Dawn of the Geeks

Michael opens the movie with the 2000 Election still believing that somehow Bush stole the election. He even shows a clip from a hearing where an official makes the claim that there was no legal way Bush could have won Florida. Of course a lot of people said a lot of things back when it first happened. The truth of the matter is that two methods of counting were proposed: One by Gore and one by Bush. If they had done it Gore’s way, Bush would have won and if they had done it Bush’s way, Gore would have won. But, leave it to Moore to ignore everything that doesn’t support his agenda. Moore even goes so far as to claim it was a racial issue. Apparently Bush is only racist against black people who live in a select few areas of Florida.

Moore shows black person after black person asking for congress to do something about the Florida debacle but they need a single signature from a Senator. None of them got a signature. What Moore fails to address is the “why.” But that’s really not important is it? Al Gore is even presiding over the meeting. Moore never bothers to ask why Gore wasn’t able to convince a single Senator to sign one of the petitions that may have gotten him the presidency. But again, that’s not really important.

Then, after Moore gets done attempting to resuscitate a dead horse that’s been beaten beyond recognition he moves onto 9/11. At least he has the thinly veiled decency not to show the planes hitting the buildings; just the reaction from people watching. When Bush is told about the attack while in a classroom full of children, he remains in the classroom for 7 minutes without saying anything as though Bush not doing anything for 7 minutes is the sign of bad leadership. First off he’s sitting in front of a classroom full of little kids. What is he supposed to tell them? And second of all isn’t Moore about to slam Bush for taking swift and wrong action against the wrong people? Oh, but sitting and thinking for 7 minutes is just way too much time to consider how to react to a very horrible situation. Letting Saddam murder millions of people for over a decade without doing anything is perfectly okay but 7 minutes; that’s too much. The fact of the matter is that very few people knew how to react. How could they? And nothing Bush could have done in those 7 minutes would have prevented anything.

One of the more despicable accusations Moore makes is that somehow Iraq was better off with Saddam. He has kids flying kites and playing and whatnot. And then the war starts. Moore had this to say about Americans:

“(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet … in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pr*cks. We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”

Apparently he thinks Americans are so stupid that we’ll forget what Saddam has done to millions of his own people. You can hear all about his crimes against humanity during Saddam’s trial. Apparently Michael Moore feels that Iraqis would rather be tortured, gassed, murdered, buried in mass graves, denied any rights, than suffer through a war that will make it possible for more than just the lucky kids born under the favorable thumb of Saddam to fly a kite and be happy without worrying about their family being murdered before their very eyes. How stupid does Moore have to be to think Americans are that ignorant to completely forget all that we’ve learned about Saddam in the last decade?

One of the conspiracies presented is that the Bush Whitehouse was out to get Saddam from the beginning. Yet I seem to remember the first reports coming out and blaming Al Qaeda. And what was the reaction from Liberals? The White House shouldn’t be pointing fingers until they really know. Then Moore accuses Bush of not actually doing anything. Yet the war in Afghanistan was started only a couple months later and today Afghanistan is a success story. But Moore has no interest in reporting the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. Because if he did that he couldn’t hold to his accusation that Bush didn’t send enough troops in. 11,000 were sent in; less than the number of cops in New York City. What Moore and those he talked to fail to take into account is that the cops in New York are dealing with millions of people. There were not million of Taliban leaders and fighters to deal with. The Taliban was quickly dispelled from the country and now the country is recovering just fine with “only” 11,000 troops being sent in initially.

The next conspiracy theory deals with the Bin Laden family. Moore pretends this is new information yet this was revealed long ago. The Bush administration has a relationship with the Bin Laden family. They’re very wealthy oil tycoons. But they don’t have much of a relationship with their son, Osama. On September 13th they were flown out of the country. What he fails to mention is that the flight restrictions were being lifted on the 13th. The reason they were flown out was because they were being harassed. Moore spends a great deal of time showing old cop films about interrogating witnesses. What Moore fails to consider is that while the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country for their own safety, they were not necessarily out of contact with the White House. In fact he doesn’t even ask the question “has the Bush administration talked to them?” He never bothers to find out whether or not the Bush Administration is still in contact with the Bin Laden family. If Bush is trying to protect Osama somehow then it’s pretty odd that the first official reports blame him and a war is started against him and his organization within two months. The other important point that Moore doesn’t bother to consider is that it was not Bush that authorized the Bin Laden’s to leave the country but Richard Clarke. On May 26, 2004 Clarke told The Hill newspaper:

“I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
…
“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

http://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

I guess we can excuse Moore’s ignorance on the issue since Richard Clarke came clean on it most likely after Moore had finished editing his film and history. What Moore also failed to consider is that fact that the Bin Laden family was actually talked to. But that’s very inconvenient for Moore since those old cop movie clips provided a bit of humor for his farce.

Moore also points out that many of the higher ups wanted to know if Iraq was involved. Yet again the first reports were about Al Qaeda and it was the Liberals crying foul because the evidence wasn’t there. Well it was, the White House just wasn’t making the evidence public just yet. Then, not so shockingly it turns out the White House was right. So apparently their initial reaction to blame Iraq didn’t go anywhere. Moore also ignores the fact that the Clinton administration also looked for an Iraq connection after the World Trade Center bombing. It’s long been believed by the leaders of the US that Al Queda had a state sponsor and that Iraq was it.

Moore attempts to tie the initial reaction to blame Iraq into the “false” connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda that the Bush administration keeps talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Except that in 1999, that same connection was being reported by the Clinton administration. And despite Moore’s claim to the contrary (understandable since he finished the film before the facts came out) the 9/11 commission has found that there is no contradiction between their findings and what the White House has been saying all along. There is in fact a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Clinton knew this. Bush knows this. The 9/11 Commission knows this. The only people who refuse to accept this are people like Moore. So knowing the connection was there it’s not so surprising the Bush Administration would be curious about Iraq’s involvement. No one in the Bush administration has ever claimed a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Only the liberals have said that and now it’s falsely being attributed to the Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25571-2003Sep17

In fact, Bush went on the record in September of 2003 as saying there is no link between Iraq and 9/11. Moore and all the other liberals continue to ignore this fact. The White Houses stance has been all along that there is a link between Iraq and Al Queda. They never claimed Iraq had a role in 9/11 specifically despite what Moore would like you to believe.

We also have the conspiracy from the psychologist. He accuses the White House of issuing just enough terror threats to keep America scared so that bills like The Patriot Act would pass. I seem to recall the White House being chastised for NOT keeping people informed well enough of terrorist activity. They responded by dumping every little thing on the American public. Then the Liberals got upset about that. Moore attempts to prove his point that people are irrationally scared because of Bush by using some hick town in the middle of nowhere. I’ve lived in a small town. You can find people (grown people) scared of goat eating monsters in small towns. I was waiting for the duct tape and plastic wrap to make an appearance along with the anthrax scare but there wasn’t a word about it.

He also found people in this small town who were suspicious of terrorists and strangers. Well this makes sense since Moore is a liberal and catering to liberals. Most of whom have never gotten acquainted with small town living or are just oblivious to the social aspects of small town living. Moore uses the small town he grew up in that’s falling a part as the backdrop. What Moore fails to point out is that he could have asked the same questions prior to 9/11 and have gotten the same answers. Small town people are always leery of strangers. That’s just the nature of a small town out in the middle of nowhere. If Moore had any intention of seeing how the general population thinks he would have talked to some more affluent people who have been out in the world.

I mentioned thinly veiled decency because now we get into the war in Iraq. Moore has no problem showing uncensored footage of charred bodies, screaming wounded soldiers, and dismembered burned bodies being dragged and beaten through the streets and strung up from a bridge. War is hell. From the beginning one of the main focuses of the Liberals was what happens in a war. “One soldier dying is too many” was supposed to convince us all that the war was wrong. How many people have never seen a war movie? Platoon, Born on the Forth of July, Full Metal Jacket, Armageddon, and Saving Private Ryan are all about the horrors of war. Liberals act like those who support the war have no clue what happens in war.

There was an Iraqi immigrant who was on a talk show and he was explaining why he supported the war. Paraphrasing, “If we go to war, my family may die. If we don’t go to war, they will die.” Apparently Liberals feel it takes millions of innocent Iraqi lives to equal the life of one US soldier. Moore also interviewed soldiers who don’t understand what they’re accomplishing. Moore fails to consider the soldiers who do. Well for one you’ve gotten rid of Saddam and his regime that is currently in court facing charges for crimes against humanity. If Liberals had their way this day never would have come and millions more Iraqis would be slaughtered at his hands. Some soldiers can’t understand that it’s not about what they’re doing for themselves. It’s about what they’ve accomplished for the Iraqi people.

Unlike Vietnam where we lost about 56,000 soldiers and did nothing, we’ve gotten rid of an evil dictator and have gotten him into court to actually face charges along with 11 of his top officials. We’ve gotten a new government in place. We’ve gotten a new constitution in place. Women are able to have rights and be educated. But hey, since a few soldiers say they aren’t doing anything I guess that overrides the facts. But then again, this film was completed before the hand over and Saddam’s first day in court. But it wasn’t completed before his initial capture. But don’t bother waiting for Moore to mention anything about Saddam. It’s pretty hard to make a movie about a war that didn’t accomplish anything if you don’t completely ignore all the accomplishments.

Moore also fails to mention that the same information Bush used to go to war is the same information the Clinton administration had. Clinton’s only objection to the war was that there wasn’t enough time given to inspectors. Saddam had been under inspection since the first Iraq war. Moore also fails to point out that Reagan, despite promising otherwise took no action when terrorists attacked. Clinton took no action when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time. No action was taken when the Cole was bombed. Moore pretends that we should know where Osama is and yet since the WTC bombing in the 90’s nobody has captured him. To rational people that would seem to indicate we don’t know where he’s at. Bush finally took action after 9/11. And yes, he got some egg on his face with the information he used to start the Iraq War.

But to pretend we haven’t accomplished anything is just pure ignorance. And to flat out ignore facts is what makes Michael Moore’s film yet another mockumentary on the same level as Bowling for Columbine. In fact since Moore depends solely on emotion and not on any objective examination of facts this film will probably be one of the best propaganda films made in a very long time. The net result will most likely be that it has in the best case, no impact on Bush’s re-election and in the worst case, help him get elected by demonstrating how out of touch with reality the liberals are. This movie is simply preaching to the converted.

I didn’t vote for Bush or Gore the first time around because they both were incompetent. The democrats had a great opportunity to come up with something better. All they’ve come up with is a “not Bush.” That would have been sufficient before 9/11. But now we’ve got someone in the presidency who actually takes action against those who attack us and is willing to take risks with information that everyone else knew about but wouldn’t act on. We’ve got 4 months until November. Unless something terrible goes wrong in Iraq or the democrats come up with a real alternative, I’ll be voting for Bush.

Moore would have had a much better case against Bush if he had focused on The Patriot Act. 2 hours of the effects of The Patriot Act on every day citizens would have been very convincing. But this was two hours of misinformation and distortion. But that would have required explaining to the audience why the democrats let it pass. The Patriot Act is as much a black eye for the Bush Administration as it is for John Kerry. This movie is just another black eye for Moore. I have never seen Bowling for Columbine because it was ripped to shreds before I had a chance to be fooled. I wanted to see this one so I could see for myself what Moore was doing. He fooled me once and got a portion of my $6.50 from the theater out of me. He won’t ever again. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that two of his big “documentaries” turned out to be trash.

Troy is the anti-Big Fish. When the writers were asked whether they’d like to hear their father’s version of events or what actually happened they chose the latter. Which is why it’s getting very mixed reviews. There’s a reason the Iliad has been around for over 2000 years. And it’s not because it tells a bland story about a bunch of men fighting over a woman. In fact, this movie doesn’t even make it about Helen. It’s about King Agamemnon’s quest to rule all of Greece. Achilles’ father is known and died long ago. The only real mention of the gods is by the priest and he’s just trying to decifer signs and is always wrong. Achilles’ trashes Apollo’s temple and his men kill some unarmed priests and nothing happens. The movie makers not only stripped out any and all mythology but went out of their way to show just how non existent the gods are. At the end of course Achille’s gets shot in the ankle with an arrow and then quite a few more times. He pulls out all of the arrows except the one in his ankle. Others then find him dead and alone. The obvious point the writers were making was “this is how the legend came about.” It looks like he was killed by the arrow in his ankle so quickly that he couldn’t pull it out. It look as though all the shots to the chest didn’t phase him but the one in the ankle did him in.

I mention it’s not even about Helen. There’s a huge ancient debate about what possesed Helen to go with Paris. You can read about it in The Labyrith in the paper titled “Blame Helen.” In this movie Paris is just a hottie that all the women want. She simply fell in love with him. There was no fight with the gods. BORING. The King of Greece just takes the opportunity to get his men to sack Troy by pretending it’s about her. This actually took 10 years. In the movie, there’s no sense of time. Certainly nobody aged 10 years.

The Iliad will be a classic tale for who knows how long. This movie is going to be forgotten quickly. There are worse tellings of the story but that doesn’t help this telling any. It’s unique in that it tries to strip out the mythology and tell the story “like it actually happened.” But there’s a reason people turn stories into legends and myths. It’s to spice them up. To see the hand of God at work. To get a better understanding of life. Greek myths are tales of heros and life lessons. There is nothing to learn from this movie. Braveheart which had no mythology and is an excellent movie so it’s really no excuse for Troy to be as bland as it is just because it removed all the Greek toppings.

While it is a decently entertaining movie, compared to the Iliad it’s just junk. Unfortunatly, “King Arthur” is doing the same thing. It’s stripping out the myths and just telling the story “like it happened.” Nobody wants to hear about the way it was, Conkite. That’s why it’s turned into a legend and a myth. It’s more valuable and entertaining that way. If I had to guess, I’d say this is Hollywood’s answer to “The Passion.” Instead of embracing the written accounts as they’re written, it’s time to go atheist on the stories. The result is a more desolate ruin than Greece is today.

Wow. I’ve seen a number of “geek to chic” movies and they all have the same moral lesson: you have to look good to be accepted. There are two movies that don’t have that terrible object lesson that every ugly duckling is just waiting to be a swan to be loved by all: The Breakfast Club and Loser. And now Shrek and Shrek 2. Loser is pretty dull but in the end everybody stays just the way they are and they’re happy. Same with The Breakfast Club except better written and paced. Shrek sticks it to the classic fairy tale story and does it with a lot of humor and great pacing. Shrek 2 continues the tradition but deals with how the parents react to Shrek and Fiona. There are a lot of twistings to the fairy tales we all know and the net result is a fun enjoyable movie.

With vampires, werewolves, Frankestein’s monster and hot vampiresses, and a hot leading lady one would assume that this movie can’t possibly go wrong. Oh, but it does. We’re introduced to Anna Valerious very early on. Van Helsing kills Mr Hyde and some extra calls him a murderer. Is he a murderer or a hero? Who can know? So he goes and talks to a priest from an order that doesn’t exist because they’re secret and is notified that he needs to go out and take out Dracula. On a screen is shown a picture of Anna and Van Helsing can’t stop stareing at it. And neither can the camera. About half way through the shot you’re going “we get it, he’s going to hook up with her.” This is a 2 and a half hour movie because the director tries to be dramatic where there is no drama in scenes such as this. After we learn Van Helsing is going to be taking on vampires he meets a friar who’s job for the movie is to be the comic relief. But he really isn’t needed in that area. This friar has invented many things and one of them is what looks like a grenade and it emmits the light of many suns or something. When asked what it’s for he responds, “I don’t know. I know what it does but I don’t know what it’s for.” In story telling there’s this thing called forshadowing where hints are given about what will happen later in the story. For those who missed it, this is a vampire hunting expedition and this supposed genious doesn’t know what a portable sun is good for.

For most of the movie there’s supposed to be a relationship brewing between Van Helsing and Anna however, there is no character developement and nobody cares. The movies attempts to make the characters deep. Is Van Helsing a murderer or a hero? Where did he come from? Oooh. There is all of one scene in the movie where Anna tries to open up to Helsing. He’s talking about going to the sea and she responds “I’ve never been to the sea.” The entire audience burst out laughing. Hugh Jackson himself looked like he’s about ready to lose it. And three hours later the director finally decides to move on with the story. He tried so hard to make somebody care about these people and it just doesn’t happen. The writers did actually write in quite a bit of humor into this movie. Unfortunatly there are many things that are funny that weren’t supposed to be. There’s even a sub plot between Anna and her brother which is supposed to make us care but most of the time it’s either not registering or just funny.

Aside from the fact that the story was terribly constructed, there are long periods of no real background music. But when there is music, it just blares. And it’s not even that good. All the dialog is set at a reasonable volume but as soon as some music hits, it just blares as though the director is expecting the audience to rock out to someone’s attempt at classic music mixed with a bit of rock. To top off this terrible movie, the ending brings out visions of The Lion King. I don’t know what they were thinking. The only thing this movie has going for it is the humor and special effects. If you want a movie with an interesting story forget it. This is the kind of movie you go to only because you want to hang out with friends and just want some easy entertainment.

This is a pretty predictable movie that manages to be funny every once in awhile. The basic plot is that Connie and Carla are a couple lounge singers that sing to captive audiences in such places as airports. After witnessing the killing of their boss they flee to Los Angeles to hide. They stumble across a bar that turns out to be filled with gay guys but, before they leave, they learn about tryouts for a drag club. They decide to pretend to be guys pretending to be girls. And what would a typical girl flic be without the typical “guys suck but oh wait there’s this guy who’s so nice and perfect” sub plot. Despite being predictable it still makes a good date movie because it’s just fun.

Some may complain that you know how Kill Bill ends. Watching Kill Bill Volume one you know that The Bride isn’t going to die obviously as it’s known there’s a sequal. But people who complain about this don’t get the basic point of Kill Bill. It’s not the destination that’s the point. It’s how she gets there. One may wonder what’s up with all the time shifting in Volume 1. The movie doesn’t move along chronologically. Volume 2 doesn’t either. The reason for this is that “revenge is not a straight path.” It also allows someone who’s never seen Volume 1 to not be entirely lost when watching Volume 2. It’s also the case that Volume 1 talks about things that you don’t learn about fully until Volume 2.

The other obvious shift from Volume 1, is that Volume 2 isn’t nearly as bloody. It’s got it’s moments but there are no long drawn out fights. Both movies experiment with various styles. It’s not like most movies that are the same style from beginning to end. Volume 2 focuses more on dialog and humor to move the story along. You get all the backstory for the characters. You learn how The Bride learned her stuff. You meet her master. And you finally learn her name. Some hack critic for the Arizona State Press claimed her name was no big deal. This is because he wasn’t paying attention. There is a very good reason he name is witheld for most of this movie. Bill spends a good amount of time explaining it to The Bride. Apparently this critic missed it in his effort to build his case that Quentin Tarantino is just an egotistical hack.

Some critics were expecting more violence. However, unlike most films, every major character dies in a very unique way. It’s not at all repetitive. O-Ren Ishii dies in a final one on one sword fight after a massive battle with the Crazy 88’s. Vernita Green dies after an in house knife fight. Elle Driver, Budd and Bill are all eliminated in interesting ways that you don’t see comming. Most martial arts films are just one Kung Fu battle after another. This is what makes Kill Bill so flawless; it’s never repetative. Every scene is unique and interesting. Instead of just relying on one skill of The Bride to have her move through her challenges we get to see her use a unique skill for every obstacle. And in Volume 2 you get to see her learn those skills.

For those who are interested in what all the buzz is about but don’t want to have to see all the excessive gore, Volume 2 is quite tame in that area. There are a few pretty graphic scenes but, unlike Volume 1, there is not a steady stream of blood flowing throughout the film and since it really fills in the blanks from Volume 1, you’ll get most of the story so you won’t feel completely lost.