politicalpartypoop.com

Muscle Daddy sent this one, this is funny as hell.
Even funnier for me since I just watched this silly Bruce Willis flick this past weekend.
Nothing like portraying the notion that our society or the world is on the brink of total collapse and annihilation thanks to the evils of pissed off sexually repressed computer nerds lurking in basements.Just proof that Hollywood is being run by a bunch of young, clueless, unimaginative
hacks who simply have run out of ideas thereby stretching imagination to the breaking point.
Shit we already had the Jetsons with moving sidewalks and flying cars and Star Trek with molecular transport and warp speed technology in the 60’s and Laser Light weapons and Jedi powers starting in the 70’s.
So why not have computer hackers who can rob our economy blind and can make all street lights turn green at once. Seems like a logical progression to me, Right!?

Worst Offender: Live Free or Die Hard

What Happened:
The movie’ villain, Thomas Gabriel, and his band of hackers are so good at hacking that they’ve gained the powers of an all-seeing and all-knowing God:

“OK, I want you to hack into that traffic light and make it red. Good. Now, I want you to hack into Kevin Smith’ basement and physically move his webcam around the room. Now, hack into the brain of that fighter pilot and get him to shoot missiles into the middle of a busy freeway.”

Hacking is to this movie what magic is in the Harry Potter stories: plot-hole spackle. All the gaping cracks in logic between scene A to scene C can be neatly smoothed over with the mystical power of hack. The improbability reaches critical mass, though, when the bad guys hack into the natural-gas lines near a power plant and make them spontaneously explode under the streets.

Why It’s Ridiculous:
Look, we acknowledge that Bruce Willis movies take place in a universe where every object is teetering on the brink of spontaneous detonation (see Armageddon, wherein the bolt on a valve handle breaks, causing an entire space station to erupt in an enormous fireball). Still, if natural-gas safety precautions were so poor that entire city blocks could explode via broadband modem, we’re certain the guys at 4chan would have done it by now.

In Real Life
Gabriel would make his insane demands to his hackers who, in turn, would snort derisively and call him a n00b. An hour later, 30 unwanted pizzas would turn up, mysteriously ordered under his name from Pizza Hut’ online order form, while the hackers giggle and high-five each time the doorbell rings.

Check out the rest here

Sphere: Related Content

From Media Takeout

Clint Eastwood is steaming mad. MediaTakeOut.com told you a few weeks ago that director Spike Lee criticized Clint for not using African American actors in his movie Flags Of Our Fathers. Well now Clint is going hard at Spike. Here’s what he said in a recent interview:

On Spike Lee:

[Spike] was complaining when I did Bird [the 1988 biopic of Charlie Parker]. Why would a white guy be doing that? I was the only guy who made it, that’s why. He could have gone ahead and made it. Instead he was making something else.” As for Flags of Our Fathers, he says, yes, there was a small detachment of black troops on Iwo Jima as a part of a munitions company, “but they didn’t raise the flag. The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn’t do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people’d go, ‘This guy’s lost his mind.’ I mean, it’s not accurate.”

On why he doesn’t have to include Black actors in his new film Changeling - set in Los Angeles during the Depression

“What are you going to do, you gonna tell a f*ckin’ story about that?” he growls. “Make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I’m not in that game. I’m playing it the way I read it historically, and that’s the way it is. When I do a picture and it’s 90% black, like Bird, I use 90% black people.”

On what he thinks Spike should do:

“A guy like him should shut his face.”

Sphere: Related Content

Actor Robert Downey Jr has in the past been applauded for his edgy roles.But his latest may be a step too far - as the actor dons make-up to play a rather convincing looking black man in a new Hollywood film starring comic actor Ben Stiller.

the backlash has clearly begun as one comment on a showbiz blog Just Jared said: “I’m not black and I find it offensive; are there not any talented enough black actors out in the world that they feel the need to hire a white guy to do a black guy?”

“They are infering that there are no good enough black actors to play a black person.

“What is the significance of hiring a white guy to play a black part? what are they trying to prove? I bet its to get more publicity.”

But in support of Downey’s satirical role another comment on the blog said: “I’m black too, and if they were satirising black people yes it would be offensive. but they’re not.

“It’s FUNNY because they’re NOT legitimising negative racial stereotypes, anyone with a brain in his/her head can see how painfully clear that is.”

The film centres on a group of pompous actors making the most expensive Vietnam war movie ever made.

Fed up with their self-involved cast, the film’s makers drop them into the jungle to take care of themselves, where they get caught up in a conflict they don’t realise is real.

The cast also includes Steve Coogan, Nick Nolte and cameos from Tom Cruise and Tobey Maguire.

Stiller said he was “trying to push it as far as you can within reality,” with the intent of satirising over-the-top actors, not African-Americans.

“I had no idea how people would respond to it,” Stiller told the magazine. But at a recent screening, black viewers liked the film”, he said.

Sphere: Related Content

 

From Moonbattery

Yet again, a Tinseltown bubblehead has made a fool of herself with over-the-top hyperbole denouncing the country that made her rich. Here’s how Meryl Streep justifies comparing America to the Third Reich:

When the government said, “you can’t photograph coffins coming home from Iraq,” that was a clear abrogation of the right to a free press. And the press rolled over. Look at how the German people have lived, for all these years, with a legacy of “How could you let that happen?” We might be living with that kind of legacy in the next fifty years.

A few questions for Meryl:

When America was fighting the real Third Reich, did the media strive to demoralize our country and our troops by obsessing on pictures of dead American troops? Would the government have allowed them to? Could anyone in Hollywood have spewed Streep’s sort of moonbattery and still had a career?

Now some political wisdom from George Clooney, who apparently gives a lot of thought to political issues, but unfortunately isn’t any brighter than Streep:

Go through the history of time. During the Salem witch hunt, the liberals thought there was no such thing as witches, and the conservative view was “They’re witches and they all have to die.”

Actually, the unhinged, seditious fools we now call liberals didn’t have much of a presence back then. But the hysterical desire to seek out “witches” and punish them is still very much with us. Ask anyone accused of “racism.”

Loony then provides a new litmus test for liberal candidates:

Anybody who’s running who’s gone through the Sixties and didn’t smoke a joint, I don’t want you for president. You haven’t lived at all. What the f–k’s wrong with you?

It’s nice to see that even moonbats insist on some qualifications.

Sphere: Related Content

I found this cartoon on the blog MsUnderestimated, good point!

Don’t ya think celebutards like Cameron Diaz might want to do a little research before going to a foreign country adorned in “hip” Hollywood Che or Mao gear? Uh, sorry.. that was assuming they knew HOW to do research. Dang. Don’t you just hate it when that happens?

Sphere: Related Content

 REMEMBER MY FAVORITE LIBERAL ROB SAYS THAT I MAKE UP CRAP ABOUT LIBERAL AND THAT THESE “FICTITIOUS” LIBERALS I RANT ABOUT ARE ALL IN MY HEAD AND THAT THEY DON’T REALLY EXIST.  

By Tom Barrett
Conservative Truth.org

ANOTHER ARTICLE - HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA
Does ‘PG’ rating mean ‘pro-God’?
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has gone too far – way too far! Their rating system is supposed to help parents protect their children from nudity, foul language and violence – not from Christianity. Yet, in violation of their own published guidelines, the Association has put a “warning label” on a film that contains NO nudity, NO filthy language, and NO violence. The movie’s “objectionable content” is its Christian message. In effect, the MPAA has made a decision to censor religion by its action.

The hypocrisy is that the MPAA had given “G” ratings in the past to many movies that actually contain objectionable content. They explain this away by claiming that the objectionable material was only seen on screen “fleetingly,” or was very “mild.” The more serious hypocrisy is that they liberally pass out “G” ratings to movies that contain strong religious content of other religions, including Islam, Secular Humanism and Wicca (witchcraft).

The movie in question, which received a “PG” rating, is the soon-to-be-released sports film “Facing the Giants” (see LINK to the movie’s website below). The scene which apparently caused the MPAA to fear that “some viewers might be offended” included a discussion between a football coach and a wealthy spoiled brat.

When the coach advised the kid to stop bad-mouthing his father and get right with God, the boy said, “You really believe in all that honoring God and following Jesus stuff?… Well, I ain’t trying to be disrespectful, but not everybody believes in that.”

To which the coach replied: “Matt, nobody’s forcing anything on you. Following Jesus Christ is the decision that you’re going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it’ll change your life. You’ll never be the same.”

Alex Kendrick, who plays the coach in the film, said, “Look, I have those kinds of conversations about faith all the time and I’ve seen young people make decisions that change their lives. The reason we’re making movies in the first place is that we hope they inspire people to think twice about their relationships with God.”

Anyone who sees this film will agree that it should be rated “G”. This is a direct quote from the MPAA’s own website (see LINK below), which describes which films should be rated “G” (for General audiences):

“This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film.

”Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present, nor is there any drug use content.”

So the MPAA’s own guidlelines allow SOME bad language, and SOME violence. But, as I mentioned above, “Facing the Giants” contains NO nudity, NO bad language, and NO violence. It should definitely be rated “G.” The only reason it has not is that the MPAA has set itself up as some kind of censor of religion. The Association has stated that, “The religious content could be ‘disturbing’ to some viewers.” So only religious expressions of which they approve will be allowed in “G” rated movies.

“It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about,” film spokesman Kris Fuhr told the Scripps Howard News Service.

I don’t know about you, but I’d sure rather have my daughter see a coach counseling a kid to do right, than to have her hear “snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation,” or have her see “…violence” which “…is at a minimum.” I think “G” rated movies should not include ANY violence or bad language. The content of “Facing the Giants” is actually the ideal of a “G” rated movie.

Now let’s look at how the MPAA decides which movies deserve to be rated “PG (Parental Guidance suggested):

“This is a film which clearly needs to be examined by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision. Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies. The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. However, these elements are not considered so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film. The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. As long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.”

Fascinating! The MPAA believes that the portrayal of drug use is so bad that it is can never be allowed in “PG” movies, where “Parental Guidance” is suggested. But parents need to be “warned” about movies that have religious themes. Using that logic, a coach talking to a child about getting his life straightened out is more damaging to kids than allowing them to see drug use portrayed in a positive manner. What planet do these people come from?

On web blogs where discussion of the movie appeared, I came across several interesting comments. One said, “Does anybody appreciate the history of our country? We cry out loud that we are Americans…but what do we have to be proud of if we have to ‘warn’ people about the values upon which our country was founded? I respect other religions, but we, the People, come from Christian backgrounds. Our forefathers are turning in their graves!…I think that the rating should be changed to a “G.” We have religious freedom here, besides a strong Christian background as a nation.”

Another commented, “What this film is going for is authenticity. It wants to show what really goes on in the hearts, minds, and lives of people who make following Christ a way of life. There are such people in (nearly) every type of occupation across the globe. When looked at that way, is this film any different than a film that goes inside a mafia ring and presents a realistic (yet fictional) picture of what happens there? It will offend some people, but savvy movie-goers have done their research and know what they are getting themselves into…If this film is too religious for you, then your problem is with the people that follow this way of life, not the film itself. Can you really blame the film for striving for authenticity?”

I think that says it all.

INTERNET RESOURCES:

“Facing the Giants” official website
Does ‘PG’ rating mean ‘pro-God’?
Narrow focus draws ‘PG’ rating for Baptist-backed film
Motion Picture Association of America

 

Sphere: Related Content