Movie News

Is K-19 the expensive foul ball of the summer'

Published at: June 19, 2002, 2:57 a.m. CST

Hey folks, Harry here... I hate that this is the movie that is getting crapped on by advanced reviews thus far. I love Harrison Ford... well what he used to represent in Summer Cinema... Thoughtful, well-acted, well-written, adventurous and daring film-making. In recent years, that has really fallen by the wayside. I miss the Harrison that made Raiders, Witness, Mosquito Coast, Blade Runner, Frantic... Hell I miss the Harrison Ford that made FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE. However, on the otherside of the picture, I did talk to two very astute filmgoers this weekend that saw K-19... and both of them liked it and Harrison Ford quite a bit... So while Aslan-6 here didn't care for the film... there are people out there that did. Maybe you'll be one of them? We'll see...

Harry,

Loved AICN for a while, this is my first contribution. And I relay the following words of sorrow as a warning to all who might view K-19 The Widowmaker.

K-19 opens with about 2 min of script, you know the typical Hollywood "Based on true events..., in 1961 the world was on the brink of nuclear war..., this story could not be told until now...crap." And when the actual movie starts it only gets worse.

It seems that Mother Russia in all her snow-covered vodka drinking glory has built the world's greatest (they also refer to it as "finest" though we have no idea what makes it so great) submarine. The communist party heads are so anxious to show off this vessel that they set it out to sea before its construction is complete. Yes you heard me right, they put a submarine they are still building out to sea. If you were ever wondering why we won the cold war boys, this is a great example.

The ship's captain is played by Harrison Ford who actually looks embarrased several times by his own attempt at a Russian accent. His 1st officer is the K-19's former captain played by Liam Neason who clearly wishes Darth Maul would appear and put him out of his misery. Now I'm no film expert but I think that Harrison is a bad and Liam is good. I know this because in this movie when Harrison sees a member of his crew he frowns at them and when Liam sees one he smiles, and they in turn smile back. And gentlemen that's about as in depth as this film's relationships get.

Now I don't want to spoil it for those foolish enough to suffer through the best feel good movie since Shindler's List. But lets just say the film's plot involves radiation leakage that causes everyone's skin to fall off (gross not cool) and we watch as the men scream in pain and look like someone just strangled their puppy. I know, I know after being soooo depressed by those awful movies Spider-man and Bourne Identity here is finally a perfect pick me up summer movie, filled with pointless and boring dialogue and not a shred of action.

Did you ever see a movie so bad that you thought it was going to end 5 times and it just kept going. Unlike K-19's crew members this film just would not die. At one point I was so bored I began to envy those who passed away up on screen as they didn't have to suffer through the rest of the movie.

I remember reading a few weeks ago that Harrison had agreed to pick up the whip again for Indy 4 and I thought why would he do that. Now I know, he fears this film could poison his career. To Harrison I would say, it's OK if nobody sees this movie, nobody will know how much it sucks.

On that note, my warning delivered, I'm out like like the fat kid in dodge ball.

Aslan-6

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 19, 2002, 2:59 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford is creepy now

    by CleverMovieName

    He dates younger chicks, he's a recluse and he's over 60 making Indy 4. I'm not sure about this guy anymore.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones

    by lionfire

    This movie does sound like crap. I really despise submarine movies. They just suck regaurdless I guess they casting people figured the same thing and though Liam and Harrison could save the movie. Doesn't sound like they succeeded.. and Harrison Ford as a Russian? what's up with that? Indy 4 sounds like it's gonna be a good continuation of the series, that is if they keep Sean Connery on as his father. But I think they should limit his appearence in the movie. Damn I wonder how they're going to link Indy 4 with the Last Crusade.. they did drink from the Holy Grail and all.. eternal life and all that... should be interesting..

  • June 19, 2002, 3:39 a.m. CST

    So far Kathrin Bigelow haven

    by Blake Falls

    although i

  • June 19, 2002, 3:42 a.m. CST

    What? Are you implying that Harry was the fat kid in dodge ball?

    by Bari Umenema

    Harrison has one good line in this movie that I saw on the commercial for it. He's giving a speech to his crew on the dock before they set sail and he declares, "Without you I am nothing. Without me you are nothing." Works for me. I'll see this movie but I won't give them my money. I'll just sneak in. Then if I hate it no hard earned money lost.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:06 a.m. CST

    USA won the cold war????

    by Julius Caeser

    You feckin dumbass yank - no one won the cold war... get your head out of your Yankie-Doodle ass and read some history books

  • June 19, 2002, 4:21 a.m. CST

    Hmmmm

    by SG7

    This movie bends history a bit. Well, a lot. You can tell that by the preview. Watch the Discovery Channel special on this if you wan't the real dope. As far as who won the "Cold War:" USA (and NATO) still here. Commie Russia : gone.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:28 a.m. CST

    what the feck has Nato got to do with cold war?

    by Julius Caeser

    Nato is more than the US you dumbass. So what you meant to say is USA still here, Commie Russia gone - but - hey is Commie Russia gone - hmmm don't think so, try communism under a different name - do Russia have free elections (errrr no) so wake up you dumbass, and read some books like your thick friend who did the review.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Yes, Julius was right

    by Toby O Notoby

    No one won the cold war. It was a tie.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:47 a.m. CST

    Btw, "What the feck does NATO have to do with the Cold War" has

    by Toby O Notoby

  • June 19, 2002, 4:50 a.m. CST

    Nato's involvement in the cold war

    by Julius Caeser

    was jack... the only country involved in the cold war was the US... the other Nato countries wanted nothing to do with it - apart from several in Europe who used the situation to become more of an ally with the US by letting them put Nuclear Weapons in their countrie - apart from that and probably some intelligenec sharing Nato wanted nothing to do with the Cold War and repeatedly told the US to end it.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Toby are you too thick to make a contribution?

    by Julius Caeser

    because it certainly looks like it - why don't you look into the history of Nato and it's opposition to the US and the cold war - an opposition that probably resulted in us not being involved in a third world war.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:01 a.m. CST

    Hey, am I the only one who noticed Liam Neeson's cameo in AT

    by Cash Bailey

    Saw it today, and it kicked mucho rectum! And I swear that when Annakin starts his massacre of the Tuskan raiders (off-screen, no less), when they cut back to Mace Windu and Yoda, you hear Qui Gon scream, "ANNAKIN! ANNAKIN! NOOOO!" Or am I just mad? But that movie did kick ass.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:11 a.m. CST

    AOTC

    by AurelianoBuendia

    Hey, your right. That was Liam Neeson saying that. If you check the Internet Movie Database you'll see they have a credit for him and everything.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:16 a.m. CST

    AOTC 2

    by AurelianoBuendia

    Well, it says that it is him saying that. And that it was uncredited.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:34 a.m. CST

    Thanks for confirming that.

    by Cash Bailey

    It would have driven me mad otherwise.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:40 a.m. CST

    Mental Note: Never argue with someone who spells "country" with

    by Toby O Notoby

    So by your own admission they had something to do with the Cold War, right? Placement of nuclear weapons (never a small point), sharing of intelligence, all of these count as "having something to do with". Even if, as you state, other countries begged us to stop and therefore prevented WWIII, then they we involved. I'm probably not going to let you bait me anymore, but if you try real hard I might join in. Better hurry, though, I gotta go for a beer in about an hour.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:58 a.m. CST

    prevented WWIII, then they we involved... mmm nice use of Englis

    by Julius Caeser

    If you read what I said, you'll note that not all Nato countries were involved, only several European countries - let me explain. The UK, always likes to suck the american ass. West Germany - errr only because it was occupied by the allies Cyprus - only because it was a British base, therefore the Brits let the Yanks whack a few Nukes there Before you go for your beer dumbass, read a little about history outside of your own country - maybe then you'll realise why most of the world is trying to blow you up right now.

  • June 19, 2002, 6 a.m. CST

    NO ONE WON THE COLD WAR

    by Julius Caeser

    Please please please read some history books, for your children's sake, so they don't end up as thick as you.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:06 a.m. CST

    Julius

    by Toby O Notoby

    Nah, not good enough. You tried, though, which was sweet. Adios.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:15 a.m. CST

    I agree with Caeser Your all Feckin Muppets!

    by PaddyIrishman

  • June 19, 2002, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Are you kidding?

    by TJLASER

    The cold war was a draw? The West is basically rich and prosperous, the East is basically a crumbling wreck. So we did, win our way of lie triumped. Simple as that. BTW I'm British and the idea that Europe wasn't involved in the cold war is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It was the focal point of the damn thing. It's not enough to read books. You have to read good books.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:33 a.m. CST

    TJ Laser in Muppet shock horror

    by Julius Caeser

    TJ you poor deluded child - are you the spawn of Margerat Thatcher and Reagan or something - you need to wake up fella.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:40 a.m. CST

    In the immortal words of Doug...

    by CleverMovieName

    "This is America, man, learn the rules!" Julius Caesar, what world are you living in? Where is the Soviet Union? Planning a counter-strike? Doing such a good job hiding that it just APPEARS America stomped its ass into submission? NO, the Soviet Union is GONE because America won the Cold War! Russian is sending N*Sync members into SPACE its so poor now. That alone should be proof that America won the Cold War. And, yes, the Brits were pivotal in the Cold War! YEAH UNION JACK!

  • June 19, 2002, 6:50 a.m. CST

    I was going...

    by TJLASER

    ...to come up with some witty retort but I can't top CLEVERMOVIENAME's point about NSYNC. BTW I'm no Reaganite nor Thatcherite but I don't think our system is perfect but there isn't a better one out there. If it was a choice between Reagan, Stalin or Mullah Omar... Please explain how the cold war was a draw. Please.

  • June 19, 2002, 7:02 a.m. CST

    USA 1 USSR 0

    by Monkey Lover

    You dumbasses, of course the USA won the Cold War. The whole thing was a giant clash of ideology... basically a 50-year long argument as to which was better, Communism or Capitalism. And since Russia's Communist government collapsed while the USA remains strong, it is pretty damn obvious to anyone intelligent that the USA won the Cold War. Anyway, this film had better do well because I've bought Liam Neeson into my Fantasy Film League team for the princely sum of $6 million. I'm counting on this and GONY doing well, thus earning me lovely pennies of delight. Bosch!

  • June 19, 2002, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Pathetic Patriotic Bull....!

    by PaddyIrishman

    I have nothing against Americans as a race....but please spare us the patriotic,hero,we're indestructable bullshit.Nobody won the Cold War! Nobody won Vietnam! It's over, it's done, forget about it and dont be so fucking proud of war.

  • June 19, 2002, 7:15 a.m. CST

    K-69:The CalistaFucker! If you Guys can See Calista Flockhart on

    by MentallyMariah

    Untill then, can we please have no more war/sub/nuke/russian/spies Kinda movies for a long time please Hollywood! Bring back some really scary and really funny and really twisted warped tripped out flicks!

  • June 19, 2002, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Aaaaargh!

    by Dee Em

    The Cold War wasn't a war! nobody won it! It ended! The USA tried to help stop the spread of Communism - sometimes they succeeded, somethimes they failed. The USSR tried to spread Communism - sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed. The Cold War wasn't even between particular nations! Some of the evants had very little to do with the USSR ... Vietnam, Korea? Anybody saying anybody won is bordering on foolish! Fucking Hell, I've never talked back before, but this made me so angry. And whoever said NATO had nothing to do with the war - Jesus Christ! And for your information, Britain contributed an equal proportion of their armed forces to NATO wars, making them as relatively important as any other country... mentioning no USA, oops did I say that out loud? Fucking hell...

  • June 19, 2002, 7:30 a.m. CST

    Don't you hate it when....

    by Trajan

    ..idiots rant about their personal political views in a movie forum? Perhaps since the background story of the movie lends itself to a historical discussion this is to be expected, but honestly, no one comes here to listen to someone else's politics. Otherwise one would presume you couldn't call this site "aint it cool." And regarding the movie, I enjoy much of Harrison Ford's work and agree that Das Boot and The Hunt for Red October are two great films (as well as Crimson Tide, although the submarines are almost secondary to the essential plot) so either this movie will be a dissapointment to fans of the genre, or a pleasant suprise.

  • June 19, 2002, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Winning a cold war?

    by Snuggleskunk

    Surely makes no sense. You sit there and wait till someone decides to end it. You odn't win. It's just playing chicken on a larger scale. OK so you win because you didn't flinch. woopee doo! well done. Damn I wonder how many military strategists and other american geniuses it took to come up with that one. We wait it out 40 or so years until they decide to crack! genius

  • June 19, 2002, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Yeah and Trajan

    by Snuggleskunk

    Some of us actually are aware of whats going on in the world and have knowledge of stuff other than who played the third tribble in the 6th series of star trek (uncalled for I know but I've had a bad day so Im gonna use a trekkie insult because it's as low as I go). Anyway my point is I study politics and i love films and I don't see why I can't talk about both of them. So nya nya nyah nya. with brass knobs on.

  • June 19, 2002, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Finally a decent talk back

    by Julius Caeser

    don't you all feel better for discussing a subject other than why a certain film will suck or what will rule? And if you're looking for someone to blame, blame the guy who wrote the review for his blinkered view of history.

  • June 19, 2002, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Snuggleskunk you're quite ignorant actually...

    by Trajan

    I have several degrees in both history and international relations, and worked with NATO for some time. So, I hardly would consider myself someone not up on current world events. But thank you for your brilliant, baseless insight on my persona. Brilliant. What scares me so much is that you "study politics" but strike me as quite, well for lack of better manners today, arrogant and ignorant...(If you were an American I'd say you were a Bush supporter)...sounds awfully like a bitter little lonely person whose political opinions are ignored by people in the real world. But i don't have the time for this, I have a class to teach. So, since I'm sure you'll attempt to flame my comments (please try to be coherent if you will), could you please explain what a "tribble" is while you're at it?

  • June 19, 2002, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford is done

    by Johnny Ahab

    Too bad too. Here was a terrific, dependable, intelligent actor who absolutely blew it by passing on "Traffic". Coulda been the career turn he really needed after two back-to-back shitfests ("Six Days Seven Nights" -- SHUDDER -- and, did he really make this dog of a picture??, "Random Hearts"). "What Lies Beneath" was okay at best, but is that film really on anyone's top ten list? Top hundred even? Well, maybe Bob Zemeckis's, but no film geek's. The trailer for "K-19" looks blah. Warmed over sub movie cliches. Didn't they make this film on HBO a few years back? I recall seeing some decent little sub film about a Russian sub leaking radiation with desperate Rooskies trapped inside pulling ideas out of their asses to save their hides, also based on near-catastrophic true story. Not a bad flick whatever it was called (somebody, help me!), but nothing in K-19 looks or sounds exciting or original enough for me to part with my $10 here in good ol' New York. Much more interested in seeing "Below", the haunted sub pic I've read about on this site. When's that coming out? (And yes, Mr. Ford dumping his wife for younger trade-in models like first Minnie Driver, now Calista McStringbean is just so much the tired Hollywood cliche. I've lost interest in seeing "Indy 4" with Grandpa Jones hobbling around -- how much you wanna bet his character in the film "I'm too old for this crap" -- and he'll be right on target!)

  • June 19, 2002, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Ignorant Yanks

    by Pvt. Duke

    Let's get to the point. I love Americans (my g/f at least). I love America. BUT that makes it all the more frustrating to hear some of your whacked out perceptions on other parts of the world. I think Caesar, like myself, isn't ONLY boiling over as a result of the cold war argument. He's bitter b/c it's just another important part of history that any American can declare that, "Yep, we won," but none can tell you why. Yes, the Americans are the current superpower. No shit. BUT it would be nice if they hared a little glory with the rest of the world as well. Example: Most Americans think WWII started in 1941 - because that's when the US got involved!!!! My grandfather got the six-year award - something that no Yank got, because he was getting shotto shit from '39 all the wat until the end of '45. He lost his brother at the battle of Dieppe - a battle no American knows about, which happens to be the sole reason D-Day (Where he also fought) was a success. I'm finished my rant, but my overall point is that Caesar's grip is with the ignorance that runs rampan in the US today - not JUST the Cold War and not JUST Americans. At least I think that's what he's getting at .. .

  • They came to this talkback. Aftering watching THREADS again.

  • June 19, 2002, 8:46 a.m. CST

    damn keyboard

    by Pvt. Duke

  • June 19, 2002, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Thank you Franky 5 fingers

    by Julius Caeser

    well said that man... my Grandfather was in the Battle Axe division spearheading the North Africa side of WWII - and I totally know where you're coming from, I'm glad you know where I'm coming from too. Americans need to open their eyes to the wider world, sit back and have a feckin good think... and stop plying us with their warped perception of history through their movies - (That crap submarine movie with Bon Jovi in for example).

  • June 19, 2002, 9:05 a.m. CST

    haha

    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    That was one of the best 'sarcastic' reviews I have ever read on this site. Excellent!

  • June 19, 2002, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Trajan don't attempt to marginalize people by calling them "

    by Triumph the Dog

    That approximately 75% of all Americans, dolt.

  • June 19, 2002, 9:23 a.m. CST

    by drjones

    if k 19 is nothing else but pure crap then let us get an other agent for harrison.

  • June 19, 2002, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Spooks

    by Julius Caeser

    I highly recommend if 'Spooks' is shown in the states you guys watch it - you can stick 24 up your ass, 'Spooks' rules - quality mini series about MI5

  • June 19, 2002, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Harry, why do you publish reviews like this that are obviously f

    by Atticus Finch

    Why?

  • June 19, 2002, 9:44 a.m. CST

    ummm sorry to say so, but spooks sucks

    by Bloke A

    Bland characterisation and dull plots don't make for good tv. Just because it's British doesn't insantly make it better, and please don't say its that way because its realistic, that just doesn't cut it. However I've only seen the first two episodes, so maybe it made a large improvement but I doubt it. 24 is far superior, though so far in the UK we are only at episode 15 (though the ending has been spoiled by a certain talkbacker). The truth is most British tv sucks, the only exception being some comedy (League of gentlemen, brass eye, spaced and definately NOT Coupling, an example of predictable sitcoms at their worst, or at least it would be if not for babes in the wood). You Yanks shuld just be happy you dont have to endure the tugid likes of Eastenders and Coranation Street (both soaps BTW). Ok mini rant over.

  • June 19, 2002, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Bad Review!

    by BigTuna

    Not impressed by, nor do I trust this reviewer. I'm also growing tired of people crapping on Ford.

  • June 19, 2002, 9:58 a.m. CST

    "Just because it's British doesn't insantly make it bett

    by Strawhenge

    Nooooooo. Really? Get out! (Sheesh. Talk about stating the obvious. Bro-THER.)

  • June 19, 2002, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Triumph the Dog: There are two kinds of people in this country:

    by FatPaul

    Just because Bush is popular right now, that doesn't mean that he isn't a slack-jawed hick and a puppet of his political party. Gore may not be a slack-jawed hick, but he is a puppet of his political party. I do agree with your statement that 75% of all Americans are dolts, but I can't be entirely sure that was what you meant to say. The idea that America still believes in the two-party system, even after everything it's done to this country, is more depressing than Harrison Ford's recent career choices. By the way, I used to wear a bush supporter, but I lost it in the wash.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Tear down that wall

    by Peirce

    The cold war was basically two competing side each building up a house of cards. The Soviet's house fell. America's didn't.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:12 a.m. CST

    "Ve Vill NOT fail!"

    by Osmosis Jones

    Here's a shocking idea: why didn't they just cast an ACTUAL RUSSIAN for the role? Oh yeah, because Ford "Puts butts in the seats". Still, I have a weakness for submarine movies (yes, I even enjoyed U-571. If you want "historical accuracy", watch the documentaries on the DVD), and Bigelow rocks.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Pardon me, Ladies and Germs

    by LordZanthos

    The Cold War was truly a game of international chicken writ large, and played on the stage of Europe for the most part, with both holier than thou countries using other countries as bait and pawns. If winning is defined as being the last man standing (since the Cold War was about political ideology, power struggles, and the right to influence other nations, it is, when simplified, just that), then technically, the US did win. Because of that, and the way we won (i.e. used money and power to bludgeon other countries into submission... a practice still going on today) other countries don't like America. Are we arrogant? To a large extent, yes. Are we proud? Very much so. Do we expect others to listen to us? Yes we do, even when we shouldn't. America is not perfect and never has been, and probably never will be. In many cases things get worse rather than better, however... there is nothing better anywhere. Disagree? Then find a place, anywhere on the map where a person can live with this high a standard of living, with this many opportunities (even if you're a minority), with the access to as many choices and possibilities as there are here. Name another country that, while infuriatingly ham-handedly knocking about in other country

  • June 19, 2002, 10:26 a.m. CST

    God I love chaos

    by Toby O Notoby

    NOTE: Entire post written after *way* too many beers: Yo, TJLASER, that whole tie thing was a, albiet very bad, joke. (I figured it was kinda like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda, sometimes people can't admit they've lost, even when they have.) As for that Paddy guy and Ceaser, being a half American/half Irish (two passports) engaged to a half Australian/half English (three passports - don't ask) couple who lives in Asia, I can say this: There are people who don't like the thought that Americans might not know a whole lot about their history therefore they deny anything any American says about anything. "NATO had nothing to do with the cold war."? "Country" with an "ie"? Can you really take these people serious? No? Neither can I.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:42 a.m. CST

    LordZanthos, you rock

    by Toby O Notoby

    That is the best description of how I feel about America. I have saved you post to use later. Sorry, no royalties, but do know that I hold you in the highest regards. (Okay, some royalites: if you're ever in my part of the world, I defintiely owe you a beer.)

  • June 19, 2002, 10:45 a.m. CST

    US "won" the Cold War, let it go...

    by CeeWulf

    I generally do not participate in these Talk Back sessions, but I was curious after reading the K:19 review. A Harrison Ford fan for years, I was looking forward to this film - and still am. However, I agree that the level of quality for his films has definitely fallen (Random Hearts??? What the f*** was he thinking???) However, I wanted to respond to the "US won/didn't win the Cold War" arguement. I agree with those who stately, rather obviously, that the US won the Cold War, and the proof is that we're still standing, and the USSR collapsed. However, I will agree that "won" is probably a bit strong, and should be a term reserved for baseball and cricket. But, for all intents and purposes, we won. The USSR lost. But was this "win" due to anything the US did in particular? Yes, and no. In the end, the Communist system could not sustain itself and was doomed to failure. Sure, the US's policy on arms proliferation and other things contributed to that fall, and probably increased its speed towards self-destruction, but in the end the defeat of the Soviet Union all depended on the Soviet people. When they reached their breaking point, they decided they'd had enough and the system collapsed. However, I wouldn't say that they won, exactly, because the country's not really that much better than it was. As for NATO, sure, they participated in the Cold War. I mean, NATO was formed for the specific purpose of defending the eastern European nations from the USSR. But the driving force behind it was the US, whether you Europeans want to acknowledge that or not. Sure, there was cooperation among countries, but at the end of the day the Cold War was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two most powerful nations in the world at that time. Now, there is only the United States. As for the "ignorant" views of American history - I'm willing to bet there are elements of American history that you Europeans are not fully educated in. It's only natural that people who live and grow up in a country will be more aware of their own country's history than they would of anothers. I don't really understand why that is so hard to understand. I had a distant relative who fought in the Battle of the Wilderness, do you know what that was? And regarding WWII, while the war started in 1938 with Germany's invasion of Poland, you guys weren't making much headway until we got involved in 1941. Three years later, we brought that to a close, then had to deal with the Japanese to officially end WWII the year later. I'm sorry that we had to get involved and help you guys out. Next time, maybe we'll just sit back and let you all just blow each other up.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:45 a.m. CST

    cold war

    by Ribbons

    I'm not going to be as presumptuous as to say that the United States won the Cold War, or that "communism" is gone in Eastern Europe, but to say that Russia still exists as a preeminent superpower in the world is incorrect, which has been implied on this talkback by some people. Russia is on the verge of becoming a third world country (Yes, I said it. I'm a commercialist bastard). Their population is decreasing faster than it is increasing due to poor health, suicide, and people who choose to leave the country in search of a more favorable government. However, traces of communism are still prevalent in Russia's society. Just a year or so ago, a man was arrested for parodying Putin. As has already been stated on the talkback, free elections are a joke, and the salaries and goods that the Western world enjoys are greatly diminished in the country. Yes, the United States and some of NATO helped oppose the Cold War, but the collapse of communism was more of an internal effect than a forced surrender by the Western world. If I'm wrong in any of these points, feel free to criticize me. I haven't studied Russia in about four years, so I guess I'll probably deserve it anyway.

  • June 19, 2002, 10:51 a.m. CST

    K-19...looks like shite

    by the_pissboy1

    What's up with a bunch of people all speaking English with Russian accents? If we know they're on a russian sub and they're all Russian, then using fucking accents is useless and distracting (especially when we hear Ford stumble over his in the crappy trailer). I liked K-19 the first time far more, way back when it was called Das Boot.

  • June 19, 2002, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Let me get this straight

    by Snuggleskunk

    Trajan says lets not talk politics, I say i think it's ok, trajan calls me an uneducated eejit and he doesn't know what a tribble is? What is this world coming to. Oh and do not get me started on monkey man bush. ANyhoo as I said in totally diff. talkback PLEASE A PIRATE COPY OF BUBBA HOTEP SOMEONE!!!! (P.S. british tv sucks especially spooks)

  • June 19, 2002, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Why we think americans are ignorant

    by Snuggleskunk

    It's not that we expect you to know everything it's just odd that most americans have a huge volume of knowledge about their own country and very very little about Europe. In Europe we are taught quite a bit about American history as well as our own so we expect you to have as much knowledge about us as we do about you. Also historically america's policies at various times of isolationism when it comes to foreign policy has bred resentment deep down. so everyone try and be a bit more understanding...AND FIND BUBBA HO TEP IT MUST BE OUT THERE!

  • June 19, 2002, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Sometimes you have to state the obvious Strawhenge

    by Bloke A

    To enlighten Julius Ceaser, sorry I got you so worked up. Isn't shifting blame the easiest ;)

  • June 19, 2002, 11:38 a.m. CST

    I'm tired of people whining about Ford turning down the part

    by BigTuna

    Richard Gere turned down Die Hard. James Caan turned down Superman. Costner turned down hunt for red october... My point is that all actors turn down parts in films that turn out to be good or boxoffice hits. Hell, Ford could have starred in either Insomnia or Sum of all Fears already this summer. I'm probably one of the few that thinks Traffic was a horribly overrated film anyways. So stop crapping on Ford for turning down Traffic, big deal!

  • June 19, 2002, 11:51 a.m. CST

    AOTC and the prequels rule~

    by p1nkerton

  • June 19, 2002, 11:58 a.m. CST

    No, we lost the cold war and I'll tell you why...

    by Uncapie

    ...Russia's economy was on the verge of collapse. The fact that communism doesn't work proves that. Oppressed people and lack of money would have given way to a new Russian revolution, as in 1917. Gorby knew this would happen. There was a coup, but it was unsuccessful. A group of die hards that wanted to live under their own tyranny when the people wanted(And needed.) change, got their asses kicked. The only way out was to let the US win. Ergo, the US would have to bail out Russia, which we give them $400 million dollars in aid every year. That's $400 million that we should be using for our own programs in the States. Then, we opened the door to the Russians to come over here and live. That let the Russian mob in the guise of "political prisoners seeking asylum" just to waltz right in creating more crime for the US and the world to deal with. Anyway, back to "K-19": I worked for the production designer, Mike Novatnoy years ago on another film and he was a cheapskate. A very bad experience.

  • June 19, 2002, 12:07 p.m. CST

    How much is enough?

    by CeeWulf

    Snuggleskunk, just how much European history do we need to know to satisfy you? And exactly how much of our history do you know? I think these are all relative terms. What may be obvious European history to you may not be to Americans, and what might be obvious American history to you may be alien to you.

  • June 19, 2002, 12:14 p.m. CST

    25 million reasons why Harrison Ford did this movie...

    by waynesworld

    cha-ching! oh.. and what happened to kathryn bigelow??? near dark? instant classic! point break? certainly a great popcorn muncher... but what???? i guess james cameron was doing more than just laying some pipe there...

  • June 19, 2002, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Stop putting American actors in Russian roles!!!

    by LordWeymont

    I am sick of seeing Americans use stupid ass accents to act roles. Go grab some actors with the natural accent. Harrison Ford is wasting his time with this boring movie. I am politcal science major and this movie looks tired. Oh yah, what the hell is up with the title? "K-19: The Widowmaker,' how fucking cheesy!

  • June 19, 2002, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Why isn't 'Near Dark' on DVD?

    by Det. John Kimble

    That's one kick-ass vampire movie.

  • June 19, 2002, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Harrison Ford is a tired ,bland, one dimensional sleepwalking s

    by Tarl_Cabot

    Liam Neeson wasn't a better Star Wars character but I'm sure he'll act Ford's ass off the screen. If Ben Affleck's JR movie is so much better than HF's mediocre installments than that should be an indication it's time for a retirement or at least a pay cut.It's over-He just is not a great star anymore(like Sly).Forget Indy 4 please.

  • June 19, 2002, 12:26 p.m. CST

    America WON the cold war

    by Super Unko

    because an American made the STAR WARS trilogy, and the Russians didn't.

  • June 19, 2002, 12:48 p.m. CST

    The World Against America

    by Mako

    The U.S. has obviously been doing things right to be the power-house it is today. So many "people" in other countries (many in Europe) bitch and complain about America, the government, and then the people. There always has to be the bad guy. There always has to be the "ignorant people". I'm happy to be an American. Life is good. We often don't "hate" other countries like a majority of countres "hate" us. We are so P.C. is sometimes makes me sick how we go out of our way to not piss off anyone. Our tax dollars go to help out the very countries that turn their backs on us. Americans stands proud, because Americans back their country like no other country that I know of. We love the freedoms we have. We'll die to keep them. When chaos ensues (9/11) we come together and show just how strong a society we are. People flock from around the world to live here because it's the best place to live. Look at the stats, not the history. History is a mixed bag of actual events, personal agendas and biased story telling. Every country (I don't care who you are) will focus on their own history and how it shaped their country for the better. The U.S. has flaws. Many. So does everyone else. Think before you judge an individual. Think before you judge a nation. Untill you've lived in someone's shoes, no one has the knowledge nor the validity to come to the conclusion that any race/group of people are superior to another. How do you think most WARS actually start???? Many of the opinions expressed by individuals in other countries scare me into thinking "HISTORY TEACHES US NOTHING".

  • June 19, 2002, 12:56 p.m. CST

    I came for the movie news; I stayed for the wooden-headed, arm-c

    by Strawhenge

    This talkback, for all of its bluster, mina bird jingoism and euro-prattle nevertheless demonstrates that fanboys (for the most part) have a genuine interest in the world around them that rivals even their desire to pontificate on points about which they haven't the slightest grasp. I find this heartening. Being no more enlightened than my fellows, I come here for the healthy exchange of ideas in the hopes that I leave here smarter than when I arrived. Not surprisingly, I hit a few obstacles along the way. For example, the following: "Also historically america's policies at various times of isolationism when it comes to foreign policy has bred resentment deep down" Hunh? I've pondered that for many minutes, but it's still all pops and crackles. I wonder if the author even understood that sentence. Then there was this gem: "What may be obvious European history to you may not be to Americans, and what might be obvious American history to you may be alien to you." Anybody? Yeah, me either. Okay, the typo aside, what the hell is "obvious history"? Here's my favorite: "Russia's economy was on the verge of collapse. The fact that communism doesn't work proves that." This is beyond specious, it's logic-free thinking. Look, I'm no fan of communism, but the "fact" that it doesn't work? Won't the Chinese be surprised! Yeesh. Finally, I came across a sentiment I could get behind: "I am sick of seeing Americans use stupid ass accents to act roles." Here, here! Whaddo they think they are, actors? And enough with the make-up already. I want to see Hollywood hiring some real Elves and Hobbits for a change!

  • June 19, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Julius Caesar?

    by Achilles

    You are perhaps the dumbest person on the face of the planet. Did we win the Cold War? Yes, we did, numbnuts. The Soviet Union is gone, the Warsaw Pact is gone, and several former WP members are now part of NATO and preparing to join the EU, with several more in the wings. How that doesn't count as winning the Cold War is beyond me. It was a concerted effort by the US to match the USSR in military power that precipitated the end. By 1984-85, Soviets were spending 40% of GDP on the military, producing poor-quality equipment (look at their navy today; it is virtually a worthless pile of rusted-out scrap); the Soviet populace lived in squalour. Meanwhile, the US was spending 7% of GDP on defense, and fielding the MX missile, the M1 Abrams tank, the Trident submarine, and the Aegis cruiser to name just a few systems (which even today are the most advanced systems in the world); the US populace, on the whole, owned their houses, had two cars in the garage, and took a nice vacation once or twice a year. The Soviets realized that they could not compete, they were utterly bankrupt so they desperately tried to reform, bringing in Gorbachev to inject new thinking into their system. But it was too late, and they failed utterly. So, shut up about reading history books, etc. Talk about the pot and the f***ing kettle, you don't know anything about which you are trying to speak. You just have a bug up your ass about Americans, that's all, so cram it with walnuts, ugly.

  • June 19, 2002, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Man, am I the only one who enjoyed "The Bourne Identity" ?

    by SilenceofFreedom

    Even if it didn't totally adhere to the book, I really enjoyed it. Matt Damon kicked ass, and Clive Owen always kicks ass. But everyone seems to be raggin; on it for some reason. It was totally worth the 13.50$, if you ask me.

  • June 19, 2002, 1:29 p.m. CST

    HATE TO SAY IT BUT THIS MOVIE DOES LOOK BORING

    by jon-e-blaze

  • June 19, 2002, 1:34 p.m. CST

    hey, julius I'm sorry....

    by thevision

    ....it must suck living in a country with crappy weather, warm beer, shitty cars, bad teeth, Oasis, Spice Girls and Robbie Williams...and worst of all- GETTING TAXED UP THE ASS TO SUPPORT ELIZABETH WINDSOR AND HER BROOD!! Still no excuse for being so bitter towards the good ol' US of A. I'm sorry your immigration application fell through bro...but if you apologize and ask real nice, I'll put in a good word for you with the State Department!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! STARS AND STRIPES 4EVER!!!!

  • June 19, 2002, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Mako: History teaches us nothing.

    by FatPaul

    The US has been "doing things right" only as much as Rome was doing things right at the turn of the century and England was doing things right 200 years ago. Yes, other countries have flaws, but other countries do not have the same kind of power that we have, so they don't have the ability to do as much damage as we have done. Yes, we have many freedoms (sort of), and this is a wonderful place to live. So's Canada. True, we're more willing to die for our freedoms (whether they are actually in danger or not), but we're even more willing to kill for our freedoms. "When chaos ensues," we react by blindly striking out at civilian targets, killing thousands. When a distant ally is in conflict with a country we are not allied with, we react by blindly striking out at civilian targets, killing thousands. I think there may be a pattern here. Some of our tax dollars do go to help other countries, but even more of our tax dollars pay for the bombs we drop on other countries. The people in these other countries don't hate us for our ignorance. They hate us for what that ignorance represents: our contempt for all other nationalities. They hate us for what that ignorance has caused: damaging foreign policy and outright aggression. They hate us for what we have done. By the way, Harrison Ford hasn't done anything good since Frantic.

  • June 19, 2002, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Spider-Man Sucked?

    by FanHalen

    We'll take your word on this one then, alrighty!

  • June 19, 2002, 2:07 p.m. CST

    woops...

    by FatPaul

    One mistake in my last post: I put Rome in the wrong century, or I just didn't mention what century I was talking about. I meant the first century. My bad.

  • June 19, 2002, 2:13 p.m. CST

    NATO: LEague Of Nations III: The Revenge

    by SleazyG.

    Seriously. It has become more and more obvious over the last two years. First we tried the League of Nations and it didn't go our way. Then it was the United Nations. Too many dissenters there now who disagree with us, though, so let's try NATO next, right? NATO no longer lives up to its original name or mission statement. It now has several members nowhere near the North Atlantic. Turkey? TURKEY?!? A country on the MEDITERRANEAN which is run by Muslim extremists who dominated much of Europe for centuries as the Ottoman Empire, including fellow NATO members Greece (yeah, good thinking: the Greeks and Turks get along smashingly) and Hungary? WTF? And what about Poland and the Czech Republic, both former Eastern Bloc Communist nations until fairly recently, and therefore a part of what NATO was created to combat? Ridiculous. We should have waited DECADES before letting those lot in. Shit, GERMANY'S in there, and if there's any one goddamn thing the last century should have taught us, it's not to trust the fucking Germans about anything--and CERTAINLY don't let them near the military. It's obvious we started to freak about this whole "European Union" thing, and decided the best way to make sure we still play a role in their policies is to fatten up NATO with these countries, even if they completely contradict NATO's very raison d'etre. They don't have much to offer us, and their ideologies may not jibe with ours, but if we keep expanding at this rate we'll have a whole new group we can bully and act under the auspices of without fear or reprisal. NATO is already used by us on a regular basis to kick asses of those we feel need a good kicking, and the more we have in NATO the more legitimate we look. As long as we don't let in any of what we view as the pain-in-the-ass little pissant third worlders who give us grief in the UN, we should be okay. Unfortunately, letting in Turkey may blow that to hell, cuz push comes to shove, we know where they're landing on Middle East issues. Meh.

  • June 19, 2002, 2:15 p.m. CST

    FatPaul

    by Strawhenge

    I find your perspective intriguing, particularly this pearl: "When chaos ensues,we react by blindly striking out at civilian targets, killing thousands. When a distant ally is in conflict with a country we are not allied with, we react by blindly striking out at civilian targets, killing thousands." I am aware that Saudi Arabian and Palestinian terrorists routinely "strike out at civilian targets" as have several mad despots in the last century. My memory is not what it used to be however. Please remind me in which instance the United States intentionally targetted civilians in retaliation or defense of an ally (incidentally, I did note the word "blindly." However, I feel that your use of the word "targets" connotes intent with malice aforethought, a weighty allegation, don't you think?).

  • June 19, 2002, 2:28 p.m. CST

    AICN presents International Relations round-up: This week, the p

    by WeedyMcSmokey

    You guys, Ceasar, TJ and everyone else are great. I applaud your attempts at summarizing the Cold War in 10 lines or less. However, to answer the question of who won the cold war - we did. Everyone. The Cold War was the only protracted arms race between competeing nations in the history of warfare not to end in war. Oh, and in my humble esteem, most of your comments about NATO involvement or lack thereof are flat wrong. Sorry about that.

  • June 19, 2002, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Strawhenge: Well, we can start with Vietnam and move on from th

    by FatPaul

    There were, of course, the secret bombings in Cambodia, the Gulf War, the more recent bombing of Iraq, the attacks on Serbia and Kosovo, and the recent assault on Afghanistan. My own memory is a little shaky, so those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, and some of the spelling may be a little off. You can say that the civilian housing that burned in the above-mentioned countries was only a side-effect of legitimate attacks on military targets in the area, but the amount of damage done and the specific areas affected seem to point away from that argument. Oh, and you missed the quotation marks around "when chaos ensues." There was a specific point there, and I wouldn't want anybody to think that those were my words.

  • June 19, 2002, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Sorry about the quotes, FatPaul

    by Strawhenge

    That one went right by me. So at worst, the evil U.S. has a long history of targetting unarmed civilians in order to further its tyrannical agendas and at best, the United States waging war produces civilian casualties. I forget, what was the name of the war which produced zero civilian casualties?

  • June 19, 2002, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Why its called K-19: The Widomaker

    by steel_cultist

    Because the sub was rushed through production so the USSR could one up the US in the Cold War, both of the subs of this class killed their crews, thus the nickname for the boat "The Widowmaker", in the RUSSIAN FUCKING NAVY, you idiot. For once Hollywierd didn't just pull a name out of its ass and slap it on to try to put butts in the seats. As for the arguments about who knows more of their own history Americans or Europeans I have encountered both who couldnt tell you basic facts of their own history, so no one has a lock on ignorance of basic facts. Europeans want to point to a lack of American understanding of current events and say that Americans as a whole are arrogant and ignorant, but if you look at their history, one can find several examples of similar behavior on their part.

  • June 19, 2002, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Canada won the Cold War

    by Swifty Slowpoker

    Where did you people go to school? Everyone knows Canada won the cold war. Those sneaky Canucks were behind the scenes playing one side against the other the whole time. NATO and the USSR were dancing like puppets at the end of Canada's string. And no one ever suspected them the whole time. They are sitting up there quietly waiting for both countries to run themselves into the ground. Then they'll come down and take over. They have already taken over our mass media. Captain Kirk- Canadian; Mike Myers- Canadian; Lorne Michaels, SNL Producer (which has defined comedy in the US for the last 20 years)-Canadian. The list goes on and on. Canada will take over the world without firing a shot. Get ready, friends, soon we'll all be pronouncing "about" as "a-boot" and saying "How's it going, eh?"

  • June 19, 2002, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Strawhenge: Yes, war results in casualties.

    by FatPaul

    The problem is that our country's actions seem to have been aimed specifically at an unusually high civilian casualty rate. How else can you explain 250,000 Iraqi dead in the Gulf war? Hell, I didn't even know there were that many people in Iraq. And remember: the US hasn't declared war since WWII. The "war produces civilian casualties" argument only works if it is an actual war. America's recent bombing campaigns don't fall under that heading. A "police action" shouldn't result in more than a few thousand corpses.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Where to start?

    by AlyFox

    #1: Overall, we all admire Ford's past work, some to the point of well-deserved worship. And I for one am an uber-fan. But while we all have been disappointed about his recent films, we shouldn't be asking "what was he thinking" at all. The films may suck, but the reason behiond doing them is absolutely clear, and I DON'T mean that he was paid. Ya see, some actors choose roles based on what interests them; big revelation, huh? Random Hearts? Bad movie, but a script about 2 widowers who discover their spouses were having an affair directed by Sydney Pollack? I would choose that movie. Devil's Own? Hordes despised it, I liked it, but an Irish-american thriller co-starring Brad Pitt and directed by Pakula? All you fanboys would have chosen it. Air Force One? You may have hated it, but the box office was WAY more than curiosity dollars. 6 Days 7 Nights? Bad film, but a tropical Island comedy directed by Reitman? Sure thing, and Harrison got good notices for it. MY POINT IS, hate the movies if you want, but the choice to do them is not dumb. #2) Harry, if you love Harrison so much, why oh why did you post a review from a FIRST-TIMER who obviously wanted to not review the film, but tried to show you how witty he can (or can't) be in his so-called writing. Once again people, the mantra of AICN should be wait until it comes out, see it yourselves, try to have an open mind, and THEN if you hate it, flame away. The DVD of Near Dark should be out by the end of the year. See you at the movies, Alyfox

  • June 19, 2002, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Ok, FatPaul, Let me see if I understand You -

    by steel_cultist

    It's wrong for the US to bomb unarmed civilians in a war zone, whether the bombing is done in secret or in the open (and believe it or not Cambodia was a war zone), but it is ok for others to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings full of innocent American Citizens, blow up carloads of high explosives in front of American Embassies, or explode bombs on American aircraft to get their point across?

  • June 19, 2002, 3:19 p.m. CST

    steel_cultist: No, it's not "ok" to blow up buildings.

    by FatPaul

    It's called terrorism. There's a reason people don't like terrorists, but that's no excuse to retaliate against civilian targets. Terrorist groups are in no way representatives of the countries they reside in. Terrorist acts are not acts of war. They are criminal acts commited by small groups. It wouldn't make sense for the UK to bomb Ireland because of IRA attacks, so where is America getting its logic? And as I mentioned before, though Cambodia was a war zone, it was not our wars.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Is it really a "win" when the other side stops playing?

    by Wee Willie

    When you win a War, even a cold one, you triumph over the loser. As far as I know Russia's ideology is dead (or dying) but the country is still there. America didn't take over Russia or anything like that. You know, it's not like there's a MacDonald's in Red Square or.... Oh...

  • June 19, 2002, 3:21 p.m. CST

    I'm was a little disappointed....

    by AndrewsEliot

    I was a little disappointed with Ford coming back for Indy 4... I was hoping the movie would be set right after The Last Crusade, with Ben Affleck cast as Indy, who is now a TA at London University.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Still not convinced

    by Strawhenge

    "How else can you explain 250,000 Iraqi dead in the Gulf war?" I'd chalk it up to a highly efficient military effort. All kidding aside, I'm no war-monger. Still, you haven't convinced me that this country engages, as a matter of policy, in the intentional annihilation of unarmed, civilian targets. War, "declared" or not, is an ugly business that results in death. That's why it must be decisive, particularly for the U.S. where a large portion of the population is squeamish and the eyes of the world are upon us. I now defer to Steel_Cultist in this matter.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:25 p.m. CST

    woops...

    by FatPaul

    I mean "not our war." My bad.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Still not convinced

    by Strawhenge

    "How else can you explain 250,000 Iraqi dead in the Gulf war?" I'd chalk it up to a highly efficient military effort. All kidding aside, I'm no war-monger. Still, you haven't convinced me that this country engages, as a matter of policy, in the intentional annihilation of unarmed, civilian targets. War, "declared" or not, is an ugly business that results in death. That's why it must be decisive, particularly for the U.S. where a large portion of the population is squeamish and the eyes of the world are upon us. I now defer to Steel_Cultist in this matter.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:27 p.m. CST

    To the Britons, Bigelow Fans, and Other Assorted....

    by grig_ocasek

    Okay, it's been a long while since I bothered to post on a talkback, but since all y'all are running a very provoking (in both thought and ire) talkback, I thought I'd add my 2 euros. I've split my time between England and New York this year, and I'll tell you right now that both have their advantages. It all depends on your viewpoint. If you spend all of your time in London on Borough High Street (yes, I know it's technically in Southwark, but Yankee Stadium is technically in Kings County, so quiet), or going to see shows on the West End, or at the Tate, or admiring the view off the Millenium Bridge, you'll think that London the best city that ever was. If you spend a week in New York on top of the Empire State Building, going to see shows on Broadway, eating at Nobu or Tavern on the Green, and going to a Mets game, you'll think New York is pretty swell too. Both England and America have great things about them. Both have to deal with "EastEnders." What does this have to do with this endless Cold War debate? Only this: your arguments are based simply on your perception of America and Europe. If you hate Bush (which really doesn't make any sense at all to me, because we could have had Gore, who not only produced a two-point GPA at Harvard, which used to give four-points away like tickets from a hyperactive Skee-Ball machine, but also roomed with Tommy Lee Jones, who should have killed the weasely, annoying little ass when he had the chance), then of course you're going to have a negative view of America. The way you percieve a nation almost always runs the way you perceive its leader. For example, the rather dumb comments made about England (warm beer, bad teeth, bad cars, etc.) have been existant in America ever since the days of Neville Chamberlain. With men like him and Maggie Thatcher (ok, so that was low. But not undeserved), its no wonder that Americans had low views of England for a long while. Imported Monty Python or no, a wuss and a ball-crushing codger aren't going to help boost opinions of that particular country. So when people say "US is Best" or "[insert dumb-ass rhyme stating Europe's inherent superiority over the coolest nation on the planet]," think about the biases that they have against wherever, where these come from, and how you can intelligently argue so that you nullify the other person's argument and get them to see it your way. For example: the US did not "win" the Cold War. The USSR lost with a fiery, flaming vengance. The self-perpetuating myth of Communism, as well as the basic economic structure that was created under Lenin-Stalin-Krushchev (if everyone gets paid according to their needs, then why do extra work to ensure the prosperity of the nation if you're not going to get rewarded?), ensured that they would. Yes, as to my earlier point, you can make the argument that they would be killed if they did not work harder, but Stalin set up for the workers only the model of the man who fulfilled 1400% of his quota for the month (whose name escapes me. Any valiant talkbackers with knowledge of the first Five-Year Plan?). Stalin really only killed when he felt the person was a danger to his individual power, which is why it's so hard to track how many he actually killed. Anyway, that's my longwinded, twisty-turny addition to the political debate. Hope you can make heads or tails of it. (One last note on this topic: does anybody else besides me think that it is awesomely cool that Russia has joined NATO? Just a thought...) As for Kathryn Bigelow...well, she is, as Wesley Willis would put it, "a no good rotten bum." Come on, people, those of you who actually supported this woman, you mean to tell me that "Point Break" and "Strange Days" Were worth watching? You have really got to be kidding. Not the worst movies of all time, but "Point Break" was no more than nicely shot, rather uninvolving Saturday Afternoon fluff, and "Strange Days" was ponderous and annoying, with a stupid MacGuffin. And with that, I'm gone. Keep it interesting, folks...

  • June 19, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST

    US and war practices...

    by CeeWulf

    The United States, while having made mistakes in war - an unavoidable truth - has never, in my belief, intentionally gone out to kill or destroy civilians. That's never been our goal in any military action. However, civilians die. Some have died because of mistakes made by our military. But, let us try not to forget that in cases such as Iraq, the government run by the almighty shithole Suddam Hussain, placed military targets in heavily populated areas to deter the US from launching attacks against those targets. Thus, when we attacked, avoiding civilian casualities was nearly impossible. But we did what we could to avoid them or minimize them. The same occurred in Kosovo, and I noticed how you managed to overlook the attrocities the Serbs were committing which caused us to enter that conflict in the first place. Personally, I think Vietnam was a dark, dark time for the US. We shouldn't have done most of what happened there, so I'm not going to try to defend those actions. However, I do believe that we did what we could at that time to avoid civilian casualities. However, when you're fighting a war in which you don't know who's a civilian and who's a soldier, I imagine it becomes much more difficult. In Afganistan, we fought a war there - which we're still in - to remove the terrorist presence and restore peace in a country that was run by a tyranical regime that ignored and starved its people, humiliated its women, and promoted religious extremism. Our targets were the terrorists and those who support them. We helped those civilians, we didn't target the for destruction. And, Strawhenge, please excuse my stupid use of the word "obvious." How about, "widely-known"? I realize it wasn't the best writing in the world, but I hope people understood my point.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Ceewulf

    by Strawhenge

    I don't know about "people", but you've certainly redeemed yourself in my eyes with that last post. Nicely put.

  • June 19, 2002, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Strawhenge: Why is it necessary to be decisive?

    by FatPaul

    Why should we even be there to begin with? Reagan was right: the only lesson we learned from Vietnam was that we shouldn't attack any country we can't easily kick the crap out of. I'm paraphrasing, of course. Yes, the eyes of the world are upon us, but maybe that could be the whole problem. Has anyone considered that the recent terrorist acts aimed at America could be a direct result of our violent history with the Middle East? Indirectly, we could be setting the stage for an even worse series of terrorist attacks. Response to Ceewulf to follow...

  • June 19, 2002, 4:11 p.m. CST

    America responsible for attacks?

    by Strawhenge

    "Has anyone considered that the recent terrorist acts aimed at America could be a direct result of our violent history with the Middle East?" Considered and rejected. Those attacks were the direct result of the sick determination of fanatical madmen. I'm done. You may continue to parrot leftist rhetoric without me.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:15 p.m. CST

    On civilian casualties

    by Almost Sexy

    For someone above who requested specific instances of the US deliberately targeting non-military targets: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and last, but certainly not least, how's about the fire-bombing of Dresden?? Older examples, but certainly cases where civilian populace was targeted with extreme prejudice. If the US has stopped deliberately targetting civilian centers, that should really be seen as a step forward, even if civilians are still being killed accidentally. And Kathryn Bigelow should be given some sort of award, if only for somehow extruding a lively performance from the agglomeration of xylem and phloem that is Keanu Reeves. I think the last Harrison Ford movie I saw in the theater was the Fugitive. Let's face it, he's not the same guy that starred in Witness and Mosquito Coast. Everyone gets old.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Not kick the crap out of Vietnam?

    by RoboBagPiper

    Fatpaul, we *did* kick the crap out of the North Vietnamese. After the counteroffensives following Tet, the North Vietnamese Army was crippled, the Viet Cong all but eradicated, North Vietnam sued for peace. We won the Vietnam war, hands down. That gave us the opportunity to get the hell out and completely forget about the Vietnam conflict. We washed our hands of it, turned it back over the corrupt government-of-the-week in South Vietnam, who proceeded to dither until North Vietnam built up its strength again and launched what really should be considered a second war. Reagan was pure-D wrong. We should only get involved in a war when we fully intend to stick around for the peace. In WWII, the US' continued positive presence in Japan and Germany ensured that these countries would become allies - setting a stark counterexample to how the European powers treated Germany after WWI. Sadly, this essential point is missed by all gung-ho Reaganites. They want to kick butt, taken names, root out evil, and forget about it. It doesn't work like that. Washing your hands of a country after a war is all but ensuring its sequel.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:26 p.m. CST

    I'm sick of this slamming of Harrison Ford

    by Adus

    What has he really done that is goddamn terrible to deserve it? Oh, yeah he decided not to make "Traffic" which admittedly was a masterpiece and may not have been the wisest career move he's ever made but get over it. I'm also really sick of Harry or Moriarty or whoever saying "it's over" or that he doesn't take chance what the hell do they know?I say he has taking chances such as going against the grain and playing a bad guy in "What Lies Beneath" which was a good (but by no means great) summer thriller. He's tried get away from the same old "action hero" with movies like "Mosquito Coast," "Working Girl" (which was really a supporting role) and "Regarding Harry" and you know what happens? Nobody friggin' goes to see them that's what! So he goes back to what the audience feels he does best action films. He's giving people what they say they want it's as simple as that. Now I'm not saying that he hasn't made mistakes "Random Hearts" was a big steaming pile of mediocrity to be sure but I think he was good in it, the script was as lame as hell. I for one am looking forward to "K:19" just as much as I was before the reviews started coming. I'm a Harrison Ford fan for life and proud of it! Oh and for the record the US did win the cold war and AOTC kicked ass!!!

  • June 19, 2002, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Ceewulf: To start with, let me repeat: we did not fight a war i

    by FatPaul

    The idea that our "war" on the people of Afghanistan was justified in that it was intended to remove a terrorist threat is a little uneven. The terrorist group in question did not represent the government or the people of Afghanistan. It doesn't make sense to attack an entire country because a small group happens to live there. As for the "tyranical regime that ignored and starved its people, humiliated its women, and promoted religious extremism," that description could cover any government in the Middle East, including Kuwait and the newly formed government in Afghanistan. We did not target the terrorists. For us to have targeted the terrorists, we would have needed to know where they were. As we had no terrorists to aim at, we aimed for the most densely populated areas in the hopes that we would hit a few terrorists. By the way, military installations in those areas were placed in civilian settings by the Soviets during the Cold War, and their placement there has nothing to do with current policies. If we avoided civilian casualties in the Gulf War, how did we end up with six figures? I'm a little pressed for time, but I'm sure I'll get a chance to finish later on.

  • June 19, 2002, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Europe Sucks

    by MisterMouth

    Europe sucks. You are all worthless cry baby bitches. Britian is ok, they used to be tough and not little bitches, maybe the will be tough again one day. The rest of you blow. You are all just jealous of the USA cause we didn't surrender our whole fucking continent during the course of a long weekend in WWII. Nato blows too. Nato is just about getting a piece of the US action. USA won the cold war, anyone who says otherwise is either a moron, or from europe. Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Good use of the bomb. Better their women and childten than our soilders. We need to be honest with ourselves and realize we were at fucking war. Go ahead and tell me to read a book, big deal. For every asinine book your produce, I could produce 10 more that make the counterpoint. Then we would have a "book cold war".

  • June 19, 2002, 4:50 p.m. CST

    My last comment I promise (ish)

    by Snuggleskunk

    On the one hand I was going to post explaining that inno way was i defending hating USA I was just explaining why. And the how much knowledge of european history and visa versa shoul we have? That wasn't my point. Due to the dominance of Hollywood and unfortunately WB on TV we are saturated with American TV. we understand your culture, your school system and your language because we grew up watching saved by the bell and blossom and ferris bueller etc. and when we got older we watched fast times, say anything... and ... well anyway basically our culture our completely saturated by yours so we are always going to know more about USA than USA knows about us and yeah it pisses us off. Now I was going to say but thats not your fault and essentially its ours for not creating a culture strong enough to stand up to yours. But then I read all the bullshit put up by the thickheads with intelligent posts about USA rules ok! and warm beer and bad teeth????? thats so out of date as a stereotype that people my age (21) don't even get it. So please we're fighting because somewhere in the 20th century individual countries culture got taken over by USA and we're bitter about it. Get over it and enjoy Spiderman. x

  • June 19, 2002, 5:08 p.m. CST

    "War" is hell...

    by CeeWulf

    I feel that Strawhenge had the right idea to pull out of this conversation. And I'm going to join him in a few. However, I felt compelled to respond to you, FatPaul, because while I do not - obviously - agree with your statements, you've been fun. "The terrorist group in question did not represent the government or the people of Afghanistan." Excuse me? Al Qaida owned the Taliban, a group that led a military coup to take control of the majority of the nation. Bin Laden funded and supported them, and in return, was given free reign to run terrorist training camps and hide out in the mountains of Afganistan with impunity. The government - if you can call it that - did belong to the terrorists. The people, I don't believe they did. They were simply struggling to make due in a third-world country that was a stone's throw away from the Stone Age, with a ruling government that didn't give a damn about their people and happily allowed them to be used as fodder. "We did not target the terrorists." Uh, yes we did. We attacked their bases, limited their ability to affectively strike back against our forces, then moved in to clean up the place. Were civilians hurt/killed? Unfortunately, yes. It's virtually unavoidable in this day and age. However, we did not target them and did what was possible to minimize the civilian casualties. Afterwards, we proceeded to help the civilians, provide them with food and aid, and help them get back on their feet as best we could. "By the way, military installations in those areas were placed in civilian settings by the Soviets during the Cold War, and their placement there has nothing to do with current policies." Who cares if the Soviets placed them there! These installations were continually operated with civilians in close proximity by governments who knew that the US - or other invading military - would target them. They allowed their own civilians to get into harms way, knowing that it was very likely they would get killed as a result. They did this to 1) attempt to discourage foreign militaries from targeting them; and 2) allow civilian casualties so the "governments" could parade them in front of the world press to point fingers at the attackers and deflect attention from their own greedy, inhumane actions. "If we avoided civilian casualties in the Gulf War, how did we end up with six figures?" I never said we "avoided" them completely, and this is chiefly due to the fact that Hussain knowingly allowed his military units to be deployed in heavily populated areas, as well as using civilians as "human shields". He's a disgusting man, who cares nothing about his people, who he has let suffer and starve in his attempt to build up his military capabilities. Now, I bid you farewell and good journey, as I think this conversation no longer serves a purpose.

  • June 19, 2002, 5:49 p.m. CST

    WINDTALKERS was the second expensive foul ball...

    by cady

    BAD COMPANY was the first expensive foul ball of the summer.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:13 p.m. CST

    there is one good thing about the moive.

    by cheeta

    The one good thing about the moive is the fact that part of it was filmed in Gimil Manitoba! I am just happy that part of Manitoba is used in a big hollywood moive. Even if it apparently sucks.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Julius - read some REAL history books

    by jcpowers03

    Since you haven't cited any specific history books, I can only wonder where you get your information - or, more appropriately, misinformation. In order to determine who won the Cold War (or whether it was a tie), a definition of victory must first be set. During the cold war no territories were invaded and no significant battles fought. Using traditional victory conditions as a standard is therefore not a viable option. The definition of victory that should be used in the case of the Cold War is: the successful destruction - through military, economic, or social means - of a country's ability to wage war by its enemy. This is the most useful definition in regards to the cold war as it creates a yard stick by which the Cold War can be measured. Further, it negates the need to encorporate territorial acquisitions and military campaigns while allowing for non-military factors (such as economic and social change). This is the yardstick that historians such as John Gaddis and Paul Kennedy have put forward when discussing the Cold War (note that Kennedy's discussion of the Cold War focuses primarily on economic factors while Gaddis gives social and economic factors more similar weight). The conclusion that both these historians - and I - reach when investigating the conclusion of the Cold War is that the United States was 'victorious' in that it successfully reduced the Soviet Union (now Russia's) ability to wage war. This was brought about by Reagan's frenetic spending on the military in the 1980s. This spending revealed the cracks that had long existed within Russia's military-industrial complex and led to the destruction of the Soviet Union as an entity and of Russia's ability to fight. Lastly, in regards to your comment that NATO (not spelled Nato but rather NATO since it is an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, thus, all letters should be capitalized) is only comprised of the United States is preposterous. All countries that are members of NATO are mutual guarantors of each other. That is to say that all of NATO will go to war if one NATO country is attacked (a first strke by a NATO country does not require other NATO countries to mobilize). While no NATO countries were anywhere near the United States' military strength during the Cold War, their geographic location made up for this. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States did not have a large percentage of its armed forces in Europe. If war had broken out, it would have taken weeks for the United States to mobilize its Army and transport it across the Atlantic Ocean. During this time, European members of NATO would have had to slow the Russian advance until the United States forces could reach Europe and become combat effective. If Russia were able to take Europe before this the United States would have been at an enormous strategic disadvantage. Germany's Blitzkrieg of 1939-1940 is an obvious analogy. Had France been able to slow Germany's initial advance until Britain's second - and larger - expeditionary force could be mobilized, the Allies would have hd a much stronger strategic position. So, in conclusion, maybe you should find some history books that weren't written for 6th graders and get your facts in line.

  • June 19, 2002, 6:50 p.m. CST

    England and America are both great.

    by metallica846

  • June 19, 2002, 6:52 p.m. CST

    England and America are both great.

    by metallica846

    America has the good hotdogs and England has good Meat Pies. but i think the meat pies are better cause there meat and hot dogs and messed up cows and shit. and this is the best talkback ive ever seen on AICN. DOWN WITH FANBOYS!!!

  • June 19, 2002, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Iraq's Gulf War losses

    by InvaderZim

    Iraq lost about 250,000 in the Gulf War because Saddam's army was abnormally large. Before the war, he spent perhaps a fifth of his country's wealth for his beloved forces, and had the world's sixth-largest army, even after the destructive Iran-Iraq war he started....btw, great TalkBack for once, a lot of misstatements got debunked ("the US didn't win the Cold War", sure), and the AOTC moron-a-thon was kept to a bare minimum.

  • June 19, 2002, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Hey lordznathos, look up, waaay up.

    by earl of sandwich

    Ever hear of a country called Canada? All the nutrients, half the fat of your average american state. Did I also forget the bonus medical plan, REAL beer, & the absence of gun totting maniacs? Oh, sorry. Forgot to include an "aboot" and end my sentences with "eh".

  • June 19, 2002, 9:03 p.m. CST

    Canada?

    by thevision

    Oh yeah! Also Known As the "STATE NORTH OF NORTH DAKOTA!" $1USA=$00.63CANUCK- you guys hate it when American tourists ask "How much is that in real money?." Our healthcare system needs to be fixed but least we don't have to wait 20 years to get an MRI. You guys still puffing your chest "aboot" that Molson commercial?! Freekin' Jagoffs, the guy on that ad moved to LA!! Over 40% of Canucks believe absorption by the USA is inevitable in twenty years!!! Cut the crap pal, you want us, you know you do!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!! STARS AND STRIPES 4EVER!!!

  • June 19, 2002, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Hey Sandwich

    by Destroya

    And did you forget about your 60% socialist tax rates and your crappy doctors and the fact that you Canucks have nothing better to do than sit around and be obsessed with American pop culture whilst simultaneously whining about its ubiquity?

  • June 19, 2002, 10:34 p.m. CST

    K-19? I thought this was a remake of K-9 with Jim Belushi and th

    by Regis Travolta

    Does Harrison have a Russian wolf hound on the sub with him and his crew? That would be great!

  • June 20, 2002, 1 a.m. CST

    People please...

    by Daryl van Horn

    Saying that the US won the cold war because it's still here and the USSR isn't is saying a guy wins a bar fight because his opponent decides to stop fighting. Reagan only prolonged the cold war. And the USSR wasn't destroyed or brought to it's knees. It was changed by people from within who saw that their country had to change. Gorbachov and his administration. In other words, after years of the West going "your system is wrong" they went "yeah we have to change our country" and they did. The reason their economy collapsed is because the people wanted to do it too fast. You cannot change a system that reigned for the better part of a century in a year. Gorbachov knew that and tried to do it gradually, but you can't blame the people for running for it rather than walking. The only good thing Reagan did was be open to Gorby's extended hand. I really like the US but I am tired of this eternal 'Eurotrash' vs 'American ignoramuses' fights. Compared to most of the world, western europe and the US are one big melting pot culture- and money wise anyway. And with so many people in the Middle East hating all of us, let's stay pals, huh?...and there's no reason to be hostile to Russia anymore...you hated their ways, and they changed them. And yes I'm sure there's still shite going on there. The country is in shambles and it will be a while before it will resemble anything good. I hope Putin is the right man for it and that he will do just that.

  • June 20, 2002, 1 a.m. CST

    U.S. Bombs Innocent Civilians?are you sure FatPaul?

    by BolterDog

    Well, I might be a narrow minded American who doesn't know shit about the real world, or I could have the belief and faith that our country values every innocent human life whether it be American or not. But I also hope that if someone comes and slaughters thousands of my innocent countrymen, that my government will step up and drop a fat ass daisy cutter on every terrorist that peeps his/her head out of their shit infested cave. Looking at my twisted american history books, it seems as though America has protected many innocents throughout history. Everytime in the past 20 years that i remember some other country going to war, innocents were the target i.e. yugoslavia, iraq v. kuwait, every country in africa that has been in a civil war, etc. etc. I think that America has the best record of protecting innocent civilians, then again... i'm just a arrogant, narrow minded, right-wing, bush supporter, or maybe just a damn proud american who is glad to have been born into such a wonderful country. PS- Europe should kiss our ass, we've bailed them out of 2 big wars in less than 100 years and all we get is shit from em.

  • June 20, 2002, 1:15 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford a Canadian?

    by thevision

    IndianaRickDeckardJohnBookHanSoloJones a Canadian? Can't be...some schmo in the net said H. Ford is a freekin' Canuck! No way, he's from Illinois or Wisconsin! Leave it to the furbacks to claim our beloved IndianaRickDeckardJohnbookHanSoloJones Ally McBeal dating idol of milions is one of them!! The only good shite to come from up north are the Great William Shatner, Jim Carey and Pam Anderson. Reason I can't stand to watch any show on Sci-Fi or Showtime is cuz its Freekin Canucks posing as Americans! StarGate SG-1=crap, Forever Night=crap, Earth Final Conflict=crap, Highlander=crap, Mutant X=crap!! Only halfway decent Canuck show was late night CBS 80's "NightHeat!" Reason was the show actually set in Toronto and not trying to pass itself as NYC or Chicago. Twenty more years and your asses belong to us!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! STARS AND STRIPES 4EVER!!!

  • June 20, 2002, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Usually, if a film is REALLY BAD, you can at least laugh at it,

    by Double-Helix

    This is a terribly trite, piece- of-crap film. This is the kind of film that EVERYBODY who loves filmaking, wishes would just go away. We all thought it had... After a few risky moves in Hollywood over the years, some of us thought the assembly line had died down a bit. That's why it's painful to see another recycled, boring, and obviously "dumbed down" film like K19. I saw this abomination a little while ago also, and it it was hard to sit through. I, and everybody with me, had to sit through this entire film; despite what our minds told us to do... (leave or sleep). I felt like I was in a junior-high history class, with a sub-par substitute teacher going over what I learned in elmentary school. WE HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING THIS FILM HAS TO OFFER. It's already been mentioned, but I can't state enough how much better EVERY OTHER SUBMARINE FILM looks compared to this sad rip-off. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WELL. There isn't a scene that is contrived. There isn't a memorable line of dialogue. In fact, this whole film would be forgetable... if it weren't for the nagging memory that I, and a lot of other people, basically GAVE AWAY TWO HOURS OF OUR LIVES to this mess. I just can't believe that they actually thought this thing could make it's money back! They used a real sub, and two expensive actors (both have seen better days/roles) and still it's just plain dull. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S NON-FICTION... it still shouldn't make you want to put a bullet through your head with a "NO FUNERAL" sign taped to your back...The makers certainly didn't shy away from RIPPING OFF other sub films...It's embarassing how many moments were directly lifted from DAS BOOT, CRIMSON TIDE, and THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER... (Probably U5-7 too!) Speaking of the "creators." (what did they actually create?) Apparently, Bigelow practically GAVE UP on the film during a lot of the filming, so the AD had to helm some crap. He wasn't the only one... they're were a few uncredited ghost directors...(Everybody knows people who worked on this flick) It's laughable (well... not really) when you consider the ammount of money they spent on this film... JUST SO IT CAN LOOK LIKE A SERIOUS, ARTISTIC NON-FICTION FILM. HIGH ARCHING CRANE SHOTS, and dutch angles... Everything about it feels contrived and cheesy. You NEVER feel like it's real... and you don't care about the characters...It wasn't enjoyable in any way shape or form, and despite it's efforts to emulate, DAS BOOT and many other sub films... (Like Harrison's accent) IT DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE! It's painfully obvious that Hollywood still needs a good kick in the balls... IE. WE NEED TO FIRE SOME STUDIO EXECUTIVES, and the only way that will happen is if everybody does the "right thing" and avoids this film! Spend your money and time on something like INSOMNIA, or anything but this piece of festering shite. If this movie bombs, it'll cause some heads to roll...Avoid the "STUDIO PLANTS." FOX is going to be sending them here VERY SOON!

  • June 20, 2002, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Cold War over?

    by Playhouse

    People, people. When is everyone going to come to the realization that the cold war is not over nor will it ever be? It's something so vague and all-encompassing that it will never die. Funniest and most honest comment I've ever heard on this was from someone on-board a Trident missle submarine. We went to tour the boat and finally ended up on the main deck (not sure if they call it a bridge or not but when they actually drive the boat) for a big speech. One of the guys (an officer of some sort, if I remember correctly) actually turned to us and said something to the effect of "Let me tell you something. They keep talking about the cold war ending. That's just something they want to tell the public so everyone looks good and they look like friends. If the cold war was over, why are we still here?" And standing in what was essentially a weapon of mass destruction his point made quite a bit of sense. The cold war isn't over. It's merely regrouping. Nobody won and it still lives on.

  • June 20, 2002, 4:23 a.m. CST

    I just saw this movie tonight at a preview........just horrible.

    by TheDevilsBidness

    My brother-in-law runs a theater here in Denver. He occasionally gets ahold of movies ahead of time and will screen them for his friends. I wasn't planning on seeing this movie when it came out, but I didn't have anything better to do and my girlfriend wanted to see it, so..... Anyway, we sat through this verrrrry loooong movie and found almost nothing reddeming about it. You don't even have to have any movie-going experience to find this film predictable - it's like a roadmap placed out in front of you: Follow Point A to Point B to Point C. Ford looks, sounds, and moves like he's embalmed. Laim Neeson is still apparently suffering side-effects from the trauma that was The Phantom Menace, because he lumbers throught this movie, muttering unintelligibly. Probably looking for his lightsaber to try to decapitate director Kathy Bigelow, who's static shots and by-the-numbers blocking are devoid of any imagination whatsoever. I could go on for awhile about how sorry this film is, but I'm sure you get the point.

  • June 20, 2002, 7:53 a.m. CST

    I don't give a flying F*CK what anyone says!

    by Rogue_Leader

    Harrison Ford WAS, IS and FOREVER SHALL BE THE FRIGGIN MAN! I am gonna see this movie even if every AICN reviewer hates it and considering many of the movies this site has been recommending in the past several months (hell the past several years) I don't think that is such a bad idea.

  • June 20, 2002, 10:29 a.m. CST

    FatPaul... did your dog die in a bombing raid?

    by LordZanthos

    It appears you have some personal grievance against the US. Strange that you still use the phrases "our," "we," etc. Things you may wish to note in your almost accurate, but still abysmally inaccurate rants are the following: the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have always been points that Americans have felt was a terrible choice. However, the choice there was made by a president who knew the Japanese would not stop until faced with the prospect, up close and personal, of being absolutely annihilated, as they were in near religious frenzy over their

  • June 20, 2002, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Sandwich9000

    by LordZanthos

    Nothing wrong with Canada. Free healthcare is cool. I like the place. You guys let our draft-dodgers (of which I would be one, if there's another draft) hang out and bother you all. Thanks for all the laughs.I'm just not bi-lingual, plus I like living in Kansas City.

  • June 20, 2002, 11:04 a.m. CST

    silenceof freedom: i liked bourne

    by the_pissboy1

    I'm not a Damon fan but I really enjoyed The Bourne Identity. I felt Damon, unlike his hulking buddy Affleck, has the ability to convincingly play an astute, believeable hero. Damon got all the bits he needed to right and the film's crackerjack editing and pacing (Liman's three for three in my book) made Bourne probably the most entertaining thriller so far this year. It's head and shoulders above the stillborn Sum of all Fears. But then again, Damon has some screen presence, while Affleck always comes off as a fratboy who wandered onto a set.

  • June 20, 2002, 11:43 a.m. CST

    A thought......

    by boredinbritain

    Was happy to read the jingoistic nonsense that was being produced here but some of the

  • June 20, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Yeah, whatever happened to "Below"?

    by Christopher3

    It's in the can; it looked like it had some potential. Are they ditching it in Late August, Early September?

  • June 20, 2002, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Just a couple of points, then I'll shut up.

    by FatPaul

    First, to LordZanthos: I never mentioned the bombings in WWII. That was another guy. Since we were at war at the time, these actions don't match up with the point I was trying to make. That point was that since we never declared war, our actions have to be taken at face value, not as acts of war, but as acts of violent aggression. If the 250,000 Iraqi citizens who died were mostly military personel, and there were only a small number of accidental civilian casualties, then why didn't we just move in and take the country? If a nation that size lost over 200,000 soldiers, their military must have been crippled. Also, if our bombers are the most accurate in the world wouldn't that mean that the heavy civilian casualties had to have been on purpose? And if the Taliban and their terrorists were hiding in the mountains because their country had turned their backs on them, why were we bombing their cities? I know that the cities weren't enemy-free, but wouldn't it have made more sense to move in with ground troops? As for our justification for moving in on Iraq and Serbia, a genuine belief in that logic would have forced us to launch full-scale bombing campaigns on Israel, Russia, and at least half a dozen third world countries. Anyway, the reason I use the words "we" and "us" to describe US military action is that I feel I should take some responsibility for the actions of my government. As I have not taken any action to stop the bombings, I have to accept that some of the blame for these deaths lies with me. BolterDog: I realise that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was a terrible event, but to sacrifice several thousand civilian lives to reach a handfull of terrorists is immoral. And yes, I realize that the civilian death toll has not been independently confirmed. As a final point I'd like to mention that in an earlier post I refered to our president as a slack-jawed hick, and no one argued with me on that point, but when I questioned the morality of our political and military leaders, a number of people came to their defense. Well, at least most of you were fairly civil, with the acception of the guy who emailed me and threatened to report me to the FBI.

  • June 20, 2002, 2:09 p.m. CST

    What! No Affleck??!

    by JAGUART

    There's your problem right there! This movies gonna tank without that bonafide hunk of a box office draw!

  • June 20, 2002, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Why no ground troops? And other things.

    by steel_cultist

    FatPaul, you ask "And if the Taliban and their terrorists were hiding in the mountains because their country had turned their backs on them, why were we bombing their cities? I know that the cities weren't enemy-free, but wouldn't it have made more sense to move in with ground troops?" One very good reason - the American populace will accept the Air Force and Navy pounding the living shit out of a contry from on high, but has a real problem accepting the loss of actual people in a ground war, and the leadership in DC are very aware of this, especially in the post Viet Nam age in which we find ourselves. This is one reason that the government has been so consistant in saying that there will be casualties in this effort and that there is nothing we can do to stop it. The fact that we have had so few casualties is one of the things that has kept the population behind the war effort. As to your post Almost Sexy, where you said "For someone above who requested specific instances of the US deliberately targeting non-military targets: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, and last, but certainly not least, how's about the fire-bombing of Dresden??" Hmm, lets see - Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both port citys, both having airports and rail centers, as well as several large industrial centers, no, I cannot see any reason to bomb them. Tokyo? No, I cannot really see any reason to flatten the enemy's capital in a time of war in an effort to weaken their will to survive, or to take out the massive industrial complex that was in Tokyo at the time. Dresden? That one was actually the Brits, who burned Dresden in retalliation for the Germans burning out Coventry and several other cities in England, so I cannot see how that one is America's fault.

  • June 20, 2002, 6:39 p.m. CST

    To FatPaul...

    by InvaderZim

    First, yes, we did cripple Iraqi military to a large extent. However, Iraq lost quickly due to the coalition the first President Bush managed to create; most of the coalition did not wish to end Saddam's government and manage Iraq afterwords. So, if you want to blame someone on that respect, blame the Muslim nations that didn't want to deal with Iraq once the immediate threat ended (Saddam Hussien threatened Saudi Arabia as well, after invading Kuwait). As for calling the president a "slack-jawed hick", I would argue with you, but there's no point. No one else rushed to argue with you not because you're right and they're saying "amen", but because its just an insult; there's nothing to argue when you call someone a "dumbass", for example. You just either ignore it, or insult him back. In this case, I'll ignore the pathetic excuse for an insult.

  • June 20, 2002, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Dear Steel Cultist, I wasn't talking to you. Please don'

    by Almost Sexy

    You got me on Dresden, although I was under the impression that there were American bombers in on that conflagratory raid as well. That those cities have airports (and maybe even train stations) doesn't change the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian population centers that were specifically targeted by the U.S. I'm not sure you really said anything that convinced me otherwise. I posted because someone above stated that as far as he/she knew, the U.S. had never done such a thing. From your post it sounds like you're trying to posit reasons why those were "legitimate" targets. The relevance or strategic significance of these targets doesn't change the fact that they were cities, i.e., civilian areas. But thanks for responding to my post, and thanks for the info on Dresden. I'll have to pay more attention to my homework.

  • June 21, 2002, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Duece Bigelow: Bitch Gigolo

    by Super Unko

    Dosen't K. Bigelow have another movie thats been sitting for years on the shelf un-released. And what ever happened to Stallones DETOX, this thing out on DVD in japan already.

  • July 5, 2002, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Huh?

    by lordchancellor

    Dear Heavens, how did we get here from Russian shoddy nuclear reactors?

Top Talkbacks