One of the lowest grossing Oscar Best Picture Winner is a real head scratcher. Sure it's a critical darling but out side of the critics I've never met anyone who was that rapturous about it. I've seen the film a couple of times now and I still can not get my head around why this is regarded so highly in some quarters.
The plot of the film concerns Jeremy Renner a bomb disposal expert in Iraq. We follow him over the course of a series of operations as he gets closer and closer to getting to go home. Renner is a bit of a loose canon who doesn't play by the rules, he does however get results...and quite a big rush from living on the edge.
There are severe questions about how realistic the film is, many people in the military are upset at how unrealistic Renner's character is. The argument is that if anyone did what Renner does he would be dead. The filmmakers shot back that its based upon their research. I can't say how true their criticism is, but I suspect that some of their concerns probably come from not wanting to be labeled as a bunch of thrill seekers. I think that they chafe, rightly, at the thought that they would do what they do for any reason other than a need to keep their fellow soldiers alive.
For me the problem with the film is two fold.
First off the film isn't quite as tense as it should be since until the final half hour or so you never really feel fear for Renner. He's the star and you know that until the film he's going to be okay. Sure many characters are killed but they aren't really a major character. And since the film is solidly focused on Renner you don't have the shock and awe of say Psycho and the death of Janet Leigh. I knew that the only chance that Renner was going to get killed was going to be right before the credits rolled.
The real problem with the film is that the film isn't about anything special. The whole point of the film is that Renner loves the danger so much that he will do anything to experience it. Its plainly clear from very early on that civilian life isn't going to work for him. The final revelation of that fact is a supreme let down. We have to go through 131 minutes for that?
I was so stunned by the utter banality of the film and what it was telling me that I wandered around for days afterward wondering if I had missed something. I mean it wasn't that simple; it couldn't be. So I did what anyone with questions would have done I watched the film again.
And I was even more underwhelmed by the film the second time. Knowing what the film is about and knowing where it was going only made the film all the more disappointing. There is no complexity to anything, its just a a not particularly original idea presented as something special.
How did this win the Oscar?
In the films defense it does have some great sequences that taken on their own terms are quite stunning. The problem is that if you put all the pieces together it doesn't amount to much. Certainly nothing deserving a Best Picture Oscar.
No comments:
Post a Comment