If I read that right the author is upset that the director didn't tell the story the way he would have and so characterizes it as a moral hazard. Then goes on the ignore the fact that the same moneyed geopolitical powers that fed the 'EVIL NATIONALISM' took a short break and started WWII, took another short break and decided that the fires in the middle east had burned too low while the U.S. was bumbling around in other parts of the world so got things going again at the turn of the century.
The author claims to have spoken to historians but comes across as woefully bereft of any understanding beyond his knee-jerk 'Orange Man Bad' bed wetting.
I haven't seen this movie yet, but it's on my to do list.
If I read that right the author is upset that the director didn't tell the story the way he would have and so characterizes it as a moral hazard. Then goes on the ignore the fact that the same moneyed geopolitical powers that fed the 'EVIL NATIONALISM' took a short break and started WWII, took another short break and decided that the fires in the middle east had burned too low while the U.S. was bumbling around in other parts of the world so got things going again at the turn of the century.
The author claims to have spoken to historians but comes across as woefully bereft of any understanding beyond his knee-jerk 'Orange Man Bad' bed wetting.
I haven't seen this movie yet, but it's on my to do list.
(post is archived)