Collateral Damage

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. Our perceptions of Black Hawk Down, Behind Enemy Lines, and now, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Collateral Damage are shaped - nearly haunted - by the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the subsequent military operations in Afghanistan. Some movies - Black Hawk Down - are greatly enhanced by 9/11. Because it was true and well done, it hits us between the eyes. But for poor aging action-pioneer Schwarzenegger, whose movie was postponed for three months by his nervous studio, the opposite is true. This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

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.

Comments

9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".

Re:9/11

[psamuels]

Looks like "9/11" has usurped "Columbine" as Katz's phrase of choice to prepend to "post-".

So that's why he kept misspelling Colombia as "Columbia". He's still thinking "Columbine".

(Actually, I read a local review of Collateral whose reviewer did the same thing - I guess it's just a common mistake by the semi-literate.)

Re:9/11

[Grab]

Or maybe this is actually the British Columbia Freedom Fighters Front for the Liberation of the Trees? "Blame Canada"... ;-)

Grab.

For once, Jon is like Arnold

[Brento]

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.

so?

[DickPhallus]

Schwarzeneggerian repertoire of narrow-eyed stares and clunky one liners and explosion after explosion

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?

Commando Two: The Quickening

[DavidBrown]

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.

Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie..

[The Original Bobski]

...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.

Re:Black Hawk Down

[BobSoros]

uhm, back up a second .. are you implying that Blackhawk Down was based on fictional events ? Thats what its sure sounds like, if not you seem to be making the suggestion the events were grossly exaggerated. Well Smiley Ben, why dont you send an email or two to the soldiers (yes they are available) that were involved in that political debacle. There were two interviews with the soldiers before the movie was made and the contents of the movie clearly reflect what they gave witness to.

Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage".

[mrsam]

In the spirit of Book-A-Minute Classics, here's an alternative review of Collateral Damage. There's no need to plow through another Katz-ian monologue, when an ultra-condensed review will suffice. Here we go:

Yes, this movie sucks. It's mostly predictable, there's nothing new here. If you came to the theater expecting something on the order of "Die Hard", or "Indiana Jones", you'd be disappointed.

However it doesn't suck that much. It could've sucked much, much worse than it did. It was clear to me, when I sat down, that the flick is going to blow. With my expectations already lowered, the movie didn't really turn out to be that bad.

Yes, it's the typical output of the paint-by-numbers Hollywood screenplay mill. Still, I think the movie did make a couple of valiant attempts at being original. Ahnold's, uhhh.... impression of Mike Tyson was completely unexpected. And it was funny. And it did seem, at first, that Ahnold was going to end up bedding down whatsherface. The way that character actually turned out to be was also unexpected.

So, go and see the movie on a bargain matinee, and check your brain at the door. Or wait for it to come up on video. You could do worse. There's plenty of crap out there that's even worse than "Collateral Damage".

Re:Black Hawk Down

[lblack]

The United States was repeatedly cautioned by other nations to not involve themselves in Somali affairs, as they were a mish-mash of various warlords each having armed forces and all being about as sane as a bucket of loons on a Sunday.

The United States, however, being pricked repeatedly by one particular of these warlords, decided that they, being smarter and stronger than the nations who warned them, would take care of this pesky warlord.

Their execution of this plan was fatally flawed. The soldiers were not familiar with the methods of fighting employed by the locals. They did not know how to act effectively when a crowd of civilians acted as shields for the militants. Basically, the entire effort receded into a "Cover each other and back the hell up" scenario, which just barely managed to get the bulk of US Soldiers out alive.

Heroism? Where? What was heroic? Bad orders came down based on bad policy, executed by ill-prepared soldiers. Is it heroic to survive?

I would gladly send an e-mail to the soldiers involved. Particuarly John Stebbins (name changed to John Grimes for the movie). Ewan MacGregor's character -- You know him? The one who failed in attempting to join the regular forces three times during the Gulf War, before somehow being permitted to join the Rangers? Unfortunately, he probably isn't too easy to get ahold of these days.

The movie was grossly exaggerated and removed from any meaningful context. As a result, it cannot be called "truth". It is entertainment, not a historical document.

-l

Dear Mr. Katz

[lblack]

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

uh

[nomadic]

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?

Yeesh, Katz....

[DwarfGoanna]

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.

Re:Shipbuilding

[BarefootClown]

...especially when a simple demonstration of the bomb would have sufficed...

...a non-murderous demonstration of the bomb...

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.

criticizing the gov't..

[Mike Hicks]

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..

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction

[zhensel]

"...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.

Re:Second time more criminal

[BarefootClown]

Ummm...given that you've already blown some key facts (i.e. the date of the surrender v. the date we dropped the bombs, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this, but Hiroshima was the first city we nuked, on August 6th. We bombed Nagasaki on the 9th.

Incidentally, just so you know the rest of the story, here you go:

1. We dropped tens of thousands of leaflets on Tokyo warning that we had a new weapon of incredible destructive power, and would use it if Japan did not surrender. This was several days before August 6th (though I don't recall the exact date). We gave them fair warning.
   
2. August 6th: we nuke Hiroshima, using a uranium-235 device known as "Little Boy." The bomb hits very close to the target (within 500 feet, if memory serves--extremely good, for the time).
   
3. August 7 and 8: we drop tens of thousands of leaflets on the Japanese, reminding them of the bomb we just dropped (which, by the way, decimated a large portion of your city, with one bomb, and you couldn't stop it), and that we would do it again if they didn't surrender. We called Emperor Hirohito and asked for a surrender, warning him personally that we'd drop another one if he didn't surrender. He didn't. The fact that he didn't surrender after an actual use, on his people, is probably pretty good evidence that he would not have surrendered to a mere demonstration.
   
4. August 9th: we drop a plutonium-239 implosion-type device, known as "Fat Man," on Nagasaki. This bomb misses the target by over half a mile, but still obliterates the primary target--a pleasant side effect of having that much power is that you don't necessarily need the accuracy afforded by modern Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), though it is still nice to have.
   
5. We drop more leaflets, and call Hirohito again for a surrender. This time, he decides it might just be a good idea.
   

Before we dropped the first one, military strategists, generals, advisors, and the President (Harry Truman, in case you didn't know) gathered for many long discussions, to look at all of the available options. One option examined was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland; it was ruled out, in favor of the bomb, because the enemy casualties were expected to be similar between the two options, and the American casualties would have been tremendous--remember, this was a culture that believed firmly in the nobility of suicide attacks (see also: Kamikaze), death before dishonor (and failing to fight to the death was considered dishonorable), etc. I'm not bashing that concept--to be completely honest, I see a lot of nobility in their attitude. The point is, they would not have yielded reasonably, so strong measures were required. When all options were considered, nuclear weapons were the least costly in terms of human life, based on all available intelligence. Incidentally, the Manhattan Project was started not by Truman, but by FDR, who tried mightily to keep us out of the war for as long as he could--he was not a war hawk.

To answer the charges you make in your reply:

1. Had to, in the sense I just discussed. Best option of a sorry lot--unfortunately, war is like that sometimes.
   
2. Just wanted to test it again? We conducted dozens upon dozens of tests of nuclear weapons, in our desert, on islands, underground, and possibly even upper-atmosphere. We didn't need Hiroshima as a testing grounds. Did we study the effects? Hell, yes! But we still study the effects of simple 500lb "dumb bombs," looking for ways to improve them, and seeing their effects against different types of targets, so we can optimize for different types of targets. Not availing ourselves of a research opportunity would just be foolish.
   
3. Your example of mugging is a complete non-sequitor. A better example would be "I had to shoot him twice because he hadn't succeeded in not continuing to attack me by the time I was done shooting him the first time." This was not a random mugging of an uninvolved individual--this was an attempt to end a war, a war which was started by the other side (perhaps you remember a little sneak attack on Pearl Harbor), a war which was likely to drag on for some time, with many more lives lost, if it wasn't ended decisively.
   

Hope this little recollection of the facts helps clear things up a little.

Re:Cartiac Damage?

[aka-ed]

Congratulations, Arnold (Yabenson, not Schwarzenegger). You are on topic and to the point, if I could I would mod you to infinity.

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.

More circumstantial evidence. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

There are what? Now three war films all shot just before 9-11.

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. . .

Re:More circumstantial evidence. . .

[Y-Crate]

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.

Re:IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT'S 11/9 NOT 9/11 IT's 11/9

[passion]

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.