Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Coming Attractions: Action Jackson (1988)

Film poster for Action Jackson - Copyright 198...Image via WikipediaComing up in episode #51 of Moviesucktastic, Joey and Scott weather the Carl Weathers vehicle Action Jackson, a sad and futile attempt of late 1980s filmmakers to recreate the gritty, hardcore magic of black exploitation cinema classics such as Richard Roundtree's Shaft, and make Carl "Expendable Co-Star" Weathers a leading man.

Don't let the carbon-copy James Bond movie poster fool you: Sgt. Jericho "Action" Jackson is no 007. No sir, this tough as nails Detroit cop doesn't play Blackjack and sip martinis, he plays dominoes and cracks open big cans of whoop-ass, all while spending as much time shirtless as humanly possible. The future city of Detroit might need a Robocop to protect it, but the only thing this modern day Motor City needs to stop the evil plans of Auto Magnate Craig T. Nelson (and do you really need a reason to want to see someone beat the living snot out of Craig T. Nelson?) is an Oh-No Cop, as in Oh No You Didn't! Or, as Action Jackson would say: "How do you like your ribs?"

On a positive note, this is probably one of the few films in which Carl Weathers doesn't die. (Does that qualify as a spoiler?)


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Where the Boys Are

Can't Stop the MusicImage via Wikipedia

"The cool thing about the Village People is that they sang songs that were very much like negro spirituals. The spirituals were actually intended/invented as "maps" or "directions" for whatever freed slave happen to be in hiding nearby for safe passage to where ever they wished to go. Village People? Same thing. If you wanted to know where to find a nice fella, you could go either to the YMCA, or go In The Navy, or you could Go West."


- John Dimes, author of There Are No Bad Movies, in regards to a facebook discussion about Can't Stop the Music.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Right Wing Movie Review: How to Train Your Dragon, Anti-American Pro-Terrorist Propaganda

How To Train Your Dragon Movie Theater StandeeImage by christianz1969 via Flickr
This Right Wing Movie Review has been brought to you by the letters G, O and P, your local Tea Party organizers, and by GoldLine, because there’s nothing more patriotic than speculating on America’s eventual financial ruin. 

How to Train Your Dragon, the latest box office success to come out of Dreamworks, is probably the most blatant and chilling example of the indoctrination of America’s youth by the liberal elitist Hollywood since Happy Feet. Only this time, they are not using gay penguins to brainwash our children. No, this time they are using fire-breathing dragons. Or maybe I should say wolves in dragon’s clothing, because we are not really dealing with dragons here. The dragons in this animated feature are actually meant to represent Middle Eastern terrorists, and this film’s overall goal is to convince the young, impressionable minds watching it that they should be sympathetic towards those who would seek to destroy our American way of life.

Now, I know many of you are probably shocked by this accusation. After all, it is just a harmless kid’s film, right? Right, that’s what everyone thought about Pokemon before parents across the country discovered that Pikachu and Squirdle were teaching their children how to gamble and glorifying barbaric animal arena events like dog pits and cockfights.

So, in the interest of saving your children from this psychological intrusion by other malevolent parties, I am going to break the film down here and point out the subversive symbolism. There might be some spoilers here, so if you are concerned that I am going to ruin the ending of a children’s cartoon for you, you probably have bigger emotional problems to deal with.

Take, for example, the film’s opening, which introduces the home country of the film’s leading character Hiccup, the Viking village of Berk. Hiccup’s people are Norse Vikings, and the opening sequence finds them under attack constant attack by dragons. Right off, it is obvious that this Norse village is representative of white Anglo-Saxon America of European origins. I mean, if you want to have a fantasy setting that symbolizes white America, you cannot get any whiter than a Nordic warrior tribe.

This village is under attack by dragons, which are obviously meant to represent Middle Eastern terrorists. Now, you might by saying, hey, that is quite a stretch! What gave you such a far-fetched idea? Let me spell it out for you by pointing to a specific detail during the opening. As these dragons are attacking the village, the most powerful of these dragons, the dreaded Night Fury, which attacks by achieving supersonic speeds and flying into objects in order to destroy them, does so during a spectacular moment during the dragon attack by flying through one of the Viking village’s towers.

Let me repeat that for clarity: he attacks them by flying through their tower, and in an apparent kamikaze attack, otherwise known as a suicide attack. Now, can you think of another moment in our recent history that involved a suicide attacker flying into a tower? Maybe twin towers? This is an obvious allusion to the attacks of September 11, and sets the major groundwork for this film’s attempts to convince the young children watching this film that the terrorists that would do something like that are not bad people, but simply misunderstood creatures.

As they say, It is all downhill from here. The film spends a great deal of time portraying the Viking warriors, who spend all of their time battling the dragons and training their children to battle the dragons, as ignorant paranoid warmongers. Sending their children into battle is a major theme of the movie, as this has been a major argument against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of sending other people’s children into combat. So of course, the film features multiple scenes of children wielding weapons and being thrown into dangerous battle situations, no doubt a scary thought for any parent accompanying their children to the movie theater.

This warmongering Nordic tribe is under constant attack by these strange foreign creatures, which keep blowing up their buildings before disappearing overseas. Does this sound familiar? In addition, these monsters are coming from some mysterious place that the Vikings cannot seem to find, kind of like the nomadic Al-Qaeda tribes that keep moving from one cave to another so they cannot be tracked. It does not take a great leap of faith to make the connection.

But wait, it gets better. The hero of our story, the young pacifist Viking Hiccup, does not think we should by fighting the dragons. No, the dragons are not bad. They are just misunderstood. If we only get to know them better and learn what they like and why they are attacking us, then we can easily convince them not to. This is the philosophy proposed by the film, the whole touchy-feely approach to global conflict involving the diplomatic strategy of talking out our problems rationally with those who seem determined to destroy our homes and cripple our economy by burning fields and stealing livestock (a possible metaphor for oil). This is portrayed as the only rational solution to stopping repeated attacks against a country under direct attack.

There’s a telling bit a dialog, which I believe it’s even in the trailers, when hiccup’s father (the head Viking warrior, of course) finds out about his son’s ludicrous idea of trying to talk rationally with the monsters attacking them with incendiary weapons (WMDs? Weapons of Massive Dragons?). The father yells at the child incredulously that the dragons have killed hundreds of their people, and hiccup rebelliously responds “And we’ve killed thousands of them!” This is an obvious reference to the high death toll exacted by American troops throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and most likely a specific reference to the unfortunate loss of civilian lives at the hands of American soldiers and private war contractors. These accidental deaths are indeed tragic, no one would dare argue otherwise. However, in the logic this film expects our children to buy into, the sad reality of innocent lives being lost in necessary combat situations somehow makes us the unreasonable and more barbaric side in the conflict.

Are you starting to see the lengths that this film is going to in order to brainwash American children against the current war against subversive American-hating terroristgroups? Of course, the children in the film swoop in and save the day in the end, using the dragons (i.e. their new terrorist allies) to defeat the cause of all of this senseless fighting, the big bad dragon forcing all of the other poor dragons to do all of those bad things that have caused us to misunderstand them.

Now, whom does this big bad dragon at the end symbolize? Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? These are all possible candidates, but knowing how the liberal elite in Hollywood think, this monstrous Deus Ex Machina probably symbolizes something more abstract and touchy-feely, like Intolerance or Bad Karma. Whatever it represents, all it takes is its destruction for the Vikings/Americans to live in perfect peace and harmony with the Dragons/Middle Eastern Terrorists. If this sounds like a logical series of events that translates well into the real world, and you are willing to buy into this pacifist make-love-not-war view of global conflicts, than I have a Health Care Plan I would like to sell you. Let’s just hope our future generations adopt this approach to battling the real fire-breathing dragons of the world.

This satirical film review was originally recorded in Episode #15 of the film review podcast MovieSucktastic.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Bad Movie Alert: MacGruber

MacGruber is not only a completely convoluted and unsuccessful parody of MacGyver, it is based on a commercial. And not even a very popular commercial at that. Wonderful.






Honestly, I think I'd rather see a film based on the exploits of the Free Credit Report band.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, December 28, 2009

Whitty Whatch: Avatar, Patriotism and a Three-Star Negative Review

Avatar (2009 film)Image via Wikipedia
Yet another substandard review by Whitty (readable in its entirety here).

Whitty starts off his review of Avatar by being surprisingly honest, something a lot of critics have been trying to avoid. He rather bluntly points out that while the movie isn’t a steaming pile of crap, neither is it a groundbreaking work of cinematic history (apart from the budget, that is). Of course, that is all there really is to say about the film. But Whitty needs to fill more space in order to justify a whole-page review in the Friday Entertainment Section. So, needless to say, he starts spinning that classic Whitty magic.

One of Whitty's main complaints is that Avatar's anti-war theme makes some references that relate to our own country's eight-year Iraqi war. He appears upset that Cameron would dare make comparisons between Avatar's corporation-backed-military preemptively invading Pandora for mineral profits, and America's Halibuton & Blackwater-backed-military preemptively invading Iraq for oil profits. No, Whitty's right, there's hardly a real comparison there at all.

But just coming out and saying that he disagrees with the film’s political message won’t do. So instead he claims that the film “gets confused in its politics. He whines about the film’s Na’vi being portrayed in “the image of the Native American as a peaceful eco-warrior,” totally overlooking the fact that the U.S. government did indeed use its military might to practically wipe out the Native Americans for their land and mineral rights. More specifically, he fears that mixing the imagery of Native Americans with current military jargon like “Shock and Awe” and “Daisy Cutters” somehow makes America’s eight-year debacle in Iraq seem less legitimate.

So Whitty is a supporter of the Iraqi war. Fair enough. He is entitled to his political opinion. But instead of just saying so, he argues that the film is “poisoned” by Cameron’s “clumsy attempts” to modernize the classic tale of Corporate Greed vs. Indigenous Natives (Here’s a little hint for you Whitty: nations have been doing the same thing long before the stars and stripes. It isn’t always about us, you know.). It can’t be that he and Cameron disagree; it has to be that Whitty is right and Cameron is “confused” and naïve. He even goes as far as to insinuate that the film is nothing more than a terrorist recruitment brochure that should “have a huge opening weekend in Basra.”

Ironically, Whitty spends half of the review criticizing Avatar for being morally naive, and the other half for attempting to be morally relevant, simply because he doesn't agree with the political viewpoint of the director. He accuses the film’s anti-corporate/militaristic message of being “a misread mix of Rousseau and Chomsky,” making it readily apparent that he hasn’t read much of either.

Surprisingly, Whitty doesn’t make any glaring factual errors this round. The closest he gets is implying that Avatar’s plot is reminiscent of the Star Trek episode The Menagerie, a dubious and somewhat perplexing claim. I guess he felt that all sci-fi originates from Star Trek. He wouldn’t be the first to share that delusion. But he does use the sickening copout critic phrase Popcorn Movie, although he upgrades it to “Popcorn Epic” in Cameron’s honor. And I really fail to see what Cameron's multiple marriages have to do with his political views towards feminism. Then again, if you are determined to give a Three-Star bad review, I guess it helps to take pot-shots at the director's personal life instead of his film.

That’s right, you heard correctly. Whitty spends most of his lengthy review listing the numerous errors and flaws with the film, and then feels fit to award it Three out of Four stars anyway. So, in Whitty’s own words: the film Avatar contains “half-baked ideas,” “clumsy dialogue,” “adolescent philosophy,” and “sketchy characterization.” Sure sounds like a Three Star film to me.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Saturday, November 28, 2009

When Former Film Stars Get "Real"

One of the taglines for the new upcoming reality show Lawman, which follows Steven Seagal around Jefferson Parish and New Orleans as he works with the Sherrif's Office, is "It's No Act." This is apparently predicated on the notion that people ever considered Seagal an Actor.



Description for the show on A&E also promise the show will feature "musical performances and philanthropic efforts" by Steven Seagal himself. Musical Performances? Oh, how soon we forget the lessons learned from Cop Rock.

Enhanced by Zemanta