FWIS3

There are sooooo many things I could bitch about, but I'm choosing to say - girls with long hair would NOT wear it down and let it get tangled. It would be in a pony tail or a braid. I am just soooo sick of movies where bad ass women leave their hair down when they so just wouldn't!

Alrighty then - I've finished this piece of shit movie - spoiler warning.







There are four minorities - two Hispanics and two black guys, and they kill all of them. I mean, it would have been so easy to switch one of the white guys with one of the black guys, but noooo, they have to kill the minorities. It's such racist fucking bullshit!!!

Honestly? I'm more concerned about the ludicrously over-the-top nationalism in the film. But your points are taken.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Honestly? I'm more concerned about the ludicrously over-the-top nationalism in the film.

that was already present in the 1984 original.

which, by the way, didn't even have any minorities in them, if i recall correctly.

I'm not a big fan of nationalism, but how is it nationalistic to fight against occupiers?

Morrolan wrote:which, by the way, didn't even have any minorities in them, if i recall correctly.

That's true, but I've just seen this trend far too much, and the reason I label it racism, is because it seems to happen without any awareness on the part of the filmmakers. Otherwise, I would call them bigoted or hateful.

Yeah for some reason I never thought it'd be worth my time to watch the movie so I'm not surprised about your complaints.

I will note though that for some reason the rule I read once on how to tell if a movie has strong women in it/ women who control the plot is the rule of thumb of "two women must have a conversation, and it must be about something to drive the plot forward, and not about a man." I mention this because it sounds like a similar rule could apply for minorities in a film like this- I'm betting they didn't exactly have a conversation between themselves in a way that made the plot go forward and wasn't about one of the white guys.

I believe that's known as the Bechdel (sp?) test; and it's generally a good rule of thumb IMO, and hard to argue with. I like your extension of it too.

SciFi Chick wrote:I'm not a big fan of nationalism, but how is it nationalistic to fight against occupiers?

It isn't. But that's not quite what I mean. The unfortunate nationalism comes not from fighting invaders, but rather from the fact that they chose this particular invasion story at all. I mean, the whole film (both of them, in fact) is a wet-dream of the isolationist, survivalist militia type. "I need to load my house with guns in order to protect America from the inevitable Yellow Horde. That's what it means to be a good citizen. Root for the characters in this movie who do that. They are the heroes, the real patriots."

The film is a paranoid fantasy concerning the supposed threat that foreigners pose to the safety and security of Americans, even though the threat depicted in the film is ludicrous. It's a false narrative about enemies at the border and the necessity of living in a fortress.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but as an outsider peeking in, that's absolutely what it looks like. It's not that a "repel the invaders" plot is nationalistic; it's that this particular film is.

I'm with you on that TSC.

It's about the rebirth of the rugged individualist from the general pansies that men have become today.

I will note though that for some reason the rule I read once on how to tell if a movie has strong women in it/ women who control the plot is the rule of thumb of "two women must have a conversation, and it must be about something to drive the plot forward, and not about a man.

Now maybe I might be getting myself into a world of shit here, but, doesn't that mean that most real world situations therefore don't have strong women?
By that I mean aren't a large percentage of conversations between women about men?

Now I just want to point out that by the same token a large percentage of conversations between men are are about women.

IOW, is't that just normal life?

For that matter, I know of very few chick flicks that aren't about women and their relationship's with men. Since these are targeted specifically for women (I avoid them like most men do) does that mean there are no strong women in chick flicks? More to the point, they always seem to be the popular movies with women so in effect there is a large segment of the female population that want's this.

Speaking of the term "strong women", its one of the things that's been getting me irritated lately.
The reason is that there is no counter part for men. A "strong man" is just a "man".
By throwing the term "strong women" around it's starting to make me realise that the standard expectation about women is that they are weak, thus the strong qualifier. I wonder how many people don't realise that by constantly referencing strong women in movies/society what they are really doing is inducing the notion that strong women are a rarity.
And that's where I disagree.

Sounds like a movie I'll pass on. The original was bad enough.

BTW, I agree with TSC's sentiment. While there's nothing wrong with a film depicting patriots defending their country from foreign invasion, we Americans sure seem to revel in nationalistic fervor. Can you imagine how Canadians would act if someone invaded their country?

geonuc wrote:Can you imagine how Canadians would act if someone invaded their country?

They'd appologise for not cleaning it for their surprise visitors?