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 What was once an entertaining Hollywood cartoon figure now just seems a dinosaur, his sensibility outdated and irrelevant.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.
Hasn't Arnold about had it with these types of movies? I mean, can his heart take much more?
Click here or here.
If you read the last 2 paragraphs, replace Arnold Schwarzenegger with John Katz it makes a bit more sense.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".
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.
Psst - hey Jon - I think right here is where I say something about the pot calling the kettle black.
What's your damage, Heather?
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.
That spoils it for me on its own.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
he's just in it - making a buck.
this article at salon.com sheds some like on arnolds perspective, and his relationship to the movie.
im no huge arnold fan - but katz shouldnt dump on arnold for being *in* a movie
whats the directors name katz? who did the casting? did you know harrison ford was supposed to play the part?
Was I the only person who saw previews for this movie before September 11? It's easy to say retrospectively that this had its roots in September 11, but movies take a long time to write, film, and edit- unless you're suggesting that Hollywood was in on the plot.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
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!
Another diaapointing story from the greatest nerd of them all.. 'Stuff from JonKatz, It doesn't matter'
Don't click here. BT will enforce intellectual rights and sue for eac
Anyone seen this since September 11th?
e4 e5
"Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes."
True? Hmmm... 'Inspired by a real events' or 'based on a true story' would be more accurate. It's not exactly a documentary, is it?
Sometimes JonKatz articles resemble an advanced form of trolling. Damn, fell for it.
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...
Does anyone else feel the term 'Collateral Damage' is quite disgusting regardless of who uses it? Human life is human life.
-Shaunak.
...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...
According to the myth, the Somalia operation of 1993 was a humanitarian mission, and a shining example of New World Order morality and altruism. In fact, US and UN troops waged an undeclared war against an Islamic African populace that was hostile to foreign interests.
Also contrary to the legend, the 1993 Somalia raid was not a "Clinton foreign policy bungle." In fact, the incoming Clinton administration inherited an operation that was already in full swing -- planned and begun by outgoing President George Herbert Walker Bush, spearheaded by deputy national security adviser Jonathan Howe (who remained in charge of the UN operation after Clinton took office), and approved by Colin Powell, then head of the Joint Chiefs.
The operation had nothing to do with humanitarianism or Africa-love on the part of Bush or Clinton. Several US oil companies, including Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips were positioned to exploit Somalia's rich oil reserves. The companies had secured billion-dollar concessions to explore and drill large portions of the Somali countryside during the reign of pro-US President Mohamed Siad Barre. (In fact, Conoco's Mogadishu office housed the US embassy and military headquarters.) A "secure" Somalia also provided the West with strategic location on the coast of Arabian Sea.
UN military became necessary when Barre was overthrown by warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid, suddenly rendering Somalia inhospitable to US corporate interests.
Although the pretext for the mission was to safeguard food shipments, and stop the "evil Aidid" from stealing the food, the true UN goal was to remove Aidid from the political equation, and form a pro-Western coalition government out of the nation's warring clans. The US operation was met with "surprisingly fierce resistance" -- surprising to US officials who underestimated Somalian resolve, and even more surprising to US troops who were victims and pawns of UN policy makers.
The highly documented series by Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer on which the film is based , focuses on the participants, and the "untenable" situation in which troops were placed. But even Bowden's gung-ho account makes no bones about provocative American attacks that ultimately led to the decisive defeat in Mogadishu.
Bowden writes: "Task Force Ranger was not in Mogadishu to feed the hungry. Over six weeks, from late August to Oct. 3, it conducted six missions, raiding locations where either Aidid or his lieutenants were believed to be meeting. The mission that resulted in the Battle of Mogadishu came less than three months after a surprise missile attack by U.S. helicopters (acting on behalf of the UN) on a meeting of Aidid clansmen. Prompted by a Somalian ambush on June 5 that killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers, the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations. After that July 12 helicopter attack, Aidid's clan was officially at war with America -- a fact many Americans never realized."
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Somalis were killed in the course of US incursions that took place over three months. In his book The New Military Humanism, Noam Chomsky cites other under-reported facts. "In October 1993, criminal incompetence by the US military led to the slaughter of 1,000 Somalis by American firepower." Chomsky writes. "The official estimate was 6-10,000 Somali casualties in the summer of 1993 alone, two-thirds women and children. Marine Lt. Gen. Anthony Zinni, who commanded the operation, informed the press that 'I'm not counting bodies . . . I'm not interested.' Specific war crimes of US forces included direct military attacks on a hospital and on civilian gatherings. Other Western armies were implicated in serious crimes as well. Some of these were revealed at an official Canadian inquiry, not duplicated by the US or other governments."
Bowden's more forgiving account does not contradict Chomsky's in this regard:
"Official U.S. estimates of Somalian casualties at the time numbered 350 dead and 500 injured. Somalian clan leaders made claims of more than 1,000 deaths. The United Nations placed the number of dead at ``between 300 to 500.'' Doctors and intellectuals in Mogadishu not aligned with the feuding clans say that 500 dead is probably accurate.
The attack on Mogadishu was particularly vicious. Quoting Bowden: "The Task Force Ranger commander, Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, testifying before the Senate, said that if his men had put any more ammunition into the city 'we would have sunk it.' Most soldiers interviewed said that through most of the fight they fired on crowds and eventually at anyone and anything they saw."
After 18 US Special Forces soldiers were killed in the final Mogadishu firefight, which included the downing of a US helicopter, television screens filled with the scene of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets by jubilant Somalis. Clinton immediately called off the operation. US forces left Somalia in disgrace. Some 19,000 UN troops remained for a short period, but eventually left in futility.
The Somalia defeat elicited howls of protest and rage from the military brass, congressional hawks, and right-wing provocateurs itching for an excuse to declare political war on the "liberal" Clinton administration.
The "Somalia syndrome" would dog Clinton throughout his presidency, and mar every military mission during his tenure.
Today, as right-wing extremist George W. Bush occupies the White House, surrounded by his father's operatives, and many of the architects of the original raid, military fanaticism is all the rage. A global war "without end" has just begun.
What a perfect opportunity to "clean up" the past.
At least this movie didn't really make it look like it was a good vs evil battle. That's what I liked about it, it wasn't as simple as the usual Arnold movies are.
But it's not as chilling as Enemy of the State, the Will Smith movie where his character, lawyer Robert Dean, is thrown into a whirlwind of coverup and espionage by rogue NSA agents.
The movie argues that privacy has been invaded too much, that we need more freedom. The NSA agents say that we need more surveillance because America has many enemies and the American people don't realize it. At the time I first saw it, it sounded like alarmist propaganda. When I saw it last night, it shut me up.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Hey, did I miss something? What happened on the 9th of Novemeber?
Rich
There was an article somewhere that discussed a pirate version of BHD making it into MOG. The opinion of the Somalis was that it accurately protrayed the events of those 2 days. If anything the movie minimized the extent that the millitia was using women and childeren as shields, ( ie laying prone on the ground with a wife on eiter side and two kids sitting on your back.
To the terrorists in this movie anything that got destroyed that was not a specific target is collateral damage. However, to the hero it wasn't collateral damage, it was his family.
I think it actually a fairly good title. It has a subtle subtext that some people might not catch.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
(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).
all is fair in love and war, my friend. and to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over "they started it."
i'm getting sick of hearing arnold getting dumped on. sure hes getting older, but we have the term "middle aged" not only to point out that they arent young anymore, but also that they arent old. and so i propose this- let's just assume you're "young", 20 to 30 years old: if you can say that arnold is getting old and loosing what he's got AND THEN you yourself can honestly say you're in better shape as the 20 to 30 year old you are then he is at his age, then maybe its ok for you to dump on him. i bet not many of us would earn that right!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
all is fair in love and war, my friend.
What about the Geneva convention?
Oh, silly me, I was forgetting, that's not something that USA feels compelled to comply with any more, is it?
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
One was that the Somali's thought that the movie was total BS and glorified acts which were, at the very least, unheroic, and at most, constituted a massacre.
The other was the reaction of the Somali's to the action in the movie. Every time a US soldier was killed, or US equipment blown up, the audience cheered wildly. Why would they do that if they agreed with the classification of these soldiers as heroes?
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Like any journalist hack worth his ego, Katz manages to tie any major socio-political event to the most trivial of topics.
Next week: Anthrax as a new P2P platform in the wake of Columbine. First in a series.
It sure sounds like the US is making blanket declarations of guilt without first establishing the truth.
Also, the US simply does not have the authority to classify these people as non-POW's. That can only be done by a competent international tribunal (I am surprised one has not been set up in disregard of the US's wishes).
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.
There was a lot of things left out out of the movie(like a presidential administration that wouldn't let us have armor support), but there was almost no fabrication in the movie (and that in the movie is mostly limited to liberties taken with storytelling).
a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out
Actually, the number of "unarmed" civilians and "innocent" civilians was quite less. Hiroshima was a military industrial city; where nearly every occupant was directly involved in the war effort. Given the alternatives, I can't think of a better Japanese target on which to drop Little Boy that would have both achieved the objective of ending the war and resulted in fewer "innocent" casualties.
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
And, interestingly enough, NONE OF THE HIJACKERS WERE AFGHANI! So, we wiped out 4000 innocents whose only crime was that they were born in the wrong country in order to prove the point that we will not tolerate the killing of innocent civilians!
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
cool, this guy just summed up everything I think about Katz' "reviews"
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
unofficialy, nobody ever did.
the people who start a world war deserve to die.
Let's see the average slashdotter take on Arnie on in any physical arena.
Establishing someone's guilt usually involves collecting evidence, etc..
This seems more like:
US: "You guilty?"
Prisoner: "No."
US: "How are we ever going to establish your guilt if you keep lying like this?"
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Nifty blurbs. I'd like to know what Bowden has to say in support of his claims, especially:
"the missile attack killed 50 to 70 clan elders and intellectuals, many of them moderates seeking to reach a peaceful settlement with the United Nations."
It seems a little strange that with all of the United State's vast control of a corner of the World's Intelligence Market that we wouldn't know about this meeting. September 11th aside, since the CIA and FBI both claim that they didn't know, or that they weren't aware that it was a real threat. I'd like to see what the NSA has to say, unless they got disbanded or some such.
On the flip side of things, this claim that the Somali war was based on US oil intrests (what isn't?) has merit in that there *are* useful oil possibilities in that area, but that's a speculation based on geography and the export products of nations surrounding Somalia.
Can I have an electric car that I charge from a nuklear power plant? *sarc*
Once more into the birch deer fiends!
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?
In fact, one of the reasons that the US has lost so much int'l support is that so many civilians have been killed in these operations.
Also, since many of the targeted assasinations (remember when it was uncool for Israel? now it's OK for everybody) are based solely on the word of a warring faction which claims, "these people (our enemies) are Taleban - kill them for us."
The US is not establishing the guilt of those it targets for assasination before assasinating them. Why not capture them if you don't really know if they are guilty of anything? Better than blowing up a convoy of innocent tribal elders based on the word of their detractors.
How would you like to be assasinated on the basis that one of your enemies said something untrue about you? Wouldn't you rather have the chance to establish your innocence before being wiped out?
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
I don't see how you can compare an Arnie to Black Hawk Down. Arnie doesn't go for realism. Most of his action films are refreshing tongue-in-cheek. A lot of them don't certainly don't take themselves too seriously like so many bad boneheaded Hollywood action films. Arnie movies have never required a brain, but they have allowed suspension of reality for a while, which is a form of entertainment. Although his films are getting a bit less unoriginal, I can't think of anybody else who does films quite like him, and so the [sub-]genre isn't completely overswamped like others with floods of unimaginative Hollywood formula crap.
Anyone wants to tell me where "Columbia" is and who these Columbians are?. I only know of COLOMBIA and COLOMBIANS.
[alk]
It's a fictional movie. And it's sad that Jon Katz aknowledges that reality superceeds fiction just when they hit his golden home and his two precious skyscrapers or his precious Black Hawk, in the last sixty years we had an holocaust and 2 atomic bombs released on civilians, and it requires a very high level of ignorance of egoism to say what Jon Katz just said. If Slashdot has to publish cinematographic critics at least hire a critic not an idiot with no clue about movies and just political opinions.
Hollywood relentlessly release incredible stories about the world where Americans are heroes (Both in reality and fantasy) and everybody else is after them for no reason whatsoever. Sometimes I wonder if Americans actually believe it!
Those soldiers that are now in Afghanistan, in a clear and powerful cause, are, to the eyes of many nothing more that thirsty murderers that do not know the difference between an enemy, a friend, a woman and a child. I guess they look blurry on their infrared googles.
Anyway, who cares if it's just collateral damage.
Carlos J. Hernandez
Hey, you know, America doesn't own or control the entire Internet. So comments like how wonderful and brave our (I'm american) soldiers are, who are running around killing and butchering people the world over, is a little fucking inappropriate considering some of the readers of /. are probally being fucked by America right now. Almost all of the people in the world hate those soldiers and the people who pay their taxes to support it. Something to think about.
- stinks
- embarrassing
- painfully, wantonly and hauntingly horrific
- cliche-riddled
- absurdities
- sappy, prefabricated, paint-by-numbers script
AhhhhhOne simple rule for its versus it's
I mean how could you mod that as a troll? Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll. The same thing has happened to me, you post anything remotly contervitial about the USA recently and the "patriot" moderaters mod you down. Lucky there are 5 serious moderators to 1 moron... ;/
Black Hawk Down a 'true story'? Come on, nothing in that movie really happened that way. The film is completely propaganda, and paid for by the US army.
The US troops commited many war crimes in that country, not to mention their pullback triggered the Rwanda genocides.
But I guess if I critize the US foreign policies I'll be dubbed a terrorist, right?
The US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard and destruction of the natural environment have everything to do with the fact that almost every people on Earth hold a grudge against the USA (including europeans).
The suffering that has resulted is the feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US.
Everyone is shocked and horrified by 9-11 for sure, nobody feels the US people deserved it, but in broader perspective, the US have only themselves to blame for it.
-------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just sme
You say, there is evidence that "these guys are who the US thinks they are," but that is the whole point. The US does not even think that they know who these guys are. There is no such evidence.
The US absolutely has not established the identity of many of the prisoners and does not know which group, if any, they belong to; therefore, the insinuation that I should trust them to already have made such identification is totally illogical. That is like saying, "Person A has no idea what they are talking about. Why don't you trust person A to know what they are talking about."
In no way will I put blind faith in the motives of the US gov't. I'm sorry, but history will show that they are simply not trustworthy enough to take their actions and words at face value.
Assuming that the gov't must have some good reason for its most questionable actions is not the way to maintain constant vigilance.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
I know this movie was started before 9/11 but I mean in quick sucession (basically as fast as you could make a movie) war movies are poping up. I mean Black Hawk down, next is Harts War. Is this just Propaganda because the USA is at war?
Good call in the blackhawk down reference, ignoring the fact that the real leader of the group is in jail for raping a 12 year old girl during this campaign. OOps, there goes a troll mod for me.
[Just Shut Up and Do What I say]
Why is that more than half (at a quick glance) of the replies to the review (ignoring replies to replies) are about Jon Katz, and not the movie or the subject of the movie?
/. publishes his reviews to prompt discussion of topics unrelated to the usual "News for Nerds/Stuff that Matters" fare. Fine. But the reviews prompt mostly "bash Jon Katz" discussions (which are rarely moderated as "off-topic").
/.'s motive is in continuing to publish his reviews. Has it become a running gag with the editors, like the "Cowboy Neal" options in polls (Hey! Let's publish another Katz review - I could use a good laugh). Are they hoping, each time they publish a Katz review, that the signal/noise ratio will actually *increase*?
I'm guessing that
That being the case (and it's a big assumption on my part) I wonder what
I can't figure it out. I welcome any suggestions.
--
Inominate Recreant - 22 years in the codin' business.
What wasn't mentioned, is that the movie was scheduled to be released in 2001, not 2002. Like so many movies that had a theme of terrorism, or had anything to do with NY, they were pushed back or re-written. I can't speak for the quality of the movie, but it wasn't inspired by 9/11 in any way.
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.
Zip up your fly, Jon...your jingo is hanging out.
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Is Collateral Damage even worthy of a review? Would anyone going to see it not expect YASBEU(yet another stupid blow-em-up)?
How about a review of a GOOD movie? Katz seems to enjoy putting even the most mindless drivel in a social and political context; how about a review of Kandahar, a widely acclaimed movie that offers some real insight into life under the Taliban? Is Jon afraid that writing a review for an intelligent movie will challenge his ability (or lack thereof) to actually think about more in the theatre than whether or not he should wait until the lineups at the snack bar die down before he buys popcorn?
Come on Katz, I challenge you to write a review for a movie that actually has some substance. Then you can show the world how really lacking in ability you are. (Errm...did I just say that?)
---
I didn't want to leave this space blank.
You will complain that Katz is off-topic while you probably didn't even see Collateral Damage? Just be sure to paint yourself with that same hypocritical brush for using this as a forum for expelling your anti-war views, which (I may add) are a little too much based on speculation.
How many American families saved up their peach pits for the USO so the military could make cyanide from them? Were those peach pit savers somehow waiving their status as civilians?
Also, condoning such mass murder under any circumstance, especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed, seems pretty low.
The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after the Japanese had already surrendered, so the BS about saving lives through this despicable act does not fly with the thinking man.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Do people even bother reading his articles anymore? I know I shouldn't but I always feel tempted to read them hoping that he will apologize for not being qualified or unbiased enough to write anything. OR he could write a good article. Yeah. Right. FYI: Black Hawk down was loosely based on a real event and it was a crock of shit if you are not american. And not all your readers are americans, so you should change your style. Thanks.
I guess you've seen the movie once too often. It's interesting to compare US and international reviews of Black Hawk Down. All US reviews I've seen go roughly along those lines, while the vast majority of international reviews points out that the actual events (to the best of our knowledge) where quite different - and much less heroic.
Almost all non-US reviews point out that Black Hawk Down is such an obvious piece of war propaganda that it almost hurts. So while we're at it with pointing out the heroism (perceived or real), let's not forget what then-president Bill Clinton said about the Mogadischu disaster, calling it "one of the darkest hours" of his presidency.
Maybe he just wasn't as much a war-monger as the current one.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Arnold Schwarzenegger's studio was not the contributing factor. The first time Leno was back on the air, Arnold was the guest, and he said he called into the studio. In tons of promo material for this movie I have heard him say the same thing.
Please - get it right
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
...and now I'm sure glad that "British" was tacked on...maybe it'll keep the yanks from bombing us...or am I asking too much?
You're using her as bait, Master!
If someone posts an innapropriate article containing empty pro-war rhetoric, then I feel entitled to respond with my views about that rhetoric.
BTW, there is nothing "anti-war" in my posts whatsoever. I simply do not start with the assumption that my gov't is correct and infallable. That does not make me anti-war, just a little bit vigilant.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
Does Katz not read the whole "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." motto? Since when does his latest idiotic postings of offtopic genres appeal to nerds or have anything to do with slashdot?
uh no. The CIA are almost always bad guys. Corps are all bad. Most US movies are about our own inner demons. A little self-absorbed yes. But less so now than ever. Besides, everyone in the US knows LA is full of weirdos with bad perceptions of reality, trying to make a buck. (Sorry Cali)
There is usually only one person or a handful that are heroes. Who are the heroes in your country's stories? Are they from your country usually?
BHD, which you are clearly eluding to, was about a massive disaster. Most Americans understand that. The one's that don't don't usually get out of the country so they don't concern you anyway. Probably have a few of those where you live as well, hmmm?
Too much media. You are clearly taking in too much media. I tossed my TV about a year ago, and have been feeling great ever since! Try it!
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
I read the post and thought to myself (before looking at the authors name) "God, what a pompus ass"! Lo and behold...
- real hackers don't have sigs -
I am not talking about letting them go. I am talking about going through the proper channels to get the desired convictions, without stepping on the prisoners' rights and without giving the world community more of an excuse to accuse us of cavalierly disregarding international standards and the will and opinion of the int'l community.
Also, when you say, "counter to the goal," remember that the goal of keeping them in Cuba in the first place is so that they do not need to be granted the rights of prisoners on US soil. That is sneaky. They might as well circumvent the need to treat the prisoners humanely by keeping them in a country which didn't sign the convention and has no human rights protection. Then we can simply torture and execute them legally.
When a prison is set up on foreign soil for the sole purpose of circumventing US law, that is sneaky.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
That's like saying, "I had to stab him twice because he hadn't succeeded in giving me his wallet by the time I was done stabbing him the first time."
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
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..
It must be an evil school to attract this much attention from Arnie, but here's directions to Columbia University
"...to cite the excuse of 4 year old children the world over 'they started it.'"
Excuse me sir, who is this ambiguous 'they'? From what I can see, we've already killed at least 3700 people (see UNH report) who had nothing at all to do with the attacks on September 11th. Furthermore, we have pledged to continue our holy quest until terrorism is erradicated. Now, I might be in the minority in all of this, but I don't see any possible way that terrorism can be wiped from the face of the earth. Whether you like it or not, it's the single most effective way for marginal groups to get the world's attention. Who knew how to pronounce Tajikistan before September 11th? Would anyone care about the catholic/protestant struggle in Ireland if they weren't blowing up busses and harassing schoolgirls and whatnot? I'm not condoning terrorism; I'm simply acknowledging its inevitability in our current global climate. The only way to end terrorism, to wipe it from the face of the earth, is to stop it at its roots. Any effort to try for greater equality and efficacy in the world will be beneficial to this end. Let us examine whether the United States is truely trying to stop terrorism. First, we recommend that developing nations sell their soles to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The policies of these organizations may seem somewhat noble, but it doesn't take much to recognize the rapidly accelerating gap in economic equality in the world over the period that they've reigned over the finances of developing nations. There are a few instances of success with their plans, especially in southeast asia, but I would argue that this success could've come without their intervention. Furthermore, one only needs to look towards Argentina to see disasterous failure of their plans. And what more, the policies of these organizations promote sweatshop labor and corporate control in these nations. It will certainly be interesting to see the state of Afghanistan in 15 years after it fully succumbs to the IMF. Also, despite championing the struggle for democracy as our reason for upsetting the Taliban, Bush continues (and to be fair, Clinton before him) to support dictatorships (pakistan et al) and monarchies (Saudi Arabia et al). Our goals in this war on terrorism are not noble. The war, thusfar, has led to a loss of rights at home, and genocide abroad (see the Time report on the Afghan school slaughter for proof of this). I can guarantee you that in 5 years, US interests will profit greatly off of Afghan labor and property in Afghan soil (eg: gas/oil pipeline through the country) just as they did after the noble affair in Yugoslavia. The real tragedy in all of this, however, is the use of the "Bush Doctrine" by other countries to stamp out rebel groups in the name of anti-terrorism. Clearly, Israel is the best example of this, but there are others. Our country was founded on the idea that those suffering the burden of an oppressive government have an obligation to humanity to overthrow it and create a more just government. In this new bush order, revolution is impossible unless sanctioned by The United States, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This makes a perfectly stable, bland, and corrupt world. Wonderful for profit, horrible for humanity.
Maybe I'm alone in this opinion. But honestly, all this talk about "America suffering" doesn't make much sense. I agree that anybody directly involved in the attacks or family members, friends, etc of the victims have been affacted a great deal. But do the remaining 95% of Americans really stay up crying over it night after night?
I'm just trying to be honest here. I don't view movies in a different light than I did before 9-11. I don't relate my daily experiences to 9-11. I have yet to feel the urge to go around spouting "God Bless America". "We're all heros".
Go ahead, mod this down. Turn it into a flame war, whatever you wish.
The Handicapinator!
"Owww, my back!!"
I agree completely. Anyone who fails to differentiate between a _movie_ and a real life situation (regardless of whether the movie is based on real-life events) sickens me.
I'm getting awfully tired of this "patriotism". Mindlessly spouting "God Bless America" isn't helping anybody. 95% of these people were affected in no way by the September 11th attacks. By affected, I don't mean a 3 percent drop in your paycheck due to economical issues. I mean directly affected, as in had a close friend die, lost a home, things of that nature.
I enjoy living in America, I don't take for granted the priveledges the constitution gives me. So, I'm not saying this as an ignorant "anti American". I'm saying this as an American, who's gotten awfully sick of all the media hype surrounding this event.
you're not alone, but I would *guess* that you're in a minority in the US. 9-11 was one of those "community" moments in which people feel emotionally connected to events and people that they never had direct contact with.
for a weaker version of this, you need only look at how sad some people got with Princess Di died.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Why is Jon Katz the only slashdotter to review movies? I would be interested to hear a review from one of the other guys. CowboyNeal? Michael? Hemos? Anyone. Please you guys could do a better job then Katz I'm sure. Please spare us from his rambling, round-about, never reaching a real conclusion hippy crap!
- I'll bash you in the face.
I did notice a couple of things in Collateral Damage that set it apart from previous Arnold action movies. Not once did I see him pick up a gun or any other traditional weapon. The closest he came was a fire axe and a grenade and even then it was after using a bit of "MacGyver" trickery. Also, I think this is the first movie where Arnold has openly acknowledged his Austrian (German) ethnicity. Not terribly exciting revelations, but I found them interesting nonetheless.
- r00st3r
"Me mule wouldn't work in the mud. So I had to put seventeen bullets in 'er!" - Willy
*shrug*
Advertisers seem to think that patriotism sells. Or they did for a while, anyway, especially the auto manufacturers. There's probably also a peer-pressure / societal-pressure factor, since some folks may be concerned about not seeming patriotic if they don't hoist up the flag.
Some may have been unduly alarmed, since it hadn't recently occurred to them that a) foreign policy matters, b) that people can be taught to hate due to religion, c) that airlines cared a lot more about throughput than security, since the insurance companies didn't care that much, either.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
well said.
I might add that destroying terrorism means destroying freedom fighters, the 2 terms are synonomous - just depends on your ( conditioned ) point of view. I'm British and hate the IRA , but accept that for some of them they are in fact fighting for what they see as freedom from british rule, and that many irish see them as such. Does that make them terrorists - yes , freedom fighters - yes.
Islamic / taliban / al qu..whateber , they are terrorists - but for many it is fight against American/IMF etc oppression, they are freedom fighters ( AND they are prepared to die for freedom ).
Diplomacy with the USA is pointless, if Bush don't like it he takes no notice ( even if the rest of the world likes it - Kyoto ), formal miltiary action by these nations / groups against the USA is pointless , and they can hardly fight economically either. That only really leaves one avenue left for obtaining what they want , the result is sept 11 , omagh , lockerbie etc , etc.
The USA needs to learn to respect others peoples opinion and live with it. Do what you want to muslims in tour own country but don't impose your culture/economics/way of life on them in their own countries ( when in ?? do as the ?? do ).
For an example of what talking and engaging in diplomacy ( look it up in the dictionary - it means more than saying "do as i say or else.." )can do check out the IRA good friday etc. OK it is not perfect but moving from troops on the streets / checkpoints at every junction etc to the current situation appears to be going the right way.
Seriously - forget Arnold - check "Brotherhood" out..
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
When Arnold was on The Tonight Show one of them (he or Leno) made a joke about how the delay of the release of this movie would leave Arnold out of contention for an Oscar. Arnold further joked that "They've passed me over 25 times already."
This is the tone for Arnold's movies. Nobody in their right mind would go see an Arnold movie and expect anything more than, well, an Arnold movie. If ever you walk out of one having expected something else, you just don't know Arnold movies.
In this case, though I have not seen it (yet), I'm guessing that Arnold catches the terrorist, and that while he doesn't bring back his murdered family members, he does exact revenge in much the same way alot of the audience would like to for attacks here in the US. Arnold movies are escapist, entertaining (for some), and delivery what they promise, and that isn't so bad.
This really has nothing to do with 9/11, current wars, the state of Northern Ireland etc. It's a movie, it's fiction. Treat it as such. There are so many references to blowing things up in movies I just don't see why people always have to join the dots. There has to be some separation.
Mild spoilage:
Anyway to the movie itself. Arnold is his usual corny self and his supporting cast do a pretty good job of the acting. The action scenes are plentiful but that's not why this movies sucks.
It sucks because of the awful script. Not awful because it has corny lines and such, awful because Arnold spends half the movie getting beaten up and he doesn't once pick up a gun. His entire arsenal is a black river pass, a grenade, and exploding lightbulb and an axe. Boring. There's lots of running around in confusion getting nowhere, boring. What people wanted to see in this movie was a f&%%in huge Austrian bloke land in Columbia in army camo and with the biggest gun you could rip off a helicopter. He should have then proceeded to march up the river machine-gunning everything in sight taking out trees and jeeps that got in the way (popcorn gobbling stuff). Instead he hides in a truck all the way and gets his ass kicked when he's finally discovered. Boring boring boring.
Why so many *pro* war movies since 9/11??? After years of anit-war movies, we are now being bludgeoned with propaganda peice after propaganda peice.
Can they make movies of this scale in just 4 months?
Is it a little odd the timing of all this?
Just asking.. Cos I think its *wacky*
Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done
There are many "truths" out there, you only have to go across the Atlantic to the UK to find a radically different "truth":
The Guardian (a UK broadsheet newspaper) says:
Black Hawk Down looks set to become one of the bestselling movies of all time. Like all the films the British-born director Ridley Scott has made, it is gripping, intense and beautifully shot. It is also a stunning misrepresentation of what happened in Somalia.
Read more at...
Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
Which does not change the fact that nuking any city in any circumstance is totally immoral.
The Japanese knew they had lost the war and were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. I really doubt that Truman actually believed that an invasion would be necessary in lieu of the bombs.
In response to the Pearl Harbor comment, there is a fair amount of speculation that FDR knew it was coming and used it as a way to garner public support for entering the war.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
2) "paid for by the US Army" - Interesting theory, but false. The US Army cooperated with Ridley Scott in filming the movie, but they don't bankroll the studios.
3) "The US troops committed many war crimes in that country" - A sensational claim, but where are your facts?. I was in Somalia, from December, 1992 and March, 1993 with the 10th Mountain Division. The only war crimes I saw were the butchered bodies of dozens of people slaughtered by the clansmen of Omar Jess, left to rot half-buried outside of Kismayo.
4) "pullback triggered Rwanda genocides". - This is totally outside the spectrum of discussion about Somalia, but think about what you write. The pullback of American forces somehow compelled hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to slaughter each other? No, the ethnic hatred in Rwanda led to the slaughter. Your explanation is even more absurd than saying that because Germany was humiliated in World War One, it was the fault of the Allies that Hitler killed millions of innocents.
5) "US crimes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and their widespread disregard of the natural environment... feeding ground and root cause for terrorism against the US." - I agree with you that the United States has not always played fair, particularly with Central America and East Asia. But I would argue that the reason the US is a target for frustration and hate is not so much that it has committed crimes (because on balance, many people around the world, in spite of your view, see that the United States has done many good things), but that the US is the sole dominant power economically, culturally, and militarily.
Being that powerful makes the US a target - plain and simple. Interestingly, the very demand for political, economic, and cultural freedom that the US has helped to generate is now creating such a strong backlash.
Do you really think that Osama bin Laden is primarily motivated by a desire to punish the United States for its behavior in Guatemala, or for its immense appetite for fossil fuels (which led to the staggering wealth of the Saud family and thereby bin Laden's own family)? No, he's motivated by a very narrow, fanatical view of Islam, and by a lust for power. He isn't being inclusive. He doesn't want a happier world for you and me. He's not seeking balance. He wants a world dominated by his militant view of Islam.
Is the United States to blame for this man? Certainly the desire of many people around the world to find some sort of spiritual clarity in a time of overwhelming materialsm can be traced back to US hegemony.
But before we simplify it down to "the US brought this on itself," and start spreading around a "rest of the world vs. the US" mentality, imagine for a moment some of the other options.
The UN is not an effective world government yet, and likely won't be for some time to come. Given that power abhors a vaccum, who would you have lead the world?
Would it be Russia? China? Perhaps the UK? France? Italy? South Africa? Chile? Brazil? Which nations would advocate freedom of speech and religion? Which would rebuild Europe and Japan after fighting to save the world from fascism? Which would defend the rest of the world from an ideology antithetical to individual freedom?
See, the great thing is, we could find lots of things to fault any one of these nations on. Give them immense power and see how well they wield it. In truth, no matter what nation is dominant, it will always be a handy scapegoat. Any number of ills can be easily heaped upon them.
After all, it's a lot easier to blame someone else than it is to look in the mirror.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The movie is 109 minutes long. That's a LONG movie????
I like the films I see to be about 120 minutes long, else I don't feel I'm getting what I paid for.
Perhaps John Katz did not see Titanic.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
Since Hollywood is the pumping heart of mind-control media production for the West, is it any wonder they had films already in the bag designed to keep the embers of war-mongering public hate and nationalistic pride burning brightly?
What blows me away is that they would be so blatent! You'd think they would at least wait until after the 9-11 display, just to keep the books clean, so to speak. The fact that can get away with this sort of thing demonstrates just how little work there is left to do in terms of programming the public.
Oh. And here's an interesting tid-bit: In Toronto, there is a fellow claiming to be a U.S. Navy spy claiming that he had foreknowledge of 9-11. The interesting part is that he was locked up in a Canadian jail back in August. He was screaming and yelling about the impending September attacks, to the point where he signed a document to this effect, had it witnessed and court sealed, several weeks before they happened.
You can read the article here
-Fantastic Lad
Death camps in America filled to capacity before this decade is out. They are empty and waiting already. .
"Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done...
I hate to resort to Americanisms, but... puh-LEASE. Is this the "Black Hawk Down" that's being panned worldwide as a shallow piece of historically-inaccurate propaganda, or are we talking about different films?
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
American glorification has killed a lot of good movies, and Americans have killed a great number of innocent people. Dear Redneck, why don't you explain to the rest of the world why the Great United States has to carpet bomb an entire country to hurt one evil man?? While you're at it, please tell me why a perfectly good Red Cross installation (including inhabitants) was demolished for your war effort; I'm sure you can think up a quasi- logical justification for that massacre too. .. members of my family died in the Second World War and even off the Hawaiian coast (defending your sorry country) after that incident, and their accounts differ in many distinct ways from the rendition that came out Hollywood's poop chute.
Have you seen "Pearl Harbour?" It's another typical piece of turd-munching American propaganda that only the weakest of mind would confuse with the actual factual events as they occurred
You probably have the gall to wonder why the rest of the world doesn't give more than a superficial shit about your precious land and its heard-earned terrorist damage. If you were a world citizen, the answer would be obvious.
I think you should put the pig down, pull your pants up and take a sober look around. Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time. George Shrub is a fear-mongering attention whore and September 11 hasn't changed that: you people are dazzled by bigger guns and more missiles, allowing you to overlook that the little man pushing the buttons is slightly mad. Say goodbye to civil liberties, and Hello! to your new police state. "Yes, Black Hawk Down IS based on largely fictional events. There is not more than a small grain of truth in it."
Goodbye.
What WASN'T discussed inthe movie was the reason for the Somalis to go berserk... and the reason was... shortly before the helicopters were shot down the same helicopters had rocketed and machine gunned a house where Habib's tribal elders plus servants plus wives plus children plus grandchildren had assembled to discuss the US peace plan, resulting in the deaths of 90 unarmed civilians. Deliberate murder.
Were I a Somali you may be sure that I would have been in the streets that day to avenge my relatives.
US propaganda again spins an act of US murder into an heroic defense of demacracy.
Sorry, by soles I meant souls and there were probably a bunch of other errors in that hastily typed response. I suppose soles is a steller unintentional pun though given the prevelence of shoe-building-sweatshops in a few of these nations. Have a nice day.
Certainly a live and let live attitude could be somewhat more effective than current practices, but I'd argue that we need to go to great lengths to restrain American and international corporations from exploiting developing nations if we aim to stem further terrorism. "Terrorism" will always be the means of revolution - few are peaceful. The Boston Tea Party today, if, say, workers in Bangladesh torched a textile factory, would be viewed as economic terror. It is this shift in our view of dramatic revolutionary action that is so dangerous and will be the most far reaching impact of September 11th. I predict that 100 years from now, the Bush doctrine will be looked at with disdain in its role in acting as the catalyst for a century of oppression. I can only hope that it won't take a century for people to realize this and rebel. Alas, folks are too happy tuning in the telly and turning off their minds to see the marginalization of their lives.
..just watch the international coverage of the war in afghanistan. SICK OF AMERICA
Modded informative when he doesn't know what he's talking about?
For shame mods, for shame.
The man in jail for rape was actually the company clerk. I may not be an expert in the US military heirarchy, but I wouldn't have thought that the clerk was "the real leader".
But of course, facts rarely get in the way of a person trying to put as negative a swing as possible on something.
Unless you live in America where we put the month before the date, then its 9/11. Now, you can argue all you want that its more logical to have day/month/year but personally, i prefer month/day/year.
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
I don't know if something noteworthy happened on the ninth of November, but if your talking about the day when a bunch of Islamic terrorists crashed a couple of planes in NY it reads 11/9!
Flamebait, -1 (where's your moderator points when you need them)
We all have our own cultural interpretations. In Mexico, they celebrate "Cinco de Mayo". We don't correct it and tell them that it's "Mayo de Cinco"...
The attack happened in America, on primarily American people - where we use the month/day convention. The other reason that it's sometimes referred to as "nine-eleven" is the similarity it has with the emergency telephone number "9-1-1".
Perhaps the terrorists chose this day on purpose to strike fear into the hearts of Americans by using our own culture against us. Perhaps they wanted us to forever remember that day as the "day of emergency". They failed, for the heroism of the emergency personnel (who happen to respond when you dial 9-1-1) turned out to be the great shining light of the day.
In summary, I feel it fitting to refer back to one of this nation's most important events in history as "September 11th", or "nine-eleven", or even "nine-one-one".
If, or when someone invades Europe from another continent and smashes 2,000+ people - perhaps your press will report it as 2.000 people, and you can refer to that date in infamy as "day/month". But until that time, get used to us Americans using "month/day". It's our culture. We tried to jetison the English measurement system for metric, it didn't happen.
- passion
That being said I will definitely admit America has not done nearly enough to control our own pollution levels including the emissions of our silly SUV's.
After Oklahoma City there were still action movies and way before O.C. we all said they stunk. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
This is a rhetorical question, but ... can we please stop with the pseudo-dramatic little "9/11 == 9-1-1" congealing spoonful of chicken soup for the soul? It's a country song waiting to be written, if not already recorded.
Tell me, if Al'Quaeda's day of judgment had happened to be the 4th of October, would we be making much of the fact that it was "10-4 day, get it? The police use that call on their CB radios. So appropriate!"?
And I find it exceedingly cheesy. There. Glad to have got that off my chest. Please continue, pay me no mind.[*]
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
It's heartening to see someone else on slashdot with some of these views. But I gotta say paragraph breaks really do make things easier to read.
>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
This movie was a piece of patriotic revisionist crap, that painted a failed military mission which included the deaths of several hundred somalis as a heroic accomplishment.
In the real world, the us military is very carefully scrutinizing the policy errors which led to the carnage in somalia - not the least of which is institutionalized racism and cultural elitism amongst our top military teams.
Before some other bullethead starts calling me any names, I am the least PC person around. I am conservative and a gun-owner. That doesn't prevent me from making informed decisions, even when my beloved country is at war. I've done my service in the military, and I vote.
Now, all this being said, don't be stupid. This is a movie, and it was fiction. Saying it's 'real' is a romanticized insult and a dangerous glossing over of a stark failure of us military doctrine and the resulting deaths of somali men, women and children.
We've learned a lot since then. That's what we need to remember, not to pretend we always knew it.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Bin Laden didn't win anything. The people in power in Afghanistan are the same corrupt people that the Taliban originally replaced. The US economy is messed up because of the cyclical nature of business. The economy could not expand or be bullish forever. It didn't matter if Gore or Bush got elected the recession was going to happen. I predicted the recession when the dot bombs started to contract in May'2000. The California (especially Los Angeles) economy was far worse off in '90 than it is today. 9.5% unemployment then versus 6% today. If the U.S. can't catch Eric Robert Rudolph, the Atlanta bomber and on the FBI's Most Wanted List since 1998, in our own backyard, how in the world are we going to go halfway around the world and nab a truckload of terrorists?! The Gulf War failed because of Bush Sr.'s staff, and especially Gen. Colin Powell, who was the one determined not to send U.S. troops into Bagdad. Powell didn't mind desert warfare over flat sandy terrain, but urban war was something he did not want to face.
....however, when I was in the U.S. military, we dated things DD MMM YY. My Dad was also in the miltary and he still writes the date in the DD MMM YY format.
Its called research
BBC says warlords are filling the power vaccum. The Taliban that ran those areas are being released. I give them 6 months to find they way back to the top in many rural areas.
As for the most wanted, you'll have to dig through
this and this and this. Find other reports with more details and you'll find the quote about the 70% strength from a high ranking US offical (If I remembered which one, I would have a link for you) and the numbers (which change every week)
I assume you can find details about the US economy and the fact that Osama hasn't been found.
The US didn't win the gulf war (Sadam is still in power) and it looks like they they aren't going to win this one either since most of the boogie men will be alive when its done. The real question is will the people of Afganastan win this time?
OK, I have never wanted to jump on the Katz-callers' bandwagon before, but this is too much.
Jon, you've worked for Rolling Stone, the New York Times, and Wired, and you must know that none of them would accept a movie review like this. It hardly criticizes the movie, instead vaguely trying to position it within the social milieu of early 2002.
I even admit thinking your "Hellmouth" stuff was brave and relevant at the time, but lately you've been writing reviews of pop-culture movies that lack fact checking, grammar checking, and often even spell checking. In this article, for example, you consistently use "Columbia" in place of "Colombia," which is humorous to some readers and embarrassing to others.
Also recently, some of your articles have been seriously criticized for missing the facts (Commodores in Kabul, Ewan McGregor in Mogadishu), yet you haven't bothered to respond. If I'm mistaken here, I'd love to see the rebuttals.
So in closing, please make a little more effort. You shouldn't churn out mediocre material just because it's Slashdot.
Schwarzenegger has made some first-rate action stuff. His Terminator series was great (he's making another).
Gee whiz, thanks for the news flash, Jon! The rest of the world has known for the last year or so that Terminator 3 is in development and production.
I used to think the Katz-bashing was overreaction, but I've come to realize his columns really are so much hot air, with no original insights.
He reminds me of Jackie Harvey, the Onion's Hollywood columnist...
The Motorcycle accident scene at the end was best example. They were too cheap to even crash a real bike; so, they threw a few parts in a pile! The budget on this one must have been 99% Arnold's salary. They didn't even show the mines going of when he dragged the pick over them: Only canned sound effects!
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Governments should always be fair game for criticizm. I find it amazing that I've heard none but myself and a few friends thinking of the possiblity that the whole Sept. deal was an inside job constructed to solidify political positions. Not saying it definately was, but to ignore that possibility just doesn't sit well. I've digressed, but the point is this question: Just because there is a war going on or something tragic has happened and the government has proclaimed a desire to eradicate the cause, should the members of that government no longer be held accountable for their actions? I should say that the answer is obvious.
On the subject of editing movies, which dumb ass executive came up with that one? "We're editing the towers out of movies to be sensitive to the people effected by the Sept. 11 attacks." Aside from the utter silliness of such an idea, Escape from New York w/o the towers, how is this in any way sensitive to the situation? It smacks somewhat of an effort to rewrite history. "What tradecenter towers? They obviously weren't there b/c this movie was filmed in lower Manhattan and there are no towers there." Would it not be more sensitive to leave these building in the movies? Give the people something they can look at and remember things the way they used to be. This used to be something prized, wonder what happened to this sentiment.
Don't know if I've made much sense, but at least I attempted.
"I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
"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"
And for the same reason there are plenty of people in the world who want to get their hands around George W. Bush's throat.
-- /. ID is lower than Bruce Perens'!
Barry de la Rosa,
public[at]bpdlr.org
My
Yet again, Katz doesn't get it. Who in hell looks for relevance in a Schwartzenegger movie? Just blow things up, have great sound (the "tink" of brass hitting the concrete...) and it's a go. And to think /. features this idiot.
Jon Katz wrote: "The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own. If this movie is interesting at all, it's through the prism of September 11, a day that changed culture as much as it did politics." The problem with your thesis concerning post-9/11 movies is that these are all Pre-9/11 movies. It takes more than a couple of months to make and release a movie.
-- This is not a sig
"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." -Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff
"A surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." -Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff
"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." -UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." -US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946
I may be an idiot, but I am not full of shit.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
That's debatable. Removing Saddam would completely destablize that whole area. You'd see all its neighbors (claiming reperations for past mis-deeds) carving out a chunk of Iraq for themselves.
America won in that it protected its interests in the region (oil!) and slowed the creation of another SANAN (Small And Nuclear Armed Nation).
What I didn't like was our willingness to accept Saddam's excuses whenever we went to inspect his weapons facilities.
The guy has a history of using his weapons on his own people (read the Kurds(sp?))
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Bah, the movie didn't even have any decent one liners, we were forced to create our own at a screening, while only partially accurate "Now thats how you smoke a cuban" took the crown.
Or are you just a whiner?
IIRC according to Geneva convention it's not up to the US to decidce who is a prisoner of war or not - they should be treated as POW until proven else in court.
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
It's pretty much something we got in our genes - you can't really argue with that - OK, the 2 snipers who volunteered to be dropped in a death trap in order to save their mate's lifes - now that more heroic, but fighting for your own is pretty much instinct - unless you're a tad bit suicidal or sumtink
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Your government rarely tells you the truth, and you fall for it every time.
...carpet bomb an entire country...
I plan to continue falling for the truth every time the government tells it, however often or rare that might be.
If that were true, Afghan civilian deaths would be in the millions, not dozens or hundreds.
You might have had a point here, but your grotesque exaggeration undermines all your credibility as a critic of the U.S.
Have you seen "Pearl Harbour?" It's another typical piece of turd-munching American propaganda...
I don't recall seeing one review of Pearl Harbor that did not criticize it for being incredibly inaccurate to the point of stupidity, or anything other than 90 minutes of total crap wrapped around 30 minutes of great special effects. The general reaction in the press was (sarcastically) "Until I saw 'Pearl Harbor', I never knew the U.S. won that battle."
While you're at it, please tell me why a perfectly good Red Cross installation (including inhabitants) was demolished for your war effort;
Maybe in the process of delivering millions of pounds of ordnance some mistakes, however few were made. At least we weren't targeting civilians on purpose, and every time I hear hand-wringing over civilian deaths in Afghanistan, the numbers are rarely more than a dozen or two. All the Taliban had to do was cooperate with us when we asked them to turn over Al-Qaeda members and we made it very clear what we would do if they didn't. By defying us, they declared their allegiance with the terrorist organization in no uncertain terms. Regardless of what you think of the U.S. and its motives, I'm sure most citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, will be musch better off in the long run for our actions, and that's not even why we did it.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Compare a movie made pre 9/11 and compare it to the post 9/11 world.
I pretty burned out on Arnold, so i wasn't going to go see it, but if you like Arnold, you'll like this movie.
The fact the he's getting older, for me, makes his roles more enjoyable. I like seeing some human withstanding huge odds, insteady of some unshakable mountain.
Probably why I like Bruce Willis.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
oh, like if you got hit in the head by a saw blade it wouldn't kill you?
;)
Conan still his best, Hercules still his worst.
He would have made a great Luke Skywalker!
Joke, its a joke, relaxe.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
to a good review is keeping it in context.
We all know Arnold isn't going to be doing anything on the level of Castaway, so you have to compare it to other Arnold Movies.
You know, I joke about my spelling, but if I was publishing a review in a widely read web site, I'd make the effort to spell the country name correctly.
I want to see Arnold play a system admin.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah. I concur but I was in a bit of a hurry. If I'm just writing straight without pausing I don't like to corrupt my writing (if you'll allow me to say that) by inserting things that aren't intended in the flow of speech. It was meant as a from-the-cuff rant and I think an unbroken paragraph enhances that. It also keeps such an unresearched comment from getting undue respect. I believe in what I say, but if I really wanted to say it eloquently I'd've taken more time.
Are you really stupid enough to review THIS stupid fucking movie on Slashdot. Any idiot could tell that this is a worthless movie that was copy-pasted into the cultural mind by some asshole money-grubber. Not that that's different from anything else, but shit. This movie isn't worth my time to watch the previews. You actually sat down and "attempted" to write a serious article about it? Fuck you. I didn't read your review, nor will I. Fuck you again. I'd rather see you review Debbie Does Dallas as a retrospective. Not that you'd say anything interesting, but, through your inevitable idiocy, would find some way, yet again, to start a mobus strip argument between the trolls and the karma whores. Suck on my dick, Jon Katz! I wish I could blame your infinite stupidity on yourself, but, alas, it's not your fault.
.
This case is prima facie one of an insane person whose rantings closely resembled actual events.
I considered this too, except then I went back and looked more closely, and tried to think about how the event would have gone down in the context of what was happening during his incarceration. . .
"There are going to be attacks on these places!"
"We don't believe you."
"There will be! It's going to happen very soon!"
"Bullshit."
"Okay. I'll write down the targets. We'll have the document court sealed. Then after one of the targets is hit, you'll see I'm not full of shit. Their plan has multiple stages designed to unfold over several years. So let one of them happen, but after you see I'm right, work to prevent the rest!" (Look again at the document.)
And so the list was created, signed & sealed.
The point you're missing is that the document wasn't meant to be a clearly written, self-contained essay designed to pass mustard with flag waving skeptics on Slashdot. (And even if it had been, I somehow doubt it would be enough to convince most twits unless CNN gave it their approval.)
What it is, is a list which was created in the heat of the moment which has no value outside of the conversation during which it was made. It's designed to prove himself to the people who were there for the whole conversation. Now, obviously, the bailiff and judge remember him making noise about this, and they remember the context under which it was written. Nobody is disputing this aspect of his claim. Just because the handwriting looks messy to you, doesn't mean the guy is crazy.
And what about the actions of the U.S. Navy? --A 2000 page document, with a number of dates they actually overlooked and failed to fudge in their rush to disprove Vreeland's claim that he has been working for them for the last fifteen years. What do you make of that? Why would the Navy lie unless he was part of covert activity?
Be careful. I'm not saying that this is hard proof, but you are not using well thought arguments to discount anything. Some people are very prone to sticking your heads back in the sand at the first semi-plausible explanation, ("he's just crazy"). Once they find a simple, half-assed explanation, all other questions are immediately disregarded. That's just sloppy.
Now, I recognize that people must be allowed to make their own choices; it's a violation of free will to force people to open their eyes when all they want to do is roll over and go back to sleep. That's fine.
But it's also a powerful choice which leads to other things. . .
Be careful.
-Fantastic Lad
It's pretty much something we got in our genes - you can't really argue with that - OK, the 2 snipers who volunteered to be dropped in a death trap in order to save their mate's lifes - now that more heroic, but fighting for your own is pretty much instinct - unless you're a tad bit suicidal or sumtink
Not entirely true. Ever hear of "fight or flight?" It is the one mysteries of human response leaders of armed forces have wanted to unravel since the beginning of time.
The fact is that some of us can overcome our fears, stand up to death and face it eye-to-eye, while others run for they're lives.
satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
Hmm, you got a point there.
Mind you, these guys really didn't have anywhere to run - the only other option than fighting would have been death.
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
So, I take it you actually know nothing about this engagement.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Why so many *pro* war movies since 9/11??? After years of anit-war movies, we are now being bludgeoned with propaganda peice after propaganda peice.
What about two of the biggest movies to come out in the last few years? The Patriot & Braveheart? I don't see positive war movies being an odd thing at all.. it seems to be pretty consistant, audiences enjoy seeing "their people" win against all odds. And since the majority of movie profits comes from the US, the US is going to be the main stars. If someday China becomes the leading movie watcher, I'm quite sure that many movies will come up with brave Chinese people doing all sorts of neat things.