One of the things "The Hurt Locker" gets right is with the casting of the film. According to the usually accurate imdb.com, Colin Farrell, Willem Dafoe, and Charlize Theron had originally been slotted to play the main roles in this film. Not to say those three A-listers are bad actors, but the casting of the lesser known Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, and Brian Geraghty in the primary roles makes it impossible for star power to detract from the high concentration and realness the film possesses. Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes, and Evangeline Lilly are all featured in "The Hurt Locker", but only appear very briefly and inconspicuously. Though the actors are hindered by dialogue that often feels simple and redundant, Renner, Mackie, and Geraghty are terrific. They are not actors, but soldiers, and they are vulnerable to an untimely death at any moment during the film’s 131-minute runtime. Jeremy Renner is very good as the hardened central protagonist of the film, Sergeant James. He effectively portrays a man filled with bravado who has been in so many do-or-die situations that adrenaline rushes and have become all he lives for. Though part of him wants to be compassionate to his family and his fellow soldiers, he knows he needs to be alone to survive, thus "locking" out the "hurt". Anthony Mackie, who plays Sergeant Sanborn, a straight-laced solider wary of the life and death situations he and his colleagues have been placed in, is equally riveting. "The Hurt Locker", filmed on location in Jordan and containing an assortment of Iraqi extras, feels strikingly genuine. Writer Mark Boal who has experience as a war journalist the perfect person to accurately depict the lives of these soldiers.

We can do without some of the clichés that war movies have had over the years like the long-winded, teary-eyed speeches about how much the soldiers miss home. "The Hurt Locker", thankfully, has very few of those, as the pain they feel is mostly implied or only on display in brief but telling scenes. It is refreshing because it is not altogether denouncing war like so many other films do but rather seeks to explain that some are made for war and others are not. There’s no political agenda to be found.

Whether or not someone will enjoy this movie all depends on how real he or she wants a movie to feel. Movies like "The Hurt Locker" that go for stark realism over adventure are redefining what makes a quality film. My feeling is that if real is the equivalent of good, then a documentary film would win best picture every year. Even though the Hurt Locker feels more real and less dramatized than other American war films like "Apocalypse Now", "Saving Private Ryan", or "Glory", a great movie is not just a collection of realistic scenes. It has to have an intriguing story, plot progression. After watching the characters diffuse explosives scene in and scene out for over two hours, the verisimilar high-pressure situations begin to grow tedious. Yes, bored in an action movie! When the movie does finally move from the battlefield to the inside of a supermarket at the end of the film, the transition is abrupt and the closing scenes feel rushed and poorly scripted. Overall, the realness of the film is to be applauded but it seems so real that it eliminates an active plot.