Lions for Lambs for Losers

November 11, 2007

I love politics. I love movies. I love heated debates about the “war on terror”, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the importance of national service. I love Meryl Streep. I love uber liberal Robert Redford. I should have loved Lions for Lambs.

But I didn’t. In fact, I hated it. I thought it was one of the worst films I saw this year. Over hyped, over advertised, over acted, and over ambitious. In fact, I thought it was so bad I needed to post about it.

Problems:

It is preachy and self important. It tells you what is important and just how important it is. It had Tom Cruise just spouting the same Republican Party lines I could watch on CNN of the value of security and turning the Middle East into some Christian moral crusade. It had Meryl Streep as a weak, menopausal reporter who lost the spunk and dedication to truth journalists used to have. She was only capable of saying something needed to be done (and of course to compare the situation to Vietnam). Robert Redford was the worst; he was supposed to be the inspirational teacher who changes apathetic American kids into the proponents of change while having done nothing himself. Except it was so dry the only thing it inspired me to do was fall asleep. Intermittent through the two main conversations were some decent scenes of two soldiers, exploitation cinema at its finest. Although that was essentially to make you sympathize with the troops regardless of your political views by making them minority martyrs dying for our sins. Then after no plot, there was no resolution. I guess it was just to pose the questions you should be asking yourself about our government already. Except the problem is if you weren’t already asking those questions you wouldn’t have gone to see the movie, so it was preaching to the choir. It was also incredibly spineless, there was a general leaning towards anti-war sentiments, but it wasn’t strong or in your face. Just a terribly ineffective, boring tirade made my Hollywood to try to prove some sort of political awareness. I don’t care that you read the newspaper Robert Redford.

My advice:

If you are looking for a movie to make you ask yourself what is right and wrong, check out Gone Baby Gone. That is a fine example of movie posing moral questions while still having an entertaining and fast paced storyline.


Guess Who’s Gay?

October 20, 2007

harry_070710_img1.jpg

Which Harry Potter character has a queer little past? (No it is not Harry, much to the dismay of millions of old pervs, and to the relief of millions of young girls). It is Dumbledore! For those of you who haven’t read the books, or could keep awake during the movies, he is the really old guy who runs the school. Dumbledore is portrayed currently in the movies by Michael Gambon (he was previously portrayed by Richard Harris who died).

I have personally always believe Ian McKellen would be a better match for the role. And now that we know Dumbledore is a butt pirate (no offense, to the gays or to pirates), it makes even more sense. I looked it up and apparently tons of people agree he would have made a great Dumbledore.

In case you were wondering how I know Dumbledore is a homo, the author JK Rowling announced it the other day.  You can read the article below to check out, how it “came out”.

Here is the article