I'm not challenging Summit Entertainment's decision to wait until sometime in '09 to release Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, which, even with its modest shortcomings, is unquestionably one of the best crafted, big-jolt action thrillers of the year. Well, actually I am. Why not open it on a modest platform basis in December and then put it out in late January or February, say?

I understand Summit's concerns. The fall and year-end periods are locked up tight in terms of theatres and heavy-duty competition. It's a scary time for indie-sized distributors right now, and it's a murderously expensive proposition to open a film over the next three and a half months. Plus there's no guarantee that the ostriches who've refused to see other Iraq-themed films won't do the same here. (I still believe that all the people who voted for Bush in '04 should be forced to watch each and every Iraq War film, in the same way Alex was forced to watch violent films in Clockwork Orange with those eyelid-clamp devices and eyedrops.)
Summit's decision feels disappointing for three reasons. One, The Hurt Locker is not just an Iraq War movie -- it's a first-rate thriller that works (at least partially) as a kind of revisiting of James Cameron's Aliens. Second, all strong movies based upon real-life experience and set in a fluid, ongoing situation like the Iraq War obviously lose potency and timeliness when they sit on a shelf. (Bigelow's film began shooting, remember, in Jordan right after Brian DePalma finished filming Redacted, and that film played at last year's Venice and Toronto festivals and opened ten months ago.) And third, it just feels wrong for a film as good as this to be kept out of the year-end derby, although I wouldn't necessarily call it Best Picture material. (Thrillers never make it on this level.) It's certainly good enough to potentially end up on Ten-Best critics lists, and it's at least plausible that Jeremy Renner could drum up some Best Actor heat.
"Set in Baghdad and the full maelstrom of that godforsaken conflict," I recently wrote, "this is a full-power, nail-biting, bomb-defusal suspense film that gradually becomes a kind of existential nerve ride about the risk and uncertainty of everything and anything, plus an explanation of the addiction that war is for some guys who go through it and can't quite leave it alone.
"The Hurt Locker is absolutely a classic war film in the tradition of Platoon, The Thin Red Line, Pork Chop Hill, Paths of Glory and the last 25% of Full Metal Jacket, and it damn well better be acquired by someone and set for release sometime between now and 12.31. Because I'm getting tired of this shit."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM
comment #1
p.Vice
says ...
I would be dying to see this were it not for everyone writing about how the second half of the movie gets tanked by the subplot with the Iraqi kid. I guess maybe the Aliens influence was so heavy they needed to drop a Carrie Henn surrogate in somewhere?
Posted by p.Vice
at September 18, 2008 7:15 PM
comment #2
televisiontears
says ...
I'm really hoping to see this soon, but it seems that it could make a much bigger splash in the early '09 wasteland. If Summit can find a spot between the Oscars and Watchmen, I'd like to think it could do decent business (i.e. at least make its money back).
Jeff, I disagree that thrillers aren't Academy material. We just had No Country this year, and The Departed in '07. On that note, I'd love to see Tell No One in a couple of categories (other than Best Foreign Language, obviously).
Posted by televisiontears
at September 18, 2008 7:25 PM
comment #3
actionman
says ...
I really, really, really want to see this film.
Posted by actionman
at September 18, 2008 7:36 PM
comment #4
BurmaShave
says ...
I have no problem with a great film being released in the first quarter of 2009. Something to look forward to.
Posted by BurmaShave
at September 18, 2008 7:49 PM
comment #5
Jack Price
says ...
Would it make any sense to seek an endorsement from actual veterans of this war? I gather that a great deal of the hesitation for regular movie-goers towards films dealing with the second Gulf War is the sense that the filmmakers are playing fast and loose with the details and not putting out material that can accurately describe the experience. From the sounds of it, the film seems to know what it's talking about.
A part of me feels like this would actually compel average citizens to go see it, but another side of me thinks this could be shamelessly exploitative. Has this tactic been used in the past (Saving Private Ryan perhaps)?
Posted by Jack Price
at September 18, 2008 9:28 PM
comment #6
guylodge
says ...
televisiontears: "Tell No One" won't be eligible for Best Foreign Language Film, because it was released over two years ago in France. (And over a year ago here in the UK -- I remain baffled by the late US release.)
As for "Hurt Locker," I think it might not be the worst idea to sit on it for a while -- you don't want it to get drowned.
Posted by guylodge
at September 19, 2008 12:01 AM
comment #7
affiliatesreview
says ...
really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review
Posted by affiliatesreview
at May 16, 2011 1:57 AM
comment #8
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of virtualization high availability
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 3:11 AM