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

Dr. Hfuhruhurr Returns With An Early Review Of AN AMERICAN CAROL!

Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. I’m not sure what any of you expect when you click on a story about this film. Cheap easy shots at it automatically? Because that seems to be what most of the coverage I've read everywhere has been. It’s become a punching bag already for a percentage of the press and the audience alike, but I haven’t seen it, certainly, and haven’t even seen the trailer yet. I do know someone who’s actually seen the film, though. Someone with a long history here at AICN. He’s been contributing to the site for at least six or seven years, and he’s contributed some openly conservative perspectives on film, with reviews from the Libertad Film Festival as well as appearances on the Jedi Council. He’s one of my favorite film nerds, and I trust that his taste in film is about the movie, not just the politics of something. He makes some really strong points here about why this film deserves its shot when it opens, and even though I planned to attend a press screening already, I am now actually looking forward to it. Love it or hate it, I’m at least interested to see it now. So color me as open to this as I am to pretty much anything else this fall, and see if you can have a conversation in the talkbacks afterward with as few uses of the word “cunt” as possible, please:

Hey film fans! Dr. Hfuhruhurr here returning to post after a looooong absence. What brings me back is that I want to talk to you about David Zucker’s new hot-button film, AN AMERICAN CAROL that is sure to generate a lotta love, hate, and debate. David Zucker, as you know, is the comedy mastermind behind such classics as AIRPLANE!, TOP SECRET!, and the NAKED GUN series. I remember seeing AIRPLANE! when it first came out and there were people laughing so hard they fell into the aisles at the theater. I laughed so hard that I actually stopped breathing which then spun my into a full blown panic attack. Luckily I recovered, but I had to go back the next day to see the parts I missed from my near death comedy experience. The film is now a classic and the man is a legend. AIRPLANE! was a risky movie to make at the time. No one had done anything quite like that in modern times and it made the Zuckers’ careers. The danger for any filmmaker who has made as many comedies as Zucker, is that after a while they stop taking risks. Zucker’s most recent films, the SCARY MOVIE sequels, were safe studio programmers that were made by gag-shooter-as-hired-gun, and they lacked the inspiration and audacity of his earlier groundbreaking comedies. I’m sure, in this age of the spoof revival, Zucker could have continued making SCARY MOVIES and other spoofs and sailed off peacefully and profitably into the sunset as so many others have. Instead, he has gone all “eye of the tiger” on us, and he decided to do something risky and dangerous again (isn’t that what we secretly want from all of our favorite filmmakers?) In Zucker’s case it’s not just risky and dangerous subject matter, it’s a risky “you’ll never work in this town again” career move because he has fired a comedic shot across the bow of the Sacred Cows of Liberalism and Lefty Hollywood. Before I go any further, I want to address a couple of elephants in the room. First elephant: me. As many of you know I’m a diehard, unabashed Reaganite Republican. Harry, Moriarty, Mr. Beaks, Hercules...they all know this and I think they can vouch for the fact that I’m not some neo-con or Christian right moralizer, and I don’t go around slinging shit, trying to suppress other points of view, or trying to force my politics on anyone. If that were the case then I doubt the AICN guys would want me around. Though I am quite handsome and generous with the stogies so maybe they would. Zucker, who will likely be called a right-wing fascist for making this film, actually drives a Prius and labels himself (if he must) as a centrist “Kennedy Democrat” (which, in these times, translates to Republican because the Socialist appeasers have run away with the Donkey party). Second elephant: I want this movie to be a HUGE FREAKING SUCCESS which is why this isn’t going to be a traditional review and why I’m stating my bias right up front. I’ve had enough of the lefty propaganda in films like REDACTED, LIONS FOR LAMBS, IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, RENDITION, and the one-liner jabs in almost every other mainstream film. It’s time for at least one tiny voice from the other side. Third elephant: this film is an unabashedly all-out satirical attack on the sacred cows of the Left. It is a political satire and makes no bones about it. Someone I saw it with said they wished the film would’ve shown both points of view. However, that’s not what this film is, and it’s not what it was ever meant to be. It’s satire in the South Park, Mark Twain, and Jonathon Swift sense of the word. Take no prisoners and damn the other side! Read the satire rule book if you have a problem with that. Now I’d like to point out the donkeys, er, asses in the room: all those people, bloggers, and critics out there who are saying, “How dare David Zucker make this film!?” I mean, c’mon people -- and I’m talking mainly to those of you who consider yourself “of the Left” -- you’re supposed to be the ones who are tolerant and who champion free speech. So man up and show some tolerance for a point of view that happens to disagree with your own. I didn’t throw a hissy fit about FAHRENHEIT 9/11 nor will I throw one about Oliver Stone’s W. I’m a big believer in: if you’re gonna dish it out, you gotta take it. This is a democracy and those of us who trade in ideas and value free speech should be the ones who applaud loudest when something comes along that we disagree with. That doesn’t mean you have to like it, but yes, you should gleefully tolerate it. So instead of condemning Zucker for making this movie, you should congratulate him. Why? Because this is THE BALLSIEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Love it or hate it, it’s got a big ol’ dangling pair of apricots. The comical attacks on Jihad and radical Muslims alone are worthy of a twenty-year off-the-grid Salmon Rushdie vacation for Zucker and everyone else involved. George Clooney thinks he’s a brave filmmaker for tackling McCarthy or Big Oil? DePalma and Paul Haggis think they’re courageous for attacking Bush policies and the War in Iraq? Dudes, that shit’s so safe you coulda put Sandy Duncan in them! But this...this is real life dangerous shit here! And I say: it’s about freaking time someone had the nads to do it. Only in pansy-ass Hollywood ’08 does it take a comedy director to avenge the death of Theo Van Gogh. If for nothing other than Zucker’s bold comedic jihad on the jihadists in this film, all of you free-speechers should be singing his praises and saying, “You know what, Big Z, I don’t agree with a damn thing in your little political movie, but let me wax your big ol’ balls for taking one for the First Amendment!” Mori, Harry? I’ll drive you to him personally because, seriously, as people who value free speech, we owe Zucker a shine and polish for what he dares to do here. While watching this film, I couldn’t help but thinking, that this may be one of the most subversive things I have ever seen made by a mainstream filmmaker. I couldn’t help but think of the Marx Brothers’ anarchic DUCK SOUP. The Zuckers we’re always getting compared to the Marx Brothers at the time of their early spoofs, but David has taken it a step further here and gone full-Groucho. There is more subversion and anarchy per minute in this film than I have seen in years. We’re living in a bizzaro world here in Hollywood when conservative = the new subversive. The Left is the status quo establishment and we’re Marlon Brando riding into town on a motorcycle, scaring all the old folks! WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD BEWARE: NOT FOR THE EASILY OFFENDED TURN BACK NOW IF YOU LOVE YOUR SACRED COWS The story, in case the title somehow eludes you, uses the Dickensian Christmas Carol template to tell about a modern day Scrooge -- an egotistical, anti-war, anti-military, America-is-the-root-of-all-evil documentary filmmaker named Michael Malone who is clearly based on Michael Moore. Malone/Moore is played/spoofed by Chris Farley’s kid brother Kevin Farley who, based on his performance here in his big screen debut, will not be known as Chris Farley’s little brother for long. He has a charm and appeal all his own and we’re going to see him in lots of comedies and dramas if he survives his conservo-outing here. When Malone decides to hold a rally to ban the 4th of July, he gets visited by the ghost of his hero, JFK. Kennedy quickly reminds Malone that he (JFK) was a war-when-necessary Hawk (and I might add, opposed to taxes. But I digress...). The film, however, is not a direct comedy assault on Michael Moore. The real life Moore is merely the means to the end, and the narrative uses him as a way to satirize the belief system, sacred cows, and ideals of the Left that he has come to embody and hold so dear to his cholesterol logged heart. After the JFK visit, Michael Malone is visited by three ghosts who attempt to reform him and show him the true meaning of America (from the filmmaker’s POV, of course, so chill the fuck out). First, he gets a visit from General Patton (played by Kelsey Grammer) who takes him to the past and shows him Neville Chamberlain making his infamous deal with Hitler...and then shining Hitler’s shoes for him. Then Patton (who gives a new meaning to “slap-stick” in his role) takes Malone to an alternate America Now where Malone discovers that he has a house run by slaves (namely David Allen Grier with a small assist from Gary Coleman both of whom do some old school, gloriously offensive, Step’n-Fetchit shtick). Patton points out that sometimes war IS the answer, but in this alternate reality Abraham Lincoln believed, as Malone believes and as many on the Left believe, that War is Never the Answer and so there was never a Civil War fought to free the slaves. Patton makes a few more stops in his ghostly shift -- one at a college University that is a pitch perfect parody (literally since it’s a musical number) of student protestors (I mean, come on, Left or Right your gotta be annoyed by these idiots) and Ward Churchill type professors who are stuck in the sixties. It’s the ingenius and inspired comedy that we remember from AIRPLANE! Malone is then handed off to the second Ghost, the Ghost of George Washington played by Jon Voight (so good here and played so straight that it makes you want to see a JOHN ADAMS style mini-series about Father George with Voight in the lead). This is the already infamous scene that many people (you know who you are) said, “What the hell is Zucker doing!? Has he lost his fucking mind!?” My answer is: no he hasn’t, he’s found his soul. The scene: George Washington takes Malone to Ground Zero just after the 9/11 attacks. It’s not a comedic scene. There is no gag here, no Zucker humor, not even any satire, and no blame game. It’s a scene that resonates and lets you know that behind all the slapstick and tomfoolery and spoof gags, Zucker is making a serious movie and he has some serious things to say about the world we live in. You don’t have to agree with its premise, but give the man props for leading with his soul and not with his wallet or his agent or career. In this moment you can see that Zucker has, I believe, made a very personal film about his own conversion (in the press he says he was a die hard Democrat who had a 9/11 conversion). It is not Michael Malone looking at Ground Zero here, it is David Zucker. It’s probably the only personal moment in Zucker’s entire canon and maybe even in this entire genre. Some may argue that a serious moment like this doesn’t belong in a wacky comedy. I would argue that this is what makes the movie special. Zucker is taking chances here that you can’t take in studio-financed films. Seriously, would you rather see him do SCARY MOVIE V for which no one would ever think he’d lost his mind (though they probably should in that case) or try something new, bold and dangerous? Again: see “balls.” The final ghost, the harbinger of Death, is played by country music star Trace Adkins who has as much charisma and presence here as he had in “Celebrity Apprentice” (a guilty pleasure of mine). He’s a real charmer and a real star. At least on screen. I’ll never know what kind of presence he has in concert because, like Michael Malone in this film, I’d rather hear the sound of my own ass being roto-rootered than hear a single twang of country music. Besides the great Jon Voight, the film is filled with lots of other familiar faces and established actors, a veritable who’s who of the new Hollywood subversives. The legendary and iconic Robert Davi (GOONIES, DIE HARD, LICENSE TO KILL and the upcoming film THE DUKES which he also wrote and directed), beards up to play the head terrorist Aziz. One of the most interesting things about Davi’s performance is that he plays it straight and scary, reminding us once again that under all the comedy hijinks, Zucker is taking his film seriously. “Heiniken? Fuck that shit!” it’s Dennis Hopper, making a cameo as a judge whose courtroom is being attacked by ACLU zombies. James Woods shows up as Michael Malone’s agent who keeps reminding him (as does everyone else in the movie) that his Oscar was “only for a documentary”. Yes, Hollywood gets a bit of a TROPIC THUNDER reaming here as well. Kevin “Hercules” Sorbo plays an acclaimed feature director who wins an Oscar for his film, “That McCarthy Sure Was Bad” which I believe Participant Media is actually making as we speak. Like I said before: you can agree or disagree with the politics of this film, but it’s worth seeing by Left and Right alike for three reasons: (a) its ginormous balls; (b) it is actually pretty damn funny and inventive; and (c) you internet folks love free speech and want to encourage and promote it any way you can, right? There should be room for all opinions in this country and in our movie theaters, right? Mr. Wells? Anyone? Diversity of ideas is what makes this country great for both sides of the aisle. Right? Right? My hope is that those opposed to the viewpoints in this film are actually as tolerant and free-speech loving as they claim to be and will actually give it a look before judging, because it is something to behold. If you love comedy and, in particular, the history of film comedy then you know that David Zucker is one of the modern pioneers. AN AMERICAN CAROL, if nothing else, shows that his pioneering days aren’t over. He’s taking a balls-out chance the way all the greats used to and the way so few people dare to do anymore. Everyone plays it safe these days, but what is comedy if it can’t go for the jugular, be truly iconoclastic, and piss off a lot of people? It’d be boring as hell, and this isn’t by a long shot. Whether you love it or hate it, you’ll never see anything quite like it. It’s refreshingly irreverent and inspired. And if your beliefs happen to be the target this time out, then welcome to my world. If you don’t like the quality of the film then by all means, have at it. But if you want to suppress it or condemn it for simply existing or you want to personally attack Zucker for even daring to make it, then on behalf of JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Groucho Marx, and, yes, even Michael Moore, I say, “Go fuck yourself!” You’re not a true Liberal. Just another whiny bitch who can’t stand for someone who has an opinion that differs from your own. Which, after all, is what a lot of you are constantly accusing my side of doing. Now that is comedy.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:48 a.m. CST

    by monkeygiles

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Trailer looked baddddddddddd

    by barnaby jones

    But i'll always give Zucker a go.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:13 a.m. CST

    the man with two brains!

    by ironic_name

    one of martin's best, behind pt and a

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:21 a.m. CST

    by kentrel

    Its a good review, but from your description many of the jokes just ring hollow. Comedy is about exposing some kind of truth under a different perspective, and there's just no truth to the fact that Lincoln went to war to free the slaves. Nor is it true he was anti-war. Lincoln is famous for saying that he was keeping the union together, if it meant slavery or not. The only war that was necessary in the past 8 years was the invasion of Afghanistan, and that was completely ignored by the right. To imply as it seems this movie is doing that "sometimes war IS necessary" applies to Iraq is just not going to make many intelligent people (right or left) laugh. I'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion but just pointing out that when you base your jokes on a stereotype or false view they just ring hollow, and as a result, they lose most of their comic value.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:22 a.m. CST

    glad this movie won't be getting a theatrical release here in au

    by ironic_name

    bleh, though aclu zombies sounds funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:26 a.m. CST

    I don't know, but..

    by BartholomewNeff

    I'll give it a chance. If Trey Parker and Matt Stone can mock Moore then Zucker should be able to as well. I plan on seeing it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:26 a.m. CST

    911 casualities: around 2,974 , Dead Iraq civilians: 94,781

    by David Cloverfield

    I'm curious about this film, but the 911 sobbing has to stop. It was a tragedy, especially for a country that never experienced and attack, but c'mon, you guys shredded almost 100000 civilians in retribution against a country that had nothing to do with 911.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:27 a.m. CST

    When I say never, I mean rarely

    by David Cloverfield

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:27 a.m. CST

    Ballsy review!

    by theBigE

    Thanks for the review - but you're going to get the talk-backers panties in a bunch. Look for 1000 whiny posts on here by noon today.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:58 a.m. CST

    "Kennedy Democrat" means 40 years out of touch.

    by Flim Springfield

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Thats Ignorance, y-y-y-our ignorant

    by tomdolan04

    Wontcha climb with me, up my wishing treeeee?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:02 a.m. CST

    Being pro-war puts you on Hitler's side, not against him.

    by Flim Springfield

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:08 a.m. CST

    The only thing worse than Republicans who think they're funny...

    by Thick McRunFast

    ...are other Republicans who think those people are funny. It's like one big incestuous tribute to mediocrity and lowered expectations. I suspect this will be funny in the way that the "_______ Movie" movie parodies have been - which is to say, funny to the lowest common denominator who have no idea of the concept. So suck it, and fuck you for commandeering your name from Steve Martin, who also used to be funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:12 a.m. CST

    kentrel

    by Jinxo

    From the write up it doesn't sound like the movie was trying to Lincoln was anti-war. It was saying there is a section where we see an alternate history showing what would have happened if Lincoln out-and-out refused to go to war.<br><br>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:13 a.m. CST

    "the Socialist appeasers have run away with the Donkey party"

    by Thick McRunFast

    Mmmmm, that's some good stupid right there. And one more "fuck you" for comparing this to DUCK SOUP, which also proves you know nothing about comedy. Jesus Christ, Mori - where did you dig up this mouth-breather?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:13 a.m. CST

    "Tiny voice"

    by Doctor Land

    'cept talk radio, Fox News, knee jerk operatives on almost every cyber board

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Every other country abolished slavery without a war.

    by Flim Springfield

    The US could have too.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:16 a.m. CST

    Duck Soup was anti-war and anti-nationalism.

    by Flim Springfield

    This movie sounds like the opposite of Duck Soup.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Bravest thing I've seen in a while...

    by The Nihilist

    ...not the movie (though that's brave too), no. Dr. Hfuhruhurr's review, now THAT was brave. To actually say an encouraging word about this movie in this den of socialist wankers who live to log on to this and other lefty sites (when they can remember their password, that is, "glaucoma medicine" tends to mess with short term memory) and spew a bunch of leftard hate speech. You've got some big hanging ones yourself, Doc, to post that review on this site of socialist ignorance. Good one on ya.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Ummmm, have you ever read Mark Twain or Jonathon Swift?

    by rbatty024

    Sure, they're scathing, but they also can't be easily fit into a political ideology. Twain could simultaneously praise democracy while fearing the stupidity of the masses would ruin the country. Swift similarly defended the downtrodden but was also even more skeptical of Democracy. Their political leanings aren't as obvious as this film. Please don't make the comparison and next time know what you're talking about.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:22 a.m. CST

    Just a tip:

    by Thick McRunFast

    If you still use the word "socialist" with a straight face, you're an idiot. You're welcome.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:30 a.m. CST

    My problem with this review is less about the politics...

    by rbatty024

    than about how he mis-characterizes certain works of art. I've already mentioned Twain and Swift, and several others have pointed out that Duck Soup is off the mark. <p> I'm not sure this guy really understands political art. Chinua Achebe once wrote something along the lines of the following: unless you are willing to criticize your own political leanings as well as the opposition's, then you're not making art you are making propaganda. That's why the Daily Show can spend a week destroying the Democrats and then a week destroying the Republicans. They might choose one side over the other but they realize that both need to be mocked.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Chamberlain Shining Shoes

    by jacksparness

    OK, we can all agree that appeasement was a bad idea. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the US were isolationist at that point and Chamberlain was doing what he felt was right for his people - they didn't want another war in which their sons and fathers were killed all over again. Wow, i'm slightly offended by that! I'm more patriotic about ol' blighty than I thought!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:41 a.m. CST

    I honestly can't tell if the

    by comedian_x

    reviewer is using hyperbole to stir debate or is really that dumb. Calling yourself a "Reaganite Republican" doesn't win you any points -- people from his administration were the architects of the neo-conservative movement -- they are one in the same.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:43 a.m. CST

    rbatty024

    by GetEveryone

    As I read your comment I was literally looking to my copy of Things Fall Apart at the side of my desk. It certainly conveys a similar idea to the one you spoke of.<BR><BR>While I don't quite agree with the Empire blog which suggests this may be the worstmovie ever, it certainly looks piss-poor.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:45 a.m. CST

    The only one I hear laughing is Michael Moore

    by No Respectable Gentleman

    He'll get a lot of mileage out of this straight-to-the-time-capsule garbage.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Dead Iraq civilians: 94,781

    by TheBloop

    And about 95% of the number comes at the hands of other iraqis, or jihadists from other muslim countries. Why the hell do you think the Sunnis turned against the foreign terrorists? Because they were tired of the kids getting blown up purpose as candy was being handed out to them, or their neighbors getting beheaded for driving a truck full of food.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:54 a.m. CST

    The ads reminded me of "Postal"

    by tonagan

    Why, I'm not sure, but I got the same vibe.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:08 a.m. CST

    Funny

    by CloseLight

    Okay sounds decently funny up until the 9/11 scene. Because mass murder of civilians is so funny. Oh wait he's trying to make a point so its not suppose to be funny? I guess in Airplane when there was that serious part...wait no that never happened. Or in Naked Gun when all those people died...nope didn't happen either. So its a bunch of slap stick comedy up until we get hit with the crowbar that is 9/11. That will crash like a lead balloon. You want to make a comedy about left, killing a few left scared cows (what ever the hell that means) fine. But then shifting gears and trying to instill a serious pause is not going to work.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Is Their a Market for Such an Overtly Republican Film?

    by kevinwillis.net

    I dunno. I doubt it. But I'm going to see it.<Br><Br> "Kevin 'Hercules' Sorbo plays an acclaimed feature director who wins an Oscar for his film, 'That McCarthy Sure Was Bad' which I believe Participant Media is actually making as we speak."<Br><Br> I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that. Damn, I want to see this movie. I might be the only one in the theater, but I'm going to see it.<br><Br>I'm a rock-ribbed Republican. I loved Airplane! and Top Secret! and "Police Squad" was great . . . I liked the look of the trailer. I'm betting I'll get my money's worth out of this movie. I may be the only one, but I'll be there.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Taking 9/11 Seriously in a Funny Movie

    by kevinwillis.net

    Doesn't sound like such a bad thing. To some degree, I agree with some of the libs that say we need to "get over it". While I don't think we should forget, I think there comes a time where we should be able to review it and discuss it in different contexts, not all of them grave and solemn. I think it would be hard to make a 9/11 Comedy, but treating it peripherally or having it as a serious moment in a slapstick comedy is not inherently a bad idea. Might not work in the movie, but I don't think it's inherently a bad idea.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:21 a.m. CST

    "We're scaring all the old folks!"

    by Zarles

    Dude, you ARE all the old folks. This review read like somebody's Dad crashing his kids' slumber party to tell everyone how cool he still thinks Howdy Doody is.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:24 a.m. CST

    kevinwillis.net

    by CloseLight

    Yeah because there are so many Pearl Harbor comedies out there (NOT a Michael Bay references). You can go with 1941 I guess, and that came out 40 some years later. It not a matter of getting over it, its just isn't funny no matter how you juggle it. And it will stick out like a sore thumb in this movie.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Good point, Get Everyone.

    by rbatty024

    Achebe didn't need to portray African culture as a perfect utopia in order to criticize European imperialism. Okonkwo was a severely flawed main character, but he was more interesting because of it. Art shouldn't dumb its subject down, it should make them even more complex.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:37 a.m. CST

    I plan on seeing this.

    by cripeman

    Even though the reviewer seems to have seething hatred for liberals. <P> He doesn't sling shit to suppress points of view. He seems to do it cause he wants to be a prick.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:54 a.m. CST

    9/11

    by Jerri Blank

    A serious visit to ground zero in a comedy? Um...O.K. And Zucker does know that all of the hijackers on that day were from Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, right?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Wow...

    by petewitham

    You're really into balls.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:58 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure that Michael Bay...

    by gorydon

    Mel Gibson, and Chris Nolan are making films for the conservative crowd nowadays. And even though Hollywood releases a new anti-war/anti-right movie every couple of months, they never do well at the box office and they really haven't been winning Oscars either.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:03 a.m. CST

    So instead of having a go at the British

    by elab49

    does Patton also visit the millions upon millions of Americans who were vehemently against going to war and made sure the US didn't bother helping anyone, including itself, till it was too late to do anything else? Because it was someone else's problem? Because they didn't care about right or wrong and the presence of evil in the world as long as it wasn't on their front door? Does it make clear WHEN that idiot Chamberlain screwed up? Or is it just another piece of dumb revisionism.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:12 a.m. CST

    the right does NOT know comedy

    by brassai2003

    Look, this movie will play well to the Git 'er Done masses but flop everywhere else. Why? because the right just can't get comedy down with out being in your face over the head mocking of something. Fox tried, and failed miserably, to do a "Daily Show" and all it was obvious put downs with no nuiance and just dumb. Like their comedy. hahaha! Some Ay-rab stands up and yells "mohammed" and all these other Ay-rabs stand up! bwahhahah. Y'all see that? And then them liberals want to git rid of the Fourth of July! Ain't it the truth? bwhahahah...Michael Moore's fat! Hells Yeah! For more proof fo this you only need to listen to Sarah Palin's speech. NO DIGNITY. NO GRACE. Just bwahaha sarcasm. Maggie Thatcher had grace and eloquence and she was more far right than palin. I love Zucker, but sorry, this looks way beneath him.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST

    PS

    by brassai2003

    Slavery was a economic burden on the South. It would have been gone away naturally. But any excuse for white trash to get a laugh at the blacks expense... "Oh yeah, but Zucker's a DEMOCRAT" doesn't make it right though.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Does Michael Moore make Republicans that angry?

    by speed

    Do republicans sit at home and just seeth? Because that what it seems like this movie is all about. Cashing in on the absolute hatred for a single man who seems to have got the goat of the entire conservative fanbase. <P> it will be interesting to see how well this film does to be honest. I bet you fox network hawks this film like a motherfucker. is it a fox production?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:19 a.m. CST

    gorydon

    by waldo

    You are right about Michael Bay and Mel Gibson giving the neo-cons what they want, but I don't see Nolan that way. I don't think The Dark Knight is conservative, if anything, It's more of a cautionary tale on the abuse of power, even when It is done with good intentions.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:24 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty sure Michael Moore helped Bush...

    by gorydon

    Win his second term. Who else could get the base united so strongly?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:31 a.m. CST

    FINALLY!

    by Alucinor

    I've thought this for years and as I was reading this, mouth agape, I was thinking: somebody actually sounds like a genuine human being when they are reviewing a movie based on politics! Everything this man says sounds well thought out, intelligent, and completely true. It makes me embarrassed for Democrats! Conservative movies are basically non existent today and god forbid when one is trying to be made, it gets shit all over before it even comes out. You can't even admit to being a conservative without 50 people either talking irrational shit to you, or thinking you are the devil! These people don't even know why they are mad! Like they have some stigma that says all Republicans are evil people because Bush is evil, but they don't even know why Bush is evil. I don't even think most Democrats these days know the history of their party of why they vote Democrat! I am in college and see the Liberal bias in 90% of all my classes. It exists. They teach you that war in every form is bad and that World War I and II were both entered by America for Greed. I am not joking! It's about time someone actually started voicing the opposite opinion for once in Hollywood and I can't agree more about the hypocritical nature of this attitude about the opposite point of view. There is a reason Fahrenheit 9/11 is over 90% on Rottentomatoes and if I was to make a documentary about 9/11 from a Conservative perspective and show it only to a room full of Republicans, I'd probably get the same reaction.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Waldo...

    by gorydon

    I agree about the abuse of power. But they're so many similarities with our current situation and the Dark Knight just to think it was an accident. Batman goes after a terrorist (Joker) and in the end everyone ends up hating him for doing it (He takes the blame to save Dents reputation/legacy). He even wiretaps the city, for a time, and goes into a foreign country and extracts a criminal. It seems like Nolan is saying Batman, like Bush, is a necessary evil. We expect him to save our asses if any shit goes down but at the same time we despise the man and can blame him to appease our sense of justice. I don't know. For the record I'm not a Bush supporter.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:45 a.m. CST

    Socialist appeasers?

    by kafka07

    Socialist and liberal these days have taken on different meanings and you really can't equate the two anymore. I don't know about socialist appeasers in the donkey party; all socialists I've known refuse to associate themselves with either of the two major parties. And are there really lefty bloggers out there saying “How dare David Zucker make this film!?” It's hard for me to believe that any lefty would feel threatened by it. Most leftists believe in freedom of speech anyway. As for Hollywood being some kind of liberal status quo, nobody there spoke out against the war for years except Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and they were often attacked and slandered for it. There are gaps in Hfuhruhurr's understanding of the social and political atmosphere in this country. I guess I'll give him some credit for not being a raving mad neocon. As for scaring all the old folks, are you sure you want to do that? Most of the attendees, including McCain, at the RNC this week have been old white people. Hfuhruhurr is more suited to be a Reagan than a Brando. Much like the thousands of anti-war protesters on the streets of St.Paul this week, Marlon Brando clamored and marched for social justice and civil rights.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Gorydon...

    by DivisionPost

    That's an interesting theory, actually. But where do you think Harvey Dent fits in this analogy? Still working on that?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Is Their a Market for Such an Overtly Republican Film?

    by Neo Con Snake Plissken

    Yes, proven by films like "The Dark Knight", "300", "The Transformers" and "National Treasure". These films are not Republican though. They are traditionally American Conservative in Philosophy… …and they made a shit load of money, which means that people seemed to like them. On the other hand, Films such as "Redacted", "Lions for Lambs", "Stop Loss" and "War, Inc.", along with many other movies of the same philosophy, made no money. Why? Because at least 60% of the country realizes that Socialism (or Liberalism, if your prefer) doesn't work and we reject it. So, whine, scream, and yell all you want. You’re still going to loose in November. Oh, and Film Springfield… Mr. “Being pro-war puts you on Hitler's side, not against him.” And “Every other country abolished slavery without a war. The US could have too.” I’ve read some really ridiculous statements on this site, but yours takes the cake. Congratulations on being an uneducated troglodyte. Oh wait, that would be an insult to uneducated troglodytes.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:52 a.m. CST

    The film looks like utter crap.

    by The Gospel According to Bastardface

    And Republicans can't lampoon liberalism, because the jokes falls back on them. Common sense prevails with what's funny and what's not and this movie won't work as it doesn't get it. Besides poking fun at Michael Moore is as safe as poking fun at Bush. There is NOTHING about this movie that is ballsy. It's just stupid. And not funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Jerri Blank

    by Alucinor

    You know, it's very possible that a lot of these terrorists were taken out covertly. Fuck, isn't it possible Bin Laden is already dead and we just don't want to make the ass hole a martyr? Has it even been confirmed he's still alive? The Government gets all this shit for homeland security and all that but there hasn't been another terrorist attack in America since 9/11. Isn't that a good thing? Maybe if some environmentalists would let us drill for oil in certain arctic places, we wouldn't have to obtain it elsewhere. I'm sorry America is a great place that depends on oil for the meantime so that people like farmers can actually work and provide everyone with the enormous amount of food we all enjoy. We take a lot of shit as Americans from the rest of the world but if you look at what kind of archaic bullshit is going on all over the globe, maybe they should shut the fuck up. Until they need us to help them again and then it's: "America! We love you!"

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    One criticism of Dr. Hfuhruhurr's review

    by chrth

    He goes into the review with the attitude that he's going to be attacked for it, and thus writes a review that defends itself before an attack even happens. That's a poor tactic. He'd have been better off doing his review, discussing the storyline and praising Zucker's "balls", and then have a defense ready if needed (which could've been tacked on to the end of the essay with an UPDATED notice later), or defend in talkback. The way it's written now just does not communicate effectively why the movie is worth seeing (having balls is not a justification for paying money to see a movie). Championing Free Speech only gets you to the point where you're not outside the theatre protesting; it doesn't get you into the theatre itself. Dr. Hfuhruhurr should've spent more time on that.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST

    At the same time in TDK there is the allegorical...

    by rbatty024

    ferry situation. Should we sacrifice a bunch of criminals to save regular citizens? This appears to be an allegory for Guantanamo Bay. The film appears to be saying that even if all of those who are locked are guilty (and there's some debate about that) then they still deserve basic human rights (i.e. no torture and habeas corpus). <p> Also, remember when the Joker says that no one cares when a truckload of military men are blown up so long as it's not them? Think about how many conservatives claim we haven't been attacked since 9/11 when our soldiers are facing attacks daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's acceptable to sacrifice soldier's lives so long as it not ours. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. All of these deaths would have been preventable if the majority of Americans believed that the life of a soldier and the life of an Iraqi are of equal worth to their own. <p> Sure, there are moments when the film is problematic, but I think the majority of the movie supports a liberal point of view. After all, Batman concedes that Dent was the better man because he was capable of fighting evil within the system.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:57 a.m. CST

    We have been attacked on U.S. soil since 9/11.

    by rbatty024

    It was the anthrax attack. You may have heard of it. It may not have been at the hands of Muslim extremists, but it was still a terrorist. Besides, it would have been one hundred percent preventable if Bush was competent and increased security over our own bio-weapons.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9 a.m. CST

    rbatty024: That's a silly thing to say

    by chrth

    One could easily say that if Clinton had been competent and increased security over our own bio-weapons, Bush wouldn't have had to worry about it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Also, liberals and war.

    by rbatty024

    Liberals are the only ones who can competently fight war when needed. I'm not a pacifist, but I think most wars are unnecessary. However, we would have been screwed if a conservative like Hoover was still in office at the offset of WWII and remember that the Civil War was about the more liberal North kicking the shit out of the conservative South (remember, the war was in part about civil rights). <p> Thank God a conservative wasn't in office during those two moments in history or else the U.S. would have been screwed.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Dent's endorsement of the Dictator makes him more

    by chrth

    right-leaning than left-leaning. In Roman times, often the Dictator would be appointed by the aristocratic classes when the populist classes were having issues. Don't recall all the incidences off the top of my head, but I believe a Dictator was appointed in Roman Republic times more often due to domestic issues than foreign military issues.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:06 a.m. CST

    rbatty024: That's an even sillier thing to say

    by chrth

    The Civil War part, not the WWII part (you may be right there). Lincoln was definitely more conservative than Douglas. Emancipation was a secondary issue for Lincoln at the onset of the War; Unionism was his first priority. I recommend reading Battle Cry of Freedom, it's the best book I've found for the period leading up to the Civil War.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Kafka07...

    by DivisionPost

    I believe it, actually. Look, I fall to the left in politics, enough that I'm rabidly against McCain in the general. However, I totally believe that there are crazies on both sides. For every sane, rational, friendly liberal out there, there's a Daily KOS, a Participant Media, a Michael Moore, or a Charlie Sheen (not that I'm calling out the former two as 9/11 Truthers). Same with conservatives. There are sane, cool conservative-leaning fellas like Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stallone, Dennis Miller, and even (from what little I know) Shepard Smith. And then there's Bill O'Reilly, who seems like a nice enough guy until you get him started on facts. In every war (so to speak), there are heroes and villains on both sides. By the way, I'm in full support of this movie. I'm not sure if I'm gonna laugh that much, but the good Doctor's right. It's a liberal Hollywood, and while I don't doubt that a change needs to come, Republicans and conservatives can make some interesting counterpoints to our own arguments and it's good to see somebody try to come out for that side. If the movie isn't one bald-faced lie after another (which, as this past Nazi rally/Republican Convention has shown, is right out of the neo-con playbook), I'll cheer for it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    A CYA review?

    by BigSteve03

    Everyone know's that this is a pretty far left site, and the cynic in me thinks this review was posted first, just so that when all the other contributers here lambast this movie with so much cringe worthy hate, they can say "look we posted one positive review, so we're showing both sides"

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:08 a.m. CST

    The word "evil"

    by kafka07

    Alucinor, I've noticed something about the use of the word evil in this country, especially the political use of it, and it's that republicans are the only ones that use it. Now please don't go and say that I'm an ignorant insensitive democrat because I'm not even a democrat and definitely not a liberal. I think the use of the word evil oversimplifies the horrors and the suffering that go on in this world. I believe the lack of understanding that comes with the "evil" mentality makes bad situations in this world a lot worse. Even religious leaders in this country have criticized the political use of the word. It is not a word to be thrown about. Contrary to what you said, I do not believe you are the devil, because I don't believe in the devil. I do however perfectly know of all the reasons why I believe Bush is a war criminal and should be impeached according to our country's constitution; and of the many other broken laws and crimes against humanity (electoral fraud and hurricane Katrina anyone?) his administration has blatantly committed.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:13 a.m. CST

    RE: My Last Post

    by DivisionPost

    Yeah, Michael Moore is a 9/11 Truther. His next film will mark his second trip to the fiction well (after Canadian Bacon), and it will be a biopic on Dylan Avery. <p>Yeah, of course, I meant to distance Charlie Sheen from everybody else. I just added to my list and forgot to change the number. Sorry about that.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Chrth...

    by rbatty024

    As far as TDK, I'm not saying that both sides aren't presented (that's why it's a fun film to discuss), but I do believe there are probably more liberal sentiments in that film than conservative. Sure, Batman is treated like a necessary evil, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement and it is hardly suggesting that someone like Batman should exist within our government. <p> As far as Clinton, he wasn't president when 3,000 civilians were killed on U.S. soil. When that happened Bush should have realized we needed to keep a tighter lid on our own weapons. He didn't and thus more people died because of terrorism even after 9/11. <p> Besides, Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda long before Bush lifted a finger to stop them. He bombed their training camps and worked with other countries to try and get Bin Laden. Bush didn't do anything in his first year in office to keep the pressure against Al Qaeda, even when he was given a memo stating that Bin Laden planned on attacking within the U.S. and was warned by Richard Clarke. As I've noted before, Bush deserves some blame for not preventing 9/11. He is a truly incompetent president.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:15 a.m. CST

    'that republicans are the only ones that use it'

    by chrth

    So when the DU and Kos call Bush 'Hitler', they're talking about his artistic skill?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:18 a.m. CST

    rbatty024: You're missing my point

    by chrth

    "Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda long before Bush lifted a finger to stop them" <-- See, right there you're causing issues. One could argue that Clinton obviously didn't do enough otherwise 9/11 couldn't have come close to happening.<p> The problem is that there are arguments for both sides of the responsibility/blame game. The intelligent thing to do is not to try to blame either because doing so just opens up fruitless debate. The facts are easily spun either way, and therefore, not worth disputing. That was what I was trying to say.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:19 a.m. CST

    chrth...

    by DivisionPost

    Clearly they're referring to what an evocative writer he is.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Dammit, I tagged my own post

    by chrth

    Crap, my point was, the facts can easily be spun both ways. Assigning blame to either Bush or Clinton just causes an argument with no possible resolution, so it's pointless to do so.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    rbatty024

    by Alucinor

    Fighting within the system can be taken both ways politically... you can either be a fuck the system leftist revolutionary, or a right wing vigilante. I suppose it depends on the circumstance. I don't think The Dark Knight was intended to have any politics in mind... it's just about wanting to see the good guy who doesn't break the law win... which we see is damn near impossible. As for soldiers dying in Iraq... they signed up willingly. Soldiers make it so that terrorist attacks don't happen. I'm not just talking about soldiers in Iraq. A firemen doesn't complain about how dangerous his job is... he knew when he signed up he was going to be running into fires! We aren't sacrificing anyone's life... THE SOLDIERS SACRIFICE THEIR OWN LIVES! This is what makes them heroes! Our soldiers do not murder innocent civilians for the hell of it. The enemy has made it impossible to differentiate them from the civilians. While there may be isolated incidents, this is not the purpose of the American Armed Forces. Why does nobody talk shit about the terrorists for using such dirty, inhumane tactics and instead focus on the soldiers forced to defend themselves. We are in a war... you can either agree or disagree but they are our enemy. We are trying to make Iraq Democratic so that this inhumane bullshit will stop and that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the rest of the world can modernize on their own and stop this childish nonsense. If Iraq needs a kick in the ass to get it's act together, so be it. If I learned anything from Star Trek, it's that technology and modernization stops hunger and brings peace. Just because you become a modern society, it doesn't mean you have to forget about the past. Picard and Kirk sure as fuck didn't. They even disobeyed the prime directive when they had to!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:26 a.m. CST

    "If I learned anything from Star Trek"

    by chrth

    Sometimes I love this board, and sometimes it drives me insane.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:26 a.m. CST

    I respect your opinion, sir

    by Magic Rat

    but if this movie isn't funny, the satire will just come across as whining, and nothing in the trailer (save for the self-praise banner of Zucker) made me laugh. <br> <br> I have a feeling this will the celluloid equivilent of a political convention - a chance for one side to yuck it up with angry barbs that only their group will find funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Will There be a PMRC label on this movie?

    by Guy Gaduois

    Damnable censoring conservatives!! <p> What? <p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Civil War

    by Sam_Keith_Wannabe

    So he compares the American Civil War to the war in Iraq? LOL That's gonna be well received.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Chrth, no I understand your point...

    by rbatty024

    but when Clinton was fighting terrorism it was an overseas threat to our troops stationed overseas. That doesn't mean you don't protect the homeland (a strong but competent offense is often a good defense) It was only through Bush's incompetence that it became much more of a homeland problem. Who has more of a duty to protect against homeland terrorism: the president who has successfully kept Al Qaeda from a homeland attack or the one has suffered a homeland attack? 9/11 did change certain things, but unfortunately Bush didn't understand what those changes were and thus dragged his feet when protecting U.S. citizens. <p> This comes down to what is foreseeable. It was less foreseeable for Clinton that years after he left office someone would use our own bioweapons to attack U.S. citizens, but for Bush this was readily foreseeable because we had just suffered a terrible U.S. attack.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Why so serious

    by batjac

    Clearly they had to cover up that Harvey Dent was Two Face in order to give Gotham hope. It was the right choice for Batman. Wrong talk back?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:38 a.m. CST

    kafka07

    by Alucinor

    I promise I won't start name calling. Calling the terrorists evil just makes it easier to see them as the bad guys... I for one do see them as evil. I also see serial killers as evil. I have seen movies trying to humanize terrorists by explaining how they got to be that way... fine. You can say that about a serial killer or a gang member or anyone else that murders people. That doesn't change the fact that they kill people. If their country would develop itself and have a stable government, maybe kids would have an alternative to blowing themselves up for God... like an education? Shows like The Wire, which I like by the way, try to show that the city is fucked up and force the kids into this lifestyle. I get that... but there are just too many characters on the show that have the ability to get the fuck out of Baltimore and have an actual life, but for either pride, greed, or just plain lazyness, they stay. Can't these people get 4 friends together, take a car across country, or even a bus, all get jobs at Mcdonalds, and live in a condo or an apartment somewhere violence free? Even Omar was living it up before he had to go back for revenge and get himself killed. I don't believe that people are trapped anywhere in a modern society.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:39 a.m. CST

    ZOMG Politics!!!

    by Sam_Keith_Wannabe

    Last time I checked this was just a movie. From the sounds of it, it's not going to be a very good movie either. Why are you numb nuts arguing about whether liberals or conservatives are better people. You both suck in my opinion. Go to a political blog to have your pissing contest and let people who are interested in movies talk.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST

    isn't THIS MOVIE "a hissy fit about Fahrenheit 9-11"?

    by Vern

    I still don't get why right wingers are so hung up on Michael Moore. A fuckin documentary director is your boogie man? Most of my lefty friends hate him too. He only makes one movie every couple years and his last one was about fucking health care. Yet they fear him crawling out from under their beds and forcing them to gay marry. It's bizarre.<p> Also, this movie sounds ridiculously terrible, but I feel bad for Dr. H having to defend the very existence of it. Of course Republicans should be allowed to have their politics in movies, whether they are crappy or not. It was indeed ballsy for him to make a POSTAL type independent movie instead of his usual type of garbage. Of course, part of the ballsiness is the understanding that he will have to accept criticism of the points he makes, so we also can't pretend that any criticism of the movie is censorship or some shit.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Fireproof-'Libs have no idea what conservatives are like'

    by Richard Cranium

    There are certainly some on the left who see all Conservatives as ak-47 toting rednecks, or corrupt asshole businessmen. There are also some on the right who see all on the left as whiny hippie douchebags or people skimming off the welfare system. The people who make these stereotypes about those on the other side are one in the same. So way to fall into your own stereotype there, pal.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:52 a.m. CST

    chrth

    by Alucinor

    What's wrong with Star Trek? Too nerdy for a guy posting on a movie site? Star Trek is more relevant than any other reference I could possibly make considering the technical accomplishments in the real world that have been made because of its inspiration. Star Trek is genius because it envisions a future that is apolitical. Whatever your political viewpoint, it doesn't matter when you watch the show. They make decisions based on logic and sometimes human irrationality, but it's always an explanation that is smart, and debated. Star Trek is the future we all want to happen regardless of politics. If you are going to act like you are in 3rd grade and snicker when someone mentions Star Trek, then I ask: why are you posting on a site with the rest of us nerds debating this issue... why do you care?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:52 a.m. CST

    An outsiders view

    by Papa Lazaru

    As one of what I presume to be thousands of non US citizens who use this site. I can honestly say I don't really give a shit about American politics. Policies , perhaps , but politics and parties , not really . As such I can watch the trailer purely as a film fan and nothing else, and guess what . It aint funny . Plain and simple . Regardless of what side of the divide you sit on , you cant honestly say this looks funny . Funny shouldn't have to be explained , or rely on some assumptions on your political persuasions. Funny is funny. This , from what I have seen , is not . Thank you and goodnight .

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:55 a.m. CST

    South Park..

    by GravitysRainbow

    doesnt just stick to one side. they nail everyone

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Vern

    by Alucinor

    I do hate Michael Moore... but I don't think he's the Boogie man. He's just the best example of the stereotypical Liberal that most conservatives are trying to say isn't a good thing. Liberals always mention Bush or Bill o' Reilly when they talk about stereotypical conservatives so I guess it goes both ways.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10 a.m. CST

    Alucinor: You read my comment wrong

    by chrth

    Re-read it, placing equal emphasis on both parts

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Both Vietnam and Somalia were a group effort.

    by rbatty024

    Both conservatives and liberals really screwed those two up. The point I was trying to make was that despite Republicans talking tough, they do not have a monopoly on patriotism through warfare. It was the dems who kicked the shit out of Hitler. <p> If it makes you feel any better, it was smart of Bush the first to not enter Baghdad and destabilize the country. I disagreed with him on many, many issues, but at least he wasn't as wholesale incompetent as his son.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:08 a.m. CST

    chrth

    by Alucinor

    I was assuming my talking about Star Trek was driving you insane. I apologize. You're not going to make me kiss your ass like Jesse Jackson are you? Yaaaa Apologiiize.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Clinton and bin Laden

    by obidawsn

    rbatty, How can you say that Clinton was on the offensive against Al Qaeda? It is well known that he was told that bin Laden was planning an attack on the United States. They had footage of Al Qaeda training. They knew where he was and what he was up to. But when they asked him if we should go get him he refused. The only thing he was trying to save was his own political career. If he had went to war with al Qaeda, then he would have been looked at the same as Bush is now. He knew that, and that is why he refused to do anything about it. That's the Democrat way. "Let's give the people what they want instead of what is actually needed". Nobody wanted to go to war, even if it was needed, so we didn't. As for the Anthrax attacks being years after Clinton. You must remember that Bush did not take office until 2001 which was the same year as 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Bush didn't really have much time to do anything before it happened. These things weren't planned overnight. They were planned over years, thus more than likely during the Clinton administration.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Vern...

    by Sparhawk38

    Is correct. I would be Democrat if labels really described the party. I don't think Republicans are generally Republican or that Democrats are generally Democrats, although there representatives of those ideals in each party. The thing that is frustrating is how "Pro-Wrestling" it is. All kinds of rhetoric and very little action. Real republicans are for more local control and less government, yet that has never happened in a Republican led government in my lifetime. Both parties really do about the same things when they get into office. I am more liberal than conservative, but regarding this movie I only care if it is funny or well made or entertaining or both.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:19 a.m. CST

    They weren't only pulled out by Clinton.

    by rbatty024

    There was a massive Republican effort criticizing Somalia. They claimed it was nation building (where was that criticism before the Iraq war). <p> Obidawsn, Clinton never knew where Bin Laden was and he never called off an attack on Bin Laden. These are fabricated incidents they used in that Path to 9/11 made for tv film, not historical incidents. Richard Clarke himself, who was working at the CIA, said that the incident depicted in the movie never happened. For some people lots of people take this fictional story as fact.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:28 a.m. CST

    VERN...

    by TheMovieLover

    The problem isn't that ANY criticism is censorship, it's that a handful of them, possibly the majority, borderline on it. Now while they may not be taking active steps to get the movie banned or to get the review pulled, a lot of the crazy, left-wingers sure do try their hardest to shut the opposition up. The fact of the matter is, itt's a vicious circle. Everyone is saying things that the other side doesn't want to hear, and the other side is always retaliating, then the first side is saying that the other side is being oppressive. Politics is all one big headache that will never stop throbbing in your head...

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:43 a.m. CST

    DivisionPost

    by obidawsn

    What makes you think the Republican convention has been a bunch of lies? From what I've seen of it they are telling nothing but the truth. The Democrats have been lying and putting the blame on the Republicans. Obama has only been pulling the same Democrat way (as I stated before). He has only offered what people want to hear. The problem is he's confused on what people want to hear. That's why he flip-flops on his policies (depending on who he's talking to). That's why he will struggle with debates where his speeches aren't planned. He offers change, but as many people are finally asking, and it would be good if others would as well...what kind of change is he offering? He has nothing to offer this country, and the only reason he is where he is, today, is because Oprah pushed him into it. Though I don't agree with McCain's ads, they aren't far from the truth. Obama is an overhyped celebrity who has only gotten as far as he has because of the media's attention on him. If you want to know who's really caused all of our problems over the last several years, maybe you should look at the people who have refused to pass bills because they knew it would make Bush look like he's accomplishing something, or add something irrelevant to a much needed bill in order to get Bush to veto it, thus making him look like the bad guy, again. The Democrats have done nothing but keep this country from progressing in order to gain the White House. It's sad that our country has had to suffer over a political power play. This hasn't been about beliefs or ideals (some people even give up on their own beliefs or ideals just to appease their party), but rather one party taking control over our government. That's not to say that it doesn't happen in the Republican party, either, but currently the Democrats power play is causing us the most problems, and it seems that the majority of the party follows that ideal.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:53 a.m. CST

    rbatty

    by obidawsn

    I'm sorry, but I have never heard of the movie you speak of. The information that I gave was given out as fact in the news. They showed the footage that Clinton saw, and it was confirmed that Clinton saw it and his refusal to go in. I don't take any of my information from movies because you can't believe everything in a movie, even if it is supposed to be based on fact. It's hard to make a movie without letting bias slip in. Film is an art form, and art (at least good art) is based on our feelings, emotions, etc. How can bias not enter into that? It's just too bad that most movies, these days, are based on left-winged beliefs and ideals. I say bring on this movie. It may be heavily right-winged, but I, too, am sick of all the left-winged propaganda out there.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Do you even know what appeasement is?

    by s00p3rm4n

    Again, not insulting you. Just asking. Do any of you people even understand what the fuck appeasement is? And when Republicans have held the actual reins of actual power (Presidency and majority control of both houses of Congress) for 8 years, and most of that power for the last oh 30 or so, how the FUCK can you POSSIBLY say it's DEMOCRATS who are making your shit stink? Are you that blind? Are you that easily led astray by the pretty substitute teacher and kindly great-grandfather who cuddle you to sleep and tell you George W. Bush never existed?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:57 a.m. CST

    So is the movie's 9/11 Ground Zero visit...

    by Zeke25:17

    supposed to be Zucker's way of telling us "See? SEE? Iraq IS the right thing to do!!!"...or is it simply meant to convey that sometimes, through history, wars must be fought? Much as I liked the movie "Patton", you gotta figure that anyone who seriously believes that "next to war, all of man's endeavors pale into insignificance" is a raving lunatic, whether or not he's played by George C. Scott (who, by the way, was about as anti-Patton as you could get: just shows you what good acting is). I admit that American Carol sounds interesting, in that it's not more of the same ole pap that passes for movies today...but then, neither is "Postal", which someone else mentioned above....The main reason, I think, that most "far left" films don't do that well at the box office is they're too close to what's really going on; and very few people wanna see that when they plunk down twelve bucks a person at the theater. It's not necessarily that inside everyone is a raging right-wing asshole waiting to get out...it's that entertainment usually does not equal current events (unless you can get some explosions in there: see The Kingdom as an example). And if you want ballsy, check out Joe Dante's Homecoming from Masters of Horror season one--that ain't a whiny lefty wimp, that's one pissed-off director raging at the lies and stupidity of the powers that be. If Zucker wants to rage right back for his side...let him, if for no other reason than the skewering of so-called political correctness. But as much hurt and anger as we still feel for what happened in New York, most of us are smart enough to know that, apparently, our warmongering Commander-in-Chief is incapable or unwilling to go after the REAL bad guy. (Which of course gives the next hopeful Republican candidate a perfect reason for continuing the madness: anyone catch McCain saying he'd follow the amazingly elusive Bin Laden "to the edge of Hell" and then breaking into a Ralphie Parker Christmas Story smile?)

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Once upon a time

    by ArcadianDS

    If an enemy killed a single US combat soldier, we threw the entire resources of our national defenses at him, and if he was still breathing life when we were done, we'd take a deep breath and throw it again. In Somalia, they killed our soldiers, stripped them nude, and dragged their dead naked bodies down the street while onlookiers kicked and hit them with sticks. The reaction of every soldier in our militar forces was, "Somebody has to pay for that." The response: Clinton calls everyone out of Somalia and says to the Somali people, "we gotta go now. Best of luck!"<p> The people were massacred. Our military was shamed on the world's stage. The talk on the street was not, "wow don't mess with the US" but "kill a few of them, and they'll run home." So the mission statement for every fringe lunatic warlord became, "kill a few US soldiers."<p> Lets say some guy breaks into your house tonight. He kills your kids, rapes your wife, and steals your HDTV and Xbox 360. You get a good look at him - he's your next door neighbor. You call Obama for advice, and what does Obama say?<p>"I think both of you can share equally in the blame here. Invite him over to dinner and talk. Get to know him. Find out what you have in common."<p> You hang up and call McCain. He says, "I would call the police."<p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11 a.m. CST

    Can I make a motion?

    by petewitham

    I move that "Flip Flop" and "Flip Flopper" be removed from the lexicon of political discourse. It's a meaningless term made up to demonize a political opponent to people who are ignorant of the actual political process. Plus... it just sounds gay.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:01 a.m. CST

    All those jerkoffs saying there hasn't been an attack...

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    ...on American soil since 9/11 need to take their head out of their ass. For the same reason we consider an American embassy in another country as U.S. soil, so should we view an American base on foreign soil. The U.S. base in Baghdad has been mortared repeatedly, resulting in American deaths. So we have been attacked and both soldiers and civilians have died.<p>Honestly, why would our enemies waste time scheming to kill American civilians in America, when they have a lot less distance to travel and fewer obstacles to overcome killing American soldiers in Iraq? Who's going to walk across the street and ask their neighbors if they can use their bathroom when they have two perfectly suitable toilets in their own house?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:01 a.m. CST

    The trailer wasn't funny...

    by Theta

    I think there's definitely rich fodder for sending up the left. But the trailer just came off as shrill and the jokes weren't quite there. I'd almost rather Zucker made a movie that was genuinely pissed, than trying to hide that anger with being funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Oh and can we also admit...

    by s00p3rm4n

    Can we also admit that shitty, shitty movies like this, and Elah, and Rendition, and Stop-Loss, all contribute to the dumbing-down and coarsening of our political discussion? Republicans have masterminded (brilliantly so) the vocabulary we use to talk about political issues - pro-"life," "appeasers," "socialists," "elite." There's a difference between telling you you're fucking wrong, and not letting you speak in the first place (or drowning you out with chants of "USA! USA!" which is the most antithetical ironic fascist move I've seen in some time). I can't imagine a movie this shitty actually putting forward legitimate, intellectual (because running a country ought to require some thought for once) arguments. The straw-men and rhetorical games of "elitism" and "socialism" won't make the case for neoconservative Christianism any less out of touch with what the majority of Americans, Christians, and thoughtful conservatives actually need/want from their lives. But no, it's easier to attack Michael Moore and Muslims.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:05 a.m. CST

    corran5150

    by obidawsn

    You make a good point about soldiers being pulled out of a situation and feeling like they are losers. It's the way I feel about the Iraq war. I know people who have been there, and they will tell you that we need to be there. What you hear in the media about Iraq isn't exactly true. (and before you use that statement to deter what I said previously, the story I mentioned before was a story of fact not opinion, which is what I'm talking about here). What most people need to realize is that we aren't fighting the same war we went over there to fight. We won the war against Iraq. That war is over. But now we are fighting terrorist and insurgents. We are fighting to keep Iraq safe. If we weren't fighting them there, then we would just be fighting them elsewhere (our own land, maybe?). Many of our soldiers believe in why they are there. They see it first hand. If you pull them out, now, before the mission is accomplished, then they will feel that all that loss of lives would be for nothing. If it was a sure thing that it was a lost cause, then the consideration would have to come that we don't need to lose any more lives for nothing. But, as we have seen, it hasn't been for nothing. Just the other day our military forces handed the Anbar province over to Iraq control. Anbar was once believed to be lost (mostly by the Democrats). It was the center of the Sunni insurgency, and where over a quarter of our troops have died. When we handed the province over, our soldiers were able to march in the parade without helmets or guns because they had made it secure. The Iraqi government now owns 11 of the 18 provinces. We are winning, but hardly anyone is talking about it. And if we pull out now, what will happen? In any war, you do not make such progress then just back out. You complete the mission, which is making Iraq completely secure. Even Obama is having to admit this, now. That's why he is backpeddling on his timeline on getting the troops out. I say if you want to support the troops, don't let the loss of our soldiers be for nothing. Complete the mission.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:06 a.m. CST

    ArcadianDS

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    You're a total piece of garbage. Complete human filth.<p>I agree that pulling out of Somalia was a huge mistake and that Clinton is a douchebag, but if you're going mention his tremendous error, I'd appreciate it if you mentioned that Reagan did the same thing in Lebanon.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:08 a.m. CST

    But obidawsn...

    by Zeke25:17

    Wasn't the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED already? Or did we misunderestimate the W?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Thank you Kalon Reza

    by Xandar1977

    for that insightful and intelligent addition to this talkback.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Hawaiian Organ Donor

    by Alucinor

    "Honestly, why would our enemies waste time scheming to kill American civilians in America, when they have a lot less distance to travel and fewer obstacles to overcome killing American soldiers in Iraq?" Because killing civilians in America is a lot more shocking than killing a soldier in their own country. Their goal is to fuck with us and disrupt us and make us fear them... that's why we call them TERRORISTS. If terrorists went for the easy way then they would have flown planes into Big Ben or some tall building closer to them.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:18 a.m. CST

    s00p3rm4n

    by Alucinor

    You haven't seen the movie yet? How the hell do you know it's shitty?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:18 a.m. CST

    THE REASON PEOPLE ARE SO SCARED OF THIS MOVIE

    by 3rdrate

    The reason people are so scared of this movie - why they are so scared of Fahrenheit 9/11, Passion of the Christ, and so on - is because they're afraid it will change people's minds while seemingly validating beliefs they don't agree with. I can't stand people who criticize a movie before they've seen it, no matter what the film (or book, or song, etc.). I think this movie looks dumb as all hell, but I couldn't imagine getting in a political debate about this until I'd seen it. The real idiots are people who think they know more than other everyone else.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:19 a.m. CST

    HOD

    by toadkillerdog

    You beat me to the punch about Lebanon. Arcadian, you are an ass. Worst of all, you are an ignorant ass who does not know history.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    Okay look...

    by lovecraftian

    I'm coming right out and admitting I lean left. I also admit that I was, at one time a fire-breathing, Hannity-loving, "Jesus loves me, not you" Republican. And having prefaced that, I can honestly say without reservation that there is unabashed bullshit on both sides... (It just stacks higher on the right... kaff..kaff... ahem) As for the free speech thing... Really? That's your arguement? "Well allow me to retort." I'm not going to see this movie, not because I'm against free speech, or won't listen to what the other guy has to say.(I saw 300.) I won't see this movie because I'm tired of the right using 9/11 as a punchline. And frankly, if they want to release it... Let'em. I don't care. But I'm not gonna drag my pals to see LIONS FOR LAMBS, which I never saw anyway, or REDACTED, which I also didn't see, or any of the other fiction pieces about American foreign policy. I'm not going to do that, because I also wouldn't call on Jews to see the PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Here's the thing about "Southpark" you missed: Matt and Trey have made it abundantly clear that if you don't like the message of something or the way it's delievered, you can turn it off, or better yet, not turn it on in the first place. But mostly, I just don't care when someone is attempting to make such a ham-fisted attempt at slamming the other side. Certainly, I enjoy a good rip on the left. I laugh every time Matt and Trey do it. Hell, I laugh when my Republican buddies (which are most of my friends) do it. But it actually has to be funny. And if the trailer is any clue, AN AMERICAN CAROL is just not. Of course, I didn't think any of the (INSERT TITLE REFERENCE) MOVIE movies were very funny. SCARY MOVIES 3&4 had moments... But other than that? Kevin Sorbo? Wasn't he in MEET THE SPARTANS? I wouldn't have even said anything had I not been offended by the idea that you think that any of the folks here that don't want to see the movie are basing their opinion purely on the movie's political slant; and therefore, they're against free speech. Give some of the fans here a bit more credit than that. Personally, I don't want to see the thing, because it's an eye-roller of a trailer. And rumors of (***SPOILER AHEAD***) Voight's clunky lines about building a career on the ashes of 3000 dead Americans doesn't inspire any confidence. I find that kind of rhetoric just bad writing.(***SPOILER FINISHED***) I'm not saying that you aren't dead-on about critics who may be offended by the mere inference that conservatism is a valid point of view. I just don't think Limbaugh-esque smarm is going to appeal to a lot of liberals as "Twainian" satire. Nor do I think condemning them as being subsequently inconsistent is a compelling arguement.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:20 a.m. CST

    A little off... Arcadian and Dr Hrufhfhur

    by trotsky37

    Get your facts straight Arcadian. We didn't leave Somalia for six months after that happened so the UN could come in. Clinton knew he could score easy political points by killing hundreds, maybe even thousands of somalians to get the perpetrators. He also knew that it would feel good getting revenge like that. But he didn't. Because a great country doesnt go throwing it's weight around the bully a fucking sandbox. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Also Obama favors bombing Pakistan in order to kill Bin Laden and Mccain doesn't. So i guess Mccain meant he would follow him to the gates of hell but not pakistan. 1) George Clooney made a movie about Joe McCarthy being bad. This may seem irrelevant (and obvious) but keep in mind that leading conservative voices such as Ann Coulter and Patrick J. Buchannan still defend "Tail Gunner" Joe to this day. And what was going in this country for a few years before "Good Night and Good Luck" came out. Ohh yeahh, people were having their patriotism questioned if they asked questions of the government or didn't give anything other than total support to our "great leader". And a triple amputee from Vietnam War veteran from Georgia named Senator Max Cleland was accused of coddling Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden and lost his senate seat as a result 2) Yes the Democrats have been taken over by the socialists. That's why they support single payer heatlh care, a 12 dollar minimum wage, an immediate pullout from iraq and afhganistan, and nationalization of major industries. For other areas of difference between the socialists and the democrats please read the socialist party platform. 3) Also as CloseLight previously pointed out on here going to the 9/11 site has no place in a comedy like this.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Seriously?

    by Alucinor

    How can you make an argument when you call someone complete human filth?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:23 a.m. CST

    What this reviewer understands about free speech

    by SuckLeTrou

    could fit on a postage stamp. I am so sick of low-information-style right-wingers misusing this concept, which they trot out at any sign of the other side's criticism of them. It is simply retarded. It is as if they have no understanding of their own beloved free market. If people want something, it gets made. Hollywood is more cynical than liberal; that's why all these so called liberal movies are failures too. People like this reviewer also have no concept of the difference between "socially liberal" (sex and violence, which everyone on the LCD loves, regardless of party,) and "politically liberal". Truly politically liberal films don't do any better at the box office than conservatives ones do, because people generally don't like that crap. Who wants to pay money to receive an ideological lecture? So a lot of stars are lefties, so what? Do you really expect artists to not be progressive? The people holding the purse-strings on the other hand, belong to the green party, as in CASH MONEY. If films like Zucker's actually made money, they would get made, end of story. A movie in a theater that people can choose to see or not see doesn't have one fucking thing to do with free speech no matter how many people hate it or why they hate it. As a libertarian, I agree with Vern; nobody likes Michael Moore, on either side of the aisle. And anybody who would position themselves as hardcore-devoted to either major political (corporate-owned) party in this country today with anything but deep, reluctant cynicism, is a complete fucking moron. This film is going to fail and it is going to suck, just as the "liberal" films do. And here's a little history lesson for you: Zucker knows as much about our founding fathers as this reviewer knows about free speech. Most of them were pioneering deists and unitarians (Including Washington, Adams, and Jefferson,) who would be completely and utterly disgusted by what the republican party (and the democratic party) have become today. And when Lincoln was a republican it was a completely different time, the party did not resemble the one that exists today at all.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Control over both houses?

    by obidawsn

    Did I miss something? Maybe you should check your facts, again. The Democrats have control over both houses. Ever since that has happened, much of what I was talking about has taken place. They wanted control in order to keep Bush from doing anything. As for the flip-flop term...I don't see anything wrong with it. It's true. If flip-flopping is how politics are supposed to be run, then no wonder our country is in the shape that it's in. Of course someone can admit they were wrong. That's not considered flip-flopping. It's when someone says they believe one way, or make promises one way, then changes that just because they are afraid of offending someone. Then they go right back to their previous statements when they're faced with opposition from that side. They just keep going back and forth on their policies...thus flip-flop. Or maybe you're just offended by the word, then come up with a better term for it. The fact is, it exists and shouldn't be ignored.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Intellectual Idiots

    by ViktorBC

    First of all this movie will get a lot of press from all the negative reviews it's going to get from the left-wing media. 90% of movie reviewers are in the print press are hippie-wanna-bes after all. I think it will moderately successful since most Americans are conservative, even though half the time they don't even realize it. Yes, I am afraid it is true. Liberals love to talk about how smart they are and how funny they are. They are very funny and very, well, analytically smart. Not very "real-world" smart if know what I mean. Some of the talk-backers here have even fooled themselves into thinking there's a difference between a modern liberal and being a socialist! I am sure after writing that someone will try to make a point by point comparison, but they're only fooling themselves. So, why are liberals usually funnier? Passion. Specifically their passion for hate. Such strong feelings can really motivate and, yes, inspire. There's a reason some of the most hateful people in history were such inspired motivators. Letterman, Colbert and Clooney are driven by their hate of those that disagree with them. So are the other lefty entertainers. Never realizing or believing that thought processes like theirs drove the creation of communist Russia and China. They complain about McCarthy (who never went after Hollywood, he was after real commies in the Government. It was congress that went after Hollywood)and then go about black listing conservatives. Just look at those "peace activists" who were rioting outside the convention this week. Liberals are funny because they are a joke. Review this talk-back and you will see how the conservatives argue points while the liberals stoop to insults and profanity.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:34 a.m. CST

    film and politics always go together

    by filmfanatic1

    from films like THE GRAPES OF WRATH to SYRIANA, political films aren't going away, and free speech won't either. If people in the industry want to speak out, go for it. This film is a who's who of the conservative Hollywood establishment: Grammer, Woods, Voight, etc. If they make a funny movie, great! I don't always agree with South Park, but sometimes they're funny. And the point you Repubs keep making is not defending the last 8 years, it's bashing history. I DARE YOU: DEFEND BUSH WITHOUT ATTACKING... GO ON, TRY!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    anchorite

    by toadkillerdog

    Hollywood has, almost from inception, been out of step with mainstream Amurrican values - or so you would be led to believe. Without a doubt, Hollywood has walked to a different, and more liberal beat. It is the nature of the business that first attracted the Jewish financiers who whose money and accumen where not welcome in mainsteam Amurrica. Then the very nature of entertainment, which has always attracted the more flamboyant, and thus has been far more accepting of the flamboyant, than mainstream Amuriica. To criticize Hollywood for being true to its roots is like saying McCain is an agent for change - whoops!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Listen to them...The Children of The Left

    by Blue_Demon

    What music they make (with their whine.)

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST

    SuckLeTrou

    by Alucinor

    Both parties have changed throughout the years... if we had a time machine then perhaps we could argue what long dead presidents would think about current political climates. I think your argument is sort of flawed because you argue that money dictates the type of movie being made... there has been movie after movie made about the Iraq War and they keep making them without being successful. If money rules all of these decisions to make the movies... why are they still being made when there is obviously not a big market for them? Granted, the box office usually does dictate what movies are being made... for some reason, movies bashing our current government and the Iraq war continue to be made in droves. Are they trying to humiliate Republicans or are they just trying to have their movie remembered since it's about a time period they know will be brought up and referenced throughout history?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:37 a.m. CST

    I got no problem with this movie being made...

    by subtlety

    Yeah, I'm a lefty, but I am absolutely defending Zucker's right to say any damn thing he wants on film. I also defend the right of anyone to make "Meet the Spartans 2". Just because someone can say it doesn't make it good. As for the movie itself, it sounds 1) Preachy and 2) obvious. Which is pretty much enough to kill any movie for me. Come on, man, its what made lefty parodies like "American Dreamz" so wretched. Up till now, at least the conservatives were not ing the business of making this sort of well-meaning but ultimately insipid crapola.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Zeke

    by obidawsn

    Maybe you should read my entire post, again. Yes, W said the war was over, mission accomplished. But that is why I said this is a different war. We finished that war. The war we are fighting in Iraq, now, has a different mission than that which we initially went there for. That mission was accomplished. We could have pulled out, right then and there. But we knew that we needed to help rebuild Iraq. It was our duty to do so. Afterwards, the insurgents and terrorists rose up and started attacking our troops and the Iraqi civilians. Like it was said before, it's easier for them to attack us there than here. That on top of the insurgents wanting control over a fallen government. That was part of the reason of staying over there, then. We needed to make sure the Iraqi government was stable and the country was secure. Yes, we made it unsecure, but such is the price of taking down a government. You may or may not agree with us taking down Saddam's government, but you would have to admit that by us taking it down, it is our responsibility to help the country afterwards. At that moment, one mission was accomplished, but another mission arose, and we were at war with another enemy. Thus this isn't the same war, even if it is in the same location. It would be no different than had we taken down Hitler and taken Germany. We stayed behind to help rebuild, but terrorist organizations and insurgents came in to fight us there. We would say mission accomplished in taken down Hitler's regime, but we would have another mission. I know that didn't happen, it's just a hypothetical example. Now you can say that we should have known that would happen and not have went in the first place. But I think the debate on our responsibilities to the rest of the world will forever exist. Even if the reasons we went over there may seem false (the validity of those reasons and the existence of WMDs can also be steered both ways depending on how you look at it), taking down someone who was torturing and killing innocent people isn't necessarily a bad thing.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Suck it, libs

    by BrowncoatJedi

    Let conservatives have one damn movie for themselves. You don't have to own everything because you think you have all the answers to save the world. Get over yourselves.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST

    see what I mean?

    by filmfanatic1

    you guys on the Right have amnesia; we had your best representative of all of your beliefs for 8 years and he blew it! DEFEND BUSH, IF YOU DARE!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST

    No one wants to suppress this film

    by dignan26

    Straw man! But it does look like ass. How I am supposed to take someone seriously who thinks "ingenius" is a word, is so open-minded as to dismiss all country music in one fell swoop, and thinks that Kennedy opposed taxes? (Hint: he opposed the very high marginal tax rate of the time) And please allow me to marginalize and ignore simple minded discourse that makes those who engage with it more stupid. I think it can exist, but I can choose to ignore it. And I'm going to ignore "American Carol."

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST

    ViktorBC

    by Alucinor

    It's very true... it feels like all most Democrats do is talk a lot of shit and complain. Just for saying my opinion I have been called many things on here and I have insulted nobody. I find it ironic that the people who claim to want peace and love seem to be the most angry people. As far as I'm concerned, the second you go off the handle calling me a fucking retard for a well thought out opinion, you might as well just stop messaging because no rational person will take you seriously on any side of the debate.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:45 a.m. CST

    This weird thing...

    by BizarroJerry

    It's weird that people seem to believe Republican=Hooray for war, Democrat=War is bad. Bill Clinton wasn't 100% against warring with some country. WWII was run by Democrats. Vietnam was started by Democrats and continued, then ended by Republicans. I guess today's parties aren't the same as they once were, but still. Now, maybe it's Republican=Hooray for Iraq war, Democrat=Iraq war bad.<p>This movie, by the way, does sound like it'll be bad, and I'd consider myself more conservative than liberal.<p>Oh, and some people hate Michael Moore because there really are a number of people who believe everything he puts in his movies is fact and can't be argued with.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:51 a.m. CST

    hey, Neo Con Snake...

    by BizarroJerry

    This is part of the weird issue I brought up above. "The Transformers" is conservative? Why? Cuz people are fighting an enemy with guns in it? In fact, it shows a secret semi-evil government group as a bunch of dangerous idiots. And National Treasure is conservative? Why, because it promotes happy thoughts about the founders of the country? Is that somehow a political issue?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

    by ObamabinBiden08

    This will be great. When the young skulls full o' mush mature and start paying taxes through their nose because of liberal democrats, they'll come on board.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Alucinor

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    Because he is what he is. His pattern is nothing but ignorance and blatant hypocrisy. And quite frankly, after this week, I'm sick to death of the conservative machine. That playbook changes every day. One minute Murphy Brown is a reprehensible move by liberal Hollywood because it condones a single unwed mother with is an affront to family values, the next it's embracing teenage pregnancy. And don't kid yourself, those two kids are being FORCED into marriage, and that itself is disgraceful. And thrusting these two kids into the spotlight and making a circus of their lives? Yeah, that's family values in action.<p>Bill-O says it's a disgrace that the media doesn't respect the privacy of Bristol and the redneck but he was all over Jamie Lynn Spears calling her a pinhead and blasting her mother for being an irresponsible absentee parent.<p>And to hear these conservative pundits go off on the "liberal media" for sexist attacks on Palin? Really? She's been under fire for less than a week and you take issue with that? I'm no fan of Hillary but she has been been lambasted by the right for 15 years. She's been called "bitch, Hitlery, Shrillery, a feminazi," you name it. That thin-skinned, indignant hypocrisy is too much.<p>And lastly, as far as disrupting us, yeah, there's the REAL mission accomplished. Look how paranoid and divided we've become. We focused so much on the war on terror, we forgot to address things at home. The mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, retail sector in the toilet, ballooning unemployment, a weak dollar. I'd say the terrorists are quite proud of the chaos they continue to cause over here without any further effort.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:57 a.m. CST

    anchorite

    by toadkillerdog

    I suggest you read up on your Hollywood history. It has ALWAYS been filled with peoople who tried to fight for liberal issues. Even back in the 20's and 30's. They di dnot always suceed, and sometimes lost careers because of it, but they tried. Films were far more subversive in the late 20's and early 30's before the Catholic church became involved in film censorship. But when the film codes were put into place, many, many changes took place. <p> As for Obama not loving country, damn, here we go again. Why is it wrong to point out faults? How is that not loving a country when you want to see it be better?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:02 p.m. CST

    RE: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

    by dignan26

    This type of divide and conquer rhetoric is destroying our nation. Please rise above it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Alucinor

    by SuckLeTrou

    Obviously they keep getting made, because they are the vanity projects of those liberal artists I mentioned. There are people and actors with the clout and money-earning history to make them happen, just as Zucker has the clout and bucks to produce his film. It's no secret that artists are usually liberal, so if you don't want to be exposed to liberalism, then avoid art, which includes film. Or become a right-wing artist, because there aren't many. It's not rocket science, and we aren't talking about free media here. The right-wing argument seems to be that liberal artists should devote themselves and their money to making films that express another political ideology, and if they then don't put money into republican pockets as well, that somehow counts as censorship. It's so ridiculously stupid. If right-wingers want right-wing films then they should shut up and fucking make them as Zucker did. They are fucking whiners. It isn't the fault of the liberals for doing it, but the fault of the republicans for not doing it. There are plenty of rich republicans, god knows. So get some fucking backers and make your own damn movies. And see how well they do at the box office...think maybe republican businessmen know those kind of films tank, and that's why they don't invest in them? It's actually a compliment to right-wing business sense that these films don't exist. If criticizing a generalization I made for the sake of brevity of they only 'flaw' you can find, then good for me.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    OK filmfanatic1

    by ViktorBC

    Bush's policies kept us free from foreign attacks for 7 years.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:06 p.m. CST

    RE: Anchorite

    by dignan26

    Your statement completely ignores every speech Obama has made on the campaign trail. It has no basis in reality.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Really, thats all it takes is saying "We are best nation on eart

    by toadkillerdog

    Damn, some people are just easily led monkey's. That is all you want to hear, is slogans, and chest pounding. And nation building? My God, a republican actually in favor of nation building - that is so liberal!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:12 p.m. CST

    ACLU zombies

    by Matthew Martinez

    Could someone please explain to me why conservatives have such a vehement hatred for an organization (the ACLU) whose mission is to defend people's constitutional rights unconditionally? I mean, I know that means that they have to defend people we might not like (e.g., neo-Nazis, criminals, etc.), but to say that the Constitution only applies to some people and not others is...well...un-American, in my opinion.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST

    I won't see it

    by Redundant23

    But not because I'm a liberal (I'm an independent). It's because (a) I've never thought any of Zucker's movies, including Airplane, were funny, and (b) because I'm tired of the incessant partisan bickering. It's true Hollywood has released many liberal-partisan movies in the past few years. I didn't see any of them either, for the same reason. The correct response to partisan filmmaking is not to make more films to speak for the other party. The correct response is to avoid all such films. I don't understand why people are so divided, why one half of the US enjoys hating the other half so damn much. I'm an American. Michael Moore is an American. Zucker is an American and so is Rush Limbaugh. If you "love America" then you must have some respect for its people, and that means all of its people, not just half. There is no benefit to believing that the members of the party you don't belong to are stupid. They're not. You're not. Both parties love their country and are trying to do what's best.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Im from the left.. But fuck Michael Moore!

    by What The Duck

    Take the fat man with a grain a salt. They sad thing about this country is that people believe what ever the see on the screen or read. If Moore says something people from the left take it as fact. As far the movie it's easier to make fun of the left because if you make fun of the right you branded un-american. I won't see this fim not because it pokes fun of the party I tend to side with it's because the movie looks fuckn lame!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST

    "Bush's policies kept us free from foreign attacks for 7 years"

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    This is the problem. This ignorant thinking that the right so easily gets their base to swallow.<p>The same way they have convinced their base that Obama and most liberals are elitists when Cindy McCain speaks at the RNC in an outfit worth twice as much as my house.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST

    WINGNUTS ARE SPECIAL NEEDS TALKBACKERS

    by BringingSexyBack

    Take it easy on them, they can't take nearly as much as they dish out. <p> Good article Dr. Huffufufr. I'm open to watching the movie only if it's funny. Is it funny, and funny enough to Netflix it? The trailer tells me a different story.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:42 p.m. CST

    ANCHORITE

    by BringingSexyBack

    Have you even been watching Obama's campaigning? He constantly extols the greatness of America - just not in a pandering, fake way like McCain and Sarah "Pro-Alaskan Secession" Palin do. <p> Obama's deep into the issues now, and well past the hyperbole train the Right is rolling out.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Vern

    by Fireball XL-5

    I love your reviews, man, but you're off-base in your post. Criticizing a movie before one sees it may not be "censorship," but it is prejudice, and therefore intellectually dishonest.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Matthew Martinez

    by ViktorBC

    The ACLU, unknown to most people who do not read history books, was founded by Roger Baldwin and Walter Nelles, self-described comunists. This is fact. He once said, “I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal”.” It still is their goal.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:56 p.m. CST

    If you think the democrats have been taken over by socialists

    by hst666

    you're insane. If they were Kucinich would have the nomination. I wish the Democrats were as liberal as Kennedy, and he wasn't that liberal. Both parties are beholden to large corporate interests.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:57 p.m. CST

    I will see this based upon the reviews

    by hst666

    Didn't Zucker do the Hot shots films as well? Not everything he touches is gold.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 12:59 p.m. CST

    South Park has always struck me as truly fair and balanced.

    by hst666

    I don't always agree with them, but most of their criticisms seem dead on and they don't appear to be right or left.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:03 p.m. CST

    "McCarthy Sure Was Bad"

    by Raymar

    That is fucking brilliant.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Funny is a relative reaction

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    But anytime you go for so blatantly an attack, I think you lose points. I watched the trailer, and it didn't offend me, I mildly chuckled, but I don't know that it will be a truly hilarious piece in the neighborhood of Airlplane or even Naked Gun. <P>Here is the problem, are you out to make a funny movie, or are you out to make a statement. I get the feeling its the latter, which means it won't be funny. <P>But for those who say you can't be funny as a conservative, apparently never watch South Park, cause those guys can be hilarious in showing out some of the ridiculous hypocrisy of the left. MAN BEAR PIG!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!

    by shitstorm23

    Seriously, why is the reviewer defending this so much? I didn't read all of the talkback, but is there any "liberal" saying this movie shouldn't get made or wanting it censored? Who gives a shit if there is some right wing movie taking a stab at the left? Oh no! What are the lefties to do! It's assholes like this reviewer who have their heads so firmly up partisan politics that they cannot see that MOST of this great country is in the middle. Little bit country, little bit rock & roll. Which is why voter turn out is SO low, most people do not want to vote for one side or the other, they just want chicken fries & football. <p> I also like how someone put TDK, 300 & T-Formers as right wing movies, going up against Stop Loss, Lions for Lambs & Redacted as left movies. Now that is fair & balanced!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:21 p.m. CST

    If the LEFT is smug, then the RIGHT is smug x1,000

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    Yeah, I'll give you the Democratic grandstanding and I think that party is full of corrupt d-bags and Obama is a snake oil salesman. I'm with you all the way.<p>But only idiot Americans would hear the McCains call Obama an elitist in their designer clothes and countless houses and buy into it. Only idiot Americans would see a pregnant 17-teen year old girl and a Downs baby paraded into the spotlight as an attempt to prove "we're just like you" and buy into it. Only idiot Americans believe Bush and McCain when they say "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" and think it makes sense. Only idiot Americans tolerate a party that proclaims it's all about family values when countless representatives are being busted for having affairs and then forgiven as if it was nothing. Only idiot Americans listen to a politician quoting lines from the Bible about how homosexuality is a sin and gay people will never be allowed to marry if Republicans have their say but then goes to airport bathrooms to sexually solicit other men.<p>There is no more hypocritical a creature than a modern day conservative and that is not debatable.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:23 p.m. CST

    I don't know shitstorm

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    There is a serious sentiment out there that if you don't agree with some of what many powerful Hollywood types agree with, than you are ostracized. I completely believe this can happen, it happens everywhere else, why not Hollywood. <P> But what cracks me up is the hypocrisy who make sure to remind us of how horrific the atrocities of McCarthysm was, almost comparing that to the Holocaust or something really atrocious (peoples can't work, cause they went to a communist rally, oh nos!). And then these same individuals get very bristly if a film doesn't share their worldview. Ever read Daily KOS' review of TDK and their assertion that it was fascist propoganda? People also thought the same about 300, and Zack Miller is hardly a conservative.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:26 p.m. CST

    ANCHORITE

    by BringingSexyBack

    You are a trip. You bash Obama for not screaming I love America, but when I tell you he does, you discount it. <p> I happen to think it's more meaningful to convey love of country and inspire Americans face-to-face, intimately, than to make grandiose speeches on the Senate floor. <p> I'll bet if he did as you say he should, you'd accuse him of using the Capital as a campaign stop. <p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:35 p.m. CST

    "donkey socialist appeasers"

    by wash

    You might have just started with the line "I"M A HUGE FUCKING TROLL" and saved some people the time.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    My President's Daughter?

    by DangerMan

    Funny how when everyone talks about David Zucker and Airplane they never mention Jerry Zucker or Jim Abrahams. Guess he flew the plane himself.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Re: ViktorBC

    by Matthew Martinez

    You didn't mention to which, between Baldwin and Nelles, your quote was attributable, nor did you mention the fact that Baldwin later "denounced communism" and "led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members" (from Wikipedia). Sorry, but I just don't buy that the ACLU's true agenda is to promote socialism. Their stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." Opponents of this organization seem to me to be people who don't believe that those rights should be given to everyone, people who feel, like Bush, that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper."

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:39 p.m. CST

    "He constantly extols the greatness of America"

    by Bill Brasky

    BringingSexyBack, how could Barry really extol the 'greatness of America' and not in a "pandering" way...when he sat in that cock-sucking, racist, bigoted, anti-American motherfucker, Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without ever getting up and walking out? Come on man. I can understand why you want Barry to win, and I even get the appeal of him to many disaffected Reagan Democrats and Independents, but "U.S. of KKK-A?" and "No, not God bless America, God Damn America!" and "Your chickens...have come home...to ROOST!!!" – Hmmm. Barry may do well as the President; I may (or may not) vote for him; but don’t tell me that he loves this country. I don’t buy it. America is just the place where he lives and the nation where he was born. In his mind, America doesn’t stand for the same things as it does in mine. To Barry, America is the racist home of gun toting, God fearing, red bloods who are fearful of people who don’t “look like them.” Many of those people fly the Confederate Stars and Bars on flagpoles proudly displayed just outside of their trailer home. I don’t think that he gets goose bumps on his arms when he stands for the National Anthem at a Bears or a Cubs game, like I do. I don’t think that he REALLY feels like this is the greatest nation on Earth, like I do. I know that you (and many other AICN talkbackers) probably take umbrage with this kind of ultra-patriotic drivel. You probably look down your nose at people like me, who devote their lives to something greater than their own slef. That’s fine. But don’t tell me that Barry really loves this country. I think he tolerates it…and he wants to run it…but he don’t love it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:41 p.m. CST

    BSB...

    by Bill Brasky

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    You Know I Still Love You Though....

    by Bill Brasky

    ...in a very manly way. Here's To Bill Brasky!!!!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:45 p.m. CST

    If "W" fails does that mean...

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    That all leftist leaning, or anti-bush supporters make crap movies, or are morons, or are myopic, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging troglodytes? NO! <P> I can't stand Dubya, but if Stone's biopic and possible criticsm turn out to be crap, doesn't make me wrong in my dislike. <P>So in the same vein, those who share some of the beliefs of this film should not be judged on the merits of this movie. Seems to me people get lumped into categories unfairly, all the time, and EVERYBODY DOES IT! <P>You enjoyed Lions for Lambs, support Obama, and thought Farenheit 911 was worthy criticism? You must be a socialist, liberal, douchebag who wants to pay %90 taxes and let the government rule our lives! <P> You enjoyed The Passion of the Christ, are voting for McCain, and found some interesting topics under discussion in Ben Stein's Expelled? You must be a fascist in training, who has been brain-washed by the conservative christian right, and believe the earth is only 5000 years old, believe Jesus is a magic wish-granting fairy, and jack off to images of Ann Coulter every night. <P> Its amazing how often sentiments of the above are thrown out every day on these talkbacks.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:48 p.m. CST

    It's funny...

    by gorydon

    In the future our children will read about Iraq and 9/11 in their textbooks and they won't have any idea how politically volatile the whole situation is. Just like we don't really care or hear about the political back biting leading up to WWI and WWII and even the Civil War. It all makes it seem so meaningless.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:48 p.m. CST

    I'm pretty hardcore Democratic...

    by thegoddamnbatman

    But I still wanna see this. It actually sounds very interesting to me.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Mel Gibsteinberg

    by Bill Brasky

    Very well spoken. Cheers to you!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Conservative Humor

    by smallerdemon

    Ah, yes, conservative "humor". Instantly recognizable by the fact that it is making fun of someone. Made even more recognizable by making fun of something about someone that is patently false in the first place and is a straw man built by said conservative humorist to tear into. This is their way. Conservatives largely have no sense of humor that isn't exclusively based upon hurting other people. They do not laugh at themselves because what they believe is not up for debate, and to laugh at your own beliefs means always having a smidgen of doubt that what you believe might be downright silly. So, instead, you make fun of what other people think, believe or simply ARE (how many "conservative" relatives did I listen to on my last trip home to the South [I will avoid the exact location] make fun of Obama because he is black but in language that was a bit more, how shall I say, colorful). <p> Find me a single conservative willing to laugh at the inherent silliness of belief itself, to laugh at their own faults and hubris, to simply not take themselves and their religious and political beliefs so serious as to be willing to hurt anyone and everyone to defend the seriousness of the belief instead of put on a big grin and laugh about what it is to be human. Try all you want. There is no such thing. Conservative humor is attacking and laughing at the damage after the attack. Laughing at weakness and understanding. Laughing at people and never with them. <p> Here's to hoping this movie slides beneath the radar into the rest of the pile of hateful thoughtlessness that is conservative humor.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:51 p.m. CST

    And Bush will be forgotten...

    by gorydon

    as the most evil man in the world and will only known as the 43 president. Between number 42 B. Clinton and number 44 B. Obama. or McCain.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Ummm... excuse me?

    by modern_lovers

    "Patton points out that sometimes war IS the answer, but in this alternate reality Abraham Lincoln believed, as Malone believes and as many on the Left believe, that War is Never the Answer and so there was never a Civil War fought to free the slaves." Just to clarify, not that many liberals believe that "war is never the answer"... We just believe that "war is never the ONLY answer". Don't be stupid.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:55 p.m. CST

    You and the film lost me on line 2 of the actual review.

    by HoboCode

    Michael Moore (sorry Malone)holding a rally to ban the 4th of July? COME ON! That is so morally and intellectually dishonest. This is going to be a piece of fucking trash and fuck Zucker for making it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST

    An In the Valley of Elah is a propaganda film?

    by HoboCode

    How's that exactly. Becasue it tells a story that shows our troops as human and not heroic angels from on high? Such horseshit. Take your voodoo economics and shove them up your ass.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 1:58 p.m. CST

    HoboCode

    by Bill Brasky

    Yeah, that is so far out, it is almost inconceivable! Kind of like thanking God for a hurricane that's heading for New Orleans, during the GOP convention. Who the fuck would ever say anything like that?!??!?!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2 p.m. CST

    smallerdemon

    by HoboCode

    AMEN to you sir. Fantastic post. Very eloquent.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Liberals never mock others?

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Do you ever watch Comedy Central? From the angry stand up comics, to the Daily Show to the Colbert report. That is ALL THEY DO? <P>And I think it is hilarious most of the time! But let's not act like conservatives are the only ones who bash others. <P>I am trying to think of a liberal comedian, one who tends to make fairly political jokes in their schtick, who doesn't attack or at the very least mock conservatives. If you know of one, let me know.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Bill Brasky

    by HoboCode

    Who said that? I didn't. Regardless, that's still not as bad as saying a Hurricane that leveled New Orleans in the first place was an act of God's retribution. Who said that again? Psst. I know it wasn't you.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:05 p.m. CST

    The only reason Gustav wasn't like Katrina

    by ChittyChittyGangBang

    was because Obama was standing on the beach screaming "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!"<p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:07 p.m. CST

    In the Valley of Elah = left wing propaganda film.

    by Bill Brasky

    Been to Iraq twice, Afghanistan once...did a tour at GTMO. I'm as fine as powdered sugar, raising a family, working my ass off and getting my Graduate degree. And let me tell you something...I have seen some crazy, grisly, fucked up shit. A movie like 'In The Valley of Elah' has no bearing on reality. Like other Hollywood, political point-making busts at the box office, ('Stop Loss' anyone?) these films are so far from reality that they make any REAL vet laugh out loud when they see them. They are so full of holes that anyone who has actually ‘been there-done that’, can't help but say "What the Fuck???" These movies are a lame attempt by Hollywood Liberals to capture the magic of earlier films like 'The Deer Hunter' and 'Apocalypse Now.' They don't really know what is going on over there, in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they don't care to find out. They disagree with the decisions that were made to send us over there in the first place and decide to make up facts as they go along while producing the film. Its shit and you know it. Mr. ‘In The Valley of Elah’…I knew ‘Apocalypse Now’…and you are no ‘Apocalypse Now.’

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:13 p.m. CST

    AHA HAHA HAHA

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Nice Chitty, very nice indeed!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST

    HoboCode

    by Bill Brasky

    Dude, I know you didn't say that! We may disagree on some things, but I know you aren't that crazy. Michael Moore and Don Fowler (who served as National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1995 to 1997) both said those exact words on two different occasions. Well, slightly different. Fowler said: "The hurricane’s going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is — at least it appears now that it’ll be there Monday. That just demonstrates that God’s on our side. That it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day one of the Republican convention up in the twin cities at the top of the Mississippi River,''

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST

    ChittyChittyGangBang

    by Freds_Balls_in_a_Mason_Jar

    Fred normally does not comment in these TB's, but THAT was very funny!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST

    ...and Michael Moore said...

    by Bill Brasky

    "I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in Heaven.'' Moore said with a chuckle in a televised interview. "That it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day one of the Republican convention up in the twin cities at the top of the Mississippi River,'' Moore said, in an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, on Countdown.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    So...there are freaks on both sides.

    by Bill Brasky

    The Cons don't have that show all locked up.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST

    HoboCode

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I saw the video where Moore said this as well. He follows it with (uhh, yeah, and also I hope no one gets hurt) but his first real thought was "damn I hope that the Repubs get fucked up good by the timing of this hurricane, cause I hates 'em!" <P>Anyone that self absorbed and ridiculous deserves to be mocked, and mocked by a third rate comedian no less (even if it isn't funny.) <P>And before anyone says, "well Moore doesn't represent me!" then how come MSNBC, CNN, Larry King, etc. go to him for reaction to the RNC or McCain, or Palin, everytime something happens? He may not speak for the Dems, but somebody in the news media sure loves to get his reaction as though he does.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST

    TopHat...ya beat me

    by skimn

    I was scrolling this TB to see if Team America would be brought up as a prime example of satire that cuts both ways. And it did so brilliantly.<p>BTW, did anyone see Letterman the other night when he mentioned he didn't know if he could support someone who could conceivably be President, who couldn't take 5 minutes to explain birth control to their daughter...

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Fuck the political rhetoric for a second

    by Richard Cranium

    I won't see this because Zucker hasn't done anything even remotely resembling funny for 20 years. Same with Mel Brooks. God bless them for their earlier stuff, but if either of them released a movie tomorrow, I wouldn't see it if it was screening for free in my backyard.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Thank god someone has made this film

    by lex romero

    The republicans have been so down trodden recently. I mean, 8 years in control of the white house? That's nothing. And all those liberal films like lions for lambs and stop loss? I think about 2 people went to see them, jeez the republicans really are fucked. Thank god for this film to champion the underdog political party.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Good point Lex

    by Bill Brasky

    Here's to Bill Brasky!!!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Bill Brasky, its great that you did your tours of duty

    by skimn

    with no physical or emotional scars, but wasn't "In The Valley" based on a true story?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:28 p.m. CST

    skimm

    by Bill Brasky

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:32 p.m. CST

    I have to assume lex's post is deadpan irony.

    by subtlety

    come on now.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:35 p.m. CST

    zanemn

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    First off, I'm an independent. I think the Democratic Party is full of liars and thieves and douchebags and I want every one of them dunked into a shark tank. And Al Gore is a piece of slime. I believe what he says in An Inconvenient Truth, but he sure doesn't live by the rules he sets forth. That whole offset your carbon foot print thing is bollocks. Instead of balancing the carbon you chuck into the air, how's about not putting it in the air in the first place? So don't even use him as an example because he's a hypocrite of extreme proportions.<p.And if you don't think Republicans love their hand outs too or expect the government to step in when they fall on hard times, you're insane. The oil money Palin gave to Alaskans, the stimulus checks we all got recently, did anyone actually EARN that money? I didn't want it. I'm still arguing with my wife about giving it to charity. It doesn't matter that the stimulus checks were design to jumpstart the economy (which they DIDN'T), the Republican welfare mantra is don't take the money if you didn't work for it. So on PRINCIPLE, every fiscally responsible should have denied the check. But nope, as usual, let's talk out of both sides of our mouth. Who cares that this is money we're borrowing and is accruing interest that will come back to haunt us later, right?<p>And if the Republicans had any integrity, they would look at their mistakes with equal measure as when the left makes them. But they don't. As stated, it was OK for O'Reilly to go after Jamie Lynn Spears and her mother like a pitbull, but when it comes to Sarah Palin and her daughter he says it's a disgrace for the media to hound them? Really?<p>And why is it when a Republican makes a mistake, they NEVER look to re-evaluate their policies? Hey Sarah Palin! Now that it's affected you personally, why don't you admit that maybe, just maybe your abstinence policy is completely ineffective and slashing sex-ed programs might have been done in error?<p>Or how about all the gay bashing congressmen who have been found banging another man finally opening that box marked "integrity" on the shelf of the closet they're hiding in and admit that gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else?<p>Or how about finally admitting to the figures show that enough illegal immigrants use fake SSN's that illegals pay more into the system than they actual draw out and that since they pay into services like Social Security and Medicare that they won't be eligible for, in some respects they're actually helping out?<p>But no, it's the same old hypocritical rhetoric day after day.<p>It's a party with negative integrity.<p.So once again, as monumentally hypocritical as Democrats are, they are but a pebble in the shadow of the hypocrisy that are modern conservatives.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:37 p.m. CST

    When liberals mock, it's usually based upon facts

    by hst666

    When Conservatives mock, it is usually based upon straw men.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:39 p.m. CST

    What galls me is McCain is the elitist

    by hst666

    Talking about how the Nebbe's lost their REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS. That's the crowd he is pandering too. Fuck the people who lost their homes.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Bill

    by HoboCode

    I didn't hear about those videos and I certainly disagree wit hthose staements.<p> But regarding ITVOE, that shit is based on ACTUAL EVENTS. so don't give me that shit it doesn't rpresent reality. And I'm glad you handled the war fien and are doing well, but many have not, and I think it's dishonest of you to deny they are. As of the end of August there was 62 confirmed suicides amongst active duty soldiers and another 31 suspected and still being investigated. It's going to be an all-time high. so don't tell me everything's jus tpeachy and that Elah is a propaganda film.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:45 p.m. CST

    TEAM AMERICA...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... was one that the good Dr. went to see with me, and he did indeed laugh himself sick during it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Mel

    by HoboCode

    They ask Moore because controversy sells more than anything. that's not to say many people on the left don't agree with much of what he says. Myself included.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST

    skimm

    by Bill Brasky

    No, no, you are right!!! And I'm sure that it was based on a true story. My point is that the general theme of Hollywood is to actively search for down-trodden themes that make a political point. It is like the 'Platoon' effect. The movie platoon had people walking out of the theater thinking..."Damn, that's how it was in Vietnam. That's fucked up!" when in fact, Stone took every thing that was fucked up in a war that lasted 15 years and combined it into one film. Thus leaving the impression that EVERY platoon burned down whole villages, EVERY platoon practiced fratricide, EVERY platoon murdered innocent Vietnamese, EVERY platoon must have been that fucked-up. It just wasn't that way at all. These movies only portray the negative, like in 'Valley' and often completely fictionalize a negative, as in 'Stop Loss.' This constant flow of only one type of modern war movie made by people of only one political agenda does not reflect accurately on my soldiers or the Marines, Sailors and Airmen that I have fought with over the last six and a half years. You get my point? 'Stop Loss' the movie: "There must be so many guys that are caught in that!" - Reality: bullshit - the writer/director/producers didn't even check their facts about this film. 'Redacted'The Movie: "All of those soldiers and their officers were in on that murder/rape!" Reality: Bullshit - Two soldiers have been convicted of that heinous crime. And let me tell you, when it happened, the US Army went balls to the wall after those guys. There was no cover up; nothing was 'Redacted.' Bullshit. 'Lions For Lambs' the movie: The whole scene on top of the mountain was supposed to be a direct reflection (ala Law & Order style) of what happened during Operation Anaconda and the Battle of Takur Ghar, where US Navy SEAL Neil C. Roberts fell out of a Helicopter on top of a frozen peak at night. In the movie, another 'soldier' actually jumps out after the guy. They use all their ammo and die, because the US commanders were too slow and stupid to respond. Reality: Roberts only survived about 30 minutes and two other helicopters were immediately routed to rescue the SEAL. (he also killed about 20 bad guys before he met his end.) Bullshit. So, basically, if you have seen a modern American war movie within the last year and half or so, you are inundated by the thought that everything that happens in Iraq and Afghanistan is fucked up. All soldiers fight the evil government ‘Stop Loss’ while planning future rapes and murders when they actually do get in country. While there, they will probably die because their commanders are too stupid to figure out how to rescue them, and if, God willing, they make it home, they will be so fucked up, that they won’t even be able to “Get a job parking fucking cars!!!” (First Blood) Show me the heroic shit for a change. Give me a ‘Black Hawk Down’ or a ‘Big Red One’ but for Iraq. Show me how the fucking United States Marine Corps went in to Fallujah in the fall of 2004 and FUCKING WON. There’s nothing wrong with that.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Kevin Farley's big screen debut?

    by Darthkrusty

    Wasn't he one of the brothers who did repair work on the old man's mower in The Straight Story?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Soooo

    by Series7

    This is essentially a bunch of South Park episodes?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:59 p.m. CST

    The Straight Story!

    by Bill Brasky

    I forgot about that film. That was a masterpiece. What a great flick.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Kevin Farley

    by Series7

    WAS THE BOMB AS human dart board #2 with another Farley brother in Little Nicky. Also he was the man in N2Gether (i think that was the title) that fake boi band group show on the MTV's. Also in some commercial he did not too long ago. And book about his brother.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Is it me or...

    by Bill Brasky

    Does it bother anyone that Kill Bill on Blu-Ray is still two separate fucking purchases!?!?!?! C'mon Quentin! Get off your lazy B-movie actress fucking, I'm working on my masterpiece, I don't have time for that ass, and do what you should have done in the first place. I want more PussyWagon!!!!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:06 p.m. CST

    What about

    by Series7

    PTA taking on big Oil Barons with There will be blood! Come on that was ballsy! ... no, it wasn't....ok.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:09 p.m. CST

    appeasement

    by Cedar_Room

    Now I'm British so I have to take a stand against Chamberlain's alleged depiction in this film and how it seems in America, the whole idea of appeasement is akin to wiping the evildoers backside for them - or indeed - shining their shoes. <p> Appeasement is defined as "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous" <p> So if you want to put Chamberlain's actions into some sort of context - just 20 years previous Britain had been devastated by a war which took a million British lives. Including 100,000 civillians. Roughly the equivalent of fifty 9/11 attacks. Was it any wonder Britain wanted to avoid another war at all costs?? But to say Chamberlain shone Hitlers shoes - it was only 6 months later that he declared war on Germany! For fucks sake. <p> Appeasement has now become a byword for cowardice, for buying temporary peace at someone else's expense. But lets look at how this may have applied to Iraq. Instead of Bush pushing ahead with the war, what if he'd have tried to negotiate peacefully? Perhaps he'd have realised that Saddam did not have any WMD, that Iraq did not pose any immediate threat to Britain or America, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and by diverting resources away from those who were (in Afghanistan) we have simply allowed the real threat to fester. <p> I take issue with this part of the film, and the idea that "liberals" will never consider war to be an option. The point is that war must always be the last option and that absolutely was not the case with Iraq. Thats why I opposed it, regardless of why we're now told that we have to stay there.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:10 p.m. CST

    OHHH WOW!

    by Series7

    Oprah is advertising on this site. Seems like the right audience to attract.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room

    by Bill Brasky

    Written like a true gentleman. I don't agree with your politics, but I do agree that that was one of the best pieces written on this subject. Good job!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Nothing screams big brass balls like co-starring Kelsey Grammer

    by Series7

    Sooo what your saying here is that hopefully we will not end up with a case of the James Belushi's? That one brother may actually be a worthy follow up! Huzah HUZAH to the highest. Praise Allah for this gift.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:23 p.m. CST

    "Generation Kill"

    by Bill Brasky

    Was filmed well and looked very authentic. But at heart you are correct. It is a liberal propaganda piece, and here's why: I was in OIF 1, and spent three months in a MOPP suit from FEB 03 - APR 03. Dude, no one made Bush comments, no one talked about foreigners coming over for a Jihad, no one constantly complained about their vehicles. That was the shit man! That was the best deployment that i have ever been on and I'll tell you another thing too: Our Commanders were rock steady and smart as shit, unlike these oafs that parade around in this 'show' with their cartoony voices (Sergeant Major, Colonel, etc.) and their handwringing lack of decision making. “Vote Republican!” Bullshit. Thanks, but no thanks. And the critics said that it was non-biased. Funny.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Look...

    by Bill Brasky

    Liberals, I love ya, but just admit that you guys don't do war movies (or TV) that well. Please?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Full Metal Jacket aside...

    by Bill Brasky

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:28 p.m. CST

    And Eric Bana's Character 'Hoot' was the shit.

    by Bill Brasky

    Hoot: "Know what I think? Don't really matter what I think. Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window."

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:29 p.m. CST

    brilliant review, Dr. Hfuhruhurr.

    by blue1622

    look forward to seeing this, and voting McCain/Palin. <p> It does kill me to see Transformers listed amongst other "traditional conservative" films, like 300 and the Dark Knight, but I guess I can see the logic...

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:30 p.m. CST

    It would help if I knew WTF this movie was about

    by DKT

    Before everyone spends paragraphs telling me to keep an open mind and value free speech.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Transformers = traditional conservative film

    by Bill Brasky

    Special Forces Operators + acting nobly + kicking alien ass + victory = 'Traditional Conservative' film. Because according to Hollywood, people in the military are idiots, cowards, rapists, murderers and generally incompetent fools who couldn’t kill a 50 foot robot if their lives depended on it! So, it MUST be a ‘conservative’ film.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Turning the computer off..

    by Bill Brasky

    Going home, won't be back on AICN until Monday, will forget about this post by then, so that means, since no one has jumped my ass or sucker punched me for being said conservative war-monger...I WIN.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:38 p.m. CST

    BILLY BRASKO - LOVE YOU TOO, IN AN EFFEMINATE WAY

    by BringingSexyBack

    Wish I had time to write a lengthy response but all I'll say for now is I truly believe Obama is sincere. You know, I started out a Hillary supporter until that one post Harry wrote many moons ago that got me looking more closely at The Barack. <p> Now I'm a believer. I don't just watch the big speeches, I watch everything about him and McCain. <p> You know, everything McCain said last night was a lie. He is closely aligned with lobbyists and special interests, and his running mate even more so. And he's not even hiding his loyalty to the elite and his disdain for the middle class. Obama raising taxes on everyone? Bullshit. Non-partisan tax experts agree that McCain's tax plan has no benefit for the poor and middle class, whereas Obama's gives immediate relief to them. <p> And that exploitation of 9/11 last night said it all - that is what the Republican Party is all about. It's not a sincere love of country - it's the cynical, hypocritical, exploitative embrace of ideals and events in order to attain, and keep, power. <p> If I were a true Conservative, I'd vote for Ron Paul before I cast a vote for McCain. <p> And Billy - did you like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers? Both Spielberg and Hanks were prominent at the DNC. <P> Later dude. Have a good weekend.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Bill

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I really appreciate your perspective. But you are asking liberal movie lovers to fundementally change their worldview. It's like asking a Christian to stop believing in God. <P>I'm NOT saying that liberals can't admit a war movie is no good, they may say its shit, but for reasons other than what you point out. They may say, "well, it wasn't as authentic as it could have been, or the direction missed some beats, but the main heart and soul of the pic is accurate."<P>Then again, as I pointed on the MILK talkback, what accurate, "conservative" pics do Repubs have to look at. Michael Bay waves the flag in super slow-mo every chance he gets to remind us that "flag waving is American!" Rambo? Die Hard? Schwarzzenager flicks? "If I'm not me, whodahell am I?" <P>I agree with the above post that mentioned Black Hawk Down. I think that was an awesome example of a look at war, without too much politics involved. <P>Oh I forgot my namesake and We Were Soldiers. Yeah, uh...no comment.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:43 p.m. CST

    War is sometimes necessary, but...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...who defines 'necessary'? Isn't that really the question?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Yep Darth

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    That is always the question, the one that seems to cause the most debate.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:50 p.m. CST

    So is history a good judge?

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Depends, if you dissagree with history, then you explain that it was "written by the winner" and therefore invalid.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST

    BSB...

    by Darth Macchio

    In my opinion, Ron Paul was the ONLY true Conservative in the initial running for the Repub nominee. McCain was a real Conservative back in 2000 but the neo-con bodysnatchers have turned him into one of their own (funny how modern repubs called him a 'maverick' when he was actually the real deal!). I heard that McCain still hates Bush for his bullshit Rovian-antics in the 2000 repub nom process.<p>I also know the modern repubs love their saint reagan but I think he's the one that started the dilution of the true Conservative party into the modern form which, in many ways, is anathema to traditional Conservative values.<p>That pure bitch slap Paul handed to Guiliani during the debates was so brilliant but yet the simpering modern neo-con politicos and their sycophant "journalists" cheered that creepy douchebag and ultimately chased Paul out of the process. Barry spinning in his grave I tell ya! Spinnin!!!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST

    BSB

    by Blue_Demon

    "If I were a true Conservative I'd vote for Ron Paul before I cast a vote for John McCain."<p>John McCain was not my first choice either as a Conservative. I will not vote for Ron Paul because that is a vote for Barack Obama and I will not vote (directly or indirectly) for that man, so McCain has my vote. Palin pretty much won me over to McCain.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    What is true conservatism?

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I hear that term thrown around so much, and as an outsider looking in, I don't get it? <P>To me Ron Paul isn't a true conservative, he's an isolationist who thinks we should go back to some sort of small time agrarian society where government supplies a military and builds roads, and thats about it. <P>Funny how the people who believe in that way of thinking are always wealthier land owners in places like Texas and Alaska.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Politics

    by waitingimpatientlyforingloriousbastards

    I'm sorry I even wasted time reading this talkback. The ignorance displayed in these posts is staggering. If I wanted to read uninformed political debate, I wouldn't have come to a movie website. Most of you bastards need to get over yourselves, discuss the movie, or shut the fuck up. I PROMISE you no one, I repeat, NO ONE cares about your political views! I'm sure this movie will be about as dumb as most of the spoof movies being made lately, but I'll see it if it gets decent reviews (not likely).

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Left or Right doesn't matter when it's funny

    by hellcatsagogo

    Haven't seen this film, have seen the previews and they strike me as a little MEH... but - and let me state for the record I am as liberal as George Clooney's poop-shoot - I think left, right, up or down, if it's funny the politics don't much matter. It is said that Hollywood is run by liberals and I think that's as far from the truth as possible. Hollywood emplys liberals but is clearly run by big business, and big business doesn't swing both ways, you know. So... Anyway, my miniscule rant only leads me to this thought. I loved "The West Wing" one of TV's greatest series IMHO under Sorkin. And it gained momentum in the last season, and could ave gone 4 more years had they decided to elect Alan Alda's Republican character president and followed the series up with that promise. I would have watched because as good comedy should skewer anyone and everyone with no regard for race, religion, politics or ability, so should good drama - and that had the makings of some nice drama. Alan Alda as the president, a perfect foil for Martin Sheen's take. Ah, what could have been...

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Hellcatsagogo...you're right...

    by Blue_Demon

    Big Business does not give a hoot about politics. It goes where the cash goes.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Agreed...

    by Darth Macchio

    ...though I wasn't the biggest fan of most of Zucker's work outside of Airplane!, any political comedy, especially political satire, is a valuable form of entertainment as even if the mirror it presents paints an inaccurate picture, it nonetheless still gets us to look.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Oh my...no one cares???

    by Darth Macchio

    Oh shit! The only reason I even have an opinion on anything is ONLY because of what others think! Oh my!!! Tell me you care!! PLEASE! I just don't know what I would do if you didn't care what I felt about politics!!! I'd be so bummed out I might have to eat a box of fucking bon bons and cry myself to sleep listening to Enya or something.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:23 p.m. CST

    generation kill

    by lb

    errrmm, wasn't that based of a true story?? You can't claim something to be propoganda if it was true. The one reason I dod not care to see this movie is because it looks painful. I hate the childish partisan politics which seems to fill our airwaves and I am sick of Repubs moaning about not having any power....especially since they have been in power for 8 years. If anything is wrong with America now...its entirely on their shoulders.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Pro-authority just isn't funny. That's why Hobbes is the straigh

    by Flim Springfield

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:24 p.m. CST

    ...Hobbes is the straight man.

    by Flim Springfield

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Don't worry about him Darth...

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    He's so crazed for the upcoming Tarantino movie, he wants everyone to know how impatient he is.<P> He's so crazed, he has no time for the space bar. WHOA, watch out, that dude is crazy ready for Inglorious Bastards, I mean HE IS READY!<P>But he doesn't think anyone on this site cares what you think about politics, they are too busy wondering if he is ready for that movie or not.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Funny how McCain tells everyone he's a Reformer

    by zooch

    Yet the things he's famous for trying to reform, he doesn't talk about anymore. And the most important issues that people care about right now; energy, economy, and foriegn policy, he agrees with Bush.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Attack of the Straw Men!

    by Z-Man

    I mean, really, who is saying that Zucker shouldn't be allowed to make his film or express his opinion? I haven't seen the film yet, but boy, it sure does sound like it's making the same arguments of distraction that we're getting from our government right now, the straw men that liberals love terrorists because we don't see invading Iraq as a proper response to being attacked by a dozen Saudis trained in Afghanistan, or that liberals don't understand the cost of 9-11 because they don't want to permanently occupy Iraq, or because they question just what it is that we're getting for 4,000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:47 p.m. CST

    But Sexy

    by skimn

    you bring up Band Of Brothers and Private Ryan, both WW2 movies. Very easy to wax patriotic about. Very black and white situation. Vietnam and now Iraq are wars that are painted in shades of gray, and I think most conservatives only wish it could be as simple as WW2 in terms of "why we are there". And therefore more gungho war films would be produced which would placate their viewpoint. Wonder what Bill thinks of Born On The Fourth Of July? And not just Stone's film, but the saga of Ron Kovic? Would he view him as a hero?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:53 p.m. CST

    re: Bill Brasky and liberal-made war movies/TV

    by Matthew Martinez

    I could be mistaken about the politics of the filmmakers, but... (In no particular order) Apocalypse Now Black Hawk Down Three Kings Band of Brothers Saving Private Ryan I realize that all of those (save Apocalypse Now) are from the last 10 years, but it's kind of difficult to check up on the political leanings of filmmakers from the first half of the century.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 4:57 p.m. CST

    frakkin' weak HTML...

    by Matthew Martinez

    Sorry, let's try that list again, hopefully with better HTML this time: <p>Apocalypse Now<br> Black Hawk Down<br> Three Kings<br> Band of Brothers<br> Saving Private Ryan<br>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Vern

    by BadMrWonka

    "his last one was about fucking health care."<p>you wanna explain that one a little more? cause I thought Sicko was a pretty important movie, considering the crisis of health care in america, especially for children.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:04 p.m. CST

    I wouldn't mind my sacred cows being slaughtered, IF

    by BadMrWonka

    it was funny...there was NOTHING funny about the trailer, and let's be honest, usually the trailers for these parody movies show the best parts in order to get people into the seats. they can't exactly entice you with the plot, can they?<p>bottom line: satirize all you want. anything's fair game. but funny is funny. and not is not.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:06 p.m. CST

    AccordingtoJimRulz

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    You know, I get where you are coming from. I couldn't understand why Repubs seemed to hold on to 9/11, as if they alone cared so deeply about what happened. <P>But I was speaking with a friend of mine who is more conservative, his point was that he felt that day (and the reaction of the world) proved that there are enemies abroad who wanted to harm us, and when you see the cheering in the streets from young Arabs burning American flags, that we have to recognize the threat and react. He feels like the response from so many prominent liberals was to blame America instead, to talk about how we caused that day, how its all our fault and that the "chickens had come home to roost." <P>I don't believe that, I do believe there are terrorists who wish me harm, and misguided and brainwashed people who somehow think that America is a great devil. But we don't stop those mis-informed people from thinking that by shooting missles up their ass. We don't improve our image to the world by running around invading countries and bombing people. <P>Afghanistan was a justified cause in my mind. Iraq appeared to make sense, until further information came to light and it became apparent that we had overestimated Saddam. Now we have a mess to clean up and I don't envy any politician who has to figure out what we do there. <P>I fervently support anyone, like Bill Braski, who has had to put their life on the line for our country. And I wish agitators like Ward Connolly would keep their hatefull spew to themselves. But I don't believe that the politicians have had our best interests in mind, I don't believe that 9/11 can just keep being used as a reason to attack anyone we please. Michael Moore is a propogandist, plain and simple, but that doesn't mean that everything he says or presents is wrong.<P>The more the repubs use 9/11 as a rallying cry for their own, the more it pisses off the libs. But the more the libs take a cavalier attitude towards actual evil in the world, then the more it pisses off the conservatives who feel that they aren't living in reality. <P>We talk about straw men, well both sides seem to build them up very well, and its a vicious cycle that needs to stop. Reality is needed for many, please take a moment to stop pretending what the "other" side believes and just recognize what your "party" may believe and how you might want to change it. <P>Thus the centrist has spoken and will shut up.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:09 p.m. CST

    zanemn

    by smallerdemon

    Sure I have. Wasn't Rich Little the big headliner last year after Colbert came up there and wasn't funny but was brutally honest instead? Colbert wasn't trying to be funny when he went up there, after all. And it wasn't funny. It was uncomfortable and startling, as it should have been. <p> accordingtojimrulz - indeed! I wonder if any Republican/Con could say anything about where they stand at all without saying "Nine Eleven" or "September Eleventh" or mentioning that at all. At this point, probably not. Indeed, it was a tragic event that should be remembered with reverence. But define our entire lives by tragedy? Define everything we do from this point on by the fear invoked? Define every relationship with every other country in the world by one incident? Worse yet, it helps no one to do such a thing. Time passes and 9/11 becomes nothing more than a historical event in history textbooks to the generations that follow. Instead of mourning our loses and learning from our mistakes and moving on and being better people than those who attacked us, we lashed out so violently and so angrily and so bitter and brutal that we squandered our cooperative allies and become lone wolves of imaginary justice. <p> AICN is about movies, and I ask you to think back on the great films that address tragedy as the defining moment of a character's life. Films that explore in both directions what the results and consequences of a tragedy can do people. Ask yourself if this is what you want from the tragedy of a brutal attack. Do you really want to be paranoid, angry, bitter, resentful and distrusting forever now? Do you really want your only friends in the world to be the kind of people that will skulk about with you as you secretly torture people and get absolutely nothing from it? Because if you do, then you have no moral or ethical high ground on your enemies. You simply are becoming your enemy to fight as they do. Isn't the point to be better than them? To outwit them and outsmart them, and more importantly, to out human them? I would hope so. But if all you want is to lash out and make time stand still over and over on that horrible day, then you chose that for yourself. You chose to let something horrible define you and your existence. If that is what being conservative is about, then you can have it, friends. You can have it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Well said smallerdemon

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    Well said.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:12 p.m. CST

    smallerdemon

    by BadMrWonka

    actually it was hilarious. have you actually watched it?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:14 p.m. CST

    one more...

    by Matthew Martinez

    Oh, I totally forgot the best liberal-made war movie of all time, Star Wars (1977). <p>Okay, not really, but damn, I love that movie.</p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Matthew Martinez

    by ViktorBC

    Actually Matt it was Baldwin and the Wiki site needs editing. Again. It was edited by an ACLU sympathizer no doubt. That is not accurate history. Why don't you check a source that isn't edited by anyone. They have been trying to con the public into a false sense of trust for decades. This is a group that pays legal fees for terror suspects and pedofiles. That's the truth.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Also Matt...

    by ViktorBC

    The point of being a conservative to "conserve" things like the Constitution. It's liberal organizations like the ACLU always trying to sue changes in America since they can never win with honest to God democracy. For example, there is no such thing as separation of church and state.The CONSTITUTION protects you from a national religeon only. Hugo Black, KKK member and Supreme Court justice created that concept in the 40s.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Re: ViktorBC

    by Matthew Martinez

    I'll grant you that the Wikipedia entry may be edited and that the founders may have pushed a socialist agenda, but they did, I can't bring myself to believe that's still their mission. (It sounds like a Red Scare conspiracy theory worthy of McCarthy to me.) As to a source that hasn't been edited by anyone, that's absolutely impossible unless I can hop in a time machine and make myself invisible so as to observe (without my presence being detected) the lives of the people in question. Any book or article will have been edited by someone. As for whether it's someone without a pro- or anti- agenda is a different matter, and if you could point me to one that isn't an obviously conservatively biased screed against the organization, I will take it into account. <p>As for your assertion that they're "a group that pays legal fees for terror suspects and pedofiles [sic]," yes, that is the truth. As I said, they believe that everyone should receive equal treatment under the law, as stated by the Constitution. Just because you find someone's actions morally reprehensible doesn't mean that we should be allowed to take away their civil rights.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Sounds awesome!

    by vezner2007

    I'll be in line to see this one on opening day.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:51 p.m. CST

    Matt

    by ViktorBC

    They sued on behalf of NAMBLA! If you have never heard of this vile organization you need to pay more attention to current events. They are trying to change the principles this country is founded on through lawsuits. They instruct their leaders to never discuss their real agenda. They want to be thought as all-American and patriotic and to be for "the average Joe". Read the liberal "how-to" book "Don't Think of an Elephant". It actually instructs liberals on how to seem for the Constitution while supporting a socialist agenda! Look it up! It is a real book written by uber-lib George Lakoff with a foward by... wait for it... HOWARD DEAN!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Socialist 'appeasers' who want to make sure

    by Dingbatty

    high bridges don't collapse when people are driving on them. I hate to tell you, but there are important things that we all share or rely on socially that require money for upkeep and oversight.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Uh, Dingbatty....

    by ViktorBC

    That's not exactly what socialism means. Thanks for chiming in though buddy.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Re: separation of church and state

    by Matthew Martinez

    The idea that the concept of separation of church and state did not exist until the 1940s is pretty ludicrous, as Thomas Jefferson was a strong proponent of it. In fact, you can read his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association on the topic here: http://tinyurl.com/8c9et. Whether or not the First Amendment implies this separation is definitely up for debate, but I think a case can be made that it can be interpreted this way. <p>Also, the ACLU has fought on behalf of Christians who have felt their civil rights to have been violated. You'll probably feel this to be a biased website, but it does document this very thing: http://tinyurl.com/ya88tg. As I said, they defend everyone's constitutional rights. They even spoke up for long-time opponent Rush Limbaugh when his medical records were seized as evidence in his drug case.</p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Matt

    by ViktorBC

    That letter is often taken out context these days. I can assure you Jefferson was Christian and would not have agreed with its interpretation today. The ACLU has a socialist/communist agenda that is no big secret except for liberals who refuse to accept this fact. I even gave you a reference book to check out and your still defending them. 9 times out of ten the ACLU takes an anti-Christian aproach. They even sue to have Christmas decorations removed from the public square.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    The very fact that this review is appearing on AICN...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    ...is ENOUGH, in my not-so-humble opinion, to make up for that steaming heap of misdirected liberalist / socialist (read: communist) sentiment that was so gratuitously and unnecesarily splattered across the site by Hercules exactly one week ago ("COMMANDER IN CHIEF Creator: Sarah Palin Not Ready to Face Down Putin or Medvedev!!"). In a post that was, also unnecessarily, deleted, I offered this sentiment: "Fuck this post, and, sadly, fuck this site, until such time as you people offer the same manner of plug for Ben fucking Stein." However, David Zucker will do. Well done... My hat's off to the AICN staff this time. When you people get it wrong, DAMN, you get it WRONG, but it's nice to see you're willing to stretch a bit the other way to make things right. All is well in Mudville again, even if this place HAS become Ain't-It-Kos News for about a week. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    How the FUCK are Democrats socialists??

    by IndustryKiller!

    Im dropping a gauntlet and i want someone to explain it. IS it foreign policy? The foreign policy we've been living under for the last 8 years has been fucking disastrous. Some of the worst int eh history of this country. What makes it even more tragic is how much capital we pissed away to chase dragons in Iraq. And fine invade Iraq, but have a fucking plan to get it back on it's feet when it's done. Afghanistan? Same thing. Military might does not equal right in this situation, so when things like "the surge", are said to be "working" it just means that violence is down because htere are more men with guns but politically, which is where it all counts, we are still deep in the shit, spending billions wallowing in it, and losing ground everywhere else on Earth. If we had another 15 years to spend hanging around Iraq then conservatives might be on to something, but the surge having any lasting effect that wont take a decade to pay off is a fallacy. It's not socialist cowtowing to other cultures, its just pragmatism. <P> Is it health insurance? look I agree it isnt proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that universal health care is the exact answer we need, but instead of calling everyone for it socialists, why don't you people man upa nd give some facts and figures about exactly why. And while your bitching about spending of government dollars, why don't you wait until you arent pouring good money after bad into a war with no discernable end. <P> And meanwhile, when your bitching about socialism remember you are the party of illegal spying, throwing people in foreign jails for no good reason and keeping them there illegally, and the party in which the economy tanked, the dollar lost all its value, and made us impotent to imposing world threats. How exactly can this reviewer be taken seriously and not at a right wing lunatic when he starts right off saying that socialists have taken over the Democratic party. Does he really mean that literally? At least when democrats call conservatives fascists it's meant as a metaphor.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Re: NAMBLA and stuff

    by Matthew Martinez

    *sigh* Yes, they defended NAMBLA's right to freedom of speech. They're not saying NAMBLA has a right to rape children, but the fact is that they do have a right to *talk about* raping children and to form a group to discuss it, as reprehensible as we may find it. While I find it as vile as I'm sure you do, nowhere in the First Amendment (or in any amendment) does it say "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedome of speech...except for people who talk about things we feel to be disgusting." I don't think they left much wiggle room there. <p>I guess I'll have to read Don't Think of an Elephant, but it sounds to me that it's more of your interpretation of said book than the actual intent of it. You seem to be making the mistake of equating liberalism with socialism.</p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:26 p.m. CST

    ||If Zucker had balls he'd make an Anti-semitic||

    by 1922

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:29 p.m. CST

    ||film||

    by 1922

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:43 p.m. CST

    This liberal loves ALL satire

    by Larry of Arabia

    The best satire opens a conversation. It tells us it's ok to laugh at something serious. It picks at all targets mercilessly until it gets to the truth. It's also nearly impossible to make. Conservatives have proven themselves very bad at it as of late, but we need a satire made by them to expand the genre and help our conversation. I want this to be a success badly.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:48 p.m. CST

    I also love how he tries to paint conservatism as rebellion

    by IndustryKiller!

    Sorry but conservatism, by definition, will never, EVER, be rebellious. It's still the face of war mongering, anti-equal rights, alternative lifestyles hating, God invoking, anti-women's right to choose, abstinence promoting (ha!), planet destroying, artistically bankrupt, falsely imprisoning, anti-science ideology of people all over the world. Conservatism isn't rebellious or cool or subversive and all the Christian rock and dated "scary movie" like premises in the world aren't going to change that.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:48 p.m. CST

    US Democrats are pretty conservative...

    by Flim Springfield

    ...Compared to most of the western world, anyways. More of them would fit into Canada's Conservative Party than the Liberals.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Sigh...

    by ViktorBC

    Democrats aren't socialists, liberals are. Liberals. Progessives. Socialists. Whatever.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:53 p.m. CST

    "BALLSIEST MOVIE EVER MADE"

    by El Post-Modern Anchor-Baby

    H'Yeah and Hockey-Moms are ready to be president.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:53 p.m. CST

    BTW, Using JFK for this is disgusting

    by IndustryKiller!

    Considering that not in a million fucking years would a single one of them, be it JFK, RFK, or (obviously) Ted would ever be for the war in Iraq. Moreover it makes conservatives look like complete fucking morons who can't differenciate between World War 2 and the strategic quagmire we're in now.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 6:59 p.m. CST

    *Takes a breath* With all this said though, I will see it

    by IndustryKiller!

    Not in theaters, because I rarely see comedy in theaters, it's just not a genre I enjoy enough to pay 13 dollars for, especially the sort of random Zucker style comedy that I haven't enjoyed in any capacity since the heyday of naked gun. SOME of it seems funny though. Like Woods saying that the Oscar was "Only for a documentary". That's so sadly Hollywood.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Re: Jefferson's intent

    by Matthew Martinez

    You can "assure" me as to whether or not Jefferson would agree with the interpretation of "separation of church and state" as many see it today? You're a close personal friend of his? <p>As for the reference book, I understand that it's a slim volume, but I haven't had time to obtain and read it yet, having just heard about it just today. And the book you mention is not about the ACLU, nor is it written by a member of the ACLU. Unless we're not talking about the same book here, I'm not sure how it proves your hypothesis that the ACLU is pushing a socialist agenda.</p> <p>You provide no documentation of statistics to show that the ACLU takes an anti-Christian stance "9 times out of ten." Personally, I have nothing against public Christmas displays. I just wonder how many of those people who get all huffy about the ACLU's attempts to remove said displays would be tolerant of a Ramadan display or a pagan Winter Solstice display on public property.</p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Separation of church and state isnt "how you see it"

    by IndustryKiller!

    It's how it is. Religion not having any effect whatsoever on our governmental decisions. And if you believe otherwise then you have a problem with what fundamentally makes America tick. Where is your patriotism now? BTW Jefferson was a diest, not a Christian.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Why We Hate You

    by Larry of Arabia

    Oh god, I'm getting into politics. The AP did a pretty good job dissecting the lies told at the conventions, but one moment is what so galls us. You used 9/11 yet again, this time linking it to Iran, in as cynical and tasteless a move as I have EVER seen. I have a friend who fucking died there. Another that saw the fall and walked with the shell-shocked masses. I was at the train station when Metro North finally got moving, helping my friends. Here is a word from the people that lived it - FUCKING STOP. Stop using our tragedy for political gain. Stop using it while you strip away the Constitution which we love, justify a war against every state in the middleast. Stop abusing the memories of our dead friends. Because, trust me, the bulk of us that lived it hate you for it. And if you say that's not true, look at the voting records in the last two elections. Who voted against you? We did. Say it's because we are cowards all you want. It's because we want real justice and the perpetrator is still out there while you used us in lie after lie to foster your own agenda. Under your ineffective watch, he still LIVES and PLANS because you didn't catch him after the towers fell. Let THAT keep you up at night, let THAT be your legacy.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Hawaiian Organ Donor and SuckLeTrou

    by Alucinor

    About the Bill O' Reilly thing... not that I like him at all, but there is a difference between talking about someone who puts themselves into the spotlight and the kids of someone else who does the same. Nobody forced Jamie Lyn Spears into the media. Unfortunately Sarah Palin's kids are. Not that it gives Bill O' Reilly the right to talk shit to anyone but that's how he gets paid. SuckLeTrou, I'm not asking for every movie to be Republican or share a Republican viewpoint, I just want to go to the movies for once and not have to worry about whether or not it's going to talk shit about certain things I might believe in. Can't movies just have a great story that gets its point across without being preachy? I think City of God is a perfect example of this. I guess it's just nice to feel like somebody making movies shares your opinion about the world?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Art will always attack status quos

    by IndustryKiller!

    Which conservatives seek to uphold. Ergo conservatism will always be attacked in film, because we believe your "ideals" are injustices. So get used to it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Does Dr Huffanhoofer actually expect someone to read this???

    by I am_NOTREAL

    My eyes began to glaze about twenty lines in. Jesus, man.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 7:51 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!

    by bismarckf

    If you don't realize that -- in Hollywood -- political conservatism is rebellion, then you must not know Hollywood.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:10 p.m. CST

    FOX News Meets the Spartans ! The Movie.

    by G100

    The sheer colossal mindbending BALLS to do slapstick with a fat guy running around as Michael Moore!!!!<p> <p>AWESOME!<p> <p>I'll watch it and no doubt laugh at it almost as much as I laughed at the Fox News 1/2 hour News hour.<p> <p>At least it can't be worse than disaster Movie though... can it ?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:13 p.m. CST

    It's funny how all of you Democrats and liberals...

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    ...who are supposed to be part of the "party of tolerance" have such vile hatred towards conservatives/Republicans or anyone that has a political view other than your own.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:17 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller!...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    A few points: GENUINE conservatism seeks to AVOID war, when possible, by being prepared to not only ENGAGE in it, but wage it WITHOUT LIMITS. That's why World War II succeeded so brilliantly, and why we've been fumbling the ball in every single conflict since. No matter WHAT the Michael Mooretards of the world -- who are convinced there's ACTUALLY a STRAIGHT LINE connecting George W. Bush, Halliburton, Blackwater, 7 World Trade Center, ExxonMobil, the Kirkuk oil reservoir, Skull and Bones, the Illuminati, OCP and the Tooth Fairy -- may bleat, war is inherently BAD not only for the economies of the nations that engage in them, but for the global economy generally. And whatever else American conservatism stands for, it most CERTAINLY promotes continual economic expansion benefiting all capitalist markets, and America's in particular. GENUINE conservatism is absolutely DEPENDENT on the protection of ALL individual rights, and their extension, guaranteed by the government, to ALL. This means that a white man is a black woman is a straight septuagenarian is a gay teenager is a single Christian mom is a married atheist dad is a parapalegic is an Olympian is a draft-dodging Yale-educated President is a homeless high school dropout Viet Nam vet. Which is emphatically NOT the same as mandating that a certain percentage of government contracts be extended, regardless of cost or experience or quality, to certain "minority" groups... or that crimes committed by one citizen against another are somehow WORSE depending on what the attacker FELT about the victim... or that the First Amendment, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," DOESN'T ALSO say, "...OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Conservatism supports a government that mandates equality of OPPORTUNITIES, not OUTCOMES. GENUINE conservatism doesn't "hate" "alternative lifestyles." GENUINE conservatism doesn't give a fiddler's damn WHAT people do, so long as it isn't against the LAW, and as long as that law is [A] just, [B] sensible, and [C] unavoidable. I don't CARE if you're queer, a Satanist, an anarchist, a misogynist, a dominatrix, a Goth, a skinhead, a tree-hugger, dress up like a Furby, worship Jehovah or Mohammed or Joe Smith or Barack Obama or a crystal or Xenu or what have you. I may not want my eight-year-old DAUGHTER, who attends public school, to be exposed to your particular brand of batshittedness as part of a district-mandated cirriculum, however, and, in return, I promise I won't teach YOUR little naive spawnlets that if they don't join my church, they're going to spend eternity in a lake of fire. Mmmkay? You go be crazy in YOUR house, and I'll go be crazy in MY house, and when we're in public we'll both make nice, like sensible adults, and for the sake of sociaety in general tolerate EACH OTHER's craziness, until we can retreat to our own corners and have a nice, tall adult beverage. Fair 'nuff? Many conservatives, like 80%-95% (depending on the poll) of ALL Americans, may believe in God, and occasionally may even "invoke" Him -- like, what, you mean, casting Summon Diety in the Temple of Elemental Evil? -- but YOU'RE also free to deny Him. Doesn't bother me. After all, I'm not the one who'll spend eternity in a lake of fire. [Grin] But -- again, to "invoke" that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America -- we have freedom OF religion, not (necessarily) absolute protection FROM religion, which is I imagine what you're so brittle about. Funny, I bet you'd be inclined to tolerate someone next door who worshipped the Earth Mother Gaia, but not this friendly, loving, sacrificial dude named Christ. Whatever. GENUINE conservatives AREN'T against "women's right to choose" -- they just wish that the inoffensive, defenseless life that results from it had a "choice," too. Like, whether to live, or not. After all, women can "choose" to keep their legs closed, right? But that baby, or fetus, or zygote, or unwanted agglomeration of cells, or whatever the Hell you want to call it, DOESN'T have a "choice," does it? You'll argue, I expect, that it shouldn't HAVE a choice, since it's not capable of real human communication, contributes nothing to the society around it, doesn't pay taxes and is just a burden to be borne, so to speak. Funny, I could say the same about quite a few Democrats. And do. What's so wrong with "abstinence promoting"? People who can't afford, deal with or tolerate children ought not engage in activities that are fairly well known to result in them. Funny, you libs are so focused on "tolerance," but you HAVE NONE for those people who don't wish THEIR OWN CHILDREN to be as loose, sexually immoral, disease-ridden and irresponsible as YOU were. Or are. Or wish you were. Pardon me, "Planet destroying?" I believe GENUINE conservatism is concordant with GENUINE CONSERVATIONISM. Now, it's true; I'm at odds with quite a few in my party concerning this point, but I believe they're wrong. I'm not an Al Gore activist, however; I'm an Ed Begley conservationist. I believe a principal tenet of conservatism ought to be to leave an intact planet for future generations, better off if possible, but, certainly, no worse for wear. That means we don't clear-cut forests unless we also protect, even grow, others. It means we do what's PRACTICAL -- not, necesssarily, ALL that's POSSIBLE -- to safeguard our world and the other, less powerful species that inhabit it... But NOT that a chimpanzee, or a spotted owl, or a termite, has THE SAME RIGHTS I DO. I believe in buying low-wattage light bulbs for my home, NOT that I be MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BUY THEM AND ONLY THEM. What the Hell does "artistically bankrupt" matter one way, or the other? I'll be the first to tell ya: ART CANNOT BE "CONSERVATIVE." Art -- to be contrasted with canon -- takes chances, braves scorn, risks offending. I am not one of those people who wants to do away with the National Endowment for the Arts, nor do I want the government -- ANY government, liberal or conservative, "artistically bankrupt" or cutting-edge -- in control of what is and is not deemed "beautiful," or "appropriate," or "desirable," or even "acceptable". Artists ought not be impended, their visions truncated, by ANYONE, conservatives in particular, since by definition conservatism is SAFE, RISK-AVERSE and FAMILIAR. (More on that in a minute.) "Falsely imprisoning"? Give me a fucking break. FDR put hundreds of thousands of Asian-Americans in concentration camps. Stephen A. Douglas (a Democrat) was a proponent of slavery. It was Bill Clinton's newlty minted AG, Janet Reno, who burned several dozen religious extremists to a crisp in a compound in Waco, Texas. You libs bleat and moan that the big bad Republican Party, and its proxy the U.S. government, is trampling on the mythical fucking civil rights of a few hundred known probable conspirators to BLOW YOU FUCKING UP. I don't see too many tears being shed for the 3,000-plus ACTUAL Americans, who actually HAD RIGHTS, some of whom had actually fought for them and incidentally yours too, who died at the hands of their buddies seven years ago, on my daughter's second birthday. Well, partner, I lost two friends, two former shipmates, that day. THEY had rights. Foreign-born, foreign-apprehended dirtbags DON'T, far as I'm concerned. Tag 'em an' bag the fuckers. Weapons free and let God sort 'em out. It don't take too long to dig a hole, and we got plenty of lime. "Anti-science" ain't part of GENUINE conservatism. And SCIENCE is, by definition, an UNRESTRICTED and UNIMPEDED exploration of ALL possibilities, quantifiable and unprovable, factually supported and outright speculative, including Darwinism, creationism and the possibility that we've all been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Akleseizure. Now, do I want the Theory of Evolution, incomplete and as possibly inaccurate as it may be, taught in elementary school to my third-grader? Yes. Would I mind if her teacher called that Theory an inarugable and all-encompassing fact? Yes. Would I be okay if that same teacher advised that, although it appears to fit many observable facts, many people DON'T believe in Darwin's hypothesis, and instead place their faith (so to speak) in some supernatural or unscientific explanation for Life, the Universe, and Everything? Yes. Do I want her teacher instructing her on Christian, Hebrew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Mayan or Scientologistic dogma? Of course not. That's MY job. On the other hand, there's ONE statement of yours I can agree with: "[C]onservatism, by definition, will never, EVER be rebellious." Though I happen to find conservatism VERY cool. [Grin] Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Flavor Flav fucked Bill O'Reillys wife

    by G100

    That there is funnier than anything this movie will manage going by Scary Movie 20 or the Fox News 1/2 hour News hour.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:28 p.m. CST

    OK now can we have a review from a NORMAL person?

    by DrManhattansUnit

    "Kennedy Democrat" indeed, 'cause JFK was all about the torture, smears and corporate plundering, lol.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:29 p.m. CST

    I'd get a ticket for a Daily Show or Colbert Movie

    by G100

    Because I KNOW they can be funny. Where's the proof Zucker has been funny lately ?<p> <p>Bottom Line. If it isn't as funny as Team America then it simply won't do as well as that Movie did.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Proving Once again that...

    by Maestro610

    Talkbackers are easily baited with political arguments. From ridiculously arguing over whether or not you're a facist or flowerchild to trying to argue whether or not The Dark Knight is truly a tribute to conservative ideals. How flimsy are your beliefs that this movie's review/existence can endanger them? I have had about enough of whining on both sides of the aisle about this. Republicans go make more movies and tv shows people want to watch. Stop kvetching about liberal media. Liberals stop whining when they do go out there and make something. I will admit I'm far more left than the majority of this country, but my beliefs cannot be shaken by a movie review. I know who I will vote for and why I choose to do so. I can watch the Republican convention just as much as I can watch the Democratic because I am not threatened by the other side. From everything I've heard about this movie it will only appeal to its target audience and even then you'll have to really look in order to find it. So is it even remotely politically relevant? The First Amendment demands that we as Americans can create works of art in any manner we so choose. Support it if you enjoy it and if not then keep your money in your pocket. Dr. H liked this movie, from his review you'll know whether you'll like it as well so go forward and do as you see fit.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Have you SEEN that Trailer?

    by YakMalla

    Yoiks, that looks sucky. I'm a Republican and I wouldn't watch that movie.</p>I'm not saying you can't make a funny movie from a conservative point of view. I am saying that this won't be it.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    I consider myself to be a conservative...

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    ...and that movie looks pretty fuckin' stupid to me. I'll Netflix it at best.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Meanwhile in Bizarro-world (where Dr Hfuhhrurur lives)

    by jimmay

    Defending the status quo political party is apparently "ballsy." The only thing daring about this insipid nonsense is its courageous defiance of logic.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 8:48 p.m. CST

    I may not agree with him, exactly, but...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    ...jimmay's statement, "The only thing daring about this insipid nonsense is its courageous defiance of logic," was just plain BEAUTIFUL. Artfully phrased, my man. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:06 p.m. CST

    Ballsiest movie ever was TEAM AMERICA: World Police

    by Baked

    An American Carol sounds like a whinier version with easier targets and Uwe Boll's sense of class and humor. If Zucker can't sell this movie it's his own fault as a shitty writer/director/producer, censorship be damned. Liberal Hollywood has never had a problem marketing and selling a movie that bashed itself.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:07 p.m. CST

    ColWTH

    by Larry of Arabia

    How can the status quo not be the party that's been in total power 6 of the last 8 years? That's like saying a deep depression wasn't the economic status quo of the 30's.

  • Wow! That's fucking Genius.<p> <p>Because as we all know every War is exactly the same in every particular. From it's causes to it's inception to it's execution. Hilarious AND poigniant Zucker.<p> <p>And HOW are the Terrorists satirized ? I want to see these fucks brought to task about their maniacal blind devotion to their interpretation of Religion by cleverly juxtaposing them their actions with the overwhelming majority who don't strap bombs to themselves.<p> <p>Or highlighting how these back to the 12th century assholes use the internet and other advanced technology to further their goals yet scream about science and cultural evolution as the work of Satan<p> <p>Or how banning cartoons and "idolatrous" imagery is hypocritical bullshit when they run around worshipping posters and statues of their own religious extremist "heroes" and use propaganda (including cartoons) to spread hate.<p> <p>Or how the female is treated in society by some of these fanatics and showing how far they would get in a society without women.<p> <p>Or... you get the picture. There are 1000 ways to satirize extremists do it effectively and still be very funny.<p> <p>If the limit of Zuckers "satire" is showing Terrorist "slapstick" running around the desert falling over a lot and shooting themselves in the face then it's hardly worth doing. A Terrorist blooper reel skewers, attacks and shows us the truth about absolutely nothing.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:15 p.m. CST

    "Status quo"

    by jmyoung666

    Conservatives are the status quo in government and their policies have contributed greatly to our current economic state. Which is why we need actual liberals with an intelligent economic policy in power. <p><p> Most Americans are liberal, they just do not identify as such. If you ask them their positions they tend to line up more with liberals than conservatives. However, the Democrats still manage to lose every fucking time and while I believe the objective money is on Obama, in my heart I am fearful the Republican propaganda machine will win again because the Democrats doesn;t have the balls to point out McCain's and Palins ridiculous lies.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:16 p.m. CST

    Vern is right, here's my quick criticism of the review

    by Oski

    Why do the right think that opposing the Iraq war automatically makes you completely unwilling to go to war? Everything about the war and why we started it has been a sham. It's fact, no WMDs and no 9/11 connections. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the Iraq war, but now Al Queda is there, I wonder why? Yes there are idiots who think we can just turn the other cheek everytime, but they are far less than the idiots who think we should be getting our war on everywhere and are already salivating at the prospect of Iran and now Russia. The problem with Zucker and others on the right is that the terrorist beat them. They let the terrorist change their standards, their morals, and their decency. They let themselves be terrorized. Not me, and not people like me. I'm not going to be suspicious of every muslim I meet, I'm not going to accept a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. I want to dismantle Al Queda, piece by piece, not waste lives and money in Iraq. It's what we could have already done if we weren't spending a trillion in Iraq creating more terrorists. Did it take "balls" to make this movie in Hollywood, yes, but it took absolutely NO BRAINS either. Furthermore, how dare Zucker use 9/11 to make his misguided point just like the Repubs used 9/11 for political purposes last night? Fuck you Zucker for trying to use the deaths of our fellow citizens to justify the unnecessary deaths of our soldiers and nearly 100K Iraqis.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 9:20 p.m. CST

    My apologies

    by jmyoung666

    I was conflating actual conservatives with the neoconservative philosophy McSame has swallowed. We have been living under neocon rule for the last 8 years.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:05 p.m. CST

    "Most Americans are liberal, they just do not identify as such."

    by Sir Loin

    LOL. I think I'm going to put that in my sig for other forums and give you a direct quote for that one. HAHAHAHA!!! Fine job your 14%-approval-rating libtard congressional majority is doing there, jmyoung666. LOL. You're paying $4/gallon for gas right now because those two dimtwits think we shouldn't drill for our own oil, and your messianic presidential candidate with a whopping 143 days of senatorial days served is against both drilling AND nuclear energy. Oh, you anti-American moonbats are so frakking entertaining but dangerously naive. Perhaps our enemies will love us if we just sit down unconditionally and have a chit-chat, as The One has promised to do, huh? HAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:20 p.m. CST

    I hate Michael More

    by nyj_et

    because he makes leftist propaganda disguised as documentaries. Furthermore, it was legitimized by the Acadamy when they awarded him an Oscar. It took Scorsese more than thirty years to win his and this fat, no-talent hack wins one for "Best Documentary".

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:24 p.m. CST

    btw you Obama drones

    by Sir Loin

    Why does your messiah keep bringing out the race and Muslim card? Huh? McCain's camp has NEVER questioned Barry's race or religious background, yet here goes Barry today with another lie: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-says-mcca.html What a pathetic, glass-jawed loser he is, no way he'd stand up to Putin or anyone else without whining about it first. LOL. He still hasn't acknowleged his bromance with Bill Ayers & Jerry Wright.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I'm with Kentrel...

    by skani

    I've been trashing this movie since I first heard about it, not because of a political agenda, but because the concept sounds dumb, and from the looks of the trailer, it is dumb. What I can't figure out is why this reviewer guy seems so enthusiastic, because the scenes and spoilers that he's describing with such enthusiasm just sound bizarre and unappealing. I'm sorry, but I cannot envision any scenario in which a film can effectively alternate between slapstick spoof comedy, solemn poignant moments at ground zero, and the dude from Goonies playing a genuinely scary terrorist. Huh?!?! I can think of plenty of wacky genre mash-ups that, while dicey, could conceivably work. Not this one. Based on the spoilers, this film sounds about as promising as a holocaust spoof. As for the whole intolerance, censorship issue. I don't think anybody is trying to suppress this movie or say it's evil, or should be burned or any other histrionic thing--except the complete partisan wackos who live and breathe to foam at the mouth in blogs, chat rooms, and talkbacks. When people trash this film, what they are doing is exercising their own free speech to say that, partisanship aside, this sounds like a dumb movie that will not work. I'm all for making fun of Michael Moore, I'm all for equal time, but I don't think this will be fun. It sounds like a train wreck of half baked history and ideology and Airplane!-esque gags. Again, huh?!?

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:37 p.m. CST

    "That McCarthy Sure Was Bad"

    by Toonol

    That _is_ awesome satire. That sold the movie for me.<p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Oski et al

    by mynemaborat

    totally agree with vern and oski and others who i read as i skimmed through the talkback... also as i was reading this 'review' (ITS NOTHING LIKE A REVIEW, ITS A SALES PITCH), i was just baffled really by the underlying venom of his words... hes so damn filled with hate and anger at those evil socialist lefties... i just don't get it. he's been watching too much fox news. he's the type of ignorant dickhead who has grown up from a very young age knowing that socialists are the spawn of the devil, without knowing what they are... i'm a capitalist, but think that some socialist systems should be used for the public good, as in europe, australia etc

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:43 p.m. CST

    He's making it sound like a masterpiece.....

    by TheWaqman

    the trailer was absolute shit. It didn't look like a fucking ballsy comedy at all, it looked goofy as fuck. I'll reserve my full judgement until it comes out on DVD or something though. And seriously the thought of Zucker trying to go dramatic by placing the viewers at ground zero makes me shudder. He must have taken a few pointers from Rudy Guiliana 911! 911! 911! Thats all the fucker can say.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Why do Zucker and O'Reilly hate Christmas ?

    by G100

    We all know it's supposed to be "an American Christmas Carol" since it's based on the Dickens story.<p> <p>So why have these Christmas hating Hollywood atheist zealots like Zucker and O'Reilly taken the Christmas out of the title ?<p> <p>If only there was someone who could investigate this and bring it to the publics attention as yet more proof of the "War on Christmas!"

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Whine Whine

    by Quin the Eskimo

    whine with gouda

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 10:57 p.m. CST

    The difference between "lefty propaganda" and this...

    by Billy Goat

    Say what you like about SYRIANA and IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH and all the other recent anti-war movies, but you have to admit: for the most part, they don't treat the conservative side as a joke. They do not mock. They barely even attack. What they do is paint pictures of how people are being affected by what's going on in the world, point out what they think is wrong, and make reasoned arguments. I would love to see the conservatives at least try to do the same thing for a change. The liberals have factual information and clear thinking on their side; if the conservatives do too, they're not showing it. The best they can do to defend their views is to call people "pinheads". <p> That's what gets people so upset; the liberals are the ones making sense, but the conservatives are still winning people over. I'm more baffled and terrified by this than angry. <p> And conservatives, please stop mistaking "belittling our political leaders" for "belittling our country". Back in the 90s, nobody went around saying that "if you hate the President, you hate America." Because everyone, on BOTH sides, KNEW it was a stupid argument, no matter who's in office. Today, people are not only making such stupid arguments, they're believing those arguments. It's stupid. Stop it.<p>I mean, I might as well try to bring the troops home by saying: "Jesus was the Prince of Peace. Therefore, anyone who supports the war in Iraq, hates Jesus." Will that sway the conservatives? It's the same type of logic, right? Sheesh.<p>

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:02 p.m. CST

    South Park as equal opportunity satire?

    by The Phantom Limb

    This is an odd myth that seems to have developed over the past few years (especially since the release of Team America) that South Park "goes after both sides equally." You really think so? Because it seems to me that they only really pay lip-service to attacking right-leaning positions, just hitting the easiest and most obvious targets. Take, for instance, the "they took our jobs!" guy or Alan Jackson and the "Ladder to Heaven" thing. As far as Bush goes, their depiction of him is just about the most respectful I've seen on any program. On the other hand, their criticism of liberals and left-leaning issues has frequently been quite brutal. From the Smug Alert to Rosie O'Donnell to Manbearpig to a ton of other examples (not to mention FAG, Michael Moore and the "dicks fuck pussies" soliloquy in Team America), they're fairly devastating. Mind you, I still find the show extremely entertaining despite being personally more liberal than probably 95% of the people who've posted in this thread. But it isn't really accurate to say that the show is "balanced." But as for An American Carol, it doesn't look particularly amusing at all. Moore is such an incredibly easy and over-the-top target, as he seems at times to almost slip into intentional self-parody (and again, this is from someone who owns most of his films alongside season sets of South Park). Parker and Stone's depiction of him in Team America was possibly the weakest part of a quite entertaining film.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Er...

    by The Phantom Limb

    Apologies for the lack of line breaks. That didn't post quite as anticipated.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Straw Man

    by DarthCorleone

    This chip on your shoulder is interesting. It effectively preemptively makes this movie better than it is because it sets up as the little engine that could against the big bad blazingly left Hollywood and liberal media. Who the hell said Zucker had no "right" to make this movie? Anyway, it might or might not be good, but the trailer looks pretty stupid to me, so I'm not going out of my way to find out. And it's not because I'm some crazy liberal - I was actually very intrigued by the premise of this film. It's because it looks like a lot of stupid lowest common denominator humor. Nice of you to so slyly equate all "donkeys" with being "asses." Oh, your wit is so rapier!

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:06 p.m. CST

    add "it" after "sets"

    by DarthCorleone

    typo

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Wonka

    by Vern

    I just mentioned that his last movie was about health care because it wasn't all that controversial. Sure, some people didn't like the Cuba stuff, but when that movie came out it got plenty of positive reviews from various political perspectives. I just think it's funny that he's such a boogie man that even now they have a whole movie about him. 8 years of a Republican administration getting away with everything they ever dreamed of but one dude in a baseball hat got to make 2 documentaries... god damn it we have to put a stop to this!<p> By the way, did anyone read the article about this movie on The New Republic? It starts out with this premise that Hollywood is liberal and it's so tough to live there if you're conservative, but then it tells you story after story after story about actors finding out each other are conservative, and how they have meetings led by Gary Sinise. By the end I was thinking wait a minute, what were you upset about before?<p> And then I started thinking well, what about people who are liberal who are in a traditionally conservative world like wrestling or NASCAR or something? Should we feel sorry for them too? Isn't it just a fact of life that different communities and regions lean in different ways? If Hollywood needs more voices does the Bible Belt need more religions? I don't know. I don't really have a point here, it's just kind of a weird topic. Anyway, it's good because Robert "It must be weird, not having anybody cum on you" Davi gets his name on a trailer and got to narrate a video at the RNC.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:32 p.m. CST

    classical American liberalism is no longer reflected

    by Quin the Eskimo

    in the democrat party. It now reflects European ideals. Sad.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:34 p.m. CST

    The Ground Zero scene is a huge problem.

    by deadelephant

    The Republicans at the RNC convention last night exploited 911 for there own political purposes, as well as this movie. So I guess if you don't support illegal wars, out of control corrupt health care industries, out sourcing of American jobs, spying on Americans citizens (mostly for political purposes), Destroying our enviroment and the air we breathe to make a bunch of fat cats fatter, then you hate America and you don't care about the people who died on 911. Fuck this propaganda movie, Fuck the RNC, and Fuck GWB / McSame for destroying this nation and with their wacked out self serving ME ME ME ideology.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Point taken original bobblehead, Great post

    by IndustryKiller!

    I apologize for my ignorance. I guess my point on conservatism has been skewed by the Christian right who has been in charge for most of my life. Seriously anyone who hasn't read that post should do so.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Bismarkf, I live in Hollywood

    by IndustryKiller!

    And i'm well aware of the liberal bias not just here, but in art. That does not make conservatism an act of rebellion. At least not rebellion in the James Dean, punk rock, maverick sense. Conservatism (the modern version thereof) still stands for needless authority and a status quo that should be progressed. you can't rebel in favor of "the man", which, to put it crudely, is exactly what conservatives are.

  • Sept. 5, 2008, 11:58 p.m. CST

    You can absoulutly rebel against "the man"

    by Quin the Eskimo

    you just won't look cool doing it. And isn't "the man" just an oblique reference to whomever is in power? After like sixteen years wasn't FDR the man?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:01 a.m. CST

    If your going to impersonate me, get it right.

    by AdventureDude

    If someone wanted to make a film about people trying so hard to make everyone happy, that they risk making no one happy, I could see that as a meaningful parody of the left. A film that claims we are arbitrarily anti-war and pro-tax isn't funny, because in most cases, it isn't true. I'm left of center. I believe in capitalism, free speech, gun rights. I believe that until you’re willing to turn out the uninsured out of hospitals in all cases, you might as well insure them. It's cheaper. I believe that we should spend a lot of money on education, it's cheaper. I believe that spending money on drug treatment is preferable to jail, it's cheaper. I strongly supported the first Iraq war. Borders of an ally where crossed. Oil or not, it was a just war. I supported Bush Sr. strongly (even though I didn't like him) and I admired and praised his restraint for not marching on Bagdad. It showed the world that we respect borders, nations and rule of law. I strongly supported Bill Clinton, and I still think that his reform of Welfare was the most important piece of legislation in my lifetime. That legislation really tore the democrats apart, they were mad at the President and each other. It helped so many families, but it hurt some families too. Still it was a good bill. Liberals have a real tough time with that. They say 'on the other hand', till the cows come home. I can accept that criticism. Are we too passionate? Sure. Do we demonize success? Sometime we do. Do we take things too far? Yup, I’ve seen it. What frustrates is when we are accused of things that we don't believe. We frequently accused of being arbitrarily anti-war, told we love taxes, accused of wanting women to have abortions, We are accused of being without morals and hating religion. Well, I don’t believe in god, and I get angry when people act like I should. I don’t like for people to make me feel bad about not worshiping, and I won’t let anyone make fun of people who believe differently. I will defend your right to pray, worship whatever you want. Liberals don’t care if kids want to pray. Pray all you want, just don’t try to lead us in prayer. If the whole world believed in worshiping the great an powerful Logitech mouse, and you happened to believe in Jesus, wouldn’t you feel funny when everyone went to pray to the mouse. Would you consider that a betrayal of your god? In the ways of god, the majority does not rule. In the Army, I was once threatened because I stood up for my beliefs. I was told that I would be attacked in my bunk. I slept with my hand on a utility knife under my pillow. People shouldn’t have to go through that in America. Pray all you want, but don’t make it a requirement for being on the public school team. I have 2 daughters; I want them to grow to be strong confident women without regret. My nightmare, (the worst that I allow myself to consider), is them being pregnant before they finish college. I do not want them to have sex till they are 30 (if their grades are good). Now, I also happen to remember being a teenager, and telling a teenager to wait is about as effective as telling a dog not to eat a hotdog on his nose. He might for 30 seconds, while you’re watching, but that hotdog is getting eaten. I hate paying taxes, but I live in one of the highest taxed communities in Ohio. I do that because I also live with the finest public schools in Ohio. Not only are my daughters being education, but we live in a well educated community. That means safety, for all. I hate abortion, but I think there is no greater pain in life than not being wanted. Parenting is hard, really, really hard. Kids deserve to be loved by their parents, and they deserve parents who make a decision to have them. I despise parents who think that just putting a roof over the kids head makes them a hero. Any idiot can reproduce. Parenting is a hard. If you want to see a decent parody of the left, check out some Albert Brooks films (Defending your Life, Broadcast News, Lost In America). One last thing, I do believe in accountability. I just think that it starts at the top, not at the bottom. If a man steals food to eat, or feed his family, I'm angry, but can forgive. If a man steals to buy a boat, or a car, it's worse. The current administration has had almost no accountability. I think George Bush Sr. was a pretty good President. I think his son is a criminal. He misrepresented the facts to start an optional war. He highlighted the bad, and downplayed the little bit that supported him. He cost this country so much. Our kids are growing up without their parents, because they are off to war, our reserve defenses are depleted (Katrina), our nation is poorer and more hated than ever. We have also spent our honor. We crossed borders; we've ignored the rule of law. I think the events that led up to this war should be investigated. If crimes were committed, people should go to jail. Where are the conservatives on this subject? They are silent. George Bush is not a hypnotist, he's a criminal, but he has no super powers. Everyone who voted for him, not cause they thought he was qualified man, but because they wanted to have a 'beer' with the alcoholic, should be ashamed. We as a nation have got to raise the bar, and work harder at politics. We have got to listen to each other better. We have got to be better at discussing this stuff. We have to hold ourselves accountable for the past 8 years. Hfuhruhurr, I probably won't see this film. It doesn't sound funny to me. Still, I'm ok with being made fun of. It just doesn’t sound like this film knows who I am. I would suggest that a lot of conservatives deliberately misstate our view, so they don’t have to consider the opposing side.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:03 a.m. CST

    You stupid trollops, don't you see we all love America?

    by s00p3rm4n

    And it'll be a lot fucking easier to be proud of it when it demands capable leaders who will make good on their promises and America's, and respect her Constitution. But we have eradicated blame and wrongdoing from our national discussion when it comes to our leaders. Their hypocrisies and massive blunders have become the woe of THE ENTIRE FUCKING GLOBE the last 8 years, and I'm sorry but I refuse to let John McCain and Sarah Palin try to sweettalk me into a do-over. Their "change" is that they would ignore (even their own) history instead of rewriting it like traditional politicians. That the last impeachment of a national executive happened for a blowjob - and the guy calling most prominently for that punishment was cheating on his wife concurrent with the Presidential scandal. I really can't point to the last 20 or 30 years as our finest hour, but somehow doubling down on America and going even MORE Christonazi on everyone's ass is the mentally sound choice? The dignified choice? It sounds like a choice of fear to me. And a lame kiss of death.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Leni Riefenstahl

    by yomomma

    Sure wa courageous for making those pro-war, pro-government films back in the thirties... How can anyone try to take today's situation in Iraq and try to justify it by saying "Some wars are justified"? Democrats were in during World War 2, the same "left wing socialist liberals" who gave us the New Deal also freed the world from Fascism, so the entire plot of this film is specious. It is just more preaching to the right-wingers who don't understand the difference between SOME wars are justifiable, and ALL wars are great. And using "Reagan Republican" as a cover to just spout more support for Dubya's policies... "I hate Bush too, but all of his wars are great! Stupid Democrats trying to turn us all into commies with their time tables and full fiscal support for republican wars of choice! Who do they think they are?!?" Here's a movie: The First ghost is Joseph Mingele, who shows our hero the terrors of a world where Hitler became a painter. Second Ghost: Henry Kissenger. He shows the nightmare world where the US decided killing millions of Vietnamese just wasn't worth the trouble. Third ghost: John Voight as Kaiser Wilhelm, who finally reveals what heppens when millions of people don't die in trench and poson gas warfare over empty jingoistic nationalism in the First WOrld War. The Horror!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:28 a.m. CST

    What a...

    by FarSky

    ...completely worthless review. Next time, try reviewing a film, rather than writing a long-winded, overly-defensive polemic. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:34 a.m. CST

    Ballsiness?

    by Lobanhaki

    <brThey're just attacking a straw-man version of liberals that's been going around for years.</br> <br>I'd say to the makers of this film, look, the rest of us didn't fall off the turnip truck on loving our country and wanting to kick our enemy's asses. They think we need a film like this, when in fact they should stop taking such self-indulgent measures to cast themselves as the Jack Bauers of the world, and rejoin the rest of us in the reality based community. That would be ballsy</br> <br>When I started my blogging I was looking at Bush's war policy and not seeing much good coming down the line. It wasn't until everything cratered in 2006 that I actually said "fuck it, lets get out".</br> <br>The truth is, a significant part of the political controversy isn't war/anti-war, it's those who see Afghanistan as an obligation and those who see it as a necessity. </br>

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Typical conservatives.....

    by TheWaqman

    mentioning 9/11 to rally the troops. Rudy Guiliani must have co-written the script. Honestly are dumb fuckers still using that as a reason for the war?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Wait just one moment

    by Yamato

    A political movement that made TORTURE a part of the "American Way" has no right to call anyone anything. I am not an American, but if my country fell so far as to have state run torture camps I would either leave the country or start an insurrection to remove the evil, (and I mean EVIL) government that has done these things.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:48 a.m. CST

    When did jingoism become acceptable?

    by Yamato

    And why is it the "official religion" of the right wing in the U.S.?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Vern

    by Stevie Grant

    Your last post just betrayed that you know absolutely nothing about Cuba, the economics regarding Cuba, the economics regarding health care in general, and, that you just plain don't understand the simple Econ101 crap, period. BTW, Mr. Moore shielded himself (ie, personal earnings) from a shitload of taxes via his personal "charity," which costs him roughly as third as much; and politically, by paying more than his legal share (far less than what he avoided). Shit, even Chomsky started trust funds, and he's way more crazy than opportunist compared to Moore.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:04 a.m. CST

    ORIGINAL BOBBLEHEAD

    by mynemaborat

    you are flat out a dumb condescending loser... the entire tone of your pathetic rant is one of 'they've got it wrong, we're right, but we'll let them go on with their crazy beliefs in the safe knowledge that we'll live on in heaven for eternity while they burn in hell'... that's not acceptance, that's you thinking people different from you are weirdos or crazy, but ofcourse you are totally normal and sane. and your projecting your image of liberals by saying shit like 'You'll argue, I expect, that it shouldn't HAVE a choice, since it's not capable of real human communication, contributes nothing to the society around it, doesn't pay taxes and is just a burden to be borne, so to speak.' is that what you expect is it? well, that must be correct, because after all, you are the one whos sane... and saying shit about this friendly, loving, sacrificial jesus christ... you do realise that christianity has caused millions of murders throughout history? the catholic church gained power by murdering and torturing everyone who went against their beliefs... i'm not an aethiest, but i sure as shit don't follow an ORGANISATION that has spent the past 2000 years killing the masses to ensure their continued dominance throughout the world. But with the rise of the educated population through europe and america, the power of the church started to decline, because people no longer believed fantastic stories of magic and miracles, in the face of pesky scientific discoveries and theories like evolution. Organised religion uses fear of the unkown to force people into service, it exploits fear for power and money. i'm all for spirituality and faith, as long as it serves to bring peace to people, all people, while NOT causing harm to others. don't fucking talk all high and mighty about your bullshit, because you know fuck all about the world, only what your precious little conservative teachers tell you. you're a small insignificant little poisonous nobody... no wonder you're so full of hate... now run back to 'your naive spawnlets' and bask in your false sense of righteousness

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Stevie Grant

    by Larry of Arabia

    Your last post betrays that you know nothing about what Vern actually wrote in his last post. He didn't say that he agreed with Mr. Moore about Cuba, he said that the movie received good reviews even though that part was criticized. I don't usually step in and defend someone that's more than capable of defending themselves. I just sort have my dander up in here right now and can't sleep.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:32 a.m. CST

    I'm afraid I have to agree with the cynics here...

    by Jarados

    I don't know if I'll see this film or not, but based your review here, it sounds like the satire is not quite hitting the mark. As a politically moderate person, myself, I think my big problem with the Republicans right now is not what they stand for...it's that most of their messages, satire, criticisms of the Left, what have you, don't seem to be based on getting an affirmative message across, but rather seem to be trying to defend a position of power simply for the position's sake. Even if war was necessary to free the slaves, I don't see how that metaphor applies to Iraq. Sure, the message we were given by the media was that the war was about liberating Iraqi's etc., but the evidence seems to suggest that Iraq was really about oil. It was about maintaining power and status. I'm a little confused how that is similar to liberation of slaves. Is it okay to liberate the oppressed as long as you get something out of it (like oil?). Is that the message? I think this satire is going to lose a lot of its "power" very quickly. I admire a filmmaker's desire to fire at the Left's sacred cows, but it sounds like this film may be firing dangerously at the wrong heffers.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:38 a.m. CST

    The official religion of the christian right is The Secret

    by Larry of Arabia

    Is "The Secret." (in case the headline gets cut off) According to Joel Olsten and his sick ilk if you want something hard enough and believe purely enough God will give it to you. If you don't, God won't. Check out the 7oo Club sometime and see what the message is. Donate to them to prove you love god and if you do he will give you more money back. If you don't give enough your city will get hit by a hurricane or something and you'll stay in poverty. If you aren't rich you obviously aren't a good enough Christian. Helping those in need is way down the list for them. Those judgmental perverts have warped the soul my religion.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:40 a.m. CST

    What BALLS it takes to make fun of MICHAEL MOORE!

    by SnapT

    Jay Leno must be the most subversive, controversial comedian alive today.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:43 a.m. CST

    I love America...

    by ebonic_plague

    ...but, man, sometimes I just fucking hate Americans. This movie isn't a satire, this goddamn Bizzaro world we live in-- where torture is a noble effort and protest zones are freedom and liberty-- is the fucking satire. And it's not funny. They Live sounds more and more plausible every day. <p> Now, fuck off.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:49 a.m. CST

    If anything in this is as funny as Duck Soup Mirror scene

    by G100

    I'll not only eat my hat but go out buy 10,000 other hats and eat them too.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:53 a.m. CST

    I love how a lot of people on here...

    by Alucinor

    Talk about the Iraq war as this illegal war when we should have gone in there under the Geneva convention years ago anyway.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 2:09 a.m. CST

    I’ve had enough of the lefty propaganda

    by Merkin Muffley

    I’ve had enough of the lefty propaganda in films like REDACTED, LIONS FOR LAMBS, IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, RENDITION, Are you the one person in the world who saw all of those movies? Jesus, the people IN those movies didn't see them. Relax.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 2:42 a.m. CST

    ballsiest movie ever was lust, caution

    by ironic_name

    big balls, and vulva

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:15 a.m. CST

    South Park

    by darthvedder81

    Trey and Matt rip into liberals because liberals tend to be the ones who get their panties all in a bunch. Conservatives generally have a better developed sense of humor or our at least used to taking a few hits from the media. I'm a conservative and I poke fun at some of the extremes of my side all the time. I don't think I've ever heard any liberal I know self-deprecate. Everything is so deadly serious on the left.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:29 a.m. CST

    When do we get another review BTW ?

    by G100

    Not that I don't find this review intensely amusing for all the obvious reasons, but I for one didn't believe Disaster Movie was one of the most colossal piles of shit ever made until seeing at least a couple of reviews.<p> <p>(Though it was pretty clear from the trailer that it was certainly aiming with great determination to be one of the most colossal piles of shit ever made.)

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:36 a.m. CST

    I quit reading...

    by fastcars

    ...during the "mocking that the Left thinks War is never the answer, so they cut to a world without the Civil War" paragraph. Really? I mean, really? An incredibly tiny fringe group on the left thinks that. That is some clumsy, dumb satire that belongs in no sentence, paragraph or universe with Jonathan Swift or South Park. This movie seems like it will only appeal to card-carrying lawyer-like Republicans, who treat politics like sports, and defend their own party to the death. Pass. And I say as a rational, moderate person with no political axe to grind. Haven't even heard of those fearsome "far-left' movies you mentioned. P.S. The trailer was not funny at all. Political snark does not equal comedy.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:49 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I got that

    by PTSDPete

    Bullshit.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:51 a.m. CST

    As a liberal libertarian... (don't you go telling me that's a co

    by HoichiTheEarless

    I have to applaud Dr. Hfuhruhurr's eloquent remarks about the first amendment. I'm not going to agree with much else probably but at least I got the sense from this review that I might be able to engage in intelligent discourse with him on these issues without interruptions, shouting or name calling. Wish we could see more of that from both ends. Of course, I do see plenty of partisan rhetoric in the review, and that usually leads to the end of discourse. I disagree that one sided conservative satire is braver than Michael Moore's liberal attempts at the same. One thing conservatives really need to drop... trying to pretend they are the victim. That's really insufferably obtuse. You're the establishment, like it or not. And that makes you not a victim nor does walking in lock step with the powers that be make you daring. This is particularly galling when these people pull "victim card" cards on people who are so much closer to real victims than they are. It's as insipid an inverted distortion on reality and the English language as the Fox phrases "No spin zone" and "Fair and Balanced". BTW, I don't like Michael Moore at all, even though I agree with him on a hand full of key issues. He's just as much an enemy to intelligent discourse as Bill O'Reilly.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:53 a.m. CST

    ...that's a contradiction)

    by HoichiTheEarless

    To finish my previous subject header...

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:54 a.m. CST

    David Zucker, BushCo., Iraq War = WRONG

    by PTSDPete

    Name-dropping and reducing it all to a ' your side ', ' my side ' claptrap ( such as what this review is doing ) will NEVER change that. The Bush administration has reduced his own damn country and the entire fucking world into stinking hell. Suck it up. Personal opinion is NOT going to change the reality of that. No one is asking you to accept a viewpoint. They only tell you TO OWN UP TO THE TRUTH. Your outright failure to do so IS the comedy, that is, unfortunately, at the expense of EVERYBODY ELSE.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:59 a.m. CST

    What'd be a TRULY daring satire...

    by HoichiTheEarless

    A satire focused on how hypocritically mirrored the rhetoric is from both the right and the left. This presidential election would be the perfect backdrop...

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4 a.m. CST

    Alright, ' theBigE '

    by PTSDPete

    AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDDD being queasy about the other side posting a reaction IS ballsy ? Yeah, sure. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:01 a.m. CST

    Can't WAIT to see it! And I'm a DEMOCRAT!!!

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    The Democratic Party and liberals, in general, has needed a good drubbing for YEARS on the big screen, after pumping out film after film of whiny, bitter and just plain crappy propaganda films which present conservatives and the military as equivalent to Nazis and the United States as the world's greatest oppressor.<p>It's been sad, to say the least, to see my own party become a source of shame, embarrassment and even disgust, for me over the years... and the knee-jerk intolerance and complete unwillingness to even CONSIDER seeing this film only demonstrates how innately hypocritical modern-day liberalism truly is.<p>Freedom of Speech and tolerance only as long as you agree with US. Democrats have truly BECOME the enemy they claim to hate. Animal Farm, anyone?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Since When Is Comedy An Endurance Test ?

    by PTSDPete

    Blame the blowhards Howard Stern, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and Rush Limbaugh for the degradation of real humour into one-dimensional bully pulpit anti-thought. Just because you have a ruthless opinion doesn't mean you're funny. And I don't get their fucking enterprise. It's like so-called ' insult comedy '. These sort of folks are evidently easily offended, and scrape off their bottom feeding material from that, and YET they expect that their audience to just live it down when they load up on the abuse - that if you do NOT appreciate their offence, and live it down, you are not funny and do not have a sense of humour ? Last time I checked, it's the COMEDIANS who are supposed to prove they're hilarious. See how this directly led to the ( Insert Film Genre ) Movies ? The people who made it think just because they throw jabs at things, thinks it's comedy - which is only microdegrees down from the drivel those mentioned's dish out on a daily basis. Neither insight nor edge, so much as them talking. If you can't stand them, then you are the problem. And I don't have to stand them. No one has to pay them to do so. This is really stupid. And South Park is bad satire. It's just awful. You can take it.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:17 a.m. CST

    So it's '

    by PTSDPete

    TheGhostWhoLurks

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Darthvedder

    by yomomma

    What world are you living in? What about the Daily Show or Colbert? Any given political skit on SNL? 90% of stand up comedians? All liberal, and mostly self depricating. Conservatives have a better developed sense of humor? BWAH HA HA. That's funny. So Larry the Cable Guy is for developed senses of humor? What self depricating conservative humor even exists in this country today? Bush trying to find the WMDs under his sofa? Bush mocking the pleas of a condemned woman? Executing the retarded? Posing in front of a pile of naked torturees? If liberals are deadly serious at all ITS BECAUSE THE GOP HAS RUINED THIS COUNTRY. The TIMES are deadly serious. What the hell is the matter with you conservatives? Are we supposed to be kicking back and enjoying our mesopotamian genocide? Having a good chuckle when the stock market tumbles 400 points? Seeing the lighter side of having our phone calls tapped? The fact that today's conservatives only believe the crap they regurgitate from Hannity or Rush, and only vote for retards because they'd "like to have a beer" with them and you can't trust anyone with an IQ over 85, because they actually can understand world events and are therefore "elitist". The blue states should just succede from your union of morons, and let you tax-cut, bible-thump and cousin-fuck yourselves back into the stone ages. Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho for president in 2012!!!!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:27 a.m. CST

    So it's ' propaganda ' because they SAY so ?

    by PTSDPete

    And because they are the ones SAYING IT ? Even if it's practically fact on any spectrum ? I've seen these films, and none of them say you take heed because it's THEM saying it - which is proven to be the bussiness of the personality-oriented Right, and their empty brand of mocking. I'm down with anyone taking potshots at people like John Kerry and all that, but to seriously be resentful about the fact that they're posting their perspective ? And following that, you tow the line THE FOX NEWS fuckers want - which is to shut your face. When is the score gonna get even - when the fascist pricks has laid waste to everybody else ? your saying amounts to, ' TheGhostWhoLurks '. Or should I say , ' Joe Liebermann ' ? Sad day for the Democrat Party when one of their own is resentful of the fact that their group is taking a stand.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Fuck the Ad Hominem, Really,

    by PTSDPete

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:30 a.m. CST

    Balls before Brains= The Republican Moto

    by PacmanFever

    Just kidding. Sort of. Anyway, I think the problem with this movie will be does anyone really want to see a parody movie made with the intent of convincing (or maybe just reassuring) you that the current war is just? Or sending out a message that, basically, unless you are an American patriot you're garbage? Yes, I am intrigued by the movie, and yes, Zucker has big balls for making it. But the whole thing seems kind of misguided in a way. Yes, the majority of Hollywood films are left leaning, but how many of them seem to go out of the way to make sure they appeal only to the left? I think in many cases the leftist messages in films are something only hyper-sensitive, over-zealous Conservatives pick up on. I think moderates and neutrals wouldn't be bothered by them

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:32 a.m. CST

    And Ghostwholurks

    by yomomma

    You're obviously a Democrat in the same way that Joe Leiberman is a Democrat, which is to pose as one so you can criticize liberalism. How is it hypocritical to not want to see a movie that makes light of and glorifies war when this nation is occupying a foreign nation and murdering civilians that posed no threat to us at all? I don't want to see that because it is just downright dispicable. You enjoy your propaganda, freeper. Also, I HATE political movies. Who wants to go to the theater to be reminded how truly, deeply, completely hosed beyond any hope of repair this country is? I can just turn on the TV and watch the RNC convention.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST

    Oh, and TEAM AMERICA is the brand name in ' gutless ' :

    by PTSDPete

    It's a brazen, pretentious, establishment piece of crap that goes after things it feels it can take a shot at, without reprisal; instead of the big-time sons-of-bitches who deserve to get hit. Man, I don't get these guys like Alan Moore who applaud the libertarian idiots of South Park for their supposed 'courage'; or weiners like George Clooney who are still playing nice to these whining sons-of-bitches. Are they just covering up for how their audacity flies into their faces, and are propping this sit up to say they weren't affected ? Maybe they're taking about THEIR stomaching crap, 'coz that is how its going. When hecklers who tell you to throw away the vote , and accept the fact that dickheads rule your lives and there is NOTHING you can do about it is deemed ' courage ' nowadays, then you do realize how far humans have gone down into decline. I, for one, won't want to be part of any of that bullshit nonesense.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5 a.m. CST

    Team America was funny

    by yomomma

    And it took pot shots at both sides. Sure, they killed a lot of liberals, but "America, FUCK YEAH!" is clearly lampooning ultra-patriotism, which is conservative domain. Also, gratuitous and extemely graphic puppet-fucking is NOT going to please the book-burning set. I think that whole movie was just an example of Parker and Stone's understanding of the fact that their is no bad publicity. The more people you piss off, the more people will see the movie (as long as it's funny). They were trying to piss everybody off, but not enough so they wouldn't laugh, and I think it succeeded. Maybe Zucker IS shooting for the same territory, maybe I'm just one of the pissed off people this time. I just fail to see the humor in BIG BROTHER KNOWS BEST, and the movie is a comedy!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Here's A Food For Thought :

    by PTSDPete

    " A comedy that pokes fun on the 9-11 attacks. " Oh, you can't laugh at that shit, huh ? Maybe because you don't have a ' sense of humour '. That's Muslim towelhead camel-humping lefty propaganda, and ' An American Carol ' ISN'T ? Something's wrong with that sentence. Look, I'm not telling anyone what to laugh and what to not laugh; that's disgusting. I'm saying if you're going to do that, make it good. But don't expect people to laugh at your stuff just because you're the one saying it; like not doing so means they're fruity liberals who just hate you and the tepid view you stand for. Come on. We're talking about COMEDY here, a PERFORMANCE. Michael Richard's awful racial epithet isn't any way hilarious because he's from Seinfeld. They have no obligation to patronize your work anytime. And start writing actual jokes, please. People want to be entertained, not sign up to the Republican Party.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:18 a.m. CST

    THIS MOVIE IS A CAMPAIGN AD

    by yomomma

    I hate agenda movies, regardless of the agenda. Team America really didn't have an agenda. This movie is being released 1 month before the elections by a director who felt it neccessary to announce his political affiliations and who has produced several political ads for the GOP. Why pay $9 to see a campaign ad? Hopefully it ends with the Moore character realizing the error of his ways, voting republican (because they will kill lots more Arabs for Israel! YAY! War IS good!) and finally felating Karl Rove in a dirty airport men's room.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Mori: "With as few uses of cunt as possible"

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Moriarity: "...and see if you can have a conversation in the talkbacks afterward with as few uses of the word "cunt" as possible, please."<p>Ok, I have to say that regardless of how this movie is as a comedy (and I want to see it since I've always loved the Zucker type of broad, goofy comedy), you made me laugh out loud with that line, Mori. Good one.<p>As for myself, I will admit I can get a bit heated at times discussing politics, which frankly is why I usually try to NOT discuss them. Usually I just try to nod my head and say "Hey, vote how you want. I'll vote how I want. Ok, now that we've settled that, let's talk about geek movies!" But since it IS a presidential election year, I guess there's a tendency to slip up and talk politics more often.<p>But I will say this, too. YES, it's an election year, but, NO, I refuse to buy into the frantic and shrill shrieking THAT THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME AND BY ALL THAT'S HOLY THE FATE OF THE EARTH AND THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN ALL KNOWN EXISTENCE HANGS IN THE BALANCE!!!!! Sorry, I'm old enough to have heard that bit every 4 years and you know what? The world just keeps on spinning.<p>All in all, I'm sure this will be another squeaker -- as of today McCain is literally TIED with Obama in the polls due to the Palin bounce -- so somehow after months and month of campaigning, it's like the clock got reset and NOW the election season is on. So I'm sure as always Election Day will make for a great pizza & beer night kicking back and flipping through all the news channels to watch all of the commentators' heads explode as once again they try to be first and try to call a major election within 30 seconds of the voting booths being open!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:33 a.m. CST

    yomomma

    by PTSDPete

    I used to like Team America, and even found it hilarous from that same perspective of them mocking everybody ( and who doesn't ? ). Irregardless of the context by which they were putting it ( that I'd deal with shortly ), there were lots of fine stuff, and I'd sure as hell do holler at the ' browbeating Aids musicals ' much as the Bruckenheimer ethnically-bigoted bullshit superficiality ( and few points, for what its worth, for the non-chalant way they dealt with the Asian chick soldier to contrast the obviously intended walking steriotype of Kim Jong Il ( he IS a monster, after all ). Unless I misread that part ). The film really ran out of favor for me, recently, once I found out through the Internets as to where it was actually at for the creators - and by extension, where their vapidly disgusting, non-humour was at for the most part. Which is, basically, them irascibly whining that we all take the bullshit and DON'T do crap about what is being done to us, much less our names. Part of that may have to deal with their pretentious libertarian ethos of sitting back, and letting the ' freedom ' go around and take care of everything else. Hence, as I begin to understand, their general debased, and frankly anti-civilization resentment towards the government, yet not to the point that they'd man up to stop it ( or at take charge in it - that is, last time I checked, the entire point and function of democracy ). And also why they disproportionately hate the liberals - and for all the asinine, foolish of reasons. ' Coz it's one thing to mock people like Alec Baldwin for being pandering suckers who are clearly flexing their PR muscles to get attention veering in their way; its another to mock them for, inadvertently or otherwise, doing something better else with it in the process. I mean, these shitheads are being pricks because people complain, much less make fun of people who deserve it. How does that make room for comedy . The clearly anti-thought, capitulating undercurrent of it doesn't sit too well with me - and these are the fucks who excoriate liberals for being ' pinko ' on a daily basis ? There is no consistency in that , much less anything substantial that would deem an actual laughter in return. Coz I figure, if that would pass of as humour, might as well stick with the banana jokes. They're not really helping. I would not understand now, why we'd be giving Friedman and Seltzer ( did I spell that right ? the sppof turds ? ), such a hard time. Because, however way you put it, they do come from that same pool. ' Epic Movie ' 's plot structure is near indistingushable from South Park at random. Works of this nature just reduces the sum of the total human knowledge for me, and personally I don't get why these pundits have to give them a ' thumbs up ' sign to save face - so these terrible pseudo-comedy writers don't try calling them out for speaking their minds. They have to give their bullshit a pass , in the same way they're compelled to say Sarah ' Creepfuck ' Palin's speech was a ' grand slam ', or something. I don't get it. We DON'T have to like them; in the same way we don't have to like George Palin or Bill Maher or Conan O' Brien. The problem with these doofuses, along with Rush Limbaugh or Bill O' Reily, or the BushCo., or ' Dave Zucker ' - is their blanket egoistic entitlement, that we are obliged to like them BACK, to deem them ' funny ' or ' brilliant ' or ' objective ' too - or else you're ' not being a sport ', you don't ' play fair ', and you're biased . Oh, yeah, I get it. The Republican Party IS A JOKE.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Big Dumb Ape :

    by PTSDPete

    McCain and Obama were tied YESTERDAY ( Thurs, Sept. 4 ) , and only on ONE polling find - CBS. Obama is leading EVERYWHERE ELSE ( Gallup Tracking : Obama - 48, McCain - 44 ; Hotline : Obama - 46, McCain - 40; Rassmunsen : Obama - 48, McCain - 46 ). Fluctuates all the time, anyway, so I don't know. And yes, yomamma, ' Team America ' seemed equal-opportunity for the most part until the very end ( the ' dicks-pussies-assholes ' inane shit ? Turns out the South Park dumbasses MEANT it after all ). Which to me is a massive downturn, like those PC '70s kiddie cartoons that end with a ' moral lesson '; or like a Disneyfied disclaimer where it goes ' oh and we didn't mean those things we said after all '. Which is ' meh '. That was both a cheat, and sell-out backtracking, that supports a flimsy prescription by people who clearly are incapable of pulling their head out their own asses. I don't go out revelling in people's ability to inflict abuse. I don't like abuse. And that is that.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Well, scratch that :

    by PTSDPete

    I don't revel in people's ability to inflict abuse, unless it's FUNNY. I'm only saying, being a bastard alone doesn't make you a comedian.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:58 a.m. CST

    That's amazing

    by yomomma

    Simply the longest ans most scathing stream of invective i've ever seen spewed at South Park. Bravo. I actually half hope McCain wins. The economy is going down the toilet, it's only a matter of time. Do we want a Democratic congress AND president in office when the shit hits the fan? Let McCain eat the shit-sandwich he helped make for the last 8 years, and do it with a big gooey smile on his face. Maybe if the people of this country get to watch the GOP run this country all the way to disaster, they'll finally wake up and stop voting for those supremely corrupt fuckers once and for all. I'd be perfectly happy trying to decide whether I wanted to vote Democrat or Libertarian (legalize it!). Let the GOP be the next whigs. But then I remember that if McCain wins, we'll be looking at president Hillary in 2012. ...Anyway, South Park is in no way structured like or written as poorly as those Friedman/Seltzer abominations. ...And Palin's speech was a grand slam. She wasn't speaking to us, she was was just getting on stage to show how folksy a bible-thumping gun-nut mega-breeder she was. She was aimed squarely at people who only care if a politician seems to be like them: too dumb to use a condom. So she went on stage with her back-hills brood and yelled about how the Liberals think they're so much smarter than them "normal" folks. She did exactly what she was supposed to do. Another few election cycles, and the Republican presidential ticket will look like THE HILLS HAVE EYES.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 6:13 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller

    by bismarckf

    If you have to "meet in secret"... if you have to keep your views to yourself for fear of vilification or ostracism or retaliation... then I group you as someone who is ready to rebel. (The same goes for liberals at a NASCAR event, as Vern mentioned.) Face it, in this case, Hollywood is THE MAN, and Zucker is fighting back against the majority.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 7:13 a.m. CST

    I'll tell you WHY I will see this...

    by Big Dumb Ape

    It's not about politics or anything like that. It's because I crack up every time I see that bit where Robert Davi mentions a name and then suddenly a crap load of terrorists will stand up from behind their rocks.<p>Sorry, it may be politically incorrect to some, it may be low brow to others, but it's fucking funny to me and that's good ol' style Zucker AIRPLANE, TOP SECRET and NAKED GUN kind of humor. So why am I going to see this? Because I have a good hunch that I will be able to sit there with a large popcorn and soda and it will make me laugh out loud for a while. What more do you want from a comedy?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 8:08 a.m. CST

    McCain's speech

    by kafka07

    it's bizarre how McCain's '08 RNC speech was literally word for word almost exactly the same speech from Bush's 2000 RNC speech. They compared the two on the Daily Show friday night. These neocons have no ability to be original, or to bring about the so-called change McCain keeps promising. Recycled speeches, recycled policies.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 8:25 a.m. CST

    BIG DUMB APE

    by BringingSexyBack

    All your base are belong to Jimmy Carter.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 8:37 a.m. CST

    If the Daily show says it, then it must be true.

    by Alucinor

    Or something.

  • Notice no one is speaking for him - just about him. Everyone that actually knows him is hiding. Wright, Flagger, Farrakhan, Ayers. Great idea - lets take our country that has become the greatest and most powerful country in 250 years and turn it Socialist. Lets turn back the clock - no one likes being free and successful anyways.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Retrace

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Because at the moment we are totally free and successful? Riiiiiiiiiight. <P> Fucking cunt.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:27 a.m. CST

    why couldn't you just say "An Inexperienced radical?"

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

    Leave out the BLACK next time.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:55 a.m. CST

    I'm all for free speech...

    by neverhed

    ...but the quality of comedy films/media from the "Right" have been absolute shit. This looks no different. I'd love to see a good film that goes against my beliefs, and I've seen them before and enjoyed them, but the trailer looks unabashedly God-awful. Also: comparisons to Swift and Twain? Really? Followed by a complete backpedal on the tolerance you preach in your opening? Horribly written piece that will probably prevent me from even giving this film a chance. Nice to know you can do your job, champ. No wonder you're not a regular here after 7 years of contribution.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:56 a.m. CST

    CUNT.

    by neverhed

    Also, "cunt."

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:51 a.m. CST

    RETRACE - WHAT ABOUT OBAMA IS SO RADICAL?

    by BringingSexyBack

    Please help me understand where you get this idea that he's a socialist. Please. <p> Bush has so far spent over $500 Billion on the war, at an ongoing rate of $10 Billion a month, and run up the National Debt to over a record $9.5 Trillion. Billions in tax money have gone into the pockets of private military contractors. How has the nation improved with this expenditure? Was the money wisely spent? <p> I really don't understand the absolute fear people have of investing in our nation. They call it Socialism. Do you really rather your money go into war than into schools? Into healthcare? Into rebuilding and building new infrastructure? <p> This is the radical idea that Obama represents.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Retrace

    by yomomma

    PLEASE! How much Kool-aid do you drink? If Obama was any more in the pocket of corporate America, he'd be Republican. He's just as centrist as Hillary. Which one of his policy stances strikes you as socialist. Oh, that's right, I doubt Rush Limbaugh actually told you anything beyond "RADICAL BLACK! BOO!". I know it's acutely difficult for you mouth-breathing-puppet types to actually read about issues before you start parroting all those super-smart opinions you heard on the radio. But give it a try, if you practice, you may ecentually be able to read an entire newspaper article without moving your lips. And could you get more radical than Bush? If you let your pasty-white masters shred the constitution any more, they are going to come after your guns. You think they want to finish crushing the middle class into debt-serfdom, and keep them well armed? Do you even know what socialism is? Oh no! We might adopt some of the successfull policies the Scandinavians enjoy! The Horror! Anything less than letting the invisible hand of the market (AKA the Christian God) transfer all the wealth of the nation to the very few pasty WASPs who pray the very hardest is outright communism, and is therefore evil!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Obama is socialist because

    by HoichiTheEarless

    He's a black man with a funny name, that sounds suspiciously similar to the last name of the #1 public enemy (that MUST mean something right? Conspiracy!!!) If he was a white man named Obannon, with the same immense oratory skills, saying the same things, he'd be so far ahead in the polls McCain's speech writers would already be polishing the concession speech. That he's still ahead with the disadvantage of his race and name (this is not racist, it's realistic) is an incredible testament to how strong his campaign has been. Race is the 800 pound gorilla in this election no one wants to talk about. McCain obviously has to distance himself from making it an issue, but the GOP would be wise to send their minions out, stirring up the issue underground, keeping it at a safe distance from their candidate. That's certainly not something they'd have moral qualms about...

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:23 p.m. CST

    ACTUALLY THE SCARED ONE IS SARAH PALIN

    by BringingSexyBack

    Scared to even answer one question from journalists. How long can she hide from the press? Let us count the days.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:27 p.m. CST

    US War Strategy: Bomb them to hell then roll in for photo op

    by Stormwatcher

    I remember in the early days of the Iraq war watching CNN (which is so not a liberal channel) and hearing about how 25,000 bombs were being dropped as an advance strike. Sorry to say, but all you Americans playing COD4 and Battlefield seem to think your military is so badass but if I essentially nuked a country then went in to mop up afterwards, i think anyone could act/talk tough. Why don't you fight people on their own level? Oh wait. Now you are cuz your an occupying force and their killing you guys left right and centre with simple homemade bombs. Also, wtf is up with not honoring your Dead? ANY, ANY of our soldiers die in Afghanistan, it makes evening news, we see their military photos, we get follow up of their bodies being returned home and reaction from their town. They are HONORED and we are HONORED that they died for us. Why? Because despite all the BS, Afghanistan is a valid fight, it needed to happen and it needs to be finished. And more importantly, we love our families as much in death as in life and don't allow or want our media to hide their personal, individual sacrifice. I am sad but proud of the people that die for what they believe in and am shocked that for all your country music twang and flag waving you accept not seeing your flag where it can best be used, to cover your fallen heroes. Shame on you all for allowing FOX, CNN, NBC and all other media to share in this lie of ommision. Also, to Zucker, you got your pound of flesh back for the 4 thousand or so dead at 9/11 with the uncontested 400 thousand plus dead civilians. And no, don't argue that number, FOX itself guiltily admitted that number is conservative. MOVE ON. You've gotten enough revenge and you've driven up oil prices to exactly what Osama wanted, he said in the 90's that it should be well over 100 a barrel and you gave it to him. You and your wars and SUV's. Christ go anywhere outside of N.America and no one drives SUVS unless they are in teh jungle/desert. And lastly, yeah you did great in WW2. Cuz you came SUPERFREAKINGLATE to the war. The rest of our countries didn't have the luxury of sipping our sodas waiting for it to come to us. (Okay I wasn't even close to born yet) but seriously, dammit. Other countries *did* kill Nazis. And did *storm* beaches in fact my country got further inland on D-Day than any other. We were there. Yet the way you guys play history its like your the only ones that fought it. Last thought. When McCain dies, or has a stroke cuz he will, are you ready to have a beauty queen with less actual experience then most capitol hill pages run your shit? Man. That's nuts.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I'm scared of Palin

    by yomomma

    We really don't need a Jeus-freak back-woods book-burning whackjob who thinks populating the world with retards and teen mothers is "WWJD?" riding shotgun on the oldest and least healthy first term president in history while we are undergoing an economic collapse. Though, at least she hasn't had the time to become fully owned by corporate America. Yet. But this is really not a good time for warmongers and fanatics to be steering the ship. Look, if you conservatives want to see your savior so bad, why not just commit mass suicide? We thinking folks will clean up the mess and get on with getting America functional again.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Sir Loin

    by jmyoung666

    Did you read the rest of my post, or are you too dense to understand. It's like feminism. If you ask women are they feminist, many will say no. But if you ask them their positions on the issues, they are feminists. They don't like the label, but their beliefs line up with the core feminist beliefs.<p><p> Similarly, if you simply ask most americans what their positions on a variety of issues are, rather than asking them "are you liberal" you will find they are liberal.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:43 p.m. CST

    liberals are the true libertarians.

    by jmyoung666

    Why we let the Right co-opt that is beyond me.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Manbearpig I did not understand

    by jmyoung666

    Unless the guys are really so ignorant or stupid that they do not realize global warming is a serious problem. That was one of the episodes, I was just like "what the fuck?"

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    darthvedder81

    by jmyoung666

    I find it hard to believe you know many liberals. I have the opposite opinion you do. I believe the liberals are much better at taking a joke than the conservatives. However, that is not to say that there are not rigid idealogues and San Francisco probably has one of the highest density of those. Jello Biafra was singing about it 30 years ago.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:26 p.m. CST

    US Political System

    by JaggedSac

    The system is rubbish. It is soon going to be that a president is elected and a new election campaign begins immediately afterwards. Too much money is drained on electing someone who is gonna be a puppet to money. The bipartisan nature of the government is equally appalling. It is like world problems can be solved with a true/false test.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Kalleefournya Ooober Alles Asshole! Go Arnie!

    by G100

    Still a great song.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:43 p.m. CST

    LMAO, BringingSexyBack...

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Good one with the bases and Carter line. That made me laugh out loud too. Nice to see you around again. Sorry to argue politics with you so much in the other Palin thread since I normally enjoy your movie posts and what not.<p>Me, I'm now sticking to what I said up above and going "politics light" till I'm actually in the voting booth since this year seems like it is REALLY going to get people's emotions worked up. And we all thought the last 2 elections were heated. Man, what is election day going to be like this time around???

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:44 p.m. CST

    D.Vader and mynemaborat...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Some responses... D.Vader: Howdy, my friend, yes, 'tis I, The... ORIGINAL... Bubblehead. Great to see ya, man. I'm still around, I just don't post all that often anymore... Like, about once a year, on average. I only poke my head out now and again when it's TRULY unavoidable... As I found it, erm, today, and yesterday, and, oh, yeah, last week, too. So much for my "annual" AICN post, huh? Dude... We MUST catch up. How's Travis Bickle? [Grin] mynemaborat: Well, thanks for the support. Dude: "but ofcourse you are totally normal and sane"? What did I just get done saying, tard? "You go be crazy in YOUR house, and I'll go be crazy in MY house, and when we're in public we'll both make nice, like sensible adults, and for the sake of sociaety in general tolerate EACH OTHER's craziness, until we can retreat to our own corners and have a nice, tall adult beverage. Fair 'nuff?" English must be your second language. Or, twelfth. As for "christianity has caused millions of murders throughout history," yeah, you'll get no argument from me there. Hitler was, by all accounts, a good Christian. So were many IRA bombers. So, for that matter, was Harry S. Truman. However, let's be real: Anywhere you go in the world in 2008, on pretty much every continent and among all ethnic groups, you're going to find people blowing shit (and themselves) up. And most of 'em -- like, 99.9% of 'em -- AREN'T named Matthew, Mark, Luke, of John. They're named Mohammed, mostly. Now, that hasn't ALWAYS been true, and for certain, Christianity (like all religions, I expect) has its share of moonbats. But CHRIST never encouraged people to go out and kill one another, least of all in His name. You have a problem with Christians (people of ALL faiths, I suspect). I get that. You have your reasons, I'm sure, and there may be some of 'em I can't easily refute. But CHRIST Himself, I think you'll find, has done very, very little to earn your scorn. However, I digress. What you say about Catholicism is true. (I'd argue I'm not a Catholic, at least not any more, but I doubt that would mollify you.) Then again, ANYONE in power tends to do WHATEVER they deem necessary to REMAIN in power. Doesn't make it defensible, or right, or moral, least of all "Christian." It makes the people that do this... human. As for me "know[ing] fuck all about the world, only what [my] precious little conservative teachers tell [me]"... Hey, fucknut: I just got done telling you (IndustryKiller!, actually, this WAS an A and B conversation, until you fell out of your crib and started whimpering) how I support reasonable environmentalism and the NEA. (I also support the extension of federally guaranteed spousal benefits to gays, their ability to adopt, and serve in our military. I support universal unionization and common-sense gun control. I don't want the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, nor do I support the wholesale criminalization of abortion. (Consternation! Uproar!) Point is, I'm FAR from your prototypical conservative, and you'd realize that if you'd quit your panicked mewling and listen to someone else for a change. Moreover, I've fought in a war, volunteered in Sudan, helped rebuild New Orleans, and buried a child. I don't have shit to prove, to you or anyone. And YOU accuse ME of being "hate"ful. Hypocrite. Hell, partner, I don't even have a problem with YOU. You're a gnat on my windshield. You're entitled to your opinion, and being a prickly, hyperventilatinglittle paintywaist isn't against the law. Besides... If I know "fuck all" about the world, how is it, then, that I'm a tenured college professor? Eat that, dipshit. I served ten and a half years in uniform to ensure your right to be a dildo. I'd do it again. Thank me very much. And, dude, get my name right, take an ESL class or something. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 3:52 p.m. CST

    And it's begun! We're at 3 CUNTS and counting...

    by Big Dumb Ape

    Well, technically there's been 5, but I removed the 2 uses that appeared in my post since I wasn't tossing it at anyone as an insult. I was merely repeating Mori's line and noting how it made me laugh. So they don't count.<p>But our first use winner is DannyGlovers_Dickblood! Cue music booming over the AICN convention hall speakers and balloons and confetti falling from the rafters!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Democrats Love War! Always Have, Always Will!

    by Bad LT

    Republicans need to stop being such defensive, hyper sensitive whiney little bitches! Fact check: Democrats love war! It was a Democratic President (Wilson) who sent us into WW I, Dem FDR who sent us into WW II - against the objections of Republican Wilkie who ran on an isolationist make a deal with Hitler platform. It was a Dem Truman who defended S. Korea from commie takeover, and Dems JFK and LBJ who sent troops to Vietnam - it was Republicans Ike and later Nixon/Ford who settled for a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam. Dem Carter started military and $ aid to the Afghan rebels. Dems in Congress voted to give Bush I and then Bush II authorization for Iraq Wars I and II and Afghanistan. Clinton sent troops to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Africa and wherever else "humanitarian" concerns where supposed to be threatened. This is the party the Reps damn as being too peaceful and not agrressive enough? Please. On most major issues - war, Israel, NAFTA, WTO, drugs, IRS - the parties are THE SAME. I like people who represent some change from the two party corporate-elite-military industrial stranglehold, people like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Bob Barr, Alex Jones. I wish their was a third party that stood for a strong military that we only use when our national security is threatened, is anti-war, anti-WTO/NAFTA, pro-worker, pro-middle class, would abolish the IRS and the income tax (which we could do by returning to 1999 federal government spending levels), end the war on drugs and support the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments to the Constitution. In the meantime, Obama is slightly better on most of these issues than McCain. Ventura/Paul may be the third party ticket in 2012, and I think they could win. In the meantime it is funny to watch the Reps admit how bad everything in the economy is, but pretend they haven't controlled Congress for the most of the last 10 years and the White House for the last 8. The liberal-conservative debate is stale, predictable and boring. We need a freedom party. Right now we have two major parties which each are corrupt, and want bigger government, more war, more police state, less freedom. Or so me thinks.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Bad LT

    by Luscious.868

    If you started such a party, I'd join it in a heart beat. I suspect we aren't the only ones tired of both the Republicans and Democrats and the whole mired of issues on which they claim to differ but actually see just about eye to eye when it comes to their actions. Big government, massive spending, fraud, waste, abuse, etc. It's pathetic.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Vern

    by ViktorBC

    There is a big difference. Yes there are liberals in the bible belt. Hell, Harry lives in gun-toting, electric-chair using, toabacco chewing Texas. But NASCAR doesn't try to push a message down anyone's throat. Hollywood does. Have you forgotten the ANT BULLY, hmmmm?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:07 p.m. CST

    BIG DUMB APE

    by BringingSexyBack

    Glad you liked that line. And yeah, I'm a bit worn from politics today. We need to get a Michael Bay talkback up in dis muuh fuh.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:13 p.m. CST

    MAYBE AICN RIGHT AND LEFT CAN DEVISE A UNIFICATION PLATFORM

    by BringingSexyBack

    We could debate a handful of important topics/issues and see if it's possible to come up with a consensus. <p> Or we could end up as dipshits, cunts, douchebuckets, dingleberry-feeding parasites, and anal rape victims ... as uaual.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Bad LT...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Bad Ell-Tee, other than modifying your statement to, "LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ALIKE need to stop being such defensive, hyper sensitive whiney little bitches," I'm pretty much in agreement with you, and most of what you say. I for one am not a conservative who thinks "all Democrats are wimps," or what have you. I AM, however -- for what it's worth, which, admittedly, isn't much 'round here -- a firm believer that, ONCE ENGAGED in war, the politicking -- no matter WHO'S doing it -- needs to STOP, and we as a nation need to prosecute that war to our fullest abilities, saving lives (ours, theirs, those of the hapless civvies who are always caught in-between) in the short-term, and reinforcing American security in the long term by demonstrating our willingness and ability to wield the "big stick." Even "bad" wars can have good results -- for example, the Barbary Wars expanded (eventually) American trade overseas, and helped to heal what seemed at that point an unbridgeable divide between England and her former colony; the Mexican-American War solidified our southern border, netted us territory from Texas to California, and inaugurated an entire era of Western exploration, pioneering, and expansion; the Spanish-American War helped to legitimize the Monroe Doctrine, ensured American leadership in the hemisphere and set the stage for a century of U.S. global influence, for better AND worse --and even "good" wars can lead to disaster. (And, yes, I'm one who happens to think that both Viet Nam AND the Iraq War were justified, and that our lack of quantifiable success in prosecuting them has far, far more to do with the "HOW" than the "WHY" of WHAT WE DID. But, I respect those who feel they were unnecessary, and admit that it will be a hundred years before any of us can be certain in that regard.) I also supported ALL Clinton's mobilizations, and for one would have been happy to see substantial expansions of our activities in support of humanitarian missions in Somalia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and, especially, Haiti, where I DID serve, in 1992-3. I would wholeheartedly support the formation of the manner of political party you describe -- I have been a delegate to two Republican National Conventions, now, but in 2000 I pushed heavily for a McCain-Lieberman "Unification" Party to bridge the chasm you allude to. (But, then again, I voted for Perot in '92. There's no fool, like an old fool, folks.) You figger out a way to make that party relevant, and I'll go door to door for ya, partner. THERE IS MORE, FAR, FAR MORE, THAT UNITES US, THAN SEPARATES US. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Viktor

    by Vern

    Have I forgotten The Ant Bully? Of course I have, why the fuck do YOU remember The Ant Bully? I'm confused by this conversation. Also what is your take on "the barnyard" or whatever the one about the male cows was. And the 3-d fly astronauts. thanks Viktor

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 6:54 p.m. CST

    jmyoung666

    by WerePlatypus

    Most people are liberals. They do think government ought to intervene in American life in thousands of different ways. I hear conservatives all they time talking about "they should fix this . . ." and "they need to help out . . . ." Who's this mysterious "they?" Wal-Mart?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 6:55 p.m. CST

    jmyoung666

    by WerePlatypus

    I forgot to mention great post, good point, and that I agreed. Credit where credit is due!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 7:34 p.m. CST

    differing points of view

    by WealthyPeasant

    Thanks for posting film reviews with differing points of view. Isn't that what this site (the passion behind it) is all about (i.e. film and the love/hate relationships we have with it)?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Vern

    by ViktorBC

    First, thanks for answering. Second, the Ant Bully was "shove a messag down your throat" movie. That was the point. Even liberal movie reviewers called it "socialism 101". It got a review like that on this site if I remember correctly. You acknowledged Hollywood as a liberal kind of town and compared it to other left or right-centric areas of the country. However, other parts of the country do not control what gets shown on TV and movie houses. Yes we have a choice to see Michael Moore movie or not, but many parents take their kids to movies never realizing until it's over that the director's politics are now influencing their child's developement. By the way, and I am not trying to be a smart-ass... I really like you guys and LOVE AICN, but why do you guys (mostly Harry) bring up politics so much anyway? I know this Harry's baby and all and of course he is entitled to his opinion, but we don't come here for his opinion on Bush, we come here for his opinion on genre films. Everyone here has one thing in common that goes beyond our political beliefs... We are all geeks and fan-boys. Thanks Vern and keep up the good work you guys do here.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 8 p.m. CST

    Bringingsexyback UNified platform

    by yomomma

    Agreement #1: Bigger issues than abortion, gay marraige and gun control face this nation at this point in history. We need to table these issues until we have gotten this nation on firmer ground.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 8:10 p.m. CST

    I've never understood

    by Cedar_Room

    your countries fascination with the abortion issue. That it sits so high on the political agenda so many years after being legalised just baffles me. Shouldn't you still be debating whether black people should be allowed in the same schools as whites too?

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:14 p.m. CST

    bubblehead

    by mynemaborat

    i don't have a problem with christ... i have a problem with organised religion. people who say they follow christ, really mean they follow the pope, bishops etc of the church. the power has never been in the hands of god, its always been in the hands of the priests. men built the church, men controlled the power... organised religion has very little to do with jesus christ, its all about selling a service.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Wow. Comparing the abortion issue to segregation / insitutional racism / slavery is about as ignorant a juxtaposition as I've ever come across. So, let's play a game. Let's pretend for a second that we both value "life". Let's also assume that we take the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence -- which really is nothing more than a general statement of core humanist beliefs -- seriously, that ALL men (and women) are heir to, not by their government, but by He who made them, the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that, in keeping with the rhetorical maxim of primacy, LIFE is the most exalted and important of these "inalienable rights." Now let's pretend that you and I differ -- wildly -- on what we consider "life" to BE. I say it begins with conception... you feel more comfortable identifying some other point on the gestational timeline, whether it be some date dividing one trimester from another, or at the point at which some critical body part or bodily function has reached some level of maturity, or at the moment that said life becomes sustainable outside the womb, or at actual delivery, or what have you. Now, let's also pretend that we're both convinced beyond any possibility of the rightness of our beliefs in this regard. We just differ on the timing. We're both decent people. Both of us feel that "life," whatever we hold that to be, is rare and precious and irreplaceable and miraculous. What, exactly, is so darned medieval, so incredibly hateful, so positively mystifying about BOTH of us wanting to protect "life"? You may feel that the lives of even the worst offenders, no matter their crime, are NEVER forfeit (and, being against the death penalty, I would agree with you); so, I feel that the lives of even the smallest and, to all worldly wisdom, least significant of us, is, inherently, EQUALLY invaluable. Are we really SO far apart, you who feels that even the least worthy of us is worthy of having their life defended, and I, who feel that even the LEAST of us is every inch as worthy? We're BOTH humanists, in our way... I just have a different definition of what is means to be, "human." Please, my friend, think about it. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 9:30 p.m. CST

    mynemaborat...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    (Good. NOW, we're talking.) U know exactly what you mean about "organised religion." I'm fond of saying, myself, that "religion" has done far more than atheism to kill off actual, living, breathing FAITH. What you say about "power," the power to invoke the name of God, to have carte blanche to influence this world in His name, is, sadly, too, too true. Taking God's name in vain -- invoking Him to get away with immoral, monstrous, un-God-ly acts -- is all too common in a world where carnal men are empowered to enslave others in the name of a deity they have no desire to actually serve. I get your cynicism, I do, and I sympathize, and I wish it wasn't so, that good men would become soured on spiritualism because of the antics and misdeeds and crimes of far LESSER men. Sadly, that's the world we live in. I really DON'T mean to proselytize here, but all I can give you in the way of (unsolicited) advice in this matter is, don't place your faith in men. They can, and have, and will always be corruptible, and will disappoint you, and will ultimately betray you. Thanks for a well-stated rebuttal, and sorry if I was too harsh towards you earlier. Blood sugar's much better, now. [Grin] Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Bubblehead

    by Cedar_Room

    you seem to have missed the point I was making which is this: abortion is not a major political issue in any developed country save for the US. The decision to legalise abortion was taken in my country (Britain) some 40 years ago. It is so obviously the right decision, taken by people far more knowledgable and intelligent than I, that to find people still spending so much time over it so many years later is to me utterly baffling. Perhaps we still need to be discussing whether women should be allowed into the franchise? Perhaps we need to ask whether cigarettes really ARE dangerous for our health, or whether thats all a load of scaremongering? These debates still waged today would, like abortion, be an anachronism. We had the debate and made the correct decision a long long time ago. Let's try to move on.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:29 p.m. CST

    I think BSB had the right idea above...

    by Big Dumb Ape

    I think BringingSexyBack had the right idea above, so I salute him. We can all agree to disagree on politics given our different beliefs or backgrounds... we can debate, though hopefully without getting TOO angry or personal... come Election Day we can exercise our right to vote... and then regardless of the outcome, be it McCain or Obama, we can come together as Americans and really TRY to fix things this time.<p>But most important of all, as BSB suggested, we can get back to talking about Michael Bay and TRANSFORMERS 2! Will it be shit or not? I feel an all-new 10,000 post TF thread coming up!!!

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room... (Part Deux)

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    [Shaking head, sadly] No, partner, it seems you missed MY point, which was that -- however "resolved" this issue may be, to the rest of the "developed" world -- it's still very much an open and active discussion HERE, in the U.S. And, personally, I (and, I rather suspect, many other Americans) don't tend to feel too comfortable, permitting decisions to be "taken by people far more knowledgable and intelligent" than myself. See, it's funny but, I don't really consider myself a nimrod, a Neanderthal or a turnip. I have three degrees and a fairly curious, yet skeptical, mind; I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm far from a drooling idiot. (My in-laws would probably disagree.) But, even THAT's not the point. So what if I consider myself "smart"? Pretty much everyone does, it's a wash. What I'm saying is, intelligent or not, educated or not, I have as much a right to make up my OWN mind on this (and any other) subject, as anyone else, and simply don't TRUST the well-heeled, well-read or well-bred to take decisions on MY behalf. Remember, these are some of the same people whose forebears, five centuries ago, tried to burn Copernicus at the stake for daring to suggest the earth revolved 'round the sun; who, a little over a hundred years ago, laughed at Orville and Wilbur Wright; who, until quite recently, thought the next climatic shift this planet suffered would be a New Ice Age, and not that fashionable millennial bogeyman, global warming. Who might very well change their minds fifteen years or even fifteen minutes from now. I don't suffer the tyranny of either fools OR so-called "intelligentsia"; I don't care WHAT their pedigrees are, they, like the rest of us, are wrong as often as they're right. Perhaps more so, because they're far less likely to be challenged, particularly by folks like you, content to let your supposed betters tell you what to think and believe. By the by, equating my beliefs vis-a-vis abortion with those of a misogynist, a tobacco lobbyist or, as you implied earlier, a KKKer is pretty friggin' pathetic, pal. I don't mind you trying to get a rise out of me, but, frankly, you insult BOTH our intellects by reaching for such patently ridiculous extremes. Glad you like the Kool-Aid, though. Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 10:34 p.m. CST

    What Democrats need to realize is that abortion...

    by rbatty024

    is an issue that helps them. The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some form (when you get to the third trimester it becomes tricky), and it is the evangelical population who are in the minority. In South Dakota, a traditionally conservative state, the voters killed a ballot measure that tried to ban abortion. While some people may be uncomfortable with abortion, the vast majority of people disagree with McCain-Palin about outlawing abortion.

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 11:01 p.m. CST

    bubblehead

    by mynemaborat

    yeah man totally agree

  • Sept. 6, 2008, 11:03 p.m. CST

    From an avowed Centrist--

    by thepaleone

    Since everyone seems to want to state their preference before commenting: I tend to be too conservative for my liberal friends and too liberal for my conservative friends. That being said, my question is just this: does making fun of Michael Moore and the sacred cows of the Left automatically make you a Republican? Maybe David Zukcer just figured that in the media, there IS often a Left-leaning bias (notice I said leaning--not overall control), so the Left needed a little ass-kicking? Maybe next year, he'll turn right around and kick the Right in the ass. Artists are allowed to switch sides in debates, after all, and play Devil's Advocate. That being said, despite some promising stuff in the review, the trailer really DID look like ass...

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 1:37 a.m. CST

    ViktorBC

    by Alucinor

    "By the way, and I am not trying to be a smart-ass... I really like you guys and LOVE AICN, but why do you guys (mostly Harry) bring up politics so much anyway? I know this Harry's baby and all and of course he is entitled to his opinion, but we don't come here for his opinion on Bush, we come here for his opinion on genre films." Well said.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Thanks WerePlatypus

    by jmyoung666

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 2:26 a.m. CST

    Does amyone here

    by PacmanFever

    Actually know anyone who believes The Ant Bully is going to turn our kids into fanatical socialists. If you do, tell them to get out more.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Anyone not amyone

    by PacmanFever

    The point still stands

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 4:06 a.m. CST

    Viktor

    by Vern

    Well I can't speak for Harry. I know I talk about politics in reviews every once in a while, but it's because many movies ARE political, even when they don't try to be. Obviously Dr. H could not talk about this movie without turning it into a political discussion, since it is more politics than it is a movie. And there are movies like 300 that you can't really watch without seeing politics even though somehow Zack Snyder didn't see them.<p> Politics makes for annoying talkbacks, but I think it's legitimate to talk about the politics of a movie. I believe Massawyrm was the one who wrote the Ant Bully review now that you remind me of it. He had a similarly over-the-top reaction to Happy Feet. I had seen that movie so I thought he was completely nuts but if he really thinks it's a threat to America that a movie about penguins warns against overfishing at the end then by all means he should write about it. Why not?<p> But it's also legitimate for you to think it's gratuitous sometimes, that's fair too. Anyway thanks for the kind words Viktor.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Vern

    by Alucinor

    I don't think interpreting the political message of a movie is a bad thing... I think it's a little overboard when a reviewer constantly interjects their own personal opinion about politics into their movie review.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 6:18 a.m. CST

    AICN

    by Alucinor

    You know, I may have some complaints about politics on AICN... but that's very minor. AICN is by far, the best movie site out there. They actually give a shit about movies and you can tell. Those cynical guys at CHUD seem pissed off that they got stuck reviewing movies for a living and it is some kind of burden. No matter what miniscule complaints I might have, there's a reason why I keep coming back. In the immortal words of sweetums... "I LOVE YOU GUYS!!"

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 10:01 a.m. CST

    Bubblehead part III

    by Cedar_Room

    it seems you have missed my point again. The reason I bring up segregation is that it was a controversial issue, hotly debated, resulting in violence on occassion that bitterly divided the US - just like the abortion debate has. The difference is that 40 years ago the issue was resolved in obviously the right way. No-one is still sitting around discussing whether it is right for black and white children to attend the same school because it is obvious that they should. The same views apply, for me, to the abortion debate. It WAS an issue, 40 years ago, but it was legalised and this was the right decision to make. No-one in Britain is still sat around arguing about this, in the same way no one is still arguing about segregation, women's suffrage etc. Do you understand? <p> Furthermore if you are unhappy and distrustful of having decisions made on your behalf by the intelligentsia perhaps you should avoid living in a representative democracy.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 3:20 p.m. CST

    [Sigh] Cedar_Plank (Part the Third)

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    ...You know, my friend, your thickheadedness is bordering on outright obstinacy. [Grin]<p> Okay, altogether now... For the THIRD time: The abortion "issue" MAY have been "resolved" in Europe and other places around the world, and to a person such as yourself, who obviously is predisposed to AGREE with the legality and easy accessibility of abortions, it must, indeed, seem "obvious" that the correct choice, har har, was made. And you've made clear your comfort with allowing others, who have apparently convinced you as well as themselves of their intelligence, erudition and infallibility, to take decisions such as these on your behalf and in your supposed best interests, since, it may be concluded, you feel yourself unable to the task of deciding for YOURSELF, exactly what it is that you should BELIEVE. Congratulations, all in all, you're just another brick in the wall.<p> However, and this is something I get down on my knees -- literally -- and thank God for every day, America is most emphatically NOT Europe, nor the rest of a world living under a hegemony of conjoined egoism and pseudo-intellectualism. Here, in THIS country, which is (as you rightly point out) a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, we, the people -- even the least informed, educated and respectable among us -- have not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to use our franchise to effect change in our leadership, so that, rather than merely submitting ourselves to their infinite wisdom and sacrosanct authority, we "GET A VOTE," literally, in who speaks on uor behalf, and for how long. It is every American's obligation to ensure that THEIR voice, unwashed, illiterate or misbegotten though it may be, is heard even in the highest offices and the darkest corners where power is wielded. Which is, by the by, precisely WHY abortion is STILL an issue in THIS country. Those who oppose the limitless wholesale availability of abortions continue to elect persons to high office who will take into account THEIR opinions and beliefs, who have kept this "issue" alive here long after the enlightened liberal despots who make policy in YOUR part of the world ran roughshod over all who might disagree with them, let alone have the courage to contradict or argue with them. <p>And, by the by, I, for one, am not so certain that black and white children -- or brown or yellow or red or pink-and-purple polka-dotted children -- SHOULD be MADE to attend the same schools. Don't get me wrong -- I think it should be the right of ALL to receive, if desired, the same publicly funded education as everyone else does, and in the same classrooms, if possible. The more everyday contact different ethnicities, genders, cultures, faiths, etc., have with one another, the less likely it is that enmities and conflicts will be born of ignorance and misunderstanding. But there's also an argument to be made -- and it's BEING made, by the by, quite a bit, these days, even by the otherwise very, very "liberal" -- that schools with a more, shall we say, homogeneous population are far more adept at meeting the unique needs and challenges of that population, in a way that helps preserve the legacy and cohesion of a certain group of people. Now, I for one think the drawbacks of such a parochial (not in the Catholic-school sense of the word) education, for the society as a whole, far outweigh any benefits that might accrue to any particular subset of that society, "minority" (an increasingly irrelevant and even inaccurate term) or otherwise. But, it's a conversation we Americans are still having, more than fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, in PTA meetings and district boardrooms and city council chambers and state legislatures from El Paso to San Diego and most points in between, and quite a few outside the southwestern U.S. as well. However, I digress.<p> I'm happy for you, you seem to live in an extraordinarily utopian world where no one challenges the decisions of higher-ups because they're, well, higher-ups, and that seems to suit polite little lemmings like yourself just fine. It sounds rather like Room 101 to me, but, then, that's the point, isn't it? But, I have no need to ask YOU: "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?" Clearly, you don't, or can't, or won't. More's the pity.<p> So, when your infallible leadership decides that, shortly after attaining mandatory retirement age, you are no longer an asset to that Orwellian society you pledge such fealty to, and commands that you dress yourself up in tin foil and go for a ride on Carousel, don't bleat about how YOU should have had a chance to plead a case for your continued existence in this world. Remember, YOUR GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICIALS ARE NEVER WRONG. I'm quite sure that, sixty-odd years ago, Europe was full of zipperheads like you who were shocked, shocked to discover that Berufsbeamtengesetz led inexorably to the imposition of a "final solution," that Ernst Rudin really provided a framework for eugenics when he authored the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, and that Lebensraum actually meant global domination. Proving my point: That once a people ceases to challenge its leaders or the decisions they take on behalf of the self-disenfranchised, they become mere cogs in a great machine, whose purpose is to ultimately chew them up and fashion them into something "better." And zoologists think only ostriches bury their heads in sand. Enjoy your Kristallnacht, partner, you've certainly earned it.<p> Oh, P.S.: Only Democrats elect so-called "intelligentsia" in a representative democracy. The rest of us tend to elect people who more resemble the common man, for better and worse. Which is sort of the point: I don't live in an academic meritocracy. Yet. You do, apparently. Good luck with that.<p> Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 3:27 p.m. CST

    VADER!!! (JOHN!!! MARSHA!!!)

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Hey, there, man, it's great to "see" yuo, also, and I certainly will shoot you that E-mail. Thanks for the reminder about para breaks. I'm living just north of Dallas, these days, teaching college (American and Russian history) and raising my soon-to-be-nine-year-old-daughter, with my wife of twelve years. (Oh, yeah, I'm also a member of the Republican National Committee.) I'll drop you a line sometime in the next day or so -- I just got back from Minnesota and am spending some quality time with the fam. Hope you're doing well and everything's great in your life... Regards,<p> Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Cedar

    by WealthyPeasant

    Think about your logic (i.e. your example of segregation). You say that since we are still debating something that is now legal, and once wasn't (abortion) then -- by the anti-abortionist logic -- we should also 'still be debating whether black people should be allowed in the same schools as whites too.' In summary, you are stating that when something is legal it is not to be questioned. Well, staying on your chosen topic of "race issues," what about when slavery was legal? By your logic, no one should have argued against abolishing it. Law = morality? Hmmm.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Bubblehead - Part 4

    by Cedar_Room

    OK lets go back a step. In stating that there are those far more intelligent and with greater expertise than I making decisions on abortion (in an attempt at humility, something you seem to lack) I was referring to people such as doctors. For I do not profess to have an expertise in all areas of life, and yes funnily enough I am happy to concede that some people know more about certain things than I. This does not mean I refuse to participate in my democracy. Wwhere I accept that I am merely a pleb, forever postulated before my betters, who will always know what to do so I just let them get on and do it. It means that the people who know most looked at the issue, then used their expertise to make a decision - one that I wholeheartedly agree with. <p> Perhaps you have highlighted a big difference between our countries - about what sort of people we elect into office. There is an understanding here that we, the people, elect people to vote on our behalf. Being a representative and not a direct democracy, this means that the people who represent us make decisions on our behalf. We trust that they make them having the full regard for the facts. We trust that they use their judgement and their intellect. If we judge that they do not, we do not vote for them again. But the next person we DO vote in will usually be someone with enough upstairs to make a well reasoned decision. There is a certain understanding that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of right. We do not rule by mob. The majority, after all, tend to be ill informed and reactionary. The type of people that when whipped into a frenzy over paedophiles on the loose will attack a paediatrician. Perhaps you want to have the great unwashed rule your country. To be ruled by one of the guys. "He don't care much for book learnin' - just like us!". Perhaps this is why you have elected the President you have for the past 8 years. How has that been working out for you? Its interesting to contrast that during this time we were lead by Tony Blair, who despite his many faults, you were certain that when he opened his mouth he would be able to construct a coherent sentence. <p> But to claim yours is a country where the people will always rise up and protest, where mine just sits back and allows its govt to trample all over it. Well - lets look at the issue of Iraq. I was amongst a MILLION people marching on the streets of London to protest against that illegal and wholly unjustifiable war. I didn't sit back idly and accept the bullshit I was being fed. Neither did anyone else here. And yet, for all those in America who now claim to object to the war - the silence from across the pond at the time of its inception was deafening. <p> But to your point about opinions - good for you, stand up and be counted. I have opinions too, but I also have the good grace to know that mine are not always right. For as we know, opinions are like arseholes. We all have one, but some stink far worse than others.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Larry/Vern/Cuban healthcare

    by Stevie Grant

    Anytime anyone mentions Cuba's medical services in anything other than a disparaging tone = pure ignorance/bullshit. Vern referring to Moore's total, complete, and utter bullshit regarding Cuba as being "controversial" pissed me off (I was being a pissy little bitch, admittedly). But bringing up mixed reviews as a justification for Moore's propagandist/con-artist tendencies, given the absolute insanity of promoting or defending the myth of Cuban health care, pissed me off. I got the point of his posting, and some of the basic assumptions of said posting were what set me off.

  • Sept. 7, 2008, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Wealthy Peasant

    by Cedar_Room

    "In summary, you are stating that when something is legal it is not to be questioned" <p> Not in all cases, just the ones I cite. Where the resolution reached so long ago is such an obvious one - abortion/segregation/female suffrage.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 1:46 a.m. CST

    Thank you for insulting us in advance.

    by Shan

    Thanks for attacking us for insulting the maker of the film before we even did so. <p> Not like you're doing what you've accused us of going to do (before we've actually done it) of course. <p> Actually, now that I think of it, I haven't actually insulted Mr Zucker yet at all!

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 2:59 a.m. CST

    Stevie

    by Vern

    Literally ALL I said was that Sicko wasn't as controversial as his other ones, with the exception of the Cuba part. I didn't state any opinion about the movie or especially the Cuban health care system, which I don't even have an opinion about because I know nothing about it. And I don't know why you gave me a report on Michael Moore's charities or Noam Chomsky or how any of these things should change my opinion that it's hilarious for Republicans to have the White House for 8 years and make all their horniest fantasies come true but still be obsessed with a dude who made 2 documentaries during that time. It's like the Princess and the Pea, they still feel that pea under the mattress. At least go after that Robert Greenwald jackass first, he makes a new one every couple months and his aren't as entertaining.<p> Anyway bud I'm sure you're a cool guy but if you want to convince anybody of your point of view you gotta calm down, because I said nothing to set you off on that, you really did come across as a nutball there.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Balls? Balls to that.

    by Unsafe_breadbin

    If Zucker *really* had balls and wanted to go round laying into sacred cows and to show that Republicans could take a joke, the 9/11 sequence would be just as much of a spoof as the rest of the film. He's happy to wheel out shitty muslim sterotype No. 1 and make out it's essentially fine to kill every fucker who disagrees with him, and compare taking down the evil of Hitler to Bush going into Iraq mainly for oil and to finish the half-arsed job his dad did, but he still keeps 9/11 as some sort of mid-film shrine? Fuck. Right. Off. This isn't political satire or a spoof, it's the sloppiest, laziest form of propaganda going. Moore is a complete cock, obviously, but all this pile of shit is going to do is make him more popular. You undermine people by making them look stupid and yourself clever - not by going "nah nah - you smell!" and then giving them the finger. Zucker has clearly made a lousy film that he's hoping will punch above its box-office weight on sheer notoriety alone (well that and the fact Bill O"Reilly will probably pay to see his own smug face in a movie 100000 times over). Every film he spews out makes it more and more obvious it was Abrams and the other Zucker who were the talent behind Airplane! and The Naked Gun.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 3:17 a.m. CST

    ummm Civil War wasn't about "slavery"

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    and that famous speech "freed" slaves in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Furthermore, Zucker's political ads verge on hate speech, which isn't free speech according to the supreme court. Furthermore this summer's biggest hits were both republican films. Iron Man was a GOP puff piece and Dark Knight was the intelligent version. That said, I'll be there on opening day. Love a good train wreck.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 3:18 a.m. CST

    and how is giving a thumbs up to the status quo

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    subversive or daring?

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 6:04 a.m. CST

    This entire talkback is as depressing as it is predictable...

    by dogstardude

    By the way, Victor? Suck my dick you ignorant shit. <p> Liberals are the same as socialists? You're insane. <p> The reason this film isn't funny is because it isn't good satire. GOOD satire works from the established reality of something and then smashes it. You don't build idiotic strawmen. This movie looks to be half-on/half-off. The Cuban stuff looks good, but the "Ban 4th of July" shit is just moronic. Slavery is not an economically rewarding system with modern capitalism and would have been phased out eventually anyway, so the Civil War point is bunk. (although I'm sure terrible racism would still abound) Also, what with the "serious" moments. What the fuck? When has Zucker ever done serious? This doesn't bode well. <p> And if you think the Democratic party is even remotely leftist I really don't know what to say to you, except OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES!

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 12:20 p.m. CST

    dogstardude

    by bismarckf

    "And if you think the Democratic party is even remotely leftist" -- care to explain? Sure, there are organizations that are further left, but there's a hair's-breadth between Obama and the Communist Party USA.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room (*NOT* "Plank", that was a gaffe), Part, oh, Hell, wh

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Cedar,<p> Excellent. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. I'm glad we can finally begin to really COMMUNICATE with each other, instead of just beating each other over the noggin with the same old stick. [Grin]<p> I get (and, actually, got, from jump) that you were referring to doctors / scientists, and not merely government personnel (though they can be, and often are, one and the same, particularly when it comes to national health and welfare bureaucracies, even in America. And there's nothing wrong with that, either). And it's true that they are certainly more LEARNED than folks like you and me and pretty much everyone we know, particularly in their particular field of expertise. I mean, heck, I trust airplanes, too, and I don't know thing one about building 'em, right? Because I have faith / trust that, at SOME level, there's someone watching out for me who really is qualified, sane, responsible, and has MY best interests at heart. (Either that, or I just figure that there's not a damned thing I can do about it, anyway, that flying in airplanes is one of life's necessities and since there's too many people involved in making and maintaining and operating 'em to hold accountable, well, I might as well jump, and take the same ignorant chance as everyone else in the world. You make the call.)<p> And -- my opinion, here -- that's perfectly fine, reasonable and defensible when it comes to very very technical matters, like ensuring the cars we drive won't blow up on us when we tap the brakes, or making sure that the bridges we cross won't tumble into modernistic sculptures of bent steel and shattered concrete, or trusting that the X-ray machine is working properly and isn't zapping our gonads into inert, fleshy marbles. The difference, here, is that, perhaps, you have a CLINICAL view of abortion, and I have a MORAL one. Your view of the subject is more empirical, if you will -- like, Look, either the mountain is there or it isn't, and we know it is, because we have instruments and scientific data and generations of accumulated knowledge that tells us so, plus, what we witness with our own eyes. For you to encounter someone who then wants to discuss whether the mountain SHOULD be there, or whether it being there is good or bad or indifferent, or how the mountain is immoral, must seem a lot to you like that riddle Tom Baker's Doctor used to stump and aggravate his cohorts with: "If the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides, why is a mouse when it spins?" [Grin]<p> It's funny, though, I don't really consider myself to be TOO bleedin' arrogant, although I certainly reject and despise what I consider to be FALSE "humility". But, that's neither here nor there, really. An educated man is not necessarily a sensible one, and the world is full of very highly pedigreed twits. When it comes to issues that affect ME, though, while I'm full willing -- all evidence to the contrary -- to admit I may not hold a Ph.D. in the field, and therefore may not be the "best qualified" to offer an informed opinion, that will not impede me for one moment in EXPRESSING my opinion, because, again, it affects ME. Which isn't to say I'll embrace my own ignorance, exactly; I try to make a point of seeking out more experienced and contrary points of view, and am happy to trade the momentary shame of having been wrong, for the benefits of gaining a more enlightened perspective. This just isn't an area where you've convinced me MY opinion is wrong. (Yet.) At the end of the day, I'd rather follow my own errant conclusions, than trust blindly in the dictums of others. And, yes, that includes matters of faith, too.<p> That whole bit about "[T]he people who know most looked at the issue, then used their expertise to make a decision - one that I wholeheartedly agree with" reinforces the assertion I made earlier, btw, what you were ALREADY predisposed to this perspective, so, really, your agreement with your society's "policy" regarding abortion should come as no surprise. Which is fine. I, myelf, am predisposed to agree that the earth is roughly spherical, so it should come as no great shock that I find the existence of earth-orbiting artifical satellites, glocal telecommunications, GPS devices and Google earth imaging pretty much in-line with my own prejudices. However, I should point out, there are people, even in this day and age, who would argue -- vehemently -- that my baseline assumption, that the earth is round, amounts to a fairly ignorant and untested assumption, and that all these other technologies are nothing more than fanciful mass hallucinations. They're called Flat Earthers, and many of them, amazingly enough, live in Europe. Go figure, right? [Grin]<p> However, I digress. What all this is to say, is that being PREDISPOSED -- prejudiced, if you will -- to have already concluded a thing, it's really no great accomplishment to find yourself in agreement with authority figures who PROMOTE that thing, or to concur with evidence or data SUPPORTING that thing. Hey, look, I believe in gravity ALREADY, so I tend to believe someone when they inform me that failing to climb a ladder properly might very well make me fall down go boom. Doesn't make me enlightened, though. It just means that your statements dovetail with conclusions I've already made. Q.E.D., right?<p> Your point about the "difference between our two countries" is a valid one. A "representative democracy," amazingly, is not ALWAYS "representative." There's a difference, you see, between an AGENT, who is empowered by the citizens who elected him/her on the basis of their OWN judgment, to take positions and make decisions THEY feel compelled to, on the basis of their OWN conscience... and a true DELEGATE, who (in theory, of course) is empowered not to follow the whims of their OWN heart, the meanderings of their OWN thoughts, but to REPRESENT THE OPINIONS AND VALUES AND WISHES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS IN THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY THEY ARE ELECTED TO. Most of the "rest" of the world follows the former model; historically, America is more in keeping with the latter, though that is changing.<p> I would ask you what, exactly, a "well reasoned decision" IS, when you've made it clear that your representatives have more grey matter and a higher number of floors upstairs than those who elevated him/her to office; wouldn't that also mean that you, the voters, are totally unqualified to comment on the viability of your elected agents' positions and decisions? After all, you voted for someone who could think and reason FOR you. What makes YOU a just or informed authority on their actions? Oh, well. The great thing about circular logic is, it has SUCH a pleasing shape.<p> Wow, here it is: " There is a certain understanding that the voice of the majority is not necessarily the voice of right." Congratulations, my friend, you don't live in a democracy. You live in an OLIGARCHY, one of commendable complicity, and if your immediate reaction is to argue, well, don't argue with me, argue with the Great and All-Knowing Wiki: "Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of organization by (ostensibly) the best and the brightest." But, never mind, we don't need no education. Your comments about the administration of George W. Bush are fine by me; in a total of nine biennial elections, and four Presidential campaigns, I have NEVER been more profoundly and consistently disappointed in a candidate, as I have been by Dubya. And I voted for the man, twice, and raised more money for him than I've earned. [Shaking head] There have been times, many, MANY times, when I wish I COULD have voted for the honorable and courageous Mr. Blair, much as I disagree with his notions of fiscal management, asset redistribution and societal justice. I would rather have a person of good character and sound judgment who I DISAGREE with as Chief Executive, than one who I CAN'T TRUST, who happens to be in-line with my own positions, any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. As John Adams famously observed: "Just because the mob is WITH you, doesn't make it any less a mob." But, heck, I used to like Jimmy Carter, too, before he began believing his own press and became a senile, stark, raving, anti-Semitic moonbat, more's the pity.<p> By the by, I DON'T claim that "[mine] is a country where the people will always rise up and protest" -- but I DO assert that it's our DUTY to do so. Truth is, two and a quarter centuries on, our Great Experiment, that the People, if given the ability, will always desire to influence their government, and with their own best interests at heart, is, tragically, tottering on the brink of failure. I've seen so-called "representative democracy" fail, and badly, on four continents, now, whether it be by voters who were whipped up into a lowest-common-denominator, demagoguery-seasoned fascist frenzy by empty rhetoric and vapid, Hallmark-card sloganeering, or by people like who, who actually BELIEVE they're still living in a "democracy" that "represents" the PEOPLE, instead of merely participating, blithely, in what amounts to a non-hereditary monarchy of men and women in sharp suits and with impressive degrees. [Sigh] I served in uniform for over a decade, and for every single day of that period, really thought I was helping to preserve DEMOCRACY. More and more, I wonder if 'Generation Kill' had it right on the money, and if I was really just preserving people's right to go on not giving a fuck. Truth is, I'd rather be surrounded by people who disagree with every single thing I say, and are unafraid to tell me so, than a society of the disinterested, the dispassionate and the self-disenfranchised. (So, I applaud you for standing up against the Iraq War, at least. I genuinely wish you could find that same passion and apply it to other principles, to actually USE your franchise, even if I disagree totally with what you would do with it.) If I want to be surrounded by zombies, I'll go down the street to the local Alzheimer's treatment center, or to an Obama rally, or I'll just go teach my Introduction to American History class, I guess.<p> [Sigh] I'm actually tiring of this conversation... One can only bludgeon someone with the club of common sense for so long before it becomes burdensome, even if you're scoring frequent and occasionally quite satisfying hits with it. The funny thing about this is, as I stated in another post, I'm not even in FAVOR of wholesale criminalization of abortion, here or anywhere else, for an entire host of reasons I really don't feel up to getting into right now. Maybe another time. But your dismissal of sincere "debate" -- to be distinguished from, say, outright contrarianism -- as unnecessary, just because you and all your fellow citizen widgets of Fredonia moo and bleat complacently when the farmer herds you into your nice, comfortable little pens, is, frankly, the height of institutional, apathetic vacuousness. Go right ahead and let your "betters" take ALL decisions, make ALL policies, inaugurate ALL doctrines, on your behalf -- you don't have any faith in your ability to contribute anything to the (mythical) discussion, and, after trying to beat some sense into you for a day and a half, I'm actually prepared to agree with you. You don't matter, your uninformed, unwashed, unnecessary opinion doesn't matter, and anything you might possibly have to say about ANYTHING, except perhaps for your dinner order or the clothes you'll put on in the morning, doesn't matter. You, my friend, are a perfect amalgam of ignorance and apathy, in that [1] you don't know, and [2] you don't care. Well, look at the bright side. If you win tonight's lottery, you may be whisked away to The Island.<p> Thank God you were never a writer for 'Star Trek'. Can you imagine? "Captain's Log, StarDate 13777, square root of eight, carry the three. We're in orbit around a very interesting planet that's on our star chart, and is sending out transmissions picked up by our sensors, and our universal translator is able to turn what they're saying into our language, and we can understand them. They've sent up twenty ships to rendezvous with us, and they appear to be friendly, and we wouldn't mind a chance to resupply and have shore leave, actually. However, the great and powerful minds at Starfleet Command, who wouldn't BE great and powerful if they weren't, you know, so great and so powerful, have decreed, in their infinite and incontravertible wisdom, that this planet is not of interest to us, so, we're not interested. And these aren't the 'droids we're looking for, either. Kirk out." Can you imagine seventy-nine episodes of THAT?!?<p> I would encourage you not to have children, or at least not to raise them, since I imagine they'd stand a fair chance of turning out to be movable furniture just like yourself, but it's really none of my business. Go ahead, spawn to your heart's content. At least THAT's a decision YOU can take, on your OWN behalf -- unless you live in China, of course, where you'd fit right in, actually. If ignorance is bliss, well, I hope you're happy.<p> Bubblehead. P.S. You observed, not terribly inventively, that "opinions are like arseholes," and that "some" (mine, I suppose) "stink far worse than others." Fair enough. But, it's a funny thing about assholes -- they may not be pleasant to look at, always, especially in the course of performing their primary metabolic function... but, to sustain life as we know it, they're also very, very NECESSARY. We couldn't really live without 'em, in fact, even the really really odiferous ones. In fact, my vegan friends tell me that the STINKIEST assholes are also the healthiest. How about that? Maybe you should take time to smell the roses.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 2:46 p.m. CST

    What'd I tell ya? Democracy is dead.

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Proving my point: Check out this story...<p> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4704089.ece<p> 'Kay, SOMEONE's gotta say it: YOU BASTARDS!!! (Vwiy ubliyukiy!!!)<p> ...Hell, it don't matter. Like David Brin chronicled in his 1990 novel, 'Earth', the world ends Wednesday, anyway, not with a bang, but a Hoover...<p> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1053091/Meet-Evans-Atom-end-world-Wednesday.html<p> So much for letting all those learned and educated people run the world, eh, Cedar? [Grin]<p> Personally, I feel the need to listen to some R.E.M. right about now. Who's with me? It's five o'clock, somewhere...<p> Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 5:20 p.m. CST

    This reviewer has not seen Lions For Lambs

    by Brendan3

    This reviewer is an ass, making uninformed comments about things he hasn't even seen. Lions For Lambs is not a left wing movie by any means. It makes an excellent argument for service (civil or military) and also makes one of the best arguments for the war, while conceding mistakes were made. This ignorant reviewer is passing judgment on something he has not seen.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Bubblhead

    by Cedar_Room

    sweet Jesus - as I type these very words Harborcoat has popped onto my iTunes shuffle. Maybe we are not so different, you and I. In fact, I began to read your lengthy diatribe before realising about a third of the way in that I am utterly apathetic. I really couldn't care less. Given that you seem to know so much I have decided that the best course of action is simply to agree with everything you say, as is my supposed want. <p> Although of course, we must not forget that "withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy".

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Cedar_Room...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    Glad to be of service. Now, at least, you KNOW you're apathetic... and knowing is half the battle. Of course, you couldn't care less.<p> Thanks for wasting all our time, most especially yours.<p> Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Lions for Lambs was pretty left...

    by Alucinor

    Just because somebody says they support our soldiers, that doesn't mean they have to be Republican. You would never survive as a celebrity if you didn't support the troops... it would be career suicide. It's great to have hindsight and to be able to say the Democrats would have done things differently and whether or not that would have mattered... but I highly doubt this country would be in a different position had Al Gore or John Kerry been elected. It's nice to be able to point the finger at the President and blame him for everything when we are in a massively fucked up situation. All of these problems going on now have been brewing for years... is anyone really at fault? Is everyone?

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Alucinor...

    by TheOriginalBubblehead

    I concur totally, with every single thing that you said, there.<p> With the exception of Fred Phelps and his batshit cabal of inbred hatemongers, I would postulate that just about EVERY American, in their way, "supports" the troops, the commitment and professionalism and sacrifice of our armed forces, as well as their families. The main difference between (post-2005) Democrats and Republicans, generally, is HOW to best "support" the troops.<p> Though I was, and remain, in favor of the President's (and Congress's, natch) decision to invade Iraq in 2003, I have never looked unfavorably upon those who oppose the war, then or now, for ANY reason I can call to mind: disagreement over the purported "threat" Iraq posed to the U.S., its allies, and interests; favoring diplomatic courses of action over military initiatives; belief that we could not afford the war effort; a desire to not inflame the passions of other nations and their peoples against the U.S.; the desire to preserve American and Iraqi lives; and so on. These are all perfectly valid, entirely reasonable political and ideological perspectives, and there are many, many others, besides.<p> Key to this debate, I think, is the pseudo-Clintonian question, "What does 'support' really MEAN?" A person who claims to support the troops may believe that this means they support their MISSION, even when that mission is capable of inflicting harm on the troops... even when that mission may be borne out to be contrary to the troops' own best interests. Conversely, you can also be said to support the troops by being totally against ANY mission that places them in what you consider to be an unreasonable amount of physical danger. Both are perfectly viable stances.<p> For the record, Republicans don't have the market cornered on "warmongering," any more than all Democrats are pantywaists. The fact is, all wars that result in victory are inevitably deemed by history to be "good" wars, no matter the rationale for their commencment, by those who win; and all wars, no matter how necessary or unavoidable they may have seemed at the time, that are unsuccessfully prosecuted, are considered to be failures. The truth of the matter is, that war itself is the failure of humanity to act charitably, reasonably or responsibly. Though wars are won and lost, military conflict itself is NEVER a victory, in and of itself.<p> At least, that's my opinion.<p> Bubblehead.

  • Sept. 8, 2008, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Vern,

    by Stevie Grant

    You have a good point, but I already admitted I was being a pissy little bitch. Mainly, I got the point of your post, and my problem is that you didn't think Sicko was that controversial, when it shouldn't be controversial for a entirely different set of reasons (for example, Moore pretending anyone besides wealthy foreigners or the body politic receive what Americans consider to be HC in Cuba). I'm not a Republican, and I appreciate your being a nice guy in response to my pissy party. If it makes any difference, "Stevie Grant" is just the handle I pull out for political postings (cause Odenkirk's SG was a total asshole, it makes sense).

  • Sept. 9, 2008, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Oh Man Stop You're Killing Me

    by Shannon Whirry and the Bad Brains

    "...country music star Trace Adkins who has as much charisma and presence here as he had in “Celebrity Apprentice”..." Pretty much sums it up, folks.

  • Sept. 9, 2008, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Brendan3

    by Rand92

    <p><i>This reviewer is an ass, making uninformed comments about things he hasn't even seen. Lions For Lambs is not a left wing movie by any means. It makes an excellent argument for service (civil or military) and also makes one of the best arguments for the war, while conceding mistakes were made. This ignorant reviewer is passing judgment on something he has not seen.</i></p> <p>I am not sure how you can say that Lions for Lambs is not leftist or anti-military when Redford is quoted in Entertainment Weekly saying that he is anti-military and anti-war. Those are his words so it seems clear to me that his reasons for making the film were not to make a case for service or at least were a direct shot at the war in Iraq. He made the choice to protest that war by attacking the people who serve in it. Not good no matter what your politics are.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Vern,

    by Stevie Grant

    You are either fucking ignorant, fuckin' stupid, or just plain fucking stupid ignorant. Moore isn't "controversial," he's a liar and hypocrite. Like all really, really, anti-American socialists (including the anti "Corporations" and "Military Industrial Complexes") crowd, Moore has routinely named Chomsky as an inspiration (along with the aspiring socialist dictator Chavez, as a high-profile example). Nevermind that Chomsky has made millions working for the Pentagon over the decades and has started trust funds to protect income from taxes; or that Moore, the socialist, alleging he wants to pay more in taxes, has utilized charity loopholes to cut his income tax in down to a third, when he can. Not to mention not a singly film he's made presents an economically sound version of reality (let alone all the laws his few second cutshots seemingly counteract). Moore is a political hack. Only far leftists are too blind to realize he's full of shit.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Vern,

    by Stevie Grant

    Apologies for the previous post (I was drunk posting). Everything I said about Moore and Chomsky is accurate, but I sincerely apologize for the language and insults. As a friendly tip, look into all the leftists who cite the anti military industrial complex/anti capitalist/anti American Chomsky (whose made millions working for the Pentagon over the decades; and has become independently wealthy, dodging taxes along the way). Moore constantly references Chomsky, and (political) Chomsky like/dislike serves as a perfect bullshit filter.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Meh, as my fellow Ausse ironic_name said...

    by Paul T. Ryan

    ...this'll go straight to DVD in Australia, and I personally bet every other country too. No one outside the US wants to see Trace Adkins, let alone anyone else lecturing them on how America is a far greater country than theirs. The trailer for this looked dreadful, and was more obsessed with scoring political points than genuine satire. For all his faults, to paint Moore as someone who "wants to destroy America" is completely disingenuous and renders the film's attempt at satirising him impotent. After all, satire has to be couched in some kind of truth to be effective. And this bullshit from the right about conservatism being "rebellious" is a total joke. You might claim you're all about individual freedom and liberty, yet all you do is promote conformity, repression and ignorance. And you might claim you're being marginalised by the eeeeeeevil "Liberal Elite", that too is a total lie. You're not being persecuted. Get over yourselves.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Paul T. Ryan

    by bismarckf

    I challenge you to work in Hollywood for one week and tell me that it's not Left. Ergo, the Powers That Be. Ergo, the opposition (or "rebellion") is Right. It's fairly simple, whether you admit it or not.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:43 p.m. CST

    The arts is generally left Bismarck, that's the culture of the a

    by Paul T. Ryan

    But the money men often lean right, as a glance of www.newsmeat.com will attest. Murdoch, Grey, Bruckheimer, Diller, Sloan and Semel all gave to McCain this year. If you've ever know people who working banking and commerce (as I do) you'll be hard pressed to find a liberal amongst them. Besides, there aren't that many right-wing actors who are known for giving risky performances (John Malkovich and James Woods are the only two I can think of) because (purely IMHO) acting requires a need to take personal risks that conservatives don't tend to possess.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:11 p.m. CST

    I appreciate the qualifier "this year"

    by bismarckf

    because that negates the fact that half those execs (and most Hollywood execs) gave to Obama and/or Clinton last year, or have given to both parties equally over the years. It's also telling that you cherry-pick Hollywood (you don't take into account Spielberg, Meyer, and a list that goes on). Seriously, throw a rock in Hollywood and you'll hit a liberal. Throw a rock in any studio board room and you'll hit a liberal. Pick up any year's Power 100 from EW or Hollywood Reporter and research the names on newsmeat. (I'm being generous by not including NY-based entertainment execs, or the ubiquitous Oprah.)<P>This doesn't even begin to cover actors (would you like to discuss Clooney?) which you brought up. Or other entertainment personnel (most of whom belong to unions, 'nuff said.)

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:41 a.m. CST

    What's the problem?

    by PacmanFever

    OK, so the majority of people who work in Hollywood are left wing. I'll accept that; I don't think it's as large a majority as many say, but it's still a majority. Why is that a problem? Like Vern said, isn't a fact of life that any area will be weighted one way or the other politically. That's where the whole "red/blue states" theory comes from (which is a flawed theory I'll grant you, but lets put that aside for now). I myself live an area that is predominantly conservative. What's wrong with Hollywood being predominantly liberal? OK, so it's going to be a bit awkward for Robert Davi or whoever when politics comes up, but you'll get moments like that wherever you live and whatever you work in. Don't tell me that Conservatives can't get work in Hollywood. How many of the actors in this film have truly struggled for work? Haven't people basically been bending over backwards to give Kelsey Grammer a post-Fraiser hit? OK, so being a conservative in Hollywood might be a bit awkward, but if you've had a successful career there for many years which you hope will continue, you're just going to have to grin and bear it.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Zucker vs Groucho Marx (in the same room) in a 'who's funny?' co

    by workshed

    There would be no contest. As much as i liked Airplane (when i was ten) i'll never forget the sheer boredom that set in about thrity seconds into Airplane II. Lame, lame comedy is Zucker's trademark. Groucho, on the other hand, was a genius and exceedingly brave in his political stance. Sadly, every four years the USA provides great entertainment to us Brits by reminding us that over 50% of your populus are dipshits. This, naturally, includes this reviewer. A true cockhead (and, for some strange reason, a friend of ol' fatty Headgeek - why?).

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    ....ntest

    by workshed

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Airplane II had nothing to do with Zucker

    by PacmanFever

    Neither Zucker brother or Jim Abrahams had anything to do with. Paramount offered it to them, and when they passed they made it anyway. That said Zucker has been going downhill since Ruthless People. The Naked Gun films had some good laughs, but they pailed in comparison to Police Squad. I will stick my neck out and say I enjoyed his Scary Movies more than the first two.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 11:30 a.m. CST

    The point, PacmanFever,

    by bismarckf

    (and I'm sorry I had to belabor it, but Paul T. Ryan seemed to not get it) is that Hollywood is largely liberal, and therefore conservatism is "radical" and "rebellious."

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Hmm...

    by PacmanFever

    I can kind of see where you're coming from. This film already seems to have caused more fuss than Redacted or Lions for Lambs did.

  • Sept. 14, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Finally, a movie for smart people

    by GeorgieBoy

    Now we just need about 5,432 more movies to make up for the liberal bias of Hollywood.

  • Sept. 15, 2008, 6:26 a.m. CST

    by FGT

    So weird...why does Aemrica..land of the free etc gets so upset at the idea of somebody daring to be a socialist/communist or anything else? That's how that freedom and democracy thing works..one can be whatever one wants. Perhaps the fact that MM makes a loadof money and yet dares to criticise business practices is the problem...perhaps people just need to remember that he's just some guy who makes movies and that it's not compulsory to go to see his films....... At least not yet comrade..but come the revolution...

  • Sept. 15, 2008, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Will it be well-made?

    by drewlicious

    I can still disagree with a movie and consider it good. I'll wait for the reviews. The trailer didn't make me laugh that much. There was one joke, "I love America. And that's why it needs to be destroyed." Probably because the guys voice sounded just like Michael Moore's.

  • Sept. 16, 2008, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Yes, PacmanFever...

    by workshed

    ...but i never got a letter from Zucker telling me he had nothing to d with it before i entered the cinema thinking i'd see Hayes and Hegarty in another hilarious compendum of 'throw it at the wall and see what sticks' gags. At the age of thirteen it nearly put me off cinema for life. Groucho is pretty untouchable when it comes to writing gags. Politics don't come into it.

  • Sept. 17, 2008, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Fair enough

    by PacmanFever

    But still using Airplane II as an example of Zucker's lameness is a bit like using Brain Donors to prove the Marx Brothers weren't that great. Can't say I'm a big Marx Brothers fan myself

  • Sept. 18, 2008, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Looks Hi-larious!

    by thot

    This will be a rare treat! A movie that actually lampoons the left! Michael Moore certainly had THIS coming. Hope the writing and production are as good as the trailer seems to convey. I'll be there on opening night!

  • Sept. 30, 2008, 2:15 p.m. CST

    JFK a centerist?? Zucker and DR. EPIC FAIL!!

    by TallScott

    "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."" JFK [September 14, 1960] Eat it. The both of you/