Posted on 04/14/2011 3:54:19 PM PDT by Borges
Edited on 04/15/2011 12:42:07 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don
(Excerpt) Read more at rogerebert.suntimes.com ...
Overall he’s a very good film critic. Though he has declined over the last decade.
Who is his husband?
Beat you to it! See my 98. I meant to copy you on that.
I’ve been tasked by another FReeper to write a movie review after I see it. I hope to have it written, polished and posted by Saturday. I’ll ping the gang when I do.
Come to think of it, I didn’t mind watching when both of them were there either. A-Bear by himself is insufferable.
Thanks for the pings Publius.
Still Thinking is correct. I hesitate to speculate on eonophiliacs, but I’m probably one of them.
However, I have nothing to say about Ayn Rand except, “Lord, have mercy on readers and viewers!”
Ebert's reviews usually read like he was at least present at the theater. This one... not. It's as if he is grasping for something descriptively malicious to say and is failing badly.
It's not rocket science! Conservatives are anti-Socialist! Objectivists and Libertarians are Anti-Socialist! Atlas Shrugged is anti-Socialist!
We all play on the same team yet you might as well be thinking about skee ball.
She hated conservatives, hated tradition, hated the concept of duty, hated the pro-live movement, hated Reagan, hated religion.
Rand is like the witch handing out apples on Halloween with a razor blade inserted in them. Her philosophy may look appealing, but inside its full of hatred and evil.
As for the book, I read it 20 years ago and it is little more than a tedious and narrow-minded fantastical rant.
In short, Objectivism has about the same relationship to conservatism as pornography has to love. Both may have sex involved, but one lifts the human spirit and one is soulless and empty.
You have to realize the source. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged and it still remains one of the best novels I’ve laid eyes on.
I personally do not know if Ole’ Rog is liberal or conservative (I mean that very seriously). That being said, he is terrible at movie ratings. I used to assume (like anyone would) that if he gives it high marks, it must be good. After The Piano... enough said. I do the opposite. If he says a movie sucks, I find that I rather enjoy it.
Maybe I’m not nearly as smart or sophisticated as Rodgy....
Ebert is one of the most knowledgable film writes in the country. He’s a good critic.
Really? It sounds like him though. The humor is the same sort that he uses in other reviews of films he disliked.
Ebert’s venomous, liberal ignorance is jaw dropping.
What about this review gave you that impression?
I posted part of this on another thread tonight, addressing the same sentiment that you have: Rand’s objectivism is no different than statist liberalism (both in her book and what we see running rampant today)
I understand why many people cannot find it in themselves to glean anything useful from her philosophy, because her stance on religion is so abhorrent to them, as are her attitudes towards sex, etc.
That said, I don’t have an issue with the rejection of her atheism. I applaud it.
But what is mutually exclusive about believing in God and the absolute rejection of forced servitude and abject poverty, which is the terminus of statist liberalism?
People who reject the basic concept put forth by Ayn Rand (that the fruits of your labor should accrue to yourself, to dispense with as you please) are generally people who take for granted what they have. Money and material possessions are never as important to people who have them and take them for granted as they are to people who are denied them.
I find it telling that it is often people who come from tyrannical, statist, socialist environments (such as the Soviet Union or other eastern bloc countries) who are the biggest and most devoted fans of Ayn Rand. And it isn’t all about materialism.
The most virulent accusations about the evils of materialism come from people who don’t have to worry about paying the bills, having a roof over their heads or food in their stomachs.
I will wager that most people who attack Ayn Rand’s purported overt emphasis on materialism don’t observe that her “good” characters are not obsessed with material possessions as much as they are obsessed with the possession of their thoughts.
Ayn Rand hits it right on the money (no pun intended) when she attempts to draw you to the inescapable conclusion that societies that start out by denying or vilifying the right to own property will always end up denying the right to own your own thoughts. And people who live in societies that hew to the “from each according to his abilities” tripe know this better than anyone. THOSE people LIVED through DECADES of “The Twentieth Century Motor Company”, and they know EXACTLY what it does to human beings.
People often find it odd, that two of the books in my life that have had more influence on my conservatism than any others are “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers and “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. And this particular author who penned this piece seems to take special pleasure in noting that Whitaker Chambers abhorred “Atlas Shrugged”. Liberals like to score their points by destroying the underpinnings that provide cohesiveness between factions of their opponents, because liberals recognize that their opponents value cohesiveness and consistency.
In my opinion, if you reject the fundamental premise that the fruits of your labor are yours to accrue and dispense with as you wish, then it is the same as being just “a little bit pregnant”.
And by the way, this was in no way an attack on you for rejecting her philosophy...as I stated, I understand why many do. My last post was more to buttress why there are people who DO appreciate her point of view on property and possessions, even in spite of her attitudes on religion.
Like many, I do not buy her entire package of thought, lock, stock and barrel. But her basic premise, I do buy (as I believe, would many of our founders) that the fruits of a man’s labor should accrue to himself, not be taken for the purpose of giving to others at the whim of a governing body.
the reviews on rottentomatoes.com are all from leftie columnists. of course they would hate it. of course they wouldn’t get any of it. the single clip i saw when reardon came home... they would see nothing wrong in that clip
and that’s the point
they are the ones the book was written about.
It’s hardly surprising that this would be a badly made movie.
Hollywood is trashing the Tea Party – get it?
It’s, like, subliminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.