Movie Strut (Holiday Edition)

mannybolone

What's hot?King Kong? I've heard "long but good." I've also heard "just plain long."Syriana?Memoirs of a Geisha? (NOT!)And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

TheMack

i wanna see Wolf Creek and that other horror flick that Tarantino produced, that flick looks

faux_rillz

And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

I'm trynna see that.

mannybolone

Isn't "Wolf Creek" just "The Most Dangerous Game" set in the desert?

i wanna see Wolf Creek and that other horror flick that Tarantino produced, that flick looks

Jonny_Paycheck

And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

I'm trynna see that.

Andrea Peyser has stated that Spielberg (and by extension anyone who sees this) is categorically against the Jews (and by extension America) - might wanna look into that property in Tehran you freedom hater.

mannybolone

And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

I'm trynna see that.

Andrea Peyser has stated that Spielberg (and by extension anyone who sees this) is categorically against the Jews (and by extension America) - might wanna look into that property in Tehran you freedom hater.

Here's Peyser's editorial from The Post:

When did Steven Spielberg turn into Barbra Streisand?

That's what springs to mind after seeing "Munich" ??? the director's startlingly anti-Semitic rumination on Arab terrorism and the state of Israel.

In 2 1/2 excruciating hours, Spielberg's film about the 1972 Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes by Islamic butchers sets out to solve Middle East violence while providing a blueprint for world peace.

Instead, Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish survival.

2. Spielberg is a decent enough filmmaker to persuade some people that Israel has outlived its usefulness and should ??? as enemies in Iran maintain ??? be wiped off the face of the earth.

The backlash has begun. The Jewish Action Alliance has already called for a boycott of "Munich."

Written by Zionism-hating screenwriter Tony Kushner, the film concerns a hit squad sent to assassinate 11 Arab terrorists in retaliation for the 1972 massacre.

One by one, the terrorists fall. And one by one, hit squad members suffer crises of conscience, culminating in one Israeli assassin crying out in agony, "All this blood cries back to us! Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous!"

Mercifully, he soon blows himself up.

Here lies the film's biggest flaw ??? and its greatest danger. "Munich" reeks of moral relativism. It puts the terrorists and those who respond to terror on even moral footing. It suggests that Israel must pay, one way or another, for vengeance.

In Time magazine, Spielberg reveals how Hollywood he's sunk. About the Israelis, he said, tellingly, "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything."

Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?

In one scene, the Israeli hit squad spends a night in a house with unsuspecting members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana), the Israeli team's leader, befriends a man called Ali, who argues eloquently that Israel has turned his people into hungry refugees.

The Arabs may have killed. But here, they win the race to victimhood.

Blood does not scare Spielberg ??? think of the bloody beach in the lyrical opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan." But here, the blood spurts, explodes and flows in slo-mo. Not satisfied, Spielberg brings his movie to its metaphorical climax when Avner, in bed with his wife, literally climaxes while daydreaming about the Munich massacre.

At the end, a demoralized Avner flees to Brooklyn. The head of Israel's Mossad (Geoffrey Rush) tries to lure him back into service, saying his actions will bring peace.

"There is no peace!" Avner wails. In the background, the World Trade Center is visible.

I guess that's Israel's fault, too.

Jonny_Paycheck

They really need to put a sticker on the Post that says "not really a newspaper"

TheMack

And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

I'm trynna see that.

Andrea Peyser has stated that Spielberg (and by extension anyone who sees this) is categorically against the Jews (and by extension America) - might wanna look into that property in Tehran you freedom hater.

Here's Peyser's editorial from The Post:

When did Steven Spielberg turn into Barbra Streisand?

That's what springs to mind after seeing "Munich" ??? the director's startlingly anti-Semitic rumination on Arab terrorism and the state of Israel.

In 2 1/2 excruciating hours, Spielberg's film about the 1972 Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes by Islamic butchers sets out to solve Middle East violence while providing a blueprint for world peace.

Instead, Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish survival.

2. Spielberg is a decent enough filmmaker to persuade some people that Israel has outlived its usefulness and should ??? as enemies in Iran maintain ??? be wiped off the face of the earth.

The backlash has begun. The Jewish Action Alliance has already called for a boycott of "Munich."

Written by Zionism-hating screenwriter Tony Kushner, the film concerns a hit squad sent to assassinate 11 Arab terrorists in retaliation for the 1972 massacre.

One by one, the terrorists fall. And one by one, hit squad members suffer crises of conscience, culminating in one Israeli assassin crying out in agony, "All this blood cries back to us! Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous!"

Mercifully, he soon blows himself up.

Here lies the film's biggest flaw ??? and its greatest danger. "Munich" reeks of moral relativism. It puts the terrorists and those who respond to terror on even moral footing. It suggests that Israel must pay, one way or another, for vengeance.

In Time magazine, Spielberg reveals how Hollywood he's sunk. About the Israelis, he said, tellingly, "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything."

Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?

In one scene, the Israeli hit squad spends a night in a house with unsuspecting members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana), the Israeli team's leader, befriends a man called Ali, who argues eloquently that Israel has turned his people into hungry refugees.

The Arabs may have killed. But here, they win the race to victimhood.

Blood does not scare Spielberg ??? think of the bloody beach in the lyrical opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan." But here, the blood spurts, explodes and flows in slo-mo. Not satisfied, Spielberg brings his movie to its metaphorical climax when Avner, in bed with his wife, literally climaxes while daydreaming about the Munich massacre.

At the end, a demoralized Avner flees to Brooklyn. The head of Israel's Mossad (Geoffrey Rush) tries to lure him back into service, saying his actions will bring peace.

"There is no peace!" Avner wails. In the background, the World Trade Center is visible.

I guess that's Israel's fault, too.

what the fuck is this bitch babbling about?

mannybolone

what the fuck is this bitch babbling about?

I'm not even defending Poyser but dude, shut the fuck up.

faux_rillz

And who's trying to fuck with "Munich"? I'm not a big Speilberg fan but I'll see this.

I'm trynna see that.

Andrea Peyser has stated that Spielberg (and by extension anyone who sees this) is categorically against the Jews (and by extension America) - might wanna look into that property in Tehran you freedom hater.

Here's Peyser's editorial from The Post:

When did Steven Spielberg turn into Barbra Streisand?

That's what springs to mind after seeing "Munich" ??? the director's startlingly anti-Semitic rumination on Arab terrorism and the state of Israel.

In 2 1/2 excruciating hours, Spielberg's film about the 1972 Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes by Islamic butchers sets out to solve Middle East violence while providing a blueprint for world peace.

Instead, Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish survival.

2. Spielberg is a decent enough filmmaker to persuade some people that Israel has outlived its usefulness and should ??? as enemies in Iran maintain ??? be wiped off the face of the earth.

The backlash has begun. The Jewish Action Alliance has already called for a boycott of "Munich."

Written by Zionism-hating screenwriter Tony Kushner, the film concerns a hit squad sent to assassinate 11 Arab terrorists in retaliation for the 1972 massacre.

One by one, the terrorists fall. And one by one, hit squad members suffer crises of conscience, culminating in one Israeli assassin crying out in agony, "All this blood cries back to us! Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous!"

Mercifully, he soon blows himself up.

Here lies the film's biggest flaw ??? and its greatest danger. "Munich" reeks of moral relativism. It puts the terrorists and those who respond to terror on even moral footing. It suggests that Israel must pay, one way or another, for vengeance.

In Time magazine, Spielberg reveals how Hollywood he's sunk. About the Israelis, he said, tellingly, "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything."

Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?

In one scene, the Israeli hit squad spends a night in a house with unsuspecting members of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana), the Israeli team's leader, befriends a man called Ali, who argues eloquently that Israel has turned his people into hungry refugees.

The Arabs may have killed. But here, they win the race to victimhood.

Blood does not scare Spielberg ??? think of the bloody beach in the lyrical opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan." But here, the blood spurts, explodes and flows in slo-mo. Not satisfied, Spielberg brings his movie to its metaphorical climax when Avner, in bed with his wife, literally climaxes while daydreaming about the Munich massacre.

At the end, a demoralized Avner flees to Brooklyn. The head of Israel's Mossad (Geoffrey Rush) tries to lure him back into service, saying his actions will bring peace.

"There is no peace!" Avner wails. In the background, the World Trade Center is visible.

I guess that's Israel's fault, too.

Well, all of that aside, is it not about a Jewish death squad? That alone should render it the film of the year for the SoulStrut poster who has never forgiven John Singleton for portraying a peripheral Jewish character in Higher Learning as the type of personality that is reduced to tears ("like a b!tch!") when a gun is pointed at him.

d_word

I saw Syriana:

It's long and intentionally confusing movie, with clustered stories around the oil industry, Iran, terrorism, and American interests in the region. Made by the same dude behind Traffic. Parts of it are based on Robert Baer, a former CIA agent that was kicked out in the mid-90s and is often on talk news shows. Clooney's character seems to be the most likable in it.

If you like these sorts of movies you should see it. Recommended.

8/10

Danno3000

what the fuck is this bitch babbling about?

I'm not even defending Poyser but dude, shut the fuck up.

Cosign.

hcrink

I want to see a movie about this

JLR

what the fuck is this bitch babbling about?

I'm not even defending Poyser but dude, shut the fuck up.

Cosign.

Danno, plaese to post more "With you always". Funnier than taxidermy kittens.

FSNS

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436078/

day

growl!

BeardedD

Capote is good for all you non-homophobes

asprin

Capote is good for all you non-homophobes

I'll co-sign this one.

ryan

sarah silverman: jesus is magic. defintely not too everyone's taste but still a pretty thought provoking movie--especially given that its basically stand up "comedy."

Cahoots

-

motown67

Here's Peyser's editorial from The Post:

When did Steven Spielberg turn into Barbra Streisand?

That's what springs to mind after seeing "Munich" ??? the director's startlingly anti-Semitic rumination on Arab terrorism and the state of Israel.

In 2 1/2 excruciating hours, Spielberg's film about the 1972 Olympics massacre of Israeli athletes by Islamic butchers sets out to solve Middle East violence while providing a blueprint for world peace.

Instead, Spielberg proves two things in his film, due in theaters just in time for Hanukkah:

1. Steven Spielberg is too dumb, too left and too Hollywood (or is that redundant?) to tackle such complex and polarizing themes as Islamic fundamentalism and Jewish survival.

One problem is that the PLO is not an "Islamic fundamentalist" group threatening the survival of Israel. It's a secular group.

Written by Zionism-hating screenwriter Tony Kushner, the film concerns a hit squad sent to assassinate 11 Arab terrorists in retaliation for the 1972 massacre.

According to a Time magazine article based upon a forthcoming book on Munich and the Israeli response, Mossad, Israeli intelligence, wasn't even able to kill many of the actual Palestinians who took part in the terrorist attack. Rather they killed activist Palestinians in Western Europe as a form of retaliation and deterrence.

One by one, the terrorists fall. And one by one, hit squad members suffer crises of conscience, culminating in one Israeli assassin crying out in agony, "All this blood cries back to us! Jews don't do wrong because our enemies do wrong. We're supposed to be righteous

Here lies the film's biggest flaw ??? and its greatest danger. "Munich" reeks of moral relativism. It puts the terrorists and those who respond to terror on even moral footing. It suggests that Israel must pay, one way or another, for vengeance.

According to Speilberg, this was one of the reasons why he made the movie. He wanted to show the costs in fighting terrorism, other wise it would be your typical good guy vs bad guy movie. I guess having the Israelis dealing with the fact that they are assassins makes it moral relativism to this guy. From his other comments I would assume he would much rather have the Palestinians be bloody, faceless terrorists who deserve to be killed, and the Israelis the avenging angels with stone cold faces.

In Time magazine, Spielberg reveals how Hollywood he's sunk. About the Israelis, he said, tellingly, "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything."

The full context of this comment was that Speilberg had always been for a strong Israeli response to protect its security, but with age, he's seen that one attack for another, an eye for an eye, just leads to more problems, not a solution as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued to the present day rather than ending.

Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?

Here he's twisting Speilberg's comments without context.

Just a couple response to this guy's editorial.

motown67

On a personal level, not interested in King Kong ONE BIT. The original was OK. The remake was bad. This looks just sorta blah and the length of it makes me cringe. Family wants to go see it though so I'll let you know after tomorrow how it was.

Saw Narnia. Kid loved it. Was a bit long and had too many tear jerker moments. I liked the dark edge of Lord Of The Rings.

Also saw the new Harry Potter with the family. Again, a long movie, but much better than Narnia and this is really the first in the series I've seen all the way through.

Interested in Syriana, but it's not a priority.

When I saw the previews for Munich I just cringed, especially when I saw that it was Speilberg. The action would probably be great, but at the end, he'd have some tear jerker ending or something. After reading a couple articles in Time today I'm more interested.

edub

King Kong:

long, over the top action/drama/love story... don't expect a realistic portrayal of a giant ape, and you'll enjoy it.

Don't drink too much soda while in the theatre

best scene: King Kong roundhouse kicks Chuck Norris... no wait, maybe that was a T-Rex.

canonical

Was not feeling narnia. Too much:

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"

"FOR NARRRRRRRNIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AND AAAASSSSSSSSSSLAAAAAAAAAANNNND!!!!"

Way too over dramatic. The ice queen was mainey though, serioz.

HAZ

Munich - Boring.

Geisha - That looks kinda cool. I like Michelle Yeoh & Zhang Ziyi, but this doesn't look like there's much ass kicking going on in this movie.

Aeon Flux - This might be dope. I've heard a lot of good things about this flick. Funny how the studio didn't want to do pre-screenings for critics. Made people think it was going to be a disaster.

mannybolone

Geisha - That looks kinda cool. I like Michelle Yeoh & Zhang Ziyi, but this doesn't look like there's much ass kicking going on in this movie.

Uh, yeah dude, I don't think so. Maybe you're thinking of "Memoirs of a Ninja" or something.

Aeon Flux - This might be dope. I've heard a lot of good things about this flick. Funny how the studio didn't want to do pre-screenings for critics. Made people think it was going to be a disaster.

I'll watch download this but dude, the reviews have been TERRIBLE. It scored 12% on Rotten Tomatoes - definitely .

That said, I like dumb action films as long as it's not as dumb as Van Helsing or something.

As for "Munich": I'd go DESPITE it being a Spielberg film. He and Lucas are two of the most overhyped, overvalued filmmakers in America, especially as action directors. But I think the premise is interesting, I actually like Eric Bana despite "The Hulk," and Geoffrey Rush as some super-secret Mossad hit man leader sounds almost as good as Jean Reno in a similar role.

paulnice

Uh, yeah dude, I don't think so. Maybe you're thinking of "Memoirs of a Ninja" or something.

(Spielberg) and Lucas are two of the most overhyped, overvalued filmmakers in America, especially as action directors.

Fuck Lucas, but dog... Spielberg "overvalued"? In terms of what?
"Overhyped" I can see, but "overvalued"?
I seriously think you need to go and check the pedigree.
I mean, if money only ever did JAWS, RAIDERS & SCHINDLER'S LIST, then he'd still be in the top pantheon of American film directors.
I know people love to hate dude but I mean, really.


That said, fuck MUNICH from the jump.

mannybolone

Ok, I recant. Spielberg has made some important and good films but to me, he's not consistent enough for me to get excited by seeing his name attached to something.

paulnice

BeardedD

Dear Soulstrut:

Don't quit your day job.

d

rootlesscosmo

Wait! The unprovoked atrocity carried out by Arabs in Munich is a "response?" To what, exactly? To the existence of Israel?

Here he's twisting Speilberg's comments without context.

Just curious - how is this taking Speilberg's words out of context? Granted, I don't know where the Speilberg quote came from (so maybe by definition I'm taking them out of context, too?) but the message seems to be pretty clear: Speilberg would like to see the Arab-Israeli conflict as some endless action-response-reaction thing that gets us nowhere. He says: "A response to a response doesn't really solve anything." I mean, that seems to be the point of his film, right?

Problem is, at least as far as Munich is concerned, is that this was a measured response to a specific act of terror. The perpetrators of the massacre were in fact motivated by Israel's very existence (peep One Day in Semptember). In that context Speilberg's cute little relativism is pretty weak. Going after the perpetrators of a massacre is not really the same as carrying out the massacre in the first place, is it?

Hat me now. Sorry to hijack (no pun intended).