By Debbie Schlussel

Well, yet again, you didn’t miss much in the new movies at theaters for this elongated Independence Day Weekend. To “celebrate” America’s birthday, Hollywood serves us up a lot of crap, including two movies about how Whites are evil racist scum, and another two movies taken from novels by open Jew-haters and Israelophobes (one of those also stars an openly Jew-hating Israelophobe). Oddly, the only movie I found mildly interesting is a documentary that creeped me out.

Remember, you can always hear my movie reviews live, first thing every Friday morning on “The Pat Campbell Show” on KFAQ 1170 AM Tulsa at 7:35 a.m. Eastern, and on “The James Show,” on KWTX 1230 AM at 8:30 a.m. Eastern, on “The Larry The Cable Guy Show” (sometimes on Thursdays) at 10:30 a.m. Eastern on SiriusXM’s Jeff and Larry’s Comedy Roundup Channel 97, and on “The Mike Church Show” on the Veritas Radio Network/CRUSADE. I do my movie reviews on all four shows, as well as some discussion of current political issues and pop culture topics.

* The BFG – Rated PG: The first thing you need to know about this movie is that it stars Mark Rylance, who openly despises Israel and the Jewish people. The second thing you need to know is that it’s based on the book by Roald Dahl, who had the same Jew-hating, anti-Israel sentiments. As I noted in my 2009 review of “Mr. Fox”, Dahl

was well known not only for writing “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” but also for his pointed Jew-hatred:

Dahl was entirely capable of unredeemed nastiness; he was, quite famously, an outspoken and unapologetic anti-Semite.

[That’s a quote from the Washington Post, BTW.]

Dahl attacked Israel, Israelis, and Jews specifically, saying he understood why Hitler sent them to death camps because they aren’t likable. It makes it that much more interesting that Dahl’s biggest source of funds were those he made from the early ’70s movie, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factor,” made by . . . Jews. Dahl is six feet under now, so I don’t know who gets the money from his estate’s portion of the movie, and whether his heirs are as anti-Semitic as he was.

But don’t bet against it.

And as for the movie, I found it to be incredibly long, slow, and boring. The only interesting and fun part of the movie is when the Queen of England is involved (and speaking on the phone with the Reagans in the ’80s), and that part is very gimmicky. The bathroom humor of farts and bad smells didn’t help the movie any, either.

The story: a young girl living in an English orphanage is scooped up by a benevolent giant (an animated or computer generated image of Rylance), who takes her to his land of the giants. The “Big Friendly Giant” (BFG) is smaller than the other giants who live near him, and they are cannibal giants who prey on regular-sized humans and eat them. They also bully the BFG (who is a vegetarian . . . or maybe vegan). At first, the girl tries to escape the BFG, but then becomes enthralled with the BFG and wants to help save him from the larger bullying giants, who will also kill and eat more humans. So the girl and the BFG go to Buckingham Palace, where she seeks out Queen Elizabeth, introduces her to the giant (who eats a lot of her food and farts a lot in her presence), and beseeches the Queen to get the British authorities to save humanity from the giants. Believe me, I’m making this sound much more exciting than it actually is. It’s very blah. Lackluster. The laughs in this–despite many weak attempts–are few and far between and only come from the aforementioned farts. Yuck.

When it comes to kids’ fare, this is the least entertaining, least interesting kids’ movie I’ve seen this year–and, frankly, in a long time. Like I said, it’s slow, boring, and not likely to enthrall kids. If I took kids to this, they’d either be incredibly bored or itching to get out of there . . . or, more likely, both. Steven Spielberg made this, and, as his recent fare (including this) shows, he’s lost his touch. Plus, he has an apparent affinity for Jew-haters like Rylance (who was also in his nearly as lackluster “Bridge of Spies”–read my review).

ONE MARX PLUS TWO YASSER ARAFATS

Watch the trailer . . .

* The Legend of Tarzan – Rated PG-13: I hated this movie. I was bored to tears. In fact, it was so boring that I twice left the theater to turn on my phone and see what time it was and how much longer I had to sit through this. Also, I didn’t know that the story of Tarzan was the story of “evil White people” and how they raped and pillaged Africa, destroying its habitat and wildlife and enslaving the Black tribal men. I thought Tarzan was about how apes raised a human male and how he acquired certain animal strengths, skills, and abilities. In this messy waste of time, that’s a tiny back story. Instead, there is some weird side story about King Leopold of Belgium, a Black Civil War veteran, and a Valley-Girl-sounding wife of Tarzan. It’s a garbage salad–though more garbage than salad.

The story here: Tarzan a/k/a Lord Greystoke (Alexander Skarsgård) is living back in London civilization. He’s approached by a number of important English noblemen and a Black Civil War veteran (Samuel L. Jackson), who want him to return to Africa–to the Belgian Congo–to stop the evil King Leopold of Belgium and his henchman (Christoph Waltz) from raping the African natural resources, land, habitat, and people (whom the Belgians are enslaving). At the beginning of the movie, we’re told that King Leopold got part of the Congo when Africa was divvied up by European leaders and that Leopold has great debts he’s piled up. To pay those debts back, he enslaves Africans and does the other aforementioned stuff.

Not sure how Samuel L. Jackson comes into play–other than needing a paycheck and Hollywood liberals wantonly inserting him haphazardly into a movie ostensibly about Tarzan. But he claims to be a Civil War veteran acting as a diplomat on behalf of America’s interests in Africa. Huh? The movie takes place in the late 1800s, when America had neither Black diplomats nor much interest in the Belgian Congo. It’s just BS. So is the way Jackson speaks to the White English noblemen. Just wouldn’t happen then. Also, Jackson speaks like a Black man of 2016, not anyone–Black or White–in the late 1800s. And suddenly he’s like Robin to Tarzan’s Batman in the African jungle. It’s silly and ridiculous.

Same with the rest of the characters and scenes in the movie. Tarzan is married to an American, “Jane” (Margot Robbie) who speaks and sounds like a Valley Girl from 1980s America or a Kardashian of 2016 America, not the way any American woman spoke or sounded back then. Jane and Tarzan go back to Africa and speak an African language and hang out with the natives. Then, Jane gets kidnapped by Leopold’s representative (Waltz) while he continues to take slaves and chase diamonds.

The movie is preposterous and absurd. And great if you are having trouble sleeping.

FOUR MARXES PLUS TWO JESSE JACKSONS PLUS TWO AL SHARPTONS PLUS TWO OBAMAS PLUS TWO MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS

Watch the trailer . . .

* The Purge: Election Year – Rated R: This is another “White people are evil” movie and makes no pretense about it. Not even close. It’s blatant anti-White racism on the silver screen. Oh, and it’s yet another campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton. Not to mention that the movie is, like the previous other two Purge movies (read my reviews of “The Purge” and its first sequel, “The Purge: Anarchy”), a session in violence, torture, and murder porn–gratuitously sadistic for no redeeming reason. And it’s a class-war movie worthy of the Bernie Army lowlifes, but that’s it.

The story: as with the other “Purge” movies, the movie takes place on the annual night in future America, on which the governing “New Founding Fathers of America” (NFFA) have designated “The Purge” to take place. On that night, for 12 hours, anyone can do anything to anyone, including murder, with impunity. There are no police or emergency workers and no hospitals open. Most people are holed up at home, trying to secure themselves as much as possible from interlopers who wish to do them harm. Some are on the streets perpetrating the violence: rape, dismemberment and other torture, and murder.

The previous Purge movies at least tried to mix in Blacks and Whites and show “diversity” among the purgers and those who are righteous and don’t participate. In this movie, there’s no pretense at all. The bad guys are White (complete with country club looks and/or Confederate flags) and the good guys are Black (and many of them are Crips) with few exceptions. Also, one of the heroes is a Mexican illegal alien who is now a citizen. Talk about heavy-handed.

This time, it’s just before Election Day (which is in May or June–I forgot which–and not November). And a blonde, female liberal U.S. Senator is running for President. Sound familiar? The only differences between this woman and Hillary is that the woman (Elizabeth Mitchell) has looks and Hillary has cankles. The Senator is running on the platform of eliminating the Purge, as her entire family was murdered on that day. She also says the Purge is meant to kill minorities and the poor to get them off public assistance rolls. The New Founding Fathers of America, who are in control (and who are all White), oppose that and her and target her for assassination, while they support a priest or minister who does an annual Purge murder of humans at his church.

Most of the movie is spent with the Senator and her security guy (Frank Grillo) fleeing assassination attempts against her, with Blacks rescuing her (see the aforementioned Crips and a former Crip). Oh, and most of the rest of the movie is also spent showing how evil and deadly White people are.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR JESSE JACKSONS PLUS FOUR AL SHARPTONS PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS

Watch the trailer . . .

* Swiss Army Man – Rated R: This is absolute garbage. Nearly two hours of my life I’ll never get back on total swill. The people who came up with this idea are warped minds. No, to say their minds are warped is the understatement of the year. And it’s just complete garbage. Shame on talented actor Paul Dano (who normally makes great choices) for agreeing to be in this disgusting waste of time.

The story: Dano is a guy ostensibly stranded on a deserted island. He can’t find food and is starving. And he’s about to give up and take his life. Just as he’s begun to hang himself, a dead body washes up on shore. The body, played by Harry Potter’s Daniel Radcliffe never comes back to life, but Dano fantasizes that he does. And he spends most of the rest of the movie using the corpse to stay alive.

The corpse magically speaks to him and does other less palatable things. The corpse farts incessantly, and Dano uses that, um, “energy” to surf the water and to fly around and travel the island. The corpse’s penis points in various directions and helps him find food, water, and shelter. The corpse also uses his mouth to squirt water and shoot “weapons” at animals for food. But the corpse also has a cell phone on it with pics of a beautiful woman. So Paul Dano dresses as the woman and pretends to be her to keep the corpse happy and “alive” and in “working condition.” This was bad enough when it was done the first time in the movie, but it went on and on and on with the weird homo-erotic scene taking place repeatedly and creeping me (and likely anyone else who sees this) out.

Yes, trust me, this is even dumber than it sounds. On top of being incredibly gross and CaitlynJenner-esque, it’s also long, slow, repetitive, and incredibly boring. It seemed like it went on for hours and hours. If I wanted to see crazy people on film, I’d have been better off filming random people on the street. That would’ve been a heck of a lot more interesting, too. Not sure what the point of this was other than to permanently separate you from your time and money. And maybe yet another failed attempt for Radcliffe to distance himself from Harry Potter and be taken seriously.

Skip this at all costs. You were forewarned.

And by the way, Swiss Army knives should sue for defamation.

FOUR MARXES

Watch the trailer . . .

* Our Kind of Traitor – Rated R: This movie is taken from anti-Israel, anti-Semitic writer John Le Carre‘s novel of the same name.

Where once Le Carre’s novels were considered exciting, new, and innovative (not by me, but by the simpleton elite in the literary world), they are now old hat and oh so boring and predictable. Watching this film, I felt like I’ve seen some incarnation of this plot a zillion times before. And I knew everything that was going to happen before it happened.

A man in danger gets on a helicopter. What could go wrong? A group of people are hiding out at a safehouse to avoid mobsters getting them. What could go wrong? A guy trusts those who he believes will be natural allies and will help him. What could go wrong? It seems like every tired, old, used up plot point in every single thriller you’ve ever seen was rehashed here and done more poorly. USA Network mystery thriller movies from the ’80s and ’90s are masterpieces compared to this. It’s just so hackneyed. And not exciting at all because you know what’s gonna happen next . . . at virtually every single turn. Talk about uninspired “Paint By the Numbers.” This is that in spades.

The story: an accountant for the Russian Mafia (Stellan Skarsgård) decides he wants to leave the mob because he can see the handwriting on the wall. He’s been ordered to sign over all of his bank accounts to the head of the mob, which he knows can only mean he and his family will be eliminated. It’s already happened to one of his colleagues, and he knows the drill. So, he does the only thing he can think of: he gives a portable drive with a lot of information on it to a British tourist he meets at a bar in Algeria. He asks the tourist (Ewan McGregor) to give the drive to the British government and help him defect to the UK with his family.

The British government sets up an “accidental” meeting with the British tourist and the Russian Mafia accountant in Paris, where the “negotiations” take place. Again, what could go wrong? As you know, everything. Or the movie would be over. And all of the predictable things go wrong. Everything you’d expect. Plus, there’s the usual two-faced British intelligence and corrupt government officials. Not to mention, bureaucracy extraordinaire. Yaaawn. Been there seen that.

Nothing new here. At best, this is a movie you’d take out from your local public library for free.

HALF A MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

* Tickled – Rated R: This documentary creeped me out. Its topic: men who tickle other men . . . and the third parties who blackmail them. The part that creeped me out wasn’t the blackmail. It was the tickling videos. Yuck. It’s hard to believe that anyone volunteering to be in “competitive tickling” videos for money doesn’t know what they’re getting into. But, sadly, America is filled with many dummies who will do anything for money and then are shocked–shocked!–when it turns out to be exactly what they should have seen coming. And even though the movie creeped me out and I knew pretty much what was coming throughout, it’s still well done and entertaining, if very pathetic.

The movie also seems like the documentary “Catfish” (read my review), in that I believe the filmmakers knew the whole story and exactly what they were getting into from the very beginning, despite pretending otherwise. It seems to obvious and staged to be otherwise.

The story: the filmmakers, journalists from New Zealand, say they were surfing the Net and found ads for a “competitive tickling sports league.” They are interested in doing a report on it. But when they inquire about it, they get a torrent of threatening and obsessive e-mails not to cover it, sent by the public relations company behind the tickling league and videos that are shot of the “sport.” They also receive a letter from a lawyer threatening a lawsuit. So, instead of backing off, this makes the journalists even more eager to look into this. After some of those who make the tickling videos come to New Zealand to “discuss” the matter with the journalists, the journalists decide to travel to America. They interview some of those connected with the tickling video industry and learn that most of the men who make these videos for the “tickling league” are poor, working class men doing this for the money. But when the videos are posted on YouTube and the men complain and get the videos removed, the “woman” behind the video productions makes their lives hell, putting up various websites accusing them of being child molesters and getting them fired from their jobs.

The filmmakers set out to discover who is really behind the videos and the blackmail. And what they find out isn’t that surprising. The world we live in is full of stupid people who will lower themselves to make shameful tickling videos just for the money. That isn’t news. Nor is it news that there are sick people who commission them. I would say this is a cautionary tale, but if you need this for caution, you’re not too bright to begin with. You could see from the beginning what was going on here.

Still the documentary was mildly entertaining and interesting, if entirely creepy.

HALF A REAGAN

Watch the trailer . . .