I'm watching it again right now and the climactic battle is so over the top and silly (and genius) how does anybody take it seriously as indictment of anything but having a bad time watching a movie. Plus the most ridiculed and humiliated character in the entire movie is a white guy. What do they have against naval lint anyway?!
"Hey! It's You! Do you still want the Vette?"
"God Damn, dipsh!t Rodriguez, gypsy dildoPUNKS!"

Erh, US of A is PRO-Israel.. Not just Arnold

You don't see that too often anymore without muslim activists groups complaining about discrimination. Its no longer PC to attribute muslims with terrorism. Even though the threat of Islamic terrorists have increased. I'm just curious if this pre-9/11 film got accused of the negative portrayal of muslims as terrorists? I wonder what would happen if this movie had been made today instead.
I think that before 9/11, stories about massive terror attacks by Islamists on US soil could be dismissed as "just a movie" if discrimination groups complained about it. After 9/11, it's harder for filmmakers to say they're not making some kind of political statement - even in a comedy - which then adds the complication of making that statement WITHOUT offending the Muslims that aren't terrorists.
In other words, it's easier to just not bother.
And yes, the film did get criticised in 1994 for its racial stereotyping. But like I said, the protests were easier to dismiss back then. It would get criticised even more today now that we know (from his political career) how staunchly and unashamedly pro-Israel Arnold Schwarzenegger is. Doesn't matter if he genuinely cares for Israel or is just trying to eclipse his family history. As they say in Batman Begins, his actions will define him. So if he made a movie in 2015 where he mows down dozens of Arabsyou can imagine the feedback.

There's no sign in the entire movie that Aziz and his men have a religious/islamic agenda. In fact they seem to be more of the [secular] PLO type than the ISIS type, citing political reasons (the US meddling in the middle-east) for their actions. Similarly they acquire the atom bombs not as a means to kill but to gain (political) leverage. A group like ISIS would have simply blown them up over big populated cities like NY or LA not over uninhabited islands.
Death solves all problems.

• Stalin

Read this:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

Your statement that "Muslims usually are terrorists though" is false. Of the 1.7 billion Muslims, a very, very small percentage are involved in what could be described as terrorist activity. As for not speaking out about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, this too is false. It just doesn't get reported. Do a Google Search on the subject, and you'll have the proof.

Let's not forget that over 90% of all terrorist deaths are caused by muslim terrorism.

Muslims usually are terrorists though. If not through their actual actions then through their inaction to speak out against atrocities committed by the same people who share their faith. It all equates to the same thing. Mind you, same thing could said about Christians. A strange world we live in.
beep Thracians - Crixus
beep Gauls - Agron

They should have kept it. Genghis Khan was a crazy son of a bitch.

Hollywood will not portray a minority in a negative light anymore. Even Star TRek changed Kahn's ethnicity to portray him as a white guy to suit this new politically correct model. White gentiles are in the cross hairs due to it not being politically correct to have an anti defamation league to defend against negative portrayals .

Even this movie was a bit PC, saying the Crimson Jihad was a splinter group that was extreme even for a Muslim terrorist group.
And the movie is played for more comical effect. Hell, just look at how Aziz meets his end. He gets nailed in the balls by the tail of the Harrier, falls onto the missile, and gets fired into his comrades in the helicopter? This is a MOVIE, not a documentary. And made back in the day when movies didn't have to be dark and brooding to be successful.
"If that woman packed her bags & left me I don't know what I'd dofirst."Norm, "Cheers"

Islamic extremists would have threatened to murder the director and writers and anyone else associated with the film. It's a shame that the film industry backs down to these bullies.
That was all rather thrilling. Anything more cinematographic could scarcely be imagined.

I dont' think it would get the greenlight from the Major Motion Picture Industry today if someone had the balls to write this up and put Islamic/Muslim terrorists as the forefront of the terrorist activity.
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite

It's one of the reasons movies aren't as good anymore. They are too afraid to offend certain people.
Totally agree. They are certainly not afraid of offending christians and jews, people from the south etc, but they won't make movies in this day and age that depicts an islamic terrorist like this movie. Too much political correctness these days.
Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours

@howtragic
Anyone who is offended by this does not get the joke!
Muslims aren't exactly renowned for their sense of humor.

Hello.this movie was tongue-in-cheek.
Everything about it was a spoof. The high speed "horse chase" scenethe ripped "Ahnold" with a flame-throwerthe spies infiltrating a Swiss chaletthe over-the-top terroriststhe "hot" wife just waiting to come out. It was all A JOKE. The whole movie was a goof. It was silly people! Anyone who is offended by this does not get the joke! It was satire making fun of Hollywood action movies; it was just done in a low-key way.
I mean, come on, Tom Arnold is a top CIA agent (omega sector, excuse me)???
People who are offended by the way Muslims are portrayed by Hollywood should absolutely LOVE this movie. I do not get the hate at all.
What scares me is that it is obvious a lot of people did not get that this movie was supposed to be satirical.

Look at movies like The Last Kiss Goodknight (which was pre 9/11) which had some government organization framing some poor muslim guy. YOu see it real life too. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't a 'workplace' indicident.
It's one of the reasons movies aren't as good anymore. They are too afraid to offend certain people.

I'm just curious if this pre-9/11 film got accused of the negative portrayal of muslims as terrorists?
Oh, you bet it did. This movie has about three or four small-type, single-spaced pages in Jack Shaheen's pre-9/11 book
Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People
, which details offensive Muslim and Arab stereotypes in many, many Hollywood films.
True Lies
,
The Delta Force
,
Executive Decision
,
The Siege
and Walt Disney's
Aladdin
all earn a place on Shaheen's "Worst List."
Check out this video on YouTube:
, but pay no attention to the "Zionist conspiracy" description.
The Falcon flies

This message has been deleted.

So, you're saying the script was written, and the film was done filming, after the WTC bombing of Feb 26th 1993, for a film released July 16th, 1994? Interesting.

How fkng stupid are you? This film was made in late 1993 or early 1994 after Islamics bombed the World Trade Center on February 26th 1993 and killed six people and wounded over a thousand others.
DeAd_MiKe_187 wrote:
It's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?

This message has been deleted.

I specified "in America." You just said "in Lebanon."

This message has been deleted.