Posted on 10/29/2007 7:42:09 AM PDT by IrishMike
So let me guess, Tom Cruise plays a republican senator that is cheating on his born again christian wife with a man he met at a rest-stop.
Liberal shows how much a lie the war is and everyone realizes that if we send more Peace Corp volunteers out into the world, everyone will love us...THE END.
Got forced by the masses to see this tripe this weekend, and the only things it DIDN'T do was:
1) Refer to the torturing location as Abu-Graib, and
2) Play the "Darth Vader Theme" whenever Meryl Stink entered the room.
Other than that, the movie was so left of center even the DBM reviewers noticed it. And there were more goofs, flubs and continuity holes than an Ed Wood film. Poorly written, poorly directed, poorly acted, a mega-bomb.
Redford was good in “The Natural.” And he was pretty good in “The Clearing,” also. More recent vintage...
Oh, you read the script, huh?
America has not been ruined. It has been damaged, but it can recover - and will, if each of us does our part, every day!
Have we won the war on poverty yet?
How about the war on drugs?
War on illiteracy?
At what point do you think we can declare victory in the War on Terror?
That wasnt my point at all.
So, you're saying that you didn't like any of these movies: The Hot Rock, The Candidate, Jerimiah Johnson, The Sting, The Great Waldo Pepper, Three Days of the Condor, A Bridge Too Far, The Electric Horseman or The Natural?
My point is that politicians play pretty fast and loose with the term 'war'.
So, at what point in any of these 'wars' are we allowed to let loose with some criticism of the ways in which these 'wars' are being waged?
And Hollywood wonders why people don’t go to the movies any more.
While I haven’t been a fan of his more recent works, “An Unfinished Life” was a good flick.
Redford’s lost it. Anyone who could deify a psychopathic murderer such as Che Guevara is no longer playing with a full deck.
And yet, the politicians still like to call them 'wars', don't they?
Perhaps if the politicians would reserve the word for instances where it really applies, they might get a little more respect from all who observe their actions.
Instead, we get crass politicians making staged carrier landings, then big, rosy speeches in front of 'Mission Accomplished' banners declaring the 'end to major hostilities'.
If the war wasn't over at that point, then what was the point of the staged event on the USS Lincoln in 2003?
Perhaps Bush would've been better to wait to stage such an event until the War on Terror was actually over.
Which gets back to my original question to you. At what point will the War on Terror be over? How will we know when we've won or lost?
Oh I get it. You mention the Mission Accomplished Banner. You’re a lib troll. Have a nice day.
Only one I saw was The Natural, because I liked the Malamud story so much.
Big mistake! That flick is an abomination. Redford changed a great baseball story almost beyond recognition. The movie --starring himself, of course-- is Hollywood drivel.
"We should never lose sight of the fact that, no matter how entertaining a picture may be or how much money it may make, it can do our country a great deal of harm if it plays into the hands of our enemies." - Samuel Goldwyn
I don't think Redford et al have lost sight of that. I think the harm they are doing is intentional.
LOL! You're just avoiding the question of how we'll know when the War on Terror is over.
Wasn't that your original beef? That Hollyweird used to wait until the war was over before criticizing the government?
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.