He may paint himself as conservative, but no true conservative (social conservative)would even give this perversion a quick glance, much less a favorable review. People have become so brainwashed by this filth that they don't even realize it.
He's a staunch conseravtive. Seeing the movie is part of his job. Good critics put Art above politics.
Medved's review is kind of a mixed bag, even though he gives it 3.5 stars:
===
REVIEW: America get ready. It’s time for Michael Medved’s Eye on Entertainment!
Two young cowboys get a summer job herding sheep on the Wyoming peek known as “Brokeback Mountain”.
(Audio Clip)
Of course they end up doing a lot more together than just drinking as they begin a passionate homosexual relationship that continues to dominate their lives even after they both get married and start families.
(Audio Clip)
That’s Heath Ledger who, along with co-romantic lead Jake Gyllenhaal, emerges as a probable Oscar contender in a film that combines an outrageously obvious agenda with undeniable artistry. Director Ang Lee infuses every frame with conviction and tenderness though the powerful ewwww factor in shocking R-rated male-on-male sex scenes will keep away most moviegoers. 3 1/2 STARS for the thematically disturbing but expertly crafted “Brokeback Mountain”.
That’s a wrap. I’m Michael Medved for Eye on Entertainment.
He may paint himself as conservative, but no true conservative (social conservative)would even give this perversion a quick glance, much less a favorable review. People have become so brainwashed by this filth that they don't even realize it.
--
There are various flavours of conservatism. One can be a fiscal conservative while not caring what consenting adults do to one another just as easily as you can be a moral conservative who does care.
He books articulate, educated, soft-spoken leaders of radical protest groups on his show all the time. Recently he schmoozed with the moral-equivalency author of an "Islam is a religion of peace" type of book for most of his program.
Instead of the usual radio interview/discussion time of a segment or two, he gives them an hour, sometimes more, to deseminate veiled or un-veiled anti-America, anti-war or anti-Bush propaganda.
Now I realize Medved likes to debate the enemy at length, and he's pretty good at it. But the crafty enemy guests don't care one whit what poor Michael is saying in rebuttal, all they want to do is get their messages out......and let me tell you, some of these messages make a great deal of sense to the uneducated who get sucked in. That's why these radicals are leaders, they're smooth-talkers and know how to snare converts. Michael gives them their golden opportunities.
Medved probably thinks he's being "fair and balanced", but he's naive to think his show is not being used by the left.
His show is dreadfully boring, to boot. He's one of those droners. I doubt if his show has exceptional ratings.
BTW, I've read Medved's past books on Hollywood and the Left. They were absolutely excellent and strongly conservative.
However on the other hand, his bland left-coast show leads me to believe he backs off a little when it comes to live radio. IMO, his program remains on the air because he doesn't make too many waves, he appears "fair", plus lefties, radicals and commies are always welcome to participate at length in his studio.
His media mogul bosses may like this totally cozy scenario.
Leni