Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

See title, because by halfway through this movie I was at the stage where I kind of wished the terrorists would hurry up and kill this gigantic ambulatory rectum and his dithery, whiny President.

I mean really, it's actually quite impressive, they showed these guys killing thousands of people yet the protagonist is such an unlikeable gak defending such an unlikeable regime that the terrorist logic is beginning to sound plausible. Monstrous, sure, but consistent and certainly no worse than the actions of the people we're supposed to be cheering on. I know he's supposed to be a heroic character because they do the whole sappy pregnant wife scene in the first act, but you have to wonder what kind of burbling infant writes a character who casually murders people in an excruciating way just so their allies will hear them scream over the radio and says stuff like "go back home to fethheadistan"(lol, cus they brown people see, lol ) and thinks "yeah, that's one heroic dude right there"...

EDIT: OK it's finished, and I'm forced to ask; is this some kind of very dry satire, or did the people writing this genuinely not grasp that explicitly telling the audience the "terrorists" weren't targeting civilians, such deaths were just collateral in their strikes against world leaders, in a film where they show the "goodies" doing exactly the same thing both at the beginning and the end(bombing a wedding to kill one guy, not even an actual terrorist but an arms dealer, and then again blowing up a building right in the middle of a city to get him at the end) is going to make anyone with a brain struggle to see what the difference between the two sides is and why we should care about the gloating, wisecracking, murderous side more than the side with dead family at aforementioned's hands?

I haven't seen the movie, but I felt the same way watching "Man on Fire". At the time I thought that the film was being used to normalise the idea of 'acceptable torture".

Makes me think of that time I watched Diary of a Wimpy Kid. I don't know what the book is like, but in that movie the kid is a terrible inconsiderate human being, and I'm somehow supposed to feel bad when his life doesn't work out how he wants (his brothers and parents are even worse human beings).

It was like reading Twilight all over again.