Lizard_King wrote:

Fussbett wrote:

Lizard_King wrote:

I'm talking about the world's worst escape plan, the world's worst coup plan (we'll sneak into prison, and then revolt from there where the government will surely be afraid to use the big guns on people it wants gone anyway), etc etc.

It was a refugee camp, not a prison, and they didn't want to revolt there, they wanted to escape to the boat which is off the coast of the coastal refugee camp. The coup Fish dudes didn't want them to try for the boat at all. One of us is misunderstanding things. Hopefully I've misunderstood you.

I'm well aware what they called it in the movie, but when "refugee camp" is the polite euphemism for what you are doing, something is wrong. Unless you're really excited about the British government and what they are doing in the movie, it is no more a "refugee camp" than Guantanamo, and a good deal worse.

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the Fish and their coup plan in the second issue I mentioned. Since I doubt the government allows armed insurgents free transit in and out of the "camps", and it is unlikely they would fight their way in to fight their way out, I would imagine they snuck in as well. Which then brings us to their revolt plan, which hinges somehow on the government not taking the most expendable slice of its populace and slaughtering them out of hand. If their goal was to get the refugees killed right away instead of expelled from the country, good job.

If it's the world's greatest airport thriller, that's something though.

Yes, but it's something quite apart from Pan or Lives, for instance. Which is why I don't understand why someone would bring it up as a superior movie in a thread about either of the other two, and yet it keeps coming up. I can see the technical similarities and vague murmurs about dystopia, but that's about it.