#1 reason NOT to waste $$$ on "Lone Survivor" theater ticket (+8 reasons it should NEVER have been made)

Rating: 1/10 (26 December 2013)

Summary: I convey 8 reasons why this movie should never have been made, and highlight the #1 reason why you shouldn't waste your money seeing "Lone Survivor" in the theater:
Reason +1: It's Not Worth the Price of Admission
Quite simply, having been based on a factually dubious "memoir" that has more in common with fiction than any genuine biography, "Lone Survivor" movie fails to deliver significant value in exchange for the cost of admission. This film should be avoided until it's available on DVD for a fraction of the cost.
Eight reasons why "Lone Survivor" should not have been made into a movie, based on violence dot com:
Reason 1: Luttrell got his facts wrong.
Marcus Luttrell exaggerated the importance of his target Ahmad Shah, totally misunderstood why the US went to Iraq & Afghanistan, and even over-estimated the number of fighters in the ambush. How can you take seriously a movie based on a fictionalized war memoir after reading mistakes like these?
Reason 2: The backlash could be gigantic.
Remember the backlash from Soldiers against the Hurt Locker? Lone Survivor will get a full blown tidal wave, and from more than just the mil-bloggers. Liberals will think it is too ideological, and Soldiers will think it is too over-the-top. Based on what some people wrote in our comment threads, even SEALs laugh at Luttrell.
Reason 3: Lone Survivor is too political.
The character of Luttrell is nauseatingly partisan & political, when war stories (in print or celluloid) shouldn't be political, they should be honest. "Black Hawk Down" worked because it ignored politics. It told the story of Army Rangers in an awful situation, but it told it forthrightly. Lone Survivor doesn't come close to this level of honesty, and unfortunately this movie mirrors the SAME DISHONESTY that characterized Luttrell's horrible book.
Reason 4: There were better stories.
The battle of VPB Wanat. The attack at COP Keating. Operation ROCK Avalanche. The Pat Tillman Ambush/Incident. Peter Berg could have told countless stories w/ more honesty and importance than Lone Survivor, without the political rants or exaggeration.
Reason 5: Lone Survivor will get soldiers killed if they follow its implicit advice.
Simply put, Luttrell doesn't get counterinsurgency. If Soldiers followed Luttrell's advice, they would either get themselves or innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan (or anywhere, really)
Reason 6: Luttrell needlessly vilifies Muslims and Afghans.
Luttrell (the "author" and the character) labels all Muslims--Shia, Sunni, Persians, Afghans, and Middle-Easterners--as hate-filled terrorists. This is ignorance at its best. First, not even 1% of Muslims are terrorists, and two, terrorists can be from Africa, Japan, Pakistan, or even America (think Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber or Eric Robert Rudolph). Only lust for money could lead a director or a studio to validate and promote Luttrell's hate- filled propaganda.
Reason 7: "Lone Survivor" the Movie corrupts and impedes political discourse - you won't "learn" anything from it (Except how to die)
You can't call liberals evil, hold them responsible for the death of your friends, like Luttrell terrible book, and then have a courteous political discourse. Afghanistan shouldn't be a Democratic issue or Republican issue, it should be an American issue. Letting partisan politics get in the way of serious security issues is disgusting (but apparently the American way).
Reason 8: It will ruin the history of Afghanistan for years.
Many Vietnam veterans don't like Vietnam war movies because the twisted reality they promote is often how most Americans who see them remember Vietnam. Many active service members hated "The Hurt Locker" because it misrepresented the experience of War in Iraq. Lone Survivor movie does the exact same for Afghanistan. And Hollywood makes the same mistake again.