Slate Writer Compares Iraq War…To “Red Dawn”?
When I was a kid, I thought that “Red Dawn” was the greatest movie ever made. Those kids were fighting back against those funny sounding bad guys that invaded their homes. It almost made me like the University of Michigan because they too were called “Wolverines”…almost.
Of course now if I watch “Red Dawn”, I see that it’s a terribly violent movie with some hard core bad acting. Still, it is a movie about then Communist Russia getting together with Cuba and invading the United States, with a group of Americans banding together to fight back. The silly part is that it’s a bunch of high school kids with hunting rifles who wound quite naturally be decimated by a Soviet Army.
There is one thing in David Plotz’s Slate article about “Red Dawn” that I agree with: What the hell is up with that ending? Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen are brothers who get wounded and then sit on a park bench to die? That was such a lame ending and quite the downer.
However, Platz tries to compare the insurgent resistance in Iraq to the high school kids in “Red Dawn”. This is way off base and the reason for that is the Iraqi insurgents aren’t fighting to take back their country, they are only interested in killing Americans and causing chaos. The silly high school kids in “Red Dawn” are actually trying to win back their country. The insurgency wants to control a large chunk in a piece of the world that has hated the United States long before an American stepped foot in Iraq. At least the “Red Dawn” kids were fighting for their freedom, which was taken from them.
Cinematically Correct note: This was written from as bipartisan a place as possible. If anything, let’s all agree that “Red Dawn” is a terrible, terrible movie?