1 posted on
06/06/2015 9:34:26 AM PDT by
Marcus
To: Marcus
It is good news anytime Spielberg makes a new movie.
I wish he had used someone other than Hanks. When Hanks is on the screen, I do not see the character he is portraying, I just see Hanks.
2 posted on
06/06/2015 9:38:40 AM PDT by
UnwashedPeasant
(A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.)
To: Marcus
So, Obama supporters Spielberg and Hanks are going to explain the Cold War era to me through the eyes of a Hard Line Leftist defense attorney?
Yeah, I'll stand in line to see that.
To: Marcus
Years ago I read a column by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley called "Hollywoods Missing Movies".
This piece deals with leftist Hollywood's past (and present) aversion to making movies dealing with any type of anti-communist plot-I urge anyone interested in Hollywood's sordid political past and present, to read it. It's an amazing article.
BTW-I'm not affiliated with the website its on- Reason.com
Hollywood's Missing Movies
12 posted on
06/06/2015 10:17:38 AM PDT by
Larry381
(In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act)
To: Marcus
Hanks will take a very noticeable piss in this movie. It’s his “trademark.” He does it in every single one of his movies.
So the question is, just what, exactly, does this represent? More to the point, who, or what, is this mega millionaire Hollywood Leftist pissing ON, over and over and over again?
14 posted on
06/06/2015 10:23:40 AM PDT by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: Marcus
I wouldn’t call “Lincoln” all that historical. Well acted, definitely. But as history it had a lot to be desired.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson