This movie is very underrated and I'll tell you why

BUMP

You be the sinner, I'll be your sin.

I think you make an interesting case, gtasucks-com. Personally, I'm a fan of this film. Many of the "errors" in the film are due to editing choices and result from creating a dramatic film and not a documentary. But I like your take on the two conflicting messages.

[deleted]

This movie was made with a purpose. Actually two purposes.

1. To make money. They got MTV to showcase the young stars of the recent Pop-shows.

2. To sell an agenda.

They wanted to highlight a part of today's military and depict it as some "The government is out to get you" scenario. They use completely false interpretations of reality when it comes to the basic premise of the movie "Stop-Loss", and they exagerate how that premise is used in real life.

Stop-Loss, or what is really called the "President's Call-Up Authority", is not something that a persons finds out about overnight. They don't party for their retirement one day, and the next day find out they are extended while trying to turn in their gear. There is months of prior notice of a unit deployment, and units don't redeploy immediately after returning.

There is the fact that numbers at the end of the movie, they have facts OMITTED purposely to push home their agenda. The fact that every military service member signs up for an 8 year term, where they have a portion of active duty and a portion of inactive duty. What the movie tells you is the 40,000 people have been stop lossed. In reality, very few people have actually had their term of enlistment extended. and over 39,000 of those 40,000 people are service members that only had their active duty portion of their service extended into the inactive duty portion.

Example, You are a HS Senior and sign up to go in the military in April 1, 2002. You graduate in May of 2002 and go to boot camp in June 1, 2002. Since you signed up April 1, you have served 2 months of Inactive Reserve in the military in what is called a "Delayed Entry Program".

Since you went to boot camp in June 1, 2002, the expected date your ACTIVE duty portion of your 8 years ends would be May 31, 2006. And since you signed up in April 1, 2002, the end of your 8 year obligation would be March 31, 2010.

Now you are with your unit and they deploy for 10 months to Iraq in November 1, 2005. So your unit will be in Iraq until August 31, 2006. You are supposed to end active duty in May 31, but since your unit is deployed, your active duty is extended to be until one month after your unit comes home. Or you stay active until November 30, 2006.

Now this person who is deployed, they found out the unit was leaving in May of 2005 they they were going in November of 2005. And since he knows his active duty expires during the deployment, he also knows (nearly 1 year in advance) that his Active Duty will be "Stop Lossed".

Keep in mind, this person is still going to end the active duty on March 31, 2010. He is just going to have served 4 years and 5 months in active duty instead of a flat 4 years.

That is reality. Not what this movie wants to fabricate for dramatic purposes and to push an agenda that is clearly against the previous administration. It is a movie, plain and simple. It is FICTION. So just because the story has connections to a current military action, don't go thinking it is really displaying real life.

I reall liked the movie. It was complex & I think in time people will see what a great film it is.

I have seen most of the older war movies like The Best Years of their Lives, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, the Deerhunter, etc., about the Vietnam War era, but this movie just appeared on cable TV. I haven't seen it from the very beginning, but have seen it twice from part way through. In Vietnam, nobody was required to go for more than one tour, people sometimes just volunteered.

In Vietnam, nobody was required to go for more than one tour; people sometimes just volunteered. Iraq? I can't get over this sad fact of ordering soldiers back time and time again. Sometimes even when they were damaged by brain trauma or other. I must say some of the most compelling moments have to be at that VA hospital where you have veterans that clearly seem to be the real thing: how could they make that guy look blind to that extent? And for those missing limbs, yes, CGI can do that, but even though I haven't read other reviews yet, I do believe these were real wounded veterans. Like the one we saw in Best Years of their Lives, who had no hands.

I think that whenever anybody can draw such convincing attention to the heavy price our veterans have borne for this country, in wars wise and unwise, we must never forget or abandon them. No matter what one's politics are, our disabled veterans heeded the call of duty and must be compensated and cared for properly. This movie provides a realistic view of what our fighting men go through.

Yet I find so many people believe that the politicians who promote military spending are the same ones who promote good care for the disabled veterans. That is simply NOT THE CASE. In fact, even retired veterans without disabilities are often unaware of how VA funding has been cut back and cut back repeatedly over the years, due to certain politicians. In Vietnam, nobody was required to go for more than one tour, people sometimes just volunteered.

VA health care used to be totally free for ALL veterans. Not anymore, by a long shot.

I agree with the title of the thread. I just saw this, and I was surprised it hadn't been on my radar before. I thought the movie succeeded on multiple levels. Maybe when it was originally released the country just wasn't in the 'mood' to take such a hard look at the real costs of the war in Iraq. The scenes in the military hospital were particularly moving. I thought all the actors did a good job, and showed the appropriate understanding and commitment. Big applause all round.