I turned this movie off when the brother said that the only way Stanley got into the Army was to fake an eye test, and subsequently had to leave the military because of his bad eyesight. Since when does the military say you can't wear corrective lenses??? I served for 10 years and I've been blind as a bat since 6th grade! I know they needed a "reason" why Stanley left the military, but this one was ridiculous.
share[deleted]
It could have been for fraudulent enlistment.
shareare you kidding me? you stopped because they showed him working at a store? that's within the first five seconds. so every movie ever featuring an actor in a normal job is unwatchable?
sorry but that is the most idiotic reply I've ever read on imdb. (and that's saying alot)
[deleted]
wow, genius!
shareUmm what? Yeah he's an actor and the part that he was playing required him to be working at a store. Actors do that all the time for the parts that they play.
That's a really idiotic reason to stop watching the movie.
Your point is legitimate. Not only does the military service allow corrective eyewear, but frequently grants enlistment waivers for past infractions, including perhaps lying about ones vision on enlistment documents.
I watched the entire movie, but I don't blame you for turning it off. The point here is that the story is badly conceived and poorly written. And a major source of story problem is the father character. Even IF this story was based on actual event, it is job of the filmmakers to enable the viewers to suspend their disbelief.
Most individuals who comment positively about this movie are caught up by the films sentimentality, or by their misplaced ideas about patriotism and nationalism.
I havent seen this film yet but want to. As a Brit im curious to your use of the word 'misplaced'. Why do positive reviewers have 'misplaced' ideas? And how do you know?
sharei'm curious about this as well. how can someone have a "misplaced" idea? did they put it in the incorrect part of their brain?
i assume you are taking a swipe at people who disagree about the war in iraq, as this film clearly does. funny how the idea of 'patriotism' has somehow become synonymous with 'supporting the bush administration', when in fact similar actions taken by the previous administration were subject to howls of protest by the very folks now insisting that it is somehow unpatriotic to criticize a sitting administration. sounds more like a "misplaced" idea of hypocrisy than patriotism or nationalism.
and anyway, you would now be talking about a solid majority in the us that disagrees about the war, and a overwhelming majority worldwide. all of these people are holding 'misplaced' ideas about the current situation? i think it is only the hardcore, never changing people who somehow believe that God Himself wanted this half retarded idiot in the white house to ruin pretty much every single aspect of american life who still support this whole misguided idea of 'regime change.'
and the sad thing is, maybe if we had just paid the 'insurgents' the money we eventually did anyway to get them to stop fighting, maybe we wouldn't have had to invade in the first place, and folks, like the fictional "grace" would still be alive?
Or it's a good movie and, *gasp* your opinion is not fact. Did that occur to you?
shareYeah I can understand when a film features something you just KNOW is implausible or ridiculous, it can just turn the viewer right off. Personally it did not spoil the film for me. I thought while watching, that it wasn't really a good enough reason for him to be discharged but, unlike you, I have no experience of the US military, so I wasn't sure whether it was completely impossible. It seems like a poor script decision to include this but I think the film is smart enough for me to try and explain it away...
It is possible that his brother did not know the real reason why he was discharged. Just because somebody says something in a film, doesn't mean it is true. They could be lying or could have been misinformed. They weren't particularly close and maybe Cusack's character had something to hide about his leaving the army. He certainly was pretty weak and indecisive throughout the film... He could have just made up a lie to fool his family who would be none the wiser. He lies to kids all through the film and probably would have carried on if he could.
Even if the film broke reality with that detail for you I think its worth a second look. It was smart enough overall for the possibility of the above explanation holding up and I don't think the reality of the characters was comprised. I'm willing to see it like that anyway. I'd like to watch it again with this in mind. If there was a scene towards to end explaining about him leaving the army and what a big liar he is, I would have hated it. It would have been just characters explaining plot. This is not that kind of film. Its a film about grief and dealing with it very badly, in a very human way.
Same here. I knew it was not plausible. But it did not spoil the entire movie, which by the way is not partisan at all, which was a good surprise.
That's the kind of movie we need to bring people together.
Side note, unless you are legally blind, you can serve in any of the 4 branches, except if you want to be a pilot or a sniper (obviously).
We see servicemen with standard issue glasses in pretty much every war movie, for instance Jarhead.
coming from a canadian resident, I expected more, but I gotta remember that some people are plain *beep*-tards.
go wave a protest sign
He could have been colorblind.
one thing you have to understand ... WHAT 'uncle john' was saying to the girls was not true .. it is clearly understood that army has no problem wearing contact lens or glasses .. but the uncle was saying it to the girls just to make their dad's image but low... and also, since the girls r kids, they wouldn't know the points to argue with this ...
If you dont want to agree with this point, thr can be another point -> army has no problem in wearing glass .. but they DO hv little tolerance for cheating .. if John Causac would declare that he had eye problems in the very begining, he would be still in the army .. but since he cheated .. he was disqualified ...
So i dont think we should really care about what Uncle john [who is a nitwit as understood from the character] said to the girls ...
I sell tools for a living, and my wife hates it when I point out that tools are not being used realistically, or are being called by the wrong name in a movie. Now I know how she feels. This is such a minor detail with so many plausible explanations, I can't beleive anyone would base thei opinion of the movie on that one detail.
"You write the laws and let me write the music and I shall rule your kingdom"
Sorry, folks...former military officer here. While there are some obvious problems with the military stuff in the film (almost all films with the miliary have problems there), this isn't that farfetched. Yes, the military allows corrective lenses, but you still have to have a minimum level of eyesight - corrected and uncorrected. The assumption is that at some point, you may not be able to wear your glasses and you need a certain level of visual accuity. Most gas masks don't have corrective lenses.
shareWell, this movie was not written about you, was it? It's a movie, relax, and enjoy the entertainment.
That being said, this movie turned out to have a lot of good messages in it and is not like every other movie that exists.
I love a mirror during sex. I like to look at myself and say, 'Hey, look who's getting laid!'
Really, you cheated yourself from a great movie on account on some nitpick detail. Your loss, so I can only recommend you view it again, and this time take notice of that the subject of the movie is not requirements for military enlisting, but human loss and family.
See it again. You'll like it.