October 3, 2008, - 5:07 pm

Weekend Box Office: Hilarious “American Carol” vs. Bigoted, Atheist, Moral Equivalence “Religulous”

By Debbie Schlussel
Took me a while to post my movie reviews, today, because the two biggest movies–at least, in my mind–involved one movie that didn’t have screenings (to keep out biased liberals), “An American Carol”; and another which excluded me from screening it because it is extremely liberal and they didn’t want a good conservative with reason (me) to review it, “Religulous”. Because of the Jewish Holidays, etc., I was unable to screen most of the other new releases out this weekend, but will try to see them and post reviews, later. I did see “Blindness” and “Fireproof.”
* “An American Carol“: This was not screened for movie critics, who are mostly liberal and would savage it, so I paid to see it, this afternoon. The studio was stupid in not sending me a screener, so I could have posted this very favorable review earlier. I liked it a lot.

anamericancarol.jpgreligulous.jpg

I was shocked with how good it is. I expected it to me stupid, since conservatives aren’t known for their sense of humor and most attempts come off as stupid exercises in ideology. But this wasn’t that. It was hilarious. Yes, some of the jokes and gags were stupid, but most weren’t. I found myself laughing in humor–and also in agreement–with this movie more than I do many mainstream major movie comedies.
The plot: It’s the Fourth of July, and a goofy grandfather, Leslie Nielsen, is telling his grandchildren a fairy tale about the grinch who stole Independence Day. Only it’s not a grinch. It’s Michael Moore, er . . . “Michael Malone.” And it’s a true story, not a fairy tale.
Moore/Malone wants to eliminate the Fourth of July and has enlisted a number of liberal groups to do it with him. Meanwhile, Islamic terrorists want to recruit Moore to do a terrorist movie for them, to make it easier to recruit jihadists. Moore’s nephew is in the military and wants Uncle Mike to understand why what he’s doing is harming America. It takes three ghosts of characters past–John F. Kennedy, General George S. Patton, and George Washington–to teach Michael Moore, er . . . “Malone” a lesson. Yes, it’s a take-off of Scrooge or “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
There are so many funny, oh-yeah, yes-yes-yes! moments in this movie, I laughed out loud a lot and so did the other people in the theater.
Surprisingly, a lot of B-list celebs made cameos in the movie, in addition to the starring role played by Kelsey Grammer (Gen. Patton). The list includes Paris Hilton, Kevin Sorbo, Gary Coleman, David Alan Grier, Jon Voight, James Woods, and Dennis Hopper (thought he was a big lib, but I guess I’m wrong).
The movie does a great job of skewering everything from ACLU lawyers to Rosie O’Donnell (the actress playing her is a dead-ringer and spot on) to MoveOn.org to Hollywood . . . and, of course, Michael Moore and his “Sicko” documentary. The best two parts are when Rosie O’Donnell shows a documentary about radical Christian terrorists on the “O’Reilly Factor” (yes, that’s a downer in the movie–the repeated presence of blowhard and pseudo-conservative Loofah/Falafel champ O’Reilly); and when we are shown the famed HOLLYWOOD sign in the Hills changed to an “ALLAHU AKBAR” sign and signs for “Victoria’s Burka” lingerie stores.
The ending was kinda sappy and not believable. I would have preferred the “Team America: World Police” ending for Michael Moore. But this’ll do. The only other negative is the repeated jokes about how he’s only a documentarian, not a feature film maker. But documentaries have their place, when they’re done accurately and correctly and illuminate an important issue or subject. That’s the point–what Moore makes isn’t documentary, it’s propaganda.
If anyone from the producing team of “An American Carol” is reading this review, please, I beg of you, send me the prop poster of Michael Moore/”Malone’s” movie, “Die You American Pigs.” (His other movies are “Shame on You, America,” and “America Sucks a Big One.”) It’s funny seeing Moore in the poster with a keffiyeh around his neck and an AK-47 in his arms. It’s what we know Moore is really about. If only he’d admit to it in real life.
dieyouamericanpigs.jpg

Let’s hope that “Carol” is just a start for movies like it and a prelude to a lot more. You don’t have to be a conservative to love this movie, just a proud American. Funny and worth the money.
FOUR REAGANS
reagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpg
* “Religulous“: Though most other Detroit-area movie critics were invited to this screening, I was specifically excluded, and I think we know why. They knew I’d hate it. And guess what? I did.
This movie mocks all religion and goes with the Rosie O’Donnell theorem that Judaism and Christianity are morally equivalent to Islam and Islamic terrorism: that we’re all equally extreme and deadly. Um, how many Jews or Christians directed planes into tall buildings recently? He doesn’t address that because it would get in the way of his faulty thesis that Judaism and Christianity are as responsible for contemporary bombings and acts of terrorism as Islam is. Anyone who believes that BS must provide the evidence and Bill doesn’t have any.
Maher begins by saying that he’s not atheist, but agnostic. He doesn’t know what exists. But it’s a fraudulent premise: Anyone who knows anything about Bill–whom I know and dislike–knows that he’s an avowed atheist and has been for some time, though he just won’t admit to it. He’s against religion, and, in case you couldn’t figure it out, he basically lets you know at the end what he thinks of all religion.
Part of the problem is that Maher was born to a Jewish mother and Catholic father who confused him and weren’t truly committed to anything. We meet his mother and sister and learn about his early religious life.
And Maher perpetrates more fraud on the people in this movie. At the Trucker’s Chapel, he tells the Christian truckers that they’re smart people and that’s why he can’t understand why they believe in Christianity. But he’s lying. He thinks they’re dummies, just as he does everyone else in the movie who is a person of faith. He has smug contempt for them.
Then, there’s his choices of interview subjects. Maher chooses the most extreme and ridiculous representatives of Judaism and Christianity in order to mock them. An example: He interviews Yisroel Dovid Weiss, the outcast Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who hangs with Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and is believed to be on his payroll. I call Weiss “Hezbollah’s Rabbi.” Every segment of Judaism has basically excommunicated him, but now I have him–thanks to Bill Maher–as my pseudo-representative of religious Judaism. And Bill knows better. Yet, he chooses to perpetuate this fraud anyway.
The people I respected most in this movie are the ones who pointedly declined to participate–the Mormons (although two former Mormons of course obliged to trash their faith) and a Christian trucker at the Trucker Chapel. They passed the IQ test. They knew that no matter what they said, it would be a casualty of Bill Maher’s editing and fall to his cutting room floor.
Bill Maher used to claim to be a libertarian, but libertarians wouldn’t be at war with me for my beliefs and out to tell me what to think. They’d leave me alone. Bill Maher doesn’t do that. He’s out to get rid of our beliefs and change us. Maher is just as much a zealot against religion as many of the more civilized examples of religion that he sets out to ridicule and discount. In fact, he’s more zealous.
The only good parts of the movie were when Maher interviewed Muslims, because as we all know, they endorse violence. And support for violence is the mainstream of that religion. A couple of corrections to the movie: A Muslim cleric in Amsterdam says Islam means “peace.” Wrong. It means submission. The know-it-all Maher didn’t correct him.
Also, the imam of the Dome of the Rock mosque, built on top of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem talked about how Mohammed allegedly descended from that very spot on a horse and claimed the Koran says so. But the Koran says nothing of the sort, and in fact, neither Jerusalem nor the Dome of the Rock are mentioned a single time in the Koran. I’ve written about how the story got changed in 682 CE, for political reasons, by an Islamic leader, Abd Al-Malik, the Ummayad Caliph, because he didn’t have access to Saudi Arabia for his Islamic population to make the hajj (the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca). Maher doesn’t know this either, because he’s actually more of an ignoramus than his arrogant persona will let on.
Bill once told me on ABC’s “Politically Incorrect” that Keith Richards–who admitted to snorting his father’s ashes–has had a much better life than me because he smoked endless pot and slept with endless groupies. That’s how Bill Maher measures life and he lets us know it when an evangelical at the Trucker’s Chapel says he left a life of drugs and sleeping around to become a good Christian. And we can’t have that.
Maher notes that America has the most believers in creationism and religious Christianity of any Western industrialized democracy, but he fails to show why that’s bad. It’s America’s strong evangelical Christian heritage and continuing religious Christian ethos that is the reason we haven’t yet fallen to Islamic invasion and Islamists’ values the way all of the other countries he listed, have. He doesn’t tell you that, though. Shocker.
(For the record, I myself believe in both evolution and Creation as it is described in the Bible. It’s the view of several noted Jewish Biblical commentators that a “day” in Genesis might mean several million or a billion years. I don’t believe the theories are incompatible, and there are several notable books by Jewish Biblical scholars about how evolution proves the Bible.)
Yes, there are some funny parts, at which I laughed. As we all know, Bill Maher is not just completely rude and obnoxious, he’s a quick wit. But so what? The movie stank under the weight of his dripping arrogance.
Incidentally, when I came out of the movie, there was a man from the atheist Center for Inquiry manning a propaganda table and passing out literature, right outside the particular theater, but inside the movie theater building itself. I’ve e-mailed theater owner Mark Cuban to find out if he allows this kind of politics in his theaters. Strangely, there were no tables manned by Christians. I wonder why. Actually, I don’t wonder. It’s a safe bet they weren’t invited.
***
BTW, don’t forget my previous column, “Bill Maher Passes Gas in America’s Face“. Remember, he wanted the price of gas to go up so high it would be prohibitive for the average American. Another one of his great theories.
TWO-AND-A-HALF MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpghalfkarlmarx.jpg
blindness.jpgfireproof.jpg

* “Blindness“: A plague of complete blindness starts to strike people at random. But it’s contagious. One of those struck is ophthalmologist Mark Ruffalo, after one of his patients comes down with it.
Soon, he and all of his patients are quarantined to an old hospital ward to fend for themselves. His wife, Julianne Moore, can see and mysteriously doesn’t go blind (the movie curiously never explains why), but she fakes it to go with him to the ward.
The patients must deal with filth and squalor as they try to live and perform normal human functions with no sight and no-one to care for them. And gangs and brutality develop.
This movie began as a different, interesting movie. But it degraded into a violent, disgusting doomsday movie without anything of interest to go along with it. The two scenes of mass rape and torture lost me and ruined the movie.
Although the movie ends on an up note, that doesn’t excuse the wanton, gratuitous violence that didn’t help the story. Violence and blood has its place in more interesting doomsday movies, like “28 Days Later,” but this one is far inferior and very unworthy of your ten bucks.
THREE MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg
* “Fireproof“: This independent Christian production was well-made, given the shoestring budget. I respect religious Christians and understand why Christianity was pushed in this movie, even though I don’t believe in it. However, I think filmmakers would have been more successful with their message, had it been more subtle.
Kirk Cameron plays a fireman who is having problems in his marriage. His wife doesn’t love him anymore and is interested in someone else. He uses a book, “The Love Dare”, to try to bring his marriage back together. At first, it’s very frustrating.
I could have done without all the fighting and yelling, but that’s was a major element of the story. Also, the story ended a little too neatly and sort of defied belief.
ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboy.jpghalfreagan.jpg

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




20 Responses

Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall, and Jon Voight – I do not know what their politics were when they were younger but they are now solid. James Woods also is on our side. I suspect there are more closet patriots in Hollywood then you realize.

Ripper on October 3, 2008 at 8:45 pm

american Carol looks funny, blindness looks interesting, and the others I do not care about

mindy1 on October 3, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Bill Maher seems to be one of those who confuses “libertarian” with “libertine.” That is, he claims to be the former, but is more the latter. Moreover, anyone notice how there’s no laughter on any of his HBO specials – but plenty of applause any time he speaks, because the audiences agree with his hatred of anything even remotely resembling human decency and values? Finally, is it just me, or is there some irony that the man who once hosted a show called “Politically Incorrect” now is possessed of a worldview that very much politically correct?
But as for “American Carol” – hope to get the DVD if and when it comes out. As others would say, it’s about time.

ConcernedPatriot on October 3, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Please remember, the Opening Weekend Box Office $$$$ is how HOLLYWIERD Judges success. I cannot make it to see “An American Carol” this weekend, but I’m buying 4 tickets to “Count my vote!”

George on October 3, 2008 at 9:59 pm

Belief in Creationism is not a good thing. Creationism (and its more slippery version, Intelligent Design Theory, an equally dishonest but more sophisticated attempt at masquerading religious faith as true science) explains away evolution, geology, the fossil record, and scientific techniques such as radiocarbon dating. Do you really take seriously the premise that the world is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs were among the species aboard Noah’s ark? Should we all check our brains at the door and accept such insanity while mocking or rejecting the efforts of serious, orthodox scientists to more fully understand the universe and our origins as a species within that universe? God forbid that swill like Creationism receives equal time in schools along with Darwinian evolutionary theory (which, by now, has been validated so repeatedly and so completely that it should no longer be regarded as a theory, but as a law, as readily accepted as Newton’s Law). I do believe, however, that Creationism/Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom as examples of disciplines which do not meet the necessary criteria to be considered true science. They should be lumped together with such other pseudosciences as astrology and phrenology.

commonsense on October 3, 2008 at 10:20 pm

[Maher notes that America has the most believers in creationism and Christianity of any Western industrialized democracy, but he fails to show why that's bad.]
Because like believing in a flat earth, it’s stupid.

Norman Blitzer on October 3, 2008 at 11:06 pm

I am actually eagerly looking forward to watching Religulous. However, it is obviously going to be considered offensive by a great many people ñ religion really is the ultimate ìtouchy subjectî. Sadly, there is simply no way of pointing out the folly of certain religious beliefs and practices without people taking strong umbrage at it, even if they donít hold those beliefs or carry out those practices themselves. But religion is simply too important and too influential an entity in todayís world to be shielded from scrutiny, satire or even outright criticism.
To take a small and fortunately rather rare example, Jehovahís Witnesses refuse blood transfusions based on their interpretation of the following passage from the Bible:
ìFor the Holy Spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and FROM BLOOD AND FROM THINGS STRANGLED and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!î (Ac 15:22, 28, 29)
Alright fine, that sounds perfectly respectable. But do we respect it and consider it an admirable display of faith and devotion when a mother refuses blood after a complicated pregnancy, only to die leaving a motherless child in her wake? Or do we feel outraged that such a seemingly innocuous belief can have such a devastating effect on a family? I would hope the latter.
A mere 100 years ago, the Hindu practice of Sati, in which a grieving wife will immolate herself (or be forced to do so) on her husbandís funeral pyre, was rather widespread. Now it is practically unheard of, and even implying that it is a good thing is outlawed in India. How did we reach this state of affairs? By criticizing the practice. When not criticized, humans will continue to blithely carry out the same practices and prejudices, whether religious or not, as a matter of course.
The way we enact change and improve our conditions is by discarding destructive or merely incorrect beliefs and retaining constructive ones. This is why, although there are many people who are very critical of homosexuals, for various reasons, we will never again carry out the punishment we used to a few hundred years ago: fastening them upside-down to two wooden posts with their legs akimbo and sawing them in half from their genitals down to their head. The inhumanity of such a practice became too much for us human beings, with our sense of empathy, to bear. So it has gone the way of stoning adulteresses, keeping slaves, performing exorcisms on individuals thought to be possessed by demons (now that we can identify conditions such as epilepsy) and burning witches: consigned to a barbaric chapter in our history.
So here we are in the present day and how are we doing? Compared to 100 years ago, rather well. Almost every citizen of the western world recognizes the immorality of racism, anti-Semitism and of viewing women as chattel ñ at least we should. We recognize the value of viewing humans as individuals with free minds, and donít treat people as second-class or subordinate based on what they believe ñ at least we should.
This, of course, is not the case in the Islamic world, where these atrocities and much more are culturally accepted. I wonít begin to point out the abject barbarism that is promoted in the Islamic world, as we all know about it. But we simply cannot continue as humans, with such a vast swathe of our number living that way. It not only poses us a great danger, but it also damages the lives of every man, woman and child who live there (apart from the obvious exceptions).
So we have a choice: either we twiddle our thumbs and climb on our high horse and whine about how it is ìimmoralî to engage in war and intervention in the Middle East, as many liberals do, or we can take responsibility for the future of humanity and try to, forcibly if necessary, make the Islamic world reject their barbaric beliefs and practices and join the rest of us in the 21st century. I take the second option, and consider the War in Iraq, despite its ups and downs, to be a necessary and morally sound course of action, and consider the protection and support of Israel to be an absolute imperative of the west, as it serves as a symbol of enlightenment and scientific prowess in a region that is mired in superstition. To take the side of the hand-amputating, homosexual-hanging, woman-stoning anti-Semites is illogical and morally bankrupt.
I do not need religious reasons for either of these opinions ñ I do not believe that God told George Bush to go to war and I donít believe that the land of Israel is any more holy than any other area of land. Although I hold these opinions honestly, it causes me a fair amount of concern that I am considered degenerate and immoral by most of the people alive today for doing so. However, if I say that I believe that Ahura Mazda is the one uncreated creator of the universe, whose prophet is Zoroaster, and that the energy and purity of Ahura Mazda is represented in fire and in the sun, many of the people who once thought I was degenerate, would now be rather more respectful. However, Muslims would want me killed as an infidel and many fundamentalist Christians would accuse me of paganism and possibly Satanism.
Similarly, I could become an evangelical Christian, which would instantly gain me a lot of respect from a large portion of the American population (and also from Debbie), regardless of my actual behaviour. So why donít I do so? Because I canít allow myself to base my beliefs on what will gain me respect from others or on what I want to be true. Reality exists in the way it does regardless of what an individual may want, and with the benefit of the perspective we have gained from our accumulated scientific knowledge, in which our planet is placed as one of a number of orbs orbiting a single star, which is one of billions in the Milky Way galaxy, which itself is one of billions more galaxies in a universe so large that it would take over 30 billion years for light to cross it, it is impossible for me to believe that a population of bipedal apes on one planet, orbiting one star, in one of the galaxies is the reason for the universeís existence.
To me it makes more sense to view the many various religions that exist and have existed as examples of a cultural phenomenon, not a divine one, and one of the inevitable conclusions I draw from that is that the majority of the worldís population are basing their morality and beliefs on the beliefs of pre-scientific humans. And because the various beliefs and practices of these religions are considered inviolate, it is a lot harder, and sometimes almost impossible, to make people understand why burning women on funeral pyres, preferring death to medicine and slaughtering infidels is bad. Now how could I consider that a good thing?

Higgs Boson on October 4, 2008 at 9:27 am

About “An American Carol” not being screened for critics:1.Does Debbie know for certain that the reason for that was so-called “liberal bias” among critics? How does she know that the movie wasn’t screened for the typical reason for a movie not being screened-because it sucks? And 2. if assumed “liberal bias” is in fact the reason “An American Carol” wasn’t screened for critics, then that would make the movie’s producers COWARDS (and it doesn’t help the box-office either, since all it does is give the perception that the movie’s no good)!

Ribelin2000 on October 4, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Bill Maher has stated on many occasions that he is agnostic, and he has also said in the past that he believes in God, though I don’t know if he does today.
Maher is actually dissing the atheist community by defining an atheist is a strict sense. An atheist is simply one who answers the question “do you believe in God” with a no, not an I don’t know as Maher seems to.
Believing the bibles are ridiculous have no bearing on whether one believes in God or not, though most God believers believe in the bible(s) somewhat or literally.
Also, I’m glad you accept evolution, but let me correct you, a day would have to be a billion or two years each, not thousands of years each in order for the bible to fit into science.
[BEAT: YOU'RE RIGHT--I MISSPOKE AND AM CORRECTING MYSELF, THAT A DAY COULD EQUAL A BILLION YEARS, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. HOWEVER, YOU DON'T GET MY POINT ON MAHER, WHICH IS THAT WHILE HE CLAIMS TO NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE IS A G-D, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF AGNOSTICISM, HE ACTS LIKE WHAT HE REALLY IS, WHICH IS AN ATHEIST, EXACTLY AS YOU CORRECTLY DEFINE IT. DS]

Bacon Eating Atheist Jew on October 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm

>scientific techniques such as radiocarbon dating
Commonsense… carbon dating is, at best, only able to date things in terms of thousands of years (60K tops). You should be embarrassed at even suggesting that such a test “proves” evolution (or that it can be used to date anything at “millions” of years old).
As for “geology” you might want to watch the circular reasoning. That is, since the geological column pictured in text books exists nowhere on the planet in complete form, the evolutionist is left with this reasoning: we know how old a fossil is by the strata in which it is found… we know how old the strata is by the fossils found in it. Circular reasoning.
As for the Hebrew texts, the word “yom” can mean different amounts of time EXCEPT when it connected to a number and distinguished with the article “the” (heh) as in “the first day.” Then it is a 24-hour period.
As death is the punishment for Adam (Gen), the penalty for sin (“the soul that sinneth, he shall die” – Ezek) and the enemy to be conquered (Job), it would seem counter-intuitive to believe that G-d used death as His means to bring about creation.
Debbie, is your G-d the author of “survival of the fittest?” Does He reward the strong over the weak? No. He chose Israel who was the smallest among the nations. He chose Gideon’s few among the many (Judges). Gideon was from the “weakest” family in Manasseh). He favors the weak over the mighty.
G-d tells Israel “the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill…”

bleechers on October 4, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Deb, it’s been a long time since I commented on one of your posts and I don’t always agree with them, but I liked your comment about evolution vs. creationism. When I was 12 years old in Hebrew school, being of an unusually scientific mind, I dared ask my teacher what he thinks of the two and he came up with the same analogy (that perhaps the “days” are thousands if not millions of years)! He noted that one need not take the Bible literally for it to still have meaning that if one knows where and how to look it does parallel science.
I don’t know how daring an answer that was of his (it was a Conservative temple and in the late 1970′s), but I took the surpising answer to heart. One fascinating thing is that the order of what comes to earth in the 7 “days” of creation is almost exactly as it is in evolution (i.e. humans came last, before that, major mammals, before that, fish, bugs, plants, etc.).

hairymon on October 4, 2008 at 8:37 pm

IN REFERENCE TO YOUR ANSWER TO BACON EATING ATHEIST JEW: Debbie, I love your site and read it regularly, but I think you have misunderstood the difference between atheism and agnosticism. If someone asks me if I believe in God, I answer no, which obviously makes me an atheist. However, I do not know that there is no God. The epistomological question of whether or not there is a God is ultimately unanswerable, since it is impossible to have the knowledge that would prove that there is (or isn’t) a God. Therefore I am agnostic also. People seem to find the word agnostic more palatable than the word atheist, but there really isn’t any difference; if you don’t hold any belief in God, then you are an atheist. I think you would be surprised with the number of atheists and agnostics who agree with what you write and say, especially about Islam, and I hope you would be more willing to accept us as allies in a very important fight.

Higgs Boson on October 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Debbie, thanks for noting the correction.
Higgs, atheists are the number one enemy of Muslims on Youtube. That is a fact. We do recognize who is the biggest threat to humanity.
Debbie seems to miss out a bit what an atheist is.
We can’t say for sure that there is no God, though some of us will say so, because atheists mostly believe the chance that there is a God is the same as the chance that Leprechauns have existed on this planet.
There is no evidence for either God or Leprechauns. The acknowledgment of this makes us atheists.
Maher is going around that atheists say there is no God…that is wrong. Atheists for the most part say there is no evidence for God, so God isn’t a consideration of ours (anymore).

Bacon Eating Atheist Jew on October 4, 2008 at 9:49 pm

I also expected very little of Carol and so ended up loving it. I would say it’s Capraesque even!
I like the documentary joke–it’s part of the pecking order in Hollywood that docs are second place, features first place, so I think a comment on their snootiness. I work there and see this alot!
Go see it this weekend, folks. Make it a success. Bring all the kids you know, before they get hopelessly indoctrinated!

PJ on October 5, 2008 at 1:59 am

Wahhh!! No “Spark of Genius” review? Who wouldn’t rush out to see a movie about Intermittent Windshield Wipers. My husband loved it. I hated it. But we keep going back and forth, back and forth, about it. One Einstein :)!!
[RS: "FLASH OF GENIUS" WAS FANTASTIC. I LIKED IT A LOT, BUT ONLY SAW IT, SATURDAY NIGHT. WILL POST A REVIEW SOON. STAY TUNED. DS]

Roads Skolar on October 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Creationism is so dangerous that I’ve written to Thomas Jefferson and I have demanded that he remove the references to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence! Everyone knows that rights are derived from government.

bleechers on October 5, 2008 at 10:25 am

Roger Moore, from the Orlando Sentinel and reprinted in the Detroit Free Press, gave a generally approving review to Religulous. One of his problems with the movie though was:
“He’s not quite an equal-opportunity offender, though. Maher travels to the Western Wall but goes awfully easy on the chosen people.”
Let this be a lesson to us all. Never forget to slam the Jews.
This isn’t the first time a review in the Free Press was used in this manner. I wish I could remember the name of the book and the reviewer, but one of the complaints against the book, which was a work of fiction, was that it was too strong in its praise of Israel and its policies.
This must be what they mean when they talk of “evenhandedness.”
[SoS: MOORE DIDN'T SEE THE SAME MOVIE I SAW. HE WAS VERY TOUGH ON AND MOCKING OF ORTHODOX JEWS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT SCENES. DS]

sonofsheldon on October 5, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Debbie, how can you say that conservatives aren’t humorous? Rush’s radio show for example is filled with great humor and brilliant parodies. The Fox News answer to The Daily Show was great. Liberal humor, something of an oxymoron, doesn’t really exist. Sure, liberals can write funny shows and movies, but when they go to political humor, it’s always flat, mean, and coarse.

Ted on October 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

“Day” in English may mean an extended period of time, as well. However, in English (as in the Hebrew) the context and specificity of the use of the word doesn’t allow for that usage to be assumed.
- In his day, Lincoln would not have taken a car to Washington.
- On the first day of his presidency, Lincoln would not have taken a car to Washington.
In the first usage, “day” refers to a general era. In the second, the word “day” is specific and can only refer to a 24-hour period. And if “day” is akin to “billions” of years, then light and plant life existed billions of years before the sun was created “day 4″ in Genesis 1.

bleechers on October 6, 2008 at 1:56 pm

My husband and I saw American Carol over the weekend. It was easily the best laugh we’ve had in an ever depressing environment around here. We live in Southern California- not in Hollywierd, but still close enough that it’s an obvious infuence on the political climate. I happen to teach in academia (physics) where, as a practicing Catholic, I endure a lot of the crap above illustrated by the likes of Blitzer. Hubby’s a retired military officer, who served combat roles from Vietnam to Iraq. On all of the above scores, American Carol gave us both reason to feel taht perhaps our views on life aren’t as undervalued as we once thought.
I found the “choreographed dance of the professors” to be so damned true that it made me choke on the outrageously priced diet pepsi foutain drink I had in my mouth when they pulled off their suits to show their “Hair style” hippie dance number.
The salient gag I will always recall from that movie is this- “They’re students, protesting to show what they don’t know by shouting it loudly over and over”.
And, perhaps the scene with the most impact on us, was when, in the NYC church with George Washington (incredible how much Mr. Voight fit that role)when he flung the doors of the church open to reveal ground zero after the fall of the towers. The denial, blameshifting and cowardice of Micheal Malone, in the face of that spoke volumes about the state of liberal thought in the US today.
Bravo for those who were “brave” enough to produce this movie in the face of the pressures of Hollyweird.

Mistress_Dee on October 7, 2008 at 10:42 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field