The Hurt Locker Is A Pretty Good Film, But Far From The Masterpiece All Those Reviews Claim It Is, Making Its Standing Among Critics Interesting To Me

First off, I forgot going into the theater today that The Hurt Locker was directed by the same woman who directed Point Break. But that makes so much sense, as it continues that Swayze-esque romanticization of male alienation with civilized society. In The Hurt Locker we have that familiar male character who only 'gets it' in the middle of the most stressful wartime experience (as counterpointed by a funny but overwrought series of soldier-back-at-home cliches). Then through a serial set of experiences we watch him be cool under pressure & wildly, nearly psychotically, inappropriate at other moments.

In short, this movie is going to be a classic for all those creepy teens who can't get enough of Apocalypse Now because they wish they could have such cinematic angst, as compared to their commonplace angst. It's extremely entertaining & fulfills plenty of war movie cliches as if it didn't know they were cliches. And it's a manly man film about who is the manliest of the men & how to be a real man you gotta be a little crazy, dude.

What bugged me while watching it was that the film portrays itself as a day-in-the-life film: no political agenda, no nonsense, just the view from the ground up in Iraq. But it takes great pains to hyper-stylize its explosion moments, thereby having it's realism cake & eating its Bad Boys 2 style action moments as well. Additionally, it also has Thin Red Line like moments of the rare, mysterious beauty of the details of being in the middle of things. All these different modes make the film kind of jumbled, like it's wearing two hats to an important party because they are both cool hats.

The 'lyric' moments are visually trite, working more as attempts at emotional establishing shots than anything fascinating unto themselves. But the action pieces are rad. And the emo-male moments are pretty affecting. In all it's an entertaining film. What confuses me is why outlets like the NYT & Time have been waxing our cars about it so vociferously. You could pretty much hear drops of AO Scott's saliva hitting the floor when reading his review.

Is it simply because it's a cool action film set in the war, whereas all the films about the Iraq/Afghanistan/Elsewhere films have been so clearly set by an political slant? Is it refreshing to them to get back to a Black Hawk Down style movie of badass war action?

Is it because so many action movies of late have sucked so much that a good action movie seems amazing now? Every anticipated action film has dudded out this summer (though I hear Crank 2 is awesome, just not so anticipated), so maybe The Hurt Locker allows a critic to have a pet action film among the films that critics are professionally obliged to review positively.

Is it because the film, with its no-agenda veneer, is so firmly supportive of the mythos of the American soldier as an ethical renegade? The film's claim to not have a political agenda, which nearly every review mentions as a positive feature of it, is really a tacit propaganda for the US military. It plays to the young male sense of alienation & implies that they'll truly understand themselves at war, regardless of the ideology of the war. Does this relaxation of ideology allow the critics to sink their teeth into the film?

I'm unclear, but the rabid support for the film is far more intriguing to me than the quality of the film itself.