not a bad one

Rating: Null/10 (9 January 2001)

I finally got to see this film that seemed much applauded when it first came out in 1996. It was worth viewing. It's a good example of how an action can lead to enormous, disastrous consequences. My only gripe with the film is discovering, while surfing the net, that it wasn't an actual true event with the Coen brothers being rather evasive on the subject. Otherwise there should have been a postscript at the end of the film as others do. I was initially intrigued that it was based on true life, thinking that one couldn't conceive such disaster. Now, if that was only a gimmick, then I think it's a cheap one and one that the Coen brothers need not have used. What do others think? Does truth matter in this way?
As to the overall rating, I'd give it a 4/5 for being a well-constructed film and captivating entertainment.