I have posted before on this film. I am from Northern Ireland and am well aware of the facts and feel qualified to give an opinion.
There are so many faults with this film that seem to be being ignored. This is based on the statements to the Saville inquiry as people have said..but guess what, the Saville inquiry is only half way through the evidence and hasn't heard from the soldiers involved.
This is biased, it was made by a well known left wing film maker Paul Greengrass, who used to work for World in Action. That is not to denegrate anyone for being left wing but it should flag up where they are coming from.
The film showed a token IRA presence, which was included no doubt to allow rioters to be seen chasing them away, I wish. There is equal evidence and claims of the IRA shooting first why was this not shown in the film? There were a number of IRA men on the streets that day, why show one or two.
Why because it is more fashionable to knock the army, and to assume their guilt even though the Saville enquiry has not finished. I wonder if the enquiry finds any different from this film or hears conflicting evidence will we see another film being made - hardly.
What next? a film about the three innocent 'tourists' in Gibraltar? or the poor AlQueda tourists on the streets of Khandahar?
What about a film showing how the IRA tied poor catholic workers to vehicles with explosives turning them into 'suicide bombers' all beit that the IRA hadn't the bottle to drive them themselves.
There are so many faults with this film that seem to be being ignored. This is based on the statements to the Saville inquiry as people have said..but guess what, the Saville inquiry is only half way through the evidence and hasn't heard from the soldiers involved.
This is biased, it was made by a well known left wing film maker Paul Greengrass, who used to work for World in Action. That is not to denegrate anyone for being left wing but it should flag up where they are coming from.
The film showed a token IRA presence, which was included no doubt to allow rioters to be seen chasing them away, I wish. There is equal evidence and claims of the IRA shooting first why was this not shown in the film? There were a number of IRA men on the streets that day, why show one or two.
Why because it is more fashionable to knock the army, and to assume their guilt even though the Saville enquiry has not finished. I wonder if the enquiry finds any different from this film or hears conflicting evidence will we see another film being made - hardly.
What next? a film about the three innocent 'tourists' in Gibraltar? or the poor AlQueda tourists on the streets of Khandahar?
What about a film showing how the IRA tied poor catholic workers to vehicles with explosives turning them into 'suicide bombers' all beit that the IRA hadn't the bottle to drive them themselves.