[SeenTheLight]

ping

[The Great Satan]

Seen it yet? Is it worth a look?

[Malesherbes]

Ebert considers himself the ultimate expert on race relations because he is married to a black (i.e. African American) woman. This kind of smugness is the worst kind of racism, facile and condescending.

I look forward to seeing the film.

[The Great Satan]

The Englishmen are presented as the heroes of the film, gentlemen to the end, while the natives aren’t terribly noble. In fact, for the most part, they’re downright savage, and are referred to as such many times in the film. At one point, in a speech sending the British soldiers off to war, a priest describes their foes as “fanatical Mohammedans.”

I like the sound of this.

[CyberAnt]

Hey thanks for the uptake! I'll be sure and see this movie. It did look good in the TV previews, but now I'm even more willing to see it. Next Saturday morning is a great time to go to the movies - nobody is there!!

[Dan Day]

It seems that Kapur is something of an Anglophile (his previous English-language film was “Elizabeth”), a fact that makes liberal critics decidedly unhappy.

"Elizabeth" was a great film, I highly recommend it to anyone. Don't let the fact that it's a "historical period film" scare you off. Unlike a lot of films in that genre, it's not at all a snoozer.

It tells the story of Elizabeth I, who was unexpectedly catapulted as a young woman from obscurity to the throne, at a time when England was in bad shape, and several factions were vying for control. Few expected her to last a month, including herself. But through a combination of brains, guts, a few loyal supporters, and at times sheer luck, she prevailed and became one of England's greatest queens -- and this film makes it obvious why.

I'd say "they don't make great women like that anymore", were it not for the fact of Margaret Thatcher, who sort of reminds me of Elizabeth.

Then bizarrely, he goes on to say that the film “suffers from an ambiguity about British imperialism.” Actually, the film suffers no ambiguity about colonialism at all. In contrast, it’s completely in favor of it!

Translation: "It didn't unambiguously condemn colonialism, therefor it was disturbingly ambiguous."

[spitz]

Good idea. Send a liberal a white feather and show what you think of them.
An idea from the sixties version of the film, attach the feather to a card with your name on so they know who sent it. :-)

[fporretto]

It's well to remember that Roger Ebert was in the forefront of the media forces who, after John Ellis of Fox News Channel correctly predicted that Florida would go for Bush on Election Night 2000, claimed that Ellis had somehow committed an unpardonabe sin. Ebert's rant was to the effect that Ellis thereby created a "presumption" that Bush had won, which somehow affected the actual vote tally -- at 2:00 AM, many hours after the last polls closed!

However, Ebert had no criticisms for the major-media talking heads who incorrectly awarded Florida to Gore, when the polls in the Panhandle had more than an hour yet to operate.

Clearly, this is a man whose politics influence his ability to see the objectively verifiable world around him.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com