Showing posts with label Ben Affleck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Affleck. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2016

Wknd Box Office: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Eye in the Sky, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Creative Control

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 choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Eye in the Sky, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, Creative Control

By Debbie Schlussel
batmanvsupermaneyeinthesky

mybigfatgreekwedding2creativecontrol
The new superhero behemoth is the worst of the new movies in theaters this weekend. Among the others, there are some decent choices.
* Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Rated PG-13: As I noted in my Thursday review, this long, confusing bore is a waste of ten-bucks-plus and 2.5 hours of your life you’ll never recover. It’s an uninteresting, dark, messy buildup to a short, ridiculous, barely-explained fight between the two superheroes in the title. Read my complete review.
TWO MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
* Eye in the Sky – Rated R: This is a great movie because it does a great job of showing how liberal bureaucrats and their faux-humanitarian concerns get in the way of the West fighting Islamic terrorists. It captures that so well that I highly recommend it (even though it stars the late Jew-hating, anti-Israel schmuck Alan Rickman, RIH). It’s well-done, even if an important twist to the plot line is contrived and unlikely. The movie is also a great indictment of the liberalism that cripples the British government from being an effective actor (though I think the movie is far too charitable in making the U.S. look tougher than it actually is these days, under Barack Obama–and even earlier, under George W. Bush). Helen Mirren gives her usual excellent performance. Also, with one or two exceptions, the movie doesn’t hedge on who the enemies are: Islamic terrorists.
The story: satellite video and intelligence indicate to British military and government officials that several wanted Islamic terrorists have been located in Southern Kenya and may be planning a terrorist attack. A British colonel (Mirren) wants to bomb them immediately, as does a Brit general (Rickman). But British government officials repeatedly hem and haw and delay to avoid making the decision to take lives (even though the lives are those of documented Islamic terrorists who’ve planned and executed terrorist attacks). The movie explores the ethics of using drones and shows that with each ridiculous delay, the situation becomes more and more dangerous and risky.
One particularly liberal (and repulsive) British government official, a woman, is straight out of ACLU central casting. She objects to bombing the terrorist location for every reason she can come up with. First, it’s that the terrorists are not an imminent threat and need to be captured and given a trial (which isn’t possible). Then, when bomb vests are shown and it’s obvious a terrorist attack by these individuals is imminent, the woman insists that because some of the terrorists are British and American citizens, they cannot be assassinated.
When the decision is finally made to strike, a young Muslim girl is now outside the compound, selling bread. The girl just so happens to be the daughter of “enlightened, liberal” Muslim parents who allow her to play with a hula hoop and learn math, both of which are forbidden by the local Muslim terrorists controlling the area. This is the contrivance–in fact, the deceit–of this movie. What are the odds that a “cute, enlightened, moderate” Muslim girl would be outside a terrorist compound selling bread? Hint: they aren’t very good odds. In fact, usually, fellow scumbags and terrorists are outside the terrorist compound. Or Muslims who morally support the terrorists. Or a Muslim girl who is taught by her hateful Muslim parents to hate America, not to hula hoop. And, sadly, the people who run this country often care more about sparing these America-haters’ lives than our own.
What I think is accurate in this film–in addition to the frustrating idiocy of liberal government bureaucrats–is that the American military officers who are to perpetrate the strikes (one of them is played by Aaron Paul) are very sad and filled with anguish over risking the girl’s life. Unfortunately, our Muslim enemies have no such humanity or sympathies.
The movie was nail-biting suspenseful throughout, and incredibly frustrating. Also, I was fascinated by the technological details (I hope the enemy doesn’t learn too much from this, if it’s accurate), such as the mini-drone, made to look like a tiny insect, which is flown inside the home where the terrorists are meeting and films them. That was very cool.
I did not like that the movie made it look like American officials had no problem with the strikes and were very anxious to go forward. That’s the way it should be, but we know that American liberal policy under both Obama and Bush actually rules the day. So, we often don’t effectuate such strikes, to avoid hitting women and children, etc. Take the opportunity we had to strike Osama Bin Laden under the George W. Bush Administration. But Bush didn’t want to hit other guests of Bin Laden–supporters who were Gulf State royalty (as if they had some sort of innocence or merited protection when they hung out with this murderer of Americans). Yes, unfortunately, we are often as bad as the British bureaucrats in this movie.
I also didn’t like that the late friend and enabler of Islamic terrorism, Alan Rickman, plays a courageous, bold fighter of Islamic terrorism (with great, tough dialogue, especially at the end of the film). That’s not irony. It’s BS.
Still, this movie really captured the outrageous, ludicrous handicaps, nonsense, and frustrations the West needlessly imposes upon itself in fighting the enemy. And making it an ineffective, losing fight.
THREE REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboyreagancowboy
Watch the trailer . . .

* My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 – Rated PG-13: To say I didn’t like the original My Big Fat Greek Wedding is an understatement. So, 14 years later, I expected to hate this sequel. But, while some of it is really dumb and some of the jokes are gross or fall flat, I laughed a lot and was mildly entertained by this. It’s not bad. And, guys, if you must take your significant other to a chick flick, this is one of the most bearable ones. Plus, where else will you hear Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” sung in Greek? That said, if I were Greek or they made a movie like this about Jews, I’d be offended.
While the movie (made by Greeks) is about a traditional, immigrant Greek family, it could be–like it’s first installment–about any ethnic immigrant family to America, still green and feeling its way around American culture, while trying to hold on to old world values, mores, and idiosyncracies. And about half of the actors playing Greeks in this movie are Jewish or Italian or from some other ethnic background. SCTV alumna Andrea Martin, who is of Armenian descent, is the real star of this, reprising her role as Aunt Voula. She’s hilarious. Without her, the movie would mostly sink. Also good is Mark Margolis (Margolis is a Jewish surname, not Greek), whom you might remember from “Breaking Bad” as the old Mexican gangster in the wheelchair who helps blow up drug kingpin Gus.
The setting of the movie is nearly two decades after the original takes place. Toula Portokalos (Nia Vardalos, who also wrote this and, along with Tom Hanks and his Greek wife Rita Wilson, executive-produced it) is back. But now, she and her “white bread” American husband Ian (John Corbett), are the parents of Paris (the beautiful Elena Kampouris), who is nearly 18 and applying to colleges (all while she is embarrassed by her “boater” family). Her parents and the rest of the extended family want her to stay in Chicago. Also, Toula and Ian are trying to bring back the romance to their marriage. At the same time, Toula’s parents (Lainie Kazan, also Jewish, and Michael Constantine) discover that they are not legally married under the Greek Orthodox church because the priest who married them back in Greece, never signed the marriage certificate. Now, they must decide if they want to get married again to make it legit.
Throughout all of this, Aunt Voula (Martin) dispenses her very blunt, hilarious advice. Also Toula’s dad (Constantine) asserts that virtually all of Western civilization came from Alexander the Great, and he tries to prove he’s Alexander’s descendant.
Not a “great” movie, or even the best comedy I’ve ever scene. Not even close. But it’s light and entertaining, fun stupidity. Relative to most chick flicks, this one is cute and funny. And you needn’t have seen the first one to fully appreciate this one.
ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyhalfreagan
Watch the trailer . . .

* Creative Control – Rated R: This independent, low-budget movie is produced by Amazon.com and Mark Cuban’s Magnolia Pictures. It was not screened for critics, so I went to see it on my own. It’s high on style, less so on story. But, still, it does have a slightly interesting concept and story idea, though the execution of those isn’t as interesting. The movie also moves slowly with very little payoff at the end. I definitely wouldn’t pay ten bucks to see this (and didn’t have to–the theater I went to lets me see movies free, as a member of the Detroit Film Critics Society). The movie probably isn’t for anyone 60 or over, and it has stark sexual themes.
This movie takes place in the future in Brooklyn. The movie is mostly filmed in black and white for a reason: so that virtual reality features, functions, and AI creations can stand out in color. David (Benjamin Dickinson, who also wrote and directed this) is an executive at a pretentious hipster New York ad agency. He and his girlfriend Juliette (Nora Zehetner), a yoga teacher, are bored and complacent in their relationship and their lives. David has a thing for his best friend, Wim’s fashion designer girlfriend Sophie (Alexia Rasmussen). Wim (Dan Gill) is a fashion photographer and isn’t faithful to Sophie. He’s cheating on her with the models he shoots.
One day, David is assigned to an account for a company that produces virtual reality glasses (a la Google glass). He begins using the glasses and soon creates a female virtual reality lover with the face of Sophie and the body he himself designs. And the virtual sexual affair begins. In the meantime, Dan is also trying to have a real-life affair with Sophie. While she seems slightly receptive, the virtual reality version is much more receptive.
As Dan has his virtual reality affair with the image created via the glasses, Dan and his real-life live-in girlfriend Juliette grow apart. And things being to fall apart for Dan at work and in his social life, too. Dan is assigned to make an ad campaign for the glasses using real-life avant-garde hip-hop/soul artist and actor Reggie Watts. But Watts is all over the place and doesn’t make something that is usable. Plus Dan, obsessed with his virtual reality life, isn’t on top of things.
Dan falls further and further into an addiction with his virtual reality love and it ruins all other aspects of his life. Or does it?
The movie’s sudden ending is fine. I like that kind of thing when it’s done right. It’s just that this movie wasn’t that great leading up to the ending. And I felt like, “Is that all there is?” when I walked out.
Again, the ideas here are interesting (especially as virtual reality becomes more and more a part of our lives). The execution of those ideas, not so much.
HALF A MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – Ridiculous Penis Envy/Pissing Contest Bore

By Debbie Schlussel
batmanvsuperman
On Tuesday night, I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Rated PG-13), which is in theaters tonight. And the only “justice” here would be to give me back that 2.5 hours of my life that I’ll never get back. The movie is an endless, unremarkable pissing contest between two dull, miserable characters in capes consumed by a “my penis is bigger than yours (or maybe yours is bigger than mine)” fight.
batmantshirt
I went to the movie wearing a t-shirt that said, “I Like My Men Tall, Dark, and Batman” (see above). But no longer. I hated this movie, and I especially hated this Batman–the “adult” spoiled brat Batman played by “adult” spoiled brat Ben Affleck, who looked very much like an aging mobster–like his character from the box office bomb, “Gigli,” a couple of decades later. [BTW, the t-shirt’s a lie. I don’t actually like Batman. My fave is Supe. But I liked the t-shirt.]
I can’t believe Michigan taxpayers paid through the nose to subsidize this crappy movie. The money would have been better spent getting the people of Flint drinkable water. But, instead, bazillions were spent to make the movie here so one of its stars (I think I know who it is–and it isn’t Affleck or Henry Cavill) could give some chick an STD and so that leftist Democrat Senator Debbie Stab-a-cow could be the world’s most forgettable movie star as the Governor of Metropolis (and I thought Metropolis was a city, not a state).
Despite a ton of special effects and action, I was bored to tears by this movie. I even fell asleep twice and missed nothing . . . except more brooding by every single character in this confusing silver screen mess. Would it have killed Affleck (Bruce Wayne/Batman) or Henry Cavill (Clark Kent/Superman) or the self-hating Jewish Israeli Gal Gadot (Diana Prince/Wonder Woman) to smile even just once? Back in the day when superhero movies were actually decent, Christopher Reeve was generally happy. He smiled, he was a smart aleck with a wink, and you wanted to get to know him. He was likable. These guys aren’t. They’re a miserable lot–unhappy, suffering (from what, I’d love to know), and so overstuffed with angst, it made me uncomfortable and annoyed. But this is what the Millennials want. Hipsters love suffering, darkness, and feeling bad about something even though they are the most privileged, spoiled generation in history. The same goes for these superheroes (who weren’t so super in this; not even close). They are bored and unhappy, and they like darkness (their costumes, including that of Wonder Woman are darker than ever). It’s not good enough to be heroes and have magical superpowers.
So, instead, for some unexplained reason, Bruce Wayne is out to get Superman, whom he knows is Clark Kent. And for some unexplained reason, Clark Kent doesn’t like Bruce Wayne, whom he knows is Batman. And Kent mouths off some stuff about Wayne’s lack of respect for civil liberties. Huh? Yeah, I had no idea to what he was referring, and I just didn’t care. Ditto for the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building, which was jarring to see on the same day that Islamic terrorists bombed two locations in Brussels. But no worries, there are no Islamic terrorists in this movie–keeping true to the modern-day “we cannot identify the real terrorists [Muslims]” rule for superhero movies and, frankly, almost all Hollywood movies. Instead, it’s some guy in a wheelchair who lost both his legs when Gotham got attacked by General Zod and fought with Superman, something that isn’t really explained. It had to be explained to me by the fanboy sitting next to me, whom I had to consult during the entire movie.
And that’s the thing: the movie is waaaaay tooo confusing. I had no idea what was going on at times or who some of the people were onscreen. You need a fanboy translator at the ready during the entire movie. I was lucky to have one–and, while I’m usually a movie Nazi who gets upset when others talk during the movie, I probably bugged everyone around me with my endless questions to Fanboy Translator.
The only parts of the movie that were clear were Lois Lane’s naked breasts in the bathtub scene. Little was left to the imagination in the gratuitous, repeated shots, with only actress Amy Adams’ nipples missing from the shot. Barely missing. I mean, I know there was a “love scene” between Margot Kidder and Christopher Reeve in one of the Superman movies of the past. But in a superhero movie that you know kids are gonna see, did they need to see most of Amy Adams’ chest?
Oh, and another part of the movie that’s clear: Adams’ Lane is trapped by terrorists somewhere in Africa (you think they’re Muslim, but the movie is too chicken and PC to say so). Superman rescues her from being killed by them, and so he’s the bad guy because of collateral damage. Congress holds hearings. So typical. But even more typical: the movie doesn’t take sides on this. Maybe Supe is a bad dude for causing destruction when fighting terrorists. Barf. Oh, and by the way, you and I are the bad guys for wanting to deport aliens. You see, we’re on the same side as the guy they show with the sign calling to deport aliens like Superman. Haha, funny.
Then, there is Lex Luthor, overplayed by the poorly cast Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg, who once played Facebook dictator Mark Zuckerberg, plays him here again, on steroids. We all know that if Mark Zuckerberg could do what he really wants, he’d be even more evil than he already is. And instead of merely playing online recruiter, propagandist, and censor for ISIS and Islam, he’d probably spy on superheroes, pit them against each other using artificial contrivances, and then create a half-Kryptonian, half-human monster (very bad CGI) from his own blood to try to kill Superman, as he does in this movie. Especially if you add in a dash of Nazi collaborator George Soros. Still, I wasn’t buying it. Eisenberg is probably the worst Lex Luthor we’ve ever seen in a Superman movie.
The movie doesn’t really tell you who Diana Prince is (you hear her first name once and you never hear the name “Wonder Woman”). And there are few scenes of her arguing with Bruce Wayne because she stole some hard drive from him. Why? No clue. They don’t tell you. Soon, we see surveillance tapes of many superheroes and comic book characters, including many not in this movie. I had no idea who they were and the movie doesn’t say, so, again, I had to consult Fanboy. The tapes, made by Lex Luthor, show Diana Prince/Wonder Woman getting money from an ATM. What was the point of this? It was like reading US Magazine and seeing “Superheroes–They’re Just Like Us! They use the ATM machine.” Well, I guess they had to give her something to do to fill space in this 2.5-hour cure for insomnia. Yaaawn.
You might compare this movie to bad sex. It builds up for so long to the unexplained, unjustified fight between Batman and Superman. But when it finally happens, it lasts just a minute or two and isn’t exciting. Plus, it’s not believable. Remember, Batman isn’t really a superhero. He’s not an alien or the result of an experiment gone wrong. He doesn’t have any superpowers. He’s just a spoiled rich kid in a pretentious costume and cape. So, in a contest between him and Superman, who do you think would prevail. Here’s a SPOILER hint: it’s not logical the way it turns out.
On Monday, I told a friend how excited I was to see this the next night. He was dismissive and said, “But why are they fighting? That’s so dumb. It doesn’t make sense.”
After seeing this, my thoughts exactly.
***
At the beginning of this movie, director Zack Snyder told us not to give away spoilers and ruin the movie for everyone else. But there’s only one real spoiler, which I had questions about. So I’m putting it on another page. If you want to read it, click here.
TWO MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
Watch the trailer . . .

Monday, December 9, 2013

Weekend Box Office: Out of the Furnace

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 choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Weekend Box Office: Out of the Furnace


By Debbie Schlussel
Out of the Furnace,” the new Christian Bale movie in theaters today, should have stayed inside the furnace and spared America. It’s horribly violent, incredibly depressing, long, slow, boring, and pointless. Oh, and did I mention that it’s dark, dreary, and every single person in it is miserable, dead, or soon to be one or both?
outofthefurnace

Bale’s a great actor–one of my favorites–but this movie is a waste of your ten-plus bucks and two hours. You’ll walk out of the movie at the end–if you aren’t smart enough to walk out in the middle and cut your losses–noting that a time bandit just robbed you of valuable life you ain’t gonna get back . . . ever. Life is simply too short to spend it in a dark theater subjected to this wonderless tripe. The rest of this review is filled with spoilers, so if you wanna be a dummy and see this crap anyway, don’t read on. You were forewarned. For everyone else, keep reading.

Bale is a working-class guy near Appalachia who works in a steel mill. He is the most loyal brother and son you’ll ever find. A great guy, but everything bad befalls him despite his good nature. His father is dying of some illness, apparently lung cancer, and his brother, Casey Affleck, owes a local loan shark/bartender owner lots of money. Bale earns the money and pay off the “creditor,” but he accidentally kills someone in a car crash on the way back, and he goes to prison for several years (apparently he was drunk?–they don’t really tell you). In prison, he is beaten violently. When he gets out, he learns that the love of his life (Zoe Saldana) is pregnant and engaged to someone else, even though she still loves him, so that’s over.
He also learns that his brother–who has spent several tours of duty for the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan–cannot find work and is instead working as a street fighter for the loan shark (yup, another Hollywood far-left movie that belittles a life serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and makes it look worthless). Affleck wants to make more money and win more violent street fights, so he convinces the loan shark to take him to the Appalachians, where the fights are controlled by evil gangster Woody Harrelson. Harrelson wants Affleck to throw the fights, which he doesn’t want to do, but eventually does. Harrelson doesn’t keep his part of the bargain and murders both the loan shark and Affleck. After the bodies are found, Bale lures Harrelson and finally gives him what he deserves. The end.
The movie not only looks down on life as a U.S. soldier, but also on small town, working-class life in America. Two more reasons–among many–to skip this like the plague.
Don’t be fooled by the incredibly misleading trailer, which is a whole lot more exciting than this two hours of utter garbage. Like I said, I warned ya. If you go see this anyway, you’re in DENSA, not MENSA.
And bring some caffeine. This bleeping waste of time will put you to sleep.
Incredibly skipworthy.
FOUR MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
Watch the trailer . . .

Monday, October 7, 2013

Wknd Box Office: Gravity, Parkland, Runner Runner, Inequality for All

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 choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Gravity, Parkland, Runner Runner, Inequality for All


By Debbie Schlussel

One fabulous new movie in theaters, this weekend, as we get closer and closer to the better movies in the Thanksgiving and Christmas season.

* “Gravity“: A great movie adventure. The best thing about this movie is that it is visually stunning. Although I saw it in 2D, this is one of those that is worth shelling out the extra few bucks for 3D and/or IMAX. It makes it even more real when space debris is traveling at the astronauts in this movie (and you) at 100,000 miles an hour. The worst thing about this movie: the male astronaut, who knows exactly what he’s doing and does everything right, isn’t rewarded. The female astronaut, who is in a panic, doesn’t listen, and doesn’t stop talking, is.

The story: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are American astronauts up in space to repair satellites. Suddenly, space debris from a destroyed satellite is traveling at them at very high speed and velocity, putting them in danger. Soon, they are stuck floating in space alone and without help, as their space shuttle is destroyed, and everyone on it is dead. And they are unable to communicate with NASA or anyone else but each other. They have limited oxygen supply and need to find a way out and home.

George Clooney is only in about a fifth of the movie. The real star is Sandra Bullock. I like this kind of movie, where survival is the goal and those trying to survive are all alone in an environment in which they must rely on brainpower and wit to stay alive. So, I enjoyed this. Add to that, space and beautiful visuals and special effects, and you have a great movie.

I didn’t need to hear or know the tragic sob story behind Sandra Bullock’s life on earth, but that’s very brief and a tiny part of the movie, and doesn’t really take away from it much.

This is the first of Oscar-hyped movies about survival. The next one, which is very similar, is “All is Lost,” coming out later this month, with Robert Redford playing a man trying to survive while lost at sea in the Indian Ocean. The movies have interesting similarities and differences and make great companion movie viewing about survival in different atmospheres. Stay tuned for my review on that one.

And, for now, go see this. It’s fun, thrilling, suspenseful, and entertaining. A great escapist movie. Odds are that you’ll enjoy it, as I did.

THREE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS



* “Parkland“: This is about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the days surrounding it, and the hospital, Parkland, to where the bodies of both the dead President and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, were taken. At first, I expected to hate this movie and wondered what it could possibly show us. After all, half of Kennedy’s head was blown off, so I wondered, what is there to show? As we all know, efforts to revive the President were futile, and even if they were able to, were we gonna have a President walking around with half of a head? But I was pleasantly surprised, and the movie–even if overly sad and melodramatic–was much better than I expected, and it made me think a lot, including about angles that weren’t covered in it.

In an age where many Americans know only the history of the Kardashians and/or the Jay-Z/Beyonce Knowles Carters but not actual, real American history, this is a nice tutorial on the JFK assassination, the 50th anniversary of which takes place this November. However, for the rest of us, you won’t learn much new stuff, but the movie does explore interesting points, such as the reaction of Oswald’s brother and his encounter with the assassin sibling at the police station after the shooting. One glaring omission: the movie never mentions Jack Ruby, though there is notice of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, and it never explores or even quickly asks why Ruby killed Oswald.

Still, I found the movie interesting and entertaining, and American history buffs will probably still enjoy it. One caveat: there are more men crying onscreen in this movie than at a showing of “Brokeback Mountain” in West Hollywood. It’s a little unsettling.

Paul Giamatti is probably the most memorable actor in the movie, as his portrayal of a morally centered and deeply affected Abraham Zapruder, the Jewish immigrant clothing maker who took the only film of the assassination. In the age of TMZ, it is touching to see his negotiations with LIFE Magazine, in which he insists that LIFE not publish stills from his movie that show “a dignified President in an undignified position.” Today, those pictures would be all over the place, as we now live in undignified times where anything goes and all gruesome death photos are published, except the ones of the only man we’ve (actually Obama has) raised as more holy than the rest of us, Osama Bin Laden. Zapruder talks about how his father took them away from Europe to escape certain death, and he is extremely sensitive to the situation in which he finds himself now.

If you are looking for conspiracy theories here, you won’t find them, except for the crazed, delusional ravings from Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother (Jacki Weaver), who insists that her son was a trained CIA agent and is deserving of full burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

The movie is a little maudlin and macabre at times. We see Mrs. Kennedy giving an emergency room nurse a piece of the President’s skull and brain that landed on her during the assassination. And there is a scene in which Secret Service agents struggle to get Kennedy’s coffin onto the plane and have to cut out sections of it.

But there are touching moments and interesting ones, such as the scene in which Catholic Secret Service agents kneel and pray at the President’s coffin on the plane in mid-air, and the scene contrasting the funerals of the President and his assassin. (Billy Bob Thornton co-stars in this as a senior Secret Service agent.)

The movie is based on the book “Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy ,” by Vincent Bugliosi. I wondered about the accuracy of certain things. Is it true, for instance, that the FBI received a bomb threat from Oswald, ten days before the JFK assassination and ignored it? Is it true that, after Oswald was assassinated, agents in the Dallas FBI office burned the bomb threat letter, destroying all evidence of that?

The postscripts in the movie are interesting, telling us what happened to the doctors who tried to revive Kennedy, the Secret Service agents on his detail, Oswald’s mother, and so on. But the postscripts are lacking. They don’t tell us what happened to Oswald’s wife and kids, who remained in Texas. Check out the video interview of Oswald’s daughter, June, below; I don’t agree with her conspiracy theories, but the interview is interesting, nonetheles). The postscripts also don’t tell us that the Zapruder family got $16 million from the federal government as compensation for the feds taking the Zapruder film under eminent domain laws. And, again, Jack Ruby is just never mentioned anywhere.

Still, if you like history, you’ll probably like this, as I did, if you can ignore the overwrought melodramatics. And, as with me, it might inspire you to look further into the matters covered in the movie.

TWO-AND-A-HALF REAGANS







* “Runner Runner“: Two annoying words: Ben Affleck. I hated this movie, and I felt like I’d seen it a million times before, including the first time, when I saw the movie, “Wall Street.” This is a different setting, but it’s basically the same story, minus the “Greed is Good” speech. The movie was long, boring, pointless, and I struggled to stay awake, as it moves very slowly.

Justin Timberlake plays a working class student at Princeton University who is an “affiliate” of an online gambling site owned by Ben Affleck. The site primarily specializes in poker. An affiliate has customers (gamblers) he brings to the site (using coupons and other enticements), and he earns a cut of the action or some other form of payment. One day, Timberlake decides to gamble his $17,000 tuition money on the site and loses it all, even though he’s an excellent poker player and knows the precise mathematical odds for each move. He discovers that the site conned and cheated him, knowing his cards in advance.

Timberlake goes to Costa Rica to confront Affleck. Affleck apologizes, returns the money, and ultimately hires Timberlake. Then, he has Timberlake, a naive guy who thinks everything is aboveboard, do his dirty work. Timberlake pays off officials with bribes and soon finds friends missing. His life is threatened, as is his working class gambling father’s life, and he wants to get out, after finally realizing Affleck is a crook, a mobster, and a scammer. Believe me, I’m making it sound more simple than it actually is, as the movie is confusing, nonsensical, and ridiculous.

The movie is incredibly violent, and in one disturbing scene, Affleck and his henchmen pour chicken fat over public officials they’ve handcuffed. Then, they dump them in the water to be eaten by alligators. Or is it crocodiles? I didn’t care which, because I was so disgusted and already so bored and annoyed by sitting through this 1.5 hour pointless bore that seems like 5.5 hours.

Skip this.

TWO-AND-A-HALF MARXES





* “Inequality For All“: Should have been called, “Inequality For You Compared With Hypocrite Multi-Millionaire Fraud Robert Reich.” This is a “documentary” by and about Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary. The diminutive Reich explains why he is short (he has a disease, and his parents are normal-sized). And that is about the only explanation that is reasonable in this highly skip-able lecture of a movie. If you get orgasms over Occupy Wall Street, which is highly lauded in this movie, this is your flick. For those of us who are not Neo-Marxists, stay away.

Robert Reich tells us that the economy is bad and getting worse because of greedy shareholders who don’t work hard and just sit around and collect millions. He doesn’t tell us about his shares in the stock market and how greedy he is. Or about how he doesn’t work too hard giving once a week boring lectures as a highly-paid professor at UC Berkeley, although he does show us that he is a professor there.

Reich shows us some multi-millionaire original investor in Google (or Facebook, I can’t remember which and don’t care either). The guy tells us how his family is very wealthy from making pillows and investing. But, then, the guy whines that you only need six pairs of pants in life and that he has too much money because he’s made so much by investing. Well, then, give it to me, instead of hypocritically whining about it and imposing your left-wing, anti-free-market principles on the rest of us, while you continue to sit on your gazillions. Fraud.

The rest of the movie is Reich’s socialist clap-trap and fakery while he jets around America like the rich capitalist hypocrite limousine liberal that he is. He shows us some Hispanic people in California, whining about how hard life is for them because they live in a generously sized apartment (not a house–sad sad, too bad), and they might not be able to afford to continue to give their kids iPhones so their kids can call them in an emergency. Wow, that’s poverty?! Hilarious. Cry me a river. I don’t have an iPhone, but I don’t use that as an excuse for why the government should impose socialism and tell shareholders how much money they can make. Reich does.

There is only one good point in this movie, which is that when American workers make less or have less jobs, they don’t buy things, and, therefore, businesses die, and the economy sinks. We have turned into a purely service and consumer economy, not a manufacturing economy, and if we don’t manufacture things, we will die.

But he doesn’t point out a big reason a lot of people are losing their jobs and can’t afford to buy things and keep the economy humming: his precious ObamaCare. This is the biggest reason that people are either losing their jobs or being reduced to part-time and not making enough to survive. It’s glaring that this is never addressed in the movie. But, then, that’s what socialists do. They focus on the problems with capitalism, rather than the disasters they impose on our already weak economy.

If you want to get a survey of Marxist theology, better to read Das Kapital than to pay ten bucks to left-wing capitalist hypocrite Robert Reich.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS

Monday, October 15, 2012

Wknd Box Office: Argo, Sinister, Here Comes the Boom, Seven Psychopaths

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 some of the movies from last weekand 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: Argo, Sinister, Here Comes the Boom, Seven Psychopaths


By Debbie Schlussel



I liked three out of the four new movies debuting at theaters, this weekend.



* “Argo“:



Argo: Great Reminder of the Islamic Threat, Despite Affleck’s Anti-US “History” Lesson & Jimmy Carter’s Whining

By Debbie Schlussel



“Argo,” in theaters today, is a great movie sandwiched in between two bad far-leftist monologues. Director Ben Affleck tries to justify the Iranian revolution and the violent, deadly actions of Iranian Shi’ite Muslims supporting Ayatollah Khomeini at the beginning of this film. And he gives Jimmy Carter free reign to whine and take credit at the end. But despite Affleck’s best efforts at that, the movie is gold sandwiched between these two slices of crap. No matter what, it’s a great, unvarnished reminder of the Islamic threat that keeps repeating itself. And so I still recommend it.


The Real Tony Mendez (Right), Retired CIA Chief of Disguises & Fake Documents, Today @ Age 70



“Argo” is the story of the six Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, who escaped when Shi’ite Muslim followers of Ayatollah Khomeini overtook our embassy and held everyone inside hostage for 444 days. The six found refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence (the English and the Australians, it should be noted, turned them away to what could have been the Americans’ deaths). The movie is a thriller detailing the mission by CIA agent and disguise and forgery expert Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck) to get them out and safely back to America. To rescue them, Mendez pretends he is a Canadian movie producer of a science fiction film, called “Argo.” He goes to Hollywood and recruits Jewish producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and “Planet of the Apes” make-up man John Chambers (John Goodman) to help him with his ruse, setting up an entire fictional production, complete with movie posters, actors doing read-throughs, and a studio office. I wondered why they recruited a Jewish guy, given that the Khomeini’ist Shi’ite Muslims (and all Sh’ite Muslims) hate Jews. I researched this, found no real-life producer named Lester Siegel, and learned that the character is a “composite” character and I wonder if the real producers involved were actually Jewish (I bet not). I also wondered why they featured scantily clad women on the movie posters and at read-throughs. And I was on to something as that issue of modesty comes up later in the movie, as you’ll see. And, finally, I wondered if the nail-biting, thrilling climax of the movie actually happened that way in real life. And, it turns out, my suspicions were correct–that’s the only part of the movie that isn’t true to what happened in reality. I enjoyed the movie, which is thrilling, well-told, and entertaining, BUT . . . and a big BUT it is.




Here’s the BUT: Sandwiched in between Howard-Zinn-fan director and star Ben Affleck’s anti-American “history” lesson about why the Iranian Shi’ite Muslim Khomeini freaks were right to hate America and and storm our embassy in Tehran at the beginning of this movie, and Jimmy Carter’s monologue whine about how he should have gotten the credit for the mission depicted in this movie, there was actually a great movie about a real life event. And, other than his America-hating history BS and one other “evil Americans” scene, the movie was clearly depicted as accurately as possible. The words, Muslim and Islam, however are predictably only mentioned during the diatribe at the beginning, in which a female narrator tells us how we destroyed Iran by deposing Mosaddegh and allegedly imposing the pro-American Shah or Iran. That ain’t exactly how it happened, but you know the drill. I don’t need Mr. Affleck’s chick voiceover artist to tell me that the Shah tortured people, when he did very little compared to the guys who took over from him. Oh, and he was an ally of the US and Israel, but who cares about that, right?



There are also a couple of news footage scenes (Affleck uses a lot of real footage and well-replicated scenes of actual scenes and events) of Americans kicking Iranian students in America. Frankly, Americans were far too kind to the few Iranians they attacked, and were very nice to most of them here. That’s despite the fact that thousands of Iranian students overstayed their visas here, became illegal aliens, and actively supported the Khomeini’ites. A former top INS official detailed how thousands of those Iranians protested in front of the White House and were arrested by the INS. And, yet, President Carter ordered that the Iranians be freed into the American abyss without ever being fingerprinted, identified, and/or booked. Affleck doesn’t show you that, either. (One thing I noticed missing: any mention of Ronald Reagan, who actually got the other hostages out.)



But once the actual story is told, Ben Affleck’s politically correct fantasy of Iran and Shi’ism cannot overcome the reality of what Muslims did to our embassy and our people. And he tells that story accurately and well, something that I must recognize in this review. Yesterday, I spoke with my friend, Kevin Hermening, who was the youngest of the American hostages taken by the Shi’ite Muslims for 444 days. I asked him about several of the scenes I saw, and he confirmed their veracity. I’ll be posting separately, later today, about my interview with Kevin. A U.S. Marine stationed at the embassy, Kevin will be seeing the movie in about a week and says he will call me with his detailed review, which I’ll try to post here. Kevin confirmed to me an important scene in the movie. The Iranian Muslims are shown taking the U.S. hostages in the embassy in blindfolds to a room where shooters are lined up in front of them. They all thought they were going to die. The shooters begin shooting, but the guns are not loaded. Kevin told me that’s exactly how it happened, and that, unlike in the movie, every single hostage was lined up for this mock execution they all thought was real.



Back to the six who escaped to the Canadian Ambassador’s compound. They are not the most likable bunch in the movie. They’re shown as whiny liberals, some of whom side with the Khomeini Shi’ite revolutionaries and think America should release the Shah to the Muslims to be tried and executed. Not all of them even wanted to leave the U.S. Embassy, believing the Muslims wouldn’t really take over and harm them. When Mendez comes to rescue them, they are stubborn and don’t want to be rescued. They’d rather risk their lives in Iran, despite the fact that the Canadian Ambassador must leave and will have to abandon them to the wolves. You get the idea that this is exactly how State Department far-left liberals who seek out posts in Muslim countries behave and act. (And you wonder if these people were worth rescuing if this is really what they were like.)



It’s a harrowing mission for Mendez, and the movie depicts the bureaucratic idiocy that is the CIA and how the Carter Administration wouldn’t even sign off on the mission until the last minute when it was forced to do so or face American deaths and bad PR. The movie is also funny at times and gets the stylistic stuff right: eyeglasses, ties, lapels, and men’s hair–all of them on the big side. (One thing I think many moviegoers will not get: the term “exfil” is used a lot in the movie, without anyone ever saying it’s short for “exfiltration.”)



Given all of this, Ben Affleck’s exercise in America-hating at the beginning and his open mic to Jimmy Carter to whine about “me, me, me” didn’t affect the unintended message of the movie: that the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran are brutal, evil people who hate Americans. Yes, there is the typical “good Muslim”–a housekeeper. But make no mistake: Muslims will not like this movie. I do.



The best part of the movie is when the plane clears Iranian airspace and an announcement on the plane’s intercom announces that alcohol is served.



Learn more about the real life Tony Mendez and his amazing, heroic mission. And make sure you stay through the credits to see how lifelike and real Affleck made everything–he shows many pics of the real people and places and the ones in the movie. You will have to plug your ears though. Or you’ll hear good ‘ole Jimmuh.



THREE REAGANS (Would be FOUR But for Ben Affleck’s Anti-US History Lesson & Billy Carter’s Bro’s Whining)



* “Sinister“: I’ve seen so many scary, creepy, violent, graphic movies that I’ve, unfortunately, become somewhat desensitized to this stuff. I rarely get scared by a horror movie anymore, and usually laugh at the obvious attempts by most of these movies to scare audiences with cheap stunts. But I found this movie very scary, very suspenseful, and even though I saw it at last night’s Midnight show so I could review it for you (the screening was on the Jewish holidays, so I had to miss it), I was awake and riveted the whole time, until the ending (the “whodunit” was a silly letdown). It’s a very, very creepy movie. On the other hand, it’s very bloody and the graphic violence depicted in it isn’t scary, just disturbing and unnecessary. It takes away from the movie.




Ethan Hawke plays a once successful true crime writer. He has one very successful book, and the rest were duds, with one getting it wrong and clearing an actual murderer. Now, he is broke and trying to write his next hit to get himself and his family out from under water. (Ironically, in Hawke’s last movie, which I reviewed on this site, this past summer, Hawke also plays a once successful writer with one very successful book, who is broke and trying to write his next big hit to get himself out from under water. But that’s where the similarities in the two movies end.) Hawke has moved his family into a home where a horrific murder took place–the murder which is the subject of the book on which he’s working. The entire family was hung from a tree, except the youngest daughter, who remains missing. The crime was never solved, and Hawke’s family does not know they are living at the scene of the crime. When they move in, Hawke finds a box of Super 8 home movies of the family . . . and of the murders. It spooks and disturbs him. Soon, strange things begin happening, scary noises and odd events occur. He’s finding connections between the murder and others in the past that took place. And his obsession with the story of the murders and writing the book keeps Hawke from doing the right thing and leaving immediately. He’s a selfish guy, a user, and self-absorbed to the max.



To tell you more would be to reveal some spoilers. But rest assured that it’s very, very creepy and chilling. Still, as I said, I’m bothered by the graphic violence, which serves no purpose but to desensitize people to violence and give evil people evil ideas. And it’s a crutch–a sign of a weak horror movie, as the best in the genre use the psychological to scare their audiences, as this film does in its scariest moments. Just like the title of this movie, whoever dreamed up the violence is sinister.



I’m torn as to what rating to give this. As a scary movie, it succeeds in psychological creepiness, thrills, and chills, and would get at least TWO REAGANS. But since it is far too filled with graphic violence, that negates much of what is good about it, and I can only give it (and I’m being generous) . . .



HALF A REAGAN



* “Here Comes the Boom“: If you’ve seen any of Kevin James’ other movies, such as “Paul Blart, Mall Cop” (read my review), you know what you’re getting here. It’s a light, funny, entertaining movie that is fun to take your whole family to (although there is some Mixed Martial Arts violence and a funny but disgusting vomiting scene). Yes, it’s predictable and has the less-than-believable happy ending. Yes, it’s really a light version of the far superior, “Warrior” (read my review). But it’s upbeat, positive, and an escapist nearly two hours of Rocky lite using a Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) setting.  If you like MMA, you will like this.  But if you don’t, you will still probably like this.



The story: James plays a stereotypical public school biology teacher. He comes late to class, doesn’t care, and tells his students that nothing they learn in his class will be relevant to their lives, so there’s no point in learning it. But by opening his big mouth and promising the nearly impossible to impress the school nurse he wants to date (Salma Hayek), James finds himself in a situation in which he quickly matures and lives up to his responsibilities.



A music teacher (Henry Winkler) learns his job will be cut, just after he’s found out his 48-year-old wife is expecting a baby. He can’t afford to lose his job, and James promises that he will raise the money to save Winkler’s job and the school music program. But he’s unsure how to do it and desperate to impress the school nurse. First, he returns to teaching citizenship test classes for immigrants. One of them wants extra tutoring, and when he comes to the student’s apartment, he learns the student was a Mixed Martial Arts champion in Holland, and that there’s money in it, even if you’re the loser. James, who was a college wrestler back in the day, decides to go for it. He’s too old and out of shape, but he trains and keeps trying. And you know the ending.



Enjoyable, and you’ll laugh a lot. I did. It’s very cute and kind of patriotic, too. If you don’t like POD’s song, “Boom,” bring ear plugs. It’s in the movie a lot, as the title of this movie would indicate.



TWO-AND-A-HALF REAGANS



* “Seven Psychopaths“: This movie began with an interesting premise and could have been entertaining, but it degraded into a violent, bloody waste of time. Oh, and there’s even anti-American crap in it. Yay. Colin Farrrell is a Hollywood screenwriter trying to come up with an idea for a new script. He has two friends (Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken) who are dognappers. They kidnap dogs for a living, then return the dogs to their owners in return for cash rewards. Farrell comes up with an idea for a script about psychopathic killers, “The Seven Psychopaths,” for which he gets a lot of material as told to him by his friend, Rockwell. While this is going on, Rockwell and Walker unwittingly kidnapped the dog of psychopathic mobster Woody Harrelson, who wants his dog back and is on to them. At the same time, there are a number of killings which inspire Farrell. They are real life killings by a mysterious serial killer who only murders mobsters and gangsters.



Did I mention that one of the killers Farrell comes up with for his script is a killer of American soldiers? His goal is to murder them because his family was murdered by Americans during the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. He wears a bomb vest and blows up a gathering of military veterans because, after all, they deserve it, right? Disgusting. What actually happened at My Lai is one of the most distorted, misreported, exaggerated events during the Vietnam War–a political Trojan horse used often in anti-American propaganda, particularly lies about the Vietnam War.



I could go on and on about the myriad plot twists and connections in the movie, but why bother? They don’t make it interesting. This movie’s just a depraved, stupid, gratuitously violent waste of time you’d best skip.



If I can say one good thing, it’s that I got a cool “freebie” from it: Sam Rockwell’s character wears a cute knit hat with a dog’s face and ears on it. And I now own one, too, thanks to the studio. Thanks, but I still hated the movie.



THREE-AND-A-HALF MARXES