claytonchurch1

I had seen this advertised in my streaming platform a number of times, but never bitten. I finally decided to watch it, and I'm glad.

First of all, it's based on a true story, which I always like.

Second, it comes out of World War II, and I like those movies a lot.

Third, it's a movie about overcoming prejudice and dealing with a difficult past, in this case: World War II from both the side of England and Germany.

Fourth, it's a really nice, gentle love story, with warming moments, joy, tragedy, sadness, and perseverance. Great stuff.

Fifth, I think the casting was great. The leads are especially good.

I enjoyed this movie a lot, having watched it twice now. Enjoyed it both times. Matthew McConaughey is great and the two boys are wonderful in their roles. Perfect acting.

This movie I enjoyed for several reasons. First, I enjoyed just seeing poor life on the river. Modern day Huckleberry Finn. Kids free and unrestricted by laws requiring helmets and licenses. They just hop on the boat anytime they want and get on the river. Back-and-forth. Refreshing.

Second, the movie is an interesting look at life among the poor, who don't know how to treat each other and who aren't very advanced in social relationships. Life is harsh. Not a lot of said. Characters don't always know what to say. But, refreshingly, they're very truthful. I appreciated how the two boys basically always spoke truth and said that what they were thinking, while being respectful to all the adults around them.

Third, this movie examines an important theme: can women and men really get along and be faithful and loving to each other for a lifetime. An important question that gets asked, and while the evidence in the movie is mostly saying "no," the movie gives hope, as well. There are some sweet things that go on in the relationships in the movie.

Fourth, the movie does well examining friendships and loyalty. What does it mean to be a friend?

Fifth, the movie, in examining the poor, makes you grateful for what you've had growing up, most likely. It also makes you much less judgmental toward those who grow up poor or without a mom and dad. One of the characters grows up with an uncle taking care of him, and he has never known his parents. And the kids just cope. Sad, but sweet at the same time, as you see these kids gently and bravely handle the adversity.

Lots in this movie to like. Warning: it's not fast action, and it is slow moving. That said, it is not boring, and is very interesting.

This is a good, substantive film about people surviving in the family of an alcoholic husband and father.

Hence, I was nervous through the whole movie, because the alcoholic father, being alcoholic, is unpredictable. You're scared for the kids and scared for their mother. All the acting was very good, and this is a true story!

The upside of it is that it proves the point that adversity, met with character, produces success. That's a great lesson.

Nice ending. Don't think I'll watch it again. Tough to watch because of all the hardship and fear that you see coming to this family whose head is an alcoholic.

I almost gave this an eight. What caused the seven is not the movie's fault. The front part of the movie was emotionally disturbing, and not in an unfair way. I am not saying that the director, writer, and actors did a bad job. They were excellent in pulling this off. What was portrayed, as far as I can tell, is accurate. What I'm saying is that the portrayal of the removal of Jews from their homes, transportation of them, and placing them in concentration camps (in which husbands are separated from wives and children from their parents, with all the chaos and the brutality of the place) was all really hard to watch. And, it was hard to watch without people being killed or shot in the head, as you see in most Nazi movies that involve Jews. I appreciated that.

And, even though I was disturbed with the opening 40 minutes (almost to the point of turning it off), my being disturbed is a testament to how well they portrayed the emotional terror of your nuclear family being forcibly separated as cattle, with no likelihood of seeing any of them ever again, as each went to his almost certain death.

That said, as one other reviewer wrote, after the initial terribleness you have to witness in the first 40 minutes, the rest of the movie is intriguing, engaging, heartwarming, painful, sad, tough, and encouraging. So much going on, and so good! Good writing. Good acting.

I'm really glad to have seen this movie. It was a tough thing to see, so I don't think I want to see it again. I'm glad I know about it, and I will probably always remember it. So, that's great. I just don't want to go through those 40 minutes again.

That said, maybe if I come across this in two years, I'll watch it! This is a really worthwhile movie.

I enjoyed this film, though it has an intended feeling of sadness and loneliness throughout. Besides the three main characters, there are no friends. That's lonely.

The film also does a good job showing the difficulty of moving to a different country when you are an elementary or middle school kid. The ending captured this very well, as the main character and you as the viewer could reflect back on what probably would have been had Nora just stayed in Korea.

I would imagine this film has a split in opinions regarding where Nora ends up. Some, who value career and realizing ambition, will see this movie and say "that's life." Others, who see marriage and family as important, will see this movie as a warning against pursuing career and accomplishments over marriage and family.

I appreciate that this movie makes the viewer think on those things.

I would imagine this movie brings another split between viewers--between those who believe in God or at least believe there's a cosmic purpose for a person in life, on the one hand, and those who think life is random and that people only wind up in places, but without those places having a particular purpose, on the other. The latter viewpoint was expressed, in my opinion, pretty painfully as Nora and her husband discussed such things and their own relationship one night as they were falling asleep.

Last thing: I really appreciated Nora's husband and his understanding of Nora's situation in life. He was very kind and patient, humble, and loving. And, you sympathize greatly with his pain and struggle with jealousy. His character makes a viewer consider such things, and is a good example of kindness and care for one's spouse.

I saw the good ratings, and it was a clean movie, which I was looking for, so I gave this a watch. Plus, I saw that Jennifer Jones and Chuck Connors were in it, who were both before my time, but names I've heard of.

Normally, I'm a fan of all these kind of movies, where there is someone that's really tough on the students, employees, or athletes under his or her care. Then, though they hate it while they're going through it, the underlings benefit from it greatly in their lives, and recognize the fact later, coming back to show appreciation.

Where this movie differs from most of those is that Miss Dove doesn't love her students. She is constantly rude and interruptive, showing no grace to anyone. She doesn't love anyone around her. She is bitter because she has never married, and she is all about correcting people, whether they are doctors, students, or parents. Today, we would just call her a jerk. Sociologists, psychologists, and counselors would call her today "lacking in all social and emotional intelligence."

Now, her students really do benefit from her, but it's the result of her correcting them all the time and being hard on them, and nothing to do with her caring for them, which she doesn't. In other words, there's no evidence in the movie that she really cares for her students and is thus being hard on them so that they will develop skills in life. Rather, she is hard on everyone around her because she is bitter. There is one character in the movie, a poor kid, that she showed special care for, but that is the exception.

I guess the movie is a good study in bringing up the question for discussion: what if someone is really a jerk but helps others develop in life skills? Is that the way someone should be? Is such a life and approach to others worth it?

I love discipline and I don't mind disciplinarians, and I love developing in life skills and learning to do what is right. But, I would hope no one ever watched this movie and went away thinking that acting like her to other human beings is ever appropriate. It's OK to be hard on other people because you love them and want their success. For Miss Dove, the love was completely lacking, even though she shows a hint of satisfaction of being loved by the end of the movie, though that is a totally different thing.

But, I was disappointed, including to the movie's very end, that I couldn't root for Miss Dove. She was basically a socially nasty person who's nastiness had benefit for other people, which was not the motivation for her being a hard disciplinarian.

Oh! Bonus: the principal of the school is Lumpy Rutherford's dad, Ward Cleaver's coworker, in "Leave It to Beaver." And, even better: there is one scene in which Chuck Connor's earlier self is graduating from grade school and getting his diploma and attendance award in which, sitting as an extra in the front row with that character, is Eddie Haskell, Wally Cleaver's best friend in "Leave It to Beaver." It's not a speaking role, and I don't think he is in any other scene. He's on camera for about three seconds. But, it's him, much smaller than you see him a few years later on the TV show.

I may have heard about this movie right when it came out, certainly within the first few years. I'd like to spade and Farley on SNL, but Farley's movies always seemed a little bit stupid to give a watch. Over the last few years I've been listening to Dana Carvey and David Spade's podcast, fly on the wall, and through it began to hear a lot more about this film.

Three things:

1. While there are a number of things in the movie that are just stupid, it never reaches the level of annoying.

2. Chris Farley is funny throughout the movie. A lot of really funny scenes that are funny just because of him doing what he does.

3. Most importantly, and the reason for the title of my review, I was impressed that there was some substance in the storyline of the movie, which made the movie more than just funny, but a good story. Here's what I'm talking about: Chris's character in the front of the movie set me up to think that the movie would be about an underachieving Chris Farley and a father who is always disappointed in him. In contrast, I think the highlight of the movie was Tommy's relationship with his dad, Tom, played by Brian Dennehy. Tom really loves his son, accepting him, faults and all. He supports him, and he's for him. And Tommy really loves his dad, and admires him. At a certain point in the movie, Tommy could just walk and be financially set up, without a care in the world. But, the whole second half of the movie happens because Tommy loves his dad. This comes out even at the end of the film. Tommy, you find out, is a good kid. As a college grad, he calls his dad, "Sir," in a way that shows only positive respect. And you see Tommy doing his dad proud as the movie goes on. I found this pretty touching, and it made the movie for me much more than just a "stupid comedy."

Owen Wilson in a serious role. Gene Hackman being Gene Hackman, and always good. I saw this movie years ago and really liked it. It's not a movie you remember and learn life lessons from, but it was a really good use of two hours or whatever. Entertaining, suspenseful, military action, cool planes and ships. It came across my screen as an option, now 15+ years later, and I looked at the reviews and couldn't believe the reviews were in the 6s. Not sure what people are looking for. This is a fun, but suspenseful military movie. It's fun to see Owen Wilson in such a role. He still has his moments of humor, but it's not set up as him being a funny guy. Also, you see growth in the characters from start to finish.

If you like The Fugitive, you'll probably like this movie a lot.

I know that Marlon Brando is one of the most esteemed American actors ever. That said, I've never seen any of his movies, excepting the small part he had at the beginning of the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie. So, I was interested to watch this. Seems like so few movies of his are available on streaming.

I was also glad to see this movie that showed Japan, where it was actually filmed, in 1957. That's simply historically interesting for me.

Marlon Brando was interesting, playing a southerner. He's from Nebraska, actually. I had to turn up the volume and really listen to understand what he was saying. Red Buttons was surprisingly good, as well. He won the Oscar for this role, as did the woman who plays his wife.

What I most liked about the movie was how it shows people overcoming their prejudices. While others have already done so and some never do, you get to see Marlon Brando and his girlfriend process racial and national prejudice through the movie. Their characters progress.

I am in a marriage in which my wife's parents were born in a different country and a very different culture. We have a bunch of kids who are mixed race. So, this movie, which considers such things, unearthed some of our experiences, and was really satisfying to watch.

I was actually surprised by the ending, pleasantly. Glad to have watched this film.

I'm a guy, I like sports, and I also like romance movies. That said, this movie had some really nice and fun points about it, and some good character things. Sometimes, however, it felt like a Hallmark movie. Not often, but sometimes.

I think all the actors did a great job, and the primary to have good chemistry. The male lead did a good job displaying the bitterness he felt at his life.

I was glad to see the progression of a lot of things during the movie, which is where the movie value is. I never want a cheesy, everything-works-out ending. I am very fine, for instance, with the "Love Story" ending or any endings of sadness.

I may have given this an eight, if it weren't for the moral point of view where the movie ends up. Weird situation.

On the positive, Shia LaBeouf is great in this movie. His character was always intriguing and winsome. You rooted for him.

In regard to the characters that the story follows--Robert Redford and his friends--the movie is set up as if you're supposed to be for them and on their side. Maybe there are some baby boomers watching this film who would be. I had no sympathy for them, and was constantly thinking, "Oh, brother. Unrepentant hippies who still think there's a cause, and have never grown up. They thought they had the world figured out when they were 18 years old, and they have never grown from their 18-year-old viewpoint of the world."

I have the same issue with heist movies, in which you are supposed to be rooting for those who are committing the heist. I just can't root for them, so I don't relate to the movie. If you're like me, you can skip this one.

By the way, I think this is the first Robert Redford movie that I didn't really like. I'm usually a big fan of whatever he is in or directs or both.

I almost turned this off after 10 minutes. Wish I had.

That said, it's not a poorly written nor poorlyacted film. But, slow: you bet!

I am a very patient viewer, and can take quiet movies. This movie excelled in showing characters looking for 10 seconds. Looking. Remember the TV show Space 1999, how slow and boring that was? Getting close-ups of people's faces as they looked at something? That's what you have here. Over and over and over.

And, the storyline isn't that great. I was never really interested in the whys and whats of the characters. I was never brought to care for any of them. And, when everything was tied together in the end, my response was: "oh." No more than that.

I've seen so many other westerns that are better. Find one that Clint Eastwood is in, and watch that, instead.

I watched this because the IMDb rating was so high. I kept watching because the IMDb rating was so high. I am mystified as to why the IMDb rating is so high.

Also, this is a long movie.

I saw this movie as a kid in the late '70s, then again in high school (early '80s). I loved the Harvard setting, and I loved the story. I was swept away, so to speak (and I'm a sports-playing, football-watching guy!).

I watched this again with my '90s-born daughter maybe around 2016, and it was a joke to her, and I sympathized. I was older in 2016, more mature, and movies have gotten better at story telling and editing. Also, the sensibilities of society had changed so much. Cheesy, I think, was our 2016 decision on the movie.

However, with my wife's curiosity the other night (2025), I watched it again, with her this time.

I've gained a great appreciation of this movie--I think greater than even when I had watched and loved it in elementary and high school. I enjoyed it more than in 2016, but also thought on it a bunch the next day. And, yes, it's one of those movies you think about through the next day. Below is why I appreciate it so much, and I'll actually be more brief than I'd like:

The story-telling of this--the arrangement--is masterful. First, the movie starts at the very end, and then flashes back to the beginning. And the beginning is the moment the two first meet. That's marvelous in itself. It means you learn about him at the same time and rate she's learning about him, and vise-versa. In this way, you experience the relationship as they both did, so you, as the viewer, actively live the relationship. It's not really a movie about his finding her, or her finding him. The point of view is from both of their sides.

Secondly, what this means is that the entire movie is about the relationship, and nothing else. The film starts and ends with the exact start and exact end of the relationship. No background and introduction, and no postlude and aftermath. Brilliant. The end of the movie leaves you to deal with it. It's open-ended.

Beyond the structure, there's the time-capsule aspect of the movie. The film shows so well the sensibilities of the era--1970--from clothes to that generation's view on God. Yet, it shows that generation's still-traditional view on marriage. Specifically: meet and date a person in college that you marry upon graduating. And, there's no stigma as there is today with that, no uncertainty, no "I need to self-actualize," no "I need to pursue and attain to my highest-possible level in the career my education set me up for, so I need to wait on marriage and kids" (while Oliver does this in some ways, he rejects a career-boosting case, and the film shows that his law degree and position at the law firm are not his focus, as it was for his father; his focus is on Jenny). But note how hugely different this is from today. Oliver and Jenny sacrifice other things. Their goal upon college graduation is marriage and then family. Career/work just sustains the marriage and family. Today, largely, that has been subverted. I'm old-school, and my wife and I did what they did, so to see this viewpoint, still intact in 1970 among two progressive, intelligent (Harvard/Radcliffe) people was refreshing.

In addition, the movie covers a lot of significant themes of life. One I just mentioned. A second is this question raised: does wealth and family history matter in the person you marry? A third is the everyone-goes-through-it question: how do you interact with your parents, and especially your father, as you're heading out and when you reach adulthood? Lots of mistakes by both Oliver and his father here, and it's a painful, but important display that viewers can learn from. I wish I had learned from it better for my college and post-college days. Side note: Oliver's relationship with his dad is really the only non-Jenny/Oliver aspect of the film, but it was necessary, because it's a large factor in Jenny and Oliver's relationship, so it adds much.

Tangentially related, the story serves as a warning to rash relationship-breaking with your parents, even for the sake of the "perfect" girl/boy/spouse. Jenny's grief over this and encouragement to Oliver about this is something to be noticed, pondered, and heeded.

Another aspect of the movie's beauty was its showing how two highly competent people can love, support, sacrifice for, and admire each other in life, instead of compete with each other, which can happen easily. This facet is for viewers in the good-example and instructive category, and was a sweet and satisfying aspect of Jenny and Oliver's relationship.

My final observation: excitement over a relationship, great joy, tragic sadness, and the overwhelming sense of "now being all alone, contrary to every expectation," are all so well done in this film.

Lastly, I looked up all the "stuff" on IMDB, and saw how wonderfully this movie was received in 1970. It was the #1 grossing movie of the year, won the Golden Globes for best movie, director, screeplay, actress, and song; additionally, Ryan was nominated for best actor. At the Oscars, all the same nominations, but only the song won. The critics of the time combined for a massive mega score on this movie--much higher than the 6.9 or whatever it gets now on IMDb. Roger Ebert, as a young man at the time, gave it a 100. My conclusion is that this movie was masterfully done, and did and showed things that other movies had not done up to that time. I also guess that it encapsulated well the feeling and mood of the day, combining it with a wonderful, joyful, and tragic story. It really is a quality, significant film. This makes me conclude that the lower ranking it now gets on IMDb is perhaps from those who don't like romances, and from younger people who are judging the film by modern standards, modern filmmaking, and certainly modern sensibilities about how a relationship and life are supposed to be. Don't pay attention to the IMDb ranking. Look at the extraordinarily high ranking given by the critics at the time of the film.

Watch this, and don't be judgey of the sensibilities of a previous era. Take it in, learn, and enjoy yourself. Be happy, intrigued, concerned, and saddened.

Several points:

This appears to me to be a World War II movie that injected Vietnam-era sentiments into its characters.

I would imagine the autobiographical book upon which this movie is made has a much different story and vision. See above.

Also, as one of the trivia points mentioned, Adrian Brody's character was the main character of the book, presumably the author, but in the movie's editing (and to Adrian Brody's surprise at the premiere), he became very much a side character who has very little part in the movie, even in the final 10 minutes in which he is somewhat featured.

The movie is slow, and the viewer is never quite sure of the chronology of the scene he is watching: "Is this a flashback?"

The movie could be described as: the thoughts of various men as they go to and engage in battle--men of whom you know and learn little about. Perhaps the most round character is Nick Nolte's. He is interesting.

A high school debate class could pose as the question of the debate: is this movie pointless? The person arguing the point that the movie has a point would be impassioned, and insert his own thoughts. He would probably be admired by those wanting to consider themselves thoughtful and intellectual and philosophical. But, the easier position to have been assigned would be the position of saying the movie is pointless. And, saying this, this movie is not a movie about war being pointless. That point is not being made.

Perhaps the filmmaker was wanting to give the effect of a soldier who is a part of the battle and has a video camera, turning it on every once in a while to show various people and various scenes and various pictures of beauty in nature, and then having a few of the characters, of which one the viewer is never quite sure, overdubbing some random and philosophical thoughts about life and death--thoughts that sound very much Vietnam era, even though it is a film about the 1943 battle for Guadalcanal, during World War II.

This film is bearable, but it's really a film for elementary-school kids. Don't think this is a hidden gem or a great, wholesome movie that wholesome adults will greatly enjoy. It's a movie you could show to your elementary school classroom when you needed to grade papers. It reminds me of that kind of movie, which I would've seen as an elementary school kid in the '70s The plot is not that great. The acting is not that great. It's scene after scene of mimi-adventures.

I thought the best part of the movie was just seeing the scenes of great depression era life.

Disappointedly, I never really connected with any of the characters. I wish I would've watched something else. Interesting to see John Cusack as an 18-year-old.

I majored in literature in college. I really like Anthony Hopkins and I really like Emma Thompson. I really liked them together in "Remains of the Day." For both of them, I think this is their worst movie of the '90s, in which they were both so good in a number of good films.

I had heard of this movie from the early '90s onward, and finally watched it in 2024. I kept hoping this movie would get better. It didn't.

I think there are two things that kill this movie:

1. This movie is from a novel written during a period of time in which novelists were making social comments and not developing characters and stories. Think: "Red Badge of Courage" and anything by Upton Sinclair. All characters represented a facet of society, and the authors were complaining about society. Because of this, in this era of novel writing, there are often few sympathetic characters or characters you root for. I like characters that I root for. The characters in this novel are not admirable, even Emma Thompson's character. Though Emma is a lovely personality and adds that in flashes to the character she portrays in this film, her character does things with which you cannot sympathize nor understand - nor do they make sense with the rest of her personality. But the author is making a point, and so natural human character gets run over. You do not walk away from this film with warm feelings or sadness for anybody who is portrayed.

2. Related to this, the characters are flat and not round. Neither are the relationships round. Relationships are static, and basically the same at the end as they were in the beginning. No characters develop.

So, if you have an itch for Anthony Hopkins, don't watch this movie. Watch "Remains of the Day," "Legends of the Fall," or "Meet Joe Black." If you have an itch to watch Emma Thompson, watch "Remains of the Day" or one of my personal favorites, in which she makes the movie: "Sense and Sensibility." I know she got the Oscar for best actress from Howard's End," but she is much better in the two I have mentioned.

I knew about this movie when it came out, but had never seen it. Now it's 2024, and I have finally watched this movie. I remember it being well regarded.

I love the movie because it says things that need to be said about the way the media operates in our country. The media operates with the rule: if it's true and if you find out about it, print it, and we are not responsible for how reporting it destroys lives.

This movie does a good job of showing the irresponsibility and callousness of the American press, with its low, legal standard of being able to print whatever they want as long as it is not confirmed to be false and as long as they did not have malice toward the parties the stories are about.

The writing in the script of this movie does a very good job of showing how the press operates and how they destroy lives without care for anything but advancing their careers by breaking a story, and not, on the back end, doing anything to repair the lives they destroyed by their irresponsible reporting.

The movie makes the point that there are some things that are true that would be harmful to people if those facts became public, and that it's not everybody's business to know everything that is true. This came to the forefront in my life when the Tiger Woods story broke in about 2011. Was that interesting to voyeurs? Sure was. Was it true? Yes. Did anyone have to know that besides his wife, who already knew? Absolutely not. Would (and do) Tiger's kids have to live with that for the rest of their lives? They do. The press has no conscience. And they printed that story about Tiger to advance their careers and to raise their ratings, despite what it did to those kids.

So bad. I really like Dennis Quaid, and though I have not seen everything that he has done, what I have seen I've really liked. So, even though this was not rated that highly (I wish I had checked IMDb more thoroughly before I started watching), I gave this a shot. I thought, "True story, so it can't be that bad." It was. It just seemed like every character in this movie was in the bottom 20 percentile of intelligence. People were in emergency situations, and they were pausing, thinking, having conversations, and wondering what to do next, in the incompetent sense of that. I wondered if they were going to bump their heads together by mistake. The whole movie seemed like it was made for someone at a fourth grade level. Everything was telegraphed and spelled out and explained. Lots of cheesy stuff. I think some things were supposed to be funny or cute, and they were just dumb. Part of the difficulty with making a movie like this, is that it's essentially just about a civilian having to land a plane. They had to make at least 90 minutes of movie from just that. Thus, they also got into a lot of sides stories about all the incidental characters to the landing. I didn't care. Also, lots of "oh, no. There's trouble or there's difficulty in this or that relationship," and then "but this event brought all these these relationships together and made people realize that they cared for each other" kind of things." Waste of a night.

So well done. Does a great job with the account from Genesis and gets the point of it all. I've watched this over 10 times. Choked up and teary every time. Great music, with fantastic lyrics. "Better Than I" is better than a lot of sermons I've heard. Absolutely perplexed at two things: 1) Why they decided only to send this to video, and not to theaters and 2) how this has only gotten about 6.5 stars on IMDB. I like "Prince of Egypt," but this is better. Ben Affleck does a good job as Joseph, and it's fun to know that Dan Castellaneta, a.k.a. Homer, has a couple of small parts in this, as well.

This one, the second of this series, is better than the first. Better use of music, better storyline, more action, and no Emily Blount and her friend to get in the way and waste the viewers' time. If you'd liked the first one, you will like this one, too. The movie has elements of a modern day Afghanistan war movie mixed with elements of the TV series "24." The music in this is really intense, and helpful to the storyline. If you like characters in operatives who get the job done and don't mess around, you will like this movie. Glad to have watched it. Good acting by Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, and Jeffrey Donovan.

By mistake, I watched the second one first. Loved the second one. I was puzzled with this one why the Emily Blount and her friend part of the story even needed to exist. You could remove it all, and the movie would be better. I don't understand her reservation nor the reservation of her friend. It's just weird. They are law enforcement people who are involved in the war against drugs, and they get the opportunity to be on the team with people who will disrupt drugs from coming into the country, and they're all upset and questioning these people at every turn. Stupid. Additionally, though I have liked Emily Blount in about everything I have seen her in, but this was bad casting. She is skinny, awkward, and weak, and she is a tactical drug enforcement agent? She is emotionally fragile? And she doesn't understand that the people who are running drugs and killing people who get in their way are bad people? Again, all the Emily Blount stuff was just puzzling. The second movie is better, but this one is still good.

I think this is rated too low. Not the greatest war movie ever made, but not bad in any respect, either. I thoroughly enjoyed this. Also, since it's based on history, it's fun to see that we were in Afghanistan fighting a month after 9/11. Good acting, good reactions of the actors to the 9/11 events. Just the right amount of family, home stories. Likable military. Interesting seeing the terrain and what they dealt with, and the Arab culture there. Clean movie, too. No nudity or crass talk, really. One parting scene between a husband and wife, fully clothed, in which their dialogue would go over the heads of someone under age. Good, educational movie, even if some liberties were taken. I don't know what liberties those were.

Just read some of the low ratings. It seems like many of those who are rating this movie low have an issue with America's Afghanistan policy or are like some today who haven't been overseas or talked to many immigrants, and thus think America is a really bad place.

After watching the movie, I was really surprised to see that the movie was not rated more highly by viewers and critics. I think part of the problem with its low rating is that it requires a lot of thinking about society and the way society works, which is very philosophical. That's hard to do, and that knocks out a lot of people, causing their eyes to glaze over in parts of the movie. Hence, a lot of people enjoyed the movie, but the sociology of 2022 in America is not their bag, so the movie got a moderately good rating overall and not a rating of excellent. That's fine. The movie is very insightful as to how society is working in the social media, Trump, Biden, woke age. If you enjoy thinking about these kinds of things, you will absolutely love this movie.

This is also a movie about Texas culture, and it offers good insight on the culture of any place that is desolate, poor, remote, and without much opportunity. The story takes place in a remote area of Texas, and my previous sentence is not a comment on Texas as a whole, although certain Texas cultural elements are certainly shown in the movie. Thus, this movie has good elements that are common in movies about the culture of the economically poor in America. So, if you like movies, like "Wind River," "The Tender Bar," and "Nomadland," you will like this one, as well.

Next, this is a good movie because it displays the importance of individual people as human beings. It argues that people matter.

Lastly , I liked this movie because it shows growth in characters in a meaningful way. You learn something good about life from the movie. The movie makes you think about life, as it points to some important things, which makes it satisfying and worthwhile. Thoughtful movie. Bravo!

I gave it an eight, and struggled to not give it a nine. So, 8.5. Overall, the movie has a sense of loneliness (not a criticism; it intends that), which is the main reason I didn't rate it higher. That's not a criticism of the movie, it's just a reflection of my tolerance level for loneliness!

If you like movies that are thoughtful and take a look at life, this is one of those movies. It's a movie that is a tad depressing, but not much that way. It's about a broken multigenerational family with various disappointments and hardships, and a boy growing up in the midst of it, with an absent father. I always enjoy Ben Affleck, and he is exceptional in this. Heartfelt moments, but nothing cheesy. I found this movie refreshing because the main characters have many hardships, but press on and live, and do good instead of giving up and living in bitterness. Good themes, tender relationships, and a number of unsung heroes doing good.

As some other reviewers have said, this may be one you can't get through because it is often bleak and depressing. I like Joseph Gordon Levitt a lot. This is an interesting look into the life of somebody who is conscientiously an atheist, who therefore sees all in life to be chance, delivered by nobody, and no beneficent hand from above. Even the foundationless, "It'll get better" and "it'll all turn out in the end" statements you hear from people who don't believe in God are not present in Joseph's character. He sees meaning in nothing, and this is a key theme of the show, as the people around him often provide a contrast in life and viewpoint, seeing meaning for various other reasons, whether from a faith in God, or just from deciding to have a brighter look on life. I don't think the show has any resolution on the issue, which kept me watching during its bleakest moments. Nonetheless, I am glad that I watched it.