When a movie is watched by millions of people, it's wrong to be dismissive of it's influence. "Not to be taken seriously" is the excuse used by John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Tina Fey, while influencing the direction of the country with their leftist propaganda. Everything has influence, even people I don't take seriously, like Britney Spears.

Another show I won't be watching
Hollywood loves to reference source material that fits their propaganda templates, but even if it didn't, they'd just change it, to suit their leftist, social "progressive" purposes.
Jonah Hex was so predictable with it's shoehorned feminist slogans, soul-saving guidance from Native and African Americans, and white male terrorist. I watched a doc called the Alien Saga, and realized you could chart the progress of feminist ideology in pop media with the progression of those films, with the last being, by far, the most worthless.

You would be right about the "PC villains" if it weren't for the fact that they weren't the main antagonist in the first movie. Of course it was the white American businessman, munitions dealer. The Hollywood meme is that all foreign terrorists were forced into that way of life by the evil American military industrial complex and it's inherent imperialism, personified in this movie by the Jeff Bridges character. So that's what leftist Hollywood does, make a minor concession, which is actually no concession at all, that there are Muslim terrorists, and you jump on it like it's a flag to wave.

Tony Stark is a metrosexual character, especially when played by Robert Downey Jr. Also Downey Jr character portrayal staples - morally conflicted personalities, perfect for describing how Hollywood sees successful American businessmen - always morally compromised. Downey's idea of moral conflict is always on his face, while Arnold made a career with the pillar of strength, facial stoicism.
I don't know what committed relationship your talking about, I didn't see it, but then, I was bored by both Iron Man movies. You're talking about irony, and claiming that Arnold's characters don't have the guts to settle down with one woman? While defending the "billionaire playboy" Tony Stark?

I'm not interested in defending any characters produced by the Hollywood propaganda entertainment complex. Arnold worked with one of the looniest of the left, one of the most demonizing of American capitalism, James Cameron. But if we're talking about which character is the least metrosexual, and I was, and the article was, then yea, Arnold is a stark contrast to Adrien Brody in Predators, or Downey Jr's Tony Stark, and even Edward Furlong in T2 - that pairing worked because Furlong was the next gen metrosexual and Arnold was the archaic archetype, not metrosexual.

The article was about the rise of the metrosexual in movie stardom. Something much more closely represented by the bright-eyed liberal having girl talk on his luxurious couch with the leftist Gwenyth and the drug addict hungover from capitalism within the collaterally damaging American industrial complex, than the cigar smoking, conversationally minimalist Arnold in Predator. You go ahead and wannabe whoever.

The only thing that impressed me with Arnold's political career was his speech at the RNC.

If you got American exceptionalism from Iron Man, the movie, then you're a good little consumer, accepting the bone that Hollywood condescends to throw to conservatives. And your comparison stinks, the comparison would be between the characters Arnold portrays and Tony Stark, or else, Arnold and Robert Downey Jr. You're gonna try to tell me RDowneyJr supports American conservatism more than Arnold? But maybe you were talking about the Tony Stark of the comic book, who cares. My comparison was the protagonist of Predator with the protagonist of Predators, some 25 years later, when American culture has continued to devolve into secular humanism and cultural suicide and can't accept an asskicking hero unless his face is constantly coping with the guilt of having to kick ass, as evidenced by Adrien Brody.

So American conservative politicians capitulate to the overwhelming momentum of secular progressive humanism wielded by the significant might of the liberal media in a loose collusion with the leftist university system, once in office? What a revelation.

I agree with you.
Some current examples of taking the race angle too far would be, the current UFC champ tattooing "Brown Pride" across his chest, a critically acclaimed rapper naming himself "Ghostface Killer", or Obama jumping to the conclusion that officer Crowley was racist.
Just to be clear, it's not taking the race angle too far to point out the growing trend of opportunistic bigotry directed at the white man. Seemingly inconsequential propaganda, pushed hard or often enough, will have a real cultural impact. I'm opposed to that trend specifically because it will foster more division.

The contrast between "The Expendables" and "Machete" was classic. Also, there's the metrosexual Tony Stark in Iron Man, and the incessant sympathy face of Adrien Brody in Predators, a stark contrast to Arnold. Eastwood's character in Gran Torino was brilliant, in spite of the painfully cartoonish barber shop scene, because Hollywood is a vacuum for masculine characters.
The leading "men" mentioned in the above article were all white, only because the white population of America is, as of yet, still a majority. Hollywood likes the idea of a more submissive white America, eg, Obama's apology tour and Hollywood's support of the Obama ethic, but Obama's still cool cause he's apologizing for white America, not himself, and his wife will condescend to give America a gold star for electing her husband. This is Hollywood and the American Left's idea of reconciliation and path to assimilation - white America, just give up and accept your role as the impotent and perverse great Satan of history. It also reminds me of the paradox of popularity of socialist rock and capitalist rap. Demonizing America is the faux rebellion of the path of least resistance, and that's cool, and without tooth or backbone, or even the masculinity of Madonna's biceps.

I still think the scariest scene was the early one with the girl in the closet, with an inverted face from being scared to death, like the will to live had been drained from her and had manifested physically by deflating her body, sort of validated the horror of what a ghost could possibly do to a victim physically. At that point in the movie, there is more anticipation and more curiosity about what the antagonist is and what it can do.
Also, I think this film could have done more to push the angle that watching this movie is the same as watching the vhs tape, the one that is integral to the plot. Would have pushed the audience barrier, or pulled the audience into more horror by pulling them into participation.
Naomi Watts is an excellent actress.

I'm opposed to the "enemy of history" that was the Nazi party, and denounce their racist and fascist policies.

I still don't embrace the "gory orgy of wrath" that was Inglorious Basterds, I don't consider it entertainment. Why would I embrace a movie that pornographically celebrated the destruction of human life? I'm glad the Nazis lost. Why would I allow a movie to intimidate me into supporting it, just because they happen to be "killin Nazis"?
I support equality for women, and thought Kill Bill was feminist bloodlust, and not entertaining.
"We" shouldn't be so simplistic as to allow producers of entertainment to construct a straw man choice for us, and thereby reinforce the power of political correctness.
To hell with the Nazis, and to hell with that movie. So naturally, I don't embrace either.
I always oppose fascism, and don't always embrace anti-fascist movies, that is, a lot of them are horrendous for other reasons. And yea, it's apparent to me that the left has more in common with fascism, even if you're more likely to hear the opposite.

Yes, the fact that all of the characters are outside the realm of conventional morality is the most surface level of observations.
Do you not get the concept of sympathetic vs unsympathetic characters? In any story, there is a spectrum from antagonist to protagonist, and in "Predators", the only two characters beyond sympathy, are the whitebread Americans. In case you are too culturally obtuse to realize, they even spell it out, where at one point as they are banding together to figure out a plan to save themselves, the comment is made that the excon white guy shouldn't be spoken to, i.e., turn your back on that human being, he's beyond reform, absolutely delineating his beyond-hope state vs the other characters who are the sympathetic survivalists. The two white characters are completely unsympathetic and pathetic, completely unworthy of respect. That's the cartoonishly heavyhanded stereotypes I was referencing.
Did you not get the premise of the modern American Left embracing rebellion against the establishment? Is it so hard for you to understand that the only characters in this movie that have no possible justification for their actions, and apparently no redeemable qualities, the only characters that are without moral value, are the white American characters? Yes, most of the characters were outside the law, but that doesn't preclude being a sympathetic character, if a justification is offered for that rebellion, as RobRod did in Machete, propagandizing the virtue of illegal immigration. What makes someone completely unsympathetic is the cartoonish character that has a provocative tattoo of his sister, and dreams about raping on coke. The other white character's masculinity is literally the comic relief of the movie, and then in an awkwardly inexplicable turn, he decides to reveal himself to be a serial killer. The respect with which the other characters are treated, the Yakuza making a noble and courageous stand against the predator, the Russian saving the TGrace character, etc, are the stark contrast to the corrupt beyond reform white Americans. You know which characters had no redemption, and which characters deserve no respect? Of course you do, you just want to claim that I am the one with the misinterpretation.
Do you not understand any of the trends in society?
Reinforced stereotypes become archetypes, and therefore affect culture. There are cultures in Europe who chose to ignore the social progressive "humanist" trend, imagining themselves to be above the simplistic concerns of survival, and now are realizing birth rates below replacement - culturally suicidal. Here locally, an 86 yr old white man was stomped to death by two 16 yr old black boys and one 13 yr old black boy, 2 miles from my house. They admitted it was unprovoked and only intended as proof of their toughness. Legally they can't be tried for a hate crime because the victim was white. A sense of entitlement based on victimization coupled with athletic idolatry, reinforced by media stereotypes of white America as imperialistic, racist, and the great Satan of history, creates an environment where children would think it within the realm of possibility to think of such a crime.
I don't put a lot of stock in the significance of the movie Predators, it is you that were upset that I could possibly make such an assertion. Granted, Predators is a minuscule part of this situation, I was merely saying it was the most comical version of the Hate Whitey stereotypes I have seen, and there is an opportunistic loose collusion of forces that are more than happy to propagandize the evil of White America.
You realize you're upset that I pointed it out, mockingly requesting an explanation, as if certain that there would be no validity? You realize that it is you that doesn't understand the forces of political correctness and the current form of ideological oppression, ie, your point of view represents the path of least resistance?
If you took a break from the condescension, ;), ;), friend, I'm confident you could understand.

I didn't embrace that gory orgy of wrath. I can get satisfaction that the enemy of history was vanquished without masturbating to their denigration, the way Tarantino seems to.