Here are gathered some longer reviews of some
Movies against the war.
That is, movies that oppose the war effort,
sneer at the allies,
muddy the waters,
humanise the jihadi enemy -
or otherwise leave a bad taste in the mouth.
It is shocking to consider the kind of crap that has been produced during the War on Islamism.
What must the WW2 generation think of us.
Fantasy:
Freedom-loving liberal heroes in V for Vendetta
bomb an empty tube train in London in order to topple
an immigrant-hating, British fascist government.
This was filmed in June 2005.
Reality
Reality:
Freedom-hating third-world Muslim immigrants
bomb a packed tube train full of commuters in London in order to kill unbelievers.
This took place in July 2005.
Body of Lies (2008)
by Ridley Scott
was gutted of everything that could have made it exciting.
You could tell no one involved in this film believes in the War on Islamism.
It featured jihad bombings of the UK and Europe.
This could have made a great film, but the on-the-ground suffering was not shown.
Nor were the lives of the British and European jihadi cells shown.
This seemed to be deliberate - the film gutted of excitement due to political correctness.
The good guys weren't so good, and the bad guys weren't so bad.
The CIA's operation against the jihadis was sleazy and unheroic,
featuring torture, lies,
double-crossing,
abandonment of allies and informers and patsies,
and a "false flag" operation.
If you like cynicism, this was the film for you.
If you like heroism, don't bother.
The film is sleazy, cynical, unheroic, PC and boring.
The CIA men were also incredibly annoying.
I was actually disappointed that DiCaprio was rescued from beheading.
At least it would have got rid of that stupid beard.
The star
Russell Crowe
sums it up:
"there are no good guys, no bad guys. It's just not that clearly defined."
On the trailer:
"The public's soooo got Hollywood's number and we know exactly what's coming when the trailer's all about meterosexuals running around the desert wearing ear pieces: An assault on our values, cheap shots at this great country of ours, and most unforgivably, an attack on the very people who risk their lives to protect and defend us."
Meterosexuals running around the desert wearing ear pieces.
W (2008),
absurd fictional anti-Bush film by
Castro-lover
Oliver Stone.
This movie was hard going.
Sitting there watching Stone make cheap shot after cheap shot at Bush is just not interesting.
And because it's Stone (who made JFK)
you don't believe that a single scene in the movie is true, actually happened.
Everything feels fictional, like a comedy sketch, without the laughs.
And the leftie politics are so weird.
George Bush sr. is a hero for leaving Saddam in power
in 1991.
The subsequent
democide of Shia, Kurds, Marsh Arabs and other rebels
is not mentioned.
George Bush jr. is a villain for finally ending Saddam's reign of terror in 2003.
Silly music plays during the allied victory.
Stone laughs at their naive optimism when
the statue falls.
He mocks their plans for a better Iraq.
He seems delighted when it all turns to shit, when jihadi bombs start going off in marketplaces and mosques.
And he never puts any blame on the jihad! None!
No, only the white man could have any moral guilt.
The jihadis are invisible, their motives unexamined.
Because Stone doesn't read about them, and he knows nothing about them.
The whole film is censored.
9/11 is never shown.
Bush's visit to the
9/11 ruins is never shown.
The Afghan war is never shown.
The capture of Saddam is never shown.
The sadism of the Taliban and the Iraqi resistance is never shown.
Not one pro-liberation Iraqi or Afghani speaks,
despite the
opinion polls.
This film (like Stone's JFK and Vietnam films)
is simple fiction, not history.
Stone on Bush, 2005:
"He was the wrong leader at the wrong time. I always felt that. I wish I was wrong."
Stone on Bush, June 2009:
"Nixon always said Reagan was a dumb son of a bitch and, you know, I think that he was.
And I think, I really think George W is dumber."
Stone on the movie W, 2008:
"Bush may turn out to be the worst president in history.
I think history is going to be very tough on him. But that doesn't mean he isn't a great story. It's almost Capra-esque, the story of a guy who had very limited talents in life, except for the ability to sell himself."
Great reply in the comments:
"Sounds more like the Obama story to me."
John Nolte says the movie
"doesn't bother to tell a life story or concern itself at all with a character examination of our 43rd president. Rather, it's a hodgepodge collection of every rumor, anecdote, embarrassing moment - real or imagined ..."
and a film
"whose only subtext comes from a place it didn't want. Hanging over the film's entire last half is the knowledge that George W. Bush stood firm through a hellstorm of criticism and brought victory to Iraq and liberty to its 25 million people."
Bush liberated Iraq from Saddam,
killed Saddam and his sons,
liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban,
and killed ten thousand of the elite of jihadi fighters from all over the world.
What a fool!
Brian De Palma
directed
Casualties of War (1989),
showing not American heroism in Vietnam (of course),
and not communist crimes (don't be silly),
but rather
American crimes
(of course).
De Palma
has now written and directed Redacted,
based not on American heroism in Iraq (of course not),
and not on jihadi crimes (they slaughter tens of thousands but it is of no interest to cinema),
but rather on American crimes,
namely the
Mahmudiyah killings
(of course).
It's clear that
you'll only ever get one side of the war from this guy.
And is the Mahmudiyah incident the best he can do in presenting his case against America?
After all,
unlike the endless stream of jihadi rapes and killings, the Mahmudiyah incident was an anomaly
that was punished severely by the US military,
with sentences of life in prison without parole,
100 years in prison, 90 years in prison,
and 110 years in prison.
What more does De Palma want? He wants them executed?
I'd agree with that (as would many on the right),
but somehow I don't think that's his point.
His point is to get America to lose, and the jihad to win.
In fact, the U.S. military did
threaten the soldiers with the death penalty.
A number of them pleaded guilty to avoid it.
The ex-soldier
charged under federal, not military law,
also faced the death penalty.
I got to see this vile film.
Here's a summary:
It opens with U.S. soldiers killing a pregnant woman when they fire on a car that doesn't stop
at a checkpoint.
The soldiers show no remorse afterwards and just joke about it.
Then a black Sergeant is blown up by jihadis.
We had already seen him make racist comments about the local people.
Then they raid a house, taking a man away, and leaving his family in tears.
A 15 year old girl and her little sister are left behind.
We see the soldiers leering after these girls,
and humiliating them at a checkpoint.
Then they start drinking and it is proposed to go back to that house
to take advantage of the 15 year old.
No one reports this plot to their superiors.
They burst into the house at night, round up the terrified family, shoot them all
(mother, grandfather and little sister),
and
gang rape the girl,
all the time laughing and joking and mocking.
They then shoot the girl in the face and set fire to her body.
The father is interviewed and says "Such shame on my family is only cleansed by blood."
(Implying that the Iraqi resistance is motivated by revenge for American crimes.)
The jihadis then capture a U.S. soldier, and, fantastically,
they capture one of the ones
who was involved in the crime! (*)
They cut off his head while he is alive, on video, and place the head on top of his
abandoned body.
We then see the two rapist soldiers talking.
One describes how his gangster brother in America killed a man, and then his wife and kids.
His buddy admires him and is impressed by the story.
They express sadness that his brother got caught.
Finally we are back home with one of the soldiers who did nothing.
He is saying that when he joined up,
he wanted to kick ass for 9/11.
But now all his idealism is gone. (Or so De Palma hopes!)
The movie ends with photos of dead civilians.
For some reason, De Palma doesn't tell us who killed them and how.
His website
redactedmovie.com
does not explain the pictures either.
They are labelled "collateral damage".
That is, it implies that the US killed them
(since if the jihad killed them, they wouldn't be collateral damage
- they would be the targets).
If anyone has proof the US killed these people, please
tell me here.
In contrast to some reviewers, I think it's well made
and well acted.
It's just that it's vile propaganda.
The U.S. soldiers are all crude, racist, criminals, cowards,
and just generally stupid and undisciplined.
They are what the jihad says they are.
And the jihad is also what the jihad says it is
- brave Iraqis defending their home and families.
At no point do jihadis ever attack civilians.
At no point do U.S. soldiers ever attack jihadis.
At no point do U.S. soldiers do anything useful.
It is fine recruiting material for the jihad.
Wartime enemy propaganda.
(*) The Tucker and Menchaca killings and mutilations:
In real life,
a few months after the
Mahmudiyah killings,
the jihadis kidnapped, tortured and mutilated
two utterly innocent, uninvolved soldiers,
Tucker
and
Menchaca.
They tortured them, dragged them through the streets, beheaded one of them,
and mutilated both.
Various reports said they
cut out their tongues, eyes, hearts, livers and intestines,
and
cut off their ears, noses,
toes, fingers and genitals.
But it would have spoilt the film to show the jihadis taking revenge
on innocent, uninvolved, honourable soldiers.
You can see why De Palma doesn't like the truth.
See the images
(and here)
[GRAPHIC]
that De Palma doesn't want you to see.
The Truth About The Troops, Jacob Laksin, November 26, 2007
- The truth about the real rules of engagement in Iraq,
and the U.S. military's endless efforts to protect civilians
and respect religious sensitivities.
Libertas review:
"There are two acts of terrorism in Redacted, both take the life of a Marine and are set-up in such a way that their deaths are completely justified. The first man killed is a racist Sergeant who sees the Iraqi people as rat-like scavengers, the other is beheaded in direct retalition for the rape. The only harm we ever see done to the Iraqi people is at the hands of the United States."
Review:
"The film ends with photos of real-life victims of the Iraq war, though it's impossible to tell who they are, how they were killed, or who killed them. Is De Palma saying it doesn't matter?"
"According to De Palma, the pent-up anger of the US forces in Iraq is worse than that of the troops who served in Vietnam, there, he says, at least US soldiers had brothels to visit in order to let off steam.
'This is not the way the army likes to see itself portrayed,' he adds. 'They want to be seen the way the administration portrays them: valiant people over there creating democracy - all that mumbo jumbo.'"
What a disgusting, sneering, cynical man.
He complains that
"now it's all over the web that I'm a left-wing wacko traitor",
as if that is somehow an irrational response to his film.
Interview
with De Palma, Mar 2008.
Even as America wins the war,
De Palma says:
"Everything about this war, he says, is futile and relentless. Even the landscape in Iraq is hopeless: rubble and wasteland.
...
War and rape are recurrent themes in De Palma's work. "It's a metaphor for my feeling of what America did to Vietnam and what we're doing to Iraq. We come in, we destroy, we rape, we kill and then we leave. The girl represents the innocent country.""
He calls the liberation of Iraq from Saddam and the attempt to give them a democracy
"this terrible crime".
Iraqi civilians killed (all deliberately) in 2006 by the Iraqi resistance: 16,791.
Iraqi civilians killed (all accidentally) in 2006 by Americans: 225.
In other words, the incredibly careful and skilled
Americans have hardly killed anyone innocent since 2003,
and those that have died have all been killed accidentally
while engaged in street warfare with jihadis.
Almost all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of the resistance, not at the hands of the Americans.
As Glen Reinsford says:
"Iraqis aren't
dying from war.
They are being murdered by
Islamic terrorists."
A leftie's wet dream.
Blair, who helped bring down two dictatorships
and offered the people democracy,
is charged with "war crimes" in the Hague.
The whole film is about Blair's guilt,
and bizarrely, Blair himself feels guilty.
The film is a glimpse of a nightmarish world
where UN law made by unelected juntas and dictators
overrides British law,
and we must all obey whatever African dictators decide.
The only good thing in the film is it says the allies and Israel have bombed Iran.
If only it is true that in the next few years
the US, UK and Israeli governments
have the balls to do this.
One very noticeable thing about this film
is that the lefties have no plan for the Middle East.
They have no positive ideas at all for what to do next.
They have no real interest in the future of Iraq.
All they care about is punishing anyone who wants to help it.
The film has great faith in the abilities of "soft power" (the UN
and international law).
But, like I suspect many in the UK and US,
if Blair was sent to the Hague,
I would support
the U.K. and U.S. military attacking the Hague
to release him.
This drama is
produced by David Aukin,
who also
produced the safe, cowardly
The Hamburg Cell.
The heroes of the film are the
"Tipton Three".
Immediately after 9/11,
when America was gearing up for war on Afghanistan,
these three young British Muslim men
left the safety of Britain and
travelled to Pakistan.
The bombing of Afghanistan
started 7th Oct 2001.
On 12th Oct (after the bombing had started), they
volunteered (at a mosque in Pakistan) to go into Afghanistan
"to help in aid projects",
even though none are Afghani.
The British director
Michael Winterbottom says:
"they were interested to see Afghanistan, and wanted to help the people there".
The mosque they volunteered at
was at the time openly recruiting fighters for the Taleban,
but apparently they did not notice this.
They were captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in Nov 2001
alongside lots of foreign fighters
who had joined the Taleban.
I don't see why anyone is surprised they ended up in a POW camp for several years.
If they are innocent, they must be the most stupid young men on earth.
And why is this an interesting story?
Why make films about it?
(As opposed, say, to the many stories of allied heroism and bravery
fighting fascism in Afghanistan.)
Why make films about this story?
Unless your intent is to see the enemy win this long struggle.
There are so many things wrong with this film:
9/11 is never even mentioned. America seems to be attacking Afghanistan for no reason.
The barbaric nature of the Taliban regime
is never mentioned.
Afghanistan is simply described as a place which has large
naan bread!
The idiot central characters,
who were lucky enough to grow up in the free and rich country the UK,
express no misgivings at all
about entering a totalitarian religious slave state.
When the bombing of the Taliban starts,
sad music starts playing, as if this is something bad!
The idiot central characters
are shown hanging out with armed
Taliban and foreign jihadi fighters.
Never once does it occur to them that they might be taken as one of them.
Never once do we hear them explain this insane decision.
Never once do we hear them express any reservations about the jihadis.
The attack on the scattered and fleeing Taliban and jihadi forces
is depicted as if it is something bad!
Sad music even plays!
It goes on for ages,
as if the death of Taliban and foreign jihadis is a bad thing!
Since I've never actually seen a film depicting
the heroism of the allied forces that
liberated Afghanistan from these scum,
it seems a bit rich that the only portrayal of this I've now seen
is from the enemy's viewpoint.
Maybe Michael Winterbottom has seen many such films.
I wish he'd tell me a few names of them
here.
A surrendering Taliban leader expresses hope that his POWs will be treated
according to the rules of war
- as if that's what the Taliban would do!
For example,
a school teacher was
disembowelled
by the Taliban in 2006.
His crime: teaching girls.
He was dragged from his crying children
and partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes.
But of course including such scenes would have spoilt the film.
While the treatment of the prisoners is brutal and seems incredibly
fearful and paranoid,
a bit of context,
such as the
Battle of Qala-i-Jangi,
might help.
But that would spoil the film, wouldn't it?
You have to wait for 38 minutes before a single person
says something sensible.
An American soldier discovers to his disbelief that this prisoner
is from England.
"You mean you come from England?
...
You're from England??
You asshole!
What are you doing here?"
That sums it up, really,
Iran loves this film (while it kills British troops):
Unbelievably, this British film
was actually filmed in the enemy state of
Iran.
Of course Iran was delighted to assist this production,
as part of their war effort
(a war effort
which involves
killing British soldiers in Iraq).
The film is such good propaganda, and such good recruiting material
for the jihad against the West,
that the lead enemy, Iran,
has
ordered multiple prints of the film.
The film's
British producer Andrew Eaton
said he was "delighted and overjoyed"
with this news.
So he is delighted
that his film will be used by a totalitarian dictatorship
to entrench its power
and promote hatred and war against Eaton's culture?
He is delighted
that his "tyrant-friendly" film is allowed
when other, more dangerous films are banned in Iran?
Doesn't the fact that the Iranian regime likes his film
cause him any doubts at all?
In June 2007,
on the
"Lie Lab"
TV program,
one of the "Tipton Three"
admitted that he did not go into Afghanistan for "charity".
"Ahmed confessed (Rasul had refused to go through with the test) not only to visiting an Islamist training camp but also handling weapons and learning how to use an AK47."
George W. Bush is assassinated, in this leftie's wet dream.
A Syrian, who had been to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan,
is convicted of the killing, but he is (of course!) innocent.
A brave
Syrian dissident,
risking his life and the lives of all his family,
claims on TV that this is a Syrian state plot
- because he so much wants America to destroy the tyranny in Damascus.
And for this the film mocks him
rather than celebrates him.
The real killer is (of course!)
a former proud American soldier
who is also the father of an American soldier killed in Iraq.
He was loyal and patriotic, and brought up his kids to serve,
but "Bush destroyed all that".
A black soldier too!
Pure leftie genius!
Of course, these Bush-hating moonbats are playing with fire.
Have they forgotten that the deranged
John Hinckley, Jr
shot President Reagan in 1981,
after becoming obsessed by
Taxi Driver and Jodie Foster.
Who knows what Death of a President will inspire?
Comment
notes how risky the President's job is:
"approx 9.3% of sitting Presidents have been assassinated in office
(statistically much riskier than
a tour in Iraq)"
American political assassins:
Dale Amon
notes that, ironically, the movie slanders black Americans
by implying they would be likely assassins.
"'Black Americans' are Americans first and melanin enhanced second.
They are as patriotic as any other Americans and perhaps more so.
What would be a realistic plot? If I were writing such a script,
I would make the killer a Cindy Sheehan follower."
Comment:
"The story would have been much more interesting and perhaps realistic if the president had been murdered by a delusional leftist film director."
American political assassins and would-be assassins:
I loved the book
V for Vendetta.
I read it when it first came out in the 1980s,
and I have been waiting for the movie for 20 years.
But
V is coming out now in a different world,
a world in which
we are up against a real fascist enemy that cinema is ignoring.
A religious fascist enemy that really would
put Jews and homosexuals in camps,
and that bombs Tube trains
with people in them.
It's just not the enemy that
Alan Moore
imagined.
Unfortunately for the left, it turns out to be aggressive,
Jew-hating, homophobic
third-world immigrants
that are doing this.
Bringing V out now,
while still a great film,
seems like an act of evasion.
In fairness, they tried to modify the story to fit modern events.
But they made a mess of it.
In the book, fascists come to power in the wake of a real nuclear war,
which was both chilling and plausible.
In the film, the government carries out a fake bio-terror attack
to scare the people and take power.
But this is implausible
conspiracy-theory nonsense.
Much scarier is the
nightmare idea
that a real Islamist
mega terror attack in Europe
pushes the people over the edge to neo-fascism and ethnic cleansing
of the Muslims of Europe.
This is chilling and plausible.
The neo-cons worry about this endlessly - the reaction of Europe
to a successful mega terror attack by the Islamists.
Europeans may not be as restrained as Americans were.
How much better the film could have been
if the 80,000 dead was a real Islamist attack.
Maybe the film-makers thought this would be seen as "justifying"
the fascist government.
But it would not. It would just make the film darker,
rather than the simplistic version where we just have to oppose
the government
and everything will be alright.
The film more or less suggests that terror is not a real threat,
in Britain anyway,
and only the government is a real threat.
Just weeks after they finished shooting in early June 2005,
suicide terrorists bombed the London tube,
making this aspect of the film look permanently ridiculous.
It could have been a masterpiece. But they chickened out from
showing two bad guys - Islamists and neo-fascists.
They wanted only one bad guy, and ended up looking
dated and ridiculous.
In the film Syriana, there is no US action against jihadis at all.
The CIA spend all their time trying to protect oil deals and
military base rights.
The war is apparently about oil, not about Islamism.
The jihadis are shown as sympathetic young men,
driven to Islamism by unemployment, or something.
Bizarrely, they do not seem to hate Jews, gays, liberated women, atheists,
Hindus and infidels.
They do not attack civilians.
The only ones attacking civilians are the Americans.
Instead of working on targeting jihadis, the CIA
devote their efforts to killing an Arab democrat and his children.
Hezbollah save the hero from death,
while the CIA kill children
- that more or less sums it up.
The film is well made, but it is fantasy that no one should take seriously.
It has nothing to say about the real world.
Sadly, the DVD commentary shows it is meant to be taken seriously.
The DVD commentary is a parade of rich white millionaires telling us ordinary people
that we should feel guilty about driving cars.
And apparently this will help stop the jihad, or something.
Apparently the West, not the Arab world, is the problem.
In the film, the brave Arab reformist, struggling to build a democracy with human rights,
is assassinated by America.
As
Charles Krauthammer
says:
"Who in the greater Middle East is closest to the modernizing, democratizing paragon of "Syriana"?
Without a doubt, President Hamid Karzai
of Afghanistan, a man of exemplary
- and quite nonfictional - personal integrity, physical courage and democratic temperament.
Hundreds of brave American (and allied NATO) soldiers have died protecting him
and the democratic system they established to allow him to govern.
On the very night the Oscars will be honoring "Syriana," American soldiers will be fighting,
some perhaps dying, in defense of precisely the kind of tolerant, modernizing Muslim leader
that "Syriana" shows America slaughtering."
Krauthammer is too positive about Karzai.
His election was rather
corrupt,
and he tolerates some
brutal sharia law.
His government has betrayed many of the sacrifices made for it.
What a safe, cowardly film.
You know, this could have been a really great film.
It could have been a masterpiece.
It followed around the 9/11 plotters in a low-key way,
showing them going through ordinary life,
showing their prayers, their nutty beliefs.
All very detached, neutral.
And then it just ends with them getting on the planes.
Imagine, instead, if it ended by showing the orgy of explosive violence
that actually happened next.
The mild-mannered Islamists
get up from their seats and
saw through the throat of the screaming stewardess.
They then burst into the cockpit and butcher the pilots,
and then drive hundreds of terrified civilians, including women and little children,
into the World Trade Center.
Just add 5 minutes to the end and this film could have been a masterpiece.
But they were too cowardly to show that.
What a safe, cowardly film.
by Ridley Scott
was gutted of everything that could have made it exciting.
You could tell no one involved in this film believes in the War on Islamism.
A similar leftie wet dream, in the theatre:
Since 1995.
