Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Review

ALEXANDER review

There are times where I’m truly disgusted at humanity, an alleged majority of my country and this time my fellow critics. The collective shit rained down upon Oliver Stone disgusts me. Nay, it infuriates me.

Before watching ALEXANDER I was expecting a miserable time. The reviews were terrible. But is it really any wonder that a film about a man that dreamt of uniting the world and evolving with every new culture he came in contact with, while also recognizing the beauty and worth of both man and woman as thinkers, fighters and lovers would enrage a majority of folks in a country that seems to tear down those it does not wish to understand. That sees itself as the pinnacle of human history and refuses to acknowledge the history of other vain glorious kingdoms that fell by deeming themselves the be all end all of mankind?

ALEXANDER is a stunning film of visions, ideas, performances and spectacle. A couple of months ago I reviewed Richard Burton’s ALEXANDER THE GREAT in one of my DVD columns. You want to see what a HALF-ASSED version of Alexander’s story looks like… watch that one. Then watch this film and realize this is the best telling of the story of ALEXANDER to be told. That Colin Farrell is vastly superior to Richard Burton in the role – oh, but that’s right… We’re a culture that forgets history, so putting this film in cinematic context… that’s just plum wrong. This film has so much more going on than a movie like TROY, which wasn’t terrible, but wasn’t what it could have been.

The battles in ALEXANDER are not painterly like LORD OF THE RINGS or TROY… These are not clean bloodless battles of videogame moves (left arrow left arrow x x pyramid shape up arrow), rather in this film you’ll see the madness of war. The battle of Gaugamela is explained in the tent ahead of time – but then… then in the actualization of the battle there is genius. Genius in the confusion. You see, there is only one man on that field that understands how it all comes together. There is no satellite – no geo-locators on his and their men. In fact – there’s so much dust in the air, you wonder how friend is differentiated from foe. It is all – merely in the timing, Alexander leads the battle, because only Alexander can see the battle. He and the men directly in his wake are the instruments of the deathblow necessary to wipe clean the enemy before him.

Why do we get no sense of his enemies? That question and even greater the questions that seemingly are at the heart of so many reviewers “confusion” over Alexander’s story not being clearly defined, was he gay or not, what was his relationship with his mother…

Well – Alexander never wrote his story, he did not give him the title “THE GREAT,” that was in the hands of others. In this narrative’s case, Stone left it to Ptolemy (Anthony Hopkins) to tell. Ptolemy did not KNOW the truth about Alexander and Olympias. Ptolemy did not understand the decision to marry Roxane. Ptolemy was a survivor of Alexander’s tale. An old man that realized only too late the true dream that a young leader half his age had envisioned for a world, one that he and his fellow Greeks discarded in their exploitation of the territories they inherited from the age of Alexander. We’re dealing with a man who late in life realizes the failure that he and his fellow Greeks and Macedonians made of Alexander’s triumph.

Ptolemy… the Greeks, the Macedonians… even Alexander did not know the enemy before them. They knew stories and legends. Those hordes of EVIL EASTERNERS were only that to them. It was what Aristotle and Socrates taught them. It is what Phillip had said. So it was all that was so. The folly of those beneath Alexander was their failure to recognize that they were in fact the barbarians, and that they conquered and fought not for gold and jewels, but to unite the understanding of the known and unknown worlds. To dispel the myths told to them as children and to rip apart the borders between races and religions. To see all men as equals and to forge a better world not only for them, but through the knowledge and wisdom learnt from his conquered enemies… an advancement of themselves by discarding the prejudices based on race, customs, religions and sexuality.

All of this silly snickering and giggles about whether or not Alexander was gay, bi or whatever. Folks… GROW UP! At the time of Alexander there was not even a word to differentiate sex between men and men and men and women. But again – we live in a juvenile culture. This is the period where a great deal of the foundation for the great ideals that this country was built upon. The dreams discarded by ages of Kings and fiefdoms, lost till the formation of this country then, arguably, lost again.

As for those that wanted the graphic portrayal of Alexander’s love for Hephaistion (Jared Leto) – There’s two reasons… Ptolemy did not share that bed. BUT they showed the fantastic love scene between Roxane and Alexander despite that. True. Ultimately, I would say this. Alexander had a harem of 300 women and 3 wives. His bisexual activity is less documented, but is highly suspected and known. This film though is not focused upon his life of silk coated beds, but rather the impression he made upon a man that would still talk of him 40 years later. Had the library of Alexandria not been destroyed – our portrait of the man might have been… well, who can truly say. History has cast shadows and questions upon an era that was wonderfully documented, yet what remains is not necessarily what happened and with who.

Stone focused the film from the perspective of a man that followed and outlived Alexander. A man that saw the man and saw the greatness. This isn’t a first person tale, unfortunately that tome does not exist to adapt from. But what Stone focused on was a Teenage King that grew to conquer the world and leave it at 32. A young man that forced the world to confront the prejudices, ignorance and myths that children believed. This was a time of ancient wonders and feats of legend… and Stone realizes that while humanizing it.

Lastly, I want to deal with Colin Farrell. The key to his character is in Olympia’s dialogue to him as a child. To not hesitate, hesitate and you die. Colin plays Alexander not as a madman, not as a saint. He plays Alexander as a man with a thirst to destroy the mythologies of man and to build histories and civilizations. What madness, if there was any, came not from insanity, but from the slowness of the world around him. The inability of those around him to not see past the obstacles that man’s vanity creates for himself. To just see the world, men and women simply as they were in his eyes. One. There’s a shiver to Colin’s eyes at moments that denotes a quiet intelligence. This film isn’t so much about monologue-ing in-front of masses of men – but rather the connection the men felt for what he led them to accomplish. How he simply saw the field as if blessed. They treated him as a legend in his own time, yet could not blindly follow, nor did he want them to. Farrell conveys his wanderlust wonderfully.

This isn’t a white washed story of simpler times, if anything Stone reveals that truly nothing has really changed. For all the passings of millennia, we’re still the bigoted, short-sighted men and women that couldn’t see what Alexander saw. But then, that’s why he was, “THE GREAT,” and none of us are.

I found the film exceptional. I hope some of you, at least, find the film I saw. But with all art, we take away what we bring with us. Try to leave the prejudices at the door, inside is something greater.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 24, 2004, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Geez, Harry II... (f'n keyboard)

    by MCVamp

    That may be the most thoughtful, clear-headed review you've ever posted. I actually want to see this now. Bravo, Head Geek.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 7:38 p.m. CST

    harry i love it when you go out on a limb

    by jackburtonlives

    and stone's films are fantastic. especially salvador. i might go against the grain and check this one out, big guy. thanx.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Ditto

    by Darth Thoth

    Possibly the most persuasive review I've read by Harry. I was going to stay in on this rainy night and watch basketball games but now I may brave the elements and go see the 3 hour flick knowing it's already late and I have to get up very early tomorrow to travel. Wow Harry! I hope I like the movie at least a tad bit as much as you did, lol. Well, as always... thanks for the great review. Peace.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Oliver Stone is in the twilight of his career

    by aphextwin

    Seriously, his last 'good' movie was JFK (although this one is not without flaws). It all went downhill from there. Heck, it was the first (and last) time for me that I walked out the theater before the movie ended, when I watched 'Any given Sunday'. It was a chaotic disjointed mess. According to the majority of the critics, 'Alexander' has the same style in narration. Of course, these are just a bunch of reviews, but I can't imagine that 'Alexander' will be in the same league as, let say, 'Born on the fourth of July'. It won't have the same emotional pay-off like that Tom Cruise movie years ago. I'm surprised that producers have been willing to approve the gigantic budget of 150 million dollars for an Oliver Stone movie. He simply isn't a mainstream crowd pleaser (which in some cases IS a good thing); a solid box office winner. In the end, 'Alexander'is an Oliver Stone movie, but not from the Oliver Stone we used to cherish more than a decade ago. By the way, as I'm typing all this I've probably the FIRST spot. So...second! or third Aphextwin

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 7:51 p.m. CST

    That, was a very well thought out review.

    by Ridge

    Now all we have to wait for is the talkback trolls from scorched planet and sites as such to come in screaming 'Die gays die' and garbage like that. I want to see this movie, I've heard quite a lot about it, namely that, if you were disappointed by the butchered retelling of Troy, that this is a more 'accurate' retelling of the life of Alexander, or at least as close as you will get. Harry is right, in those days, there was no distinction between sex partners, sex was sex, male or female. Hell, they even had their own 'boys' they took with the armies to sate the upper ranks. I cant wait to see this movie, I really can't, but already I find it ironic, people screamed for a more realistic Troy, for an Achilles who wasnt uber-hetero, a more accurate depiction, and now when they get it, they bag it... go figure.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:07 p.m. CST

    "...would enrage a majority of folks in a country..."

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    That's one way to spin it, though from the reviews I've read no one is really enraged by this flick so much as they're just plain bored by it.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:09 p.m. CST

    I'm all a twitter

    by 007-11

    I hate it when you bait the conservatives(it just means more bullshit to sift through), but well done once again Harry. I've looked through the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and was completely dismayed to see it getting such bad reviews. I'm glad to see a real look at the film, a deeply thought out one at that. I hope it's as glorious as it looks.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Well...

    by Mostholy

    I just came back from it, and I agree with most critics and disagree with Harry. This film was grossly misconceived and, in a word, boring...a word I never thought I'd attach to an Oliver Stone film. Colin Farrell is an ok actor, but you get no sense of why his men would follow him to the ends of the earth here, and Ptolemy's Basil Exposition routine doesn't help. Tons of problems here...the film skips around Alexander's life seemingly at random, the actors all inexplicably speak in Irish brogues, the battle scenes are nonsensical. The only people who make it out of this project without egg all over their faces are Val Kilmer, Angelina Jolie, and Rosario Dawson, who each saw what kind of B-movie sword-and-sandal flick they were in and racheted up the hamminess dial to 11.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Harry, you're at your best when you're political

    by Snarky

    I was going to pass on this film until I read your review, with a grain of salt. Now I'm going to hit the late show at my favorite cineplex. I vote for the more politically charged, didactic Harry over the nostalgic, juvenille Harry, but I know that'll never happen. At least we see glimpses of it from time to time. Thanks, buddy!

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Harry is absolutely right

    by Stanley Spector

    Alexander is a fucking fantastic movie, a genuine, uncompromising work of art that can only be enjoyed when approached on its own terms. It takes a bit of effort to do that at times (e.g. suppressing giggles at some of the more melodramatic stuff), but it's wholly worth it and can make the film a tremendously rewarding experience. It may be cool to hate this movie now, but it's even cooler to unapologetically love it. Alexander is one of the best films of 2004 and thirty years from now will be recognized as such. Way to go, Harry, and congratulations, Mr. Stone.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:39 p.m. CST

    The Macedonians didn't fail Alexander. He failed them.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Thanks for giving me another reason to not see this film, Harry. I knew Stone would get it backwards, because he's Stone. The only question was whether or not he would do so in an entertaining fashion. // Let's talk about this "The Macedonians failed Alexander because of their cultural bias" assertion of yours. The Macedonian kingdom inherited by Alexander was the dominant state in the Aegean area, but it wasn't particularly large. The ruling military caste was relatively close-knit. Essentially, they were a bunch of cousins who were three generations removed from being country hicks. Alexander's staff were mainly his friends and relatives. It was the type of "kingdom" where you would go to the king's house and get drunk with him and he would barbecue a sheep for you out back. Phillip had made a big show out of being the "protector" of the individual Greek city states, which also were organized at a very granular level politically, and the distance between citizen and ruler in all but the most retrograde Dorian states was fairly small. Alexander claimed to be continuing that tradition. His war against the Persians was launched ostensibly to liberate Greek cities on the Turkish coast that were being oppressed by local satraps of the Persian Empire. So Alexander invades Persia's possessions in Turkey, and on essentially the very first day of the campaign almost gets himself killed leading a reckless charge across a river. He would have died right at the outset, and been less than a footnote to history, but at the last possible moment as an enemy warrior is about to kill him a friend of his named Cleitus dives in front of him and saves his life with his shield. Alexander goes on to do the "Boy Military Genius" thing and kicks Persia out of all the Greek cities on the Turkish Aegean coast, and in the course of doing so realizes that he has certain basic advantages over the Persian military machine at the tactical level, and there's nothing stopping him from taking the whole damn thing. So he proceeds to take it. Along the way, he starts believing all that "son of Zeus" crap his sycophants lay on him, or at least becomes willing to pretend he believes it to overawe his new Eastern subjects. But he's got a problem. He's the new King of Kings, he's been declared a god, and his new subjects expect him to ACT like a god-emperor, like the one they had before. And they make a habit of lying down in front of him, making the prostration, because that's what you do to god-emperors. Except the Macedonians and Greeks in his army don't want to DO that, because the entire point of the war was to fix it so Greeks and Macedonians didn't have to bow down in front of god-emperors. Especially unwilling to do it are high-status Macedonians, because as we noted they're mostly Alexander's friends and relatives, and it would be kind of like you going to your high-school reunion and saying, "Yeah, I'm really successful, so I think all of you guys should get down on your knees and kiss my toes as I walk by." It's not going to fly. But Alexander insists, telling the Macedonians that it's all for show to trick those silly Persians. But naturally eventually everyone is drunk one night, and the argument comes up again, and Cleitus, the guy who saved Alexander's life, says he's not going to do it anymore, because he knew Alexander when he was just a punk, and he saved his life, and he's a Macedonian and not some eunuch from Babylon, etc. etc. etc. And Alexander decides to jump up and personally stab Cleitus to death, teaching him once and for all who's boss, and incidentally teaching him that maybe he doesn't want to go around saving the life of military boy-kings, because sometimes it comes back and bites you in the ass. The End. This is probably the moment when the Macedonians realized that the whole "cross-cultural" thing Alexander was into REALLY meant "Let's take the worst aspects of Oriental despotism and impose them on YOU, because it's fun for ME". Alexander started out as a brilliant leader and ended up as a fever-dazed maniac who turned his back on the culture he supposedly wanted to save, to serve that which he originally claimed he wanted to destroy. Harry may think that the Macedonians let Alexander down, but who was the one going around killing guys who saved his life because they wouldn't act like they were his slave? The Macedonians didn't want to be Orientalized because unless you're the emperor the change isn't exactly an improvement. // Tune in next week for another episode of "Fluffy Is More Agitated About 2000 Year Old Conflicts Than Present Day Ones" where we will explore the question: Caesar or Cato, Who Was Right?

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:43 p.m. CST

    I do Recommend this FILM Like Harry...Only if you're a big fan o

    by MentallyMariah

    Try not to laugh at Angelina Jolie's Psycho Mommy banters and over the top lines! In fact the whole entire theatre this afternoon was Laughing their asses off...I thought I was watching a comedy! I am a big fan of camp classics and all I have to say is Thank God for Alexander.....The new Kid in the Camp! Bring some booze, sit back with your friends and take a drink everytime Colin looks like he wants to kiss a boy! LOL...Laugh at Sir Anthony Hopkins Endless Rants and Ravings of a Madman that seems to go on longer then the film itself...16% average on Rotten Tomatoes today? Wow, thats less then Seed of Chucky, but then again, harry loved Seed of Chucky!

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Nicely written Harry...

    by Brundlefly

    Stone is the man and this film is fucking A grade. I highly recommend it.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Stone Cold Crazy

    by Hokeybutt

    I admire Stone's work in general... LOVED Salvador, Nixon, Natural Born Killers and even U-Turn. I was left unenthused by Platoon, JFK and Wall Street. From the few promos and trailers I've seen Alexander looks pretty awful... but Harry's review gives me pause to reconsider.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9 p.m. CST

    the critics are full of shit.....

    by Red Raider

    I saw Alexander earlier today. Wow. What a spectacle! I agree with the previous post. This is a film that, with time, will gain a greater acceptance that it'll probably recieve today. Is the film flawless? No. For that matter, neither was Gladiator (in fact, if memory recalls, there were a boatload of critics in 2000 who shit all over Ridley Scott's Best Picture). Go back and read Gene Shalit's review of Titanic. He hated it! All I can say is bravo Oliver Stone! The so-called critics (translation: failed film school dropouts and playwrights) can go fuck themselves...

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:16 p.m. CST

    "There are times where I

    by Triumph poops!

    Ah, glad to see Harry is still in major denial about the election. Harry, just slap yourself in the face or toss some ice cold water on yourself. But SNAP OUT OF IT and WAKE UP to reality already. The bottom line is that a majority of the country DID vote for Bush over Kerry -- in fact, he not only won the electoral college but he won the POPULAR vote by several MILLION. But Libs like Harry remaining in denial is actually good news for Republicans in 4 years when McCain most likely runs. Because their denial that the country these days IS more "red" than "blue" over particular issues is just how Democrats keep losing elections. They keep falling into the same trap, and keep insisting "we know best" and "we know what people want"...when clearly elitist Leftists are out of touch with the American mainstream. Then again, Harry's denial over the election would also explain his brain waves being jacked up and explain why he'd like ALEXANDER which is a piece of laughable crap. And I say "laughable" LITERALLY because the crowd I saw it with was actually snickering out loud. Someone in this talkback thread noted that some of the cast (like Jolie) realized what a bad movie they were trapped in, so they decided to raise their hamminess barometers up several notches for fun. Trust me, THAT'S the most dead-on review you'll read. And the battle scenes ARE a mess. Talk about random editing and no sense of storytelling so you have a better sense of "what" is going on. And the fact that Stone got some of the history wrong shouldn't shock anyone either -- after all, this is the same guy who lied his way through JFK distorting historical facts and figures simply so he could self-create support his own pre-conceived theory.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Behold Harry, the colossus!

    by pvecu

    When Mr. Knowles bursts in anger, he is as powerful as Alexander himself. I haven

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:22 p.m. CST

    uhhh....

    by Spaz Medicine

    According to rottentomatoes.com, GLADIATOR got a 78% positive rating, while TITANIC recieved an 86% positive rating. These movies are way too recent for these reviews to have come well after the movie came out. So, in comparing it to this movie, which recieved a 12 FUCKING PERCENT rating, I must ask, ARE YOU ON CRACK? I have not seen this movie an I probably will, but what a horribly bad comparison.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Oliver Stone?

    by dr. robert

    Isn't he the dude who wrote the scripts for Conan The Barbarian, Scarface and Year Of The Dragon? Wasn't he fella who directed Salvador, Platoon, Born On The 4th Of July & JFK? If it's the same guy, then I'll definitely be seeing Alexander on Friday...

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Fluffy...

    by Kevin Bosch

    Actually, all that you mentioned -about Alexander letting down his own people - is in the movie, and done very well. It's done in the way where it lets you decide which side you want to be on. We see how Alexander's men basically treat him as an equal and how eventually he begins to demand they bow down to him as the persians and indians do. There is even the scene where he kills the guy who saved his life earlier when he started to argue with Alexander.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 9:56 p.m. CST

    good explanation

    by jackburtonlives

    thanks fluffy

  • Tim Allen makes Jimmy Stewart look like Randy Quaid. The rest of the world is wrong Wrong WRONG. The reviews of Christmas with the Kranks are obviously the result of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that stole not only the election, but will make sure that Alexander the Great falls into the Trying-to-top-Titanic-trash.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 10:40 p.m. CST

    I thought the movie was alright

    by JiggamanSpence

    Not nearly as bad as the reviews say, but it wasn't amazing either. From pure entertainment point of view, i prefered Troy. It's not the gay element i didnt like, that didnt bother me, i just thought the second half of the movie was pretty weak, and it had some structural problems. The battle against the persians towards the beginning is fantastic though!

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Of course I will go see it

    by skiff

    I was going before I read this review some how I just don,t believe what some people are saying. I will know on friday

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 11:01 p.m. CST

    Alexander's Ragtime Band

    by cookylamoo

    As a confirmed liberal I find it just as hard to believe than Alexander was consumed by a pure desire to bring Democracy and egalatarianism to the world as I am to believe that our desire to bring Freedom and Democracy to Iraq has nothing to do with sucking up their oil reserves. Although Stone attempts to portay Alex as some big idealist, somehow it feels phony and superimposed. The cornball imagry, the flying bird, the pink jungle, and tons of stuff lifted from better movies does little to keep Stone's vision from looking silly and contrived. If Hopkins is supposed to be the focus of the story then his tedious rambling diatribe should have been cleaned up and forced to make some kind of sense. As it is, it all comes out as another way of saying. Alxander, he was some kind of a man.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Harry's Incorrect Ranting

    by Fernwick_

    Um, Harry when you say there wasnt even a word to differ between hetero & homo sexual sex. Um this was 356-323BC. This is about a few thousand years after Moses and after the 10 Commandments. That are part of Jewish law, and later to be known as Christian law. So to say there was no difference, is um..... WRONG. But other then that a decent review, not to be holier then thou... but when you come 10 miles out of left field with that. You need to be corrected. Nuff said.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Point taken But

    by Fernwick_

    The bible doesnt say its bad to smoke crack either not LITERALLY, but in the old testament, it states Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination." So, that is pretty direct huh? Now im just saying, that Harry said, there is NO distinction. So that to me is like him saying, having sex with woman is ok permission or no, there is no distinction. Thats a pretty big friggin distinction thats all. Im not talking about his morality statement, im saying he is flat WRONG that it wasnt known there is a difference.

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 11:31 p.m. CST

    All of your points are taken

    by Fernwick_

    But are part of a deeper conversation that is moot here. I was only referring to the point that Harry made when he said there was no distinction, I say there was. I didnt say MORAL distinction i just said distinction. I used the book of Leviticus since it was written over 2000 years before Alexander. So my point was there HAD been a distinction for over 2000 years, if you ONLY look at that ONE example. Thats all. Now if you want to get into the rest of it, say so and we will fall asleep at our keyboards :) But I am just saying in a discussion not like one of these crazy YOUR A MORON!!! posters, just a discussion with points and counter points. Harry was wrong :) Thus I get the N0-prize :) Fernwick

  • Nov. 24, 2004, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Bah, fuck this movie and fuck "Alexander the So-Called Great!"

    by screenplaywriter

    This movie really had my hopes up; really it did, but by overhyping this film, adding in the bisexuality and homoeroticism it totally turned me off as a moviegoer and a fan of the old "swords and sandals" epics. Say what you want Harry but we all know you're a flaming fat fag so you might as well admit it now. I wanted this to be "TROY" and "GLADIATOR" and "SPARTACUS" and in the vain of the days of the old Cecille B. Demille classic films. Unfortunately, we're given what sounds from the reviews and the critics a "over the top, poorly educated, poorly directed, poorly acted" fluff that is surely to pick up tons of Raspberry Awards. I hate how Oliver Stone has to come out and be a "controversial filmmaker." What reputation do you have to stand for? "U-Turn" sucked! "Any Given Sunday" which yes had strong performances from Pacino, Foxx, and Quaid and Diaz was a gritty football film, but it also was a flat football film. The problem with Stone is this: He goes out and makes a decent film, but then feels that he has to add in his own elements. Because of this it amounts into three things: frivolous, boring, and unentertaining. Lastly, I know because of hearing about Colin Farrel and Jared Leto kissing and hugging like two faggy drag queens I will never watch "PHONEBOOTH" or "PANIC ROOM" again. Colin Farrel just ruined his bad boy image because now he sounds like a little tooth fairy princess. So, lastly....FUCK "ALEXANDER", FUCK THE MAN HE WAS/WHAT FILM DEPICTS HIM AS! FUCK THE MARKETING CAMPAIGN FOR KEEPING MY HOPES UP AND THEN BASHING THEM! AND WATCH THE ONSLAUGHT OF IRISHMEN COME CRASHING DOWN ON COLIN FARREL BECAUSE YOU WON'T SEE HIS ASS IN A PUB AGAIN FOR A PINT AFTER THIS PIECE OF SHIT!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Homo, hetero, and pedo

    by chrth

    A Greek isn't a Greek isn't a Greek...Athenians were NAMBLA, Spartans were cruisers, and both had a disgust for the other (i.e. Spartans derided the Athenians' boy-love). Athenian society also did not look favorably upon adult male-male relationships...point is, you can't make a blanket statement about Greek civilization's cultural values because they differed. And, of course, Alexander wasn't Greek, he was Macedonian, and if you think that's an insignificant difference, go pick up a book. Did Alexander have a homosexual relationship? Likely. Why? Almost everything we know about the ancients came *through* Christian or Islam sources because the printing press hadn't been invented yet in the 3rd century BC (not even in China). So the monks and librarians wouldn't have added something like that willingly; now, you might ask, why didn't they remove the inferences? Not really sure, maybe they didn't think it was that big of a deal (and who would be surprised that a pagan population engaged in such 'debauchery'?)

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:29 a.m. CST

    Hmm, this reminds me of how I felt after Troy

    by Mr Bonefish

    Fuck all the naysayers...you have to go with your own critique and laugh at the idiots...the same morons who think Gladiator is a great film.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Still smarting from that election loss huh?

    by wato

    To be lectured to on history and the shallowness of our

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Harry's Got The Gay!

    by Tall_Boy

    hahahhaha, nice.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Lambblion: "Oh and FUCK BUSH !!!! All you B-bandwagon folks are

    by Triumph poops!

    Yes, Lambblion, history DOES repeat over and over. Translation: Libs ran a sorry ass joke of a candidate in Gore and ensured a loss for Democrats, libs ran a sorry ass joke of a candidate in Kerry and ensured a loss for Democrats... and here's a toast to history repeating itself yet again when you Libs run Hillary in '08 as your latest sorry ass choice -- one which will clearly divide people and the country yet again emotionally -- thus ensuring another Republican win and another 8 years of running the Oval Office, this time with McCain at the helm.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:47 a.m. CST

    Memo to 'Triumph Poops'

    by uberman

    When the moral majority runs this country, they will wash your mouth out with soap for being so vulgar in your posts. Please, if your going to be a right winger, use proper english when you spell out hatred towards your neighbors-Its the Christian Way:)

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Wow, if Harry like this THAT much it must really really suck...

    by Logo Lou

    I mean, c'mon, it's proven the guy has shitty taste in movies.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 4 a.m. CST

    Well done, Harry--and I don't even like the movie.

    by heywood jablomie

    Harry really thought about Stone's ideas in depth--more so than any other critic has. I don't think the movie works, but I respect Harry's respect. Maybe somebody should give the redhead a real reviewing job.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 4:10 a.m. CST

    But then, that

    by AttackingClone

    Speak for yourself, loser.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 4:10 a.m. CST

    Grow Up

    by SilentType

    From the guy who gave us that BLADE II review?

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 5:05 a.m. CST

    ATT: Wato, Other Red-State Fuckos

    by Jed

    ooh, you've caught us for following BIASED hollywood fare--like Historians have no bias? Hello, your fucking hero Anne Coulter, who has the fucking audacity to call Truman and FDR traitors. If only us loser slackers would take up some of THAT fine history. Like a book is somehow exempt from subjectivity. I'll state my bias. The President is a blue-blood old-money yankee billionaire posing as folksey, fronting as Texan, and if actual republicans, actual conservatives, have a fucking ounce of sense they will expel that nasty neo-con element from the Grand Ol' Party. but go on, Keep on telling yourself everything's cool, you've got '08 locked because us dumb-asses will back a no-win canidate. Keep telling yourself that shit. Get Comfy. Get Sodded. FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR FAMILIES, SECULAR HUMANIST LEFT-WING CAPITALISM IN YOUR PUCKERED RUBY STARFRUITS, Happy Thanksgiving

  • I'm a huge fan of Stone's work prior to and including JFK, but everything since then is narratively bloated and lost. All his films have become meaningless exercises in psycho-analysis and social critique with the intent of illuminating the demons that torture us all, and the enculturation process that is partly their cause. I'm certain history will forget this movie sooner than later. Thankfully Alexander will live on in the cultural millieu without Stone's contribution.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Plant!

    by seniormoogle

    How much is harry getting paid to lick Stones ass?

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Holy hell Harry - when will you stop pretending to know anything

    by scrumdiddly

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Great review. Articulate and passionate. I wish more people coul

    by Silver_Joo

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 9:22 a.m. CST

    FINALLY Harry! A passionate, well written review, that doesn't s

    by Fish Tank

    n/t

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Lets get a movie about bush from Oliver Stone. Bush resembles t

    by Judge Briggs

    Fuck Bush and hail Stone's work.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Should've seen it coming (no pun intended)...

    by UnChienAndalou

    Any huge-budget epic that everyone and their cousin hates usually gets defended vigorously by the H-man.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 10:34 a.m. CST

    ENOUGH THE BUSH BASHES! Jesus Christ can't you go on with a minu

    by screenplaywriter

    My God all of you anti-Bushers spew out the same damn shit. Least Triumph knows what he is talking about. You guys brought out a candidate (John Kerry) who he thought could hide behind his past record as a senator and so-called "war hero" but when the truth came out all he could do was try and sneak around it, using his quick tongue, and having Clinton come out and help him. You Democrats are all the same, clones as you will, you say the same rhetoric, but when us Republicans, or Bush-supporters fight back and call your candidates "idiots", "war mongerors", "tyrants", whatever you all turn into big babies crying because you didn't get any breast milk. Face it, the election is over! Bush won the popular vote and the majority! Kerry pussed out and could've fought it, but refused because I believe when he saw the numbers he actually was glad that he was not going to be president and so we're the Clintons. And Hilary is not your go-to girl for 2008. She is a mean-spirited, heartless, merciless, and a domineering bitch! Obama is your guy to look up to, you Democrats owe yourselves to go for him. Face it, your party is crumbling, no one is buying into the stem cell research ideas, or the gay marriage ideas. You have to find ideas that appeal to the people, not to just a select few of you. You have to be out there and reach out to everyone, not just say, "Oh, well let's go to a black church just to buy the black vote." I mean face it you know Kerry would've damn well forgotten the blacks and the other minorities if he became president. And my final closing statement. Everyone claims Clinton was a great president, or "he did this", or "he did that." We went into Bosnia and it was a failed mission. We went to Somolia and we lost 17 guys, than pulled out, and now dictators are ruling over the country once more, with death, and starvation rampant through the streets. And he could've prevented Osama Bin Laden from attacking again in 93' but he didn't and he spent his last term getting his dick sucked and putting us in downward spiral of taxes. Bush is the man! You cannot deny it! He's done so many things and he is destroying the terorrists and their regime. Something that should've been done a long, long time ago.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 11 a.m. CST

    I beg to differ

    by Sabowan

    Harry actually wrote a fair review of this film, and for that I applaud him. He liked it, and he told us exactly why, but I can't help but differ in opinion. Certainly there are thematic elements; Stone has captured jealousy, betrayal, and the vision that Alexander possessed which no one else could see quite well. Even the acting performances, I thought, were quite good. Unlike many reviewers, I did not find the accents distracting at all. Go to any British or American city for that matter today and you will hear a plethora of different accents all speaking the same language. It would not have been any different in Macedonia, and quite frankly, I had my share of ancient languages in The Passion of The Christ earlier this year, so I am certainly glad Stone didn't go that route. The battle scenes are generally very well executed, and as Harry says, are quite different from what we've seen in epic movies the past few years. Where this film truly stumbles though is in the pacing and the narrative. Using Anthony Hopkins' retrospective narrative is a fine device, but at many key times, it takes us directly out of the story. SPOILERS AHEAD....YOU'VE BEEN WARNED...In the film's first 1/4, directly after Alexander has defied his father and been "banished," we cut back to Hopkins, who tells us that two years later, his father was murdered, Alexander became King, went to Egypt, and was declared by a prophet to be the true son of Zeus. Alexander attempts to live up to this label the rest of the film, so it was an obviously critical point in his life (not to mention more interesting than most of what has gone on at this point in the film), yet it is glossed over. Only in the last 1/3 of the film do we flashback to see the murder of his father, and this is done chiefly to cement a connection with one of his commanders who he has just killed before the flashback. This flashback is the only one in the film, so it seems not only out of place but just nonsensical; the foreshadowing this scene would have given to the death of his commander had we seen it BEFORE Alexander had already killed him on screen would have made the film play much better. END SPOILERS...The film has numerous problems such as this. The story meanders more than the travels of Alexander himself, and although there is a cohesive whole to it all, one could have hoped for much more. Furthermore, the score to this film is just attrocious. There are no memorable themes whatsoever, and I didn't even bother to remember who did the music. JFK's music, by John Williams, served that film incredibly well, and someone of his caliber would have been well-utilized in this film as well. Although Harry's points were certainly valid, I just have to disagree with his opinion. The film did not work well for me, and although I enjoyed portions of it, I was relieved to be out of my seat at the end of it. I'm sad to say that after taking my small cousins to see The Spongebob Squarepants Movie this past weekend, I know which film was vastly more entertaining and had a more cohesive narrative, and that film was not Alexander.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Harry, I applaud your review!

    by Rogue_Leader

    I saw this film and whole I agree it is FAR from perfect it is definitely not the turkey the press is making it out to be. I thought your review was well thought out and brought up some very insightful points. I dont agree with your political musings. However. those I can live with. I dont usually give you much credit but this time you deserve a REAL pat on the back.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Nice explanation, Fluffy. And BAHAMUT-KUN is right

    by eraser_x

    "uniter" is another word for killer. Anyhow, Alexander at the end lost his troops because he became an out-of-control drunk and killer of his own men (and not just the one man who saved his life). To add injury to insult and injury, he also managed to get 3/4 of his soldiers killed in marching them across a desert. And when his boyfriend died, in his grief, he massacred a whole city for no reason. Alexander had clearly become mentally unstable at the end. Just read Plutarch for yourself: http://www.e-classics.com/ALEXANDER.htm

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:19 p.m. CST

    that soapbox doesn't collect a lot of dust, does it?

    by Mentok

    I hate it when people make assumptions about other people's prejudices. Maybe they didn't like it because it isn't a good movie, not because they are homophobic? Isn't that possible? It really seems like Harry likes this movie so much because of what he feels that will say about him, no because of what it says about Alexander "Look, look, I'm enlightened and wise!!"

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:24 p.m. CST

    I don't give a fuck about Bush OR Kerry - you Americans are a bu

    by TheGinger Twit

    Show some balls like the Eucranians, who know a stolen election when they see one!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:30 p.m. CST

    no gay sex?

    by Barry Egan

    Does anybody besides me think it's weird that the gay sex part of Alexander has been toned down, but Stoen went out of his way to show us as many cocks as he could in Any Given Sunday?

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Fernwick needs to check his/her sources

    by ellid

    The Hebrew scriptures were written down a few hundred years before Alexander. Exodus describes events that allegedly took place around 1200 BCE, not "thousands of years" before Alexander's birth. And the Jews were an obscure little group with very little influence on Hellenistic culture. That came later, with the Romans and the segue into the Christian Byzantine empire.****And oh yes, there were no distinct words for "heterosexual" or "homosexual" until the 19th century. Sorry about that, old sport!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Correction

    by ellid

    The Torah was not finalized until around 500 BCE, or less than two hundred years before Alexander's time. This was just after the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews were attempting to consolidate their history and literature after the destruction of their and their removal to Mesopotamia. It is unlikely in the extreme that Alexander (or any of his associates, including Aristotle, his tutor) had even heard of the Jews, let alone were influenced by the Levitical prohibition on homosexuality. **** You may personally believe that homosexuality is immoral, but please stop distorting the historical record. Sex between men was common and accepted in Hellenistic culture. It was scarcely seen as immoral. To leave it out of Alexander's story would be about as gross an error as giving Elizabeth I a husband and six adorable children.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 12:57 p.m. CST

    To use your own words, Harry, "Grow up."

    by slone13

    The newest Stone movie is getting trashed by critics. And Harry's furious? Get a life, Harry. Oh, and stop bitching about the election. The country has spoken. You lost. End of story. As you said yourself Harry, "Grow up."

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1 p.m. CST

    I just read this 'review' again...

    by slone13

    I think Harry just makes shit up sometimes. "There was not even a word to differentiate sex between men and men and men and women." Incorrect. Do a little research, Harry. You don't know what you're talking about.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1 p.m. CST

    I'm surprised at how good a review this was - i'll risk seeing t

    by spiffy-thedog

    Good show.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Leave the political debates for other chats, or just go watch Al

    by andrew coleman

    The movie probably won't be great but it's going to be better then a lot of the crap that has come out lately and will be much better than Troy. Oh and for all this political bitching both sides need to shut up, Bush won, okay so all the Bushies are getting in people's face, well congrats, thanks to you guys and him and his Wallmart buddies China will be controlling the world in ten that will be a party, but the other side has no right to complain either the Libs bitch so much it gets annoying saying Bush has started another Vietnam, um No we already won the war in Iraq now were occupying. the only reason to be mad at Bush is for the economy, this bashing the war on terror stuff is so annoying, but anyway both sides suck and both are wrong, and just remember that learning Chinese as a second language would be a very good idea, happy thanksgiving!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Was gonna see it anyway.

    by Veraxus

    Critic's reviews don't carry much weight with me any more. Most of my favorite films were blasted by critics with their theatrical release. 'Not getting it' is the sure-fire sign that I'm going to love a movie; that means that the critics are simply retarded. In any case, I was planning on seeing Alexander anyway - I only hope it makes liberal use of all it's R rating. Blood, guts, and hot steamy sex don't fail me now!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:47 p.m. CST

    I agree with this review. It's a movie that resists capsule revi

    by watashiwadare

    Too soon to know what a great movie is there, really cuz it resists being encapsulated as much as the title character does.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 1:48 p.m. CST

    This is the movie....

    by screenplaywriter

    The story of "ALEXANDER" + "GLADIATOR"-like violence+ "Manchurian Candidate" + Gay Porn + Overacting= One shitty ass movie. I'll take my chances and just rent something this weekend, or go see something worth seeing. After the reviews, the bisexual aspects of the film, and hearing how much of this movie just blows I am choosing to not see it. It had my hopes up in the summer when I saw the trailer, but when the word spread of them depicting Alexander's love for men and women it totally turned me off. I admit I am a homophobe. Mainly because 1. I believe in the Bible and it's teachings and yes I am a Christian and 2. I think really and I know I am going to get alot of complaints and whiny comments from this talkback, but really I think "their kind" are a plague on our society and people. I mean Bravo is now gay-a-fied by "Queer Eye" and other fashion model shows, NBC has "WILL & GRACE" which exploits itself and every guest star on the show is either playing a lesbian, or gay person. And they just try so desperately hard to make us straight people accept them. Well, I don't. And by the mockery of this film I think people too realize they don't accept this kind of shit either. As much as the Democrats and whoever can try and make it acceptable, gay people, and gay marriage will never be tolerated. NEVER! And I hope this movie totally bombs at the box-office and becomes one of Ben Affleck's flops. It'll teach all the stars to pick smarter roles, more demanding roles, not over-the-top, crappy roles. It'll teach them that classics can't be toiled with and that always like different "retellings" ( "KING ARTHUR", "THE ALAMO") it never comes off what the original was like.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Harry got another raging rod over a movie that most people didn'

    by Durendal

    And Harry, give up on the political ranting already. Your constant stereotyping of conservatives may elicit cheers from the choir, but to anyone with a mind of their own (regardless of political stance), you just look like another twit. Believe it or not, conservatives are not some big, homogenous group with identical aims of world domination. There is a huge diversity there. Aren't leftists supposed to be all about diversity? Anyway, I don't trust this review, seeing as how Harry seems to shoot his load in almost every review. I especially don't trust it when he gives a glowing (or should I say blowing?) review to something that has been almost universally shat upon. Van Helsing, anyone? Harry whacked off to that one all over the page...yet nearly everyone who saw it would agree that it sucked smelly ass.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:13 p.m. CST

    What a Joke

    by vash666

    Harry, this site used to be something fun and now all I read is the laborious ramblings of a self-indulgent man who has lost all perspective and touch with quality. The absolute shit you endorse on this site is fucking painful to witness and I hope you have come to realize how little credibility you have left with those of us who once thought you had a pretty good head on your shoulders. This Alexander review takes it though. I sat through this insipid, bloated exercise in tedium yesterday and I quite literally laughed out loud during some of the most

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:43 p.m. CST

    elitist Leftists

    by Kaitain

    "when clearly elitist Leftists are out of touch with the American mainstream" Yes, they are. But consider also that Copernicus was out of touch with the European mainstream. Most people are not very bright, and not very informed. Most people are lazy thinkers. Most people want simple solutions and comforting reassurances. It is certainly possible that the distribution of these people may be non-uniform. It's not hard to understand some of the reasons that the people in the USA's heartland would find Bush's message more attractive than those on the coasts. They're more insular people, as they don't have a large stream of human traffic coming through their areas. They're brought up on a diet of religious thought, which by its nature tends to discourage questions and critical enquiry in many areas. They are comfortable with received wisdom, not hard philosophical problems. It's not that they have low IQs (I have no reason to suppose these are any different), they just have sloppier mental habits. Even if you have a decent CPU, your software may be poorly-written. If by "elite" you're suggesting that the liberal intelligentsia are in some way in a higher echelon, then with respect to appraising people's faculty for rational, critical thought, I would have to agree with you.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Harry Also Swallows Alexander's Seed!

    by BigTuna

    Jesus. What a slump you're in Harry. Seed of Chucky, now this monstrosity. Not to mention how you hyped Team America to death then didn't even give us a review. Most will disagree with me, but i also think you're overrating the Incredibles terribly.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 3:50 p.m. CST

    we already won the war in Iraq

    by Kaitain

    "No we already won the war in Iraq now were occupying." Nominally, yes. But all but Bush's closest henchman are now admitting in public as well as in private that the situation in Iraq has become close to disastrous. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz got it hopelessly wrong, thinking a fairly small troop deployment would be sufficient, that a sniff of democracy would do the rest and get all the Iraqis onside. Their staggeringly naive appraisal of a country with an extremely complicated past, and the foolish shunning of realpolitik by dismantling the Iraqi civil service and infrastructure in the name of de-Baathification has created an unworkable quagmire in Iraq. I do hope you're not getting your "news" from Fox.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 5:25 p.m. CST

    My two cents

    by Sabowan

    Since apparently giving my review for the movie wasn't doing my duty as a talkbacker nowadays, I suppose I'll throw in my two political cents as well. I'm an Independent voter, I'm 22 years old, and yes, I believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth as the Son of God, making me some sort of Christian, though my views are much more of the transcendental variety than through any organized religion at this point in my life. That being said, you'll notice that I did not give one mention of the depiction of Alexander's bisexuality in the film during my earlier review. I just didn't feel I needed to do so. I thought this aspect of the film was pulled off just as well as it could have been by Stone, but like most of the rest of the picture, it doesn't really add much to the characterization or narrative other than giving the audience a more true representation of Hellenistic sexual behavior than we've seen in a major film to date. Throughout this talkback, this topic in the film has SOMEHOW gave way to discussion about gay marriage today, to which I must say, "Huh?" The two are only mildly related at best, but here's my view anyway. As I mentioned previously, I have Christian beliefs. Yes, that means I think "marriage," as defined by thousands of years of Christian tradition, should be between a man and a woman. However, as a student of the United States Constitution, I find it fundamentally flawed that our states base "marriage," on ANY religious doctrine anyway, and thus, I feel that same-sex "marriage" (domestic partnerships, civil unions, whatever we should be calling them if "MARRIAGE" is a religious institution) SHOULD NOT be banned by any state, as this fundamentally disagrees, in my view, with Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constituion. THE END. You can disagree with me all you want, but I feel that fifty years from now (or less, hopefully), history will prove me right. To sum things up, Alexander is not a good film; gay marriage should be allowed if your reason for blocking it is religious. Happy Thanksgiving!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Triumph poops! I don?t mean to be a stickler to the facts, but

    by HarrisonsDad

    . . . You stated, and I quote, "The bottom line is that a majority of the country DID vote for Bush over Kerry . . . " However, that is not exactly true. Bush received 60,608,582 votes. The current population of the United States is 294,838,961 . . . that means that 234,230,378 people did NOT vote for George W. Bush. Now, I assume you intended to say "of the people who voted", but since you didn?t, I have a right and duty to call you out on this. Of course, it?s all in the spirit of fun and I hope you take it that way. If not, flame on!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Nicole

    by Kaitain

    "why are we still having to debate with them why Communism is a failed ideology when they think it is desirable?" I very much doubt that any more than a small percentage of liberals think that communism is workable. Some might laud some of its principles, but acknowledge that in reality it simply won't work because it clashes too much with basic human nature. Stunning demolition of Chomsky, btw.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Will someone explain to me why apostrophes turn into Question ma

    by HarrisonsDad

    I'm just curious.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 7:12 p.m. CST

    screenplaywriter...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Man, you've got a closed mind. Think about it for a second... just think about it. How in the world does two men that are in love with eachother affect your life IN ANY WAY? Can't you leave them alone and let them be happy? They're not hurting anybody! The bible has corrupted another mind. What a shame. A guy wrote a book about a planetary flood, a guy walking on water, a guy turning into salt, a guy parting a sea etc., and you actually believe it? Can you explain the dinosaurs for me? Man has been on this earth for approximately 45,000 years. According to the bible, this is when the earth was "created", yet dinosaur fossils have been found that are MILLIONS of years old. Can't explain that one, can you? Oh, what's that, you say? God works in mysterious ways. Biggest... cop-out... ever. Live and let live, you fucking ass-backward redneck homophobe. God damned inbreeding. BTW, I'm hetero, so please refrain from sending homo comments toward myself...

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:06 p.m. CST

    This movie was shittier than Gayzilla's underwear...

    by Ivan_Mtl

    I think GriffinMill put Harry's review in proper perspective... this is from theguy that liked Van Helsing. lol

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Fucking ass backward redneck?

    by screenplaywriter

    What the hell does that mean? By the way how could I be imbreeding? I have a wife who is from a different family and is not my cousin and 2. Fuck you ya smartass shit. Why don't you jump into Colin Farrel and Jared Leto's man-on-man pile because obvious you're talking like you're hiding something. And hey you can attack the Bible all you want, you can spout off on it, and whatever I don't give a shit, but your screenname sounds which has Uru-Khai in it sounds like your some 30 year-old dweeb who still lives with his mom, chows on Cheetos, watches cartoons, and plays Dungeons and Dragons and Card-Trading games to past his time. Go back to Middle Earth you stupid fucker. Hell, maybe while you're there you, Frodo, and Sam can have one big hobbit orgy, because you don't sound hetero to me, or anyone on this chat. Fuck off buddy!

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Reclaiming morality

    by Kaitain

    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1348343,00.html Choice quote: "The suggestion is that a family man who owns a couple of gas-guzzling cars, several homes, a motor-yacht and a private plane, who avoids taxes by clever siting of his company, and who can't stand "queers" and foreigners, yet goes to church twice a week, is living an ideal moral life. In fact, for many of us, he would be about the least moral example we could think of." Quite.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:51 p.m. CST

    Please explain how this is so:

    by Kaitain

    "[Bush has] done so many things and he is destroying the terorrists and their regime." Yes, he has done a lot of things, few of them appearing to achieve the objectives he claims to have had in mind. Which terrorists has Bush destroyed? What is/was "their regime"? Just because a lot of Arabs have been killed in the last two years doesn't automatically mean the threat of terrorism have been reduced. Indeed, CIA terrorism experts (including Michael Scheuer, former chief of the CIA's Bin Laden unit) have gone on ecord as saying they believe the invasion of Iraq has increased the overall threat of terrorism, as has the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, respected figures such as Rohan Gunaratna, Jean-Louis Bruguiere, M.J. Gohel etc. etc. You don't defeat terrorism using conventional warfare. Decades of historical patterns were there for the analysing, but Bush's White House thought it knew better. This is a hubristic, dumb administration that has made the world a more dangerous place. Final thought: think about the one place in the USA that was hit hardest by terrorism, and think about the way people voted in that place.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 8:58 p.m. CST

    "Christians"' love for the Old Testament

    by Kaitain

    "but in the old testament, it states Leviticus 18:22" I'm sure it does. It's funny how so-called "Christians" love to quote pretty much everyone except Christ. Christ, who came up with a New Covenant that superceded the Old, preached tolerance, love and understanding, that guy? Nah, not much interested in him. Give us all that old fire and brimstone shit, we loved that. Or maybe John at a push; just please don't make us listen to any of the stuff in the synoptic gospels. Christians my ass. Anyone who finds themself quoting the Old Testament far more often than the New should perhaps consider converting to Judaism, as they clearly have little interest in the teachings of Christ.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST

    chrth & screenplaywriter

    by BananaSkin

    First of all, Chrth, get your facts right, Athenians 'disapproved' of male-male relationships and it was the Spartans that encouraged it, as a way to bond men/boys together to make better soldiers. Also I hope you are not thinking that the modern day country of Macedonia is in anyway related to the Greek macedonian region of antiquity. In Alexander's time Macedonia was a region populated by 'Greeks'. Remember when you refer to Greeks of ancient times you have to think of Athenians, Spartans, Thessalians, Corinthians etc all independant city states, but with a common language and religion. Perhaps you need to pick up and re-read that book. And now to screenplaywriter, why Alexander was given the title Great. Because he conquered pretty much the known world at the age of 33(?). What have you done with your life so far to compare to his? His actions profoundly changed the course of history. He conquered the greatest empire in his day, Persia, to found his own. Even though his empire fell after his death, the ramifications of his legacy left its mark all over Asia Minor. Greek culture mixed and merged throughout the region, just look at Egypt and the Ptolomey's. Why are you making the 'gay' aspect of the film the focal point of your criticism. Especially since you yourself have yet to see the film? Alexander's short life deserves much more respect than your bigoted opinion about his sexuality. So your a Christian? Me i'm a atheist/hetro. But guess what Christian fundamentalism has done more harm than any other religion or did you just conveniently forget about the medieval crusades or the conquest of the new world by the Spanish Conquisadors. Oh right, i forgot, the Pope probably forgave those sins, pretty convienient arrangement there. I'll let you in to another detail about the world, most people are not Christians. Tolerance and respect for other peoples cultures and faiths is the key to peaceful co-existance. Lastly, cheap shot to attack the director, so you list a couple of films you didn't like of his. Big deal, every director makes a crap film now and then. Remember its your opinion, what to you may be crap, another person may find higly entertaining. Finally i'll reserve my judgement on Alexander until i've seen the film. The reviews i've read have peaked my interest and its only a movie.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Kaitain - Christians

    by Ivan_Mtl

    It's funny how pro-Gay activists always attack Christians, and, specifically, Catholics as being homophobic (a misnomer if I ever heard one). A Catholic is no more anti-gay then he is anti-adultry, anti-lying, anti-stealing, anti-murder or anything else that is considered morally wrong in the bible. For anyone to use the Bible to condone rather than condemn homosexuality in the theological arena just proves that they have absolutely no idea what the Bible actually teaches. To suggest that the Bible says homosexual activity is acceptable to God, is nothing short of willful blindness. In fact, this is true of all major religions. Islam is probably the most rigidly and inhumanly anti-homosexual in it's practices of all the world religions. The verses from the Koran condemning homosexuality are much clearer than those that the Christians use. In all Muslim countries and all areas where the Islamic Sharia law is enforced homosexuality is strictly illegal. The debates in Islam about homosexuality are not about whether it is acceptable, but merely about how severe the punishment should be. Personally, I have never used religion in my discussions about why I feel homosexuality is wrong (choosing to base my arguments on pure, simple irrefutable science), but I certainly respect an individual's right to practice his or her faith. I wish more homosexual activists would learn to be so tolerant (which, in itself, is quite ironic).

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 10:28 p.m. CST

    To Ellid

    by Fernwick_

    YOu said check my sources ok, I was using the bible as a source of reference that it was in existance before Alexanders time. Now about time frames. From Adam to the flood was by any theologians historical record 2000 years. From The flood to Christ was 2000 years. From Christ to now is 2000 years, thus when I saw BC I am MORE then accurate. Now for you others who are not quite intelligent enough to read my direct quote. I am not quoting MORAL DIFFERENCES, I am stating that a difference existed. And to say that no difference or word of difference existed is factually inaccurate. So please go by what I said. I never quoted morals, i quoted that a difference was known and spoken of. Got it? Fernwick

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Oh and by the way

    by Fernwick_

    To the person who said that people per the bible have only been on earth a short period of time, and thus dinosaurs refute the bible let me correct you now. Genesis 1.1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (PERIOD, no commentary, no time reference, next verse) Now the earth was without form and void....(thus he created heavens and the earth) Now we go to the new testament where it says, A day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. Now one might take that as to say it took God 7000 years to create heaven and earth. But regardless of 7 days or 7000 years, it said thats what he did, and thats it. It doesnt say, and the next day he did this, it says now the earth was without form and void. So then God (persay)assembled everything. He separated the waters and so on and so forth. Now it doesnt say how long it took from when he created it all, to when he started assembling it all. So if you go literally, it could have been millions of years, it could have been BILLIONs of years. Got it? Fernwick

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 10:44 p.m. CST

    George Bush's majority

    by Voice O. Reason

    The majority isn't always right. Harding, Johnson, and Nixon (1972) all won by HUGE margins and their presidencies were sad, dismal failures. The quicker you right-wing fuckers learn that truth is not dependent on the number of believers, the better.

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Aw heck I cant resist

    by Fernwick_

    If you want to get REALLY technical, when Cain slew his brother Abel the only law given by God was do not eat the forbidden fruit. But when he killed his brother he was punished. This implies that murder was bad BEFORE it was even defined or ever done before. So without knowlege of that law, Cain was punished. That gets into UNIVERSAL TRUTH, or laws that supercede knowlege or even writ. Chew on that for a while :)

  • Nov. 25, 2004, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Come to canada, We Marry Gays!

    by BigTuna

    And no one gets busted for pot anymore! (well reasonable small amounts) Land of the Free, Woohoo!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 1:14 a.m. CST

    hahahhha, wow, this movie was terrible. So terrible everyone sh

    by Tall_Boy

    go see this trainwreck now, kiddies, just for laughs.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 1:46 a.m. CST

    The fact that homosexuality has become THE hot button topic at t

    by IndustryKiller

    Just like womens rights, civil rights, and abortion. It's always controversial until we slowly accept it as an inevitibility and relax and realize the world doesn't end when it happens. Sorry christian conservatives but you eventually lose every fight. And Ivan exactly what "pure irrefutable science" determines that homosexuality is wrong? I'm not so sure science can determine somethign liek that. In fact I'm pretty sure it can't.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Oow Christian talk

    by TheGinger Twit

    It is evident that there was no single historical person upon whom the Christian religion was founded, and that "Jesus Christ" is a compilation of legends, heroes, gods and godmen. There is not adequate room here to go into detail about each god or godman that contributed to the formation of the Jewish Jesus character; suffice it to say that there is plenty of documentation to show that this issue is not a question of "faith" or "belief." The truth is that during the era this character supposedly lived there was an extensive library at Alexandria and an incredibly nimble brotherhood network that stretched from Europe to China, and this information network had access to numerous manuscripts that told the same narrative portrayed in the New Testament with different place names and ethnicity for the characters. In actuality, the legend of Jesus nearly identically parallels the story of Krishna, for example, even in detail, as was presented by noted mythologist and scholar Gerald Massey over 100 years ago, as well as by Rev. Robert Taylor 160 years ago, among others. The Krishna tale as told in the Hindu Vedas has been dated to at least as far back as 1400 B.C.E. The same can be said of the well-woven Horus mythos, which also is practically identical, in detail, to the Jesus story, but which predates the Christian version by thousands of years. The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Oh and btw

    by TheGinger Twit

    Bush and all Americans who believe in his great leadership are fucking cocksuckers.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:16 a.m. CST

    For GOD's sake!!!

    by Hey

    All the modern religions, and with this I mean the religions that were created since the Jewish one (including Christianity, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism and every other insanely outgrown secte) is based on historic myth. Of course many religions have the same stories about the same places and people, that's because civilization started there. People started talking and writing there. People started inventing legendary tales there. And these tales made it through history all the way to us..., the modern man, still believing them as if it were true. I mean, if we stopped believing in Santa Claus, in the boogieman, in the Loch Ness monster and all these other cool imaginary things, then why the hell do we still, in such big hordes, believe in a God? OK, so there was a guy 2000 years ago that was named Jesus and he told people he could do stuff and was God's son..., that's, for crying out loud, exactly the same story as David Koresh (from waco) or that guy from Guyana, or all these other dudes that call them selves mesiah's did. Like Jesus then, all of them had a small secte-like following and all of them were slayed or arrested by the government and the majority of people of the community. Nobody believes in mesiah's now! So why does everybody believe in mesiah's from way back then? And it's not like he was the first one!!! For millenia before him, there have been people, horny for power and crazed beyond belief, that thought of themselves as god's and stuff like that. Everybody just put a sock in it and start thinking about the important things in life! You're only here on this pretty little blue planet in the vast dark cosmos for a couple of years (I mean some trees get older then us). Make these 70, 80 or 90 years cool! Make 'm worth it! And if you're scared of diying, get over it! Everybody dies, it's sad to lose all you've got and never see it again, but when you're dead, you're dead, you won't give a shit! You know they say there's a fine line between intelligence and insanity, well, we (the people) have evolved so well, we became so intelligent, we've gone mad! Intelligence is to get us further in life, not set us back..., and that is exactly what religion does. It sets you back. Oh well, if I'm in trouble, God will help me out. No he won't! You have to do it yourself!!! If all the inventors, investigators, humanists, thinkers, discoverers and the rest of the people that evolved mankind didn't stop believing there was only a God and nothing else matters, we would still be in the middle-ages. Thank them we're not! Not God,... them! We'd be diying young, overpopulating the small little piece of earth we lived on (not knowing or believing there was anything else out there) and just living the most boring life ever. The way our so called God wants us to live it. Please!!!!! Grow up everybody! But anyway..., having said that, I didn't mean to offend anybody or anything. If you wanna believe, go ahead, believe! But please don't hordelly go out and vote a president just because of that reason. And especially not the most powerful president on earth. A president that can destroy the planet whenever he wants to. A president that actually believes that Adam & Eve really did exist!!! Wait a minute..., shouldn't he be giving more respect to Bahgdad in that case? I mean, it is the Garden of Eden! SH

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Greeks and Child Rape

    by Roboteer

    Excuse me, but anyone who thinks the Greeks were ahead of their time or enlightened for institutionalizing child rape just goes to show where we're headed if somebody doesn't get some values soon. If that isn't the premiere example of the 'slippery slope' where the Looney Left and its useful idiots are leading, what is? Shouldn't you all be jumping off a cliff or headed to Canada by now? I'll help carpool. Ha.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Nicole21...the spawn of bad right wing radio.

    by Lost Skeleton

    Harry, that was a great and persuasive review; however, I still think the movie stinks and I will wait untill it comes out on DVD before I rent it from Netflix. I work to hard to spend my $8.50 on questionable flicks...but I'm glad you liked it. Oh, and Triump poops...Senator McCain is too acceptable to Democrats; therefore, the riht-wing nutjobs like Nicole21 in your party will never give the good Senator from Arizona the nomination (You see how they roasted him in 2000 when he ran against the Boy-King Bush). Senator Frisk is your man in 2008 and if you thought Kerry was bad for us, wait untill you see Frisk on the campaign trial 'cuz this guy has zero charisma.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Harry doesn't know how to review movies anymore.

    by screenplaywriter

    He says this rules and all the other critics say it doesn't, he says "Seed of Chucky" is good, but all the critics don't. He said "THE PUNISHER" sucked, but I thought it was one of the best low-budgeted, action-movie-revenge-flicks ever next to Clint Eastwood's and Charle's Brosnan's movies. He loved "VAN HELSING" which was a trippy, special-effects laden piece of crap. The only thing that was enjoyable was seeing Kate Beckingsale in that outfit, Hugh Jackman just being Hugh Jackman, and the werewolf transformation scene. Nothing about the film was highly praiseworthy. Sure, it was a popcorn film, but "Van Helsing" was the kind of popcorn film where after you're done eating and watching you feel like you just gave up 2 1/2 hrs to nothing. And I'm glad the reviews are pouring in for this claiming it sucks, or it's "BATMAN & ROBIN" good. It just shows that Harry can't write or review. The true reviewer on this site is Moriarty, or Quint. Harry should just go stick to his day job trying to be like Syndrome in "The Incredibles" in his earlier years. I'm glad us Republicans and right-wingers are standing up to you left-wingers and Democrats. It just goes to show the world is working right, it just goes to show that people are growing tired of the whining, the bitching, the groaning, the incessant attacks of the Democrats and the left-winged media and realizing that this election was pivotal. And no George Bush is not turning people into mindless zombies, because I know some of you will probably say that, he is uniting the world, he is making good, he is making it peaceful. And if you don't like it than go and move to Canada. Oh, wait you're still here! My God! Here I thought you'd left by now! Well, here I'll go call a moving company and we'll get you all set and off to your wonderful journey where you can have maple syrup pancakes, say "eh?" to one and another, and have all of your ideas become rationalized and one while you spend your time with the mounties and the red leaf flag wavers. FUCK OFF "ALEXANDER!" FUCK OFF LIBERALS! AND FUCK OFF TO THIS SITE! I AM DONE WITH THIS PLACE!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 11:01 a.m. CST

    My oh my, what a TalkBack!..

    by Pontsing Barset

    ... a battle of wits among unarmed combatants! The ignorant led by the bigoted, mocked by the intolerant, laughed at by the irrational! Is it not sublime brothers and sisters?! Thanks for the giggles y'all! *** And yes, I do see the irony of this post, and opine that it just makes it all the more delicious...

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 12:47 p.m. CST

    FUCKIN' POLITICS!

    by Hey

    OK, I can't stand it anymore!!! All that republican and democrat crap! Everybody that's a republican here on this site thinks that the democrats are against everything that is republican. And all the demo's do as if all the repub's are mindless, dumbass naive born again christians. OK, maybe 50 million brainless in the midwest are alot, but still... Most of the democrats don't hate republicans or republican thoughts..., they just hate BUSH! You know? Bush..., the guy that does exactly the same things for exactly the same reasons as Bin Laden! Only one does it from a dessert believing in a god with one name and the other does it from big white building believing in a god with another name! Someone please tell me the difference? If anyone else would have been the contender for the republican party, the whole bullshit civil war that is going on now, would absolutely not have begun. The big problem is that a guy was chosen into office for the sole reason that he believes in a fairytale. The bible! Chosen by millions of other kiddies, I mean grownups that also believe in fairytales. People who believe in fairytales can't really make important, reallife decisions. They live in a imaginary world, where imaginary things happen, like little angels fly and wooden boats save all the little animals around the world from drowning. How can a man that believes in all that rule the world? Which is what America does..., rule the world. Poor little earth is in the hands of a madman that controls the largest nuke arsenal in the world. The most powerful army. The biggest economy. The whole idea of freedom and evolution of mankind and society. Many things in which he does not believe. Because god says..., blablabla... How can anyone want to be a conservative??? I mean, my god, who wants to stand still? You want to go further! Evolve into something better, not go back to the middel-ages! So all you republican people out there saying you guys won..., you didn't!!! Nobody won!!! You people just voted a scary, dangerous man into office. A man that made earth a more dangerous place. A man that created more hate between people than many other modern (well actually he's old fashioned, but anyway...) "western" leader. A man that made religion the number one most disgusting word in the dictionay again, as it was a long time ago. We're back in the past, when people suffered the consequences of not wanting to believe in a dumbass god invented by people a long time ago especially for people that are scared of death and have no rational what so ever. We're losing our freedom. Maybe Bush is creating his so called "freedom" in Iraq, but in America he's creating what Iran used to be! A religious secte of a country, where the punishment is severe if one does not live according to the bible and the word of the invented god. So get your fucking heads out of your asses and smell the reality. Nobody is against the republicans, the world is against Bush! He has to stop his crusade against his imaginary demons. SH.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 1:16 p.m. CST

    "Choosing to base my arguments on pure, simple irrefutable scien

    by Alatar_Blue

    ... I realize that you don't understand this little feller, but: THERE'S NO SUCH THING!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 1:38 p.m. CST

    OK, one more thing!

    by Hey

    Yeah, well said! And maybe..., if they kill their baby and conserve it in the freezer, it could become the essence of conservitism!!! Better conserved then frozen is not possible. Oh, and one more thing! You know? I'm really tired of people always calling me an atheist or a humanist. I rather see myself as a realistic human being. Why should I be put in the same little named packaging as all these people of faith, all these -isms or -ists. I do not want to be called an atheist anymore! How is it possible that man invents a god and then he invents division between men that want to believe in god. And later on they invent names for people that do not want to blindly follow and believe in that god. Very sarcastically calling us atheists. You people want be called names,... go call yourselves names and have a nice day, byebye. But don't drag me (and millions others) along with your Dungeons and Dragons, uhm, I'm sorry, I meant religious fantasy game! What do you think, Bladerunner? SH.

  • Now endorces crap that's just as bad. Alexander is beyond awful and so is Seed of Chucky

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Lets end this

    by Fernwick_

    Ok, nobody one, the only one who had the facts right was Nader. He said that both parties are bought and sold and he is right. I am a former conservative, and someone who studied to be a pastor for over 18 years( my father is one). But there is a solid difference. And conservatives and Christians need to learn this. Jesus was not a Activist, he didnt rail against oppression, and have sit ins, and if he was hear today he would SPEAK AGAINST things that are wrong, but he would NOT TRY TO STOP you. Because that would take away free will. Some things are against the law, but some things cannot be because its a moral choice. For example, SMOKING, smoking is considered immoral by many, should it be illegal? Prohibition was in effect for a long time, because they tried to make illegal drinking. Should it be illegal? Why should abortion be different? Its a moral choice. Now some of you will say but its human life! Then lets make it a crime to destroy unused embreyos. They do it all the time!! Is that an election issue? NO! Why?? Its the same thing. Im getting off point. The true point is, is that the CORPORATIONS won this year, and conservatives help the NRA, HMO's and ENERGY, and companies like so. Liberals help, LAWYERS, pro environmentalists, and so on. Nader was right!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Can I just say to Bladerunnerunit, Nicole21, Ginger Twit and all

    by Aston Lad

    ...it's people like you who make these talkbacks worthwhile. Now, a question for you all: what's your opinion on Israel-Palestine? I only ask because this is a matter close to my heart thats largely untouched by Hollywood, and most AICN chat is about Iraq. But Stone did what few directors do and brought up the subject by making Persona Non Grata (which I've still not seen). As you're all fellow regulars like myself...what do you think?

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 2:36 p.m. CST

    BladeRunnerunit.

    by Fernwick_

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 2:43 p.m. CST

    bladerunnerunit

    by Fernwick_

    Your right, the sad thing about politics today is that we lose for TRYING to play fair, the old way. The prefoxnews days are gone. Now the right wing is playing Good vs Evil, Right vs Wrong, the WWE sort of way. Its sad because constructive dialouge then leaves the picture and we are stuck with Crossfire politics. John Stewart was right and this sort of thing is hurting America, its the entertainment value of politics that is hurting the country. Ann Coulter, probably in my opinion the WORST example, calling liberals traitors, and how to talk to them if you HAVE to, you have to give room to the fact that your way isnt the only way. And its not the only way for EVERYONE. Eddie Izzard said it best once when he said, " You all do all know there are other countries our there.......................................dont you?"

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Is harry for real?

    by 900LBGorilla

    Wait A minute Harry- George Bush takes out a dictaor and leaves a Democracy in his wake, and he is an evil omperialist to you.=============== Alexander conquers and plunders the known world. When he encounters those who do not immediately surrender, he kills all the men and sells the women into slavery: yet to you he is: "A man Who conquered and fought not for gold and jewels, but to unite the understanding of the known and unknown worlds. To dispel the myths told to them as children and to rip apart the borders between races and religions. To see all men as equals and to forge a better world not only for them, but through the knowledge and wisdom learnt from his conquered enemies

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Alexander SUCKED Save your Money

    by 900LBGorilla

    Really, and all you single digit IQ retards who think anyone who hates this movie must be a homophobe- come back and talk when you exit kindergarten. Stone IGNORES MOST OF THE THINGS THAT MADE ALEXANDER GREAT. The tactics, the militrary victories STILL STIUDIED TODAY (See Tyre), the accomplishments, the amazing moments- and gives us like an hour an a half Pseudo-Freudian alalysis focusing on shit that is PURE SPECULATION. Alexander, the whiny bitch, Alexander, he man who can't control his men, Alexander who can drink and flirt with pretty guys...SHIT I don't even care that Stone(d) made him gay (even tough there is no proof of this) - whatever. What pisses me off is that he WASTED an hour and a half showing all this "Alex was GAY!" stuff and IGNORED the ONLY REASONS WE STILL GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HIM. Stone is a retard. pure and simple. Oh and Harry, just because there was another shitty alexander movie- doesn' mean that due to "perspective" THIS shitty alexander movie magically didn't stink. Well at least we have seen the Last of Stone. No one will give him a nickle to make a movie after the stench of this settles... Shit what happened to Waterworld... after subjecting myself to this 3 hours of this mind numbing drivel that movie doesn't seem so bad anymore! ============== Oh and movie making 101 to Oliver- when you make a movie SHOW us the critical stuff - don't show a speech (oh and oliver: dude pass the bong).

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Fernwick_...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Nice try about explaining the dinosaurs, but as with MANY things to do with the bible, it's a poor explanation. My point about the dinosaurs is not when they were on the earth relative to when the earth was so-called "created". Rather, the MAJOR discrepancy which the bible does not account for is the fact that humans and dinosaurs never inhabited the earth at the same time. Man did not appear on this earth until approximately 65 million years after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs despite what you learned from watching the Flintstones. But I'm sure that if you don't have an explanation for this, then the pope will come up with something that makes sense to people with blind faith. Oh, by the way, the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun, not the earth, okay? My other main peeve is that neither you or the bible has ANY right whatsoever to enforce beliefs upon ANYBODY. PLEASE explain to my WHY you want to stop gay marriage. Like I've already mentioned - they are not hurting anyone and they are not breaking any laws. What's funny is that you feel the need to push your beliefs on other people, yet you probably laugh and scoff at other beliefs of other religions - eg. You probably think that Jehovah's Witness followers are idiots for not being allowed to dance, yet you'd be pretty pissed if they wanted to forbid you from dancing or if you were forbidden to watch Nascar. So, my point is to let other people lead their own lives as long as they're not breaking the law and you live your life the way that you want to. I'm sorry if I offended you or screenplaywriter with my agnostic views, but I generally don't have a problem with organized religion as long as they don't perpetuate prejudices and commit horrors in the name of God and as long as nobody tries to push their religion on me. Unfortunately, you guys are prejudiced toward gays when you should just shut your bigoted pie-holes and leave them the hell alone to live their lives - ie. mind your own damned business. And screenplaywriter's comment about gay marriage never becoming legal proves how near-sighted and out of touch with reality that he is. Take a look back at how gays were perceived back in the 50's and 60's and then look at how far they've come up to this point in time. Do you see a pattern here? The MORAL thing is going to happen whether you guys want it to or not. Get your head out of the sand, grow up and deal with it. BTW, screenplaywriter, I'm 35 years old, just celebrated my 10th wedding anniversary with my WIFE, make over $100,000 annually as a doctor, have recently published a fiction novel and own a $363,000 home on a 1-acre lot. Other than those small discrepancies, you pegged me! Please do the world a favor and stop perpetuating the bigotry that runs rampant in the bible. If you want to base your life on the teachings of the bible, that's not my business and good for you. But I'm sick of you bible-thumpers feeling the need to push your antiquated views on the rest of the world that's already graduated well beyond your outdated and bigoted way of life. Where you live, the bible may be everything in your culture. But open your eyes and look around at the rest of the world and you'll realize that you are the laughing stocks of the earth. But I know that, for you, there is no world outside America and that makes you a very small and petty man and I feel sorry for you and people like you that are so blatantly narrow-minded. Have a great day...

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:40 p.m. CST

    B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    by Fernwick_

    Saying my explantion is poor. Doesnt make it not so. Saying that the dinosaurs not living on the earth at the same time as humans. Honestly what does that have to do with anything? I dont think they did live at the same time. But its not Biblically necessary that they did or didnt. Its moot either way, and bad arguments arent wrong. And bad is your opinion. Now, it sad when people like you read all the posts and then start to rant and mix up a bunch of different posts and attack someone. Go back and read all my posts again. I never even mentioned gay marriage. NOT ONCE. I only said to Harry and was VERY specific that there was a difference, and a difference was known. Im sure there was no word back then for many things, but that doesnt mean there was NOT a difference and that wasnt known. I even said it doesnt have to be moral difference so your DEAD wrong on your post on me PERIOD. By the way, what does your matieral wealth have to do with anything. I also make 100K+ im in sales. I also am building a 3200 + foot house. Which is expected to be valued at $500+ in a year. How does that define me? I hope it defines me as a hard worker who provides for his family. I never attacked anyone at all. Go reread my posts and you should apologize but you wont. I am trying to have dialoge, am not insulting anyone and am simply stating my arguments with points to back them up. If you think im wrong argue in a like manner, if you want to say im small minded and attacking someone read them again. Because my friend you are in error. And if you think im wrong, just show me where I said something 'bigoted' and opened my pie hole or attempted to force my views on someone or said I tried to force my beliefs on someone else? In fact here is what i said, it seems to me friend your reading the wrong posts. ********************************************************************" He said that both parties are bought and sold and he is right. I am a former conservative, and someone who studied to be a pastor for over 18 years( my father is one). But there is a solid difference. And conservatives and Christians need to learn this. Jesus was not a Activist, he didnt rail against oppression, and have sit ins, and if he was hear today he would SPEAK AGAINST things that are wrong, but he would NOT TRY TO STOP you. Because that would take away free will. Some things are against the law, but some things cannot be because its a moral choice. For example, SMOKING, smoking is considered immoral by many, should it be illegal? Prohibition was in effect for a long time, because they tried to make illegal drinking. Should it be illegal? Why should abortion be different? Its a moral choice.************************************************************* Got it?

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:42 p.m. CST

    I don

    by morGoth

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Beat you to the punch :)

    by Fernwick_

    I just reread all my posts several times, and the only thing I said that MIGHT be interpreted as bias is I said the right wing. (which I used to be)Is turning the argument into good vs evil. And making the discussion about wrong vs right instead of right vs left. Is that incorrect? Is that bigoted? Someone tell me if im crazy. Im sure someone will. Like Bill.Nie.theUrikiscienceguy. :)

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Beat you to the punch :)

    by Fernwick_

    I just reread all my posts several times, and the only thing I said that MIGHT be interpreted as bias is I said the right wing. (which I used to be)Is turning the argument into good vs evil. And making the discussion about wrong vs right instead of right vs left. Is that incorrect? Is that bigoted? Someone tell me if im crazy. Im sure someone will. Like Bill.Nie.theUrikiscienceguy. :)

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Fair said Fernwick_

    by morGoth

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    morGoth

    by Fernwick_

    Oh man here comes the heavy stuff.****and I in now way say im an expert this is just my opinion, and I think i can back it up******************************************************************No I dont think all killing is morally indefensible. It all depends on the situation. Let me try and back this up. First biblically, ********************************************************************then with an example. For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal (now that goes on) Now the issue of when life begins is a hard one for me because of the extremes you can go to. The only biblical references that I can think of is Genesis when God created Adam. He said, God formed man out of the dust of the earth. And THEN AFTER he did that he breathed life into him. So then that tells me( and i could be wrong)that he formed Adams body, and Adam was lying there a full grown (or created)adult and THEN God breathed life into him. ******************************************************************** 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. ******************************************************************** I would say it is then at birth. Now many will disagree, but then where do you end the extremes? You might say like i said in a previous post that destroying embryos is murder then since its being destroyed. You might also say then that disgarded sperm is also potential life also, but just not yet. You might also say then preventing those embryos from being put in a ready womb is then preventing life. Thus you might see laws giving limits to how long someone must wait before using a frozen embryo, or it goes to someone else. Now in the case of war, the previous scripture addresses this, as does Christ when he says there was always be wars and rumors of wars. This cannot be stopped, it is the nature of man to do evil and kill. Now if someone breaks into your house to kill your family and in self defence you killed him is this murder? Some things (and the law doesnt agree with thsi)just depend on the situation, and the MOTIVE behind it. Now in a war two men come around a corner on different sides with guns and face each other. One will die if there is no cover. Is the one a murderer? No. He killed in defence of his country. Now taking an innocent life is a crime, like that man in Iraq who shot the unarmed man lying down with no weapon. I mean look at the old testament Hebrews. God lead them and crushed and destroyed 1,000's of lives. Defeating nation after nation. What about when God allowed David's son to die after he commited adultery? Does that make God a murderer? Of course not. Its not absolute. It cant be. I hope thats clear, if not let me know and ill go on. Fernwick

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Fernwick_ again...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Fernwick_, I sincerely apologize for calling you a bigot and other things along those lines. I meant to direct those type of comments to screenplaywriter. The comments about my house and salary were also directed at screenplaywriter who somehow deduced from my userID that I am a "30 year-old dweeb who still lives with his mom, chows on Cheetos, watches cartoons, and plays Dungeons and Dragons and Card-Trading games to past his time" - that is a direct cut-and-paste quote, spelling mistakes and all. So please accept my apologies. I'm not going to bother to go into further detail about how the dinosaurs conclusively prove that the bible is incorrect on a fundamental level - there is no point, because those who blindly follow faith and belief in a deity generally will not listen to, let alone consider, the possibility that they might be wrong. Heck, I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning that I don't completely rule out the possibility that there may be a greater force somewhere out there watching over us. But get this - I actually formed MY OWN OPINION and I BELIEVE that there is no such thing as god or any other deity. Just be clear on the fact that I'm not saying that god does NOT exist, I'm saying that I don't BELIEVE that he exists. The fact that you and many religious folks won't even consider anything that opposes your beliefs is what makes you small-minded. Open your eyes! Believe in yourself! Live your life the way that YOU want to, not how a book tells you to. Another peeve directed at you in particular is that you really exhibit your small-minded nature when your sole arguments involve quoting the bible. I mean, that's just weak. It's sad that you actually believe that a planetary flood happened and all that other fantastical crap. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Jesus and other characters in the bible existed at one point in time, but man, you've got to think that much of the events portrayed in it have been embellished for entertainment purposes. Read the post by "Hey!" which is quite brilliant and maybe, just maybe, THINK about his points instead of thumping your bible. You have a mind of your own, Fernwick_, don't waste it!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Well, I guess I am just so "ignorant", such a "bigot", and I gue

    by screenplaywriter

    Come on now! When have you not forced your beliefs on others as well? I speak my mind and I am proud of it. I am proud of being a Republican. I am proud to be straight. I am proud to be a homophobe. I am proud of my personality, what I stand for, and who I am. To go on and say that they are not hurting anybody is a truly false statement. They are "forcing" their ideals onto the America people to make it acceptable. When this is accepted, than what's next I ask you? People marrying their animals? Man-boy relationships? Some kind of "Jerry Springer"-like shit? I mean look at how degrading and how impure America has gotten since we "decided" to forget about 9/11. When 9/11 arrived and passed we all we're standing as one union, as one great country, but then afterwards we let ourselves down. We got into talking about stem cell research, we got into letting the ACLUers rule us, the No-God people, the gays, the abortionists, the Michael Moores and Howard Deans of the world rule our world. We've fallen into dangerous territory. I ask all of you when can we go back to a nation with morals, with reason, with heart, and with values? I mean I know there's alot of Bush hate on this site and on these talkbacks. Ok, so we have angry liberals who are still steamed about the election and we have many anarchists, humanitarians, whatever in here. Fine. But can't you all come to terms with that he is trying to make the world better? Sure, it's not on your grounds, or graces, but he is TRYING damn it! He is trying the best he can! Sure, he's had bad intelligence, sure he may not be the smartest man as you Democrats hail him as, but he is our president. I never attacked Clinton when he was in power I attacked him afterwards when he got out. I think you should never attack a president while their in power whether you like the guy, or find him as a BIG S.O.B. Also, there is a thing about listening to a person and ignoring a person without personal conflict, or arguments. I really don't care if you agree with me on issues or not. I really don't care if you give me a snide, cocky attitude against me, or if you listen to what I got to say. If you do give me a poor attitude than you my friend are a bigot just like everyone else on this Earth, and you also qualify as "close-minded" which you claim us Republicans are and us Christians are. Just because you don't like what a person says, or preaches doesn't mean you have to listen to it, or write back a derogatory comment. All these past three years all we've seen is a disingenious filmmaker make a mumbo-jumbo documentary, people criticize President Bush, and try and "force" people into voting. If you ask me the real "enforcers" and "brown shirt Nazis" were the celebrities and MoveOn.org people. And all these three years I've been hailed as a "blonde haired, blue eyed Third Reich member" by the Left-Wing groups, a "war mongeror", and every other thing in the book just because I am a Republican, Christian, homophobic person. I thought in this topic I could share my beliefs and ideals since that's what our country is built on sharing your beliefs and ideals. I mean if you don't like what I have to say than tune me out, but I am only one man trying to get my word in. If I can't then I think we know who truly overruns this site. And I still say I am glad this movie is failing, that the reviews spoke for themselves, and that Harry can write a review worth a shit. Final key point: Alexander the Great was a man who conquered 90% of the world and was a very power-hungry individual. If you ask me if he were alive today in our time he would be the one being lodged tomatoes at, being called names, and being force to eat down the words of the angry Democrats. Not Bush! This is my last post here. I will still continue to keep up to date with the upcoming movies coming soon, but until then... I AM THROUGH WITH THESE TALKBACKS!

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Morgoth- Just like most libs to dim to "get it"

    by 900LBGorilla

    "Take 900LBGorilla fer example; he, evidently, actually believes that Iraq is NOW a Democracy and that we

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Oh just on emore politicakl comment to Play Duh

    by 900LBGorilla

    "Life is not the black and white you so dearly crave. It's all gray, motherfucker. ALL of it". ======================= The liberal Lie- there is no good or evil. It's all grey. This is dillusional. Yes, there is often much more grey than a politician would have you believe- but subsribing to the above Play-Doh commentary is moronic. ------------ On second thought perhaps it is I who am mistaken in which case we should consider making a musical about the triumphs of Hitler and Stalin (Stone could write and direct). The lead song could be "Shades of Grey" as the 2 "misunderstood" guys dance and flit around... (followed by a dance nummber in which they pull in Saddam and sing "The rainbow connection" from the muppet movie)

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:46 p.m. CST

    On a lighter Note

    by Fernwick_

    Shades of grey huh, isnt that a Billy Joel song? One of those songs that seems a bit inspired. " Now with the wisdom of years, I try and reason things out, and the only people I fear, are those who never have doubt. Save my soul from arrogant men, and all the causes their for, I wont be righteous again, im not that sure anymore."

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Is it true...

    by Shawn F.

    ...that the new Clay Aiken single, I Loves the Cock, plays over the end credits of this film? :)

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Democracy has to come from within. Look at the Ukraine at the mo

    by Aston Lad

    The opposition leader lost an election that many felt was rigged and that he should have won. The result? 2m Ukranian folks are staging PEACEFUL protests to keep dreams of democracy alive. THAT'S the way to do it: peaceful protests, by people who actually WANT to see democracy established in their country. You can't impose freedom on a nation. Its people have to create it for themselves, in a way that is consistent with their history/traditions and at a pace that they're comfortable with. If there's any Ukrainians reading this talkback tonight, my thoughts are with you, I hope you can sort out your problems in a way that does you proud.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 6:35 p.m. CST

    SWEET MOTHER OF GOD!

    by Hey

    Oh my gosh, screenplaywriter..., are you for real? I mean, I actually thought people with such visions only existed in movies and in the past. No, I'm kidding ofcourse..., I know people like you exist! But..., who are you to decide what is morally good and morally wrong? How can anyone be a homophobe? Are you really scared of homosexual people? The only thing they do is feel an attraction to the same sex. It's not like they're a different beastly race that's out to hunt and kill you all!!! And if people (not talking about your message anymore) actually still aren't sure at what point life actually starts and have to look deeply into a very old(fashioned) book (the bible) to find some sort of vague explanation, then you've really lost it! What the hell are you guys talking about? Life..., not life... oh my god! If you people really want to know, go get a science book in which life is actually studied and explained. Unlike the book of fantasy and riddles (again, the bible). What's the use of living by a book that doesn't say shit about anything? It just gives riddles and nonsense stories (some making cool films, others like the passion, not!) that nobody really understands and for which everybody hates the other for not seeing it his way. And don't tell me you guys don't hate. Please, I don't believe in that invented crap and also have very good values. Don't need an old book for that, just some common sense. It's just too bad that you guys will never find out that you've been living a hopeless and lost life of faith, (cuz when you're dead, you're dead, the worms will eat ya!) faith for something that I could have invented and spread through the world. Well, here I go..., I'm god! Do you believe me? Who are you to question me, your god, who can so called take any image I want... Who are you to say that I, your god am crazy for saying that! Please..., and you believe a crazy ass from 2000 ago that said that? You people really are something! So much fun to analyze. So sad to see. Scared of homo's,... what a joke! I mean if the guy is a big ass giant neo-nazi, pointing a gun at your head,... ok, then be scared. But otherwise..., chill dude! So many cooler things on earth to think about. You know? Yoda would have been a liberal democrat! And Palpatine not! Oh, geez, now don't start about yoda being a religious person (or whatever he is), it's a film. Films have fantasy. Like books! Nighttime storytelling fantasy books. Like the..., well, you know what I mean! SH.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 7:43 p.m. CST

    BRU, a couple of things:

    by FluffyUnbound

    First, just a technical correction: we do in fact know what Alexander looked like. He was sculpted from life many times, and we still have Roman copies of those Greek originals that were drawn from life. Also, after his death he was embalmed lay in state behind colored glass in his tomb for almost 300 years - sort of like the tomb of Lenin - until the tomb was destroyed and subsequently its exact location lost. A considerable volume of art works, miniatures, and coins bearing the face of Alexander survive as a result. Now, I would also take issue with your assertion that the only reason anyone wouldn't like this film is because they only want to see a Michael Bay picture. Although I'm sure I will see it eventually, if only on cable, since I end up seeing everything even vaguely historical, I really am anticipating a terrible mess. I was trying to deny it until I saw the last trailer, but there's just NO WAY. The film is too horribly miscast and the acting just looks TOO TERRIBLE. Hollywood keeps increasing the budgets of its films, getting better and better at art design, historical recreation, and CGI, and you would think that would lead to better epics - but it hasn't. Epics are in the toilet, and it boils down to SCRIPTS and ACTORS, which we don't seem to have anymore. Watch any five minutes of O'Toole and Burton in "Becket" and then watch Farrell and Jolie butcher the atrocious lines in the trailer. Really, don't they realize how ridiculous they sound - and look? The only way Farrell could be less credible in this role, based on the limited amount I've seen, would be if he came out and delivered all of his lines in an Eric Cartman voice. And Angelina doesn't exactly look like she's Deborah Kerr in "Quo Vadis", you know? She looks more like she's part of Cher's last tour. I'll still watch it, just like I'll still end up watching "Nixon" again, but I am not holding out much hope. And it really pisses me off, because by the time they take a chance making a film about this subject again, I'll probably be almost 60 [since Baz's version will never be resurrected now].

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 8 p.m. CST

    Fernwick the Bible Expert

    by Harker-Writes

    Hi Fernwick >>The bible doesnt say its bad to smoke crack either not LITERALLY<< Are you saying God is fallible? >> but in the old testament, it states Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination.<< Guess he is fallible. Looks like he forgot the lesbians. >>So, that is pretty direct huh?<< Well, not really. That's just the Book of Leviticus which many people think were authored by Moses. Now, as far as I know Moses wasn't the leader of the Greeks so anything he might say to his tribe of Israelites wandering through the desert might have very little to do with the way the rest of the world lived its life then or subsequently. He's just one guy looking out for the best way for his team to survive. And he clearly didn't think that homosexuality was such a big sin that he needed to include an eleventh commandment. He didn't even mention not having a pork chop now and then. That you had to wear black hats, grow your hair in curls or shut up shop early on Friday. Looks like other guys started adding stuff of their own. Stuff that doesn't make much sense once you take it out of its immediate context. So Harry's right. The world was bigger than Moses. And Leviticus was never as widely read as Republicans like to think. Homosexuality was not seen as a gateway to Hell in Alexander's day. Sex was sex and Greek writers even wrote about sex with men being better than sex with women. Sex with Fernwick was, of course, out of the question. Though shalt not bear false witness. Go hither and repent Fernwick.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Bush is the Man?

    by Harker-Writes

    Screenwriter says: "Bush is the man! You cannot deny it! He's done so many things and he is destroying the terorrists and their regime. Something that should've been done a long, long time ago." Bush is an idiot. And it looks like a lot of Americans are ever bigger idiots for voting him in. Look at it this way. What's the chance of winning the lottery twice? Pretty remote eh? Okay, now what do you think the chances are of two people from the same family becoming president? The electoral process sucks. It's all rigged by people with more money than morals. Bush didn't win an election. Big business just bought a lot of favours, a lot of advertising and put a monkey in the Whitehouse that would let them make even more money. Bush has solved the problem of terrorists? You must be joking. It's because of people like Bush that there are terrorists gunning for us. We steal their oil, their land, and run economic rings around them. And somehow we think that these arabs are not going to notice that they're living in dirt and poverty while we drive around in our gas guzzlers getting fat on burgers. You think bin Laden wants to hurt you. No, he wants to hurt Bush. You and me are just the collateral damage. Wake up dude.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Fernwick the Genesis Expert

    by Harker-Writes

    Fernwick says, "Now it doesnt say how long it took from when he created it all, to when he started assembling it all. So if you go literally, it could have been millions of years, it could have been BILLIONs of years. Got it? Fernwick" Actually it does say he created the world in six days. http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/genesis01-03.html It's very clear that Genesis refers to days and specifically cites days and evenings. Now you might argue that one day could stand for a million years as some kind of allegory. But why? Why would God want to hide his celelestial light under a metaphor. Also, if it did take God billions of years to make the earth, then what is miraculous about it? Six days is a miracle. Billions of years is not that impressive for a God. By the way, he didn't create light until after he formed the earth and the heavens. Gee, he started work totally in the dark! (Thanks to Ricky Gervais).

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 8:49 p.m. CST

    The thing about God

    by Kaitain

    Is that if he really exists, he's gone out of his way to make it look like he doesn't. What for? To test our ability to overcome the evidence of our own eyes and reasoning in favour of a book written thousands of years ago by many people and translated many times? What qualities exactly is he planning to reward? I mean, why the hell did God give each of us an appendix? To make it look like we had resulted from an evolutionary process? Creationists love to use the eye as an anti-evolution argument (usually quoting Darwin out of context as they do so) but in fact the human eye is one of the strongest anti-creationist cases going. In short, there is no logical reason for the optic nerve to connect to the eye the way it does, creating a blind spot. If you were an engineer with tabula rasa and you came up with that thing, you'd get an F. If, however, you were required to alter the design in small steps from a much more primitive eye with the optic nerve arrangement already in place, and at every stage ensure that the benefit of the eye was greater than the previous incarnation, you probably couldn't do much better than the current eye. So is God trying to mislead us deliberately, or is he an inept designer? *** Of course, there may be a non-interventionist god, but he wouldn't be the guy in the bible. Or "God" might just be the laws of nature, some kind of Spinozan pantheism. Again, not the god of the bible. *** Why do people believe in gods? Because it's natural to think in terms of motivations when we see cause and effect, probably due to a lot of our higher cortical functions having evolved to do a lot of work predicting the behaviours of our social rivals and allies. We're geared to see the world in terms of human-like qualities. It seems most likely to me that God didn't create man in his image; it was the other way round.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Hmm

    by Fernwick_

    First, I never said I was a bible expert, you did. I also never said I was a Genesis expert, you did. Ok, you your telling me 7 days. Im good with that. But I merely mentioned that also in the new testament it also says that a day with God is as a 1000 years, and a 1000 years is as a day. So I said, one might say it took him 7000 years to make it. Now regardless of how long it took him to do it. 1. God didnt TAKE 7 days, or 7000 years to make the 'heavens and the earth' he TOOK that long How long God takes to do it is irrelevent. Why didnt he just blink like I dream of Genie? It doesnt matter. He can do what he wants he is God. 2nd. Who are you to say that it is more miraclous in 7 days then in 7000 years? God could do it in a second if he chose to, but he CHOSE to do it in his time. So your argument is moot. Im expecting the next thing for you to say is, why isnt the sky green? Or, God didnt say not to hang yourself on a hook, so i can do that right? Come on dude... Fernwick

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 9:25 p.m. CST

    "I ask all of you when can we go back to a nation with morals, w

    by Voice O. Reason

    January 20th, 2009.

  • Nov. 26, 2004, 11:35 p.m. CST

    Heat and light

    by MrCere

    As a conservative, for the record, people like Screenwriter are deeply damaging to not only my cause but all causes. It is pretty embarrasing. Please don't anoint him as the representative for Christians, the conservative movement or anything other than himself. I must admit I enjoy reading these talkbacks. There is a whole lot of heat generated but very little light here. It is all quite amusing, disturbing and fascinating.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 12:19 a.m. CST

    hey harry...

    by casmcthorn

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Harry, sadly between this and your "Van Helsing" reviews it is c

    by atomheartbrother

    read my full review at: http://www.loudwire.net/users/tragicallyflip/1458.html this one certainly proves that i can shit on a movie just about as good as any other shitbird on this site. the difference between me and many of said shitbirds is that this film really does suck, and really does get just about everything wrong. it was almost as if stone made a wrong turn with every creative decision he was confronted with, and when you're doing that in the service of an aimless THREE HOUR movie that just not right. and harry, don't feel so bad. your website has become a clearinghouse for American cineastes and that counts for something and i thank you.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Aston Ladd, I'll tell you exactly what I think

    by TheGinger Twit

    Back in WW2 Hitler attempted to wipe out the jews. Right after that, the Jews went and started wiping out Palastinians. Since the number of dead jews is supposed to be in the 10's of millions, but even today those numbers would have been impossible, and taking into consideration the amount of blatant history rewriting I've seen in the last few years alone, I wouldn't be surprised if the Halocaust didn't happen as so widely rumoured. Call me an Anti-semite, but I'm pretty fucking sick of the jews and their winging justifying their murderous rampage.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:15 a.m. CST

    I've got to give Harry K. credit for being a shrewed operator.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    He must make a load of extra money from all the additional website hits AICN gets everytime he starts political topics around here. Even the Star Wars, Matrix, and Lord of the Rings talkbacks never generate this much interest. He just got a bunch of you guys and gals to give up big chunks of your holiday to argue all this same stuff all over again. Kudos Harry.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Movie holds up to second viewing. The negativity aimed at it is

    by watashiwadare

    Euripedes would be hammered to pointlessness in this period.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:37 a.m. CST

    BIG miss of the mark, Harry - here's why...

    by Dagan

    Harry - I'm one of the "Red State" Bush voters - the object that seems to be in the crosshairs of this review by you and others like it in the media at large. But I think you're missing the point. People don't Alexander is a bad movie because of "the gay thing" or any of the other reasons you stated. They think it's a bad movie because it's a poorly done, scattershot film, with a very clumsily-told narrative. I could care less if Alexander was gay or not, and it wouldn't have bothered me if the film featured full-on porn scenes of his gay love(provided it was part of the narrative and not just to "get your rocks off" - the same standard I apply for straight sex scenes in serious mainstream films - they should have a purpose in the story). But none of that changes the fact that the movie featured a story very badly told. The content of this film is not what Americans think is "bad". It's the film itself. A movie is not judged on content by most people - a film should not be judged based on WHAT it's about, it should be judged on HOW it's about what it's about, right? And the "how it's about" part here simply doesn't pass the smell test for this film - and I'm a big fan of Oliver Stone. Did Alexander actually "have a dream" like you say? I don't know his history well enough to know for sure, or if it's just more Stone liberal claptrap. Somehow I doubt it - the guy was a brutal conquerer, slaughtering men, women and children by the Bushel not to spread freedom and democracy and "make a better world", but so HE could "rule the known world". I know the standard liberal view is to glorify brutal, murdering dicators like Castro or Guevera - does Alexander apply? Probably. He was a megalomaniac concerned with conquest and the glory of his name as ruler of the entire earth - not some warm and fuzzy Mr. Rogers prototype. But I'd be willing to accept Stone's version of Alexander regardless of actual history in a film just fine. It would make a great story. But just because the filmmaker has an INTENT to go a cool direction with a film, as Stone did with his messianic Alexander - it doesn't mean that the film should be given a pass for poor execution of its themes. That's what you tend to do very often, Harry - latch on to your perceived INTENT of the film and disregard how the film actually portrayed such an event. Is Jaws II as good as Jaws? Of course not - it's EXACTLY the same story, but two completely different films - because a film is not good or bad based on what it's about, but how it's about what it's about. You should learn that lesson Harry - your reviews would hold much more water than they do if you did. Alexander is simply a very poorly executed film on just about every level. I could care less if Alexander was gay or not, or what his intentions actually were(what's your historical evidence to believe he was Martin Luther King Jr. in a toga, Harry? Oliver Stone's word?) If they are completely contrary to actual history and portrayed in this film that way that would be just fine with me - as long as the film itself is good. This simply wasn't a good movie, regardless of what it "wanted" to be.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:49 a.m. CST

    And is anybody actually "outraged" over this film?

    by Dagan

    You have the Greek lawyers suing to get a disclaimer saying Alexander wasn't gay - whatever. But anybody else? I dont' think there is any outrage or even any care about this film one bit. I haven't heard anything about Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity or any of the others saying thing one about this movie. Where is this "conservative outrage"? I think it's pure myth - a preemptive strike by Stone(who was the original one who brought up that it might not play in "Red State America") as an excuse for the turkey of the film he's made. Again, I'm in "Red State" America and have not heard A SINGLE person comment on this movies "gayness" in any way, and I've talked to many people about it over Thanksgiving. The film is receiving bad reviews because it's a bad movie, plain and simple - a poorly done film thats not controversial - just boring. There is no controversy over this film, except the excuse the filmmakers are trying to make for their failure. I saw this movie opening night, very excited to see an Oliver Stone take on this historical figure. I'm a fan of Oliver Stone. But this film was just a pure, laughable, hodgepodge mess, plain and simple. This "gay issue" is the biggest nothing red-herring I've heard in a long time - only liberals complaining about the phantom conservative "outrage", which doesn't actually exist, are the ones who bring the issue up - such as Harry in this review. It's simply not a good movie, regardless of what it wants to be about.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Harker-Dude...

    by Dagan

    I suggest you read Bin Laden's declaration of War against the West in 1998 - well before Bush was in office - where he promised to kill as many men, women and children as possible for the goal of creating an Islamic world state - which America, being the most powerful nation in the world and propagator of Western Culture, is the biggest enemy of. We are not "collateral damage" - we are the targets, but Bin Laden's own repeated words. You shouldn't speak on an issue if you don't know anything about it. Steal their land? Where? America has invaded more countries than any other nation in the last 100 years in the prosecution of several wars - yet we have installed Democracies in our wake and given the land back, asking only for enough space to bury the dead who fought to return(or bring for the first time) those governments to the people. Just look at Germany and Japan for an example. Run economic rings around them? Is that our fault? The reason we do is because the people in most Arab states are ruled by tyrannical dictators practicing totalitarian economies - the Arab states would be just as well-off as we are if its people are free and were allowed to pursue their own lives in a capitalistic Democracy. That form of government is the only thing that separates our success from their failure, and that's what we are attempting to install in the Middle East - whether you think that's a good method to bring about that goal or not can be debated, but it cannot be debated that that is our intent, and it cannot be debated that that is the only remedy for long term success in the War on Terrorism - people in captialistic Democracies get to live free lives for themselves and their families - not lives of subjugation which allows a hopelessness that makes it easy to recruit terrorists. Worldwide networks of suicidal terrorists simply cannot be recruited en masse from a free capitalistic Demcracies - as the desire to go pick up a pizza, listen to Metallica and watch a porno supplant the desire to strap on a suicide belt and end it all. Changing the region is the only long-term solution to the proble, and that's what we are attempting to do. Bin Laden was attacking us long before George Bush was ever in office - and he declared War on us, started to recruit terrorists and openly trained them by the thousands in terrorist training camps with the specific purpose of killing as many innocent Americans as possible - and Bill Clinton did absolutely nothing in response. Get a grip man, and learn some of the fundamentals of this issue before posting nonesense like you did above.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Dagen and Harker Dude

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Dagen you need to do your homework. Post WWII the U.S. has had neither a long nor a storied history of installing democracies in the developing world. South Korea stands as a glaring exception, both in our actions and its EVENTUAL success as a democracy, to the mess we left in the wake of Vietnam, Chile (Pinochet, 1973), Iran (toppling a fledgling democracy to reinstall the Shah on behalf of our dear allies the Brits, 1952-3), various nations in Central America and sub-Saharan Africa (and I'm sure I've left places out). For the past six decades the American record has been spotty at best. The U.S. can rightfully claim to have consistently supported democracy in Western Europe, Japan, and Israel, and has given much in foreign aid. The Peace Corps at its best was and is an amazing program. Too often though the U.S. military has been called upon in service of financial and/or corporate interests, the best interests of American security or the welfare of the indigenous peoples be damned. The Americans helped various Afghan factions fight the Soviets in the '80s; when the war was over, the CIA simply left. Many Afghans rightfully felt used. The CIA has a charming term to refer to the unintended consequences of covert U.S. actions - blowback. While this in no way excuses the actions of fanatics who would - with malice aforethought - commit suicide in the path of unconventional war - a legitimate "blowback" connection may be drawn from CIA action (and later inaction) in Afghanistan in the 1980s to the tragic September 11, 2001 attack. If I'm drawing my Alexander the Great lessons correctly, he would have neutralized post-Soviet Afghanistan in the early '90s by setting up educational institutions and ties of family by marriage between the warlords and assorted Americans (probably a lot of businessmen). And he would have drawn Afghans into the American Army (an American Foreign Legion??? It's a thought). Compared to that Greek guy, Americans suck at real empire-building.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Okay, so I just saw Oliver Stone's Alexander, and Harry could no

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Although respect should be paid to Angelina Jolie for a decent Greek accent, and for portraying a cold calculating bitch so effectively (as an actress, she cleaved well to her overall objective to protect her son at any price). Also, Rosario and Colin's wedding day scene had the kind of power and raw emotion that was so lacking in the rest of the film. Unfortunately, that leaves about 75 percent train wreck. As director, Oliver Stone takes responsibility, just as I give him credit for great films like Natural Born Killers, U-Turn, Platoon, Wall Street, JFK, Any Given Sunday....

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Harry also liked "Van Hellstink" and "Sky Craptain", so 'tis adv

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Though I do suspect he may be right this time.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 6:58 a.m. CST

    folks, lets hear it for screenplaywriter....

    by Red Raider

    **cue Beverly Hillbillies or Hee Haw theme music**. ____ Hate mongering neo-con....

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 6:58 a.m. CST

    By the way... "my fellow critics"...

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Most "fellow" critics have good command of the language in which they write, Harry...

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Ah, so Fernwick is an inerrantist

    by ellid

    Sorry, but I'm not. And according to everyone BUT the inerrantists, your timeframe is completely, utterly wrong.******Here's a little lesson in Bible history that wasn't shaped by Scofield, Ussher, and other worthies who actually know that they're talking about: Exodus *seemingly* happens around 1200 BCE, despite a significant lack of archaeological evidence. That is NOT "thousands of years" before Alexander the Great; it was less than a millenium. Exodus was given its final form around 500 BCE, less than three hundred years before Alexander (please see Harper's Bible Commentary or check with the Hebrew Bible professor at your local university). And Jewish social norms were not, in any way, shape, or form, known or followed in ancient Macedonia, Persia, India, Greece, or anywhere but the Jewish community.***** Advice: try reading something that wasn't written by or for inerrantists or fundamentalists. John Dominic Crossan is a good place to start. You may be enlightened.

  • OK..., let's set things straight! Long before Alexander existed, a small cult secte of inbreed farmers living in the palestine region, called jews, wrote a book describing theirfantasies of what, how and why. They called it the bible. They stole stories from all over the place, calling an architectural marvel as the tower of Babylon (built by king Nebuchanezzar because he was an architectural enthousiast)a try to get to god..., the jewish god that is..., the one nobody else in the world ever heard about (the jews only being a little sect which grew further through inbreed). They made up cute laws and nice commandments to keep the people in their place and scared to revolt. Then later all the other religions used these laws to. Laws which religious people call values, religious values. Actually values anybody with common sense already had, that time. Not knowing about any stupid ass jewish bible, king Nebuchanezzar wrote up law for the first time ever. Law to live as a community. Law to respect and prosper. But anyways..., when Alexander came, again not knowing about any existence of the stupid ass jewish bible, he just did what most greeks did then. Have normal natural sex with others. For fun! Yes, for fun, which is what sex is. Fun. We're (the humans) the only mammals on earth that have a reproductive organ that actually grows by blood and muscle and enjoys the touch and feeling of sex. That's because we have nerves there. So that's we like having sex, to enjoy these nerves inside out organs snipple ans snapple as we rub them together. Of course by ejaculating sperms shoots out and if by any accident there would be a vagina near it, one could possibly make conception. No god, no miracle, just nature. But Alexander, like all other life loving people, just had sex because it felt good. Men, woman, vagina, ass, who cares, as long as it felt good. What the hell is wrong with that? If you like it, do it! That the naive farmer jews didn't like to do it, that's their own business. You don't want to do it? Don't do it. So don't come here with your old fashioned jewish cult secte ideas of gay sex being bad ans all that, because please, you're all making a fool out of yourselves! By the way the bible says "lie" with a man as with a woman (or whatever, I'm not sure) maybe they meant the verb to lie, as in tell a fib? Hahaha. Than the jews went out and walked the world, from here to there, there to here. Always keeping their inbreed thoughts to themselves. Making enemies where ever they went. The same people that lived in the palestine area then (that did not care to follow along with the ideas of the jewish bible), next to the cult people that called themselves jews are still the same people that live there now and have been kicked aside in 1948 by the jews when they suddenly came back in mass. Only now, since the jews have left the area, it has become a part of the muslim empire. You know? The other religion that believed that they were the best, the true thing, the mack daddy. So by now, we have had 3 religions bashing each others brains in just for the sake of thinking that each one of them is better than the other. Then,... America! Discovered out of science, created out of fear. If George Washington would hear about the situation it is in, now..., he would be mad! Doing his utmost best to seperate the politics to prosper from the religion to stay conservative. Way to go, by the way, be proud of being a conservative! Stay in the same old fashioned mindframe you've been in for the last 1000 years. Why evolve? Why prosper? Why would you, by the love of god, want to learn new things, ideas and broaden your horizon? Amrica has done it's best for the last couple of centuries to sustain itself without intervening much in the rest of the world. Every now and then, during world wars and spreads of communism, some teeth was shown and blood has flown. But during the war America only won because the english and the russian also fought. Many other wars were lost because nobody joined. And why should anybody join? It was America that had the fear for communism. But don't get me wrong! I'm very glad that America did fight. Because it was a huge threat. But you also have to understand one thing..., communism is a political thought. One that a person will follow, but not die for. It's made up by a government. it's a stete thought. You kill the government, you kill hte thought. This is absolutely not the case with religion. Like all the evangelicals in the midwest..., you actually believe that this little pathetic life of yours is worthless, just a prelude to the afterlife. Where you will suffer ages of pain if you haven't lived according to the book! Those people are terrifying! Those people have no thought of their own, they follow some little psycho voice in their head, which gives them the right to do what they want. Because it's in the name of god! Those people are what the extremist muslims are. It's just as bad to be an extremist muslim who loves their sha as an evangelical who loves Bush! And just like the terrorists in the middle east, Bush wages an exact smae war. A war with bullshit devine principles. No matter how many people die, as long as god prevails. And that's is a damn shame. Bacause nobody will ever win. This war has been going on for nearly 1400 years!!! How's a little farmer boy from texas that believes in a old fairytale book (the bible) ever going to win it. Look. Democracy doesn't exist in the thoughts of a deeply religious person. Because his god decides everything. Not the person himself. By voting Bush in for another term, this destructive biblical thought will even grow deeper in the ground of the once so neutral political government of America. Next thing, we'll be allies with iran. That's nice, huh? A constitution in which poeple will suffer consequences for choosing to live a peaceful life deciding for them selves if something is wrong or right. All according to the mentality and knowledge that exists now! Not 2000 years ago. Now! In short! Most think Alexander is bad, some think it's good, I'll still have to see it. Alexander was bisexual, he loved men and women, something many of us should learn to do to. There's way to much hate here! Bush is the worst choice the republicans ever could have made!!! Reagan was cool! He atleast allowed hollywood to bloom! Bush wants it to close down! Liberal is not a bad word, it means you accept and respect other thoughts. Conservative means you're old fashioned and naive to evolution in society. And god..., well 200 years ago people already found out that god didn't and never had existed. So what's up with the dumb revival? Are we all going to believe in Santa next year to? Everybody..., get a grip. Chill and grow up! SH.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 9:39 a.m. CST

    re: GingerTwit

    by DocPazuzu

    So, he's finally come out and admitted he's a Holocaust denier, after many an accusation in many a talkback. Not that I necessarily disagree with a lot of the parallels he drew (stole) between the historical Jesus and other religious figures in his tedious post, but I can't just sit quietly by while a supremely stupid human being like GingerTwit attempts to sound rational. It's insulting to me to have him be a spokesperson for those ideas, so I just want to draw attention to the fact that GingerTwit is in no way representative of most people who believe some liberties have been taken with the factual content of biblical history. This sad wallaby-fucker also believes that the beheadings in Iraq are faked ("Their hands are too white!), that Israel was behind 9/11 and he also has a tendency to quote "news" from sources like Walter Storch's neo-nazi "news service." Fundamentally, Ginger "Captain Cut n Paste" Twit is an exceedingly prejudiced, myopic, insidious and staggeringly stupid individual ("Eucranians"), rivaled in the talkback troglodyte sweepstakes only by Mace Windex and vikingkitty. Please feel free to peruse this previous talkback for some of GingerTwit's greatest hits: http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=18447#805865

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 1:27 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla = 900LBofDumbass

    by morGoth

    Who the fuck said anything about me being a liberal? Great Fizzling Duck Farts, are Bush folk these days so insecure that when somebody uses their own words they automatically go into pissy name-calling mode? Here

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Erm, no Fernwick_, you didn

    by morGoth

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 2:57 p.m. CST

    RE: Dagan

    by morGoth

    Um, since you

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Fernwick_... yet again!

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Man, thank goodness screenplaywriter is not going to post his bigoted views any more. And Fernwick_... <heaves a big sigh> I'll try to explain about the dinosaurs, but I don't think that it will convince you anyway. But here it goes. After god "created" the heavens and the earth, he supposedly made man, from dirt no less. If man was one of the first living things on this earth, then how do the dinosaurs, who were on this earth millions of years before man, fit into the bible's explanation of things. Again, this probably won't convince you, but I respect your opinion and it doesn't affect my life whether you accept my views or not. So you live your life the way you see fit and I'll do the same. I do have a problem with you saying that my "opinions dont count, [my] facts do. So far [I] havent presented any." My facts lie in fossil records, which not only supports evolution, but it also reveals that it is laughably impossible to fit the billions upon billions of different species of living organisms on to a single ark. There are simply too many ridiculous things mentioned in the bible for me and other atheists to take it seriously as a fact source. Also, the bible is NOT a historical document. It's all myth and heresay. Was there somebody around a few billion years ago who witnessed the creation of the earth and then recorded it for posterity? Of course not. So to accuse me of not using facts while you routinely and conveniently just pop open your bible and spout quotes as your "proof" is hypocritical. I want cold hard facts to back up your arguments just as you request it of me. And boy, thanks to modern science, there are tons upon tons of facts that overwhelmingly dispute the bible's stories. Don't pooh-pooh science like you probably are doing right now. Science is non-biased, religion is not. I don't mean to be condescending with my next statement, I'm merely stating a point - why did you stop believing in Santa Claus, but you still believe in god? I'll tell you why - because many of us have religion drilled into our heads by our parents when we are kids - ie. when we don't have the mental capacity or life experience to objectively form our own opinions in order to accept or reject religion using our own minds. We are told that terrible things will happen to us if we don't embrace religion and it scares the crap out of us when we are kids and this is imprinted on us at an early age. Those that question religion soon realize the numerous inconsistencies of most organized religions - those that don't question their religion simply go by what they were told when they were a kid, preferring to keep things simple. Anyway, I know I'm not going to convince you and it's not my place or business to try to convince you to give up your faith. Believe what you want to believe as long as you're not hurting anybody, but your arguments are not convincing anybody so long as you limit yourself to quoting the bible. Alas, my fingers are cramping up. Peace, Fernwick_. And I again apologize for mistakenly jumping on you instead of just screenplaywriter. Speaking of whom, I still haven't heard from screenplaywriter any legitimate reasons for why it would be bad to have gay marriages other than that it would lead to bestiality. Man, he needs help...

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 4:06 p.m. CST

    America sure is one fucked up country

    by Dog Of Mystery

    I can't believe rational people still have to gently explain to the deluded religious nuts that The Bible is just a bunch of hooey. And to all the non-religious conservatives who hitched their wagon to their Rapture-loving, science-hating, killing-is-okay-when-we-say-so-and-screw-what-our-so-called-sacred-book-clearly-instructs-us-on-the-matter retarded asses to crush the hated libruls - I wonder if you'll still be pleased with your decision after they ban all the films and books and radio shows you took for granted? Also, World War 3- The Muslim Menace... Coming Soon! But you're probably into that.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 4:26 p.m. CST

    We understand MrCere...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    To address MrCere's concerns about the inbred bigot screenplaywriter - don't worry, I certainly don't lump a steaming piece of crap like screenplaywriter together with reasonable conservatives like yourself. He is an anomaly just as there are liberal anomalies. But when someone shouts our that they are proud to be a homophobe, I can only shake my head and fear for the future of the human race...

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Wato - in defense of the man-boobs animation

    by Trader Groucho 2

    So the guy's got a sense of humor about himself. Is this not allowed? Reagan joked to his wife about forgetting to duck after a wack-job tried to kill him. By your reasoning, Reagan did not have the maturity or temerity to be president.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:06 p.m. CST

    I Miss Clinton...

    by BigTuna

    Who can't relate to a hard working man who wants to relaxe and accepts a blowjob from a chubby girl? And the cigar thing, damn you sick freak! 4 More Years! F-Bush and all his family values, let's have more oral and stains on the Oval office floor.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:45 p.m. CST

    900 LB gorilla

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Um, GW is not exactly leaving a democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. In both countries he's using the vaneer of democracy in an effort to legitimize economically-motivated aggression (oil pipeline through Afghanistan; black gold - texas tea - in Iraq). The Afghan election was laughable - anyone could get a ballot, as some foreign journalists proved, and voting was just another way to prove fealty to your local warlord. Oh, and opium production is up up up. As for Iraq, it seems GW's answer to the question, the ballot or the bullet, is: how about both? What he forgets is the presence of the bullet delegitimizes the ballot. International election observers do not believe it is even remotely possible to pull off a national election in Iraq any time soon.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 5:58 p.m. CST

    fucknuckles & fernwick & Ellid & Kaitain & B.NyeTheUruk-Hai & H

    by Trader Groucho 2

    As I understand the progressive nature of revelation in the history of Christianity, where Jesus specifically counteracted a law of the Old Testament, Christians are to follow Jesus' law. Laws He did not change would remain in force. As Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, the OT law stands. The Books of the Old Testament were passed on by oral tradition for centuries before being set to paper. Trade was happening all over the Mediterranean, thanks to the Phoenicians, so it is reasonable also to assume that IDEAS and KNOWLEDGE travelled back and forth as well. B.Nye, you're assuming a literalist interpretation, which is by no means universally accepted by either Christians or Jews. A "Day" in the Bible is pegged at different times to be of different lengths. And while Fernwick's correct about Jesus and free will, He also overturned the carts of the moneychangers, which by standards of the time was an act of civil disobedience. Harker-Writes - well, Jesus spoke in allegories, and He and those who were blessed with visions in both the OT and NT used all sorts of symbolism in both teaching and prophesying the coming of Christ and His return in the end-times. Is it so hard to believe that maybe the people of the period would have understood the Genesis story in an other-than-literal fashion?

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Several Things

    by Fernwick_

    First I would like to AGAIN say. I am in no way an expert. I just say what I believe, back it up with as much as I have. And the rest you can agree or disagree with me. I will not belittle any of you. I will not condesend any of you, regardless of your respect or lack of shown to me. now first and probably the most divisive thing I will say. 1. Inerrancy: First of all I dont believe in the label. Because much of the bible is literal, and a great deal is symbolic, and a lot MORE is something other then that is said, but isnt revealed unless you put every single scripture together. I am many examples of this so before you mock, ask for one first before you attack, but I will not just give you one for lack of space. I do believe the Bible is without error. Now the reasoning behind this is clear, and its what sets me apart from other Christians. Ok, its this simple, if God is a God and is all knowing, all powerfull, and omnipotent. Then to say that the bible is the word of God, and toss even part of it away is a contradiction. Its as simple as this to me, its either all right, or its all wrong. Some of you believe its ok to smoke, some of you believe its ok for women to preach, some of you believe in the trinity, and so on and so forth. But I dont believe it if the bible says its not so. Now to the person at the end trying to bring peace to all of us. Remember this, Christ did not come to alter the law, but to fullfil it. And he in fullfilling the law, freed us from it. Because he is guilty for us, being the lamb of God he was sacrificed for all of us. Now in the New testament the law was clarified, and expanded apon. For example, in the book of Acts he said, Rise up Peter and eat, and Peter said, I havent eaten anything unclean and I wont. And the voice said, dont call unclean what I have cleaned. I take that both as literal, and that he was referring to the Gentiles. So that is that. Other then that. I walk the best way I can. Following what was said in Galatians: 14": For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.***** Now my knowlege of the law, I do choose to honor the commandments as best I can. If I choose not to, the the law applies to me. Faith without works is dead. ******** I try the best I can to have the fruits from this tree come forth as the tree I claim to be. **** How can one say that part of the Bible is true and the rest is not? How can that person comfortably say I am a Christian? How can you be 'like Christ' and be homosexual? How can you be like Christ and smoke Crack? How can you tell God, I dont believe you made the earth in 7 days and claim to love him? Its just simple to me, if God is not powerfull enough, to forsee that man would try to corrupt the bible and make part of it not so, and sat by since he couldnt stop it, then he isnt God. So I believe the one true thing on this earth is his word. Just like John 1;("1": In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) Period. Thats what I believe, if you dont believe it, well what can you do about it? Insult me? That usually helps quite a bit. ***2.*** Now for the guy who said I wont believe him when he said dinsaurs prove the bible was wrong. I dont know what God did after he created the heavens and the earth. Its line one period. And then he says, now the earth was without form and void. I cant tell you that God didnt do something inbetween the VERY beginning and when he said the earth was without form and void. Because he didnt say, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and they were without form and void. He says one BOOM. And skips to the next one. Maybe he made the earth with dinosaurs and other creatures and so on? Who knows! But it was without form and void when he started to make US! Again that may be a lame explanation, but its not irrefutable. It does not PROVE what you say is right, it does not prove what I say is right, its just never discussed. And absense of an explanation does not make it not so.****3*****Mr Goth: I thought you wanted my opinion and I guess I was wrong. Because what I said was my opinion and I backed it up with what I believe to be the truth and examples why it cant be incontravertable. Now you just told me I pick and choose when killing is right and wrong. Now didnt God say the saints shall judge the earth? So how does that make me wrong? If the war is wrong, and innocents are killed then murder is taking place. Now when you said my example of the two soldiers running into each other was bad, you said, but they shouldnt be there to begin with. That may be so, but the question still remains, is he a murderer the answer is no. Now the persons in charge of the 'immoral' war will answer to God later, and maybe to a war tribunal. But even if they die with no punishment. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. They will not escape his wrath. That is a different situation, and your layering this, look at David. His motive is what got him in trouble. He put many men on the front lines in that battle. But the one he put there in order for him to die to get his wife, that is what God punished him for. Do you see this? Think about that. Now when you said ***(. So you are absolutely right on that one

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Fernwick - politlely and patiently... How do you KNOW that The B

    by Dog Of Mystery

    Also, cool user ID huh?

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Fernwick_, just throw me a bone here ( relax, screenplaywriter )

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Fernwick_, stop!!! Argh! You have to realize that non-religious people do NOT consider the bible to be fact at all. We believe that it is just a book of stories that have fantastical elements to them. Many of us believe that many of the people spoken of in the bible may have lived and done many of the things mentioned in the bible. For example, I personally believe that Jesus was a regular man who tried to teach his beliefs to others. I believe that he was crucified just like many other people of that time. But I don't believe that he was the son of god much like I don't believe that David Koresh was the son of god. My point is that you will never even begin to convince any atheists of anything that you believe so long as your ONLY source of evidence is the bible. The problem with your "evidence" is that you believe that everything in the bible is true despite somewhat lacking evidence to support it. On the same hand, despite a similar lack of evidence to support it, you say that our belief that NONE of the bible is true is a false conclusion for the same reason that you believe it IS true! So the fundamental problem for both people of faith and people without faith (not counting faith in ourselves) is that it is difficult to prove or disprove that certain events in the bible actually happened. But rather than investigate the many possibilities that arise when you apply some thought to this problem, you choose only to believe the bible word-for-word with the assumption that it is 100% infallible. Thank goodness for free-thinkers who actually questioned the bible, else we would still be living in the dark ages, embarking on crusades, burning witches at the stake, etc. etc. etc. Please, please, PLEEEEAAASE just provide ONE tiny little scrap of information about you or your beliefs that DOESN'T come from the bible. If you can't, then I pity you for limiting your existence to the vague preachings of a millenia-old book rather than freeing yourself from its shackles and opening your mind to the amazing possibilities that exist outside the biblical world. I just can't conceive of where you are figuratively to go next when you finish reading the last page of your bible...

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Jesus Harry, review the fucking film...LEAVE YOUR LAUGHABLE POLI

    by DoctorWho?

    I used to wonder why everyone bashed on Harry so much....kinda rude I thought. But Christ, with every overwhelmingly sophmoric political opinion he spouts he reveals an ignorance that cannot go without remark. Not what I'd call a thinker. That kind of blurred vision also translates into his stupid reviews. Ill read Moriartys reviews...but Harry's a bafoon.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Bill Nye the Urikia

    by Fernwick_

    What makes you think I havent questioned the Bible? I wouldnt have ever come to the conclusion it was true, without first trying to prove it false. Not being able to prove it was false at all, led me in the other direction and I believe it is true. Now I only attempted to prove the dinosaurs didnt DISprove the bible. I never tried to PROVE anything. I just said it was a moot point. I dont ever expect to prove anything to athiests. I dont expect or try to prove anything to you. If you notice the posts, people are making comments to me, and I am answering. If you dont want me to talk about it, lets change the subject, I dont mind a bit. I dont believe I should force you to believe my way, its not my job to do that. Even if i did wander the streets and preach my job is to speak the truth, not make you believe it. The point that it cant be proved either way its just the way it is. I was VERY VERY skeptical, and challenged my father quite a bit. But over time and after a couple of experiences I believe now that it is the truth. You assume much, just ask dont assume. If you dont believe, then I hope you do well and good day. But thats it, then lets talk about GEEK stuff, or change the subject, im not calling you a pagan, or a sinner, or a bad person. You seem intelligent and im just responding to remarks that have been made, nothing more. I am a free thinker and can probably say I have questioned more then may possibly realize. But in the end my conclusion is my own, just as yours is to you. Now I see the parrallels in the world every day when we live. I see that every day is born and dies and resurrects the next day. I see that when I go to bed at night, I see that when I eat my breakfast. When I eat I realize that the only way to live, is to live off of dead life, food or plant or germ it was all alive. And to live that thing must have died first. Its by its dead life that I live, thus I see the parrallel with Christ, I see that he must die that I am to live again. When I look at natures ecosystem I see creation, not accident. I see plants taking in carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen, I see us giving off and vise versa. I see a perfect design. I see the human body as something that was designed. The amazingness of science shows the the genious of creation. Now if you would like to change the subject, lets do so. How about we dont need another Superman? I think the first one is perfect enough, and we dont need to redo it. How about you cant get any better then Marlon Brando and Christopher Reeve, how about you get score better then John Williams. How about why does it need to be done? Just to make more money. Thats it. Shall we change the subject? Who agrees with me on THAT? How about the perfect answer to fixing the Star Trek series. We make a movie with with Q!!!! Now that I would pay to watch and so would every other star trek geek. use the writers on Enterprise now that are making a FANTASTIC Vulcan story. HOw about that? :) Fernwick

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Ok HEY....

    by SeanHarris

    We get it. You don't think God exists. Can you write one last long winded rant telling us why again, please? As for Bush, equating his incompetence to his "belief" in God is a mistake. That man does not believe in the same God I and many others do, his is green and made of paper.

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Oh, dear Lord, Harry's at it again

    by WillowFan2001

    "...an alleged majority of my country..." Good grief, Harry. Did you take statistics? Did you even take arithmetic? 51% of the voters backed Bush, 48% backed Kerry. Roughly 51 of every 100 is an absolute majority, my impish friend, not an alleged one. Granted, it's a majority of the VOTERS and not the COUNTRY, but then again, that's what you're talking about, isn't it? Then there's this gem: "But is it really any wonder that a film about a man that dreamt of uniting the world and evolving with every new culture he came in contact with...would enrage a majority of folks in a country that seems to tear down those it does not wish to understand." Let's face it, Harry me lad: The reviews for Alexander that have been so poor have come, not from the red state voters, but from journalists. While I can't guarantee anything, I can pretty much promise you that 51% of THEM aren't conservative...much less 86% of them. This film has a freshness rating of 14% on RottenTomatoes.com, and a quick scan reveals that movie reviewers from all over the country and all over the political spectrum are giving it a pass. It's not just the "alleged majority" trashing this film, it's everybody from religious right to left of liberal. But this time you can't piss me off, Harry. Bush won. Rant all you like, tell as many people to grow up as you wish. Not that you need my permission, of course, but for whatever it's worth, you've got it. I'll just sit back and smile. (Although seeing you tell people to grow up, you who constantly insert snide "progressive" innuendoes into your reviews just to tweak people like me, you who have not once taken the high road that I have seen, did break my smile...just long enough to let out a low, satisfied chuckle. NOW I've seen it all.)

  • Nov. 27, 2004, 11:37 p.m. CST

    And on the subject of gay/straight sex...

    by WillowFan2001

    I wasn't aware that there was a different word for sex between men and men, or women and women, than the word for sex between men and women. I thought the word was "sex" no matter what. Oh, you were talking about adjectives? Never mind then. Just so long as the noun is the same. Seriously, people (and I can NOT believe I am about to take Harry's side), grow up. Speaking as a conservative, church-going Republican from Oklahoma who voted AGAINST the state amendment to ban gay marriage, it's a stupid debate to have.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 1:45 a.m. CST

    why is everyone on the attack against a work of art, led by unac

    by watashiwadare

    disturbing trend...

  • the movie sucks, its 3 hours of people crying, screaming and badly edited battles. Its not art, its crap.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Harry's latent homosexuality is becoming less and less latent.

    by HanFiredFirst

    I think this trend started with his expressed wish to bear Ron Burgundy's "ass baby."

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 3:22 a.m. CST

    DocPazuzu... I can't seem to figure out if you're like a strange

    by TheGinger Twit

    You see, you keep bringing up every single post I ever wrote about. And thats great, because the truth is, you're just saving me from writing it all again. As for what I truely believe, I didn't say what I truely believe, I just point out a few interesting facts. And I can tell you now, that NO I don't believe Afgani Cave men highjact 4 airlines in histories most elaborate terrorist attack, and NO I don't believe that the Beheading tape is some sort of "Iraqi's ARE evil, look at what they do" And I'll stick by this because YES I do know for a FACT that Americans are DIRTY FUCKING CUNTS who are causing geneside over LIES which the American Government now admits. So here here. Fuck off Wanker.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Alexander IS THE WORST FUCKING MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!

    by Veraxus

    oh - my - god Alexander is a wretched, abysmal, heinous, contemptible, vile, unpropitious excuse for steamy shitstained cinematic trash. The way this movie made me feel can be likened to scene in A Clockwork Orange where Alex is being given the reconditioning treatment - absolute torture. Mere words cannot express my absolute contempt for this... this... loathsome dance of light and shadow which so incongruously violates the screen upon which it is projected. Alexander starts well enough - Anthony Hopkins delivers the narrative as Ptolemy - a historian and one of Alexanders men. We are treated to such a fantastic representation of period Alexandria that we can't help but be drawn in. The acting is superb, the sets and costumes magnificant - the dialogue would make Shakespeare weep. The first act concentrates on Alexanders childhood, and so is very dialogue heavy. It is not so bad as we are constantly learning something new. The climax is reached about an hour in - at the battle of Gaugamela - the single most fantastic representation of an ancient battle ever seen. It's chaotic, and brutal, but expertly and fantastically shot to give you both an idea of the battle from a soldiers point of view and from that of an outside observer, viewing the strategic battle from afar. At this point, we begin to see the makings of a magical perfect-10 kind of classic. But then it all starts to go wrong. Very, very, very wrong. I'm sure that by now you've heard about the films focus on Alexander's sexuality. Everything you've heard has been underexaggerated - on a nearly conspiratorial level. This Alexender is very, very gay - and the film is sure to beat you over the head with this idea frequently and furtively - and for vast extended periods of time. About an hours worth of film can be directly attributed to lovely little homoerotic conversations/scenes between Alexander and his boy toy, Parmenion... and his male Babylonian transvestite who constantly appears, flaunting around suggestively throughout the entire film. Yes, according to this film - men in those days only had wives to propogate the species. The rest of the time they just fooled around with other men. Oliver Stone has taken Ptolemy's historic texts and totally gone off deep end with all kinds of fictitious liberties and wild assumptions. This is not a movie based on history or fact, as it claims to be - it is a self-righteous Hollywood agenda film. But wait, there's more! The film clocks in at about 3 hours - people were leaving by an hour and a half - just after the extreme ammounts of gayness started flying (we're talking gay on the scale of a South Park episode - we're talkng Lemmiwinks, here). The rest of the theatre was either squirming around in their seats, ready to leave, or chuckling uncomfortably. I, myself, would have left on at least a dozen different occassions - only my inclination to give a movie a fair chance to redeem itself stopped me. It's as if Oliver Stone could not throw away a single a second of footage. It all had to go in there - regardless of it's insignificance, redundancy, or quality. This is one of those instances where some SEVERE and DRACONIAN cuts would have resulted in a MUCH better movie (especially if it focused on the nonstop barrage of homosexual dialogue and imagery). Furthermore, the final battle of the film (which would have been otherwise rather spectacular) is shifted into crazy psychedelic colors upon Alexander's injury. The whole thing (all 15 minutes of it) is then played out in neon pinks and oranges. By this point, everyone in the theatre (like Alexander's generals) is just waiting for Alexander to DIE so they can just leave, already. When the credits began to roll, people RAN... yes, RAN to the exits. Others walked in silence. Not a word from anyone. In the lobby, one person could be heard saying "Oh my god. How did this happen?" And no, this time it wasn't me. My friend then turned to me and said, quite withrawn, "i hated that movie." I don't think hate is quite strong enough for me, though. This was not just a bad movie - it was TORTURE. Alexander has now earned my official "Worst movie of all time" award. Oliver Stone - Fuck you. I hate you and hope you die a terrible lonely death. I will never see another one of your movies as long as I live.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Hey GingerTwit

    by DocPazuzu

    Don't flatter yourself. I'm merely attempting to provide a public service. You see, there may actually be people here who are new or just never encountered you before. I fully intend to hound you wherever you show up in the talkbacks with your malevolent, cracked politics and supply links to some of your most heinous posts so they can see what a truly reprehensible, scumsucking, insidious swine you are. Not to mention how hilariously stupid you also are. "geneside".... hehehehe...

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 7:51 a.m. CST

    TO ALL YOU "RELIGIOUS" PEOPLE OUT THERE!

    by Hey

    OK, OK... To all the religious people here! Why do you guys believe in something you don't see and do not believe in things you do see? Science has studied and evaluated all types of happenings and occurences existing in the world. Historic, geographic, biologic, mathematical, etc..., all things that make up aerth, the universe, the living, the dead, the past and the future of what we have around us. We, the people, the humans have existed for only such a small little short time in this huge, vast and lengthy existence of the cosmos. So many other things have been here before us and so many things will be here after us..., how can we have become so arrogant to actually really think we're so damn important that all this was made for us? Now the biggest assumption people always make is that all we have are theories. Theories of our existence. Let me tell you something, a theory is not a thought, a theory is not a guess..., a theory is a well researched, broadly tested conclusion for what might be. Absolutely the most closely reached outcome to the truth, as long as no other answer is found that would knock away the last thought. This means, scientists are always open to new studies, new conclusions and ever changing visions of life. This all, can not be said about religion. You're told by your parents what to believe and you go on with life believing it, telling your children to believe it to, and so on... Every kind of research to try to unfold the truth about the bible falls apart because it is unresearchable! One writes a book of fantasy, using all kinds of real historic facts (like floods, buildings, wars and people) and you would think it's possible to test it's reality? How can you test that? If I write a book right now, saying that I was abducted by aliens looking like Spongebob, how the hell can you prove me it's all false? You can't, I know it's fantasy, but you will never know! You weren't there, you've never seen there aliens, blablabla..., a book is no proof at all for the existence of something. So if anybody says that not being able to find the proof that god exists is not enough to actually say that god does not exist..., is saying that everything said by anyone has to be believed! Because thoughts and remarks are unprovabale. At least far fatched fantastical remarks..., not saying that water is wet. People of faith should just reallu try to start believing in themselves. Knowing that what they do, choose and what may happen to them is because of luck, knowledge, experience and coincidence. If you die, you die, there's nothing bad or scary about it. You lose loved ones, but hey, that's life! Try to be open minded about everything. If things are proven, go for it! Don't deny it right away. Investigate it for your selves, try to find out if it is really possible. Think for once! The day proof is made that there really could be a god (not just some lame remark by a theologist that there could be a god..., I mean there could also be a huge ginat walking marshmellow man, that doesn't say anything)..., the day proof is really made that there really could be a god, that will be the day that I'll say, OK, there is a god. But with absolutely no proof whatsoever, except for a lame old book (full of fantastical stolen historic stories), it is not enough for a person of reason, like myself. By the way, every little happening in the bible has been explained scientifically. Every earthquake, flood, building, language and war has a historic, geological or scientific explanation. Which so coincides with the rest of the world in the rest of the ages, not spoken about in the bible. No god, just nature! But if you guys believe the bible which just describes all these phenomanons like any other historical/geographical book in the library as being truly miracles from a god..., then sweet dreams tonight, because you'll believe in the sandman to, right? Or in santa, or in the loch ness monster, or that the world is flat, or in that case..., you're all having the same brainwave as Jessica Simpson. Just as smart, just as curious, just as knowledge filled brains as her. I mean, she believes everything she's told to! Go figure..., good person to be compared to, huh? SH.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:33 a.m. CST

    When it comes to Duba, the Neo-Cons, and the Religious Right hav

    by Red Raider

    I say let go ahead and let them do and say what they want. Do not stand in the way of anything they want to try and pass in congress or any morals they want to impose on others. Why, you ask? Simple. In the past, when conservatives and the religious right have tried to enforce their holier-than-thou, hypocritical, moralist BULLSHIT on the American public, it causes a backlash that puts those gun toting, bible quoting fuckers in their place. So go ahead with you're so-called "mandate", and let loose the armies of the religious right. In due time, they'll get laughed out of the room for how hypocritical they are. There's a special place in the 9th circle of hell for those assholes. Here is a flash animation that says it better than I can: http://www.bushflash.com/ihr.html

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Then I look forward to your responces Docpazuzu.

    by TheGinger Twit

    But how about you actually say something to counter attack what I say, instead of repeat everything I say and then laugh at it. Genside (for the purpose of international law) ; any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. I'd say that America going in and killing over 100,000 innocent people, just because they move, fits that bill - wouldn't you. And when Iran and Syria start getting the bombs, ask yourself, when will it end. And just how GOD DAMN SAFE ARE YOU GOING TO BE? Fucking loser.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Alexander in sandals with a big sword...

    by Aston Lad

    There's been a weird glut of swords and sandals epics lately. Gladiator, Troy, King Arthur...even arguably the battle scenes in LOTR and the opening sequence of The Mummy Returns. Ah well, better than the slasher revival of the late 90s I guess...

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I can think of one fairly convincing piece of evidence that the

    by FluffyUnbound

    The fact that there are Iraqis still alive. If genocide was our intent, they would all be dead. We certainly have the means. Ginger, you really have to come up with a definition of genocide that does not include every conceivable human conflict. Or, at least, interpret the standard definition in the appropriate way, with a little more emphasis on properly determining intent. It sort of takes the sting out of the accusation. And, one other thing - if it's reasonable for you to think that the Mossad was responsible for 9/11, or that documented acts of the Iraqi insurgency are ALL being "faked" by the CIA, then there is no belief it would be irrational to hold. I could go around saying that Bigfoot is hiding Saddam's WMD, and you really couldn't say anything, because we would only be being equally unreasonable. We would be exactly tied.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Raging homophobes

    by Fortunesfool

    Bill hicks said it best "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever."

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Come get some, GingerTwit

    by DocPazuzu

    "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such." ........... Explain to us exactly which national, ethnical, racial or religious group America has, or is in the process of, wiping off the face of the Earth? "Genos" is a Greek word for "race" or "tribe," and "cide" is a Latin term for "killing of." Genocide means -- as everyone but ideologically motivated moral relativist scumbags like yourself admits to -- the premeditated wiping out, or attempts to wipe out, entire groups of people for no other reason than that they belong to a certain ethnic, national, racial or religious group which is viewed as subhuman or otherwise unfavorable in the eyes of the murderers. As Fluffy so correctly stated, if America had wanted to wipe out the Iraqis for being either Iraqi, Arab, Muslim or "just talkin' funny" they would have been dead a long time ago. If America truly viewed them as subhuman vermin, they would have leveled Falluja from the air rather than risk the lives of their own troops to protect the civilians as much as possible. The U.S. Air Force could have flattened Falluja in less than a day and suffered no casualties while annihilating an entire population of "subhumans" -- surely a decent accomplishment on the road towards exterminating all Iraqis, Arabs and Muslims? For the record, GingerTwit, as long as you keep posting your vile, abyssmally idiotic tripe I will continue to post links to your earlier snippets of wisdom, as well as hand your ass to you as often as you ask for it. Oh, and it's spelled g-e-n-o-c-i-d-e, not "geneside." Must be a bitch having your spelling corrected by an American.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 1:33 p.m. CST

    DocPazuzu, if you're so keen on unearthing other's embarrassing

    by Dog Of Mystery

    ...maybe I should dig up the many you wrote pre-Abu Ghraib where you scoffed at the idea that the US military were practicing torture at Guantanamo. Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity to admit you were wrong. And with 100 000 Iraqis dead it does you and your high horse no credit that you reserve your outrage for someone who dares label it genocide as opposed to having the slightest urge to apologise for the very real deaths that have been needlessly caused by your country. So the US could nuke Iraq but doesn't? What do you want, a fucking Nobel Peace Prize? Hitler didn't mange to get all the jews either - does that stop it being genocide? Either way, continue arguing semantics to enable your state of happy denial.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I guess that we'll politely agree to disagree...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Okay, Fernwick_, fair enough. I've underestimated the amount of thought and soul-searching that you've put into this issue just as I have myself. We'll agree to disagree and respectfully part ways. Stick to your guns just as I'll stick to mine. I've learned a lot from our back-and-forth posts and found them to be very interesting. At least one thing that we agree on is the new Superman movie. I feel the same way as yourself. The original is one of the first movies that I remember seeing in the theater when I was a young lad and the thrill that I had while watching it left a lasting impression on me. Bringing John Williams in to re-hash the old score and create some new music as well might appease some of the fans of the original movies. Regardless, there's not much that we can do about it - unfortunately, the decisions are in the hands of the suits. Hopefully, they'll do the right thing. Anyway, Fernwick_, take care and have a good one...

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Morgoth Vs. the dictionary who is right?

    by 900LBGorilla

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 2:30 p.m. CST

    "Hitler didn't mange to get all the jews either - does that stop

    by DocPazuzu

    The intent on Hitler's part was to wipe out all the Jews -- men, women and children -- off the face of the Earth, which is the definition of genocide. The fact that he was stopped before he could finish doesn't make it any less of a genocide, as I clearly stated in my earlier post. Genocide is defined by the intent as well as the resulting amount of murders. The contested number of dead Iraqis does not constitute a genocide, as there was/is no intent to kill all Iraqis. Any civilian casualities are the result of collateral damage in an armed conflict. Regrettable though it is, it's still a world removed from genocide which is the premeditated, systematic extermination of a people. If anyone is in a state of denial it's people like you who use the excuse of moral relativism to conceal political cowardice and intellectual laziness. As for my earlier posts about Gitmo, please feel free to dig them up. As I recall, they weren't all that many, and the "scoffing" was mostly at the notion of provocatively dressed/undressed women being paraded in front of the prisoners being equated with torture. As for the apology -- on what grounds do you feel that I should apologize? For what? And to whom? You would do well to remember that it actually is possible for a person to be critical of the war in Iraq and still know the fundamental differences between a democratic nation and totalitarian ideologies. All this aside, it really speaks volumes about you as a person, JesusIsMyBitch/ObscureReference, that you would align yourself with a cretin like GingerTwit.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 2:47 p.m. CST

    "So the US could nuke Iraq but doesn't? What do you want, a fuck

    by DocPazuzu

    Quite possibly the worst and most irrelevant comeback I've ever seen. The point -- which you failed to counter on every conceivable level -- is that it's not genocide, when it easily could be if the intent were present.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 3:41 p.m. CST

    DAMN BUSH, DAMN WAR AND DAMN RELIGIONS!

    by Hey

    Come on people..., what the hell are we talking about? The war is not a genocide, the war is not even really wrong, it's just very badly planned, poorly worked out, devastatingly fought and not really well explained. I mean, look, I'm against Bush, I'm against all of his principles, I'm against the reasons he uses to invade another country and mostly I'm scared of him being a religious nut. But this war wan't only his fault. Rumsfeld, Rice and, I bet, a huge amount of highly ranked generals also had a big hand in Bush's ass. Together they went to war. Which if you look at the simple facts wasn't even such a bad idea. Breaking up bad governments in the middle east, making sure that no weapons could be used in a massive way, systematically showing other extremist governments around the area what could be standing in line for them to and giving the people of these countries a new choice for what they want to believe in, politically, religiously and all in freedom without being persecuted. But that isn't what it's all about! The question here is..., did he have the right to do it? Sometimes I thought yes, sometimes I thought no. Now I guess i'm in the no again. And the reason for my answer being no is not because of the justification or anything, it's because of the planning. I think it's still alright he entered the country and toppled the leader (no matter if I agree with his reasons or not, which I ofcourse don't, having seen way too much proof all his reasons were false). But the way he did and what his plans were in the aftermath..., these make him and his staff incompetent. They had all disgracefully been surprised by the backlash the invasion had started. Makiing them the most naive government in ages. Everybody knew that Islam is much more powerful to these people then anything around. One of the laws in Islam is that, if anyone tries to take your right away to pray or tries to forbid you to do your thing, you're in your right to fight for your right. Knowing most muslims in these countries are poorly educated and fearful of their Allah, by seeing Americans march in their streets shooting other muslims down and being poisened by their imams to fight back..., these people will do just that. They've been doing it for 1400 years. Why would they suddenly stop? Worldwide the whole muslim situation is really getting out of hand. Extremist islamic thinkers are forcing their visions onto others, destroying our "western" way of thinking, that one can say anything one wants, without fear. But the only problem is that these people are not only poor little farmers in the desserts of Iraq or Aghanistan. They're people, educaed and all, in our own countries. People that have been poisened by fundamentalist ideas and ready to do something with their hate. hate that grows by the day this war on terror keeps going on so badly in Iraq. The problem is simple. Bush is a dumb, simple man, in charge of a massive amount of army power and the biggest arsenal in the world. Lead by the same fundamentalist thoughts as the fundamentalists he's persuing, he's on his crusade to destroy all the people that simply think different about god, democracy and money as he does. With bombs outside america and with pilitics and lies inside america. He prevailed in achieving a majority of votes by lying to his people about a danger imposible to deny. A danger like no other. Terrorism. Actually this danger had been around long before he was born. It's not new, and he is certainly not the right person to fight it. His motivation coincides much too much with the terrorists reason to attack. What mr bush has done by attacking other countries then Afghanistan and trying to punish the people that did the 9-11 thing has only created new reasons for muslims to hate america. More reasons for them to want to attack america. And absolutely a new wave of young american muslims living in america, to attack us from the inside. He's saying that he's taken the fight outside our borders. Better fight there then here. There is not the threat! The threat is the islamic thought. The one that collides frontally with the western thought. And all this is happening on the front which is the poorliest defended. Mainland America. Where nobody is doing anything to change thoughts. Mr Bush is much too busy fighting the liberals! The people that give freedom of choice to others that can not take decent care of their babies, and want to take them away before it would be too late. Or the people that harmlessly love another person of the same sex. Or the movies that show the things we think and want to see. Or the people that choose not to believe in the dumbest invetion man has ever come up with..., the existence of a god! Iraq could have been a good step, but became the worst step, and by voting the incompetent for another 4 years will only make it worse. Bush will go into history as the most buttbrained president in ages incompetent of his job and the starter of a second civil war in america. The country has grown so inmensibly inpopular in the rest of the world that it is nearly unturnable. And you can say as loudly as you want that this is america and not the rest of the world..., that nobody has anything to say about you..., but the rest of the world is where the american economy depends on. Make enemies with your income and suffer the consequences! Thankyou Bush! You killed us all! SH.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Pazuzu - The Neocon's Uncle Tom

    by Dog Of Mystery

    My point is not whether or not the slaughter of 100 000 Iraqis can be defined as genocide, when it seems only a published Final Solution from Bush would satisfy your need for clearly defined intent. I (and much of the world) see a war on Islam that is comparable to The Holocaust, in intent, if not yet in numbers- you do not. I (and much of the world) see the war in Iraq as part of a plan to inflame terrorism and keep the US voting in the war-mongers that falsely promise to keep it safe. You, meanwhile, have your head up your butt. History will determine whether the term genocide is apt, my problem with you is that you claim the moral high-ground by labelling GingerTwit a Holocaust denier (justifiably it seems), while down-playing the recorded acts of torture by the US (prisoners chained to metal beds for hours, attacked by dogs, raped) by arguing about whether parading naked women in front of them constitutes torture. ObscureReference spent a lot of time trying to prove that there was torture going on at Guantanamo Bay, and you were vocal in your rebuttal. Now that it has been shown, via the horror-show of Abu Ghraib and the evidence that these techniques were perfected at "gitmo', I ask you to admit that you were wrong to claim that the US military does not practice torture.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 4:15 p.m. CST

    ROSARIO DAWSON NAKED!

    by Vermifax

    Any film that gets this voluptous angelic divine creature NAKED in front of a movie camera IS the Best Film of any Year! Praise Oliver Stone for his vision!!! Oh yeah....and Bush sucks the rotting balls of a dead moose!

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 4:18 p.m. CST

    "a war on Islam that is comparable to The Holocaust, in intent,

    by DocPazuzu

    A statement like that is as mindbogglingly stupid as "Satan put fossils in the earth to fool us." It clearly demonstrates that you lack both the will and the moral clarity to make difficult choices in a complex world and would rather apply poorly constructed blanket condemnations to ideologically soft targets like western democracies. Like all dictatorships and people with totalitarian aspirations -- whether they be nazis, communists, fascists or theocratic loons -- the first step in laying the groundwork is the gradual dissolving of political morality through the shifting and ultimate altering of the meaning of certain words, like "genocide" and "freedom." This is what you tellingly dismiss as a squabble over semantics. I suggest you read Language & Silence: Essays on Language, Literature, and the Inhuman by George Steiner. You may actually learn something, much as I doubt it. At the time of my Gitmo posts, the facts were not yet known. The only thing that had been confirmed at the time was the suggestive female "torture." ObscureReference's pathetic bleating from propagandic sources most dubious was not (and still isn't) the most reliable of information. The fact that torture of certain prisoners came to light is in no way to be attributed to people like ObscureReference. Even a clock that's broken tells the right time twice a day. That having been said, I don't condone torture at the hands of the U.S. military, I strongly condemn it and think that those responsible should be punished severely. America is better than that. You seem to have forgotten, however, that the whistle-blowers both in Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib were U.S. military personnel who felt that the torture went against everything they stood for as American soldiers. The fact that it became a scandal and people are being prosecuted is a tribute to the self-corrective nature of an open and decent society and that by and large, inhuman treatment of prisoners isn't in alignment with U.S. military policy. Hilariously calling me an "Uncle Tom" just proves how completely off the mark you are in correctly judging political opponents. That's severe myopia, chief.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Doc Panzu...thankyou for bitch slapping that fool for me

    by DoctorWho?

    Those comments are absurd and astonishingly stupid. I thank you for saving me the 5 min of typing a reply to which would probably fall on deaf ears. Its amazing how a fanboy website is slowly turning into a political one. Not that I dont find this amusing...but I cant tell you how many times I practically fall out of my chair laughing/crying at some of the most ridiculous world views posted here. The sheer hatred of America voiced by some speaks more about the haters themselves and what THEY value.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 6:44 p.m. CST

    the denier speaks again

    by TheGinger Twit

    lets get it straight, Arguing about ww2 or even your last disasterous war/slaughter Vietnam is totally beside the point - considering that Bush's great granddaddy was hitlers right hand man just makes me wonder about how extreme the jews make the attack on them out to be... much like how you, Dicpusoozer, are trying to play down the unaceptable numbers of Iraqi deaths. So you guys have got a real hard on for Falluja right now. Do you want me to link some pics of dead kids. I'd best not, the webmaster might be a nazi. That would make me really bad. Before you go so rabbidly off at me, just take a moment to consider these two things. If Iraq or any country even attempted to use WMD against America, that nation would litterally be commiting suicide. It would cease to exist. Gone. Within less than 12 hours too I'd bet. And bet good money too. And secondly, a coalition decides that America is an evil ragime so it decides to mount an offensive. 100,000 dead Civilian American. Callateral damage against "Insurgents". What the hell is an insurgent? Someone who doesn't like an occupying force. Fuck America and Fuck you. The world aint no where near as safe as it was back before september 11.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Anyway...about the film...

    by DoctorWho?

    The film goes on for nearly three hours, but we hear nothing of what either supporters or detractors of Alexander, both ancient and modern, have agreed were the central issues of his life. Did he really believe in a unity of mankind, and were his mass mixed marriages, Persian dress, and kowtowing cynical, sincere, or delusions of megalomania? Stone, I would have thought, could have had a field day with Alexander

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Here's a wake up call idiots...

    by DoctorWho?

    War is nasty,hard and horrific. If you pussies knew history and had any idea how bad we were losing to the Nazis at one point, and how many fuck ups we had (5,000 dead in one feld swoop during a TRAINING run for D- Day invasion for example)...you would have all cried and sceamed "run,run,run". THIS IS THE TELEVISION GENERATION WHERE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE RESOLVED ALL NICE AND CLEAN IN TIDY 30MIN SEGMENTS. THE IDIOT MTV GENERATION. You idiots are actually shocked that innocents are dying in Iraq???? Welcome to earth you naive little twits....its happened since the beginning of time! WWII would NEVER have been won with the likes of you crying about every failure fuck-up and mis calculation. That IS the nature of war....CHAOS! Bad things WILL happen! My heart breaks for those poor Iraqis who lose families and friends....I would honestly HATE the US too if I were in their shoes! The problem is...we cant leave now. Bad Idea! If you think an Al Zarqawi type would not install an iron fisted, facist ,religous tyrany like the Talaban...your delusional.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 7:30 p.m. CST

    GingerLoon

    by DocPazuzu

    As usual, you make little or no sense at all, and the more agitated and cornered you become, the more bizarre your posts are..... "Arguing about ww2 or even your last disasterous war/slaughter Vietnam is totally beside the point" ...... What point are you referring to?...... "considering that Bush's great granddaddy was hitlers right hand man just makes me wonder about how extreme the jews make the attack on them out to be... "....... What does that even mean?....... Pics of dead kids, eh? Do you think there has ever been a war in history where innocent children haven't become victims in combat? Is there any war in history fought by a western democracy which you feel was justified despite civilian casualties? Which one? Why? .......... "And secondly, a coalition decides that America is an evil ragime so it decides to mount an offensive. 100,000 dead Civilian American. Callateral damage against "Insurgents". " ........ That statement implies that the United States would be attacked by a democratic country or countries which value human life and whose conduct is governed by moral codes of decency and the rule of law. Not bloody likely, in other words. If, for the sake or argument that were true, then 100 000 American casualties which occurred as collateral damage while this fictitious coalition was attacking military targets would not be classified by me, an American, as genocide. So, what was that point again? ........ "I'd best not, the webmaster might be a nazi. That would make me really bad." .......... If you quote from a neo-nazi site willingly, then yes, you are really bad. If you don't have the sense to check your sources before quoting from them then you're just stupid. Face it, GingerTwit, you're just too fucking dumb to have the slightest clue as to how the world works, or be able to differentiate between good and evil. You're a lazy thinker and don't like to make difficult choices. Now go back to pretending you really believe the beheadings are fake so you don't have to deal with the pesky notion that islamist insurgents are nothing but fascist theocrats who would be all too glad to cut your head off as much as any American's.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 7:38 p.m. CST

    900 LB gorilla - NOT end of story

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Robert Young Pelton - author of the World's Most Dangerous Places - is currently in Baghdad riding with convoys between the airport and the "Green Zone", and it is his considered opinion that Iraq is currently the world's MOST dangerous place. SO, given the axiom I previously referenced re: ballots v bullets AND the opinion of internal elections observers, I again submit that Iraq's upcoming so-called elections are a completely and total sham, a face-saving neo-con facade designed to give the ill-informed and self-deluded here and abroad the opportunity to try and feel good about U.S. actions in Iraq - and ignore stuff like the estimate that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the U.S. invasion; that the U.S. has lost more than 1,200 troops; the fact that Fallujah's defenders were, contrary to the horse manure being shovelled to the American people from the Bush administration via the lapdog mainstream press, overwhelmingly Iraqis; the fact that U.S. troops engaged in flagrant and reprehensible human rights violations in more than one prison in Iraq. Pelton suggests that anyone who thinks things in Iraq are peachy-keen ought to fly into Baghdad and take a tour of the city without the benefit of an armored Humvee escort. I submit that free elections cannot be conducted when the voters are not even free to move in safely from place to place within their own cities.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Well, Ginger.

    by FluffyUnbound

    If the United States was being ruled by Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, and a coalition of nations invaded us to topple them, I would collaborate, if they would have me. I would run out the first day and shoot any Baathists I could find, and if I knew where they were hiding I would turn them in to the occupying authorities. And if someone tried to tell me I was wrong to do so, by framing the issue in terms of nationality ["a dictatorship of Americans is better than a liberal democracy imposed by outsiders"] I would first laugh myself out of my jock, and then I would turn THOSE people in to the occupying authorities, too. Your problem is that you still believe in nationalism, at least when it helps you hate the United States, and since nationalism is an evil and pernicious belief system it inevitably leads you to draw conclusions that cannot be supported.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 8:44 p.m. CST

    B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    by Fernwick_

    I also agree to disagree. It seems like you and I are having the only REASONABLE discussion left in the talkbacks. I respect your opinion and would enjoy discussing other topics as well. But im glad we agree on the Topic of the Superman movie, I really dont see the need for it, some geeks here want to see it. But its like remaking Star Wars to use the new tools at our disposal. Wait a sec, George Lucas IS doing that. It shows that somethings are just best left alone. Take care. Fernwick

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:02 p.m. CST

    i, too think that PLATOON

    by beamish13

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:04 p.m. CST

    i, too think that PLATOON is overrated

    by beamish13

    and i think this films has failed at the box office and with critics not because of our insanely conservative atmosphere, where organized religion has a lock on the gov't and our own president thinks he's an emissary from god, but because many people simply don't like it.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Fernwick & B.NyeTheUruk-Hai ...Dinosaurs debate

    by BananaSkin

    Just my thoughts on your debate about the bible. As i said in a previous post i'm an atheist and believer in rational thought over belief in a deity, hence i like science. Why? I'll paraphrase Carl Sagan to explain, he said religion is fixed by whatever holy book you believe in. Anything in contradiction to the holy words is heresy and wrong, no debate. Science is based on theory, hypothesis, experimentation and refinement of the theory or its discardment as wrong. Science is self correcting. Scientists believ e in science to get the truth, can any religion say the same? Now to dinosaurs etc my main concern with the Christian Right is their belief in the 'theory' of Creationalism. Oh and by the way these Christians do believe the Earth was created in 6 days etc but more importantly that its only some 6000 to 7000 years old. How? By counting the generations of families in the bible. Gotta love that one! Completely dismissing all the scientific evidence to the contrary, carbon dating etc. Evolution theory to them is an anaethema, even though its proven that humans and every damn species on the planet evolved. So you see thats the problem with belief in a God, anything which contradicts faith in your deity punches a hole in the structure of the religion. Like a house of cards it will come crashing down and zealots will defend their faith, even violently, as history has taught us. I'm not from the USA but you know what i find absolutely unbelievable, some states/counties are forcing the teaching of Creationalism in schools as pseudo 'fact'. Where in the USA? In the so called bible belt, the same States that voted in Bush, buts thats off topic but hey what isn't in this Talkback. The Christian faith in particular has always challenged the progress science makes and even persecuted those who used it to question, even indirectly the belief in God. Who can forget Copernicus and Gallileo, their work was burned as heresy! Facts they scientifically determined, we today take for granted are absolutely the truth. Why do Christians do this, simple, the heirachy of Christian church loses its power over the people it pretends to care for. Oh and Fernwick, i know you are probably not a religious scholar and this may seem like a rant at you personally but it not, its at your religion. People like B.NyeTheUrukHai and myself would probably become believers but for one thing....we want proof in the existance of God and the bible doesn't pass the level of evidence required. Try and see it from our point of view.

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST

    if the DEMS had nominated Dean, then Bush would be out of office

    by beamish13

    Kerry was a backtracking wimp, and the Bush campaign gleefully exploited that. It would have been so great to have had a doctor in the oval office (and an internist to boot, someone who understands the nature of infectious diseases like AIDS).

  • Nov. 28, 2004, 11:01 p.m. CST

    I'd hate to interupt your pissing match, guys, but...

    by John Anderton

    ...I just saw this movie, and I loved it. For a history and sword-n-sandal epic nut, this movie was golden. Not a single bad performance to be had. Val Kilmer was great as Philip. Farrel, Leto, Hopkins, and Jolie were all wonderful. The dialogue was unweildy, but it's of the sort you'd think people would actually speak in those times. There are only two major flaws in my mind, that being the 8 year flashback to Philip's death. This should have been shown chronologically. The second being the jump in time from the Philip/Alexander estrangement to the battle of Gaugamela. There should have been something in between there to seque, plotwise. Some sort of grand decision by Alexander to start his expedition, or some scene showing the crossing from Europe to Asia. I don't know, just something. There were three major engagements within that time too that was glossed over. Putting these two narrative issues aside, I think this is a movie of beautifully epic proportions that hold a very good candle next to the likes of "Gladiator" "The Lord of the Rings" "Braveheart" or any of the other epic stories told in the past 10 years.

  • I thought all the battle stuff was cool .The sunday night show I went to was sold out.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Bananaskin

    by Fernwick_

    Hello, I agree with your assessment that the earth is millions of years old. Like I told Bill, the bible never says the earth is 6000 years old. It says in the beginning God created heavens and the earth PERIOD. He then goes on, now the earth was without form and void. Now there was no time period stated so its simply not addressed. Now this might be nuts, but I THINK that God created heaven and earth, put the dinosaurs there, and then when he was ready just BOOM killed them and started again. Maybe with a giant comet, who knows! I was thinking maybe this is why the earth was without form. I dont know its all hypothetical. But THATS why im not saying its only 6000 years old.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Harry get over your fat ass!!!!

    by CyberBeavis1326

    Harry you raving like a lunatic cause "Alexander" got dealt a bad hand, is pointless. I hate to break it to ya big boy. Oliver Stone only has a handful of great movies, none of them are his epic works, sad to say. "JFK" is a boring nauseating babblefest. "Nixon" while well written, acted, and made me think twice about him, was really a dud. His missfires and critically praised movies are his best works. "Platoon", "Born on the Fourth of July", "Natural Born Killers", and "U-Turn." Are the movies that stick out in my mind that he's done great. I liked "U-turn", I love the backroad desert town western atmosphere stories. It's true Americana. However, "Alexander" looks like a 3 hour borefest. I dislike Colin Ferrell, and Stone has been out of the limelight for so long, this world really can't make him a hit again. Unless, he can deliver another "U-turn" or "Natural Born Killers" tale, or do another Vietnam movie. He needs to lay off political bios, epics, and anything he feels is a dream picture. That will end his career, wait it nearly did this past weekend.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 1:53 a.m. CST

    What I wouldn't give...

    by TheGinger Twit

    Dicpusoozer.... Your great country didn't have to invade Iraq.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 2 a.m. CST

    If you didn't like the movie, harry thinks you're a bigot

    by Mad Skills

    Nice Harry. Some ppl just like different types of stories, ones with more clearly dilineated good and evil. Does that make them bigotted? I liked the movie, but on the other hand, I don't watch dramas b/c I don't like to watch depressing movies. I guess that makes me bigotted against the depressed?

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 3:23 a.m. CST

    wow

    by jawaburger

    who else is gonna miss screenplaywriter. That guy is funny.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 9:03 a.m. CST

    CONSERVATIVES POLITICIZING RELIGION

    by bushsux

    That's what these cons do best, make religious fanatics in the South and West ignore other, more important issues like the war and the economy, to vote for the really important issues like Gay marriage. That's okay, the backlash is coming. It's not that people outside of the republican party's right-wing don't respect religion, we just don't like how it's used to maniulate people. Didn't Jesus say "Love thy neighbor?" So why do these "religious conservatives" hate gays, jews, muslims, blacks, immigrants and poor people? Jesus also said "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So why is it okay to kill over a hundred thousand Iraqi civiians while getting 1300 of our own soldiers killed in the process. I doubt any of these conservative pussies posting on this site have ever seen a war. They just sit back, let Fox News tell them everything is hunky dorey over here and then call anybody who disagrees with them an elitist. By the way, John McCain isn't running in 2008 and if he did, he wouldn't get the Repblican nomination because he is too liberal on social issues. Bill Frist is your loser.

  • I haven't seen the film but I have seen Stone's other movies and the guy is one of this country's greatest filmmakers ever. For starters, he made perhaps the greatest war movie ever with Platoon. Then, he made the greatest anti-war movie Born On The Fourth of July. JFK was a great film that did something almost impossible, it pissed off both democrats and republicans. It pissed off democrats with its accusations of Lyndon Johnson(who, had it not been for the Vietnam War, would today be considered one of our country's greatest presidents up there with Roosevelt and Truman). And it pissed off conservatives by criticizing fascism and the Vietnam War. Don't forget that this is also the man who wrote Scarface, another great movie. Conservatives hated Stone and are now going to hate him even more apparently because of the gay issues in this film. Grow up conservatives, leave the homos alone. God knows half of y'all republicans are gay anyway.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Simply put....

    by The Gr8 one

    this movie was a massive plie of shit.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 9:53 a.m. CST

    It's true. Stone has made some excellent films.

    by FluffyUnbound

    But his career has always seemed a little funny to me. You have a movie like "Wall Street", which remains popular to this day, but which was largely embraced by people who directly invert the moral argument Stone was trying to advance [i.e. they LIKE the Michael Douglas character and laugh at his lines, where Stone wanted him to be the villain]. You have a movie like "Talk Radio", which is a good chance to evaluate Stone's talent separately from the material, since it's someone else's material - and the movie, while a fave of mine, generally lets Bogosian down. Stone's work to put it on film takes it a step down. And you have to wonder if "Scarface" would have grown on audiences and become a classic if it had been shot the way that NBK was shot. [Since that is the Stone film that I think best shows what Stone would have done on screen with that script.] Although it seems like NBK is repeating the Scarface history, based on how many people out there now name it as a classic, when at the time of its release the consensus was that it was an unmitigated disaster. Who knows? Maybe Alexander will do that, too.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Ah, I knew Harry would be incapable of containing his petulant s

    by The Nihilist

    ...oh, and the movie sucked to. See Alexander ponderously trudge across Europe. See him repose every thirty minutes in some conquered hall in a bad "Conan the Barbarian" pose while entertainers from the subjugated race dance for him. See a lot of yelling, a lot of confused battle scenes, a lot of cheap camera tricks, a lot of the bombast that Oliver Stone is famous for using in the place of real storytelling. Oh, and let's not forget Stone's obession with that sweet, sweet man-on-man action. This thing deserves a Razzie like few other movies of the past year.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Bushsux

    by Manos

    Are you what is passing for American education today? Now I am scared.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Dear Harry....

    by FranklinCobb

    ...I still have no idea who you are, but thank you for the only shining review of my film. I will try to invite you to one of my big coke parties. Love, Ollie Stone

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 11:09 a.m. CST

    what history again Harry?

    by hector

    "But is it really any wonder that a film about a man that dreamt of uniting the world and evolving with every new culture he came in contact with, while also recognizing the beauty and worth of both man and woman as thinkers, fighters and lovers" Harry, its one thing to lambaste America for its poor knowledge of history, you'll never run out of material doing that. Its quite another to in the same breath demonstrate that you are equally clueless and in fact harbor a bunch of flat out dellusions. Alexander was a tyrant. He cared nothing for equality, he was a dictator and he brooked no rivals. His treatment of conquored subjects was identical to the Persian treatment, by policy. He sold tens of thousands of women and children into slavery, he slaughtered whole towns for defying him, he murdered childhood friends in a drunken rage, had his close male relatives murdered to secure his throne, and in fact Alexander's own mother cut the throat of his newborn half brother. But Harry is impressed that Alexander was down with the bi-thing. What a citizen of the world. Too bad Alexander isnt around today to run the UN.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Jesus H Christ...

    by John Anderton

    Areyou people incapable of talking about MOVIES?!?!?!

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Baz Luhrmann

    by CatoTheCensor

    Is Baz Luhrmann still making an Alexander movie? What is the lastest news on that? You KNOW he wont shy away from the Gay stuff.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Good Review Harry, but did you drink a few Amphoras before you w

    by Otto Parts

    "So it was all that was so"...........um, what? You don't need to talk like the characters in the movie bro!! I'm just poking fun, it's nice to read a review like this, which goes against the grain. I'll definitely see it after reading this. I may end up disagreeing with this review, but at least i won't feel that i was swayed by some bitter old hack giving the movie 1 star because he/she has a vendetta against Ollie Stone. Cheers porkster.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Um, not sure how it works in your country Nicole21.....

    by Otto Parts

    ....but surely harry belongs to the "red" demographic? How could he possibly be construed as "blue". Thanks for your time....

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 1:39 p.m. CST

    TRIUMPH POOPS doesn't get it.

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    You seem to be oblivious to the fact that we "libs" aren't going to just "get over it". And this is not a result of "denial". We are disgusted to share nationality and territory with people who don't share OUR values, or OUR sense of morality. (you know things like freedom and justice for ALL, not just rich white christians). I am ashamed to be associated with a populace with such a distorted view of the world. When our nation was formed we weren't supposed to be ruled by a majority government, or to cater to the religious right. We used to have something called "checks and balances", and "seperation of church and state". People like you have distorted this nation and moved it away from it's true values, and utterly abandoned many of the values I believe in most. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE DISGUSTED YOU FASCIST ASSHOLE, this is a DEMOCRACY. We don't have to just shut up and accept the fact that our country is being run by cultureless hicks. I know now that ceasar has the freedom to stretch his wings this time around you conservatives feel obligated to gloat, but grow the fuck up and realize that just because you won by a slight (and yes a couple of million votes is slight) margin doesn't mean we're just going to get out of your way now. Bush didn't win by a landslide so quit pretending. That's fine though, destroy the environment and keep getting bent out of shape if homosexuals want spousal protections. Keep fighting that losing war on drugs, ('cause after all, who is 'gonna buy prozac and zoloft if they can grow something in their back yard that provides the same psychotropic affect)? Go ahead and isolate the world, and feel free to continue producing enormous stockpiles of nuclear arms, that will certainly improve our efforts to get other nations to discontinue their own nuclear programs. You see the real difference between liberals and conservatives is that hypocrisy and inequity infuriate us, and you folks just choose to ignore these things in favour of furthuring a ridiculous war effort and skewed political agenda. You have changed our image in the eyes of the world and instead of taking responsibility, you people choose to make fun of Michael Moore, and Sean Penn for expressing their views. Fuck you, you unamerican cunt.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 2:10 p.m. CST

    DO TRIUMPHPOOPS AND NICOLE21 GET DUMBER WITH EVERY POST?

    by bushsux

    First off, let's start with Triumphpoops' fantasy that John McCain will get the republican nomination in 2008. I like McCain but unfortunately the guy doesn't stand a chance of getting the nod, no matter how many primaries he wins. The two groups that control the gop, the religious right and the corporations, hate McCain's independence and would rather have another right-wing conservative like Bush. The guy is in favor of gun control and campaign finance reform and against big tobacco. Sound like a GOP nominee to you? In 2000, he was destroying Bush in the primaries until the right-wingers decided he was gaining too much momentum and started spreading rumors about him having a "black love child". Surprisingly, that rumor turned off many republicans to McCain. Bill Frist is your future lame duck. Second, if Al Gore was such a lame candidate how come he beat Bush in the popular election? Good ol' Jeb had to step in and steal Florida for Bush in 2000. Third, if Hillary runs in 2008 she has to be considered the favorite due to the fact that she'll dominate the women's vote. Kerry won 51% of the women's vote in this election. If he had gotten, say 60% he'd be president-elect right now since the majority of voters are women. If Hillary can get at least 60% of the women's vote, a realistic goal, she'll crush that loser Bill Frist.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 2:11 p.m. CST

    So much for attempting to communicate with a 900LBGorilla.

    by morGoth

    Dam, wonder what planet he/she/it is from? I've had more luck talking to a fence post (and it made far more sense). But say friend, I did use that there dictionary you suggested and right beside the name 900LBGorilla was a picture of a pile of monkey shit. Thanks for the tip...clears everything right up {[:^) ** Hey, finally got to see this turkey and I agree with those panning this flick. Sorry Oliver, better luck next time.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Nikki21

    by bushsux

    Now on to Nicole21, "Your analysis that the Blue demographic Harry belongs to learned their history from movies and not historical books or texts." Sorry honey but I don't know what historical books have ever supported your far-right views. The War? The democrats have a much better record winning wars than the republicans. American won both World Wars with DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS(WWI with Wilson, WWII with FDR and Truman). We won the Kosovo War in 79 days with Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark. The only American President ever to lose a war? A Republican named Richard Nixon. If we continue in Iraq like this, alienating our NATO allies and the UN, Bush could become the next republican president to lose a war. So much for being the party of the strong, decisive leaders. Your leaders have shown poor judgement that cost American lives and benefited defense contractors. The Economy? Since when have we not had a republican president who didn't sink our economy into depression? Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr all had this country go through hard economic times. Tax Cuts for the rich only help the rich get richer, that's it. The Deficit? Let's see, the national debt exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr. It's getting ridiculous with Bush Sr. We had a $260 Billion budget SURPLUS at the end of Clinton's 8 years. We now have a $413 Billion budget DEFICIT under Bush Jr. We now have a $7.5 Billion National Debt. We spend $320 Billion a year just to pay interest on the debt, that's more than what we pay for education and homeland security. Meanwhile, our dollars are losing vaue QUICK. Do the research Nicole21, because Fix News Network isn't really the news.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 3:11 p.m. CST

    "What happened to are the lib GUILF 1 WAS FOR OIL! "

    by morGoth

    Honestly...can anyone interpret that for me? Maybe after viewing Jackson's King Kong, I'll be able to understand that sort of gorilla talk. Sheesh, no wonder the clod voted for Bush...their communication skills are similar.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 3:22 p.m. CST

    LORDS OF THE RINGS !!!! PAINTERLY !!!!!

    by Julian Wells

    Oh so now the battle scenes in Harry's holy trilogy are "painterly"...wow. I guess after Harry cried all day over Lord of the Rings' greatness he realized they weren't gods gift to cinema. Harry to never fail to suprise me :)

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Oh dear me yes you are cernly rite enuff morGoth...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... about that 900LB Go Rilla bloak what was moufing round here. I pirntowt you done hit the fents poal on the gulliver when you programmit Go Rilla your nemminy. He talkit all humpy but I pirntowt hes mor wind nor shit. I contrack hes my nemminy aswel on account of his record on these TBs. Hes a dyed in the wool/boilt in the pig shit right wing barmy sheep fancier if you askit me. Which I done took noatis you aint. He all ways wantit to rumpa wif SUMBODY...

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Bladerunnerunit, Come on buddy, you know "facts" don't have any

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    When was the last time a republican was swayed by logic or common sense? They have their "faith", and that renders all factual information null and void. They have no regard for the consequences of their actions or any compassion for the plight of others. Screw em'.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Dear Talkbacker's and dick jackers,

    by StudioPlant69

    There are reason's Harry posted a positive review and political comments. 1. It generates traffic to his website thus resulting in increased revenue. 2. He gets a kickback from the studio for a good review of a shitty movie. Did you ever wonder why he posts positive reviews for good movies well after they open in theaters, it's cause the other studios pay him to. He can deny it til he drops dead (judging by his physical state that could be any minute), but everyone knows he is the studio's bitch. Of course I would be too if they paid me to, hell I'd give that piece of shit Americanized Godzilla a good review too. Yeah I remember that review Harry, that was the day I knew you were a studio whore! Of course I could be full of shit...

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Gayzilla, I am with you on the whole "Rino" thing

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    But let's face it, the current crop of republicans really don't have much to do with the party's roots or with it's original core values. The issues that most current republicans freak out about (gay rights, stem cells etc) are only major issues because the religious right has wormed it's way into our government proceedings. Also to be fair, most democrats fail to meet their obligations as well. Kerry lost the election because he failed to challenge Bush on any of his numerous fuck ups. He tried to cater to those dumb-as-shit undecided voters and as a result nobody believed he would have the balls to take on al queda if he can't even stick it to Dubya. So, never mind the bill of rights or the constitution, the good old King James bible will tell us all we need to know about living in the 21st century. Forget about civil liberties, gay rights, women's rights, who needs em? Anyone with a progressive point of view will be better off finding someplace else to call home. Apparrently we just aren't as "american" as our conservative Jesus lovin' countrymen. Their complete lack of humility in victory indicates this perfectly. They show disdain at the very notion of allowing gay couples to recieve spousal protections and benefits, and they despise any measure geared to bring actual freedom through financial independance to the average american worker. My advice, move to Canada. They uphold the American ideal far more successfully than we seem to. Cultural progress has become stagnant in our nation, and eventually everything we were taught to value will be pushed aside by greed, bigotry and the agenda of the religious right.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 5:13 p.m. CST

    BRU, with regard to the expression "quantum leap":

    by FluffyUnbound

    The metaphor is not one of scale, but of the nature of the change. When the electron changes orbits [at least in the way this was originally described to lay people] it does not actually traverse the distance between the two orbits the way you walk across the street; it simply "leaps" from one orbit to the other. [Although I have always been shaky on whether it actually teleports, or whether the uncertainty principle means we can't observe or describe the path that it takes.] So an impressive movement is a "quantum leap" not based on the shocking distance involved, but based on the suddenness or jarringness of the change.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 5:46 p.m. CST

    so far there hasn't been a single substantive argument why this

    by watashiwadare

    No one has bothered to delineate why they hate it, it is as if it is enough to ridicule one person. The movie is a study of power from inside the family unit, like in Euripedes or for that matter traditional drama of all centuries. Eugene o'Neill followed the same path. Why is it now so far from what is tolerated. You know what I saw in the audience? Men squirming over what they were afraid they would see, fear of homo all over agian. That's what's at the bottom of this. Other 3 hr movies were duller, talkier-- The English Patient, Gandhi, nothing exciting happens and they are not as well acted as Alexander. Weird.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Napalm Death - Oh, but it's war and anything goes, right Nazis?

    by Dog Of Mystery

    WASHINGTON, August 10 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The United States admitted dropping the internationally-banned incendiary weapon of napalm on Iraq, despite earlier denials by the Pentagon that the "horrible" weapon had not been used in the three-week invasion. An upgraded type of the weapon, a terrifying mixture of jet fuel and polystyrene that sticks to skin as it burns, was used in March and April 2003, when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad, the Independent reported Sunday, August 10. "We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," the paper quoted Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11, as saying. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die," said Alles. On March 22 a correspondent for Sydney Morning Herald, traveling with U.S. marines reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border. His account was based on statements by two U.S. marines officers on the ground. "Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the observation post was obliterated. I pity anyone who is in there," a Marine sergeant said The Pentagon insisted at the time the statement was "patently false". "The U.S. took napalm out of service in the 1970s. We completed the destruction of our last batch of napalm on April 4, 2001, and no longer maintain any stocks of napalm," Lieutenant-Commander Jeff Davis, from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense had said. 'Generals Love Napalm' But a Pentagon official told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Thursday that U.S. forces used the new type against Iraqi forces in their drive towards Baghdad and defended their use as legal and necessary. The official, who did not wish to be identified, said that U.S. marines jets dropped the fire bombs at least once to destroy Iraqi positions at Safwan. "It is like this: you've got [an] enemy that's hard to get at. And it will save your own lives to use it. There were no international conventions against it, the official said. Marines used the bombs on at least two other occasions during the drive to Baghdad, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported this week. "The generals love napalm,

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 5:53 p.m. CST

    to the GreatOne....the inquisition

    by BananaSkin

    I read your comments and i'm confused, you say my comments don't refer to the Catholic Church, but who was it that put people on trial who questioned the Catholic belief system...the Catholic Church. You say Galileo's trial was more about politics but what difference does that make? Who was it who put him on trial on the charge of heresy for proposing the earth orbits the sun? Which if i remember correctly was part of the Inquisition to which the penalty was torture and death...to cleanse the soul (yeah right!). Who was judge, jury and executioner in all inquisitions?...The Catholic Church. What gave the Catholic church the right to judge what was good science or not? the answer was simple...themselves. OK that may have been in the past, but you cannot deny that is still alive today in the Christian Right, no matter what denomination of Christianity. My point is this, religious faith can blind especially in the case of science vs faith. Just so you don't misunderstand me, its not just the Catholic Faith, it applies to any faith which is derived from a 'fixed' form like the Bible. You have to take it in an all or nothing way, if you start to question one part, what about others? As for proof of human evolution, see BladeRunnerUnits reply. What has no proof is the belief in Creationalism, since it relies on faith. Okay, no more religious remarks from me as faith and science will never mix imo.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 6:09 p.m. CST

    the gay sex issue

    by ErrantNight

    just thought I'd elucidate... I haven't read all that talk back... there's too much... but i will say this to fernwick and whoever else disagrees with harry's statement about there not being a word for homo or hetero-sexuality... there weren't two defined GENDERS until the 1800s. prior to then, man was considered to be of ONE gender, with two different sets of genitalia that determined how important you were. not only that... but greek males typically learned sex from older men. this was just part of the deal. our definitions of what hetero and homo sexual are stem from freud and scientific study of what gender was circa mid to late 1800s.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Wait a sec, BRU

    by FluffyUnbound

    hxxp://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/923426573.Ph.r.html I still think the essence of the "leap" is that the energy states instantaneously change, without passing through intermediate energy states. Not a teleportation, though; you're right that that would be a poor description of what takes place. But people typically use the phrase "quantum leap" to mean a sudden, dramatic advance that does not seem to pass through the plodding steps of a slow progress or gradual change. The phrase has a precise meaning, it's just overused and occasionally misapplied to mean any large change.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:43 p.m. CST

    bushsux...sigh...

    by WillowFan2001

    WWI: We did win WWI with Wilson...but then again, he helped lose us the peace. This was a man so determined to be partisan that he took only a single Republican as part of his peace delegation to Versailles. The Republicans responded by amending his League of Nations proposal and the Versailles treaty, and when he and his wouldn't consent to the amendments, they rejected both. And the Democrats say Bush never compromises, or listens to the other side. WWII: Yup, Truman won that puppy alright. Of course, he did give the order that set the record for most civilians killed in a single instant. When Democrats whine about Bush inflicting suffering on innocent Iraqis, they do seem to forget that one, don't they? Kosovo: First off, not so much a war. More like a series of deadly air-mails. Second, given that violence is still going on over there, I'd say we may have won the war but failed at keeping the peace. Congratulations to the UN, by the way, for that piece of mismanagement. Roosevelt's legacy continues. "The only American President ever to lose a war? A Republican named Richard Nixon." First off, troops didn't finish evacuating until Ford's presidency. Second, please remember that LBJ, not Nixon, was the one who fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident and escalated the war. Lay Vietnam at the feet of your great warriors, not ours. "If we continue in Iraq like this, alienating our NATO allies and the UN, Bush could become the next republican president to lose a war." Ah, yes. Who would want to alienate France and Russia, the countries that made backdoor deals for Iraq's oil? Or the U.N. and its corrupt "Oil For Food" program? I'm sure they genuinely careb about Iraq, because heaven knows no one in their governments/organizations has been bilking Iraq for all it was worth. Ahem. That was sarcasm. "The Economy? Since when have we not had a republican president who didn't sink our economy into depression? Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr all had this country go through hard economic times." Well, let's see. Right there, you didn't mention McKinley, TR, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Ike, and that's just in this century. So obviously some Republicans didn't sink our economy into depression. Of course, then again, even most of the ones you mention have some defense. Hoover was not responsible for the Great Depression any more than FDR was...economics was still a young science, and the Federal Reserve encouraged the 1920's boom market without trying to slow it down. No one had any idea it would lead to a crash (save the Keynesians, who were a minority), yet everyone blamed Hoover once it happened. History has absolved him of responsibility, however, though it certainly doesn't credit him for a solution. The rest of your history is similarly flawed. Reagan took over after the "malaise days" of Jimmy Carter, with its high unemployment, high inflation, and ooh, an energy crisis. So according to you, it's somehow Reagan's fault. The economy was showing signs of recovery by mid-1992, during Bush I's Presidency. Yet I'm sure you'll give Clinton the credit for that one. "The Deficit? Let's see, the national debt exploded under Reagan and Bush Sr. It's getting ridiculous with Bush Sr." Ah, but the deficit started with FDR, as he ineffectually tried to spend his way out of the Great Depression but wouldn't commit enough money to do so. Another great accomplishment for the Democrats. "We had a $260 Billion budget SURPLUS at the end of Clinton's 8 years. We now have a $413 Billion budget DEFICIT under Bush Jr. We now have a $7.5 Billion National Debt." Of course, what you won't mention is that the economy was showing signs of decline by mid-2000, while your man Bill was still in office. And then it was made worse by 9/11, which even Richard Clarke admitted--in sworn testimony--that Bush couldn't have stopped had recommended security measures been in place six days after he took office. Yet somehow, you seem intent on blaming Bush for economic woes, when he was saddled with a flagging economy and then forced to spend money on the military while trying to revilatize the economy at the same time. "Do the research Nicole21, because Fix News Network isn't really the news." I suggest you do some research yourself. Then again, I look forward to your next post. Maybe you'll find a way to pin JFK's second gunman, all UFO appearances, and who knows what else on people who weren't respondible for them. I can't wait.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:43 p.m. CST

    don't get me started on Rudy Giuliani-aka "Mussolini of Midtown"

    by beamish13

    he is a fascist bastard that encouraged police officers (who are already racist enough as it is) to further stalk minority groups. 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to his career. The rest of the country thinks he's some goddamn hero now, the dumb bastards

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:44 p.m. CST

    can Nicole 21 PLEASE admit that she's Anne Coulter now?

    by beamish13

    scariest woman in America

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:46 p.m. CST

    To SCYTHEOFLUNA

    by WillowFan2001

    "When was the last time a republican was swayed by logic or common sense? They have their 'faith', and that renders all factual information null and void. They have no regard for the consequences of their actions or any compassion for the plight of others. Screw em'." Uh-huh. I could say the same thing about the most passionate Democrats. What you've managed to do is take a characteristic that applies to ideologues of all stripes and credit it to an entire party. Congratulations...you've proven that you're more interested in stereotyping than honest debate. Thank God most of the Democrats I know are smarter than that.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Just a word on american Democracy

    by TheGinger Twit

    Bush Sr president. Clinton President. Bush Jr President. Potentially 'Mrs' Clinton President. What happened to the country where ANYONE could be president. Not just a select elite under a secret rule.

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 9:20 p.m. CST

    The Draft is coming

    by TheGinger Twit

    Avoiding the Draft: You have to ask yourself if you are a U.S. citizen (Oct. 17, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftandcitizenship17oct04.shtml Leave No Child Unrecruited (Oct. 13, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/leavenochildunrecruitednov2002.shtml The Draft Threat is Not a Hoax (Oct 13, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftthreatnotahoax06oct04.shtml Appeal to Active Duty Troops: U.S. Veterans' Call to Conscience (Sep. 3, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/calltoconscience03spe04.shtml Army Recruiter Confrims Draft Coming in March 2005 (July 9, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/recruiterconfrimsdraftin200509jul04.shtml Let's Talk About the Draft: An Update (July 7, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/darfttalkupdate07jul04.shtml The Draft Is Coming Back (May 21, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftreturning14apr04.shtml More News on the Coming Draft (Apr. 19, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/moredraftinfo19apr04.shtml Dodge the Draft? Refuse to Volunteer (Apr. 17, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftrefusevolunteer17apr04.shtml How To Stay Out of the Military (Primer on Draft Resistance Feb. 3, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftresistanceprimer03feb04.shtml Draft Creep Underway (Feb. 3, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftcreep12jan04.shtml U.S. Troops Questioning Iraqi Mission (Feb. 1, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/troopsquestioningiraqmission31jan04.shtml Kucinich Warns of Coming Draft (Jan. 26, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftcoming26jan04.shtml Signing up for Driver's Licence = Registering for Draft (Dec. 30, 2003) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/draftandmvlicence30dec03.shtml Letters to the Editor The Draft: "It's the Democrats" (Oct. 4, 2004) The Draft (March 28, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/lte/draftsupporter28mar04.shtml From Trapper Byrne of San Francisco Chronicle (May 11, 2004) http://educate-yourself.org/cn/trapperbyrnenote11may04.shtml

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Moriarty on G4techTV tomorrow

    by Goonie

    Hey people: Moriarty himself will be on the live television show "The Screen Savers" on G4techTV tomorrow (11/30) at 7pm Eastern, 4pm Pacific. Just letting you all know!

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Willowfan

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Hold the phone. You're dissing the French and the Russians for gaming Iraq when Bush and his cronies have used the so-called reconstruction of Iraq to open a green pipeline straight from the American treasury to Halliburton's corporate headquarters??? To paraphrase David Letterman's infamous introduction when hosted the Oscars: "Pot - Kettle. Kettle - Pot."

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 10:59 p.m. CST

    love these TB free-for-alls!

    by jackburtonlives

    the truth of the matter is that osama succeeded in his goal of polarizing the islamic/western worlds and in getting US troops out of saudi. just look at how polarized these talkbacks are: the whole nation is split in two. and meanwhile US troops are dying in iraq forcing 'democracy' in the form of a former CIA operative on a country that yearns for a 14th century theocracy... you tell me who is winning and who is losing...

  • Nov. 29, 2004, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Trader Groucho...

    by WillowFan2001

    Sure, the folks at Halliburton are making out like bandits on this deal. And you'll never hear me say otherwise. But they're fleecing AMERICA, which is an entirely different issue from what I was chastising bushsux over. French and Russian companies were buying rights to Iraq's oil reserves at below-market prices, because Hussein wanted the cash. This made those countries that much more eager to prop up Hussein's regime, because once the sanctions were lifted they would have HUGE profits. In the meantime, of course, Hussein could merrily continue to rule and kill people. So go ahead and "pot and kettle" me all you like. I don't like what's going on with Halliburton any more than most other people do, I expect, but you'll excuse me if I find them to be the lesser of two evils.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Stoning people is bad! Sort of like a bunch of nazis taking out

    by watashiwadare

    just a silly talkback comment. Critics ought to examine their lives after this but won't.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 3:52 a.m. CST

    I CAN'T TAKE SOMEONE NAMED "WILLOWFAN" SERIOUSLY

    by bushsux

    Willow, facts are facts, keep trying to spin them all you want, the only person you convince is yourself. A republican fool like yourself can find a way to say FDR was the worst president ever but that wouldn't be true. The facts are that our country's greatest presidents were all democrats with one exception, Abraham Lincoln. Ofcourse, back in the 1860's, the republicans were the liberals and the democrats were the conservatives. Lincoln was also an atheist so there you go, the only great republican president this country has ever had was a liberal atheist. The two greatest wars of the 20th century were won with democrats leading our country. The two greatest economic revivals, first in the 1930's and then in the 1990's, were led by democratic presidents. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, where would our country be had it not been for the democratic party giving us these things? Compare Clinton's record to Bush's. Clinton created 23 million jobs, balanced the budget, won a war with almost no cost of American life and, had it not been for the republicans, would have given us a national health care system. Bush lost over 2 million jobs, gave us a $413 billion deficit, started a long, unnecessary, costly and bloody war, and embarassed our country in front of the rest of the world. Okay conservatives, start spinning.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:44 a.m. CST

    "If your going to be a right winger, use proper english" - the m

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Bravoooo! "Your going", "proper english", "neighbors-Its" - lovely! Almost as funny as hearing Hitler criticize racists!

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:55 a.m. CST

    "Eucranians"?

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Illiterate imbecile...

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:58 a.m. CST

    One more thing, Harold - when one's "knowledge" of history is ba

    by SalvatoreGravano

    ...and US movies, one tends not to be, shall we say, particularly enlightened on certain subjects. 99% of them, in fact. Especially those concerning the aeons of history outside that continent where Canada and Mexico are.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 6:14 a.m. CST

    I just had a Respect-for-Harry Enema.

    by Blotchy

    I am simply dumbfounded how Harry, the man behind many-a-movie could view this disgraceful shame to celluloid called "Alexander" and, forget good, think it was anything better than regurgitated, wordy tripe. 18 minutes of hapless battles in a 3 hour flick about the greatest warrior to ever live; filled with dialogue written by what sounds like the local high school English club broke out a thesaurus. Insulting. Shame Harry. Shame.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Good God!

    by Shawn F.

    I saw this train wreck last night. What a total piece of shit! The only thing good about the whole three hours was checking out Rosario Dawson's cans. My friend came up with a better title for the film: Queer as Folklore.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:59 a.m. CST

    www.educate-yourself.org

    by DocPazuzu

    Here are some more headlines from GingerCretin's web site of choice: "A worldwide GENOCIDAL agenda is inplace to eliminate approximately 80% of the world.s population by the year 2050." ....... "A synopsis of spiraling catastrophic events that may unfold between 1999 and the late Spring of 2003 when a Pole Shift migth occur occur." ...... "The Brotherhood and the Manipulation of Society" ........ "a former mind control programmer/trainer reveals the inner workings of an American Illuminati family whose collective and unrelenting goal is the imposition of a feudal One World dictatorship" ....... "the NWO's Destroy America Plan" ....... "expel parasitic/predatory ET's from your auric field" ........ "Seventeen year old Matthew Ward died in an auto accident in 1980. His mother, Suzanne Ward, initiated contact with her son in the early months and years follwoing his death with the help of mediums" ....... and my personal favorite: "Brice Taylor, a governemnt mind controlled 'presidential model' sex slave owned by entertainer Bob Hope and used for 19 years by Henry Kissinger as a 'human filing cabinet'"

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 10:26 a.m. CST

    GreatOne....Mutations and BladeRunnerUnit.....Galileo

    by BananaSkin

    GreatOne, did you know sickle cell anaemia actually provides protection from malaria? Thats why sickle cell is very common among Africans, a mutation that has both beneficial and negative effects. That it survives in a malaria plagued region of the world is due to natural selection, it has found a niche environment. Since were talking about Africa, the first humans evolved from there and as they progressed northwards the cooler climate forced their bodies to evolve to new habitats. Mutations was involved since caucasians, asians, africans etc have evolved to become genetically distinguishable sub-species but still part of a common race. While i agree with you on part of what you imply about mutations, most mutations do lead to a dead end, for example albino animals are seen very rarely seen alive in the wild because they are easily seen and killed by predators. But for the few % of mutations that do benefit i.e. fur colour that camoflages then these mutations are passed on in the genes of the surivors => natural selection the basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Your argument that mutation is a loss of genetic information is erroneous in its assumption that the original DNA was 'perfect'. Any mutation by its very definition is a change from the original, its whether a mutation is beneficial or not that is relevant. Did you know that most of DNA is actually redundant and that the vast majority of mutations occurs in these regions. Thats why genetic mutations are rare, nature has a built in protection. Dr. Spetzner may have written a book which is against the current mainstream thinking but its a minority. From what i gather from his work his explanation against evolution is mostly based on a mathematical and statistical model. However, empirical evidence for evolution we can provide in the form of fossils and genetic data. Most scientist do accept the theory of evolution because the facts support it, a minority of counter facts appear to exist but on the whole there is more for than against (good scientific practice in action). By the way, using bactrium is not a good example to challenge the theory of evolution since 'higher' lifeforms have evolved to benefit from using bacterium. Evolution is not just about genetic mutation but also adaptation in behaviour to benefit from a mutation. One without the other is pointless. The key to evolution is the ability of a species to pass on its genes to the next generation. Like practically all scientific theories eventually exceptions to the rule are found but that does not mean the original rule is imediately dismissed and discredited. It just means the 'old' rule may apply to a specific circumstance or range, beyond that new rules need to be applied. Bacterium may be that exception to the rule for evolution (also single cell lifeforms are also very hard to compare next to complex multi-cellular organisms). BladeRunnerUnit, i think you need to check your facts, its a matter of historical record Galileo was on trial for his 'heretical' view on the Earth orbiting the Sun. Political motives aside, that was the bases of the charge made against him at his inquisition; did he support Copernicus and his 'heretical' views? The Church at that time did not accept the heliocentrical view of the solar sytem since Copernicus' work was still banned by the Catholic Church, the Palpacy censored any publication which was considered heresy. I'm not being 'anti-catholic', Galileo is just an extremely well documented and good example of the abuse that can occur in a secular society. I'm an atheist and as i've said before, science is about understanding the truth. Sometimes science gets things wrong but the good thing about science is we have the option to correct our mistakes, religions do not.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 10:49 a.m. CST

    GreatOne - incorrect generalization regarding evolution...

    by B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

    Hi, GreatOne (is that actually Wayne Gretzky?). I just felt compelled to respond to your idea that mutations always delete, but never add. This is not so. The fundamental nature of evolution requires that mutations are subsequently subjected to trial and error (ie.-survival of the fittest) to see which mutations, if any, actually improve the species. Thus, you are partially correct, but only in the sense that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. A very elegant example of evolution in action was taught to me in one of my university lectures many years ago by a biology professor and it has always impressed me with its simplicity. I believe that this example occurred somewhere in England just a few decades ago. In a nearby forest, there lived a population of moths. The vast majority of these moths were a white color with black speckles on their wings. A very tiny proportion of this population contained moths with black wings as a result of genetic mutation. This forest was also home to several types of birds which hunted the moths as their primary source of food. Luckily for the moths, many of the trees in the forest were white birch trees. So the white moths, when they land on the trees, are camouflaged and difficult for the birds to actually see them. An excellent defence mechanism. Unfortunately for the black moths, they were easy to spot against the white birch bark. Subsequently, the population of black moths was kept at a very low level because they were easily spotted and eaten by the birds. However, due to interference by man, a startling and very quick evolution evolved within this moth population. A factory was constructed right beside this forest, resulting in much pollution encompassing the forest. Specifically, a lot of black smoke and soot gradually drifted over to the forest and blanketed the trees and the forest floor. As a result, the previously white birch trees were now colored black by the soot. Previously safe on the white trees, the white moths were now blatantly exposed - white moths on a black background - and easy pickings for the predatory birds. Very quickly, the population of white moths depleted. But on the other hand, the previously small population of black moths suddenly found themselves suitably camouflaged against the sooty black bark of the dirty birch trees. Thus, as the population of white moths diminished, the population of black moths dramatically rose as their wing color suddenly became the more effective defense mechanism against predators. Eventually, the population became dominated with black moths and white moths were rare. So, although the genetic mutation which branched moth wing color into black and white colors may have happened at any time in the past and initially had been deleterious to the black moths, it took a dramatic change in the environment to cause a radical shift in the population proportions - the fittest survived. So, although most mutations are bad, every once in a blue moon, a mutation actually benefits a species - its simple chance. Whether the mutation is beneficial or not is determined by natural selection in the form of survival of the fittest. If that doesn't convince you, then nothing will...

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 11:49 a.m. CST

    This movie blows

    by Brimacombe

    It sucks so much ass it's not funny. And what is with all those gay speeches when you don't even get to see them get it on? The movie is three fucking hours they could have fit it in. I swear Alexander's mother gets more action then his boyfriend does. And can anyone explain to me why everyone in this movie looks like a reject from an Iron Maiden video? Especially Farrell at the end with that poodle mullet. Oliver Stone is a hack.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Well, I'm glad there are so many politics experts, physicists an

    by Otto Parts

    Ginger Twat: how did you do that? I mean the thing where all the words in your post lined up? Just wondering. Anyway, if you love to laugh at conspiracy theorists, this is the website for you: http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/sumon-262452/ --read it and laugh your ass off. However, if you do believe that there are multiple sinister plots in the world, dreamt up by evil men intent on world domination, try this website: http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/sumon-262452/ ---it may make you realise how stupid you've been! Thanks for reading!

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Harry, I agree with most of what you said, but....

    by Belines

    After reading your review, Harry, I feel that, for the most part, you got much more out of this movie than me (and probably most everyone else). You make good and valid points - especially about the battle and the movie's point-of-view of Ptolemy, etc. The problem, for me, lies in that Stone did a poor job of conveying this information on the screen. I saw this movie shortly before driving back home from seeing family over the holiday. The drive is about the same time as the running length of the film and I did spend quite a bit of the trip thinking about what I just witnessed. If I didn't come away from the movie with similar impressions as you have expressed in your review, I feel it is a failure of the movie and the film maker. I did come to the conclusion that this was a decent undertaking, but did not have the sense that something 'excellent' has been produced. But, I guess, being able to share opinions without malice is something the 'Great' Alexander would have been proud to see.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Alexander, the movie the public greeted with no intererest

    by Homer Sexual

    I don't think politics has anything to do with Alexander's lackluster box office. None of my friends have any interest in this movie. None of the women, none of the men. Only my mom, frankly, and me because I never know if Stone is going to be good (Platoon, NBK, Salvador) or bad/boring (Nixon was boring, U-Turn was both bad AND boring, Doors was kind of idiotic). The gay stuff has nothing to do with box office, since no one seems to even be aware of the "gay content." I agree with the poster who said if they had played up the gay stuff more, maybe there would be more interest, but this flick has been received with a collective YAWN. Also, it stars 3 box-office poison actors. Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie and Val Kilmer. Not exactly on fire are they? I think Colin Farrell must have slept his way to the top, or something.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Trader Groucho 2 - it was over when you first spoke

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 2:51 p.m. CST

    to WILLOW FAN

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    Yeah, nice try douchebag, but who the hell said I was a democrat? I think they are almost as corrupt and as disfunctional as the republicans. So stuff your talk of stereotypes right up your ass, and stop making ass-umptions. I cannot fathom how you fools can have any faith in a system controlled by corporate interests and fraught with the corruption that comes with those ties. Sorry pal, but you repubs are the fuckers who keep pushing the deportation of american jobs, and the deconstruction of our educational system. Your environmental policies are in fact destructive to the environment, and your healthcare system leaves millions behind every year, so you can stop patting yourselves on the back. You haven't accomplished shit. Sure, there are democrats who are just as foolish and irresponsible, but you know what? They aren't the ones trying to put bigotry into the constitution, they aren't the ones instigating conflicts with other nations. Nobody in the last democratic administration gave a tax break to the wealthiest citizens only to shit on the poor and disabled. Clinton didn't try to re establish the moronic Star Wars missle defense shield, which has been proven NOT TO WORK. And the democrats weren't the ones who snubbed our allies when we need their support and cooperation more than ever. Your ignorance of your own party and their actions astounds me Willowfan, and Jesus fucking Christ don't you know that Willow was just a pale Lord Of The Rings ripoff? Please, don't try and astound anyone with the magnitude of your ignorance, we aren't suprised. People like you have made being an American dangerous in most of the world. Of course for someone like you it's far easier to blame the rest of the world for that perception than to take responsibility for the failures of our government, both here and across the globe. That's why we have made shit for progress as a society in the last 20 years. People like you can't seem to change with the times. So go ahead and ban gay marriage, roll back Rowe vs. Wade, declare war on everybody, (ironically for doing things that our own nation is just as guilty of) and give us liberals another reason to consider abandoning you fools to your fates. I am ashamed to share heritage with imbeciles like you.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 3:15 p.m. CST

    I just took a dump that clocks in with a higher IQ than Morgoth

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****"Dam, wonder what planet he/she/it is from? I've had more luck talking to a fence post (and it made far more sense). But say friend, I did use that there dictionary you suggested and right beside the name 900LBGorilla was a picture of a pile of monkey shit. Thanks for the tip...clears everything right up {[:^)*** --- Nice comback! No REALLY... Maybe next time you should check the dictionary BEFORE spouting off a bunch of nonsensical and indefensible shit that can be boiled down to your complete lack of understanding of the English language...(and your Attetion deficit disorder about Bush's pre -war reasoning) just a tip that can help you avoid looking foolish in public in the future... ==================== ***"Hey, finally got to see this turkey and I agree with those panning this flick. Sorry Oliver, better luck next time"***. - Hey at least you got THAT right...

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Willowfan

    by 900LBGorilla

    Nice post on econimics. Only thing you missed was that there WAS NO "Clinton Economy" --- His 1st 2 years in office he basic ally pushed for gays in the military and socialist health care. Year 2 The REPUBLICANS won the BIGGEST LANDSLIDE victory IN US HISTORY (outside tyhe civil war) in the House and Senate. You know Contract with America etc. Any dunce out of middle school knows who sends bills to the presidents desk - Clinton wrote NOTHING (and beleive it or not the republcians did not take thaier mandate and go ask bill clinton what kind of bills he wanted sent to his desk). Clinton (being a savvy politician) saw the writing on the wall (not that it was hard to see) and signed REPUBLICAN LAWS. This was a REPUBLICAN ECONOMY... not that this is surprising... domocrates favor a more socialist system, republicans a more capitalist... history clearly has (and is) telling us which system leads to economic prosperity and which does not.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 4:04 p.m. CST

    SCREENPLAY WRITER

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    That's a laugh, I hope your so called "screenplays" are written better than your talk-back. First of all moron, Bush hasn't accomplished shit, other than pissing off the entire globe, and alienating our allies. The Bush administration has fed us one line of bullshit after another, and sheep like you just keep happily slurping it up. After we invaded Baghdad things were supposed to get better, they didn't, after we caught Saddam's sons, things were supposed to get better, they didn't, after we caught Saddam, things were supposed to get better, they did not, and little in the way of evidence indicates that anything will change after the Iraqi elections. Your failure to accept the realities of our situation illustrates perfectly that you don't know shit about military strategy or the all-too-real dangers that our troops face on the ground. The ignorance in regard to Muslim tradition is a huge detriment to our efforts. When muslim civillians see an American soldier shooting an unarmed Iraqi and cursing in a Mosque how can they react with anything other than anger? You and I understand that the soldier was trying to end the man's suffering, but he was still out of line. Cursing in a Mosque is easily enough cause for reprisal, and to kill in a Mosque is unheard of. The mystery as to "why they hate us" was no mystery at all. The idea that we can just sprinkle freedom like faerie dust accross the middle east and everything will be fine is naive and will ultimately be disasterous. These people are taught to believe this life is supposed to be difficult, that the burdens and hardships of this life will be rewarded in the next . That's why we can't defeat them, they do not fear death, and the baubles we dangle in front of them don't mean anything when weighed against the value of their belief in their faith. Their "freedom" doesn't come in this life. No invading force can maintain superiority in a guerilla conflict especially when a war of culture is the catalyst. We couldn't do it in 'Nam and we won't be able to do it in Iraq. For every terrorist we kill two more stand up to take his place. For every insurgent we drop a cluster bomb on we kill 5 civillians. Our troops are stretched beyond capacity, and now guess what? It's time to start poking around in Iran, (of course I don't know how we're going to do that without a draft, but I am sure that will be addressed before long, now that 'Dubya doesn't have to impress anyone anymore. You fail to realize that further violence and further aggression will only make matters worse. You conservatives always like to mention the mistakes of Clinton, of which he made many. However,if you took all of the fuck ups that Clinton made in his entire 8 years in office and weigh those failures against the accomplishments he made the balance is still in his favour, and even at his worst, Clinton didn't falsify information that led to the invasion of another nation, which your beloved ceasar did in fact do. And just because a slight majority of americans are brainwashed jesus freaks doesn't mean that the rest of us are just going to roll over or accept status as second tier citizens. That isn't what our forefathers fought for. We had to listen to you hicks bitch and moan through the Clinton years, so get used to hearing us "bash Bush". It isn't hard to do and the motherfucker gives us plenty of ammo. Stem cell research can save lives, we aren't just going to get over it to satisfy the vattican, I didn't vote for the fucking pope so he doesn't get a say in what happens in my democracy. Gay rights along with any other civil or human rights issue isn't just going to be swept aside to pacify the paranoia and superstition of the religious right. You folks don't want people having abortions, but you sure do whine and cry about having to support all of those unwanted children on wellfare, so get your priorities straight. Liberty and justice for all, means exactly that fuckwad, it doesn't just apply to those who share your belief system. You want to turn our democracy into a theocracy and I will die weapon in hand before I allow that to happen. You people are dinosaurs, your false sense of morality has no place in the modern world, and you are destroying my homeland and the world with your archaic mindset,(mindlessness is perhaps more appropriate).

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Mutations

    by Kaitain

    Once crossover and recombination are in play, mutation plays a tiny role in evolution by comparison. Evolution pretty much crawls along in a slow, bumbling, mutation-driven way until C&R evolve, then the whole process speeds up enormously, with mutation relegated to a backseat role.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:03 p.m. CST

    900 LB Gorilla

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    Wow, so the Clinton economic boon was just a result of republican legislation? How very convenient. As I recall the most deified republican of all, Ronald Reagan was responsible for the largest deficit in our nations history, at least until that record is beaten by Bush Jr. Reagan was also the president who oversaw the arming of the taliban and it was under his administration that they were trained to kill russians, (training that proved to be quite valuble in killing americans later on as well). It was also during this period that we were supporting Saddam Hussein, with no regard for the damage he did in the region. So if you are going to credit the republicans with the economic prosperity of the 90's then at least credit them with the things that they have done, like arming terrorists and despots. You seem to have a skewed view regarding what actual events have transpired and I think perhaps you might need to unlock your lips from Rupert Murdoch's teat, and find a source for actual journalism. Right wing propaganda doesn't count. Stop watching Sean Hannity and Brit Hume and you might actually learn something factual. For a 900 LB ape you would think you would have some measure of intellectual capacity. Of all your vast girth, it seems brain matter only accounts for about 6 ounces of your total mass and the other 895 lbs and 10 ounces is comprised of flab, pork rinds and hot air. You and Willowfan can keep giving each other the reach around.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner Unit "Are you not entertained?"

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    Is that a quote from Filler Bunny? If so, good man Jhonen Vasquez kicks ass.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Scyththeconfusda

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****Wow, so the Clinton economic boon was just a result of republican legislation? How very convenient

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Are you NOT ENTERTAINED

    by 900LBGorilla

    Is from Gladiator- and yes.. I am entertained... nearly beyond words... Bare those liberal teeth ... grrr grrr...ruff..ruff! (Sort of Like the alexander sex scene with Dawson now that I think about it!) GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 6:28 p.m. CST

    900 lb Gorrila produces 900 lb pile of horseshit.

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    Oh, and which exact sources did you cite for your comments, oh arrogant one? You are the first dumb shit I have heard to credit the repubs with the Clinton economy. No, emotion and idealism aren't what propell us liberals, dipshit. We just hold society to the standards that it SHOULD adhere to, rather than just settling for the easiest solution or quick fix. However, on the emotional level, yeah, we are angry, we are angry that our democracy is being turned into a capitalistic theocracy.. We are smart enough to realize that more often than not bombing other nations doesn't solve anything, though the hawks in Washington can't seem to understand this. And yes, we are passionate about promoting human rights and ensuring that we don't have to explain to our grandkids "what tigers were, and why they don't exist anymore", because people like you think the world was put here for our own personal use. And your explaination of the Reagan administration's actions during the 80's further demonstrates the conservative inability to consider the long term consequenses of immediate actions. The ends justify the means, and might makes right. Yeah, you are a real American alright. That mindset combined with the greedy capitalist corruption that is eating away at our democracy will lead us down the same road Rome took. When you rule with an iron fist and oppress your own people you are destined to fall. So good luck with that, asshole. Oh and another thing you condescending piece of shit, if you don't get your news from Fox, which conservative nutjob do you get your propaganda from? Karl Rove has so many psychos in his pocket, the last thing I want to do is accuse you of getting your misinformation from the wrong source. Look pal, you need to face facts. No matter what platform the republican party started out with, this gang of cartoon villains have long since abandoned it. Even your precious McCain acknowledges it, so quit being so fucking smug, and quit trying to tangle up the arguments in cemantics. As it stands our country is financally and militarily fucked, and you can try to twist the facts all you want. The funny thing is that you never address any of the criticisms aimed at the current administration, just the ones that conservative pundits have managed to contrive a bullshit excuse for. I say again, homosexuals, liberals, women who want equal rights, and anybody with more than two braincells to rub together is better off getting the fuck out of the states. Clearly our values and morality are no longer reflected in the red white and blue. Red and white are the only coulours that matter anymore.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 6:34 p.m. CST

    And more homophobic chatter from the conservative fuckwit

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    The gay jokes keep coming with you closet cases don't they? I find it amusing that in the entire 3 hour film, THAT particular scene is the one that stuck with you. Very telling. No you witless dipshit, I am married and I don't live in Massachusets so I must not be gay. Nice try though, when you can't come up with a cohesive argument just whip out the old gay bashing. I used to kick the shit out of people like you, they didn't like gays, didn't respect women, and they hated blacks and jews, and arabs, What did those guys call themselves? SKINHEADS. Oh and thanks for letting me know what that quote was from. You must have a major crush on Russell Crowe.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 6:46 p.m. CST

    I can't take someone named "bushsux" seriously, either, so there

    by WillowFan2001

    bushsux, I'm not the one who's spinning. I would never say FDR was the worst President ever. He had a pretty good first term, a not-so-great second term, and then what I would consider a damn good third term. Makes me wish I knew how his fourth term would have gone. Our country's greatest Presidents were NOT all Democrats. Washington? Not a Democrat. Jefferson? Claimed by the Democrats, but no more a Democrat that Hamilton was a Republican. Teddy Roosevelt? Not a Democrat. And while Lincoln was certainly more liberal than your modern-day Republicans, his religious beliefs can most correctly be described as agnostic, to wit -- he believed that some form of providence existed, but not in many of the specifics of Christian theology. He was certainly not an "atheist," as you claim. No atheist ever could have written and delivered with conviction the lines, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right." As I mentioned in my previous post, which apparently you didn't read, Wilson won WWI but then lost us the peace, and Truman capped off WWII with a mass slaughter. These are your idols? I fear for you. The economic revival of the 1930's was brought on by WWII and not by the New Deal...although the New Deal at least halted and started to reverse the Great Depression. And then in the 1990's, this revival you speak of started BEFORE Clinton became President, and ended BEFORE he left office. You sound like Barry Switzer fans when they claim he won a Super Bowl with the Cowboys, overlooking the fact that he did it with jimmy Johnson's players and then turned the team to shit. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are noble ideals, but the modern Democratic Party has kept them from changing with the times...not a very progressive outlook. Social Security in particular will have trouble surviving as the number of retirees starts to outstrip the number of workers in the economy. And your comparison of Clinton and Bush is so ass-backwards it had me falling out of my chair with laughter. Anyone who believes that the President can profoundly affect economic conditions, for good or ill, deserves nothing but my pity and contempt. Anyone who classifies Kosovo as a war, instead of a 79-day bombing run, loses any authority to talk about matters military. And when Clinton had two years, with a Democratic Congress, to create this vaunted national health care you speak off, he bungled it. Why do you think 1994 was such a landslide year for the Republicans? It was largely because the New Democrats didn't live up to their biggest promises. It was two years of a do-nothing government. Of course, mthen you blame Bush for losing jobs during an economic recession that started during Clinton's term and was exacerbated by 9/11, neither of which he had anything to do with. As far as Iraq goes, I agree that the war has not been managed well. Having said that, if you had had your way, 25 million people would still be under an inhumane dictator. Good job representing the party of human rights. I love debates, but this is too easy. I wish I actually HAD to spin to refute your points...it would make me a lot more amused, anyway.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:04 p.m. CST

    I also find it amusing that a conservative tried to use "facts a

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    Because after all the Bush administration has had it's "fact" straight from day one right? You can't possibly be typing that shit with a straight face. Logically, after being attacked by Saudi terrorists with ties to Al Queda, the first fucking phone call would have been to Prince Bandar asking what the fuck his citizens were doing crashing planes into our infrastructure, and we would have strongly reconsidered our ties to those Saudi oil barons. The second thing would have been to quietly launch covert ops in Afghanistan (instead of the highly publicized and ultimately useless air campaign that resulted in thousands of civillian deaths, and didn't catch shit as far as Bin laden goes). If Bush had actually had any intention of catching Bin Laden he would have done it long ago. No Osama. is far more effective in cementing Bush's power and the support of the public as long as that Shadowy character is still on the loose. This guy puts out as many tapes as Tupac and he isn't even dead yet. No, it was much better to divert our forces from the front in Afghanistan to launch an assault on Iraq based on zero actual evidence. So no "facts" and no "logic" were to be found in any of the activities in this administration. Our founding fathers thought it best in the interests of maintaining a free democratic society that church and state should remain seperate. So Bush's little ploy to fund religious programs with my tax dollars fits into that original plan exactly how? Where is your logical explaination for that? What about the fact that our president has made it his mission to put bigotry into our constitution? What "facts" is he using to deduce that gay marriage will destroy the American family? The fuckin' Bible? Are you kidding me? Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin are somersaulting in their graves. As far as I can tell, divorce, adultry, and economic pressure manage to accomplish destroying the american family just fine with out any help from the homosexual community. Recent studies show that the divorce rates are in "fact" higher in so called red states than in blue states, so if anyone is destroying the American family I don't think the homo's should be topping your list. But once again, I wouldn't expect "facts" or "logic" to get in the way of the great white conservative agenda.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Scyththe clueless- you are funny

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Willow fan- why bother?

    by 900LBGorilla

    It took me like 4 posts to get one of these deluded braindead libs to (half) admit the DEFINITION of imperialism. Yet you and I are trying to argue the much more complicated subjects of economics and global politics with them? It's kinda like trying to convince a blind guy what the color red looks like when he just keeps yelling "BULLSHIT"! "BULLSHIT"! everytime you make a point... they are hopeless. If we are lucky they'll all just put their money where their mouths are and move to France or some other semi socialist state where they will be "happy".

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:21 p.m. CST

    SCYTHEOFLUNA, this wakeup call's for you.

    by WillowFan2001

    Firest off, I never said you were a Democrat. I did imply it, though--but no points to you for reading what I actually said. Regarding the current system of government and business...the only reason I voted for Bush was because I considered him the better alternative. That does not mean I considered him great, good, or even above-average. (Or even average.) I style myself a conservative, but that's mostly because I'm a fiscal conservative--it's an important issue to me. Bush isn't. Neither is Kerry. On the war in Iraq, Bush promised us more of the same in a nutshell. So did Kerry, only with more foreign leaders (and no plan to get them). What kind of a choice is that? In the long run, I thought that it was better the devil I knew than the devil I didn't. Let's run down your issues: Deportation of American jobs: You won't get any argument from me. Don't like that one myself. The deconstruction of our educational system: Thanks to liberals, there's not much of an educational system left to deconstruct, so that should make our job pretty easy. Thank you for helping. Environmental policies: Well, considering the Democrats' policies are destructive to a still-weak economy, I'll just go with the tree-killers on this one, okay? Healthcare system: Better a system that treats millions unequally and imperfectly than a system that treats everyone equally and imperfectly. I'm just sayin'... "Sure, there are democrats who are just as foolish and irresponsible, but you know what? They aren't the ones trying to put bigotry into the constitution, they aren't the ones instigating conflicts with other nations." No, the Democrats haven't done any of that lately. As a matter of fact, they haven't done much of anything. At all. So really, I'm not so sure this is the point that's going to sell me. "Nobody in the last democratic administration gave a tax break to the wealthiest citizens only to shit on the poor and disabled." Oh, here we go again. Yeah, the wealthy got more. They pay more income taxes! Whine all you want to about "the rich get more, the rich get more," but taxes went down for everybody who pays federal income taxes...some people got dropped off the rolls entirely. I didn't see you mentioning that, nor would I expect to--you havem't shown a habit of looking at both sides of the issue before you make your decision. "Clinton didn't try to re establish the moronic Star Wars missle defense shield, which has been proven NOT TO WORK." Actually, fun sidebar, Congress revived Star Wars efforts in 1999. When Bush wasn't President. As for its capabilities, no one says it's ready yet, and just because it's imperfect today doesn't mean it can't work down the road. And as far as your whole "snubbed our allies" blather, I addressed this in another post, and I've already spent too much time on you--especially considering that you seem to think my name has something to do with a Val Kilmer movie. Of course, the minute I say anything about Willow Rosenberg on "Buffy," I know you're only going to cover your own ass with something like "That show sucks too!" Spare me. Even if I did like "Willow" the movie, my taste in entertainment is my own, and whether or not I happen to be a fan of something has no bearing on any kind of political discussion. Parting shots: --Clinton had a chance to make America safer by grabbing bin Laden, and didn't. --The Republicans haven't been in charge of American government for the last twenty years...remember that for half that time you had a completely Democratic Congress, and for eight years you had a Democratic President. I think there are enough screwups to go around. --I, a church-going Republican from Oklahoma, voted AGAINST the amendment to ban gay marriage. Put that in your nicotine gum and chew it. --Roll back Roe v. Wade? Hardly...I don't like abortion, but there are times when it's necessary, and I'm enough of a pragmatist to admit that. Partial birth abortion, on the other hand, I'm okay with dumping on the ash heap of history. --I hereby invite you personally, SCYTHEOFLUNA, to abandon us all you want. With your ranting and raving...and barely a fact in the mix to back any of it up...you're as bad as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, et al. I must admit that I was staggered by the magnitude of YOUR ignorance, and am equally ashamed that I share a heritage with you.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:32 p.m. CST

    900LbGorilla...I know...

    by WillowFan2001

    Yeah, I'm not gonna change anybody's mind. But I just have so much fun reading the crap on this board, and sometimes I can't help myself...I just HAVE to type out responses. It amuses me that liberals stick to their own viewpoints in what I can only describe as the most conservative manner. It amuses me that they automatically link me with their own stereotypical definition of Republican and then forge ahead...while I've certainly been guilty of making assumptions in the past, I at least make an effort not to. But I think what amuses me the most is seeing the sheer amount of misinformation and corrupt history. Yay to the American educational system. Thank God I'm still able to think despite you, and I only wish I could say the same for some of these poor souls.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Willowfan, you can't possibly be that stupid

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    "Having said that, if you had had your way, 25 million people would still be under an inhumane dictator." Good job representing the party of human rights. I love debates, but this is too easy. I wish I actually HAD to spin to refute your points...it would make me a lot more amused, anyway." Yes, if we had had our way Saddam would still be in power, because it wasn't our fucking place to remove him from power. The thousands of civillians killed in the conflict would still be alive if we hadn't invaded Iraq along with a thousand plus of our own troops. The biggest fallicy of this entire campaign is the idea that we can "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people". You don't know shit about Muslim culture do you? Those people hated Saddam, but they hate us more. If the Iraqi people had felt that it was time for Saddam to go, they would have begun their own revoloution, but since hardship is expected in Muslim life this wasn't ever likely. They do not view the world as we do, and injustice is seen as a part of life. They don't want freedom, not the kind we are selling at any rate, and until you morons can get that through your thick skulls the sooner we can actually start making progress. Every civillian casualty and smoking ruined Mosque adds another year to this conflict. These people will fight for a year, ten years, a thousand years because they believe Allah is on their side. They can't be convinced otherwise anymore than you can be convinced that it's none of your fucking business if some men choose to fuck other men instead of women. Fundamentalism isn't healthy. You can give them all the coke, Mtv and Mcdonalds in the world and they will choose their own way of life every fucking time. That's what it means to believe in something. Democracy can't be shoved down peoples throats, and considering the state our own democracy is in, we have absoloutely no qualifications to educate others on the subject. And please, don't bother trying to use the term "human rights", coming from a conservative, it's just comical.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Oh and your compassion for the poor in this country is also unde

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    "The rich got more" Yeah, by stealing, pilfering, banking in offshore accounts and by lowering the standard of living for the middle class family. Obviously none of you pricks have ever tried to manage a budget or take care of a family on minimum wage work. Your comments on healthcare are laughable. IF WE WOULD STOP WASTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON FAILED ARMS PROGRAMS MAYBE WE COULD AFFORD TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION TO OUR CITIZENS. STAR WARS WHETHER IT WORKS OR NOT ISN'T GOING TO PROTECT US FROM DIRTY BOMBS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS. And for you to cite Ann Coulter and Rush as nutjobs is refreshing but ultimately meaningless, since these are the puppets who worked so hard to get your boy back in office. I agree Kerry is a choad, most of the Democrats are, but that doesn't make any of your clowns any more effective in getting this nation pointed in the direction that it should be. I find it amusing also that you assume that the Soviet Union would have made short work of the middle east without our intervention. We with superior technology, manpower and finances certainly haven't made any headway in our efforts in that region so once again your argument for preemption is full of fucking holes. Just like the domino theory with Vietnam. One way or the other, you people have to realize that America doesn't belong to you as conservatives or us as liberals, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we hand down no less of a democracy than we have inherited. There is failure on both sides of the isle, and this bipartisan nationalistic bullshit doesn't help. America isn't the centre of the universe. It isn't our place to tell other nations how to do their business, especially when we are so bad at handling our own.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 8:15 p.m. CST

    SCYTHEOFLUNA, apparently you CAN be that stupid

    by WillowFan2001

    First off, you didn't even read a single word of my post to you, did you? If you had, you would have seen that I voted AGAINST the Oklahoma constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. AGAINST. Do you know what the word means? I voted NOT to ban gay marriage, mostly because the ban creates a category of second-class citizens. I'm not sure what the solution is, because I don't like having courts dictate law either, but I'm fairly sure (going by the lessons taught us by the Progressive movement) that banning something in a constitutional amendment is not the way to go. Either fucking READ what I say, or don't bother responding to it and exposing your ignorance. ////////// As for the rest of your post, I didn't realize that I was conversing with a Muslim scholar of such incredible repute. Oh, wait. I'm not. You say that thousands of civilians and some of our own troops were killed in this conflict. To that, I have to say that you forgot the tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers who also died. And the alternative to that was to leave Saddam Hussein in power, a man who had already has killed hundreds of thousands of people on his own and dumped them in mass graves, who started two wars that killed hundreds of thousands more and decimated his own population, and who proved willing to ethnically cleanse the Kurds when (sad moment in U.S. history) we stood by and allowed him to do so. I can definitely see why this man should have been left in power. He's very progressive and enlightened. "The biggest fallicy of this entire campaign is the idea that we can 'win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.'" Actually, yes, that IS the biggest fallacy of this entire campaign. Did you just say something right? I'm shocked. I may cry. My little SCYTHE is growing up. "You don't know shit about Muslim culture do you?" Oh. Well, so much for growing up. "Those people hated Saddam, but they hate us more." Actually, they hate Saddam because he raped their country. They hate us AS MUCH, not more, because they think we'll do the same thing to them. The best thing we can do, and we haven't been doing a great job of it, is to prove them wrong. "If the Iraqi people had felt that it was time for Saddam to go, they would have begun their own revoloution, but since hardship is expected in Muslim life this wasn't ever likely." Actually, the Iraqis did revolt in 1991, because we asked them to. They got mowed down. The Kurds were in open rebellion against Saddam for two decades, although their purpose was to free themselves from him and not topple him. The reason why they haven't launched a full-scale revolt against Saddam of the style you propose is simple. Anyone who tried to start a movement was likely to find themselves, along with their whole family, carted off and executed. That sort of thing, from my understanding, tends to diminish revolutionary behavior. As for the rest of your blather, Iraq is, as many people have pointed out, an extraordinarily secular country by Middle Eastern standards. Your points about fate and such would be better made if we were talking about Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia, and apply far less to places such as Turkey and Jordan and Iraq. One of the reasons the Shi'ites were so willing to revolt against Saddam when we asked them to, as a matter of fact, was because they felt he was assaulting their practice of Islam. (They feel we'll do the same, as you so ineptly pointed out, which makes our primary job in southern Iraq a lot harder.) The Sunnis and Kurds hate us for different and mostly non-religious reasons...the Sunnis because we're taking away the power base they've traditionally enjoyed in Iraq for 75 years, and the Kurds because we won't help them gain their state. these are rough generalizations, of course, but they're a hell of a lot more accurate than what you're peddling. And I'll stop making you laugh by using the term "human rights" if you'll agree never to use the term "freedom." Coming from someone who would have left the Iraqis under Hussein, where they would not even have the extremely limited chance at a peaceful and non-violent domestic situation that they have now, it sounds crazy.

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 8:33 p.m. CST

    Scythed again

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***The rich got more" Yeah, by stealing, pilfering, banking in offshore accounts and by lowering the standard of living for the middle class family. Obviously none of you pricks have ever tried to manage a budget or take care of a family on minimum wage work. Your comments on healthcare are laughable***. ------The rich PAY more, (as a total amount and as a % of what they earn) so OF COURSE they get more in a cut. Go visit the IRS website sometime genious- the Top 10% of earners pay like 60% of the taxes

  • Nov. 30, 2004, 8:37 p.m. CST

    SCYTHE, your critical skills are fairly underwhelming themselves

    by WillowFan2001

    First, some of the rich actually got rich through hard work and good business management. You might or might not know something about the former, but I'm pretty sure you know next to nothing about the latter. Second, one of our federal government's main purposes for existing is to "provide for the common defense"--and htey do it well. As insane as Limbaugh can be, at least one thing that he said is true--our miitary was designed to kill people and break things, and they're damn good at what they do. We can have a separate debate over whether Star Wars is a good contribution to that or not...my answer would be not yet, and perhaps not ever. But our government is supposed to "promote the general welfare," not provide for it. It wasn't designed to do so, which is why the educational system in our country is subpar and Social Security is running out of time. We're not going to solve these problems just by throwing money at them, as liberals seem to want to do. Third, Bush isn't "my boy"...once again, I saw him as the lesser of two evils. Do you KNOW how to read? Apparently you don't, because fourth, I said nothing about the Soviet Union, communism, or its Middle Eastern interventions anywhere in any of my previous posts on this thread. And while your point about America not belonging to a specific group is dead-on, we are NOT a democracy. We are a democratic republic--the adjective is derived from democracy, but republic is the noun. In a true democracy, anything could be added or eliminated, including people's rights, by a simple majority vote...as witnessed by the number of gay marriage bans passed by plebiscite this last election. That's not, thank God, the way our federal government runs. But if you would prefer a more democratic society, and you get your way, then I fear for the future of rights of any kind in this nation. Finally, America isn't the center of the universe, and on certain subjects we can be remarkably inept, but we're still better overall than any alternative I can see. If you disagree, then I invite you to partake of one of those other alternatives.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 6:04 a.m. CST

    WILLOWFAN SPINNING HISTORY

    by bushsux

    Wilson won WWI but then lost us the peace,(actually, it was the European Nations that demanded reprimands from post-WWI Germany while Wilson was against it, besides, the republican presidents that came after him didn't seem to do much better to "win the peace" anyway) and Truman capped off WWII with a mass slaughter(So what should Truman have done? Launched a conventional invasion of Japan? That would have killed millions more Japanese civilians and cost hundreds of thousands more American troops' lives. The Japanese did not want to negotiate a surrender until we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, those atomic bombs killed over 120,000 Japanese civilians but think about how many millions more would have been killed in a conventional land invasion.) These are your idols? I fear for you.(Don't worry Willow, I have Mad Martigan to defend me!) economic revival of the 1930's was brought on by WWII and not by the New Deal(Again, a conservative spinning history, war hurts the economy more than it helps it, just look at our economy right now, this war in Iraq is bankrupting us)...although the New Deal at least halted and started to reverse the Great Depression(Thank you, maybe you do have an honest bone in your body). And then in the 1990's, this revival you speak of started BEFORE Clinton became President, and ended BEFORE he left office.(With what? With George H.W Bush's recession?) Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are noble ideals, but the modern Democratic Party has kept them from changing with the times...not a very progressive outlook.(As opposed to the republicans who just want to cut these program so they have more money to give tax cuts to the rich and welfare to the corporations.) ...Anyone who believes that the President can profoundly affect economic conditions, for good or ill, deserves nothing but my pity and contempt.(Actually, ignorant republicans who spend their days trying to convince themselves that conservatism, despite all of its failures, can still work are the ones who deserve pity.) Anyone who classifies Kosovo as a war, instead of a 79-day bombing run, loses any authority to talk about matters military.(I'm sorry, you're the military expert. Forget that I am actually the one in the military with friends who were there on the ground in Kosovo.) And when Clinton had two years, with a Democratic Congress, to create this vaunted national health care you speak off, he bungled it.(No, the republicans stonewalled it and filibustered it to death. Not to mention the insurance companies did their best to prevent it from passing) Why do you think 1994 was such a landslide year for the Republicans?(Ignorant people like you with too much time on their hands) It was largely because the New Democrats didn't live up to their biggest promises.(You mean the economic revival? Large-scale Deficit reduction?) Of course, mthen you blame Bush for losing jobs during an economic recession that started during Clinton's term and was exacerbated by 9/11, neither of which he had anything to do with.(Actually he could have prevented 9/11 and the large deficit and weakening dollar are responsible for our current hard economic times) As far as Iraq goes, I agree that the war has not been managed well. Having said that, if you had had your way, 25 million people would still be under an inhumane dictator.(As opposed to 25 million people living in semi-anarchy and civil war?) Good job representing the party of human rights. (Good job representing the party of the rich, the ignorant and the religious fanatics who exploit people's fear and stupidity.)

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 7:06 a.m. CST

    One more thing about republicans being the recession party

    by bushsux

    So you don't want to blame Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression? Okay, one republican alone can't screw up that much by himself. The two republican presidents that preceded Hoover, Harding and Cooledge are also responsible. In fact, during the 1920's the republicans were the majority party in Washington. So let's not just blame Hoover for the Great Depression, blame the republican party as a whole. Whenever the republicans get to be the majority, things certainly tend to go bad.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 12:39 p.m. CST

    The History Channel Special on Alexander was Far Better

    by Starbuck1975

    Harry what the hell movie were you sitting through...the only interesting aspect of Alexander's life was his tremendous good fortune on the battlefield, attributed mostly to the tactical advantage the Macedonians had over the largely conscripted and unprofessional mercenary armies of the Persians...the Macedonian cavalry and phalanx units were far superior in training and discipline to their Persian adversaries...the Persian Empire was already in decline due to political intrigue, conspiracies and power struggles within its own borders, such that Alexander was able to roll over their territories quite easily...and the genius of Alexander's campaigns were in some of his sieges, which Oliver Stone managed to glance over with an Anthony Hopkins dialogue...instead Oliver Stone chose to waste the first portion of the movie on Alexander's supposed relationship with his mother and father, the context of which is neither historically documented nor factual...not to mention the fact that the invasion of Persia was something masterminded by Philip II, and not for any noble intentions of "bringing the world together" or cultural understanding...Philip II had dreams and ambitions far beyond his grasp, and those goals transferred to the young Alexander when he assumed the throne...Alexander is a complex and interesting historical figure, yet Oliver Stone chose to deviate from the true story in favor of telling a Hollywood tale...yes it is true that Alexander adopted the culture of the Persians, but it was a culture that valued indulgence in pleasure without restraint...and of course from the perspective of a liberal, there is nothing with Alexander imposing the cultural values of a foreign culture on his own soldiers...and despite the fact that Macedonian society valued education, enlightment and free thought above gluttony...you whine about how people are upset, offended or avoiding the movie due to its homosexual content...yes we get it that Alexander, and probably a good number of his generals, were bisexual...but did we need multiple homoerotic scenes to drive that point home...the topic was handled far more efficiently and artistically in Spartacus, and the scene lasted a few short minutes as opposed to multiple scenes of Alexander getting all googly eyed at effeminate men wearing eyeliner. The critics are critical of this movie not because they didnt "get" its enlightened message or because of their prejudices towards homosexual topics...they are criticizing the movie because it sucks...the History Channel's special on Alexander was far more compelling, interesting, historically accurate and entertaining.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Look sheeple, I know you fuckers think you have an answer to eve

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    But the fact remains Iraq is a mess, the world fucking hates us and our government is moving towards theocracy. Regardless of whether you two fuckers voted for any of this shit or not, your fellow right wingers have ruined our nation. You have a convenient explaination for every argument, and that's fine. Killing people is okay as long as you have a rationale right? You are still just primates choosing a violent solution. You are still just apes beating each other over the heads with sticks, only now the sticks are I.C.B.M.s and cluster bombs. Way to run a civilization into the ground. You guys obviously know best, after all we're doing such a great job. Sorry, until our government can find a way to conduct it's business without sinking to the level of those who oppose us, you have zero fucking credibility. You have also made no defense of the evangelical christian influence that's wormed it's way into our political discourse. You will defend republican economic policy until you are frothing at the mouth, but your only defense of Bush's policies on gay rights, is a weak "I didn't vote for it". As if that somehow makes it okay for you to support such a regime. You also have a very distorted view of our "victory in Iraq". What victory was that I must have missed it between the beheadings and suicide bombings? Typically victory is only declared WHEN YOUR TROOPS ARE NO LONGER BEING KILLED. Tell the hundred plus soldiers we lost last month alone. If that qualifies as victory what do you dipshits call defeat? I know Dubya tried to impress everyone with his flight suit antics, and that misleading "mission accomplished" banner, but come on. Keep feeding at the propaganda trough. Go back to sleep.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 2:25 p.m. CST

    by Starbuck1975

    Iraq was already a mess, the rest of the world hates us no matter what we do, and our country is hardly moving towards a theocracy...we are not the first society to face an ideological split between secularism and religion...for the past 20 years or so, we have witnessed a fairly substantial push by the left to impose varying degrees of secular thought on the whole of society...this is wonderful if you do not value religion...but given the Judeo-Christian origins of the moral ethical fabric of our society, is it any surprise that eventually there was going to be a significant push back by the religious right...of course it would be too much for people on either side of the ideological divide to cease in imposing their beliefs on the other...and yes, forcing people of faith to accept that which their religion forbids or condemns is as much an infringement as the religious right attempting to get a Bible in every classroom.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Wow, 900LBGorilla can cut n' paste.

    by morGoth

    An enviable job skill that seems to be your fundamental source of any semblance of intelligence...yes, copying my words (blush, blush...you're so cute when you get mad). Really, don't you know imitation is the highest form of flattery? But of course you are correct mein freund, I SHOULD'VE looked in the dictionary first so that my reasoning and logic would've screamed at me "YOU CAN'T REASON WITH A PILE OF MONKEY SHIT!" Wow, I haven't engaged in such a one-sided flame war since, oh, 1998 (I'm sorry, I don't usually pick on those less fortunate than myself but, after all, you did ask for it.). Oh well, at least that guy had a sense of humor and actually made SOME sense unlike you my lil' simian fecal bucket. Honestly...you ARE an Earthling, right? Y'know, this movie actually made more sense than you do but, of course, you're far more gay than Alexander could ever be. Yes, it's true...as me Gaffer used to say, "morGy m'lad, it's always them what sez they ain't as them what's usually is. An' o' course, denial is the first sign of guilt I tellee!" Aayup, a real live Log Cabin Republican...right here on AICN!

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 3:23 p.m. CST

    900 LB Gorilla - schemata which I assumed you had but obviously

    by Trader Groucho 2

    The problem with the bullets in Iraq is not their presence per se but who's holding the guns and who's shooting. Israel can hold free elections within its borders because the Army there is protecting the electorate. In Iraq, Americans and insurgents are BLOWING UP the electorate. Oh, and excusing Americans torturing Iraqis because they're not torturing as onerously and severely as Saddam is like excusing rape because it's not murder. The Americans were supposed to be the GOOD GUYS. The Americans set up the circumstances under which Iraq's chaos has ensued by entering with maybe one-third the troops necessary to actually conduct an occupation ("winning" the war was never an issue), firing the entire Iraqi army and sending them home with their guns, and firing huge numbers of factory workers in industries such as cement production in an effort to cut costs and drive down the value of the factories so they'd go for cheap when privatized and sold to foreign corporations. Bush's conduct of the entire operation has been bass-ackward from the get-go and the only thing that's saved his incompetent ass is the professionalism and overweening dominance of the American military despite his hamstringing them by gross mismanagement and incredibly obvious political miscalculations ensuing from placing neo-con ideology over realpolitick.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I

    by morGoth

    Please cite an instance of where people of faith in this country have been forced to accept something. This is still a representative democracy and I don

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 5:18 p.m. CST

    The Laws of Our Society Often Conflict with Religion

    by Starbuck1975

    There are many instances in our society where those of Christian faith, subject to the laws of our system of government, must come to accept that which is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. Abortion is the most hot button topic and a perfect example of how a secular society has imposed its ideology on those of religious faith. If you subscribe to the belief that every human being contains a spirit, and that spirit enters the flesh upon conception, then you would view abortion as against the will of God. The Supreme Court of the United States determined that a woman's right to choose is of greater importance then a fetus' right to life...hence those of religious faith are subject to the laws of a society that is in direct conflict with their beliefs...this is not to say that those of faith have not imposed their will on others...on the contrary, every religion on the face of this planet have been spread not through peace, love and understanding but by the sword. Regardless of whether or not you believe that abortion has any tangible effect on those with religious faith, causes like abortion, gay marriage and others have become the rallying cry of the religious right, and evidence, at least from their perspective, that our society has entered the spiral of moral decline.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Scyth - Please for your own sake...stop

    by 900LBGorilla

    "I know you fuckers think you have an answer to everything" ----Yes thank you for noticing, now if only you would stop being a robot and LEARN from the answers you cannot counter, you would REALLY BE an intellectual ... ====================

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Morgoth Vs. the average kindergadtner who would win?

    by 900LBGorilla

    *****

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Trader Groucho- Are we actually being civil? (uh oh)

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Starbuck 1975

    by 900LBGorilla

    Well said.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Starbuck cont

    by 900LBGorilla

    I was more referring to your movie review than the follow up post...Stone clusterfucked this movie.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 9:55 p.m. CST

    900 LB gorilla - no need to monday morning quarterback on this o

    by Trader Groucho 2

    making real progress, this would be entirely unnecessary. In fact, their spotty performance was cited as one reason more American troops are required. As for Bush's impeachable incompetence - he had hired - and then entirely ignored - the architect of the Powell doctrine who had designed and implemented the military part of a rather convincing truly international ouster of Saddam from Kuwait. Bush also had at least one general who was telling him he needed a buttload more troops, and Bush retired the guy. Bush also had reports from the CIA that were somewhat less rosy, and ignored them too. The U.S. military post-Vietnam much prefers to overprepare for a worst-case scenario than barely prepare for the best-case, yet that's exactly what happened in Iraq courtesy of neo-cons with firmly-affixed ideological blinders. It is axiomatic in war-fighting that you can NEVER EVER rely on a best-case scenario. On to the prisoner-abuse situation - yeah, some low-ranking enlisted types are getting exampled in military courts on this one, but the techniques they used reflected the research and tactics of professional interrogators deeply knowledgeable of Arab culture, not farm kids looking for stupid cool pictures to send home to their friends. What bothers me about this is that the people who encouraged - or probably ordered - this abuse in Abu Graib and at least one other Iraqi prison are taking zero responsibility for it. And GW Bush, the commander-in-chief, where the buck is supposed to stop, has taken zero responsibility for this as well. Courts-martial should be happening at command (O-6 and up) level for this. The fact that resignations and courts-martial at a higher level are NOT happening means there is at least tacit approval of these tortures at the highest levels of government, and don't think the rest of the world is too stupid to realize this. Between Camp X-Ray, assorted secret international internment facilities, a policy of turning over detainees to other governments whose torture policies are well-documented by the UN, the whole Iraq fiasco, Abu Graib, and the attack on civil liberties right here in the "homeland", Bush's presidency will go down as quite possibly the second most shameful episode in the history of this republic (slavery still comes first).

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 11:05 p.m. CST

    No Starbuck

    by morGoth

  • Even someone who'd never seen Colin Farrel before will know straightaway that his hair has been dyed. Some dark people can be made to pass for blond - not Colin. It will be impossible to think of anything else while he's on screen. Since Stone is too thick to have foreseen that, he's far too thick to have been trusted with $60 million to make a movie. And it was all quite unnecessary. Stone could either have picked a natural blond actor to play Alexander, or he could have let Colin play him as a hairy black Celt. Well, why not? Lawrence of Arabia was 5'5", but they cast Peter O'Toole, whose 6'2", to play him. And nobody complained.

  • Dec. 1, 2004, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Wow

    by morGoth

    Did you really confuse

  • Even someone who'd never seen Colin Farrel before will know straightaway that his hair has been dyed. Some dark people can be made to pass for blond - not Colin. It will be impossible to think of anything else while he's on screen. Since Stone is too thick to have foreseen that, he's far too thick to have been trusted with $60 million to make a movie. And it was all quite unnecessary. Stone could either have picked a natural blond actor to play Alexander, or he could have let Colin play him as a hairy black Celt. Well, why not? Lawrence of Arabia was 5'5", but they cast Peter O'Toole, who's 6'2", to play him. And nobody complained.

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 12:23 a.m. CST

    STARBUCK 1975'S CRUSADE TO END A WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

    by bushsux

    There are many instances in our society where those of Christian faith, subject to the laws of our system of government, must come to accept that which is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs.(Uh, unless your a muslim living in Saudi Arabia or a Catholic living in the Vatican City, you are always going to have laws that conflict with your religious beliefs. Why? Because history has proven that government by religion DOES NOT WORK.) Abortion is the most hot button topic and a perfect example of how a secular society has imposed its ideology on those of religious faith.(So if I believe that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body, I can't possibly be a practicing Catholic? Who is the elitist here?) If you subscribe to the belief that every human being contains a spirit, and that spirit enters the flesh upon conception, then you would view abortion as against the will of God.(Muslims believe that women wearing regular clothes out to public and eating pork is against the will of God. Should we ban those things in our country too so we can be nice to their religious faith? The Supreme Court of the United States determined that a woman's right to choose is of greater importance then a fetus' right to life...(Fetuses are fetuses, they're not alive until they can survive outside the woman's body and even then, the partial birth abortion ban MAKES NO EXCEPTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IF HER PREGNANCY IS LIFE-THREATENING)hence those of religious faith are subject to the laws of a society that is in direct conflict with their beliefs(So why don't you move out if you and your religious beliefs are so oppressed?)...Regardless of whether or not you believe that abortion has any tangible effect on those with religious faith, causes like abortion, gay marriage and others have become the rallying cry of the religious right(Why can't the religious right take on ACTUAL ISSUES LIKE THE HOMELESS? Why are hating women and gay people more important than helping the poor, something conservatives are opposed to doing?), and evidence, at least from their perspective, that our society has entered the spiral of moral decline. (Almost all crime statistics have shown a decline in the past 15 years. What exactly does this moral decline consist of then? Watching Janet Jackson's nipple? You're right, we are in a moral decline when these republicans, whose ideals are more in conflict with Judeo-Christian ideals, are dominating elections in the poorer states in the South and Midwest where more people are on government assistance.)

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 10:59 a.m. CST

    morGoth - great job summing up the probz w/the invasion/occupati

    by Trader Groucho 2

    And then when Iraqis looted their national museums and various government offices Rummy says, "Democracy is messy business." No, Mr. Rumsfeld, piss-poor military occupation strategy is messy business. The American equivalent would be if looters were free to cart off whatever the eff they felt like from the Library of Congress, CIA HQ in Langley, and the Smithsonian, while the troops vigilantly protected the corporate offices of Exxon-Mobil. Again, what an incredibly shameful episode in the history of this republic.

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 11:17 a.m. CST

    happyhappyjoyjoy - why are you being such a hater???

    by Trader Groucho 2

    Truth is, PJ paid his dues and totally delivered. The critics agree. The fans - who voted with their dollars - agree. You're in a minority buddy, and you're totally entitled to your opinion. PJ had a strong vision of how to bring Tolkien to the big screen, and he brought in a lot of incredibly talented people to help him out. He was also smart enough to have two co-writers working with him to adapt it, and it was clear enough to me when I listened to PJ and his two co-writers explain their process at a WGA screening of ROTK that PJ's style is NOT director-as-dictator. If you look at the four most recent major sword & sandals epics (counting LOTR in this category as a single huge project), PJ and Ridley scored, and Oliver Stone and Wolfgang Peterson threw bricks. Now both Peterson and Stone have proven they're great directors in numerous projects, so they looked great on paper. Both films have strong casts stuffed with proven actors, both by box office and talent (okay, I wouldn't have cast Colin Farrell personally, but that may just be a taste thing). Again, good on paper. So what happened? Well, to lift from the Dire Straits song, sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the fly. PJ was a windshield. :)

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 11:35 a.m. CST

    morGoth Well Said

    by Starbuck1975

    MorGoth I agree with everything in your post, and my attempt to provide an explanation for the dynamics that drive the religious ideology should not be confused with my support for such an ideology. There are many forces at work that, from my perspective, are contributing to the moral decline of our society. You identified many of them, and there are certainly more then those you specified...they are not attributed to any one particular group or segment of our society, as everyone is equally guilty and capable of the blind hypocracy and limited partisan world view of their particular camp, myself included. For those who are students of history, the trends of our society are starting to mirror those that marked the decline of the great empires and civilizations of antiquity...corporate greed, materialism, political apathy, class warfare, ideologically divided segments of society...all of these dynamics plagued the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese dynasties, Ottomans and every other society that attempted to impose its will on the rest of the world. It is difficult to target any specific factor or group as being responsible for these trends, and quite honestly I do not think anything or anyone is capable of preventing the snowball effect.

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Well hello there happyhappyjoyjoy!

    by morGoth

    Long time no see dude {[:^) Hmmm, while I don

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the props Trader Groucho 2.

    by morGoth

    Nope, the people cheering our victorious troops with flowers didn

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Trader Groucho- you cant start with your premise first and look

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:17 p.m. CST

    And thankee kindly to you too Starbuck 1975!

    by morGoth

    One thing that truly worries me; if the people in this country become more polarized (uniter my Sooty Patootey!), I fear an eventual civil war. Thing is, we

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:37 p.m. CST

    ErrantNight

    by Fernwick_

    Im sorry but did you just say that until the 1800's there was no distinct gender? Is that what you meant to say? If that is what you say, I dont know any other way to say your wrong other then your wrong. Do I even have to research that question? Do i have to find just one or 100 documents prior to the 1800's to prove otherwise? Anyone else agree with Errant? I just want to know.

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Morgoth changes the subject- what a surprise!

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 5:50 p.m. CST

    I actually Agree with Trader- MIRACLE!

    by 900LBGorilla

    Unfortunately it's about movies LOTR was very well done, so was Gladiator, and Alexander was a steaming turd... the only area I disagree is Troy which I found outstanding as an action film... which is mostly all it was... but did the action VERY well (especially the small scale stuff which was pretty much unmatched).

  • Dec. 2, 2004, 6:18 p.m. CST

    900lb Gorilla

    by Fernwick_

    This has nothing to do with the current debate BigG. It has to do with your changing the subject line. In the PREVIOUS Debate I attempted to change the subject because bill nye and I had reached an impasse. He and I agreed to disagree. So its not ALWAYS to get away from a lost debate :). I dont know why I felt the need to speak on that but I just did. And now on my OLD OLD OLD topic, what do you think BigG, should Q be the next Star Trek movie? Is Q going to redeem the franchise? Fernwick out!

  • Dec. 3, 2004, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Just what I figured Monkey Boy...

    by morGoth

    ...you blame me for not "debating" point for point, then I do, then you accuse me of changing some imaginary subject that's floating around in your head. Wow, I thought you were merely stupid but it is apparent that you're just a complete and total idiot who can't even remember what they've said from one minute to the next. I hope your daughter got all her genes from mommy. Bottom line...fuck off idiot. I have nothing further to say to your hypocritical yet moronic ass. Please, have the last insult so that your fragile little ego will survive intact. No wonder this country is getting so fucked up with people like you in it. Of course, Alexander would've had you skinned and flayed in front of his troops for your obvious violations of the Human Imitation Act.

  • Dec. 3, 2004, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Re: Happyhappyjoyjoy

    by Aston Lad

    Interesting post there. I disagree with most of it, but I felt I ought to reply because it brings up something that struck me the other day: namely, hatred of The Two Towers, even amongst LOTR fans. You mention Jackson 'screwed up the second film'. Whilst I agree it's the weak link in the chain, I remember coming out of it thinking: "I give that film four out of five". Thats an impressive achievement even by my forgiving standards, and a lot better than many other films I saw in 2002. Yes, it probably strayed from the book. Having not read the books, I can only judge it as a film, and despite its flaws I can't really call it a screw-up. Likewise, when Alexander is released here and I go to see it, I won't judge it against the true story because I am (by my own fault) largely unfamiliar with the historical story. Even Gladiator (which Troy and Alexander clearly aspire to be like) played fast and loose with history; Emperor Commodus fought more than once in the arena and it wasn't how he met his end, thopugh at least that movie never claimed to be a true story.

  • Dec. 4, 2004, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Fenwick

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***

  • Dec. 4, 2004, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Morgoth do you really even take youself seriously?

    by 900LBGorilla

  • Dec. 4, 2004, 4:28 p.m. CST

    BRU

    by 900LBGorilla

    ***"how can anybody really like Troy is beyond meReally, you guys, you must have fluked history really bad, didn't you"?*** ---Well Blade Runner (good flick by the way), since "The Iliad" is NOT "History", but rather a MYTH which is usually taught in a "Literature" class... I am not sure your point has much basis in fact... ----However, To take what I *think* you mean that troy did not follow the Iliad- this is a cause of some dislike by Iliad fans, but even most of them (this one included) realize that "The Iliad" cannot be directly adapted to film - it is too long, too redundant, and has scenes which are very "clash of teh titans" (with the gods), so a "what if it WAS real" take especially given the current speculation that Troy MAY have existed and been under siege- was VERY appropriate. ==================== "Or at any concept of what makes a movie good!" ---- Troy was an action movie pure and simple- and by that standard was VERY VERY good. There are few (if any) action films this year that even come close.

  • Dec. 5, 2004, 10:27 p.m. CST

    900lbGorilla

    by Fernwick_

    Unfortunatly I think your right. I think Q would revive Star Trek but your right about writing nontheless. I think the Star Trek cast should have been in the Galaxy Qwest movies. That would have been GENIOUS parody and would have been a great way to end the series. Ya think? Fernwick

  • Dec. 6, 2004, 11:50 a.m. CST

    I'm a HUGE Oliver Stone fan and this movie SUCKED

    by ganymede2010

    I will never take Harrys advice again. I went and seen this movie based on his review, despite the doubts I had about this film. This movie was boring, the action seens are ungodly awful, this film didn't bring anything new to the table. Oliver Stone is much better film maker then this, I can't understand how he could screw up such a wonderful story. Harry you SUCK, you're way to Hollywood now to be trusted.

  • Dec. 7, 2004, 12:39 a.m. CST

    BRU

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****

  • Dec. 7, 2004, 12:50 a.m. CST

    Alexander Sucked

    by 900LBGorilla

    Alexander was almost as inaccurate as Troy, the editing was a fucking mess, and MOST IMPORTANTLY Stone COMLETELY MISSED THE POINT- He did not show us what Made Alexander GREAT- He skipped all the briliant Tactics, many of the significant life events, and NARRATED some of the most important parts of his life. What the fuck? a 10 year old wouldn't make these mistakes. And INSTEAD of giving us HISTORICAL ALEXANDER- STONE made up an a hour and a half of :"Alexander the whiny little bitch" with melodrama that would make a soap opera star blush in embarrassment, and made the audience nearly pass out due to boredome....THAK GOODNESS Stone put in all the Gay stuff- the unintentinal hunor derived from the "romance" scenes was the only thing that kept me awake during the 2nd halfs "Plot" Alexander parties, Alexander whines and cries a little, Alexander hits on a dude, Alexander parties again, alexander hits on another guy, Alexander whines some more...then professes his love for another guy... WTF? Stone could have made a GREAT movie if he didn't THINK he could MAKE UP EVENTS about Alexander that is MORE INTERESTING than Alexanders REAL LIFE...This movie was a disaster...it is the most derseving bomb since waterworld...

  • Dec. 7, 2004, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Stop BRU please!

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****

  • Dec. 7, 2004, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Alexander

    by Cl_Kilgore

    I voted for Bush and am proud of it. I also think Harry's review is dead on, wrap your brain around that. To much focus is on the homesxeaul aspects of this film, that's not waht it's about. It's about a Great man, his vision, and a glimpse into history. A tremdous historical film, but a big bore I concede if you don't like "talkies" and thought provokers.

  • Dec. 8, 2004, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Hello BRU- we are now having a logical debate on AICN Say it ain

    by 900LBGorilla

    ****

  • Dec. 8, 2004, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Kilgore -

    by Trader Groucho 2

    That you voted for Bush AND find Alexander thought-provoking is quite telling.

  • Dec. 9, 2004, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Talkbacksa fixed yet?

    by 900LBGorilla

  • Dec. 11, 2004, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Please...fix...the talkbacks

    by 900LBGorilla

  • Dec. 20, 2004, 9:14 p.m. CST

    actually....

    by Kida_Greenleaf

    "alexander" really wasn't 'trashed.' if you take the time and read the reviews, everyone points out something outstanding in the movie, whether it's the elephant battle, the first battle, val kilmer's performance, etc...it was long, and will be dull to people who don't grasp history. if you're interested in the time and the man, you will like it. if you go to see a movie with people getting their heads cut off, you'll be bored. oh. liberals are hotter than republicans. gimme natalie portman over ann coulter any day!

  • nuff said.

  • Jan. 18, 2005, 11:57 a.m. CST

    you LIKED alexander?

    by Oh, Radiohead

    the movie didn't suck because people were interested in alexander's gay aspects. it sucked because it sucked.

  • Feb. 23, 2005, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Historical Accuracy

    by John Anderton

    I personally like "Alexander" for what it got right. I like "Troy" because of the "uber 1337 fight scenes."

  • Sept. 16, 2005, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Alexander review

    by Telemaco

    I saw this beautiful movie and ther&#39;s nothing i can say except that i agree with you and your rage . I&#39;m an italian guy here in italy the movie magazines had barely talk about it, a clear effort to let it slid under general unknowness and label the movie as "flop". I saw it and i loved it. I hope this movie and his message will struck many others hearts. Thank you

  • Oct. 15, 2005, 7:26 a.m. CST

    At friggin last!

    by Wolfera

    A review I totally agree with about this hugely underrated film.