May 14, 2010, - 8:18 pm

Weekend Box Office: “Letters to Juliet,” “Robin Hood,” “Just Wright,” “Exit Throught Gift Shop”

By Debbie Schlussel

Ironically, the two new movies I expected to like least, were the relative best of the bunch.  I stress the word “relative.”

letterstojulietrobinhood

justwrightexitthroughgiftshop

*  “Letters to Juliet“:  For some reason I was excluded from two screenings of this movie.  But it’s just as well because critics I respect all said it stank.  And, more importantly, because I will NEVER recommend anything starring Vanessa “Zionist Hoodlums” Redgrave, Jew-hater and best friend/complete slut to Islamic terrorists, no matter the decade.  In the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, she funded a PLO “documentary” and danced with PLO terrorists and their guns, stating,

Zionism is a brutal, racist ideology. And it is a brutal racist regime.

In the ’00s, she paid Al-Qaeda terrorist Jamil El-Banna’s bail money and attorneys fees, likening his and other terrorists’ stay in Guantanamo Bay to the Holocaust and reading their “poetry” at an appearance.  The wrong Redgrave–her decent, pro-Israel sister Lynn–died, last week.  And whether or not I can tell you much about the movie, the video above is the only commentary you need to see on the subject (especially the second half smackdown by the late great Paddy Chayefsky).

I was especially disgusted, this morning, when I watched the hags of ABC’s “The View,” including and especially dimwit fake “conservative” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, all fawning all over this live piece of crap.  When she’s finally worm food, this utter bitch, Vanessa Redgrave, will rot in hell.  Until then, don’t give a dime to her movies, including this one.  You never know to which Al-Qaeda terrorist your movie dollars in her bank account will go.  And why reward filmmakers who have no hesitation to cast this crusty scumbagette?

Anyway, if you must go to a chick flick this weekend (especially if you are being dragged by your wife or girlfriend), see “Just Wright” (review below) instead.

FOUR YASSER ARAFATS PLUS A BIN LADEN
tinyarafattinyarafattinyarafattinyarafatplus.jpgbinladensmaller

* “Robin Hood“: I really, really wanted to like this movie and thought I was going to. I like the conventional story of Robin Hood and the actor who plays him here, Russell Crowe. Sadly, Crowe didn’t get a good script. It wasn’t tight, it rambled, and it just wasn’t the story of Robin Hood. It was someone’s “new way to do it” imposed on Robin Hood, the way filmmakers re-invented “Sherlock Holmes,” at the end of 2009. If it ain’t broke . . . .

This was soooo long and boring, I fell asleep and missed nothing. For so much swashbuckling, fighting, horses, knights, and killing, I should have liked it. But it was slow moving. And, like I said, it wasn’t Robin Hood. It was some other character with the same name.

And, of course, they insert the typical Hollywood sympathy for Islam.  At the beginning of the movie, soldiers, including Crowe’s Robin Longstride (Robin Hood’s real name), are returning from the crusades which they fought for Richard the Lionheart.  Robin Hood makes a ridiculous speech about how a Muslim woman felt sorry for them even though the Muslims were about to be slaughtered, because the English were the truly fallen in the situation.  Whatever.  Never thought Robin Hood would be the seat of Muslim propaganda. But with Hollywood, these days, everything is.

And then there’s the dumb feminism. In this flick, Maid Marian is no longer “Maid,” but simply Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett, who is beautiful here as a brunette).  And she’s a sword-bearing she-warrior. Really? That really happened back in the age of Robin Hood? Only if Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan wrote the script. Come on. Revisionism in fairy tales and legends is stooopid.  Especially in male action flicks from medieval times.

It could have been worse.  But at nearly 2.5 hours, it seemed like 3.5 hours or longer.  Tighten it up, Hollywood.  I can’t really tell you the story, because there wasn’t much of one.  It wandered from scenes of spoiled and tyrannical English Crown Prince (later, King) John, Robin Hood getting jewels with his partners in crime who were bringing back the crown through France (as they return from the Crusades), and scenes of him in a small hamlet (Nottingham) owned by the Lord whose son he impersonates (and who was  married to Marion).  Then, there are battles to defend the obnoxious English Prince against French Norman invaders.  It was confusing and kind of a mess.  But who cares?  I didn’t.  The movie really didn’t give us that much of a reason to care.  And the real story of the movie doesn’t really begin until half way through.  It was no Braveheart.  More like Braveheart lite lite lite extra-lite.

If you were expecting a great epic film, you’ll be disappointed.  I really set my expectations low so I wouldn’t be disappointed.  But I was anyway.  Not that it was objectionable or really bad.  It just wasn’t great or even very good.  Just eh mixed with many yawns.  Somewhat disappointing.  But I did like his chainmail tunic and leather pants, very cool fashions both.

ONE-HALF REAGAN
halfreagan

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Just Wright“: Oddly, this movie I thought I’d hate wasn’t bad. Even though it’s a chick flick, it’s entertaining, fun, and has a lot of sports in it, so it’s bearable and even interesting for men who get dragged to the theater. And two actors I normally dislike–Queen Latifah and Common–were also not bad. There were scenes I found wholly uncomfortable, like one with a zaftig, bare-shouldered Latifah writhing around a bed. But other than that, I found this movie mildly charming, even if the ending was expected and not believable.

A heavy-set, less attractive physical therapist (Latifah) is a big basketball fan and meets an NBA star (Common), who begins a flirtation with her. But once he meets her gorgeous, shallow, phony friend (very well played by Paula Patton), he only has eyes for the hot chick and throws Latifah to the side. But a potentially career-ending knee injury changes everything, and the player begins to see each woman for whom she really is. Or does he?

Most movies with a sports theme stink.  But this one was okay.  Even though all of the major stars and co-stars in this movie are Black, it really wasn’t a Black movie.  It’s a story that spans the races and that you’ve seen a million times before–the proverbial “beauty is just skin-deep.”  But it was decent entertainment.  Fast-paced, enjoyable, and escapist.  Not a “great” movie.  But good enough.

TWO REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboy

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Exit Through the Gift Shop“: Even though this movie was about mostly illegal activity–”street art,” which is a euphemism for more attractive graffiti and vandalism–I still found it cool and entertaining. Almost everyone in it is a hypocritical lefty who thinks he is a counter-culture critic, but ends up making big bucks through conventional, commercial art shows and sales. Yup, they all become the capitalists they claim they’re railing against. And it’s a lot of cool eye candy.

Banksy is a “street artist” in Great Britain.  Thierry Guetta is a French emigre to the U.S. who owns a hip Los Angeles used clothing store and takes an interest in  him and other street artists.  Guetta films Banksy doing his graffiti and vandalism, er . . . “street art,” all over the world.  But when he tries to make a film out of it, it’s not a good one.  So, Banksy orders Guetta to go home and make his own art.  Soon, though, Guetta is mass-producing pop art and putting on a big commercial show of Andy Warhol style cool stuff.  It disgusts Banksy, even though he’s done the same.  And they all clean up with lots of money, while dissing each others’ hypocrisy and crass commercialism.

Like I said, even though it’s illegal and I don’t applaud it–and I didn’t need to see that little dig at Israel’s fence to keep out Islamic terrorists–I still found the movie extremely entertaining and enjoyable.  Not to mention, a very illuminating expose on the stark hypocrisy of the counterculture anarchist types that we all know exists in spades.  They may not wear pinstriped suits, but they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

TWO-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboyhalfreagan

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

40 Responses

Saw Robin Hood today. The film had a couple of liberal revisionist problems such as the one you cited of Robin Hood’s empathy towards Muslims, but luckily these politically correct moments passed quickly.

Actually I liked the film more than I’d expected. The character of King John made a memorably hateful villain, combining the pettiness of the original King John with the naive tendency towards French entanglement of his weak successor Henry III. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett both played poised grown-ups rather than Hollywood-brat celebrity types. As an extra bonus, now-out-of-the-closet-obnoxious-liberal Roger Ebert and A.O.Scott both disapproved of the film (Scott because he felt it supported tea partier-like grievances against heavy taxation and big government and was too anti-French–good reasons to enjoy the film, in my opinion).

I was enjoying watching Letters to Juliet until the character of the English young man whom I found admirable for his restraint and common sense admitted that he worked long hours for “refugees” and was committed to “helping humanity.” I guess if he’d just had an ordinary job helping ordinary people he wouldn’t have been good enough.

As for The Wright Way, like you, I was surprised to like it. Common’s character was presented more sympathetically than as just a typically stupid male, so the film was better than just a one-sided chick flick. The movie wasn’t funny and didn’t try to be; maybe that saved it from being another misfire (like recent Morgans, Back-Up Plan, Date Night, etc.).

I saw Gift Shop, too, a couple weeks ago when it came out in LA and liked its droll cynicism.

Burke on May 15, 2010 at 1:09 am

Crowe and Scott had little parts in the History Channels Robin Hood story. They both came off as anti west and anti Catholic. King Richard was said by Crowe to be “Assassin” for the pope? Never heard of it quite that way. I just KNEW there’d be a muslim slant to this movie. shame.

samurai on May 15, 2010 at 2:28 am

Question to Crowe and Company…EVER SEE THE 1938 ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD WITH ERROYL FLYNN AND OLIVIA DEHAVILAND?

Bob Porrazzo on May 15, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Dear Mr. Porrazzo: THAT was a great film.

    Miranda Rose Smith on May 16, 2010 at 2:34 am

Debbie I hardly think that it was Muslim sympathizing that Robbin Hood displayed in the movie. He objected to the innocent slaughter of Muslim children and women, the same you would object to the innocent slaughter of Jewish innocents or other races and religions.

Jordan on May 15, 2010 at 10:30 am

    A little known fact about the Crusaders is that they were more tolerant of religion than either the Greek Orthodox or the various Muslim sects that were contending for the area. All they cared about was that the peasants and shop-keepers paid their taxes and kept the peace. The Crusaders were always vastly out-numbered, and yet managed to stay in the area for a hundred years long after Europe stopped caring about the subject. That they were able to suceed was because of their enemy’s lack of unity. (Like today in the West?) The notion that they went around slaughtering Muslims because of their religion is nonsense. Remember this was a Christian/Jewish land, the “Holy Land”. The Crusaders were there to liberate the Christians who’d been there long before the Muslims invaded. It was Saladin who united Muslims via hatred and religious intolerance and suceeded in defeating the First Crusade. If Christianity is so militaristic and intolerant why did it take until the 15th century to expel the Muslims from Spain or until the 19th century to liberate Greece?

    David O. on May 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      David, they also slaughtered Jews, here in Israel as well as on their march from Germany thru France to the ships in the Mediterranean. And “assassins for the pope” is a pretty accurate description because of how the various popes at the times of the various Crusades saw the Moslems as the enemy and in need of annihilation. Remember the pope isn’t some meek, kindly spiritual leader, he is a temporal leader as well and at the time, his empire was quite large and powerful. He made or he broke thru excommunication, the various Holy Roman Emperors and if they didn’t do his bidding, you can guess which fate they found.

      I am not saying the fight against Islam wasn’t fair, I’m saying that you can’t minimize the language a *political* leader will use to rally his troops.

      mk750 on May 15, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        I forgot, which group, Christians or Islam did more Jew slaughtering during middle ages? Forgot, now, someone? Anyone?
        Usually its lft wing fantatics who claim Christians did the slaughtering. Forgot, which group did more? Which group gave humanity the Yellow star? Which group made Jews second rate in all levels (dihimmis) Which group was that? Hmm.

        richard on May 15, 2010 at 3:43 pm

        I’m sorry that I wasn’t, in a few sentences, able to provide an entire history of the Crusades. My point was simply that in matters of religious doctrine the Crusaders (not the Pope) were tolerant rulers. They did not care about esoteric matters of doctrine but rather the practical necessities of ruling. (Late arrival Christians were often shocked at how changed the earlier Crusader were in their dress and habits.) Dragging in the Pope and treatment of Jews is another issue. Contrary to current thought you don’t refute an argument by referring to something that’s irrelevant, regardless of how morally shocking. This is the moral equivalency approach, sorry but it’s rather juvenile to someone who knows the facts. The Jews weren’t just slaughtered. This is a reference to the capture of Jerusalem. Inhabitants (including Jews) of cities were often killed in large numbers, when the city was taken by violent assault. This was an accepted rule of war, just as aerial bombing of the German civilians in WWII was morally accepted. It was partly in revenge for the horrible casualites the attacker had to take, and partly an inducement to surrender without an assault. The idea of humane warfare, including concern for civilians, doesn’t occur until – guess when – the 17th century and the age of reason in the European (not Muslim) countries. By the way it’s Muslim leaders (like the late Saddam Hussein) who are admirers of Hitler, and it’s not because he made the trains run of time.

        David O. on May 17, 2010 at 3:03 pm

I enjoyed seeing Robin Hood and what appeared to be a close look at living in those days of England. “But who cares”? If you don’t like Anglos why don’t you just come out and say it?

Demonization of Anglos on May 15, 2010 at 11:19 am

[David O. on May 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm]

David, you are historically ignorant and/or illiterate. The Crusaders massacred Muslims and JEWS if they didn’t convert. Saladin did totally opposite of what you said. Saladin was the most respected warrior by both Muslims and Christians. He allowed Jews to live in peace in Jerusalem.

GO SEE KICK-ASS!!!

Norman Blitzer on May 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm

I am quite impressed. You managed to call a movies that you admitted that you did not see, a piece of crap because you don’t like an actress.

A true revelation of integrity.

Chancey on May 15, 2010 at 3:20 pm

NORMAN, YOU are distorting history. It is a lie that the Crusaders massacred more Muslims. That is a lie. Over it’s centuries, particularly during the crusades, the Muslims slaughtered more infidels.

Not quite true about Saladdin. Comparatively when weighed against other Islamic leaders he was relatively milder. All relative. He did some slaughtering and aint the perfect princely virtuous leader you desperately want to make him out to be. Sold non believers in to slavery, kept concubines, fought in battles, etc. He was a warrior, not the prince of peace.

Ask yourself, WHICH VERSION OF SALADDIN did Christians respect? If all were members of their culture and times, which version did they respect? The Saladdin a la St Francis pacifist? Answer: NO, cause pacificism wasnt around in Jihaddist 12thcent Islam, particulary among warrior class.

DID SALADDIN allow Jews to live in Jerusalem as EQUALS to OTHER MUSLIMS? ANSWER: NO. ONly allowed them to live as dihimmis. You know that, come on.

Stop the lying.

Decendants of Salladin worked with Hitler and bombed Sept. 11.
Those are his descendants, carrying on the work of him as well as the Holy Prophet, their ETERNAL LIVING EXAMPLE.

Someone better tell truth.

David, you are historically ignorant and/or illiterate. The Crusaders massacred Muslims and JEWS if they didn’t convert. Saladin did totally opposite of what you said. Saladin was the most respected warrior by both Muslims and Christians. He allowed Jews to live in peace in Jerusalem.

richard on May 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Dear Richard: I will repeat once again that the Crusaders were not as religiously intolerant as either the Muslims or the Greek Orthodox. They were concerned about defense and taxation and trying to make their jury-rigged little kingdoms survive. What is this nonsense about massacre? None of you pathetic pacifists know what you’re talking about. What do you think happens when you lose a battle. It is pointless to reply to your replies because you just ignore whatever I write to make irrelevant and frankly hysterical complaints about the Crusaders. You may want to learn to think critically and be sceptical of accepted wisdom. For example the commonly quoted number of 70 thousand people being massacred in the siege of Jerusalem is a made-up number that the Muslims came up with long after the siege.

    David O. on June 2, 2010 at 4:19 pm

      As a POSTSCRIPT to my above message, I think that what my critics (who accuse me of being ignorant of history) fail to understand is that the Crusaders were liberators of the Christian people who populated the area. This had been a Christian land for hundreds of years. (The Jews had been dispersed remember.)The Muslims were a military elite divided by religious differences. The Christians in the area, however, differed from the Greek Orthodox who consequently forfeited their support. It was tolerance toward these non Greek Orthdox Christians that the Crusaders were relatively tolerant. Sorry, if you weren’t taught that in your Western-hating high school courses, but it’s never too late to learn. As for how wonderful Saladin was, give me a break. He killed all the Crusaders he could unless they ransomed themselves. By the way when are we in the West going to get angry about the conquest of Constantinople when the Muslim “massacred” Christians. Hmmm, and the greatest mosque in Islam is a converted Church. Does that want to make you want to martyr yourself and distort history into propaganda? Hah!

      David O. on June 2, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Debbie, FYI
Bansky was in Detroit sometime earlier this month and left at least 3 “paintings” Two of which were stolen already.
Quite fascinating.

Here is one of them on flickr website
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49623343@N07/4604583565/

BC on May 15, 2010 at 8:18 pm

The BBC had a Robin Hood series, completely revised and Muslim sympathetic. The first utterance of this sympathy and I stopped watching. Thanks for the heads up on this movie.

Penelope27 on May 15, 2010 at 9:18 pm

[richard on May 15, 2010 at 3:51 pm]

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I didn’t say Christians massacred more Muslims, only that Christians massacred Muslims and Jews which is true. And I didn’t say Saladin allowed Jews to live as equals in Jerusalem, I said he allowed them to live in peace which is true.

As for Saladin’s descendants, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[Someone better tell truth.]

Well, it certainly ain’t you Richard. Everything I stated however, can be verified by several on-line sources.

GO SEE KICK-ASS!!!

Norman Blitzer on May 15, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Please tell us Norman that you’re not basing your comments or remarks on online sources. Those can be and most times are slanted towards the authors ideologies(pro or con). Best to stick with written history unless you can really verify the internet sources you’re siting.

    gerob on May 16, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Blitzer sez:

    “Well, it certainly ain’t you Richard. Everything I stated however, can be verified by several on-line sources.”

    WELL, if you find it with Google, it can’t be wrong, huh? I direct you to Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), pp. 140-144. Saladin was a “good Muslim,” meaning a typical, doctrinally correct mass murderer:

    “A lot is made of the fact that when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in October 1187, he treated the Christians with magnanimity–in sharp contrast to the behavior of the Crusaders in 1099. However . . . when his forces decisively defeated the Crusaders at Hattin on July 4, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of his Christian opponents.”

    skzion on May 16, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Ridley Scott also did the pro-Muzzie “KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”.

smudge on May 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm

That’s SIR Ridley Scott.

smudge on May 15, 2010 at 10:29 pm

One does have to wonder why we end up losing the likes of Natasha Richardson and Lynn Redgrave while “Zionist Hoodlums” Vanessa still lives to aid and abet al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Taliban et al., one more day.

And that’s not counting Amanda Seyfried’s turn in “Mamma Mia,” which I seem to recall wasn’t really all that well-liked around here.

ConcernedPatriot on May 15, 2010 at 11:41 pm

Debbie — excellent as always.

I miss Richard Greene and good yarns.

Mack Hall on May 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

Debbie, I agree with you 100% about Redgrave, I was sorry to hear about Lynn passing, but I’ll never forgive Vanessa for her going out of her way to criticize Israel and Jews and her public support of terrorists who kill Israelis and Jews.

And to make matters worse, I read this morning about Elton John doing a concert where he dedicated a song to Vanessa as she sat in a box owned by Sting and his wife in support of the “ecology”. Sorry but I can’t separate the actor when they support Jew haters and that includes Ricky Gervais who always had Cat Stevens music in his tv shows (or whatever his Muslim name is) or of course Mel Gibson another famous Jew-hater. I know people say they can separate the actor/rock star/comedian from his/her politics…I can’t. Especially when they go out of their way to criticize religion in general (Bill Maher) but shy away from criticizing Muslims (at least Maher did that recently, I was surprised). Anyway, how could Sting//E John support that anti-Semite V Redgrave? An absolute disgrace.

Marc on May 16, 2010 at 10:29 am

Vanessa Redface is a communist, period. Lynn Redgrave – RIP – her death is sad. She will be truly missed unlike Vanessa and Corin, the idiot brother.

AliceL. on May 16, 2010 at 11:38 am

(OT: Debbie, what do you think of David Yerushalmi?)

S: He’s a complete fraud, who files dumb, phony lawsuits he’ll never win (to raise money from suckers) and is the funding conduit for another fraud, David Gaubatz. If you look at Yerushalmi’s organization’s tax forms, almost all the money goes to either advertising and promotion, and a couple hundred thousand went to Gaubatz. Their “mosque study” was a complete lie. They never sent undercover people to most of these mosques. Instead, they ripped off research from others, including me. I have the e-mails from them where they told me they’d do this. Wake up to them. DS

skzion on May 16, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Thanks, Debbie. I was reading the SIOA web site, where Geller references Yerushalmi as the lawyer who forced Miami to reinstate bus ads that offered help to leave Islam. But reference was also made to the Thomas More Center, which I know you’ve condemned.

    Was Gaubatz’s book on CAIR (Muslim Mafia) also fraudulent?

    As for SIOA, I was concerned when it was taken over by Geller and Spencer. (Mostly because of the former.) The previous leadership was not great in terms of actually getting things done, but I thought it had some integrity.

    S: Wake up. SOIA is a fake group set up by Scamela and Slobbert to promote themselves. The same goes for the ads on buses. Anyone trying to leave Islam who calls them is a complete fool. Those two hijacked the Rifqa Bary legal defense and are the reason she was sent back to Ohio and is now in jeopardy of being deported. EVERY thing they do is for publicity. Period. If running over Rifqa Bary will get them publicity, they’ll do it. And they figuratively ran her over and keep using her. Yerushalmi did nothing. This was an easy case, which the bus authority knew they’d lose. Yerushalmi is an incompetent attorney and a piece of crap who rips off donors. Geller is lucky she isn’t behind bars, like she should be, for her car loan fraud scam and the two murders which resulted from it. She now has the blood money, which is funding all of this. Thomas More is equally fraudulent, files phony cases with Yerushalmi, then dumps them, after they’ve raised all the money they can from it. Thomas More employed an attorney who praised Muslim death, rape, and torture threats on my life and defended her for saying them.

    Muslim Mafia was written by fraud Joseph Farah, whose bottom line is money. I note that a press release for the book, written by Maria Sliwa, was ripped off from my site and my research. I understand several parts of the book are, as well. Again, wake up. Why do you follow these people. They do nothing except seek publicity and money. They haven’t stopped a single Islamic incursion into America. Not one. DS

    skzion on May 16, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Thanks again, Debbie. I think I’ll take this offline. BTW, just to clarify, SIOA was not originally Spencer and Geller’s organization, but DL and Kendra and Adams’s. At least that was what I understood.

skzion on May 16, 2010 at 1:44 pm

OT but I thought this was the soundbite of the week. It outraged the hell out of me. I was pretty annoyed more conservative shows did not highlight this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

I like a good laugh but on a local show they played it but had more fun with listeners calling up trying to pronounce this despicable jihadi’s name. I thought this was way too serious to have more levity at some jihadist’s name than discuss this shocking soundbite.

Skunky on May 16, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Robin Hood was boring huh? I belive it. I don’t see movies where women play reverse roles of men. I saw the preview of that woman in a man’s military garb. Revisionist history of women in combat, to please all the women feminist. This sucks to high heaven. Women in the military today should not be in any combat zones or have female jet fighter pilots. The standards were lowered to let them in.

Oh and the Robin Hood giving some credit to the cut throat Muslims is pure Hollywood left crap and Obama beliefs.

Robert Garcia on May 16, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Crowe’s character was locked in the stockade for his Islamophilic speech. We are led to believe that it’s noble and brave to praise or defend Islam or Muslims. The reality today is that you’ll be punished if you criticize Islam or Muslims, especially in Europe or Canada, but soon in the US.

The final battle seen, where Marion is seen swatting down elite French troops, was preposterious. Thought I was watching a Disney flick. My summary of Robin Hood: Liberal piety, pointless battle scene, liberal piety, pointless battle scene, etc. Gladitor was a left-wing movie, but still entertaining. Robin Hood was just a left-wing mess.

adam on May 17, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Very interesting to find out that Debbie is into Chain mail and Leather Pants……
:-)

Shootist on May 17, 2010 at 12:27 pm

No one’s ever made the definitive Robin Hood movie. He was a common thief.

Genipero on May 17, 2010 at 9:54 pm

re: The Maid Marian issue. To be completely fair, she was in a town in which the vast majority of the men of fighting age were dead or at war. She sort of had to step up and learn to fight because someone had to protect the village, and she had the most authority, as she had the most land (technically her husband and father-in-law did, but if you saw the movie, you know why they’re out of commission). Being dainty and feminine was not always an option for women, especially those of poor economic circumstances.

hellcat on May 18, 2010 at 2:43 pm

“Even though all of the major stars and co-stars in this movie are Black, it really wasn’t a Black movie.”

You might want to do a little “racism check” before you publish this stuff, Schlussel. The above statement (which is not taken out of context, but indicative of the entire tone of your review of “Just Wright”) implies that “black” movies are inherently bad or inferior to “white” movies.

Then again, your distortion of the Miss USA “scandal” proves you don’t much care for people who don’t share your skin pigmentation. It’s people like you who are holding our country back–legitimate criticism of terrorist organizations is one thing, but to lump all Muslims and Arab-Americans (and yes, that hyphen is perfectly legitimate) together is nothing but fear-mongering. Have fun getting hits for exploiting something you know nothing about.

Enid on May 19, 2010 at 1:15 am

although i agree that the new miss america is not so polished in her manner, i think name calling and hurtful remarks will get us no where in this world. we all have to try and live in peace and love, in the end we will all have to find a way to be in peace if we are ever trully going to understand ourselves and why we were put on this earth.

gabby tommy on May 19, 2010 at 8:58 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field