I finally saw this movie, and here are some of my thoughts:

There is definitely a lot to praise about Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, but I would argue that the character design isn't one of them. The characters' psychologies were predictable, unconvincingly simplistic, and full of cliches. There are no characters here that can't be found in other movies. When the revelatory moment of a film involves one man realizing that war is terrible and another that war is the only thing he loves, it becomes clear that character psychology is not the groundbreaking aspect of the film (the cinematography and editing are good candidates, however). We have the wide-eyed, gentle-hearted youth, the savvy, experienced, and extremely cautious team member, and the maverick: all established "types." Of course, character types are found in most Hollywood movies, but the film doesn't appear to add anything original or interesting to their basic qualities. Combined with the film's episodic narrative structure, which does little in the first 3/4 to lead up to these characters' supposedly grand epiphanies, I believe that this is an example of virtuosic visual and audio style, but is a story that lacks true meaning.

Narrative aside, some may consider the film a masterpiece because it exposes viewers to the reality (read: graphicness) of war. Though it is probably good for average Americans to be reminded of the horrors that are occurring overseas, I believe that this is a benefit which has less to do with Bigelow's skills as a filmmaker, and more to do with viewers' reactions to the intense violence played out on the screen. Explosions and gore are nothing new to Hollywood (they are, in fact, its main staple), and as special effects improve, so does the realism and impact of violent sequences, regardless of their context within the film or the talent of the director. One hundred and twenty minutes of hyper-realistic, ultra-graphic explosions during conflicts between American soldiers and Iraqis would provide the same benefit that is supposedly gained from The Hurt Locker: a "look" into the Iraq war for the average American.

Of course, The Hurt Locker's scenes may be very realistic, but there is a great different between "realistic" and "real." Despite undoubted hours of research, the film cannot be considered a true portrayal of day-to-day military activities. Yes, the war must be incredibly violent, filled with unimaginable horror, and Bigelow's movie can remind us of that, but The Hurt Locker should not be mistaken for an actual, or even accurate, documentation of the Iraq War. The film has had many criticisms from war veterans [Newsweek] for being inaccurate. If your thoughts and beliefs about this war are affected by plot points from the movie, you may be somewhat misguided. But if you appreciate it for its ability to link disturbingly violent images with the often abstract concept of "war," then you are in good company.

My main praise for the film, however, lies in its visual style. The intense mixture of focal lengths, shot scales, and camera movement, along with the bold editing which crushes them all together into an immediate and visceral experience, completely devoured me.

The light is hot;
My parchment skin
I must conceal
From solar grin,

Else it should burn
Through brain and blood
And I am turned
To blackened mud.

Pedestrians with distracted rage --
Frantic dancers on the stage.
The music low so we all hear
The grunting, pounding, squeaking, clear.
And wand'ring fast with mouths pulled tight
They cut through triangles of light
And keep their foreheads at the ground;
Toward the curtained wings they're bound
Where silent eyes are blocked from view
And then the dances are all through.