My Non-PC Review of STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS (&, Yes, There's "Spoilers" Included!)

The movie poster for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

"You know you're about to get your ass kicked by a girl, right?"

"I'm Luke Skywalker, bee-yoch!"

"Hey, Rey, the Millennium Falcon is THIS way!"

  

Darth Vader & Snoke: Separated at birth?

"Aren't you a little BLACK to be a Stormtrooper?"

Meet the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order!

"Chewie, I'm about to be stabbed by my son's lightsaber!"

"I am Jedi! Hear me roar!"

"I'm Finn: ex-Stormtrooper/sanitation worker extraordinaire!"

Captain Phasma: proof a lady boss can SUCK as much as a man!

Good question!

For anyone who's been living under a damned rock for the past several months, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the long-awaited continuation—notice I didn't say sequel—to the original Star Wars trilogy. Let me preface this review by saying I thought Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a thoroughly enjoyable SW film. That being said, there was hardly a scene in the movie that WASN'T, shall we say, reminiscent and/or borrowed from not only the original trilogy but also the much-panned prequels.

First, here's a basic rundown of the plot: the movie picks up purportedly 30 years after the end of Return of the Jedi. The Republic that Skywalker & friends fought so hard to restore is being threatened by an Empire-like group called The First Order headed by an Emperor, uh, I mean Supreme Leader named Snoke who only appears via hologram ala the Emperor in The Empire Strikes Back. SL Snoke's apprentice is helmet-clad lightsaber-wielding Kylo Ren who, as it turns out, is not only a Darth Vader-wannabe but is also DV's grandson as he is the Force-sensitive offspring of none other than Han Solo and Princess Leia. Luke Skywalker (SPOILER ALERT!) is MIA throughout almost the entire movie until the very end because he feels responsible for Ren turning to The Dark Side while he's training him (and others) as Jedi (and is “influenced” by Snoke much in the SAME way his father was “influenced” to turn to TDS by Emperor Palpatine). Everyone—or nearly everyone, I should say—is looking for Luke because they desperately need his help not only defeating The First Order but also helping the Rebellion, uh, I mean Resistance blow up the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller, which is a big-ass space station that is the actual size of a planet and apparently has the power to destroy multiple planets at once. (Diehard Star Wars geeks will undoubtedly recognize the name Starkiller as being George Lucas's original name for Skywalker as well as being a character in a Star Wars video game called The Force Unleashed, if I'm not mistaken.)

And, yes, there's a small chirping robot—named BB-8—whom its master, a wisecracking ace pilot named Poe (not to be confused, of course, with that OTHER wisecracking ace pilot—oh, what WAS his name?), implants him with part of a map that purports to tell the whereabouts of Luke that the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order is also seeking. In the opening scene of the movie (after, of course, we see the obligatory shot of a massive Star Destroyer flying into the frame; I assume they're STILL called Star Destroyers), Poe is handed said piece-of-map by a “wise” elder—whose name I didn't quite catch—who just happens to look—and talk—like Obi-Wan Kenobi. Then the big bad Empire, uh, I mean, The First Order shows up to get into a firefight that somehow resembles the firefight at the beginning of the first Star Wars. And, oh yeah, this all takes place on a planet called Jakku that just happens to look like Tatooine from—you guessed it!—A New Hope.

You already see where THIS is going, don't you?

Along with the original characters, we're introduced to “new” characters. Besides said chirping robot BB-8 (who does resemble a rather familiar robot, but NOT the one you're obviously thinking of, as I'll discuss in a bit), we're introduced to Finn who's the black Stormtrooper—and, yes, they're STILL called Stormtroopers—everyone made such a big fuss over (at least in the beginning when he was first introduced in the movie trailer). Finn—whose name is given to him by wisecracking Poe after he helps Poe escape—has a crisis of conscience after he watches his fellow Stormtroopers cold-bloodedly kill villagers after their boss Ren decapitates the aforesaid village elder (well, at least it WASN'T an arm this time!). Next we meet a young woman named Rey who's a scavenger on Tatooine, uh, I mean Jakku who also turns out to be Force-sensitive (and who's also been likened to Luke, which is rather appropriate since, according to Star Wars lore, Luke was initially a female). Anyway, Finn, Rey AND BB-8 all manage to meet up in that oh-so-coincidental way Star Wars is most known for, although in The Force Awakens viewers, diehard Star Wars fans or no, REALLY have to suspend disbelief, especially how they first meet Han Solo and Chewbacca (and, I must say, while it was still entertaining to watch, I still rolled my eyes when I saw THAT setup). I won't go into any grand detail on how they meet (for those few who haven't seen the film yet), but let's just say out of ALL the spaceships Finn, Rey AND BB-8 could have hijacked while running from the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order it just HAD to be the Millennium Falcon, proving that the galaxy is MUCH smaller than one would think indeed! (And why-oh-why would Han Solo allow himself to be Falcon-jacked like THAT?) Personally, I feel this was all set up this way by the writers so that Han can utter his line that we say ad nauseam in the trailer: “Chewie, we're home!” (Insert audience tears here!)

One criticism I've read from other reviewers of The Force Awakens that I kind of disagreed with was how (SPOILER ALERT!) Rey manages to “defeat” Ren during their obligatory climatic lightsaber battle (while using Luke's famed lightsaber, no less!) even though, unlike Ren, she hadn't been “trained” in the ways of The Force yet. Well, in all fairness to Ren, he WAS already wounded when (SPOILER ALERT!) he got shot by Chewbacca who was understandably upset after Ren KILLED HIS VERY OWN FATHER HAN SOLO WITH HIS VERY OWN LIGHTSABER when Han, at Leia's urging, attempts to bring his estranged son back to The Light Side (sound familiar?). And, after he first knocks Rey unconscious by using The Force to slam her against a tree (nice!) and he engages in a lightsaber fight with Finn (who's apparently NOT Force-sensitive), Finn manages to strike a serious blow against Ren before he gets sliced & diced by Ren. Then Rey wakes up just in time to use The Force to retrieve Luke's lightsaber before Ren can get his hands on it and, though Ren nearly defeats her, she apparently gets her second wind and . . . well, you know the rest (even if you haven't yet watched the film!). At one point we see The Emperor, uh, I mean The Supreme Leader tell one of his henchmen to abandon ship before the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller gets blown the f up—in a climatic battle scene that's reminiscent of (surprise!) A New Hope (only on a strangely smaller scale)—and to pick up his apparently defeated apprentice Kylo Ren so he can “complete” his training. Another criticism of Kylo Ren was that he wasn't as “evil” as his famous granddaddy Darth Vader. Well, Ren DID kill his own father. I mean, Darth didn't even manage to kill his own son Luke and wouldn't let the Emperor fry his whiny ass to death as he picked him up with the hand that Luke didn't chop off (seriously, what was up with George Lucas and his apparent fetish for limb-chopping?) and tossed him down into the generator of the new Death Star in Return of the Jedi.

Along with all the rebooting, there are some genuine moments in The Force Awakens; like, for instance, I myself got a tad bit emotional during the scene where Han reunites with his former love Leia. Even Chewbacca walks over and gives her a big hug. Of course, C-3PO has to interrupt, much to Han's obvious chagrin. But, unlike when he interrupted their famous first kiss in The Empire Strikes Back, he seemed to realize his “mistake” and went on about his way, red arm and all (oh, right, SPOILER ALERT!). This was an understated scene unlike many of the other scenes in TFA (I mean, if Leia had said “You got a lot of guts comin' here!” ala Lando Calrissian in ESB I would've walked out of that damn movie theater right then and there!). And then there was the later scene where Han and Leia discuss how they coped after “losing” their son to The Dark Side. This could've been a scene in any other movie where an estranged couple discuss the “loss” of their son to, say, drug addiction or crime or the like. This, too, was an understated scene thanks in large part to the acting chops of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher. I also rather enjoyed the interaction between Han Solo and Finn and Rey, which I found to be some of the more entertaining scenes in TFA. Of course, I think I can safely speak for the vast majority of other Star Wars fans when I say it would've been nice to see Han & Luke interact with each other before Han--well, YOU know!--but alas that WON'T happen.

One thing I was kind of worried about is that The Force Awakens would be WAY politically correct (and anyone who's read my political blog knows how much I utterly loathe any & all things politically correct!), especially after reading some of the comments made by director J.J. Abrams before the movie came out about wanting more “diversity” in the films since some—or many—have complained about the “whiteness” of the previous films (Lando Calrissian & Mace Windu, take note!). But I was actually relieved there didn't seem to be as much of the PC BS as Abrams would have led people to believe. Some non-PC sites and/or blogs took issue with the character Rey, in particular the scene where, while running from the Stormtroopers on Tatooine, uh, I mean Jakku, Finn attempts to grab hold of her hand and lead her to safety and she scolds him by saying how she doesn't need anyone to hold her hand. Some critics, especially “anti-feminist” critics, have charged that this scene was supposed to strike a blow for feminism. Another interpretation of this scene could be that the character Rey had been living on her own for a long time, according to the story, and therefore had to rely on herself and didn't need—or at least she didn't think she needed—anyone's help. Something else critics have taken issue with—again, especially the “anti-feminist” ones—was how “easily” she was able to fix the Millennium Falcon as opposed to Han Solo who, according to these critics, knew the Falcon inside and out. However, if everyone will recall in The Empire Strikes Back Han could barely keep the ship flying and finally had the ship “fixed” at Bespin (before, of course, he found out his “buddy” Lando had “betrayed” him and the others to the Empire in the by-now-infamous dinner scene where Han shoots at Darth Vader but to no avail). Besides, is Rey being able to expertly “fix” the Falcon and/or being able to fight off Kylo Ren anymore “unbelievable” than Luke Skywalker in A New Hope being able to expertly fly an X-Wing fighter—a ship he'd, of course, never flown before—and being able to use The Force—something that he'd only recently learned the existence of (like Rey, unsurprisingly)—to destroy the dreaded Death Star? Or the charge that Rey was an “expert” shot with a laser blaster even though she didn't know where the “safety” was (seriously, laser blasters have “safeties” on them?), is that anymore “unbelievable” than Stormtroopers being able to hit anyone and everything BUT the major protagonists? Still yet another criticism of the Rey character--there again, largely from the "anti-feminist" critics--was that she was able to "understand" Chewbacca. Hell, I'm STILL trying to figure out how in the Wookie hell Han Solo could understand his furry ass.

Just saying!

However, if Abrams was indeed trying to be PC or “feminist” with the Rey character, I actually think he failed miserably. Why? Well, while she did literally slap Finn's hand away at the very beginning of their burgeoning relationship, later on she runs up and hugs him with tears in her eyes when she learns that he “convinced” Han & Chewie to help him rescue her from the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller base. So I guess the not-so-subtle message here is that, in spite of what a woman initially says, she STILL needs a man to “rescue” her. And what the hell was up with all the damned crying from Rey? I mean, she cries about half-a-dozen times in this movie. Hell, I don't ever recall Princess Leia EVER crying, not even when Han Solo was getting his pirate ass frozen in Carbonite in Empire. (Thankfully, there are NO Carbonite-freezing scenes in TFA.) As for the other women in The Force Awakens, there's Captain Phasma, the female leader of the Stormtroopers who ends up “betraying” the Empire, uh, I mean The First Order at the slightest provocation and THEN gets dumped into—what else!—a garbage chute when the MEN are finished with her. (Nice!) And then there's Finn a.k.a. The Black Stormtrooper. At first we're led to believe he's this well-trained warrior when, on the ice planet that houses the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller (Hoth, anyone?), we learned that he “worked” in sanitation. Yes, you heard right, J.J. “Mr. PC” Abrams made the ONE black character in his film A JANITOR. Way to be PC there, J.J.!

And, just think, people thought Jar-Jar Binks was a “racist” character!

Overall, I give Star Wars: The Force Awakens a solid B rating. I would, of course, have likely given it a higher rating had it NOT “borrowed” so heavily from the originals and/or the heavily-panned prequels (did you catch the reference to the clones?). I mean, the similarities between all the movies reached the point that it sometimes bordered on parody; like, for instance, the scene where the Rebellion, uh, I mean The Resistance were standing around in the conference room—which, of course, included none other than fish-headed Admiral “It's a trap!” Ackbar from Return of the Jedi—looking for that ONE all-so-important vulnerability on the Death Star, uh, I mean Starkiller and Han Solo quipped how “easy” it was to destroy these things could have VERY easily been a scene from Mel Brooks's “classic” Star Wars parody flick Spaceballs. Hell, even Emperor, uh, I mean Supreme Leader Snoke's visible head scare is in practically the same place as Darth Vader's head scare when Luke takes his helmet off in Return of the Jedi (which have led some to theorize that Snoke is actually—somehow—Darth Vader incarnate, which, of course, ANYTHING is possible in SW!).

In the end, J.J. Abrams did with Star Wars pretty much the same as he did with his Star Trek reboots: he made highly entertaining films that really didn't add much, if anything, to the series. Of course, diehard Star Wars fans—including many movie reviewers who gave this film a high rating—watched this movie through nostalgia glasses, so they were more likely to give its apparent flaws more of a free pass unlike the much-panned prequels. (I read somewhere J.J. Abrams was intially going to make the new Star Wars film more “original” but decided against it because he DIDN'T wish to receive the same amount of shit George Lucas got for his heavily-criticized prequels. But, say what you want about the prequels, which I actually LIKED, at least GL attempted to give SW fans a different cinematic experience than what they got watching the original trilogy, which, of course, is why I feel a lot of SW fans got “upset” about the prequels, but I digress.) Hopefully the next Star Wars flick WON'T be a retread of The Empire Strikes Back—and with that literal cliffhanger ending where Rey presents the newly-found Luke with his very own lightsaber I'm not too sure (Luke meeting Yoda at Degobah, anyone?)—and the newer characters, especially with Finn and Rey, will get fleshed out more. (We already know quite a bit about Kylo Ren whose backstory—that unsurprisingly mirrors his granddaddy Darth Vader—could have been made into its very own trilogy.) It probably goes without saying that both Finn and Rey will have some long-lost “personal” connection to one or more of the original characters; like, for instance, Finn will be Lando's long-lost son—as some people have surmised—and Rey will probably turn out to be Yoda's long-lost cousin or something and that's why she's so Force-sensitive (hey, with SW you know ANYTHING can happen!). 

I think TFA's biggest sin is that J.J. Abrams played it WAY too safe in terms of doing something more original with the film given the franchise's history of cinematic innovation (and, yes, that also includes the overly-panned prequels). Of course, I'm sure corporate behemoth Disney--who, as you probably already know, also "owns" Marvel and a whole slew of other entertainment entities (which, of course, could explain a lot!)--probably had at least a little something to do with THAT since they obviously wanted a return on their huge investment (which they apparently got as Star Wars: The Force Awakens was one of the biggest if not the biggest box office hits of all-time).

Oh yeah, earlier I mentioned about how the robot BB-8 looking similar to another robot. Back in the late-seventies Disney—which, of course, bought the Star Wars franchise from SW creator George Lucas a few years back for a paltry $4 BILLION (most if not all of which Lucas reportedly donated to charity)—released their very own space movie in a blatant attempt to try to cash in on the Star Wars craze that was going on at the time—which didn't quite work out as well for them—called The Black Hole. Anyway, in TBH, there was a robot named Vincent that bore a striking resemblance—albeit a cheesier resemblance—to BB-8. Here's a picture of both robots and you can decide for yourself:

BB-8 or . . . 

Vincent?

Lastly, for those getting "upset" about Star Wars: The Force Awakens (along with the universally-panned prequels, which, again, I really LIKED), and even those who've highly praised this flick in spite of its apparent flaws, I'd just like to remind everyone that, at the end of the day, Star Wars is STILL a movie about a bunch a guys (and gals!) flying around in spaceships blowing shit up, OK? (And I can say THAT since I am a lifelong Star Wars fan as I saw the original trilogy when they first came out back in the seventies,) 

May the Schwartz, uh, I mean the Force be with you!

A sidenote: Some diehard Star Wars fans were reportedly "upset" when others decided to "leak" online and elsewhere about the fate of beloved smuggler Han Solo (including a guy who actually had the fate of Han literally spelled out on the back of his truck), and this even reportedly included, believe it or not, death threats (such as rightie commentator Katherine Timpf who made a "joke" about Star Wars and its sometimes rabid fans while appearing on Fox (Non) News about how she didn't want to watch a bunch of nerds hitting each other with nerd sticks, which I found rather amusing myself). Anyway, apart from the fact you can see the scene were Han meets his fate coming a mile away in the movie, Harrison Ford spilled the beans himself about his character before TFA came out on Conan O'Brian's talk show when he appeared with director J.J. Abrams, saying how he ONLY agreed to reprise his celebrated role if J.J. agreed to--you guessed it!--killed off his character (and, of course, pay him a buttload of moo-lah as Ford was reportedly paid far more than his co-stars in TFA). And, if you watch the clip, you can see a visibly nervous J.J. Abrams literally squirming in his seat next to Harrison as he spills the beans about Han's fate. Whoops!

Here's another video review of TFA (from YouTube) that's less-than-"positive" than mine:

Here's why the new all-female Ghostbusters movie will bomb (from YouTube)

I actually laughed my ass off at this video thinking that someone had the balls to put this out in THIS politically correct age. I myself don't plan to watch this movie for the SAME reason I don't plan to watch, say, American Sniper or the last Mad Max movie because the producers of these films attached a "message" to these films even though they're technically supposed to be an action and/or a comedy film. When I see a comedy film I want to laugh just like when I watch an action film I want to see shit get blown up. The LAST thing I want is for there to be some "political" message tagged on even if it's a message that I happen to agree with. Besides, those damned SJWs--and we all know how much I just LOVE that group!--have praised BOTH the new Ghostbusters and the last Mad Max movie, so that's enough to turn me off to BOTH films. Besides, I wasn't that big a fan of the original Ghostbusters, so there you go!

Was The "Feminist" Furor Over Mad Max: Fury Road Fabricated?

"Don't worry, we'll save humanity using our feminine wiles!"

Sure looks like one to me!

Sounds about right!

Yep!

"I am woman! Hear me explode!"

"How dare you call MY movie feminist, you chauvinistic bastard!"

Salon.com: one of the "feminized" sites that praised MM.

You can also take my balls since I'm NOT using them anymore!

Yes, we ALL win! Especially the feminists!

This is the Mad Max I prefer! "Feminism" NOT included!

Return Of Kings writer Aaron Clarey stepped into a hornet's nest when he dared wrote how the film Mad Max: Fury Road might—and I say might—just be a (gasp!) feminist film and encouraged men to not go see this cinematic piece of outright feminist propaganda. Media outlets like The Huffington Posts and The Daily Beast furiously (pardon the pun!) condemned Mr. Clarey, accusing him of being a (double gasp!) misogynist and such. This in spite of the fact that both the top stars of Mad Max Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron (or, more appropriately, Charlie Theron and Tom Hardy!) both called MM a feminist movie. Plus the film's director George Miller—who, of course, directed the original Mad Max—hired none other than the author of The Vagina Monologues Eve Ensler as a consultant on the film. Not only that, but Miller herself came out and admitted—sort of—that he had in fact directed a feminist type film.

What I found most intriguing about the controversy is that the controversy went from “How dare they call Mad Max a feminist movie!” to “How dare they criticize Mad Max for being a feminist movie!” In other words, these sites claimed Mad Max wasn't a “feminist” movie while at the same time extolling its “feminist” virtues. Also, in all the articles I read addressing the controversy, the only source of the boycott was Mr. Clarey's article. There was no other mention of any other so-called Men's Rights Activist or any specific MRA group attached to said boycott. I mean, one would think that if this boycott by those damnable MRAs were as widespread as the media led everyone to believe, there would be at least a couple of other names and/or organizations attached to said boycott. But that wasn't the case. So either all the writers of these articles bashing the boycott were either misinformed or the whole entire controversy was little more than a fabrication to help sell movie tickets and/or pushing a feminist agenda.

I choose the latter.

Honestly, would this really surprise anyone, including all the feminized commentators, both female and male, who lost their minds over ROK's boycott of Mad Max? I mean, I can just imagine someone in the movie studio's marketing department finding Aaron Clarey's ROK article about Mad Max and they sent out a few strategically-placed links in the comments section in feminized sites such as HuffPo and The Daily Beast and presto! Instant controversy! Let's face it, moviegoers by & large weren't clamouring for another Mad Max movie the way they were for, say, another Star Wars movie, thanks in no small part to star Mel Gibson's by-now-infamous drunken anti-Semitic tirades and/or his over-the-top crazy phone calls to his baby mama. This was actually one of the reasons, along with 9/11 and Heath Ledger's death (who was initially slated to play Max), why it reportedly took so long for director George Miller to make his latest Mad Max film. So, when Mad Max: Fury Road was finally completed & released, he needed publicity as all films need. And, in today's politically-charged feminized climate, what better way to help publicize a film like this than to insinuate its feminized message and bash anyone who dares question said feminized message (even though it didn't have a feminized message!).

For the record, I myself have not yet seen the latest Mad Max flick nor am I really clamouring to see it, controversy or no. So I can't really say for sure whether or not I personally feel it's a feminist movie. However, judging from what I read about the film (including from those that actually praised the movie who, while they condemned the boycott, conceded that indeed it was a feminist movie), there is indeed a case to be made for Mad Max's feminist credentials. Of course, George Miller or any movie director is perfectly free to make any type of film they wish. But, what I'd like to know is, if Miller wanted to make a female-driven action film, why didn't he just go ahead and make one? Just drop the Mad Max character entirely, especially since Max was apparently more of a secondary character in this film, and make Charlize Theron's character the main star? Of course, the answer to that may be because female-driven action films have a rather spotty track record at the box office. For every Thelma & Louise (which was an apparent ripoff of an earlier B-movie called Assault Of The Killer Bimbos) there are at least a half-dozen Tank Girl's (which bombed so bad that it virtually killed actress Lori Petty's movie career). Even Charlize Theron's attempt at headlining an action flick—i.e. the live-action version of the cult cartoon Aeon Flux—bombed at the all-important box office. And the reason for that is, for all the talk of feminism and such, moviegoers, both men and women, don't want to see women in the dominant role in action films. They want to see the men swoop in and rescue everyone, including—and especially—the girl, similar to the way they want things to work out in real life. Again, in spite of all the cinematic feminist talk, men want to imagine themselves as the rescuer and women want to imagine themselves the ones being rescued. Period.

At the end of the day, it's all about money, feminism or no. And, while the movie will undoubtedly make a profit (at the time of this writing, it has reached the $100 million mark), it still didn't make the big splash at the all-important box office George Miller and the movie studio were obviously hoping for, which, like I implied earlier, is what I believe really drove the controversy. I mean, it didn't even reach number one on the box office charts the weekend it was released as it made about half the money that the flick Pitch Perfect 2 which did debut at number one.

Of course, the thing I found most hypocritical of all about the whole insipid controversy surrounding Aaron Clarey's Mad Max article—which even Clarey himself said was ridiculous—was that the same feminists/feminist sympathizers who scoffed at the idea of a boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road by the apparently imaginary MRAs were the same ones who all but advocated a—that's right—boycott of the Clint Eastwood film American Sniper about military sniper Chris Kyle months earlier—many of whom hadn't even seen the film—because not only they claimed it “promoted” the Iraqi war but that it also promoted—again, that's right—masculinity. And we all know just how much the feminists and their sympathizers really hate that!

Besides that, one thing the feminized reviewers of Mad Max: Feminist, uh, I mean Fury Road failed to address is that, if Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa was so strong and whatnot as said feminized reviewers insisted she was, why then did she need the “help” of Max to begin with? Just saying!

A sidenote: Here's the link to the Aaron Clarey article from "anti-feminist" site Return Of Kings for anyone who is interested in reading the piece that started all the Mad Maxine, uh, I mean Mad Max feminist furor to begin with: http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road

Here's a video review (from YouTube) from someone (yes, a man!) who actually watched Mad Max: Fury Road and said yes, it WAS a "feminist" movie!

And, while we're at it, here's Aaron Clarey's video response to all the critics of his article:

Fifty Shades Of Wayne (Batman/Fifty Shades Mashup Trailer)

Thanks the stars Ben Affleck WASN'T in this trailer!

RELIGULOUS

Religulous is comedian/talk show host Bill Maher's documentary--or mockumentary, whichever way you want to look at it--about organized religion. Anyone who knows anything at all about Bill Maher knows he's most definitely NOT a "fan" of organized religion, and he most definitely holds NOTHING back in this film. In the film, he targets pretty much all of the major religions, including Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and, his seemingly favorite target, Christianity. About three-fourths of the film consists of Maher interviewing various "religious" figures and mocking their "beloved" religions to their faces. Some take it in stride while others are quite noticeably upset at Bill's mockery; like, for instance, towards the beginning of the film where Bill is challenging the members of a little--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--Truckers Chapel and one of the members expresses his disdain at said mockery of his "religion" and kindly walks himself right out of the church. (At one point during the film, Bill himself walks out of an interview after he gets rather annoyed at this rabbi who blatantly contradicts himself to Maher.) At times during the film Maher speaks directly to the camera and talks about the "questionable" parts of various religious stories; like, for instance, when he compares what he calls the "similarities" between the stories of Egyptian deity Horus to that of Jesus Christ. (This drew some heavy criticism from "Christian" scholars, as one might have expected.) Overall, Religulous will no doubt play well to Bill Maher fans. Religious types, of course, might take "issue" with it. I actually started to feel kind of sorry for some of the interviewees as Bill was blatantly mocking them, but then I recalled all those times one of these "religious" types would come up to me and denounce ME for not "believing" as they do and kindly inform me that I was going to you-know-where, so whatever feelings of empathy I may have had for some of these people quickly went away as Bill was throwing some of their sanctimonious BS back at them. (This, of course, doesn't include all those times a Jehovah's Witness or two would show up at my front door and bug the hell out of me about their "religion" and such.) And, if you haven't figured it out already, I, like Maher, am NOT what you'd call a "fan" of religion, organized or otherwise, so I didn't really take "issue" with Religulous. Actually, I thought the most interesting parts of the film were the deleted scenes that were featured on the DVD, which features mostly more interviews that for whatever reason weren't included in the final film. I actually think Maher should re-release the movie with the deleted scenes included on video. (I know that would REALLY make these "religious" types happy!)

Here's the aforementioned Truckers Chapel scene from Religulous (from YouTube): 

WHY I WON'T BE SEEING AMERICAN SNIPER

The movie poster of American Sniper.

The book cover of American Sniper.

Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle.

Chris Kyle holding a copy of his book.

American Sniper is the movie based on the "autobiography" of the late Iraqi war veteran Chris Kyle who was deemed--I think by Chris himself--"the most lethal sniper in U.S. history." The movie was directed by Clint Eastwood (yes, THAT Clint Eastwood!) with actor Bradley Cooper (of The A-Team fame) playing Kyle. The movie has even garnered a few Oscar nods. With all that said, I will not--I repeat--NOT be going to see American Sniper. Why? Well, for one, I am SO sick & tired of being told who to "admire" in this country. I mean, I can make up my OWN mind who I want to "admire" and/or hold up as a hero. And, though I feel sorry for Kyle's family (who was shot to death at a shooting range along with a companion by an ex-Marine reportedly suffering from PTSD named Eddie Ray Routh), I can't muster up admiration for someone who was a trained killer and, above all, someone who publicly boasted of being said trainer killer and who propped his own self up as a hero. I know, I know there'll be those--mostly on Fox (Non) News!--who'll undoubtedly denounce me as being "unpatriotic" and how I don't "support" the troops by not lending my "admiration" of Chris Kyle. To which I say is complete & utter BULLSHIT! I mean, there are countless veterans who acted just as "heroically" as Mr. Kyle and even more so but we'll NEVER hear their names much less their stories. That's, of course, partly because a number of veterans don't wish to "exploit" their war experiences. There's also the countless number of veterans who are languishing away at veteran's hospitals--remember the controversy about the shoddy medical treated of military veterans at VA hospitals like Walter Reid?--and who are suffering from PTSD and who are homeless--an estimated one-third of our nation's homeless are in fact veterans--or who have committed suicide. You get the picture. So, I ask, what makes Chris Kyle's "story" more "heroic" than any other veteran's? Going back to the movie, the film itself is probably a "good" movie, at least technically so, and I'm sure Bradley Cooper did a pretty good job portraying Kyle (he, at the time of this writing, has garnered an Oscar nod for his role in the film). But, there again, I have absolutely NO interest in seeing this apparently overly-jingoist film. (I also felt the same about that torture porn-fest Zero Dark Thirty.) In any other context, and I know I'm going to get flak for saying THIS one, Chris Kyle would probably be regarded as a serial killer, you know what I mean? Once again, for those who would denounce me--once again, on Fox (Non) News!--as being an unpatriotic troop-hater, Chris Kyle boasted in his book how much he "loved" killing and how much "fun" he thought his "job" was. Writing of the Iraqis in general, he wrote, "I hate the damn savages," adding, "I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis." He also stated how he knew without a single shred of doubt how EVERYONE he shot was a "bad guy," including the women AND children he apparently "loved" to shoot. Hell, he even bragged about murdering Hurricane Katrina looters (although that was never verified). On top of all that, he also reportedly boasted of looting the homes of Iraqi families in Fallujah. So, once more, I ask the question: WHAT IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK IS SO DAMN "HEROIC" ABOUT CHRIS KYLE? AND WHY IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK SHOULD I PAY GOOD MONEY TO SEE A FILM GLORIFYING HIS MURDER-LOVING ASS? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE WE GIVING CHRIS KYLE MORE "ATTENTION" THAN ANY OTHER VETERAN WHO WOULD NEVER BOAST ABOUT HAVING TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE AN "ENEMY" OR NOT? Well? I also can't for the life of me understand why Clint Eastwood would choose to make a movie glorifying THIS (so-called) "hero" after he made what was deemed an "anti-violence" film the western Unforgiven (but then, he WAS Dirty Harry, so there you go!). Also, I must say I find it more than a little ironic--and, yes, hypocritical!--that the very same right-wingers who've been Chris Kyle's BIGGEST cheerleaders have routinely condemned the "violence" of, say, rap music. Just saying! In any case, Chris Kyle's life AND death prove the old adage to be VERY true: You live by the sword, you definitely die by the sword! And if THAT makes me an "unpatriotic traitor" or whatever in the eyes of the Republican-ass-kissing D-Bags who've propped THIS guy up as some type of damned superhero, then so be it. So be it! A sidenote: Chris Kyle, before his death, claimed on shows like--where else!--The O'Reilly Factor how he punched out Jesse Ventura (yes, THAT Jesse Ventura!) at a bar because he, according to Kyle, was "bad-mouthing" the military and the government in general (and this surprised him WHY?). He even mentioned the "fight" in his book, although he didn't mention Ventura by name. Ventura ended up suing even after Kyle's death and wound up winning in part because of the reported "inconsistencies" in the witnesses accounts of the alleged incident, including from Chris's very own testimony. So, again I ask, if this part of Kyle's book is (allegedly) false, how the hell am I supposed to "believe" the REST of his book?

Here's a clip of Jesse Ventura discussing his case against Chris Kyle on Piers Morgan's now-defunct CNN talk show:

BATMAN

Batman is the 1989 theatrical version of the legendary comic book character directed by noted eccentric film director Tim Burton. The film stars Michael Keaton--who had previously starred in the title role of Tim Burton's earlier film Beetlejuice--as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jack Nicholson as Batman's archenemy The Joker. The film shows billionaire Bruce Wayne as he begins his "moonlighting" as the Caped Crusader in his quest to fight crime in the fictional city of Gotham, the very crime that led to him witnessing the shooting deaths of his mother and father during a robbery as a child (which we see in flashbacks). Also in the film, we see the origins of The Joker who starts off being a murderous henchman of a major Gotham crime lord. During a fight with Batman, the future Joker falls in a vat of acid and winds up with a permanent smile on his face and all but winds up insane, which, of course, makes him all the more dangerous. Not only that, but Bruce Wayne figures out it was The Joker--back when he was a low level criminal--who had murdered his parents, which, of course, makes him all the more determined to stop the murderous clown. The issue I've always had with the Batman character is that he's either made too campy (ala the classic sixties TV series starring Adam West in the title role) or he's made too serious (ala the Christopher Nolan films with notoriously intense actor Christian Bale in the title role). I think Tim Burton's Batman finds the perfect balance of camp and seriousness. I also felt Jack Nicholson made the perfect Joker (some Batman fans, of course, might cite the late Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight as being the all-time best, but I digress). Of course, an added bonus to the film is that there's no Robin ("Holy annoyances, Batman!")! And it's most certainly a damned sight BETTER than the hilariously campy Batman & Robin (which starred incredibly miscast George Clooney in the title role and pretty much killed the Batman franchise until Christopher Nolan rebooted it with his Batman Begins)! A sidenote: Diehard Batman fans took serious issue with the casting of "comedic" actor Michael Keaton as Batman, at least initially so, but most eventually warmed to him when they saw his performance as The Dark Knight in both Batman and its darker sequel--which, of course, was also directed by Tim Burton--Batman Returns (which also DIDN'T include Robin!). Batman was also noted for its breaking box office records at the time and also for beginning the "trend" of "darker" superhero films. (I'll, of course, let YOU decide if that's a good or a bad thing, OK?)