How a conservative film critic reviews movies, he reviews them like a normal person

[2aguy]

This is John Nolte....my favorite film and television critic.....for those who don't understand the culture war, or how it is waged by the democrats in the entertainment branch of the democrat party.....John Nolte reviews can bring out the truth.....

'Star Trek' & 'Ghostbusters': Social Justice Flops at the Box Office

The ploy only got the studios so far. Despite the fact that both "Star Trek Beyond" and "Ghostbusters" (2016) are far from good movies, by positioning both titles on left-wing soap boxes, the lapdog critics swooned, and to their great shame awarded the disappointing former an 83% fresh rating and the outright awful latter a 73% fresh rating.

In this age of the Internet, good reviews matter, no question. People check the Tomatometer and make a decision based on that. But it only matters for about 24 hours. Thanks to social media, after the public has had a look-see, the critics' con game unravels, and the Great Unwashed stay away in droves.

When the critical community is made up primarily of left-wingers, turning the iconic "Ghostbusters" into a feminist lecture with a side order of The Government Is Good, will of course result in good reviews, even for an objectively unfunny disaster. The same can be said for "Star Trek," which dumped all over the sacred original by turning Hikaru Sulu into a homosexual, even over the protestations of his co-creator (with George Rodenberry) George Takei, who himself is a gay man and left-wing gay-rights activist.

Social Justice do-overs might make critics swoon and sell their souls, but in the balmy days of summer when everyday Americans just want to violate their diet and enjoy a mind-escape in a dark, air-conditioned cave, this nonsense just isn't going to fly -- especially during a month where real life is real enough.

How bad of a gambit was this?

"Ghostbusters" is shaping up to be an outright catastrophe. With a $144 million production budget, another $80 to $100 million for publicity, and theatres taking 50%, a $450 million to $500 million worldwide gross is necessary just for Sony to break even. Three weekends ago this dud opened throughout North America on thousands of screens and in a number of foreign countries. Worldwide gross thus far? A measly $160 million.

-----

There is a nice irony here.

Left-wing Hollywood believed the ever-expanding overseas box office would ensure everything made money, including blockbusters seeded with left-wing propaganda.

The problem is two-fold.

1) Worldwide blockbusters require massive production budgets and expanded publicity expenses making each celluloid gamble enormous, potentially the difference between a profitable and unprofitable year with just one roll of the dice.

2) Human values are human values. People are people. And no one wants to sit through a Social Justice lecture, especially when it's packaged in a lousy movie.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

 

[BlackFlag]

This is John Nolte....my favorite film and television critic.....for those who don't understand the culture war, or how it is waged by the democrats in the entertainment branch of the democrat party.....John Nolte reviews can bring out the truth.....

'Star Trek' & 'Ghostbusters': Social Justice Flops at the Box Office

The ploy only got the studios so far. Despite the fact that both "Star Trek Beyond" and "Ghostbusters" (2016) are far from good movies, by positioning both titles on left-wing soap boxes, the lapdog critics swooned, and to their great shame awarded the disappointing former an 83% fresh rating and the outright awful latter a 73% fresh rating.

In this age of the Internet, good reviews matter, no question. People check the Tomatometer and make a decision based on that. But it only matters for about 24 hours. Thanks to social media, after the public has had a look-see, the critics' con game unravels, and the Great Unwashed stay away in droves.

When the critical community is made up primarily of left-wingers, turning the iconic "Ghostbusters" into a feminist lecture with a side order of The Government Is Good, will of course result in good reviews, even for an objectively unfunny disaster. The same can be said for "Star Trek," which dumped all over the sacred original by turning Hikaru Sulu into a homosexual, even over the protestations of his co-creator (with George Rodenberry) George Takei, who himself is a gay man and left-wing gay-rights activist.

Social Justice do-overs might make critics swoon and sell their souls, but in the balmy days of summer when everyday Americans just want to violate their diet and enjoy a mind-escape in a dark, air-conditioned cave, this nonsense just isn't going to fly -- especially during a month where real life is real enough.

How bad of a gambit was this?

"Ghostbusters" is shaping up to be an outright catastrophe. With a $144 million production budget, another $80 to $100 million for publicity, and theatres taking 50%, a $450 million to $500 million worldwide gross is necessary just for Sony to break even. Three weekends ago this dud opened throughout North America on thousands of screens and in a number of foreign countries. Worldwide gross thus far? A measly $160 million.

-----

There is a nice irony here.

Left-wing Hollywood believed the ever-expanding overseas box office would ensure everything made money, including blockbusters seeded with left-wing propaganda.

The problem is two-fold.

1) Worldwide blockbusters require massive production budgets and expanded publicity expenses making each celluloid gamble enormous, potentially the difference between a profitable and unprofitable year with just one roll of the dice.

2) Human values are human values. People are people. And no one wants to sit through a Social Justice lecture, especially when it's packaged in a lousy movie.

Seems more like how a whiny little bitch reviews a movie.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I didn't see "Ghostbuster-ettes". It looked decidedly uninteresting.

Unfortunately, I did see "Star Trek Beyond". It was crap. Happily I didn't pay to see it. If Hollywood doesn't break the remake/sequel cycle and develop some fresh material, they can go to hell.

And that's my review.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

 

[Andylusion]

This is John Nolte....my favorite film and television critic.....for those who don't understand the culture war, or how it is waged by the democrats in the entertainment branch of the democrat party.....John Nolte reviews can bring out the truth.....

'Star Trek' & 'Ghostbusters': Social Justice Flops at the Box Office

The ploy only got the studios so far. Despite the fact that both "Star Trek Beyond" and "Ghostbusters" (2016) are far from good movies, by positioning both titles on left-wing soap boxes, the lapdog critics swooned, and to their great shame awarded the disappointing former an 83% fresh rating and the outright awful latter a 73% fresh rating.

In this age of the Internet, good reviews matter, no question. People check the Tomatometer and make a decision based on that. But it only matters for about 24 hours. Thanks to social media, after the public has had a look-see, the critics' con game unravels, and the Great Unwashed stay away in droves.

When the critical community is made up primarily of left-wingers, turning the iconic "Ghostbusters" into a feminist lecture with a side order of The Government Is Good, will of course result in good reviews, even for an objectively unfunny disaster. The same can be said for "Star Trek," which dumped all over the sacred original by turning Hikaru Sulu into a homosexual, even over the protestations of his co-creator (with George Rodenberry) George Takei, who himself is a gay man and left-wing gay-rights activist.

Social Justice do-overs might make critics swoon and sell their souls, but in the balmy days of summer when everyday Americans just want to violate their diet and enjoy a mind-escape in a dark, air-conditioned cave, this nonsense just isn't going to fly -- especially during a month where real life is real enough.

How bad of a gambit was this?

"Ghostbusters" is shaping up to be an outright catastrophe. With a $144 million production budget, another $80 to $100 million for publicity, and theatres taking 50%, a $450 million to $500 million worldwide gross is necessary just for Sony to break even. Three weekends ago this dud opened throughout North America on thousands of screens and in a number of foreign countries. Worldwide gross thus far? A measly $160 million.

-----

There is a nice irony here.

Left-wing Hollywood believed the ever-expanding overseas box office would ensure everything made money, including blockbusters seeded with left-wing propaganda.

The problem is two-fold.

1) Worldwide blockbusters require massive production budgets and expanded publicity expenses making each celluloid gamble enormous, potentially the difference between a profitable and unprofitable year with just one roll of the dice.

2) Human values are human values. People are people. And no one wants to sit through a Social Justice lecture, especially when it's packaged in a lousy movie.

Seems more like how a whiny little bitch reviews a movie.

Of course with the added value that.... he was right.

 

[BlackFlag]

This is John Nolte....my favorite film and television critic.....for those who don't understand the culture war, or how it is waged by the democrats in the entertainment branch of the democrat party.....John Nolte reviews can bring out the truth.....

'Star Trek' & 'Ghostbusters': Social Justice Flops at the Box Office

The ploy only got the studios so far. Despite the fact that both "Star Trek Beyond" and "Ghostbusters" (2016) are far from good movies, by positioning both titles on left-wing soap boxes, the lapdog critics swooned, and to their great shame awarded the disappointing former an 83% fresh rating and the outright awful latter a 73% fresh rating.

In this age of the Internet, good reviews matter, no question. People check the Tomatometer and make a decision based on that. But it only matters for about 24 hours. Thanks to social media, after the public has had a look-see, the critics' con game unravels, and the Great Unwashed stay away in droves.

When the critical community is made up primarily of left-wingers, turning the iconic "Ghostbusters" into a feminist lecture with a side order of The Government Is Good, will of course result in good reviews, even for an objectively unfunny disaster. The same can be said for "Star Trek," which dumped all over the sacred original by turning Hikaru Sulu into a homosexual, even over the protestations of his co-creator (with George Rodenberry) George Takei, who himself is a gay man and left-wing gay-rights activist.

Social Justice do-overs might make critics swoon and sell their souls, but in the balmy days of summer when everyday Americans just want to violate their diet and enjoy a mind-escape in a dark, air-conditioned cave, this nonsense just isn't going to fly -- especially during a month where real life is real enough.

How bad of a gambit was this?

"Ghostbusters" is shaping up to be an outright catastrophe. With a $144 million production budget, another $80 to $100 million for publicity, and theatres taking 50%, a $450 million to $500 million worldwide gross is necessary just for Sony to break even. Three weekends ago this dud opened throughout North America on thousands of screens and in a number of foreign countries. Worldwide gross thus far? A measly $160 million.

-----

There is a nice irony here.

Left-wing Hollywood believed the ever-expanding overseas box office would ensure everything made money, including blockbusters seeded with left-wing propaganda.

The problem is two-fold.

1) Worldwide blockbusters require massive production budgets and expanded publicity expenses making each celluloid gamble enormous, potentially the difference between a profitable and unprofitable year with just one roll of the dice.

2) Human values are human values. People are people. And no one wants to sit through a Social Justice lecture, especially when it's packaged in a lousy movie.

Seems more like how a whiny little bitch reviews a movie.

Of course with the added value that.... he was right.

That's not even a movie review. Just a rant about a bunch of perceived slights this guy seems to think Hollywood is attacking him with.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

 

[Rob37]

I knew that the new estrogen infused Ghostbusters was going to suck before I ever learned about the leftist bent. I am not a Star Trek fan, but with that leftist geek, Abrahms, at the helm it is no surprise that it is a turd. The last film I saw that I liked was The Infiltrator. Before that, i don't even remember. Even the latest Road Warrior flick was tainted by Socialist chick stuff.

 

[Rob37]

I do remember the last flick I liked before The Infiltrator: Black Mass. Loved it,

Sorry, not trying to hijack

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

 

[Andylusion]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Maybe they werent great films.
Are you saying that films with a social message cant make money ?

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

You seem to approach issues from a partisan standpoint Andy. Perhaps you could list some films that have a decidedly "left wing ethos".

 

[2aguy]

If the social message is bad, yes.

The left-wing likes to paint itself as being the view of everyone everywhere. So they turn a movie, into a propaganda flick, and all the left-wing reviews give them high ratings.

But when the bad message of left-wing crap meets the world... if falls on it's face. People don't believe all the Feminist, Homo, Pro-Gov message.

Interestingly, both of the movies in the OP, are movies that I wrote off just from the trailers. Good to see my judgement is accurate.

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

You seem to approach issues from a partisan standpoint Andy. Perhaps you could list some films that have a decidedly "left wing ethos".

Almost every war on terror movie made........and they all flopped. War movies tend to do well...but when you show Americans as the bad guys, or nuts, or victims...it isn't appealing...but that is how the left sees our men and women in the military.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You have mis-read my question. The OP highlighted the losses made by a couple of films and was making a point that films with a social message were unpalatable to larger audiences.
I dont think that the social message aspect is relevant at all. if its a good movie then people will go and watch it regardless of its social conscience.

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

You seem to approach issues from a partisan standpoint Andy. Perhaps you could list some films that have a decidedly "left wing ethos".

Almost every war on terror movie made........and they all flopped. War movies tend to do well...but when you show Americans as the bad guys, or nuts, or victims...it isn't appealing...but that is how the left sees our men and women in the military.

Which ones specifically ?

 

[2aguy]

I would argue that movies that have a 'front and center' social conscience message, are inherently bad movies.

In the short term you can get a boost doing social concisous crap, usually by the hard core left. But it doesn't take long before that crashes and burns.

Take Ellen DeGeneres. When she came out as a lesbian, the ratings initially went up, but after that they fell like a rock, because the entire show became a 'social conscience" infomercial about homos, and how they are supposedly treated.

I watched one episode of Ellen after she came out, and it was miserably boring. It didn't shock me one bit that less than 12 months after she went all crazy homo, the show was cancelled.

You can argue that people should be more accepting, but the fact is, while people say they support all these left-wing positions, if you make a movie, or tv show all about those left-wing views, they are nearly always bombs.

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

You seem to approach issues from a partisan standpoint Andy. Perhaps you could list some films that have a decidedly "left wing ethos".

Almost every war on terror movie made........and they all flopped. War movies tend to do well...but when you show Americans as the bad guys, or nuts, or victims...it isn't appealing...but that is how the left sees our men and women in the military.

Which ones specifically ?

Here is the list....

Hurt Locker
The Messenger
In the Valley of Elah
Syriana
Might Heart
Lions for Lambs
Green Zone
Stop Loss
Redacted
Home of the Brave
Grace is Gone
Body of Lies
War Inc.
Brothers
Traitor
Rendition
The Lucky Ones......

All anti war on terror....in the middle of a fight against terrorists...the soldiers are bad guys, nuts or victims.......

As this article, from which the list was drawn, points out, God's not Dead, and independent religious film out grossed all of them.....

The succesfull war on Terror films.....

Zero Dark Thirty
Act of Valor
Lone Survivor...

Lone Survivor was pro America but still showed our Seals getting beaten by muslim terrorists.......

Here ...the box office grosses for the various films is here....

Settled Science: Pro-War On Terror Films Crush Anti-War On Terror Films at Box Office - Breitbart

The science is now settled: Anti-American films are costly box office bombs at a rate of nothing less than 100%. On the flip-side, pro-American films make money. Many are outright blockblusters. Moreover, almost every the anti-American film produced over the last decade has also been an artistic failure, while many pro-American films have garnered positive reviews.

Let me boil this down for the leftwing-impaired: Lies make for lousy art and can’t be sold to the public.

And here’s another lie Hollywood was spreading a few years back — the lie that in an international film market, Americanism doesn’t sell. Below is the science; an apples-to-apples domestic box office comparison of narrative films (not documentaries) with major stars produced over the last decade about the War On Terror.

We’ll start with the anti-American/anti-troop box office bombs Hollywood created for al Qaeda while we were still fighting those wars.

The key point that hollywood has simply not learned......

Total gross for 18 anti-American movies that flopped at a stunning 100% rate: $300 million — or a measly $16 million per.

Total gross for 4 pro-American movies: $400 million, and “American Sniper” is just getting started.

Yes, you read that right: 4 pro-American movies grossed $100 million more than 18 anti-American movies. And that number will probably climb another $150 million to $200 million before “American Sniper” is done.

 

[esthermoon]

In my opinion the main problem is that they shouldn't do all these remakes. Almost everytime they're not on the same level with the orginal ones
For example I love Ghostbusters (the first one) and I don't wanna see the 2016 remake. I'm pretty sure it's not funny like the original movie

 

[Tommy Tainant]

A social conscience is not necessarily a left wing thing.

A film like Philadelphia was a massive success and tackled a difficult subject with honesty. Obviously if you are a virulent homophobe you would not bother to watch it but they are the losers.

Most films that I can think of reflect mainstream American values rather than any partisan view.

Shane - champions the little guy fighting bullies
12 Angry Men - justice for all
Mr Smith goes to Washington - anti corruption
Red River - triumph of the individual
9 to 5 - women are not objects
12 Years a Slave - slavery is a bad thing

All of these could be seen as being "left wing" or "right wing" but they are neither.

Correct. Right-wing values are very popular. Justice is a very right-wing view. Champion the little guy over coming obstacles, rather than sitting on your butt waiting for government to fix everything, is very right-wing. Anti Corrupt. Triumph of the individual. 9 to 5, I haven't seen the entire thing, but it didn't have any overt feminism or sticking it to the man. It was a comedy after all, and pretty funny. Although I never heard of the film 12 years a slave, that is also a right-wing view. It was right-wingers that ended slavery after all.

Again, it's left-wing views that don't have any appeal. In thinking about it, I wasn't clear enough on my position, because you could say that "social conscience" is either right or left. To me "social conscience" is code for left-wing ideology.

While you could make some claim about Philadelphia being about homos, it was really about AIDS. In fact if you read the reviews from that time, they talk about AIDS, not a bunch of homos. Besides that it was really sad. You make choices in life, and end up with consequences.

I agree with that. So it was a very good movie in that regard.

You seem to approach issues from a partisan standpoint Andy. Perhaps you could list some films that have a decidedly "left wing ethos".

Almost every war on terror movie made........and they all flopped. War movies tend to do well...but when you show Americans as the bad guys, or nuts, or victims...it isn't appealing...but that is how the left sees our men and women in the military.

Which ones specifically ?

Here is the list....

Hurt Locker
The Messenger
In the Valley of Elah
Syriana
Might Heart
Lions for Lambs
Green Zone
Stop Loss
Redacted
Home of the Brave
Grace is Gone
Body of Lies
War Inc.
Brothers
Traitor
Rendition
The Lucky Ones......

All anti war on terror....in the middle of a fight against terrorists...the soldiers are bad guys, nuts or victims.......

As this article, from which the list was drawn, points out, God's not Dead, and independent religious film out grossed all of them.....

The succesfull war on Terror films.....

Zero Dark Thirty
Act of Valor
Lone Survivor...

Lone Survivor was pro America but still showed our Seals getting beaten by muslim terrorists.......

Here ...the box office grosses for the various films is here....

Settled Science: Pro-War On Terror Films Crush Anti-War On Terror Films at Box Office - Breitbart

The science is now settled: Anti-American films are costly box office bombs at a rate of nothing less than 100%. On the flip-side, pro-American films make money. Many are outright blockblusters. Moreover, almost every the anti-American film produced over the last decade has also been an artistic failure, while many pro-American films have garnered positive reviews.

Let me boil this down for the leftwing-impaired: Lies make for lousy art and can’t be sold to the public.

And here’s another lie Hollywood was spreading a few years back — the lie that in an international film market, Americanism doesn’t sell. Below is the science; an apples-to-apples domestic box office comparison of narrative films (not documentaries) with major stars produced over the last decade about the War On Terror.

We’ll start with the anti-American/anti-troop box office bombs Hollywood created for al Qaeda while we were still fighting those wars.

The key point that hollywood has simply not learned......

Total gross for 18 anti-American movies that flopped at a stunning 100% rate: $300 million — or a measly $16 million per.

Total gross for 4 pro-American movies: $400 million, and “American Sniper” is just getting started.

Yes, you read that right: 4 pro-American movies grossed $100 million more than 18 anti-American movies. And that number will probably climb another $150 million to $200 million before “American Sniper” is done.

I have only seen Valley of Elah out of that list. I thought that it was ok. It certainly didnt strike me as " left wing" in any way. It was about a father searching for his missing/dead son.

Ive heard of the Hurt Locker but not seen it. Apparently it made a profit and won awards.

Never heard of any of the others.Maybe they were just crap films ?

However if you look at a film mentioned earlier you can see that a well made film can make a profit whatever the subject matter.

Philadelphia (1993) - Box office / business

Here is another one.
Erin Brockovich (2000) - Box office / business
ref_=tt_dt_bus

These are anti war rather than anti American.
The Deer Hunter (1978) - Box office / business

Platoon (1986) - Box office / business

Born on the Fourth of July (1989) - Box office / business

The point is that people will still turn out to watch a decent film even if it upsets a few right wingers.

 

[2aguy]

Here isn't a contrast in reviews......John Wick 2...

left wing critic...

John Wick: Chapter 2: Critics Pan It for 'Gun Porn' - The Truth About Guns

In his caustic review of John Wick: Chapter 2 in the UK’s Guardian, Hoffman describes the movie as “shameful gun pornography” after lauding it for higher-than-usual quality for an action flick. Here’s the money quote from the Guardian:

John Wick: Chapter 2, a string of elaborate bullet ballets with only trace elements of a plot, is hardcore gun pornography, pure and simple. And when the imagery faded (along with the hoots ‘n’ hollers of the audience) I felt sunk in a crater of guilt, choking on a miasma of shame.

Hoffman admits it’s good right in the subhead.

The sequel to the Keanu Reeves sleeper hit might be efficiently slick but its obsession with weaponry leaves a nasty taste in the mouth

He acknowledges critics are giving it high marks, as are audiences.

The critical reaction to John Wick: Chapter 2 has been quite positive. And I can understand why. Audiences get to pick and choose, but we critics, the brave soldiers of cinema’s trenches hurling ourselves atop grenades to save you from a bad movie, suffer through more junk than you can possibly imagine, especially in the early months of the year. Director Chad Stahelski, cinematographer Dan Lausten, production designer Kevin Kavanaugh, stunt coordinator JJ Perry and their teams, it must be made abundantly clear, are wizards working at the top of their craft, and the leap in quality from typical action dreck to this is undeniable.

Unwilling to let the movie stand on its merits, the beta male pundit just has to offer his own two political cents’ worth. The Guardian writer has long missed the irony that from Hollywood. The industry shares a near-universal hatred of all things gun, yet they rely them to sell tickets.



a conservative critic....

'John Wick Chapter 2' Review: The Art and Poetry of The Ultra-Violence

God bless them, Charlie Sheen and Wesley Snipes tried their best. But not even the massive success of the ultimate genre-movie, "The Matrix," could snap Hollywood out of it.

And so the action movie withered, but not for lack of an audience; for it was during these dark years that "Road House" looped endlessly on cable TV and "The Deluxe-Special Edition DVD of Cobra" beckoned as an impulse buy in most every big-box store.

Meanwhile, Seagal owned the direct-to-video world, Stallone was plotting the most improbable action-comeback in movie history, and then, just after the turn of the century, the clouds parted, the sun returned, and guys with guy names -- Diesel! Statham! The ROCK! -- returned to drag us back to sanity.

In just two years, Diesel alone delivered "Pitch Black" (2000), "The Fast and The Furious" (2001), and "xXx" (2002) -- Pow! Bang! Boom! -- and today things are so good, those three franchises still live. Today, things are so good, that for a mere $9, right at this very moment, you can go enjoy the Movie Valhalla that is the world of John Wick.

How sweet it was to slip back into Wick's universe last night, that secret world that lives in plain sight where ultra-assassins make a living, stalk one another, and belong to a secret club, complete with a fancy mid-Manhattan hotel that doubles for what we called "ghoul" in our games of tag as kids.

But only if you've earned one of those secret gold coins that opens the front door!

"John Wick" (2014) remains one of the most pleasant surprises of the decade, a movie that came out of nowhere headlined by Keanu Reeves, a star who hadn't made anything worthwhile in years. The brilliance of simplicity: They stole his car! They killed his dog! And now the Boogeyman is looking for payback!