Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacomic
Really? Because I seem to recall that the men "cut out to be in war" were all portrayed as over the top aggressive type-a dickheads. Ever met a real soldier who's been in a war who acted like that? "I can't wait to get back over there, because I can't handle having a wife and kids." The idea that the U.S. soldier somehow gets off on being in harms way is a real disservice to anyone who ever served. "Meet America's new soldier, when he isn't defusing bombs with his teeth, he goes bungee jumping into live volcanoes. eXtreeme!!!! X-Games!!!! ARMY! NAVY! BUDWEISER!!!!"
Like I said the movie started off well, but by the end the flaws of having someone who already has their mind made up about the military, tell a story about the military, shined through. The movie was about EIDs but shifted into a cometary about the mental make up of the U.S. soldier, something Hollywood needs to leave alone. When did we start accepting that Hollywood knows more about the troops than the people who live with and are close to real-life soldiers?
|
So your saying the movie portrayed Sanborn as someone who's not cut out to be in war? I thought it portrayed all different mindsets of soldiers, especially in the three main characters. You had James, the borderline nut job who was cool under pressure but also put people in harm's way. You have Sanborn, the rock of the group who was pretty ready to be home by the time it was all said and done, but was a damn good solder. And you had Eldridge who is probably a good representation of a lot of soldiers, relatively willing, really doesn't want to die, and perhaps not as decisive as he should be under fire.
I thought the movie pretty clearly portrayed Sanborn as the ideal, and portrayed James as flawed. And it clearly commented on the idea that while James is a jerk and not very socially adapted, you have to have a certain amount of those people. Stuff doesn't get done without those people a lot of the time, in all walks of life.