Home Cool News Coaxial Reviews Zone Chat Contact Us Sign in

Talkbacks


by monkeygiles
Sep 5th, 2008
04:48:56 AM
Trailer looked baddddddddddd
by barnaby jones
Sep 5th, 2008
05:08:13 AM
But i'll always give Zucker a go.
the man with two brains!
by ironic_name
Sep 5th, 2008
05:13:17 AM
one of martin's best, behind pt and a

by kentrel
Sep 5th, 2008
05:21:51 AM
Its a good review, but from your description many of the jokes just ring hollow. Comedy is about exposing some kind of truth under a different perspective, and there's just no truth to the fact that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves. Nor is it true he was anti-war. Lincoln is famous for saying that he was keeping the union together, if it meant slavery or not. The only war that was necessary in the past 8 years was the invasion of Afghanistan, and that was completely ignored by the right. To imply as it seems this movie is doing that "sometimes war IS necessary" applies to Iraq is just not going to make many intelligent people (right or left) laugh. I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion but just pointing out that when you base your jokes on a stereotype or false view they just ring hollow, and as a result, they lose most of their comic value.
glad this movie won't be getting a theatrical release here in au
by ironic_name
Sep 5th, 2008
05:22:07 AM
bleh, though aclu zombies sounds funny.
I don't know, but..
by BartholomewNeff
Sep 5th, 2008
05:26:02 AM
I'll give it a chance. If Trey Parker and Matt Stone can mock Moore then Zucker should be able to as well. I plan on seeing it.
911 casualities: around 2,974 , Dead Iraq civilians: 94,781
by David Cloverfield
Sep 5th, 2008
05:26:32 AM
I'm curious about this film, but the 911 sobbing has to stop. It was a tragedy, especially for a country that never experienced and attack, but c'mon, you guys shredded almost 100000 civilians in retribution against a country that had nothing to do with 911.
When I say never, I mean rarely
by David Cloverfield
Sep 5th, 2008
05:27:10 AM
Ballsy review!
by theBigE
Sep 5th, 2008
05:27:11 AM
Thanks for the review - but you're going to get the talk-backers panties in a bunch. Look for 1000 whiny posts on here by noon today.
"Kennedy Democrat" means 40 years out of touch.
by Flim Springfield
Sep 5th, 2008
05:58:28 AM
Thats Ignorance, y-y-y-our ignorant
by tomdolan04
Sep 5th, 2008
05:59:00 AM
Wontcha climb with me, up my wishing treeeee?
Being pro-war puts you on Hitler's side, not against him.
by Flim Springfield
Sep 5th, 2008
06:02:22 AM
The only thing worse than Republicans who think they're funny...
by Thick McRunFast
Sep 5th, 2008
06:08:07 AM
...are other Republicans who think those people are funny. It's like one big incestuous tribute to mediocrity and lowered expectations. I suspect this will be funny in the way that the "_______ Movie" movie parodies have been - which is to say, funny to the lowest common denominator who have no idea of the concept. So suck it, and fuck you for commandeering your name from Steve Martin, who also used to be funny.
kentrel
by Jinxo
Sep 5th, 2008
06:12:05 AM
From the write up it doesn't sound like the movie was trying to Lincoln was anti-war. It was saying there is a section where we see an alternate history showing what would have happened if Lincoln out-and-out refused to go to war.

"the Socialist appeasers have run away with the Donkey party"
by Thick McRunFast
Sep 5th, 2008
06:13:04 AM
Mmmmm, that's some good stupid right there. And one more "fuck you" for comparing this to DUCK SOUP, which also proves you know nothing about comedy. Jesus Christ, Mori - where did you dig up this mouth-breather?
"Tiny voice"
by Doctor Land
Sep 5th, 2008
06:13:19 AM
'cept talk radio, Fox News, knee jerk operatives on almost every cyber board
Every other country abolished slavery without a war.
by Flim Springfield
Sep 5th, 2008
06:13:19 AM
The US could have too.
Duck Soup was anti-war and anti-nationalism.
by Flim Springfield
Sep 5th, 2008
06:16:38 AM
This movie sounds like the opposite of Duck Soup.
Bravest thing I've seen in a while...
by The Nihilist
Sep 5th, 2008
06:19:21 AM
...not the movie (though that's brave too), no. Dr. Hfuhruhurr's review, now THAT was brave. To actually say an encouraging word about this movie in this den of socialist wankers who live to log on to this and other lefty sites (when they can remember their password, that is, "glaucoma medicine" tends to mess with short term memory) and spew a bunch of leftard hate speech. You've got some big hanging ones yourself, Doc, to post that review on this site of socialist ignorance. Good one on ya.
Ummmm, have you ever read Mark Twain or Jonathon Swift?
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
06:21:56 AM
Sure, they're scathing, but they also can't be easily fit into a political ideology. Twain could simultaneously praise democracy while fearing the stupidity of the masses would ruin the country. Swift similarly defended the downtrodden but was also even more skeptical of Democracy. Their political leanings aren't as obvious as this film. Please don't make the comparison and next time know what you're talking about.
Just a tip:
by Thick McRunFast
Sep 5th, 2008
06:22:05 AM
If you still use the word "socialist" with a straight face, you're an idiot. You're welcome.
My problem with this review is less about the politics...
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
06:30:00 AM
than about how he mis-characterizes certain works of art. I've already mentioned Twain and Swift, and several others have pointed out that Duck Soup is off the mark.

I'm not sure this guy really understands political art. Chinua Achebe once wrote something along the lines of the following: unless you are willing to criticize your own political leanings as well as the opposition's, then you're not making art you are making propaganda. That's why the Daily Show can spend a week destroying the Democrats and then a week destroying the Republicans. They might choose one side over the other but they realize that both need to be mocked.

Chamberlain Shining Shoes
by jacksparness
Sep 5th, 2008
06:31:27 AM
OK, we can all agree that appeasement was a bad idea. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the US were isolationist at that point and Chamberlain was doing what he felt was right for his people - they didn't want another war in which their sons and fathers were killed all over again. Wow, i'm slightly offended by that! I'm more patriotic about ol' blighty than I thought!
I honestly can't tell if the
by comedian_x
Sep 5th, 2008
06:41:25 AM
reviewer is using hyperbole to stir debate or is really that dumb. Calling yourself a "Reaganite Republican" doesn't win you any points -- people from his administration were the architects of the neo-conservative movement -- they are one in the same.
rbatty024
by GetEveryone
Sep 5th, 2008
06:43:44 AM
As I read your comment I was literally looking to my copy of Things Fall Apart at the side of my desk. It certainly conveys a similar idea to the one you spoke of.

While I don't quite agree with the Empire blog which suggests this may be the worstmovie ever, it certainly looks piss-poor.
The only one I hear laughing is Michael Moore
by No Respectable Gentleman
Sep 5th, 2008
06:45:38 AM
He'll get a lot of mileage out of this straight-to-the-time-capsule garbage.
Dead Iraq civilians: 94,781
by TheBloop
Sep 5th, 2008
06:54:12 AM
And about 95% of the number comes at the hands of other iraqis, or jihadists from other muslim countries. Why the hell do you think the Sunnis turned against the foreign terrorists? Because they were tired of the kids getting blown up purpose as candy was being handed out to them, or their neighbors getting beheaded for driving a truck full of food.
The ads reminded me of "Postal"
by tonagan
Sep 5th, 2008
06:54:45 AM
Why, I'm not sure, but I got the same vibe.
Funny
by CloseLight
Sep 5th, 2008
07:08:52 AM
Okay sounds decently funny up until the 9/11 scene. Because mass murder of civilians is so funny. Oh wait he's trying to make a point so its not suppose to be funny? I guess in Airplane when there was that serious part...wait no that never happened. Or in Naked Gun when all those people died...nope didn't happen either. So its a bunch of slap stick comedy up until we get hit with the crowbar that is 9/11. That will crash like a lead balloon. You want to make a comedy about left, killing a few left scared cows (what ever the hell that means) fine. But then shifting gears and trying to instill a serious pause is not going to work.
Is Their a Market for Such an Overtly Republican Film?
by kevinwillis.net
Sep 5th, 2008
07:11:11 AM
I dunno. I doubt it. But I'm going to see it.

"Kevin 'Hercules' Sorbo plays an acclaimed feature director who wins an Oscar for his film, 'That McCarthy Sure Was Bad' which I believe Participant Media is actually making as we speak."

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. Damn, I want to see this movie. I might be the only one in the theater, but I'm going to see it.

I'm a rock-ribbed Republican. I loved Airplane! and Top Secret! and "Police Squad" was great . . . I liked the look of the trailer. I'm betting I'll get my money's worth out of this movie. I may be the only one, but I'll be there.
Taking 9/11 Seriously in a Funny Movie
by kevinwillis.net
Sep 5th, 2008
07:13:58 AM
Doesn't sound like such a bad thing. To some degree, I agree with some of the libs that say we need to "get over it". While I don't think we should forget, I think there comes a time where we should be able to review it and discuss it in different contexts, not all of them grave and solemn. I think it would be hard to make a 9/11 Comedy, but treating it peripherally or having it as a serious moment in a slapstick comedy is not inherently a bad idea. Might not work in the movie, but I don't think it's inherently a bad idea.
"We're scaring all the old folks!"
by Zarles
Sep 5th, 2008
07:21:24 AM
Dude, you ARE all the old folks. This review read like somebody's Dad crashing his kids' slumber party to tell everyone how cool he still thinks Howdy Doody is.
kevinwillis.net
by CloseLight
Sep 5th, 2008
07:24:55 AM
Yeah because there are so many Pearl Harbor comedies out there (NOT a Michael Bay references). You can go with 1941 I guess, and that came out 40 some years later. It not a matter of getting over it, its just isn't funny no matter how you juggle it. And it will stick out like a sore thumb in this movie.
Good point, Get Everyone.
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
07:25:08 AM
Achebe didn't need to portray African culture as a perfect utopia in order to criticize European imperialism. Okonkwo was a severely flawed main character, but he was more interesting because of it. Art shouldn't dumb its subject down, it should make them even more complex.
I plan on seeing this.
by cripeman
Sep 5th, 2008
07:37:19 AM
Even though the reviewer seems to have seething hatred for liberals.

He doesn't sling shit to suppress points of view. He seems to do it cause he wants to be a prick.

9/11
by Jerri Blank
Sep 5th, 2008
07:54:02 AM
A serious visit to ground zero in a comedy? Um...O.K. And Zucker does know that all of the hijackers on that day were from Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, right?
Wow...
by petewitham
Sep 5th, 2008
07:55:00 AM
You're really into balls.
I'm pretty sure that Michael Bay...
by gorydon
Sep 5th, 2008
07:58:56 AM
Mel Gibson, and Chris Nolan are making films for the conservative crowd nowadays. And even though Hollywood releases a new anti-war/anti-right movie every couple of months, they never do well at the box office and they really haven't been winning Oscars either.
So instead of having a go at the British
by elab49
Sep 5th, 2008
08:03:25 AM
does Patton also visit the millions upon millions of Americans who were vehemently against going to war and made sure the US didn't bother helping anyone, including itself, till it was too late to do anything else? Because it was someone else's problem? Because they didn't care about right or wrong and the presence of evil in the world as long as it wasn't on their front door? Does it make clear WHEN that idiot Chamberlain screwed up? Or is it just another piece of dumb revisionism.
the right does NOT know comedy
by brassai2003
Sep 5th, 2008
08:12:42 AM
Look, this movie will play well to the Git 'er Done masses but flop everywhere else. Why? because the right just can't get comedy down with out being in your face over the head mocking of something. Fox tried, and failed miserably, to do a "Daily Show" and all it was obvious put downs with no nuiance and just dumb. Like their comedy. hahaha! Some Ay-rab stands up and yells "mohammed" and all these other Ay-rabs stand up! bwahhahah. Y'all see that? And then them liberals want to git rid of the Fourth of July! Ain't it the truth? bwhahahah...Michael Moore's fat! Hells Yeah! For more proof fo this you only need to listen to Sarah Palin's speech. NO DIGNITY. NO GRACE. Just bwahaha sarcasm. Maggie Thatcher had grace and eloquence and she was more far right than palin. I love Zucker, but sorry, this looks way beneath him.
PS
by brassai2003
Sep 5th, 2008
08:15:18 AM
Slavery was a economic burden on the South. It would have been gone away naturally. But any excuse for white trash to get a laugh at the blacks expense... "Oh yeah, but Zucker's a DEMOCRAT" doesn't make it right though.
Does Michael Moore make Republicans that angry?
by speed
Sep 5th, 2008
08:17:00 AM
Do republicans sit at home and just seeth? Because that what it seems like this movie is all about. Cashing in on the absolute hatred for a single man who seems to have got the goat of the entire conservative fanbase.

it will be interesting to see how well this film does to be honest. I bet you fox network hawks this film like a motherfucker. is it a fox production?

gorydon
by waldo
Sep 5th, 2008
08:19:52 AM
You are right about Michael Bay and Mel Gibson giving the neo-cons what they want, but I don't see Nolan that way. I don't think The Dark Knight is conservative, if anything, It's more of a cautionary tale on the abuse of power, even when It is done with good intentions.
I'm pretty sure Michael Moore helped Bush...
by gorydon
Sep 5th, 2008
08:24:38 AM
Win his second term. Who else could get the base united so strongly?
FINALLY!
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
08:31:48 AM
I've thought this for years and as I was reading this, mouth agape, I was thinking: somebody actually sounds like a genuine human being when they are reviewing a movie based on politics! Everything this man says sounds well thought out, intelligent, and completely true. It makes me embarrassed for Democrats! Conservative movies are basically non existent today and god forbid when one is trying to be made, it gets shit all over before it even comes out. You can't even admit to being a conservative without 50 people either talking irrational shit to you, or thinking you are the devil! These people don't even know why they are mad! Like they have some stigma that says all Republicans are evil people because Bush is evil, but they don't even know why Bush is evil. I don't even think most Democrats these days know the history of their party of why they vote Democrat! I am in college and see the Liberal bias in 90% of all my classes. It exists. They teach you that war in every form is bad and that World War I and II were both entered by America for Greed. I am not joking! It's about time someone actually started voicing the opposite opinion for once in Hollywood and I can't agree more about the hypocritical nature of this attitude about the opposite point of view. There is a reason Fahrenheit 9/11 is over 90% on Rottentomatoes and if I was to make a documentary about 9/11 from a Conservative perspective and show it only to a room full of Republicans, I'd probably get the same reaction.
Waldo...
by gorydon
Sep 5th, 2008
08:34:57 AM
I agree about the abuse of power. But they're so many similarities with our current situation and the Dark Knight just to think it was an accident. Batman goes after a terrorist (Joker) and in the end everyone ends up hating him for doing it (He takes the blame to save Dents reputation/legacy). He even wiretaps the city, for a time, and goes into a foreign country and extracts a criminal. It seems like Nolan is saying Batman, like Bush, is a necessary evil. We expect him to save our asses if any shit goes down but at the same time we despise the man and can blame him to appease our sense of justice. I don't know. For the record I'm not a Bush supporter.
Socialist appeasers?
by kafka07
Sep 5th, 2008
08:45:32 AM
Socialist and liberal these days have taken on different meanings and you really can't equate the two anymore. I don't know about socialist appeasers in the donkey party; all socialists I've known refuse to associate themselves with either of the two major parties. And are there really lefty bloggers out there saying “How dare David Zucker make this film!?” It's hard for me to believe that any lefty would feel threatened by it. Most leftists believe in freedom of speech anyway. As for Hollywood being some kind of liberal status quo, nobody there spoke out against the war for years except Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and they were often attacked and slandered for it. There are gaps in Hfuhruhurr's understanding of the social and political atmosphere in this country. I guess I'll give him some credit for not being a raving mad neocon. As for scaring all the old folks, are you sure you want to do that? Most of the attendees, including McCain, at the RNC this week have been old white people. Hfuhruhurr is more suited to be a Reagan than a Brando. Much like the thousands of anti-war protesters on the streets of St.Paul this week, Marlon Brando clamored and marched for social justice and civil rights.
Gorydon...
by DivisionPost
Sep 5th, 2008
08:49:33 AM
That's an interesting theory, actually. But where do you think Harvey Dent fits in this analogy? Still working on that?
Is Their a Market for Such an Overtly Republican Film?
by Neo Con Snake Plissken
Sep 5th, 2008
08:50:53 AM
Yes, proven by films like "The Dark Knight", "300", "The Transformers" and "National Treasure". These films are not Republican though. They are traditionally American Conservative in Philosophy… …and they made a shit load of money, which means that people seemed to like them. On the other hand, Films such as "Redacted", "Lions for Lambs", "Stop Loss" and "War, Inc.", along with many other movies of the same philosophy, made no money. Why? Because at least 60% of the country realizes that Socialism (or Liberalism, if your prefer) doesn't work and we reject it. So, whine, scream, and yell all you want. You’re still going to loose in November. Oh, and Film Springfield… Mr. “Being pro-war puts you on Hitler's side, not against him.” And “Every other country abolished slavery without a war. The US could have too.” I’ve read some really ridiculous statements on this site, but yours takes the cake. Congratulations on being an uneducated troglodyte. Oh wait, that would be an insult to uneducated troglodytes.
The film looks like utter crap.
by The Gospel According to Bastardface
Sep 5th, 2008
08:52:45 AM
And Republicans can't lampoon liberalism, because the jokes falls back on them. Common sense prevails with what's funny and what's not and this movie won't work as it doesn't get it. Besides poking fun at Michael Moore is as safe as poking fun at Bush. There is NOTHING about this movie that is ballsy. It's just stupid. And not funny.
Jerri Blank
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
08:55:03 AM
You know, it's very possible that a lot of these terrorists were taken out covertly. Fuck, isn't it possible Bin Laden is already dead and we just don't want to make the ass hole a martyr? Has it even been confirmed he's still alive? The Government gets all this shit for homeland security and all that but there hasn't been another terrorist attack in America since 9/11. Isn't that a good thing? Maybe if some environmentalists would let us drill for oil in certain arctic places, we wouldn't have to obtain it elsewhere. I'm sorry America is a great place that depends on oil for the meantime so that people like farmers can actually work and provide everyone with the enormous amount of food we all enjoy. We take a lot of shit as Americans from the rest of the world but if you look at what kind of archaic bullshit is going on all over the globe, maybe they should shut the fuck up. Until they need us to help them again and then it's: "America! We love you!"
One criticism of Dr. Hfuhruhurr's review
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
08:55:25 AM
He goes into the review with the attitude that he's going to be attacked for it, and thus writes a review that defends itself before an attack even happens. That's a poor tactic. He'd have been better off doing his review, discussing the storyline and praising Zucker's "balls", and then have a defense ready if needed (which could've been tacked on to the end of the essay with an UPDATED notice later), or defend in talkback. The way it's written now just does not communicate effectively why the movie is worth seeing (having balls is not a justification for paying money to see a movie). Championing Free Speech only gets you to the point where you're not outside the theatre protesting; it doesn't get you into the theatre itself. Dr. Hfuhruhurr should've spent more time on that.
At the same time in TDK there is the allegorical...
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
08:55:30 AM
ferry situation. Should we sacrifice a bunch of criminals to save regular citizens? This appears to be an allegory for Guantanamo Bay. The film appears to be saying that even if all of those who are locked are guilty (and there's some debate about that) then they still deserve basic human rights (i.e. no torture and habeas corpus).

Also, remember when the Joker says that no one cares when a truckload of military men are blown up so long as it's not them? Think about how many conservatives claim we haven't been attacked since 9/11 when our soldiers are facing attacks daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's acceptable to sacrifice soldier's lives so long as it not ours. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. All of these deaths would have been preventable if the majority of Americans believed that the life of a soldier and the life of an Iraqi are of equal worth to their own.

Sure, there are moments when the film is problematic, but I think the majority of the movie supports a liberal point of view. After all, Batman concedes that Dent was the better man because he was capable of fighting evil within the system.

We have been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11.
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
08:57:38 AM
It was the anthrax attack. You may have heard of it. It may not have been at the hands of Muslim extremists, but it was still a terrorist. Besides, it would have been one hundred percent preventable if Bush was competent and increased security over our own bio-weapons.
rbatty024: That's a silly thing to say
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:00:31 AM
One could easily say that if Clinton had been competent and increased security over our own bio-weapons, Bush wouldn't have had to worry about it.
Also, liberals and war.
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
09:02:43 AM
Liberals are the only ones who can competently fight war when needed. I'm not a pacifist, but I think most wars are unnecessary. However, we would have been screwed if a conservative like Hoover was still in office at the offset of WWII and remember that the Civil War was about the more liberal North kicking the shit out of the conservative South (remember, the war was in part about civil rights).

Thank God a conservative wasn't in office during those two moments in history or else the U.S. would have been screwed.

Dent's endorsement of the Dictator makes him more
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:02:47 AM
right-leaning than left-leaning. In Roman times, often the Dictator would be appointed by the aristocratic classes when the populist classes were having issues. Don't recall all the incidences off the top of my head, but I believe a Dictator was appointed in Roman Republic times more often due to domestic issues than foreign military issues.
rbatty024: That's an even sillier thing to say
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:06:11 AM
The Civil War part, not the WWII part (you may be right there). Lincoln was definitely more conservative than Douglas. Emancipation was a secondary issue for Lincoln at the onset of the War; Unionism was his first priority. I recommend reading Battle Cry of Freedom, it's the best book I've found for the period leading up to the Civil War.
Kafka07...
by DivisionPost
Sep 5th, 2008
09:07:21 AM
I believe it, actually. Look, I fall to the left in politics, enough that I'm rabidly against McCain in the general. However, I totally believe that there are crazies on both sides. For every sane, rational, friendly liberal out there, there's a Daily KOS, a Participant Media, a Michael Moore, or a Charlie Sheen (not that I'm calling out the former two as 9/11 Truthers). Same with conservatives. There are sane, cool conservative-leaning fellas like Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, Dennis Miller, and even (from what little I know) Shepard Smith. And then there's Bill O'Reilly, who seems like a nice enough guy until you get him started on facts. In every war (so to speak), there are heroes and villains on both sides. By the way, I'm in full support of this movie. I'm not sure if I'm gonna laugh that much, but the good Doctor's right. It's a liberal Hollywood, and while I don't doubt that a change needs to come, Republicans and conservatives can make some interesting counterpoints to our own arguments and it's good to see somebody try to come out for that side. If the movie isn't one bald-faced lie after another (which, as this past Nazi rally/Republican Convention has shown, is right out of the neo-con playbook), I'll cheer for it.
A CYA review?
by BigSteve03
Sep 5th, 2008
09:08:23 AM
Everyone know's that this is a pretty far left site, and the cynic in me thinks this review was posted first, just so that when all the other contributers here lambast this movie with so much cringe worthy hate, they can say "look we posted one positive review, so we're showing both sides"
The word "evil"
by kafka07
Sep 5th, 2008
09:08:48 AM
Alucinor, I've noticed something about the use of the word evil in this country, especially the political use of it, and it's that republicans are the only ones that use it. Now please don't go and say that I'm an ignorant insensitive democrat because I'm not even a democrat and definitely not a liberal. I think the use of the word evil oversimplifies the horrors and the suffering that go on in this world. I believe the lack of understanding that comes with the "evil" mentality makes bad situations in this world a lot worse. Even religious leaders in this country have criticized the political use of the word. It is not a word to be thrown about. Contrary to what you said, I do not believe you are the devil, because I don't believe in the devil. I do however perfectly know of all the reasons why I believe Bush is a war criminal and should be impeached according to our country's constitution; and of the many other broken laws and crimes against humanity (electoral fraud and hurricane Katrina anyone?) his administration has blatantly committed.
RE: My Last Post
by DivisionPost
Sep 5th, 2008
09:13:08 AM
Yeah, Michael Moore is a 9/11 Truther. His next film will mark his second trip to the fiction well (after Canadian Bacon), and it will be a biopic on Dylan Avery.

Yeah, of course, I meant to distance Charlie Sheen from everybody else. I just added to my list and forgot to change the number. Sorry about that.

Chrth...
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
09:13:19 AM
As far as TDK, I'm not saying that both sides aren't presented (that's why it's a fun film to discuss), but I do believe there are probably more liberal sentiments in that film than conservative. Sure, Batman is treated like a necessary evil, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement and it is hardly suggesting that someone like Batman should exist within our government.

As far as Clinton, he wasn't president when 3,000 civilians were killed on U.S. soil. When that happened Bush should have realized we needed to keep a tighter lid on our own weapons. He didn't and thus more people died because of terrorism even after 9/11.

Besides, Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda long before Bush lifted a finger to stop them. He bombed their training camps and worked with other countries to try and get Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything in his first year in office to keep the pressure against Al Qaeda, even when he was given a memo stating that Bin Laden planned on attacking within the U.S. and was warned by Richard Clarke. As I've noted before, Bush deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11. He is a truly incompetent president.

'that republicans are the only ones that use it'
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:15:05 AM
So when the DU and Kos call Bush 'Hitler', they're talking about his artistic skill?
rbatty024: You're missing my point
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:18:54 AM
"Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda long before Bush lifted a finger to stop them"
chrth...
by DivisionPost
Sep 5th, 2008
09:19:31 AM
Clearly they're referring to what an evocative writer he is.
Dammit, I tagged my own post
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:21:23 AM
Crap, my point was, the facts can easily be spun both ways. Assigning blame to either Bush or Clinton just causes an argument with no possible resolution, so it's pointless to do so.
rbatty024
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
09:21:41 AM
Fighting within the system can be taken both ways politically... you can either be a fuck the system leftist revolutionary, or a right wing vigilante. I suppose it depends on the circumstance. I don't think The Dark Knight was intended to have any politics in mind... it's just about wanting to see the good guy who doesn't break the law win... which we see is damn near impossible. As for soldiers dying in Iraq... they signed up willingly. Soldiers make it so that terrorist attacks don't happen. I'm not just talking about soldiers in Iraq. A firemen doesn't complain about how dangerous his job is... he knew when he signed up he was going to be running into fires! We aren't sacrificing anyone's life... THE SOLDIERS SACRIFICE THEIR OWN LIVES! This is what makes them heroes! Our soldiers do not murder innocent civilians for the hell of it. The enemy has made it impossible to differentiate them from the civilians. While there may be isolated incidents, this is not the purpose of the American Armed Forces. Why does nobody talk shit about the terrorists for using such dirty, inhumane tactics and instead focus on the soldiers forced to defend themselves. We are in a war... you can either agree or disagree but they are our enemy. We are trying to make Iraq Democratic so that this inhumane bullshit will stop and that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the rest of the world can modernize on their own and stop this childish nonsense. If Iraq needs a kick in the ass to get it's act together, so be it. If I learned anything from Star Trek, it's that technology and modernization stops hunger and brings peace. Just because you become a modern society, it doesn't mean you have to forget about the past. Picard and Kirk sure as fuck didn't. They even disobeyed the prime directive when they had to!
"If I learned anything from Star Trek"
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
09:26:00 AM
Sometimes I love this board, and sometimes it drives me insane.
I respect your opinion, sir
by Magic Rat
Sep 5th, 2008
09:26:04 AM
but if this movie isn't funny, the satire will just come across as whining, and nothing in the trailer (save for the self-praise banner of Zucker) made me laugh.

I have a feeling this will the celluloid equivilent of a political convention - a chance for one side to yuck it up with angry barbs that only their group will find funny.
Will There be a PMRC label on this movie?
by Guy Gaduois
Sep 5th, 2008
09:28:55 AM
Damnable censoring conservatives!!

What?

Civil War
by Sam_Keith_Wannabe
Sep 5th, 2008
09:28:57 AM
So he compares the American Civil War to the war in Iraq? LOL That's gonna be well received.
Chrth, no I understand your point...
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
09:29:21 AM
but when Clinton was fighting terrorism it was an overseas threat to our troops stationed overseas. That doesn't mean you don't protect the homeland (a strong but competent offense is often a good defense) It was only through Bush's incompetence that it became much more of a homeland problem. Who has more of a duty to protect against homeland terrorism: the president who has successfully kept Al Qaeda from a homeland attack or the one has suffered a homeland attack? 9/11 did change certain things, but unfortunately Bush didn't understand what those changes were and thus dragged his feet when protecting U.S. citizens.

This comes down to what is foreseeable. It was less foreseeable for Clinton that years after he left office someone would use our own bioweapons to attack U.S. citizens, but for Bush this was readily foreseeable because we had just suffered a terrible U.S. attack.

Why so serious
by batjac
Sep 5th, 2008
09:31:38 AM
Clearly they had to cover up that Harvey Dent was Two Face in order to give Gotham hope. It was the right choice for Batman. Wrong talk back?
kafka07
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
09:38:53 AM
I promise I won't start name calling. Calling the terrorists evil just makes it easier to see them as the bad guys... I for one do see them as evil. I also see serial killers as evil. I have seen movies trying to humanize terrorists by explaining how they got to be that way... fine. You can say that about a serial killer or a gang member or anyone else that murders people. That doesn't change the fact that they kill people. If their country would develop itself and have a stable government, maybe kids would have an alternative to blowing themselves up for God... like an education? Shows like The Wire, which I like by the way, try to show that the city is fucked up and force the kids into this lifestyle. I get that... but there are just too many characters on the show that have the ability to get the fuck out of Baltimore and have an actual life, but for either pride, greed, or just plain lazyness, they stay. Can't these people get 4 friends together, take a car across country, or even a bus, all get jobs at Mcdonalds, and live in a condo or an apartment somewhere violence free? Even Omar was living it up before he had to go back for revenge and get himself killed. I don't believe that people are trapped anywhere in a modern society.
ZOMG Politics!!!
by Sam_Keith_Wannabe
Sep 5th, 2008
09:39:05 AM
Last time I checked this was just a movie. From the sounds of it, it's not going to be a very good movie either. Why are you numb nuts arguing about whether liberals or conservatives are better people. You both suck in my opinion. Go to a political blog to have your pissing contest and let people who are interested in movies talk.
isn't THIS MOVIE "a hissy fit about Fahrenheit 9-11"?
by Vern
Sep 5th, 2008
09:40:18 AM
I still don't get why right wingers are so hung up on Michael Moore. A fuckin documentary director is your boogie man? Most of my lefty friends hate him too. He only makes one movie every couple years and his last one was about fucking health care. Yet they fear him crawling out from under their beds and forcing them to gay marry. It's bizarre.

Also, this movie sounds ridiculously terrible, but I feel bad for Dr. H having to defend the very existence of it. Of course Republicans should be allowed to have their politics in movies, whether they are crappy or not. It was indeed ballsy for him to make a POSTAL type independent movie instead of his usual type of garbage. Of course, part of the ballsiness is the understanding that he will have to accept criticism of the points he makes, so we also can't pretend that any criticism of the movie is censorship or some shit.

Fireproof-'Libs have no idea what conservatives are like'
by Richard Cranium
Sep 5th, 2008
09:40:49 AM
There are certainly some on the left who see all Conservatives as ak-47 toting rednecks, or corrupt asshole businessmen. There are also some on the right who see all on the left as whiny hippie douchebags or people skimming off the welfare system. The people who make these stereotypes about those on the other side are one in the same. So way to fall into your own stereotype there, pal.
chrth
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
09:52:12 AM
What's wrong with Star Trek? Too nerdy for a guy posting on a movie site? Star Trek is more relevant than any other reference I could possibly make considering the technical accomplishments in the real world that have been made because of its inspiration. Star Trek is genius because it envisions a future that is apolitical. Whatever your political viewpoint, it doesn't matter when you watch the show. They make decisions based on logic and sometimes human irrationality, but it's always an explanation that is smart, and debated. Star Trek is the future we all want to happen regardless of politics. If you are going to act like you are in 3rd grade and snicker when someone mentions Star Trek, then I ask: why are you posting on a site with the rest of us nerds debating this issue... why do you care?
An outsiders view
by Papa Lazaru
Sep 5th, 2008
09:52:52 AM
As one of what I presume to be thousands of non US citizens who use this site. I can honestly say I don't really give a shit about American politics. Policies , perhaps , but politics and parties , not really . As such I can watch the trailer purely as a film fan and nothing else, and guess what . It aint funny . Plain and simple . Regardless of what side of the divide you sit on , you cant honestly say this looks funny . Funny shouldn't have to be explained , or rely on some assumptions on your political persuasions. Funny is funny. This , from what I have seen , is not . Thank you and goodnight .
South Park..
by GravitysRainbow
Sep 5th, 2008
09:55:55 AM
doesnt just stick to one side. they nail everyone
Vern
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
09:57:34 AM
I do hate Michael Moore... but I don't think he's the Boogie man. He's just the best example of the stereotypical Liberal that most conservatives are trying to say isn't a good thing. Liberals always mention Bush or Bill o' Reilly when they talk about stereotypical conservatives so I guess it goes both ways.
Alucinor: You read my comment wrong
by chrth
Sep 5th, 2008
10:00:11 AM
Re-read it, placing equal emphasis on both parts
Both Vietnam and Somalia were a group effort.
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
10:02:15 AM
Both conservatives and liberals really screwed those two up. The point I was trying to make was that despite Republicans talking tough, they do not have a monopoly on patriotism through warfare. It was the dems who kicked the shit out of Hitler.

If it makes you feel any better, it was smart of Bush the first to not enter Baghdad and destabilize the country. I disagreed with him on many, many issues, but at least he wasn't as wholesale incompetent as his son.

chrth
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
10:08:32 AM
I was assuming my talking about Star Trek was driving you insane. I apologize. You're not going to make me kiss your ass like Jesse Jackson are you? Yaaaa Apologiiize.
Clinton and bin Laden
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
10:12:51 AM
rbatty, How can you say that Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda? It is well known that he was told that bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States. They had footage of Al Qaeda training. They knew where he was and what he was up to. But when they asked him if we should go get him he refused. The only thing he was trying to save was his own political career. If he had went to war with al Qaeda, then he would have been looked at the same as Bush is now. He knew that, and that is why he refused to do anything about it. That's the Democrat way. "Let's give the people what they want instead of what is actually needed". Nobody wanted to go to war, even if it was needed, so we didn't. As for the Anthrax attacks being years after Clinton. You must remember that Bush did not take office until 2001 which was the same year as 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Bush didn't really have much time to do anything before it happened. These things weren't planned overnight. They were planned over years, thus more than likely during the Clinton administration.
Vern...
by Sparhawk38
Sep 5th, 2008
10:18:41 AM
Is correct. I would be Democrat if labels really described the party. I don't think Republicans are generally Republican or that Democrats are generally Democrats, although there representatives of those ideals in each party. The thing that is frustrating is how "Pro-Wrestling" it is. All kinds of rhetoric and very little action. Real republicans are for more local control and less government, yet that has never happened in a Republican led government in my lifetime. Both parties really do about the same things when they get into office. I am more liberal than conservative, but regarding this movie I only care if it is funny or well made or entertaining or both.
They weren't only pulled out by Clinton.
by rbatty024
Sep 5th, 2008
10:19:40 AM
There was a massive Republican effort criticizing Somalia. They claimed it was nation building (where was that criticism before the Iraq war).

Obidawsn, Clinton never knew where Bin Laden was and he never called off an attack on Bin Laden. These are fabricated incidents they used in that Path to 9/11 made for tv film, not historical incidents. Richard Clarke himself, who was working at the CIA, said that the incident depicted in the movie never happened. For some people lots of people take this fictional story as fact.

VERN...
by TheMovieLover
Sep 5th, 2008
10:28:17 AM
The problem isn't that ANY criticism is censorship, it's that a handful of them, possibly the majority, borderline on it. Now while they may not be taking active steps to get the movie banned or to get the review pulled, a lot of the crazy, left-wingers sure do try their hardest to shut the opposition up. The fact of the matter is, itt's a vicious circle. Everyone is saying things that the other side doesn't want to hear, and the other side is always retaliating, then the first side is saying that the other side is being oppressive. Politics is all one big headache that will never stop throbbing in your head...
DivisionPost
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
10:43:07 AM
What makes you think the Republican convention has been a bunch of lies? From what I've seen of it they are telling nothing but the truth. The Democrats have been lying and putting the blame on the Republicans. Obama has only been pulling the same Democrat way (as I stated before). He has only offered what people want to hear. The problem is he's confused on what people want to hear. That's why he flip-flops on his policies (depending on who he's talking to). That's why he will struggle with debates where his speeches aren't planned. He offers change, but as many people are finally asking, and it would be good if others would as well...what kind of change is he offering? He has nothing to offer this country, and the only reason he is where he is, today, is because Oprah pushed him into it. Though I don't agree with McCain's ads, they aren't far from the truth. Obama is an overhyped celebrity who has only gotten as far as he has because of the media's attention on him. If you want to know who's really caused all of our problems over the last several years, maybe you should look at the people who have refused to pass bills because they knew it would make Bush look like he's accomplishing something, or add something irrelevant to a much needed bill in order to get Bush to veto it, thus making him look like the bad guy, again. The Democrats have done nothing but keep this country from progressing in order to gain the White House. It's sad that our country has had to suffer over a political power play. This hasn't been about beliefs or ideals (some people even give up on their own beliefs or ideals just to appease their party), but rather one party taking control over our government. That's not to say that it doesn't happen in the Republican party, either, but currently the Democrats power play is causing us the most problems, and it seems that the majority of the party follows that ideal.
rbatty
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
10:53:34 AM
I'm sorry, but I have never heard of the movie you speak of. The information that I gave was given out as fact in the news. They showed the footage that Clinton saw, and it was confirmed that Clinton saw it and his refusal to go in. I don't take any of my information from movies because you can't believe everything in a movie, even if it is supposed to be based on fact. It's hard to make a movie without letting bias slip in. Film is an art form, and art (at least good art) is based on our feelings, emotions, etc. How can bias not enter into that? It's just too bad that most movies, these days, are based on left-winged beliefs and ideals. I say bring on this movie. It may be heavily right-winged, but I, too, am sick of all the left-winged propaganda out there.
Do you even know what appeasement is?
by s00p3rm4n
Sep 5th, 2008
10:56:04 AM
Again, not insulting you. Just asking. Do any of you people even understand what the fuck appeasement is? And when Republicans have held the actual reins of actual power (Presidency and majority control of both houses of Congress) for 8 years, and most of that power for the last oh 30 or so, how the FUCK can you POSSIBLY say it's DEMOCRATS who are making your shit stink? Are you that blind? Are you that easily led astray by the pretty substitute teacher and kindly great-grandfather who cuddle you to sleep and tell you George W. Bush never existed?
So is the movie's 9/11 Ground Zero visit...
by Zeke25:17
Sep 5th, 2008
10:57:08 AM
supposed to be Zucker's way of telling us "See? SEE? Iraq IS the right thing to do!!!"...or is it simply meant to convey that sometimes, through history, wars must be fought? Much as I liked the movie "Patton", you gotta figure that anyone who seriously believes that "next to war, all of man's endeavors pale into insignificance" is a raving lunatic, whether or not he's played by George C. Scott (who, by the way, was about as anti-Patton as you could get: just shows you what good acting is). I admit that American Carol sounds interesting, in that it's not more of the same ole pap that passes for movies today...but then, neither is "Postal", which someone else mentioned above....The main reason, I think, that most "far left" films don't do that well at the box office is they're too close to what's really going on; and very few people wanna see that when they plunk down twelve bucks a person at the theater. It's not necessarily that inside everyone is a raging right-wing asshole waiting to get out...it's that entertainment usually does not equal current events (unless you can get some explosions in there: see The Kingdom as an example). And if you want ballsy, check out Joe Dante's Homecoming from Masters of Horror season one--that ain't a whiny lefty wimp, that's one pissed-off director raging at the lies and stupidity of the powers that be. If Zucker wants to rage right back for his side...let him, if for no other reason than the skewering of so-called political correctness. But as much hurt and anger as we still feel for what happened in New York, most of us are smart enough to know that, apparently, our warmongering Commander-in-Chief is incapable or unwilling to go after the REAL bad guy. (Which of course gives the next hopeful Republican candidate a perfect reason for continuing the madness: anyone catch McCain saying he'd follow the amazingly elusive Bin Laden "to the edge of Hell" and then breaking into a Ralphie Parker Christmas Story smile?)
Once upon a time
by ArcadianDS
Sep 5th, 2008
10:59:00 AM
If an enemy killed a single US combat soldier, we threw the entire resources of our national defenses at him, and if he was still breathing life when we were done, we'd take a deep breath and throw it again. In Somalia, they killed our soldiers, stripped them nude, and dragged their dead naked bodies down the street while onlookiers kicked and hit them with sticks. The reaction of every soldier in our militar forces was, "Somebody has to pay for that." The response: Clinton calls everyone out of Somalia and says to the Somali people, "we gotta go now. Best of luck!"

The people were massacred. Our military was shamed on the world's stage. The talk on the street was not, "wow don't mess with the US" but "kill a few of them, and they'll run home." So the mission statement for every fringe lunatic warlord became, "kill a few US soldiers."

Lets say some guy breaks into your house tonight. He kills your kids, rapes your wife, and steals your HDTV and Xbox 360. You get a good look at him - he's your next door neighbor. You call Obama for advice, and what does Obama say?

"I think both of you can share equally in the blame here. Invite him over to dinner and talk. Get to know him. Find out what you have in common."

You hang up and call McCain. He says, "I would call the police."

Can I make a motion?
by petewitham
Sep 5th, 2008
11:00:24 AM
I move that "Flip Flop" and "Flip Flopper" be removed from the lexicon of political discourse. It's a meaningless term made up to demonize a political opponent to people who are ignorant of the actual political process. Plus... it just sounds gay.
All those jerkoffs saying there hasn't been an attack...
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:01:14 AM
...on American soil since 9/11 need to take their head out of their ass. For the same reason we consider an American embassy in another country as U.S. soil, so should we view an American base on foreign soil. The U.S. base in Baghdad has been mortared repeatedly, resulting in American deaths. So we have been attacked and both soldiers and civilians have died.

Honestly, why would our enemies waste time scheming to kill American civilians in America, when they have a lot less distance to travel and fewer obstacles to overcome killing American soldiers in Iraq? Who's going to walk across the street and ask their neighbors if they can use their bathroom when they have two perfectly suitable toilets in their own house?

The trailer wasn't funny...
by Theta
Sep 5th, 2008
11:01:21 AM
I think there's definitely rich fodder for sending up the left. But the trailer just came off as shrill and the jokes weren't quite there. I'd almost rather Zucker made a movie that was genuinely pissed, than trying to hide that anger with being funny.
Oh and can we also admit...
by s00p3rm4n
Sep 5th, 2008
11:02:25 AM
Can we also admit that shitty, shitty movies like this, and Elah, and Rendition, and Stop-Loss, all contribute to the dumbing-down and coarsening of our political discussion? Republicans have masterminded (brilliantly so) the vocabulary we use to talk about political issues - pro-"life," "appeasers," "socialists," "elite." There's a difference between telling you you're fucking wrong, and not letting you speak in the first place (or drowning you out with chants of "USA! USA!" which is the most antithetical ironic fascist move I've seen in some time). I can't imagine a movie this shitty actually putting forward legitimate, intellectual (because running a country ought to require some thought for once) arguments. The straw-men and rhetorical games of "elitism" and "socialism" won't make the case for neoconservative Christianism any less out of touch with what the majority of Americans, Christians, and thoughtful conservatives actually need/want from their lives. But no, it's easier to attack Michael Moore and Muslims.
corran5150
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
11:05:14 AM
You make a good point about soldiers being pulled out of a situation and feeling like they are losers. It's the way I feel about the Iraq war. I know people who have been there, and they will tell you that we need to be there. What you hear in the media about Iraq isn't exactly true. (and before you use that statement to deter what I said previously, the story I mentioned before was a story of fact not opinion, which is what I'm talking about here). What most people need to realize is that we aren't fighting the same war we went over there to fight. We won the war against Iraq. That war is over. But now we are fighting terrorist and insurgents. We are fighting to keep Iraq safe. If we weren't fighting them there, then we would just be fighting them elsewhere (our own land, maybe?). Many of our soldiers believe in why they are there. They see it first hand. If you pull them out, now, before the mission is accomplished, then they will feel that all that loss of lives would be for nothing. If it was a sure thing that it was a lost cause, then the consideration would have to come that we don't need to lose any more lives for nothing. But, as we have seen, it hasn't been for nothing. Just the other day our military forces handed the Anbar province over to Iraq control. Anbar was once believed to be lost (mostly by the Democrats). It was the center of the Sunni insurgency, and where over a quarter of our troops have died. When we handed the province over, our soldiers were able to march in the parade without helmets or guns because they had made it secure. The Iraqi government now owns 11 of the 18 provinces. We are winning, but hardly anyone is talking about it. And if we pull out now, what will happen? In any war, you do not make such progress then just back out. You complete the mission, which is making Iraq completely secure. Even Obama is having to admit this, now. That's why he is backpeddling on his timeline on getting the troops out. I say if you want to support the troops, don't let the loss of our soldiers be for nothing. Complete the mission.
ArcadianDS
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:06:51 AM
You're a total piece of garbage. Complete human filth.

I agree that pulling out of Somalia was a huge mistake and that Clinton is a douchebag, but if you're going mention his tremendous error, I'd appreciate it if you mentioned that Reagan did the same thing in Lebanon.

But obidawsn...
by Zeke25:17
Sep 5th, 2008
11:08:22 AM
Wasn't the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED already? Or did we misunderestimate the W?
Thank you Kalon Reza
by Xandar1977
Sep 5th, 2008
11:11:32 AM
for that insightful and intelligent addition to this talkback.
Hawaiian Organ Donor
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:17:25 AM
"Honestly, why would our enemies waste time scheming to kill American civilians in America, when they have a lot less distance to travel and fewer obstacles to overcome killing American soldiers in Iraq?" Because killing civilians in America is a lot more shocking than killing a soldier in their own country. Their goal is to fuck with us and disrupt us and make us fear them... that's why we call them TERRORISTS. If terrorists went for the easy way then they would have flown planes into Big Ben or some tall building closer to them.
s00p3rm4n
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:18:30 AM
You haven't seen the movie yet? How the hell do you know it's shitty?
THE REASON PEOPLE ARE SO SCARED OF THIS MOVIE
by 3rdrate
Sep 5th, 2008
11:18:51 AM
The reason people are so scared of this movie - why they are so scared of Fahrenheit 9/11, Passion of the Christ, and so on - is because they're afraid it will change people's minds while seemingly validating beliefs they don't agree with. I can't stand people who criticize a movie before they've seen it, no matter what the film (or book, or song, etc.). I think this movie looks dumb as all hell, but I couldn't imagine getting in a political debate about this until I'd seen it. The real idiots are people who think they know more than other everyone else.
HOD
by toadkillerdog
Sep 5th, 2008
11:19:49 AM
You beat me to the punch about Lebanon. Arcadian, you are an ass. Worst of all, you are an ignorant ass who does not know history.
Okay look...
by lovecraftian
Sep 5th, 2008
11:20:17 AM
I'm coming right out and admitting I lean left. I also admit that I was, at one time a fire-breathing, Hannity-loving, "Jesus loves me, not you" Republican. And having prefaced that, I can honestly say without reservation that there is unabashed bullshit on both sides... (It just stacks higher on the right... kaff..kaff... ahem) As for the free speech thing... Really? That's your arguement? "Well allow me to retort." I'm not going to see this movie, not because I'm against free speech, or won't listen to what the other guy has to say.(I saw 300.) I won't see this movie because I'm tired of the right using 9/11 as a punchline. And frankly, if they want to release it... Let'em. I don't care. But I'm not gonna drag my pals to see LIONS FOR LAMBS, which I never saw anyway, or REDACTED, which I also didn't see, or any of the other fiction pieces about American foreign policy. I'm not going to do that, because I also wouldn't call on Jews to see the PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Here's the thing about "Southpark" you missed: Matt and Trey have made it abundantly clear that if you don't like the message of something or the way it's delievered, you can turn it off, or better yet, not turn it on in the first place. But mostly, I just don't care when someone is attempting to make such a ham-fisted attempt at slamming the other side. Certainly, I enjoy a good rip on the left. I laugh every time Matt and Trey do it. Hell, I laugh when my Republican buddies (which are most of my friends) do it. But it actually has to be funny. And if the trailer is any clue, AN AMERICAN CAROL is just not. Of course, I didn't think any of the (INSERT TITLE REFERENCE) MOVIE movies were very funny. SCARY MOVIES 3&4 had moments... But other than that? Kevin Sorbo? Wasn't he in MEET THE SPARTANS? I wouldn't have even said anything had I not been offended by the idea that you think that any of the folks here that don't want to see the movie are basing their opinion purely on the movie's political slant; and therefore, they're against free speech. Give some of the fans here a bit more credit than that. Personally, I don't want to see the thing, because it's an eye-roller of a trailer. And rumors of (***SPOILER AHEAD***) Voight's clunky lines about building a career on the ashes of 3000 dead Americans doesn't inspire any confidence. I find that kind of rhetoric just bad writing.(***SPOILER FINISHED***) I'm not saying that you aren't dead-on about critics who may be offended by the mere inference that conservatism is a valid point of view. I just don't think Limbaugh-esque smarm is going to appeal to a lot of liberals as "Twainian" satire. Nor do I think condemning them as being subsequently inconsistent is a compelling arguement.
A little off... Arcadian and Dr Hrufhfhur
by trotsky37
Sep 5th, 2008
11:20:57 AM
Get your facts straight Arcadian. We didn't leave Somalia for six months after that happened so the UN could come in. Clinton knew he could score easy political points by killing hundreds, maybe even thousands of somalians to get the perpetrators. He also knew that it would feel good getting revenge like that. But he didn't. Because a great country doesnt go throwing it's weight around the bully a fucking sandbox. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Also Obama favors bombing Pakistan in order to kill Bin Laden and Mccain doesn't. So i guess Mccain meant he would follow him to the gates of hell but not pakistan. 1) George Clooney made a movie about Joe McCarthy being bad. This may seem irrelevant (and obvious) but keep in mind that leading conservative voices such as Ann Coulter and Patrick J. Buchannan still defend "Tail Gunner" Joe to this day. And what was going in this country for a few years before "Good Night and Good Luck" came out. Ohh yeahh, people were having their patriotism questioned if they asked questions of the government or didn't give anything other than total support to our "great leader". And a triple amputee from Vietnam War veteran from Georgia named Senator Max Cleland was accused of coddling Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and lost his senate seat as a result 2) Yes the Democrats have been taken over by the socialists. That's why they support single payer heatlh care, a 12 dollar minimum wage, an immediate pullout from iraq and afhganistan, and nationalization of major industries. For other areas of difference between the socialists and the democrats please read the socialist party platform. 3) Also as CloseLight previously pointed out on here going to the 9/11 site has no place in a comedy like this.
Seriously?
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:21:04 AM
How can you make an argument when you call someone complete human filth?
What this reviewer understands about free speech
by SuckLeTrou
Sep 5th, 2008
11:23:55 AM
could fit on a postage stamp. I am so sick of low-information-style right-wingers misusing this concept, which they trot out at any sign of the other side's criticism of them. It is simply retarded. It is as if they have no understanding of their own beloved free market. If people want something, it gets made. Hollywood is more cynical than liberal; that's why all these so called liberal movies are failures too. People like this reviewer also have no concept of the difference between "socially liberal" (sex and violence, which everyone on the LCD loves, regardless of party,) and "politically liberal". Truly politically liberal films don't do any better at the box office than conservatives ones do, because people generally don't like that crap. Who wants to pay money to receive an ideological lecture? So a lot of stars are lefties, so what? Do you really expect artists to not be progressive? The people holding the purse-strings on the other hand, belong to the green party, as in CASH MONEY. If films like Zucker's actually made money, they would get made, end of story. A movie in a theater that people can choose to see or not see doesn't have one fucking thing to do with free speech no matter how many people hate it or why they hate it. As a libertarian, I agree with Vern; nobody likes Michael Moore, on either side of the aisle. And anybody who would position themselves as hardcore-devoted to either major political (corporate-owned) party in this country today with anything but deep, reluctant cynicism, is a complete fucking moron. This film is going to fail and it is going to suck, just as the "liberal" films do. And here's a little history lesson for you: Zucker knows as much about our founding fathers as this reviewer knows about free speech. Most of them were pioneering deists and unitarians (Including Washington, Adams, and Jefferson,) who would be completely and utterly disgusted by what the republican party (and the democratic party) have become today. And when Lincoln was a republican it was a completely different time, the party did not resemble the one that exists today at all.
Control over both houses?
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
11:24:22 AM
Did I miss something? Maybe you should check your facts, again. The Democrats have control over both houses. Ever since that has happened, much of what I was talking about has taken place. They wanted control in order to keep Bush from doing anything. As for the flip-flop term...I don't see anything wrong with it. It's true. If flip-flopping is how politics are supposed to be run, then no wonder our country is in the shape that it's in. Of course someone can admit they were wrong. That's not considered flip-flopping. It's when someone says they believe one way, or make promises one way, then changes that just because they are afraid of offending someone. Then they go right back to their previous statements when they're faced with opposition from that side. They just keep going back and forth on their policies...thus flip-flop. Or maybe you're just offended by the word, then come up with a better term for it. The fact is, it exists and shouldn't be ignored.
Intellectual Idiots
by ViktorBC
Sep 5th, 2008
11:31:16 AM
First of all this movie will get a lot of press from all the negative reviews it's going to get from the left-wing media. 90% of movie reviewers are in the print press are hippie-wanna-bes after all. I think it will moderately successful since most Americans are conservative, even though half the time they don't even realize it. Yes, I am afraid it is true. Liberals love to talk about how smart they are and how funny they are. They are very funny and very, well, analytically smart. Not very "real-world" smart if know what I mean. Some of the talk-backers here have even fooled themselves into thinking there's a difference between a modern liberal and being a socialist! I am sure after writing that someone will try to make a point by point comparison, but they're only fooling themselves. So, why are liberals usually funnier? Passion. Specifically their passion for hate. Such strong feelings can really motivate and, yes, inspire. There's a reason some of the most hateful people in history were such inspired motivators. Letterman, Colbert and Clooney are driven by their hate of those that disagree with them. So are the other lefty entertainers. Never realizing or believing that thought processes like theirs drove the creation of communist Russia and China. They complain about McCarthy (who never went after Hollywood, he was after real commies in the Government. It was congress that went after Hollywood)and then go about black listing conservatives. Just look at those "peace activists" who were rioting outside the convention this week. Liberals are funny because they are a joke. Review this talk-back and you will see how the conservatives argue points while the liberals stoop to insults and profanity.
film and politics always go together
by filmfanatic1
Sep 5th, 2008
11:34:16 AM
from films like THE GRAPES OF WRATH to SYRIANA, political films aren't going away, and free speech won't either. If people in the industry want to speak out, go for it. This film is a who's who of the conservative Hollywood establishment: Grammer, Woods, Voight, etc. If they make a funny movie, great! I don't always agree with South Park, but sometimes they're funny. And the point you Repubs keep making is not defending the last 8 years, it's bashing history. I DARE YOU: DEFEND BUSH WITHOUT ATTACKING... GO ON, TRY!
anchorite
by toadkillerdog
Sep 5th, 2008
11:36:47 AM
Hollywood has, almost from inception, been out of step with mainstream Amurrican values - or so you would be led to believe. Without a doubt, Hollywood has walked to a different, and more liberal beat. It is the nature of the business that first attracted the Jewish financiers who whose money and accumen where not welcome in mainsteam Amurrica. Then the very nature of entertainment, which has always attracted the more flamboyant, and thus has been far more accepting of the flamboyant, than mainstream Amuriica. To criticize Hollywood for being true to its roots is like saying McCain is an agent for change - whoops!
Listen to them...The Children of The Left
by Blue_Demon
Sep 5th, 2008
11:37:06 AM
What music they make (with their whine.)
SuckLeTrou
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:37:14 AM
Both parties have changed throughout the years... if we had a time machine then perhaps we could argue what long dead presidents would think about current political climates. I think your argument is sort of flawed because you argue that money dictates the type of movie being made... there has been movie after movie made about the Iraq War and they keep making them without being successful. If money rules all of these decisions to make the movies... why are they still being made when there is obviously not a big market for them? Granted, the box office usually does dictate what movies are being made... for some reason, movies bashing our current government and the Iraq war continue to be made in droves. Are they trying to humiliate Republicans or are they just trying to have their movie remembered since it's about a time period they know will be brought up and referenced throughout history?
I got no problem with this movie being made...
by Subtlety
Sep 5th, 2008
11:37:27 AM
Yeah, I'm a lefty, but I am absolutely defending Zucker's right to say any damn thing he wants on film. I also defend the right of anyone to make "Meet the Spartans 2". Just because someone can say it doesn't make it good. As for the movie itself, it sounds 1) Preachy and 2) obvious. Which is pretty much enough to kill any movie for me. Come on, man, its what made lefty parodies like "American Dreamz" so wretched. Up till now, at least the conservatives were not ing the business of making this sort of well-meaning but ultimately insipid crapola.
Zeke
by obidawsn
Sep 5th, 2008
11:40:35 AM
Maybe you should read my entire post, again. Yes, W said the war was over, mission accomplished. But that is why I said this is a different war. We finished that war. The war we are fighting in Iraq, now, has a different mission than that which we initially went there for. That mission was accomplished. We could have pulled out, right then and there. But we knew that we needed to help rebuild Iraq. It was our duty to do so. Afterwards, the insurgents and terrorists rose up and started attacking our troops and the Iraqi civilians. Like it was said before, it's easier for them to attack us there than here. That on top of the insurgents wanting control over a fallen government. That was part of the reason of staying over there, then. We needed to make sure the Iraqi government was stable and the country was secure. Yes, we made it unsecure, but such is the price of taking down a government. You may or may not agree with us taking down Saddam's government, but you would have to admit that by us taking it down, it is our responsibility to help the country afterwards. At that moment, one mission was accomplished, but another mission arose, and we were at war with another enemy. Thus this isn't the same war, even if it is in the same location. It would be no different than had we taken down Hitler and taken Germany. We stayed behind to help rebuild, but terrorist organizations and insurgents came in to fight us there. We would say mission accomplished in taken down Hitler's regime, but we would have another mission. I know that didn't happen, it's just a hypothetical example. Now you can say that we should have known that would happen and not have went in the first place. But I think the debate on our responsibilities to the rest of the world will forever exist. Even if the reasons we went over there may seem false (the validity of those reasons and the existence of WMDs can also be steered both ways depending on how you look at it), taking down someone who was torturing and killing innocent people isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Suck it, libs
by BrowncoatJedi
Sep 5th, 2008
11:41:03 AM
Let conservatives have one damn movie for themselves. You don't have to own everything because you think you have all the answers to save the world. Get over yourselves.
see what I mean?
by filmfanatic1
Sep 5th, 2008
11:41:41 AM
you guys on the Right have amnesia; we had your best representative of all of your beliefs for 8 years and he blew it! DEFEND BUSH, IF YOU DARE!
No one wants to suppress this film
by dignan26
Sep 5th, 2008
11:45:36 AM
Straw man! But it does look like ass. How I am supposed to take someone seriously who thinks "ingenius" is a word, is so open-minded as to dismiss all country music in one fell swoop, and thinks that Kennedy opposed taxes? (Hint: he opposed the very high marginal tax rate of the time) And please allow me to marginalize and ignore simple minded discourse that makes those who engage with it more stupid. I think it can exist, but I can choose to ignore it. And I'm going to ignore "American Carol."
ViktorBC
by Alucinor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:45:41 AM
It's very true... it feels like all most Democrats do is talk a lot of shit and complain. Just for saying my opinion I have been called many things on here and I have insulted nobody. I find it ironic that the people who claim to want peace and love seem to be the most angry people. As far as I'm concerned, the second you go off the handle calling me a fucking retard for a well thought out opinion, you might as well just stop messaging because no rational person will take you seriously on any side of the debate.
This weird thing...
by BizarroJerry
Sep 5th, 2008
11:45:53 AM
It's weird that people seem to believe Republican=Hooray for war, Democrat=War is bad. Bill Clinton wasn't 100% against warring with some country. WWII was run by Democrats. Vietnam was started by Democrats and continued, then ended by Republicans. I guess today's parties aren't the same as they once were, but still. Now, maybe it's Republican=Hooray for Iraq war, Democrat=Iraq war bad.

This movie, by the way, does sound like it'll be bad, and I'd consider myself more conservative than liberal.

Oh, and some people hate Michael Moore because there really are a number of people who believe everything he puts in his movies is fact and can't be argued with.

hey, Neo Con Snake...
by BizarroJerry
Sep 5th, 2008
11:51:35 AM
This is part of the weird issue I brought up above. "The Transformers" is conservative? Why? Cuz people are fighting an enemy with guns in it? In fact, it shows a secret semi-evil government group as a bunch of dangerous idiots. And National Treasure is conservative? Why, because it promotes happy thoughts about the founders of the country? Is that somehow a political issue?
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
by ObamabinBiden08
Sep 5th, 2008
11:52:23 AM
This will be great. When the young skulls full o' mush mature and start paying taxes through their nose because of liberal democrats, they'll come on board.
Alucinor
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
Sep 5th, 2008
11:54:42 AM
Because he is what he is. His pattern is nothing but ignorance and blatant hypocrisy. And quite frankly, after this week, I'm sick to death of the conservative machine. That playbook changes every day. One minute Murphy Brown is a reprehensible move by liberal Hollywood because it condones a single unwed mother with is an affront to family values, the next it's embracing teenage pregnancy. And don't kid yourself, those two kids are being FORCED into marriage, and that itself is disgraceful. And thrusting these two kids into the spotlight and making a circus of their lives? Yeah, that's family values in action.

Bill-O says it's a disgrace that the media doesn't respect the privacy of Bristol and the redneck but he was all over Jamie Lynn Spears calling her a pinhead and blasting her mother for being an irresponsible absentee parent.

And to hear these conservative pundits go off on the "liberal media" for sexist attacks on Palin? Really? She's been under fire for less than a week and you take issue with that? I'm no fan of Hillary but she has been been lambasted by the right for 15 years. She's been called "bitch, Hitlery, Shrillery, a feminazi," you name it. That thin-skinned, indignant hypocrisy is too much.

And lastly, as far as disrupting us, yeah, there's the REAL mission accomplished. Look how paranoid and divided we've become. We focused so much on the war on terror, we forgot to address things at home. The mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, retail sector in the toilet, ballooning unemployment, a weak dollar. I'd say the terrorists are quite proud of the chaos they continue to cause over here without any further effort.

anchorite
by toadkillerdog
Sep 5th, 2008
11:57:21 AM
I suggest you read up on your Hollywood history. It has ALWAYS been filled with peoople who tried to fight for liberal issues. Even back in the 20's and 30's. They di dnot always suceed, and sometimes lost careers because of it, but they tried. Films were far more subversive in the late 20's and early 30's before the Catholic church became involved in film censorship. But when the film codes were put into place, many, many changes took place.

As for Obama not loving country, damn, here we go again. Why is it wrong to point out faults? How is that not loving a country when you want to see it be better?

RE: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
by dignan26
Sep 5th, 2008
12:02:47 PM
This type of divide and conquer rhetoric is destroying our nation. Please rise above it.
Alucinor
by SuckLeTrou
Sep 5th, 2008
12:06:01 PM
Obviously they keep getting made, because they are the vanity projects of those liberal artists I mentioned. There are people and actors with the clout and money-earning history to make them happen, just as Zucker has the clout and bucks to produce his film. It's no secret that artists are usually liberal, so if you don't want to be exposed to liberalism, then avoid art, which includes film. Or become a right-wing artist, because there aren't many. It's not rocket science, and we aren't talking about free media here. The right-wing argument seems to be that liberal artists should devote themselves and their money to making films that express another political ideology, and if they then don't put money into republican pockets as well, that somehow counts as censorship. It's so ridiculously stupid. If right-wingers want right-wing films then they should shut up and fucking make them as Zucker did. They are fucking whiners. It isn't the fault of the liberals for doing it, but the fault of the republicans for not doing it. There are plenty of rich republicans, god knows. So get some fucking backers and make your own damn movies. And see how well they do at the box office...think maybe republican businessmen know those kind of films tank, and that's why they don't invest in them? It's actually a compliment to right-wing business sense that these films don't exist. If criticizing a generalization I made for the sake of brevity of they only 'flaw' you can find, then good for me.
OK filmfanatic1
by ViktorBC
Sep 5th, 2008
12:06:03 PM
Bush's policies kept us free from foreign attacks for 7 years.
RE: Anchorite
by dignan26
Sep 5th, 2008
12:06:52 PM
Your statement completely ignores every speech Obama has made on the campaign trail. It has no basis in reality.
Really, thats all it takes is saying "We are best nation on eart
by toadkillerdog
Sep 5th, 2008
12:07:29 PM
Damn, some people are just easily led monkey's. That is all you want to hear, is slogans, and chest pounding. And nation building? My God, a republican actually in favor of nation building - that is so liberal!
ACLU zombies
by Matthew Martinez
Sep 5th, 2008
12:12:58 PM
Could someone please explain to me why conservatives have such a vehement hatred for an organization (the ACLU) whose mission is to defend people's constitutional rights unconditionally? I mean, I know that means that they have to defend people we might not like (e.g., neo-Nazis, criminals, etc.), but to say that the Constitution only applies to some people and not others is...well...un-American, in my opinion.
I won't see it
by Redundant23
Sep 5th, 2008
12:18:21 PM
But not because I'm a liberal (I'm an independent). It's because (a) I've never thought any of Zucker's movies, including Airplane, were funny, and (b) because I'm tired of the incessant partisan bickering. It's true Hollywood has released many liberal-partisan movies in the past few years. I didn't see any of them either, for the same reason. The correct response to partisan filmmaking is not to make more films to speak for the other party. The correct response is to avoid all such films. I don't understand why people are so divided, why one half of the US enjoys hating the other half so damn much. I'm an American. Michael Moore is an American. Zucker is an American and so is Rush Limbaugh. If you "love America" then you must have some respect for its people, and that means all of its people, not just half. There is no benefit to believing that the members of the party you don't belong to are stupid. They're not. You're not. Both parties love their country and are trying to do what's best.
Im from the left.. But fuck Michael Moore!
by What The Duck
Sep 5th, 2008
12:19:35 PM
Take the fat man with a grain a salt. They sad thing about this country is that people believe what ever the see on the screen or read. If Moore says something people from the left take it as fact. As far the movie it's easier to make fun of the left because if you make fun of the right you branded un-american. I won't see this fim not because it pokes fun of the party I tend to side with it's because the movie looks fuckn lame!
"Bush's policies kept us free from foreign attacks for 7 years"
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
Sep 5th, 2008
12:31:17 PM
This is the problem. This ignorant thinking that the right so easily gets their base to swallow.

The same way they have convinced their base that Obama and most liberals are elitists when Cindy McCain speaks at the RNC in an outfit worth twice as much as my house.

WINGNUTS ARE SPECIAL NEEDS TALKBACKERS
by BringingSexyBack
Sep 5th, 2008
12:35:15 PM
Take it easy on them, they can't take nearly as much as they dish out.

Good article Dr. Huffufufr. I'm open to watching the movie only if it's funny. Is it funny, and funny enough to Netflix it? The trailer tells me a different story.

ANCHORITE
by BringingSexyBack
Sep 5th, 2008
12:42:17 PM
Have you even been watching Obama's campaigning? He constantly extols the greatness of America - just not in a pandering, fake way like McCain and Sarah "Pro-Alaskan Secession" Palin do.

Obama's deep into the issues now, and well past the hyperbole train the Right is rolling out.

Vern
by Fireball XL-5
Sep 5th, 2008
12:52:29 PM
I love your reviews, man, but you're off-base in your post. Criticizing a movie before one sees it may not be "censorship," but it is prejudice, and therefore intellectually dishonest.
Matthew Martinez
by ViktorBC
Sep 5th, 2008
12:52:56 PM
The ACLU, unknown to most people who do not read history books, was founded by Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles, self-described comunists. This is fact. He once said, “I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.” It still is their goal.
If you think the democrats have been taken over by socialists
by hst666
Sep 5th, 2008
12:56:28 PM
you're insane. If they were Kucinich would have the nomination. I wish the Democrats were as liberal as Kennedy, and he wasn't that liberal. Both parties are beholden to large corporate interests.
I will see this based upon the reviews
by hst666
Sep 5th, 2008
12:57:26 PM
Didn't Zucker do the Hot shots films as well? Not everything he touches is gold.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr, did you not see TEAM AMERICA?
by TopHat
Sep 5th, 2008
12:57:32 PM
You want a satire for both sides, there you have it. And this movie sounds just like every other hollywood movie which uses current events and 'hot-button-issues' so they don't have to say anything new. Because saying something new won't be as profitable. As for your review, Dr. Hfuhruhurr, its just as irrational and whiny as any other review for a pro-liberal movie: "See! SEE!! *MY* side is RIGHT! YOU are WRONG!! HA! See what that film-maker did?! See what they're saying?? TAKE THAT!(enter comparisons to every single well-known and hailed movie that "deals" with the same "issues"). And to answer some of the responses in this Talkback; there was no reason to go to war with Iraq at the time we did, and there still isn't. If you try to compare Iraq to wars like the Civil War or the World Wars, you're just plain ignorant (unless you're comparing how the World Wars were started for and by the rich to be become richer, because that's true). McCain/Palin are probably going to win. The voting machines are still screwed up and don't count the votes right and Palin has changed people's minds: My parents, who are die-hard Republicans, were all for Obama, but, when Palin got chosen, they fell in love with her (yes, even in just a week) and now are going to vote McCain just because of her. I think this represents all the conservatives AND liberals in this country: They'll look for any excuse to vote for their party. If they didn't like McCain, but like Palin, then they get to vote Republican. Finally, the reason why we haven't had anymore terrorist attacks that are as big as 9/11 is NOT because of Bush's policies, its because we're dealing with people who live in caves and 9/11 was their swan song. The last WTC bombing was almost ten years before 9/11. That means it took them ten years from THAT bombing (which had to have been considered a failure from their point of view since the towers didn't fall) to 9/11. If it took that long to do something from an operation that basically failed, do we really expect them to pull off something within eight years of their biggest and most successful attack ever? I don't think so.
South Park has always struck me as truly fair and balanced.
by hst666
Sep 5th, 2008
12:59:00 PM
I don't always agree with them, but most of their criticisms seem dead on and they don't appear to be right or left.
"McCarthy Sure Was Bad"
by Raymar
Sep 5th, 2008
01:03:58 PM
That is fucking brilliant.
Funny is a relative reaction
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Sep 5th, 2008
01:15:10 PM
But anytime you go for so blatantly an attack, I think you lose points. I watched the trailer, and it didn't offend me, I mildly chuckled, but I don't know that it will be a truly hilarious piece in the neighborhood of Airlplane or even Naked Gun.

Here is the problem, are you out to make a funny movie, or are you out to make a statement. I get the feeling its the latter, which means it won't be funny.

But for those who say you can't be funny as a conservative, apparently never watch South Park, cause those guys can be hilarious in showing out some of the ridiculous hypocrisy of the left. MAN BEAR PIG!

Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
by shitstorm23
Sep 5th, 2008
01:15:53 PM
Seriously, why is the reviewer defending this so much? I didn't read all of the talkback, but is there any "liberal" saying this movie shouldn't get made or wanting it censored? Who gives a shit if there is some right wing movie taking a stab at the left? Oh no! What are the lefties to do! It's assholes like this reviewer who have their heads so firmly up partisan politics that they cannot see that MOST of this great country is in the middle. Little bit country, little bit rock & roll. Which is why voter turn out is SO low, most people do not want to vote for one side or the other, they just want chicken fries & football.

I also like how someone put TDK, 300 & T-Formers as right wing movies, going up against Stop Loss, Lions for Lambs & Redacted as left movies. Now that is fair & balanced!

If the LEFT is smug, then the RIGHT is smug x1,000
by Hawaiian Organ Donor
Sep 5th, 2008
01:21:40 PM
Yeah, I'll give you the Democratic grandstanding and I think that party is full of corrupt d-bags and Obama is a snake oil salesman. I'm with you all the way.

But only idiot Americans would hear the McCains call Obama an elitist in their designer clothes and countless houses and buy into it. Only idiot Americans would see a pregnant 17-teen year old girl and a Downs baby paraded into the spotlight as an attempt to prove "we're just like you" and buy into it. Only idiot Americans believe Bush and McCain when they say "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" and think it makes sense. Only idiot Americans tolerate a party that proclaims it's all about family values when countless representatives are being busted for having affairs and then forgiven as if it was nothing. Only idiot Americans listen to a politician quoting lines from the Bible about how homosexuality is a sin and gay people will never be allowed to marry if Republicans have their say but then goes to airport bathrooms to sexually solicit other men.

There is no more hypocritical a creature than a modern day conservative and that is not debatable.

I don't know shitstorm
by Mel Gibsteinberg
Sep 5th, 2008
01:23:24 PM
There is a serious sentiment out there that if you don't agree with some of what many powerful Hollywood types agree with, than you are ostracized. I completely believe this can happen, it happens everywhere else, why not Hollywood.

But what cracks me up is the hypocrisy who make sure to remind us of how horrific the atrocities of McCarthysm was, almost comparing that to the Holocaust or something really atrocious (peoples can't work, cause they went to a communist rally, oh nos!). And then these same individuals get very bristly if a film doesn't share their worldview. Ever read Daily KOS' review of TDK and their assertion that it was fascist propoganda? People also thought the same about 300, and Zack Miller is hardly a conservative.

ANCHORITE
by BringingSexyBack
Sep 5th, 2008
01:26:53 PM
You are a trip. You bash Obama for not screaming I love America, but when I tell you he does, you discount it.

I happen to think it's more meaningful to convey love of country and inspire Americans face-to-face, intimately, than to make grandiose speeches on the Senate floor.

I'll bet if he did as you say he should, you'd accuse him of using the Capital as a campaign stop.

"donkey socialist appeasers"
by wash
Sep 5th, 2008
01:35:07 PM
You might have just started with the line "I"M A HUGE FUCKING TROLL" and saved some people the time.
My President's Daughter?
by DangerMan
Sep 5th, 2008
01:36:59 PM
Funny how when everyone talks about David Zucker and Airplane they never mention Jerry Zucker or Jim Abrahams. Guess he flew the plane himself.
Re: ViktorBC
by Matthew Martinez
Sep 5th, 2008
01:37:55 PM
You didn't mention to which, between Baldwin and Nelles, your quote was attributable, nor did you mention the fact that Baldwin later "denounced communism" and "led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members" (from Wikipedia). Sorry, but I just don't buy that the ACLU's true agenda is to promote socialism. Their stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Opponents of this organization seem to me to be people who don't believe that those rights should be given to everyone, people who feel, like Bush, that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper."
"He constantly extols the greatness of America"
by Bill Brasky
Sep 5th, 2008
01:39:53 PM
BringingSexyBack, how could Barry really extol the 'greatness of America' and not in a "pandering" way...when he sat in that cock-sucking, racist, bigoted, anti-American motherfucker, Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without ever getting up and walking out? Come on man. I can understand why you want Barry to win, and I