Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!
Wknd Box Office: Lincoln, A Late Quartet, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, Simon & The Oaks, The Loneliest Planet
By Debbie Schlussel
Even though it’s a movie made by leftists for lefists, there’s one movie I liked out of the five I saw which are opening in theaters today, and it is . . .
* “Lincoln“: This is a great movie, but beware that it has a very liberal, Obama-esque vibe to it. Beware also, as I’ve told readers before (after another reader alerted me), that Daniel Day-Lewis is a self-hating, anti-Israel Jew who sides with the HAMASniks in Gaza. Especially now–with HAMAS rockets killing innocent Jews on a more regular basis than normal, it’s something you must take into account whenever you consider whether or not to support a movie and the actors who are in it. Ditto when it comes to this movie’s screenwriter, Tony Kushner, another anti-Israel, self-hating Jewish creep, who supports HAMAS (which would filet his gay ass) and the boycott of Israel. Also keep in mind that the movie is based on a book about Lincoln by known plagiarist and liberal Doris Kearns Goodwin. Yup, these are the people that director Steven Spielberg a/k/a “Abu Spielberg” loves to hang with.
I wondered how historically accurate the movie is, and a very interesting piece on liberal Slate does a pretty good job at itemizing and documenting all the accuracies of the movie (DON’T READ IT UNTIL AFTER YOU SEE THE MOVIE), as it has many spoilers. I’m no Lincoln expert, and that’s at whom the movie is aimed: those of us who love America, love American history, aren’t experts, and would enjoy knowing and seeing the nitty gritty of Lincoln’s life at the White House during the period of Civil War in which emancipation of slaves was being pushed by Lincoln, at the same time he was also seeking to make peace with the Confederacy and end the war. I wonder about the historical accuracy of three things:
1) Did Black soldiers who fought for the Union really lecture Lincoln and essentially yell at him because they weren’t free? Although in those days, anyone could easily approach the President and tell him of their problems (we see more of that, later on in the movie), I wonder if Blacks would feel free to tell the President off in that day and age. I don’t believe that scene, in the beginning of the movie, ever really happened. 2) Did Tad Lincoln really have an obsession with the glass plates bearing photos of Blacks, to the point that he played with the plates late at night? Doesn’t seem likely. 3) Would Blacks be allowed to sit in the House gallery along with Whites at that time in history? 4) Did Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones), the Pennsylvania Congressman who vehemently fought for freeing the slaves, have a relationship with his Black female housekeeper, with whom he lived? The movie says yes and shows him in bed with her. But history has never proven that. History shows that the allegations were used by pro-slavery opponents of abolition against Stevens when he fought for freeing the slaves, but that isn’t shown in the movie. It was a rumor, just like the rumor that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, something that’s never been proven (contrary to conventional wisdom). 5) The movie does show him in bed and also on a bed with men, but not in a gay way (at least, that’s not the way I saw it). He was working with them late into the night to pass the bill freeing slaves.
The movie explores how Lincoln got Congress to vote for freeing the slaves, when most had no intention of doing so. It shows the nimble balance between doing that and also getting Confederate leaders to make peace, despite Lincoln repeatedly being warned that he could not have both–that the Southerners would not make peace if slavery would be abolished, and that Congress would not vote for the abolition of slavery if it meant the Civil War would not be ended, and more Union boys would be killed. On the other hand, once Congress began hearing that Confederate leaders were negotiating a peace with Lincoln, they had no incentive to get rid of slavery, since their aim was to end the war. The movie is also a very interesting discussion of states’ rights versus federalism that goes on not only on the floor of the House, but also in the discussions Lincoln holds with his top advisers, including Secretary of State William Seward (who was very much against freeing the slaves, as he thought it would prolong the Civil War), played by David Strathairn.
Day-Lewis really looks and sounds like Lincoln, and a funny story he tells–a very funny story!–turns out to be a story he actually told and just as he told it. Sally Field is Mary Todd Lincoln, and while she isn’t really “nutty” per se, as history portrays her, she’s a bit overbearing and always crying, whining, and nervous. But who wouldn’t be, having lost two sons and having another who wants to go to war and could die on the battlefield? On the other hand, she believes an “accident” with their carriage was really no accident, but an attempt to assassinate Lincoln. The movie doesn’t delve into whether or not she was correct, which would have been interesting, since we know that there were constant plans and perhaps failed attempts to kill Lincoln, before the one that was ultimately successfully carried out by John Wilkes Booth. Robert Lincoln (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose parents founded an anti-Israel group for Jews–yup, this movie is populated by self-haters) is shown to be a very patriotic son, who desperately wants to fight for the Union and make the same sacrifices for the country as other Union sons did. And then there are those who worked with Seward to help secure the votes for Lincoln and how they “lobbied” in very interesting ways, ways not much different than today, minus the technology and tickets to sporting events. The legislators and their machinations, including those of Stevens, are explored. It’s pretty clear that the makers of this movie took great pains to not only present an accurate version of history, but also to make the actors look a lot like the real-life figures they played, down to Thaddeus Stevens’ wig.
It’s, overall, a great cinematic version of a particular time in American history that I enjoyed thoroughly. You won’t be bored for a second. Wonderfully done. But, again, don’t forget that this Lincoln is a HAMAS-lover. And take that into account when you decide where to spend your movie dollars.
* “A Late Quartet“: I love symphonic, classical music. But if you go to see this movie for that reason, you’ll be thoroughly disappointed. Although it’s about a quartet consisting of violinists, a cellist, and so on, it’s really just another soap opera melodrama, the bittersweet ending of which doesn’t justify why I had to sit through non-stop melodrama chock full of crying, yelling, cheating, and an adult sleeping with the daughter of another woman he once slept with. Ick. This movie is aimed at the highbrow lefty culturatti crowd, but it’s really just lowbrow crap dressed in organic fine chocolate and tofu. The only good thing about this movie–cool, really–is that one of the main actors, Mark Ivanir, a Ukrainian Jew, was a top Israeli soldier in real life. (He was involved in a secret mission rescuing Ethiopian Jews and was repeatedly recruited by the Israeli Secret Service, but took a job as a clown instead, and later became an actor.)
Christopher Walken is the cellist in a longtime quartet that performs around the world. One of the quartet is his adopted daughter (Catherine Keener). Her husband is the second violinist (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The first violinist is her former boyfriend (Ivanir). Walken soon learns that he has early-stage Parkinson’s disease and decides to leave the quartet. (He’s the only decent, likable character in the whole movie.) Then, all hell breaks loose with infighting, drama, crying, yelling, and so on. Didn’t need it. Not my idea of a nice, escapist, relaxing movie. On the other hand, I can’t say it isn’t entertaining. It is, but not worth ten bucks and two hours of your life. Not even close.
* “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2“: OY. I hated this movie. Prime Gitmo torture stuff. But then I hated all the “Twilight” movies, except the first one–and that must have been a moment of drunkenness or something. It’s silly, confusing, and incredibly violent. Multiple people are beheaded and a baby is thrown into a fire to burn to death. And, yet, this is the crap aimed at young kids. Last night, as I was coming out of another movie screening, I saw two mothers with several of their kids and kids’ friends–whose ages I asked (8, 11, and 12)–waiting in line for two hours for the 10:00 p.m. early showing of this movie. I was surprised that they didn’t bat an eyelash when I told them that they were about to expose their kids to a movie with a lot of very graphic beheadings and a baby thrown into a fire. They just smiled. Yeah, that’s smile-worthy.
I didn’t get this absurd story. The sullen, brooding human chick (Kristen Stewart) became a vampire in the last movie so she could marry her effeminate vampire love (Robert Pattinson). She now is stronger than all the male vampires and must resist her urge to kill humans and drink their blood. Plus the angry council of vampire rules is upset that she and the other vampires are friends with a werewolf. Oh, and they must prove to the vampire council that their half-human, half-vampire daughter isn’t a threat to vampires and is not an immortal . . . or is an immortal? I don’t know. I got lost and just didn’t care to figure it out. The movie is long, boring, and a waste of time. Yes, I know I’m not the target demo for this absurdity, but even if I were, I think I’d hate it nonetheless.
Thank G-d, this is the last of the Twilight saga vampires on film. Or is it? Hollywood loves sequels of excrement.
* “Simon and the Oaks [Simon Och Ekarna]“: At the beginning, I thought this would be an interesting movie. A Swedish kid from a wealthy Jewish family is sent to the country to live with his friend Simon and Simon’s gentile family when the Nazis invade the country. But, after that, nothing really happens. We’re shown that the Jewish dad keeps trying to seduce the gentile mom, and that the gentile dad resents the wealth and generosity of the Jewish dad. And then, very late into the movie, we learn something new about Simon, who is the kid raised by the gentile family. It still isn’t interesting. A total tease and waste of time wrapped in classy costumes and cinematography. In Swedish with English subtitles.
* “The Loneliest Planet“: More like the stupidest moviegoer, cuz if you waste ten bucks and 1.5 hours of your time on this long, boring, absurd waste of time, you’re an idiot. You were forewarned that this is 1.5 hours of footage of a woman and her fiancee hiking Georgia’s Caucuses Mountains with very little dialogue. Boooooring. There’s no plot to speak of. Not sure what the point of this movie was . . . other than to make me very angry. A total waste of time I’ll never get back.
Don't Worry, Be Happy - A review of Edge.org's 'What SHOULD We Be Worried About: Real Scenarios That Keep Scientists Up at Night'
15 minutes ago