Category Archives: Movie Review

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

Leave a reply

Who said history has to be accurate? Don’t tell that to Quentin Tarantino, who pulled off his newest masterpiece in a brilliant revisionist style. “Inglourious Basterds” is the work of a world-class auteur at the top of his game.

When I first heard years ago that Tarantino was developing a war film, I was hesitant, unsure of whether Tarantino’s directing style could fit into a war movie. But then I realized, it is the perfect genre for him. 
Of all of Tarantino’s films, “Inglourious Basterds” has the most traditional narrative structure. While all of his other films hop through time in no particular order, this one moves through time in order with only a few brief flashbacks. What’s extremely unconventional about it though, are it’s multiple different stories that only loosely connect. 
The first story starts in the early days of World War II, in Nazi occupied France. Shosanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), is a French Jew who narrowly escapes death at the hands of brutal Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Four years later, Dreyfus is still living in France under a pseudonym, operating a movie theater and hoping to one day get revenge on the Nazis.
The second story focuses on a group of Jewish American soldiers also in France. This troop, nicknamed the Basterds, also plans to get revenge on the Nazis and their reign of terror. The troop is led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Raine commands his soldiers to attack the Nazis with absolutely no sympathy. He also demands that each man bring him 100 Nazi scalps (and he gets his scalps).
Now, where do these two stories connect? Well, both are revenge missions, and both seek their revenge in the exact same place. Shosanna and the Basterds never meet face to face, but all I can say is that if they ever were to meet, they’d all be pretty good friends.
In almost every way, “Inglourious Basterds” shouldn’t be a good movie. It has long expanses of meaningless dialogue, little action, and major historical inaccuracies and politically incorrect stereotypes. It’s kind of like “Lawrence of Arabia.” But these things don’t serve to make the movie worse; they end up making it even better. Only a mind like Tarantino can take flaws and turn them into idiosyncrasies. Only Tarantino could capture people talking and turn it into amazing, real conversations about the meaning of life. The dialogue is harder to quote because most of the film is spoken in either German or French, However, Raine and Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz (Eli Roth) give more than enough catchphrases to go around. 
Oh, and that dialogue. No matter what language, Tarantino’s dialogue is always so pleasant to listen to; not a single word out of a character’s mouth ever seems corny or contrived. 
And yes, the movie is violent. Very violent. On the Tarantino violence scale, it would rank slightly higher than “Pulp Fiction” but slightly less in “Kill Bill.” The violence is often ridiculous, but is also somehow the most realistically violent of all of his films.
Tarantino has a habit of reviving the careers of many once great actors (John Travolta, Michael Parks, Pam Grier, David Carradine). The careeer revived in “Inglourious Basterds” is that of Christoph Waltz. Much has been said about Waltz’s performance, and every accolade is well deserved. He plays Landa as both friendly and creepy at the same time. He can seem friendly by making small talk and then intimidating by doing something like ordering someone to get him milk. He is never a villain who seems psychotic, he just seems scary because of his overstated friendliness. It is without a doubt that Landa’s Cannes winning performance will also get nominated for an Oscar.
The true villains of World War II, Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, are played here with perfect inaccuracy. Martin Wuttke plays Hitler as  a whiny baby and Sylvester Groth plays Goebbels as a soulless zombie and something of a suck up. While Waltz has gotten the majority of praise, a large amount of it belongs to Groth. Through Groth’s eyes, Goebbels doesn’t seem like a zombie just from the things he says, but also from the things he does. In one scene, he shakes Shosanna’s hand but he doesn’t quite give it a tight grip. In fact, he barely grabs it with his cold, white hand. It looks almost like a skeleton who can walk and talk. 
Also scoring points are the Basterds. I always knew Pitt was talented, but not even his performance in “Fight Club” can top this. His Aldo Raine comes from Tennessee, and he talks in a perfect Southern droll. Roth is also a scene stealer. Roth is known for directing torture porn like “Hostel.” However, he should stick to acting. His overly hammy Boston accent becomes one of the funniest parts of the movie. And yes, the movie is funny. Tarantino’s sense of humor is one of the darkest in cinema; many of the jokes here are dark as ever. However, many are as light and hilarious as Raine’s horrible grip on the Italian language. A scene like that almost feels like something out of a Sacha Baron Cohen movie.
Tarantino is known for referencing hundreds and hundreds of movies in everyone of his films. In this one, he often draws references to his own films. The opening scene reminded me something of the Royale with Cheese scene in “Pulp Fiction.” Like Jackson, Waltz first disarms the character through light banter before suddenly unloading on him. The revenge mission feels almost like The Bride’s in “Kill Bill.” 
Tarantino also references many of his favorite movies. You can see a shot that looks like “Scarface” or a camera movement that feels Hitchcockian. What’s referenced most here though is Spaghetti Westerns. Spaghetti Westerns were Italian westerns that were made in the late 1960s popularized mainly by Sergio Leone. As I watched “Inglourious Basterds” I realized what it truly was: a Spaghetti Western presented as a war film. There are Mexican standoffs and a score that often resembles the brilliant music of Ennio Morricone. 
The plot of “Inglourious Basterds” is almost directly based off of the plot of “Once Upon a Time in the West.” Like “Once Upon a Time in the West,” “Inglourious Basterds” is about two different people getting revenge on the same person for different reasons. Both reasons however, have something to do with the loss of family or brotherhood. “Inglourious Basterds” also contains long stretches without much action. However, while Leone reveled in long silences, Tarantino revels in lots and lots of talking.
“Once Upon a Time in the West” is also the best western ever made. “Inglourious Basterds” is one of the best war movies ever made. Not only that, but it is also the most audacious for daring to change the face of history. It really makes sense as to why “Inglourious Basterds” is so revisionist: every Tarantino movie exists in its world with its own interconnecting characters and its own brands. Even though “Inglourious Basterds” doesn’t take place during modern times, it feels as if it could’ve taken place in the same world as any other Tarantino film.
“Inglourious Basterds” was one of few movies I’ve seen recently where I left feeling reinvigorated, feeling as if all my faith in cinema had been restored. Only someone like Quentin Tarantino can do this. He reinvented the crime drama, the kung fu film, and now, the war film. Being a great director doesn’t involve any film school, just a great imagination and a love for movies. And not to mention, a strange and interesting view of the world.
One more thing: we never find out why the title is misspelled. Tarantino says he’ll never explain why, and in a way it’s better like that. The spelling is a part of Tarantino’s world, and we’re lucky that we even got this good of a glimpse of it.
If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Dollars Trilogy, Carrie, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, Grindhouse, The Wild Bunch, No Country for Old Men

Movie Review: District 9

Leave a reply

For decades, Hollywood has been fascinated with the concept of life on other planets. The first films about extraterrestrial life began as ones where the aliens were portrayed as villainous, inhumane creatures looking to enslave the human race. Then, in the late 1970s, things turned around when Steven Spielberg proposed the idea that maybe the invading aliens were nothing but friendly, curious creatures. Stemming from that idea is “District 9,” one of the biggest surprises of the summer.

“District 9″ takes us to Johannesburg, South Africa’s largest city. One day, a giant alien space ship stops and hovers over the city. The ships stands hovering over the city for 20 years. Eventually, the government opens the ship up to find an entire alien colony inside. With the ship immobile and the aliens stuck on Earth, the humans decide to segregate them into an area called District 9. We are never told what their race is called or what planet they are from, but simply that humans give them the derogatory name of “Prawn.”
While in Johannesburg, the Prawns are mistreated and District 9 turns into a slum. The government plans a giant relocation project for the alien community. This mission is led by Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley). At first, Wikus finds him self battling Prawns. Soon however, he finds himself all to close to them.
A lot has been written in recent weeks about the many feats pulled of by “District 9.” Most articles have focused on the film’s extremely low budget ($30 million) and it’s starless cast and first time director. They act like these are impediments, but in fact they are benefits. These elements just serve to make “District 9″ more original and more refreshing. The blockbuster and the sci-fi thriller seem to be dying thanks to uninspired ideas and adaptations of toys and video games. Here is the first sci-fi thriller I’ve seen in a long time that is totally inspired and totally new. 
The first time director at the helm of “District 9″ is Neill Blomkamp. Although it’s only his feature debut, he directs like a pro. Much of “District 9″ is shot in documentary style. A majority of the movie is taken from security camera shots and news footage. However, the whole film isn’t shot in documentary style. It transitions at times to a typical filmmaking style. The film always transitions smoothly between these two styles. Often when a film attempts to balance out these two styles, it usually turns out poorly (for example, “Public Enemies”). “District 9″ does the rare thing that most experienced filmmakers rarely achieves and makes a successful film that is part mockumentary, part narrative.
The typical blockbuster has needed a big makeover in recent years. Films like “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe” have nearly destroyed the idea that entertaining action films can also have a brain. “District 9″ brings the brain back to sci-fi. 
Part of “District 9″‘s big brain comes from the fact that it’s an allegory on apartheid. This makes sense as to why exactly the film is set in South Africa; it’s a country that was once torn apart by bitter racial apartheid. This time, the apartheid is against the aliens. The message here isn’t just that apartheid is bad, it’s that the forced segregation of any being ends up de-humanizing further those who aren’t being segregated. It’s not the aliens that look like monsters here, it’s the people.
While most have talked about the film’s connection to apartheid, it also mirrors several other current events. District 9 resembles the slums of Mumbai, and the way that South Africans talk about the visiting Prawns sounds a little bit like the way some people talk about illegal immigrants in this country.
The aliens of “District 9″ look like giant grasshoppers who talk like Jabba the Hut. But it’s not so much the appearance that is groundbreaking but rather the personalities of the aliens. Even though they are aliens, they behave like people. They raise families, they buy food, and they live in houses. The alien Christopher’s troubles makes him seem basically like a human being.
“District 9″ is not the best sci-fi film ever made, but it’s the best one that’s come out in years. It contains some incredible action sequences involving a vaporizer gun. The film also has an ongoing, very dark sense of humor and the emotional finale in a sci-fi film since “Blade Runner.”
Already a huge success, there has already been talk of a sequel for “District 9.” I usually am not a huge fan of sequels, but this is one the few films that I actually would want a sequel for. That is just how much I liked the characters, and just how much I liked the movie. “District 9″ proves that in an unoriginal world, a little bit of unique ideas can go a long way.
Recommended for Fans of: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Blade Runner, Alien, Cloverfield 

Movie Review: (500) Days of Summer

Leave a reply

Ad campaigns can often be misleading. They can make a bad movie look good, and a good movie look bad. Other times, they can make a totally original, breath of fresh air seem like a cliche drag. That was just about the case for “(500) Days of Summer.” All I can say is, the final product totally proved me wrong.

The first surprise (unless you’ve heard anything about this movie prior to seeing it) is that “(500) Days of Summer” is not about a season, but rather about a girl. The film gives us another surprise at the very beginning: this is not a love story. After telling us this, the film begins around day 400 and something. Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is beyond heartbroken.
Why is he heartbroken? 400 something days earlier, Tom, a failed architect who now works as a greeting card creator, meets Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The minute Tom lays eyes on her, he believes he’s found the one and only love of his life. Tom and Summer have very different views on love: Tom believes there’s one true love for everyone; while Summer is too free spirited to believe that relationships can even exist.
From there, the film tracks the relationship between Tom and Summer. It tracks the very highs, and the very lows. It tracks the moments of real love, the moments of fake love, and the moments of utter resentment. And it does all of this in no particular order.
The structure of the film feels more Tarantinoesque than romantic comedyesque. At one point, we’ll be at day 3. Then suddenly, day 188. Day 1. Day 422. Day 57. Day 12. It’ll then go back and repeat certain events over and over, but from different perspectives. Maybe a smirk was actually a frown. That’s something most films don’t do nowadays: stop, look around, and observe.
The film feels like one of those gangster films where a group of failed criminals get together after a botched crime and look back at everything that went wrong; except this time, it’s not a botched heist, but a botched love. But was there even love in the first place? Decide for yourself.
The romance part of “(500) Days of Summer” is debatable, but the comedy part certainly is not. While the film has some hilarious dialogue, it doesn’t rely on throwaway one-liners to get laughs. It relies on small things, such as tiny edits or little facial expressions to arouse laughter. It might get a laugh out of the deadpan way Summer describes her college nickname, or the order in which it places a certain scene.
Every shot of “(500) Days of Summer” is brimming with energy and life. That’s not surprising considering the film is directed by Marc Webb. Before directing this film, Webb was a music video director. Much of the film has the energy and surreal feeling of a music video, as certain scenes will suddenly turn into elaborate drawings while characters churn out giant musical numbers. Many of these creative touches might seem out of place, but they all serve a greater purpose. I can’t reveal that purpose hear; you’ll just have to see it for yourself.
Every step the film took, I kept waiting for it to mess up. I didn’t want it to mess up, but I just couldn’t believe a movie could be this perfect. It was hard to believe that the director and the writers could take the right step at the right time during every single moment of the film. Even though it doesn’t flow in any sort of chronological order, the film still flows like water. And it’s aided at every moment by the anti-chemistry Deschanel and Levitt display. I’m not saying the two actors go poorly together, I’m just saying that this is no ordinary love story. “(500) Days of Summer” is anti a lot of things. Although it is an indie comedy, it plays like the anti-”Garden State.”* That is, it challenges all conventional thoughts on love. Love doesn’t form because the girl you like also likes The Smiths. But, I can’t go into it in much more detail; I’ll just let the film speak for itself because sometimes, the best films need to speak for themselves: “Just because some girl likes the same bizarro crap you do, that doesn’t make her your soul mate.”
Recommended for Fans of: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Graduate, Annie Hall, Garden State, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction
*Note: This comment is not meant to insult “Garden State” in anyway. “Garden State” is a different, but equally good film.

Movie Review: Funny People

1 Reply

Judd Apatow is the comedy legend of our day. It seems that just about everything he touches turns to gold. After a few years of small producing and writing efforts, Apatow returns with his first directorial effort in two years with “Funny People.” At first, it might not seem like comic gold. But under its scratched surface, lies a diamond in the rough.

“Funny People” is probably Apatow’s most personal project to date. He incorporates real life experiences into every movie he does, but never so much as in “Funny People.” In fact, “Funny People” starts off with real footage of Apatow and Adam Sandler making prank calls when they were just starting off in the comedy business.
But forget reality, lets head off to movieland. “Funny People” is a dramedy about George Simmons (Adam Sandler). Simmons is based partly off the life and career of Sandler; he’s a comic legend who’s become one of the biggest movie stars in the world. He may have a big, beautiful home, but like Charles Foster Kane, that home is completely empty.
Now, Simmons has discovered that he has come down with a terminal disease. In his near-death experience, Simmons decides to seize the moment and reevaluate his life. First, he decides to return to his standup career. Then, he hires struggling young comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his writer and something of an assistant. Next, he decides to win back an old flame (Leslie Mann) who is currently married to an Australian man (Eric Bana).
“Funny People” isn’t just a personal project for Apatow–it’s just as personal for Sandler. And because of that, he gives the best performance he’s given since “Punch Drunk Love.” However, “Funny People” isn’t as much of a flat-out drama as “Punch Drunk Love” was. Maybe it’s not seriousness that makes Sandler’s performance so good, perhaps it’s maturity. In “Funny People,” he’s just as funny as in classics “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore.” However, here, there is a degree of self-awareness. The style of humor of George Simmons is something like the style of humor that made Sandler famous in the 90s. Those bothered by Sandler’s sense of humor won’t be bothered here.
A performance less acknowledged by critics is Rogen’s. He projects a high level of awkwardness, especially when Ira is struggling through stand up routines. It’s funny, but we’re not laughing at him; in a way, we’re cheering for him. Rogen also brings probably the most emotion he’s ever brought to a role when expressing his feelings towards George in their very rocky friendship.
The film contains a fine ensemble of comedians both old and very new. Apatow regular Jonah Hill is a scene stealer in his portrayal of a comedian who realizes the key to comic gold is YouTube videos of cats. Meanwhile, newcomers like Aubrey Plaza (“Parks & Recreation”) pull their own weight as well. Most surprisingly is how hilarious Eric Bana is. Then again, I shouldn’t be too surprised. Before becoming a serious actor, Bana was a standup comic Down Under, and even had his own comedy show.
Along with being a dramedy, “Funny People” is also a self-reflexive show business satire. It contains fictional movies and TV shows within a fictional movie. There are actors playing actors, and actors playing themselves. Many are celebrities you would never expect to be funny, yet it turns out a certain rapper who I won’t name happens to have a very good sense of humor about himself. Meanwhile, the movie within a movie “Re Do” and the show within a movie “Yo Teach!” show the somewhat dismal state of mainstream comedy.
Although all of these aspects of the movie–the actors, the satire, the drama–are all great, they all serve as part of the film’s bigger problems. The first real flaw with the film is that it’s too long. “Funny People” is around 145 minutes long, and you can feel every minute of it. Some scenes drag on too long. The film also tries to tackle way too much. It’s central focus should be the relationship between George and Ira, and George’s quest to win back Laura’s affection. However, the film also goes off trying to tackle Ira’s girl troubles, as well as the careers of a few other rising comics.
The only problem is, I don’t think I would want to remove a single scene from the movie because every scene is so good, every character is so fascinating, and every joke is so funny. The editors must have had a more difficult time than they could ever have imagined with this film.
But there is also another reason it would be impossible to cut a single scene out. The film isn’t meant to focus solely on George and Ira. “Funny People” is an ensemble film, and as an ensemble film, it must cover a wide amount of people rather than a small amount. Apatow decided with “Funny People” to make both a personal relationship film and a collage of the lives of assorted comedians.
So now I sit here, wondering whether to tell you to see or not to see this movie. Instead, I’m going to do what a good critic does best: give you my opinion, and then let you decide for yourself whether or not you should see it. This is a movie made for people who don’t just like comedy, but are diehard fans of it. Even if you’re not, you’ll still laugh at the brilliant stand up routines and be wowed at the human connections that Apatow’s career has become defined by. To put it in short, this is the first comedy epic I’ve ever seen.
On the Apatow Scale: 1. The 40 Year Old Virgin 2. Knocked Up 3. Funny People

Movie Review: Gonzo

Leave a reply

“Football season’s over. No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won’t hurt.”

-Hunter S. Thompson’s Suicide Note
Has there ever been a voice as confused yet clear; bizarre yet brilliant; as relevant as the voice of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson? No, there hasn’t been. I may seem biased because Hunter S. Thompson is one of my idols, but you don’t even have to know the name of Hunter S. Thompson to know that “Gonzo” is one of the best documentaries made in a long while. However, if you do know his name, it would definitely help.
The name Gonzo was the name of the form of journalism Thompson invented. It was a form of journalism in which the writer literally threw himself into the middle of the action they were covering and the events happening around the event they were supposed to be covering often became more important than the actual event.
“Gonzo” traces back to the humble beginnings of Thompson’s radicalism, finding it at the 1968 Democratic Convention, where Thompson’s main focus became the rioters outside rather than the speech of Hubert Humphrey inside.
The movie is not so much a chronicle of Thompson’s entire life. It briefly touches on Thompson’s childhood in Louisville, but only uses it reveal his persona as a true outsider. The rest of “Gonzo” chronicles the rise, fall, and legacy of Thompson. It shows how this one man changed how we view writing, journalism, and the American Dream forever.
“Gonzo” achieves this through interviews with people who knew Thompson all too well, and those who knew him so little, yet could never get enough of him. Director Alex Gibney uses archival footage amazingly, revealing footage of Thompson the world might not have seen otherwise. There’s footage of Thompson doing drugs, being interviewed, and even swimming with dolphins. It is footage that goes beyond the usual insanity that shrouds Thompson’s image and shows that he was above all, just a normal guy. He might’ve been normal, but he was still nothing short of ordinary.
The film is not all archival footage, it often contains readings of Thompson’s brilliant writing. Those writings are read out by Johnny Depp, who so flawlessly portrayed Thompson in the film adaptation of “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” The film often contains some reenactments of past events, which are almost as well handled as anything Errol Morris did in “The Thin Blue Line.”
The film, at times, doesn’t feel like a documentary. It often lets Thompson speak for himself. We get to listen to Thompson chronicle every major event of the last 40 years from Watergate to 9/11. Through these events (and Thompson’s opinions on them), the film forms a kind of chronology, and Thompson’s words guide the course of film. There honestly could not have been a better way to bring such meaning to his writing.
If Thompson were still alive today, he would be proud of “Gonzo.” He would be proud that it is not just a film about him but for him. It portrays Nixon as a villain and displays a soundtrack full of Bob Dylan. If Thompson made a film about himself, this is surely what it would be like.
“Gonzo” is about a man who had a passion for sex, guns, and drugs, yet wasn’t a bad man. It’s about a man who was an outsider, yet shaped the political discourse of the last half of the 20th century. The best documentaries look past the flaws of the people they portray, and show what they did to truly impact the world. As the film ends with Thompson’s ashes being shot out of a cannon, he was not just being shot into the sky, but into eternity; into the realms of immortality.

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

Leave a reply

Sometimes, the only way to understand tragedy is to face it–especially when it’s projected on film. The War in Iraq has been going on for just over six years now. Over the past few years, many fine filmmakers have tried to tackle the subject, but none have come close to truly understanding it. Kathryn Bigelow, however, has perhaps come closest. Her latest film, “The Hurt Locker,” is a masterpiece, and one that may define this generation for some time to come.

“The Hurt Locker” takes place in Baghdad in 2004. It begins with Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce), a bomb disarmer. After Thompson is killed in an explosion, he is replaced by William James (Jeremy Renner). James is different from his fellow soldiers. During his military career, he disarmed over 840 bombs, and thus has become fearless. The word “dangerous” certainly does not appear in his vocabulary.
The movie doesn’t really have a plot. It is not about a major assassination attempt or a mission to destroy an enemy target. It is simply about soldiers trying to survive in Iraq; trying to survive a war where with no distinct enemy. It is a war where any civilian walking down the street could be carrying a case of C4.
At times, “The Hurt Locker” doesn’t even feel like a movie. Maybe that’s because of the grainy, shaky-cam style in which it is shot. But it could also be that every situation feels so real and so scary that it might as well have been real footage someone shipped back from Baghdad.
Maybe the reason previous films about Iraq never connected with mainstream audiences is because it was too soon to be trying to figure out the War while it was still going strong. As the War seems to finally be winding down, now seems like the time to start reflecting on it. After all, the best films about Vietnam didn’t come out until years after the conflict ended. “The Deer Hunter” was released three years after the war ended, “Apocalypse Now” was released four years after the war ended, “Platoon” eleven years, and “Full Metal Jacket” twelve years. “The Hurt Locker” is to date the best film made about Iraq. I believe though, that it may not remain that way; the film has opened up a new era of how war is portrayed on film.
In addition to being the best film made about Iraq, I believe that it is not an understatement to say that “The Hurt Locker” is one of the best war movies ever made. At times, it is scarier than any horror film. Every gun shot and every explosion send an immediate jolt to the heart.
Unlike most action films today which seem to go through every scene as quickly as possible, “The Hurt Locker” has no problem slowing things down. The scenes of a bullet being fired and a bomb blowing up are both shot in real time. When the first bomb blows up, things are slowed down so much that you can literally see metal melting and the sidewalk lift off up the ground. It is nothing short of stunning. Perhaps the scene that stuck out most was the sniper shootout. This scene takes no restraints in showing the effects of violence, and both sides are so far off that literally anything could happen at any moment.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is a movie that can be both enjoyable and moving to anyone. It does not matter whether or not you support the War, because “The Hurt Locker” does what a good war film should do: it leaves politics out. It doesn’t say we should be there. It doesn’t say we shouldn’t be there. But it does seem to ask why we are there.
The real issue at hand though, is the idea of war in general and what it does to the human soul. In one of the film’s pivotal scenes, James admires the way his infant son seems to love everything. James remarks that as one ages, you can’t love everything like that. You only stick to one, two things at most. For him, that thing is war. In a way, director Kathryn Bigelow shapes the character of William James to be something like Willard from “Apocalypse Now,” or John Rambo. That is, the soldier that has been through war so much that he now depends on it. At this point, killing (or in James’s case, disarming bombs) has become the only thing they are good at, and the only thing they really have to live for.
Many people seem to forget the true difficulties our men and women face in Iraq. “The Hurt Locker” shows it in a way that no news report could. It portrays a world in which everything is a potential danger, and anything can be made into a weapon. At one point, Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, in an unforgettable performance) reveals that he feels that so few people care about him, and his fear of being forgotten. This comment is not referring to his friends and family, but to the country in general. News everyday of soldiers being killed by car bombs seems typical to the point that no one even notices anymore. “The Hurt Locker” shows that no matter what, we must not forget.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is this year’s top contender for a Best Picture nomination. And in a year where there will be ten nominees instead of five, snubbing this unforgettable film would be almost impossible.