Showing posts with label Christian Bale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Bale. Show all posts

Monday, December 28, 2015

“The Big Short”: Smug, Preachifying, Gimmicky, Lying, Liberal Mess

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!

“The Big Short”: Smug, Preachifying, Gimmicky, Lying, Liberal Mess

By Debbie Schlussel
bigshort
I don’t need comedic actor Will Ferrell and uber-hypocrite Brad Pitt lecturing–and lying to–me about what happened in the 2008 mortgage crisis. But that’s essentially what “The Big Short,” in theaters today nationwide, is.
“The Big Short” (TBS) is a smug, arrogant, lying, preachy, gimmicky mess, the narrative of which bears little resemblance to what actually occurred in the mortgage meltdown. Brad Pitt executive produced this movie. And while Ferrell isn’t in the movie, his guru–Adam McKay–wrote and directed this crap-pile. McKay is the director of such movies as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” its sequel “Anchorman 2,” “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” and “The Other Guys”–all Ferrell star vehicles and all dopey, juvenile comedies. He’s also the writer of liberal “short” films, “Cops: Ferguson” and “Mexican Donald Trump,” as well as several other Ferrell flicks, including the disastrous anti-“White privilege” comedy, “Get Hard.” TBS is in the same “spirit” as these–a preachy, lying liberal message, bad jokes, and a lot of gimmickry. Throughout the movie, there are scenes form pop culture at the time. Who cares? Also, airheaded bimbo starlets like Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez talk to the screen and “explain” to you complicated financial issues. Haha, funny. Arrogant leftist chef Anthony Bourdain uses cooking analogies, like putting bad fish in his stew. Wow, soooo insightful. Actually, not really.
Based on a best-selling book of the same name by liberal writer Michael Lewis, TBS follows three groups of investors who discover independently of each other that mortgage investments–specifically subprime mortgages issued to people with bad credit and little income–are going to collapse. And, so, they bet against the market and win gazillions.
The movie, while respecting these very smart and insightful investors, also mocks them. Dr. Michael Burry (Christian Bale), a medical doctor and brilliant hedge fund chief at the time, is mocked for his glass eye, and his Asperger’s Syndrome. Mark Baum (Steve Carell) is mocked for being Jewish–a religion with which the movie seems to have a sub rosa obsession. We are introduced to his stereotypical, silly rabbi who taught him Talmud as a kid and is upset with him for questioning the Talmud and the word of the rabbis and G-d. That’s interesting because even the most religious Judaism encourages adherents to question everything. Oh, and by the way, when they make a movie mocking Muslims, imams, the koran, and those who study it, please let me know. Baum and his minions are approached by a sleazy, pseudo-Jewishy investment banker, Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) who tells them about the collapse of the housing market and wants to sell them investments shorting the market, so long as he gets a huge percentage in fees and cuts.
There is also a third group–a couple of young investors eager to make a lot of money, who stumble onto information about the collapse of the housing market–one of whom has a Jewish-sounding surname, Geller. The pair involve their eccentric, retired, wealthy former investor friend (Brad Pitt) to obtain the licenses they need to short the mortgage investment market and make a killing.
TBS allegedly tells the story of how the housing mortgage market collapsed. And you guessed it: the banks and Wall Street are the villains. Never ever mentioned in this extremely long diatribe is the fact that banks were forced to grant mortgages to minorities who were not creditworthy and that government regulators regularly told banks they weren’t allowed to use that RAAAAAYCIST! criteria called “credit” to issue loans. Instead, banks were forced to give credit and mortgage backing to people from the poorest cross-sections of America–people who would never ever be able to pay it back. But the movie doesn’t show you any of that. That would be racist, and you should know better than to use your “White-privileged” call for facts and accuracy in a movie. Also, it’s beyond the comprehension of Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez and their abilities to memorize scripts and look pretty.
Instead, the banks are the big, bad evil villains who take advantage of poor people. No responsibility is required here on the part of those poor people because we are apparently required to accept at face value that all poor people are idiots–like the White stripper the movie shows you with her five condo mortgages. She isn’t supposed to be able to do the math or understand when the ARM portion of her mortgage comes into play and her payments go up significantly. The bad guys are the two evil White men–one of them a former bartender and the other a Yale grad–who wrote up the mortgage policies and approved the stripper because–come Monday morning–they are selling her subprime mortgage to a bank or some other investors. White privilege again. The privileged White guys tell us about their primary mortgage candidates: NINJAs (No Income, No Job or Assets). Again, the government–not the banks–rigged the system this way.
The movie assumes and puts forth the assumption on you as fact that banks gave subprime loans to poor people and investment houses backed bonds in the mortgages because they knew the government would bail them out. But the fact is that most banks and investment houses lost money on these, and they aren’t in the business of giving money out only to know they won’t get it back. Whether or not the government bails them out isn’t a foreseeable result and not something any banks were counting on. Remember Lehman Brothers? Nobody bailed it out. The movie also mentions investment houses selling these crappy investments to “ignorant people” who are average investors and retirees. But what do banks do when they are forced to give bad mortgages to poor minorities who don’t make payments? They sell them to another bank or investment house and the cycle continues. The government caused this, not greedy bankers. That’s not to mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back a lot of these mortgages. Without those agencies, a lot of these mortgages would never have been issued.
Maybe the one accurate thing in this movie is the portrayal of federal regulators who were unwilling to investigate the mortgage investments and their artificially high ratings. As the movie notes, government regulators are always looking to get private sector jobs with the parties they “regulate.” And, as the movie fails to note, government workers are lazy, politically correct, and have zero creativity, imagination, or incentive to do anything of value.
But, as I noted, here’s what government regulators are, indeed, willing to do: I have a close friend, who is now retired but was a part owner in a bank until relatively recently. And he told me that every month bank regulators were at his chain of banks, breathing down bank officials’ necks, looking over the books, and making sure that a certain percentage of the bank’s loans went to minorities, especially the mortgage loans. Since not enough creditworthy minorities patronized the bank, my friend and his fellow investors had no choice but to issue loans to minorities who would predictably fail to pay back their loans. And the bank would sell those loans to another party . . . at a loss. That is the price of doing business as a bank in America today and was in 2008 and before.
But there is no “The Big Short” movie about that. Facts are stubborn things. It turns out, though, that Hollywood liberals bent on an agenda, are more stubborn. And that’s why this phony baloney movie is served up on the ignorant American movie-going public. Posters for this movie announce, “THIS IS A TRUE STORY.” Uh, no it isn’t.
The acting in this is good, but the story is a big fat lie. You see that–they just did a Big Short on the truth.
Merry Christmas, chumps.
THREE MARXES PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgisisbeheadingisisbeheadingplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgmichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmaller
Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly
    
 

Monday, December 15, 2014

Wknd Box Office: Exodus: Gods and Kings (Moses-cide), Wild, Top Five

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: Exodus: Gods and Kings (Moses-cide), Wild, Top Five



By Debbie Schlussel
Nothing I can recommend at the movies, this weekend. Sorry. The best of the bunch, the Chris Rock flick, ruined a great story with vile, disgusting grossness.
exodusgodsandkingswild

topfive

* “Exodus: Gods and Kings“: The ghost of Charlton Heston can rest in peace as the undefeated Moses champion. Christian Bale doesn’t even give him a run for his money. Not even close.
I called the “Noah” movie “Noah-cide” (read my review), and this would be best called, “Moses-cide.” They killed the real, heroic, beautiful Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus and turned it into a long, overly dramatic bore. I struggled to stay awake watching this utter waste of time. In this flick, Moses is an angry, homicidal maniac, who wantonly murders three Jews just for the heck of it. Huh?
Also, how the heck do you make a 3D movie of the Exodus and NOT show the parting of the Red Sea? What? How does this happen? Well, it happens when you have a director, Ridley Scott, who doesn’t believe in G-d, the Bible, or miracles. There’s no parting of the Red Sea here, and instead we are shown Moses leading the Jews wading into the Sea and suddenly you see them walking on sand covered in seaweed, shells, and detritus. Director Scott said he doesn’t believe the Red Sea parted. Instead, he claims, Moses knew when low tide hit, and he led the Jews onto the waterless sea at low tide, timing it just right so that the last Jews crossed over and the Egyptians got there when the tide was high (reminds me of the Blondie song, but no resemblance to the Bible). So we see the Jews walking on the sand and then suddenly a surfer-worthy tidal wave (which Ridley Scott claims was a tsunami) comes a crashin’ on the Pharaoh and the Egyptians.
Oh, and did I mention that there really isn’t G-d in this movie? Nope. Instead, a crazy, moody Moses has hallucinations of a young English boy who tells him what to do. That’s G-d: a young English boy. Yes, there’s a burning bush, but also the English kid standing in front of it.


You know the Exodus story, and so I need not repeat it. This movie is closer to the actual Biblical recounting than the “Noah” movie was. But it’s got nothin’ on Cecil B. DeMille’s “The Ten Commandments.” Again, not even close.


And the movie is comical and silly though unintended. There is so much guyliner on all of the actors, it had to be enough to keep Max Factor or Maybelline in business for a year. The first Pharaoh in the movie, Seti, is played by John Turturro, which is hilarious, and I couldn’t stop laughing. This guy is mostly a comedic actor. He looks funny in eyeliner and an Egyptian costume. Ramses, played by the usually gifted Australian actor Joel Edgerton, is also ridiculously covered in makeup. He’s constantly shown eating and chewing on something, and once he becomes the Pharaoh, he’s still eating and chewing, but also whining about how his magnificent new palace isn’t done yet. He’s more Kardashian than Pharaoh-esque.


There is none of the charm that you see in the Bible or the DeMille film. There are no canes turning into snakes or anything like that. Yes, there is a pit of snakes at the beginning of the movie, with Ramses holding a snake and extracting its venom for some sort of health regime. But where the heck is that in the Bible? Maybe it’s in the Ulta/Sephora Bible–not to be confused with Zipporah/Tzipora, Moses’ wife. She, too, makes an appearance in this movie, as a tattooed (on her face) waif. The love scene between her and Moses is laughable.


The only good part of the movie was the portrayal of the Ten Plagues, except that in this movie there are only eight of them. What happened to the plague of the lice and the one with the wild animals? Skipped in this movie. Ditto for much of the to-do about the golden calf and Moses destroying the first set of tablets from Mount Sinai. That ain’t in this movie, other than a scene showing Moses hammering the words on the tablets and then seeing lots of lights and dancing below. But there is no pronouncement of what’s going on or if it’s bad, and no scene of anything after that. The “story” just moves on.


As for the liberal whining about the movie’s lack of minorities, what are they talking about? This movie is chock full of Blacks and Arabs, many, many more of them than were actually in Egypt at the time.


This movie isn’t the Biblical story of Moses and the Exodus of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt. It’s sort of that story with a lot of silliness superimposed and dominating the real thing.


The best comment I’ve heard about this movie is from my fellow Detroit movie critic, libertarian Paul Arlon: “The book was much better!”


THREE MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg






* “Wild“: The mainstream (liberal) movie critics are gushing over this boring, meaningless waste of time and Reese Witherspoon’s performance in it. And I can see why. It embodies everything they like: the hippie wild child lifestyle of the American Northwest, wanton sex and sluttitude, abortion, drug use, divorce, tattoos, cheating, and all-around sleaze.


Witherspoon not only stars in this but she and her production company produced the film. She says she established her production company to make movies about strong women. But Cheryl Strayed, on whose autobiographical book the movie is based, isn’t strong. She’s a weak slutty, drug-using sleaze. And it appears the reason Witherspoon made this movie was to shed her wholesome, innocent image and show us her naked breasts in up close shots (assuming those are hers–a body double might have been used given Witherspoon’s real-life mosquito bite topography). Does an up-close shot of Witherspoon’s nipple constitute Oscar-worthy acting? Really?


The story is that Cheryl Strayed’s mother died of cancer when she was young. Thereafter, she lives an aimless life of heavy drug use (including coke and heroin) and sleeping with any man who wants to have sex. We see a scene of her as a waitress having sex in daylight behind the diner with two different strangers–customers at the diner–with one of the strangers waiting in line and watching while she has sex with the first one. Strangers on the street also watch. She tells her friend she is pregnant and doesn’t know who the father is (shocker!). But she’s gonna take care of that by getting an abortion. There are multiple scenes of her doing all kinds of drugs–some with strangers, others with her husband. She later divorces her husband and they get ugly tattoos together to celebrate.


So, to get over all of this, Strayed hikes the Pacific Crest Trail, which spans from the California-Mexico border to the northern border with Canada. The whole message of the movie is that she went on this hike to redeem herself and toughen up from the life she led, and now she’s magically a great person for it. The movie portrays this as some sort of great accomplishment for a woman to hike this trail and face the wilderness and challenges. But she doesn’t redeem herself and doesn’t actually accomplish anything. She sleeps with more random strangers on the trail and cheats the entire time. She takes a bus ride, skipping a good deal of the trail, and then she constantly hitchhikes for several other long stretches of the trail. Yeah, that’s a great message to “strong women”–hitchhiking! You might turn up raped, dead, or both, but no big deal because, hey, it’s “empowerment!”


Not only is the movie’s message stupid and conflicting, it’s also a poorly made movie. The film is very slow and features constant, distracting flashbacks (to the drug use, sleeping around, and her mother’s cancer), and flash-forwards (to the fake hike). Oh, and did I mention that this movie screams to you at every moment how great this cheating, kinda/sort hiker is because she’s a woman who is hiking? Wow, a woman can hike. Alert the media and give her a Nobel Prize!


The book of the same name was a New York Times best-seller, all because many American women bought the book and read it. That should tell you a lot about the low “taste” and thinking of American women. Like I’ve said on this site many times before, I’d give up my vote immediately, if all other women gave up theirs. A lot of problems would be instantly resolved.


Memo to Reese Witherspoon: strong women don’t use a parent’s death from cancer as an excuse to sleep around, do drugs, and totally waste their lives and then think this all washes away because they kinda sorta hiked a long way but actually took buses and hitchhiked for much of it. Nope, this has nothing to do with strong women or redemption. Not even close.


With few exceptions, when all of the movie intelligentsia love something and tell you how great it is, you know it stinks. This is Exhibit A of that.


Skipworthy to the max.


FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS PLUS FOUR BETTY FRIEDANS PLUS FOUR ISIS BEHEADINGS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgmichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallerplus.jpgbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedanplus.jpgisisbeheadingisisbeheadingisisbeheadingisisbeheading






* “Top Five“: This could have been a great movie, and I liked the basic story. But Chris Rock, who wrote, directed, produced, and stars in this, ruined the story with two incredibly disgusting scenes. You don’t need to be a prude to know that anybody who dreams this up and brings it to the tarnished silver screen is a warped lowlife, and I can only conclude from this movie that that describes Chris Rock to a “T.” It definitely describes Jay Z and Kanye West, who produced this movie along with Rock. We already know they’re lowlifes.


Do I really need to watch Chris Rock engage in various sex acts with two hookers at the same time in a hotel room amid feathers from pillows they destroyed? Do I really need to watch Chris Rock watching some sleazy fat Black guy engaging in various sex acts with those two hookers in the hotel room? Do I need to see mattresses filled with various bodily fluids and secretions that were the result in those sex acts? Chris Rock is depraved and sick.


But, wait, there’s more. There are scenes of Rosario Dawson allowing her gay boyfriend to have sex with her while she puts her finger up his rectum. Then, she puts hot sauce on a tampon and puts it up his rear. Yes, this is what passes for a movie these days. Vile.


Yes, there were funny moments and lines. But that’s all washed away by the push-the-envelope raunch. Back in the day, that would get it at least an NC-17 rating.


The story: Rock is a famous comedian who wants to be taken seriously. So he makes a movie about Black revolutionaries in the Caribbean who murder thousands of White people. “Kill the Whites! Kill the Whites!” is part of the movie’s dialogue. The movie is about to come out, but nobody in the press or anywhere else takes him seriously as a serious actor. He is also the fiance of a reality star and their upcoming wedding is scheduled to be on the reality show. Much of the movie is spent with Rock being interviewed by a New York Times reporter (Dawson) who ends up falling for him and telling him about her life as much as he tells her about his. There are many cameos by Rock’s celeb friends, including Jerry Seinfeld, Adam Sandler, etc. The title of the movie comes from Rock’s question to various people about who their top five favorite rappers/hip-hope artists are. Who cares? It’s like asking them who their top five favorite destroyers of American culture are. Same answer.


Like I said, it could have been an entertaining story (I loved the part where nobody goes to see his stupid, “serious,” anti-White movie). But it’s completely dragged into the gutter with those two extremely crude, disgusting scenes I described and isn’t worth seeing. Utter garbage.


FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR ISIS BEHEADINGS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgisisbeheadingisisbeheadingisisbeheadingisisbeheading




Don’t forget to hear my movie reviews first thing every Friday morning on “The Mike Church Show” on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 after 7:05 am Eastern and on “The Pat Campbell Show” on KFAQ 1170 AM Tulsa at 7:35 am Eastern. I do my movie reviews on both, as well as some discussion of current political issues and pop culture topics on both shows.