Anti-Bush? It takes place in the 1800's for cripes sake!
Good point. It jives with the village sheeple covering up the "bad" color of red. Just more Hollyweird vomit to ignore.
I am so sick of the left-wing Hollywood Cult.
My guess is that this guy has politics on the brain and is reading a lot into a little.
I was pondering M. Night Shyamalan's politics the other night as I watched the 2nd movie he made w/ Bruce Willis, and of course, he made a movie with Mel Gibson. Both Willis and Gibson are conservatives, and it got me to wondering.
I think this may be reaching a little.
I really don't think M. Night is trying to do anything but scare the pants off people.
I'm disappointed, as I was looking forward to this movie.
You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
You sound like one of those conspircacy lunies over at DU...
I think it's rather a stretch to say that any movie or story dealing with deception or a cover-up would be implying Bush...
Good grief.
Better yet, have you seen the movie yourself? It's so easy to critique what you haven't even seen.
I usually complain about "needless" excerpting, but you did us all a favor.
Let's not jump to conclusions here. The author doesn't really make the case for his assertion (at least not that I saw, quickly scanning through the acres of superstar name dropping).
Think about the actors he's chosen to star in his films, Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson, and I think those guys are on our side.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Ping!
Yeah and I bet it's racist too. Probably no 'people of color' in it and if there are any they probably play slaves or something. /Sarcasm
Oh, come on. Not every movie is some kind of insidious left wing shot at Bush. These movies should be taken at face value. Gripes about The Manchurian Candidate are legit - but this is more than a stretch.
I take this review with a huge boulder of salt. Friedman claims that the woods represents the "red states," and supports his theory by quoting the director as saying he made the movie with thoughts of the 9/11 disaster. Those are two very different metaphors that Friedman has thrown together. Perhaps if Friedman had equated the woods with Iraq, his anti-Bush claim about the movie might make more sense. My guess is that Friedman knew throwing Michael Moore's name and the name of his movie around a few times in his review was good red meat for the Fox audience. I haven't seen "The Village" yet, but I certainly will, to get my own take on it.
I liked this guy's movies.
And Signs, IMHO, was a great movie about faith.
The guy makes scary movies, he hasn't made any political statements, at least not that I'm aware of, so I'm not putting much stock in this review.
On the other hand, I've heard the remake of the Manchurian Candidate has exchanged "Big Business" for Communism as the sinister brainwashers. Don't think I'll be seeing that one, although I loved the original.
I thought "Signs", the movie he did with Gibson, was one of the most unusual I had ever seen. A science fiction film with a strong faith component - very odd, but well done. If you haven't seen it, you should. Hard to describe otherwise.
Ok, other than a gossip columnist's opinion of the film, what do we have here?
Who knows what the "cover-up" is and is willing to spoil it for those of us who won't see the film?
Silliness. It's a fright flick, not a political statement, fercryinoutloud.
I really like his movies, and really doubt that there is any ulterior motive on the part of the director...JFK