March 22, 2013, - 6:36 pm

Wknd Box Office: Olympus Has Fallen, Spring Breakers, Admission

By Debbie Schlussel

I liked just one of the new movies at theaters today.

olympushasfallenspringbreakers

admission

* “Olympus Has Fallen“: This is Die Hard 2.0, starring Gerard Butler in the Bruce Willis role of saving America from terrorists. And I enjoyed it. Yes, it’s a little formulaic and the ending is predictable. But, so what? It’s thrilling, exciting, and action-packed. It’s also timely, since the movie deals with North Korean terrorists. And a bonus: Ashley Judd dies in the first five minutes. Ya can’t beat that. (Although her political career might die even sooner than that.) The only thing missing, since this movie involves North Korean terrorists, is a cameo by Dennis Rodman. While it’s a tad disturbing to see terrorist planes crashing in to the Washington Monument and the White House, it wouldn’t happen in real life, especially after 9/11, so it’s only a movie. If planes like this invaded DC airspace, our F-16s (or other jet fighters) would immediately be scrambled to take the interloping planes out.

Aaron Eckhart is the President of the United States. He’s got the most politically correct cabinet and administration in history. The Secret Service Director is a Black chick, the Vice President is Hispanic, the Secretary of Defense is a woman, and the Speaker of the House is Morgan Freeman. I was surprised that–horror of horrors!–the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was actually an old, White male. Butler is the First Son’s favorite Secret Service agent, but Butler is banished from the President’s personal protection detail (PPD–a term not used in the movie, but that’s what it’s called) because Butler reminds the President of the death of the First Lady (Judd) in a winter snowstorm car accident. Butler is desperate to get back in action, and he gets his chance the day South Korean leaders come to the White House to meet the President, and it turns out that their security and diplomatic entourage is infiltrated with North Korean terrorists.


Suddenly, the terrorists’ planes start invading DC airspace and are attacking the Washington Monument, the White House, and thousands of people on Washington’s streets. Crowds of purported tourists at the White House gates are actually terrorists, as well. The President is taken hostage, along with most of his cabinet. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense are both threatened with death, until the President breaks down and tells them to give their nuclear launch codes (“Cerberus codes”) to the terrorists. It was interesting to see the female Secretary of Defense wimpering, whining, and crying and the President immediately giving in to terrorists because he can’t handle a woman in distress. Yup, America, I give you women in combat. Same difference.

Since almost the entire Secret Service Presidential Detail is wiped out by the terrorists, Gerard Butler is the hero of the movie, secretly infiltrating the now badly-burned and blown up White House, which is filled with dead bodies. The rest of the movie is filled with wimpy, wimpering American officials–including the President–giving in to the North Korean terrorists’ demands, while Butler tries to rescue everyone and save the day.

If this was really the way America responded to a terrorist attack on the White House and a hostage situation with the President, America would be gone. If a President is taken hostage and terrorists are trying to get nuclear launch codes–and other top officials trying to save the day are aware of it in this movie–a bomb should be dropped on the terrorists and their Presidential hostage (with the next person in line taking the oath of office–the latter part only kinda, sorta happens here), so that we don’t give in to terrorists and they don’t win the day, as they almost do here. The President in this movie is a wimpy little bitch.

But, like I said, it’s thrilling, action-packed, and a fun, escapist time at the movies. Be forewarned, however, that the movie is extremely violent. It’s filled with dead bodies and people being shot in the head, beaten, and/or tortured. NOT for kids (at least, not when I was a kid).

ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyhalfreagan.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Spring Breakers“: Since the beginning of this complete piece of trash parading as a movie, I wanted to see its four female lead characters (and the actresses who played them) get murdered in horribly violent ways. That would have been the only justice. Sadly, that didn’t happen. And all of them live another day to make more of this malodorous dung.

I already wrote and posted my review of this movie before even having seen it, when I wrote about how this threesome-sex, killing-porn, drug-laden, violent movie was marketed to 12-year-olds in Seventeen Magazine. And I was completely accurate in what I wrote, except that the sickness of this movie is far worse than I’d earlier diagnosed. The movie starts with two college girls in class drawing pictures. One draws a heart that says, “I Love Penis.” The other draws a penis that says, “Spring Break, Bitch!” on it, and then she simulates giving the picture oral sex. It only goes further downhill from there.

This long, slow, boring piece of s**t is extremely repetitive, incredibly stupid, and a time-bandit that robbed two hours of my life I’ll never get back. It’s directed by Harmony Korine, a pretentious, disgusting son of PBS-employed hippies. Who else names their son, “Harmony,” and raises him to (never) grow up and make disturbing absolute garbage on celluloid, which is then marketed to impressionable tween girls?

Four college girls (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine a/k/a the ugly one, who is clearly only in the movie because she is married to the scumbag director) who are dumb as doorknobs are desperate to go on Spring Break to St. Petersburg, Florida. Since they don’t have enough money, they steal their professor’s car, rob and threaten to kill diners and employees at a restaurant, and then torch the car. When they get to St. Petersburg, they engage in hedonistic drinking and drug use and get arrested. They are bailed out by a corn-rowed, grill-endowed White rapper/drug dealer named, “Alien” (James Franco). One of them, a religious Christian (Gomez), goes home because she doesn’t like or trust Alien. The others go to his tacky mansion on the water and do drugs with him and engage in violent crime and armed robbery on his behalf. Two of the girls have a threesome with Alien and then go with him to kill his Black enemy/competitor.

The end. Great for your 12-year-old . . . if you’re a moron.

Of one thing I am sure: every single person involved with this movie is a complete scumbag unworthy of human life.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerplus.jpgbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmallerbinladensmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Admission“: I found this mawkish, lefty-grungy-feely movie incredibly annoying, pretentious, and irritating. It was also supposed to be a comedy, but it just wasn’t funny. It was long, slow, and boring. A rich, liberal White guy (Paul Rudd) adopting a Black kid from Africa . . . yawn. Madonna, Charlize Theron, Palestina Jolie, and Sandra Bullock already own this fashion accessory. A bunch of liberal Princeton college admissions officers who put liberal activities and behavior as well as race and ethnicity ahead of actual academic achievement in choosing whom to admit to the Ivy Leagues . . . also not news. A liberal school for high school and middle school students where nothing much is taught other than how to build alternative irrigation in Africa and how to be “better citizens of the world” by helping a cow give birth? Well, that is just beyond annoying. And did I mention that the guy who adopted the Black kid is the one running this crazy, silly, BS school?

If none of this sounds irritating enough to watch on-screen, add in lesbian Lily Tomlin as a crazy, ugly feminist (yup, she’s playin’ herself) with a Betty Friedan tattoo and a poster of a fish on a bicycle, an homage to Gloria Steinem’s rejection of men (she famously said women need men as much as a fish needs a bicycle). Tomlin is the single mother of the vastly over-rated Tina Fey, who is an admissions officer at Princeton, eager to get a promotion to Dean of Admissions. She is also recently dumped by her boyfriend and is told that a kid at a liberal, unstructured “developmental” school called “Quest” (see above description) is the son she gave birth to in college and gave up for adoption. The facts seem to match up and jibe with the likelihood that he is her son. The kid has atrocious grades, but we’re told he is an “auto-didact” who teaches himself to learn. (I don’t need to be auto-irritated. I sat through this movie, which performed that task quite well.) Fey goes out on a limb to get the kid admitted into Princeton and predictably develops a relationship with the man who heads the school (Rudd).

The movie also co-stars the loathsome Wallace Shawn, a self-hating, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel “Jew” In Name Only. No thanks. But even without him, I could not stand this movie. The kids in it were pretentiously and obnoxiously to the far-left. But it didn’t appear that the movie was mocking them. Rather, it was lauding these future Hillary Clinton voters who rail against corporate America and other stale, old, refried crap of the left. Ick. I couldn’t tell, either if the movie was mocking feminism, or again, trying to endear us to this baloney.

Doesn’t matter. Either way, don’t waste your time or money on this insipid gruel. An absolute waste of time.

“Admission” literally isn’t worth the price of admission. They should be paying you to sit through this.

THREE MARXES
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpg

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



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

53 Responses

I’m surprised the only Christian character in “Spring Breakers” actually did the right thing at the end. In Hollywood movies, Christian values and faith is usually held up to ridicule. While I agree with your verdict, Debbie – I think the movie unintentionally has a redeeming message of sorts in that it shows us the emptiness and futility of our post-modern post-Christian life. There is no happiness and true fulfillment to be found in the things of this world. The filmmaker is not even original in ripping off the first couple of chapters of the Catholic thinker and saint Augustine’s life in his famous “Confessions.” We all sin and that’s part of human nature. We are more than the sum of ourselves and we can reach the divine within us. “Spring Breakers” reminds us in a way the interior life and closeness to Heaven is a lot harder to attain than a trip to St. Petersburg, Florida, which ironically enough happens to be named after St. Peter, who in Christian tradition, inaugurated the Catholic papacy and laid the foundations of our Western civilization. Its not our vices that need to be recounted; its the virtues and the weapons of the spirit needed to maintain our decent nature that are sadly, in danger of being forgotten in our time.

NormanF on March 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Well, I found out Wallace Shawn is a contemptible JINO. Liked him in “The Princess Bride”. Never saw “My Dinner With Andre” (but kinda wanted to…but never did…). Always learning something new here.

I am not a fan of Gerard Butler. I’m not above seeing any movies of his but I have never liked him since he wore a diaper in “Attila” so I have never seen another one. Don’t think I’m missing out on much.

Harmony Korine is a talentless, awkward & profoundly ugly Libtard, hypocrite bag of sh**. He’s been doing the same un-watchable crap since “Gummo”. In 2013 we’re still pretending that porn actress Chloe Sevigny is “cool”, “edgy” & pretty when she is NEITHER because of him. Perhaps charming in the 90s when he was a young ‘un it’s sad and pathetic now that he’s approaching middle-age (at least age wise)…he must hate Quentin Tarantino. Tarantino is a motor-mouthed dweeb but he can really deliver a smashing film. Unlike DisHarmony Korine. I should give him props only for the fact that I left Liberalism because of disgusting pukes like him…being all Liberal but acting like animal cruelty on film (“Gummo”) is cool, hip & edgy (I noticed Libtards doing this in the 90s…). If one doesn’t know that many Libtards are sociopaths, you had better get to steppin’.

And Tina Fey…I agree 100%. Over-rated and plain as a cement wall. Another one peeps fawn over but she’s as exciting as dried up & crusted oatmeal rotting in the sink. She lives the the magical world where Michelle Antoinette Obama-Putin is pretty along with Chloe Sevigny & that ugly hag Lady Junk-Junk.

On my planet, we don’t fake like that!

Enjoyed the writing of this column. When your annoyed your writing is even more fun to read!

Skunky on March 23, 2013 at 12:37 am

    @Skunky–

    Ouch! Loved that posting.

    Red Ryder on March 23, 2013 at 11:25 am

      Thank you, Red Ryder. Diatribes have always been my speciality! :D

      Skunky on March 23, 2013 at 11:41 am

    Skunky, I agree with what you posted. Your remarks on Fey were really quite accurate. That woman lost her meal ticket when Sarah Palin faded away into a well deserved oblivion. Fey is a one trick pony whose career peaked in 2008. She can open shopping malls and pitch reverse mortgages now, since her career is effectively over.

    Worry01 on March 24, 2013 at 3:27 am

Oh, and Gloria Steinem (once a hero of mine…) is a hypocrite (as most (if not all) feminazis are) because she ended up marrying the dad of Christian Bale until he died.

She saw the purpose of a man but doesn’t have the character to come clean and admit how wrong she was about her feminist dogma.

She’s a lot older that me but I dumped her crap loooooong ago. Just another hypocrite.

Skunky on March 23, 2013 at 12:45 am

In the prez’s cabinet did they leave out Homeland Security boss ” Big Sis” and her gal pals? The cabinet would not be complete without her and her private army.

Bobby99 on March 23, 2013 at 1:28 am

” A rich, liberal White guy (Paul Rudd) adopting a Black kid from Africa . . . yawn. Madonna, Charlize Theron, Palestina Jolie, and Sandra Bullock already own this fashion accessory.”

lol!

DS_ROCKS! on March 23, 2013 at 1:44 am

We had Designer Dogs… now every one wants Designer Kids!

They’re a uniquely American craze. One ancestry isn’t enough.

NormanF on March 23, 2013 at 2:13 am

Aren’t there enough kids in this country to choose from (for adoption)? This is sick libtard reverse racism.

Nir Leiu on March 23, 2013 at 3:46 am

About Debbie’s ending words viz Spring Breakers – ” . . . every single person involved with this movie is a complete scumbag unworthy of human life” – I’d say that description would apply to every single person who pays to see this dreck in a movie theatre (or for that matter, when it comes out on DVD).

ConcernedPatriot on March 23, 2013 at 5:55 am

I loved Debbie’s review of “Fall From Olympus.” It’s the best out there. She covers all the important bases and brings up additional points that the other critics didn’t touch.

Like Debbie, I somewhat enjoyed the film, but, like her also, not in any wildly enthusiastic way. It was too simple-minded for me to love.

One point Debbie brings up was the absurd political correctness of having every important power player—Sec. of Defense, Speaker of the House, etc.—be either female or person of color (or both). There was only one white guy, the general (played by Robert Forster), and he turned out to be sort of the bad guy! Anyone shocked by that?

Another point brought up by Debbie isn’t mentioned by any other critic I read or heard. It was the despicable way that the President buckled so easily and forced his staff to give out nuclear codes to the terrorists. His excuse “Don’t worry, I’ve got it covered” is so extremely lame I wanted to grab a gun from the terrorist and shoot him myself. And he was supposed to be someone admirable in the film.

The turncoat Secret Service agent apparently committed treason because he was against the president’s “globalism.” I thought that was a calculated attempt by the screenwriters to balance their condemnation of radical terrorists with a little poke at extremist conservatives. This example of “fair and balanced” (otherwise known as pandering to the critics) was half-baked and annoying.

Making the bad guys North Korean terrorists was a better choice than making them North Korean military forces as they were in “Red Dawn.” Terrorism is big in Korea as Debbie points out; the intelligentsia hates us in the South for not letting them be happy Communists.

Jason Statham doesn’t have much to worry about from either Gerard Butler or the old fogies from the eighties (Schwarzenegger, Willis, Stallone, all in recent films). He’s still the king of cool action.

Burke on March 23, 2013 at 9:05 am

Olympus has fallen…the plot is strangely like the book by Vince Flynn – Term Limits. Except the Muslim Terrorists were replaced by North Koreans.
Of course the book is a much better read than the movie, and the main character (Mitch Rapp) is more believable.

Thanks Debbie

Ed on March 23, 2013 at 9:57 am

    Ed you took the words right out of my mouth in regards to Olympus Has Fallen being like Vince Flynn’s Term Limits. Having read that book last year and seeing this movie yesterday I thought the same thing.

    Ken b on March 23, 2013 at 3:01 pm

” … a bonus: Ashley Judd dies in the first five minutes.”

(will read the balance of article after I blow my nose and get the splatter off my monitor from laughing so hard)

Thank you, Debbie

Jack on March 23, 2013 at 11:28 am

Deb–

Bravura review of Olympus. When I saw the pic, I didn’t know anything about what happens to Judd. So—wonderful that she dies off in the prologue!

I would have cheered, but since I went to a cozy little theater that was mostly empty at an early matinee, it would have been too obvious.

Red Ryder on March 23, 2013 at 11:34 am

Lol. This piece just sounds like it was written by a jealous tween girl full of rage and hate…. I was shocked at first then out right burst into laughter. Shame. Uh, how old are you by the way? Just asking.

Laugh. Out. Loud…… Jews. *laughing*

‘ a/k/a the ugly
one, who is clearly only in the
movie because she is married to
the scumbag director’

‘ Of one thing I am sure: every
single person involved with this
movie is a complete scumbag
unworthy of human life.’

‘The movie also co-stars the
loathsome Wallace Shawn, a self-
hating, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel
“Jew” In Name Only
. No thanks. ‘— That was probably your issue

Alayna on March 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm

Sorry it’s just that you sound like a big angry Jew woman with red hair like Kyles mom in South Park who is always ready to spoil everyone’s including her own kids fun it just cracks me up.

I wanted to say Admission was good for me, spring beakers I watched in Venice and it was kinda artsy you obviously wouldn’t understand most people would call it stupid. Korine is alright. Chill out man.

Alayna on March 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Any one who considers “Admission” “artsy” has a very limited intellect. Anyone who insults Debbie as a Jew is just (an) ODC (One Dumb cunt).

    Jonathan E. Grant on March 23, 2013 at 3:03 pm

      @JEG I said Spring breakers not Admission. You need to read, listen and understand before you answer thats probably why you guys dont get movies. Smh. A jew is a jew if you don’t like the stereotype then stop acting that way and I dont hate jews, Hitler did though, lol.

      And @Skunky… Please use grown up words next time, I might understand.

      Alayna on March 24, 2013 at 6:36 am

    Um, like OMG Alayna, you sound like a hair-twisting, Hubba-Bubba chomping dope who doesn’t have a whooooooole lot in your teeny, tiny brain but what is left there is consumed by irrational Jew-hatred. Sucks to be you. Too stoopid to know what a movie “CRITIC” is.

    I agree with JEG. You’re a contemptible “See U Next Tuesday”.

    I’d say you were a non-Moooooooslim from the types of films you like to perv on but in knowing how fraudulent Moooooslims are you can be just a huge Moooooslima hypocrite (redundancy).

    Like that Saudi beast “Um Magid” in Canada procuring disgusting pervo old Moooooslim men with young girls (as young as 12 for 70+ and above) for *short term* marriages.

    Skunky on March 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Is there something wrong with your keyboard? Why do you use so many o’s? A lot of critics are great at their work and still don’t have to resort to name calling like the ‘ugly one’ ‘not worthy of human life’…

      The only reason this woman is known is because she is a jew. Her writing is bullshit. Then again I have only read this piece.

      Alayna on March 24, 2013 at 6:44 am

        LOLOLOL! It’s just been proven that “Alayna” is a discontented Mooooooslim. (Is there any other kind?)

        That’s all we need to know. Who cares what a contemptible Moooooslim thinks anyway?

        The clues are there. I LOLed at the non-sequitur paroxysms of Jew hatred that spurted with no reason at all. “I ate a PB&J sandwich”….”Those evil Jews!!!!!”, “I didn’t like the movie”…”Because of the Jews!!!!”, “I walked on the sidewalk”…”Those effing Jews”!!!!!

        And “Alayna” is just another hypocrite Moooooooslim. Going to films not “Halal”. CHECK. Hating non-Mooooooslims. CHECK. Blaming the Joooooooos for everything. CHECK.

        Ah. pIslam. The most satanic and hypocritical death-cult stinkin’ up the planet. Taqiyya. Mut’a. Riba loans that are really not interest free. Covering up the women and yet behind the scenes being the BIGGEST pervs on the planet. Oh, and women selling their pre-pube daughters to horn-bag, old Mooooslim men (temporarily, so they can be passed around) for $$$$$.

        Who the hell cares what an insane Mooooslim like “Alayna” spews?

        Skunky on March 24, 2013 at 10:23 am

          Yeah. Should have guessed. You are definitely 50 shades of crazy! Same league as Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt…. I ate and defecated a large diamond for a year…. Uh huh. Sure.

          Alayna on March 24, 2013 at 2:06 pm

          LOL, I noticed you blamed the Jews again. You just can’t stop it but your punishment is being a sociopathic Mooooooooslim (redundant)!

          You have a horrible life also because you are neurotic and at the end of EVERY thought is a thought of Jew hatred. I’d say it is a life wasted but you’re Moooooslim. Enough said.

          Skunky on March 24, 2013 at 7:03 pm

        Poor Alayna doesn’t know how to spell her name. And she can’t write intelligibly.

        I guess English is not much emphasized in Dearbornistan schools or mosques.

        skzion on March 24, 2013 at 8:32 pm

As usual, I concur with your on-target and cerebral critiques of these films. One out of three is a better percentage than H’wood normally spews in any one week. Additionally, as a USAF veteran, I was heartened by your use of the correct “Jet Fighters” as opposed to the nonsensical “Fighter Jets” currently the norm used in the media.

Kent on March 23, 2013 at 12:52 pm

We boycott anything coming out of Hollywood these days. Just like HBO they want to brainwash, reeducate everyone with these movies. Make anyone patriotic, white, Christian or Jewish look like haters and the rest like angels. It is so so apparent. Why support them.

Fred on March 23, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Fred, I’m not calling myself full Christian. but I agree with you that I’m on the mission to boycott most film coming out
    of Hollywood. I’ve never been in cinema in past 10 yr.
    You probably don’t aware that Hollywood is very racist. I’m not a white race but I do aware Hollywood does not promoting racial equality. They want my race to be enslaved to White supremacy and
    created “social engineering” to promote racism and sexism.

    Jay mckim on March 25, 2013 at 5:59 pm

You are wrong about one thing Deb. It would be extremely easy for a plane to veer off course from the Potomac River approach to National Airport and fly into the White House. Alternatively, a plane taking off could also fly into the White House, Pentagon, Capitol, etc. By the time the F-16’s from Andrews in Prince Georges County, Md. scramble and are up in the air, the dirt deed has already been completed.

I will admit that when I am driving along the Potomac in Northern Virginia, I still look up nervously if a plane is flying a little low.

Security is still extremely poor, except when it comes to the TSA checking old white ladies and the diapers of infants.

Jonathan E. Grant on March 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Good article, and I probably would watch the movie if it didn’t have Morgan Freeman in it. Hardly anyone ever brings up the fact that, like many of his ilk he took great pride in having voted for BHO because he’s black. It’s just like saying he didn’t vote for Romney because he’s white. Freeman used to stay out of the political arena, but when he ventured in, that’s how he expressed himself. I’ll probably see it in pieces on cable. I guess N. Korean terrorists are PC safe to make a movie about. Watching Judd get gone will be a part my DVR viewing. Just like watching the movie “The Game” for Sean Penns part on top of the roof of the building toward the end. Saw it, thumbs up.;-)

samurai on March 23, 2013 at 4:29 pm

From Random Harvest to Spring Breakers.

Little Al on March 23, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Spring?

Here in Colorado it snowed!

Spring time snowstorms aren’t a rarity in this part of the country!

Heh

NormanF on March 23, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Instead of Rachel Korine the ugly chick maybe in Spring Breakers 2 they’ll use Rachel Corrie the anti-Israel dead chick to whom every Arab has a street, a boat, a plane named after. I am sure the Saudi’s would bankroll 100 versions of this film marketed to American fetuses and work out a NG 17 rating “No grownups over 17 allowed”

Fred on March 24, 2013 at 12:30 am

Fred,

The Muslim World is full of hypocrites and perverts. They’d still hate us if we were all saints. There may be hedonism and vice in Western society but that’s not all there is to it.

There is genuine spirituality, concern for others and moral growth that doesn’t exist in other places around the world. Jews and Christians treat each other like the Children Of G-d. The West, however imperfectly, is trying to get to a better place.

Hollywood wants to bankrupt us and push us in the wrong direction. In a free society, our moral awareness allows to say “no” to harmful stuff and live the good life. The Muslim World needs to use force because that’s the only way it knows how to keep unruly people in line. With all of of our shortcomings, I prefer our spirituality to theirs any day.

The Muslim World has lots of Hollywood recruitment material for Islamic terrorists available but what it can never match is our capacity for self-renewal, compassion and true courage of the spirit. Its easy to blow oneself up for the sake of Allah; its a lot harder to live life in the world and change it in the path of “imitatio Dei” for the sake of all who live in it.

NormanF on March 24, 2013 at 1:22 am

    if you are serious about the issue, you have to watch out Hollywood. I agree that Hollywood is pushing American to morally bankrupted society. They push Americans wrong direction to drug, sex, nihilism so at the end makes Americans unable to focus by losing the grip. So those guy tied to oligarchy and elites have continue to push their way. I’m surprise that no Christians speak out against Hollywood’s promoting drug, sex and nihilism.
    I’ve not seen any Christian speaking out against the danger of
    Hollywood anti-moral message. Some Christian go wrong way to say that Hollywood is friendly to Christian. Today some Christians would promote “Olympus has Fallen” as god blessing
    film just because the film is came out of Hollywood. That’s bad for Christian and the rest of the society.

    Jay mckim on March 25, 2013 at 5:53 pm

One of the problems with Olympus is that you actually have to care if someone attacked Washington. Many might actually join the enemy. If we have people in government that are doing their best to destroy us, then how can you have feeling if bad things are happening to them, regardless of their titles?

david7134 on March 24, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    Who can truly have a capacity to attack D.C.? You American-born citizen or North Korean? I say it’s you. You and rest of American citizen must arm to protect yourself from the gov’t
    enemy taking away your right. Your right can be taken away by
    your gov’t not North Koreans. NK is just a little chicken.
    Forget NK. Watch your gov’t trying to take away your riht.

    Jay mckim on March 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Why does every lousy movie with no ideas try to tell you – this is the American dream?

Frankz on March 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Sandra Bullock’s baby was born in New Orleans, not Africa.

Jake on March 25, 2013 at 12:02 am

    Are you sure, or was he merely adopted there?

    Andrew on March 25, 2013 at 1:22 am

Lately I’m in the routine of going to two films per week at the theater. My first choice was easy: “Olympus Has Fallen.” Of course. It’s the only action film, and Debbie liked it. The second choice, though, would be harder. How about “The Croods”? This cartoon is apparently about a stupid, uptight Dad who needs to learn to loosen up for his spirited daughter’s sake. I realized I’d seen this plot many times already. It may be the only cartoon plot that’s ever used. No thanks.

Then there was “Admissions,” with Paul Rudd, but I wasn’t enthusiastic about this one either. I could tell from Debbie’s review that this would be a disingenuous satire of extreme feminism while meanwhile embracing mainstream liberalism, as if to say, “See, liberalism is middle of the road and normal.” This was the basic concept behind an earlier Paul Rudd romcom “Wanderlust” where silly hippies were lightly teased while mainstream liberalism was complacently endorsed. No thanks.

The third possibility was “Spring Breakers” which Debbie blasted, writing “anyone involved with this movie is unworthy of life.” Nervously, that’s the one I chose. After seeing the film, my take is that the film is a combination of three elements. First of all, on the surface, it’s an exploitation flick. Think Russ Meyers or “Girls Gone Wild.” There is lots of nudity, drugs, lesbian sex, dancing in bikinis and day-glow colors. Second of all (related to the first), the film is an amoral, nihilistic fantasy for teens. This makes it similar to “Youth in Revolt” which was also a wildly and improbably surreal teen power fantasy. The third element of the film is its social commentary. Underneath the surface, it savagely skewers the teens in the film—-their narcissism, cruelty, and shallowness. Although distasteful to watch and not without its problems, I think I personally got more out of this film than I would have the other two.

Do I think the film should have been marketed to 12-year-olds reading “Seventeen” magazine? No, that’s scummy, and I also agree with Debbie that this film will probably do far more harm to our children, culture and values than any possible good. Teens in particular won’t understand it, and they’ll view the characters in the film as role models rather than warnings or satirical targets.

Burke on March 25, 2013 at 8:36 am

I think someone severely misinterpreted “Spring Breakers.”

The lack of comprehension that the titular characters are not, in fact, existing as a statement about the narcissism of today’s youth is appalling. Not only does the reviewer shrewdly dismiss any of the obvious subtext as an attempt to glamorize their actions, she also benignly fails to realize the subversion present in the “pornographic” and “violent” images is far more recognizable to today’s youth than other forms of imagery.

This isn’t a film for kids, no… but this is a parable ABOUT kids that when dissected and disseminated could actually show a lot of people what is actually wrong with what is being fed to children through pop culture.

Ben on March 25, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    Ben, before you go lecturing Debbie as you did for her interpretation of the film, I think you should consider a few points.

    On the surface, the first level, this film is an uncompromising X-rated or at least R-rated exploitation film, full of nudity, sex, drugs, language, and very bad morals. Yet the main characters are young girls, and the inclusion of Britney Spears in the film also seems targeted to impressionable tweens. Add to that the way the producers cynically targeted this picture to kids in publications like “Seventeen” and I think you can agree at the least that this film is controversial. Korine also earlier wrote “Kids” and that film was scathingly denounced by many as porn for lewd men who like watching nude children. So Debbie’s anger at this film isn’t so crazy as you’re describing it.

    The second level of the film is the plot itself: a strangely permissive power fantasy for teens. Where are the morals in creating young girls getting high on committing violent acts and not being punished in the end? This looks very much like bad morals in filmmaking. I think if Korine had chosen to make this a cautionary tale, and somehow the girls had been punished in some way for their delinquency at the end of the story, it would be easier for the general viewer to excuse the film.

    Only on the third level was there irony in the voice-overs and flashbacks so that some viewers might realize that the film was intended ultimately as social criticism. Since the film was marketed specifically to young teens, you have to wonder whether that irony is enough to save the film from the charges Debbie made. You also have to wonder whether Korine wanted to have his cake and eat it too, whether the movie was intended to get a pass from critics while at the same time be watched by impressionable teens who would be adversely affected.

    Burke on March 26, 2013 at 8:17 am

Burke,

I understand the qualms with the marketing, but if that should be damning to anyone it should be the distributor and studio, who are attempting to “sell” the film and fill seats. I thought they at least did a respectable job with the trailer, which I feel adequately translated the perverse nature of the content. If they went as far as to glamorize it in Seventeen, then I will wholeheartedly agree with you that impressionable youth could certainly get the wrong impression.

But criticism of Korine, and the film itself, is a completely different matter. I feel as if the appearance of nudity, violence, and drugs in the context of this film are labeled pornographic and dangerous… meanwhile a completely vapid and pointless film like “Olympus”, which has a violent on-screen death count that is over ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY, doesn’t even cause the reviewer to blink. Why? Because Spring Breakers is subversive and deals with young adults. It’s a dismissal of whether or not the film is actually good, which in this example I believe could be argued. She would say it’s a film with young women being exploited. In fact, I believe it’s an exploration of WHY they are already being exploited in today’s popular culture.

You also brought up Korine’s “Kids”, another subversive but deeply affecting film that many critics dismissed from some puritanical sensibility. I’m sure that if the reviewer watched other challenging films in this vein, such as “Fish Tank”, she would ultimately dismiss those as well as trash.

My issue isn’t with disliking the film… I know many that didn’t care for it. My only problem is the unwillingness to open up and explore what the film was trying to say. Spring Breakers made the reviewer feel sick; what she didn’t realize is that may have been the intended effect.

Ben on March 26, 2013 at 9:58 am

Ben, I have to say that you make many excellent points. Thanks for making them patiently, logically and eloquently. I hope you return often to this site and share your insights and analyses. I for one will be very interested in what you have to say.

I write this even though I am a loyal fan of Debbie and what she does. There is no reviewer who, in my mind, taken as a whole, understands the political and social implications of half-buried subtext in films and the way all of this affects our culture.

There’s room, though, for a variety of opinions and perspectives, and yours are definitely ones that I would like included.

Burke on March 26, 2013 at 11:24 am

Debrah,

I appreciate that you took the time to write out such a lengthy and inspired blog. You contributed a lot of passion that comes only from the soul, and I feel you. You’re also hot to trot, and I wouldn’t mind gettin’ your digits.

420Chronic on April 11, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field