Summary of the Key Points
After watching *Welcome to Long Restaurant*, the author felt mixed emotions. Comparing it with *Wolf Warrior 2*, the author pointed out several issues with the film, including double standards in character portrayal (the American military is depicted positively while extremist organizations are shown in a negative light), blurred expressions of war justice (peace is portrayed as mere survival rather than struggle for freedom), and a backward representation of Chinese characters (who are portrayed as unremarkable figures with no distinct personalities). The author expressed a desire for a stronger image of China and a spirit of active resistance.
1. The stark difference in treatment between the American military and extremist organizations
The portrayal of the US and Iranian forces in the film seems to be heavily biased:
- The American military is portrayed as ‘abstractly bad but specifically good’: The atrocities committed by the US in Iraq are presented as a vague backdrop, with no specific soldiers shown killing people. However, the American characters who appear are depicted positively—such as the Chinese-American soldier Tony Wang, who loves feeding cats and whose cat still lingers near his body after he is killed by a bomb. The prison officer is at most portrayed as arrogant but capable of cooking; the method of torturing an extremist leader is as comical as pouring chili water on him.
- Extremist organizations are portrayed as ‘concretely bad and entirely evil’: Every act of cruelty by the extremists is shown in detail, with close-up shots of children being used as human bombs, Ma Junsheng being shot dead, and Saif’s eyes being blinded. This contrast makes it seem to the audience that the US military is there merely to maintain order, and the real culprits are the war itself and the extremists, despite the fact that American military atrocities (such as prisoner abuse and civilian killings) are completely ignored in the film.
2. Peace is not achieved through survival; there is no spirit of resistance in the film
The protagonist Xu Fu’s choice in the film is to simply survive: he goes to Iraq to work as a cook after incurring debt, continues working after being bombed, and eventually escapes to Syria with his child. The author believes this is incorrect—peace is not something that can be waited for; it must be fought for! For example, in *Wolf Warrior 2*, the protagonist Leng Feng takes the initiative to fight and defeats the villain, giving the audience a sense of justice prevailing. In contrast, in *Long Restaurant*, the US military withdraws because they are unable to continue fighting, and Iraq remains in chaos. The protagonist’s survival ending leaves the audience feeling frustrated: “In an aggressive war, neither the invaders’ atrocities nor any resistance are shown—what does that represent?”
3. Chinese characters lack distinctiveness
The characters of Xu Fu and Ma Junsheng could be played by foreigners (such as black chefs) without any issue; they are merely bystanders, failing to reflect China’s situation at the time. In the early 2000s, China was weak, and its embassy in the Yugoslav Federation had just been bombed, leaving people to protest on the streets. Today, China is a significant force in stabilizing the world, but this contrast is completely absent from the film. The author is disappointed that the film does not reflect China’s current strength and resilience.
4. Why do we miss *Wolf Warrior 2*?
The reason for the nostalgia for *Wolf Warrior 2* is that it provided an outlet for anger: the film had a clear enemy and visible acts of resistance, allowing audiences to express their anger towards aggression and injustice. In *Long Restaurant*, there is no clear target for that anger—the US military’s flaws are abstract, and the extremists’ evils are too concrete, leaving viewers feeling helpless.
5. Anti-war films are good, but audiences want more: they want to see China’s strength
The film itself is an excellent anti-war piece, but audience expectations have changed. Twenty years ago, China was powerless and could only watch from the sidelines; now that China can influence global affairs, audiences hope to see Chinese characters as active agents of change. For example, if Xu Fu in the film had used Chinese methods (such as using his culinary skills to unite locals or leveraging Chinese resources to protect children), it would be more in line with China’s current image.
In summary, the problems with *Long Restaurant* are not that it is bad, but that it fails to meet the expectations of today’s audiences. We no longer want to see a reflection of China’s past weakness; we want to see the hope that comes from China’s strength and influence.
(The translation maintains the original Markdown structure, using natural and idiomatic English that fits the context of financial journalism, while adapting the content to suit the target audience.)