ridiculous” in the sense that the principles of international relations are being undermined in their contents to give more emphasis on the unnecessary and the profitable. The following is an enumeration of my top five most ridiculous films about international relations:
Despite the large fanfare, Pearl Harbor (2001) has a lackluster reputation as an international relations film because instead of having a clear understanding of the Pearl Harbor incident, viewers tend to focus on the love story and not the political issue surrounding it. Had the title been altogether different, rather than a significant event in World War II, it would, as critics say, just be another “sappy” romantic film with no real social and academic relevance (The Internet Movie Database (IMDB)). It makes one wonder “Why is the movie entitled Pearl Harbor when the story does not center on the impact and implications of the real incident but on the sensationalized lives of particular individuals?”
The film evidently shows a lack of historical research. Real-life characters have been misrepresented, the weapons and equipment used in the war are not accurately accounted for, and the movie has no respect for proper chronology to the annoyance of many historians. The film is supposedly based loosely on the lives of two soldiers who were childhood friends and later participated in Pearl Harbor (IMDB). It would have been more meaningful if the movie zooms in on their contributions to the war. As it happens, the Pearl Harbor incident does not portray the main characters as witnesses to an actual international political conflict.
Rambo: First Blood, Part II (1985) reflects American revisionist sentiments on the results of the Vietnam War. The film is ridiculous solely in the fact that there seems to be a lot of sourgraping and a bitter longing for “what might have been.” Many Americans still believe that they should have won the war. It is incredible how a poor militant group from a