egafd.com

Caractacus wrote:

> The entertainment factor is a fine argument----but don't
> dedicate the movie to the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.

No I meant just watch the film as a form of entertainment
no more, no less

Think most people are sane enough to consign the dedications/
propaganda elements straight into the rubbish bin

I knew what you meant, ATS, and that's fine. But the film-makers tried to give this pile of tosh relevance by tagging on that dedication. And there are those who don't read or watch the news and might actually believe the Mujahaadin are the good guys.

You'd have to ask them what they are fighting for, but I suspect living in a theocratic dictatorship can't be fun.

The point is that the damaged, traumatised Vietnam vet of the original book and, for the most part, the first film, has been turned into some avenging US superhero. That is not only stretching credibility, it's offensive to those who fought and survived that war.

First Blood was a pretty decent film until the ending. They should have filmed the book as it was, with Rambo killing everyone until he, in turn, gets blown away.

Yeah, I served with Captain Willard. (Looks into distance: "Vietnam.")

You want to watch a film about those damaged by that war, try Born On The Fourth Of July, The Deer Hunter or even Full Metal Jacket.

Unfortunately film makers often stick this kind of tosh in there
bit like the way the almost always have a feel good ending in films
All totally uncalled for

Incidentally I thought Casualties of war was quite a good Nam film

Haven't seen it, I'm afraid.