The Hurt Locker

Every once in a while a war movie comes along that is so damn good, you immediately associate it with the conflict it evokes. World War Two has Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan or La vita è bella,while Vietnam has Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Full Metal Jacket(to name only a few in both cases). Thusly, it comes as no surprise that the current Irak War should have its fair share of movie material. The Hurt Locker comes and immediately becomes the definitive film that treats this difficult subject matter, because its collosal ease in putting together one of the most gritty, fascinating and powerful character studies ever put on the silver screen.

The Hurt Locker is the story of a US Army EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team during the war. Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are Sergeant William James, Sergeant JT Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge respectively. The three must cope not only with defusing bombs and other such devices, but with the tension that builds up among them. William James is brilliant at his job, but ever so reckless, causing his two teammates, who are entrusted to keep him and themselves alive and well to label him a menace. Everything escalates, as it must, and in the end, the three will be surely changed by their harrowing experiences...or will they?

The three might appear stereotypical war-movie-characters, with the brash young maverick, his more serious counterpart that keeps him in check, and the rookie that eventually learns the harsh realities of war, but are in fact not. Mark Boal has written a brilliant, low-key script that is as much an eversion of its genre as it is a tribute- I won't say more, so as not to spoil the plot, but by turning the clichés specific to this genre on their heads he ensures the viewer will invest emotionally in the characters and cares what happens to them in the end. Said ending will surely stay with the viewers for a long time, and makes the movie stand out among its counterparts.

Kathryn Bigelow establishes herself as a brilliant director with this showcase. She avoids any confusion that often plague war movies- you know what happens on-screen at all times, and crafts set-pieces of an often unbearable tension, counterbalanced by poignant scenes of human interaction in the living hell that the battlefield is. The cinematography is immersive, and the documentary feel of the movie adds to the atmosphere, delivering, in harrowing detail, a story about heroes that appear in the most unlikely places. Some scenes might seem gratuitous to the casual popcorn munching fan, since this is not a non-stop action romp, but when the action does show up, it does so in spades. After some scenes, you might just need to remove the dust and gravel from your pores.

Our hero, William James, is played by Jeremy Renner, in his "remember-the-name" role, and he is an absolute force. Renner crafts one of the most complex character studies seen in movies in a long time, and carries his weight masterfully. If at first his simple appearance might deceive, by the time the credits are rolling, you know you have witnessed the birth of a classic. Renner's towering presence should not detract from Mackie's subtle and controlled performance as Sanborn, nor Geraghty's painfully believable turn as Eldridge. Other small roles include the ever-solid Guy Pearce, David Morse and Ralph Fiennes, their small performances feeling not as cameos but rather as forceful trumps that add to the end result.

Being politically unbiased, The Hurt Locker makes no excuses for itself- whether you perceive it as a metaphor for the artist (no matter how dangerous his canvas), the justification of heroes even in places that might not evoke their necessity, or just a hard, lifelike, gut-wrenching portrait of war and the individuals that participate, you'll surely be mesmerized by Bigelow's film.

In the end, The Hurt Locker is easy to recommend, and justifies all the praise Bigelow, Boal and especially Renner received and more, both for its obvious accomplishments, but also for the things that it leaves you with long after it's over- it's as much a slap on the wrist as it is a kick to the stomach, as much a character study as a jaw-dropping narrative, as much a war-thriller as a drama.

Essential.

10/10 Stefan

Stefan reviews "Avatar" (english)

Avatar is a rare type of movie: an event, something you jot down on your calendars and eagerly await for. As soon as news broke out of James Cameron returning to movies, and to sci-fi in particular, I knew this was going to be special. And special is exactly the word that best describes Cameron's project: from the huge budget ($237 million, officially, although some figures are closer to the $300 million mark), the fact that as of yesterday, it's the highest grossing motion picture of all time (surpassing Cameron's Titanic), and the technology is absolutely mind-blowing. But is the film any good?

Avatar takes place in the year 2154, on Pandora, a lush, vegetation-rich world, in the Alpha Centauri system. The plot's well known by now: Humans use Avatars (bio-engineered Na'vi bodies with human DNA, in which they transfer their consciousness)to relate to the indigenous population, the Na'vi, because they want to exploit Pandora's huge Unobtainium resources. Obviously, the Na'vi are sitting on a huge stockpile of it, and here comes Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) into play. He's the twin of one of the scientists who was supposed to be an Avatar operator,and steps in for his now-deceased brother. He quickly meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a female Na'vi who turns out to be the daughter of the village shaman. The rest of the plot is not especially original, but more on that later.

Most of the action takes place on the surface in the lush jungles of Pandora, and visually, this is an absolute masterpiece. Cameron's crafted a stupendous view of an alien world, one that immediately evokes the viewer's childhood, when everything you see on a screen is as real as it gets. A short interlude- for the five of you that have not seen this movie, and for the few of you that have seen it in 2D: Go see this movie in 3D! The bigger the screen the better! Don't wait for the DVD, do not download. It's the most spectacular showcase of technology we've seen in cinemas since The Matrix exploded in 1999. Most 3D movies are plagued by that "gimmicky feel", but Avatar's 3D is not gratuitous, the movie relies on it to create its special atmosphere and really pulls you in. It's the closest you can come to visiting an alien world, for the foreseeable future at least.

I feel Avatar is Cameron's most personal project, and it shows. This is a cohesive package, everything seems to have its place, and with the exception of a few gratuitous scenes (you'll know them when you see them, trust me), you understand why, when and especially how everything is happening. It's also a long and condensed movie, lots of things happen, but time whizzes by. Cameron makes this seem effortless. The action scenes are fast-paced, and although the entire third act is nonstop action, the scenes are so beautifully rendered, and because we've invested emotionally in the characters already, we actually care what the outcome is.

Unfortunately, the other reason the movie passes by so quickly is because it's not particularly original, as far as the plot is concerned. I'll spare you from saying that the plot is similar to this movie, or that movie, I'm sure you can find plenty. If the cliché fits the genre, you will find it here (grisly, old and extremely dangerous military figure? Check. Young, cocky, ruthless corporate lackey? Check. The obligatory environmental/social/historical subtext? Triple Check!). Clichéd however is not bad, not in this instance. Cameron's always been good at dressing up less-than-perfect movie ideas in larger-than-life casts, effects and a snappy script. Avatar makes no exception.

The acting is solid all-around. Sam Worthington is a real find as far as I'm concerned, he strikes me as an action hero that can actually act, giving real depth and emotion to Sully, a role that could have been just as easily botched-up. Worthington keeps his performance balanced, and the viewer can immediately identify with him. Zoe Saldana, his female lead is a delight, mesmerizingly natural, especially considered we never see her without CGI. Avatar's technology finally solves the inherent problem CGI faced, the conveying of human emotions, and the subtle facial expressions essential for the viewer.

Sigourney Weaver is excellent, as usual, playing the head of the Avatar project, Dr. Grace Augustine. Her role as a foul-mouthed, chain smoking scientist is one of the highlights of the movie. As far as acting is concerned though, Stephen Lang is the absolute best this movie has to offer. His role as Colonel Miles Quaritch is so over the top, from the scars, to the badass lines ("This low gravity will make you soft. And when you get soft, Pandora will eat you whole and shit you out."), you can't help but chuckle and wonder what else he's got up his sleeve.

In the end, Avatar is not a perfect movie, and if you don't have bloated expectations, you will be impressed. If you excuse its small hiccups as far as the plot is concerned,a few cookie-cutter characters,and a plot twist or two you can see coming a mile away, and don't mind it becoming a little too overt in its environmental message, you will be putty in Cameron's able hands. It's not the best movie 2009 had to offer, but it surely is the most spectacular experience you can have in a movie theater at this time.

9/10 Stefan