The thing that I find really bothersome about this essay is how Mr. Kamber allows his intimate knowledge of EODs in Iraq to skewer this movie. To a degree, I can understand. This isn’t the first time I’ve read about factual inaccuracies in this movie. I understand how discrepancies between fact and fictional portrayals can interfere with one’s enjoyment of said portrayal. But I don’t think that anyone’s closeness or intimacy with the subject should necessarily allow that person to ruin it for everybody. Movies are, first and foremost, entertainment. And to use the NYT Lens blog as a platform for Mr. Kamber, a person who is very closely familiar with the atmosphere of the Iraq war, to spout off his personal grievances against the film because of its sins of inaccuracy seems almost questionable to me ethically. (To say nothing of the fact that it seems strangely timed in terms of the Oscars.) Mr. Kamber seems unable to let go of his relationship with the source in order to really try to understand the movie as a movie, and evaluate it as such, and not just as a direct reflection of what he has seen and been through. If it were supposed to be the latter, it would be a documentary. The fact that, say, Sgt. James can be easily written off by Mr. Kamber as the “Steely-Nerved-Protagonist Who Has Seen Too Much” suggests that he didn’t even give most of the movie, and this character in particular, a chance. He clearly decided very early on that the movie was grossly inaccurate and therefore immensely flawed, and spent the rest of the two hours viewing the movie through the lens of his distaste. Which in itself strikes me as distasteful.