Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Collateral Damage

JonKatz posted more than 12 years ago | from the post-9/11-action-movie dept.

Movies 426

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.

cancel ×

426 comments

Calculus Damage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982298)

Staring the integral, and the derivative.

First of the frosty piss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982305)

First frosty piss post!!!

w00t (-1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982306)

Hey bitch!

Cartiac Damage? (2, Funny)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982307)

Hasn't Arnold about had it with these types of movies? I mean, can his heart take much more?

Re:Cartiac Damage? (1)

decaying (227107) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982322)

...or even Cardiac [dictionary.com] .

Re:Cartiac Damage? (2, Interesting)

vreeker (264162) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982324)

He enjoys these movies for the same reason programmers enjoy reusing code from earlier projects... less work and *generally* equal result. If you got millions of dollars to say the same lines over and over again from movie to movie wouldn't you continue?

re: Cardiac Damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982388)

The real question in all this is:
Has America suffered enough?

Re: Cardiac Damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982612)

The real question in all this is:
Has America suffered enough?

For what? It most certainly suffered enough to beat the unmitigated shit out of it's opponents, as it has so demonstratively illustrated.

Care to try your hand?

Re:Cartiac Damage? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982510)

Jon Katz has a 5 inch clit

Anal Bum Cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982517)

And a 5 foot anus.

Alan Thicke DEAD (-1)

Alan_Thicke (553655) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982312)

I just heard the sad news on CBC radio. Comedy actor/writer Alan Thicke was found dead in his home this morning. Even if you never liked his work, you can appreciate what he did for 80's television. Truly a Canadian icon.
He will be missed :(



Show me That Smile (The Growing Pains Theme Song):

Show me that smile again.
Ooh show me that smile.
Don't waste another minute on your crying.
We're nowhere near the end.
We're nowhere near.
The best is ready to begin.

As long as we got each other [slashdot.org]
We got the world
Sitting right in our hands.
Baby rain or shine;
All the time.
We got each other
Sharing the laughter and love.

I reckon (2, Funny)

G-funk (22712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982314)

If you read the last 2 paragraphs, replace Arnold Schwarzenegger with John Katz it makes a bit more sense.

Re:I reckon (0, Flamebait)

EggplantMan (549708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982332)

Why is it that every Slashdotter who hates Jon Katz' opinion thinks that everyone else cares to hear his?

Re:I reckon (1)

DickPhallus (472621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982347)

Because they are midly amusing at this time of the morning.

Re:I reckon (1, Offtopic)

MaxVlast (103795) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982392)

This time of the morning? What time zone are you in?

Re:I reckon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982479)

I'm not him, but I'd say basically anywhere in the USA or the Pacific east of the International Date Line seeing as it's not even noon (11:48am) here in Boston (Eastern Standard Time).

Re:I reckon (1)

justinstreufert (459931) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982362)

'Cuz the last 15 anti-Katz posts have been moderated up to 3 or 5. ;)

(The post you were replying to is currently at 3, Funny)

Justin

Re:I reckon (1)

EggplantMan (549708) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982550)

Frankly I find them boring, repetetive and somewhat trollish. Sadly I think that's the same argument people use against Katz himself. :)

Re:I reckon (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982470)

Posts pointing out flaws in the articles and making fun of the authors are about all that's worth reading slashdot for any more.

Re:I reckon (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982592)

John Katz has made some first-rate action stuff.

What action stuff has Jon Katz been involved in besides the occasional "Jerk off to Pr0n", "Lift food to mouth" and "scratch itchy butt" routine?

9/11 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982316)

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

Re:9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982400)

postpend?

Re:9/11 (1)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982538)

Append.

Re:9/11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982561)

append, you mean.

For once, Jon is like Arnold (4, Funny)

Brento (26177) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982330)

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.

god damn slashdot is a bunch of assholes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982412)

im glad i quit.

i told you the 'moderation' thing would ruin
slashdot, and i was right.

Re:god damn slashdot is a bunch of assholes (0, Offtopic)

nycdewd (160297) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982453)

Well you haven't quit... you just posted on the dotster, bub.

That small point aside, you are substantially correct that slashdot is loaded with assholes... opinions and assholes, everyone's got 'em.

I do not come here to be informed by the majority of posters who have about ZILCH to say of any intellectual value, I do come here for laughs and to let off some steam occasionally... And the links provided to the offsite info can be informative. Slashdot itself, as a website and as a forum for insightful commentary? As is the case with *most* everything, it is not what it used to be even a few years ago. Oh well... "When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around."

so? (5, Insightful)

DickPhallus (472621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982335)

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?

Re:so? (1)

Spuggy (69103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982399)

Good point, it is far too quick to expect any deep and meaningful releases based on the 9/11 attacks (both psychologically--would be offensive to victims this quick, and pyhsically--if someone is working on something that is going to be that great, it's going to take longer than 5 months to do).

If you're looking for non-action and more of a documentary isn't looking for it in the movie theater, but on CNN, A&E, or The History Channel (The Special on the World Trade Center released in the weeks after 9/11 on The History Channel was an excellent documentary--it was made before 9/11, but had added commentary where the commercials would normally go)

And yeah, right now any US Military Movie is going to do fantastic considering the Patriotism/Natoinalism abundant in the US right now--the same reason Bush has an 85% approval rating right now; you think he would even be over 60% or even 50% at this point in his term without the 9/11 disasters, when even the most popular presidents in our history were lucky to have 55% after their first year? (This is not an attack or support of him, that's for another discussion altogether)

The same has been true after any successful military campaign. Fickle to say, but it'll die off--it might take a few more years, but soon enough there will be another government scandal or more Enron fiascos to bring to light the negatives of the country once again. And then the normal military movies' popularity will die down and a 9/11 movie will be worthwhile and popular--if nothing else to remember and mourn.

[OT] This was and is the defining moment of the 15-30 year old generation. It is the first truly remarkable event that impacted so many that has happened in years (aside from various government scandals of course). And yes, we had the Gulf War, but for the most part, that was a campaign in which we measured American casualties in the 100's, not thousands.
[/OT]

Re:so? (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982465)

will be another government scandal or more Enron fiascos to bring to light the negatives of the country once again.

I really hope that at that point the public will see the folly of pouring billions of dollars into the corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex at the same time as public services, schooling and roads and railways are deteriorating.

Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending. (2, Funny)

Typingsux (65623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982338)

This is a big coincidence? Arnie made a movie with a plot?

That spoils it for me on its own.

arnold didnt direct or write this movie (2, Informative)

voudras (105736) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982344)

he's just in it - making a buck.

this article [salon.com] 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?

Re:arnold didnt direct or write this movie (1)

DickPhallus (472621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982369)

Exactly... and I wouldn't feel bad for paying $4.50 on tuesday night to go see this movie, because it would probably entertain me for a couple of hours.

Would you expect Katz to know any of the stuff you mentioned? No, because that would require all of 5 minutes of research! Shessh... don't ask too much of the man!

Re:arnold didnt direct or write this movie (1)

eniacpx (463063) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982551)

You do realize that actors have a choice about what movies they are in dont you? They aren't being sotred in some warehouse waiting for their agents to call. Do you think Arnold hasn't made enough money to live from Preditor or Terminator series? He picks bad roles, and for the most part it is his fault that picks these roles.

Article in The Sun Newspaper Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982350)

The Sun Newspaper Onliune has a very good review [thesun.co.uk] about this movie.

er? (1)

prizzznecious (551920) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982359)

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.

Re:er? (2)

dougmc (70836) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982393)

No, you're not the only one.

If I recall correctly, the movie was set to be released not very long after September 11th -- meaning it was very nearly done, if not completely done. Then September 11th came, and they decided to delay it. I don't know if it changed very much in that period ...

Re:er? (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982452)

"I don't know if it changed very much in that period..."

amazingly enough, it did not change at all. not one second (supposedly).

Re:er? (1)

peachboy (313367) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982406)

i do remember seeing some trailers on tv several weeks before 9/11, and i thought it was kind of strange how after 9/11, the movie seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. no on even mentioned that it was being pushed back that i ever heard. this movie was made without any influence of 9/11.

i've also noticed several people pointing out that 'gee, aren't there a lot of war movies coming out right now? it's all because of september 11th'. no it's not! i don't think some people know how long it takes to make a movie. you could easily spend weeks making a 5 minute short, so how long do you think a 2 hour movie takes?

oy ve

Re:er? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982506)

It is because of September 11th that all the war movies came out in a big bunch. They all had their release dates moved up. Don't you realise that movies can have their postproduction work speeded up? Oy ve.

Commando Two: The Quickening (3, Insightful)

DavidBrown (177261) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982371)

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.

Re:Commando Two: The Quickening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982574)

I remember watching his movie Commando, where he rips a seat out of a small convertible

The director wanted to cut that scene as "unrealistic", until Arnie went over and actually did it to the car on the set.

Another Katz Drama (2, Funny)

coolcast (230847) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982373)

Another diaapointing story from the greatest nerd of them all.. 'Stuff from JonKatz, It doesn't matter'

Recommended: LSD or DMT #@ +1 ; Creative @# (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982398)

My complaint about Jon Katz:

May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Katz's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Katz, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Katz to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Katz's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Katz is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.

Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Katz's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Katz is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Katz has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.

Even Katz's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Katz's refrains. That's why they created "Katz-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Katz knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Katz's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Katz's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.

CIA (0)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982449)

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.

And what's wrong with that. It's becoming even more true now that the commander-in-chief has authorized CIA to use lethal force and is pouring billions of dollars into the machine the history of which is filled with atrocious acts of terror [hypermart.net] and morally dubious publications [kimsoft.com] .

Yeah, these are the good guys.

Wha?? (-1)

DonkeyHote (521235) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982375)

Was he reviewing black hawk down, or collateral damage? WTF KATZ, you suck.

Oh, and just imagine a beowulf cluster of katzez!

Enemy of the State (1)

JohnBE (411964) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982386)

Anyone seen this since September 11th?

Re:Enemy of the State (1, Redundant)

sparkyz (256676) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982442)

I heard that. Great reference and entirely appropriate. Even more so would be "The Siege". Denzel, as relatively few others, can really make you forget he's Denzel and in the context of the film leave you well acquainted with the character rather than the actor.

I don't think the makers of "The Siege" or "Enemy of the State" were uniquely prescient exactly; but a couple films that were written off by some as paranoid, almost counter-culture phenomenon are truly high art after the fact.

True? (1)

Snow_Bonobo (29658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982401)

"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.

Re:True? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982446)

Actually, the entire movie was made under the suggestions of the actual people who where there. In a way, it was a documentry, but some of the things (Such as when the guy got his finger shot off, and when the guy died in the truck who was standing up at the gun) were backwards timewise, they happens before they got to the building, not after .. History channel had a full documentry on the actual event and had many interviews with the soldiers who were there, including dozens of the Somalians who were there also. They all claimed Black Hawk Down was very true to what happened.

Re:True? (0, Troll)

Snow_Bonobo (29658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982512)

Did the History Channel documentary mention the massacre of 54 people in Somalia by US troops while they were at a peace conference? Or the claims that the US soldiers took Somalian women and children as hostages? Any sympathetic shots of dying africans? How much screen time do the brave Malaysians get?

You can't wrap tragic events into entertainment without losing the truth.

Hmmm.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982408)

"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. "

Does this statement apply to Richard Stallman as well?

Black Hawk Down (2, Insightful)

SmileyBen (56580) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982409)

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...

Re:Black Hawk Down (4, Informative)

BobSoros (544035) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982430)

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.

Re:Black Hawk Down (1)

Jennifer Ever (523473) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982454)

Minus, of course, the one who anally raped his 12 year old daughter and is serving 30 years in jail.

Re:Black Hawk Down (1, Troll)

Snow_Bonobo (29658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982462)

The accounts of Somalian people also "involved" should also be read. And maybe the accounts of historians, UN investigators and journalists?

"Black Hawk Down" is a propaganda film, based on real events in which real people died for stupid reasons. A real tragedy occurred, but the film only shows a distorted view of what actually happened, and a very distorted view of why it happened.

How much time does the film give to the massacre of 54 people by US forces during a peace discussion? Or the firing of missiles into civilian areas by the US?

Maybe you should read what the rest of the world can read, in articles like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273 ,4 344998,00.html

and rely less on semi-official propaganda. Do you think "Zulu" and cowboy movies are accurate? They're based on true events too, you know.

Re:Black Hawk Down (1)

ralian (127441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982488)

Please read this [slashdot.org] , as well as this [slashdot.org] . Besides the fact that you're completely offtopic (and if I hadn't used my moderator points yesterday, you'd be going _down_), AND the fact that you should have been spouting your anti-US hate when Katz reviewed BHD, your arguments are wrong, wrong, wrong. Cheers.

Re:Black Hawk Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982539)

and if I hadn't used my moderator points yesterday, you'd be going _down_

Whoooo hooooo!

You fucking lamer! Are you going to set the world right with your mod points today?

Re:Black Hawk Down (1)

ralian (127441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982568)

Idiot.
"-1, Offtopic" MEANS something. Specifically, it means the post is OFFTOPIC. Speculation about whether or not Somalia was right or wrong (in the middle of a story about Schwartzenegger) is, in my book, Offtopic.

Cheers.

Re:Black Hawk Down (1)

Kwantus (34951) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982633)

must either be a newbie (doesn't know /. talk often goes waay off topic), a gov't/industry operative (they always want to keep discussion `focused'), or illiterate (Katz brought BHD into the topic in his article his own self).

Re:Black Hawk Down (2)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982518)

No, he is implying that Blackhawk Down was based on how Americans (esp. the military) want to see the facts. At least that's what it sounds like to me - but then I'm not American, and we know that Americans want to see things the way they would like them to be, so that's probably why you read his post that way.

Re:Black Hawk Down (5, Interesting)

lblack (124294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982591)

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 [nypost.com] 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

Re:Black Hawk Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982595)

On behalf of the United States Army and the soldiers who made it out of Mogadishu (and those who didn't):

FUCK YOU.

Re:Black Hawk Down (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982459)

Uh wrong. Check out the History channels documentry on the event. They not only talk to almost every soldier who made it out of there alive, but also the Somolains who were they that lived also. Black Hawk Down was almost completely 100% true from BOTH angles. You can go STUFF IT, sir. BHD was one of the most realistic war flicks ever filmed. It was more of a documentry ITSELF than the History channels unbiased blurb.

Odd. The Somalis thought it was accurate. (2, Interesting)

glrotate (300695) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982467)

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.

No, the Somali opinion was negative (1)

andaru (535590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982547)

I read a BBC article which described two thing in particular:

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?

Disgusting term (1)

shaunak (304231) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982411)

Does anyone else feel the term 'Collateral Damage' is quite disgusting regardless of who uses it? Human life is human life.

Re:Disgusting term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982431)

Does anyone else feel the term 'Collateral Damage' is quite disgusting regardless of who uses it? Human life is human life.

Nope. it is a military term. It is a fact of life and death. As long as someone out there is determined to take my life away, I am just as determined to make sure he dies first, no matter what I have to do to accomplish it. If I have to kill his family to kill him, so be it.

And thats exactly why they used it for the title. (1)

Raistlin99 (201550) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982475)

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.

Yeah, write off a multimillion dolar movie.. (5, Insightful)

The Original Bobski (52567) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982418)

...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.

plot?? (2, Insightful)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982420)

"the plot is vintage Arnold..."

uh, he is a firefighter this time, not a cop or android thing...

FSTFUKP (-1)

Electric Troll (536731) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982422)

Yes, Katz, you really should Shut The Fuck Up.

Still, at least "9/11" is less annoying than "Columbine".

Black Hawk Down was fiction (0, Insightful)

andaru (535590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982425)

I can't really speak from my own opinion, since I have not seen the movie and am not up on the actual historical event, but from what I gather, the consensus among historians is that Black Hawk Down takes a great deal of liberties with the truth.

The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

Also, your pseudo-patriotic military bias does not belong here. Comments like: "These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful," are off topic, and do not belong in a review of a dumb Arnie movie.

Warmongering should not be confused with patriotism. The real patriots are those who are questioning the actions of our gov't and the likes of Ashcroft, etc., in order to keep our country free of the constant threat of facism from within. The soldiers in Afghanistan have been duped into participating in a sham which at this point has killed more civilians than were killed in the US on 9/11. (Also, notice the lack of mention of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden when people talk about their outrage at the concept of the killing of civillians - a total of 140,000 unarmed, innocent civilians were wiped out in order to influence the gov'ts of Japan and Germany through the terror of their citizens).

I guess I really wonder what this review is doing here on slashdot at all.

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982478)

(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."

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (1)

Phil Hands (2365) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982532)

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?

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982557)

I assume you are talking about the terrorist CRIMINALS we have in custody in Cuba. They are CRIMINALS, not soldiers. No Geneva convention for them, because then it would be harder to interrorgate them for the vital information they possess. And we'd have to repatriate them, which is as silly as emptying a prison full of murderers. The Taliban fighters, if you have been paying attention to the news lately, are going to be afforded Geneva convention rights. Why is it that Europeans (I'm assuming you are one based on your opinion) are so against the United States? Perhaps Europe should keep its eye on the ball -- a lot of these terrorist cells are based there.

They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" (1)

andaru (535590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982611)

If the guys in Camp X-Ray are truly the "worst of the worst," then how come the US can't even figure out who they are, or which group (if any) they belong to? (BBC article. [bbc.co.uk]

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).

Re:They can't even identify these "CRIMINALS" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982625)

The plain truth is that these guys aren't cooperating. The article you link to says they're lying at every chance they get. How will an international tribunal solve that problem?

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982560)

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?


Wow, what hole have you had you head in lately? Are you really that stupid?

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982486)

I can't really speak from my own opinion, since I have not seen the movie and am not up on the actual historical event

Then I guess your opinion belongs in /dev/null

The heroism you mention portrayed in the movie was apparently totally fabricated.

Fighting for your life, no matter for what reason, is not heroic? I suggest you start reading up on your history.

The real patriots are those who are questioning the actions of our gov't and the likes of Ashcroft, etc., in order to keep our country free of the constant threat of facism from within

I suggest you volunteer to step into the confines of camp X-Ray and comiserate. I'm sure there will be someone there who will take your bleeding heart literally and oblige you.

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982597)

The soldiers in Afghanistan have been duped into participating in a sham which at this point has killed more civilians than were killed in the US on 9/11.

How far did you need to reach up your ass to pull out that statement??

Re:Black Hawk Down was fiction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982623)

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.

ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982432)



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 rest of the Afganistan / Osama stuff.


It's funny... I'm not hard core christian or even believe in God, but I know the bible, and it says something like this: You can see the small splinter in your neighbours eye, you can't spot the log in your own.

The reason I comment on this is that posting such patriotic narrow minded text on an international channel (yes, I believe /. is read outside the US too) may lead to similar situation if you had spoken racist opinions about the black people in your national television. It's just that the people which has different point of views about the subject may get pissed off. I did.

hollywood vs the truth (1, Informative)

syusuf (91554) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982443)

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.

it's a good movie (2)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982451)

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.

Not as traumatic.... (2)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982455)

I went to see Collateral Damage over the weekend and it was not that bad of a movie... A decent plot, and Arnold has some amazing one-liners like "I'll show you collateral damage!"

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.

Re:Not as traumatic.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982500)

...Arnold has some amazing one-liners like "I'll show you collateral damage!"

Please do the human race a favor and kill yourself immediately. Your intellect is driving down the national IQ average by 50 points...

Real Reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982457)

I can't decide whether to condemn or thank JonKatz for making this review so short. Anyhow, here are some links to "real" reviews.
Or find your own! [google.com]

Also, insert obligatory "why is slashdot reviewing an AOL/TW movie when the RIAA is so evil" comment here.

Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... (2, Funny)

rjw57 (532004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982464)

The post-9/11 action/terrorism movie is now a genre all of its own.

Hey, did I miss something? What happened on the 9th of Novemeber?

Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982527)

huh?.............
umm...wait a sec...yeah....uh....
yeah....uh...ok:

Haaaahahahaahahahahahahahaha......
Buwhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

fuckin' funny.

Re:Perhaps the news didn't reach me in England... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982542)

geez, get with the program and use US mm/dd form when reading posts by people from the US....

languages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982511)

For italians, "JonKatz" sounds a lot like "c'ho un cazzo", which literally translated means: "I have a dick!", or if you prefer a semantic translation: "I have no clue!".

Italians really seem to understand, what good JonKatz' posts are for - simply looking at his name, italians know: this guy has no more brain than a dickhead.

:-)

cluestick (2)

Misha (21355) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982514)

We see him in relatively few action sequences, and he is undoubtedly keeping platoons of stunt men working, judging from the credits.

hmm... my mother always told me not to judge a book by its cover. judging a movie by its number of action sequences and ending credits seems ok though.

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.

if Jon could offer some insight how exactly this changed in our post-9/11 world, he should write it up in a separate series of editorials. terrorists are NOT evil because they hide in the bushes/caves, occasionally jumping out of their lair and picking on some country for no particular reason.

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.

oh, the problem is with me here. i am what Jon would call a 'reluctant viewer'. i suppose i was wrong to think that terrorists are evil because their methods and attempts to get a nuclear/chemical/biological arsenal for the purpose of eventual retaliation are an unacceptable practice under the UN convention.

in my post-9/11 world, i should become oblivious to obvious political causes and consequences of world terror, and watch a movie IF and ONLY IF i can identify with a middle-aged superhero lead character, and whether or not the movie is sensitive and realistic enough in light of recent events.

These same soldiers are now crawling around the hills of Afghanistan, their cause clear and powerful.

a much more credible writer has said 'comedy is tragedy plus time'. of course he wasn't talking about the world press, or 5,000 dead people, or soldiers bombing caves in Afganistan with smart bombs, or even about the next hollywood flick. in fact, i don't know what the hell he was talking about. but Jon's cause is clear and powerful. he is crawling with high-blown rhetoric in his hand, around the hills of bad plots and inaccurate historic accounts, into the caves of heroic soldier portrails and media coverage, to get to the heart of what is wrong with the next firefighter vs. terrorist action blockbuster...

Arnold is no action adventure spring chicken.

oh yeah, and something about said spring chicken not being in enhanced by reality.

I still can't believe it? (1)

andaru (535590) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982528)

In what way can you you possibly consider this article as either "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?

This absolutely does not belong here.

First of all, it is a review of some dumb Arnie movie. Second, it goes off on patriotic tangents which have nothing to do with either the movie being reviewed or the forum in which it is reviewed. Third, from all accounts of the actual events behind Black Hawk Down, the poster did not bother to check the facts.

It seems like this article is more of an excuse to bring someone's political views to the public than an actual movie review.

I just do not see why anyone would view this as appropriate material for /..

There must be other submissions for the editors to choose from which would be vastly more appropriate for being printed as a /. article. If there are no other submissions, the editors should do themselves a favor and print nothing.

Ultra-condensed review of "Collateral Damage". (3, Insightful)

mrsam (12205) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982529)

In the spirit of Book-A-Minute Classics [rinkworks.com] , 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".

getting old? (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982530)


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!

One right point of view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982572)

When did Katz become so credulous, unskeptical and unquestioning? It doesn't strike me as valuable, skilled or even interesting journalism.

He blindly accepts the premise behind Black Hawk Down, Bush, and everyone on the bandwagon -- the US is good and those other guys are evil. I'm shocked that any mature, thinking person would even consider it -- I mean, is that Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful Evil? It would be so much easier to simplify hard decisions, but isn't Katz, and hopefully any mature, thinking person, far beyond that adolescent fantasy world?

Katz says, "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."

Did the CIA or NSA do anything on or since 9/11 to improve their reputation?

Most dangerous of all, where did Katz get the idea that the US can't be evil? There's nothing in the water here that makes us saints. We need to show some mature humility and realism and understand that we have just as much propensity toward evil as anyone else.

If we don't accept that, then our attitude is no different than Bin Laden's -- our side is good, the other guy is evil, and that justifies everything (like ignoring their human rights) -- and our actions will be no better than his. That's what he wants to provoke: Then he'll be right, the US will become a repressive, world-dominating empire, supporting brutal dictators to accomplish our aims.

Just telling ourselves, over and over, that we're the good guys, accomplishes nothing more than some hearty masterbation. We will only be 'good' to the exact extent that we act 'good'. We'll be just exactly to the extent we act justly. We'll be democratic and free exactly to the extent that we act democratic and free. To the extent the CIA supports anti-democratic dictators, whatever the justification, the USA is anti-democratic.

The test of freedom and democracy is not when we're the richest, most prosperous, most secure nation in the history of the world (which we are even now). That's like Michael Jordan keeping his composure in a game with high school kids -- big deal.

The test is now, when we face some sort of challenge. Do we have the courage of our convictions, or do we just throw out everything all those Americans, from 1776 until today, gave everything for, and just kick ass like yet another dumb, hopeless nation repeating the same cyles of history that have been repeating for 1000's of years.

And this isn't even much of a challenge. How pathetic.

pablum (2)

underpaidISPtech (409395) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982582)

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.

Katz plagiarism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2982598)

Katz wrote:
"This movie comes from another time, not enlivened by reality but diminished by it."

from IMDb.com's Studio Update on 8 Feb 2002:

Movie Reviews: Collateral Damage

Not a single reviewer fails to compare the plot of Collateral Damage to the events of Sept. 11, with many suggesting that the real terrorist deeds on that day overshadow anything the moviemakers dreamed up. In the words of Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News: "Though Warner Bros.' ad campaign hints that we should take CD as a liberating metaphor for the hunt for Osama bin Laden, its parallels to that pursuit merely show how puny and ridiculous Hollywood's imagination can be in the face of real events." Stephen Hunter begins his review in the Washington Post this way: "Collateral Damage ... seems like a telegram from a dead world. It hails from the America that no longer exists, a world that ended in fire." Noting that the film was delayed following the Sept. 11 attacks, Joe Morgenstern writes in the Wall Street Journal, "While the world would not be a poorer place if it had never been released, the movie's unearned significance makes it hard to ignore, though impossible to enjoy with a whole heart or an unrattled mind." On ABC's Good Morning America, Joel Siegel made the case that the film indeed should not have been taken off the shelf. "Watching Arnold's Hollywood heroics demeans and belittles the real life heroics of so many," Siegel said. "It wasn't enough to postpone the movie. The studio should have canceled it."

is plagiarism cause for Katz' employment to be terminated immediately? the /. community can only hope.

Dear Mr. Katz (3, Insightful)

lblack (124294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2982629)

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 [suntimes.com] , 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
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...