December 06, 2004
Movie guy David Stratton really has a problem with Team America. Here he discusses the film with At the Movies co-host Margaret Pomeranz:
David: This film starts off with a good scene, I think, the scene where the Team America attack Arab terrorists in Paris and succeed in destroying half of Paris and all the famous landmarks.
Margaret: It's a good start, isn't it?
David: It's a good start. But then I think it really goes off the rails, because it, I know it's trying to hit all targets, as nothing is sacred, but it seems to become completely skewed, in the second half of the film, towards attacking liberals in the film industry. And to be honest, I think people like Sean Penn and Tim Robbins have been very principled in what they've said about the Iraqi War and I think that to deliberately destroy them the way this film does is really playing into the hands of George W. Bush. I think George W. Bush would love this film if it were not for some of the bad language.
Margaret: (Chuckles) Oh, David! Well, it makes a change from them attacking Mel Gibson, for example, which they do frequently.
David: I was really disgusted by this film.
Margaret: Oh, David!
Oh, David. Several commenters were alert to this exchange weeks ago. On Saturday, Dave repeated his snarly views in The Australian (no link available):
The film starts promisingly with a sequence shot in Paris where, alerted to the presence of a small handful of suspicious-looking Arabs, possibly in possession of WMD, a gung-ho, heavily armed squad from Team America descends on the French capital. They eventually get the terrorists all right, but not before they’ve destroyed the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre and several innocent citizens. So far so good ...
Then Stratton divines the awful truth about Team America:
It turns out that the film's real targets are Hollywood actors who have been rash enough to speak out against the Bush administration and the invasion of Iraq. Sean Penn, Timothy Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Matt Damon, Samuel L. Jackson and Alec Baldwin are mercilessly pilloried and (literally) demolished. Whatever you think of their politics, these actors, Penn and Robbins especially, have impressed over the years with their talent and their willingness to take risks ... and they don’t deserve the bile that Parker and Stone pour over them.
What about the risks Parker and Stone are taking, Dave? You don't think they've taken any risks running against the Hollywood anti-Bush line? Encourage dissent!
Posted by Tim Blair at December 6, 2004 03:03 AM
I havent seen the film yet so Ill reserve judgement on it until Ive seen it. But I dont see why it would be against actors like Penn and Robbins, it looked like a political satire about the war on terror from the previews.
Anyone here actually seen it yet?
Once they have left the confines of their "talent to amuse" and entered the world of politics they are fair game.
If their standing as actors is used to make political statements,then that same standing cannot be used to insulate them from criticism.
"They eventually get the terrorists all right, but not before they’ve destroyed the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Louvre and several innocent citizens. So far so good ... "
"It turns out that the film's real targets are Hollywood actors who have been rash enough to speak out against the Bush administration and the invasion of Iraq."
Uh, let's see here. Team America is portrayed as a collection of trigger happy commandos (an obvious spoof of the Global War on Terrorism), and this is fine with David. But Hollywood actors who were/are against the war can't be touched?
Seems David never has watched South Park, who creators seem to be hardcore libertarians (upper or lowercase l? who knows?). Nothing is sacred on that show. Team America follows that pattern.
Actually, it was nice to see both sides of the war getting equal time, something that David seems to not appreciate.
Guess this proves that leftoids don't have a sense of humor. :-P
But attacking Penn, Robbins et al. would mean you thought there was something wrong with their views... and that would mean you were, in some sense, supporting the administration position... I just don't... I mean, no one would... this makes no sense at all. You don't really mean that someone would support that position, obviously, so what is it you're trying to say and just not getting out very well?
Seriously, to Nic White's question, while it is something of an equal opportunity mocker (there's a hilariously lugubrious parody of a Toby Keith-type patriotic song that keeps turning up in different forms), overall it is a scathing attack on the self-importance of Hollywood liberals. That aspect of the satire is much more pointed than the Naked Gun-like comedy that comes from the Team accidentally destroying everything around them every time they do anything-- and which I think was rather cannily put up front to lull critics looking for an anti-American message, before the big hammer of the anti-Hollywood message hits them.
I saw it twice here in the States and I thought it was excellent. I know it's a cliche to say so but the film really does work on many levels.
Not only are the above actors skewered but the entire formulaic Hollywood action genre of producers like Jerry Bruckheimer is sent up as well. The theme song is even a parody of the Michael McDonald-Kenny Loggins power ballad school of the 1980's (think 'Danger Zone' from 'Top Gun'). In fact, all of the songs are first rate spoofs. The Broadway sequence is priceless.
The relationship between the two female protaganists is very funny ('I treasure our friendship') as they become rivals for Gary.
Gary has his own struggle to reason out why he must get involved and fight that is akin to classic Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart, and Cary Grant films that critics still swoon over.
The Hollywood actors story line is big but it is not the sole reason for the film and anyone who can't see past it is really missing a great film. I have no sympathy for those actors anyway as they themselves have accused the US Government and leaders like President Bush of much worse; not just in press conferences and staged junkets but in many of the films they make.
Not only are American audiences told what to think about America through Hollywood films but in many parts of the non-English speaking world, the action picture is virtually the only portrayal of America that locals see. It is a misleading message and Parker and Stone send it up hilariously.
The speech to the world leaders at the end is profane but a heartfelt summation of America's role in the world right now. A viewer might disagree but to say the movie doesn't work is just partisan sour grapes. I don't agree with 'Dr. Strangelove' but it is a good movie and one I would watch again.
"Team America" does not endorse President Bush or any politician. Rather, politicians like Bush endorse the idea behind the film. There is a difference.
Well yes another reason to go see it. I am really looking forward seeing this thing and read the reviews it gets in the UK.
Yes, they destroy half of Paris (well, probably more like a twentieth.)
The point everyone seems to miss is that the suitcase nuke they prevented from detonating would have destroyed ALL of Paris.
That's the problem with the anti-war-at-all-costs crowd - their limited imaginations can't see how the necessary "bad" is better than the alternative "worst."
Poke a lefty with a pin and he screams that he's been stabbed through the heart. Sissy.
There's no point in explaining this to Stratton or anyone else poncing about in the performing arts, but...
The first grunt through a Fallujah doorway takes a risk.
Theo van Gogh took a risk.
The likes of Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Martin Sheen whining about being suppressed to a room full of television cameras for nationwide broadcast on the nightly news and Entertainment Tonight are not taking a risk.
BTW, the movie is F******G HYSTERICAL! Make sure you stay all the way through to the end of the credits, because the best song, "You Are Worthless, Alec Baldwin" is right at the end.
I saw the Stratton-Pomerantz piece and was surprised at his obvious disgust that anyone would dare poke fun at a bunch of actors and his comment that they were 'very principled' - the inference being that those in the performing arts are more principled than we poor earthlings.
Silly old pompous bugger.
Stratton's central premise is faulty. He assumes, naturally, that there is something special about actors or Hollywood. That there is something different about Hollywood actors entering into political discourse than there is for any other individual, be they a politician, a journalist, a commentator, or joe schmo on the street. Actor's should not be treated like children when they enter the grownup world of political debate, as if they were on some sort of field trip to the National Politics Factory and it would be impolite to point out when their opinions were supremely ignorant. And yes, many of them do indeed hold supremely ignorant opinions. Parker and Stone are more than justified in lampooning that ignorance.
Heat. Kitchen. Et cetera...
Obviously Sratton only approves of dissent when all are in agreement and dissent is against conservatives.
I saw the interview and thought he looked rather dumb trying to defend Hollywood do gooding elites.
I saw the movies first session in Sydney. I loved it. I can see if you are of the left persuasion one might think your ideology and hero's were mercilessly lampooned. More so than on the right
stratton is a childish moonbat.
he criticises this film not because it's bad but because he doesn't approve it's political message.......how pathetic. this is the same film critic who creams his pants on air every time he mentions michael moore, who's a genius film producer according to david and his farenheit 911 was the greatest doco ever made even thou it was based on bullshit, lies and distortions.
but it's ok to make left wing films attacking bush and america, but it's not allowed to say nasty things about the other side of politics.....those moonbats just love democracy.
the moral of the movie is:
"we have to be dicks (right) because you pussies (left) let the assholes (terrorists, dictators, etc.) shit all over everything."
Another gag I thought worthy of mentioning was the convention of the ludicrously foul mouthed team member.
My son & I were watching the original version of 'Dawn of the Dead' and one character, a soldier holed up in a shopping mall, was swearing a blue streak.
My son and I discussed how all action films have this staple of a obscenity spewing pig. Sure enough, Team America had one and his cursing and threats are so ridiculously over the top, I almost broke a rib laughing.
Later, we learn his 'dark secret shame' which I won't divulge but if you saw 'Prince of Tides', 'Beloved', or any other Oprah-endorsed chick flick of the 1990's, you can guess what it was.
Yet another Hollywood cliche lampooned!
It is a funny, funny movie and acutely perceptive.
I'll shut up now.
"...and several innocent civilians.:"
Well, Mr. Stratton was probably too busy sniffing in disdain to notice, but one of the running gags is that no matter how much firepower Team America lays down, or how wildly they shoot, they never hit an innocent bystander, even when there's no possibly way to miss them:
GAG GIVEAWAY... Warning!
Take for example when the Team America chick hoses down the terrorist bar with the minigun. Every terrorist is chopped to hamburger, every piece of furniture is blown to toothpicks... and when the smoke clears the bartender and bellydancer are just standing there, staring...
GAG GIVEAWAY -- WARNING
I thought Kim Jong Il stole the movie:
"Hans[Blix]! Hans! Your busting my barrs"
And his song: "I'm so ronery. Oh so ronery."
I lost all control and had tears blinding me when I heard the line: "Gary, you can't blame yourself for what the gorillas did."
Reading David Stratton fawn over his favorite lefty celebs reminded me of Rebecca Loos masturbating a pig.
Great bit you mentioned. What was also very funny in that scene is when she enters, calls out, "Gary?" then afterwards repeats, "Gary?" as if nothing else had happened!
And the running gag about her supposed 'psychic powers' is of a piece with Stone and Parker's undisguised disgust with self-proclaimed mediums.
The first 'South Park' episode I actually sat and watched was when they named TV psychic John Edwards (not the Senator) the "Biggest Douchebag in the Universe" for preying on the heartache of gullible people who've lost loved ones.
I've been hooked on the show ever since and bought the first three seasons on DVD.
So now we know why Stratton was hired by the ABC so quickly after leaving SBS - yet another hired gun, so to speak. Pomerantz, by contrast, can be relied upon only to be inanely shallow, both together ensuring that the ABC runs true to form as it flies on its one wing.
Opening scene. Plays into the hands of Hollywood Liberals at the expense of GWB. "Good Scene"
Other parts of film. Plays into the hands of GWB at the expense of Hollywood Liberals. "Off the rails"
Hmm... very fair.
Guys, see it twice! Once for yourself and once for a hippie!
If nothing else, where else are you going to see steamy hot puppet sex?
And remember, stay all the way through the credits!
re: "What about the risks Parker and Stone are taking, Dave? You don't think they've taken any risks running against the Hollywood anti-Bush line? Encourage dissent!"
Excellent end to your article! :D The funniest thing about the Hollyweird Libs is that they don't seem to realize that in their domain they ARE the Establishment! LOL! It's the Parker's and Stone's that are in dissent... the HolLibs are merely echoing the Establishment line! :)
Two words: "vomit scene". That's the only hilarious part of the movie, but it's worth paying to see.
Mike G — There is a class of conservative in the US called South Park Republicans. They're not in the least bit socially conservative, but they don't call themselves libertarians because they like winning elections.
They figure William F. Buckley took care of the polished prose and Billy Graham's got the Bibling covered, so they just party hearty on the right. They love their country, can't abide bullshit and apologize for neither.
This is their movie.
Our family has a simple rule with Stratton reviews--if he pans a film, it's usually good, if he praises it to the skies, it's usually pretentious twaddle. Unlike Evan Williams, whose somewhat jaded but much more intelligent reviews are often twinned with DS' in the Australian, or Lynden barber, who writes interesting stuff on film in the OZ too, Stratton's stuff is usually reliably superficial, silly and agenda-driven.
So let me get this straight:
- Paris being nuked by the Americans is funny, hilarious, uproarious, quite a good laff, etc, etc
- Making fun of holier-than-thou Hollywood-types is absolutely not on.
Seems to me Stratts might need to have a look at the consistency of his arguments...
Looking at the trailer I had not realised it was a 'toon but as I dislike going to the cinema so I'll wait until it comes out on DVD. (Noise levels basically).
And if Stratton has canned it, that means it must be something I would enjoy. Like anything that Steven Seagal acts in - gratutious violence bordering on the comic.
The film is worth seeing though is not quite as biting as I would have expected. I found the film to be pretty even handed in its mocking. The yanks with the latest toys, trying hard to blend in was a laugh. Far funnier as has been mentioned, is the music, the recurring song "America, F***** yeah" is great. Nothing beats the Springsteen like downbeat version when things are not going quite so well.
Penn comes in for some well deserved flak the line (his puppet) speaks when he says " Iraq was a land of chocolate flowing rivers".... et al pretty much sums up the views of the hollywood left.
Again, the film is pretty even handed. I'm sure David stap-on would have preferred the story of a young lesbian aboriginal girl , fighting the Taliban, but too bad.
Sophie: "Our family has a simple rule with Stratton reviews--if he pans a film, it's usually good, if he praises it to the skies, it's usually pretentious twaddle."
LOL! We've got the same view with certain US film critics :). I'll never forget their attempts to backpedal after they panned the original "Star Wars" as "simplistic". The audiences loved it, of course, and the rest is history :D.
TimT: "Seems to me Stratts might need to have a look at the consistency of his arguments..."
Not to mention his priorities and ethics (rolling eyes)...
"Again, the film is pretty even handed. I'm sure David stap-on would have preferred the story of a young lesbian aboriginal girl , fighting the Taliban, but too bad."
I think that he would have hated that, now if she was fighting the Americans or the Israelis.....
Meanwhile, Stratton gave Fahrenheit 911 five stars. Bugger him.
"Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?"
"Well then you haven't seen everything have you?"
this film does is really playing into the hands of George W. Bush. I think George W. Bush would love this film if it were not for some of the bad language.
When I watched the program, I was especially horrified by this bit. He's all but saying that certain points of view shouldn't be expressed.
David said last Thursday that he'd like to follow in the footsteps of Che. I suspect he already has.
The Stratton/Pomeranz disdain is predictable.This movie clearly lacks the essential elements that appeal to these senior reviewers.Think back to Balmain Town Hall July 2003 when these two assisted by that other noted arbiter of things tasteless,D.Marr,were involved in the screening of the banned movie "Ken Park".This epic was notable only for its celebration of paedophillia and incest but evidently hit the spot with our aged heroes.
nic: No, David Stratton would have preferred a story of a young lesbian Aboriginal girl fighting _for_ the Taliban. But close.
"Whatever you think of their politics, these actors, Penn and Robbins especially, have impressed over the years with their talent and their willingness to take risks"
By that logic we have to admire pretty much everybody.
George W Bush? Some people don't like his politics, but you've got to admire his talent and his willingness to take risks. (What talent? Hell, he got elected President of the United States, twice, and you didn't, so nyer.)
Michael Moore? Don't like his politics, but his talent and willingness to take risks is up there.
Idi Amin? Yep. Adolf Hitler? Yep. Osama bin Laden? Sure.
For the record, I admire Sean Penn's talent as an actor. (He's not superb, but he's not too bad.) His willingness to take risks is pretty piss-poor, as previous commenters have pointed out. But I don't see why that should stop me from pointing out that he's a goddamn know-nothing pussy who should keep his big trap shut until he has something useful to say.
Furthermore, while talent is always admirable, I don't really see that a willingness to take risks is, in itself, admirable. For instance, people who take the risk of driving at 200 km/h on a suburban street aren't admirable. People who take the risk of gambling their life's savings at the casino aren't admirable. And people who take the risk of trying to kill me aren't admirable either. So while an unwillingness to take risks is bad, a willingness to take risks isn't necessarily good. Only taking sensible risks for a good cause is admirable.
"Dakka, dakka, Mohammed jihad, bakkala!"
First movie in a l-o-n-g time I've actually laughed out loud while watching.
Stratton and Pomeranz are typical wankers of the type that led me some years ago to give up film studies and criticism, becoming instead an editor in the hope of restoring some sanity to the written language.
(Vain hope, I might add.)
David Stratton is an elitist film critic who believes that only he and a small coterie of likeminded experts are in a position to correctly interpret movies. This thread is living proof that a single correct interpretation is impossible. Which in turn suggests that people running the Stratton line have something else on the agenda than simply interpreting movies.
Slightly off-thread, but I hope many of you saw last week's instalment of the Brit impersonation comedy show 'Dead Ringers'. They did an oustanding send-up of Mike Moore's ambush-interview technique, and the speciousness of his 'documentaries'. Now, to do a thing like that in Brit media-land: THAT's taking a risk. Also the Dead Ringers do one of the few Dubya send-ups that is actually funny.
I saw this movie last night. The whole cinema was killing themselves in laughter. This made me even happier, because it meant I wasnt in a cinema filled with angry lefties.
"I need you to promise me you will never die"
"I cant promise that"
"If you promised that, I'd have sex with you right now"
hehehe. Loved that. Especially the facial expression after she said it.
"If nothing else, where else are you going to see steamy hot puppet sex?
Meet the Feebles - hot walrus on cat puppet sex.
I much prefer SBS's New Movie Show - reviews from the perspective of those born in the age of talkies.
"But attacking Penn, Robbins et al. would mean you thought there was something wrong with their views... and that would mean you were, in some sense, supporting the administration position... I just don't... I mean, no one would... this makes no sense at all. You don't really mean that someone would support that position, obviously, so what is it you're trying to say and just not getting out very well?"
Peter — Nah, these puppets are real goers. It's like a castanet concert, baby!
BruceT — "I've got five terrorists heading out of town on Mukkalukkadukka Street!"
Jorge — While I expect we're pretty much in agreement, can you explain to me exactly WHAT risks Sean Penn et al take?
He's still not as much of a pinhead as "Movie Show" reviewer Megan Spencer, who criticised the animated kids movie 'Polar Express' as having "horrifying" pro-American values
I think my favourite moment was the one where the Team America guy who hates actors (and therefore Gary) reveals his Dark Traumatic Secret. Too good to spoil here, but suffice it to say that I'll never look at T.S. Eliot's Practical Cats *quite* the same way again.
Yeah I seem to remember Marge and Davo enthusing over 'Blood and land" or whatever that Ken Loach commie fest was called about the Spanish Civil war. Franco won guys, fuck you, ha ha ha ha!
Why did Franco the murdering, Hitler-aligned fascist rat win? No historian I, but it seems, in part, the commies took to killing each other more than they killed Spanish loyalists and that proved to be strangely detremental to their war effort. Marge bemoaned the ruining of a perfectly good peasant's revolution by the 'Stalinists from Moscow', like those Stalanists weren't simply more advanced commies from a society further progressed along enevitable collectivist timeline from revolution to tyranny and mass murder. A little glimps of what the workers paradise had in store for Spain if Franco hadn't been such a meany old spoilsport.
Seriously Marge and Dave, go fuck yourselves. Go fuck yourselves in your stupid, pampered, North Shore guilty white liberal asses, you uninteresting, tax-sucking, commie-loving socialist hyenas.
I hope this review has been helpful to you! I give it FOUR STARS.
Has anyone seen the latest (Australian) issue of Empire magazine? They review the rental DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11 and give it four stars despite talking about how incredibly dishonest the film is.
A bit rich guys. I greatly enjoy watch Margret and David most of the time and find they have a much better insight into the films than any other movie critics I know. Thats not to say they are never wrong, but I tend to want to watch their reviews before I decide to spend money seeing a movie.
Nic, your comment was nothing but a set of bland, hackneyed phrases. "I greatly enjoy watch Margret and David", "they have a much better insight into the films than any other movie critics I know", "Thats not to say they are never wrong" -- you might as well have typed a few lines from your local phone book. Do you have any original thoughts?
Why are leftists so fucking boring?
...reviews from the perspective of those born in the age of talkies.
Heh, Heh, ZING. Ouch...
Stratton's favourite phrase, writing movie reviews for the Murdochs' Weekend Australian, is "fundamentalist violence". He uses it for any movie (Walking Tall, Man on Fire, etc) in which evildoers face any consequences more severe than a scolding by Cheryl Kernot.
What can I say??? I laughed...I cried (because I was laughing to hard)...I laughed some more. There were so many lines I have to see it again. The ability to put rather intricate facial expressions on puppets was brilliant. And in the love scene...what strings are they pulling and when??? :D
It was interesting that in the beginning there was one group in the cinema who were laughing a lot at the expense of the Yanks (well I thought it was pretty funny too), but as the movie progressed they became quieter and quieter, and there were a few mutterings at the loud guffaws from the rest of the audience. Looks like there are a bunch of 'mini-Stratton's' out there.
Andrea's comments were more material in the pithy mould of her previous offerings. Fans of the genere will enjoy this good, worksman-like performance by the well known Spleenvill admin and moderator but I can't help but feel she's re-treading previously explored material.
I give Andrea's comments three and a half stars.
Hey, that was 'lefty Nic' not "RW Nic"
Amos's review of Andrea's comments started out well with the witty notion of reviewing fellow commenters. After that splendid beginning, however, he seemed to run out of steam, as if he lacked enough ideas to carry out the joke to the end of the paragraph. His review simply didn't have the fire and bite we've come to expect from the veteran timblair commenter. Not only that, but he mis-spelled a couple words. Here's hoping he's back to his old form in his next effort.
I give him one thumb up, but note that it is a thumb.
PS Amos. I'm thinking of taking a girl along to see Andrea's latest comment. But I'm a little worried it might have some violence in it, and be more of a guy thing. Do you recommend that we see that comment together, or will Angie's comment be more suitable?
Haven't seen the movie, can't comment on it. Off to it tomorrow night if my $5 a week wages come through.
I will say that I have always enjoyed the way South Park takes aim at all and sundry: left, right, gay, straight, jew, christian, environmentalist, big business (well, you get the picture - they are equal opportunity piss-takers - no, not in the Stephen Conroy way - and lambasters).
I wouldn't recommend taking a gal pal to a screening of Andrea's most recent offering, especially if she's not been previously exposed to the work of this eclectic weblogging auteur.
Instead may I suggest some of her earlier titles such as the rollicking 1999 hit, 'I'm Banning Every Idiot From AOL', the sparsely plotted but challenging 'Go start your own Goddamn Blog if You Don't Like It' and her enigmatic 2002 cult classic, 'Shouting at Some Guy For Something he Said about Cutlery, or Maybe Cuttlefish, Who Knows'.
I understand Angie's comment stars hunky British heart-throb Hugh Grant, so you should definitly take your woman to that if you want some sexin'.
Were any animals harmed in the making of Angies comment?
The odd thing is that its normally the margaret half of this punch'n'judy outfit who adopts the strident political position !! Maybe david was cuckolded into action by his more activist partner ??
Terrific Parker and Stone interview here.A clip of the vomit scene can be viewed by clicking 'Gary tries to drown his sorrows' in the blue panel.
My comments always have plenty of violence as well as occasional swearing so if your date is squeamish you may want to see something rather bland and inept yet intermittently amusing like Amos' comment instead.
"He's still not as much of a pinhead as "Movie Show" reviewer Megan Spencer, who criticised the animated kids movie 'Polar Express' as having "horrifying" pro-American values"
Love your work Tex. BTW, don't the SBS movie show guys look like they were cloned in an inner-suburban arts faculty? When people use the ironic "elite" as an insult, they can point to these people as the benchmark. What they need is a Mick Molloy on the panel.
I saw Team America tonight - the funniest thing I've seen for ages. And yes Alec Baldwin, you are worthless.
Were any animals harmed in the making of Angies comment?
Thank you for asking, TimT. No animals were harmed in the making of our exciting comments, unless you count the ladybugs who inexplicably nest in the window at Angie's Commenting Studios. Occasionally they get into the light fixture, but that is all part of Nature's plan. All the thrilling stunts you see here are the work of our talented human and animal performers, plus great big gobs of realistic computer animation.
By the way, we must note that Amos is incorrect in his assertion that our latest comment stars Hugh Grant. It in fact stars a Hugh Grant mannequin -- an exact replica of the popular British star, hand-crafted of solid oak. By this method we can bring you all the acting skills of the real Hugh Grant at a fraction of the price. Enjoy!
A powerful and, at the same time, harrowing work.
Refreshingly free of the maudlin sentimentality usually associated with her earlier comments.
This is a mature comment and a sign of what we can expect in the future.
Compare Stratton's 'Team America' one-star review with (in the same article) his 3 and a half stars for the "sickeningly sadistic thriller" "Saw" and his previous 5 star "Fahnrenheit 911" vote. It confirms that he tends to prefer leftish propaganda of the bleak or black
armband style or "challenging" sexual testing of the bounds and always the nihilist anti-censorship line.
It's good that the Australian editor balances the predictable Stratton line with reviewers of film not politics.
Thanks for the personal attack Andrea, great to see you are sinking to that level. However I have enough maturity to not return the favour.
I wrote that comment as an original expression of my own opinion, not just something I prattled off from somewhere else. I meant every word I said. In future please do not be so presumptious.
I could say that the "yes I agree" brigade that plagues the right-wing so much is "boring". Just because something disagrees with what you think does not make it "bland" "hackneyed" or "unoriginal".
Furthermore you are incorrect in diagnosing me as a "leftist". I am a centrist.
No you're not. I'm a centrist -and the centre isn't where you think it is!
If that is an example of original thought, perhaps you ought to stop before you hurt yourself.
You're views are not bland, hackneyed or unoriginal because we disagree with them. They are bland, hackneyed and unorignal because that is what they are.
Quo erat demostrandom.
Good lord, a "centrist." Now I've heard everything.
Meanwhile, Stratton gave Fahrenheit 911 five stars. Bugger him.
He only gave it 4 stars.
Funny how Stratton wasn't offended by the Politics of Michael Moore's recent film!
These liberals really should make an effort to be more open-minded. It's true, there's no-one more illiberal than a liberal!
I think one of the key problems here with David’s little self-righteous outburst with this movie, where the politics are explicit, is that it calls into question the validity of other reviews that he does, where he can find a way to work his own politics into a movie that may not be so politically based.
I don’t think his review of Fahrenheit 9/11 left much to imagination about what side of the political fence he stands on. But take the review of ‘Garden State’ during that same episode as an example, where he gushed over Natalie Portman:
David: I agree with you, I think Natalie Portman is terrific. She's become a really interesting young actor, I think.
I find that second sentence interesting, because he’s clearly thinking about performance outside of this movie alone. He may have been talking a little bit about her role in Star Wars, but to my mind I bet he was probably thinking about this performance on the Late Show with David Letterman in late July, where Ms Portman…
…tells people where she stands.
NP: But, erm, yeah I’m real excited about Kerry. I’m a big supporter of him.
…gives insightful 2000 election analysis.
DL: This will be, this will be your first presidential election to vote in?
NP: I was in the last one which, you know went real well. Smoothly. [giggles]
…speaks her mind, then quickly backpeddles realising she may have sounded like a patronising bitch.
NP: Yeah, but I mean, are there Bush supporters here?
DL: Going to be an interesting election, don’t you think?
NP: It’s going to be, I mean I was asking one of my friends about it who’s going to vote for Bush, and I was like. “You know, why? What?” I, I’m just interested [Audience laughing], no, no, no, I am just interested in knowing other people’s, I’m interested in knowing other people’s opinions, I respect different points of view…
NP: …and erm, and my friend was like “Well, he’s defiantly not as stupid as he sounds, right?” and I was like “That’s an odd endorsement”. Erm, but I mean…
…and gives Americans the cold hard ‘facts’, thanks of course to a certain corpulent documentary maker.
NP: Yeah, but I mean, but if people are for Bush he’s, you know, the president with the most days of vacation that he’s, than any president has ever taken. So I think if you really love him, give him a long vacation. He he. I mean it’s sort of, it’s sort of a win-win situation for him, right. He’d be like pretty stoked if, you know if he looses he gets like all this time off.
Easy to see why Stratton thinks she’s an ‘interesting young actor’, along with his liking of the ‘principles’ of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins.
See what I mean? How can you look seriously at any comment David Stratton makes without wondering whether or not he’s really looking at the merits of a film or actor, and not working his moronic political views into the picture – overtly or covertly.
I have gotta see this film. I got the wrong impression from its title. Great comments everyone...thank you!
That is priceless, Jono!
I always thought Ms Herschlag (aka Portman) was perhaps missing a few pieces up there.
Still, she looks good.
Kinda like one of those uber-graphic but totally unplayable first-person-shooters you find.
"You're views are not bland, hackneyed or unoriginal because we disagree with them. They are bland, hackneyed and unorignal because that is what they are."
Yet still no one has justified this statement.
No one has to justify shit to you. Who the hell are you? You come here and lecture people -- we should do this, we shouldn't celebrate Christmas that, and so on -- and you don't bother justifying why we should bow down to your august opinions on things.
You know what? I am sick of your prissy, hectoring, tight-arsed attitude. I'm banning your IPs; you've wasted enough of the bandwidth here.
I'm in lurve with Andrea Harris.
Saw the movie. I laughed, I cried, I hurled.