@revengine said:

I haven't seen the movie myself so I can't really comment on it but it seems most of the criticism is for poor performances from the 3 guys who portrayed themselves. Should Eastwood have used professional actors instead?

Yes; and that's the comment I was going to make. After about 45 minutes or so into the movie I started looking around thinking is there anyone else still here watching this with me? After a while I felt like I was watching someone's home movie...I started asking myself; what's the point? There was one scene early on that set up a foreshadow and I couldn't wait for that to happen. Unfortunately; that didn't take place till the very end of the movie.

Using the real people who lived out the experience in theory I thought was a really cool move, but in reality it proved to me in a very big way why good actors command the money they do.

It's funny, as this has been the center of all the negative feedback this film has received. So I went in knowing they weren't "professionals." What surprised me was how good they were even though they weren't. Now, to be clear, they are not actors, but they are only playing themselves.

For me the more difficult portions of the film were the awkward middle school scenes. The dialog was rough and the kid actors struggled. Once the movie finally got to the "military days" I found it quite enjoyable.

BTW, in watching the credits it seems that not only did the three Americans play themselves, but so did the gunshot victim (and hero as far as I'm concerned), his wife, and a couple of other people. While using the real people might not have been the best choice for "entertainment value," I do think it was a creative way to cement the reality of their experience without being a documentary film. Definitely an average flick, but +2 because it was true!