May 10, 2013, - 6:18 pm

Wknd Box Office: The Great Gatsby, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Peeples, Upstream Color

By Debbie Schlussel

Nothing new that’s notable or good at theaters, this weekend.



* “The Great Gatsby“: Should have been called, “The Great Glitz-by,” or “The Jay-Z-izing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.” ‘Cuz that’s all it was, a bright, loud, horribly miscast, rushed-and-yet-long 2.5 hours pretending to be “The Great Gatsby,” the Fitzgerald novel about a mysterious millionaire trying to woo his married long lost love. And it was ridiculously drenched in cacophonous Jay-Z-infested synthesizer noise.

While the movie is better than I expected, that’s only because I set my expectations extremely low. It is pretty true to the book, even though reports said it was based on the darker first draft, “Trimalchio,” which Fitzgerald lightened at the request of his publisher. Still, the movie is filled with Jay-Z music, hip-hop, and rap. And the few musical notes that actually come from the era of the 1920s were pumped up on steroids, sped up and chock full of loud hip-hop beats. And the movie was way too bright, flashy, and glitzy from start to finish. It wasn’t eye candy. It was garish, distracting, and annoying. Oh, and I saw it in 3D. Why on earth does a novel about the wealthy old- and new-moneyed on East and West Egg (the fictionalized Long Island) in the 1920s need to be in 3D? I still don’t know.

I just didn’t see Leonardo DiCaprio as the mysterious stalker Jay Gatsby or Carey Mulligan (whose acting “talent” seems limited to pouts and tears) as Daisy Buchanan, the selfish, torn debutante who was his love five years earlier. Joel Edgerton as wealthy polo player Tom Buchanan was a better pick, but even he was far too cartoonish to be the guy I pictured as I read the book. The only one that I think fit the bill was Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway (Daisy’s distant cousin and Gatsby’s neighbor), but even he looks too young. Like DiCaprio, he is too boyish-looking and looks like he had his Bar Mitzvah yesterday.

The movie went way too fast at times and then way too slow. It was kind of exhausting, though the two-and-a-half hours dizzyed past me. Also an annoyance was the constant use of handwritten words on the screen as Nick Carraway uttered them. Why did we need that? The screen wasn’t busy enough? This movie is very high on style–in fact, it’s overloaded with it (the costumes and sets are fabulous but excessive)–but has little substance.

The best way to see “The Great Gatsby” is in your own mind as you are picturing the book while you read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words. This movie proves yet again that attempts to best that by putting it on-screen generally fail.

I didn’t completely hate it, and it was mildly entertaining, so I give it . . .


Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Reluctant Fundamentalist“: More like, “The Liberal, Muslim Fantasy of Why Muslims Are Right to Hate America.” I hate, hate, hated this movie. It’s typical anti-American crap based on the novel of the same name written by Muslim author Mohsin Hamid. Like the book, this is pan-Muslim propaganda. There is nothing “reluctant” about this movie, including and especially the anti-American orgy that populates it. I’ve seen other critics upset that this movie “doesn’t explain” the “subtle reasons” why the Muslim main character smiles and rejoices at the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. . . as if there is a justifiable reason for that, “subtle” or otherwise.

The main character in this movie, Changez Khan (Riz Ahmed), has been given everything by America–an athletic scholarship to Princeton, a prized, high-paid position at a high-powered consulting firm in New York, and the personal tutelage of one of its principals (Kiefer Sutherland), who takes Khan under his wing and gives him a plum promotion. And, yet, he smiles at the attacks on the World Trade Center, a move that this horrible (and horribly slow and boring) flick’s point of view believes is justified.

Khan is shown unfairly harassed by police and strip-searched at the airport because he is Muslim and has been profiled. But, while we should have done that to Muslim aliens here (in Khan’s case, he is here for no legit reason–we have plenty of Americans suited for consulting jobs and on unemployment), that is exactly the opposite of what politically correct America did. We didn’t and still don’t profile Muslims.

Khan’s rich American photographer girlfriend (the always annoying Kate Hudson, who, herself, said she hates Americans) also ridicules him in her art exhibit which features his photo, recordings of him, and phrases in Arabic. Yeah, right. Like liberal American rich girl artists ridicule Muslims. Just the opposite, sadly. They readily lie down and spread eagle (and she did some of that, too, in this film). But in this movie, the Muslim main character is endlessly the victim of countless horrible acts by the evil Americans.

And after this, Khan is ordered by his “evil” Western boss (the one who hired him instead of Americans and promoted him ahead of Americans) to fire a Muslim publishing house exec. He refuses, quits his job, and moves back to Pakistan, where he leads student radicals and is suspected of helping kidnap an American professor.

Most of the movie consists of Khan telling an American journalist/CIA agent (Liev Schreiber) his story, while the agent wants to know where the professor is so he can be rescued. Schreiber accuses him of being part of the kidnapping. Of course, predictably, Khan is innocent, wrongfully accused. And, yet again, we Americans are the bad guys.

High quality Bin Laden cinema brought to you by Indian director Mira Nair, whose hubby is Muslim. Ms. Nair has made millions showing her films in America, and this is how she slaps us in the face in response. One other thing: the movie is financed and produced by the Doha Film Institute, funded and run by the same Qatar government that funds and runs Al-Jazeera, the Terrorist News Network. This is typical of the kind of propagandistic crap they put out.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “Peeples“: Prime Gitmo torture material. Absolutely awful. Extremely painful to sit through. Anything with two words attached to it–Tyler Perry–is absolute crap. And this is no exception. It’s “Exhibit A” of the rule. And it’s an example of the real racism that permeates Hollywood: that Hollywood execs believe Black America apparently isn’t worthy of anything better than this Black version of “Three’s Company” misunderstandings as plot points and groanworthy, unfunny jokes. And apparently Black America is self-hating and racist against itself, too, because the screening I attended for this horrid cinematic display was chock full of Black moviegoers who seemed to love this tripe.

Kerry Washington plays the girlfriend of a man (Wade Walker), who is not up to the standards of her wealthy, snooty family. He crashes her family weekend at a Hamptons beach house and learns the family is unaware he exists. But now that they know, they mostly don’t like him, as made known to him by his girlfriend’s judge father (David Alan Grier). Soon, the boyfriend begins to learn that most of the family is weird, living a lie, and really not better than he is. But to get there, the audience has to endure cheesy, unfunny jokes, bad dialogue, and other silliness.

A complete waste of time and ten dollars. Skip this.


Watch the trailer . . .

* “Upstream Color“: WTF? I’m not sure what this was about. I spent ten dollars and over 1.5 hours to see this artsy-fartsy movie that has no story. Instead I sat there and watched scenes of a guy in a pig farm interspersed with scenes of a woman hypnotized to give her life savings to some guy and a woman (may be the same woman–don’t know, don’t care) and a man who are dating and then hiding from some invisible thing while sleeping in their bathtub. Oh, and the guy with the pig farm also records noises of rocks, insects, and streams. This is one of those horribly boring, David-Lynch-style, pretentious nonsense movies. When I asked others who saw it if they understood what was going on, they responded that it’s “art” and that “you’re not supposed to understand what’s going on. It’s designed to evoke emotion.” (How much you wanna bet these phonies and idiots, who pay ten dollars to see a nonsensical movie “to evoke emotion,” voted for Obama?)

Well, it evoked emotion all right: anger and frustration that I wasted money and time I’ll never get back. Thanks for nothing.


Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

84 Responses

Debbie, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” is actually one of those movies you should have encouraged people to go see.

We’re constantly told Muslims here are moderate, tolerant and loyal. The movie shows us that in reality they are all extreme, hateful and somewhere in the future, they’ll be Islamic terrorists.

Interesting how a Muslim filmmaker sees them. Wanna bet that ANY American filmmaker is going to make a film even mildly critical of Islam? We’ll be counting crickets before that happens.

While I agree with you its high quality Bin Laden cinema, it also shows us that allegedly poor, persecuted Muslims who come to America don’t come to love it. If only we would take the hint and do something about it.

And by the time you finish watching it, what’s clear is that, the Religion Of Peace, it ain’t.

NF: Huh? Did you read my review? It’s not something people should see. It’s anti-American propaganda, very sympathetic to Muslims, and does not show what you claim. DS

NormanF on May 10, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    I read your review!

    You did point out the main character is sympathetic to the 9/11 Islamic terrorists and this what he believes – and how many Hollywood movies do we have in which Muslims are actually shown to support Islamic terrorism, which of course they do? He is depicted as believing we deserve to be killed and that is an honest reaction coming from them.

    And there is the part where he is involved in kidnapping an American in his native Pakistan where he probably already is an Islamic terrorist.

    You’re right, the rest of the movie is taqiyya BS. But when we look at those two things you described, it puts paid to the notion that being here will make them understand us. If it doesn’t show what I claim, then why is the lead character portrayed as “understanding” of Islamic terrorists’ deeds? That’s your description of the central character.

    And while it shows them being persecuted and profiled, in reality here in this coutry, those things never do happen. The film does show one thing: in the Muslim worldview, right and wrong is inverted where they are the victims and we are the bad guys. This is the way they think and we do have a right to defend ourselves from them.

    That said, I do wish a really accurate movie was made about Islam and its savage track record instead of the usual Hollywood whitewash of it.

    NormanF on May 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm

The reluctant fundamentalist LOL
You can’t make this sh*t up. I can’t wait to read this review when I’m sober.

Frankz on May 10, 2013 at 6:56 pm

What’s the sequel?
The reluctant honor killing

Frankz on May 10, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Like Muslims need to be dragged, kicking and screaming into jihad. On reflection, the title of the movie is a lie! They readily perpetrate terrorism when they think they can strike fear into the infidel hearts. This is not something they do b/c the West allegedly oppresses them or some other halal BS invoked to justify their evil. They do it b/c they have the freedom to kill those they hate.

NormanF on May 10, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Jeez. What a heap of annoying films. Don’t know how you got thru’ it. I’d be contemplating becoming an axe murderer if I had to see ANY of these stupid films.

On my planet we are annoyed by that plain egg Carey Mulligan. None of us find her pretty or exciting and we don’t have to lie about it (like dopes have to on Earth about Chloe Sevigny & Michelle Antoinette Obama-Putin). We have pink (or skunk streaked!) hair and don’t like to lie like those Pretentious Art Fags (not in the gay sense…”PAF”s) did about that crappy art-house mess of a film.

The Jihadi movie just proves how far behind Yanks are in seeing Islam and Mooooslims truthfully. Just contemplating it makes me sick. Hope you don’t have to see “My Brother The Devil”. If I couldn’t bare to watch it why should I expect our valued movie critic to?

Skunky on May 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    What up wit you always talkin’ ’bout duh Muzlims? Is it some form of self-imposed masturbation?

    AR on May 10, 2013 at 9:56 pm


    AR on May 10, 2013 at 9:57 pm


    Thanks. Carey M. is–as they say–plain as plum pudding, and would not seem to be proper casting for a woman who could inspire such love/admiration from most of those around her.

    Saying that, I have always been intrigued by the idea that Daisy was based on Zelda Fitzgerald. Zelda was the quintessential Southern belle, but then again, Scott cheated on her, just like Tom Buchanan in the novel.

    Prometheus on May 13, 2013 at 9:11 am

Like Debbie, I had low expectations of “The Great Gatsby.” I’m no fan of DiCaprio nor of director Baz Luhrmann (whose pictures like “Moulin Rouge” always struck me as inhumanly cold and shallow—surface glitz in place of substance). Also, I’ve always despised Fitzgerald and the Lost Generation of the thirties in general to which he belonged, a bunch of spoiled brats and elitist America-bashers, gushily embraced by schoolteachers and college instructors who just instinctively “know” there’s something terribly sick about business and free enterprise and that our country’s true greatness lies in our nurturing qualities, not our freedom. Wiki names only one theme in the novel: “The downturn of the American Dream.” Of course, that would be it, since that’s the heart of American dynamism so anyone who criticizes it in a literary way is part saint, part sage.
I’d already seen and mildly liked the earlier Robert Redford version of “The Great Gatsby” and saw no reason for another remake except to drill more propaganda into a new generation about how we’re all messed up in this country and would be better off if we just all realized once and for all how stupid we are, and how we’d be a lot better off if we replaced the messiness and passion of our dreams with one big, logical and all-encompassing governmental behemoth.
However, I saw the film and liked it (a lot), even the music which included lots of jazz and pop tunes from the twenties, mixing these with a variety of other types of other music such as contemporary hip-hop and synthesizer. Why were the journal words occasionally shown on the movie screen? Debbie complains this made the screen overly busy; I appreciated the words though because they reminded viewers that the original story by Fitzgerald was supposedly all part of Nick’s journal; and besides, these words on the screen were snippets from Fitzgerald’s actual writing and gave a sense of the author’s carefully crafted, gracious style.
Underneath the densely stylized distractions of a busy screen and sound track was a tender love story as well. I walked away from the film with a grudging respect both Luhrmann, and for Fitzgerald, even though I’ll never consider this work to be the “great American novel” as it’s sometimes been called.

Burke on May 10, 2013 at 7:55 pm

If you attempt to film a period piece, it really should contain to the extent possible music from the period. Otherwise, you might as well have “Keyboard Cat” play the various scores.

Worry01 on May 10, 2013 at 8:13 pm

“I’ve seen other critics upset that this movie “doesn’t explain” the “subtle reasons” why the Muslim main character smiles and rejoices at the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. . . as if there is a justifiable reason for that, “subtle” or otherwise.”

I wouldn’t need an explanation of this at all. From all I have learned about the scourge of Satanic Islam (and Mooooslims) this is EXACTLY what I would expect from one.

If one knows Islam, they would need NO explanation. It’s already baked in the cake.

I expect this from ANY Mooooslim I meet. Whether they seem friendly and Americanized or not. That’s what is frightening.

Skunky on May 10, 2013 at 8:14 pm


    Evil needs no justification! As I tried to explain to Debbie, in a way the movie is a window into the Muslim mind.

    Once you get past their self-serving crap, its clear they don’t think like us and don’t consider us human at all.

    NormanF on May 10, 2013 at 9:33 pm

How you continue to sit through these mindless films is beyond me. I know the artist will sometimes cut off the nose to spite the face just to prove their commitment, but you might want to think about some kind of detox or counseling after ingesting so much visual and psychological torture.

You probably deserve an award. Maybe a medal of valor. At the very least a round of applause and a hug.

Celestial Time on May 10, 2013 at 8:35 pm

I was thinking about making a “period” film. Its very difficult to get it right. Many have tried and few have succeeded.

I agree with Debbie “The Great Gatsby” is essentially unfilmable. Some novels don’t lend themselves well to cinematic adaptation.

People are better off picturing it in their minds than following the story on the big screen.

NormanF on May 10, 2013 at 9:40 pm

Peoples will be big with the Free Mumia crowd, peoples in South Central, Chicago, Bayview-Hunters Point and Oakland. BTW, Oakland was voted number one on one of the most interesting places to visit because of its eclectic art, multiculturalism and the so hipster (communist) hootnannies.

AR on May 10, 2013 at 9:52 pm

Just a bit off the subject, but has anyone every seen that dude that was on Howard Stern that had nuts that weighed 100 lbs.? It sounds impossible but just Google it and you can see on Youtube the video yourself.

AR on May 10, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    AR, what the eff are you blathering about?

    skzion on May 11, 2013 at 1:57 am

      Skzion, he’s just the latest crass, dopey troll to whack off to his own boring posts.

      I’m ignoring him just like I do a few other bores here. I don’t care what he boringly posts about me.

      Skunky on May 11, 2013 at 2:59 am

      I was just puttin’ my two cents in about the review of the movies wen suddenly I am attacked and insulted by somebody that has a foul smellin’ vag.

      AR on May 11, 2013 at 9:51 am

        Actually, AR, I posted when you somehow got to be talking about 100 lb balls.

        Oh. And you started out with an attack on Skunky, who was totally ignoring you. So you can’t blame her.

        skzion on May 11, 2013 at 8:51 pm

        Ar is just another of the types that are the prototype of who Dennis Leary was singing about in the special song he wrote. The song is called, “The A–hole Song”. I imagine they come by their online idiotic personality by having been endowed with less than average equipment so they have a LOT of extra time normally spent on dating, working out, or reading something having to do with something with some testosterone. Maybe working on a car or home improvements. What a miserable life they have. Good.

        samurai on May 16, 2013 at 10:31 pm

Based on Debbie’s recent reviews: what’s on YouTube?

The Reverend Jacques on May 11, 2013 at 1:53 am

Debbie I agree with you that after seeeing the trailers and commercials for the Great Gatsby, I thought I was watching some PDiddy latest music hip hop video. The idea to “remake” a movie is another code word, of I can not come up ideas so.let me remake this movie. When you wrote that there is some latest hip hop being played in this representation of the 1920’s, I was like what the f$k!? Not a fan of Robert Redford but at least the film he was in tried to come close tGreatGatsby novel than the dreck you just reviewed.

Now on the movie, The Reluctant Fundamentalist clearly shows how Hollywood is kisainguslim ass by always showing as the reluctant hero at best and innocent victim at worst. Since Showtimes Sleeper Cell I.have not seen a Muslim d0o barbaric acts. It’s always the west as the villain or the sympathetic dupe in these kinds of movies.

Mario on May 11, 2013 at 4:31 am

I actually liked some of Luhrmann’s efforts, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and ‘Moulin Rouge’. So will see this one for myself, but I don’t really have high expectations at all. Luhrmann is perhaps too one note.

Re ‘The reluctant fundamentalist’, I wonder if an honest film about Islam will ever be made? Well not in our lifetimes that’s for sure, not unless there has been nothing less than a revolution in our culture and political life. In other words, not in our lifetimes. I get what Norman F is saying, that the intention of the filmmakers may backfire, but I don’t know. I agree with Debbie, it sounds like, it can only be a film that furthers Western dhimmitude, because of its fundamental dishonesty. You don’t get to the truth via a road of lies.

Larry in Tel Aviv on May 11, 2013 at 5:13 am

    Muslims NEVER apologize. They expect us to apologize for righting their wrongs against us. That’s called enabling their bad behavior, which is why we have so much of it. Islamic terrorism is real and we’re in denial about it. And you can’t fix the problem until you acknowledge it.

    NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 8:44 am

DS: Thanks. You have saved me hundreds of dollars over the last several years with your movie reviews. As someone mentioned above you desire an award for your guts in sitting through most of the movies you review.


RA2216 on May 11, 2013 at 6:39 am

There is only one way to sustain multiculturalism, and that’s to blame America or the West or Israel for the fact that vast majority of Muslims living here want to destroy the host society. Unfortunately, Americans weaned on the likes of Howard Zinn fall too easily for the canard. Anyone clear-eyed enough to see what’s actually going on is branded a racist an “Islamophobe” (a fictitious psychological disorder).

I have no doubt “The Reluctant Terrorist” will be greeted most sympathetically by the “intellectual” classes, on the left and right.

Adam on May 11, 2013 at 10:00 am

Er, Relucant Fundamentalist. Same thing.

Adam on May 11, 2013 at 10:01 am

    maybe you meant:
    ‘the Redundant Terrorist’?…
    …same ole’ crap over and over again…

    theShadow on May 11, 2013 at 11:21 pm

One last thing: The Reluctant Fundamentalist was financed by the Doha Film Institute. ‘Nuff Said.

Adam on May 11, 2013 at 10:04 am

I knew you were gonna hate the Reluctant fundamentalist..

You’re just a typical jew that hates all Muslims and hates all things Muslim.

When the character Changez Khan smiled at the collapse of the twin towers, it wasn’t because he was happy about people dying but because he was happy that a symbol of American Corporation-ism had collapsed, now not all Muslims agree with that, I personally support free market economics.

@NormanF: Not all Muslims support terrorism, only a minority do ,but you hate Muslims cause you’re a jew, so you will talk crap about Muslims for no reason.

Ironically you’re also a Nazi cause I’ve seen your comments on

“Muslims never apologize”, not true, many Muslims have spoken against terrorism many times, but why are we always asked to condemn terrorism done by Muslims, but Christians are never asked to do the same.

I never heard Christians speak out against the Norway massacre, Atlanta games bombing or OKC, in fact people like Debbie supported the Norway massacre, she was happy when over 70 kids were brutally killed, heck this blogs seems to be inspired by the manifesto of Brievik.

You people hate Muslims and always will.

I believe your hate is driven by your Jewish faith:

“Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:3

JC on May 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    Let’s address your points:


    As Debbie correctly pointed out, its pan Muslim propaganda. As Adam posted, it was financed by the Doha Institute. It whitewashes Islam and that’s why Debbie gave it low ratings as a movie critic.


    Islam is an ideology, not a race! There is nothing racist or discriminatory in opposing an ideology that calls for the subjugation/extermination of non-Muslims (especially the Jews) and which actively perpetrates terrorism around the world. And for its worth, Islam both hates the Jews and encourages its adherents to kill them. From Muslims, has gotten death threats on her life and her family. As a Jew, she is supposed to pretend all of the above doesn’t exist?


    That is NOT a normal human reaction! No American I know considers the slaughter of innocent people to be justified. Muslims do – and I don’t know why you bring in an interpretation that’s not shown in the movie.


    The truth is the vast majority of Muslims endorse Islamic terrorism and jihad is an obligatory injunction in Islam.




    Muslims never condemn Islamic terrorism out of moral conviction. At best they will it excuse it as being at the wrong time or it put Islam in a bad light but they will NEVER say, its wrong out of principle. Muslims will never apologize for killing us. Have you heard such an apology from Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s widow forthcoming for her husband Islamic terrorist activities? I rest my case.


    Christians don’t perpetrate terrorism for ideological reasons. There is no Christian terrorism and for the record, Debbie only wrote the anti-Israel Scandinavians were the victins of their own Islamo-pandering policies.


    I do hate people whose ideology drives them to murder us.


    The Prophet Samuel’s rebuke to King Saul was basically, G-d wants you to wipe out an enemy of the Jewish people and not shown them mercy because they will show you no mercy. In a way, the Muslims have the same attitude towards the Jews as the ancient Amalekites did. For that reason, I don’t really object to your quote of the aforementioned biblical passage. People who want to wipe out the Jewish people don’t deserve the milk of human kindness extended to them.

    NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Just Cancerous, you use the term “Nazi” disparagingly, but we all know that you looove Hitler. Given that your ideology (Islam is not a religion) wants the annihilation of Jews, what could possibly be wrong with a Jew wanting the annihilation of Mooooslims? And anyway, how could someone with a real religion think of your fake one except with scorn?

    Your appearance here began with the lie of your nick, implying that you were Christian. Ahmed, you’re such a joker! Then you tried indignant moderation, but soon enough started throwing around “kike.” So like a Muslim–with White Supremacist buddies. Then you claim Norman was on a White Supremacist site! Obviously you are a regular there. Throughout you whine and fume that we don’t much like your type. Astounding.

    Ahmed, I don’t like Muslims. I think Islam should be wiped from the earth. I think killing Muslims is a great idea. Indeed, insofar as Moooslims are Amalekites, killing them is a duty. Thanks for providing another example of what a typical “educated” Moooslim is all about.

    I always smile when Muslims die, the more the merrier. I don’t feel the same way about any other type of non-Jew. I learned the great merit of hating Muslims from Muslims … Muslims just like you.

    Now to piss on your laughable koran.

    skzion on May 12, 2013 at 2:42 am

@JC – Just Crap

When I smile at Israeli air strikes in Gaza I’m not smiling at the poor Muslim collateral damage but rather the destruction of Islamic hypocrisy and fascism around the world.
When I say I love Palestine like Changez Khan loves America you know what I’m talking about don’t you JC.

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.”

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm

And don’t bother with the biblical death and destruction quotes because the ‘Quran’ is always victorious in that struggle.

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 12:52 pm


The Atlanta bombings were committed by an atheist who despises Christianity. The same was true of the Oklahoma City bomber: he had repudiated Catholicism in favor of rationalism. The Norway massacre was committed by someone who claimed to appreciate Catholicism but acknowledged that he had no real knowledge of or use for actual Catholic teachings, and his only interest in Catholicism was his associating it with the traditional white European culture that he committed his terrorist act trying to defend. Try again. Or better yet don’t.

Gerald on May 11, 2013 at 12:57 pm


    Great minds do think alike!

    In those cases, Christianity was never given as a reason to bomb and kill people. Muslims on the other hand, routinely invoke the Koran as a reason to commit mass murder.

    Pan-Muslim apologists like JC are quick to the turn the tables around but never bother to acknowledge what is actually done in the name of Islam.

    NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Also Gerald, Timothy McVeigh acted pretty much alone without the support of a vast international terrorist network behind him.

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Actually McVeigh had a Muslim co-conspirator that Debbie wrote about in previous posts, so another strike against ‘JC’. The mainstream ignored it cause they wanted to push their phony right-wing-terrorist agenda in our faces, when McVeigh was left wing all the way.

    theShadow on May 11, 2013 at 10:18 pm

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

It just goes on and on and on and on….
This is the religion of Jihad.

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Non Islamic terrorists don’t have the support of an entire society behind them. They are pretty much marginal cranks and psycho nutcases.

Islamic terrorists on the other hand can draw on widespread popular and cultural support and they have an extensive organized infrastructure to help commit terrorism against Israel and the West.

NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 1:12 pm

The atlanta Bombings were committed by a Catholic man named Eric Randolph, he also blew up 2 abortion clinics and a lesbian nightclub, these acts were motivated by his Christian faith.

Timothy McVeigh was a christian, and Anders Briviek claimed to be a ‘Knights templar’/Modern day crusader aka Christian Jihadist.

@NormanF I’ll address YOUR points.

1. So what if the Doha Film institute financed the movie, there are many Production houses in America owned by Jews, infact most of the media is owned by the jews.

2.Islam may not be a race, but the term ‘Muslim’ has been racialized, everytime you think of a Muslim, you think of a Brown skinned dude with a turban and a beard and that’s why Michael Wade killed Sikhs in wisconsin in is so called ‘racial holy war cause he thought they were Muslims.

You shouldn’t talk about race, I’ve seen your comments on white suupremacists sites like

3.Yes it is not a normal behaviour, I know Muslims that cried when 9/11 happened, and many did donate stuff to the victims of 9/11, Changez Khans reaction doesn’t speak for all Muslims.

That interpretation was told by Riz Ahmed the man that played Changez Khan, he said it in an interview.

4.Many Muslims do condemn terrorism out of moral conviction, why would you expect Tsarnaev’s wife to condemn her husband, most people would never condemn their family member no matter how much evidence there may be.George Zimmermans family never condemned him.

5.Christians do perpetrate terrorism for ideological reasons like i had mention above about Eric Randolph,KKK, Michael Wade(Sikh killer).

6.You don’t need a point to hate Muslims, your Jewish faith has taught you to hate all us Gentiles, how about you move back to Israel and take your halakha law with you.

JC on May 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    @NormanF I’ll address YOUR points.

    JC, now its my turns to address your response to my points:

    1. So what if the Doha Film institute financed the movie, there are many Production houses in America owned by Jews, in fact most of the media is owned by the jews.

    That’s an anti-Semitic trope! The Jews do NOT have the kind of control in this country you impute to them.

    2.Islam may not be a race, but the term ‘Muslim’ has been racialized, every time you think of a Muslim, you think of a Brown skinned dude with a turban and a beard and that’s why Michael Wade killed Sikhs in wisconsin in is so called ‘racial holy war cause he thought they were Muslims.

    You shouldn’t talk about race, I’ve seen your comments on white suupremacists sites like

    I never once mentioned race in my initial response to you! Islam is an ideology. Its not racism to oppose Islam and for the record I have never been a Nazi, let alone a white supremacist. Maybe someone on those sites happens to have the same screen name as me but we’re not related.

    3.Yes it is not a normal behaviour, I know Muslims that cried when 9/11 happened, and many did donate stuff to the victims of 9/11, Changez Khans reaction doesn’t speak for all Muslims.

    That interpretation was told by Riz Ahmed the man that played Changez Khan, he said it in an interview.

    Its a movie! I told Debbie this is exactly why Muslims are not like us. And you defend them!

    4.Many Muslims do condemn terrorism out of moral conviction, why would you expect Tsarnaev’s wife to condemn her husband, most people would never condemn their family member no matter how much evidence there may be.George Zimmerman’s family never condemned him.

    Name me ONE Muslim that has condemned Islamic terrorism out anything other of other than taqiyya self-protection. You can’t! And how “many” actually do condemn it out of moral principle? Given that you’re an anti-Semite, you’re the last person on earth to be raising the issue of morality on here.

    5.Christians do perpetrate terrorism for ideological reasons like i had mention above about Eric Randolph,KKK, Michael Wade(Sikh killer).

    There’s isn’t organized Christian terrorism. There is organized Islamic terrorism.

    6.You don’t need a point to hate Muslims, your Jewish faith has taught you to hate all us Gentiles, how about you move back to Israel and take your halakha law with you.

    You say I’m a Nazi white supremacist and then I’m a Jew who hates all the goyim. I can’t be both. You’re laughable and shouldn’t be taken seriously!

    NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm

“Islamic terrorists on the other hand can draw on widespread popular and cultural support and they have an extensive organized infrastructure to help commit terrorism against Israel and the West.”

Lone wolf terrorist attacks are scarier than organized terrorism cause you never know who to trust, most Christian terrorists have been the lonewolf type, but there have been organized terrorist groups suck as KKK,IRA,ETA and many smaller ones that the mainstream Jew-controlled media won’t reveal.

JC on May 11, 2013 at 1:26 pm

@JC (Just crap)
Shut up JC,
We all know that the Islamic world is way more frightened of a few isolated nut jobs than a coordinated and state sponsored terrorist effort to undermine freedom because freedom is what they hate in the first place.

As your prophet(the greatest man who ever lived apparently) said…
Quran (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.”

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    STFU you f-ing kike, how about you suck your mom’s willy, instead of spewing your ignorant rhetorical crap about Islam.

    JC on May 11, 2013 at 2:00 pm


      That’s exactly what I would expect a Muslim to say. What is it about Jews that bothers you so much?

      Go get a life!

      NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 8:55 pm

      JC, just cause your fat hairy mom has a willy you think everyone else’s does? Were you adopted by two men or perhaps you have the genders mixed up? Aha! you’re a bacha bazi! I feel sad for you.
      Run while you can!

      'lil'napoleon on May 11, 2013 at 11:34 pm

I think another reason that “The Great Gatsby” is so beloved by liberals and has become such a central part of the propaganda machine’s literary canon is that it paints a decadent image of the Roaring Twenties–despised, of course, by progressives.It’s fascinating that that an era (that is, the Twenties)where there were so many inventions and advances, and where there was such an undisputed increase in our nation’s wealth (and I’m not referring to Wall Street wealth here, but the increase in purchasing power and real wages of the average Joe and Jane) should be so completely demonized. “Capitalism gone wild!” apparently. Calvin Coolidge is described as “mean-spirited,” Harding as nothing more than a corrupt stooge, etc. while meanwhile our nation strangely and surprisingly prospered as it maybe never had before. Just as the more recent Eighties was painted as the “Decade of Greed” and Stone’s “Wall Street” was considered to encapsulate that decade’s supposedly irredeemable flaws, so the “The Great Gatsby” filled a comparable role at an earlier time.

One change the film made from the original novel was having Daisy’s husband mouth a couple of ugly racist sentiments. That wasn’t Fitzgerald, that was Baz, and the changes were made
so that we’d know for sure who was the real villain of the story. I guess inquiring viewers need a little help sometimes with hints like these to keep their confusion at a minimum.

Burke on May 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Quran (9:14) – “Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace…”

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm

@Frankz STFU you f-ing kyke, suck on you mom’s willy instead of spewing your ignorant crap about Islam.

Judiaism: 14 million followers(probably even fewer)
Islam:1.5 billion followers and growing.

Everybody knows the real truth about your sad excuse of a religion,……..I mean cult.

JC on May 11, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    You know, Frankz, I was thinking that your nearly random spouting of suras was getting annoying. But then our latest Mohammedan went postal, so I think it serves a purpose after all.

    skzion on May 11, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    Just a Crazy Mohammedan goes nuts when the Koran is quoted! It IS pretty vile stuff, I guess.

    With all its 1.5 billion followers, Islam has almost no Nobel Prize winners, and has contributed only enhanced techniques of stabilizing and growing a totalitarian power structure. And really, THAT achievement was finished by around 1000 AD.

    skzion on May 11, 2013 at 9:01 pm


      The fallacy of numbers. With all the numbers it has you would think Islam could never threatened by any one.

      But they’re perpetually territorially and emotionally insecure despite all the power they have. With being a bully, naturally they take it out on the Jews!

      NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm

@JC (Just crap)
LOL – Don’t like the sound of your own Islam?

Apostates like you must die.

Quran 47:27: “But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?”

Think Islam means whatever you want it to mean. It doesn’t.

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Muslims, go figure…
Even when you recite the Quran at them their head explodes.

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm


I don’t know whether you are ignorant or lying. In any event, Eric Rudolph was never Catholic of any sort. According to his mother they at some point were liberal Protestants, then they got mixed up into the “Christian Identity” cult, which is a white supremacist outfit that is not a legitimate expression of Christianity. He then left that group and began to profess atheism. Several Christians attempted to convert him and he stated that he despised Christianity because Christianity’s teachings preclude violence. He demanded that Christians stop praying for him and sending him Bibles trying to save his soul, saying that he preferred the writings and worldview of the atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to the Bible.

Timothy McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic, but lapsed in his practicing that religion and repudiated it for rationalism, saying that science was his religion, that he did not believe in hell and was an agnostic. (He did however accept the Catholic last rites prior to execution just in case he was wrong.)

The Ku Klux Klan was not Christian. They claimed to be Christian in order to gain more followers and support, and the legitimate Christians that were in that organization were dupes. The KKK was more freemason than Christian. Seriously, JC, what Christian would burn a cross and would burn churches, and in that way desecrating their own symbols and destroying their own institutions? The KKK did that frequently.

You are either dishonest or badly misinformed. In either case, please refrain yourself from saying things that simply cannot be true, because by doing so you undermine any legitimate point that you might make.

Gerald on May 11, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    That’s all true what you’ve elaborated Gerald, both Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph originally grew up in religious households, they both rejected religious dogma for secularism, etc.

    However, whey they did their terrorists attacks, they didn’t do it in the name of atheism, agnosticism or rationalism (and my worldview these days are secularism and rationalism), they did because the two of them we’re total jackasses. I also remember Debbie writing an article two years ago when she quoted a woman in the Oklahoma City area who works for the media there that McVeigh was trained by an Iraqi muslim in the middle east who did business with al-qeada to do his terrorist justification here on US soil.

    I hate to say it, but this dumbass troll JC has a point with Brevik, he claimed to be the “Knights of Templar” who wanted to see some type of modern day Christian crusade to counter the islamofascists.

    And JC, either you’re a muslim apologist dhimmi who I think should buy yourself a Koran, Persian rug, go to a mosque or center and convert to that dogmatic cult called islam or maybe you’re a muslim yourself but a little afraid to admit, and I don’t know WTF you changed the topic and started attacking the messenger herself, ever heard of this phrase JC, “Don’t attack the messenger, only disagree what the messenger wrote”?

    “A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

    Sean R. on May 11, 2013 at 3:43 pm

Oh, I just remembered this is what JC (Just Crap) was going on about…

Said Abu Islam:

Now hear the words that the prophet counsels me to use against people like you [Bassem Youssef]. He tells me to tell you “Bite your father’s penis, and do not whitewash.” In other words, I’m supposed to tell you to go bite your father’s male member, but I’m supposed to use the real word [“penis”] without whitewashing.

Fascinating religion, just fascinating…

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Now when it comes to the Quran don’t bother to understand it in the original Arabic.
That’s a load of crap they tell themselves and others.
Probably was very useful in places like Medina that nobody could understand their battle language or that they could misdirect. Don’t be deceived though.

To understand the Quran. Understand it in the historical context. For their purposes and ours that context is today.

That’s all folks… thanks for listening

Frankz on May 11, 2013 at 2:53 pm

I agree with Burke. I don’t see why anyone – least of all a male or any female who likes males – would like that book. It was an all out attack on masculinity. I don’t know what was up with F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ideology or lifestyle, but “The Great Gatsby” was feminist before its time.

The main antagonist of the book: Tom Buchanan, a racist white male wealthy athlete from an Ivy League university. He represents heterosexual masculinity and material success, which Fitzgerald clearly despises. Trashing types like Buchanan has been a trope of liberal fiction ever since, depicting them as rapists, racists, you name it. Remember how “The Social Network” used that “we hate rich jocks” construct against the Winklevoss twins to justify poor outsider Mark Zuckerberg ripping them off and trashing their reputations? Aaron Sorkin, who wrote that screenplay, is the typical male feminist who hates his own masculinity. I know that this site doesn’t think much of Sarah Palin, but I remember how Sorkin trashed Palin for showing her hunting on her reality show. Never mind the fact that men used to have to hunt to feed their families.

George Wilson: proves that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s hatred of males wasn’t restricted to class. Wilson’s character is a mechanic, a skilled craftsman who earns a living with his hands. And in that period, before auto manufacturing and repair became standardized, being a mechanic required a lot of skill, from having personal knowledge of how complex systems actually work to being a machinist able to make and modify your own parts. And Fitzgerald totally humiliates the guy, depicting him as a failure as a businessman, husband and a man. Fitzgerald depicted attempting to preserve his marriage as an act of attempting to suppress female freedom and liberation, with the result causing the death of his wife. Then Wilson goes the murder-suicide route, the symbol of weakness.

Jay Gatsby/James Gatz: more evidence that Fitzgerald was no friend of the common man. Seriously, this is how Fitzgerald portrays our World War I veterans? Gatsby renounced his Jewish heritage, became wealthy by becoming a criminal instead of through the legitimate means that hard working successful men of the sort that earned distinction on the battlefield are very capable, he becomes an Edward Cullen/Jacob Black prototype chick man by moping over this weak, undesirable female married to another man (meaning that he lacked the character to control his weak, irrational, immoral emotions) instead of moving on and obtaining for himself a superior female via the strength of his character and his success. Fitzgerald has the guy murdered by another loser and subjects him to a final humiliation by having no one attend his funeral but Carraway and his father, whom Fitzgerald also humiliates.

Carraway is the only positive significant male character in the book. But what is Carraway? A Yale graduate and a war veteran, sure, but a dweeb, possessing no masculine traits such as initiative, the ability or desire to run a business or master a craft, etc. It has long been regarded that Fitzgerald gave his own persona to Carraway, which means that Fitzgerald despised males more masculine, assertive, capable, successful etc. than himself.

Fitzgerald ends the book by hypocritically proclaiming himself to be disgusted with the values of the east, but the guy endorsed or excused the adultery of the main female characters. Daisy’s only flaw was not being brave enough to follow her heart, reject the class system and leave Tom. Myrtle was depicted as brave and bold for cheating on her decent, loving husband and her attempting to leave her husband was portrayed as an act of courage. The selfish, immoral behavior with disastrous consequences – leading to the deaths of 3 people – was depicted as being caused by patriarchal values that prevented Daisy from marrying Jay and Myrtle from being a “Sex In The City” character, basically the same nonsense that is used to justify the adultery of the women in “Mad Men.” And then there is Jordan Baker, who Fitzgerald doesn’t depict nearly as badly as the men despite her flawed character, and he chooses to make her a pioneering female athlete (how progressive!) instead of a housewife or socialite. And Baker is more of a “guy” than any of the males in the book.

“The best way to see “The Great Gatsby” is in your own mind as you are picturing the book while you read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words.”

If you are a feminist (either a woman or a self-hating man) then I agree. Otherwise, there are far, far better ways to invest your time.

Gerald on May 11, 2013 at 3:52 pm


    Great insight on The Great Gatsby!

    Prometheus on May 13, 2013 at 9:30 am

Sean R:

“I hate to say it, but this dumbass troll JC has a point with Brevik, he claimed to be the “Knights of Templar” who wanted to see some type of modern day Christian crusade to counter the islamofascists.”

No he doesn’t. Now let me preface this by saying that I am a staunch Protestant, the sort of which that Skunky derides as a “holy roller”, so don’t think that I am motivated to defend Roman Catholicism. Still, the facts are facts. We’ve been brainwashed into hating the Crusades, and while the Crusaders did commit atrocities (including pogroms against Jews) they cannot be viewed apart from the context of Islamic aggression. In other words, THE MUSLIMS WERE TRYING TO TAKE OVER EUROPE AND ALMOST SUCCEEDED. Many European leaders and intellectuals had already concluded that Muslim victory was inevitable were debating the best way to appease them and live under the coming Muslim hegemony, and were trying to cut deals for themselves. And if it hadn’t been for guys like Charles Martel and to a lesser extent El Cid, Europe would have indeed fallen to the Muslims. And Israel and the larger holy land region was of strategic importance in that battle because it is the gateway between the east and west. Dislodging the Muslims from the holy land territory that they themselves murdered people and stole was part of the legitimate military strategy of driving them back into Arabia and keeping them from having that region as a base to make further incursions into Europe. That version of history – the truth – isn’t disseminated because we instead HAVE to believe that the Crusaders were hateful bigots where the Muslims were these progressives who invented modern mathematics, science, architecture and stuff, saved Europe from the Dark Ages, promoted peaceful coexistence, and all the other lies that Ridley Scott put in Kingdom of Heaven (where Saladin the butcher was portrayed as THE GOOD GUY).

Now the Knights Templar must be portrayed in that context. The Knights Templar weren’t Al Qaeda. They were SOLDIERS. They were an elite fighting force similar to our special forces, Navy Seals and green berets. They fought the Muslims not for religious motivations i.e. because the Bible or the pope or their tradition told them to kill infidels. Instead, the Knights Templar were part of a legitimate fighting force defending their homeland from a full scale invasion.

Brevik was an uneducated, unmarried, unemployed guy on welfare in his 30s who was living in his mother’s basement. He blamed Norway’s liberal culture for his failures, and instead of taking the trouble to actually learn about Catholic history and theology (or to learn a trade and get a job) he takes the easy way out, gets an automatic weapon and murders a bunch of kids. What he did was akin to a similar loser claiming to have been inspired by the Revolutionary or Civil War patriot walking into an ACLU office and starting shooting people. It would have had nothing to do with what anyone who actually was a Revolutionary War or Confederacy soldier did, believed in or was fighting for.

Finally, actual Catholics motivated by Catholicism follow the contemporary teachings of the pope and the church, not some example of what the Knights Templar did hundreds of years ago. If the pope endorsed committing acts of terror, Breivik and those who attempt to associate his acts with Catholicism would have a point. Since the Roman Catholic Church most definitely does not – and this is in contrast with the Muslim texts and Muslim imams who DO promote violence – then you do not. And again, I say this as a Protestant who has no motive whatsoever to defend Catholicism.

Gerald on May 11, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Nicely done, Gerald.

    skzion on May 12, 2013 at 12:01 pm

Sean R:

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!” eh? Well I came up with a better example. Suppose some guy started going around murdering Mexicans, claiming that he was concerned about the border, the immigration issue and was inspired by Davy Crockett and the Battle of the Alamo. Now while Crockett and his confederates did certainly kill a lot of Mexicans, they did so WHILE SERVING AS ARMY SOLDIERS FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST MEXICO. So just as that hypothetical mass murderer would have had nothing to do with Davy Crockett and the Texas army, Brevik had nothing to do with the Knights Templar and the Catholic Church.

Gerald on May 11, 2013 at 4:37 pm

“Carey Mulligan (whose acting “talent” seems limited to pouts and tears) . . . “

Alas, that seems to apply to most so-called “actresses” these days – as can be seen on past reviews of films on here.

“(How much you wanna bet these phonies and idiots, who pay ten dollars to see a nonsensical movie “to evoke emotion,” voted for Obama?)”

No bet – a sure thing. (I do wonder, though, as a side note, how many of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre victims are registered Democrats in general, and Obama voters in particular?)

ConcernedPatriot on May 11, 2013 at 5:11 pm

Knowing the stuff Mira Nair normally peddles, I could have guessed what the movie was just by the title. Only thing I wonder here – what’s even remotely ‘reluctant’ about this ‘reluctant fundamentalist’?

While in Pakistan, did Chengaz Khan oppose those who promote Islamic laws & practices? Did he do anything to protect Christians or Hindus, who’s teenage daughters are routinely kidnapped and forcibly ‘married’ off to some long haired, maggot infested Mohammedan? Did he demonstrate or write against Paki hudood laws – laws that promote discrimination against non-Muslims? I mean, what evidence, if any, does the movie show that he did NOT support ‘fundamentalism’ – which is simply mainstream Islam?

In short, had Changaz* Khan never set foot in America, but instead just lived on in Fuckistan, would he have opposed the Islamization trends going on in that country? Anybody who believes that, there is a bridge b/w NY & NJ that I’d like to sell you.

* Chengaz – this is a name that Muslims rarely use, which this dope Nair would know if she knew any history. As is well known, Chengiz Khan – of which this name is a corruption – the founder of the Mongol empire, was NOT a Muslim – he was a Shaman, and Muslim historians hate him b’cos he wrecked the various Muslim kingdoms in Central & West Asia and replaced them w/ a Shamanist/Buddhist/Christian Mongol empire. As a result, Muslims in general HATE him (they would have loved him had he been a Muslim, just like they love Mohammed or Tamerlane)

Infidel on May 11, 2013 at 5:43 pm


And he would have obliterated Islam had he lived and the world would have been better off for it.

Islam survived in large part because it was remote from the main centers of European civilization.

Until modern times, the Middle East consisted of sand and rock and the people inhabiting it appeared destined to play no grand role in world history.

NormanF on May 11, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    Genghis Khan, inventor of polo and the blanket party.
    Captured muslim leaders would be wrapped up in their Persian rugs and kicked to death, afterwards their heads would be used for sport, good times,..good times.
    He, being a pagan, disliked religion but truly despised islam. His army had to leave an invaded islamic city because his men couldn’t stand the stench of all the rotting corpses they left behind. Had he known that some Mongols would turn to islam a century or so after his death he would have taken their ancestors with him.

    theShadow on May 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm

I knew you were gonna hate the Reluctant fundamentalist..

You’re just a typical jew that hates all Muslims and hates all things Muslim.
I’m not Jewish, but I do hate all things Muslim. Seeing them in person, in film, on tv, anywhere makes me physically ill, particularly the ones in the full burka/niqab whatever-the-f*ck those tents are called.

So I won’t be going to see The Reluctant Douchebaggist…ahem…I mean…Fundamentalist.

Matt on May 11, 2013 at 9:35 pm

There has never been a decent Gatsby movie…ever

#1 Vato on May 12, 2013 at 12:05 am

Norman, indeed the worst thing to have happened for the world politically was the discovery of oil in dar ul Islam. Until then, no matter how dominant they were militarily, there were limits to their financial or political power.

Since then, $20 Trillion has been transferred to Muslims in a product that they did nothing to discover or produce: had Westerners not gotten involved in building those refineries, it simply wouldn’t have happened. This is a more long term illustration of Vladimir Lenin’s cliché: “Capitalists will sell you the rope that’ll be used to hang them”. With the Mohammedans, it’s been frightfully true.

Infidel on May 12, 2013 at 12:16 am

More cultural learnings from the guys that brought us 911 and pseudo thought provoking celluloid nonsense that provokes thoughts they won’t apply to themselves.

“According to Naiwu Osahon, of the Pan Africa Movement, “Africans are treated like the scum of the earth” throughout the Arab world. He claims that the Arab policy has been “elimination, displacement, separation, marginalization and suppression” of black Africans since the 7th century.

Arguably it continues to this day. Black African guest workers in Egypt, Algeria and Libya tell of being publicly ridiculed and physically assaulted by Arabs. Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy tells of watching a Sudanese girl being assaulted and tormented on the Cairo Metro, concluding, “We are racist people in Egypt and we are in deep denial.” She makes a wider point, that the Arab world has ignored the suffering of Darfur because the victims are black. “We only pay attention when America and Israel behave badly.”

The Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference have repeatedly refused to censure totalitarian regimes like Sudan for killing their own black African citizens, even when the victims are Muslims. Their conferences are on safer ground offering routine condemnation of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians.” “

Frankz on May 12, 2013 at 12:23 pm

If you want to see/read racism check out the FaceBook page that Debbie uploads and comments on. I don’t recall the name but there’s a lout there with a name of Habib something or other. His posts are totally vile.

squirrbells on May 12, 2013 at 1:24 pm

I was quite okay with this version of “The Great Gatsby” (the Robert Redford – Mia Farrow version was awful). I went in knowing that this movie would be very stylized, and very bright and shiny, so I wasn’t caught off-guard. I also did not see it in 3-D, which was probably a good thing. My wife and I were not put off by the contemporary music, it was pretty well integrated into the sequences and wasn’t distracting.

In fact, what I was surprised with was how harsh some of the reviews were. This is the same director who did “Romeo + Juliet,” and if these reviewers saw that movie, then why in the world would they ever be taken aback by this version of “Gatsby.”

Forty years after reading the novel I now realize that: I was 180 degrees wrong on my recollection of what the green pier light mean; it never dawned on me that Gatsby was merely the “legitimate” front of Meyer Wolfshiem’s operation; and what I knew at 17 I remain convinced of today: there is NO WAY in the world that Daisy Buchanan evokes that much emotion from people. Gatsby is obssessed with her, her husband loves her, Nick is smitten by her, Jordan probably is in love with her. And Daisy, whether on the written page, or on the screen, is a fool, a simpleton, the shallow end of the pond.

That drove me nuts in the novel; it’s a distraction in the movie. It’s not the director’s fault, it’s Fitzgerald’s fault. I suppose you can get all tweet jacket and pipe and ruminate that since she’s an empty suit, everyone gets to project whatever they want upon her, but a guy who runs a criminal empire, a guy whose blood runs blue, an astute observor, and a strong, independent woman are not all going to be going gaga at the same time over such a simple woman.

Great eye candy movie, though. Everything and the kitchen sink got thrown in. It’s like going on one of those involved Disney rides where you need to go on it a few times to catch all the details.

gmartinz on May 13, 2013 at 12:25 am

    Lots of excellent insights, gmartinz. I won’t go into detail (because I’m rushed at the moment) except to say that I agree with EVERYTHING you write–even including the speculation that Daisy’s bland emptiness can only be interpreted as a place for the other characters’ fantasies about her. Thanks for taking the time to write out your impressions. (I liked what Gerald earlier wrote, too, I should add.)

    Burke on May 13, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Yeah well, I try to keep my quotations pertinent.
When it comes to Islam nothing says it like the Quran although I think JC didn’t like my reciprocity on the symbolism of the collapse of the twin towers very much either.

Frankz on May 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm

    That’s curious. I liked your reciprocity very much–your best work.

    skzion on May 13, 2013 at 4:56 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field