Slashdot Mirror
Collateral Damage
The plot is vintage Arnold. He plays firefighter Gordon Brewer, who is drawn into international terrorism when his wife and son are blown up in a bombing carried out by Claudio ("The Wolf") Perrini. In pre-9/11 movies, the U.S. is nearly as evil as the terrorists, as the perennial bumbling evil C.I.A./NSA secret agents do absolutely anything at all costs by any means to get their way -- just like the terrorists. At the moment, that plot line seems a dubious one. When Brewer figures out that the ever politically squishy U.S. government isn't going to catch the Wolf (to avoid ruffling the feathers of the Columbian government), he decides to do it himself, tracking the Wolf through Panama to the dense jungles of Columbia, where he spends as much time dodging evil U.S. agents as he does hiding from evil Columbian guerrillas.
The movie is full of the now vintage Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion. And let's face it, Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken. His face is lined, his visage distinctly middle-aged. We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.
Watching the film, you can't help but identify with the helplessness of a man who sees his family blown to bits for no particular reason by murderous fanatics who use high-blown rhetoric to justify their butchery. I suppose there are lots of people who wish they could get their hands on Osama Bin Laden's throat.
What makes Black Hawk Down so jarring and effective a film is that it's about a real story. U.S. soldiers really did find themselves in a horrific shoot-out in Somalia, and really did behave heroically under awful pressure. These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful. That movie is thus a terrific salute to ordinary people who have to take a deep measure of themselves in extraordinary situations.
But Schwarzenegger's clunky ham-handedness is diminished, not enhanced by reality. The movie is too long, the ending loopy. What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant. Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another). He ought to ride off into the sunset while he still has his dignity and pride, and acknowledge that while he had a great ride, the reality of the world has finally overtaken him.
Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".
This is exactly what I want to see when I go to a movie like this. A lot of testosterone based action! Anyone looking for some sort of deep statement regarding the "post-9/11" world is looking in the wrong place.
Ever hear of the difference between "film" and "movie" katz?
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
I remember watching his movie Commando, where he rips a seat out of a small convertible so he can hide while this woman drives the car. Then, she gets run off the road and plants the car right into a telephone pole. Arnold gets up, asks her if she's OK, and she is. Cheesy to the extreme.
There's also a scene where he kills a terrorist by throwing a circular saw blade into his head, like a frisbee. Cheesy.
Arnold movies (the best was still Conan, or maybe Kindergarten Cop) were always most watchable to those persons with very powerful disbelief suspensors. Mine are getting worn out, so I'm going to pass on this movie. That's the reason I won't watch it - not September 11th.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Black Hawk Down 'true and well done'? Well, yes, September 11th does seem to have changed people's views of films! Before then, we might have dreamed that Americans would notice that THE REST OF THE WORLD realises that Black Hawk Down was ridiculous, fake, American-enhancing crap, glorifying effectively the fallout of an American massacre - now we realise that everyone else's perspective will be ignored...
...just because Katz can't figure out it was made before 9/11. Yes, it may seem lame after the event but it was made before the event while we all slumbered peacefully in our false sense of security. Including you, Katz.
To hold a pre 9/11 movie to post 9/11 standards is just plain stupid.
Should it have been released? That's up to the viewer to decide. As far as the studio's concerned it was a business decision. "Do we not release it and lose our investment, or release it and, maybe, recoup some of our money?" Business, plain and simple.
I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't. The whole premise is as lame a Katz presents it. It's not because the movie is out of touch for it's time, but because we are the ones who are no longer in touch with that genre.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
"the plot is vintage Arnold..."
uh, he is a firefighter this time, not a cop or android thing...
The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.
Also, your pseudo-patriotic military bias does not belong here. Comments like: "These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful," are off topic, and do not belong in a review of a dumb Arnie movie.
Warmongering should not be confused with patriotism. The real patriots are those who are questioning the actions of our gov't and the likes of Ashcroft, etc., in order to keep our country free of the constant threat of facism from within. The soldiers in Afghanistan have been duped into participating in a sham which at this point has killed more civilians than were killed in the US on 9/11. (Also, notice the lack of mention of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden when people talk about their outrage at the concept of the killing of civillians - a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out in order to influence the gov'ts of Japan and Germany through the terror of their citizens).
I guess I really wonder what this review is doing here on slashdot at all.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Dear Mr. Katz,
While I realize that your intellectual credibility has cemented itself somewhere around "Nil", I feel obliged to note that wrapping yourself up in a flag will neither increase it nor add any other sort of credibility to your ranting.
Please read Mr. Ebert's review, which tackles the same issues as yours does (Pre/Post 9/11), but does so in a clear, concise, and intelligent manner. Do not be so eager to put on 9/11-tinted glasses in the same manner that you did Columbine-tinted glasses prior to the terrorist attack.
Your references to Black Hawk Down betray your complete lack of familiarity with the history surrounding that mission. Please do some research before using Mogadishu in your writings. It's actually getting to be very worrisome, since so many people have on so many occasions pointed out how absolutely narrow your focus is regarding that event.
You have managed to write a movie review without providing a review. This is a noteworthy feat but, alas, does not enrich any of your readers. Try to do better, next time.
Re-evaluate yourself, immediately.
Regards,
l
The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own.
No it's not. There's one movie involving terrorism. And it was made well before 9/11. How is that a genre?
The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.
It didn't seem to stop him from using the military in more deployments than any other President before him...
Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House
George W. Bush is neither "right-wing" nor extremist. Any American before 1930 would have called him a socialist for his unquestioning support of nearly all government programs and bail-out of the US airline industry. And as far as "extremist" goes, the man is so much in the center of the road that it is a wonder there isn't a yellow stripe down his back.
Hmm. Let's look at that for a moment. Perhaps, if we had vaporized a small island, to show them what the bomb could do to a city, they would have surrendered without us having to use it.
I'm sure that's why we had to use it TWICE , even though we asked for a surrender after the first one--because they realized how bad it could be, and immediately decided not to pursue things further, in light of the destruction they were facing. Yeah, sure, an island demo would have worked.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
I haven't seen Collateral Damage, and I suppose I probably won't, but I really think you may be coming to a harsher view of it than you should. The United States has made many mistakes in the past. It's entirely inappropriate to paint the US as a white knight, always battling for good in the face of evil because it's untrue. I wish that was the case, but it's not.
Theodore Roosevelt once stated that he believed it was treasonous to not criticize the actions of the President. The public should be trying to hold the government to the highest standards right now. It's a really uphill battle, though..
It's amazing, looking back at the creations our TV and movie industries have come up with in the last decade. Terrorism has been a major theme. Even The Lone Gunmen on Fox had an episode involving diverting a plane that would have crashed into one of the WTC towers. Many movies that would have come out last fall have been delayed or canned.
I worry a lot about the restrictions that may be put on TV and movies in the future, both in written laws and in unspoken agreements. I understand that Back to the Future was edited by TBS, TNT, and NBC to reduce the role of the Libyan terrorists that `Doc' Brown stole plutonium from. I think it's ludicrous! What's going to be edited next?
Looking at Black Hawk Down, I think the real tragedy comes from putting people in a situation they shouldn't have been in in the first place. To me, a member of the public, the action in Somalia was billed as a humanitarian mission. The reality is apparently different, though I don't know if even the troops involved knew anything about that.
I think it's another example of how open and truthful communication is important. When true motives are hidden, good people get themselves into bad situations.
I've seen a lot of things get hidden in the post-9/11 world, so it's been hard for me to believe anything anymore. I avoid the news coverage of our little `war'.. At the moment, I'm taking time to work on figuring out my own life. The people near me have much less incentive to lie to me than the figureheads in government..
I hope that I'll soon find some energy to try and help out in society. I think the community of Linux and other open source developers have seen the value of open communication, even if it occasionally degenerates into silly bickering. It's probably a good idea to get involved in the political process this year, even if it's just at a low level..
Katz does seem always to be anticipating his audience, gauging what they wish to hear from him, apparently still with some success. All the bitterness seems to be from people who once took his word as sincere.
As much as we appreciate the "news alert" that Schwarzenegger's career is over, we need to know what happened to Katz's plans to present a Q & A with Junis. Failure to "follow-up" his most notorious story is the nail in Katz's coffin as a "real" journalist.
The Times story linked above says, in part, that "Junis had agreed to take part in a public question-and- answer session on Slashdot.org soon, once things settle down a bit in Afghanistan." Haven't things settled down yet?
"He's already made his way to some sex sites, and wishes he had a printer. Ah, the indomitable human spirit." -- Check out this j-school weblog to see how Katz measures up to other reporters on the liberation of Kabul.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Honestly, did you read the article, look at the evidence that has been presented - and the statements regarding its accuracy, or simply look at the claim and then say "It can't be true"?
Do you have any idea of the amount of extremely important news that is simply ignored, completely and uttterly by the mass media? You can try to excuse it all you want as "Bullshit", but the fact remains, the media fails to report an overwhelming majority of what happens out there. It simply doesn't bring in veiwiers. Which leads to the beleif that things aren't true, that they didn't happen, if the nightly entertainment known as "The News" didn't bother to report them. It is having a catastrophic effect on our nation, one that I fear, will cause us HUGE problems in the future. Why? Because without a proper idea of what is going on, or what has been done in the past, people believe only the bits and peices they are spoon-fed by those with the power to "make" the news. And they are left incapable of holding their leaders accountable, and as a result their nation. And their country becomes a rouge state that serves the interests of their leaders and those in power. While the context of any actions are presented through the filter of the condensed, 99.999% truth free reality that most of the country exists in. It's already happening now. And you can use the old "media bias/conspiracy" smear to discredit anything that isn't convient. But you will only be doing yourself a disservice. Stop ignoring what isn't nice, and start paying attention to it. Open your eyes, shut off CNN and actually LOOK at what is happening out there and don't require CNN, FoxNews or ABC to give the truth their stamp of approval. The notion that such a thing is needed, bodes ill for our world.
Here is a link to a story on the issue by The Tronto Star.
Perhaps it is now reported enough to be true, for you, but maybe for you it won't be true unless it becomes more popular? Popularity = Truth? A scary concept indeed.