September 29, 2017, - 4:32 pm

Weekend Box Office: Battle of the Sexes, American Made

By Debbie Schlussel

This weekend at the box office is a sad exercise in blatant fake news and revisionist “history” on behalf of the left. Both new movies are propaganda filled with lies (and with defamation of the right and President Reagan, in one case). Both movies purport to be “true” stories, but neither actually tells the truth. (I did not see the remake of “Flatliners,” which was not screened for critics.)



* Battle of the Sexes – Rated PG-13: In 2013, on its 40th anniversary, I wrote about the so-called “Battle of The Sexes,” the phony publicity stunt parading as a tennis match between Bobby Riggs (played here by Steve Carell) and Billie Jean King (Emma Stone). I urge you to read it because everything I wrote then, applies now to this movie debuting in theaters today. The much-hyped, televised 1973 competition between a chubby 55-year-old man versus the-then Number Two female tennis player in the world was no “battle of the sexes.” Not even close. But this movie doesn’t tell you the truth. It claims the match was about women’s equality and that it is proof that women can beat men. It is no such thing.

As I wrote in 2013, if King had played and beaten the then-current Number One (or Number Two) men’s tennis player in the world, then it would be all of those things and more. It would be an incredible feat. But as John McEnroe rightly wrote in his new book, if Serena Williams were on the men’s tour, she would barely crack the top 500. I think he was being very generous. The men’s 1,000th best player would kick her ass, too. And the same goes for Billie Jean King. This was no contest between “comparables” among the genders. Not even close. Riggs should and could have beaten her . . . handily.

But there’s a good reason he didn’t, and it has nothing to do with Billie Jean King’s tennis playing ability. It’s well known that Bobby Riggs owed tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mafia, and that he threw the match to pay back his debts. Cosa Nostra ordered him to lose (more here), and it was “an offer you can’t refuse.” Riggs could have easily beaten King. He’d only recently beaten Margaret Court, who was then the world’s Number One women’s player.

While the movie covers Riggs’ gambling habit (the movie pretends his rich wife, played by Elisabeth Shue, gave him money that allowed him to live this lifestyle and pay for his addiction), it doesn’t tell you about the tremendous debts he incurred with the Mafia or the story about his throwing the match. It also doesn’t tell you that he 1) didn’t train as hard for the match as he did for the Court match, 2) was seen meeting with Mafia-connected figures before and up until the match, 3) was reportedly thinking that a loss would make for a bigger payday at a rematch (also planned by the mob), and 4) if he planned to win, he would have bet money on himself (but didn’t because he planned to lose). The movie portrays none of this and acts as if none of this was the case.

Grace Lichtenstein, who covered the women’s tour and The Battle of the Sexes for The New York Times, also thought the match was a whole lotta nothin’.

The fact that what was really an inconsequential, made-for-television, silly matchup—an absolute circus—has gone on to attain this mythical status is remarkable, because it shouldn’t have been a landmark of anything. All the Battle of the Sexes really proved is that a 29-year-old woman in the prime of her tennis career could beat a fifty-five-year-old has been who happens to be male.

While the movie is entertaining and well-paced, it’s basically a non-stop propaganda film for LGBTQ rights. Back in the day, movies like this–filled with semi-porn lesbian sex and make-out scene–would at the very least be rated “R” (a hard “R”). But no longer. I guess, now, it’s “educational”–you know, to pimp children, er . . . “teach” children the greatness and sainthood of being a lesbionic woman. And so is the case with Billie Jean King, champion tennis player, who is portrayed here by Emma Stone. The movie is chock full of intimate lesbionic scenes between King and her hairdresser, a woman with whom the married King (her husband was Larry King, not the octogenarian TV host) cheated. It’s stuff I didn’t want to see, and it creeped me out.

Moreover, the movie heavily romanticizes and glamorizes the relationship King had with Marilyn Barnett, the hairstylist, but doesn’t tell the whole story–probably because King and her current lesbian partner were paid consultants to the movie. In real life, King dumped Barnett, kicked her out of the house, and completely cut her off. Barnett sued her for palimony and lost, getting nothing after nearly a decade as King’s partner and personal assistant. Then she attempted suicide and became paralyzed as a result.

Aside from those objections, the casting for the King role is all wrong. While actress Emma Stone is 28 (nearly the same age as King was at the time), she looks nothing like Billie Jean King. The wig and eyeglasses are right, but that’s it. Stone is a youthful ingénue type. King was masculine-looking and looked far more mature than her years. Other casting, though minor, is also bad. For example, Jamey Sheridan plays tennis champ Ken Rosewall in a barely there role. I was once Rosewall’s ball girl at a series of exhibition tennis matches in Scottsdale, Arizona in the mid-’80s. Sheridan looks and behaves nothing like Rosewall (and he has far more and much better hair).

Carell, on the other hand, is perfectly cast. With the facial prosthetics, wig, and make-up, he looks like Riggs’ twin . . . so much so that I thought it was him (and not the real thing) in the real-life photos of Riggs and King that flash onscreen at the end of the film. Carell–while he gets Riggs’ self-deprecating, braggadocious, and purposely-exaggerated “chauvinism” exactly right–is actually much more likable than the original he plays. And he’s the real star of this movie.


The Real Bobby Riggs; Steve Carell As Bobby Riggs

Other than Carell’s likeness to Riggs and his performance in this movie, the best thing I can say about this two hours of non-stop fiction parading as history, is that the ’70s costumes, décor, and soundtrack were well done. Very well done. But they are the only thing accurate to the time. The portrayal of this long-forgotten tennis match is mostly hype. Just like the match was.

It definitely wasn’t the Battle of the Sexes, as the game was billed. Nor was it “history” as the left would have us believe. Nor is it a match worth celebrating . . . or even remembering.

It was just a disposable moment in pop culture that meant nothing. And still means nothing.

As I wrote in my 2013 column on this cubic zirconium “Battle of the Sexes,”

Forty years ago, the media and promoters created a phony event that proved nothing but gave delusional feminists a synthetic plank on which to stand. Today, it’s time to wake up and admit what was always quite obvious.

Billie Jean King won nothing.

***

Also note that two loathsome actors are in this: Israel-hater Alan Cumming (a gay activist who apparently doesn’t realize how welcome his lifestyle is in Tel Aviv versus how unwelcome it would be in his favored HAMAS Gaza–fun being thrown off a building?), as Ted Tinling, the openly gay former tennis champion who designed the women’s tennis dresses and was their liaison on the Virgnia Slims women’s tennis tour; and the always incredibly annoying sicko Sarah Silverman as Gladys Heldman, the tennis magazine editor who founded the Virginia Slims tour with King.

THREE BETTY FRIEDANS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
bettyfriedanbettyfriedanplus.jpgmichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

* American Made – Rated R: I hate movies that defame Ronald Reagan and falsely portray the fight against Communist tyranny as an unworthy war. Sadly, there a no shortage of those coming out of Hollywood, and this is one of them. On top of that, it’s just a flat-out lie. Many flat-out lies. The beginning of the movie tells you it’s “based on real events.” But in an interview, Director Doug Liman admitted it’s “a fun lie based on a true story.” There’s nothing fun about the good but dead people negatively portrayed here, who aren’t around to defend themselves (including President Reagan).

The real-life Barry Seal (played here by Tom Cruise) was a Louisianan pilot and drug smuggler, who used his fleet of private planes to smuggle drugs in and out of Latin America for a living. Some of his drug smuggling was for the Medellin Cartel. Before that, he was a TWA pilot, who nobly smuggled explosives to anti-Communist, anti-Castro freedom fighters–reportedly the reason he was fired. During his drug-smuggling operations, he was caught and jailed by the Honduran police and eventually arrested by the DEA and sentenced to a decade in prison. Faced with this stiff sentence, he approached the DEA about working for the agency, and was soon involved as an informant in drug trials and undercover in drug stings for Uncle Sam. The CIA installed cameras in his plane, and he found that top drug kingpins in the Medellin Cartel were dealing with the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Sean Hannity crony Oliver North had access to the photos and released them to the press and public without authorization. The drug cartel saw Seal’s face in the photos and put out a hit on him. Oliver North cost Seal his life and America a very valuable source of information in anti-drug-trafficking and anti-Communist operations.

That’s the real story. Then, there’s this movie, in which a thin (even after putting on weight for this movie), short Tom Cruise plays the very overweight Seal.

The movie claims that the CIA blackmailed Seal into quitting TWA after discovering him smuggling Cuban cigars. Then, the CIA set Seal up with a phony airplane business in Mena, Arkansas, from which it forced him to send drugs to the Contras–the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters, whom the movie claims were more interested in making drug money than in fighting the Communist Sandinistas. The movie defames Contra benefactor and supporter Adolfo Calero, depicting him organizing the drug business in concert with the Medellin Cartel figures. It also defames Reagan, portraying him as sort of in on this whole thing. And it acts as if the CIA set Seal up to do all kinds of illegal drug-running merely to aid corrupt anti-Communist fighters in Nicaragua. And it claims that the Contras flew to Mena, Arkansas to train on Seal’s land and then ran away into the U.S. hinterland.

In real life, none of that is true. In the movie, Seal is blackmailed and handled by the CIA. In real life, he was handled by the DEA, and it was a result of his own criminal activity in drug smuggling. In real life, the drug dealers were the Communist Sandinistas, who the Contras were fighting. The Sandinistas allied with and trained the PLO, tried to burn down the Managua Synagogue on a Friday Night during worship (and trapped the Jews in the synagogue to burn to death), seized a Jewish center and gave it to Palestinians for a youth center, and forced the president of Managua’s Jewish community to sweep the streets. In real life, Barry Seal did deal drugs with the Sandinistas and did connect them with the Medellin Cartel. Ronald Reagan and America were on the right side. Barry Seal wasn’t. And America, after catching him, forced him to be on the right side.

That’s not what you see in this anti-American, anti-Reagan, anti-anti-Communist movie. Instead, it’s a non-stop comedy of lies and jokes at the expense of the truth and shows the exact opposite of reality to be the truth. Unfortunately, some of the jokes and a lot of the movie are funny. And people will be highly entertained by this non-stop, action-filled comedy romp of revisionism.

That’s why I hate movies “based on a true story.” Legions of moviegoers (and those who see it later on, outside of theaters) will believe this to be true. America has enough things wrong with it, enough screw ups, that Hollywood doesn’t need to falsify the victories into alleged screw-ups by Reagan and those in America’s anti-Communist past who cared about the future of the Western Hemisphere.

That makes this “comedy” nothing but a tragedy.

TWO MARXES PLUS TWO OBAMAS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email




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


24 Responses

I usually don’t read the movie reviews, except when I see Debbie make a pointed reference to political issues and revisionist history surrounding the movies she posts about. I remember the era of Billie Jean King very well. As a matter of fact, she was my favorite women’s tennis player, up until that time.

I always, as did just about everyone on the planet, knew that the whole thing was a publicity stunt, and that Riggs in his prime, and probably even then, could have handed her a defeat pretty easily.

But, as I have continually referred to the period of November 22, 1963 to December 31, 1969, as The Cultural Pancake Flip, this occurred after the culture’s pancake had been flipped. And as I have continually referred to the sprouts of that time becoming the giant weeds of political correctness that now engulf us, this “tennis match” was indeed one of those seminal moments.

And Debbie gets it TOTALLY RIGHT. It was a real smirk-fest, complete with rolling eyes, the aftermath of that “contest.”

And although I was heading toward my senior year of high school in late ’73, and Debbie was I guess in kindergarten, it’s as though she was there, and on the inside of all the machinations surrounding this “landmark event” in phony modern American history.

If anyone wants to know where one of the biggest “fake news” stories of the ruinous past half-century in America is, it’s this one. Debbie’s right, go back and read her previous article on this piece of comedic theater that helped push America toward the doom we are now looking squarely in the face.

As for the Reagan presidency, and how it has been revised and lied about ever since his first inauguration, for shame. Shame on all the “journalists” who then and now, because they are almost all still alive, contributed mightily, and still are, to the DELIBERATE DISMANTLING of “this once great republic.” FOR SHAME!!!

But God will someday fulfill his promise to save us from ourselves. And salvation is something America needs at this point, perhaps more than any other nation on earth.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on September 30, 2017 at 9:07 am

    I’m gonna celebrate the courageous victory of feminism over males by smoking half a pack of Virginia Slims. “You’ve come a long way, baby!”

    Ralph Adamo on October 1, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    @ ALFREDO FROM PUERTO RICO:

    How are you faring after the hurricane?

    Were you able to make adequate preparations before the hurricane struck?

    I hope all is well with you and your loved ones.

    John Robert Mallernee on October 3, 2017 at 4:36 pm

      Thank you very much, sir. I have unfortunately, been mired in the NYC area for the past 776 days, but have had recent contact with relatives in the town below the farm I live on. All is well at the farm, including my house. All is well in town, and I understand there is a huge cooperative effort in neighbors helping neighbors, whether it’s bringing morning coffee to others on the block, or food, making trips to stores, etc.

      This is not to imply that they are dancing in the streets, but our area is usually hit much less hard than others, because of our remote location in the southwest corner of the island. Also, the farm and my house are protected by a small mountain, so any hurricane coming from the angle Maria did, would have to traverse several miles of land, and then hit the mountain, before swooping over and down in to the lower area where the farm is.

      Relatives in some of the more hard hit areas of the island are alive, but I am uncertain as to their day to day living situation.

      One thing about Puerto Rico that I discovered when beginning to spend a lot of time down there seven years ago. Like anywhere else, it has its share of bad people, but the good people of Puerto Rico are very, VERY good, thank God for that.

      Thanks again, and God bless you.

      I should be back there before years end, after I make a little more money working up here.

      Alfredo from Puerto Rico on October 3, 2017 at 11:14 pm

Speaking of Mr. Adamo, I wouldn’t be surprised if he has some “Inside Baseball” on the whole Riggs mob debt thingy. Just a thought.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on September 30, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Yeah, Alfredo, like many readers here, as soon as I learned that Hollywood was making a movie “based” on the Bobby Riggs-Billie Jean King “match,” I instantly knew the political angle the moviemakers would take and the kind of lies and deceptions they would be attempting to perpetuate. In short, I assumed that premise of the movie was going to be “Feminism defeats arrogant males.” Alfredo, do I have that right?

    I certainly knew that they would either ignore the fact that the “match” was bobby-rigged from the start or they would attempt to marginalize or falsify that fact claiming it’s a myth.

    In truth, Riggs was not only a great tennis player for his age, but was a master tennis (and golf) hustler who knew how to extract the maximum amount of cash from his targets. He had the remarkable skill to play to his opponents strengths when he wanted them to win a point, and then to attack all their weaknesses when the time came for his opponents to lose a game. The funny thing about the real Riggs-King “match” was that even though Riggs deliberately got out of shape and played to her strengths to try to help her to win, King still managed to lose those points, perhaps out of nervousness. So, Riggs responded by flubbing easy shots and by deliberately missing serves. This was so obvious that every major tennis player of the day who personally knew Riggs knew that Riggs was deliberately losing and many said so.

    I doubt that the movie even presents the truth about Riggs’ addiction to gambling. I can tell from a clip they show that Riggs attended gamblers’ “anonymous” meetings, but I doubt that they show the true extent of his lifelong relationship with gambling, going back to the earliest days of his youth. And, of course, I doubt that none of his lifelong relationships with gangsters is even hinted at.

    Debbie’s article provides a link to an article by Don Van Natta Jr. called “The Match Maker: Bobby Riggs, The Mafia and The Battle of the Sexes” that tells most of the real story behind the Riggs-King “match.” Its a good read for those who want some of the real lowdown.

    And while tennis is not the kind of sport that is typically of interest to gamblers, like horse racing, boxing, football, and baseball are, the Riggs-King “match” attracted a lot of money in its day. And since most of the money came in on Riggs, the “friends of the friends,” shall we say, “cleaned house” financially with that single event in the markets they operate in.

    Legendary gambler and sports commentator Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder commented at the time that wagers on King were pretty “scarce.” And the London bookmakers were, of course, no fools to what was really going on, so when a more than nominal bet came in on King, they’d decline to accept it.

    Even in telling their lies, I doubt the moviemakers even bothered to use some of the truth to present their deceptions.

    For example, before any serious match, like the one Riggs had with Margaret Court, one of the top female players of the day, Riggs prepared physically and emotionally like a champion. However, for his “match” with King, he gained a lot of weight, did no physical or mental conditioning whatsoever, and, in fact, “prepared” for the “match” in a way that he never did before: by spending his days and nights with prostitutes and boozing it up.

    Of course, the real reason for this sudden change from his usual preparations was that he knew that he had to “throw” the “match.” Riggs’ own son and Riggs’ tennis partner knew what he was up. But the moviemakers, if they wanted to be a little more creative in their lies, could have actually shown all of that, but conveyed the phony message that the reason for his behavior change was that he was “too much of a pig,” was overconfident, and got outsmarted by King. As part of this phony story line, actor Steve Carell would have been required to undergo some method acting techniques like actually gaining 15 or 20 pounds and engaging in some debauchery to better capture the real deterioration that took place in Riggs’ actual “preparations.” But I doubt they even bothered to pursue this angle out of sheer laziness. But if I’m wrong about how the movie actually handles this issue, please feel free to correct me if you’ve seen the movie.

    I won’t be paying to see this bit of feminist propaganda, but I may get around to seeing it when it ultimately emerges as a DVD that I can borrow from the local free library branch.

    Ralph Adamo on October 1, 2017 at 5:57 pm

And YES, I AM fasting right now, no food or liquids, sundown to sundown. But I didn’t say I was perfect. LOL!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on September 30, 2017 at 11:55 am

I don’t plan on seeing either of these two movies. I’ve got better things to do with my money and time. Better movies I could see. These two…I don’t think so.

Ghostwriter on September 30, 2017 at 4:20 pm

Glad to see the truth about the Tom Cruise flick. I’m just waiting for Blade Runner 2049 next week. Hope it is a worthy sequel.

Daniel Middleman on October 1, 2017 at 1:05 am

I thought this was kind of an amusing anecdote from Ted Tinlng’s Wikipedia profile: “It was a design in 1949 – lace tennis panties (for Gussie Moran) that led him to being asked to take leave from his position at Wimbledon.”

Daniel Middleman on October 1, 2017 at 1:13 am

Debbie’s analyses of movies clearly demonstrates that When it comes to product representations, “there oughta be a law” for movies that purport to be “based on a true story” but then proceed to tell blatant lies.

Moviemakers ought to be required to actually describe what “based on” actually means. Just like cigarette packages and medications come with required warnings, movies ought to come with their own warnings. I propose the following requirement for movies that want to claim, or that purport to be, “based on a true story.” Here it is:

“Warning: While this movie uses actual events and persons for some of its source material, the events and characters depicted in the story have been changed, altered, revised, distorted, fabricated, or wholly reinvented as considered necessary to present our political viewpoints, and in some rare circumstances to make the story or presentation more entertaining in our view. Audiences who are expecting an accurate and faithful depiction of the characters and events presented herein may experience anger, disgust, nausea, a sense of revulsion, a strong feeling that valuable time and energy has been wasted, and other adverse reactions.”

This required warning, or course, won’t changed the crap coming out of Hollywood, and there may be some irony in requiring inherently dishonest people to tell the truth for a change–if only in this warning–but I think it would be a good start.

Ralph Adamo on October 1, 2017 at 4:50 pm

American Made sounds like a pretty vile production. Unfortunately, Nicaragua is back in the hands of its former dictator, Daniel Ortega. You can be certain that he still casts a blind eye on drug cartels operating within his country. Also, as Governor of California from 1967-75, Ronald Reagan saw first hand the carnage drugs wrought in his state. He had no sympathy for drug dealers during his presidency.

On the other hand, Barack liked to commute the sentences of drug pushers who had destroyed their own communities for personal gain.

Worry on October 1, 2017 at 8:47 pm

I recall you saying you liked Alan Cumming in “The Good Wife”

M: I did. Later, I discovered he’s an anti-Israel, pro-HAMAS schmuck. DS

Matthew on October 1, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    Funny thing about Alan Cumming is that while he’s vocally rooting for Israel’s enemies, he actually visited Israel last year to support Gay “Pride Parade” and to be honored at the Tel Aviv LGBT Film Festival, where he had the opportunity to talk about gay rights in Israel.

    But he wouldn’t dare try doing that, say, in Egypt–to pick just one of a dozen or so nations hostile to Israel. Could it be that he knows that Egypt has been conducting anal “examinations” and other barbaric acts on males accused of waving “rainbow flags” in public?

    And homosexuality isn’t even illegal in Egypt! But there are many nations where homosexuality can be punishable by death. Among them: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan, if instance. Do you see a pattern here–besides the hatred for Israel?

    Does Alan Cumming condemn any of these nations on Twitter? You know the answer to that. When you’re married to the Left like Cumming is, hypocrisy is second nature.

    Ralph Adamo on October 2, 2017 at 6:29 pm

Any Hollywood movie with the title American Made is going to be America unmade. Perfect vehicle for Tom Snooze and whatever he’s shovelling.

Mochizuki Koga on October 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Any Hollywood movie with the title American Made is going to be America Unmade. Perfect vehicle for Tom Snooze and whatever he’s shovelling.

Mochizuki Koga on October 1, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Wow, Mr. Adamo way outdid my expectations with his commentary, and allusions to all things La Cosa Nostra, which as we all know, doesn’t exist, and never existed (LOL!!!).

As well, his proposed warning label for all things Hollywood that are supposedly based in truth, should become an immediate reality. I wouldn’t change a word, excellent, Sir.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on October 1, 2017 at 10:34 pm

Debbie,

Get ready for another Islam-lovefest movie out of Britain, “Victoria and Abdul” coming soon. Movie is based on true story about Queen Victoria and her Muslim servant Abdul. I saw a trailer of it, ugh. White men, evil; Muslim servants, wonderful. Super-ugh!

Rob on October 2, 2017 at 10:40 am

Rob, I saw the poster in the subway the other day. I felt like writing something on it, but I’m not that type. I also felt like screaming out that it was more Islamic propaganda, but I’m not that type. Plus, that could get you stabbed, shot, gang tackled or even jailed in NYC.

So, I just had to walk away shaking my head, and thinking everything I typed above, . . .

and a lot more. Thanks for bringing that up.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on October 2, 2017 at 10:54 am

I read many years ago that Riggs and King were friends. The fix was in by both of them along with the Mafia and others. Wow, a 29 year old female tennis at the top of her game beats a reired male tennis player who is almost twice her age. I felt the earth shake when that occurred (not).

The Sandinistas were the drug smugglers and the Contras were wrongly blamed. The Contras war on the Sandinistas probably helped keep Mexico and the rest of Central America from going communist.

In 1990, I was listening to a local radio talk show whose guests were a man and a woman who I believe were professors and were pro-Sandinista. I was the first caller and asked them about the Sandinista expropriation of Indian lands with no compensation (the lands were mineral rich). Both dimbulbs seemed surprised that I knew about this and both said what the Sandinistas did was a “mistake.” When I asked them why pro-communists always describe mass murder and stealing peoples’ property as mistakes, you could have heard the crickets.

Concerned Citizen on October 2, 2017 at 11:29 am

I was hoping American Made would be good. I followed the Barry Seals story back in the 80’s.

At least some movies about real people that are total BS will say that they are “inspired by actual events” instead of “Based on a true story”.

Steve G on October 2, 2017 at 11:33 am

Neither of those movies appear to be anything I would be interested in.

I haven’t been to a movie theater in many years, considering them to be too dangerous, being attractive targets for psychopaths and/or terrorists, plus being an ideal venue for transferring communicable diseases.

A couple of days ago, I used my personal laptop computer (which is connected to my large flat screen television) to watch, “THE BOOK OF HENRY”, which I purchased in HDX digital format at the VUDU web site.

Sarah Silverman has a very minor role as Henry’s teacher.

It’s a good, safe, family-friendly movie about a boy genius attempting to save the girl next door from being molested.

Last night, I saw the movie, “STRAY DOG”, being advertised, and I want to see it, just as soon as it becomes available on the Internet.

I wonder if Debbie has had the opportunity to review, “STRAY DOG”, which begins showing in theaters on Friday 06 October 2017?

John Robert Mallernee on October 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm

I liked “American Made” quite a bit. Tom never lectured us about Obola or gun control, so I always liked him.

As a guy, it was a fun, escapist and pretty exciting movie for me and I didn’t pay attention to the backstory/Reagan – bashing or historical inaccuracies.

I just enjoyed the action and fast-pace of the movie. If you can talk your wife/gf into going to this with you, you’ll definitely like it…. her, not so much.

DS_ROCKS! on October 11, 2017 at 12:16 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field