Both yours and the OP's premise is false.
No one guilt trips you for not liking the film claiming it means you don't support the troops. We guilt trips you for talking shit about the troops.
Guess who one of the biggest haters of many military films are?
THE MILITARY!
No one claims we don't support the troops. We ARE the troops.
When a Military film is truly bad, you'll find no greater haters than among active duty and veterans.
So lay off the lame excuses for the grief you get for hating on a great film.
This film is not intended to be a hollywood blockbuster. It isn't and never tried to be. You and the OP are lambasting it because it is not.
It does do what it was intended to very well and thus it is a great film, and that is to honor the fallen in combat. Thus criticism of the film is taken as criticism of the military. Of the fallen.
The OPs comment is especially egregious because he suggests it would be better if Lt. Col Strobl (He couldn't be bothered to get his name right, calling him Strobe) had questioned the war. No the film would not have been better by injecting leftist bias. This film is not about the war, any war, nor any reasons or justifications for any war.
It is about those that fell in combat regardless of which war or the reasons for it.
You want a bad military movie? Look no further than films like the recent Midway remake by Roland Emmerich, or Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor. Or the Hurt Locker or Behind Enemy Lines.
All four of those films were horrific and roundly panned by nearly everyone in the military or who has ever served. But then, you and the OP probably loved them because of the fashy CGI eyecandy.
If that's the case, I would respectfully suggest that neither you nor the OP have the understanding or experience to know what makes a good military film or not.
reply
share