Perhaps better if it treats sensitive elements at national-level more seriously

Rating: 5/10 (5 January 2013)

This was a pretty good film, with a solid material as a base and I was also pleasantly surprised with Ben Affleck accomplishing so much as a director. However, it didn't quite work out 'great' for me. Many reviews and wikipedia statements took great efforts to point out the historical inaccuracies and hence I am not going to comment on that.
What I would highlight was that the movie should have treated certain elements that were politically sensitive on a national-level more seriously. If you are going to talk about another nation's role on a real event, it is not right to twist the facts to the point of near-defamation, and it does not make business sense either because what will the viewers of the affected nations think about your movie? Just one sentence spoken in this movie has offended the UK and Canada in that respect.
A worse crime was committed towards the nation where the incident happened, which also made me disappointed. The whole movie was quite alike the cliché that you expect from this type of genre, including dumbing down the villains' intelligence. However, I did not like the way this movie has made the whole country (not just the rebels) looked one-dimensional in character and behaviour, almost barbaric-like in a way. I was also ticked off by the unwanted dramatic car chase scene at the airport. I know this movie is not a documentary and it should be allowed to add some drama flavours if it wishes, but Ben should have been more creative to generate the 'drama' instead of recycling 'angry mobs' and 'fanatic military officials' over and over again. Also, I wish that the movie make more room to focus on several more aspects, like shedding a little more light on the Canadian guy and what ultimately happens to those hostages who were trapped in the embassy.