Review: Behind Enemy Lines

Next to Warner Brothers, which bought the rights to the first Harry Potter book for peanuts, 20th Century Fox is the luckiest studio around. Behind Enemy Lines -- a tight, highly entertaining and patriotic war thriller about soldiers heading into harm's way -- couldn't possibly be more timely. The aerial and ground combat special affects are so realistic they nearly constitute a breakthrough. The two major actors -- Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson -- are terrific, balancing and complimenting one another. The action is fast-paced and non-stop. Wilson really comes into his own in this is a disciplined, old-style Hollywood war yarn. And only a crisp 90 minutes long! SPOILAGE WARNING: plot is discussed, not ending.

The plot centers on an aircraft carrier patrolling near the end of the savage conflict in Bosnia. The ship is run by Americans but under the command of NATO, a setup for the murky global politics that underscore the plot. Lt. Chris Burnett (Wilson) is sick of the routines of non-combat flying and is considered a spoiled hotdog by his weary Admiral Riegart (Hackman). A wise-cracking smartass, he's sent on an aerial reconnaissance mission on Christmas Day. Ever looking to push the envelope (shades of Tom Cruise in Top Gun ), he veers off course and takes pictures of things he's not supposed to see -- civilians being slaughtered. His plane is shot down in a whiz-bang, special-affects laden sequence, his co-pilot and best buddy murdered as he looks on helplessly.

From the first shot, Director John Moore knows exactly what he's doing. The movie has an authentic, gung-ho quality too it, and it's eerily prescient -- the spy satellite and thermal imaging stuff is right out of today's evening newscasts. The Bosnian war and background scenes are authentic and disturbing. The movie moves like a rocket, pushed along by jump cuts, aerial shots and changes in film speed and angles. It doesn't get cluttered up with the usual distractions (remember Pearl Harbor's belabored love interests and other digressions?). And it actually ends right where it should, a minor cinematic miracle these days! Wilson convincingly evolves from an irresponsible snot-nose into a resourceful warrior, pursued by cool, murderous Bosnian soldiers who want to get the film of a massacre he shot from his onboard digital camera. Riegert is snarled in bureaucracy, his efforts to save the pilot complicated by a weak-kneed U.S. government and NATO wussies worried about global politics and diplomatic concerns.

As the onboard Marines restlessly lobby to fire up their Apaches and go in and get him, Wilson dodges and battles the Bosnian army all over the European forests (the movie was shot in Eastern Europe). The ending is pure John Wayne. This is a first-rate war thriller under any circumstances, but given the particular ones raging in Afghanistan, it's going to be a blockbuster.

Comments

Movie reviews?

[imrdkl]

Is this a demotion for the katzster?

Re:Movie reviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's been doing movie reviews for awhile now, in addition to his braindead articles. Generally he's wrong (if he likes a movie, avoid it like cliches).

Re:Movie reviews?

[Anonymous Coward]

i have directed, written and shot several PROFESSIONAL films and wish to stay anonymous. This movie had the worst writting ever and the terrible acting didn't help much either. What is wrong with slashdot? I know MOST movie directors do drugs, but how much has slashdot used to give this movie a good review? You guys should stick to computers.

Top Dog?

[Anonymous Coward]

Top Dog? I don't remember that movie?

Re:Top Dog?

[SparkyMartin]

Wasn't there an old Hanna Barbara cartoon called Top Dog? Or was it Top Cat? What was the name of that superhero dog that looked like Huckleberry Hound?

Re:Top Dog?

[ergo98]

Oh man the Top Dog thing had me busting a gut. Top Gun is a cheesy, extraordinarily lame movie, but I still love it: There's something about the clean blue skies, etc. There's a certain irony in the fact that many laserdisc/DVD demo setups still show Top Gun as the big demo of the visual acuity and sounds, despite the fact that it's some 15 years old.

The F-14 is still a beautiful fighter, albeit seriously outdated. Actually the F-111 Aardvark was one amazing bomber/fighter.

Re:Top Dog?

[telstar]

That's the one where Tom Cruise looks EXACTLY like Chuck Norris.

Re:Top Dog?

[FlyingDragon]

I think the Tom Cruise movie you are thinking of is "Top Gun", not "Top Dog." No big deal, but might throw some people off.

No big deal? The one reference he makes to another movie is wrong. Not just any movie, either -- one of Cruise's most famous roles. At least he didn't say the ending was fresh out of Mission: Improbable.

Re:Top Dog?

[Lars T.]

Dang, I thought he played the other lead.

Re:Top Dog?

[mmol_6453]

"It's a bird!"
"It's a plane!"
"It's a frog!"

(in chorus) "A frog?!"

"I'm no bird, nor plane, nor even frog. I'm just little old me--"(CRASH!) (weakly) "Underdog..."

Top Dog?

[EasyRhino]

I think the Tom Cruise movie you are thinking of is "Top Gun", not "Top Dog." No big deal, but might throw some people off.

Realistic

[alen]

I only saw the trailers but it doesn't seem very realistic. Americans never leave their dead or missing on the battlefield. Not after Vietnam. When I was in the army we were taught that we should risk our own lives to bring back the bodies of our dead. To the US Army Rangers it's a part of life. Somalia is an example. Same thing with missing. You search for them until you are sure they are dead and then you bring back the remains.

But it's a good story for Hollywood about a rogue officer trying to do what is right and going against the beauracracy. Americans hate beauracracy and it reflects in our art.

Re:Realistic

[SquierStrat]

I'm not military, so I'll first say thank you for your service to our country.

But I'll disagree with you SLIGHTLY.
In normal battle I'd agree, 100% true. The Marines Corp. I know has a motto that follows suit to Semper Fidelis...NEVER leave a man behind. However, when under NATO command, and when the pilot is somewhere he wasn't supposed to, I doubt politicians would even think twice about leaving a man for death when it will save their political asses. The point in the plot, is that the US military didn't want to leave him in there, they want to go in to get him. So, I'd say it is very realistic. Maybe I should say it like this to sum it all up: your argument against it's realism, is what makes it realistic.

Maybe I'm off my rocker though. :-)

Re:Realistic

[kerrbear]

Realistic? Hardly.

Fighter pilots that go off mission on a whim? Can you say serious lack of discipline? They get shot down in enemy territory, and our hero leaves his injured buddy out in the open in broad daylight? Then he moves around during the day? This is some of the most idiotic military procedures ever shown. If our military was really like this, Osama Bin Ladin would now be our president.

Of course, our hero is completely impervious to explosions and has the superhuman ability to dodge bullets. And for some reason the director thought that realistic battle action involves shaking the camera around so much that you can't really see what's happening. Saving Private Ryan this was not.

Re:Realistic

[davy_wavy_42]

Well, it IS a movie. You know, there wouldn't have been much of one if they just returned to base in the beginning. A friend of mine spoke a phrase when entering a movie theater: "Suspend Your Disbelief." Star Wars? That's realistic? Yeah, okay, Behind Enemy Lines is loosly based on actual events, buy you have to allow the directors some latitude.

What I thought was great were the enemy. They weren't some clownish ultra-evil goons, but semi-evil, following-orders types. I was relieved (for the movie's sake) when the pilot was killed, rather than seeing the film turn the co-pilot into some sort of rambo super battle dude. Cause he's just an aviator. He's got basic combat training, so the level of conflict they put him in as a downed pilot was appropriate.

And those cuts and arty-mcfarty camera work were great. No tired Matrix camera-swirlies, but lots of speed switches and stuff. Now I totally hated John Woo's Mission Impossible 2... I thought half of it was in slo-mo. But this film made great use of special effects. And, now this blew me away... THEY USED MINATURES!!! Why people complain A New Hope looked better than Phantom Menace? Because minatures STILL look better than CG for the most part. Witness the rag doll, plastic-faced CG models on broomsticks in Harry Potter.

Oh, and no doubt that the message of this film is straight propaganda from the Feds. Hollywood following orders. But sit back and enjoy the unbridled patriotism!

Kick ass movie!

Re:Realistic

[spencerogden]

I think the point that is being made is that that the poloticians might have left him, but his fellow soldier never would have, especially not out in th open.

Re:Realistic

[Thagg]

One of the most chilling things that my father-in-law said about flying F-4s over Vietnam is that they figured out pretty quickly that being shot down and killed is not the worst thing that could happen to you.

Ouch.

ObDisclaimer -- my company did effects for a dozen shots in Behind Enemy Lines; stuff that you'll never know was effects, though.

Re:Realistic

[SquierStrat]

Exactly. Which, in the movie, they didn't.

Re:Realistic

[Not The Real Me]

As ex-military myself, I tend to agree with you about not leaving your dead behind. Even in Vietnam, the U.S. only left its dead behind when the body couldn't be found or extraction was impossible (since the nights belonged to Charlie, ARVN were almost useless, both civilians and VC wore black pajamas, and Westmoreland and the politicians in D.C. were determined not to win). The U.S. routinely left the dead behind in WWII and Korea. The numbers of U.S. MIA in Korea and WWII are staggering compared to Vietnam. As far as the movie is concerned, it's pure Hollywood. U.S. pilots *DO NOT* change their mission on a whim. It's career suicide if a pilot loses his ship because of negligence or "winging it". Officers in the military pretty much toe the line when it comes to D.C. politics. The only time I ever heard an officer sound even remotely rebellious was when they were drunk and out of earshot of other officers. So, a guy in the military frustrated by bureaucracy or politics?! Sounds more like an NCO, ground pounder or grunt, not a pilot.

Re:Realistic

[mgblst]

Fighter pilots that go off mission on a whim? Can you say serious lack of discipline? They get shot down in enemy territory, and our hero leaves his injured buddy out in the open in broad daylight? Then he moves around during the day? This is some of the most idiotic military procedures ever shown. If our military was really like this, Osama Bin Ladin wouldnt have been caught by now.

Re:Realistic

[hearingaid]

Fighter pilots that go off mission on a whim? Can you say serious lack of discipline?

Yes, I can. :)

During the Persian Gulf War, one senior US military officer stole an attack helicopter (I believe it was an Apache) because he was frustrated with the way the war was being conducted, and flew off to attack the Iraqis by himself.

The British did the right thing, of course, and shot him down. IIRC, he was a Major in the Army.

Now, you can certainly complain that this movie is unrealistic. I would probably agree with you there. But to base your claim on how it portrays the American military as lacking discipline is, well, unwise. ;)

Re:Realistic

[stripes]

Then he moves around during the day?

Saving Private Ryan this was not.

Note: Saving Private Ryan had similar problems, at the end for example the German tanks were moving in daylight, that late in the war the US had air superiority and German tanks avoided the day because they would be blown up by air support.

It is just a real pain to film that kind of thing at night (or to look like night), so in war movies lots of stuff that would really happen at night is filmed to be in day. (It was nice that a some of the SPR marches were filmed at night...)

Re:Realistic

[Myxorg]

Note: Saving Private Ryan had similar problems, at the end for example the German tanks were moving in daylight, that late in the war the US had air superiority and German tanks avoided the day because they would be blown up by air support

Actually at this particular point in the war, the weather was really really bad, and our planes were unable to be effective against the germans. I remember seeing on the History channel a battle that took place almost exactly as it was in Saving Private Ryan with US. air power coming and saving the day at the last minute. Perhaps this was the battle the movie was based on, I don't know I'm not a history buff.

Re:Realistic

[stripes]

Actually at this particular point in the war, the weather was really really bad, and our planes were unable to be effective against the germans. I remember seeing on the History channel a battle that took place almost exactly as it was in Saving Private Ryan with US. air power coming and saving the day at the last minute. Perhaps this was the battle the movie was based on, I don't know I'm not a history buff.

Intresting, I hadn't heard that. However I'll note the weather was pretty good in SPR, but again it is a pain to film in bad weather, and frequently not as fun to watch (Twister being a notiable exception).

Re:Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former Marine I'll go ahead and correct your summation of the motto. The Marine Corps motto is Semper Fidelis, which is "Always Faithful" in English. As far as leaving the bodies of our dead - you do anything within reason to bring them back. But first priority is getting those still alive back out.

Re:Realistic

[Magius_AR]

** SPOILERS BELOW **

Fighter pilots that go off mission on a whim

It wasn't entirely a whim...they said they saw something that shouldn't be there, so they went to check it out. Still disobeying orders, yes, but not completely whimsical. And not entirely condemable (those who follow orders blindly...)

our hero leaves his injured buddy out in the open in broad daylight

That WAS stupid, and he even acknowledged his mistake later on the radio ("I shouldn't have left him" or something)

he moves around during the day

Time wasn't exactly on his side here. The enemy knows you're there, and they're right on your tail. Would you honestly stop and give hiding a try and hope they don't find you? (similar to the scene where he hid in the grave). Although it did annoy me that he was dumb enough to go charging out into the open (like in the town scene with the mines) when there was obviously forested region all around him.

All in all, I do believe it was quite realistic, at least until the end when 3 choppers manage to take on an entire army and walk away with a scratch or 2. I especially liked the part where they were trying to avoid the missiles. Much more realistic than you normally see in military movies...FINALLY a movie where the damn thing REACQUIRES its target.

Magius_AR

Re:Realistic

[SquierStrat]

I was not summming up the motto, I said 'NEVER leave a man behind' follows suit to it, that is to say, it goes along with it, and matches with it. Oh yes, I knew the meaning of semper fidelis, but that you for stating it for those who didn't. :-)
I have friends who were marines who were nice enough to tell me about it.

And by the way, thank you for your service to our country!

Re:Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the shoot down scene was the most unrealistic part of the whole movie. Although it was exciting and looke cool. Missles fly very many times faster then planes, without knowing what kind of SAM it was supposed to be, from memory most SAMs fly between mach 3 and 7. That plane, yanking and banking around like that, was definatly going well below mach 1. You don't out run missles, you don't dog fight with them. You put them at a 90degree angle and turn into them to keep em there, dumping chaff and flare the whole time. You hope you can make the missle reach the edge of its flight envelope or make its sensors hit their gimbal limits. Either way you hope its turn radius cant' tighten enough to hit you. You also don't make head on passes and have them clip you. They don't have to hit you head on to go off, almost all have some way of sensing proximity, as was shown when the finally get shot down. Top Gun did a good jopb depicitng air combat. This movie should of had a lot more SAMS launched at the plane insetead of a 3 minute dog fight with 2. He actually did a loop and came up behind the missles for christ sake.
OK, done ranting.
P.S. even though they eject several seconds appart they still manage to bump into eachothers ejection seats as the fly through air. Sorry.

This CANNOT be the real Jon Katz

[Warshadow]

Did he just NOT insult a movie for once? IMPOSTER! Actually whatever you've done with the real Jon Katz please leave him there!

Re:This CANNOT be the real Jon Katz

[Anonymous Coward]

He's still the real JonKatz. Maybe not mentally, since he just came out of reeducation as part of the war effort, but physically, he's still JonKatz.

Re:Revolutionary ner business-model

[Anonymous Coward]

The car companies have you beat. They sell the product and give away the services. The long warranties. Some are even throwing in things like free oil changes and other maintenance stuff for a few years.

Re:Revolutionary ner business-model

[Anonymous Coward]

Our construction-company has an idea of giving houses away for free and sell services like cleaning and window-washing to the people buying them.

Re:Behind the Post

[telstar]

Well, it's good to see you're keeping an open mind.

Re:Revolutionary ner business-model

[Anonymous Coward]

"They sell the product and give away the services."

We do the excact opposite, we give away the cars and charge for all the services. The total cost of ownership will drop to about $100 a year, ain't that great?!

My take on the movie....

[Zobeid]

I generally liked it, but I had a few quibbles.

1. Too much use of camera shake. This made it hard to watch in some points, while not really helping tell the story in any way. It also gave me a creepy feeling at one point.... The obviously hand-held camera is following our hero, and I'm wondering: Who is following our guy around with a camera? The shake makes it seem like there should be a person there.

2. Too heavy-handed use of music soundtrack. I don't like being lead by the nose with music telling me what I should feel at every moment in the movie. Silence can be golden. Just watch 2001: A Space Odyssey again, you'll see.

3. The whole theme of hero's doubts about "why are we here" seems quaintly anachronistic after the events of Sept 11. So do the parts where UN officials are bossing around the US Navy. Can anyone imagine that happening today? The world has changed in a short time, and this film is already taking on the feeling of a historical piece.

Re:My take on the movie....

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole theme of hero's doubts about "why are we here" seems quaintly anachronistic after the events of Sept 11.

How did 2001.09.11 clarify things?

Re:My take on the movie....

[FFFish]

But it's a crisp ninety minutes long! That's so much better than those gawdawful long movies that approach two hours in length. Katz and I see eye-to-eye on this one: the shorter the movie, the better it is! A *real* director should be able to tell his story in fifteen minutes or less.

Re:My take on the movie....

[Anonymous Coward]

umm, it is not UN but NATO officials... and it was NATO mission, not US venegance mission... how can u compare that to 9/11 is beyond me

Re:My take on the movie....

[mgblst]

3. The whole theme of hero's doubts about "why are we here" seems quaintly anachronistic after the events of Sept 11. So do the parts where UN officials are bossing around the US Navy. Can anyone imagine that happening today? The world has changed in a short time, and this film is already taking on the feeling of a historical piece.

Come on, the US has never listened to anything the UN had to say, just as they were ignored by the USSR. The world hasnt changed, US is bombing another country, another one in the middle east, and a few years down the track, just when you thought things were getting back to normal, there will probably be some more retribution.

Re:My take on the movie....

[Paul Komarek]

On the other hand, if they manage to get the story down to 15 minutes, the remaining 75 minutes are really going to suck. And whose going to pay $8 for a 15 minute movie?

-Paul Komarek

Re:My take on the movie....

[Danse]

I think he means clarified for the masses, rather than for everyone. Judging by the president's approval ratings, the vast majority of people think we're doing the right thing. Anyone saying otherwise is likely to get strung up. A recent poll discovered that over 75% of people surveyed believe that anyone who is against the war or American foreign policy should not be allowed to give speeches at a college, among other restrictions.

Re:Movie reviews? | Ending sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we should all be used to the Hollywood endings that everybody ends up happy, good triumphs over evil (usually US over anybody else regardless of which side is good or evil), but the ending is stupid and unrealistic.

Besides, the movie really doesn't reflect on all the complex ethnic hatred in the region...

Wait a minute! That never was the purpose of the movie, just to extult US heroism and patriotism. Ok, so I guess the movie does a good job ;-)

Re:Jon,

[telstar]

Nah, he's too busy downloading tunes to his iPod in between episodes of Baywatch.

This might be very bad.

[Krapangor]

Such war movies always propagate violent and harmful solutions to problems.
They make seem violence the best solution for problems but it's always the worst and the last.
This might be just the usual hollywood crap, but hollywood is flooding and brainwashing the whole world with such movies.
We don't need to be surprised when youngesters in palestine or north ireland make violent terror to solve their problems because they just learned it all for hollywood movies.
Therefore I think such movies are very bad and should be banned all over the world.
Even Microsofts high marketshare is mainly based on hollywoods movies because they always show windows and people think that every computer must have windows and therefore buy only computers with windows.
There you see how bad such hollywood movies are !!!

Re:This might be very bad.

[SquierStrat]

Let's take a trip to the 18th century.

Oh dear king, would you please grant us our independence, since you won't even let us have representation for our taxation. It's not like we will revolt or anything, we're not violent people afterall.

I'm sorry, violence solves ALOT. When I was younger and got picked on, and beat-up, standing there and taking it didn't solve a thing, but by God when one-day I slugged the guy and shoved my knee into his stomach, then into his face, he never messed with me again. Here's the thing: violence does solve problems, when a) it's directed at the correct person/people and when b) you're right, and they aren't.

Portrayed violence doesn't create more violence, it merely reflects some a fact of society.

Re:This might be very bad.

[CakerX]

I must agree with you completely, but with me it wasn't until I started going out of my way to fuck with the bullies did they stop. That was in 8th grade. Last year my senior year in high school,the same kids tried to get me to help them in a fight. I just looked at them and laughed.

Re:This might be very bad.

[mike_g]

Even Microsofts high marketshare is mainly based on hollywoods movies because they always show windows and people think that every computer must have windows and therefore buy only computers with windows.

I don't know about that. It seems that in most movies that I see, all of the machines are Macs. They are especially visible in movies such as Independence Day, and Mission Impossible. I think that they used SGIs in Jurassic Park, but I can't recall off of the top of my head any instance where I saw a windows logo in a movie.

But anyway I think that I like filthy's review of the movie much better.

Re:This might be very bad.

[SquierStrat]

For me, it was around 6th grade. Until I was 16, I had a reputation as "one bad ass little shit" who "you don't wanna fuck with." Truthfully, as long as you didn't pick a fight, or pick on my friends, I was pretty civil! :-)

Re:This might be very bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Filthy has been right on target for movies that I've watched and then read his review in the archives; I've since learned to trust his judgement.
That, and he's damned funny.

Re:This might be very bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

True Lies was one (the Arabian or whatever Win 3.11 in the beginning scene), but you're right on the whole. Most movies do use Macs, even if they are off screen and all you can recognize is the keyboard. When PCs are used, such as in Eraser (Acers I think), they are running some generic X-Windows looking thing. Even Hackers (hehehe) talked about the Pentium Pro being in a laptop...which was a Powerbook...same sort of thing in an episode of that Timecop show (pretends to read I..B..M... off a Powerbook) Actually, in the Net, you'll note the villain has a Thinkpad vs. Ms. Bullock and her plethora of Macs.
Beyond hardware though, very few movies actually show the OS as being anything real. Even if the OS is shown, it's some fictional super-app that does exactly whatever the characters need...

Re:This might be very bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing: violence does solve problems, when a) it's directed at the correct person/people and when b) you're right, and they aren't.

Then 9/11 was justified, since those dead civilians voted for the government which supported another government's murder of other civilians (Israel, if you don't know by know). If you decide to leave a loaded gun sitting around, wouldn't you be responsible if that gun ends up in the hands of some kid who shoots himself?

Re:This might be very bad.

[SquierStrat]

You obviously didn't read my statement. There are conditions to when it will solve problems. Also, some of those civilians might not have voted for the governing bodies that support murder. Also, alot of non-americans were in the WTC. By the way, every country in the middle east murders civilians,not just Israel, so that's not much of an argument.

Only 90 minutes long?

[OblongPlatypus]

You say this like it's a good thing, a tendency I've noticed in many reviews lately. For some reason a movie is regarded as too long if it even comes close to the two hour mark. DVD fans will know another side of the issue; director commentaries always talk about the parts they had to slash, and the number of unused scenes only seem to grow.

I understand perfectly well that in many cases a movie can be made too long, making it boring or just too long-winded. But why is a short movie seen as a good thing in itself? If a movie is really good, I'd love to stay in the theatre for three hours, or more. If it isn't good, I'll just leave. I can't tell you how many movies I've seen lately where I wished it would just last longer, and show us more of the story.

Re:Only 90 minutes long?

[Pope]

Agreed. Hell, X-Men felt like it should have had at least an extra 10 minutes put INTO it just to give the damn plot some breathing room.
Some kinds of flims work well at the 90 minute mark, but any kind of war film should be around 2 hours or longer just to get a decent flow going to the action.
I still think "The Thin Red Line" is a better film than "Saving Private Ryan" because it wasn't so caught up in trying to be and event. And that so-called "realistic" Normandy landing was annoying as all fuck to watch.

Re:Only 90 minutes long?

[Ami Ganguli]

It depends on the movie. I often walk out of a movie thinking 'why didn't they just cut the last 45 minutes?'. This normally happens when the scriptwriter feels the need to resolve some cheesy plot-line explicitely, rather than just leaving it to the imagination.

On the other hand, the Harry Potter movie was, IMHO, way too short even at 210 (?) minutes. They tried to cram the whole book in and the film ended up being a montage of short scenes resembling a music video with no time for character development. They should either have cut out more of the book, or split it into two movies. The director has already suggested that he may do that with the fourth book, since it's much longer.

Re:Only 90 minutes long?

[RandomFactor]

I still think "The Thin Red Line" is a better film than "Saving Private Ryan" because it wasn't so caught up in trying to be and event.

Thin Red Line was an absolutely terrible flick. Little more than proof that lots of big name actors doesn't make a terrible movie much less terrible. Multiple crappy sub-plots and no main story to speak of. 4 of us went. The two wives left early. A friend and I stuck it out thinking the movie HAD to actually start soon (we thought that up until the end, which just sort of happened...)

Then there was the I-TOLD-YOU-SO from our wives afterwards. Bah.

If you like Hollywoods idea of an 'artistic' war movie you might get something out of it. It had that 'I'm meaningful' air to it that disjointed movies get which makes critics like them.

Re:Only 90 minutes long?

[jafac]

I suspect we'll all feel the same way about LOTR.

another review here

[Maditude]

Haven't seen the movie, but I can't say that I plan to, either, especially after reading this StarTribune review...
quote:

Wilson and Hackman certainly should be able to relate to Burnett's plight: They're stuck in a movie from which they need to be rescued. But no help is coming, so they push on like good soldiers.

Re:another review here

[Anonymous Coward]

... never trust ANYthing the Red-Star Tribune writes - those commie hacks pan anything patriotic or decent. Not that the movie might not be good- dunno- but don't go on their say-so, as they have proven to be spineless lefties far too often.

No big deal?? I say BLASPHEMY!!!

[agilen]

How can you mix up the GREATEST guy movie of our generation with some lame ass washed-up chuck norris kids movie????? I never really thought Katz was a fool until now.....

It appears they did their homework.

[cyberkahn]

I liked the movie overall until the end, which seemed too much like an Indiana Jones finish. I served with the US Army under the NATO led IFOR (Implimentation Force) back in 95. From what I saw I was really impressed with the markings on the vehicles, uniforms etc. It looked so much like the former Yugoslavia to me that I stayed to watch the credits. I wanted to see where it was actually filmed. One scene they are in a factory, (I was shaking my head in disbelief) which appeared to be just like a tank factory we were stationed at in Slavonski Brod,Croatia. I am sure there is someone out there who will nit pick the innaccuracies, but at first glance the attention to detail as far as the country and military forces was excellent in my opinion.

Re:It appears they did their homework.

[lelitsch]

Actually, the only thing that got me ticked off was the scene where he runs through the alley with all the mines going off behind him. As a former assault engineer I can't believe that even the dumbest Serb conscript would put the detonators and trip wires outside the blast radius. Not once, but about 20 times in a row.

Re:It appears they did their homework.

[GigsVT]

Ah, You don't understand the physics of action movies. See rule #2.

1. Enemies always leave their weapons on fully automatic.

Even if they have a clear shot from higher ground with a total element of surprise, they will hold their weapon sideways and let loose 30 rounds on full auto. Of course they all miss.

2. Good guys can always run faster than explosions.

If there is an explosion of some sort, a good guy can always outrun it.

3. Endless magazines.

Good and bad guys all have infinite ammo. They are regularly seen taking 10-15 shots from a 6 shot revolver, and hundreds of shots out of a submachine gun before reloading.

4. Ledge hanging

At some point, the good guy will always hang off a ledge of some sort. He will of course never lose grip, even if two other people are hanging off of him. The exception to this rule is when the good guy loses grip, and falls into something that breaks the fall.

5. Bad guys aiming.

Bad guys are terrible shots. When they do actually hit a good guy, it is only in the shoulder. This shoulder wound does not impede the application of rule number 4, however.

6. Tactical mistakes

Bad guys attack one at a time, even if they have the option of ganging up on the good guy. This allows the good guy to use his martial arts training to take out each bad guy. The exception to this rule is when the good guy can use a bad guy's body as a weapon to take out other bad guys.

This barely scratches the surface, as there are rules that apply to car chases, saving the female, hostage situations, etc. Even in war movies that try to be true to life, most of the time these hollywood-isms creep in.

I'd have to say that Saving Private Ryan was the only one where they managed to avoid almost all of this nonsense.

Re:It appears they did their homework.

[Anonymous Coward]

I went in with 1 BDE 1 AD in IFOR (and SFOR and KFOR)....haven't seen the movie, but I guess I have to now....
I remember Slav-Brod..remember Emerald City? Camp Kime? Camp Colt? Too bad the Russians were such lazy bastards...too busy whoring and drinking I guess (just like Kosovo) to really do anything worth a damn.
Anyone else out there seen a movie about a lost Russian tank crew called "The Beast"? Damn fine tanker movie...

Re:It appears they did their homework.

[Aleks]

Well, as a native, I feel some authority here...

I too was impressed with the environmental elements of the movie, i.e., the mountains, the factory, the village, the markings. The "bad guys" did actually speak Bosnian, (or Serbian, or Serbo-Croatian, depending more on political views than linguistics) and I completely ignored the subtitles (which were mostly accurate). I even tried to place the lake and other features in my mind. The road signs, the markings in the post office and shopping center in Hac were *very* correct. I too stayed thru the credits to see where it was filmed, only to be surprised when it said "filmed in Slovak Republic."

In hind-sight, this shouldn't have been such a surprise, considering that one thing immediately obvious to any native ex-Yugoslavian is that the main "Bosnian" characters, despite their speaking in Bosnian, were *not* native speakers. The tracker guy was, I believe, Russian, and the commander was Czec/Slovak.

But overall, excellent recreation of Bosnia in a war-year's December. The plot is another story...

It looked so much like the former Yugoslavia to me that I stayed to watch the credits. I wanted to see where it was actually filmed.

Katz, you're killing me!

[Forager]

Please, Jon, stop being so funny! I just had surgery; jokes like you are dangerous to my health! Tom Cruise in Top Dog, right?

Taco, Hemos: are you guys actually paying Katz for this? This is exactly why I wouldn't pay for slashdot.

Forager

Re:Katz, you're killing me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, man. And you all need to learn how to spell. Jesus. Special affects? Implimentation? Compliment? Well, partial credit for that last one.

A Good Review??

[Rackemup]

I've seen a few reviews for "Behind Enemy Lines" and the good reviews seem to be dead even with the bad ones.

From what I've seen of the previews it seems to be a "go team America, bring our boys home" kinda movie, but the methods they use to get there are pretty lame. The special-effects shots look great, but if it's all show and no meat then I'm not interested.

I read another reviewer talk about the main character's adventures by saying "standing on a ridge, making a target of himself, running in the open, etc, etc"? Stuff like that may look good on the big screen but in real life it'll get you an ass-full of lead.

Re:A Good Review??

[Bartacus]

Maybe you're referring to the Roger Ebert review?

The premiere of "Behind Enemy Lines" was held aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. I wonder if it played as a comedy. Its hero is so reckless and its villains so incompetent that it's a showdown between a man begging to be shot, and an enemy that can't hit the side of a Bos-nian barn.

This is not the story of a fugitive trying to sneak through enemy terrain and be rescued, but of a movie character magically transported from one photo opportunity to another.

Owen Wilson stars as Burnett, a hot-shot Navy flier who "signed up to be a fighter pilot--not a cop on a beat no one cares about." On a recon mission over Bosnia, he and his partner Stackhouse (Gabriel Macht) venture off mission and get digital photos of a mass grave and illegal troop movements. It's a Serbian operation in violation of a fresh peace treaty, and the Serbs fire two missiles to bring the plane down.

The plane's attempts to elude the missiles supply the movie's high point. The pilots eject. Stackhouse is found by Tracker (Vladimir Mashkov), who tells his commander Lokar (Olek Krupa) to forget about a big pursuit and simply allow him to track Burnett. That sets up the cat-and-mouse game in which Burnett wanders through open fields, stands on the tops of ridges and stupidly makes himself a target, while Tracker is caught in one of those nightmares where he runs and runs but just can't seem to catch up.

Back on the USS Vinson, Admiral Reigart (Gene Hackman) is biting his lower lip. He wants to fly in and rescue Burnett, but is blocked by his NATO superior, Admiral Piquet (Joaquim de Almeida)--a Frenchman who is so devious he substitutes French NATO troops for Americans in a phony rescue mission, and calls them off just when Burnett is desperately waving from a pickup area. Bet you a shiny new dime that when this movie plays in France, Admiral Piquet becomes an Italian.

The first-time director is John Moore, who has made lots of TV commercials, something we intuit in a scene where Reigart orders Burnett to proceed to another pick-up area, and Burnett visualizes fast-motion whooshing tracking shots up and down mountains and through valleys before deciding, uh-uh, he ain't gonna do that.

What Burnett does do is stroll through Bosnia like a bird watcher, exposing himself in open areas and making himself a silhouette against the skyline. He's only spotted in the first place because when his buddy is cornered, he's hiding safely but utters a loud involuntary yell and then starts to run up an exposed hillside. First rule of not getting caught: No loud involuntary yells within the hearing of the enemy.

This guy is a piece of work. Consider the scene where Burnett substitutes uniforms with a Serbian fighter. He even wears a black ski mask covering his entire face. He walks past a truck of enemy troops, and then what does he do? Why, he removes the ski mask, revealing his distinctive blond hair, and then he turns back toward the truck so we can see his face, in case we didn't know who he was. How did this guy get through combat training? Must have been a social promotion to keep him with his age group.

At times Burnett is pursued by the entire Serbian army, which fires at him with machine guns, rifles and tanks, of course never hitting him. The movie recycles the old howler where hundreds of rounds of ammo miss the hero, but all he has to do is aim and fire, and--pow! another bad guy jerks back, dead. I smiled during the scene where Admiral Reigart is able to use heat-sensitive satellite imagery to look at high-res silhouettes of Burnett stretched out within feet of the enemy. Maybe this is possible. What I do not believe is that the enemies in this scene could not spot the American uniform in a pile of enemy corpses.

Do I need to tell you that the ending involves a montage of rueful grins, broad smiles, and meaningful little victorious nods, scored with upbeat rock music? No, probably not.

And of course we get shots of the characters and are told what happened to them after the story was over--as if this is based on real events. It may have been inspired by the adventures of Air Force pilot Scott O'Grady, who was rescued after being shot down over Bosnia in 1995, but based on real life, it's not.

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

Re:Revolutionary ner business-model

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you'll need more VC money just call "The Suits."

No Man's Land

[Troodon]

If you're after a thoughtful, satirical war movie with strong characters go see No Man's Land. Its touted as one of the strongest releases of the year.

A few random blurbs:

http://www.filmomh.com/r74.htm

http://www.upcomingmovies.com/nomansland.html

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilm/product/film_info/0,3 69 9,2406267,00.html

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie-1111144/

Re:No Man's Land

[Anonymous Coward]

For more fun, check out the porno series with the same title.

Re:No Man's Land

[PyroMosh]

I haven't seen it yet, as it's not out in my neck of the woods, but I was able to catch a rather lengthy interview with the filmmaker on National Public Radio. Apparently he's a former cameraman for the Bosnian Army, and much of the movie is based upon his real life experiences in the war. They discussed the film at great length, and it sounds like a real winner. A meaningful war movie of the Saving Private Ryan camp, not the Hollywoodesque Full Metal Jacket camp.

And yes, I did mean to use my +1 bonus, which I almost never do, since I'd really like people to take notice of this film and check it out. Like I said, I have not yet seen it, but if the fimlmaker (his name escapes my memory) can relate a story as well on film as he can in an interview, it promises to be absolutly gripping.

Re:No Man's Land

[dalibor]

Great movie!

Re:No Man's Land

[aka-ed]

A meaningful war movie of the Saving Private Ryan camp, not the Hollywoodesque Full Metal Jacket camp.

Let me get this straight -- you call a Stanley Kubrick film "Hollywood," as opposed to a "meaningful" Steven Spielberg film?

Even in pure geographical terms, you are off -- Kubrick has lived and worked in England since his 60s masterpiece Dr. Strangelove. Spielberg is the ultimate Hollywood work-within-the-system type of auteur, a lifelong Hollywood boy.

This No Man's Land may indeed be a fine film, but I find that hard to buy from someone making a statement like that.

Re:No Man's Land

[PyroMosh]

True. I forgot about that. I totally picked bad examples of both directors' work. If I remember correctly, Kuberick never did a film outside of Europe as he had a fear of flying. Kuberick may not have been very Hollywood in his methods but at least with Full Metal Jacket, it was just pure entertainment war movie fluff (in that regard it was Hollywood). Contrast that with most of Spielberg's work after Empire of the Sun, and it's not very Hollywood at all. I of course am refering to Saving Private Ryan, Empire Of The Sun, Schindler's List, etc. His films that had a purpose other than just to entertain. Oh sure, with people like Hanks involved, it seems like just another hollywood war flick. But have you ever sat down and watched that film? Or better yet, have you ever sat down and spoken to a World War II vet who's seen the film? I have. And the reaction I got from a man who's served America as infantry grunt in North Africa, later a fighter pilot over Europe, then fighting the Nazis on the Ground again after being shot down over occupied France. He would later serve in Korea, and then again in Vietnam as a Colonel commanding an Air Force fighter wing. The reaction I got from that man said more about that film than any critic or holier than thou, it's-from-the-establishment-therefore-it's-artisti cly-inferior criticizm ever will.

With all respect to Mr. Kuberick, I loved most of his work, including Full Metal Jacket. (I can quote most of it from memory) But Full Metal Jacket was just a movie. Just entertainment. Films like Saving Private Ryan are more than that. And they are rare indeed. Doubly so in Hollywood. Full Metal Jacket didn't show off Kuberick's genius. It was a film I enjoyed, but I really believe that it was just Hollywood level fodder for the masses.

How's this for a better example, Saving Private Ryan vs. GI Jane?

Re:No Man's Land

[aka-ed]

Thanks for the response. I do see your point (saw your point at first as well, but appreciate the clarification).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good Movie, couple of issues

[GiorgioG]

Overall, I thought this was a good movie. I only see a couple of issues: Did anyone notice that the Surface-to-air missiles made more than 1 pass at the F/A-18? I'm pretty sure (correct me if I''m wrong) that most of the serbian's arsenal would not be that sophisticated. I thought most Air to Air & Surface to Air missiles were forward looking, meaning if the target got behind them, it'd lose it's targetting. Second issue, 3 helicopters held off a good 6 tanks, and 30-40 soldiers at bay in the final rescue scene. A little optimistic I would say. But hey, this is hollywood...

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[sud8ed]

Actually with the current, and even a few years older, arsenal of the apache helicopter, this is quite possible, with their hellfire missiles(tank killers) and large front mounted swiveling cannons. There are also additional arms, but I won't get into them. Oh yeah, I haven't seen the movie though, so this is only fact, without all the facts of the movie.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[GiorgioG]

True, but they didn't have Apache's - I didn't recognize the model - They looked like rescue choppers with some rocket launchers bolted on and a machine or two as well..

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[Anonymous Coward]

They were Hueys.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[PyroMosh]

Yes, you're absolutly correct on the first count. Only in video games, will missiles do a full 180 and chase something down. The velocity of a missile is just too great to even design it to TRY to track something it's passed. The turning acr would be enormous. Even a shoulder mounted SAM like a Stinger flys at Mach 2.

As for the rescue scene, I haven't seen the film yet, but it isn't nessisarily unrealistic. Remember two key points: 1) The modern helicopter gunship is one of the most formidable weapon systems on the modern battlefiel. They are capable of caryint TOW missiles which will kill tanks, the gattling guns have look-down / shoot-down capability, etc. 2) For a rescue, the rescuing forces would only have to hold off the opposing forces long enough to snatch their target and dust off. Killing the enemy isn't nessisarily required. Pinning him down, or just slowing his advance sufficiently is enough.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[daveman_1]

You say they were Hueys, someone else said they were Cobras, at least we all agree they weren't Apaches. Damn, how about some nomenclatures? CH-46, CH-53, AH-64, etc... I do agree these weren't gunships. A nice armored cargo helicopter seems more likely for this kind of mission and is what you tend to see more of, since they were intending to carry troops to make the extraction. (You can fit a lot more troops in a nice CH-46.)

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[geosync]

Can anyone say Black Hawk? The landing gear is a big giveaway.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[sunking2]

One of 2 helilcopters. Either the venerable Jolly Green Giant (MH-53 Pavelow) of the Vietnam era, or the newer Blackhawk derivative PaveHawk.

Not having seen the movie I can't really tell you which it is. Probably the latter tho, unless they are harder to get a hold of for shooting purposes.

Keep in mind that these choppers and crews are equiped and trained to do just this sort of thing, so while this is probably a bit of a stretch it may not be as much so as it may seem. A pretty good movie that is based on a true story is Bat 21 and this seems sort of similar. Ironically, Gene Hackman plays the downed pilot in that.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, they can't.... once the missile misses it's single pass, that is it :).. that was pure sci-fi :)
Missiles only have few seconds of thrust, the rest of the way is gotten there by complex inertia/status management software (i.e. using gravity+lead pursit to your advantage if possible)

A modern help can pop tanks like sardine cans, especially if it has a suprise advantage. I mean, a single help can prolly take good 10 tanks before they know what even hit 'em. The problem is that the helos in the movies didn't go for tanks first.... they started shooting people.... blah.. it was a fun movie, but as far as technical details i.e. helo+planes+airwarefare was pretty unrealistic.

Re:Good Movie, couple of issues

[nathanm]

As for the rescue scene, I haven't seen the film yet, but it isn't nessisarily unrealistic.

Unfortunately, it's incredibly unrealistic. Three UH-1s (1 gunship, 2 slicks) hover in plain sight of ~100 Serbian soldiers, including several armored vehicles. They initially fire a few unguided rockets at the armored vehicles and fire machine guns for 2-3 minutes, decimating the Serbs. None of the helicopters get even a scratch.

Luckily, I didn't pay for the movie. ACES, where I work, was involved with a movie promo and gave away free tickets to a sneak-preview that I went to.

There were many more fake parts, see my previous post about the SAM chase scene.

I am glad I read the review

[bsimonin]

I am glad I read the review. I was planning on skipping the movie, thinking it was a childish non-plot movie like Pearl Harbor. Thanks....I might see it today. BTW...the Marines don't use Apache's they use Cobra's. Just another war monger guy here.

Re:I am glad I read the review

[geosync]

The choppers in the rescue scene appear to be blackhawks. In the original called off rescue, they were flying is what looked like a combination helicopter/c130 hercules.

Re:I am glad I read the review

[nathanm]

They flew UH-1s in the rescue.

Shorter films = more screenings = more $$$$!

[Robber Baron]

You know why, don't you? It's so the greed-mongers in the MPAA can jam more screenings in and increase their profit margin, after they've jacked the ticket price to ridiculous levels. In other words, you're paying more for less. They also want you to pay again for the second half of the movie...thinly disguised as (put movie title here) II.

Only a crisp 90 minutes long?

[sulli]

Great, now we'll get 30 minutes of ads and trailers.

Re:Only a crisp 90 minutes long?

[fenix down]

Hey, that Mountain Dew commercial has been the best part of the last 6 or 7 movies I've seen.

Not a good movie

[Anonymous Coward]

This was by far not a "first-rate thriller". First of all, the camera work sucked, along with editing. It was done by a first time directory who directed commercials before doing this movie and it shows.

Every time the evil sniper comes on camera, the same thing happens. The camera slows down, a few seconds latter some heavy music sucks. Why is it that most movies have to beat into the audience who the evil guy is and how evil he really is.

Every time Burnett radioed for help he didn't it sitting in the open. Good thinking.

Overall the movie was a sub-par.

Flight Simulator folks made the F16 panel displays

[sho-gun]

A group of flight simulator panel display designers from Project Magneta were tasked with making the authentic looking F16 displays for this movie. Thier website is here:
http://www.schiratti.com/bel

There's some comparison shots between the real deal vs. what they came up with. I'd say they did a pretty good job.

The art director of the movie wanted something authentic and not jazzed up as in alot of hollywood flicks.

The Internet is Great!

[junis_al_barek_ash_]

I have seen this film Mr. Jon Katz has spoken about - it is wonderful. It has been so kick-ass to watch Divx on my COmmodore 64. We have converted the old chicken coop to an Internet Cafe/Media Center - and we have been doing brisk buisness! I have recieved at least 2 Datsun 4x4's and 3 Toyotas in payment for time on the net! Peace Love and Porn from Afghanistan Junis

Re:The Internet is Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha... somebody mod this up, frickin' hilarious.

Did anybody notice the makeup?

[bman08]

It practically ruins the movie! In the first half of the movie Owen Wilson sports a shiny perlescent lip gloss that practically glows. That and the crusty base that is literally sloughing off both his and David Keith's faces throughout the picture is a terrible distraction from an otherwise good film.

Re:Did anybody notice the makeup?

[mgblst]

Really, i thought all US army personnel wore makeup... and frilly knicker. Shhheesshh, who would have guessed???

software used for cockpit shots

[Anonymous Coward]

read more here: http://schiratti.com/bel/

the author writes code for people (and movie studios now <g>) to build home cockpits using flight simulator

working on a 717 cockpit myself

Underdog?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the name of that superhero dog that looked like Huckleberry Hound?

Underdog? Or not?

Not quite, Jon!

[decaf_dude]

Wilson dodges and battles the Bosnian army

It was the Serbs who executed his partner and were tryig to kill him as well, and not the Bosnians (they actually gave him a ride). I've just seen the movie last night - I remember very well.

Re:Not quite, Jon!

[rosewood]

No the mooslims gave him a ride

Re:Not quite, Jon!

[Anonymous Coward]

they are bosnians dumbass...
muslims= bosnians
serbs= bosnian serbs
croats= bosnian croats

Huh, this movie is junk - look other reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at some other reviews - most said this movie was junk.
For example, Ebert gave it only 1.5 stars

Katz as movie reviewer?

[psych031337]

I guess I don't want to read a movie review by someone who can even wet his pants over a totally unrealistic and obviously forged email from an Afghanistan kid...

But maybe that's just me...

Doubt it

[Pope]

I've seen the trailer, and it didn't make me want to see the film. That aside, it's interesting to note that this was supposed to be released in the movie dumping land known as January, but the release was moved up to make it more timely.
There are arguably better films to waste your time on these days, but if you gotta see stuff blowing up, this is pretty much your only choice for quite a while.

Re:Doubt it

[junis_al_barek_ash_]

I'm sorry miss jackson - I AM for REAL! long live kazaa! peace love and porn junis

Fellowship of the Ring is 3 Hours

[arbours]

Peter Jackson and New Line did a great thing bringing LOTR in at 3 full spanking hours. Every review says it flies by. A great movie, like that or Apocalypse Now, makes you want it to go on and on

Alex

BOSNIAN army?

[Torulf]

So, we have our Great American Hero fighting the bad Bosnian Army? Which one is it really? As far as I know there were roughly three parties involved: Serbs, Croats and Muslims (Croats with another religion really). The Serbs were mostly depicted as the bad guys by western media, with the Muslims as the major victims. So how about this movie?
Did they get something right or will they just depend on the Good American Audience to be as ignorant about the background as Katz seems to be?

Re:BOSNIAN army?

[The Ape With No Name]

As far as I know there were roughly three parties involved: Serbs, Croats and Muslims (Croats with another religion really).

Same ethnicity, different religions all around.

• Serbs: Serbian Orthodox
• 
  
  • Croats: Roman Catholic
  • 
    Muslims: well, Islam
    
  • 
    
    They all speak similar languages, although Serb and Croat are increasingly distinct from each other. This Muslims speak a dialect of Serbo-Croatian but all of the tongues are mutually intelligible.
    
    Katz is dead wrong is saying the Bosnian army; it was the Serbs who were getting Smart Bombed, but they could have been Bosnian Serbs: Serbs who still live in BiH after the Dayton Accord. These Serbs would not have SAMs and tanks though -- more of a militia (small arms and bad attitudes).
    
    You can still get stopped at 'checkpoints' around Banja Luka by these cats -- very unnerving.
    
    Why is it so unbelievable that a large corporation would try to profit off of war? Funny how we USAians forget lessons....

Re:BOSNIAN army?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about? You can still get stoppped at these checkpoints? When we went in waaaay back in '95 we did have one hell of a time busting those checkpoints up, but I find it dman hard to believe that after 6 years of Uncle Sam, Titteny Spears, Survivor, etc that they would still waste their time. Right now they are doing what I like to call "Let's make some money by WORKING..."....morons....I love it when people that have probably never been there talk like they were....I remember Gradacac (sp?) and it's fucking HUGE minefield we had to wade through and get rid of...lost 2 Panthers to that damn thing.

Re:BOSNIAN army?

[The Ape With No Name]

I think the very point is that the continued American military presence has done nothing but steel the resolve of some these guys. There would not have been a war there at all if failed US foreign policy had focused on something other than oil (The Gulf Excuse). Yes, you can get stopped by the odd group "checking papers."

You can not WORK, if there are no jobs. Oh, wait. You just have to show good old American iniative. Problem is: you are not in America. The rest of the world is not America and, guess what, they don't want to be Americans.

I have been all over the Balkans as part of my research and I was there in 89-91 when shit was really freaky (Slovenia). You know those land mines? Did you check to see where they were manufactured or where the design came from? You can not be a social scientist nor a humanitarian with a gun in your hand.

I thought this movie was kind of lame....

[neoshmengi]

The action scenes were definately cool, but I think that plot is still the quintessential part of a movie. There were a number of plot weaknesses.

Who was that random sniper guy who keeps appearearing? What a generic villain. How did he survive 5 or six shots from a pistol?
How did the hero survive a whole battalion shooting at him?? *sigh*

What was up with that random serbian guy he befriended? That kid played NO part at all, so why was he even in there?

They should have worked the genocide angle a little more to make the audience even more angry at the heartless enemy. Not just a generic mass grave...

It just goes to show that even the coolest special effects can't make up for a weak plot. Producers should at least try to make the plot a little more coherent.

That's my 2 cents. Feel free to flame if you loved the movie.

Re:I thought this movie was kind of lame....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who was that random sniper guy who keeps appearearing? What a generic villain. How did he survive 5 or six shots from a pistol? How did the hero survive a whole battalion shooting at him?? *sigh*"

It was enough of a stretch when Owen Wilson exploded from his hiding place in the the snow ala Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson and emptied the magazine of his Beretta on the guy, but it really went over the tope when he stabbed him with some sort of incendiary sharp object. What was that thing?

Re:I thought this movie was kind of lame....

[daveman_1]

It was a signal flare, which he should have used in the field when the helicopter was flying by overhead, not firing a rifle that wouldn't be heard over the noise of the helicopter.

Re:I thought this movie was kind of lame....

[kidblast]

The funniest line in the film is when Hackman says something like "Damn. I sent him on a holiday mission." I think it was supposed to be serious though, but it seemed so cliched it was comical. Overall the acting seemed pretty weak. The action scenes made up for the acting though.

Special Affects?

[Anonymous Coward]

$ dict affect
4 definitions found

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Affect \Af*fect"\ ([a^]f*f[e^]kt"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
{Affected}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Affecting}.] [L. affectus, p. p.
of afficere to affect by active agency; ad + facere to make:
cf. F. affectere, L. affectare, freq. of afficere. See
{Fact}.]
1. To act upon; to produce an effect or change upon.

2. To influence or move, as the feelings or passions; to
touch.

DUH!

Seriously, why is this IDIOT posting movie reviews? Like this is really news for nerds... Or stuff that matters!

Re:Special Affects?

[Andy Social]

Other malapropisms I noted:

The two actors "complimenting one another" must be an entertaining scene of mutual admiration, as opposed to the "complementing" that one would expect in a good scene.

"Wilson really comes into his own in this is a disciplined, old-style Hollywood war yarn." Sentence structure?

"his weary Admiral Riegart" - It's either "his weary admiral, played by..." or "the weary Admiral Riegart."

"an authentic, gung-ho quality too it" - Too it?

As a professional journalist, does Mr. Katz not bother to edit his material before posting to Slashdot? Is that beneath him, or just sloppy with things that aren't paying? :-)

on the other hand...

[dpease]

warning: i guess some of this could be considered a spoiler.

I caught this flick last night, and while it was OK, I had a few problems with it.

• 3l33t camera tricks made it hard to watch. The director appeared to think he was making a music video, and not a movie, at times. The quick pans, camera jiggles, and slo-mos were sort of hard to take seriously after a while, and didn't really need to be there IMO.
  
• You'll need to seriously check your brain at the door to believe that Wilson can be shot at by literally hundreds of infantry and dozens of armored vehicles throughout the movie and make it out alive. Yeah, yeah, lots of movies are like this, but Behind Enemy Lines was really egregious. The finale was--well, it really made it appear that this battle was being fought in Fantasyland, not Europe.
  
• Owen Wilson gets love from the press and from moviegoers, and I don't get it. He seems like a smart and funny enough guy, but he plays the same damn character in every movie he's ever in. He's always something of a smart-ass but otherwise a good person. Seriously, if you can differentiate his performance in this movie from, say, his work in The Haunting, you're paying more attention than me. Sure, this movie didn't suck nearly as bad as The Haunting did, but differentiating slightly sardonic hick-sounding unabashed white guys is tough for me.
  

Hey, have a hell of a day.

Re:on the other hand...

[nathanm]

I agree with your 2nd & 3rd points, but I liked some of that camera work. Particularly the ejection sequence.

I thought it was cool how they showed each individual explosive bolt detonate and the canopy fly off, and the equipment in the plane working to make it happen.

That they had to pull their own ripcords was really fake though.

Overall, there was way too many make believe parts and Owen Wilson was miscast. See my other post about the SAM chase scene.

Just a side note...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a side note, this movie was originally slated for release in 8 or so more months. It was rushed to completion and shoved out into studios for 2 reasons. The first being the strike possibility causing a 2-4 month stint of crappy movies where anything halfway decent would be considered a blockbuster. The second, of course, being Sept. 11th.

Another one of Rambo-type retarded movies

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, the movie is totally technically inacurate for many reasons (anybody who's ever seen combat knows it). I don't even want it to talk about it and I don't have a problem with because it's just a movie. Entertaining movies don't have to follow reality. What I have a problem with is that this movie is just an extension of American murderous propaganda against the Serbs. Unfortunately most dumb Americans learn about history watching movies and CNN. Hey, it's on TV, it has to be true. Just fuck it, I'm wasting my time.

Katz you really missed the boat on this one..

[Anonymous Coward]

Marines fly COBRAS,not Apaches.
If I wanted to be taken seriously, at least I'd insure my articles are accurate.

if (/. eq 'siskel' or /. eq 'ebert'){ puke; }

[tradez]

When did /. start doing movie reviews too? We are computer geeks, we come to this site to see tech issues argued about over a simple and easy to use medium. Quick wasting the /. space with crap that we could go to E! Online for. Quick wasting our time!

gung-ho?

[pvera]

"The movie has an authentic, gung-ho quality too it"

Katz, do you even know what the hell gung-ho really means? Gung-ho means "striving for harmony" which is what pretty much the core leadership model for the USMC Raider Battalions (which started as an experiment on chinese comunist guerrilla operations).

Katz was probably referring to the bastardized version of "gung ho" made popular by the propaganda movies of the period.

As for the movie itself, it rocked. Loud as hell and well worth it. The politics of the movie were disturbing, which added to the overall theme.

One thing that did not make any sense was when Gene Hackman called the aircraft carrier a "boat." In the navy a surface vessel is a "ship," while a "boat" is a submarine (not that it matters, since to a submariner, anything on the surface is classified as a target, hostile or not). Notice that our submarines are built at a place called the Electric Boat Company (General Dynamics, http://www.gdeb.com/) while our surface vessels are built in shipyards (like for example Grumman's Newport News shipyard, http://www.nns.com/).

Still, it rocked. It definitely rocked. I think Behind Enemy Lines took the title from Top Gun for the aerial sequences.

Re:gung-ho?

[jasonzzz]

Gung Ho means "Ultimate Excellence" or "Ever Better". Obviously Evan Carlson (of Carlson's Raiders = 2nd Raider Battalion) bastardized the word (don't worry, most Foreigners bastardize words and make it to man whatever they want: Capt Cook did it with the Hawaiians, so did the missionaries all over the world. Even the Japanese bastardize English all over the place, Note: Check out http://www.engrish.com )and the concept when he had his tour with the Communist Chinese during the Japanese occupation of China.

Note that Carlson "learned" the concept during his working relationship together with the Chinese Army, so it was an "experience", not an "experiment".

"Striving for Harmony" is something that Carlson and the American made up. Don't confuse that with the true spirit of the word.

Re:gung-ho?

[pvera]

What he learned with the chinese communist route army was an experience.

What the USMC did with the two provisional Raider batallions was an experiment.

It was a lot more complicated than that. The British had commando raids that even if only did minor damage to the enemy they did wonders to increase the morale of the civilian population in England. The USMC did their own version of the commandos, the Raiders.

The Raiders were doomed from the start because the Marines were already an elite corps, so making an elite within an elite did not make a hell of a lot of sense.

Re:gung-ho?

[Jaeger]

So that would mean that the Raiders were a meta-elite unit?

(Sorry; I'm obsessed with the word "meta" these days.)

Re:gung-ho?

[Lurker]

One thing that did not make any sense was when Gene Hackman called the aircraft carrier a "boat." In the navy a surface vessel is a "ship," while a "boat" is a submarine (not that it matters, since to a submariner, anything on the surface is classified as a target, hostile or not).

While I'm not, nor have I ever been, in the the US Navy, my understanding is that a boat is a sea-going vessel that can be taken aboard another sea-going vessel, while a ship cannot. The reason subs are called boats is they can be taken aboard a sub-tender. An aircraft carrier is definitely a ship. I mean, look how damn big they are. Except for in the movie "Abyss", when the alien ship surfaces and all the former Navy and commercial ships are sitting on its surface, and therefore have to be called boats, anything that large simply must be called a ship. Anyway, that's my understanding of the two terms.

Re:gung-ho?

[nigelc]

One thing that did not make any sense was when Gene Hackman called the aircraft carrier a "boat."

Navy aviators refer to the aircraft carrier as a "boat" mostly to piss off the non-aviators. I've read this in a number of books about the training of navy pilots.

Re:gung-ho?

[Daniel Myers]

It was my understanding that naval aviators habitually refer to aircraft carriers as "boats."

Daniel

Re:gung-ho?

[jasonzzz]

I would go for "beta-elite" myself since
they were only provision...

But you might go for Beta-Meta ;-)

Re:gung-ho?

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent four years on an aircraft carrier (USS Kitty Hawk) in the 80's, and I can assure you that they are routinely referred to as "the boat" among people who serve on them.

--Mike

This movie is BAD

[SevenTowers]

I have never seen a war movie so butchered. It lacks any substance, i felt empty coming out of the theater. SPOILER - The whole plot is predictable from beginning. Ten minutes after the movie begins you meet the evil franch admiral and the bad guys on the mainland. From there on you know that the good admiral is going to disobey the bad one at some point in the movie. The whole movie stinks of patriotic nonsense (I am american so don't get me wrong) and Hollywood bravado.
Even the actors, which usualy are pretty good to excellent, seemed to be out of synch. The movie gives a kind of artificial feeling and you don't feel like you are at war at all. The movie tries, and fails in a pathetic fashion, to portray the sorrow and fear that is associated with war. Good war movies include Platoon, Kelly's heroes, Tigerland, etc which manage to create a bond between either you and the characters or you and the historic context. This movie does neither. It just plain sucks.

Has anyone seen it?

[90XDoubleSide]

I would be interested in knowing if anyone who has seen the movie actually agrees that it is worth seeing. While I don't like to avoid seeing a flick just because of someone's bad review, when I go onto it's Rotten Tomatoes page and see:

"If you're looking for anything beyond flashy entertainment, Behind Enemy Lines feels out of whack from the start."
-- Stephanie Zacharek, SALON.COM

"The exhausting obsession with gizmos and gotchas only accentuates a baffling disinterest in the story's emotional crux."
-- Jessica Winter, VILLAGE VOICE

"The Bosnian War becomes a video game, Gene Hackman turns into a pseudo-John Wayne, and Owen Wilson and Vladimir Mashkov impersonate The Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote."
-- Michael Wilmington, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"Pro forma stuff, so much so that you start to wonder why no fetching femme resistance fighter materializes to help the Americans on the ground."
-- Kenneth Turan, LOS ANGELES TIMES

"An implausible military technology adventure that takes about 10 minutes to get started, then climaxes for an hour-and-a-half."
-- Paul Tatara, CNN

as the top five reviews I have to wonder. Couple that with the fact that Film Threat (with whom I agree about 90% of the time) gave it one star, and the sleaziness factor from knowing they moved the release date up to cash in on the September 11th bombing and I think I will be taking this review with more than a grain of salt :)

Re:Has anyone seen it?

[n2dasun]

I've seen it. Just last night, actually. I'm in the military, too. You can read all these nit-picky posts about how this and that was inaccurate, or how the plot should have been more blah blah blah, or you can just decide to go out and hang out with some friends, enjoying a flick with some good action and effects and a patriotic message. I'm sure you'll see things that make you roll your eyes, but this movie wont make you any dumber for having seen it. I'm glad that plenty of people on here can be condescending about how the movie is just a bunch of flash for entertainment's sake, but isn't that why they went to see it? If they really want it to be that realistic, they can just go join the military(everyone's invited) and try and get themselves into harm's way long enough to experience some danger WORTHY of their approval. Dont like the movie? Download the source and compile your own!(A horrid analogy, I know, but I'm sure most of you get my point).

Re:Has anyone seen it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I myself have no problem with seeing a mindless action movie. However, this was a disappointment. My only "military training" was with the air cadets years ago, but seeing tactical blunders commited again and again by our hero really got to me. How many things did he just discard where he stood--leaving a perfect path to follow. He complains about not having any water, and THROWS HIS BOTTLE AWAY when it's empty. Not only is he leaving a trail--he just threw away free water! Put some snow in there moron! You've been running for nearly two days straight--put some of that body heat to use and melt some snow!

I started howling outloud when he switched uniforms (smart move) and walked BESIDE an enemy tank, in enemy territory, and takes his balaclava off! Dramatic, no. Over the top and insulting, yes.

You're right, that is a bad analogy. And although I'm unsure which nitpickers you were directing your comments at, I myself feel I have a right to an opinion on a movie--whether or not I've served in the military. Films involving the military have been done better than this. And more realistic. Where SPR pulls off shaky camera work with style and retraint, BEL just abuses it and comes off looking cheap and forced.

Just my two cents (Canadian at that, so take it for what it's worth! ;)

As Roger Ebert says,

[BurntHombre]

"No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

Re:As Roger Ebert says,

[Nematode]

Great quote! States the issue nicely...using absolute running time as a criterion for judging the movie is just too cynical - like buying paintings by the pound or something.

And speaking of Ebert, this review made me curious what he'd have to say about the movie, since he's quite a prolific writer of well-crafted and insightful reviews...not just the "thumbs up/thumbs down" stuff. Here's what he had to say about it...

T he premiere of "Behind Enemy Lines" was held aboard the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. I wonder if it played as a comedy. Its hero is so reckless and its villains so incompetent that it's a showdown between a man begging to be shot, and an enemy that can't hit the side of a Bos-nian barn.

This is not the story of a fugitive trying to sneak through enemy terrain and be rescued, but of a movie character magically transported from one photo opportunity to another.

...

The movie recycles the old howler where hundreds of rounds of ammo miss the hero, but all he has to do is aim and fire, and--pow! another bad guy jerks back, dead. I smiled during the scene where Admiral Reigart is able to use heat-sensitive satellite imagery to look at high-res silhouettes of Burnett stretched out within feet of the enemy. Maybe this is possible. What I do not believe is that the enemies in this scene could not spot the American uniform in a pile of enemy corpses.

Do I need to tell you that the ending involves a montage of rueful grins, broad smiles, and meaningful little victorious nods, scored with upbeat rock music? No, probably not.

Hrm...whom to trust...Katz or Ebert...

Re:As Roger Ebert says,

[OblongPlatypus]

Oh, you can *always* trust Katz... just, you know, inversely.

My take

[rosewood]

I have never been a big fan on the moving shaky cam. Ugh. I get literally stomach sick. Me no likey.

Some of the action seens seemed very unbeleivable, especially when Wilson's character wasn't smart enough to stay quiet when his pilot got shot, nor not to use his name (okay, so he "is only human") but can get into a Serb uniform and dress up another in no time.

I have a lot of minor nitpicks but oh well. All in all a good movie. It was very aparent tho that the director started with directing video game comercials for Sega.

Oh and Kick ASS missle doging scene.

Re:My take

[daveman_1]

I couldn't understand why they made such a big deal over using his "real name" over the airways. There aren't too many radio transmissions that go out over military radio that aren't encrypted. Especially a fancy pilot's hand-held "I just got shot down" radio. That seemed a bit silly.

Re:My take

[rosewood]

At first I figured it was because he was using his old standy by regular radio waves. After thinking about it, when the plane first went down Hackman said "No Names." Maybe someone could have been on the bridge that heard who it was and leaked it to the press ... but he did that anyways. It is probably just military rule. My understanding is that you never give out your name over the radio.

Re:my take

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it looks kind of unreal that someone in the battlefield could run around heavy gunfire unharmed, but read "Black Hawk Down." There is a chapter in which a medic must cross the corridor separating two buildings to get to a wounded soldier. The problem is that there is heavy fire in that corridor.

The medic runs the corridor three times--once to make a diagnosis, and the second and third to retrieve IV's--without even being knicked by a richochet.

"God loves medics."

True, but they wernt Apache's

[T-Ranger]

and fortunatly you give me an excuse to jump on Katz.

Im not up on my military aircraft, but these things were transport helecopters, not two seater attack helecopters (or webservers).

And for the record, I diddnt realy like the movie. I diddnt get at all attached to the characters, and wasent paticularly impressed by the special efects (they were good, but by no means groundbreaking). I have no idea what the deal with they guy in the track suit is all about. I know nothing about either of the two main characters beyond the obvious, and the interesting characters (track suit guy, and the kid) only left me wondering if the writers had any character developement ability whatsoever.

And I kept saying to myself that Hackman should be telling the pilot where to go with obscure golf references. Bat21.. Now theres a good rescue movie.

Re:True, but they wernt Apache's

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Apache, no. Apaches are Army helicopters. Marines use the Bell Huey Cobra when they want to get really nasty in a helicopter, but it is usually accompanied by other aircraft, such as a CH-53 (BIG helicopter) or Harrier Jump Jet, depending on the mission. CH-53 is almost the same as an MH-53, BTW. The CH-53 is known as the "Sea Stallion" and is used almost exclusively by the Navy and Marines.

Compliments from Mr Katz

[Anonymous Coward]

So the film's two major actors spend their time "complimenting one another"? That sounds great.

"Nice shirt, Admiral Riegart."

"Why thanks, Lieutenant. May I say how much I like your medals?"

Good thing Jon Katz pointed this one out. Many probably thought it was a war film.

4 Paragraphs?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 Paragraphs is considered an acceptable movie review at Slashdot? Jesus. Does Jon Katz get paid for trash like that? If so it easily explains OSDN/VA ResearchLinuxSystems's financial troubles.

what are you talking about the movie sucked --

[mix_master_mike]

I saw the movie on Friday and can honestly say it was not worth the $6 admission. Here are some of the reasons why (please note I'm not a modern war historian or what-not and could be totally wrong on some issues): -at the very end our hero main character is in the crossfire of 3 fully equipped apache helicopters firing all they got at the other side; where we see some 50 soldiers equipped neatly with ak-47s, 3 someodd tanks all firing, snipers galore; and he doesn't even get scratched. You can sum this up in one word: stupid. As he slides in to get the disk with the pictures on it he also nicely takes out some of the snipers with his handgun; stupid how he can take out some people with automatics and he doesnt get touched in the crossfire. -when the two ugly guys that are searching for the american are in the field where he was going to get rescued from they find his old clip; did you see how large that field was? What are the odds of you finding the one and only used clip from the american? -after the assisaniation of the pilot the navigator yells from the hills and they then realize there is another and fire upon the hills; once again our hero is not scaved as we see thousands of rounds narrowly miss him; once again totally unrealistic. -as our hero slides down the old dam or whatever it was the sniper convieniently misses him by inches each time; however the first shot missed to by the same distance; they are trying to tell us this slavic sniper can shoot and miss a moving target just as good as he can shoot and miss a non-mobile target... horrible... -driving to hac isn't it so perfect for the kid on the truck to have an ice cold (presumably) coca-cola? these are just a few of the stupid things about this movie. So the graphics were great... there was one part where the landmines blew up some of the enemies in slow motion and you saw their bodies bend and whatnot... very cool. But if you were planning to see this movie you may as well wait and get it cheaper at the video store. These are my comments not yours - please don't flame :)

Re:what are you talking about the movie sucked --

[Anonymous Coward]

you could have bought coca cola in bosnia any time during the war.. it is still europe for god sakes :P

Good until the ending....

[Anonymous Coward]

1980's 10,000 round 400 vs 1, nobody can shoot... yadayadayada. I was so mad at the ending it almost ruined the whole movie for me. If you go see the movie leave after they leave his ass in the field with the kid. You'll feel better!

Them's some fine peanuts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Warner Brothers, which bought the rights to the first Harry Potter book for peanuts

J. K. Rowling's income from the movie made her the second-wealthiest woman in England. Prior to that, she was third-wealthiest. Good Queen Bess is still in first place of course.

Clip in the field

[daveman_1]

They were following his foot trail. And they would obviously have known he was running and that there was somebody there with him.

As for the sniper scene on the damn, no respectable sniper with that quality of a weapon would have taken a shot in the offhand. All he had to do was lay down, get into a stable position, calculate his range and windage, and slowly squeeze the trigger. Now how hard is that when your prey doesn't know you are there and is sitting stationary? That scene was a bit annoying.

As for the sensational and unrealistic Hollywood effects of the movie, would you really have preferred the realistic scenario in which the highly disciplined pilot doesn't stray from his flight path, doesn't get shot down, and gets out of the military several days after Christmas after being bent over one last time by his CO?

(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[jallen02]

I too was kind of shocked by some of the movies unrealistic scenes. Ok, flying off course a major mistake in and off itself is the premise for the movie and it is believable. I knew that was not realistic but it was belivable so the movie was still good.

Owen wilson did a good job in this role actually.

The scene with the SAM launched missiles and them evading and then ejecting were really awesome. I mean I have seen a ton of those scenes before but that missile chase scene was very engrossing and some of the footage for those scenes was plain awesome.

Once they hit the ground the movie starts getting a little silly. They know they are in hostile territory and he leaves his man laying injured in the middle of a wide open field.... NOT! At least if he would have dragged him to some woods and hid him and THEN the enemy army found him it would have seemed better, but that was a dumb movie mistake. The scene where they shot the pilot made me jump even though I knew it was coming.. it was well done.. just not realisitc.

Next You have owen wilson dodging an impossible number of bulletsand explosive tank rounds....... It was a good chase scene one of them would have been okay.

Then you have owen wilson sitting on some sort of broken stone structure. The main pursuer with the nice sniper rifle misses his target that has been sitting still for at least 5 minutes. In the real world if he was sitting in the open for so long that sniper would not have missed, end of the movie.

The pursuit continues and wilson manages to survive in what seemed to be the epicenter of a bunch of mines of some sort (I don;t know the military terminology for waht they were). ANyways it was not realistic after they showed what it did to the enemy soliders.

everything else in the movie is pretty good until the last scene. That last scene had me wishing it didnt happen.

They fly in with a few marine helicopters. There are a ton of enemy tanks and soliders all approaching owen wilson. Then these helicopters pop up, stay in the same place and somehow decimate the enemy for like four minutes. The footage was nice, but I just DONT see how the enemy solders can be such a bad shot that they could not hit these practicaly stationary helicopters for a full four minutes. Oh and whats with the enemy commander sitting there in plain view prancing about yelling in anger and never getting hit while everyone around him dies?

Oh and they happened to see the supa camo'd enemy sniper and shoot him a few moments before he fired?????

That last scene was bad :(

Overall the movie was great and the footage and way it was filmed were very nice. The camera angles were good (except those damn shaking camera scenes, won't those Private Ryan Esque scenes ever stop??? )

I am a little critical of a few scenes since I know a good deal about military procedure because I have a couple friends in special forces in the army.

Overall.. the movie was fun and they didnt truly spoil it until the end so I thought it was an alright movie.

Jeremy

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[rosewood]

Where are your + mods?

I would have to say tho that he was playing a Navy Pilot that did not take his Marine buddy's advice on being prepared for such a situation. A good soldier would have not made a peep when his friend got shot.

As for the helicopters, they did show them getting shot up, and they did show a marine get nailed, but ya woulda thought they woulda gotten a bit more damaged. That would have IMHO ruined the picture of a copter got shot down.

As for the sniper, he was forest camo'd in an ice field. If I was editing it, I just would have cut that scene.

Also, the director seemed to want to make a point about the thin ice as he initially ran out to his seat ... but it couldn't have been too thin for that seat not to just go right through the ice and to have tanks on it! I was expecting him to go under after the director showed the ice. Red Harring or bad editing, who knows?

I also think the clothes changing scene was crap

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[hexx]

Then you have owen wilson sitting on some sort of broken stone structure. The main pursuer with the nice sniper rifle misses his target that has been sitting still for at least 5 minutes. In the real world if he was sitting in the open for so long that sniper would not have missed, end of the movie.

Snipers are infallible? Like Jesus or something?

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[jallen02]

*sigh* I am saying. The weapon that guy had was a nice expensive rifle with a rather powerful scope. The thing had at least a bipod mounted underneath it. Snipers are NOT infallable.

Taking my limited firearms experience after maybe a year of practice with my 30-06 and hunting I could adjust my scope on the fly for range, (and wind under about 10mph), and regularly hit any target 400 yards or less, almost every single time.

Taking into account there was visibly no wind shown, the sniper had a bi-pod and much better scope than I do, and a stationary target and yes I find it hard to believe. This guy they sent after him was obviously their best tracker/sniper or they would not have sent him alone like that.

Shit, I only hunted regularly for two years and practiced maybe once a month for a year...

The odds indicate this guy should have made his kill right then and there. Lets not take into account as Owen Wilson slides down this guy consistently misses by the same amount on a MOVING target. Its just to improbable to swallor given the bullet dodging of the prior scene. Maybe if wilson had detected the sniper and moved and then the sniper fired, id buy it.. moving targets take more practice to hit.

In conclusion I just think its to improbable. No snipers are not infallable, but any well trained sniper is not going to miss their mark on a stationary target in a windless day. I don't buy it.

jeremy

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

For whatever it is worth, the whole missile scene was pretty much SCI-FI, Independance Day 4 style. Missiles DO not chase aircraft down like that, moreover, I'm not aware of any missile that can take multiple passes at an aircraft.
A missile follows lead pursuit path, attempting to get it's warhead within lethal range and then proximty detonate it. Once/if it misses an aircraft, that's it, It's lost... It simply doesn't have the energy it takes to turn around for another attempt even if it's sensor systems were fused with tracking radar that could give it the information needed for another pass.
A missile only has only few seconds of thrust, after that it's on inertia.

Any movie where you see a missile "chase" a plane and try multiple passes is pretty much unrealistic.

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[jallen02]

*nod* It was still good eye candy tho. It was awesome and belivable as far as most people know(just not realistic!...like the rest of the movie)
I pretty much assumed a missle only carried enough
fuel (solid fuel?) to go so far. Oh well, it was still pretty fun.

Jeremy

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[nathanm]

The scene with the SAM launched missiles and them evading and then ejecting were really awesome. I mean I have seen a ton of those scenes before but that missile chase scene was very engrossing and some of the footage for those scenes was plain awesome.

Unfortunately, the SAM chase scene is the worst, most unrealistic part of the whole movie.

They shot at them with an SA-8. This is a solid rocket fueled, radar guided missile.

SAMs are not as maneuverable as the aircraft they pursue, but just about every SAM (& air-to-air missile for that matter) flies Mach 3+. Also, if the missile doesn't get close enough to the aircraft to explode before the fuel is spent, it just goes ballistic & hits the ground. Missiles have a proximity fuse that detonates within a certain range of the aircraft. The warheads are actually very small, but the hope is that the shrapnel will impact the aircraft & hit vital components like hydraulic lines, electrical cables, or fuel tanks.

Here are the standard tactics for evading a SAM:

Immediately drop chaff & flares (because you usually won't know if it's radar or IR guided) and continue to drop them every so often until the missile's gone.

Next, & most importantly, visually acquire the missile and don't take your eyes off it.

Then, turn into it so you're flying head on. This reduces your radar cross section & puts your largest heat source (i.e. engines) behind you & away from an IR guided SAMs seeker head.

Finally, if the missile isn't diverted by the chaff or flares, break violently a few seconds before expected impact.

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[jafac]

I only hope that when they showed the prerelease of this movie to our troops on the ships in the far east, the commanders gave them a talk beforehand;
"Troops, listen up. Watch this movie carefully, spot the mistakes. There will be a written exam after the movie. Afterwards, you'll be going ashore - and there will be a REAL exam. If you act like this in country, you'll be coming home in a body bag."

Re:(SPOILER ALERT) Re:Realistic

[jafac]

IIRC a missile will be triggered to explode when it's range to target is within a certain range and begins to increase (so it will detonate in a flyby).

Multiple passes? No way. however, most SAMs can turn at like 15 g's where a fighter plane can turn at like 7-8 max before the pilot blacks out. Plus they fly at like Mach 3+ (as a previous poster said), and most fighter planes have a top speed of 1.5, and that's full afterburners. They can sustain such a speed for only a few minutes at a time, draining all their fuel reserves.

Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Did this review get sent from under the chicken coop in Afghanistan?

something fishy going on

[Anonymous Coward]

I never contributed to any /. pools. Yet when I tried to vote on this subject it told me I've already voted. Is it just a slashcode glitch or someone is voting by hacking accounts?

Shades of John Wayne, 1968

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just in time" eh?

Pile this up with "The Green Berets" and all the other feel-good hollywood justification of the "infinte justice" mindset.

Doesn't anyone else feel profoundly nauseated by the timing and the content of the current tide of tinseltown slush?

What's next, a Katz bashing of "Battleship Potemkin"? Digital remakes of "Animal Farm"?

Please keep politics out of slashdot

Entire army pursuing one dangerous man

[U96]

I liked the comment at the end of the Globe & Mail's review: "No doubt Behind Enemy Lines will make all uncomplicated Americans feel proud of their military. That the movie is about an entire army pursuing one dangerous man through the mountains is just one of life's complicated little ironies."

Re:Entire army pursuing one dangerous man

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, U96's comment is probably the best comment anybody has made and it gets a one...sometimes slashdot makes me sad.

Think about it, will ya? Why do we Americans enjoy these stupid movies glorifying war, why do we eat it up like a dog going for its water when Pavlov's bell sounds? Ridiculous. U.S. is a nation of suckers.

As Samuel Clemons said...

[Ghoser777]

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter book."

Short is definetly good, for any type of artistic piece. The idea is almost always to get across the most meaning in the least amount of time. Readers (or viewer) are inherently lazy and don't have the longest attention spans. That doesn't mean all movies and books should be made shorter, as sometimes that could be the intent of the author as the length of the book could be a metaphor for something happening in the story or parallels something about the characters, but I'd prefer not to see overly long movies and read overly long books (stupid Dickens being paid by the word ;))

F-bacher

Implausible "Top Gun" wanna be, but not that bad

[jasonp1014]

Yeah, I second this opinion... this movie was mostly implausible and very formulaic. It's from the same guy that did "Top Gun" and it follows in that same vein. A much better modern war movie that comes to mind is "Three Kings" which was actually original and realistic at the same time. A movie like "Spy Games" also had lots implausiblities, but it had more of an actual complex plot and characters to follow.
Not that "Behind Enemy Lines" was all that terrible. In a lot of ways it seemed realistic capturing the feeling of regular military life on the ship, and also for what it must be like in a Bosnian territory. The ridiculous implausibilitis always came back though and ruined the realistic credibility. It's already been listed so I won't bother. The instance that grated me the most was where the protagonist is dodging bullets left and right from this highly trained and then with no explanation he's in a entirely different setting just walking around like it's no big deal.
I would say this movie is one of those "dumb pleasure" type movie that you know is totally predictable but satisfies your patriotic urge to see the military kick butt and also at times gave scenes that were realistic enough to let you imagine what it would be like in modern warfare.
So overall I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5. If it weren't for the latest events going on I'd probably give it a 1.

my take

[X_Bones]

To be honest, I wasn't that impressed with the movie. It wasn't terribly realistic, the plot was a little weak, every character except the pilot was too one-dimensional, and the cinematography nearly made me sick (really).

Did anyone notice how the Serbian Adidas guy at the end got shot like five times by the pilot, and still had enough strength to shoot his sniper rifle, shoot his pistol, and get into a fistfight with our hero? Or how the pilot ran across a snow- and ice-covered lake not once but three times while being shot at by a company of soldiers and a few tanks (and slid on his ass the last thirty feet back to his ejection seat, which was completely ridiculous) without getting touched? Or the real-time six-inch-resolution infrared satellite the admiral was able to commandeer?

The plot didn't have any major mistakes like the ones listed above. It was a good story, but it could have been so much better. In particular, the director could have focused more on the people on the ground fighting the war. Make the movie maybe fifteen minutes longer, have the pilot talk longer to more people, and get us to be sympathetic with (or at least better informed about) one side in the conflict or another.

Excluding the pilot (and maybe Hackman's character), I thought everyone was one-dimensional. Who's the guy dressed in civvies with the big rifle? Just a sniper. Who's the evil admiral that comes in and shuts down the rescue mission? Oh, just some evil admiral. There wasn't any explanation as to why some people were doing what they were doing, just that it was happening. Or if there was an explanation, maybe i was too busy being sick to notice.

Honestly. The director was in love with the hand-carried shaky camera effect and circling the camera around a point of interest (dramatic for a pilot sitting on top of a mountain, but for people standing still having a conversation?). Let me tell you, neither of these are very good for you if you've just eaten an 18-oz. steak and you're sitting in the second row of the theater (big group, opening night, got there late). He was evidently a big fan of the Snatch-style "speed-up, stop, and go" camera shot as well. This was just irritating, as it took away the sense of continuity in the scene.

Wow, this got long quick. Ok, this movie had a chance to be great. Instead, it was marred by an unfulfilling plot and unrealistic effects. I wouldn't say it was a waste of my seven bucks, but I'd suggest waiting until it's out on DVD and renting it.

Quibbles, possible spoilers

[Phanatic1a]

1. Ejection parachutes are not steerable parasails; there is no assurance that an ejecting pilot will have the physical capability of manipulating parasail controls. He could be unconscious, have broken arms, etc. Additionally, parasails have higher landing velocities than parachutes, with higher risk of injuries as a result; this would also be contraindicated for a possibly-already-injured pilot.

2. Explosions, even those from little antiperonnel landmines, cannot be outrun.

3. It's an interesting chain of command that places a tinhorn French NATO admiral in apparent command of a United States Carrier Vessel Battle Group. Unbelieveable, even. In real life, there is roughly zero chance that Reichert would take orders from a foreign power; if his commanding officers wanted him to leave the navigator to die on foreign soil, and not make a rescue attempt because of treaty concerns, they'd damn well tell him that personally.

4. Same goes for interference with the rescue once it had been okayed. Those French commandoes aren't even allowed to be on the carrier at all without the CO's permission, but they can commandeer the rescue op without it?

5. Nobody with even a modicum of training would carry an AK-47 sideways like some punk with a 9 in a John Woo movie.

6. The navigator did absolutely everything wrong. His first step upon landing was to run downhill, shouting at the top of his lungs. He did not move his wounded pilot to any sort of cover, but left him lying on the ground next to his *brightly colored parasail*. He seemed to intentionally search out ridgelines to silhouette himself against, and only learned not to sit out in the open on high ground once he'd been *shot at*. Real evasion doesn't entail running full speed from place to place, because noise is going to give you away far more readily than vision. You move *quietly*. Wilson's character either forgot or intentionally disregarded just about every single bit of his training.

7. When was the last time Marines flew UH-1s off of nuclear carriers? For an extraction, they'd be going on H-53s.

8. When facing a hostile force of armored vehicles with large-caliber automatic weapons, the last place you want to be is *hovering* at close range in a helicopter. Minigun or no minigun.

9. The extraction was nothing like an extraction would be. You put a helicopter on the ground, many Marines exit the helicopter, grab the pilot, disarm the pilot, and drag him on board. He would not be *allowed* to return to his ejection seat, which for some reason contained important recording equipment. You would not send one Marine on a rappel to dangle in midair to catch the pilot when he makes a death-defying leap. If the pilot was in contact with enemy forces, well, that's one reason why those A-6s were visible on the flight deck early in the movie; they'd have been used.

8. A 2-star would not ride along on the lead aircraft. If these events played out IRL, *that* is why he'd have lost his command. Not for the rescue, but for the ride-along.

9. Missiles are not evaded in that fashion. If you have a SAM launched at you, it's over in one way or the other in 20 seconds. Missiles smart enough to ignore your flares are not going to home in on the decidedly un-planelike signature of burning kerosene.

That is all. Entertaining movie nonetheless, but *boy*.

Re:Quibbles, possible spoilers

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. If people want to see a movie that has somewhat has something resembling realistic behind-enemy-lines (tm) sneakiness, or somewhat real air-to-air manuvers with actual theroy behind them.... go rent FireFox staring none other then Clint Eastwood.

You'd never think it had anything even remotely close to a plot or technical accuracy, but it has considerably more then the average wad 'o crap battle flick these days.

Key principals: The only way to evade IR-based SAMS is to make something else hotter then you are. This is why flares exist. In FireFox, Clint takes out a somewhat-nearby plane with an air-to-air missle. Doing so creates something one hell of a lot hotter then a jet exhaust, and it's somewhat believable.

Several other very "real" things also happen in the film. Many of the supporting actors who help Clint along the way get killed, as they realistically would be, and the good guy only pulls his goal off via bravado and blind luck. He convincingly portrays the image that he has not one bloody clue what he's doing through many parts of the film. This is a good thing.

My absolute favorite moment in the film is the flat spin that results in flying through a jetwash at a very sharp angle (this was before top gun-- firefox was produced in '82 while top gun was in '86-- I imagine it's where they got the whole flat spin idea from to begin with).

About the only thing I didn't like about it was the cop-out of the cool dogfight sequence at the tail end of the movie, in which Clint takes out the bad guy with a rear-ward firing missile-dealy. But, even though it's a copout, they semi-cover it with Clint being so scared shitless that he forgot how to fire the damn thing. :)

Yeah.. go rent FireFox if you want a real aircraft-ish get away from the bad guys movie. It's not as patriotic (he's trying to steal a jet from the ruskies, not bring light to murders), but it's considerably more accurate.

Re:Quibbles, possible spoilers

[jnhtx]

I was once a navigator/electronic warfare officer in F-4 and F/EF-111A aircraft. I saw the movie the movie tonight. First, everything Phanatic1a says is correct. In particular I'm sure this film will be shown at survival schools all over the world as an example of someone doing all the wrong things.

The rank structure of the "boat" was strange. There were no ranks lower than Rear Admiral and higher than USMC Captain. Of course, it's not the job of an Admiral to supervise individual line pilots. I'll allow this under the artistic license.

Another thing that bothered me a lot is the way the blonde haired backseater was sometimes a "navigator" and sometimes a pilot. A pilot is not the same thing as a navigator, and the navy doesn't have "navigators" on fighters. They do have "Naval Flight Officers", and I am pretty sure there really are two seat F-18s with NFOs in the back. But NFOs are not pilots and if they separate from the service they are not qualified to "fly the friendly skies". That's why Goose asked Maverick for the number to the truck driving school. I can only think the hero was made a backseater so as to avoid making this movie even more like "Top Gun".

Having said all that, I did enjoy the movie, especially the first 20 minutes are so. Fighter pilots and WSOs/NFOs/Navigators act a lot like the smart ass characters that were portrayed. In particular, once a guy "puts in his papers" he often becomes a little bit of a problem child.

Enjoy the movie, but leave your disbelief at the door.

Wildly inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny read Katz getting behind a movie that was mediocre at best after he's bashed so many good ones.
The movie was basically an extended version of a Navy recruiting commercial. It also almost managed to make a good political point, that when soldiers, no matter how high their rank, are forced to mix politics into their duties, the result is never good. But that seems almost accidental.
An earlier poster commented on the accuracy of military markings, etc. That may be true, but so much of the rest was inaccurate. First, the main character would have never have left his pilot in the middle of a field with no cover whatsoever. Not even for a minute. Also, he had a bad habit of sitting in exposed places where he could easily be sighted from a distance, by, say for example, a sniper.
The part where the two baddies pick up a spent AK-47 clip and exchange knowing glances almost made me laugh out loud. Like finding a clip from the most prolific assault rifle ever produced in former Soviet-bloc country torn apart for years by civil war would have been significant.
The idea that an admiral, and a carrier group commander no less, would be allowed to put himself in harms' way is also preposterous.
It was almost a funny as Katz trying to pass himself as intelligent.

Katz Errors

[UberOogie]

Besides publishing users' comments for profit, committing plagarism, and reporting forwarded emails as news, Katz shows his pride in his work by turning in articles that are always laced with factual and gramatical errors. Since everyone always posts them anyway, lets just centralize them in one thread:

Top Dog instead of Top Gun

special affects instead of special effects

Bosnian soldiers instead of Serbian soldiers.

Explain again why he gets a paycheck?

Please add.

Re:Katz Errors

[Tadster]

Not to mention this:

Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson -- are terrific, balancing and complimenting one another.

Can I be a riter for slashdot too?

=tad=

Re:Katz Errors

[Anonymous Coward]

laced with factual and gramatical errors.

Nobody's perfect.

Re:Katz Errors

[O.F. Fascist]

How bout this

"As the onboard Marines restlessly lobby to fire up their Apaches and go in and get him."

The Marine Corp doesnt fly Apaches, they fly Cobras, and I am assuming he meant attack helos, which would have a real hard time going in and actually retrieving someone.

Re:Katz Errors

[number one duck]

Heh, it makes them sound like a pair of gay Romanian gymnasts on their first date.

SAM Missles

[havardi]

I played a lot of Falcon 3.0 and Mig29, and I can say that these SAM missles travel at THOUSANDS of miles per hour. You only need to dodge these things ONCE; they can't turn around, sneak up on you, hide in the bushes, and then appear on your tail again. Your best bet is to head towards the missle, with the missle slightly above you, about 30 degrees, and then at the last instant pull up into the missle's trail; the missle can't possible make such a sharp turn and loses its lock.

Re:SAM Missles

[BigBir3d]

That is only true for stand alone style missiles, and even those will scan for a target until they run ouf of fuel. It also dependent on the tracking mechanism, is it thermal, radar etc.

Newer equipment communicates with the launcher to give updates on co-ordinates as it goes in, as well as after you "dodge" it...

Basing reality on a computer game is not such a good idea. Especially in a technology based arena.

Re:SAM Missles

[havardi]

They were dropping flares, so I'd assume it was a thermal tracking. Regardless of the technology; those missles were travelling pathetically slow and the whole scene was drawn out longer than I could believe.

what kind of missle was that?

[sideshow]

Anyone know the type of missle the SAM was that shot the plane down?

testing

[Turb021]

Testing

What about the Matrix?

[Lunastorm]

I'm surprised he didn't compare it to the Matrix.

KATZ SUPPORTS TERRORISTS

[dalibor]

Now finally we know who Katz is working for. US Army was fighting Bosnian army? Yeah, right.

Hope Katz doesn't think US is fighting Southern alliance and that Bin Laden is a US hero. Well, maybe he is a hero for Katz.

Go watch "No man's land". It's simply better.

Re:KATZ SUPPORTS TERRORISTS

[mgblst]

Yeah, i mean Katz has gone too far this time. Even a fifth grader knows that the US isnt supposed to begin bombing the Bosnians for about another 10 years, just after they attack the Iraqians, Iranians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, ...

Where to start on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The movie was terrible, the plot was rediculous. It was watchable until the end, where it went nuts.

2) People in the military don't disobey orders. They pilots wouldn't have left their flight plan without getting orders. They do have communications with the carrier in those planes. Admirals generally don't disobey orders either, that is how they become admirals.

3) Realistic fight scenes were basically saving private ryan style camera shaking, but turning it up and shaking it so that you can't tell what is going on. The sound affects of the fights were very good. The final scene I don't believe the US helicopters were ever hit and for some reason the Serbs didn't use the big guns on their tanks at all until the very end and then just one shot.

4) Why can't they just call it in and get a U2 to fly over again and take more pictures?

is this news for nerds, stuff that matters..

[Anonymous Coward]

or Slashdot's efforts towards selling war to Americans? All other Katz essays have had some connection to technology, or superior mass culture, even if they were laughable. This film hasn't made so much as a ripple in the world, so I can only guess that the purpose of the article is to remind Americans to go see a war film in this time of crazy! politics! to remind themselves of what it's all about - innocent americans in a bad, brutal world out to get them. The Empire thanks you, Katz.

Filthy Critic

[ink]

And for those of us who disagree with Katz' movie takes most of the time, it's refreshing to note that the Filthy Critic gave it only 2 fingers:

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

Will someone send me old 486?

[junis_al_barek_ash_]

please? my coop needs more computer junis

not f-16s

[emeraldkim]

They were F-18s.

Re:not f-16s

[sho-gun]

Err. Yup. I'm a tard. I only saw the movie last night..

See what reading a Katz review can do to your brain? :)

It was fine except for...

[Longing]

1) The generic villain/sniper has a huge sniper rifle with a bipod, yet chooses to try to shoot Owen from a standing position from hundreds of yards away. I guess he's mastered his heart beat, breathing, and body shakes. Well, no, he kept missing.

2) On the boat, er, aircraft carrier (sorry, navy guys ;), someone says something along the lines of "the terrain is too rough, we can't reach him by radio, and even satellites won't work until he gets to better ground." Uh, unless he's in a cave, no terrain is that rough.. after all, a few scenes later they show a view from a sattelite directly overhead.

3) Owen makes it to the one of the RPs (rendezvous point) and radios in. Shortly thereafter he sees the enemy and has to break off radio contact. Gene demands to know where he is. Uh, he's at the RP, moron. Then someone pipes up, "We'll triangulate his position!" How? HE STOPPED TRANSMITTING!

4) Owen is able to outrun, on foot, the combined artillery of multiple tanks, armored vehicles, and dozens of soldiers. Way to go, superman.

5) SuperOwen is also able to be unaffected by and outrun the blasts of multiple anti-personnel trip-mines, immediately after they show someone (with cool CG effects) being splattered by a mine that went off at the same distance away as the ones that are exploding around Owen.

6) The generic sniper-villain uses his bolt-action rifle as an assault weapon to fire at Owen from a few feet away. Anyone who didn't want to die would've used a pistol.

7) Three lightly-armed transport helicopters are able to destroy multiple tanks, armored vehicles, and dozens of soldiers without taking any hits. Those armored vehicles had multiple cannons and heavy machine guns that would've made short work of the helicopters that were just hovering there waiting to get shot down.

8) Hanging the Marine off a rope from the helicopter and having Owen jump and grab his hand was just retarded.

Then there's the plot. If our (I'm an American) military was that undisciplined, we'd've lost our paddle somewhere up shit creek.

What a weak movie

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said: Too much fancy crap with camera movement, super slo-mo, etc., too much sound track, and not enough realism in the procedures.

But the thing that really disppointed me was how simplistic all the characters were. There was no depth to any of them (ala Denzel Washington's boxing and jogging scenes in Red Crimson, or Gene Hackman's conceit of having a dog onboard in the same movie) and no surprises. The people in this flick played second fiddle to the special effects and military hardware, which is one of the surest signs possible of a bad movie.

Timely? No.

[DarrenBaker]

I wouldn't call it timely, considering the fact that it was pushed up from a 2002 release to coincide with 'enduring freedom'.

Capitalising on a war, now that's all-American.

Not a geek movie

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a geek movie ?

Complimenting (sic) one another

[volpe]

The two major actors -- Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson -- are terrific, balancing and complimenting one another.


Wilson: Gene, your rendition of a strong self-confident military commander was so... so "Patton-esque". You were absolutely brilliant.

Hackman: Why, thank you! But, Owen my boy, your portrayal of a solder with keen survival instincts reveals the Rambo hidden in every man. Inspiring, to say the least.

Wilson: You are too kind, dear sir.

Re:Complimenting (sic) one another

[alexjohns]

your portrayal of a solder with keen survival instincts

"The story of a solder's date with the soldering iron. Owen Wilson plays the part of a courageous solder, valiantly joining a chip and a board, creating the necessary contact to allow electrons to flow freely. It's a race against time as the imprisoned electrons race to perform their computing duties, only Wilson's solder allowing them to meet their destiny."

"Two gates up!" - System & Flux

"Solder my heart!" - Leonard Motherboard

Ahem. From The Jargon File:

spelling flame n. //

[Usenet] A posting ostentatiously correcting a previous article's spelling as a way of casting scorn on the point the article was trying to make, instead of actually responding to that point (compare dictionary flame ). Of course, people who are more than usually slovenly spellers are prone to think any correction is a spelling flame. It's an amusing comment on human nature that spelling flames themselves often contain spelling errors.

And from: http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/04psych.shtml

#475 Ullman Exception:

The Ullman Exception is when someone makes spelling mistakes or typos whilst complaining about someone else's spelling. Then, according to Ullman, it is a moral imperative to flame the SOB.

Of course, it's likely that I'll make a spelling/grammar mistake here, then you'll flame me and so on. Spelling checker in the 'post comment' box, anyone?

Re:Complimenting (sic) one another

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod the parent of this post up, that was funny!

spelling?

[HRH King Lerxst]

It's special _e_ffects not _a_ffects

I always wonderd..

[Megatron12]

I've always wonderd why everyone hates katz, now i know why. What a ridiculous movie, absolute drivil. I had just started to lighten up on americans since Sept 11th, but all i hear 24 hours a day is how fucking great you people are. This movie is exactly why people hate you. Apparently americans can only be killed by shooting them directly in the skull from point blank range... What a horrible movie. Katz is a homo.

Re:No big deal?? I say BLASPHEMY!!!

[aka-ed]

How can you mix up the GREATEST guy movie of our generation with some lame ass washed-up chuck norris kids movie????? I never really thought Katz was a fool until now...

So Katz's last article, about his little Afghan buddy who dug up his Commodore from behind the chicken coop so he could download movies, and who watchs Baywatch on Kabul TV (at a time when that city was without any electric power), failed to convince you he is a fool?

We are Katz's testbed proofreader

Kabul Times on Katz

[Walt Dismal]

In related news today, the Kabul Times has announced that Jon Katz has become a spokesman for Microsoft. Said Mr. Katz: "I liked Windows XP even more than I liked 'Behind Enemy Lines'.Both have the same great level of quality in their design. Go see the movie and buy the operating system, because both bring you the same great user experience you've come to know and love from Microsoft. And using Windows is a lot like running through Bosnia being fired on by snipers."

Basic editorial skills:

[Marsh Jedi]

RANT reason=&quotgrammar"
Compliment != complement.

As in, this posting is not complimentary of JohnKatz.

vis-a-vis

Two actors' performances were complementary.

Spelling errers are one thing. Ineffectual command of English is another, especially in someone whose failure to grasp technical details already rankles the population. Do at least one thing well.
/RANT

Who else is waiting for Black Hawk Down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly, BHD will bring to light the stark reality of modern combat.

And only a crisp 90 minutes long!

[autopr0n]

And only a crisp 90 minutes long!

I guess jon katz's attention span has been impared by all that crack he's been smoking (and no, I wasn't a katz hater untill that artical, fyi)

this movie sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

the movie sucked. i can tell that you've never been in the military. that clown of an NFO did everything wrong. and with all that whining he should have been pushed off the carrier before being allowed to fly. he did everything wrong. run around in broad daylight down the middle of streets and fields and down paths in the woods. the only thing he did well was play dead with all the dead bodies in the trench he stumbled into. the rest of the movie he overacted.
as for the movie. half of it was filmed like the blair witch project. talk about overworked and annoying. but since it wasn't much of a movie they had to use tricks to try and keep your attention. and the ending was a joke. how could all those soldiers and heavily weaponed vehicles miss ONE person AND three helicopters that popped UP into the line of fire? and how did he miss getting killed by ANY of those land mines? do you really believe that he could have also have jumped into the waiting arms of a Marine that was hanging from a helicopter. get a grip. go back to Saving Private Ryan if you want a real war movie. and go back to "Top Dog" if you want hollywood glamour boys who also don't know the military but with better photography.

Review: "Review: Behind Enemy Lines"

[Screaming Lunatic]

Next to Michael, who is the resident security/encryption expert, JonKatz is the luckiest to have a job around here at slashdot. The major reviewer -- JonKatz -- is well, JonKatz. Katz really comes into his own as the premier reviewer here at slashdot. And only a crisp 4 paragraphs long! SPOILAGE WARNING: you may soil your pants if you read review to ending.

The review centers around JonKatz seeming to think that his reviews are actually "News for Nerds" here on slashdot. With his reviews usually containing irrelevant opinions that tend to insult the movies that he reviews, this review seems to lack the usual JonKatz edge.

As the online slashdotters restlessly plan DOS attacks on the slashdot Apache server, so they won't have to put themselves through another JonKatz review, Katz is spoiling movie after movie. The ending is pure JonKatz. This is a second-rate review from a nerd who wishes he was Roger Ebert.

Behind Enemy Lines

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt Behind Enemy Lines just a remake of bat21 (starting gene hackman and danny glover) with hackman on the other end of missles?

yes, and it sucked

[Preposterous Coward]

For one thing, the plot was absolutely full of internal inconsistencies. To take just one example: Owen Wilson is supposed to go to a rally point and report in. He proceeds as directed and calls in; at the end of the call, Gene Hackman tells his team to triangulate Wilson's location. This just moments after Wilson said "Hey, I'm at the rally point" -- the one marked on his map. They know his exact coordinates; what's the need for triangulation? Besides, doesn't triangulation (by definition) require receiving a radio signal from two different locations?

Others have already commented on the director's annoying habit to go overboard with shaky cameras, slo-mo/speed-up effects, and rapid zooms. I think it was supposed to feel like war-zone journalism, but it ended up just feeling self-indulgent and forced.

The general premise was indeed quite implausible, and the specifics defy belief as well. I've never served in the military, but I feel fairly confident asserting that if a pilot were shot down behind enemy lines, he would try to find cover rather than sit out in an open field next to his parachute. This goes doubly true in the mountains in winter, if only to maintain your body heat until you can be rescued!

I could go on and on, but I don't want to waste any more of my life thinking about this stinking pile of crap. By the way, I'm not averse to seeing cheesy action movies in general -- this was just a particularly poorly conceived and executed one.

Re:yes, and it sucked

[dachshund]

Besides, doesn't triangulation (by definition) require receiving a radio signal from two different locations?

It requires receiving a radio signal at two different locations. Presumably this could be done, if the ship Hackman commands is linked to some other receiver, such as a radar or signals plane. Not to defend a movie that probably has more holes than The 6th Day.

Ebert!

[usurper]

Nice review. I'll stick with my man Ebert:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-h ac k30f.html

And agree that the movie was awful.

Ginger...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its actually a butt-dildo, and its name is the iPenis. RMS, ESR, and the entire slashdot crew have already pre-ordered theirs. In fact, Rob Malda (CmdrTaco) has ordered four.

Now, I don't use dildos, but from what they say, it is supposed to bring huge advancements to butt-dildo technology. When they are saying that "this device will really move you to new heights", you may THINK it sounds like transportation, but they're really talking about how supposedly great this butt-dildo is going to be.

Personally, I think its going to be a great device for the slashdot comunnity. It is supposed to interface directly with slashcode, making it a perfect addition to a Friday night slash-fest.

Considering that two-thirds of the slashdot community has AIDS (brought on from some kind of horrific activity), this is an EXCELLENT advancement, because they will stay home with their iPenis, instead of spreading the disease to others.

While its going to support Linux by default, I'm sure someone will hack a driver so that you can use it in Mac OS X. When this happens, there will probably be a story on MacSlash about it, as it is customary to have one every time useless Linux technology is ported.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't buy one. I don't think that you should either.

Junis is my hero!

[Da Masta]

LOL!

Oh god I hope this guy keeps posting on all Jon Katz articles! Before this, I never really considered Katz that big a moron.

This sounds familiar....

[sunking2]

Not that I've seen it, but this sounds like it could have had the following promo:
Flight of the Intruder meets Bat 21.

It even has Hackmen in a slight role reversal. If Danny Glover were in it all 3 movies would have shared actors in common.

By the way, Marines don't use Apaches, Hueys have pretty much been retired to the reserves, so again, not seeing the movie, the Choppers at the end were probably MH53 Pavelows or more recent Blackhawk derivative PaveHawk

Well, you just lost all credibility with me.

[Anonymous Coward]

2001? As a POSITIVE example? Are you nuts?
I'm not sure whether 2001 or ST:TMP is the worse example, but they BOTH are movies that the director was so freaking busy being dramatic, that he didn't bother to tell the audience what the heck was GOING ON (Ignoring the gigantic stretches of both movies where NOTHING is going on, except effects-laden, orchestra-backed "DRAMA!!" *finger quotes applied*)
If I hadn't READ 2001, I'd have had NO idea what was going on....

Awful, but what cell service do those Serbs have?

[flockofseagulls]

The US Navy should have issued their pilots Serbian cell phones instead of cheap-ass satellite radios. The Serbs use their cell phones everywhere, in terrain where the Navy-issue radios go dead. I can't get that kind of cell service in a major US city, and our infrastructure is still intact.

I feel bad for Gene Hackman--he's a really great actor in the right role. Unfortunately in this loser he plays the part usually given to Fred Thompson.

I guess Owen Wilson can add "action hero" to his credits, now that he's outrun bullets and mines, jumped off a cliff to catch a Marine's hand, and stabbed a bad guy in the chest with a flare. You don't see that kind of stuff very often.

Best review ever!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not Katz - this one, from The Stranger, a local weekly in Seattle:

Behind Enemy Lines
Two of the greatest American movie actors of this young century, Gene Hackman and Owen Wilson, share the screen in this utterly irredeemable piece of complete and total shit. In case the end of that last sentence didn't spell it out, suck on this: With the POSSIBLE exception of about three minutes of semi-exciting plane-flying footage, THERE IS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT THIS FILM. NOTHING. AT ALL. EVER. AT ALL ALL ALL!!! Ugly as sin, badly lit, poorly acted, logically untenable, and possibly not even written, Behind Enemy Lines is a total fucking travesty in which even the actors' makeup is incompetently applied. I know everyone's desperate for The Royal Tennenbaums, but this Wilson-Hackman pairing is no kind of substitute. Do not see it, please, for the love of all things holy.

I am just waiting for Black Hawk Down...

[Morter Forker]

I am debating on whether to go see Behind Enemy Lines or not. What I have not seen alot of yall bring up is the fact that this movie is loosely based off the Scott O'Grady story when he was shot down over serb occupied croat or bosnian terriorty and had to be rescued by a Combat Search and Rescue team. Now if yall want to see a movie that will actually be based on historical fact, then I encourage the members of this board who live in NY or LA to go see Black Hawk Down on the 28th of December when it is in limited release in NY and LA. Link to movie info: http://us.imdb.com/Title?0265086 Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451203933/ qid=1007359332/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_7_2/002-4266378-357 7666 THis movie is based off the book of the same title by Mark Bowden. It is the story of the United States failed strategic mission, but successful tactical mission to capture two lieutenants of Somali war lord Mohammed Farah Aidids clan in 1993 in Mogadishu. A total of 100 Army Rangers, Delta Force members, Navy Seals, and Air Force special operations soldiers went in on a raid and killed over 1000 (conservative estimate some ppl claim we killed over 2500) ppl in the next 24 hrs. They lost 18 of their own, and was the last time a medal of honor was given out. Truly a harrowing story about modern warfare, heroism of American sodliers, and the repercussions of a bizarre foreign policy during the Clinton years. This movie is already being considered for Oscar nods since they moved the realease date up to the 28 to get it in for this year. This movie is a real test for the military and hollywood, after the farce that was Pearl Harbor, with the love story, last year. One good thing abotu this movie is the Military loaned Ridley Scott, the director, a few special operations Black Hawk helicopters as well as Rnager troops this past summer to film it. Also they had advisers to the movie who were at the actual battle, and one of them scored a role in the movie. If this movie is botched up on the editing floor with some sort of love story or something, then we may not see as much cooperation involving the military and a true story in the coming years. One last thing, the real life battle was the first time America fought members of Al Quaeda and this was over 7 years ago.

It's not condescension...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, seriously... I don't mind a good action flick. It doesn't have to be high art, it doesn't have to be terribly realistic. If the movie is anything like the previews, then I know what I'm getting into, and it's probably what I'm in the mood for. In other words, my expectations are pretty modest... But if a movie fails to live up to those expectations, then I get pissed.

To name a few films that looked like just the ticket, then let me down: Mission To Mars, Stargate, one or two of the most recent Bond films...

One I just saw recently that more than met my expectations was Spy Game. I don't know if Katz reviewed already, but it certainly deserves more mention than this movie.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd trust Ebert's review before /.'s on a movie, and Mr. Ebert gave this movie an enthusiastic thumbs down. 1 1/2 stars.

Interesting.

Anyone see the First Person Shooter influence...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really got the impression that someone who helped get this movie made (director?) was/is a huge fan of FPS games...single player conunterstrike. Half-Life without the aliens...I want to play this game.

fudge
fudged.org

How would you determine US foreign policy?

[Infonaut]

US foreign policy is full of examples such as those mentioned in the Viceland.com page you link to. Mistakes were definitely made.

But the piece betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy is shaped. First, the world we live in is not black and white. More often than not, we're dealing with international problems that have no clean, clear answer.

For example, it's easy to dismiss American Cold War fears of Castro's Cuba. But then, he did ask for and receive assistance from the Soviets in the form of missiles, didn't he?

The Vietnam War was by almost anyone's estimation, a wasteful, stupid blunder of immense proportions. But let us not forget that a large part of the reason the US got involved in the first place was that the Soviets were making advances of one sort or another on almost every continent. They had what the US perceived to be a client state in North Vietnam.

The Soviet Union espoused a form of government that viewed the destruction of capitalism and the bourgeous democracies as a primary goal.

US foreign policy was dictated by the overarching threat of communism. Sure, now it seems a joke - it collapsed from the inside, from its own weight. But just as sabre-rattling from the West scared the Soviets, the US was scared by Soviet threats as well.

Yes, there are other factors at work. Yes, the Soviet Union is now dead. Yes, mistakes are still being made in US foreign policy.

But the September 11th attacks didn't happen because Bin Laden was pissed off about the Vietnam War, or about the Bay of Pigs, or our meddling with Iran. Bin Laden was pissed off because we supported Saudi Arabia, a country whose rulers he sees as morally corrupt.

Our reasons for supporting the House of Saud over the years primarily stemmed from our desire to maintain stability in the Middle East. During the Cold War, the Soviets were trying as hard as possible to exert influence there, in hopes that by choking off the supply of oil to the West, Europe and the United States would become vulnerable.

We utilized balance of power politics, the same thing that Metternich used in Europe to avoid a major war for years. It's not policy driven by right and wrong. It's policy driven by expediency. It's not perfect. Hell, it's barely adequate much of the time.

But I'd much rather trust foreign policy to people who are thinking of overall balances and stability and peace, than people who would rather persue blindly optimistic policy based on idealism.

The track record of idealistic US foreign policy is pretty dismal. Woodrow Wilson got us involved in WWI too late, because he was loathe to go to war. Then his idealism failed at the Treaty of Versailles, because he went along with France's desire to humiliate and punish Germany.

Jimmy Carter was so infatuated with the idea of working with the Soviets for detente, that when they surprised him by invading Afghanistan, he launched a massive arms buildup (yes, Reagan didn't start it - Carter did) and sent the CIA in to support the mujahedin.

So while it's easy to throw rocks, and it's easy to look at history in retrospect, dealing with the day-to-day matters of international relations is a mite trickier.

The UN won't save you from terrorists. Germany won't work to protect American jobs by keeping the price of oil stable. Japan isn't going to keep India and Pakistan from nuking each other. It's a big, complicated, dangerous world out there.

Finally, the argument that Americans are being misled by the government about US foreign policy is a load of crap. American foreign policy aims are well known to anyone who takes the time to read about them.

Foreign policy is a complex topic, and you can't get a grip on it by watching E! Entertainment News. Less than half the eligible population of the US votes. News shows that stick to news get lower ratings than those that pander to the lowest common denominator.

Americans largely don't want to think about international affairs. That is a far more serious problem for the US in the long run than any specific policy blunders.

Hated it. *SPOILERS*

[Wraithlyn]

I really hated this movie as I haven't hated a movie in quite some time. I believe the director previously did commercials or music videos or something, and it really shows. Horrendously overdirected and overshot. Super fast cuts and pans. Awful sound cues...

Wilson: "I've served my country for 7 years.. etc"
Hackman: "You don't know the first thing about serving your country!"
Music: Dum DUMMM!!!

And I haven't even gotten to the "PLOT" yet.

*MAJOR SPOILER WARNING**

Our boy has half the Serb army shooting at him, nobody can hit him. Not even the bad ass sniper guy can hit him, when he's perched, stationary on a DAM for cryin out loud... Or how about running through that minefield, hitting all the tripwires. You could actually see debris (ie, shrapnel) flying into him. Not a scratch. Entire minutes tick by where bullets are whizzing right past his head. He only gets detected in the first place 'cuz he yells like an idiot so loud they can hear him hundreds of feet away.

Positive notes: Hackman is decent as usual, and Wilson is watchable. Very cool aerial sequence at the beginning, and some OK action sequences scattered throughout. And of course, it IS a rather timely movie, considering recent events.

Check out Ebert's review, he gave it 1.5 stars. Seriously, this movie is so bad that after a while, I just got numb to the badness of it, and it started to seem almost good again. I think the Katz-bot is playing the underdog again. :)

OT: Action movie rules.

[armb]

One of the silliest movies I have ever seen was about Swedish ninjas. (No, that's not the silly bit. Not the _really_ silly bit anyway).

The sequence "good guys enter a large room, bad guys each let off an entire (finite, even reasonably sized) magazine of submachinegun fire in the vague direction of the good guys without hitting them once, good guys then fire one shot or throw one throwing star per bad guy and all the bad guys are dead" was repeated about five times.

Oh. Just great.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just what the world needs right now when 60% of the world's population couldn't care less what the americanos accomplishing in Afghanistan. Hollywood movies are usually bad, and I can see this one taking it's place among them. If Hollywood ever was to make a movie on the WTC thing, it would probably end with only the bad guys dying in the airliners, all other would survive with reasonably nice hairdos.

A friend of mine was a grunt in both Bosnia and lately in Kosovo, and the stories he brought home on the U.S. Marines weren't excactly flattering (on their part). They would mostly let their euro colleagues take all the shitty jobs. The marines were reportedly extremely nervous guys, probably feeling unsafe for being in a foreign country actually facing armed opposition.

Now, from the same people that will make you believe that dying from a car bomb in Beirut in 1983 was a heroes deed, comes this utterly stoopid movie on yet another modern day John Wayne/Clint Eastwood/Donald Duck/Bruce Willis/Steven Segal type character.

It truly makes my stomach upturned. I'm starting to have funnt feelings on Americans. Please prove me I'm wrong.

Measure by plot, not by stopwatch

[Saint Fnordius]

Saying a movie ended on time doesn't mean that it hit the 90 minute mark, but rather it ended with just enough questions left open.

Too many movies (and, to be fair, other storytelling media) spend too much time wrapping up events after the climax, letting you see what eventually happened to the heroes. I suppose the example most /.ers would recognise is the different endings of Blade Runnner.

The hardest part of telling a story is saying "The End".

This sounds better than most

[Anonymous Coward]

At last! It sounds like it's an American-made war film that _doesn't_ try to rewrite history.

Film critic: So, Mr. Filmmaker, how do you reply to comments that <war film> rewrites history to pander to US film goers?

Mr. Filmmaker: I don't think it's a film maker's responsibility to be a history text book provider. We just tell stories and entertain.

War veterans from UK, France, Africa, Australia, New Zealand etc.: Oh, OK. That makes it alright then. The fact that I watched many of my comrades get shot and blown up, the fact that I had to kill people, the fact that I still suffer nightmares (all of which are also true for US veterans) can be erased because it doesn't fit with your film company's business strategy or your artistic vision.

Educationalists: Yeah, we don't mind either. Kids always go to the library and look up all the relevant references after they see a film to check for historical accuracy and so correct any misconceptions they have based on the film.

Re:gung-ho? a boat?

[pease1]

One thing that did not make any sense was when Gene Hackman called the aircraft carrier a "boat."

Wow... in watching the ads for this movie on TV, I've dismissed it as another stupid attempt by Hollywood to make a war movie.

This makes me think they actually did some homework: yes, aircraft carriers are called "the boat" by those who work on them. Spent five years on one of those pig boats. More water then you'd ever want to see. The longest trash lines you'd ever want to see also.

"Kick ass and press on" - Capt Leighen Smith, USS America, 1984, Indian Ocean cruise

Re:Realistic (no lone wolves)

[JThaddeus]

Realistic? A **one** plane mission? No. One plane photographs, one EW bird watches for enemy radar, two fighter-attack aircraft stand by to jump any radar that turns on, and one AWACS to control the whole mess. Add to that the possible presence of JSTARS to monitor ground activity.

Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I did spend some time telling my 13 year old how it's really done.

Ad changes?

[Indomitus]

When I first saw the TV ads for this movie, it played up the fact that the government didn't want to go after the downed pilot and that Gene Hackman's character was risking his career going after him. I'm sure I saw that ad twice and then never again. The new ads almost completely leave out the 'bad government' parts and focus on the heroic pilot and Gene Hackman. Did anybody else notice this little change in favor of patriotism and against the anti-government story? I haven't seen the movie so I'm not sure which one more acurately portrays the storyline but I thought it was interesting that the studio decided on that change.

I wonder if it'll be awhile before we see any more movies where the government and/or government agents are the Bad Guys? Would a movie like 'Enemy of the State' get made in today's climate?

Spelling solution....

[srvivn21]

Just copy and paste to spellonline.com.

Simple.

Honest Review

[Anonymous Coward]

All you cynical readers out there are quick to make yourselves look smart and blast the movie for being wildly inaccurate. I believe there are two types of movies, realistic movies and entertainment movies. The plot in Toy Story, Star Wars, Star Trek, among countless other movies/television shows have more than a few holes in them. This is an ENTERTAINING movie. Did it feel like I was watching a video game? Hell yeah it did! And I loved all 1 1/2 hours of it. Stop comparing this movie to Saving Private Ryan or Platoon, because from the get go, this movie clearly states its intent to NOT be like those movies.

This sucks...

[kko]

You let cockfucker JonKatz review this shithole of a movie and you reject my posts on "Band of Brothers"... you are all a bunch of cocksuckers...
You want a war movie, do yourself a favor: go watch Saving Private Ryan, and then when Band of Brothers comes out on DVD, go buy it. Warning for the /. crew: BoB is not for sissies, so don't let JonKatz review or even watch it...