"Mr. Calhoun has decided here that he doesn't like the film, exaggerating and misrepresenting in order to make his point - it's like bad science. 1. Criticism is made of the casting of an American in the role of an East Londoner. Perhaps Ms. Williams didn't nail the accent in every moment, but her effort is admirable none-the-less (coming from an ex-Londoner). Perhaps Mr. Calhoun doesn't like Americans, as is the fashion these days. No one forces you to drink Coca-cola, Mr. Calhoun. 2. The main character flings with her husband's boss AFTER pursuing the terrorist's son, so there's no bottling to be done. In fact, one of the most explosive scenes involves those characters (near the end, I might add). The so-called "conspiracy" sub-plot merely provides character fodder - one looks for nothing more, and nothing more is promised. 3. Revenge and forgiveness (alongside grief and guilt) are key points in the film - that hardly represents a dead-end. 4. As the previous reviewer states, the character's pursuit of the terrorist's son has nothing to do with chance, nor is it portrayed as such. 5. The alleged De Menezes scene is realistic - a fair expectation given such circumstances. 6. What other choice exists than to digitally render the balloons? They did a good job - you criticize it only to reinforce your position, and because you know they could not be real balloons.
In a nut-shell, you are a sorry excuse for a journalist and film critic, Mr. Calhoun. I suggest you do something else. But, please, let it not involve writing."