I love this little exchange. From the Hollywood spy flick The Good Shepherd:
“We have the United States of America.”
I love this little exchange. From the Hollywood spy flick The Good Shepherd:
“We have the United States of America.”
Turns out Morgan Freeman is just another Leftist Hollyweird race baiter like the rest of them. This is the same Morgan Freeman, mind you, who told us that the only way to end racism is to stop talking about race. So disappointing, but this is what modern Liberalism does to folks. He says racism is worse in America with Barack Obama as president, and on that we agree. But it’s not because of the Tea Party, but because of the continuous race baiting like this. As far as I’m concerned, Leftist race baiting has set race relations in America back 35 years at least.
“Their stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.”
ps., I will never again pay for another movie with this guy in it. He ruined it for me.
UPDATE: that same racist Tea Party that can’t stand to see a black man in the White House just gave Herman Cain (a black man) a resounding victory in the Florida straw poll.
Virtually everything modern Liberalism promotes today advances the clock of civilizational collapse.
Jennifer Aniston does not believe that women have to wait — or settle — for a man to start a family. Speaking at a Los Angeles press conference for her movie about artificial insemination, ‘The Switch,’ Aniston said that “times have changed” along with the idea of the traditional family. So if that means having one without the man in the picture, that’s okay.
“Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child,” Aniston said. “They are realizing if it’s that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that.”
“That,” of course, meaning the man. “It’s happening more and more,” said Aniston.
In ‘Switch,’ Aniston, 41, plays a woman who elects to take on life as a single-parent through artificial insemination. When questioned, the most famous single woman on the planet said she didn’t “have plans” to take the insemination option for motherhood at this time.
But she vigorously defended the rights of other single women going down that road. Aniston even engaged in one testy exchange with a reporter who insisted that her movie character was being “selfish” having a child without a father-figure in her life. Minutes after the question was asked, Aniston circled back and insisted that family life has “evolved” from strictly “the traditional stereotype of family.”
“The point of the movie is, what is that which defines family?” Aniston said. “It isn’t necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot.” “Love is love and family is what is around you,” she added. Aniston also took issue with the word “selfish” in terms of the single woman moving ahead with the decision to have a child. “I don’t think it’s selfish,” she said. “It’s quite beautiful because there are children that don’t have homes that have a home and can be loved. And that’s extremely important.”
Aniston fielded a slew of questions about motherhood in the press conference promoting the movie about the very-topic which has dogged her in the entertainment media for year. She even dutifully answered yet another question about whether she wants to be a mother in the future. “Yah, I’ve said it years before,” said Aniston. “I still say it. That’s today. Yah.”
Jennifer Aniston’s movie promotes single motherhood by artificial insemination where fathers are irrelevant. That’s what it does. Womyn need men like fish need a bicycle. And she defends this as “family that has evolved.” Yet even in her interview she attempts to walk back her initial support by blurring the line between artificial insemination and adoption. The two are not equivalent, and subconsciously she acknowledges this.
Once we step away from the PC line, single mother families– which are the natural consequence of the 60s counter culture and sexual revolution– are not “evolved” families, they are an unprecedented prehistoric devolution of the family institution. It’s caveman days all over again, folks, where the male is free to plant his seed willy nilly and females are reduced to the status of brood mare. Except today we have the welfare state (i.e., the taxpayer) to foot the bill for the inevitable consequences of this sexual revolution and shattering of traditional cultural taboos.
Jennifer Aniston has the money to do as she pleases. Her wealth insulates her from the consequences of virtually any boneheaded decision she chooses to make. And if she pays for it, then goddess bless her. Yet the baby mamas in waiting to whom she is giving her blessings are not rich. I’d wager most of them are broke. So the children they choose to have on their own– with Jennifer’s blessings– will essentially be wards of the Liberal welfare state. And without a father figure around to impose discipline, they’ll probably end up in jail too.
But though modern Liberalism is a lifestyle only the rich can afford to live, the Left promotes their values to the poor, and it has destroyed their communities in a way rapacious capitalism never could have. Thus the Left’s welfare state has become indispensable in a society whose social institutions have been shattered by that very same moral and cultural relativist Leftwing elite whose values continue to undermine “the traditional stereotype of family.”
They tell us Hollywood just wants to make money. To the extent that’s true, they only make that kind of movie to underwrite financial losers like this. The anti-Christian Left has used Hollywood to wage their war of destruction on Christianity for the last 50 years or so. Thus far, the Nihilists have focused their efforts on safe and easy targets like evangelicals and the Pope. As a young Lib, I generally managed to find safe passage among the Left even though I was a Christian, but only after persuading them of the fact that I wasn’t “that kind of Christian”— meaning the kind of Christian that actually stands up to the Left’s culture-destroying agenda. The more passive brand of Christianity of which I was a member at the time generally had been spared the Leftist onslaught. But only temporarily it now turns out. With the character assassination of conservative Christianity thoroughly accomplished in the popular perception, it was only a matter of time before the Gramciist Left turned their sights on…Episcopalians? lol
Watch for ‘Crazy Christian’ Sucker Punches in ‘Stone’
If there’s one thing criminals generally do well, it’s instinctively spot another’s inner demons and then mess with their minds to exploit them. In “Stone” (in theaters now), that street psychologist is the incarcerated arsonist Gerald “Stone” Creeson (Edward Norton) and his prey is Jack Maybrey (Robert De Niro), the prison parole officer who will decide whether Stone gets out early or stays in the bar hotel for his full stretch. But while their mind game is going on between characters in front of the camera, there’s another one playing the audience from behind the lens. For the words the actors are saying and the situations they are in have been intentionally scripted by director John Curran and writer Angus MacLachlan to sell their own apparent nihilism, according to Norton at a Q&A I attended.
“John told me we have to do this film now while things are bad,” Norton said. “We have to show that traditional establishments like religion and marriage that people have relied on for truth have failed them.” Curran does that by showing those institutions as hypocrisies that are the refuge of hypocrites like Maybrey, a deeply flawed, nasty man who, in his heart, may be little better than the convicts he judges for early release.
A flashback prologue shows young Maybrey sitting in a Lazy Boy and sipping whiskey while watching golf on TV. When his wife says she’s leaving because “you imprison my soul” amid the buzz of a metaphorical angry bee swarm, Maybrey threatens to kill their baby daughter unless she promises to stay. She does. Thirty years later, Maybrey is still sipping whiskey in the same Lazy Boy and watching golf on the same TV — at least when he and his wife (Frances Conroy) aren’t attending Episcopalian church services and reading Bible verses to each other. In his car, in one of the believability disconnects that betray the Curran/MacLachlan agenda, Maybrey augments those passages by listening to the kind of “Brother Al’s Hellfire and Brimstone Belchin’ Beat the Hades Outa Beelzebub’s Sneaky Serpent Send Me Yo Money Church of the Almighty Me” radio that no High Whiskeypalian (whenever four are gathered in His name, there is a fifth) that I ever encountered during my years in that church would sit through.
Read the rest.
Veteran actor James Caan let people in on a little secret last week. After 46 successful years among Hollywood’s most outspoken liberal stars, he’s speaking up about breaking the mold.
“I’m an ultra conservative,” he said at Moet & Chandon’s 6th Annual Hollyshorts Film Festival Opening Night Celebration in Los Angeles.
“I’m not a G** damn Hollywood liberal, I’m not,” he said, adding he only watches Fox News.
Caan, who was at the event promoting his involvement with the online platform Openfilm.com, also added that he doesn’t think Hollywood actors need to comment on every single political issue. When Pop Tarts questioned him on California courts deeming Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, “unconstitutional,” he preferred to keep his lips sealed.
“I don’t want to comment on that. I’ll let those other geniuses do that – all those actors who like to find a stage to push their agendas,” he said. “They don’t have political science degrees… I certainly don’t. I’ll leave it to Sean Penn or Barbara Streisand to comment on that.”
Film about Margaret Thatcher’s life, which is expected to star Meryl Streep, shows the former prime minister as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness.
Although the prospect of Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher may have pleased some admirers of the Conservative former prime minister, her children have been horrified to discover more about the film.
Mandrake hears that the screenplay of The Iron Lady depicts Baroness Thatcher as an elderly dementia-sufferer looking back on her career with sadness. She is shown talking to herself and unaware that her husband, Sir Denis Thatcher, has died.
“Sir Mark and Carol are appalled at what they have learnt about the film,” says a friend of the family. “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy. They feel strongly about it, but will not speak publicly for fear of giving it more publicity.”
Cameron McCracken, the managing director of the film-maker Pathé, confirms: “It is true that the film is set in the recent past and that Baroness Thatcher does look back on both the triumphs and the lows of her extraordinary career.
“It is a film about power and the price that is paid for power. In that sense, it is the story of every person who has ever had to balance their private life with their public career.” He says Lady Thatcher’s health will be featured, but insists that it will be “treated with appropriate sensitivity”. He adds of the film: “Although fictional, it will be fair and accurate.”
Via Big Hollywood, it’s quite good.
by John Nolte
It was either Kayser Soze or some French poet with an unpronounceable name who said something to the effect of, ”The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Not everyone believes in the Devil but we all know Hollywood exists, and isn’t six of one just a half dozen of the other? After all, the greatest trick Tinseltown (with the help of the MSM) ever pulled was convincing the world that a belief in a moral code is what’s abnormal because all the cool kids are into a collective degeneracy.
Though liberals only make up 20% of the population, they’re still able to pull off this sinister bluff because conservatives took their eye off the ball and allowed the Left to infest the institutions in charge of documenting and portraying who we are as a society. Unfortunately, these socialist engineers aren’t stupid and figured out almost immediately that with a near-monopoly on sound and image they could make a majority of the population feel like the minority; with the goal in mind of using peer pressure to shape our culture into a godless orgy of anything goes hyper-sexuality.
The result is that those of us made nauseous by the idea of loveless sex are intentionally made to feel like the oppressive party-poopers – the weirdos, the prudes, the uncool outsiders lacking in compassion, enlightenment and sophistication. This devil has so perfectly executed this ruse that even those of us on to him can forget what’s happening until a genuine phenomenon like “Twilight” comes along to remind us.
Read the rest.
…and what to do about it. This is brilliant. Bill Whittle at Big Hollywood says the fight for America’s soul isn’t in Washington, it’s in Hollywood, and that’s where he wants to take the fight.
If you think this is a great idea, send it to all your friends and then check out Declaration Entertainment.
A tiny glimpse into the past. Lost footage of two pretty good actors not seen since 1954.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
From The Atlantic:
A decade before Reagan’s political career took off, with a nationally televised speech supporting Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign, and months before Dean started filming Rebel Without a Cause and Giant, both of these Midwesterners seem to be rehearsing future roles—Reagan as the happy warrior who could, in a moment, turn fierce (“I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!”) and Dean as teenage angst writ large (“You’re tearing me apart!”).
At the time of the broadcast, Reagan was 43. With the movie industry in recession, and his career waning, his agents had been bringing him offers to do TV shows. Like many movie actors at the time, Reagan was skittish about the small screen. But producers thought he was perfect for the anthology genre, which was still struggling to gain traction with audiences. He eventually signed on, helping produce the show, hosting it, and acting in a half-dozen dramas per season.
Less than a year after this episode aired, Reagan was a major primetime presence whom millions tuned in to see each week. Dean was a tragic, what-might-have-been figure, dead at age 24 from an automobile crash.
Tom Hanks says our war against the Taliban and Al-Qaida is a war of racism and terror. CCHQ has only one thing to say to Tom Hanks…
…hey Tom, YOU CAN KISS MY BLACK ASS.
Ok, I’ve seen enough. Tom Hanks is producing the HBO miniseries The Pacific about America’s war against the Empire of Japan. Hanks, who it now turns out is your typical Hollywood dingbat, says it was a “racist” and “ignorant” war. This is WW2 he’s talking about, you know, the one where Pearl Harbor was bombed, the war we’ve all agreed as a nation for the last 60-70 years was “the good war”? He made these comments last week as part of his publicity tour promoting the series:
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on March 5, Hanks said that “The Pacific” depicts a war of “racism and terror” and asked the interviewer if that sounded “familiar to what we might be going through today.”
So tacky, I thought. Using WW2 as a vehicle to denigrate the current war on terror. But it goes beyond just the usual Leftwing sucker punches we’ve all come to expect from these Hollytards because not only is he using his publicity tour as a way to gratuitously impose his politics on us, he’s doing it at the expense of those G.I.s who fought and died to defeat Imperial Japan. Now that’s fucking tacky.
At first I didn’t want to jump to conclusions, as the saying goes, until Tom Hanks was given an opportunity to clarify his comments. After all, he’s also the guy behind the superb HBO series, Band of Brothers, which is an amazing tribute to our G.I.s in the European theater. Surely, I thought, there’s some context we’re overlooking, some information that could provide even a shred of sanity to his pop psychology drivel. Give him a chance to clear the air. So CCHQ held its fire.
Then CNSNews caught up with Tom Hanks asking him to clarify, and what does he do? He doubles down on the idiocy:
In an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com, Hanks further explained–but stood by his statement–that the Pacific theater of World War II was a war of “racism and terror,” saying that he thinks America has made progress since then away from what he called “ignorance” and “racism.” (See video above and transcript below.)
When asked about his statements on MSNBC that the World War II in the Pacific was a war of “racism and terror” which he compared to what is going on today, Hanks said: “Well, I said it’s familiar with what’s going on today. You can walk into the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, in the Pacific wing, and Stephen Ambrose himself has made that very point. It’s up in black and white, that after Pearl Harbor, these people that were very, very different from each other, the Americans and the Japanese, who had different heritages, who had different theologies and different ways of government, had a different sense of society went at it tooth and nail.
“It would be naïve,” said Hanks, “to assume that racism was not part of the quotient of World War II and it’s historical fact by way of just simply suicide bombers from the air and as well as the terror that was visited upon civilian populations throughout the Pacific that terrorism was not part of the equation as well.”
Well, if promoting his series is what Hanks was going for, he’s succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The war in the Pacific, according to Tom Hanks, was not a defensive war, a war of competing national interests, or even a war of imperial ambition. No, it was a “racist” war. And to prove this he cites the fact that we (the U.S. and Japan) were “different” and G.I.s used racist terms like “Jap” and others, I’m sure. Perhaps they even used these racial epithets as they hosed their cave-dwelling enemy down with napalm. Presumably, according to Hanks, the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan’s alliance with Nazi Germany, and all those geopolitical reasons we learned about in college were just an excuse for our “real” motives– RACISM. We must therefore conclude that if the Japs had been caucasians instead of Asiatic, we’d have settled our differences peacefully the way we did with caucasian Germany. Oh wait.
Could Tom Hanks possibly be this stupid? Well, of course. He’s a Hollywood Liberal after all. Actors are notoriously undereducated people. Most are college dropouts, or never attended at all. You and I, gentle readers, take for granted a basic knowledge of history from our high school and college careers that people like Tom Hanks don’t necessarily have. We learned about Japan’s imperial ambitions and how they conflicted with our own interests in the pacific. The Pacific Ocean simply wasn’t big enough for the both of us. Japan conquered China, which led to our threats to impose an oil embargo on them, and eventually to their attack on Pearl Harbor. Mind you, I don’t believe he’s a moron just because he dropped out of college. The most brilliant person I’ve ever met in my life doesn’t have a college education. He’s a self-made man and a modern day Davinci if there ever was one. But a formal education does give you a certain background knowledge that in most cases an incurious person would not otherwise acquire, and that’s true about the causes of WW2 and the war in the Pacific. Tom Hanks, therefore is just too ignorant to know just how ignorant he really is.
He can take a personal memoir that somebody else gave him, hire a couple of guys to write the script, lend his name and financial backing to the project and then bring it to the big screen–yet have little or no background knowledge about the larger war he is depicting. Fame, as well as creative genius, has given Hanks a pulpit from which to spout off, but that doesn’t mean he knows SHAT about WW2 because, well, he’s an ACTOR, not a scholar.
But more importantly, he’s a modern Liberal, which means he’s reduced his thinking to a set of “isms.” In this case “racism.” George Orwell called this one decades ago when, in his novel 1984, Big Brother tightened it’s control on the population by systematically dumbing them down. Every year it subtracted words from the government-sanctioned vocabulary, and by narrowing down their choice of words, it reduced the people’s intellect and ability to reason. Thus, every year they would literally become more stupid. Modern Liberals remind me of this. Far from being the “critical thinkers” they boastfully claim, they are victims of just such an Orwellian dumbing down. But in their case it’s not vocabulary we’re talking about, but a Leftism-sanctioned range of thinking. They have taken a world of depth and possibilities on any given subject, and narrowed it down to a mere handful of choices– racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia. That’s it. These are their permitted choices. Safe, neat and pre-packaged for easy digestion. And they accept it without question because dumbing down a people isn’t hard. On the contrary, people are comfortable with it. Thinking this way is easy; and a lazy, slothful humanity will always gravitate towards anything easy.
So now everything that happened in the Pacific theater, all the history and geopolitics, can be reduced to one of the Leftism-sanctioned choices– “racism.” You want to know what’s gotten into Tom Hanks? This is it. He’s a dumbed-down victim of Leftwing orwellianism.
UPDATE: Tom Hanks is a mainstream Liberal. He isn’t an off-the-rails Leftist. It’s hard to tell the difference these days, I know. But to be fair, I’m not implying all, or even most, Liberals agree with Tom Hanks. Many are personally offended by his ludicrous comments.
This one’s amazing. Author and screenwriter, Andrew Klavan, gives us perhaps the most perceptive and well-supported analysis through cinema of the post-modern zitgeist you will ever read. By their movies you will know them as the Secular Progressives unwittingly tip their hand in cinema, and Klavan expertly dissects and lays out on the table for our inspection their post-cultural, post-christian, post-national vision for America and the West. The excerpts I’ve selected below simply do not do the entire piece justice. If you want to know the enemy we face–better than he knows himself, in fact–I urge you to read the whole thing.
The trouble with cosmopolitanism [a commitment to people and the individual, not the nation state], as George Orwell pointed out, is that no one is willing to fight and die for it. When warlike racial nationalism resurged in the thirties, only an answering “atavistic emotion of patriotism,” as Orwell wrote, could embolden people to stand against it.
Though European intellectuals and their left-wing American acolytes are loath to admit it, the U.S. had already provided an excellent new rationale for that emotion. Our Founding redefined nationhood along social-contract lines that Europeans can still only theorize about. Our love of nation at its best was ethical, not ethnic. Our patriotism was loyalty not to race, or even to tradition, but to ideals of individual liberty and republican self-governance.
The full implications of our artists’ growing cosmopolitanism become painfully vivid when modern filmmakers attempt to impose their view on World War II, the gold standard for the Good War. The 1996 Oscar winner, The English Patient, based on Michael Ondaatje’s novel, provides an unintentional dramatization of how high ideals, untethered from their territory, drift away into a dreamy blue of narcissistic hedonism.
The English Patient is such a visually beautiful film that the mind has to overcome the eye in order to comprehend its moral emptiness. Ralph Fiennes plays a Hungarian count, László Almásy, a man too fine for nationhood. Employed to map the Sahara, he flies high above the earth in his plane, disdaining borders and any concept of ownership. As war threatens, he begins a passionate affair with another man’s wife, Katharine, played by Kristin Scott Thomas. At the story’s climax, László must find a plane to rescue the wounded Katharine from a cave in the desert. He procures one from the Nazis in exchange for his strategic maps. When it’s pointed out to him that thousands of people might’ve died because of his treachery, he responds, “Thousands of people did die. They were just different people.” In any case, he reaches Katharine too late. She dies after writing in her journal, “We [individuals] are the real countries. Not the boundaries drawn on maps with the names of powerful men.”
Pause here a moment and think back to 1942’s Casablanca, an Oscar winner surely as great as any film of the studio era. In its depiction of a man coming out of disengagement and self-pity to embrace a larger cause, it provides one of the most moving climaxes in cinematic history. Humphrey Bogart’s cabaret owner Rick Blaine makes the warrior’s classic sacrifice, giving up the love of his life in order to join the fight for freedom. “I’m no good at being noble,” he famously tells Ingrid Bergman’s Ilsa, “but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” It’s a scene that still makes viewers cry.
The English Patient is the anti-Casablanca. Here, the problems of this crazy world don’t amount to a hill of beans when there’s some hot lovin’ to be done. It doesn’t matter which people die, which nation wins. There are no values, no issues of human ideals, human liberty, or self-governance. There are merely “boundaries drawn on maps with the names of powerful men.” So here’s that intelligence you wanted, Mr. Hitler, and excuse me while I get it on.
The film’s real value lies in its unintentional depiction of the way a high-minded cosmopolitanism results not in the universal good that it espouses but in selfishness and evil. And since that’s the movie’s secret story—two selfish people ditching their national obligations in pursuit of sensual fulfillment—it remains, for all its flights of high romance, one of the coldest, least affecting love stories ever screened. There’s a Seinfeld episode in which Elaine, forced to sit through the film, yells at the screen, “Stop telling your boring stories about the desert and die already!” That gets it just about right.
For the most part, that English Patient logic, the logic of lofty cosmopolitanism that is, in fact, the deadly logic of radical selfishness, continues to prevail in Hollywood when filmmakers confront the actual presence of war. But there was a brief end-of-millennium period when patriotism, and the respect for the military that goes with it, began cautiously to appear in American movies again. Post–cold war revelations showed that Americans were the good guys after all, a liberal president presided over healthy economic times, and it seemed to the inattentive that we might never again have to deal with any real wars. It was then, in 1998, that at least one great director felt secure enough to make a major motion picture that tried to recapture the lost ideal of patriotic sacrifice.
Party politics matter very little when you’ve lost the culture. And conservatives lost Hollywood decades ago. But when the day comes we recapture the culture, this is what movies are going to start looking like.
BOOK OF ELI: KEEPING THE FAITH
Denzel Washington is one of Hollywood’s most successful and respected actors. But the two-time Academy Award winner (for 1989’s Glory and 2001’s Training Day) is also one of Hollywood’s highest profile Christians.
The son of a Pentecostal preacher from Mount Vernon, New York, Washington, 55, has been an active member of West Angeles Church of God in Christ for nearly 30 years, reads his Bible every morning, and always chooses roles that he can “bend” in the direction of a positive message or a reflection of his deep personal faith.
Faith is everywhere in Washington’s new post-apocalyptic film, The Book of Eli, which opens Friday and is being marketed with “B-ELI-EVE” and “D-ELI-VER US” billboards. In the movie, Washington plays a mysterious machete-wielding traveler named Eli, directed by God to protect the earth’s last remaining copy of the Bible—that’s right, the Bible—and to take it “out West” for safekeeping while villains seek to take it by force and use it as a “weapon” of control.
In fact, you shouldn’t even be reading this right now. You should be on your way out the door. Opening weekend is important. Send Hollywood a message, the way you did with Passion of the Christ. I don’t actually believe they’re really in it for the money. They’ve made too many Iraq War box office bombs, for example, to convince me of that. But when movies with conservatives themes like Eli comes out we can show them numbers that at least shame them into admitting that fact.
If what this review says is true then I’m especially psyched to see this! Denzel Washinton, who plays the lead in Book of Eli, is a devout and deeply committed christian. This is just the kind of project he’d be involved with. And it’s just the kind of project you, gentle readers, want to support with your hard earned dollars. No illegal downloads for you!
ONWARD, CHRISTIAN SOLDIER
Hollywood’s Christian blockbuster is finally here. Remember how, after “The Passion of the Christ,” Hollywood was going to get wise and make some big mainstream movies that acknowledged the Christianity of a majority of this country? Didn’t happen. Until now. “The Book of Eli” is not only a well-done action picture but an overtly, unabashedly Christian one in which Denzel Washington plays a soldier of God. He’s on a divinely-inspired quest — yes, a literal mission from God — to take The Book to the West as a swarm of wrongdoers led by Gary Oldman try to stop him.
They come back with whatever books they can scrounge up — including, hilariously, a copy of “The Da Vinci Code” (the movie is landing a little jab on the Dan Brown book’s message) but not The Book.
Because the only copy left of the Bible is the one Denzel is determined to carry to the West, having heard the voice of God commanding him to do so. Moreover, the Walker seems to be divinely protected: In a shootout, every bullet seems to whiz past him. Even the heavy villains have started to notice the aura of untouchability about him, and they find it unnerving.
The Oldman character wants The Book because he’s convinced its words will enable him to control the world, not just the dirtbag town he oversees. But the Walker is the Christ standin determined to redeem mankind with the Bible.
The movie is ingeniously designed, the action set pieces are well-executed and it has wit (who would have guessed what the last 45 rpm record in the world might be?). It’s also got guns galore. It’s like “The Road Warrior” as rewritten by St.
PeterPaul. (But note: It also has a fond shout-out to Islam and Judaism). It’s going to do heavenly business at the box office.
Sounds like a good movie based on this review. Not your standard christianist fare a la “Left Behind” by any stretch of the imagination! Which is a good thing. A really good thing. The movie opens this Friday, and we want to reward these guys for making the kinds of movies us rightwing christianists want to see. Just watching all those secular progressives as their heads pop when they find out Eli’s book is OMGZ!!!! THE BIBLE!!1!1 is more than worth the price of admission! So shhhh! Don’t tell any secular progressives about this review! We want Eli to sneak up on them, the way they try to sneak all their leftwing claptrap on us.