@patriotdye:
No. I understood your point perfectly. I read the whole article, and I'm not sure what makes you think i didn't understand what you quoted from it. I understand it, I even partially agree, its just that none of that is relevant to what I was actually saying in my original post. If I had been talking about how accurate the film is, then it would've been a good reply, but I wasn't. I was talking about the film's realism, something that the article doesn't touch on at all.
No. I understood your point perfectly. I read the whole article, and I'm not sure what makes you think i didn't understand what you quoted from it. I understand it, I even partially agree, its just that none of that is relevant to what I was actually saying in my original post. If I had been talking about how accurate the film is, then it would've been a good reply, but I wasn't. I was talking about the film's realism, something that the article doesn't touch on at all.











































