Wingnut at work tried to recommend a movie to me, based on the fact

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

that RW commentators loved it.

Seriously.

The guy was talking to me about the current movie "Flyboys", some war/aviator drama set during WWI.

I know this guy to be a Limbaugh fan kind of guy from previous conversations. He actually tried to push the movie on me based on the fact that "the critics hate it, but conservative commentators are giving it rave reviews! Michael Medved loves it!"

Seriously. This is what he said to me. :eyes:

I replied "well, that would actually make me LESS likely to see it" without commenting further.

I think I heard some kind of muffled explosion happen behind his face.

[liberalhistorian]

1. LOL! Medved is one of most annoyingly screechy, preachy

self-righteous ignoramuses around, who still lives in the 50's, or at least the conservative ideal of the 50's (which never actually existed, frankly). Any movie he likes and recommends, I avoid like the plague.

[Skittles]

11. the conservative ideal of the '50s certainly DID exist

white men rule, women home and pregnant, blacks in the back of the bus

[liberalhistorian]

12. Oh, I know that, what I meant was that

they have this stupid ideal that women were actually happy stuck in the home, not wanting any career except to take care of their husbands and children and home, baking cookies for the kids after school, presiding over PTA meetings, cooking from scratch, cleaning, keeping the kids quiet and away from dad in the evenings when he's tired from a hard day's work, knowing and being happy with "her place" and only dragged kicking and screaming into the outside work world by those evil, man-hating feminists, that all families were happy and stable before the advent of the satanic hippies, that there was no need for birth control and abortions never happened, that people knew their place and were happy with it, that "traditional" morality was firmly entrenched, etc., etc., yaddda yadda yadda. You know, the usual ahistorical bullshit. That was what I was referring to.

[Skittles]

16. yeah, I know what you mean

their ideal existed, it is their ROSY DEPICTION of the times that is so full of shit.

[SoyCat]

17. The sick thing is that *some* women were happy to live that way and

happy to see other women have to live that way. Back in the 50s in NC, my mom had a party line and picked it up to make a call and overheard her SIL say about their other SIL that if she "isn't going to get a job that she should at least breed". The woman being discussed HAD a job and didn't ever want children. They made her life hell until the day she died from breast cancer--all because she chose to not have children.

I'm just thankful that they were the minority.

[liberalhistorian]

18. And some are still around today, unfortunately,

let's hope they never get the upper hand against us again.

[SoyCat]

19. We can't ever let our guard down.--

:pals:

[bperci108]

2. Go check what IMDB had to say about it....

It might be interesting from a historical POV, since actual motion picture footage from that era is of quite poor quality. To see aerial combat involving wood-and-fabric aircraft is rare on film. (The Blue Max comes to mind...)

But I'm sure the "war is (somehow) glorious" crowd from Operation Yellow Elephant will see it as a major cultural touchstone for their endless warmongering. I'm not surprised a schmuck like Medved gets a chub.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454824/

[pocoloco]

5. The previews had the biplanes blowing up like tankers

when hit by enemy fire! At least colorful if not accurate.

[bperci108]

6. Those SFX guys DO love their napalm.... n/t.

:spray:

[hatrack]

3. From the reviews I've read (and no, I haven't seen it) . . .

It looks like pretty much every cliche you'd expect - but apparently the flight sequences are pretty spectacular.

Of course, whether you are willing to spend eight bucks for 20 minutes of razzle-dazzle out of two hours of your life . . . dunno.

[bperci108]

7. Think I'll wait....

...and pick it up in the $5 DVD dump bin in a few months... ;)

[Howardx]

10. thats what i heard too

story is predictable, the dogfight footage rules

[Mojambo]

4. That movie looks AWFUL

A WWI movie is a good idea, but the dialogue is so off period.

It's like they took Top Gun and set it in 1917.

Terrible!

[JHB]

8. Some nice flying, but no great shakes...

...and, unsurprisingly, a bit lazy with the history (to watch it, you'd think the Germans only flew Fokker Triplanes and that ALL of them were painted red (except for the Designated Villain's plane, of course).

The plot, as noted, is basically one cliche after another. Basically, think "Pearl Harbor" (the forgettable movie from a few years back, in case you'd sucessfully forgotten) for WWI.


There hasn't been a good WWI flying movie since Blue Max, and this one doesn't change that. Go play a game of "Red Baron" instead.

[TlalocW]

9. Eh, rent the Rocketeer instead

:)

TlalocW

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Tell him you will go see it

if he will go see Iraq For Sale or the John Lennon movie.

[NYCGirl]

14. Politics aside, out of 98 reviews, it garnered only 29 good ones. Among

the "major" critics, it got only 18% good reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/flyboys/

[NYCGirl]

15. If your friend wants to see a GREAT WWI movie, "Paths of Glory" is the one

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/amg.dll?p=avg&sql=paths+of+glory&x=0&y=0&opt1=12&sourceid=mozilla-search