My wife and I went on a double-date with her sister and said sister’s boyfriend on Monday night. Of all the movies that were playing, this is the only one that all of us had any interest in seeing. Jim and I just wanted to see an action film and the girls wanted to see it because . . . well, Channing Tatum is, apparently, easy on the eyes for them.
Really, I wanted to see the movie because I am a huge fan of James Woods. The man is a genius (literally . . . he’s in Mensa). But he plays such a deliciously wide variety of characters. And his villain here is one that you really feel sorry for. Aside from that, the movie also had the chemistry between the two leads, John Cale (Tatum) and President Sawyer (Foxx), going for it. Their dialogue almost made the movie feel rather “Lethal Weapon-esque”. And I could truly grasp Tatum’s relationship with his daughter. It was played very believably. If watched for what it SHOULD have been, it would be a good action film.
But I can’t watch something on face value, can I?
Why can’t Hollywood make a movie without taking jabs at conservatives? The movie is quick to point out that the villains are right-wing extremists who are angry because the president’s proposed Middle East peace treaty will take money out of the pockets of the people who make the weapons. The exception is Walker (James Woods), who is disenchanted by the death of his son in the military and the fact that the president won’t stand up to the terrorists in the Middle East. Ironically, Woods has always given the impression that he feels this way in real life. So why would he agree to this role that would make this point of view out to be villainous?
Furthermore, there won’t be peace in the Middle East until the Seven Year Treaty is signed (Daniel 9:27). As the movie ends with the countries in the Middle East agreeing to the president’s peace plan, does that make President Sawyer the Antichrist?