smirkinpigeon Reviews

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

British Propaganda

[1 February 2004]

Whilst I must admit that M&C is a very good film technically, there are some subtle twists in this film that make a very one sided view of the Napoleonic wars.

Firstly, even though the movie does not say this literally as it would have the wrath of the historians, it does hint that France and not Britain was the agressor in this war. This is not entirely the case. The only reason Napoleon rose to power in France was because Britain was waging a war against France. After France's revolution that saw the end to an autocratic leadership and saw a people's revolution, Britain decided that that kind of personal freedom in France was not good for its politics and fearing that the revolution would spread waged war.

Secondly. Britain was not fighting for freedom, but for the economic power in world. At this point Britain had violently conquered half of the globe and had fought the USA etc. This war was about nothing else but economic power, but this is hollywood so you can't say that.

Lumumba (2000)

Reviews raise problems!!

[24 November 2003]

This film has both people that enjoy and people that loathe it. However I was struck by the fact at how many non-Africans had seen and commented on this film. Here we see a massive problem arising.

Firstly: It is a fact that African history was passed along orally and the only real written history in Africa was created with the advent of missionaries on the continent. To this day there are more books written about African history by non-Africans than there have been of Africans. This means that Africa has seldom, if ever, been presented the way it sees itself. "Lumumba" is a film made by an African filmmaker, shot on the African continent with African actors and yet we see Americans and Europeans commenting on it!

The fact is that most of these people have an imagined history of Africa. On user commented that the USA was 'forced' to intervene in Congo, because "Lumumba" called in the USSR to help out his army. What the hell was the USA doing in Africa in the first place? And I answer; they were securing their economic interests. How dare outside powers even allow to excuse their intervention in the African continent, when they are in majority at fault for the situation many African countries find themselves in today.

Secondly: There were a couple of comments on the acting and style that this film was made in. Many people don't realize that the entire world does not exclusively copy the Hollywood model. We see different characters in different environments. "Lumumba" shows a different view on an African hero and even though this view is not entirely accurate, what view ever is.

So don't watch and judge this film according to your standards, because you most likely have no idea what you are talking about. Rather than being prejudiced towards the film, just let it talk to you and present you with its argument...for a change!

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)

One of the most racist films ever made! (spoiler alert)

[20 November 2003]

Steven Spielberg is truly a fascinating character. In the first corner we have "Schindler's List", a film about a man standing in the face of Nazi racism and showing Hitler's cronies the bird. A film about Jewish survival in probably some of the most horrific acts of genocide this planet has ever seen. A film that reminds us just how disgusting and destructive racism can be...And then there is the Temple of Doom in the other corner.

First sequence over, Indie escapes with a blond irritant who has an eighties hairstyle I might add not a thirties. Anyway, lets get back to the point. Indie ends up with poor Indian people who ask him to return a stone and worship him like a god. The good old "Oh look white man falls out of the sky in metal bird, let's worship him" trick never fails.

So Indie sets out and goes on to face, wait for it, evil Indian people who want to throw the British out of India for good and rule it themselves. Gandhi you bastard. India should remain British because the British know what's best for India, I agree. But these warmongers do not stand up to a fair fight against with their machetes against British machine guns, Oh no old chap. No these Indians use blood and the occult to mind control their fellow Indians to go along with this evil. Come to think of it that is probably the reason Gandhi didn't eat a lot, he didn't want to be turned into a zombie.

But all is well when Indy destroys the evil plans with a train ride that was simultaneously being designed as a roller coaster ride and the British soldiers capture those evil Indians...and probably slaughter them (historically seen) but this is after all a kiddies movie.

Thank god one single American and two sidekicks have saved the British interests in India. See India is even too incompetent to deal with its own problems, because it will use child labor if the British are not there to save the children.

Ice cream for everyone!

The Great Dictator (1940)

One of the Greatest politcal satires ever!

[10/10 · 18 October 2003]

There are a few films that are destined to be great, because they are challenging and daring. They are so because they challenge the times in which they are made. The highlights amongst these films are Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove" and "The Great Dictator", a film that everybody in Hollywood said nobody wanted to see. Thank god Chaplin made this film anyway.

What Chaplin offers in this film and why it is so important as a historical piece today is an insight into the eccentricities of fascism that dogged the early 20th century. Chaplin and his actors masterfully copied the mannerism of the important figures of the time and then amplified and exaggerated them. We are therefore shown the Third Reich in all its dark and loony glory, in all its bloodthirsty expansionist policy and inhuman treatment of `sub-humans'.

Chaplin's rendition of Hynkel is masterfully put forward as jibberish, with dramatic poses and movements that include him pouring water down his pants. The famous ballet with the globe was Chaplin's ultimate film moment that symbolizes just how reckless the Nazi expansion policy really was. However some of the most entertaining moments come from Napoloni, who visits ‘Hynki' to discuss the invasion of Austerlitz by Tomania. A direct parody of the appeasement policy and the breaking of the Stresa front, Chaplin does not only have a go at Nazi Germany, but also at the people that just let it happen.

Chaplin's final speech in which the Jewish barber takes the place of Hynkel, questioning Hitler's own Arianness, is filled with a plea to the world to stop war forever instead of simply saying that the world should stop the Nazis. This film should be compulsory in every country and in every school and the fact that the world is still embroiled in wars all over shows that this film is perhaps more relevant today than it was in 1940. When one looks at this film one can see, Robert Mugabe, Mohammed Al Caddaffi, Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Obviously we have not learnt the lesson yet!

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas (2003)

This film is atrocious!

[15 October 2003]

The problem with Disney is that they make children's films. Although this is not a problem in its self it seems to give Disney the right to make atrocious films such as this one. Remember that a large part of a child's education comes from film and television.

The original Sinbad was an Arab, he was a Muslim and there was no feminism around in his time, let alone the fact that the original Sinbad hails from Bagdad.

What Disney has done to Sinbad is take away his Arab, Muslim, Bagdad and original masculine identity and replaced it with ... mush! But here is where the problem really starts. The lame excuse that people will give Disney is that they make films for children and that therefor this twisting of the original truth is okay. That children will not know the difference anyway. However my question is, if Disney take away everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) that Sinbad was, why make a film about Sinbad. Could Disney not have left the original story which in the Arab world equals Homer's Odysee and Iliad.

What this film does is symbolize the growing cultural imperialism of the United States, feeding the world with candy crap. Why is Marina and for that matter Eris, who comes from Helenist religion...not the Muslim, have such a large part in the film. This is due to the growing feminist movement in the 20th century and whilst there is nothing wrong with feminism one cannot just excuse it being juxtaposed on history and therefor sanitizing it. Women did not wear alluring outfits in Bagdad back in the day.

The notion of Sinbad as an individual hero is also Western hogwash. In the original tale Sinbad is a hero and more importantly the pride of the people of Bagdad. His triumph was their triumph and so Sinbad having to fight out his own demons is a total bunch of neo age you-know-what!

But what am I talking about? Its only a kids movie right?

Hero (2002)

A brilliant movie despite the rhetoric

[9/10 · 19 January 2003]

There are a lot of comments out there that this movie is trying to brainwash the chinese population. Perhaps. Then again can I ask you what movie does brainwash us? Every movie portrays some sort of ideology, Disney for instance often portray a patriarchal society. American movies often try and sell the idea of Democracy to the rest of the world. Now I am not anti-democracy, but these movies still brainwash. A lot of the people that make the comments on brainwashing only see them, because they come from another society and mentality. To a chinese the idea of falling in line with the West or a war in order to prevent the spread of Communism (e.g. Vietnam, Korea, Angola etc, etc) might seem brainwashing. So when you watch this movie, rather than judge it by its principals, enjoy it for its stories, characters and cinematography...and if you have a problem with brainwashing start at looking in your own culture before judging others! As they might be judging you the same way!

This movie is great to watch!

Crossroads (I) (2002)

A very funny movie!

[15 January 2003]

I went to see this movie with a couple of freinds, just for the hell of it. I was expecting to be bored out of my skull, but instead laughed more than I have in most comedies that came out this year. This movie is so stupid and cliched that it just becomes funny. Britney can only act when she is taking her clothes off.

The movie sees a couple of childhood friends, that have become separated as they grew older, not by geography but by their different personality's ohhh ahhh. Here the fun sets in we have Virgin girl (Britney), Issue girl and Slut/Pregnant girl. They decide to go on a road trip with, wait for it...the rebel boy ohhhh ahhhhh! He is such a cool misunderstood tough guy ooohhh ahhhhh! Everyone in search of something and bla blah you know the rest, standard formula.

Go watch this if you are in the mood to condescend! Or drunk and just have a laugh.

Crossroads (I) (2002)

Interesting movie

[16 December 2002]

I bet when you read that heading, you wanted to read what I had to say, because everybody slated it before me. I must admit to my shame, I went to see this movie with some friends because Britney dances around in her underwear. I don't normally do that, but hey.

This movie has it all, the babes, the love story, the road trip, the friendship, sexual awakening, teenage pregnancy etc. I mean if you were to pitch this film to a film academic thy would say that you have included all classical devices for a successful movie. HOWEVER!!! There is a fine line in movie making when a story stops being interesting and starts becoming corny. Crossroads crosses that line severely.

If you ever wondered what the difference between a good and a bad movie is, this is it: There is no difference between a good and a bad movie. A good movie can walk the line, a bad movie crosses the line. Watch any brilliant road trip movie and then go watch crossroads, you will see what I mean.