In Reply to: Rotten Tomatoes wasn't so kind to it posted by rnhood on March 13, 2010 at 14:27:44:
It's flawed, certainly, but interesting nonetheless, far more interesting than most of what's playing at the cineplex. RT has critics who are basically movie fans with a website - how seriously can ya take their opinion? Actually read a couple reviews from some writers with sense, like Ken Turran or A. O. Scott or Stephanie Zacharek. Don't just glance at the Tomatometer.
Excellent performances all around. If you liked the Bourne flicks and Bloody Sunday this is worth seeing in the ceneplex.
It's necessarily somwhat simplified from the non-fiction book it's based on because it's a 2 hour movie, not a 6 part documentary. Some of the the bits in the last 20 minutes are a bit too...movie movie...for me. And the fact that there never were any WMD is hardly news.
But the point of the movie - it *matters* WHY we go to war - remains highly relevant. And GZ also raises excellent points about the disenfranchisement of the B'aathists.
And it's fun playing the game of recognizing which characters are based on which real life poeple.
How can this stuff be "controversial" at this late date????? Good grief...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Rotten Tomatoes isn't the final arbiter of taste. - Harmonia 16:30:48 03/24/10 (0)