- Roeper, Richard. "The Hurt Locker." Rev. of The Hurt Locker. RichardRoeper.com. Web. Richard Roeper's review of The Hurt Locker lauded the film as a whole; he also notes how the supporting cast, the director, and Jeremy Renner really help pull the film together and makes it worthy for the Oscar it had won. Roeper opens up with saying,"'The Hurt Locker' is a war film set in present-day Iraq, but it is not about the war in Iraq. It is about the universal soldier who becomes addicted to war. It is about war as a drug. It is about a man who goes home and is utterly lost in the grocery store, but completely comfortable dodging enemy fire and defusing bombs in brutal, hostile conditions." This is the heart of what my analysis of "The Hurt Locker" is going to be boiled down to; that and every person handles the stress of the war differently.
- Ebert, Roger. "The Hurt Locker." All Content. N.p., 8 July 2009. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. The late Roger Ebert was head over heels in love with this film. He loved how all the contributing factors really helped to solidify the legitimacy and the factual side of the film. He comments on how a lot of films open up with a poetic quote to set the tone of the film, however "The Hurt Locker" actually presented "War is a Drug" as a fact. Ebert goes on saying how Renner does an exemplary job in portraying Staff Sgt. William James, the bomb defuser. Ebert compares James to a surgeon more than a hero, he is extremely good at what he does and knows it. Some times it even seems like he has a personal bond with the bomb maker and that their exchange is pitting two experts against each other. Ebert even says that Renner should be put on the short list for an Oscar for his performance. This review is very similar to Roeper's, at least in how it is useful for my paper. Ebert pretty much spells out how addicting war is, and how James is a heavy addict.
- Calhoun, David. "The Hurt Locker (15)." London. Time Out, 25 Aug. 2009. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. This short review written by David Calhoun gives his opinion of the film and what makes it good and what makes it work. Calhoun addresses how Bigelow is able to make the film as realistic as possible with her choices of producers, writers, and photographers, but is also able to keep a sort of Hollywood flare to it. Calhoun says, "Bigelow builds suspense and empathy by sticking closely to this small band through several episodes – including one superbly executed desert gunfight – and allowing us to experience events as they unfold for the soldiers." As a viewer you really feel immersed in the film, you feel apart of the squad, you feel like you are in the Middle East with them. Calhoun also comments on how Bigelow is less interested in the politics of the film and more interested in the psychological aspect it has; both on military life and civilian life. This fairly short review of the film will be critical for my paper because it tells how the soldiers' reactions to their environment is essential to surviving.
- Long, Tom. "'The Hurt Locker': A Tense Addiction to War." The Detroit News. The Detroit News, 24 July 2009. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. Written by Tom Long, this review delves into the fact that Mark Boal, the screenwriter, and Kathryn Bigelow, the director, really don't give the audience a compelling story, but instead just follow these soldiers who are putting their life on the line every minute of the day, and how well that plan works out. This review is going to be good because, unlike the other reviews it actually points out some of the lacking areas in the film. The review also dabbles in the addicting nature of war, and leaves the reader with a question, "The question isn't how do you live with the buzz of looming death; it's how do you live without it? No answers are offered, or even suggested."
- Scott, A. O. "Apolitics and the War Film." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Feb. 2010. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. Scott tells the reader of the normal stuff usually associated with the film. For example he states that the film is a war-film, but at the same time its not. The film is more concentrated on the effects war has on people and how people deal with the given situations. Scott praises the fact that its a very real film, as in the film excels when it comes to being extremely factual and makes you feel attached to the characters. Scott also brings up a very good point in that the film itself is very apolitical. The film isn't outright pro/antiwar. It just is. Bigelow wasn't interested in delving into the politics, she was more interested in the psychology of the war.