s cost with price tags over every set of “boots on the ground”. Yes, he does overuse the freeze frame effect for emphasis and the chapter titles using bits of dialogue can be cloying and clumsy. And while we’re at it, the slo-mo shots of smoking (look at that big bong!) and snorting could be severely trimmed back (they like their weed, we get it!). But the film truly skewers those in charge thanks to the razor-sharp script Phillips co-wrote with Stephen Chin and Jason Smilovic based on a Rolling Stone article by Guy Lawson. While the David/Iz story might seem a distracting subplot (like those couples helped out by the trio in the MGM Marx Brothers flicks), Phillips uses the scenes to show the devastating cost of David’s descent. Cinematographer also turns in excellent work, giving each locale its own color palette: the Middle East is rust and orange-tinted sand, while Albania is a soggy blue. This flick, much like the recent GHOSTBUSTERS reboot, is another example of a film ill-served by its marketers. The trailers were selling a wacky, zany “bro-mance”, but WAR DOGS is a tough look at those real animals who would profit from tragedy.
3.5 Out of 5

THE DEVIL’S DOUBLE – The Review

One of the first fictional works to exploit the idea of identical twins from different social backgrounds was Mark Twain’s ” The Prince and the Pauper”. Television would pick up on the twin idea in programs as varied as ” The Patty Duke Show” and more recent “Ringer”. And of course the movies have jumped aboard with many film versions of the Twain novel and a couple of PARENT TRAP flicks. Well if turns out something similar has been going on in real life, particularly with Middle Eastern leaders and their families. This new film by director Lee Tamahori ( THE EDGE ) turns the clock back over twenty years In this true story of doubles and deception.

Dominic Cooper ( CAPTAIN AMERICA:THE FIRST AVENGER ) plays Latif Yahia, an ordinary man serving in the Iraqui Army. One day he is scooped up and brought to the royal palace in Baghdad. There he is re-united with his old classmate Uday Hussein, the son of the country’s dictator Saddam. Uday has decided that Latif will become his ‘fiday’ or body double. Latif is hesitant but reluctantly agrees after his family is threatened. He undergoes plastic surgery, is fitted for a dental prosthetic, and memorizes Uday’s mannerisms and history while his family believes that Latif died in battle. Latif is eyewitness to Uday’s physchotic behavior,violent outbursts, and sexual perversions. Somehow Latif catches the eye of one of the “party girls”, Saraab played by Ludivine Sagnier ( SWIMMING POOL ) and the two decide that they will somehow escape the clutches of Uday and his minions.

Tamahori has crafted a terrific film that’s part horror movie and part true political thriller based on Yahia’s book. News footage from the first Gulf War ( including speeches by Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush ) is expertly woven into the proceedings. Uday’s mother, brother, and father are also portrayed in the film. Mom’s indulgent while the other two look at him with disappointment and disgust. We see bit of Saddam’s use of body doubles during an odd tennis match scene ( Did Saddam or his ‘fiday’ win the match? ). The film is full of tension as the unpredictable Uday acts on his every sadistic whim. Two memorable sequences involve one of Saddam’s friends who spouts off at a party and Uday’s disruption of a wedding reception for a young soldier and his bride. We also see Uday’s relentless pursuit of schoolgirls through the city streets as citizens look on helplessly. The sets and costumes are very effective in showing off the opulence of the privileged royal family. Sagnier is impressive as the sexy, sympathetic, and conflicted Saraab. But the movie squarely rests on the very capable shoulders of Cooper in a bravura acting performance. He must pull off the distinct personalities of the two men and then show you Latif attempting to impersonate Uday. Cooper gives a quiet dignity to the young soldier who must coldly observe the horror around him. There’s very little of Latif’s subtlely in Cooper’s take on Uday. At first he seems a clown with his long cigars, bowl haircut, and over-sized teeth ( he almost resembles a circa 1950’s Jerry Lewis ), but then the beast emerges. This unmerciful, petulant child man turns into a mad, rabid dog that must be put down before more innocents suffer. This assured work from such a young actor makes THE DEVIL”S DOUBLE one of the year’s best films. Let’s hope his next film roles can fully make use of his talents.

Overall Rating: Four and a Half out of Five Stars

Sundance Review: THE SHOCK DOCTRINE

Directed by Matt Whitecross and Michael Winterbottom, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE is an attempt to shed light on similarities and connections between western “Disaster” Capitalism and the decline of financial stability and human rights throughout many parts of the world.

The documentary is based upon ideas presented in Naomi Kleinâ€™s book of the same titles and includes segments from Kleinâ€™s various lectures on the topics of her book. What begins as a fairly startling and revealing documentary of past events and their relationship to economic policies instilled by Milton Friedman, et al.

Spanning the globe from Chile and Argentina to Russia, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE compellingly demonstrates the devastating influence past strategies of economic and political intervention has had on the people of the countries. Two of the more powerful chapters of the film are that of Chile and the reign of Pinochet, and that of the Soviet Union and the unbelievable actions of Boris Yeltsin.

In the case of Pinochetâ€™s Chile, the free market ideals implemented with the encouragement of the United States produced horrifying violations of human rights perpetrated under a regime of fear and violence, all the while supported by President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the case of Yeltsinâ€™s Russia, poverty rates of the common people skyrocketed under his rule to upwards of 80% as Moscow experienced the largest growth of individual billionaires of any city in the world.

THE SHOCK DOCTRINE succeeds in making an emotionally charged and hard-hitting case throughout the first two-thirds of its roughly 80-minute running time. However, the final third of the film begins to fall apart as it spirals ineffectively into a criticism of George W. Bush and his cabinet and policies.

It is not that the filmmakers were criticizing Bush that causes the sudden drop in effectiveness, but that the final third feels disconnected from the rest of the film, uneven in its approach and to a great extent rushed. It feels like a haphazardly piece-meal collage of last minute thoughts rubber cemented onto the screen.

Whitecross and Winterbottom had a fairly good thing going in the first two-thirds of THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. While heavily one-sided, the film does make significant and points with an array of shocking archival footage and facts of historical importance. Aside from the less than stellar finale, the film does suffer one other criticism.

THE SHOCK DOCTRINE utilizes a handful of key audio/visual tactics to convey its message. These tactics work well at first, but as the film progresses these tactics are repeated to the point of becoming redundant. Visually, the animated sequences are used minimally and effectively, but the old black and white archival footage of psychiatric patients being subjected to experimental shock treatment (as displayed above) are leaned upon a tad too much, connecting Naomi Kleinâ€™s use of the term â€œshock treatmentâ€ to points being made in the film.

Another less detrimental, but equally noticeable use of repetition is the music in THE SHOCK DOCTRINE. A singular piece of orchestral music (which I know I recognize but canâ€™t seem to place) is used repeatedly throughout the film, inevitably resulting in the loss of its sensory emotional appeal. In essence, the audience is desensitized to its effect during the film, therefore risking that same desensitization to the subject matter. Personally, I found the subject matter compelling enough on its own as not to need the soundtrack.

Overall, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE is a valuable piece of documentary cinema, but I would like to see the filmmakers extend the roughly 80-minute running time to perhaps 100 minutes, allowing themselves enough canvas to more appropriately flesh out the bigger picture in the final third of the film, rather than allowing the momentum to subside into what could be construed as petty political propaganda.

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Review: ‘The Hurt Locker’ – Scott’s Take

Chances are you have seen at least one thing that Kathryn Bigelow has done in the past, and it is probably ‘Point Break’ or ‘Strange Days’. What she has done in ‘The Hurt Locker’ is bring us one of the most real, intense films about war ever created and although that is a broad and wide open statement I can confidently stand behind it.

The film follows a Explosive Ordnance Disposal team in Iraq whose sole purpose is disabling bombs that would otherwise destroy innocent soldiers and civilians. The movie opens with Sergeant Matt Thompson(Guy Pearce) as the guy in the bomb suit putting his life on the line to disable a bomb that is threatening the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians. When he goes to attempt the disarm they quickly realize its a setup and someone remote detonates the bomb which as you can guess kills him in the suit.

Insert his replacement Staff Sergeant William James(Jeremy Renner) who jumps in the suit and immediately goes into combat. At first he comes off as a hot shot who fears nothing and is willing to put anyone and everyone in danger to get the job done but after seeing the dedication to his craft his team really comes together and puts their trust in him. He soon starts showing flashes of a true leader and that more than anything gets them through some really dangerous situations. Eventually they all realize that this is the job he is meant to do, and even when he isn’t doing this job thats all he can think about.

Jeremy Renner could easily pull off an Oscar nom for his role as Staff Sergeant William James because he is absolutely incredible in this movie. Renner has really come into his own with recent roles and this in particular really shows what he is capable of. I also want to say what an great job both Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty as the other 2 members in their EOD squad. The acting turned in by everyone in the film is an added bonus to the incredible and emotional story it follows.

Kathyn Bigelow went above and beyond to keep the film as authentic as possible and shot the movie in Jordan which is as close to the Iraqi border without actually crossing over the line and hanging out in the pits of where the war is still currently going on. Bigelow also went as far as to cast real Iraqi refuges who had been forced from their homes during the war in the film in the roles of Iraqi citizens.

Bigelow isn’t the only person involved that cared about the realism of the film, Jeremy Renner went and trained with real EOD teams prior to shooting the film. In interviews he also mentions that they were shot at during filming, two by fours that had nails in them were being thrown off 2 story buildings and that authenticity really comes through the film.

The one thing that you cant say about this movie is that it isnt real, or that it doesn’t feel like you are in the middle of the action. Bigelow went to great lengths to ensure that when you are watching certain scenes you feel knots in your stomach. Don’t expect to see anything this genuine without it being actual footage of EOD teams disabling bombs.

Review: ‘The Hurt Locker’ – Melissa’s Take

Oh, man… There is no easy way to go about telling America that I disliked a movie with American Soldiers as the main characters. I didn’t realize that there is a way to make a war that has been fought in our lifetime look positively boring and ridiculous. I am sure there are tons of stories from the men and women that have served and/or are serving overseas that are way more inspiring, real, and worthy of the screen-time.

The Hurt Locker follows Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), three elite soldiers in Iraq that are part of a special bomb unit. The three men, especially Staff Sergeant William James, have one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They have to find and disable bombs, while also keeping their eyes peeled for suspects that might be trying to detonate them while the soldiers are working on them. As if their job isn’t dangerous enough, Staff Sergeant William James comes in after their former leader was brutally blown up, and is completely reckless. He does things his own way, doesn’t listen to orders, and jeopardizes the safety of his team. Now it’s a struggle of not only getting out alive, but controlling their new leader so that they make it home.

One of the problems I have is that the characters are very dry. The characters have very little development other than being soldiers in the same place, at the same time. If you want your audience to empathize with your characters, then you have to introduce them to each other. They give you very little personal information about the three soldiers that they are following. Sure, we know how they react to one another, and that they are brave, and even that Staff Sergeant William James has a family, but that is as far as they delve into the characters. I get that they are scared, every rational human being would be terrified, but tell me where the character grew up, how they got to where they are, and what kind of person they are.

It really doesn’t help that I am not a big Jeremy Renner fan either. He made a horrible Jeffrey Dahmer in Dahmer, being in an awesome zombie movie didn’t help him (28 Weeks Later), and even the naughty sheriff in Pink’s Trouble video didn’t earn him cool points in my book. Guess there were no real bonus points to be earned unless this movie was stellar. Brian Geraghty is the only one who gets some street cred for Jarhead, but that is quickly destroyed by his role in Lindsay Lohan’s I Know Who Killed Me. Ohh… tough break! Even the explosions didn’t add excitement to this movie, which for a movie involving a bomb squad didn’t have any cool ones.

Just to clarify… I am not saying that I do not like war films, or that I do not appreciate the men and women fighting for our country. I do however, think that this film is going to be given way to much credit and praise just because of its content rather than its cinematic value.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: