Arguing with mutabor is pointless. He has sexist views on several issues, and he doesn't think women have been influential in the positive course of history. He will disregard your argument, and find biased evidence to support his own.
Because other people think like you do is not justification. If you look at the facts, it was indeed a group of women who pursued the courier lead, which is represented by the main character. If Bigelow's representation was feminist, what would you say about the Hurt Locker?
While I watched this, I kept in mind that this was basically a retelling of factual events. I gave it a 10 because I couldn't find any faults with the telling of the story. The action sequences were great, the emotional stuff wasn't overdone, and I never once didn't feel immersed in the film.
Glenn Greenwald ( Gardian UK): "In the Atlantic this morning, Peter Maass makes this point perfectly in his piece entitled "Don't Trust 'Zero Dark Thirty'". That, he writes, is because "it represents a troubling new frontier of government-embedded filmmaking." He continues: "An already problematic practice - giving special access to vetted journalists - is now deployed for the larger goal of creating cinematic myths that are favorable to the sponsoring entity (in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA)."
Indeed, from start to finish, this is the CIA's film: its perspective, its morality, its side of the story, The Agency as the supreme heroes. (That there is ample evidence to suspect that the film's CIA heroine is, at least in composite part, based on the same female CIA agent responsible for the kidnapping, drugging and torture of Khalid El-Masri in 2003, an innocent man just awarded compensation this week by the European Court of Human Rights, just symbolizes the odious aspects of uncritically venerating the CIA in this manner).
It is a true sign of the times that Liberal Hollywood has produced the ultimate hagiography of the most secretive arm of America's National Security State, while liberal film critics lead the parade of praise and line up to bestow it with every imaginable accolade. Like the bin Laden killing itself, this is a film that tells Americans to feel good about themselves, to feel gratitude for the violence done in their name, to perceive the War-on-Terror-era CIA not as lawless criminals but as honorable heroes.
Nothing inspires loyalty and gratitude more than making people feel good about themselves. Few films accomplish that as effectively and powerfully as this one does. That's why critics of the film inspire anger almost as much as critics of the bin Laden killing itself: what is being maligned is a holy chapter in the Gospel of America's Goodness."
1. Really great writers like Shakespeare: Sappho, Madame de La Fayette, Murasaki Shikibu. There's three examples that you don't have to agree with, but you'd be a fool to dismiss them.
2. Gandhi was not a 'religious oracle.' He was a social leader and a philosopher who happened to be religious.
Just throwing that out there, for anyone who is interested. ^^
Yes, just watched Skyfall for the second time too. Life of Pi is truly a technical achievement. Many of my friends didn't think the book could even be made into a movie. I could of rated it higher but it's just not my style of movie. Many here I'm sure will give Life of Pi a 10/10. Not a movie to be missed this year!
Ed Harris plays the role of a Soviet submarine captain during the cold war era trying to prevent rogue KGB agents who commandeered his ship from starting a nuclear war. The acting was ok and it would have been better had they cast in some Russian actors and at least have the actors speak with a Russian accent.
Glenn Greenwald ( Gardian UK): "In the Atlantic this morning, Peter Maass makes this point perfectly in his piece entitled "Don't Trust 'Zero Dark Thirty'". That, he writes, is because "it represents a troubling new frontier of government-embedded filmmaking." He continues: "An already problematic practice - giving special access to vetted journalists - is now deployed for the larger goal of creating cinematic myths that are favorable to the sponsoring entity (in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA)."
Indeed, from start to finish, this is the CIA's film: its perspective, its morality, its side of the story, The Agency as the supreme heroes. (That there is ample evidence to suspect that the film's CIA heroine is, at least in composite part, based on the same female CIA agent responsible for the kidnapping, drugging and torture of Khalid El-Masri in 2003, an innocent man just awarded compensation this week by the European Court of Human Rights, just symbolizes the odious aspects of uncritically venerating the CIA in this manner).
It is a true sign of the times that Liberal Hollywood has produced the ultimate hagiography of the most secretive arm of America's National Security State, while liberal film critics lead the parade of praise and line up to bestow it with every imaginable accolade. Like the bin Laden killing itself, this is a film that tells Americans to feel good about themselves, to feel gratitude for the violence done in their name, to perceive the War-on-Terror-era CIA not as lawless criminals but as honorable heroes.
Nothing inspires loyalty and gratitude more than making people feel good about themselves. Few films accomplish that as effectively and powerfully as this one does. That's why critics of the film inspire anger almost as much as critics of the bin Laden killing itself: what is being maligned is a holy chapter in the Gospel of America's Goodness."
The Intelligence agencies do have supreme heroes, their agents and special operatives are the real world "Dirty Harrys", doing stuff no one else will do. Take the Mossad for example, and Munich (the movie). As far as I can see, the movie did not try to judge the actions of the CIA. Its a re-telling of events, and thats about it.
Next you'll be telling me Skyfall is a masturbatory exercise in film making because James Bond kills the villian who blows up MI16. Its the same, except that one of them is based on real events.
Oh man, I rated it 10/10 for the whole 3 parts! The actors are really, really well performed with their roles. The first time seen them was around 15 years ago and I had to see it again and again!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.