He's in this new movie on Gustav Klimt that she's writing about for the LA Times. I'm not normally star-struck but [chappelle voice]it's Malkvovich[/chappelle voice].
He's in this new movie on Gustav Klimt that she's writing about for the LA Times. I'm not normally star-struck but [chappelle voice]it's Malkvovich[/chappelle voice].
Always liked that film he directed, "The Dancer Upstairs"
Because the moral of the film is basically "terrorism is bad". The anti-government group in the film is never really fleshed out in terms of what they are fighting for or against. It would have been a better and more interesting film if we knew something more about them. Malkovich also conveniently excludes economic conditions, US involvement in propping up dictators, etc.
Because the moral of the film is basically "terrorism is bad". The anti-government group in the film is never really fleshed out in terms of what they are fighting for or against. It would have been a better and more interesting film if we knew something more about them. Malkovich also conveniently excludes economic conditions, US involvement in propping up dictators, etc.
I actually saw this as a strength of the movie. the fact that the country was "a Latin American country" and that the city was just "a Latin American capital," etc. highlighted the common experience of US-backed dictators with support from traditional post-colonial arsitocracy and military vs. Soviet-backed rebels with support among landless peasants and leftist students that played out in so many countries. it's an archetype. the group in Dancer was supposedly modeled after the Shining Path in Peru, but I think Malkavich wanted to highlight the common experiences of Latin Americans everywhere at that time.
Of course, I agree terrorism is bad. But recognizing that alone is sort of simplistic Bush-league world view of things and doesn't look at root causes. Much like this film, it just seemed like bad screen writing to me..thought it was going for something big but full of holes and too dumbed down, not really getting at anything specific. And definitely overlooking Us involvement in south america. How can you make a policital thriller in that part of the world and overlook US involvement there???
Comments
Always liked that film he directed, "The Dancer Upstairs"
hahaha
my great grandmother took him to school(through rain ,sleet & snow),knitted him a sweater and some socks
ahahahahaha...that made me laugh.
i actually DID make him banana bread. I was a baker at a spot in his neighborhood, and it was his breakfast treat of choice.
he got fresh banana bread!
I thought it was a joke, sorry:)
I hope no offense was taken?
peace kitchen!!!
None at all; i thought it was funny as hell.
Much too conservative and one-sided for my liking. Oh well, different strokes...
Because the moral of the film is basically "terrorism is bad". The anti-government group in the film is never really fleshed out in terms of what they are fighting for or against. It would have been a better and more interesting film if we knew something more about them. Malkovich also conveniently excludes economic conditions, US involvement in propping up dictators, etc.
Master Ninja Lee Van Cleef!
I miss MST3K
I actually saw this as a strength of the movie. the fact that the country was "a Latin American country" and that the city was just "a Latin American capital," etc. highlighted the common experience of US-backed dictators with support from traditional post-colonial arsitocracy and military vs. Soviet-backed rebels with support among landless peasants and leftist students that played out in so many countries. it's an archetype. the group in Dancer was supposedly modeled after the Shining Path in Peru, but I think Malkavich wanted to highlight the common experiences of Latin Americans everywhere at that time.
BTW terrorism is [/b] bad.