Many have speculated (including me) that Sony, Bigelow, screenwriter Mark  Boal, and the White House all got into bed together to create a propaganda film that would hit theatres with the kind of exquisite timing that is never an accident. It’s no secret Sony, like the rest of Hollywood, is deep in the tank for President FailureTeleprompter, and this $40 to $70 million propaganda film would most certainly serve as an in-kind propaganda contribution  that delivered the kind of deus ex machina that can only be dreamed up in Hollywood. Yesterday, and for very good reason, the story turned once again when the Pentagon and CIA got involved.

Apparently, it’s not just us extreme right-wing Republicans who are concerned over the possibility that the White House might have given the studio and filmmakers classified information they weren’t cleared to receive:

[Republican Congressman Peter] King has expressed worries about the administration’s cooperation with Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. and Kathryn Bigelow, director of the Oscar-winning picture “The Hurt Locker,” who is working on a movie about the hunt for bin Laden. In August King wrote the inspectors general of the Pentagon and CIA noting a New York Times column saying that Sony and Bigelow had been given “top-level access to the most classified mission in history.”

In his letter, King said that leaks of classified information related to the bin Laden raid had already resulted in the arrests of Pakistanis believed by Pakistan authorities to have assisted the CIA. Participation by the Pentagon and the CIA in making a film about the raid “is bound to increase such leaks, and undermine these organizations’ hard-won reputations as `quiet professionals,’” King said.

As a result, the Pentagon has started its own investigation, and the CIA is now re-examining its policies when it comes to dealing with Hollywood:

Did the Obama administration release classified information to Hollywood notables for a film about the operation that killed Osama bin Laden?

That’s a question Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) wants answered.  And in response, the Pentagon’s inspector general has launched an investigation, King disclosed Thursday.

“We plan to begin subject investigation immediately,” Patricia A. Brannin, deputy inspector general for intelligence and special program assessments, wrote in a memo that King emailed to reporters.

At issue is whether the filmmakers — director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who both won Oscars for their 2009 Iraq war movie “The Hurt Locker” — were given access to classified information about a mission that remains shrouded in secrecy.  While newspapers and magazines have published detailed accounts about the raid, much remains unknown to all but a few. …

In addition to the Pentagon investigation, the CIA has decided to craft a written policy about how its public affairs division works with authors and filmmakers, the agency said in letter to King released Thursday.

Hollywood being wicked, anti-American leftists cranking out film after film to undermine our military in the War on Terror is bad enough, but if there was some kind of collusion where in exchange for  a sweet piece of bigscreen propaganda the Obama Administration compromised national security, that needs to be fully investigated and anyone found guilty needs to go to jail… forever.

After his non-recess recess appointment earlier this week, I put nothing past Obama when it comes to what he’ll do to win another term. As far as Hollywood, that treasonous industry sold out its country years ago. So this is par for the course.

The first season of the Showtime series “Homeland” mercifully came to an end last night. I say “mercifully” because, while I will never get the hours I invested in the series back, I will not be subjecting myself to season two.

To recap so far, the series follows CIA agent Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) tracking recovered U.S. Marine Sgt. Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis), who she suspects of being a sleeper terrorist who was turned by his captor, al Qaeda commander Abu Nazir (Navid Negahban).

The CIA is also tracking Brody’s former sniper team partner Tom Walker (Chris Chalk), who is also suspected of working for Nazir. Agent Mathison has been placed on administrative leave for removing classified documents from Langley and because her superiors learned she suffers from bipolar disorder, which precludes her from having security clearance.

The episode opens with Brody filming his martyr video, in which he explains why he is about to take such drastic action. In previous episodes we learned that while Brody was being held captive he became close to Abu Nazir’s youngest son, Issa, who was subsequently killed by a U.S. drone strike that hit his school.

In the video, Brody states “As a Marine, I swore an oath to defend the United States of America against enemies, both foreign and domestic. My action today is against such domestic enemies. The Vice President and members of his national security team, who I know to be liars and war criminals, responsible for atrocities they were never held accountable for. This is about justice for 82 children whose deaths were never acknowledged and whose murder is a stain on the soul of this nation.”

Agent Mathison’s superior Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin) has decided to continue her work in her absence and discovers a redacted document about the drone strike, the only document that can be linked to such an event since the Vice President thought he had destroyed the paper trail. Saul brings the document first to the attention of CIA Deputy Director David Estes (David Harewood), who tells him to do his job and not worry about it. Saul is supposed to be working an event with Vice President William Walden (Jamey Sheridan) at the State Department.

Brody is preparing to carry out his attack at this event while meeting with Vice President Walden and various security officials, where it is to be announced he is running for Congress and Walden is running for President. The plan is for Brody to detonate an explosive vest that will kill the Vice President and all others present after being whisked into a secure bunker when Brody’s former partner, Walker, attempts to assassinate Walden. Walker purposely misses Walden.

The assassination attempt is simply a distraction to help get Brody and his vest past the metal detectors and into the bunker in the frenzy that follows. First, Brody’s vest malfunctions. After fixing the vest in the restroom, Brody receives a phone call from his daughter and is unable to complete his mission, apparently chickening out.

The next day, Saul brings the drone strike document to the attention of Vice President Walden, who is not interested in talking about it and tells Saul to “let it lie.” Instead, Saul decides to blackmail Walden using interrogation tapes that were supposedly destroyed. Saul describes what is on the tapes as “Coercion. Cruelty. Outright torture. Makes for unhappy viewing. You gave the orders, William. You gave the orders.”

We then see Estes showing Saul a videotape of the briefing room the day of the drone strike. In the video we see Estes tell Walden “That’s a school, sir.” Walden coldly replies “Don’t cloud the issue. If Abu Nazir is taking refuge among children, he’s putting them at risk, not us. It’s our joint opinion the potential collateral damage falls within current matrix parameters.” Saul is appalled, states “Somebody actually came up with that language?” and closes his eyes in disgust.

Saul and Estes get into a discussion about why the video was kept secret. When Saul threatens to contact the New York Times, Estes tells him “No you’re not. You know why? Because telling the world we killed 82 kids on purpose would endanger every one of your case operatives in the field. Not to mention every American soldier on the ground. You would, essentially, be handing the enemy the biggest recruitment tool since Abu Ghraib.”

Brody decides to meet with Walker, who wants to kill Brody for panicking and not completing the mission. Brody tells Walker, who has Abu Nazir on speakerphone, that he decided it was best not to complete the mission because now he is in the unique position of being close to the next President of the United States and “At the very least, I’d be able to influence policy at the highest levels” as a member of Congress. Nazir is on board with the idea, stating “Why kill a man when you can kill an idea?” Nazir then has Brody kill Walker as a demonstration of his commitment.

The final scene shows former agent Mathison undergoing electro-convulsive therapy to help treat her psychosis. Saul had tried to talk her out of the treatment due to the side effects, which includes memory loss. As Carrie is being put under anesthesia, she remembers Brody screaming the name of Nazir’s son in his sleep. She puts the pieces together, stating “Issa, Nazir’s son. Brody knew him,” right before falling asleep and undergoing the procedure.

Will she remember? Will it matter, since she’s essentially no longer a CIA agent? Will Brody be elected to congress and bring America down from within? I guess someone will have to let me know, since I won’t be watching. I have no interest in continuing to watch a show that paints Islamic terrorists as the good guys and the Vice President and CIA as the bad guys. A show that claims our CIA commits “outright torture.” A show that says we kill kids on purpose. A show in which the only person who understands the terrorist’s plans is literally psychotic.

I knew I risked disappointment when the series began. I know I wasn’t alone in hoping the outcome would be different this time. Looking back, I think the biggest clue to a potential letdown was the fact that lefty critics liked the show. Still, I held out hope that a plot twist would turn things around. It never happened.

Even bringing “24″ executive producer Joel Surnow into the mix wouldn’t bring me back for season two.

That’s an interesting comment coming from one of America’s best actors.

Morgan is a craftsman’s craftsman. I believe he represents the best of classic American acting since Henry Fonda. With similar aesthetics and discipline, both he and Henry Fonda have shown young American actors how to do “more with less” but do it with sharpshooting accuracy.

 I can honestly say that I’ve never seen him give a bad performance. Either on stage or in film.

I, along with the hundreds of others less disciplined, certainly wish we could say that for ourselves.

Morgan seems to be congenitally incapable of substandard work. Plus he carries what Fonda carried and what the great English director, Sir Tyrone Guthrie said was the rarest gift among actors: “nobility”.

Morgan and I once discussed, briefly I must add, getting “pissed off”. It was in relation to why Morgan hasn’t performed Othello in a big venue. He generally indicated that the rage within Othello was out of his reach.

Hmmm …

Now, I know he doesn’t want Barack Obama to be tearing the Presidential seal to tatters as Laurence Olivier might be prone to, but Morgan does want the President “pissed off”.

Much of America, as I am sure Morgan Freeman is aware, is very “pissed off” with Obama.

Morgan, please ask Representative Allen West of Florida and Presidential Candidate Herman Cain if we, who are “pissed off” with our President, are unjustified in being “pissed off”.

I’ll try to maintain my own calm as I write this.

President Obama promised Americans a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

We are learning, however, that to “transform America,” the President must first help to transform the Middle East.

“The Arab Spring” – which President Obama, through his own private sources, obviously knows more about than his CIA advisers – is nitroglycerin in the trumpets of a mariachi band.

The ultimate, long term leadership of Egypt is still in question.

Now with Muammar Gaddafi in hiding, Libya’s future has massively dire possibilities, alternatives that could prove quite catastrophic to not only America but the entire Free World.

Isn’t it clear, though, that the “fundamental transformation of the Free World’s Freest Nation” would necessitate an equal and earth-shattering transformation of Freedom itself?

Obama’s idea of a Presidency, however, and government involvement in almost every walk of life, defies the very meaning of individual freedom and responsibility.

Why?

The President’s economic policies are not merely Keynesian, they’re Marxist.

His idea of State-controlled Capitalism benefits the government’s most cooperative businesses which are, as he describes them, “too large to fail”. He shuts out his political competitors, the individually free small businesses which are always a challenge to the large, fat and generally lazy “Bigs”.

Obama is a Marxist ideologue and the intensity of his commitment to ending a totally free market is disturbingly fierce.

And you want him to get “pissed off”?!

You who have been the “coolest” of professionals on any set in the world. The calmest. The most assured, and on the set of Along Came A Spider, the most helpful to other actors.

Is the “Arab Spring” filled with similar “intensity” as that of President Obama? What percentage of the “Arab Spring” is Marxist as well as radically Islamic? What message would a “pissed off” Marxist President be sending to the Marxist troublemakers involved with the “Arab Spring”?

The following comments and conclusions in the Walid Phares interview indicate that President Obama’s cool and his distance from the action, his delays at entering the political nightmares still growing in Egypt, and virtually on fire in both Libya and Syria, are exactly what invites terrorists and radical Islamists to take power in all three places.

Is that what you want, Morgan?

Walid Phares says that the chance of Jihadist presence in Libya is “50/50”.

He says, “Libya could become another Iran.”

He also made perfectly clear that Obama’s hesitation to act is allowing the terrorist element within Libya (as well as Egypt and Syria) is helping the Jihadists to flourish. Because America has failed to act, the “Islamist radicals” have a foothold. It is fairly clear why President Obama is not getting “pissed off” with the Middle East. He seems to love and approve what is happening there.

However, Morgan, it’s not the Middle East you want Obama “pissed off” about. It’s the Republican opposition which is filled with increasingly “pissed off” Americans.

The consistently “coolest” thing to be, or to have ever been since the 1960’s, is to be a Marxist. And you were one of the coolest actors I’d ever met.

That is what you were when we met for the first time at the Charles Street Playhouse in 1970, performing in the very Marxist creation, Jungle of Cities, by that most Marxist of playwrights, Bertolt Brecht. I was a dizzily ambitious young actor who didn’t really give a damn about the political philosophy being sold. The Boston Globe critic gave me a positive review largely because he must have mistook me for a young Marxist. That same critic later murdered my Richard III because of my very un-Marxist idea within it: link Shakespeare’s vision of bottomless and over-the-top evil to Napoleon Bonaparte and that first glimpse of Marxist/Communist Revolt: the French Revolution.

Who knows? I was not an intellectual when we first met and have learned since then that I’m not one now. I’m rolling through ideologies and ideologues looking for the savage poetry in all of it. Having found it, I’m a very “pissed off” American exile watching the United States from Canada.  I cringe in dread as the United States drowns itself with the Marxist/Maoist philosophy running throughout most of the Obama Nation.

Performing in Jungle of Cities is one stage of Marxism. However, hanging Mao Zedong on the White House Christmas tree is much more eloquently “Red” than even singing Kurt Weill’s music … which I happened to do in a college production of Brecht’s Three Penny Opera.

We are obviously over the McCarthy days and Joseph’s Irish name, in addition to my own moniker, goes down into the bowels of a recent Marxist’s fantasy, Karl’s atheistic prayers for a Tea Party Inferno.

Elia Kazan was thrown with McCarthy under the same Marxist bus when he testified before the House On Un-American Activities Committee. All the Marxists in America were really “pissed off” then, weren’t they?

Now with New York, Chicago, Washington and Hollywood virtually owned by mini-Marxists and hypnotized by Maoist daydreams, you, sir, want President Obama “pissed off”?

With Obama, Marxists, full-blown Communists and the Arab Spring have reached goals none of them could have imagined. And why did they reach them? Because of Barack Obama’s eloquent cool that won him the Presidency.

And you want him pissed off?

You must know yourself, Morgan, that you reached success by being one of the coolest actors in the history of Hollywood. Staying cool is how you stay a star in both Hollywood and Washington, D.C.

Getting “pissed off” would get both you and Obama fired.

So keep those cards, letters and headlines coming in!

Yep, The Princess Diaries was on ABC Family.

But also, the world’s biggest jerkface is dead.

Now, from what I can gather from reading better writers than myself – this operation was an example of the very best of covert action – “24″ meets “Delta Force” – where the only objective is showing up, killing, then leaving.

This is the kind of stuff Erik Holder frowns upon.

But I’d like to think, that these days, folks like Holder aren’t told about this stuff anymore.

And so, here’s the thing about secret prisons and the covert stuff that goes on inside them: you can condemn them all you want, until you need them.

Fact is, unilateral secret action works.

According to the National Journal, the secret team that killed bin Laden has “operated largely with impunity since 9/11,” with some of its interrogators and operators involved … “in torture and rendition.”

And according to Politico, the U.S. discovered Osama’s compound by his “personal courier,” a person identified by terrorist detainees.

I wonder where they were detained, or how that info was retrieved.

Oh Gitmo. You rule.

And let’s examine Sunday’s action itself: a targeted killing – something a liberal President would condemn.

Which ours didn’t.

And that’s why – despite Obama’s previous condemnations of just about everything I mentioned above, he deserves a pile of credit for supporting all of it anyway.

Good on him.

So, this is not a partisan issue. It’s an “America is Awesome” issue.

Which is why this won’t be another “this is really great, but” rant.

Because there’s enough of them on web already.

“This is great news, but won’t this stoke revenge?”

“This is great news, but Obama’s speech was all about him.”

“This is great news, but what was bin laden doing in a mansion, 1000 feet from the Pakistani military?”

“This is great news, but why am I in Times Square at 3 am, without pants?”

I asked myself that question, because that’s where I was – drinking to the notion that politics be damned tonight:

America is awesome.

And I know some people will cringe over that pedestrian opinion.

Take the Washington Post’s Petula Dvorak, who said the sight of American college kids celebrating the death of Bin Laden outside of the White House reminded her of “those al Qaeda-guys dancing on Sept. 11th.”

Relativism at its best – and best ignored.

PS: I would like to take this moment to apologize to the French tourists I told to shut up at the bar last night. I didn’t mean to scare you, but when our President is informing us that bin laden is dead, you should probably be respectful.

We’re moving things around, but so far, we’ve got: 

Mike Baker

Terry Schappert

and, well, more.

Mister Bond

We begin as we always do, with Mr. Connery’s portrayal of the iconic MI6 agent.  In this case, however, it’s difficult to separate Mr. Connery from the rest of the movie because I believe the script’s inherent flaws affect Mr. Connery’s performance.  There’s nothing wrong with his work this time around, but I couldn’t help but feel that he’d almost become too comfortable in the role.  The first three films were so well-scripted that any actor would still find discoveries to be made in Bond’s character.   Both Mr. Connery, and the audience, are still becoming accustomed to who this man is in the earlier films.  With Goldfinger, the series pushed the boundaries of reality that it took Mr. Connery to keep the whole thing grounded.

In Thunderball, Bond is as confident as ever, to be sure.  He’s as professional as ever.  He knows what he’s doing, and utilizes all of his and the CIA’s resources to uncover the plot.  Yet something is lacking.   There are no more surprises to be had with Bond.  I blame the script.  This is a real shame, because the film starts out promising with a long first act that sets up the rest of the film beautifully.  I thought I was in for a well-structured picture.  Not so.  The problem is once the damn nukes are stolen, they are just left to sit with Largo until it’s time for them to be deployed.  Mr. Connery is left to handle a host of illogical maneuvers to mark time.  Certainly Mr. Connery is game, and does his absolute best.  It’s almost easy to think the film is actually better than it really is simply because of his presence.

About That Script…

Frankly, the script stinks once the nukes get stolen.  Up to that point, however, it’s actually terrific.  All the set-ups are clearly explained.  The clever use of a double to hijack a NATO test flight is slowly revealed to both us, and then to Bond.  There is intrigue and danger at Bond’s spa retreat, an amusing attempt on his life (or at least his spine) as Bond gets a taste of poetic justice for his…uh…pelvic activity.  There’s the unexpected theft of two nuclear bombs.  We get to see Blofeld and a quick glimpse inside SPECTRE.   It’s all wrapped up in a neat package forty minutes in, as Mr. Lippe is taken out by Fiona Volpe, an assassin on a motorcycle firing an RPG into the back of his car.  Tight scripting.  It’s a meaty first act with lots of possibility.

Then it grinds to a halt.  If you examine the second act closely, nothing happens.  And because nothing happens, the script flails around trying to come up with things to happen, even though they make little sense.  The problem is one of story.  The nukes don’t get moved.  Largo is supposed to stay put.  So he does.  And so does the movie.  The reason is probably due to the troubled history of the script itself.

The script’s logical inconsistencies really are a deal-breaker in my mind.  Bond first encounters Largo in the casino*, planting references to SPECTRE several times to see if it impacts Largo.  Clearly it does, because Largo sends a man to hide in Bond’s shower, with intent to kill.  Bond disarms him and send him back to Largo.  Later, Largo finds an underwater intruder by his boat.  He’s got to be fairly certain it’s Bond.

So why does Largo welcome Bond to his estate?  Why doesn’t he just shoot him right there?  This is just such sloppy storytelling, and at this point, I threw up my hands.  Any dramatic suspense has been blown out of the water (so to speak), I lost all interest in the story, and had to sit back and just enjoy individual scenes.

What made this all the more frustrating is that Largo could have been a great character.  I’ve not read the novel, but I’m told Largo is a sadist, and a far more interesting personality.  What I like is that this villain has a defined agenda, he’s a leader, and he’s kick-ass serious about it.  He strides right into the SPECTRE meeting, and following the electrocution of Number Eleven, commands the room as he strides down the catwalk detailing his plan.  Alas, there’s no depth to him.  Dr. No was an embittered outcast who finds a home in SPECTRE.  There is a suggestion that Largo is the same, in that SPECTRE’s hideout is inside the French Ministry of Displaced Persons, but that’s all we get.

I found Volpe to be an intriguing femme fatale, but again the drama strips away any suspense or interest.  When she picks up Bond on the beach, she then roars down the road at a hundred miles an hour to suspenseful Bond music.

So what?

What’s she going to do?  Crash the car and kill herself and Bond?  Not likely.  That the filmmakers insert this scene as if it was somehow supposed to raise the tension is pretty insulting.  It’s frustrating because Volpe has the capacity to be an interesting character, but there isn’t much else given to us.  Then there’s Largo’s sidekick, Vargas, introduced as a man who does not drink, smoke, or have sex. We don’t see this dramatized.  We don’t see how these alleged character quirks drive Vargas’ behavior.  One possibly interesting character, the nuclear physicist, is barely in the picture at all.

The conclusion arrives with Largo finally ready to offload the bombs, and Bond in hot pursuit.  But it pains me to say that the underwater sequences, which were innovative and probably exciting at the time, just don’t hold up.  The climactic fight is boring, with bodies flailing around, and everyone moving like snails.  There are only so many ways to kill someone underwater, and the ideas are tapped out before that sequence.

And yet…

Like the previous films, production designer Ken Adam does a marvelous job, and his work is worth noting.  One thing that Dr. No, Goldfinger, and Thunderball share is the continuity of Mr. Adam’s work.  His style for the films share similar characteristics and it’s worth noting that I feel From Russia lacks a cohesive sense of design — and he wasn’t the designer.

In previous articles, I suggested viewers keep an eye out for contrast — whether it be in shape, lighting, lines, space, color or texture — or uniformity.  A great designer’s use of these elements can really elevate a picture’s visual style, and subconsciously create emotional or visceral reactions.  Mr. Adam does not disappoint.  He owes credit to his directors, who shoot Mr. Adam’s expansive and expressive sets and locations from low angles, often permitting viewers to see all the way to the ceiling.

The fight sequence in Col. Boitier’s home is typical of a Bond set.  High ceilings, massive space, filled with contrasts of shape — in this case, circles and rectangles.  So deft is the filmmaking that contrast exists not only within shots, but between shots, appropriately heightening the subconscious tension.  The contrast of shape itself is representative of the collision between Bond and Boitier.

There is marked contrast between the SPECTRE’s HQ and that of MI6, where the briefing for all the double-O’s takes place.  SPECTRE’s hall is (once again) expansive.  Here the space stretches horizontally, with a lowered ceiling, creating a sense of narrowness and claustrophobia.  The colors are stark and cold — black, white, and silver.  It’s a rectangular room for the most part, with little round lights above each man’s head, suggesting an interrogation.  In a way it is, as they report their progress to Blofeld.

Meanwhile, the MI6 briefing also takes place in an expansive set.  However, there are several wide shots which emphasize the softer, more welcoming, and refined setting of British Intelligence.  The double-O’s are seated in a semi-circle.  Circles dominate the shapes in the room, even on the floor.  Here, a vertical perspective is emphasized, giving the room an open and airy feeling (think “freedom”).

One other sequence drives home the concept of shape contrast.  The health farm where Bond is recuperating is decorated in muted, but pleasant tones.  There are squares and rectangles everywhere.  The moment his nurse opens the curtains to the spine stretcher, there is a massive oval shape above it on the ceiling.   Viewers of Dr. No have seen this before.   The sudden contrast of a circle with the squares foreshadows the attempt to maim Bond.  The editing also cuts rapidly between the linear, boxy shapes of the spine machine and the round speed gauge.

Finally, we have the explosions of color that flood the picture when we enter the Bahamas.  And need I mention the strong blues and reds that accompany that dangerous Volpe?

Thwarted?

Look, the film is not an aesthetic failure and not a failure for the Bond franchise.  I like that the dramatic tone returns to that of From Russia With Love – a serious espionage film that lacks the more arch aspects of Goldfinger.  The direction is solid.  The actors are all engaging.  The design and editing are all strong.  The real weakness is in the second and third acts of the script, and it really does the picture a disservice.

James Bond will return in “You Only Live Twice.”

*Footnote: Baccarat has no skill associated with it whatsoever.  It is entirely a game of luck.

6.  “Nuclear weapons are awful.” – Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

There are probably a few inventions that have saved more human lives and prevented more suffering than nuclear weapons.  The wars since World War II, when we quite properly dropped two A-Bombs on Japan and ended the slaughter, have been a mere shadow of what they would have been without our thermonuclear arsenal.  That’s just a fact, and all the posturing about the “insanity” of deterrence in this inexplicably beloved movie can’t change that.  You should love The Bomb.

—–

Of course, Dr. Strangelove provides a better idea than nuclear deterrence by wholeheartedly embracing anti-missile defense.  Nah, just kidding.  The film advocates nothing except ironic detachment, essentially abdicating any responsibility and simply complaining about a strategy that, well, worked.  And let me be blunt – it just doesn’t hold up after all these years.  There, I said it.  Except Slim Pickens – Slim will always rock.

7.  “Greed is not good.” – Wall Street (1987)

Oliver Stone makes his third appearance on this list with a searing indictment of the financial industry that overwhelmingly supported the Democrats in 2008.

Like most liberals and leftists, Stone is either unaware of the difference between greed and enlightened self-interest or he simply does not care.  But sadly, he has managed, for a whole generation of half-wits, to make the face of capitalism Gordon Gekko instead of Adam Smith.

Note that Stone recently released a sequel to Wall Street, Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps (2010).  It cost $70 million to make but only grossed $52 million.  That’s okay, though, because Oliver Stone isn’t in it for the money.

8. “True courage means helping out the Nazis.” – The English Patient (1996)

John Nolte recently dissected the utter moral bankruptcy of The English Patient, but this astonishing film deserves another mention here.  Basically, the film approves of its hero’s selling out information to the Nazis in order to preserve his chance to score with his lame girlfriend.  I’ll rephrase that, because you probably think you read it wrong – this critically hailed motion picture’s position is that when you are given a choice between helping or not helping the Nazis, you should follow the instructions of your penis.

The problem isn’t that some screenwriter spews this kind of poison.  It’s that there are so many moral illiterates out there who mistake it for morality.  The English Patient was praised high and low for its profundity; in fact, at its heart it is nothing but a sickening, despicable ode to selfishness.  Greed may not be good, but apparently horniness is a virtue.  If you really dig a chick, so what if a few thousand guys battling Hitler get wasted?  Gimme a break.

At least The English Patient has a happy ending – the traitor gets burned up and dies, so it has that going for it.  You get to at least leave with a smile.

9.  “The CIA is both all-powerful and shockingly inept all at once.” – The Bourne Films (2002-2006)

What’s astonishing about the Bourne films, other than the fact that anyone watches these tiresome action retreads with a hero who cannot be defeated, deterred, or killed and a cinematographer who doesn’t own a tri-pod, is how the CIA is alternatively omnipotent and impotent.  When the plot requires it, the CIA can do anything it wants, right up until the plot needs it not to be able to.  Then it becomes less effective than the TSA on Quaaludes.

There have been a hundred films about the CIA, most picturing it as some sort of super spy force that has its wicked claws in pretty much everything around the world.  We wish!  The idea that American intelligence has an army of killbots designed to hunt down and eliminate our enemies at a moment’s notice would be totally awesome.  Sadly, the reality is more likely that any action request would get routed through three bureaus, six directorates, and a suite of lawyers before someone leaked it to the New York Times while the bad guy sips champagne with his hookers in a villa in Caracas.

10.  “The central tenet of Christianity is preventing teenagers from dancing.” – Footloose (1984)

As Hollywood understands it, Jesus brought the Ten Commandments to the people on a magic carpet largely because he wanted them to stop enjoying themselves.  And the first and most important commandment was that no Christian can ever dance.  It’s right there, written on the side of the Ark of the Covenant that Indiana Jones found.

Now, perhaps you missed these theological insights at Sunday school, but you gotta understand that the Hollywoodoid’s understanding of the religion embraced by most Americans is rather limited.  They know that Jesus is somehow involved, and that he has superpowers and can probably fly, and that everyone who is religious is repressed, and that to Christians all sex is bad.  Why red states like Utah seem to actually have a growing population while God-free blue zones like San Francisco are withering away is a question they never ask.

Now, Christians often complain that Hollywood doesn’t understand them, but they shouldn’t feel bad.  Hollywoodoids don’t understand any religion – they don’t discriminate in their ignorance.  Well, there is one religion they do understand and embrace wholeheartedly – leftism.  And if hackneyed lefty tropes constitute their sacraments, their pinko deity must be well-pleased.

Any attempt to pick the worst of the worst is bound to disappoint someone.  This list by no means contains all of the hackneyed, parochial, and just plain obnoxious bits of liberal received wisdom that the Hollywood brain trust has spewed forth over the years.  For every nitwit insight on the list, there are dozens more floating around the nether reaches of Netflix, waiting to annoy the unwary.  No doubt the commenters will find many more.

So, here my top ten in no particular order:

1. “All American Soldiers are psychos.” – Platoon (1986)

It’s pretty obvious that the American soldier is the greatest force for evil in all of human history – or it would be, if all you watched were post-Vietnam War Hollywood movies.  It seems that to most of the hacks in Hollywood, the mere act of donning an Army uniform turns you into a bloodthirsty killing machine with an appetite for murder.  And that’s not just on the battlefield.  In American Beauty (1999), the conservative Marine neighbor not only abuses his wife and son but murders people because he’s secretly gay!  That’s a liberal stereotype trifecta – they probably think it makes him a prime candidate for King of the Tea Party.

Oh, but they support the troops. See, it’s the system that turns these guys into monsters – a meme that lets the Hollywoodoids both trash the guys dumb enough to end up in uniform while at the same time showing how much they care for these pitiful “victims.”  So, it’s a win-win…or, more accurately, a libel-libel.

Platoon is a prime example of this despicable trend, made all the worse by the fact that Oliver Stone – who makes his first of his several appearances on this list – is a Vietnam vet.  This technically well-crafted slice of propaganda portrays American soldiers in Vietnam as near-savages barely able to contain their bloodlust long enough to function as a military unit.  What’s sad is that there are such things as war crimes, and soldiers can do wicked things, but Hollywood has zero credibility left to tell those stories. Regardless, Platoon sort of raises a question about Stone himself – either he’s a scumbag for slandering troops by accusing them of crimes he didn’t see them commit, or he’s a scumbag for seeing such crimes and not standing up to stop them.  Either way, Stone’s a scumbag.

2.  “All misfits, losers, and malcontents are inherently heroic.” – Animal House (1979)

No one loves Animal House more than I do, but one unfortunate legacy (besides convincing a generation of sheet-clad college drunks that they should try to sing Shout) is that it help popularize the very silly notion that somehow being a total failure confers upon you some sort of superior moral status.  Sure, the frat guys are a bunch of creepy jerks whose initiation practices would fit in at a Halloween party at Robert Mapplethorpe’s loft.  But in real life, weirdos, losers, and mutations like the Delta House guys are, well, weirdos, losers, and mutations.  Their antics may be amusing, but you just don’t want them trying to hang out with you.

Now, the Hollywood elite’s embrace of slobs is no surprise because the deadbeat demographic has become a vital and essential element of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition.  Perhaps putting the lazy and stupid on a pedestal by depicting such doofuses as role models is really a kind of marketing campaign designed to increase their numbers.  Combined with the Democrats’ firm commitment to pro-parasite policies, like Obamacare and the expansion of other government handouts to layabouts who refuse to support themselves, maybe what we are seeing is part of a cultural conspiracy of shocking proportions.

Or maybe the Hollywoodoids are just too creatively lazy to do anything else.

3.  “Those darn conservatives killed JFK.” – JFK (1991)

Leave it to Oliver Stone to once again not let inconvenient truths get in the way of his conclusions.  Why should the fact that a commie piece of human waste who had defected to Russia and who was actively advocating for Cuba shot Kennedy keep Stone from making another technically great movie that instead posits a conspiracy including but not limited to the Pentagon, the CIA, General Motors, Denny’s restaurants, Microsoft, the state of Alabama, miscellaneous Norwegians, three of the Doobie Brothers, the Sham-Wow guy, shiny reverse vampires, and the mastermind, a 12-year old Rush Limbaugh.

We’re through the looking glass here, people.  Especially where Costner names noted tool of the rightwing capitalist conspiracy Arlen Specter as one of the ringleaders.  Yeah, that Arlen Specter.

4.  “Every American who is not an affluent urban elitist is a drooling degenerate.” – Deliverance (1972)

It’s always fun to see how the liberal elites in Hollywood and their comrades in D.C. and New York seem to look at the rest of their country like medieval folk looked at ancient maps – as if the lands beyond the fringes of the known world are described with the words, “Beware! Here be sodomites!”

Now, no one is parochial like a Hollywoodoid.  These folks think driving south of the I-105 requires a passport and heading east of the I-5 (except maybe to Vegas) requires vaccinations.  The fact that they know nothing of the world outside their manicured lawns is not surprising; the fact that they constantly portray it as at best quaint, but usually malignant, is just getting tiresome.

In reality, the insular Hollywood community of today, drawing as it does new blood only from the same set of prestigious schools and from the offspring of its own members, is more incestuous than any backwoods West Virginia hollow.

5.  “Nuclear Power is eeeeevvvvvviiiiiiilllllll” – The China Syndrome (1979)

Hanoi Jane stars as a crusading reporter in this cheap-looking relic that was shot with all the technical flourish of a very special episode of CHiPs.  Sure, we know that all corporations are evil, but The China Syndrome teaches us that the nuclear power industry is especially evil.  We know this because, well, anyone who opposes the liberal agenda is evil.

The title refers to the idea that a nuclear plant core meltdown would send the core deep into the earth, releasing a cloud of radiation that would destroy, well, if this movie is to be believed, pretty much everything.  This silly movie was lucky enough to come out around the time of the Three Mile Island incident, where a little radiation was released and nothing much happened.  Sadly, it gave ammunition to the liberal Luddites who oppose safe, clean nuclear power.  And who also oppose coal and oil power.  And hydroelectric power.  And solar power.  And wind power (at least in their backyards).

But on the plus side, when we have no electrical power at all, we’ll never have to watch crap like The China Syndrome again.

Stay tuned for Part II.

—–

While “Ocean’s Eleven” featured more exciting actors like Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and George Clooney, “Red” has a stronger and more well-respected cast. It features iconic actors like Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren. Both “Ocean’s” and “Red” were far-fetched and over the top, but each movie overcame its shortcomings with its cast.

“Red” opens on Frank (Bruce Willis), a retired and lonely man who receives his pension check in the mail. He’s trying to maintain a relationship with an employee at the pension office named Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker). Once he receives his check, he immediately destroys it and then calls her to say that it never arrived. Frank eventually wants to meet Sarah but she’s nervous about such an encounter. However, meeting her becomes a necessity when a team of assassins targets Frank for elimination. When their plan fails, Frank is forced to kidnap Sarah to protect her from any danger she may be in. (Frank has spent so much time on the phone with Sarah that he fears she might used as a way to get to him.)

The film’s title refers to a group of former C.I.A. officers (including Frank)who are known by the initials R.E.D: Retired, Extremely Dangerous. On the run from assassins, Frank and Sarah are forced to reunite with some of his R.E.D. colleagues to figure out whoever’s trying to kill them. Frank’s colleagues include Joe (Morgan Freeman), who spends his days checking out women in a retirement home, and Victoria (Helen Mirren), who lives a quiet life when she isn’t taking contract jobs on the side. Another former co-worker is Marvin (John Malkovich), who joins the crew as well but his psychological issues (caused by taking LSD for eleven years) sometimes interfere with his ability to get the job done.

The actors in “Red” seem to be having a great time. Malkovich, for one, gives a delightfully insane performance that steals the show but the other actors do just fine. There’s also the novelty factor in seeing high-caliber performers like Helen Mirren violently killing people and smiling courteously about it — but sometimes a novelty wears out too quickly. Some of the violent sequences showcasing Victoria’s abilities go on for too long.

Like “Ocean’s Eleven,” the plot isn’t as great as it could be considering the actors involved.  Everything ultimately leads to a bizarre conspiracy that involves a defense contractor trying to manipulate the political system. However, “Red” isn’t about logic or a strong plot. It’s about a strong group of actors coming together and having fun in a light fluffy action-comedy.

But what I really hate most about “outreach?” It allows folks access to places that a schmuck like me can never get into.

Look – I’m a decent guy. No prison record. No weird tattoos. I don’t cross-dress (anymore). Yet I’ve never lunched as a guest at the Pentagon, in the name of “outreach.”

But get this: the first American on the CIA’s kill or capture list has.

Yep, according to documents obtained by Fox News, Anwar Al-Awlaki – the dude that seems to be involved in every act of terror, was taken to the Pentagon as part of an outreach attempt to the Muslim community – right after 9/11.

A Defense Department employee arranged the meeting, after “being impressed by this imam.”

And why not. He was considered a “moderate Muslim,” who condemned al qaeda and terror attacks. And of course, the Pentagon was “eager” to have him around, to show we don’t hate them all.

And that’s the mistake. Awlaki was interviewed at least four times by the FBI right after 9/11, because of his ties to the hijackers. How does that make him a moderate? It doesn’t – but – allegedly none of the FBI’s info was given to the Pentagon. Awesome.

Anyway, the guy’s already been linked to the Ft. Hood shooter, the Christmas day bomber and the Times Square loser Faisal Shahzad. And now, in all likelihood he’s hiding out, planning something worse.

Maybe if we invited him to lunch, he’d tell us all about it!

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist, homophobic terrorphobe!

—–

The latest addition to the network’s roster of original drama programming, Covert Affairs (Tuesdays, 10 p.m. EDT), is another solid entertainment with something more. Taking up the 1960s-style adventure formula of current shows such as Fringe and Human Target, the show refreshes the genre by creating realistic moral dilemmas for the characters, without indulging in the sort of flamboyantly gloomy agonizing over the morality of the spy game that has made the genre increasingly boring since John Le Carre introduced it in the early ’60s and began flogging it to death.

The central characters are Annie Walker (Piper Perabo), a new CIA agent in her late twenties. Annie is brave, tenacious, devoted to her duty, and attractive. The same is true of her colleague, Auggie Anderson, who heads technical operations in the CIA office, having been blinded while serving in Afghanistan. Importantly, however, Auggie refuses to indulge in any self-pity about his blindness. Instead, his wit and positive attitude add to his appeal for Annie and other women.

As that makes clear, the characters in Covert Affairs are too American to imitate Le Carre’s tortured antiheroes; instead, they simply add some emotional depth to type of stylish, good-natured, largely optimistic TV heroes that were popular in the mid-1960s, such as Alexander Mundy (Robert Wagner) of It Takes a Thief and the globetrotting espionage agents of I Spy played by Bill Cosby and Robert Culp. That allows Covert Affairs to be entertaining without becoming pointless fluff.

Each episode of Covert Affairs deals with a threat to national security, and although the show does depict instances of backstabbing and political double-dealing within the CIA and between the agency and other government offices, the purpose of the organization is shown as honorable and its mission worthy of the ideals of the show’s two young main characters.

As the show’s title might suggest, Covert Affairs continually explores the way public affairs are influenced by the private lives of the people involved. The pilot episode, for example, opens with a scene in which Annie is asked highly personal questions by a polygraph examiner, to determine whether a personal relationship in which she was involved before joining the agency might interfere with her accomplishing her duties.

Despite clearly being conflicted about it, she assures him that she’ll be able to put her feelings aside as necessary. Her boss, Joan Campbell (Kari Matchett), has an even thornier tangle of personal and professional duties: she’s married to the director of clandestine services, Arthur Campbell (Peter Gallagher), and each must keep secrets from the other in order to do their jobs effectively, which understandably puts strains on their marriage.

Episode 6, ‘Houses of the Holy,” deals with similar themes. Annie is assigned to investigate a U.S. Senator suspected of leaking national security secrets to foreign nations. The real reason for the leaks involves a series of personal betrayals, however, and all of those who have betrayed one another pay a heavy price for their wrongs.

Similarly, episode 7, “Communication Breakdown,” explores how espionage agencies use the creation of personal relationships—including sexual ones—in order to extract information from a targeted person; it realistically portrays the moral dilemmas involved in such activities. In the course of the episode, the personal feelings engendered by two of these relationships place an agent in mortal danger and at risk of career disaster.

The episode also presents interesting arguments between two of the characters about cyber security, intellectual property rights, and Internet freedom. The episode exemplifies how skillfully Covert Affairs balances ideas and action.

An interesting thing about the show is the variety of threats to the national security that are in play at any particular time. That strikes me as rather realistic, in suggesting that government security agencies avert a good many crises without the public ever knowing about it. And there is nothing necessarily sinister in that secrecy, given that allowing such information out to the public would also make it available to potential enemies. But of course such a culture of covertness creates a temptation for abuse, as the secrecy affords an agency the power to cover up mistakes and malfeasance.

These are concerns that Covert Affairs brings up in dramatic terms, and the show’s treatment of the issues indicates a distinct awareness that the dilemmas involved are unavoidable and that the power we give government in the name of security can backfire. That reflects—and reinforces—a healthy skepticism toward government in general, an attitude especially precious in this time of rapid expansion of government power.