Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Tal sees De Palma's REDACTED in Vancouver and says, "Watch this f#%@ing movie!"

1st by theonecalledshoe	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:02:49 AM
nah
"I'd put it ahead of Thin Red Line" by prbt	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:10:40 AM
That's all I need to know. 'Thin Red Line' was 3 hours of cinematic torture I'll never get back.
Let the flame war begin: America sucks! America rocks! by V'Shael	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:16:16 AM
War is hell. This just bashes our military and gives comfort to terrorists. They RAPED and murdered! Says who? Some liberal commie douche-bag? A FRENCH documentary? The facts are clear! Facts have a well known liberal bias. Why do you hate America? and so on...
America tries real hard at doing the right thing. by theonecalledshoe	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:23:08 AM
When compared to any cough hypocrites cough who preach down to Americans about code and conduct.
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:26:32 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
Thin Red Line is my fave war flick by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:42:26 AM
and even DePalma's misfires are pieces of beautiful technical perfection. He is one of the few who still takes my breath away with his set pieces, plus Casualties of War rocks.
More Depalma love.... by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:50:18 AM
The Untouchables.....Fuckin Wow, Carrie.....Best King Horror Adaption, Carlito's Way.....my two favorite Sean Penn and Pacino performances plus some brilliant setpieces, Raising Cain.....brilliant mess and mindfuck of a movie. That is all.
Sounds like DePalma is back by Madines Sideshed	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:55:36 AM
Which has to be good. We can forget the last few years, this film sounds pretty special. A cross of 'good De Palma', Thin Red Line and Requiem for a Dream? Fuck yeah. I'm there.
Re: Mission impossible by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:55:55 AM
the first is the only true mission impossible. Its convoluted yes, but not badly scripted and Depalmas handling of the action was far superior to even John Woo. His use of Multi-framing and amazing tracking shots created actual suspense. I know that may sound weird to you Bay fans out there.
Sounds like an update of Casualties of War by KillaKane	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:01:05 AM
When De Palma's on form he slays, not too enamoured with the subject matter sounds like a pretty grim two hours or so, I'd sooner he return to 'Femme Fatale' territory.
Cool by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:16:01 AM
Can't wait to see this one. Femme Fatale was a hoot too. It actually went straight to video here in the UK. Oh and America is a great place, too bad it's been run by greedy corporate scumbags for the last 7 years. So, in conclusion, America = good. America's government = bad.
Americans WAR CRAZY fuckheads !!!!!! by y7jver01	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:29:30 AM
Tell me why is 4.5 million americans doesn't have health care??? And why it has the highest no of gun related deaths for like EVER??? And why you have half witted DUM FUCK of president who cant even spell out his fucking name???
De Palma Spits on the Soldiers by MarkWhittington	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:29:42 AM
And seems to have a weird fixation on guys in uniform raping people.
Completely agree... by DanielKurland	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:33:09 AM
At the Q and A in Toronto, De Palma clearly mentions the similarities between this as Causalties of War, and that's why he wanted to make this, the same issues are occuring. One of he most powerful movies I saw this year though, and one of my favorites I've seen. Also, this movie is unfortunately absent in many of De Palma's stylistic visual choices in favor of telling the message through the selected media.
Didn't De Palma do this same movie before. by Ironmuskrat	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:37:48 AM
Sounds just like Casualties of War only updated to include internet bloggers and the New media types. I am sure there are a lot of internet nerds that will love the idea that they can affect the outcome of a war by screaming into their internet cam and posting it online. I believe in an interview that De Palma said he was making this movie with the express purposes of turning people against the war in Iraq. I don't know about everyone else but after four years of nonstop media coverage of the war I have pretty much made my mind up and I doubt there are are many people out there still on the fence about whats going on over there. I don't know if I want to spend two hours getting beat over the head about something thats already been beamed into my living room TV and computer for as long as I can remember.
"I sat through the entire movie grinning ear to ear" by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:43:49 AM
Even during tbe rape scenes? From what I've heard about this movie, its not the type that makes you smile.
"De Palma De Palma De Palma" has raped more eyesockets by Negative Man	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:44:41 AM
...than any other name director this side of Uwe Boll! (As far as name directors that still get work.) Let's count backwards...The Black Dahlia...Femme Fatale...Mission to Mars...Snake Eyes...Mission: Impossible...Carlito's Way (Yes, this movie is a pile of crap! This was an AMAZING critical pass because of the cast!)...Raising Cain...The Bonfire of the Vanities...Casualties of War...Wise Guys (Joe Piscopo, people!!!)...Body Double...Dressed to Kill...Home Movies...The Fury...Phantom of the (MOTHER FUCKIN') Paradise!!! ALL crap on a crutch allowed to walk because of director's name only. Sure, he had a few jems along the way...Carrie...Blow Out...The Untouchables... Yep...th at's about it. Hell, I'd rather watch TRANSFORMERS instead of nearly ANY Brian DePalma flick. Flame me all you want, but just because a person gave you a few grains of gold to be found among a pile of horse shit doesn't mean you have to like him. I feel this movie is HIS play to feel relevant and needed. America bad. Rest of the world good. I get it.
Carlito's Way is a Masterpiece by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:57:04 AM
And let's not forget Scarface. I know there's a need to paint directors as black or white, and being either awesome or complete shit...but DePalma has produced enough classic films to garner his reputation as a gifted director.
Come on by joergn	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:00:07 AM
Everyone can have a bad day (even De Palma), but even on his worst days and doing his worst flics (mission to mars, femme fatale), he´s far superior to all those jokes calling themselfes "directors" these days. And everyone calling "Carlito´s Way" bad, is a morron IMO. You don´t like what his new film is all about, that´s fine, but he´s still one of a kind directors with visions and the ability to get to best from his actors.
I didn´t like Thin Red Line by CuervoJones	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:01:26 AM
Emo soldiers...
And yes, Carlito´s Way is a Masterpiece by CuervoJones	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:03:10 AM
cojonuda
I still want a GOOD movie of The Black Dahlia by Spandau Belly	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:04:54 AM
David Fincher, you out there? It's not too late!
I'd also like a GOOD version of Snake Eyes by Spandau Belly	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:06:03 AM
Just replace the second half and we're cool. Maybe throw in a twist like Sinise NOT being the scumbag he seems like from frame one.
Is it too expensive to digitally recast Femme Fatale? by Spandau Belly	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:07:59 AM
Antonio Banderas's part had John Cusak written all over it. Smartassed, semi-immoral slacker. Which of these qualities sounds like Zorro?
How can someone say that he by CherryValance	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:31:15 AM
out De Palma's himself if they haven't seen that many of his movies? It's just a question. Because I am a fan and would love that to be true but from everything I've read before it doesn't sound like one of his films. At least it doesn't sound like it looks like one, so I'm curious, but not expecting a normal De Palma movie. We'll see.
The Plant out-plants HIMSELF by Executor	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:41:35 AM
"He out-De-Palma's HIMSELF." Yeah, considering the last time De Palma made a good movie, Reagan was in office, and the last time he made a watchable movie (Carlito's Way or Mission Impossible) it was over a decade ago. I'm going to take the over-under and say that this movie will be a piece of shit like Snake Eyes and Black Dahlia.
Carlito isn't THAT great. by Nice Marmot	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:41:37 AM
Pacino's great and Penn is phenominal but every second of Penelope whatsername is shit.
creepy breakdown of the Reality line? by fireclown	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:41:47 AM
could it be said that this movie could represent a merging of reality and fantasy that could well lead to some very misinformed people? Particluarly given the fact that the subject matter will attract an audience with a strong anti Gulf War II viewpoint, it could create a dangerous echo chamber. As it is, I have already run into a disturbing number of young folks who accept JFK at face value.
Re: The Black Dahlia by The Duke Of Madness	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:42:05 AM
Spandau Belly. James Ellroy saw the directors cut of Dahlia and said it was the best adaptation of a book of his he'd ever seen...then he saw the theatrical cut and asked "What the fuck did you assholes do to my book?"
ugh by Wall Ball Champion	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:53:38 AM
"I sat through the whole movie grinning ear to ear" That's a rather odd emotion towards a film about rape, murder, and war.
So, I hear Spielberg just robbed his Indy IV office... by Stalin vs Predator	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:01:30 AM
...to make sure that no sites will now want to touch any Indy IV photo, fearing it came from among the purloined ones :o)
Re: Bobo_Vision...yes, Scarface was good. But that... by Negative Man	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:06:28 AM
...was all Al Pacino. He gave that movie the COMPLETE boost and commitment it needed. Hence, in the end, why I firmly believe Carlito got the pass. Yeah, yeah...I'm the minority. Or maybe I just saw too many better movies about criminals before Carlito. But if a few 'classic' movies a director makes...than De Palma is heading to the footnotes of history.... Quentin Tarantino...Orson Wells...Alfred Hitchcock...Woody Allen...Guillermo del Toro...Peter Jackson...Steven Spielberg...Francis Ford Coppola...George Lucas (yep, I said it!)...Michael Curtiz...Milos Forman...Bryan Singer...Sergio Leone...Stanley Kubrick...David Fincher...Andy & Larry Wachowski...Martin Scorsese...Luc Besson...John Huston...Ridley Scott...Roman Polanski...David Lean...James Cameron...Charles Chaplin (yes, he was a dirctor)...Akira Kurosawa...Clint Eastwood...Brad Bird...Elia Kazan...David Lynch...John Frankenheimer...George Roy Hill...Billy Wilder...Christopher Nolan...Mel Gibson (did I just write that?)...Frank Capra...Victor Fleming...Joel & Ethan Coen...Stuart Rosenberg...Hayao Miyazaki...M. Night Shyamalan...William Wyler...Terry Jones...Terry Gilliam...John McTiernan...Oliver Stone...Frank Capra...Rob Reiner...Sam Raimi...Richard Attenborough...John Ford...Franklin J. Schaffner...James Whale...Mel Brooks...Tim Burton...William Friedkin...Ron Howard...Richard Donner...John Carpenter...AND SO MANY OTHERS have directed more movies that have made bigger impacts on film making than De Palma has. Dario Argento has had a bigger impact than De Palma has! Think about it...Scareface, Carlito's Way...only two constants and only one of them turns in nearly constant good performances. And that guy isn't De Palma. No matter what your film class or hip friends tell you.
HA! I wrote 'scare'face...I found that kinda funny... by Negative Man	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:09:49 AM
Heh.
grinning ear to ear is referring to by c4andmore	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:11:09 AM
the film starring paul williams. You assholes need to read the article. Anyway. I have no urge to see this depressing piece of crap. Don't we see this on the news? I'll save my $7
If you want to send a message, call Western Union by BrowncoatJedi	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:13:51 AM
Looks like a horrible, preachy piece of crap. This review is a plant.
Out-Does DePalma... by FILMFUNK	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:27:12 AM
Without looking or feeling like anything DePalma has done before!? Confusing! Maybee you mean DePalma re-invents himself because this doesn't sound like a normal DePalma film, more like an MTV Michael Moore Pasteumentary which is fine and It at least sounds interesting and better than Mission to Mars!
This movies exists only to make the US look bad by billcom6	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:36:23 AM
Screw De Palma.
DEPALMA- ANTI AMERICAN by batjac	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:48:32 AM
DEPALMA- Yet another anti american hollywood type. He said himself- he made this film to make AMerica look bad. This movie will make exactly zero money at the box office. Enjoy.
BREAKING NEWS: McG may direct Terminator 4!!!!! by Big_Bubbaloola	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:01:29 AM
Oh ..... dear ........ god NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
What a piece of shit by richier123	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:08:16 AM
If you're going to release a piece of shit movie like this, can you not at least wait until the fucking war is over?!?! Really, I have absolutely no respect for this director, and indirectly, soldiors are going to die because of this asshat.
From the Director of my poop by Killaarmy	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:10:48 AM
Oh, that Delpalma.... I had enough after he made Antonio Banderas into a gay bellhop.
I created an account just to say.... by plasticman2000	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:12:11 AM
This movie sucks on almost every level. I saw it in Toronto about a month ago. This reviewer is on crack or something. This is a war movie on par with something a student in their first year of film school would make. Except, in that case, the horrible acting might be a bit more acceptable. It honestly baffles me that someone of DePalma's talent has made something so horribly one-note and juvenile. Hey guys! The war was a bad idea! AND BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN WAR!! Wow..... profound.....
Negative man by Lost Jarv	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:13:40 AM
I actually read that list, and some of them you are bang on with- but: Bryan Singer, Shyalaman, and the wachowski hybrid? no way.
Brian De Palma Tribute Show by pacino33	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:14:00 AM
You can hear a 2 hour podcast paying tribute to Brian De Palma with his closest friends and collaborators at: http://blogtalkradio.com/hostp age.aspx?show_id=34402
And "Strega Nona" is WAY overrated... by tonagan	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:25:21 AM
I mean... what? I thought we were discussing Tomie dePaola.
www.aint-it-liberal-propagana.co m by uss cygnus	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:26:06 AM
At times like this, I am embarrassed to be a member on this site. Love it or leave it, you bastards.
Is this moveon.org or aint-it-cool news.com? by uss cygnus	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:29:06 AM
Just Checking.
I'll go out on a limb and say... by uss cygnus	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:34:27 AM
Brian DePalma didn't have to watch his wife JUMP from the 89th floor of Tower one to avoid being burned to death on 9/11. I'll bet that when his wife dies, he'll have an actual body to bury. But, OUR soldiers are ALWAYS the problem, right, moron?
Just out of curiosity... by Kung Fu Hustler	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:47:35 AM
...when is a Hollywood director going to make an Iraq war movie showing some Iraqi scumbags plotting to kill and actually killing our soldiers. Oh wait, that doesn't happen, right?
Brian de Palma is a Traitor! by Abin Sur	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:48:59 AM
For not getting Carla Gugino completely naked in "Snake Eyes." For SHAME, Brian!
Negative Man by long live the new chris	Oct 3rd, 2007 09:50:18 AM
thanks for going way out of the way to prove that you like decent movies or know the names of a lot of directors.
From an ex-soldier, this movie sounds good. by Some Dude	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:02:01 AM
How many of the detractors here have ever enlisted?
Negative Man Talks Shit by Madines Sideshed	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:06:40 AM
I have to laugh at Negative Man talking out of his rectum. M. Night Shyamalan above DePalm? Fuck off. He done one film based completely on a twist that had been done before then cranked out shit of decreasing quality ever since. DePalma has had a few shit films, but has also made the likes of The Untouchables, Scarface, Carlito's Way, Blow Out and Carrie. M Night Shamalamadingsong can't lace that guy's fucking boots.
De Palma is a master by Osmosis Jones	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:07:17 AM
And Redacted is a film I can't wait to see.
Just to clarify my review ... by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:14:12 AM
To clarify ... The movie is nothing like Thin Red Line. Both Redacted and Thin Red Line are very good at what they do. But in my personal, internal cache of films I've seen and remember, Redacted deserves bigger props for it's audacity, passion and innovation. To me, it's in that same strata ... I probably won't see Thin Red Line again any time soon, but I'm definitely revisiting Redacted. I was grinning from ear to ear through "Phanotm of the Paradise". You should check it out, if only to say you saw one of the weirdest movie musicals out there. Yes, this movie makes America look bad. It also makes the media look bad. It makes the soldiers involved in this specific crime look extremely bad. In an earlier draft of this review, I slammed Fahrenheit 9/11 as piece of partisan hackery. I remember seething through that piece of shit. Thankfully, Redacted has so much more to offer than just an anti-war message. It's explores the effects of the media on war, and vice versa. It's explores how war and power corrupts people, or attracts the corrupt. It has great performances and a director that takes some big risks. It's really hard to describe this movie without misleading people. It's just Brian De Palma on top of his game.
Tal, you should watch some Faces of Death videos by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:16:45 AM
I'm guessing you'll be grinning from ear to ear.
I prefer to judge a movie BEFORE I see it, thank you. by tonagan	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:20:33 AM
It saves me time and money.
All the knee jerkers... by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:20:51 AM
who freak out about "Anti-American" films are really doing their own country a disservice. A true patriot is willing to face, and in this case address, the problems within their country. America is a great place, with many wonderful people, but its leaders are scum, and some of their people commit awful acts, it is not Anti-American to highlight these facts.
depalma ... by xcornealiousx	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:30:13 AM
needs to get his facts straight...they are working to clear the men who were accused of this. way to be ten years late tot he party depalma. hollywood needs to get their ear to the grindstone and make movies again, not propoganda drivel. john wayne is rolling over in his grave some more.
c legion by xcornealiousx	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:34:33 AM
look at what you wrote...america is a great place with many wonderful people. and then followed by some people commit awful acts. why MUST hollywood make movies on that 1%? i do agree that ALL of are politicians are scum, but isnt hollywood about art and entertainment? these movies are representations of what CNN reports. ill stick with movies that help me escape the realities of day to day news that blares on my tv 24-7. because that is why i go to the movies, for escapism from reality...one simple reason why a lord of the rings, indiana jones, and star wars do so well at the box office.
"John Wayne" by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:35:02 AM
"propoganda drivel", The Green Berets.
Bobo_Vision by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:38:44 AM
Like I said, the movie I'm referring to as having me "grinning ear to ear" is Phantom of the Paradise. Read the review again.
Redacted was probably the worst movie of the year by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:41:16 AM
Just awful. When Tal said he was grinning ear to ear, he wasn't the only one. People at my screening were laughing. That should give you a pretty good idea how hamfisted it is. By comparison, Crash is a model of restraint. Actually, my biggest complaint with the film is that it wants to be looked at as a documentary, but the filmmakers took none of the risks involved with actually filming an Iraq War documentary. There's nothing at stake. I saw "Heavy Metal In Baghdad" and those motherfuckers risked their lives to make a statement about the Iraq War. DePalma rented himself a soundstage and got some non-professional actors and played war for 12 hours a day. And speaking of non-professional actors, boy, do they suck. Each and every one of them is an archetype. They don't feel like real people. Not for a second. And when you're trying to mimic a documentary it might help to have characters that feel like something other than a cardboard cutout.
xcornealiousx by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:45:17 AM
There is a place for all types of films, pure entertainment, art, whatever. The vast majority of which are not Anti-American. Oh, and yes, ALL politicians are scum, America do not have the monopoly there.
You're right, Tal by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:53:18 AM
My bad.
May become a cult piece all around the world. by The Chosen	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:55:41 AM
Maybe this movie will get loads of media and talk'about everywhere outside America. The concept of being "anti-american" is all around out here these days.
Snake Eyes by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:57:23 AM
plasticman2000 says it sucks, I'm not surprised. People think Requiem for a Dream and the Fountain sucked too. It's not for everybody. But saying a first year film student could do this is ludicrous. It's the kind of movie a first year film student will try to rip off and fail repeatedly, over and over again, because he's missing the finer points. Media itself - the news, the web, film - is a character in this film, and that's what distinguishes it from other movies. The character's themselves are cliched, and quite frankly, people are cliched. The average person is really obvious and not that clever. If you're used highly fictionalized, urbane, fantasy versions of people (like in Wes Anderson movies) the characters in this film may not be "fancy" enough for you. I openly admit that I haven't seen many of De Palma's movies, but I'm conscientious enough to sense that Black Dahlia and Snake Eye were going to suck, and not indicative of this amazing De Palma guy everyone talks about. I'd prefer watching these unknown actors over Nicholas Cage breathing through his mouth. But isn't it a testament to the Redacted that I want to see all of De Palma's movies now?
anchorite, just out of morbid curiosity... by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:58:06 AM
Which directors do you like?
anchorite by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:01:29 AM
"what's the last De Palma movie that was really any good?" Since The Untouchables? He's made at least one great war movie (haven't seen Redacted yet), one beautiful Gangster film, and easily the best Mission Impossible film of the three, it's also one of the best blockbusters of the 90's.
Negative Man by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:06:38 AM
Regarding your list of directors you claim have had a bigger impact on film than DePalma, the first director you named was Tarantino, and he himself claims to have been greatly influenced by DePalma, and he loves the movie "BlowOut", which is one of the reasons he campaigned so hard to get Travolta in "Pulp Fiction". So already evidenced by your list, DePalma has greatly impacted film just by one of the directors he's influenced.
"They will never admit... by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:09:17 AM
that America is the greatest country on Earth." Sorry, you lost me there mate. It's people like you that give Americans a bad name. Bye.
anchorite, do you even like movies? by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:16:15 AM
Seriously, I don't remember you being pleased with anything film related...or happy about any directors. I've sometimes wondered, for those people on the right who base their movies on political ideology, what exactly do they watch? Care to share?
Hey...Bobo_Vision by gotilk	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:26:27 AM
.. read it again. The "grinning" comment was referring to Phantom of the Paradise. Absolutely and without question. But don't let the truth get in your way or anything.
Hey gotilk by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:27:51 AM
I already conceded that fact in the talkback...but thanks for being smug. Jesus, everyone is so touchy in talkbacks related to politically charged films.
Bobo. by gotilk	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:31:08 AM
Take YOUR smugness and stuff it, then learn to read. I typed it in and it sat in my browser for too long so I copied/pasted it and posted before I could see the other comment. So sue me. As far as faux pas go, I'd pick mine over yours any day. And for the record, I don't feel politically charged about this film at all. So stuff the assumption up there as well.
Thats a good list, anchorite by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:33:12 AM
I would have thought Frank Capra was too sentimental for you. But the only directors still making films are Coppola and Spielberg. I think if some of those others were still around and making movies, they might be saying things with their craft you wouldn't like. The arts are a liberal medium in general.
Haha gotlik by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:34:28 AM
Thanks for proving that you're not touchy about this. Is it me that you're mad at, or the world?
C Legion by Kung Fu Hustler	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:35:20 AM
People that claim America is the greatest country on Earth give Americans a bad name??? Name a better country to live in.
I'm no fan of the Iraq war by Kung Fu Hustler	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:38:34 AM
But to act like all our soldiers over there are murderous, rapist thugs being destroyed by GWB's ill conceived invasion is ludicrous. I have no problem with a director making any movie he wants, but this is clearly doing more than telling a story that happened in Iraq. He is trying to suggest that this is indicative of ALL soldiers, and who in their right mind could support such nonsense?
Anchorite by Kung Fu Hustler	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:41:28 AM
Don't lose me now! Return of the King is definitely going to be an all-time classic (mind you, not alone, but with the two preceding films). You're right about the others though (except maybe Million Dollar Baby, which I think was expertly made in a straighforward, minimalist way we rarely see nowawadays).
Whatever.. by gotilk	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:41:54 AM
Whatever you need to imagine. Be well.
No arguments there, anchorite by Bobo_Vision	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:42:23 AM
There's an abundance of crap in movies these days, and I guess this is the place to vent. Ultimately though, movies, and the hate of bad ones, should be all in good fun. Agreed about Billy Wilder. I just saw "Sunset Boulevard" for the first time this week.
Anyone watch Ken Burn's "The War"? by Zardoz	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:43:44 AM
'cause it was incredible! I thought I knew a lot about WW2, but man, I learnt me somethin' about the war watching those 14 hours! I used to think that we might have been wrong to nuke the Japs, but after watching that, I think it was the only thing we could have done to win the war and save lives, not only on our side but Japanese lives, as well. (huh?) Yeah, despite the fact that we killed probably 500,000 people with Fat Man and Little Boy, the lives that would have been lost on both sides during a ground invasion of Japan would have been much higher, 'cause Japan was ready to go down fighting to the last man, woman and child. WW2 was FUBAR-ed, no doubt! It also made me realize how we're never going to win the war on terror. Why? Because unlike WW2, terrorists don't live in one country that we can attack and force to surrender, unlike Germany and Japan. (and Iraq and Afghanistan don't count, because unlike G and J, they don't officially sponsor terrorism, and those countries haven't attacked us or declared war on us, either.) Even if we capture and kill Osama tomorrow, it won't end the war on terror, 'cause another head on the Hydra will pop up and we won't be able to have a true victory like at the end of WW2. We might be able to eventually kill the bad guys, but we'll never actually "win" this war. (Unless a middle-Eatern country like Iran, open declares war on the U.S. and attacks us, but that'll NEVER happen, 'cause they KNOW we'd bomb them even FURTHER back into the stone age!) War sucks!
Anchorite by Kung Fu Hustler	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:44:41 AM
I agree that he's lost some steam, but The Fury, Sisters, and Dressed to Kill (though completely ripping off Psycho) are pretty damn good films.
Pride by KanekoFan	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:22:30 PM
You know, pride is generally regarded as an UNDESIRABLE quality. There's a reason that it's a deadly sin. And while I'm GLAD to be an American, wouldn't it be a little arrogant of me to take pride in it? I didn't earn it. I didn't draft the constitution. I was born into it. Why should a person be proud of something over which they had no influnence?
anchorite by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:23:03 PM
You're clearly a fucking moron. I do not debate with morons.
No Afghanistan was harboring Al Quaeda... by Zardoz	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:23:48 PM
but they weren't officially sanctioning or declaring a war of terror on the U.S. as a country. (And there IS a difference)
Sisters by KanekoFan	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:24:14 PM
All the lists of DePalma movies in these talkbacks, and nobody has mentioned one of his absolute masterpieces! Sisters and Carrie are solidly my two favorite DePalma flicks, and Sisters in particular just knocked me flat the first time I saw it.
I got this confused with RENDITION by Raymar	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:48:06 PM
Huh.
When (if) Redacted finally comes out... by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:48:28 PM
You guys are gonna feel mighty silly for arguing about it. That would mean the film warranted some kind of discussion. It doesn't. Not unless you want to talk about the headache you got from being clubbed over the head with such pedantic "observations" (war dehumanizes people, revenge is hollow...)
"People have been ripping De Palma off for ages" by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 12:56:27 PM
Right on. Like when Antonioni ripped off "Blowout" and turned it into "Blowup". That hack barely even changed the title. And that super cool scene in Untouchables with the baby stroller, some guy ripped that off and took it back in his time machine to the year 1925 and put it in his film "Battleship Potemkin". DePalma totally can't catch a break. Tal, your knowledge of film history is remarkable.
That's all well and good, anchorite by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 01:18:43 PM
But what does it have to do with DePalma being a bad director and Redacted being a horrible movie? Focus, buddy.
my point, actually... by Zardoz	Oct 3rd, 2007 01:34:04 PM
was that, unlike WW2, the war on terror has no clearly defined enemies like Germany and Japan, and that we'll never have a decisive victory on terrorists, be they al quaeda, Taliban or whomever, like we did in WW2. (and I always thought the Taliban was leading the Afghan government around like a puppet; they had a gun to their heads and did what they were told, unlike Nazi Germany and Tojo Japan, which were gung-ho for world domination and the destruction of the U.S.)
I heart anchorite by Carnotaur3	Oct 3rd, 2007 01:38:58 PM
Keep the truth spreading man.
Uh no by Carnotaur3	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:08:35 PM
While there are crazy Christians in America, me NOT being one of them, they shouldn't even be put in league with terrorist organizations of the Islamic kind.
Also... by Carnotaur3	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:11:16 PM
I'm interested to hear why you brought up the comparison? Are you anti-christian?
He's got Memories... by Kal El Vis	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:24:53 PM
Of the brain cells that were "mudered" every time mom dropped him on his dirty, morbidly-obese-for-a-child, head.
Memories of Murder... by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:36:43 PM
is a really good serial killer movie by the guy who directed The Host. And this clown is befouling its name.
Retarded review by Brendan3	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:52:30 PM
People have been ripping off DePalma for years? Actualy DePalma made a career of ripping off Hitchcock. Better than The Thin Red Line? Well, that's easy. Thin Red Line was beautifuly shot, but lacked logic, continuity and a cohesive story. War is no longer fought on the ground? That was one of the stupidest statements I've heard in a long time. I believe you meant to comment on how War is reported, not fought. DePalma is an over rated hack who hasn't made a watchable movie in 20 years.
Anchorite and Garbageman by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:52:43 PM
Man, you guys really want to hate this movie. Maybe you should write a review. Oh wait, you haven't seen it! Twats. Politics aside, is it that hard to imagine that Brian de Palma made an interesting movie? I'm sure some of the movies he's made are truly awful. But the guy did do Carrie. And Scarface. Those were flukes? I was just as surprised as anyone by how impressed I was with this movie. I couldn't believe this was the same guy that directed Mission Impossible. The film just worked for me. It's not like his career is spotless, but who's is? What has Francis Ford Coppola done lately? When was the last time George Lucas made anything good? De Palma isn't perfect director. But a "bad director"? A "hack"? Uwe Boll is a bad. McG is bad. Michael Bay is so bad he's become almost critic-proof ("What did you expect? It's Michael Bay movie"). Even Brian De Palma's "flukes" are better than any of these director's best efforts. Keep shit in perspective.
Hechtal... by Tourist	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:55:12 PM
...You mentioned one soldier who threw himself on an IED. There were four soldiers who raped a child and murdered her family. So, by your reasoning, wouldn't it in fact be more realistic to portray them all as rapists, rather than self sacrificing heroes? Oh, and USS Cygnan...What does someone jumping out of the WTC have to do with Soldiers raping kids in Iraq? You've lost me there. I'm no fan of Depalma, and I'm pretty centered on my political views, but jesus, you wanks never shut up about being fair and balanced, like there isn't enough pro war propoganda already out there for you. I would say, if you don't like it, don't watch it. Vote with your wallet. But whats the point? We all know that nobody is going to go see this flick anyway. Sounds kind of tossish.
Anyone who works in the Suspense Thriller Genre by Samuel Fulmer	Oct 3rd, 2007 02:55:17 PM
rips off Hitchcock. He is the Suspense Thriller Genre. I'm some what interested in seeing Redacted. Looks like a grittier Casualties of War without the gloss and the name actors.
Brendan 3 by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:02:34 PM
No, I meant what I wrote. You're just being to literal. I'm sorry this review a wrote for fun at 1:30 in the morning isn't lucid enough for you. If you watched the movie, you'd realize that the use of media goes beyond mere "reporting", and how the act of documentation can be used to intimidate and escalate violence.
The rhetoric here is stunning... by Master Darque	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:22:33 PM
I registered just to add to this talkback. This movie may blow chunks, but I really don't think that's the point. I believe Depalma was trying to shed some light on an horrific event that occurred during a criminally ill-advised war. To think that some of you feel that our "national pride" is more important than the fact that a teenage girl was raped and that she and her family were murdered. Ask yourself this -- what if that had happened in the U.S.A.? The animals (yes, the men who actually did this are lower than scum-sucking pigs) who did it, would be condemned on all levels, regardless of their military affiliation. But I guess because the girl and her family were Iraqi, that makes the whole incident somewhat less important. This leads me to believe that many of you feel that AMERICANS are "superior" to everyone else in the world -- that they are more deserving to be alive. If you study history, you will find that there was a similar sentiment in Germany in the late 1930's. Greatest country in the world, huh?
God damn, anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:29:36 PM
anchorite has acolytes now! The end is truly near. I must observe, lovely anchor, that you automatically react defensively and nastily to EVERY project, either announced or released, that seems to have a point of view other than "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" Why? There are stories to be told wherein the U.S. powers make bad choices that lead to horrible consequences. What about these stories terrifies you so? They can be treated simplistically and polemically, sure, but they can also be told with complexity and wisdom. As can films which accentuate the positive use of power. Stop being so childishly chicken.
Master Darque by Kal El Vis	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:32:13 PM
This douche-nozzle comes here to bitch about "rhetoric", yet spouts off a SHITLOAD of his own?? Read up on it, you ignorant fuck. They were TRIED and CONVICTED. Way to support putting our troops in DANGER for an ISOLATED INCIDENT. You and people like you are BELOW the soldiers convicted of this crime, asshole. Hide behind your monitors and make vicious and unfounded statements against those who put their life on the line EVERY SINGLE DAY. I can see WHY you have a sense of "superiority". YOU get to complain about MOVIES on the INTERNETS.
Fundamentalist Christians by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:37:47 PM
Fundamentalist Christians are not terrorists. But they are, similarly to the Islamic population that generates terrorists, short a rational, scientific, modern, way to go about understanding themselves in today's world. They, like fundamentalist Muslims, refer to a poetic text and an often terribly shallow history of religious "commentary" to judge the worth of others. Their ignorance can lead to inhuman, criminal, maybe even terrorist behaviors. Mathew Shepherd was tortured and killed because of a fundamentalist, anti-modern, cultural strain of "Christian" thought that deemed homosexuals evil. Fundamentalist Christianity is of course constrained by the plurality of other American perspectives and hasn't risen to the level of violent hate reached by the so-called "Islamo-fascists", but they aren't as far apart as some people like to think.
Actually Tal, I did see the movie by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:41:54 PM
Which is why I'm so certain it sucks.
Holy Hell by Kal El Vis	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:43:30 PM
There is a difference between skipping over a "stream", and travelling across an OCEAN. So saying they "aren't as far apart as some people think" DOESN'T mean they AREN'T "far apart". Jesus, some of you are pathetic. ANYTHING to try to further YOUR way of thinking, eh?
AnimalStructure by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:43:39 PM
So who gets to decide what stories are "important" enough to be turned into film? Is Toy Story more important? How about Invincible? The Chronicles of Riddick? This may be an intelligent treatment of a story that exists within a terribly complex context of politics, grief, rhetoric, and valor. We don't know yet, at least most of us.
AnimalStructure by Master Darque	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:48:27 PM
Your post proves my point. If you were truly American in spirit, you would understand that dissent and free speech are FUNDEMENTAL American beliefs. Yes, unfortunately girls get raped every day. But not so common is when the act is perpetrated by a GROUP of AMERICAN SOLDIERS who were in Iraq to protect innocent civilians in the first place. They PRE-PLANNED it and then tried to COVER IT UP. I think that is disturbingly unique enough a situation to make a movie about it. Who is more ignorant, someone who will question the events that are happening? Or someone who just marches in lock-step with all the garbage spewed out by conservative media? There is a difference between having a problem with America itself and having a problem with America's current leadership and policies.
Kal by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:50:30 PM
Are you suggesting I'm pathetic? I don't understand what, exactly, about my argument you take reasonable issue with. I began saying that fundamentalist Christians are not terrorists. I then argued that they have an unreflected upon devotion to "the word" which can be dangerous in a similar way that radcal muslims have toward the koran. There are many cultural, historical, and theological differences which have not led American fundamentalist Christianity toward terrorist behavior, but a rational discussion of the fundamentalist mind must be able to identify pretty sizable area of overlap between both cultures. They are not exact, and their behavior is very different, but there are parallels that are easily discerible. Easier than many would like to admit. That argument is not pathetic; refusal to join a conversation rationally is.
In yet another example of DePalma being inspired by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:55:05 PM
He was "inspired" enough by Kubrick's score for Barry Lyndon that he uses it here, note for note.
Fascinating... by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:55:21 PM
watching the "patriotic" idiots explode (pun intended) on this thread. It's no use engaging in debate with these types, as they will continue to spew the same bullshit they've been fed, regardless. One thing though, isn't Bush a born again Cristian who is on a "crusade" to attack every towelhead country he can, that were all armed in the past by the good old US of A?
Garbageman33 review by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:57:38 PM
I'd love to read it.
Kal El Vis by Master Darque	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:57:42 PM
When did I ever write, "All American soldiers are BAD because of this incident"? Some of you really read a lot into these talkback postings. Contrary to popular belief, you CAN support the troops and not support the war. I must say, the word "ignorant" sure gets tossed around a lot. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Ideology vs. Violence by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 03:59:13 PM
Long time, first time. I agree with the point Holy Hell was trying to make. I differentiate between ideology and violence. In terms of violence perpetrated, obviously Radical Islam takes the cake. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. But in terms of ideology, Radical Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are similar, like Holy Hell said. Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian, has said on his show that the extermination of gays is a good idea. I'm not trying to bash Christianity, I know he doesn't speak for everyone or even most people, but he does have a large influence over some people. To me, him saying that is no different than a Radical Muslim saying the extermination of Isreal is a good idea. Now, like I said, Radical Islam goes much much further in terms of creating violence, but I hope you can understand the basic point that Holy Hell was trying to make that ideology is universal.
Holy Hell by Kal El Vis	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:00:24 PM
Except you are bringing up things the "Church" did IN THE PAST. Radicals? They are CARRYING THEM OUT TODAY. If YOU can't see the difference, YOU are PATHETIC. And C Legion? You are a fucking moron, who refuses to acknowledge the FACT that you are, INDEED, a moron. Debate? You sad, fucking shithead. To "debate", you FIRST have to have a POINT.
Thanks Noodles! by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:03:39 PM
I believe it was Robertson who also blamed lesbians for 9-11. That is dangerously anti-modern and finds a friend in radical Islam. By the way, I am a practicing Christian absolutely disgusted with the fact that the fundamentalist strain has seemingly hijacked the religion from decent, curious people. Perhaps that explains my passion.
"you FIRST have to have a POINT" by KanekoFan	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:05:03 PM
Well, thank you, Kal El Vis, for ending your post by stating so plainly and simply the exact source of your failure to engage in reasonable debate here. Me? I'm not debating, I'm just complaining.
Kal El Vis. by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:06:51 PM
Bush is a devout Christian,he is exclusively attacking Muslim people. He himself discribed it as a "Crusade". Now go visit Wikipedia then come back and debate.
Kal by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:08:37 PM
You are either drunk or four years old. The first example I chose, Matthew Shepherd, occurred something like 15 years ago. The example I just posted, 9/11, occurred 6 years ago. I wasn't discussing the crusades. An ammendment: pathetic is not only refusing to join a conversation rationally. It is also not respecting yourself enough to read effectively before insulting people in ridiculously impotent ways. Go back to school.
My pleasure, Holy Hell by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:10:43 PM
It WAS Robertson that said that. Gays and abortionists, don't forget the abortionists.
And Kal, by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:18:24 PM
I do see the manifold differences. I noted a few. What is your point, anyway? Seriously.
I already wasted 90 minutes watching this piece of shit by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:19:37 PM
I refuse to waste another minute writing about it. Here's my review in a tiny nutshell: There's a big difference between having something insightful to say and simply pushing buttons.
Bill Maher and Larry Charles' "Religulous"... by BrooseTheScharuk	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:19:59 PM
...I can't wait.
What's "Religulous?" by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:23:42 PM
What's "Religulous?"
...it's the title of the movie... by BrooseTheScharuk	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:29:28 PM
supposed to sound something like "ridiculous"...not much info on IMDB, but you can see various TV appearances by Maher where he talks about it by searching the title on YouTube or Google Video.
thank you Broose. I'll by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:33:25 PM
thank you Broose. I'll investigate.
Garbageman33 ... by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:40:50 PM
... cops out. It's unsurprising. It's easy to dismiss the film as more partisan sentimental hogwash. Personally, I feel Redacted is a legitimate work of art.
anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:49:20 PM
DePalma is not Oliver Stone or Michael Moore. He may very well hold principles which we could identify as "liberal", or more pointedly, "anti-war", but his portfolio is hardly made up of leftist political propoganda. Be real for God's sake. I am not defending the film, I haven't seen it. Why are you damning the film before YOU have seen it? Same question I asked earlier: what are you afraid of from films that tell stories of American abuse of power? They can be crap, but they can also be smart. Just like pro-soldier films can be good (We Were Soldiers, Three Kings) and derivative, dishonest tripe (Behind Enemy Lines, FlyBoys). YOU are a fundamentalist nationalist. Try opening your mind to other perspectives. That doesn't mean a wholesale value of your critical faculties or your American pride. On the contrary, it will sharpen your ability to argue toward truth and can strengthen the character of our country. I'm not asking you to have any particular opinion; I'm asking you to consider the intelligence with which you come to your opinions. Reason is not in evidence.
anchorite may be a hopeless neo-con blowhard... by Childe Roland	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:50:01 PM
...but I have to give him props for making me laugh out loud in the middle of the airport with his Scorcese post. Good show, anchy. Stick to movie stuff and I could read your posts all day. But when you start quoting Wikipedia as though you researched the validity of anything contained therein on your own and as though it somehow proves that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you just make yourself look sad. Very few folks still labor under that fabricated impression and most, fortunately, are too ignorant to figure out where their desingated voting places are. I know you are smart enough to know how hollow your arguments are, so I have to wonder if you haven't secretly switched sides and you're now just trying to make the most faithful of the brainwashed seem even that much stupider for continuing to swallow what the Bush administration feeds them to justify this illegal, immoral, ill-conceived war. All of that said, I can't help but think this movie is wholly unnecessary at this point, and for many of the reasons I've pointed out above. There are so few people who actually believe anyuthing good is happening over in Iraq due to the U.S. presence any longer and the accounts of misconduct by U.S. soldiers and contractors are so well documented and thoroughly publcized that making this movie is almost a metaphor for its subject matter: the rape of a tired, beaten victim. It's almost a cheap shot. De palma can do better.
anchorite by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:51:35 PM
Any person who wants other people to die because of their beliefs is dangerous. Across the board. Secularists who want Christians to die are dangerous. Fundamentalists who want gays to die are dangerous. Everybody who wants someone else to die is dangerous. To me, there is a difference between faith and religion. Faith is when you take the basic teachings and principles and you turn them within and you use it to improve your life and your outlook on the world. This is beautiful and I would never denegrate anyone for their faith. Religion is when you take those basic teachings and principles and project them outwards in order to manipulate and indoctrinate people. There are strains in every religion that does this and they are dangerous. As has been said, these strains in Islam are the most violent in the world. But that doesn't excuse the less violent strains in other religions. And in this country, people are more exposed to those strains of Christianity. Calling out a Pat Robertson for his hate doesn't equal calling out the nice, sincere family that goes to churhc every Sunday. Their faith is good. Their faith is beautiful in my eyes.
I do not hate fundamentalist by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 04:55:52 PM
I do not hate fundamentalist Christians at all. I just don't think they arrive at their judgements in an intelligent way. They start from a devotional posture toward somewhat shallow discussions of sacred poetry. Simply, they have a lot in common with other sheep like Sean Hannity disciples and Al Franken groupies. I don't hate those people either, but I don't have copious amounts of respect for their positions either. Fundamentalist Christians are a bit scarier because they bring an institutional weight and influence; their ignorance weilds influence over the other sheep: our lawmakers in Congress and our executives in the White House.
anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:12:11 PM
Why is the "positive" info you receive from conservative media outlets and conservative political personalities any more veracious than the "negative" info your hated "main stream" media supplies? True story: my brother-in-law recently got back from a year in Iraq. He went in as a conservative republican Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld supporter and NOW, I shit you not, he is prepared to vote for a Democrat (though he won't even consider Hillary). Why? Because despite the fact that he headed up agriculture and irrigation reconstruction efforts, in which good works were done, he bore witness to both the inept management of the war and the "hopelessness" (his words) of those good works amounting to anything sustainable. He describes it as an absolute shitstorm. I suppose you may not believe that story, but I have NO political agenda. I want truth and smarts. Period. Which is why I question your label of "brave" placed upon films that would tell stories of the good work being done. What would the context be? What could it be? What would the message be? That good stuff is going on and is taking hold? That seems to be overly optimistic. If it focused on the good work AND the staggering complexity, danger, politics, and violence of the situation, then I'm all for it. I have a feeling, though, that you'd STILL bitch about it being anti-American unless it spikes the situation with ground-up happy pills. The situation sucks. It is full of death and chaos. I'm not saying it's unwinnable AT ALL, but it is certainly a pit of disfunction and corruption.
It's brave to try to tell by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:14:31 PM
It's brave to try to tell the truth. Period.
"Any person who wants to die.. by papabendi	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:21:49 PM
because of their beliefs is Dangerous". I'm afraid that's religion in general. It's all about preparing to die, dying, and where you go next. Chritianity is based on Jesus dying for what he believed he was supposed to do Paradise or another crack at life awaits in nearly all religions. Religion demands that you must die for it's offer of eternal life.
And Scarface IS over-rated. by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:23:47 PM
And Scarface IS over-rated. Mission Impossible wasn't very good. CageSnakeEyes was bad, bad, bad. Femme Fatale had beautiful women in steamy situations, so I can't honestly rate it ass a film. I'm not a DePalma fan at all, come to think of it.
"People have been ripping De Palma off for ages" by papabendi	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:25:55 PM
Well actually they've been ripping Hitchcock like him. I like DePalma in a pulpy way. i thought Raisin Kane (a trashy Psycho riff) was really entertaining in hammy kind of way. Like his Scarface he lets his lead just roll out the ham.
Bendi by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:28:51 PM
That may be one way people indulge in religion, but it's certainly not the only way. I think that's a pretty stupid way to chaacterize your religious life. There are relevant, authentic, metaphoric, and revolutionary ways to converse with religious elements. When they are fixated on death and execution, which is what Noodles was suggesting they sometimes can be, they are dangerous anti-modern death cults, which most religions certainly are not. I think your declaration is pedantic to the point of prejudice.
anchorite by Master Darque	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:30:48 PM
It is because I support the troops that I want immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In ten or twenty years, when Iraq is back in the hands of an iron-fisted, Islamist dictator, everyone will know that the Americans who so valiantly fought and died there did so for NOTHING. Just like Vietnam. It wasn't the UNITED STATES that invaded Iraq, it was the U.S. military controlled by ONE SOCIOPATHIC IDIOT that invaded Iraq. The U.S. military is an awesome force, made up of some of the finest Americans alive. Bush abused that force by invading a country that was NO THREAT TO US. He displays the most disrespect for the military by putting them in danger for reasons only he knows for sure. And as for the "good that the soldiers are doing" in Iraq - Let's remember that the U.S. invaded and is now occupying a country that was no threat, regardless of any prior intelligence, real or manufactured. That makes us the bad guys. Just because it's the U.S. doesn't make it right. Oh and by the way, if what you said before about the sex slave trade in Kosovo is true, you're absolutely right that Depalma (or anyone else) should make a movie about it so that it gets exposed.
Negative Man thanks for including Terry Jones by Proman1984	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:31:43 PM
Good list and it made me LOL.
Thanks, Holy Hell by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:34:59 PM
Yeah, my point was that religion can be used for nefarious purposes, and has certainly been in the past, but the vast majority of people of faith are peaceful. The whole point of religion in the first place was to instill a sense of morality in how people live their lives not how they bring about their deaths. But as things turned out you can have one without the other. Religion and morality I mean.
Noodles by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:46:39 PM
It's funny, you're right: people certainly don't need to practice an institutional religion in order to discern between right and wrong. Our various cultures and experiences do that for us. What's happened to religion is that the values emphasized have always been conservative, ie conserving the social traditions in which the particular religion took root. Well, we live in a crazily plural world, and we can't expect to hold on to certain archaic "social" determinations of right and wrong. A few of the ten commandments, for example, are downright irrelevant. The church, for the most part, is still preaching the conservative values, which do not help people cope with today's tensions and realities. It tends to conjure up an illusion of simplicity for the scared and confused. That is just dangerous. That is when people become so frightened and turned around that they can become filled with hate and do horrible things. I thinbk that's part of what happened with radical Islam, and I see that same spirit in American fundamentalism. The church should help people understand the sacred dimension to life in the midst of today's global world, not in spite of it! It should encourage values of conversation instead of conservation. I feel as if something beautiful has died every time someone portrays ALL religious experience as naive and and ignorant.
You are much more articulate than I am. by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:56:53 PM
"It should encourage values of conversation instead of conservation."
anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 05:58:47 PM
I appreciate your point of view. There's a couple of points of difference, though: I don't think people who oppose(d) the war, either as private citizens or as politicians, have damged the mission in Iraq at all. All the funding called for by the adminnistration and the Pentagon has been approved. All of it. Congress has had NO impact on the war at all, which is why anti-war activists hate the Dems, too- they seem impotent. I have to believe, as an independent, that if Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000 we would NOT be in Iraq now. There does seem to be a certain "Bush-iness" about this business that I think only he (and a select other few) would've pushed for. I don't think we'd be there if McCain had wont the nomination and beat Gore in 2000, either. I AGREE completely about pulling out. It seems ignorant, fearful momentum got us into Iraq in the first place and that ignorant, fearful momentum is going to get us out too soon. I too am worried about a power vacuum there after our departure. The question, which seems to have a disturbingly inarguable answer, is: Can Bush get his shit together and make something really good actually happen? Ouch.
Thanks Noodles, by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:09:44 PM
as a wounded and outraged Christian this is the shit I think about. I may have a rhetorical headstart on non-church-goers...
I find it darkly amusing when people... by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:15:22 PM
talk of "our brave troops over there trying to help". They're hired killers, illegally invading a country to help America steal their oil. A country which will be fucked for the next few decades at least, as warring factions struggle for control. hundreds of thousands have already died, in the end the count be in the millions. "So there, we have figured it out, go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed America, here's American Gladiators. Here's 56 channels of it. Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America, you are free... to do as we tell you. You are free, to do as we tell you."
I hear ya by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:19:02 PM
I'm actually an atheist so I'm a non-church-goer but I'm not intimidated or hateful of devout Christians either. I just don't like being told I'm immoral just because I don't believe in God, so that's where my thought process comes from. Philosophically I'd put us in the same camp though.
anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:21:05 PM
Sorry I didn't speak to the point about the media: I would agree that coverage has had a somewhat defeatist tone, highlighting tragedy instead of construction, but I think it kind of has to have that tone if it's at all concerned about the larger story. It seems to me in conversation with my bro-in-law (who is certainly just one man and doesn't necessarily represent a majority of the military) that the reality is pretty bad. If the outcome begins to look up, because of smart adjustments and new strategies, then the tone of the coverage would shift, too. We need some REAL good news, not positive tid-bits that won't amount to much, but something that really fills people - soldiers, journalists, citizens - with hope. We're not really getting that. And I don't think the media's coverage of the war has "made the troops' work harder" at all. Bush and the terrorists did that all themselves.
You are a moron. by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:26:43 PM
Maybe one day you'll open your eyes and see the truth. I hope you do, though I doubt it.
Anchorite ... by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:26:57 PM
... you are way too easy. I avoided comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11 because quite frankly, I thought that movie sucked. Me and my friend walked out of it 3/4's of the way through. It was a piss poor excuse for movie making, and I was really disturbed when it won at Cannes. My disenchantment with Michael Moore began with Bowling for Columbine. You can actually read my review of it here. http://www.aintitcool.com/node /13420 I reason why I'm defending this film is because it's going to be easy to dismiss, by people like you, as mere knee-jerk propaganda. It's anti-war to be sure, but there's something else happening with this film; its operating on a higher level. Like I mentioned in the review, there's a teenage girl who gives a one minute anti-war rant on a webpage. It's juvenile, reactionary and naive. Brian De Palma knows this, and shows it anyway. Because the scene isn't about the content or merit of her reaction, but the nature of it. This movie is like Starship Troopers ... I think it's a lot smarter than people will initially give it credit for. It actually has merit, unlike those propaganda films you mentioned.
anchorite/C Legion by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:33:55 PM
Legion - you're an ass. Soldiers, sailors, flyboys, etc, are not hired killers. They are instruments of force in an uncertain world. They can be weilded with wisdom or with ignorance - it depends on the commander in chief. Anchorite- I AM a churchgoer. My dad is a minister, so I grew up in churches. My wife is Catholic, and I attend mass with her family four or five times a year. There are sacred immutable values that will probably never vanish: the whole "golden rule" thing is the most obvious. It's less about values than it is about their relevance. For instance: the commandment against idolatry is as present as ever, but has NO relevance to living a human life, in America, in 2007. The fact that we're extremely globalized economically has changed the nature of what "consuming" is, morally. When the traditions were formed, trade was pretty damn local. Now, my dollars (allbethey pretty few) go toward encouraging a system which has great consequences for the world my as-of-yet-unborn child will inherit. But religion doesn't say much about commandments for conscientiously consuming in a complex, environmentally fragile, child-labor happy, world economy. That seems like lunacy to me.
Soldiers are trained to kill, yes? by C Legion	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:36:41 PM
Soldiers are payed, yes? They're hired killers.
My big ass directors list... by Negative Man	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:43:00 PM
...which should not to be confused with my big list of directors with big asses. I was pointing out directors who have made bigger impacts than De Palma has. Sure, De Palma has influenced other directors. But nearly every director on that list has influenced nearly every other director on that list. That's the nature of any art form. Hell, De Palma is a pale, pale imitation of Alfred Hitchcock in the end. Sure, De Palma caught the eye of the artsy leftist film critics during the late 60's, but he wasn't doing anything more ground breaking than any number of directors at the time. But, he was in the right place at the right time with the right group of fellow up and coming directors which included the likes of: Spielberg, Lucas, Coppola, Scorsese, and several others. Sorry to say, but De Palma is the least of that group. Almost a hackish ghost of his former self now-a-days. He was graced with a few amazing actors that ate up scenes like no tomorrow and that forwarded his career to a point. Let's face it, Italian 'giallo' directors were using De Palma's style before De Palma was. Who know's, maybe De Palma saw some Mario Bava films and decided that was the way to go. Foreign films were not as easy to come by during that time, so it just makes it that much easier to rip off. In the end, De Palma is known mainly not for the 'impact' he's made to film making, but for Al Pacino's scene stealing performances in Scarface and Carlito's way. When people talk about those two films, they quote Pacino. They don't discuss story structure or how an incredible camera shot. They quote the words written by Oliver Stone and David Koepp, respectively.
anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:44:43 PM
good conversation, but I've got to run - the wife is home and I can't be a total asshole. I'll check back later, though.
It doesn't look like this applies to Redacted since... by NoodlesHahn	Oct 3rd, 2007 06:52:19 PM
the consensus is that DePalma's trying to manipulate people. But I think, generally speaking, the point of these movies isn't that our troops are terrible people, it's that war makes good people do terrible things. In the Valley of Elah for example (a movie I didn't really like btw) makes this point. It's heavy handed obviously but that's the basic point and there's nothing wrong with that. The lesson from this, I think, is that if you're going to put troops in combat you have to make sure you back them up with the best possible policy because the military isn't a tool like a hammer or a knife it's a precious commodity. I don't think it happened in Vietnam and I don't think it's happening now. Is pulling out yesterday a good idea? No. But just think about it. If those celebrities really wanted troops to die, don't you think they'd keep their mouths shut and let this flawed policy go?
The vast by papabendi	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:18:37 PM
majority of people belong to a religion purely due to geography, parental choice,or cultural background Religion is rarely something you've learned but something you have been told. A large part of that belief is death. The fear of death and nothingness is integral to religion. Religion offers up an alternative spiritual world and the promise of life beyond the physical. It's funny how we are all athiests when it comes to Zeus or Odin but partial to Jesus Christ and Vishnu. Death is virtually the soul reason why Religion exists. As the question goes "What is the meaning of life?"
This Talkback needs more Jessica Harper love.. by Alfred_Packer	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:20:57 PM
Phantom of the Paradise is a great soundtrack. And I dont understand all the hate on DePalma, he's brought us some great film moments that I will always love. Blow Out, Carrie, Body Double, The Untouchables, PotP, Scarface, Dressed to Kill, and Im sure Im forgetting several others. Oh, and Nancy Allen is hot.
I'm back by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:32:14 PM
Anchorite- when people call soldiers murderers, rapists, or "hired killers" (as C Legion did) I think they do exactly what I do and probably what you do - laugh at those people. Most people, including those very citical of the war, do not invoke those sorts of Vietnam-era labels. I think (as do the analysts I've heard discuss the topic) that people have been pretty good about that with Iraq, as opposed to 'Nam. That aggressive anti-troop atmosphere just isn't here, in my experience. My wife's brother told me that troop morale was pretty high. He said care packages were abundant and they felt supported, in general. Most of them, put in the shit, did seem to dig in their heals and rally around the commander in chief, but they didn't seem too annoyed with the war's opponents, especially as the war kept going and their tours were extended. My biological brother served in Afganistan, too, before he was medically retired. He didn't feel compromised by war opposition, either. The soldiers and sailors are smart, professional people, and the opposition seems to respect their position. I don't think general war opposition is a morale issue at all. Now, polemic, assinine, political attacks on soldiers, if that's what DePalma's doing, would be met with outrage, by soldiers AND by me. But conscientious studies of war, no matter who's mistakes and sacrifices are documented, should not be disregarded out of presumptions. We should hold off on judgement until we see them. This film, like Stones upcoming one on Mai Lai, could be crap. But they COULD be honest attempts to figure out horrible, unavoidable, bye-products of war, ineptly-waged.
bendi by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:38:29 PM
You're wrong. Religious belief is contingent upon the individuals mind upon accepting that belief. If you are indoctrinated blindly by tradition, then your belief is not religious at all. It is laziness or mind control. If it is entered into with a sense of curiosity, inquiry, rigor, conversation, and relevance, it becomes a place where life's value can be discussed and explored to the limits. THAT is what religious experience is. Many traditions today don't encourage that kind of thing, but many do. You are painting with one brush a diverse crew of religious people. That is ignorant behavior, perhaps the result of laziness or mind control, that is just as diabolical as close-minded religious fundamentalism.
There is the possibilty by papabendi	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:43:58 PM
that DePalma is using the rape incident as a metaphor for the actual war. I've not seen the film so I can't comment but it seems that a film built around a single incident usually uses that incident to represents the bigger picture. Something like The Ox Bow Incident. If DePalma is anti war then he's entitled to comment on it. For all i know it could be as heavy handed as his other stuff but that doesn't mean he can't say his piece all the same. It's not like the landscape is full of anti-war properganda.
More shit from guy behind BLACK DAHLIA & FEMME FATALE by Big Dumb Ape	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:46:29 PM
Until someone mentioned them above, I forgot those two. No, scratch that. I should say I MADE my mind forget those utter pieces of shit with a self-imposed Jedi mind trick. Whenever we get a film such as this one...dealing with this type of volatile subject matter...it's a sure bet that the Talkback will quickly become a Left vs. Right, America vs. anti-American rant forum where it's always amazing to see the people around here choose up sides, so before that happens I just want to say I have no real interest in this movie simply because DePalma is pretty much a HACK director who only gets it right when he decides to just steal from other directors or ape their work...oh, I'm sorry. I meant he's doing a "homage" to something. (cough, cough, bullshit) So frankly given his track record for YEARS and YEARS now, anyone thinking this film will be good is doing lines of coke. Or else they DO just want to push it for political reasons in an election year because the idea of DePalma actually making a good movie long ago became a total joke.
Not really by papabendi	Oct 3rd, 2007 07:48:18 PM
I'm open to spirituality, I've seen a lot of bizarre stuff in many pockets of the world. I've experinced things that make me question the static and unmoving nature of pure science. The point is that my interest is still pricked by the knowledge that i'm going to die and that I'm looking for something which may nswer a few questions. Religion and death are interlinked. As id the power of belief.
About passing fiction as fact ... by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:04:57 PM
The movie explicit states in an opening paragraph that all the events in the film are not real and have been imagined. What's interesting about the film is that we already know that most of the events, in some way, shape or form, did happen.
Bodet by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:37:01 PM
I agree with alot of what you said. There is a desperate lack of basic decency in human affairs these days. For some reason, people have stopped trying to interact with respect, generosity, and rational intelligence. I'm not talking about old testament bible values or new fundamentalist hate principles, but about the values that should define human civilization- conversation, reasoned argument, good faith, perseverance, charity. We've become so cynical and suspicious that we've forgotten how to be generous with each other, and how to respect listening and logic in how we go about solving problems. It's maddening.
And I do think that Bush's by Holy Hell	Oct 3rd, 2007 08:43:51 PM
And I do think that Bush's presidency has either summed up this collapse of human decency or pushed it over the edge. He has been aggressively insulated from debate and argument. I know 9/11 ratcheted up the paranoia factor, but it's encouraged us to forget the principles that scaffold our humanity. That sounds kind of over the top, but why the hell not? We have got to TRY to behave decently or we'll forget how.
I was really bored by this movie by KantSpehl	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:18:11 PM
Not offended, just unmoved and bothered by the straight-to-DVD production. The acting was so stiff it was like talking points were handed out to the actors and the rest was poorly improvised.
Thank you, KantSpehl by Garbageman33	Oct 3rd, 2007 10:28:52 PM
My thoughts exactly. Although now that you disagreed with him, Tal will probably pester you for an in-depth review.
KantSpehl by Tal the Reviewer	Oct 3rd, 2007 11:47:25 PM
Thank you for for commenting on the film, and not railing on and on about its politics or the merit of Brian De Palma's other films. Garbageman, way too ... uh ... agree. I mean, it's not hard to do better than saying it sucks, dude. I can understand being turned off by it's low budget, HD aesthetic. I mean, it ain't Saving Private Ryan. The audacity of it is why I kind of admire it. It made me realize how romantic and sentimental movies like Saving Private Ryan or Letters from Iwo Jima actually are, despite some of the tragedies that those films depict. The cinematography in those movies are just so ... beautiful. Redacted made me ask myself how much of that is actually purposeful, and how much of that is an aesthetic exercise. It made me think of how we, as civilians on the friendly side of the content, actually experience war, through highly informal, politicized channels. I'm probably too forgiving of the acting, the same way I'm forgiving of Jessica Harper's shitty dance in Phantom of the Paradise. The acting is stilted but for me, it's stilted in the right way. It worked for me, the same way the soap opera performances of Starship Troopers worked for me. By the way, I had no idea people hated Brian De Palma THAT much. It's crazy. People almost seem personally offended by his existence. Is there a course in film school where you were taught by Brian De Palma and he was a dick to you? Do you wish you were Brian De Palma. Shit.
Nice stab at the middle/reason, Holy Hell. by losder	Oct 4th, 2007 12:40:19 AM
Almost inspired to jump in and help, but not quite. Still, you're not alone, pal.
TomBodet & Holy Hell by DocPazuzu	Oct 4th, 2007 01:16:57 AM
Keep fighting the good fight.
is it entertaining though? by Spice-Orange	Oct 4th, 2007 01:43:55 AM
i dont like sitting through movies that lecture me on what to think and what to know and what to do with my life. i have better things to do. like the sun and the moon.
NIce review man, thanks by Shelbs	Oct 4th, 2007 03:27:39 AM
but if you've got any kind of problem with Thin Red Line- NO MORE FILMS FOR YOU!! You must go and scratch stick men on walls for entertainment you DEVOLVED SIMIAN F**KS!
I can't remember who coined the phrase by Lost Jarv	Oct 4th, 2007 05:33:20 AM
but it is always amusing to see "Star-spangled Anchorite" in full flow- regardelss whether you agree with him. BTW- Quoting wikipedia? for shame Anchorite, for shame
So no soldiers here to attack the film? by Some Dude	Oct 4th, 2007 09:21:51 AM
All you arm-chair patriots, please stop crying about a movie you have not seen. De Palma is a good artist and is using his freedom to make a film that may run contrary to popular opinion. Soldiers should be fine with that, seeing as when they sign their contracts, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.
of course we don't have to believe anything by Lost Jarv	Oct 4th, 2007 09:37:13 AM
THIS IS TAAAAAALKBAAAAAAACK
Anchorite: Why would I spit on myself? by Some Dude	Oct 4th, 2007 09:58:08 AM
Quit playing arm-chair patriot.
are you saying Bush, Blair et al by Lost Jarv	Oct 4th, 2007 10:03:06 AM
were anything other than lying cocksuckers when it came to Iraq?
I do understand that by Lost Jarv	Oct 4th, 2007 10:20:30 AM
By the same logic, do you not think that reporting true events has some value?
Have you seen it? by Lost Jarv	Oct 4th, 2007 10:49:17 AM
Because you make a very strident case that he has deliberately gone out of his way to vilify the soldiers (who, by the way, need no help from Hollywood). I haven't seen it- in fact I hadn't heard of it until recently, but I had heard of the incident itself as just one in a shameful list. Simply because I haven't seen it, I'm not defending the film, but I disagree with you that he was anti-patriotic (I can't think of the proper word) in making it. I do get it for chrissake, but I would like to point out that there are numerous vile pieces of propaganda that masquerade as cinema that don't incense the right as much as movies that comment on the current debacle.
Anchorite: Why and How are two different questions. LOL by Some Dude	Oct 4th, 2007 11:18:16 AM
Regardless, you are reading more into what I wrote than is intended. Not once have I mentioned nobility. All I'm saying is if you are going to get all worked up about this, you might want to wait until actual soldiers come on here and act hissy. Hint: That probably won't happen. As for Valley of the Wolves... I have no problem with someone making that film. I don't have to see it if I don't want to. I don't expect it to get a big stateside release, so who cares? Besides, it is probably pretty funny.
DePalma's JIHADI CAMP by Sir Loin	Oct 4th, 2007 01:01:12 PM
...will never be made. How come we're not seeing any films about the enemy, Brian? My guess is you lost your balls after seeing what happened to Theo Van Gogh. Alas, TRUE LIES will be the last great film with Muslim extremists as the bad guys and now US soldiers are the bad guys instead. Pathetic.
Funny how.. by C Legion	Oct 4th, 2007 01:50:31 PM
people spew phrases like "Anti-War propaganda" as if it's wrong to be Anti-War. Hello "patriots", War IS fucking awful, an abomination, the more Anti-War propaganda the fucking better.
C Legion and anchorite by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 03:05:03 PM
Hello again. C Legion - That is fucking asinine. People SHOULD make works of cinema that manipulate the stupid and uninformed into forming shallow and uninformed opinions if those opinions mesh with your politics? That is as unAmerican as starting a war on false pretenses, standing idly by while chaos begets more chaos, and manipulating a country with fear and hate. You give intelligent people with anti-war positions a bad name. You are a sad, ineffectual, Pat Robertson-wannabe of the left. Anchorite, I read that Village Voice review, and it read as if DePalma was speaking to an outraged liberal audience (which is what he was doing). It was pretty simplistic, for sure, but I can't draw a conclusion about a piece until I've seen it. The work could perhaps offer layers of political/aesthetic/ethical/st ructural elements that could reward the critical observer. I have no patience for the assholes, like C Legion and MAYBE DePalma, who spout vitriolic anti-soldier rhetoric, but I also lack patience for those who judge a piece before they've rationally conversed with it.
Sir Loin by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 03:13:30 PM
Why do we need a film about crazy terrorist fuckers? We know their crazy, and that their fuckers. To make it at all dignified it would take a lot of exposition about the forces that twisted human souls into death machines. Any such picture would be an attempt to understand the psychology of the "enemy", which would certainly result in you and your ilk suffering severe strokes at the idea that we should even be interested in the "why?" of terrorist cultures. No, I think what you would enjoy would be a simplistic action epic of heroic Americans saving the day from one-dimensional super-villains. Watch He-Man take on Skeletor, or the harrowing United 93. The stupid have no business warping reality with stories of simplistic action film conventions. That is damaging to the country and is condescending to the soldiers. BTW, this should not be read as an endorsement of all left-leaning films: they are just as often victim of simple polemic impulses.
Well, you certainly don't have to... by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 03:25:52 PM
but I think you lose a little credibility. The truth is that you are presuming the film will be one thing based upon reviews and interviews from various sources. They may be accurate. I certainly take my cues from reviewers and general word of mouth, too. But I don't condemn a thing unless I can honestly say I listened to it. You've had your experience mediated by other biased beings; don't listen to what other people say and take their word for it! You don't have to see it, certainly, but you don't need to condemn the thing either. I wouldn't condemn the horseshit I hear from much of conservative talk radio if I didn't let Sean Hannity and Michael Savage tag team me with their utterly irrational snarky bullshit, or if I didn't check in with Limbaugh and Medved on the weekends. I just couldn't call such criticism informed or honest.
But there are other forces, by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 03:34:02 PM
But there are other forces, too. Historic and political forces beginning after World War One which gave haphazardly defined territories to colonial powers. Or the dominant oil economy, to which we all contribute, which buttresses corrupt and feudal foreign governments and cartels to maintain their suppression of the poulation. The heavily militarization of the region during the Cold War, etc. I don't speak as an expert, but there are subtler, more nuanced pressures working on the region than a racist heritage. Not that it EXCUSES any violence, nor does it CONDEMN earlier political decisions, but it does bring ambivalence to the discussion which many scared and proud Americans would not suffer through. I think that's a shame.
Maybe I'm being silly. But by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 03:37:37 PM
Maybe I'm being silly. But Ezra Pound, one of the most stylistically and linguistically challenging poets of the modern era was an admirer of Mussolini's. He was an idiot, but he was also a gifted artist. BTW, I've got to bail again - leaving for a wedding down south for the weekend. Be well.
anchor by Holy Hell	Oct 4th, 2007 05:45:14 PM
I can't get this fucking talkback out of my head. I'm halfway through packing my shit up when I decided to check this out again. My point with Pound is tenuous at best. I was trying to suggest that a person's politics doesn't necessarily destroy the other elements of his or her craft; that we can find value within a piece created by a fuck. I think you're conflating the artists "conclusions" with the craft. The film can be viewed as an argument, not as a statement. If it turns out to be worthless propoganda than engagement with the actual premises of the film, raqther than the political conclusions of it's maker, could elevate the discussion of its themes. The themes, regardless of our various opinions, are worthy of thoughtful consideration, rather than uninformed reaction. To condemn a thing because it's origins are from an ideological camp and NOT because it's arguments are invalid SERVES

Talkbacks

Tal sees De Palma's REDACTED in Vancouver and says, "Watch this f#%@ing movie!"