The Legend of Zorro

If I remember correctly, Clark Kent (George Reeves) smoked in the original b/w TV show. It didn't show him actually taking a puff, but he was holding one for cool looks. But I digress.

Superman, bedecked in his red, white and blue, is supposed to stand for everything merrican :) Mom's apple pie, milk, good wholesome living (coff) and of course any propaganda that needs to be pushed, like not taking drugs, responsible behavior on the road, and not smoking.
Doesn't surprise me in the least. IMO, all o fthe Superman movies carry subtle messages about "being an American".
 
Superman was Jewish. http://www.jewishtimes.com.au/content/view/646/31/

Kind of makes the character a little more interesting since it was created in the 1930s.
 
Tigersoap said:
"Superman returns" really striked me as being used to pass on some propagandist messages, I will only remind this one :

Superman does not like you to smoke, he blows out your lighter with wind (I know that sounds bad, luckily you don't explode when he does that.).
Hmm, yes, this part is definitely cheap propaganda. But my overall impression of the movie (and of my bf, who is a real fan of superheroes stuff: x-men, superman, spider man, etc...) that this movie was outdated. Public doesn't want "geeky" and gentle heroes anymore. Give them "Heroes" series style heroes, with lot of blood and broken bones. Personally, I liked "Batman begins" more, even if Katie Holmes is an extremely irritating creature.
 
Superman has always been working for the government anyway.
It was never a secret that the Superman character has been used during World war II has a propaganda tool.

Superman began a solid propaganda alliance with American soldiers that continued through 1945 and the end of the war. That cover showed Superman walking arm in arm with a soldier and a sailor. From that moment on, Superman was shown sinking battle ships, tying cannon barrels into knots, and riding bombs toward "Japanazi's", a term first coined in Superman #18 (Sept-Oct 1942) to define the unified threat of Japan and German armies....
For the full text and pictures go here :http:(slash)(slash)www(dot)supermanhomepage(dot)com/comics/comics.php?topic=articles/supes-war
 
Here's a review by John Shirley:

WHY WE NEED SUPERMAN (review and reflection)

SUPERMAN RETURNS was masterfully directed by Bryan Singer (the directing is this movie's real triumph), with better special effects than Superman has ever had. Brandon Routh is a good Superman--not quite the Clark Kent that Chris Reeve was, but he does a good, whimsical job of that too.... The story, involving Superman, Lois Lane and Lex Luthor getting “caught up“ after Superman's five-year sabbatical to have a look at what remains of Krypton, and Luthor's appropriation of Fortress of Solitude technology to create his own America-swamping continent, fills the bill. It also offers up the necessary endangerment of Lois Lane--and her mysterious young son (that's a whole twist in the story in itself). And it gives us Superman flatlining in a hospital...Lots of spectacular super action, with Superman doing things very like he did in the better Superman comics, but cinematically realized far more effectively than ever before.

Some explanatory tissue could've been added, and you have to wonder, as The New Yorker pointed out, why anyone would bother to save a race too stupid to tell the identify of a man once he puts some horn rim glasses on--and if Superman's got the scientific secrets of a super civilization in the Fortress of Solitude, as established in SUPERMAN RETURNS, why wouldn't he use it to cure AIDS and cancer and does he have any feelings about the genocide that happens, from time to time, in Africa?

But that's not what Superman's function is. He's not here to solve all our problems. A rabbi once asked an angel why God doesn't send help to the human race--the angel said, he does send help, he sent you. Every individual is supposed to be helping...Superman is not supposed to do our job for us. . .Superman is an archetype in the collective unconscious. A needed archetype. We need Superman because he gives us hope for being more than we are. I loved Superman, as a boy. When I see a Superman movie now, I slip into that boyish identification with the superhero as easily as, well, putting on a cape. When he's flying on screen, I lean a little bit forward in my seat, as if to help him. When he's using his heat vision my eyes narrow to help him focus. I wanted to be him--and it's not so hopeless as it seemed. Superman stands for the unfulfilled potential, however small it may be, of any given person. If we try to run a mile and can't usually do it in less than ten minutes, the symbol of Superman seems to say, “Maybe you can do it in 9 and a half minutes.“ Superman can lift a 747; I can press 200 pounds. Because he can lift a 747, somehow I'm called to lift 210 pounds. I'm lame at algebra but because Superman is out there in the media mind, something in me says I can learn it well if I really want to. Because Superman can fly, one day I might decide I can learn Japanese. Because he is willing to sacrifice himself for humanity--and he does, in the new film--I might be willing to at least do volunteer work with foster kids. Superman is our hope, our symbol, of becoming something better. Because we're all smaller, weaker, feebler, less caring, than we know we can be.

Superman is also the physical embodiment of what Gurdjieff called “doing“. For the Superman of our cinematic fantasy, to think of doing is to do--and to do with his whole being. His body, his costume, his presence, suggests intensity of purpose; they seem to suggest a superhuman crystalization of intention in the form of a man. In the collective unconscious, Superman symbolizes focussed intention--Superman is pure "doing".

Posted By: John Shirley | Permalink
 
The only movies I ever walked out of was Judge Dredd, five minutes into the movie (cut me some slack, I was about 12), and Mission Impossible 2. *shudder*

Everyone I know who saw Batman Begins, loved it. I wanted to, I really did, but I couldn't. There were just too many things I didn't like about it. So permit me to vent for a moment. Fight sequences were badly edited, too fast and disorientating. If I can't see what's going on, who's striking who or who is winning, why should I care? I lost complete identification with Batface because of this and no longer cared whether he saved the day or not.

The dialogue was drab. Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman ... all resigned to bit parts to make way for boring villains and a Katie Holmes who was 10-20 years too young for the role. Ugh. And then there's the need to repeat every significant line of dialogue a dozen times. OK, I understand there are going to be young kids in the audience, some of them denser than my collapsed attempt at pavlova, but when the climax repeats the line about not watching your surroundings twice within ten minutes, even the most ignorant audience member would be thinking, "OK, you've made your point. Move on!" Nothing can be hinted at. It has to be shoved in your face and explained to you as though you suffer from anteriograde amnesia and must be reminded of every little twist and quirk in ten minute intervals.

It was visually impressive, it did have some things going for it, but in my opinion, Batman Almost Begins was too long, too frustrating and had a climax that inspired little more than boredom. Then again, maybe I was just having a bad day when I saw it. *long, calm exhalation*
 
I love historical movie epics, therefore I remember most vividly such dissapointments

The bigest flops of late were

Troy - I couldnt sit till the end, actually it was a sacrilage to make succh mockery of Homer's epic. And the dissapointment was even greater because I had in mind Greek version of the Troy from early eighties which was brilliant.
then,

Alexander the Great, the whole movie was pathetic and unbearable,
so much so that it left me nausiated

another dissapointment was Kingdoom of Heaven, not as bad as Alexander but still preety bad.

and of course latest work of Gibson about Mayas wich was sickening
 
I thought Borat was pretty bad. If I had watched it in a theater I probably would have walked out. The best part about it was it showed plenty of ignorant americans in it (maybe some people might realize this through the medium of video). I guess it was supposed to be funny, but the plot was stupid and I got grossed out a few times.

The sad part is a lot of people liked it...
 
beau said:
I thought Borat was pretty bad. If I had watched it in a theater I probably would have walked out. The best part about it was it showed plenty of ignorant americans in it (maybe some people might realize this through the medium of video). I guess it was supposed to be funny, but the plot was stupid and I got grossed out a few times.

The sad part is a lot of people liked it...
Come on, how can you not like saying "I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards. And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq." ... and watch a huge crowd of people in US applaud and cheer? If anyone still had any doubts about just how barbaric and stupid our "civilized society" is, Borat has closed the book on that question!

Of course, then there is the naked fight scene... which, if you can look past the fact that it's a naked fight scene between 2 guys, is pretty funny :P Although I couldn't find any meaning/point of it other than "shock and awe" of the audience..
 
Deckard said:
I love historical movie epics, therefore I remember most vividly such dissapointments

The bigest flops of late were

Troy - I couldnt sit till the end, actually it was a sacrilage to make succh mockery of Homer's epic. And the dissapointment was even greater because I had in mind Greek version of the Troy from early eighties which was brilliant.
then,

Alexander the Great, the whole movie was pathetic and unbearable,
so much so that it left me nausiated

another dissapointment was Kingdoom of Heaven, not as bad as Alexander but still preety bad.

and of course latest work of Gibson about Mayas wich was sickening
Hehe interesting thread.

Deckard, after reading your list I was immediately reminded of this new one 300
There is a lot of commotion going on about it right now especially in Iran. Here is an article describing the situation:

http://www(dot)cbc.ca/arts/story/2007/03/13/iran-300.html
Iran incensed about 300's depiction of Persians

The historical war epic 300 has been criticized as an attack on Iranian culture by government authorities in Tehran.

The movie, which raked in $70 million US after opening this weekend, is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece.

Actors Vincent Regan, left, and Gerard Butler are noble Spartans in the action drama 300. The film depicts Persians as degenerate, as well as easy to kill.Actors Vincent Regan, left, and Gerard Butler are noble Spartans in the action drama 300. The film depicts Persians as degenerate, as well as easy to kill.
(Warner Bros./Associated Press)

"Hollywood declares war on Iranians," said a headline in Tuesday's edition of the independent Ayende-No newspaper.

The Persians, who are slaughtered wholesale in the film, are depicted as decadent, sexually flamboyant and evil in contrast to the noble Spartans.

Javad Shamqadri, a cultural adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called the film "psychological warfare" against Iran and its people.

"American cultural officials thought they could get mental satisfaction by plundering Iran's historic past and insulting this civilization," he said.
Shamqadri said the film seeks to attack Persian history and culture, which Iranians hold dear.
Even some American reviewers noted the political overtones of the West-against-Iran storyline and noted that it comes at a time of increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
"The film depicts Iranians as demons, without culture, feeling or humanity, who think of nothing except attacking other nations and killing people," Ayende-No said in its article.
"It is a new effort to slander the Iranian people and civilization before world public opinion at a time of increasing American threats against Iran," it said.
The film is not likely to be released in Iran, which has strict censorship laws, but is circulating on bootleg DVDs.
Commentators in Greece have also objected to 300, because of its historical inaccuracies.
I also really disliked Troy and I refused to watch Alexander. I did enjoy Kingdom of Heaven though I thought it was interesting and not as badly made as the other tittles. Still haven’t seen Apocolypto but have heard amazing things about it, so I’m surprised you didn’t like it.
I also watched Borat a couple of days ago. I thought some parts of it was really funny, and the whole time I knew that if the guy himself wasn’t Jewish there would be no way in hell he would get away with half the stuff he said in that movie. A lot of the content in the movie like what Scio pointed out was hilarious to see. It was funny to see the American populace show themselves and their ignorance. What really detracted me from that movie was the naked fight scene. I mean.. it went on for like 10 minutes and it was quite disgusting.

Lol.. this thread has gotten me to think about movies I don’t like… but I can’t think of any right now so if I do I’l write back.
 
yea I ve been following the hype about 300 and visually it seems quite impressive but the big turn off is that they actually used contemporary music

re Apocalypto - there is a thread on this forum, its quite informative
 
Deckard said:
Troy - I couldnt sit till the end, actually it was a sacrilage to make succh mockery of Homer's epic. And the dissapointment was even greater because I had in mind Greek version of the Troy from early eighties which was brilliant.
Actually I did enjoy Troy :) but I took it for what it is : just entertainment to air the brain (lol). But maybe it's because I haven't read Homer's epic nor seen the 80's version...

Generally I hate horror movies, or violent films where violence is gratuitous and absurd, and doesn't serve any further purpose in the movie.

I want to mention a film that I do hate above all the films I ever watched and disliked. It's the belgian film C'est arrivé près de chez vous, or Man bites dog in the english version.
It depicts the story of a man who makes a living out of killing defenceless people (children, old and sick people, women) and is filmed by a team while he performs his "job". It's supposed to be a parody of tele-reality and supposedly funny because of the "burlesque" tone. It's now considered by some people as a cult movie.
I think this movie is totally EVIL. Actually, just to think about it makes me nauseous. It's a totally sick movie. It's obscene, cruel, the violence is permanent and gratuitous, some scenes are hardly bearable (like the rape scene or the child killing) and there's absolutely no deep meaning in it, apart from the so-called pretext of "parody" and "burlesque caricature". It's totally empty and filthy. And I get really angry to think in our sick, psychopathic society, that kind of movie can be promoted as "cult". Just by looking at the poster of the film (a pacifier spattered with blood), you get an idea of the whole. FILTHY and EVIL. With this "movie", the bottom of human decadence was reached.
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Come on, how can you not like saying "I hope you kill every man, woman and child in Iraq, down to the lizards. And may George W. Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq." ... and watch a huge crowd of people in US applaud and cheer? If anyone still had any doubts about just how barbaric and stupid our "civilized society" is, Borat has closed the book on that question!

Of course, then there is the naked fight scene... which, if you can look past the fact that it's a naked fight scene between 2 guys, is pretty funny :P Although I couldn't find any meaning/point of it other than "shock and awe" of the audience..
The part in the rodeo was the highlight of the whole movie for me. I felt exactly how you said, that it closed the book on how stupid America is. It was good. But I think the rest of the movie was, as you said, pointless and meant for shock and awe. But I wasn't shocked by the naked fight scene, I was just grossed out. The frat boys going cross country - more stupid americans. The high society dinner - more dum 'mericans. The movie did show the very dumb side of the US. I guess I can give him kudos for that.
 
My favourite Borat moment:

"We didn't want to fly by plane in case the Jews attempted another 911."

:)
 
Back
Top Bottom