anarchyclub72

Despite the overarching revisionism prevalent in the early portions of the film - it is still a somber representation of the Khmer Rouge and the suffering of Cambodia and it's people.

Generally speaking the film did a fantastic job representing the people of Cambodia and their fears as the Khmer Rouge (ANGKAR) forced themselves into power. Mass civilian displacement, labor camps, torture, executions, and property confiscation is all covered through the eyes of a five year old child (daughter of a Lon Nol Captain) and her family.

After some stock footage and the obvious political message is over with, we are taken to (presumably) 1975 Cambodia during the fall of Phnom Penh. After the Khmer Rouge march in, Loung Ung (our young protagonist) and her family are forced out of their family home into the countryside. During the trek they are forced by ANGKAR to forfeit anything deemed 'Western', and their family vehicle is confiscated for the 'greater good' of the movement.

Shortly thereafter, they are interned in a labor camp, forced to remove all color from their clothes, cut their hair, and conform to society under ANGKAR (e.g. everyone is equal, no money...usual communist ideals). In this society no Western medicine is permitted and they are forced to swear allegiance to Angkar. Each night they are grouped up for 're-education' and during one of these events some children note a man used French medicine to treat his child. The man is subsequently removed from the group, chastised, tied to a tree, and tortured (it is implied).

After a number of days in the camp, Loung Ung's elder siblings are removed from the family to aid the cause in separate regions...meaning they were being sent to the 'front lines.'

During these emotional scenes we are shown memories Loung shared with the departed, which really helped drive home the horrors of what was happening in the country.

After the loss of her siblings we come to see the ANGKAR using her and the other children for child labor (gathering water, tending to crops, picking beans etc.). Throughout this period we also learn that they are slowly starving, as one of the ANGKAR provide Loung with a meager portion of rice and clear broth. Later we also see the father being forced to smuggle two beetles into their 'home' and the carcasses being divided among the family. All of this under the ever watchful eye of the ANGKAR (lights occasionally peer into the slats in the hut).

Without going further, I feel this was definitely worth a watch. Especially if you're interested in the region and it's history.

My one gripe: The film begins with stock footage of Nixon proclaiming the neutrality of Cambodia and the United State's respect and support of their neutrality. This is interspersed with bombs being dropped, explosions, deceased civilians etc. So sets the mood for the film...the United States created the Khmer Rouge and is to blame for subsequent actions. This is patently false from a historical perspective and I feel it was disingenuous to infer at the beginning and through numerous points in the film, such as when a farmer claimed the United States bombed his farm and that's why he supported the Khmer Rouge. In reality, Communism was receiving support and was very prevalent in the region LONG before the United States was militarily involved. Some historians claim the bombing campaigns may have boosted numbers marginally, but to repeatedly show us Cambodians claiming they support ANGKAR because of the United States is dishonest (to put it nicely). In fact, most historians concur that the rise of Khmer (politically) can be contributed to the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970.

Just be honest in your representation of history and let the viewer come to his/her own conclusion.

The show gives you a comprehensive look into the lives of people involved in the drug trade. Including law enforcement, dealers, and addicts. There's no political spin regarding the drugs or their effects on the user, what you see is what you get. However, when the show tries to talk about firearms there's always misinformation and a political message. For example, in Season 5 Episode 5 there are numerous references to "assault weapons." There's no such thing as an assault weapon. It's a term that was made up and used by gun control proponents in the 90's. In the same episode they say rifle cartridges that are "full metal jacket" are "armor piercing cop killers." This is also false. FMJ is standard ammunition and is not specifically designed to pierce armor. I just wish they'd get their facts straight before airing the episode. I can excuse incorrect terminology, but when you're spreading blatantly false information to make firearms seem scarier it's just ridiculous.

I love Thrillers and Action movies and I was hoping this would be entertaining. The fight scenes were alright, as were the 'shootouts.' The plot started out interesting, a man has his daughter kidnapped by three masked men, and no one knows who they are or why they did it. For most of the movie Nicolas Cage and his gang are eliminating the men who they believe did it. That's great, but then the big reveal about what REALLY happened popped up.

*****SPOILER******

Apparently they were all playing with Cage's firearms, while he was at a dinner event, and one of the two guys accidentally shot his daughter...

Are you kidding me? What an unbelievably stupid reveal. Immediately lost interest in the rest of the film and went on here to write this review. Avoid this movie. What a waste of time. If you want to see Nicolas Cage in an entertaining action film watch Drive Angry or Face/Off.

I thought this was a great movie. However, I wouldn't classify it as a comedy. It's quite dark, but there were a few chuckles interspersed throughout.

The sub plot involving 'love' was not needed and I felt it detracted from the film overall. They should have left the daughter character as an almost mirror image of the father and environment she grew up in.

There were also inaccuracies regarding the sounds of various firearms and their operation. The suppressor in particular was pretty awful.

Ultimately, if you go in expecting a raucous family comedy then I'd say you're going to end up pretty disappointed. I would avoid the movie completely if you're not of the dark comedy persuasion as well.

Plot summary and critiques: The film opens promising a tense thriller, a man on a ledge threatening to jump (Not of his own volition) and a Detective trying to save his life. At this point I thought to myself, "Alright! This film looks like it's going places!" Nope.

Liv Tyler (Shana) and Charlie Hunnam's (Gavin) characters just don't seem like a great fit from the start. Shana is married to a Born Again Christian whose Faith appears to trump all else...even love. Throughout the movie Shana mentions she "wants to be loved" and that her husband "Joe" (Patrick Wilson) is "cold". Yet, we never see any hint of this in their interactions, in fact, they appear to be a rather "normal" couple. When they are together, Joe shows compassion and kindness towards Shana, and receives none in return.

The discussions between Gavin and Shana feel contrived. For example, when he first takes her out to lunch she opens a beer bottle with her mouth, and guess what Gavin says..."Note to self, if offered a blow job...decline". Honestly, only in a movie can a line like this actually work. Naturally, Shana finds this remark comical (go figure) and later on when Gavin says she has "Sexy Lips" well, she just can't help herself. I was hoping for a little more character development; instead what I got was a few superficial interactions, corny one-liners, a man standing on a ledge, and an utterly superfluous sex scene.

Something else that irked me; why do we need to know anything about Detective Hollis Lucetti's (Terrence Howard) background? It serves no real purpose and comes off as nothing more than filler material.

Flaws and Oversimplified arguments:

Major Flaw: All denominations of Christianity appear to be grouped under the "Born Again" category. It's impossible to address each denominations beliefs in the span of 100 minutes and clumping them all together is not an acceptable solution.

Let's analyze three scenarios:

First Scenario: Joe accuses Gavin of being "close-minded" for not accepting the possibility that God exists. As a rebuttal Gavin says, "Are you willing to admit God may not exist?" to which Joe responds "No." Gavin then says that Joe is "close-minded" because of this as he walks away triumphantly.

• From this first scenario it's clearly evident that Gavin is as close-minded as Joe is. He refuses to accept the possibility that God may exist and practically foams at the mouth whenever Joe brings up the subject. His rebuttal is laughable, he's essentially saying "No you" in response to Joe's accusations. Why is this laughable? Simply put, it's more than just "God does/doesn't exist because I say so." When confronted with the question of whether or not God exists I can assure you that in response to "You're close minded" no one is going to say "No you." Give us at least a little back and forth here and lay the foundations for later confrontations.

Second Scenario: Joe invites Gavin over for a "philosophical discussion". Gavin accepts the invitation (So he can chase Liv Tyler) and here's where the real fun starts. In this ONE 'discussion' there are so many flaws I can't even list them all.

1). Gavin tells Joe that he'll "grow up" one day (referencing Joe's belief in God). Clearly it is inferred that only children believe in God because he's their "imaginary friend". To be honest, this sounds like something a High School student would say to his religious parents, not something a grown man would/should say when trying to discuss religion.

2). Gavin states it's "Easy for people to die for God". Again, this is simply false. Even Jesus asked to be spared in the Garden of Gethsemane.

3). Gavin uses the example of suicide bombers as people of faith being able to die "easily". This remark is so out of place it's ridiculous. In this one example he proved both his ignorance, in believing God is universal in all major religions, and his lack of argumentative reasoning. How does one compare suicide bombers to Christians dying for their faith?

4). Gavin states that God "Sends most people to Hell." Wait, I thought he believed Heaven and Hell didn't exist? How can he assert that God sends most people to Hell and then condemn Joe for saying he knows God exists? It's the SAME EXACT statement. Gavin just decided to phrase it differently.

5). Joe states that the only way to get to Heaven is to "Accept God as your Savior". This is false. Not all Christian denominations believe you need to accept the Judeo-Christian God as your Savior to attain Heaven. Roman Catholics believe that anyone can enter Heaven as long as they live according to their religious beliefs. Looks like Gavin's "What about a kid in China who was never introduced to Christianity" argument has just been nullified.

6). Gavin states there's no way of knowing "How God wants to be worshipped". Again, this is false. Practically every version of the Bible states how God wishes to be worshipped.

Third Scenario: Gavin's gay Jewish roommate says he bought a bottle of "blessed water from the Temple" and he's shown blessing the door frame with it. There is no "Holy/Blessed water" in the Jewish religion, at least none that you can purchase in a bottle like that. Also, the blessing of the doorframe was not practiced at home, it was only when a new Church (Christian) was being consecrated. In the Jewish religion you place a parchment called a "Mezuzah" on/above your doorframe.

All in all this movie was an inaccurate and flawed portrayal of the conflict between the faithful and the faithless. It's culminated by an unnecessary sex scene, poor dialogue, simplistic arguments for/against faith, mediocre acting, and an unoriginal plot. I do not recommend watching this film, whether you're an atheist or a Christian you should stay away.