I thought the first half of Hurt Locker was fantastic, the second half a little more hit or miss (mainly when it goes all hollywood with them chasing the guy, etc), but I overall agree with Eberts review, although I would have given it 3-3 1/2 stars rather than 4 due to that second half:
"Certainly James behaves recklessly at times, even in his use of protective clothing. He takes risks boldly. But in the actual task of defusing a bomb, he is as careful as if he were operating on his own heart. Bigelow uses no phony suspense-generating mechanisms in this film. No false alarms. No gung ho. It is about personalities in terrible danger. The suspense is real, and it is earned. Hitchcock said when there’s a bomb under a table, and it explodes, that’s action. When we know the bomb is there, and the people at the table play cards, and it doesn’t explode, that’s suspense.
"The Hurt Locker" is a great film, an intelligent film, a film shot clearly so that we know exactly who everybody is and where they are and what they're doing and why. The camera work is at the service of the story. Bigelow knows that you can't build suspense with shots lasting one or two seconds. And you can't tell a story that way, either -- not one that deals with the mystery of why a man like James seems to depend on risking his life. A leading contender for Academy Awards."
I understand why people don't like it though, I don't think it's a film for everybody. Despite that, A Serious Man should have been the Oscar winner that year though. That was a great movie.
I watched Eden Lake the other day, 2007 Michael Fassbender horror flick. Really intense. REALLY intense. Very good movie. Same guy who did the recently well-recieved "The Woman in Black meets Harry Potter" which I now want to see all the more.
"Certainly James behaves recklessly at times, even in his use of protective clothing. He takes risks boldly. But in the actual task of defusing a bomb, he is as careful as if he were operating on his own heart. Bigelow uses no phony suspense-generating mechanisms in this film. No false alarms. No gung ho. It is about personalities in terrible danger. The suspense is real, and it is earned. Hitchcock said when there’s a bomb under a table, and it explodes, that’s action. When we know the bomb is there, and the people at the table play cards, and it doesn’t explode, that’s suspense.
"The Hurt Locker" is a great film, an intelligent film, a film shot clearly so that we know exactly who everybody is and where they are and what they're doing and why. The camera work is at the service of the story. Bigelow knows that you can't build suspense with shots lasting one or two seconds. And you can't tell a story that way, either -- not one that deals with the mystery of why a man like James seems to depend on risking his life. A leading contender for Academy Awards."
I understand why people don't like it though, I don't think it's a film for everybody. Despite that, A Serious Man should have been the Oscar winner that year though. That was a great movie.
I watched Eden Lake the other day, 2007 Michael Fassbender horror flick. Really intense. REALLY intense. Very good movie. Same guy who did the recently well-recieved "The Woman in Black meets Harry Potter" which I now want to see all the more.
I think it's one of the best movies of the year, but I understand why it's not for everyone. It's a very different kind of film.
