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!
By
Debbie Schlussel
Nothing to rave about (or even just like) among the new movies in
theaters today, including America-hating Oliver Stone crap and two
unnecessary, annoying sequels of movies more than a decade old.
*
Snowden – Rated R:
Remember when “conservative” talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean
Hannity, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck were gushing over ex-National
Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden as some sort of patriot,
when he was and remains, in fact, a traitor who sold out America’s spy
operations to enemies around the world? (I believe Mark Levin also
spewed this crap, too.) Of course, each of them has since shut up about
their weird mancrush Snowden but none of them has retracted or
apologized for praising him profusely. Not a one has apologized for
lauding the man who jeopardized and actually cost the lives of our spies
around the world, after giving away their identities and locations to
anyone who would listen.
And, yet, Limbaugh et al gushing over Snowden is echoed in boring
detail and profusely-long propaganda on the silver screen in Snowden the
movie, directed and co-written by America-hater Oliver Stone (who
loves HAMAS and Hitler and
whose son converted to Islam in Iran).
Yup, they were–and to date, remain–on the same side as Oliver Stone.
Congrats, bitches. I’ll never forget Limbaugh’s drooling over Snowden
and lecturing us how Snowden is different from Bradley/Chelsea Manning,
who gave away the store to Wikileaks and also cost us lives. Um, he’s
different how . . .? Because he doesn’t want to cut off his penis and
get breast implants? Wow, big difference.
If Snowden were really concerned with the privacy of innocent
Americans, he would have raised only those issues, instead of giving
away the store.
The movie–which has the real-life Snowden’s blessing (and he appears
in it at the end)–shows us how simultaneously arrogant, smug, naive, and
stupid Snowden is. He whines that the NSA isn’t just monitoring phone
calls of terrorists in Lebanon, but also the Americans with whom they
are communicating on the phone, “including a dentist in Buffalo.” Um,
that’s exactly whom the government
should be monitoring. If a
Hezbollah or ISIS terrorist is on the phone with a Buffalo dentist,
that’s a matter of great concern, and that dentist should be under a
microscope (plus we should allow him to drill Edward Snowden’s teeth).
Here’s a tip: Muslim dentists in Buffalo can be terrorists, just like
six Muslim students in Buffalo–who had contacts with terrorists in the
Middle East–turned out to be terrorists who trained in terrorist
training camps and were planning to attack America. They are known as
“The Lackawanna Six.” These are
exactly the kinds of
“Americans” (In Name Only!) we should be watching closely. That has no
connection with the privacy of average Americans.
But let me get this straight: if a dentist in Buffalo is on the
phone with ISIS chief Abubakr Al-Baghdadi, we should look the other way
and ignore the conversations? Are you sh-ttin’ me?!
Because this is clearly propaganda–the sole purpose of which is as a
salvo in the campaign to pardon Snowden–the movie is entirely one-sided.
There is no mention of all the stuff Snowden gave away, all the lies
he told, all the lives he jeopardized, all the spies he exposed. The
report from a two-year-long bipartisan House Intelligence Committee investigation into Edward Snowden’s actions
and claims found that Snowden violated American’s privacy rights more
than he protected them and that the vast majority of his revelations
jeopardized national security including military and national security
operations. Very few of his actions exposed violations of privacy of
innocent Americans, and he was found to be a big-time liar and
exaggerator. In fact, the vast majority of the documents he stole were
military and defense secrets that had nothing to do with Americans’
privacy.
And the concerns he raises seem anachronistic, simplistic, and out of
touch. All of the same Americans who whine about online and telephonic
privacy are the same ones who, every day, give up every scintilla of
privacy they might have had so they can post pictures on Facebook of
their cat who looks like Hitler. Twitter, Netflix, and Amazon know far
more about their private lives and habits than the NSA. And they don’t
whine about it because that’s not hip, chic, and mystique-filled, like
whining about the NSA and helping the sacred Muslim terrorists and their
precious Islam.
Snowden is upset that the NSA can look into which foreigners in a
particular country that the President is visiting have made threats
online against the President. Huh? The Secret Service and NSA
should
be looking into that stuff. Snowden is also shocked–shocked!–that we
spy on allies or that we at one point have the whole of Syria’s social
media posts under surveillance. Um, these are basic, necessary things.
Every single country spies on its allies. Countries that don’t have
idiots and incompetents running the show. A nation doesn’t have
permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. But Snowden
expresses dismay that we follow our enemies’ metadata. Um, why wouldn’t
we?
Snowden lectures the moviegoer that our spy operations are “about
control, about the supremacy of your [the U.S.] government.” Damn
straight they are. The only reason anyone would object to that would be
if they hate America and don’t believe it’s the best. If you share
that view, go to Russia via China along with Snowden because we have no
use for you here.
And on top of all of this, there are the “artistic” mistakes in this
movie, which are legion. The two-hour-fifteen-minute celluloid screed
is long, slow, and boring. I kept thinking we were at the end, and then
it kept on going. It ended like 15 times. The movie is chock-full of
confusing flashbacks and flashforwards. Also distracting is the fact
that actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks nothing like Snowden, but
artificially pushes his voice down to mimic the real Snowden’s deep
voice. It’s weird. Very weird. Then, there is the annoying,
lackluster “acting” of Shailene Woodley in an obvious, terrible wig,
playing Snowden’s pole-dancing girlfriend. Who cares? She added nothing
but unnecessary melodrama to this already way-too-long baloney of a
movie. And finally, the movie portrays this traitor as everything he’s
not: a hero, bashful and modest (he’s actually unduly arrogant and the
“smartest guy in the room” who is now stuck in a room in Russia), and a
decent guy (how many died because he outed them?–we’ll never know).
One other thing this movie glosses over is Glenn Greenwald, the
leftist-activist-cum-Guardian-“journalist” who broke much of the Snowden
disclosures. In real-life he’s an anti-American schmuck who left
America and gave up his citizenship and a self-hating, anti-Israel Jew
In Name Only, who is also a gay activist. He is as traitorous as
Snowden.
Oh, and by the way–the thing where Snowden sneaks out materials form the NSA in a Rubik’s Cube? Never happened.
Bottom line, this movie is a sun-kissed, whitewashed story of a traitor. It’s not a biopic. It’s a BS pic.
FOUR BENEDICT ARNOLDS PLUS FOUR PANTS ON FIRE
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Bridget Jones’s Baby – Rated R: The first thing you need to know about this movie is that it co-stars and features a script co-written by
Israel-boycotting Jew-hater Emma Thompson.
I don’t support movies that finance anti-Semites, but I reviewed this
with an open mind on its own merit (even though I recommend you give
Fraulein Thompson the back of the hand). I couldn’t help but notice,
though, that there is a dumb, snide line (among many in this film) about
needing to “get footage of the attack on Ramallah.” Um, what attack on
Ramallah. If anything, the Palestinian Muslim terrorists in Ramallah
are attacking synagogues, bars, bus stations, etc. throughout Israel.
Got that, Emma?
The second thing you should know is that the last Bridget Jones movie
(“Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason”) is from 2004. There is no need
for yet another sequel. The story was best left buried in the graveyard
for Hollywood hags. No need to revive decrepit old ghosts from 12
years ago. That said, the makeup artist for this film deserves an
Oscar. He/she managed to erase star Renee Zellweger’s much-buzzed-about
and very obvious plastic surgery on her eyes. In fact, she looks like
the old Zellweger in this . . . very old. Although the character is
only 43, Zellweger is 47 and looks like she’s 53.
On top of that, I felt like I was watching the 20th “Sex and the
City” movie sequel. It’s the same old themes, same old in-your-face
leftist social issues crap, blah, blah, blah.
Although the movie is mildly entertaining, it’s incredibly formulaic
and predictable. I knew with whom Bridget Jones was going to end up and
who is the father of her baby from nearly the beginning of that
plotline. It’s soooo damned obvious.
And for a comedy, the movie’s jokes are mostly stupid and juvenile.
Although I laughed a few times, the jokes mostly fell flat. Like Hamlet
proclaimed, “Though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the
judicious grieve.” And that applies to this entire movie.
The story: Bridget is turning 43 and is bummed that she is all
alone. She and her dream man, Mr. Darcy (Colin Firth), have broken up
after ten years together, and her other former flame (Hugh Grant) is
presumed dead (she attends his funeral). Bridget is working as the
hapless producer of a news show on a BBC-style TV channel. Her boss
hates her seriousness and wants her to cover stories like tabloid-like
stuff instead. Her best friend is the anchor of the show, and they go
on a “glamping” weekend vacation at a Lollapalooza/Burning Man type of
festival.
It is there that Bridget meets and sleeps with an internet
billionaire (Patrick Dempsey). Then, a week later, she sleeps with Mr.
Darcy, her ex-flame. And then she learns she is pregnant (the condoms
were ancient and didn’t work). But she doesn’t know who the father is.
Thereafter, the men fight over her, until the very predictable end.
In the meantime, Bridget’s stock right-wing mother is campaigning for
public office by attacking gays, trannies, and single mothers. But
then, when it’s discovered that her own daughter is unwed and pregnant,
she switches sides. And, of course, she finds life is much more
pleasant–and her run for office far more successful–when she embraces
liberal social policy. Yay, Bridget Jones. Not.
We all know at whom this audience is aimed: bitter, middle-aged
women who are feminists and angry that they didn’t end up with Prince
Charming, so they want to fantasize about it with a sloppy, slovenly old
movie character “friend.” That’s the point of this cheesy and
saccharin sweet movie. That–and to grab mega-dollars from your wallet
with yet another empty sequel tied up in an unrealistic, neat bow at the
end. I found it incredibly annoying and obvious. And the only good
thing about it is the soundtrack (usually the case for horrible movies).
Guys, avoid this mess chick flick to the best of your ability. Best
shown to Gitmo terrorists–and not the only such movie out this weekend.
TWO MARXES PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Blair Witch – Rated R: If you saw the original 1999 “Blair Witch Project,” you’ve basically already seen this, even though it’s
supposed
to be a sequel. The only difference here: new characters and the
failed use of a drone (but, oddly, no GoPro!). Big deal. Same old
thing. And it’s a bore.
Plus the same old herky-jerkiness of the original. I couldn’t
understand what the big deal about it was back in 1999. Still don’t
understand it now. The gimmick of “found footage” and a shaky camera is
just that: a gimmick. That’s the hallmark of bad movies because they
need a crutch on which to stand since the bad plot, poor direction,
crappy story, and terrible acting can’t cut it. Same thing goes here.
Plus the herky-jerkiness is a lot to take, and it’s headache-inducing
and dizzying.
For what is supposed to be a “scary” or “horror” movie, it’s not
scary at all. I didn’t jump or scream even once, and that’s easily
elicited from me when a movie makes the effort. This just wasn’t good.
Not even close. At least half of the movie is comprised of characters
running and calling out each others’ names in the woods. Again, NOT
SCARY. The other half is those same characters screaming, whining,
sucking in breath while trying to speak. Big whoop.
The story: the brother and some friends of the original woman in the
original movie (the one who disappeared and was never heard from again)
go into the same woods with cameras and a drone, trying to find out
what happened and get it on film. What could go wrong? Of course, they
find nothing, and strange things begin happening. But, still, it’s not
scary. People disappear and you never find out what happened to them.
Nor do you care. These people aren’t likeable, and there is just no
reason to get involved in what is happening.
For a movie that is only 89 minutes long, this moves very slowly and
seems far longer than its actual running time. I couldn’t wait for this
to end. But it kept on going.
I like a scary movie as much as the most ardent movie-goer. But this
wasn’t it. This is just a Hollywood money-grab for what’s in your
wallet. There’s nothing new here. It’s amateurish and seems like it’s
incredibly out of date and unsophisticated. There seems to be no script
to speak of. And it’s definitely not a tight script if there actually
is one. Plus it’s mega-repetitive.
“There’s Something Evil Hiding In The Woods,” says the poster for
this movie. Yeah, the Hollywood demon waiting to rip you off and take
1.5 hours of your life and 10-bucks-plus you’ll never get back.
Best suited as GTT–Gitmo Torture Material.
ONE-AND-A-HALF MARXES
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Complete Unknown – Rated R:
I loved the idea and plotline presented in this movie. The
execution–not so much. This could have been a very intriguing,
suspenseful movie. But it wasn’t. Not even close. It just moves
aimlessly, leaving the original idea in the dust, with nothing
interesting happening. And it’s incredibly slow.
The story: Michael Shannon has been married for 12 years and is
celebrating his birthday at a party he and his wife put on at their home
in the New York City area. At his party, Shannon’s close friend (or
co-worker or brother?–the movie doesn’t really make it clear) brings a
date, a woman who is new in town, Rachel Weisz. But it turns out the
woman is actually Shannon’s very serious ex-girlfriend from 15 years
ago, who disappeared suddenly all those years ago. He hasn’t seen her
since and didn’t even know if she was alive. Neither did her parents.
So, now, she’s turned up, under a new name, claiming to be some sort of
scientist who studies frogs. (She plays audio of frogs “singing” or
crying for Shannon’s friends and relatives.)
The woman tells those at the birthday party of her exploits in lying
to people and forever taking on new names and identities all over the
country. This fraud is a source of moral debate among the party-goers,
but Shannon is more interested in finding out what happened to this
ex-girlfriend of his and why she has suddenly decided to show up.
Moreover, he has to do this secretively, lest his wife find out.
Shannon and his wife are enduring marital strife over her attendance at a
jewelry-making workshop in California for two years (do you really need
to spend two years to learn to make jewelry?!) and his refusal to go
with her. There are also the unnecessary red herrings of the wife’s
Persian background, her Persian male friend, and her speaking Farsi–none
of which had anything to do with the movie and seem to be filler things
added on to make this a 1.5 hour movie, when it’s really a 20-minute
flick at best.
The rest of the movie shows them discussing it, but not too deeply.
They fraudulently pose as medical doctors to a senior citizen couple,
the wife of which they meet on the street. And then they walk through
the street to the lab to see the frogs. Who cares? I didn’t. The
movie just get more and more boring, sinking from what was a promising
premise that never fulfills the tease it creates.
What a letdown.
HALF A MARX
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Max Rose – Unrated:
I mostly like Jerry Lewis, but the 90-year-old’s silver screen
comeback in this is at best a boring TV movie. His acting is fine
(though his face bears the same blank expression for most of the film),
but the movie is slow and repetitive and seems longer than its 83
minutes. Much longer. And the story is old hat. I feel like I’ve seen
it several times before and could predict exactly what was going to
happen. My predictions proved spot on.
The story: Lewis is a retired jazz pianist who has just lost the
love of his life, his wife of 65 years. But as he sits at home in the
dark refusing to do anything, he suddenly discovers something troubling.
Lewis’ wife’s treasured makeup compact bears an inscription of love
and devotion from another man. Soon, Lewis is feverishly going through
his wife’s drawers, documents, and other stuff, looking for clues about
what was going on. He soon finds documents that make him even more
certain that his newly-deceased wife was cheating on him with this man.
In the meantime, Lewis’ son and granddaughter are worried for his
welfare. After a medical episode, they determine that Lewis should live
in an assisted living facility and that his house should be sold. His
granddaughter finds yet more evidence that implicates Lewis’ late wife
in an affair.
So Lewis sets out to find the man and confront him. Lewis finds a
very wealthy operator who is very sick. In the meantime, Lewis has
become closer with his son and granddaughter, and the son and his
daughter (from a first marriage) grow closer, as well. So, this quest
achieved a positive result.
Also, the movie shows a few brief bromantic scenes, as the aging
Lewis meets and makes fast friends with other male assisted living
residents who share his widower status. But those scenes seem hollow
and manufactured.
I understand what the writer and director were trying to do here, but
they didn’t succeed. Instead of bringing us some touching scenes of a
sorrow-filled widower trying to come to terms with his wife’s death and
serious investigation into his perception of an extra-marital affair, we
get what seems to be a half-hearted, cold, empty movie that is missing
something–namely, warmth.
It’s been a long time since Lewis has done either telethons or
acting, but this choice as his comeback film is lame. This movie is
modest and understated in too many ways.
Fred Willard, Kevin Pollak, and Dean Stockwell all make appearances in this movie.
HALF A MARX
Watch the trailer . . .
Posts
