Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: documentary, film, movie trailer, politics

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: documentary, film, movie trailer, Paul Rudd, politics, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: This film is not #$%@ eloquent.


Generally, I don’t hold out for much when viewing #$%@ puppets. This film has done nothing to #$%@ change that.

This film made a splash in two-thousand #$%@ four when it was released because of its attack on #$%@ celebrity hubris and #$%@ terrorism. Out of that context the film loses most of its #$%@ punch. What is left is a partially humorous #$%@ ditty with copulating puppets. At its heart it is a #$%@ cheaply written script about #$%@ nothing.

South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey #$%@ Parker are funny and potent satirists. Unfortunately, they are also very #$%@ crass and childish. There are so many #$%@ instances of crudity used senselessly in this #$%@ film I can’t list them in one posting. The whole piece is slathered in harsh curse words for absolutely no purpose. #$%@ Parker and Stone must giggle like twelve year olds when they hear #$%@ or #$%@ because that’s all you hear. Swear words are usually not effective punch lines. If you’re going to #$%@ use them, use them sparingly. Overuse is just #$%@ stupid and juvenile. It shows a lack of thought and cheapens your #$%@ piece.

I’m not going to roll out the usual #$%@ canards about how this stuff is immoral and wrong like South Park. What would be the #$%@ point? If you can't figure that out you must be a #$%@'in #$%@. These guys are not eloquent and their efforts are certainly not for #$%@ kids. They give dead-on satire in many cases in their movies and in their show, but the #$%@ problem is that they have no #$%@ sense of when enough is enough. Just because something makes you #$%@ laugh in a story meeting doesn’t mean its going to be funny #$%@ years later on DV #$%@ D.

I appreciate the politics and the #$%@ attack on celebrities but because of the #$%@ curse words I simply can not #$%@ recommend this #$%@ film.



Related Reviews:
Political #$%@ movies
Michael Moore #$%@ Hates America (2004)
Rated-R: Republicans in Hollywood (2003)


Other Critic's #$%@ Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
#$%@ FilmCritic.com

Labels: Best Films of 1968, comedy, Matt Stone, movie review, politics, Trey Parker

As someone who grows his own food and sustains his family of five for a good portion of the year, I am very sympathetic to the arguments against the corporate food industry's excesses. As someone who grew up in Southern Wisconsin amongst the corn fields and dairy farms I can understand what the loss of the family farm means to our country. Living in a time when the closest thing many kids come to a vegetable are french fries, I implore everyone to put down that dang Hot Pocket and find yourself an organic pear.

What I'm getting to is that the film makers had my ear.

And they lost it.

This film, while it has some salient points to make, overplays its hand. Director Robert Kenner manipulates and offers half arguments and incomplete evidence in order to paint corporate food to be just a little crueler than John Wayne Gacy let loose in the daycare. When they flashed the murky smokestacks of a factory smothering out a fading sunset while playing haunting music to show the ominous threat of evil corporations I thought I accidentally started watching some of Glenn Beck's backdrop footage.

Instead of a level argument, Kenner is satisfied with throwing down charges and insinuations and failing to provide both sides. One example is when he introduces the audience to a chicken farmer who insists on penning her birds in an open sided barn. Perdue, who buys her goods, has a rule that her barns must be closed-sided. This means the birds are literally kept in the dark. Its not the most humane way to house birds, obviously. It is revealed that the farmer is later dumped by Perdue for not following their orders.

Kenner gives the farmer's side of the story and then explains Perdue refused to be interviewed for the film. Of course they did! Most corporations don't willingly open themselves up to independent documentary film makers. Let alone one's that are expressly trying to demonize their business.

I hate the phrase "they refused to be interviewed" implies the company defiantly refused. Heck, for all this tells us, he called once or twice, talked to a receptionist who didn't know him and that's all.

Listen, corporate food for the most part makes utter crap. There is a reason why poor people are so fat. The food they eat is "food" and consuming chemical clods of crud has an impact on one's biology. Corporate food also produces pretty good foods as well and they make a ton of it.

I say, instead of dropping five bucks on renting this DVD, go buy an organic fruit or veggie. It will do you better and it will help your local farmer.




Related Reviews:
Documentaries
Beyond the Gates of Splendor (2002)
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
Black Sheep Reviews

Labels: documentary, film, movie review, politics

This film has been praised far beyond its actual value. It is nowhere near as wonderful as one may be led to believe due to all of the awards and critical praise. Having seen the film, it is clear to me all of the hoopla is little more than politically correct cheerleading. The problem criticizing a film like this is that given its overt agenda, combined with today’s neo-fascist attitudes, going against the grain and pointing out how emotionally distant and manipulative the film is will be confused with hatred towards gays. The fact is that this film is much like every other Gus Van Sant film, it is completely lacking in any meaningful emotional connection and overloaded with self important dialog, along with heavy-handed visuals. The story of Harvey Milk should be told. I honestly believe this. He was an important figure and the rebellion of Castro Street is ripe for cinematic explanation. The man’s life lends itself to being a fascinating biography, despite one’s feelings about homosexuality; he was a notable figure and a fascinating one as well. This film doesn’t tell his story in the best possible way.

I will be upfront and admit that I don’t jive Van Sant’s directing style. I think he gets in front of his camera too often. We see this in overt shots like one in this film where Milk and his lover are sitting on the stoop of his camera shop. The two men, having just been insulted by a Christian liquor store owner, are shown making out in front of Milk's store. This is presented as an act of love and defiance. Behind them a large store sign that reads “Yes, we’re OPEN” may as well be a billboard. Where a more delicate director would combine these images Van Sant practically puts the sign in neon pink and has animated arrows pointing out his clever use of environmental symbolism. Blunt overtures like this litter his works.

Sean Penn’s performance as Milk is solid, but certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a Best Actor Oscar. Then again, I believe the award shouldn’t be an annual distribution but only passed out when someone honestly excels at the art of acting. Penn's work doesn't rise to the level of a signature performance. He plays the man with vigor and brings him to life, but he doesn’t stand out. He doesn't get lost in his portrayal, which he is certainly capable of doing. In this performance, he's always just Sean Penn with an affectation.

This is not a biography as much as it is a piece of political theater. Yes, Milk was an activist who became a politician and telling his life’s story demands his politics be explored. I don’t have a problem with his activism and political attitudes being on display. I concur with some of his assertions. Gays should be allowed to live their lives in peace. Yes, they are God’s children and they deserve respect and love. With the exceptions of being able to marry and adopt children, I agree with many of the political aspirations of the homosexual community. But this film overplays its hand. Van Sant is too overt, too involved to deliver this material without getting in its way.

If you’re comfortable seeing homosexual activity and are looking for a biography that is good, not great, then this will work for you. Just don’t be fooled by the hype machines. It’s not a great film and Penn doesn’t give a stunning performance. It is a good film, and has some merit. Perhaps someday the subject matter will be revisited and a stronger film will result.




Related Reviews:
Sean Penn movies
21 Grams (2003)
The Assassination of Richard Nixon (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The Flickering Wall
Behind the Hype

Labels: Emile Hirsch, film, Gus van Sant, James Franco, movie review, politics, Sean Penn

This ought to make a music teacher I know roll his eyes.

We now return you back to your regularly scheduled poor grammar and movie trailers.


HT SondraK

Labels: miscellaneous, politics

This about sums things up.


I redistributed Kirk Walsh's wealth.

Labels: miscellaneous, politics

Short Review: A collection of multi-millionaires release a movie during a political election about multi-billionaires effecting a political election.


Well, they made this one a little too early...and got the casting a little mixed up.

This is an completely underwhelming rehash of the original The Manchurian Candidate from 1962 (the good one directed by John Frankenheimer). This time around a bunch of Hollywood leftists cobble together a version of the story that is so ludicrous that it makes the original seem logical and calm. This time around the hypnotized men are Gulf War vets and instead of sneaking Eastern Commies undermining America the grand villain of this conspiracy to take over the White House is the...wait for it...Manchurian Global corporation! That's right, capitalists! Evil, stinking, capitalists.

Yawn.

Yeah, it's the evil capitalists. I think we can look at our government and agree that if evil, stinking capitalists really want to take over the higher echelon of our political system they'll just do what they've already done - simply buy the major players off. Who needs a wild conspiracy when you have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

No, this movie isn't that tied to reality.

We have Meryl Streep trying her best not to seem to Hillary-esque. They re-cut the film to make Meryl Streep’s Elaneor Shaw seem less like Hillary Clinton. Streep claimed she had actually based her character on evil right-wing witches Peggy Noonan and Karen Hughes. Playing a woman who is a cynical, fork-tongued political beast and not trying to look like Clinton is like portraying a thick-accented, gap-toothed, Austrian weightlifter and not trying to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

To be fair this is a well constructed movie and director Jonathan Demme does a capable job. He plays all of his cards safely and predictably. Given that he is remaking a classic he probably didn’t want to mess with the core structure too much. The problem with the movie is the lack of a real point. Why was this made? There's nothing shocking here, nothing new. There's no reason to have made the movie other than as a cultural propaganda trinket that passes in and out of the airs just before the election of 2004. I’ve seen plenty of reviews that credit the film with not choosing political sides. The film refuses to state the political affiliations of the candidates. If you’ve read my stuff you already know I’m not that forgiving. Some context should be brought to the forefront. This was released during a political season. It makes the film an intention political message – there’s no way to get around it. This is an unneeded remake of a classic film. Why make the film unless you’re trying to say something to the American people?

This was one of the first volleys out of Hollywood during a political year and in my opinion this was not meant to be a down-the-middle film. The opening is set in Iraq during Desert Storm. The connection to the Iraq War is obvious. If you watch the film again, notice how the American flag is in constantly in the background. This may seem okay, but the film is about political manipulation. I took this to be a not so hidden kick at the "flag-wavers" the left has condemned since 9/11. The loose references to political messages from Bush (and Kerry to be honest) pull on the election that was brewing at the time. They tossed in enough counterweights into the dialog to keep this from being overbearing in its tilt to the left. I give them credit for that. For the most part, it is hard to place the characters in a particular party. But it is hard to ignore the established bias of Hollywood when watching a film like this. That is the elephant in the room the whole time. Perhaps it is the little right-wing devil on my shoulder whispering in my ear, but I kept looking for the liberal boogey man the whole time.

I didn’t find that boogey-man, but I did see a troll. What was Al Franken doing in the film? This is a political piece and they invite Al Franken on to the set? This is literally like having Rush Limbaugh in a film. It makes a statement of position. Of all of the political hacks, why that guy? Bad decision as far as I'm concerned.

Overall, this is an unnecessary film make to sooth the political musings of a bunch of wealthy elites. Other than for studying Hollywood reactions during political seasons, this movie offers no reason to see it.

Now, if you remake this and change some things...say have the puppet politician be a well fashioned orator without any real accomplishment being quietly promoted by international Marxists and throw in a little hopey/changey/neo Mao vibes, give him his own symbol, have people worship him to the point of literally calling him the messiah and oh, I don't know have children singing his praises while he talks about starting compulsory childhood service to the state while shutting down free speech...yeah, then you have something the American people could really get their teeth into.


Related Reviews:
Political films
In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed (2004)
V for Vendetta (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Roger Ebert

Labels: Denzil Washington, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, politics

Following 9/11 there has been some in the industry who were woken up from their liberal stupor. These 9/11 conservatives may still believe in the false promises of a welfare state but at least they understand the evil that confronts us. They also see the wonder that is America, and that it is a beautiful place that deserves protection rather than derision. Jon Voight, Dennis Hopper, James Woods, Ron Silver among others have changed their politics as of late and have joined the ranks of conservative/libertarian/Republican Hollywood names like Bruce Willis, Adam Sandler, Jessica Simpson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson and others. The growing conservative movement in Hollywood has slowly been gaining ground. Now there's the first wide release film to promote this movement.

David Zucker (Airplane!, The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad) isn't known for making Shakespeare, he's known for creating simple comedies littered with cheap laughs. This film is just that, a collection of cheap laughs. The jokes, however, are pointed at the left. Michael Malone (Kevin Farley) a caricature of Michael Moore seeks to abolish July 4th and is then visited by the ghosts of Patton, George Washington and the Angel of Death who turn him around and make him into an American loving guy. The premise is good, the delivery is uneven.

Now, I'm a conservative but I'm also a film geek. I went into this wanting to like it because, to be honest, I enjoy mocking liberals - they're wrong and should be ridiculed. I also knew that it was likely this was going to be devoid of humor. What I got was something lukewarm. For conservatives, there is plenty of red meat. The movie goes after many liberal institutions with various degrees of success, the joke on the ACLU is particularly humorous. There are also moments of poignant commentary regarding the return McCarthy Era blacklist (tying it to how political conservatives are treated), and the fact that "important" directors make movies crapping on Christians and Americans but intentionally avoid criticizing Muslims out of naked fear of being killed for their efforts.

For film geeks, there's less to love. The script is not well structured despite being based on Dickens' classic story. There is a lack of focus in a number of areas and many of the scenes begin with a strong set up but fail to develop into a cohesive piece. Often the scenes toss out some humorous gags and then stumble to a close. The disjointed, bumpy structure makes this a difficult movie to get into. While there are some moments of genuine humor to be found it's an unfortunately rough ride getting to them. Unlike The Naked Gun films or Airplane!, the jokes aren't a mile a minute. In many respects, this is like watching those movies with many of the jokes removed. This leads to scenes that are left wanting for gags. There is space for the gags, but the scenes are left empty.

The casting of Kevin Farley as Malone is inspired and he shows comedic talent. He does a solid job of carrying the broken narrative and holds his own next to a number of very experienced, and well-known actors. Much of the cast does well in their roles including Kelsey Grammar as George Patton and Jon Voight Washington. The actors do their best with the material they're given which is to their credit.

Overall, this is not a great film. It will please, but not inspire, conservatives desperate for customized entertainment. It will not do much for the unconverted. Liberals should just avoid it altogether. All it will do is frustrate you just like when conservatives urge you to support your beliefs with reason and not your precious feelings.


Cautions: This is farce so it's not for small children. Zucker avoids many of the sexual jokes that populates many of the other films he's been a part of, but keeps the cleavage gags. In addition, the language is rather tame but there is some swearing.




Related Reviews:
Political movies
Michael Moore Hates America (2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Labels: David Zucker, film, James Woods, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammar, Kevin Farley, movie review, politics

If you look beyond the provocative subject you'll find...well, nothing. Putting aside the inherent wrongness of portraying the assassination of a sitting president, in particular in war time, this film still doesn't work. Taken on its own terms, the piece offers some fleeting successful moments but ultimately doesn't offer a salient point. It stinks of self worth but this smugness is misplaced. Even if you're someone is a Bush bashing member of the fever swamp left, I can't imagine this has the goods to entertain even the most sympathetic audience.


Related Reviews:
Political movies
V for Vendetta (2005)
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
eFilmCritic

Labels: film, mockumentary, movie review, politics

Labels: film, George W Bush, movie trailer, politics

I don't get a good vibe off this one. I like the premise enough and mocking the flagrant stupidity of leftists is rich ground. I watch this and the presence of Bill O'Reilly and Trace Adkins - are you kidding me? I can only hope the image of Adkins on stage is only a brief, VERY BRIEF, moment in the film and they don't have the poor judgment to force that horrible music on the audience. If done right, this simply shows the leftist's arguments against America for what they are - childish hysterics from a bunch of spoiled malconents. If done wrong, this will be a series of propped up gags that are just as blunt as the leftist arguments they're attempting to mock. It sure seems like its the latter of the two.

The Naked Gun series worked (at least the first two films) because they had firm and traditional story strucutures and the jokes were laced into the story afterward. Frank Drebin's quest to find the men who shot Nordberg was actually a good piece of structure. This outing looks more like the Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer school of comedy (Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Scary Movie, etc.) where humor is replaced by disposiable gags. No strucuture and not funny.






Screenwriter: David Zucker (Top Secret!), Lewis Friedkin (BASEketball) and Myrna Sokoloff
Director: David Zucker (Ruthless People)
Actors: Kevin P. Farley, Kelsey Grammar (Swing Vote), Jon Voight (National Treasure), Robert Davi (The Hot Chick), Trace Adkins, James Woods (Be Cool), Dennis Hopper (Swing Vote), Leslie Nielsen (The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear) and Kevin Sorbo (Meet the Spartans)

Labels: Dennis Hopper, James Woods, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammar, politics, Zucker Brothers

Interesting when it was released during the Clinton years, the piece is dated and useless now. John Travolta in the lead role as a Clintonesque presidential nominee is passable. The meat of the piece comes from good supporting performances by Kathy Bates, Emma Thompson and Billy Bob Thornton. A mere curiosity now, there's little reason to drag this thing out at this point.


Related Reviews:
Political movies
Truman (1995)
John Adams (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Threat
MovieMaven's Haven

Labels: Billy Bob Thornton, Emma Thompson, film, John Travolta, Kathy Bates, movie review, politics

How's that for moral confusion? I first say the film is tilted to the benefit of one party and then dismiss this as if it weren't a big deal. That's so two-faced, maybe I should be the one running for office.

The fact is that there is enough genuine moments of note in this piece to make it worth seeing. The brutal confrontations and tricks many identify with national campaigns can be found in this simple local election. This film paints a disturbing portrait of American politics.


Related Reviews:
Documentaries
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003)
The Goebbels Experiment (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
MetaCritic
All Movie Guide

Labels: documentary, election, film, movie review, politics, President Bill Clinton, Spike Lee