MUSIC REVIEW - How To Destroy Angels EP

I’m a little puzzled at the existence of this How to Destroy Angels. Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that Trent Reznor is still making music. The fact he’s decided to do so with his new wife is wonderful… I think. How to Destroy Angels seems like a good idea from afar, but once you get up close you have to wonder what it’s trying to be. A new band? Or Nine Inch Nails with a feminine flare?

Regardless of what this band is suppose to be, the new EP is a huge let down. “A Drowning” and “The Spaces in Between” represent the two best tracks on the project, but they were released prior to the EP. When the rest is poor electronica that sound like scrapped NIN demos why bother?

While “Fur Lined” is probably the next best thing on the album, it won’t keep you from wondering where Trent’s vocals are. At this point the similarities between How to Destroy Angels and NIN are so close that it feels like even lead singer Mariqueen Maandig is putting on her best Reznor impression.

Even “A Drowning,” the best piece on the album, is too NIN inspired to stand alone, but it certainly gives listeners a taste of the real talent behind the project. Meanwhile, “Parasite” would have been better off as an instrumental and “BBB’s” ridiculous lyrics want us to, “listen to the sound of my big black boots.” Why? Is it a comparison of lame reverberation?

Again, “The Spaces in Between” has a lot of fire behind it, and “The Drowning” is an atmospheric masterpiece, but beyond that the EP is an unfocused jumble of half-hearted songs. If Team-Reznor can get stray from the NIN sound with this one it would probably be for the best. The potential for something new and great is there, so I still look forward to a full-length album. But lets stay away from the inspiration of “big black boots” next time. Shall we?

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Iron Man 2

I can’t lie. As I watched Iron Man 2 I was having a great time. I was laughing at the jokes, smiling at the action sequences—Overall I was having fun. So why? Why did I feel like something was off? The answer is somewhat annoying, but rather simple. Iron Man 2 is a trick. It tricks you in to having such a good time that it’s hard to find the flaws. After all, this is a film showcasing Robert Downey Jr.’s smooth, but self-serving swagger, various forms of the universally loved Iron Man, and a strong cast of players in a superhero film. What’s not to love?

As Tony Stark returns to the screen, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) decides its time to put him in his place. In an attempt to avenge the legacy of his father, Vanko agrees to an uneasy partnership with Tony’s less talented corporate rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) resulting in slam-bang-boom showdown. Meanwhile, Tony struggles with some issues of his own concerning the arc reactor in his chest, his relationship with Pepper and the inevitable references to the upcoming Avengers film.

There’s a lot going on in this movie. Director Favreau did a pretty good job keeping the story elements as easy to follow as possible, but I wonder how much better it would have been had he taken an axe to the script. The Avengers build up was way too much. You might notice I don’t mention Scarlett Johansson in my synopsis. That’s because she does nothing. Oh sure, we can all pretend she was a monkey wrench in Tony and Pepper’s relationship, but that’s part of the trick. Her involvement in making Pepper jealous was dropped to reveal her as a SHEILD agent and reintroduce Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. Dear Marvel, we don’t need commercial breaks in the middle of your films to advertise The Avengers. Love, GMAN.

Despite the clunky Avenger stops, Robert Downey Jr. throws on his A-Game with Mickey Rourke, who once again proves why he should have won the Academy Award. (Go to hell Mr. Penn.) Sam Rockwell also throws down an great performance as the dislikable, and embarrassing, Justin Hammer. It’s hard to decide who made the better villain, Rourke or Rockwell. They were both very different characters, but fun to watch despite the bumpy writing surrounding their partnership. If anything held this movie together it was the actors.

Downey Jr. specifically seems to have a way with making the most out of his characters. Here Tony Stark is faced with a slow, but certain death. The film explores this in pieces, showing him drunk and belligerent to the point of battling his own friend. But the script never hits home how badly this is affecting Stark. Instead, Downey Jr. does all the heavy lifting to evoke, at the very least, the idea that he is dieing and has accepted that fate. I wish this were explored further, but with the government trying to get the Iron Man suit, Vanko teaming with Hammer, the Avenger previews and Pepper’s love life… who has time for that?

The climax was fun, but oddly unsatisfying. While War Machine and Iron Man were around to root for, I wondered why Vanko was behind a desk most of the time. That about sums up the movie: Pleasing to sit through, but strange to look back on. How can a movie that was so enjoyable leave such a bitter aftertaste? Being tricked is no fun sometimes, but it's up to the audience to happily embrace the deception. The actors and director masked the weak script the best they could. I admit it! It worked! For the most part...

**½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Kick-Ass

When you finish a movie and the person next to you exclaims, “…the fuck did I just watch?” it normally gives off a negative reaction toward the film. In my world, more often than not, it means it's truly liked. And like the loose language in the film itself those same words were uttered like a storm of applause when Kick-Ass ended.

When high-school nerd Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) wonders why no one will brave the tights of a superhero, he takes on the task himself. Unfortunately, he inadvertently gets involved with two vigilantes who can do the job better than he and a crime boss confused with their existence. Add some blood, fantastic one-liners and a jar full of irony and you have Kick-Ass.

If you’ve seen only the previews to Kick-Ass you know it’s a comedy. If you don’t know it’s a comedy, guess what? It is. Surprise. But what makes it work is everything it stands for. Kick-Ass asks why we love superheroes and why it’s a good idea and a terrible idea to be one. It answers these questions with a rush of reverence, idiocy and a rather unsettling look at propaganda.

Dave is not a superhero. He is a child in love with iconic fictional characters and what they stand for. He is so enamored by them he decides to become one in hopes of supporting their ideals. Alright. It’s time for another skit of Good Idea/Bad Idea. Good Idea: Standing up for the ideals that Superman and Batman do. The world knows these characters enough to agree with the reasons behind what they do. Furthermore, who doesn’t want to take a stand against evil and all that is wrong? Bad idea: The fictional characters of Batman and Superman have specific skills and powers that force audience members into suspending disbelief. Dressing up in a costume to literally fight crime results in Kick-Ass getting his ass kicked. And rest assured he spends more time having his name handed to him than living up to it. The outcome is hysterical. Love it.

But by far, the show stealer is Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz), an eleven-year-old girl with a stronger skill set than Dave (by miles). Her father (Nic Cage) has brainwashed her into avenging her mother’s death by use of soccer moms’ biggest complaint against superheroes: The violence. Truthfully, her reasons behind being a "superhero" are no different than Batman’s or Spider-Man’s. The controversial part lies in her age. But something surprising happens with her. Instead of having her life ruined Hit Girl becomes responsible. She proves she has not become a mindless killer. Her mission is to avenge her mother and that’s it! Now you could argue she’s been programmed to do that and once the program is finished so is she, but that’s going too far. Plus, a lot of it is simply that it’s hysterical to watch an eleven-year-old girl annihilate the shit out of an army of crime pawns.

And thus we come to the to the final stretch of this amusing social commentary on superheroes and their legacy. I can talk about the film’s intricate meaning all day, but it only works with the action as a very powerful punctuation. Kick-Ass’s final foray into superhero-dom teamed with Hit Girl’s bloody vendetta splatters with a genius mesh of slapstick and action. It is everything you want to happen—Saying it delivers is an understatement. Sure a lot of the action is what takes the authenticity out of the film’s glaring satire. In fact the entire movie takes baby steps toward total absurdity as if it’s trying to trick the audience. There is no connection with reality by the end. But despite that rather muffled flaw the characters make it all work out. So is it funny? Absolutely, but it’s also something to mull over once finished. Recommended for a laugh. Also recommended for a look.

*** out of ****

MUSIC REVIEW - Story of the Year - The Constant

As fine of a band as Story of the Year is they’ve hit plenty of highs and lows. With The Constant I’m starting to wonder if they have some Star Trek-esque odd/even curse. Their first and third albums were borderline masterpieces, while the sophomore effort was as uninspired as music gets. The Constant doesn’t sink to the low that In the Wake of Determination did, but it’ll have you running back to The Black Swan pretty quickly.

The album starts out well enough with “The Children Sing,” and “The Ghost of You and I,” which is one of the albums’ strongest songs. But would-be epics like “The Burial” come off as monotonous and the slower ballads like “Remember the Time” and “I’m Alive” are instantly forgettable.

And what is it with these bands trying to cash in on Anberlin’s “Feel Good Drag?” Like Atreyu’s “Bleeding is a Luxery,” off of Congregation of the Damned, the opening to “The Dream is Over” sounds suspiciously like Anberlin’s Joseph Milligan rolling in to the “Drag”. It’s also one of the best tracks on The Constant though, so I guess both SotY and Atreyu owe Anberlin a big thank you.

I’ll give a hand to “Holding on to You” as well. It sounds like a throwback to Page Avenue’s gorgeous ballads and it's a catchier piano effort than Black Swan’s "Terrified." Though it's a shame the album didn’t end with “Ten Years Down” or “Time Goes On.” While neither are particularly memorable songs, they would have been more appreciated closers than the messy “Eye for an Eye.” Then again the group has always struggled to end their records well.

Being one of my favorite bands I can hold a nice little place in my heart for some of these tracks. But I also know they can offer so much more. Even at it’s best The Constant isn’t particularly brilliant. It’s just another rock album. Maybe that’s what the record’s title is referring to though…

** out of ****

ANIME CORNER - Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - DVD Part 3

Well, dear God. Gundam has been many things over the years—Preachy, action packed, contrived, groundbreaking; but never has the series been so relevant as it is with Gundam 00. This comes with an emotional presence that I’ve rarely felt over the series’ thirty-year run of Universal Century, Wing and SEED.

Though I was initially turned off by the inclusion of the Trinity Gundams, their storyline twists in to a very unexpected conclusion. Furthermore, I have to thank those characters for throwing Celestial Being in to self-serving situations that reveal more background about these fantastic characters. Setsuna and Lockon discover a very unsettling bond that actually strengthens their friendship and tightens the Gundam meisters’ relationships as a whole.

The supporting characters never seem to float to the center of the meisters’ lives, but they maintain their relevance due to how the Gundam’s actions affect them. Saji Crossroad (a non-too subtle name for a person inadvertently crossing paths with Setsuna) loses everything he holds dear due to the Gundam’s interventions—Both by Team Trinity and Celestial Being. His storyline should be the most boring and non-crucial arc in the entire series. I have to give the writers props for getting me to care about him and his life. Saji is crucial because his trials represent the flaws behind the Gundam’s actions. He is not a soldier. He’s not a man who will surely seek revenge against the Gundams and become a pilot in a cliché move to be the next villain. He is a scared boy whose life was destroyed by a terrible string of world events and, like most people, he moves on. Never say, “it doesn’t concern me.”

On the flip side, Setsuna’s character reaches a half-hearted conclusion about his plan to fight fire with fire—It’s not assuredly strong, but it’s enough to keep the character going as we see some fan favorites get obliterated. A rather surprising swan song represents one of the best moments in the Gundam series and a demise for anime fans everywhere to remember. (I’m still cursing the sky over this one.)

Meanwhile, Team Trinity’s story is wrapped with much tragedy, escalating the battle against Celestial Being to new heights; placing adversaries in the perfect face-offs and closing the technological gap between Earth’s forces and the Gundam units. This is where the suspense begins to take center stage and the build-up is more than enough to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. Suddenly the Gundams aren’t the god-like juggernauts we’ve seen and the meisters find themselves drawing the short end.

The final chapter to the season isn’t without faults though. Soma Peries, a supporting player I had initially despised, is showcased a great deal but doesn’t become the interesting character she should be until the show’s final moments. Oh, it's season 2 cliffhanger material for sure, but it would’ve been nice to pull that card earlier. The Trinity’s existence is somewhat glazed over. The pseudo-explanation was better than some of Lost’s attempts, but left a faint look of confusion on my face regardless.

Though nothing disappointed me more than Setsuna’s final showdown with Graham Aker. It’s as if the writers ran out of time and decided to slip in Graham’s vendetta at last minute. It was an unjust move for such a strong character, but at least the spouting of differences between him and Setsuna make for an interesting, though pretentious, commentary on the world.

It’s not without some glaring flaws and a lot of questions to answer in season 2, but season 1 of Gundam 00 ends with some intense action, gut-wrenching character closure and a promise that the next twenty-five episodes will be interesting indeed. Universal Century fans can revile it all they want for having powerful Gundams, or pretty-boy character designs. The fact is 00 pushed the series in to a new and relevant place. As good as Unicorn looks, I don’t think it will do the same.

***½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Alice in Wonderland

It’s very possible that Tim Burton’s best days are long behind him. If you’ve never read Alice in Wonderland, do me a favor. Google it. Read the synopsis on Wikipedia. Or go on Sparknotes. Then continue this review. Done? Pretty ridiculous right? For better or for worse, it sounds like the type of bizarre story that Burton ejaculates on the screen every time he’s given a script. Burton was once an inspiring visual master-- Baking a unique, yet beautiful cake with great characters standing atop some wonderfully bizarre icing. (Edward Scissorhands anyone? Beetlejuice? Batman?) Alright, alright. I should really stop looking at what these great directors used to be… I know. So what’s wrong with Alice in Wonderland? Problem number one, and the main flaw, it doesn’t feel like Alice in Wonderland at all.

Alice, now all-grow’d-up, once again follows a White Rabbit to a bizarre world where she re-unites with the Mad Hatter and other beloved characters. She then struggles to remember her previous journey to Wonderland and accept the destiny of saving it... and slay a dragon. “Well no shit it doesn’t feel like Alice in Wonderland, GMAN! It’s a different story!” Noted. But you can’t make a sequel to a classic book without keeping to what made it legendary. Instead, the unfittingly epic battles pushed the film’s atmosphere closer to a Narnia flick than anything Lewis Carroll would’ve approved for Alice.

Burton stated that he felt the book was nothing more than Alice wandering from one inane character to another. Perhaps, but it was the quirkiness of these characters and the lack of sense-making that garnered such a huge following. I’m sure fans would have rather watched Alice recite “Tis the Voice of the Lobster” instead of slay a dragon. I stand firm in the position that casual moviegoers who are not familiar with the source material could've also enjoyed the peculiar world without a re-play of Prince Caspin’s climax. The action was a cop out and it was an unnecessary focus to a world that was fine without it.

Oh, sure, the visuals are great and the character designs are what we have come to expect of Burton’s films. Surprisingly, even Johnny Depp is subdued, keeping the film focused on the title character. I was in shock that this was one of the praiseworthy things about the movie. I mean, really-- How easy would it have been for Depp’s Hatter to upstage Mia Wasikowska’s Alice? Do I shake the editor’s hand or Burton’s? I know it’s not the writer’s doing.

Even with the unlikelihood that Alice would have gone on such a bombastic journey in Wonderland, I suppose the film’s story could have worked had it maintained the odd quirks that make Wonderland a wonder. Lewis Carroll is often accused of being high while writing Alice’s adventures. I can’t say I thought the same of Burton while watching his vision. (Although I’m sure someone could make the case…) Such a misfire comes off as utterly forgettable and that, my three or four readers out there in the inter-webs, is a much greater sin than being outright terrible. (Example.)

* out of ****

Top 5 Best and Worst of 2009

It’s that time kids. My top five best and worst films of 2009. The list pretty much speaks for itself, so lets roll with it:


TOP 5 BEST OF 2009



5. Public Enemies **** out of ****
Nope it wasn’t nominated for anything. It wasn’t even particularly well received by critics, but that’s their loss. Johnny Depp flexes some of his best acting muscles and Christian Bale is equally impressive. Meanwhile, it’s absolutely criminal that Billy Crudup was not nominated for a supporting actor. Despite the lack of attention given to this fine film, Michael Mann made an excellent comeback with this top notch, suave and thrilling period piece. Gangster films tend to look worse and worse as years go by, but Public Enemies put the “cool” back in it while extending the beautiful merits of digital cinema.

FULL REVIEW



4. Up **** out of ****
A movie I wish I saw earlier in the year. After Pixar proved they could go outside the box with their stories in Wall-E, Up proved that great story telling can be minimalistic, but take different forms—And I’m not talking about the fact it’s a CG animated motion picture. With a gut-wrenching opening, impressively chalked with nearly no lines, and a wonderful reverence to the value of time (and life), Up ranks among Pixar’s very best films.

NOT REVIEWED



3. Inglourious Basterds **** out of ****
Where do I begin? If it’s not Tarantino’s best movie, which I think it is, then it’s at least my favorite. A return to form for the great director, Inglourious Basterds is tiled with memorable characters, great laughs and some of the most fascinating scenes to grace the screen in years. His craft has never looked this perfect and my love for film has seldom been as passionate as it is when I watch this movie.


FULL REVIEW



2. Up in the Air **** out of ****
Jason Reitman knocks another one out of the park. Bringing text-book modernism back to the screen turned out to be a wonderful move. Up in the Air explores the paths of living in the current economic climate and ends at a destination of your choice. Strong and very funny characters carry the audience along for the journey.


FULL REVIEW



1. The Hurt Locker **** out of ****
And this is the one. Kathryn Bigelow’s war tale isn’t so much about war as it is about those who fight them. Focusing on an adrenaline fueled main character, played by the impressive Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker expresses the deepest and darkest fears of those involved in war—Including the love for it. It’s the Saving Private Ryan of our generation and it scares the hell out of me. “Awesome.” Simply put, and you can’t call too many “bests of the year” this, but it is absolutely “awesome.” I’ll be rooting for it Sunday night.

FULL REVIEW


TOP 5 WORST MOVIES OF 2009




5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine *½ out of ****
Though I’ll admit it gets better with repeated viewings, it’s still a mess. What should have been a dark, psychological origin story turns in to a bad X-Men 4, with characters that shouldn’t be involved and some really poor writing. Sure the action is fun, but reducing the title character to survive every suicidal stunt possible makes him a bore. So why care about him?


FULL REVIEW


4. The Men Who Stare At Goats * out of ****
Hippy bullshit for the masses. An all-star cast of some of the world’s best actors slip and fall face first in the dirt clot that is this movie’s script. Incoherent, contrived and contradicting-- Goats had the potential of a great movie. But it’s not a great movie. It’s just a great, big, boring disappointment. What a waste.

FULL REVIEW


3. The Hangover * out of ****
Because there’s not enough stupid, college student targeted Mt. Everests of crap out there. What scares me is that this film, the same EXACT humor we’ve seen in other terrible movies i.e. Wedding Crashers, Superbad, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin..etc… is what passes off as funny to its target audience: Dumb college students. The future of our world assuring more bad comedy is made! Lets go through the list of predictability: Drunk jokes. Check. Not sure what happened on the “crazy” night before to incite certain [non]humor. Check. Bad Las Vagas clichés. Check. Bad movie. Check and mate.

NOT REVIEWED


2. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ½ out of ****
Big, loud and stupid can be fun if the flick has certain charm to it. But this doesn’t. Bay tries way too hard to make it the “ultimate” summer flick, but bigger isn’t always better, and a lack of restraint seems to be dangerous. It’s as if the movie prefers to be as dumb as possible—Such a film makes me wonder how some directors/writers get away with what they do. Then again, what producer okays it?

FULL REVIEW


1. Dragonball: Evolution ½ out of ****
‘Nuff said…

FULL REVIEW

MOVIE REVIEW - Up in the Air

There’s a lot to be said about a film that examines the philosophy of living space. Materialistic living and courtly relationships have to be questioned without resolve in order to pull off the idea that there are many ways to go about one’s life. Up in the Air does just that—Without turning in to a giant cliché of any given film genre, director Jason Reitman’s latest masterpiece is relevant enough to tantalize the hearts of those unsure about jobs, relationships and, ultimately, where the hell to go in life.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) travels nearly non-stop from city to city to “dismiss” people being laid-off. When his frequent flyer miles plunges him in to a potential relationship, (Alex) an ambitious, but a naive new co-worker (Natalie) shadows him and prompts him to look at his happy seclusion in a different light.

Once again my vague synopses put readers at a disadvantage, but to divulge any further would take away from the films’ experience. Furthermore, as preachy as I make this movie, it actually stays away from being over-bearing. Instead of feeling like a pretentious art house boob with unrelatable insights, it reaches far in to the climate of today’s troubles and beyond.

Clooney’s Bingham is the man everyone does and does not want to be. He twists and turns throughout the movie with a slow exit from certainty. Is living on the move from one hotel to another really what he wants? Is Natalie’s American dream more likable? Is Ryan’s poor, underprivileged brother-in-law’s quest for love-over-success worth it? Like most modernistic films there’s not so much a straight answer as there is an examination. And there in lies the beauty of Up in the Air—It really is up in the air.

One of Reitman’s great talents is always pulling out the best of characters in the worst conditions, and what’s great is that their choices are never predictable! If Juno was his take on adult-like adolescence, Up in the Air is his extreme evolution of characters from Thank You for Smoking. Bingham, like Eckhart’s character in Smoking, is suave, smart and more professional than your dad on career day. But later on the many roads of life haunt him; though he ushers those who have lost jobs to take different paths every day, the same suggestion causes him to lose a focus many people can relate to. (Don’t tell me you’ve never looked at the ceiling and wondered, “What the hell am I suppose to be doing/should do/want to do.?” Angst. Tears. My Chemical Romance. All that fun stuff.)

Thankfully, instead of telling the audience there’s only one correct path, Reitman leaves us with a mesmerized Ryan Bingham, looking at the different paths he could take for his future. Reminding me of Cast Away's ending, Up in the Air throws a whole list of air travel destinations instead of a three-way road. I find Bingham’s choices a little more realistic. Sure such a list can be overwhelming, but when is life not overwhelming? Plus look at all the fun destinations! I really enjoyed where Reitman went with this film and if he continues this type of quality he may end up being one of the very best modern directors of our time. If it's not his best film, it's close.

**** out of ****

Elements of Film Art - Sullivan's Travels and Preaching Not to Preach

I'll be posting these "reaction papers" every week. Originally for a class, these short write-ups are mainly simple overviews of elements from films I've screened in classes. These are primarily written for those who have seen the film, so if you haven't watched the movie of topic it won't make a lot of sense. Moving on...

--------------------

It’s amazing how one’s perception on a film changes within its own running time. Although I greatly enjoyed Sullivan’s Travels by the end of the movie I could only think about how its existence is a contradiction.

Sullivan’s Travels begins with great promise, but as it moves forward I can’t help but wonder if it lost its identity. Supposedly a screwball comedy, Sullivan’s Travels certainly doesn’t evoke the same laughter that His Girl Friday does. In fact the comedy feels very second tier to the dramatic elements. It’s almost as if director Sturges wanted exactly what Sullivan wants in the movie: To make a serious picture about the men and women suffering during the economic crisis. But to avoid looking too hypocritical, given the script’s “message,” he sprinkles some comedy here or there to pass it off as a screwball delight.

Now I doubt that’s really how Sturges thought of this movie, but its insight does confuse me. After spending so much time with a montage on the poor and watching the characters experience similar conditions the audience is given an ending that makes it all feel like a fluke. If laughter is really all people need, or want, then why did a “tramp” steal Sullivan’s shoes and money?

While looking through information on Sullivan’s Travels I stumbled upon a quote from The Hollywood Reporter that adequately sums up my feelings for the film, “[The film] fails to heed the message that writer Sturges proves in his script. Laughter is the thing people want-not social studies." Indeed if Sullivan’s final line were the case, where’s the laughter? Watching an ocean of homeless engulf an alley and dine on trashcans isn’t exactly hysterical. Sure Sullivan and “The Girl” grant us a few laughs, but it’s never a straight shot.

Going back to my His Girl Friday comparison, a movie I consider the king of screwball comedies, that film granted laughs every ten seconds. Sullivan’s Travels, however, lingers from one genre to another without a smooth transition. (For example, after the amusing image of a sick Sullivan swearing he’ll go back on the streets fades away the audience is gifted with a depressing montage of tramp-life at its finest.) Despite its screwball comedy reputation there’s heavy attention to serious drama. Include a moral that makes my head spin and I remain confused as to how seriously I should (or should not) take the film. On the other hand, such a contradicting film could be considered a work of genius. Like a double negative, maybe it’s supposed to support both a social commentary and a surrender to thoughtless entertainment. Although, either way it still feels messy.

MOVIE REVIEW - The Hurt Locker

About halfway through The Hurt Locker, Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) stumbles upon a crude bomb workspace with a locker standing between two desks. There is no mention of it by the characters. They don’t open it, hell, I don’t think they even look at it. I can assume there are only bomb parts in that locker, thus making it a candidate for the film’s title. Of course the real hurt locker is present-day Iraq, but I have to wonder if that ominous locker was placed for its own aesthetic metaphor. It may sound pretentious, but it’s these same nuances that make The Hurt Locker the masterpiece it is.

Sgt. William James becomes the new team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. His teammates deem him reckless in his search for adrenaline—In contrast Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) is extremely by-the-book with the way he handles bomb tasks, and Spc. Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) lives every day in fear of death. The disparity between James and Eldridge is the most interesting comparison of today's soldiers. Whereas James will march in to a wired car without any protection, Eldridge is constantly seeking counsel from commanding officers. The film begins with a quote from journalist Chris Hedges, "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." This line becomes the crutch of James’ character, and it’s a crutch that scares the hell out of me.

Going back to the EOD’s infiltration of an insurgent bomb facility, James finds himself with a dead body-bomb in which he believes was a child he befriended earlier. Whether it is the child or not becomes a mute point as James continuously searches for more reasons to enter combat. This is a side of reality I’ve always been interested to see explored. So few movies touch on the soldiers who know nothing but war. Sure, First Blood was built on that, but it didn’t retain the believability that The Hurt Locker does. It’s not that James is a bad person. He’s not a warmonger or a ruthless killer by any means. In fact he may have fired the least amount of weapons in the entire movie. He simply only knows how to acknowledge his existence in the battlefield.

Along with the near-maddening mentality the characters ooze off the screen comes a tension unmatched by most films of the last decade. Prepare to chew your arm off as a frustrated James scrambles to defuse a car bomb while more and more on-lookers gather. Any of them could hold the detonator. Any of them could have planted the bomb. But no one knows for sure. It’s maddening that this is the type of combat that goes on today. Such knowledge only increases the nails-on-a-chalkboard suspense that crosses from the screen to your gut.

Oh no worries. Your stomach gets a break from all the punching the movie gives you now and then. (Amusingly, our main characters play a “manly” game of hitting each other in the gut that seems to embody what the movie is doing to its audience.) But when the last minute of the movie spins to Sgt. James’s destiny a far more terrifying realization hit me. He’s necessary. In a world with such insane venues as Iraq, this fictional character is a must. And then, perhaps just as scary, I become at ease with the idea that people like him exist. Should I? Don't know. Maybe I feel safer or maybe I'm just glad its not me out there.

With this fixation on William James, I can’t say The Hurt Locker is specifically about the Iraq War. It’s even possible the title refers to any battlefield a man stands on, but I won’t proclaim the movie is, “just about war.” Such a cliché undermines its value. Rather, The Hurt Locker stands for warriors—Warriors of today and their mentality during battle. They might be scared or they might be fearless. They could feel empowered or they might appear powerless. They might not like each other, but they’ll live with each other. The Hurt Locker doesn’t stand on a side of the political fence it worries about the modern day American soldier. If this film is any indication their job isn’t as easy as looking for a sign that says “bad guy” and squeezing the trigger. Nope, when the smoke clears, The Hurt Locker feels more like a horror picture than a war flick. Perhaps that’s an indicator of its realism. I’d have to go to Iraq to know for sure. Watch this movie and let me know if you're up for the trip.

**** out of ****