Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2015 17:28:33 GMT
I have not seen the film, but I heard the review by the commentators on Public Broadcasting and thought it was intelligent enough to carry through to here:
their first complaint: <spoiler alert> is that we know how it ends. so any tension is undermined.
their second complaint is that like so many stories that have a huge scope, rather than follow the real people involved, they created fictionalized people in order to introduce drama into the story.
their third complaint is that the movie only views the small part of the drama that unfolded in the news instead of looking into the details that happened outside the media spotlight.
it sounded like their opinion was that if the movie had been made 5-10 years later, it would probably do a lot better; or, alternately, if it had used the accident and rescue as the introduction and focused on life after the event.
their first complaint: <spoiler alert> is that we know how it ends. so any tension is undermined.
their second complaint is that like so many stories that have a huge scope, rather than follow the real people involved, they created fictionalized people in order to introduce drama into the story.
their third complaint is that the movie only views the small part of the drama that unfolded in the news instead of looking into the details that happened outside the media spotlight.
it sounded like their opinion was that if the movie had been made 5-10 years later, it would probably do a lot better; or, alternately, if it had used the accident and rescue as the introduction and focused on life after the event.