I've not seen this film and I might not. Yet, this is no less a review.
I'm responding to a patient falsehood, or urban myth, concerning Hollywood's some time lack of actual presentation of the military in film. Not too surprisingly there isn't any U.S. law preventing a movie production involved in the portrayal of armed forces personnel to use correct military uniforms, along with proper grooming. In fact, presenting any military force in its proper array, in film, is advisable. It was plainly determined by the US Supreme Court in the case SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970).
So if the production company and director fail to present proper military uniforms, with correct placement of unit patches, rank tabs, and ribbons and other such accessories, and grooming is deplorable, then, in my opinion, the script/acting isn't much better anyway. Yes, this is a blind and very arbitrary judgment of a film I've not seen. But, I'm also operating from experience, as both a military veteran and a avid movie goer.
I'm responding to a patient falsehood, or urban myth, concerning Hollywood's some time lack of actual presentation of the military in film. Not too surprisingly there isn't any U.S. law preventing a movie production involved in the portrayal of armed forces personnel to use correct military uniforms, along with proper grooming. In fact, presenting any military force in its proper array, in film, is advisable. It was plainly determined by the US Supreme Court in the case SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970).
So if the production company and director fail to present proper military uniforms, with correct placement of unit patches, rank tabs, and ribbons and other such accessories, and grooming is deplorable, then, in my opinion, the script/acting isn't much better anyway. Yes, this is a blind and very arbitrary judgment of a film I've not seen. But, I'm also operating from experience, as both a military veteran and a avid movie goer.