On assigning credit where it's due...

The gross injustice must have been painfully felt, when one works your butt off trying to get the job done, and the credit goes to someone else instead.

I'm talking about the upcoming movie "American Gangster," where its revisionist history rewrites who should get the credit for bringing down the black drug lord Frank Lucas. Have the screenwriter(s) and director been so sloppy in its research in undercover where the credit should have laid, or do they simply take the easy way out and put a one-man-hero as the poster boy for the whole operation?

It's indeed so unfair because people will eventually die, but the movie lives to tell a story that is half true, yet labeling it "based on a true story." I'm sure teams of lawyers can argue down to the last dots and crosses, that it's just "based" on a true story, but it's not necessarily the whole true story.

There is a tremendous amount of social responsibility, for movie makers to make movies based on true stories to do due diligence, and be as factual as can be. It does not seem to be the case here, unfortunately.