For lefty movie reviewers already bitter that Margaret Thatcher even existed – and especially bitter because her three terms as Britain’s prime minister utterly repudiated their most sacred beliefs – the new Thatcher biography The Iron Lady offers them a chance for some quality ankle biting.  Of course, this living legend will survive both the film and the wailing of these liberal pipsqueaks.  The problem is that we still can’t be sure whether we ought to see it or not.

The arrival of a serious film about a serious conservative presents liberal reviewers with a quandary. When the film trashes the conservative, that’s great – the slander in and of itself is good for at least a star on its own, and if the boom mikes aren’t looming in the frame and the actors don’t forget their lines you’re guaranteed at least a three star review if only in the name of socialist solidarity.

But if the movie, as some say happened here, refuses to take a position on its subject, then there’s a problem for the liberal reviewer. As we shall see, they tend to handle it by simply inserting their own limousine liberal insights into the review. Somewhere, sometime, someone must have lied to them and told them that the world gives a damn about the political views of guys whose job it is to discourse upon movies that feature singing chipmunks, space robots and/or Ashton Kutcher.

(more…)

Roger Ebert has spend the last few years insulting, degrading, offending and demeaning anyone in his once loyal audience who dares to disagree with his obnoxious, leftist politics.

No one has worked harder to destroy the enormous amount of goodwill they built up over the decades, and the “hiatus” of “At the Movies” might just be those chickens coming home to roost.

IndieWire:

Last week, Indiewire reported that the”Ebert Presents At the Movies,” the PBS film review show launched by Roger Ebert earlier this year, faced a few promising options to help salvage it from financial trouble. While those possibilities haven’t necessarily gone away, Ebert and his wife and co-producer, Chaz Ebert, need more time. As a result, as the seminal critic posted on his blog on Wednesday night, the program will go on hiatus at the end of December. “We held off as long as possible, but had to give notice today,” Ebert wrote. “It was a sad but necessary moment of realism.”

Since launching in January with co-hosts Christy Lemire and Ignatiy Vishevetsky in January, “At the Movies” has recorded 50 episodes. Lemire and Vishevetsky also contribute written criticism to other outlets on a regular basis, Lemire to the AP and Vishevetsky to MUBI and the Chicago Reader. “We have co-hosts whose chemistry has ignited, and who provide two definitely different viewpoints, which is the idea,” Ebert wrote. He concluded:

“We hope our status will be brief. You have told us you like the show. And we now have options. A touching number of viewers offered to send us money directly. One of the avenues we may take is a Kickstarter campaign, as you suggested. We will let you know as soon as that is worked out.”

Man, if a leftist can’t make it on public television…

(more…)

Former MTV mainstay Kurt Loder still loves music, but these days you’re more likely to read him pontificating about “The Twilight Saga” than Lady Gaga.

Movies, says Loder, film critic for Reason.com, are “fresh material to me, in a way that music somehow isn’t. It’s tangible. It’s up on the screen.”

Loder’s movie commentaries – witty, wise and full of admiration on the rare occasions when the stars align to yield a great film – can now be held in your hand thanks to a new collection.

“The Good, the Bad and the God-Awful: 21^st Century Movie Reviews” lets Loder opine on Hollywood’s recent movie releases. Loder slams “Australia,” praises “In Bruges” and puts more journalistic muscle into his take down of Michael Moore’s “Sicko” than most of his peers.

“Some movies are so appalling you wonder what went wrong … who said, ‘this is really good, let’s put it out,’” he says.

“The Good, the Bad and the God-Awful” compiles reviews into themes – like Schlockbusters (expensive flops), The Land That Laughs Forgot (comic duds) and Funtime (hilarious romps). He even dedicates an entire chapter to Nicolas Cage (“one of the great without-a-net highfliers of our time”). Loder may be most fond of Looking for Love, the section dedicated to great films still searching for an appreciative audience – like indie darling “The Brothers Bloom.”

Loder’s prose is prickly when the situation demands it, but he’s not a curmudgeon taking undue pleasure excoriating mediocre films. He also insists he’s a movie reviewer, not a film critic.

(more…)

The state of movie criticism is far different than when the avuncular Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert first flashed their thumbs on national TV.

Film bloggers rule, while veteran movie scribes are losing their gigs left and right from mainstream publications.

Perhaps that’s why Ebert’s rebooted review show, “At the Movies,” is struggling to find critical funding to keep it on the air. The show, which launched in January, might not survive if its financial situation doesn’t improve. Ebert shared the sobering news via his web site:

(more…)

Be sure to click here and read John Hanlon’s terrific review of Roger Ebert’s new memoir. It was while reading the review that  I came across something Ebert floats that’s worth debating — and it only is a little bit about politics.

John Hanlon:

“Compared to the great movie stars of the past, modern actors are handicapped by the fact that their films are shot in color.” [Roger Ebert] adds, “In the long run, that will rob most of them of the immortality that was obtained even by second-tier stars of the black-and-white era.”

Ebert’s not the first one to make the argument that stars from the classic era have an advantage when it comes to becoming immortal due to being shot and remembered in black and white, as opposed to color. But in a word…

….this is preposterous.

Do we think of Marlon Brando, Paul Newman or Steve McQueen in black and white? What about Jack Nicholson, Dustin Hoffman, Judy Garland, Kirk Douglas, Charles Bronson, or Gene Kelly? How about Clint Eastwood? Good heavens, James Dean became immortal after starring in only three films — all of them filmed in color.

Obviously the full context of Ebert’s thoughts can’t be included in a single book review, but like I said, I’ve heard this argument elsewhere and think it’s an excuse made by those trying to get ahead of the fact that the films that represent their values won’t live as long as those that represent age-old truths.

(more…)

For years, pundits have been trying to connect violent movies and video games with actual crimes.

The arguments typically end up more theoretical than reality based. In one famous instance, the 1994 Oliver Stone film “Natural Born Killers” supposedly inspired a young couple to kill a person and leave another paralyzed.

More recently, celebrities like Elizabeth Banks, Roger Ebert, Patton Oswalt and Michael Moore twisted the blame game for partisan reasons, using their Twitter accounts to accuse Sarah Palin of inspiring the Tucson shooter without a shred of evidence.

Now, we have a direct tie between an anti-war film and the murder of two U.S. soldiers. So … will the media cover the story? Will it change how the film industry treats the subject matter? And will Miss Banks and co. rush to Tweet their condemnation of the movie in question?”

Yes, I’m being rhetorical on all three fronts, but let’s plow on all the same.

“Redacted” by Brian de Palma (“The Untouchables,” “Scarface”) cast U.S. soldiers as racist, violent thugs. The film flopped in spectacular fashion, earning $65,388 for its entire theatrical run. Apparently, audiences weren’t too keen on seeing the men and women of the Armed Forces smeared.

But “Redacted” impacted Arid Uka, a Balkan Muslim who saw the film and went on to kill two U.S. Air Force servicemen in March. Uka told a judge this week he was inspired by “the movie’s graphic depiction of U.S. soldiers raping a girl in Iraq,” says The Daily Caller citing a BBC report.

(more…)

Before knowing for sure if alcohol contributed to the awful car crash that killed “Jackass” star Ryan Dunn and two others, Roger Ebert tweeted the following yesterday afternoon:

“Friends don’t let jackasses drink and drive.”

The blowback was immediate.

Today, Ebert backed off and somewhat apologized:

I don’t know what happened in this case, and I was probably too quick to tweet. That was unseemly. I do know that nobody has any business driving on a public highway at 110 mph, as some estimated — or fast enough, anyway, to leave a highway and fly through 40 yards of trees before crashing. That is especially true if the driver has had three shots and three beers. Two people were killed. What if the car had crashed into another car?

(more…)

“How I Won the War,” released on DVD over four decades after its theatrical debut in 1967, is notable for two reasons. First, it’s the only film that Beatle John Lennon appeared in without his fellow band mates in tow, and second, it’s a liberal, anti-war film that was reamed by Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times and Bosley Crowther in the New York Times.

Lennon plays a bit part as a soldier under the command of British lieutenant Earnest Goodbody (Michael Crawford), whose incompetence continually dwindles his troops as they fight the Axis in North Africa and Europe.

Director Richard Lester, the man behind Beatles films “Help!” and “A Hard Day’s Night,” splices grainy, tinted documentary footage into his film, but detracts from the weight of this footage through gag comedy and an apparent lack of direction throughout.

Charles Wood wrote the screenplay, though it’s hard to understand what he wrote exactly. The dialogue is spoken so fast that with the British accents it’s nearly impossible to understand. And the storyline is mashed and incoherent, seemingly without a purpose or end-point in sight.

I think the acting is good, I think, but I couldn’t really tell since I didn’t know what the actors were saying. Lennon’s pretty funny, but his character is a prankster, whose gags are immature and childish. (more…)

***UPDATE: This article has been corrected to fix a factual error.

The Cannes Film Festival Board of Directors is unwilling to lay out a set of excuses for director Lars von Trier’s pro-Nazi comments yesterday. If memory serves this is the first time Cannes has ever declared “persona non grata” a director of astonishingly dull and pretentious films only liars and masochists claim to have watched all the way through*:

CANNES, France – Danish director Lars Von Trier was expelled from the Cannes film festival on Thursday after remarks he made at a news conference, apparently in jest, in which he declared himself a Nazi and Hitler sympathizer.

“The festival’s board of directors … profoundly regrets that this forum has been used by Lars Von Trier to express comments that are unacceptable, intolerable, and contrary to the ideals of humanity and generosity that preside over the very existence of the festival,” the festival said in a statement.

“The board of directors firmly condemns these comments and declares Lars Von Trier a persona non grata at the Festival de Cannes, with effect immediately.”

(more…)

***UPDATE: An emailer just alerted me to the fact that the article referenced here that was published at “Roger Ebert’s Journal” was written by Chaz Ebert, not Roger Ebert. I’ve updated the headline and post to reflect the correction.

If you remember, on Sunday night, film critic Roger Ebert was all excited after Salon’s Joan Walsh and NBC’s David Gregory (two people with racial issues of their own) called Newt Gingrich out for the hideous crime of labeling our failed food stamp president the “Food Stamp President.”

Here’s his tweet:

So “food stamp President” is “coded racism,” but when you fast-forward a mere couple of days to today you’ll find Roger Ebert publishing at his Chicago Sun-Times Journal a report written by Chaz Ebert that contains a lot of excuse-making for a famous director of pretentious films trashing Israel and proudly declaring he’s a Nazi:

[Von Trier] said he grew up thinking he was a Jew, and he was very happy to be a Jew. Then he discovered he was a Nazi, and that also gave him some pleasure. “Yes, I am a Nazi!”, he declared.

While his cast (Charlotte Gainsbourg, Udo Kier and John Hurt) looked on in horror, Kirsten Dunst tapped him on the shoulder and whispered to him to moderate his comments. He looked at her in confusion and said, “But this has a point, it will be okay.”

Then he proceeded to dig himself in deeper, saying that he understood Hitler, and that he could sympathize with his being down in that bunker toward the end. He continued, “Well that doesn’t mean I have anything against Jews, except Susanne Bier (Danish filmmaker, “In a Better World”).

“Well, Israel is a pain in the ass …

“Okay, I am a Nazi…

(more…)

—–

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism:

In a conversation about race, when one immediately thinks of black Americans when one hears food stamps, is not that a clear indicator of prejudice and stereotyping?

If you said yes, then check out the latest column from Salon’s Joan Walsh. Apparently, Joan Walsh believes food stamps are something inherent to black Americans only. When she could have nabbed Gingrich on his remarks yesterday morning about the individual mandate (insane) or his criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s goal of reforming entitlements (off-base) she went straw man.

Food stamps equals “Black”?

(more…)

Lately, there have been duelling stories in the entertainment press about the future of ”Atlas Shrugged.” With disappointing box office returns, the producers have been asked if they will go ahead and complete the franchise and in one interview we’re being told there will be no trilogy and in another we’re being told that there will. To clear the air, I reached out via email and “Atlas” producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow were both good enough to respond with exclusive quotes that should help to calm fears of “Atlas” fans everywhere.  

Most surprising, though, was the revelation that CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC are refusing to broadcast 15-second “Atlas” spots. What’s that about?

“I’m going to get a picture of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers and the rest of them so I can wake up in the morning and be reminded what we’re up against,” Aglialoro wrote in an email. “They’re revitalizing me with their outrageousness.” Aglialoro then went on to state that he had been “misunderstood” when he said that the critical drubbing the film took “influenced him to abandon the second and third films in the Atlas Shrugged franchise.”  He confirmed that he has ”no intention to go on strike.”

That should come as very good news to the many, many people who obviously enjoyed the film and found it to be something special. Personally, I’ve never seen such polarized reviews before. The critics savaged it and yet everyone who sent a revew into us loved it. The most interesting thing I’ve noticed is that no one was on-the-fence about the film. No one said, “Yeah, it was okay.” People either passionately embraced Part 1 or passionately didn’t. You don’t see a lot of movies like that. So, for those of you who loved it…

“Make no mistake, we want to make Part 2 and Part 3 and we’re committed to finding a way to make it work,” Aglialoro wrote.  “There’s a temptation to make the movies expecting to lose money, to say to heck with the critics and invest another $10 million and hope to make some of it back. But to do so would betray Ayn Rand’s principles. This has to be a profitable venture. The challenge is in finding a way to overcome the critics and the rest of the establishment, who are united against us. The most frustrating thing is knowing that there are people who are missing out on an opportunity to enjoy the experience of Atlas Shrugged on the big screen either because of what critics have said or because they just don’t know it’s in theaters because they haven’t heard about it.”

(more…)

Liberal film critic, Roger Ebert, called Battle: Los Angeles “noisy, violent, ugly and stupid”.  BigHollywood.com Editor-In-Chief, John Nolte, called it “wildly entertaining and subversive”.  That was all I needed to read to know this was a “must see” movie.  And it most definitely is…in fact, movie goers overseas agree as this epic sci-fi film garnered a first place finish in its second weekend overseas bringing in $27.1 million…with Rango, the animated film about the chameloen sheriff (Johhny Depp) earning $17.5 million in its third weekend.  Now that’s American exceptionalism…on the big screen!

As a retired Air Force veteran, I viewed this movie from a slightly different vantage point than one who has never served in our armed forces. And I loved every minute of this fast-paced, heart-stopping, riveting movie…silently cheering on the small platoon of courageous Marines, led by 2nd Lieutenant William Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez), sent out on what seemed like a suicide mission to rescue a few stranded civilians in Santa Monica before the Air Force was to completely level the entire city that had fallen to a devastating alien invasion.

What was originally reported to be meteors falling into the ocean along the Los Angeles coastline (as well as the coastlines of 20 other major cities around the world) was quickly determined to be a well-orchestrated invasion of a massive force of seemingly impossible-to-kill aliens… and they were everywhere… annhilating everything and everyone in their path.  As I watched the fast-paced, chaotic, and gripping action unfold, I often found myself holding my breath and sitting on the edge of my seat — myheart racing wildly, pulling for our heroes.  It has been a long time since I’ve been to a movie that left me exhausted like that, in a good way.

I appreciated how they introduced each member of the platoon and gave us a little insight into their frame of mind just prior to their embarking on this terrifying mission, setting the stage for some of the heart-wrenching actions and decisions that occurred throughout the movie.  It made them more real to me, as real as the stories and situations faced every day by our men and women deploying overseas into hostile combat zones.

The main hero of the movie, Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), was very convincing as a tough, no-nonsense, war-weary Marine.  In spite of having just gotten his retirement papers signed — a man who was struggling with some demons from his past (something not uncommon to our brothers and sisters who have served in a war zone) — SSgt Nantz displayed the kind of leadership, ingenuity, courage, selflessness, and compassion commonly found in the members of our military, most especially in our Marines, who are always on the front lines … and go where few dare to go.

(more…)

A fight to the death in an urban hell between US Marines and an implacable, evil foe who murders civilians without a second thought – if only Hollywood had the moral courage to tell that story straight, the story of America’s finest who battled to victory over jihadi degenerates in Fallujah and throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Hollywood can’t tell that story, not without exchanging the real menace our men and women are fighting everyday for a horde of CGI space aliens.  Sadly, the industry lacks the moral courage of the men and women it portrays.

Let’s be clear – Battle: Los Angeles is a terrific action film that makes no bones about its pro-American, pro-military agenda.  And that fact has invited carping from the usual suspects, lefty movie critics who work themselves up into a lather over the portrayal of better men than they will ever be.   

And note that when I use the term “men” here, I include the fighting women of the US armed forces – don’t worry, critics:  Heroines like Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester will protect you . . . just move to the rear with the children and try not to get in the way. 

The fact is that science fiction has long been a tool to comment on the present, including the relationship between our warriors and our society.  Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers was a fascinating depiction of military life as well as what the author saw as a degrading, decaying culture.  The Paul Verhoeven film of the same name, though different in tone, had its own insights into military vulture, including coed showers and a machine gun-packing Doogie Howser.

(more…)

Over the next few days Big Hollywood will publish “Battle: Los Angeles” reviews from two U.S. Servicemen — Michael Broderick and Kurt Schlichter. Let’s see if the snob Roger Ebert wants to mock them in this way. You see, Ebert can’t just not like a pro-military movie, he has to insult anyone who disagrees with him as dumb.

The Left’s totalitarian streak does not end with politics. It extends to everything, including alien invasion flicks.

—–

(more…)

You want to know how clueless too many of today’s lock-step thinking,  left-wing critics are? They’re so blinded by ideology and partisanship that their number-one complaint about the thoroughly entertaining, engrossing, exciting, edge-of-your-seat “Battle: Los Angeles,” is that it’s somehow lacking in important themes, subtext, a social conscience and meaning.  Okay, it’s Lent and there’s a Swear Jar right here on my desk, which means that the following is going to cost me a dollar — but it’s worth it: Every word of that criticism is complete and utter bullshit. These critics and their many counterparts are either lying or they’re so blinded by partisanship that they can’t see the forest for the trees they’re hugging.

When The Washington Post talks about how the film isn’t “interested in allegory, nuance or social comment,” what they really mean is “left-wing allegory, nuance and social comment.” In other words, they want allusions to how George W. Bush is a war criminal. When the Leftists at Movieline declare the film “the emptiest form of sci-fi action,” they mean empty of the left-wing stuff that makes them wet — stuff about how Marines are jarhead racists and the aliens are really us, or something. When the New York Times laments a lack of “interesting political implications to chew over,” they mean left-wing political implications to chew over — like how man-made Global Warming means we deserve an alien invasion.

And finally, when Left-wing extremist Roger Ebert is made so upset by the film he declares those who disagree with his hit-job review  ”idiots” and writes: “Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism” —   well, to be honest, no one knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Let’s go down the list, though, shall we?

1. Lacks allegory:

A film that gives us a ruthless enemy only interested in submission  has plenty of allegory — what you might call a refreshing allegory.  Not the kind of allegory left-wing critics like, but allegory nonetheless. The enemy we face now in the form of Islamists don’t want to talk, debate or discuss terms. They want us dead. All of us. Even Hollywood pansies who suck up to them in mega-flops.

(more…)

Real human being that Roger Ebert. Nothing like politicizing a human tragedy to take a shot at your adversaries:

(more…)

The new hit action film “Battle: Los Angeles” isn’t perfect.

OK, that’s like saving Julian Assange has trouble keeping secrets.

“Battle” is dopey to the core, with giggle-inducing dialogue, shaky cams gone wild and a host of other structural issues. But perusing a few of the critical responses to “Battle” yields something else “wrong” with the film. It doesn’t march lockstep with some critics’ ideological fault lines.

—–

The movie brands U.S. Marines as heroes, showing how noble and brave they are in the face of an alien onslaught. It’s not the typical theme you see in movies today, especially ones with a military component.

Consider this review in The Washington Post:

Did somebody mention Iraq? “Battle’s” depiction of block-by-block urban combat against an implacable, enigmatic foe evokes Baghdad at its bloodiest. But director Jonathan Liebesman (whose background is in horror flicks) isn’t interested in allegory, nuance or social comment. He just wants to line up platinum-plated space-squids to be blown away.

And Roger Ebert, an avowed liberal, hated the film so much he called anyone who disagreed with him an “idiot.”

Left of center Movieline seemed aghast that the film shows the Marines in a glowing light:

Christopher Bertolini’s script is notable for its recruitment pamphlet-level of dedication to the glory of the U.S. Marines. As if the way superhero handsome [Aaron ]Eckhart fills out a helmet and chinstrap doesn’t say it all, Bertolini has him huffing on about showing the enemy how Marines fight, reminding his colleagues that Marines don’t quit, and giving glittery-eyed speeches about how even when Marines make the wrong decision at least they have the courage to make a decision. (Note to George W.: I think I just found your new favorite movie.) … Shadowy Vietnam allusions crop up here and there — particularly a last, frantic airlift out of L.A. — but on the whole “Battle: Los Angeles” is the emptiest form of sci-fi action: Just one bloody (or alien gooey) thing after another.

(more…)

If you don’t know who Armond White is, you’re missing out.  Dubbed the “Internet Troll” of movie critics, the eloquent and controversial critic for the New York Press recently received mainstream attention after his performance as the host for the New York critics award ceremony.  White was called out by other publications like EW and the Village Voice for his performance, where he brought his controversial opinions on the films being award on stage with him.

White rose to prominence, and Internet infamy, when he became the only critic to give a big “thumbs down” to “Toy Story 3.”  That act of blasphemy inspired people to look at his other reviews.  When they did, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, to see that he had given the critical whipping boy “Jonah Hex” a glowing, and introspective review.  Intrigued by the controversy, I decided to read through dozens of White’s reviews.  You see, I don’t take the media at face value.  Decades of being lied to have taught me to research on my own and develop my own, educated opinions.  Is White simply an Internet troll, purposely dissing what others praise in an attempt to gain attention?  Or is he something more, a critic not only of film, but of the entire media?  And, in what is truly relevant to Big Hollywood, what do White’s reviews and media criticisms tell us about the ingrained leftist thought in the Hollywood/Media complex?

My research revealed that White may be the last, best hope for real, intellectual film criticism left in the age of the Internet.  We’ve talked at length on this site about how relevant film critics are nowadays.  Everyone has a voice online, and for the low cost of $50/month, some free time, and a free website template, anyone can be Roger Ebert.  But film criticism, true film criticism, is much more than that.  When we think of film critics, we think of Ebert, or Leonard Maltin, or Pete Travers.  At best, these guys are “populist” critics, giving their opinion like a sort of Consumer Reports for movies.  Is it worth your $10 bucks?  But true film criticism, practiced by the likes of Pauline Kael, Andre Bazin and Francois Truffaut is an entirely different animal.  It is an educated pursuit, one that examines film like a literary text, pulling it apart and analyzing individual films on multiple levels.

White’s writings ask many questions.  Should our opinion of a film be colored by it’s marketing approach?  Should how much a film costs affect our expectation of its quality?  Just because a film comes out of Sundance, should we consider it an “art” film when it may not be worthy of the title?  Likewise, can a B horror movie actually contain more substance than the latest winner of the IFP spirit awards?  Should we consider a film to be “adult” or “intellectual” simply because it has a coded style that differentiates it from television or other studio films?  And politically, should we accept leftist film as “truth” without examining how well or effective the film makes its case based on its own narrative and internal logic? (more…)

I’ll be the first to admit that my home city of Pittsburgh has a permanent blemish on it: it’s the spawning grounds of the anti-capitalist punk band Anti-Flag.  These guys function as ANSWER automatons; the first song I heard by them starts with the lyrics “Seattle was a riot they tried to pin on us / But we didn’t show up with gas and billy clubs.”  And for all their anti-corporation vitriol, they were sure eager enough to get some of that sweet, sweet bloodthirsty corporation money by signing with RCA Records.

But that doesn’t mean they’re horrible people or we can’t find common ground.  They’re sensible enough to know that the bank bailouts were a crock, and now, whether they realize it or not, they’re gaining empathy for Sarah Palin.

When word came out from a former classmate that Jared Lee Loughner listened to Anti-Flag in high school, speculation poured in that the band’s left-wing political message may have motivated last Saturday’s shooting.  Some have also tried to implicate nu-metal  band Drowning Pool due the use use of their song “Bodies” in a flag-burning video found on Loughner’s YouTube page.  Both bands have responded to these insinuations.  First Anti-Flag: (more…)