This film is about a group of deserters trying to find refuge in Canada. It is not an objective look at the bigger issues. For the entire film not one person critical of the actions of the deserters is interviewed. These men deserve to be heard but so do their critics. This is obviously a film designed to preach to the choir. Objective observers would want the other side of the story.
Some points that should have been asked are:
What do the deserter's former comrades who actually followed orders think? Not one of these men or women are interviewed.
How are Hintzman's feelings on the war in Iraq relevant when he was deployed to Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and Al Qaida?
Is the comparison between Vietnam draft dodgers and Iraq war deserters actually relevant given that today's American army is all volunteer? And how did that effect the legal questions that the Canadian courts faced?
If the deserters felt that their actions are justified by the idea that the war in Iraq is wrong, why were they not brave enough to refuse to serve but stay in America and fight in courts (like the army officer in Washington state) instead of running to Canada?
These are just a few of the points that an intelligent, even handed filmmaker would address. The only reason I can think of to not present these questions or any dissenting opinions is that the purpose of this film is not to inform but to propagandize.
1 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?