the___force Reviews

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Loaded with political messages

[2 August 2012]

Where do I begin? Bain begins as a symbol of the Occupy Movement and ends as a symbol of the French Revolution. Gordon's final speech about Batman was from Charles Dickens' book, "A Tale of Two Cities". It is spoken by a character who is martyred in the revolution. The sham tribunals where the rich were "judged" and then executed is another strong pointer to the French Revolution. It would be interesting to get a French perspective on the movie.

Catwoman slips in a joke about Batman's "no-gun" policy. The Police, for the most part, are portrayed as heroes (except for the chief who eventually comes around). Bain's philosophy (and the men who follow him) is a strange amalgamation of Communism and radical Islam. Like Islamic terrorists, they are ready to die for the cause but - like Communists - their cause is to bring down the rich and is in no way religious. Clearly Nolan is a conservative who is trying to tell us who the real enemies of truth and justice are. I agree with him.

Paul (2011)

Unscientific, illogical, uneducated atheist rhetoric

[18 February 2012]

As a faithful Christian I can assure all viewers of this movie that there is nothing "crude" about the film in terms of sex, violence, language or gore. The film is actually quite innocent in that regard. However, as a Christian, let me also say that this film offended me more than a pornographic film. Although this film is supposedly a comedy, it nevertheless insists on commenting on some very deep subjects, such as the existence of God, the validity of Christianity, the existence of an objective moral law and the SUPPOSED (and ridiculous) idea that Darwinism somehow disproves Christianity. Now, if you are seriously going tackle these complex issues in a non-offensive, non-rhetorical way, they need to be addressed within the context of a serious film that is working on a high intellectual level. That is simply not the case here. The film uses toilet-high-school-bully humor to comment on topics that are WAY of its league. The meaningless-atheist-rhetoric in this film is as illogical, unscientific and brainless as the fundamentalist Protestantism it is mocking, and the people who made it are too stupid and uneducated to see that.

Hall Pass (2011)

The premise is immature an annoying (left-wing nonsense)

[1/10 · 5 January 2012]

If these guys are so desperate for sex, and if their wives are morons who don't care who they sleep with, why not just go and find some prostitutes to sleep with? They don't even have a enough time to develop a relationship. I am so glad to see that the sense of commitment to marriage is alive and well in Hollywood. Apparently, the point of the movie is to show that people don't really want to be married. Casual sexual or childish teenage infatuation are more compelling than a committed marriage where the wife and husband have remained faithful to each other. If a husband is so immature that he goes around like a teenager dreaming about sleeping with younger women, then he should never have gotten married in the first place. He is a fool who has no clue what marriage is about.

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa (2008)

Propaganda aimed at Children

[27 May 2011]

***** CONTAINS SPOILERS *****

The people who made this are pushing a lot of their beliefs in this movie. The movie is very political in nature. It comments on such controversial issues as gun control, hunting, animal rights and science versus religion.

There is a scene in the movie where the characters attempts to sacrifice a person (and it is a person that is being portrayed here, even if the character's appearance is that of an animal) to God because the lake that they drink from has dried up. This scene was nonsensical anti-religious propaganda. It tries to set up a false conflict between science and religion. While the attempted religious sacrifice fails, the lion character goes and unclogs a "pipe" that was blocking the water. In the end, the religious people look like fools for trying to ask God for help when there was clearly a scientific solution to the problem.

The people who wrote this movie understand nothing about the relationship between God and man. If the lion character had an inspiration to unclog the pipe then it was God who put that inspiration in his head. The ordinary way God does things is by working through human beings, not miracles. Anyway, I'm not going to get into theology here. What disturbs me is that so much of the propaganda in this film is being aimed at children, and most parents don't even realize it.

Battle in Seattle (2007)

Can only appeal to people on the left

[4/10 · 29 September 2009]

If you like socialism, this is the movie for you; a boring exercise in leftist propaganda. A badly acted, badly made movie that will only appeal to people who actually support these nonsensical protests against capitalism.

What's so annoying about these pseudo-documentaries is that they are so in line with the politics of Hollywood. Who, when they read the description of this movie, did not immediately realize that it is just another propaganda piece by the elites in Hollywood, designed to propagate their personal political agenda.

I thought art was about being radical, not about blind conformity to the prevailing philosophy of the time. Will we ever have a mainstream movie about an abortion protest?Never. That would be TRULY radical. When are the people on the left going to realize that they are no longer counter-cultural? Their ideas are boring and non-compelling, which is why movies like this never succeed in spreading their ideology. Let's move on.

The Mist (2007)

Ouch...Stereotypes at their worst

[6/10 · 28 April 2008]

The actors in this movie were pretty good at making their characters feel "real" and gave some very good performances. Unfortunately, the characters are ridiculously stereotypical and one-dimensional. By the end, the movie comes off as a badly crafted piece of propaganda where the director attacks every social group he doesn't like in the most unsubtle way possible. Its obvious Stephen King is from the "baby-boomer" generation, since this movie so represents the thinking of that generation. Christians (surprise surprise) are stereotyped the most in this movie. If you can't stand anti-Christian propaganda I suggest you skip this one.

After a thrilling 30 minute start, the movie soon devolves into a bad commentary on the values of evangelical Christians versus the values of secular people. The movie constantly perpetuates the idea that people believe in God because they are anti-intellectual and afraid of death. Actually, a true intellectual will believe in God because it is completely reasonable and logical to do so. There are more logical proofs for the existence God than against it.

That having been said, I did find the movie to be fairly scary and suspenseful. If you can ignore the obvious agenda of the writer and/or director, then it is actually quite entertaining.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

What is truth? It is Jesus.

[25 June 2004]

I really don't want someone who sounds like Deepak Chopra to have the last word on this film, so maybe this a good time to add my review.

If there is one thing this movie is trying to tell us, it is that Jesus was no `ordinary man'. Jesus was, as He clearly claimed, the Son of God (God in human form). Hindus and Muslims believe that Jesus was merely one of many "spiritual teachers" sent by God to `enlighten' us. In Gibson's movie, most of which is taken from the Gospels, Jesus says that He is the Good Shepherd, and that He is willing to lay down his life for his sheep (mankind) in order to save them from their sins. It is this sacrifice that places Jesus far above Krishna, Mohammad, Buddha and all other spiritual teacher who claimed to have a connection to God. Jesus said, `There is one flock and one shepherd. All who came before (and after) Me are thieves and robber trying to steal my flock. There are other sheep, in other flocks, and they also must join My flock.'

In the film, Jesus tells Pontius Pilate, "All men who hear My voice hear the Truth." Pilot replies by saying, "Truth? What is truth?" For people who do not believe in Jesus, this is probably the most important and meaningful line in Gibson's movie. Hindus like Deepak Chopra are constantly encouraging people to "seek" the truth. In many ways Chopra and other `new age' gurus are exactly like Pilate. The truth is standing right in front of them, but they simply refuse to recognize Him. To quote a very famous Catholic priest, "The truth is not a something, it's a someone, and that someone is Jesus Christ." This is the message Mel Gibson wants people to take from this movie. Some people got that message. Many, unfortunately, did not.

X2 (2003)

X-Men 2 Yaaaaaaaaaay

[11 May 2003]

Here's a good review X-Men 2 I found:

I saw X-men 2 today. I convinced some friends of mine to go see it because everyone else was seeing it so we should too. We got in early and got very good seats and so the sound was incredible even when the movie trailers where playing.

X-men 2 is about these people who people don't like because they aren't really people and it's a sequel to a movie called X-men. I thought it was a very good film with lots of people in it with super powers. They are good people and they try to stop the bad guys from killing others. There are some very funny things in the movie like when the Wolverine smells a cat and points his claws at him because he knows how other cats like to lick other cats so that they are not afraid of each other.

There are some very sad times too like when in the end the pretty girl is trying her best.

I give this movie two hotdogs and a coke because that is what I ate when I saw the movie. I think other people will like it as much as I did. Yaaaaaaaaay!

Yes, this person was being sarcastic.

The Ring (2002)

Forget the negative reviews: this is one damn scary movie

[2 January 2003]

My suggestion to those people who did not find this movie scary is to join the military, since you apparently have no fear of anything, including death. I have not been this frightened by a horror movie since I watched my first Friday 13th movie when I as seven years old. The fact that this movie can produce the same level of horror in me fourteen years later is truly remarkable. I've seen my share of horror movies in my day and there is no other movie that even comes close to freaking me out as much as "The Ring" did. Some people said Signs was scary, but compared to the Ring, Signs is as about as scary as Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

One person wrote in his review that this movie is definitely not for children, unless you want to seriously screw up their minds for a couple days. I completely agree with that. YES, IT REALLY IS THAT SCARY, and that's exactly why horror fans everywhere are going to love it.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Deep Down, even the hardcore fans know this was horrible ...

[12 July 2002]

It's obvious from my e-mail address that I am (was) quite a Star Wars fan, but there are people out there who are even bigger Star Wars fans than me. No - that's an understatement. There are hundreds of people out there who have literally purchased every Star Wars toy ever produced, who have their bedrooms covered with Star Wars posters, and who watch all three parts of the original trilogy on a weekly basis. In other words, Star Wars is a huge part of their life, if not all of their life.

It would again be a huge understatement to say that the expectations these fanatical fans had for the new Star Wars prequels were very high. Even I was very excited about The Phantom Menace. Imagine how tragic it was for these people when they first sat down to watch the Phantom Menace (especially the ones who stood in line for three weeks to gte tickets), and realized how bad it was.

If The Phantom Menace killed Star Wars, then Episode II was definitely the nail in the coffin. Both of these movies were beyond horrible. So why are there some people on this and other web sites writing good reviews and saying it was the best movie ever? One word - denial. The fanatical fans know in their heart or hearts that Episode I and II have got to be two of the worst Sci-Fi movies ever made - forget about even trying to compare these to the original trilogy. They just can't accept it, especially after devoting so much of their time and energy over the past ten years to the whole Star Wars mythos.

For these people, I have just one things to say - it's good that the new Star Wars films sucked so bad, because it's high time you people gave up this fantasy world you live in and get back to reality.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (2002)

Traditional Feminist nonsense

[14 June 2002]

The most common stereotype about feminists is that they hate all men. The second most common stereotype is that they believe all women would be better off without men. This movie promotes both of these stereotypes. Movies like Divine Secrets of the YA-YA Sisterhood often make me wonder whether or not I should support feminists or condemn them as political extremists.

The only male character in this film is a weak pathetic fool who is bossed around by his arrogant and self-absorbed wife. Clearly, the writers were trying to show that women can "dominate" their husbands - just like us tyrannical, violent males have been doing for centuries. Wow, that's quite a step forward for women everywhere!

What is so ironic is that the people who made this movie were trying so desperately to promote the idea of female independence and sisterhood, and instead ended up making both those ideas look absurd. There is not a single moment of this film that feels even remotely real. This film makes "Enough" look like a plausible story of "female empowerment".

Spider-Man (2002)

Radical Feminist will hate this movie......

[10/10 · 3 June 2002]

I just wanted to let all women know that Spider-Man is a superb movie, and for all normal, non-radical women it will be a very enjoyable experience. However, if you are a radical feminist who gets whipped up into a state of rage whenever you see a movie where a female character is saved by a male character - and that male character is not a lazy, immoral jerk - then don't bother because your not going to like this movie.

Let me assure all women right now that neither Spider-Man nor any other super-hero movie are a conspiracy to oppress women, as some people who have written comments on this web site have suggested. (You'll know the comments I'm talking about when you see them). Like I said, some people see conspiracies everywhere, and some people just hate any movie that promotes morality of any kind.

I highly recommend this movie to all women, who I hope will judge for themselves whether this movie is offensive to them, and not let radical feminists judge it for them.

Spider-Man (2002)

This is one of the best movies made in a LONG time...

[10/10 · 25 May 2002]

I'll say it again: This is one of the best movies made in a LONG, LONG time. Spider-Man has broken practically every box-office record, and unlike the reprehensible Titanic and the recently released Attack of the Clones, it has done so not because of media hype but because it is a genuinely great film in every respect.

I'm not going to bore you with long descriptions of what I thought were the strengths and weakness of this movie. Instead, I'm going to provide you with some practical advice that will help you decide whether or not you should see this movie.

In general, I have noticed that there are three types of people who REALLY did not like this film and regret paying money to see it:

1) People who believe movies like Batman, Superman and Lord of the Rings (movies that require imagination) are childish nonsense, and cannot take such movies seriously. My parent's were born in India and they pretty much fall into this category. All they are interested in seeing are Indian movies, which are basically poorly acted soap operas. Don't bother taking very young children (7 or younger) to see this film. I've already watched it three times, and each time I noticed that most of the younger kids in the audience did not have the patience to sit through the film, let alone appreciate it.

2) People who are so cynical and jaded that any movie that does not feature sex or drugs, and that actually tries to promote moral values like loyalty, self-sacrifice and responsibility, are automatically thrown into the "simplistic crap" category.

3) People who cannot stand traditional romance and prefer the usual "We've just met, let's sleep with each other" relationships featured in more "complicated" movies.

If you don't think you belong to any three of these categories - enjoy!