Full Metal Jacket was one example. If it were not for the basic training scenes, this one would have ended up just another Stanley Kubrick acid trip. At very least we can call it "distorted reality".
But I digress.
From the LA Times:
Some soldiers and veterans say the movie, a favorite for the best picture Oscar, portrays them as renegades and doesn't depict combat accurately. But film critics have praised its authenticity.
So help me understand something here, as it very well could be that I am just some dense bozo with a blog or someone who doesn't understand what the elitists understand.
How many film critics have ever actually been in combat? I mean who are these people? What are their names? In what theater did they serve, and what damn units were they in?
Because from where I sit, if a film critic thinks it is an accurate portrayal of what life was really like in Iraq, I think they should halt, identify themselves, and then advance to be recognized. They should tell us where they were in Iraq and what their jobs were, so as to lend some credibility to their opinions.
Otherwise, they are nothing more than a bunch of ignoramuses.
Ignorant people are people who do not know things. But many of them are people who know they don't know... and do not act like they know. There is a certain integrity in them.
In contrast to this demographic, there are people who think they know about things and yet, know nothing at all. These are the people who are are truly lower than the lowest whale dung, which sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor. In them, there is no integrity and no validity to what they may say about the things they know nothing about.
This is the category that I place these film critics. Looking closer we can see another example of distorted reality, within the spaces between their ears.
Greg put a link in the comment section, to a NYT essay that pretty much says it's crap. It's a great read, if you have a moment.