Kevin Smith's latest film, and news worthy for a few reasons.
First, it's not a normal Kevin Smith film. No Jay and Silent Bob. No Affleck or Damon. It's a horror film.
Second, it's a rip on that cult that protests funerals.
Third, he's distributing it himself. This has caused quite an uproar in Hollywood, because it bucks the traditional system. His argument is that he's made a $4 million dollar film, and he doesn't want to see someone waste $8-10 million advertising it. He feels that with the combination of his existing audience, and with social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, he can get the word out just as effectively as the 8-10 million in marketing.
An interesting experiment to say the least, and one that's been quite successful so far. Red State made more per screen than any other film last weekend. Of course, it was only shown on a single screen, and the ticket prices were inflated due to him touring with the film and doing a Q&A afterwards, but it's hard to deny that it's proving there are alternatives to the big studio system. (It's been argued that indy filmmaking is dead because the studios own all the "indy" companies.)
It goes into wide release in October, so it should be interesting to see if we begin hearing about it via the MSM, from friends, etc.
Red State
And he assures you that "Red State" is not a politically charged title, and you are stupid of you think it is (and thus probably live in a red state).
I'd cite some quotes but they were mainly in his Twitter feed and I don't know how to search twitter stuff.
I'd cite some quotes but they were mainly in his Twitter feed and I don't know how to search twitter stuff.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
A rant about Smith inspired by Gordon's post...
Honestly, Smith doesn't have a fucking clue what he is politically. I've listen to hours upon hours of the guy talking via the SModcast podcasts and he RARELY ever says a single thing politically, and when he does it's usually just a one line joke, not a political statement. It's usually instigated because something related to a political name was mentioned. And those one line jokes are nothing more than the typical brainwashed party message: FOX News lies, Palin is a bad mom and insane, Bush was dumb, etc. However, from listening to him talk as openly as someone can during all the Q&As and podcasts I can tell you that he's a lot more conservative than he'd ever realize or admit.
It's important to note that he married a woman WAY the fuck out of his league, and she was a member of the MSM, a huge liberal, and a man hater. (She got pissed during Avatar when they blew up the tree, and said "Look what men do". Uhm, yeah...) Think she has any influence on his politics?
Also, his brother is gay and I think his dad must have been union because he worked for the post office.
He simply comes off as very easily manipulated in the realm of politics because he honestly doesn't give a shit. It's not in his realm of interest, and therefore, he doesn't pay attention to it. He goes off of what others feed him, and those around him are mostly liberal. He's exactly the kind of person who takes one of those "What political party most matches your beliefs" tests and is stunned by the results.
Smith is indisputably brilliant in the way he has turned Clerks into an empire. He's the only director that goes on tour making cash doing Q&As. He's got the balls to distribute his own film. He's had the vision to not only launch the SModcast network (a 7 days a week podcast schedule), but now he's doing live internet radio daily (starts May 7th, no I won't be listening).
However, he's equally stupid when it comes to common sense things. He has latched on hockey and Wayne Gretzky as his inspiration and frequently cites examples from it that he believes could only be applied to hockey, not realizing that everything that inspires him about hockey could be said about every team sport. His knowledge of history and current events have become a running joke during the SModcasts. He and his co-host, Scott Mossier, are always bashed on their website by their own fans for getting historical facts so ridiculously wrong.
I could go on and on about this, but I'm setting up the fact that sometimes his ignorance is shocking.
When he released Zack and Miri Make a Porno, I knew it would flop due to him releasing it on Halloween. He thought it was brilliant thinking Halloween was a kids holiday and adults needed something to do. He didn't even bother to look at past history, which showed movies released on Halloween bomb. Guess what? It bombed that weekend. Eventually, it became successful, but he could have had his first $100 million opening with that film and blew it.
Now he's releasing a film called "Red State", which he somehow expects people to think isn't politically based. Even stupider when you consider how poorly political films do at the box office.
(Totally unrelated side note, they're actually making a movie about the 2008 elections. They haven't started filming yet, and I know it's going to bomb.)
I think Red State is political, but not in the way you might think. I know Smith hates that cult that protests funerals and this is all about them and Smith's constant questioning of religion (he was raised Catholic and now leans more towards it all being fake). Due to his brother being gay, and his wife's influences, I think he mistakenly thinks the right, conservatives, and Republicans are all anti-gay.
We'll soon see how much of a man of his word Smith is because he has cited Gretzky's words about retirement many times recently. Smith claims he has one film left in him, and then he's done. I have a hunch that won't be entirely true, although he does admit to being very lazy, and enjoying talking more than directing. With his income from podcasts (free to listen to, but they're now done via live shows with paid audiences), Q&A tours, and his new internet radio shows, perhaps he will be done. However, out of the public eye, I expect those numbers will start to drop, and that's when his true nature will be revealed. Can he continue to stay away when his popularity drops or will he display a thirst for fame by making Clerks 4 10 years from now?
Edited By Leisher on 1301582565
Honestly, Smith doesn't have a fucking clue what he is politically. I've listen to hours upon hours of the guy talking via the SModcast podcasts and he RARELY ever says a single thing politically, and when he does it's usually just a one line joke, not a political statement. It's usually instigated because something related to a political name was mentioned. And those one line jokes are nothing more than the typical brainwashed party message: FOX News lies, Palin is a bad mom and insane, Bush was dumb, etc. However, from listening to him talk as openly as someone can during all the Q&As and podcasts I can tell you that he's a lot more conservative than he'd ever realize or admit.
It's important to note that he married a woman WAY the fuck out of his league, and she was a member of the MSM, a huge liberal, and a man hater. (She got pissed during Avatar when they blew up the tree, and said "Look what men do". Uhm, yeah...) Think she has any influence on his politics?
Also, his brother is gay and I think his dad must have been union because he worked for the post office.
He simply comes off as very easily manipulated in the realm of politics because he honestly doesn't give a shit. It's not in his realm of interest, and therefore, he doesn't pay attention to it. He goes off of what others feed him, and those around him are mostly liberal. He's exactly the kind of person who takes one of those "What political party most matches your beliefs" tests and is stunned by the results.
Smith is indisputably brilliant in the way he has turned Clerks into an empire. He's the only director that goes on tour making cash doing Q&As. He's got the balls to distribute his own film. He's had the vision to not only launch the SModcast network (a 7 days a week podcast schedule), but now he's doing live internet radio daily (starts May 7th, no I won't be listening).
However, he's equally stupid when it comes to common sense things. He has latched on hockey and Wayne Gretzky as his inspiration and frequently cites examples from it that he believes could only be applied to hockey, not realizing that everything that inspires him about hockey could be said about every team sport. His knowledge of history and current events have become a running joke during the SModcasts. He and his co-host, Scott Mossier, are always bashed on their website by their own fans for getting historical facts so ridiculously wrong.
I could go on and on about this, but I'm setting up the fact that sometimes his ignorance is shocking.
When he released Zack and Miri Make a Porno, I knew it would flop due to him releasing it on Halloween. He thought it was brilliant thinking Halloween was a kids holiday and adults needed something to do. He didn't even bother to look at past history, which showed movies released on Halloween bomb. Guess what? It bombed that weekend. Eventually, it became successful, but he could have had his first $100 million opening with that film and blew it.
Now he's releasing a film called "Red State", which he somehow expects people to think isn't politically based. Even stupider when you consider how poorly political films do at the box office.
(Totally unrelated side note, they're actually making a movie about the 2008 elections. They haven't started filming yet, and I know it's going to bomb.)
I think Red State is political, but not in the way you might think. I know Smith hates that cult that protests funerals and this is all about them and Smith's constant questioning of religion (he was raised Catholic and now leans more towards it all being fake). Due to his brother being gay, and his wife's influences, I think he mistakenly thinks the right, conservatives, and Republicans are all anti-gay.
We'll soon see how much of a man of his word Smith is because he has cited Gretzky's words about retirement many times recently. Smith claims he has one film left in him, and then he's done. I have a hunch that won't be entirely true, although he does admit to being very lazy, and enjoying talking more than directing. With his income from podcasts (free to listen to, but they're now done via live shows with paid audiences), Q&A tours, and his new internet radio shows, perhaps he will be done. However, out of the public eye, I expect those numbers will start to drop, and that's when his true nature will be revealed. Can he continue to stay away when his popularity drops or will he display a thirst for fame by making Clerks 4 10 years from now?
Edited By Leisher on 1301582565
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I'm going to try and keep the spoilers to a minimum.
FINALLY sat down and watched Red State. Allow me to get chatty because I am going to rant...
I had been looking forward to this film for some time, but never sat down to watch it. I've loved every film Kevin Smith has ever made, and I'm a regular listener of a few of his SMODCAST network's podcasts. I even follow the guy on Twitter. You could say I'm a fan.
That's no secret to any regulars on these forums, but in case a guest is reading this, I wanted to have full disclosure.
Red State was a genuine step into the unknown for Smith. First, it is billed as a horror film (Note: it's not), and that's a genre he has never touched previously. Secondly, he distributed the film himself.
Because of that distribution method, I have an absolute ton of respect for Smith. He bucked the system in a big way, and it worked. Red State has been financially successful. Of course, only a handful of directors could pull this sort of thing off, and it's not completely unprecedented. Still, it was ballsy, and the man deserves respect for the move.
As for the move to a new genre, it was risky. Smith's films are based on developing characters through dialogue. There are no action scenes aside from a fat guy swinging through a mall and crashing through a wall. His films are like him, laid back and full of chat. Nothing wrong with that as his legions of fans prove, but does that translate to horror?
As it turns out? No. Red State might be Smith's greatest success as an innovator in film distribution, but as a film it's his worst.
The story is about three young men who get tangled up with a church similar to the Westboro Baptist Church (the folks who picket funerals and hate gays), only far more extreme. Think WBC mixed with David Koresh's group, and you have 5 Point Church. 5 Point is led by Pastor Abin Cooper, brilliantly played by Michael Parks. Eventually, the feds get involved and they're led by John Goodman (whose performance was ok, but nowhere near the Oscar level Smith thinks).
The first half of the film starts off very promising, but quickly goes downhill once John Goodman's character is brought into the story.
This is not a coincidence. The first half of the film focused on the young men doing foolish things to try and get laid, and the 5 Point Church. We saw how warped their view of the Bible was, and what made it more interesting is that Parks sold it so well that you could easily see how people could fall into cults and churches like this one. There were also a lot of scenes involving gay sex or the discussion of gay sex. From a character who hid his homosexuality to the young boys' jokes about being gay to the 5 Point Church's condemnation of gays, etc.
Smith knows about trying to get laid. He knows about religion from his years as a altar boy, and has touched on the subject previously in Dogma. He has had an open line of dialogue with the WBC. His brother is gay, as is one of his good friends, and he's been vocal about gay rights. This is all familiar stomping ground for him, and it showed. All of his previous films were successful because he was writing dialogue about things he knew, and everything was based on humor, thus mistakes were easily laughed off.
I have no complaints about the first half this film aside from some convenient plot devices (They not only border on the ridiculous, they cross over it.) and a classroom scene that isn't exactly realistic (a teacher who is essentially cursing, and they're discussing religion in a public school).
Two more spoilers I have to point out, so feel free to move to the next paragraph...the church went to extreme lengths to ensure that one of their victim's wasn't getting away or leaving a mess, so what was with how they secured the three boys? That made no sense. Also, every door in this compound is locked except that specific one? You'd think that door above all others would be locked. And the car...why not actually try hiding it, and how did that cop just happen to spot it at that angle from the direction he was driving?
Still the start of the movie was solid enough, and it culminated in a twisted example of 5 Points' belief system.
Then John Goodman shows up and the film goes straight into the shitter. This wasn't Goodman's fault, it was the script.
This is Red State's mistake. Smith went away from what he knows. He knows the subjects covered in the first half of the movie, but when the feds show up, he loses me and his story loses all plausibility.
And yes, I realize plausibility can be ignored, but IMHO, only to a point. Lucas created the Star Wars universe so he could set the rules there. Ditto for Cameron with Avatar, whoever was behind Con Air (no such thing as prison transport planes), etc.
However, Smith set Red State in OUR REALITY. He cites the Patriot Act, WBC, and other such realities. He doesn't give any of his killers or victims super powers, and he makes the violence very real. So again, REALITY.
Thus, in the case of Red State, I think it's a very fair criticism to say that the story sucked because it simply isn't plausible. It's also a very important criticism as this film has obvious political statements.
I've seen people claiming it has no political meaning, but it's about a religious extremist group that is VERY anti-gay and they face federal agents acting under the Patriot Act. It's not called "Blue State" for a reason...
Anyway, continuing the story, and the point I was making about plausibility:
I cannot do this justice without spoilers, so I'm warning you now that the next few sentences contains spoilers galore: So the feds show up to investigate reports that the 5 Points church may have a bunch of illegal weapons. When the feds arrive they don't investigate, they don't carry out a search warrant, they don't even attempt to communicate with the church members, nor do they even have a hint about what's really going on in the compound. Nope, they're given orders to kill everyone on the site. Women and children included. Later when members of the church are taken alive, they are jailed "forever without trial thanks to The Patriot Act" (more on that in a minute). Because that's plausible?
First of all, do conspiracy theorists understand how the government works? Do they get the concept that just because someone joins the military, police, FBI, etc. they don't immediately become a thug willing to stab their neighbor in the back? Military and law enforcement doesn't work that way...unions do...I KID!!!! Seriously though, these people don't lose their identity as human beings. Waco wasn't a "kill everybody" order. It was a cluster fuck attempt at ending a standoff that had gone on way too long. (But that's a whole different topic.)
If you don't yet understand, think about this: Take every single human being involved in Waco or 9/11 or the moon landing, and if you think they were huge conspiracies, realize that every single person involved would have to have been contained to only see what their level of security authorized them to see. Realize that every one of them had to be the best secret keeper on the planet. Able to deal with killing people (something people who do legally or are ruled to have done in a justified manner struggle with) or hiding a massive secret that if they leaked, they'd get rich doing so. The sort of collusion a secret as large of any of the ones mentioned would require makes it beyond ridiculous.
Secondly, liberals at some point have to begin basing their arguments in reality. Here is a film that was built during Bush's tenure, and cites the Patriot Act as a legal way to hold American citizens in jail without trial forever. However, I watched the movie in 2012, a few months after President Obama actually made such indefinite prison stays without trial legal. I mention this all because Smith knows very, very little about politics. Every time he mentions anything politics, it's like he just read the left wing pamphlet on that subject. He admits that he gets almost all of his politics from his wife, a former MSM writer and admitted man hating feminist. Not to mention that he's in a business notoriously filled with left wingers who have been known to blacklist folks who have the nerve to have different politic beliefs.
Why do I bring up those political issues? Because it's obvious that Smith didn't do any research for this film. He got a bug up his ass about what he thought would be a good story, and it IS for half of the movie.
The whole film just seems rushed and chaotic, and not in a good way. It's like the writer/director was constantly high or something...oh wait.
There are just plot holes galore, lapses in logic, way too convenient plot devices, shallow characters, characters with ridiculous motivations, no plausibility, etc.
I would honestly argue that there wasn't even a story told here. There was no beginning, middle, and end. There were no protagonists or antagonists. It was all a scenario fueled by weed, a total lack of knowledge of the government, and a hatred for religious extremism.
Anyway, one of the things I took away from this film and the more than a year of hype and reviews I was exposed to is that the majority of people who saw this film are either kiss asses or living in some deluded world where they think government agents are going to storm their house any second.
I'd like to say it's me, and my silly little rule about plausibility in a storyline, but that wouldn't help me explain all the flaws in the story and shallow characters.
I'm sure Smith's biggest ass kisser or most hardcore fans would try to explain away my review by saying I'm super religious (nope), pro government (not especially), a right winger (nope), anti-Kevin Smith (still love ALL his other films, still listen to his podcasts, would pay to see his Q&As, and can't wait for his next movie...so no), etc.
The truth of it all is that Kevin Smith made a turd. It happens. Everyone says Jersey Girl was a terrible film, but it simply had a terrible showing at the box office. That doesn't mean the movie sucked. That movie was decent, but has a terrible reputation thanks to being released during backlash against "Bennifer". This movie truly sucked, and yet it gets more praise than Jersey Girl.
Red State is a great concept that derails itself once it leaves the church's walls.
If you're a Smith fan, I'd still tell you to see it once. If you're not a fan of his, you can skip it. Although, I'm betting that my review might inspire at least one person to check it out, if for nothing more than to see if me or the sycophants are right...
If the whole film was like the first half, this would easily be a 7 despite all the convenient plot devices (I keep mentioning them before they're SOOOOO stupid.). However, overall...
3 out of 10.
FINALLY sat down and watched Red State. Allow me to get chatty because I am going to rant...
I had been looking forward to this film for some time, but never sat down to watch it. I've loved every film Kevin Smith has ever made, and I'm a regular listener of a few of his SMODCAST network's podcasts. I even follow the guy on Twitter. You could say I'm a fan.
That's no secret to any regulars on these forums, but in case a guest is reading this, I wanted to have full disclosure.
Red State was a genuine step into the unknown for Smith. First, it is billed as a horror film (Note: it's not), and that's a genre he has never touched previously. Secondly, he distributed the film himself.
Because of that distribution method, I have an absolute ton of respect for Smith. He bucked the system in a big way, and it worked. Red State has been financially successful. Of course, only a handful of directors could pull this sort of thing off, and it's not completely unprecedented. Still, it was ballsy, and the man deserves respect for the move.
As for the move to a new genre, it was risky. Smith's films are based on developing characters through dialogue. There are no action scenes aside from a fat guy swinging through a mall and crashing through a wall. His films are like him, laid back and full of chat. Nothing wrong with that as his legions of fans prove, but does that translate to horror?
As it turns out? No. Red State might be Smith's greatest success as an innovator in film distribution, but as a film it's his worst.
The story is about three young men who get tangled up with a church similar to the Westboro Baptist Church (the folks who picket funerals and hate gays), only far more extreme. Think WBC mixed with David Koresh's group, and you have 5 Point Church. 5 Point is led by Pastor Abin Cooper, brilliantly played by Michael Parks. Eventually, the feds get involved and they're led by John Goodman (whose performance was ok, but nowhere near the Oscar level Smith thinks).
The first half of the film starts off very promising, but quickly goes downhill once John Goodman's character is brought into the story.
This is not a coincidence. The first half of the film focused on the young men doing foolish things to try and get laid, and the 5 Point Church. We saw how warped their view of the Bible was, and what made it more interesting is that Parks sold it so well that you could easily see how people could fall into cults and churches like this one. There were also a lot of scenes involving gay sex or the discussion of gay sex. From a character who hid his homosexuality to the young boys' jokes about being gay to the 5 Point Church's condemnation of gays, etc.
Smith knows about trying to get laid. He knows about religion from his years as a altar boy, and has touched on the subject previously in Dogma. He has had an open line of dialogue with the WBC. His brother is gay, as is one of his good friends, and he's been vocal about gay rights. This is all familiar stomping ground for him, and it showed. All of his previous films were successful because he was writing dialogue about things he knew, and everything was based on humor, thus mistakes were easily laughed off.
I have no complaints about the first half this film aside from some convenient plot devices (They not only border on the ridiculous, they cross over it.) and a classroom scene that isn't exactly realistic (a teacher who is essentially cursing, and they're discussing religion in a public school).
Two more spoilers I have to point out, so feel free to move to the next paragraph...the church went to extreme lengths to ensure that one of their victim's wasn't getting away or leaving a mess, so what was with how they secured the three boys? That made no sense. Also, every door in this compound is locked except that specific one? You'd think that door above all others would be locked. And the car...why not actually try hiding it, and how did that cop just happen to spot it at that angle from the direction he was driving?
Still the start of the movie was solid enough, and it culminated in a twisted example of 5 Points' belief system.
Then John Goodman shows up and the film goes straight into the shitter. This wasn't Goodman's fault, it was the script.
This is Red State's mistake. Smith went away from what he knows. He knows the subjects covered in the first half of the movie, but when the feds show up, he loses me and his story loses all plausibility.
And yes, I realize plausibility can be ignored, but IMHO, only to a point. Lucas created the Star Wars universe so he could set the rules there. Ditto for Cameron with Avatar, whoever was behind Con Air (no such thing as prison transport planes), etc.
However, Smith set Red State in OUR REALITY. He cites the Patriot Act, WBC, and other such realities. He doesn't give any of his killers or victims super powers, and he makes the violence very real. So again, REALITY.
Thus, in the case of Red State, I think it's a very fair criticism to say that the story sucked because it simply isn't plausible. It's also a very important criticism as this film has obvious political statements.
I've seen people claiming it has no political meaning, but it's about a religious extremist group that is VERY anti-gay and they face federal agents acting under the Patriot Act. It's not called "Blue State" for a reason...
Anyway, continuing the story, and the point I was making about plausibility:
I cannot do this justice without spoilers, so I'm warning you now that the next few sentences contains spoilers galore: So the feds show up to investigate reports that the 5 Points church may have a bunch of illegal weapons. When the feds arrive they don't investigate, they don't carry out a search warrant, they don't even attempt to communicate with the church members, nor do they even have a hint about what's really going on in the compound. Nope, they're given orders to kill everyone on the site. Women and children included. Later when members of the church are taken alive, they are jailed "forever without trial thanks to The Patriot Act" (more on that in a minute). Because that's plausible?
First of all, do conspiracy theorists understand how the government works? Do they get the concept that just because someone joins the military, police, FBI, etc. they don't immediately become a thug willing to stab their neighbor in the back? Military and law enforcement doesn't work that way...unions do...I KID!!!! Seriously though, these people don't lose their identity as human beings. Waco wasn't a "kill everybody" order. It was a cluster fuck attempt at ending a standoff that had gone on way too long. (But that's a whole different topic.)
If you don't yet understand, think about this: Take every single human being involved in Waco or 9/11 or the moon landing, and if you think they were huge conspiracies, realize that every single person involved would have to have been contained to only see what their level of security authorized them to see. Realize that every one of them had to be the best secret keeper on the planet. Able to deal with killing people (something people who do legally or are ruled to have done in a justified manner struggle with) or hiding a massive secret that if they leaked, they'd get rich doing so. The sort of collusion a secret as large of any of the ones mentioned would require makes it beyond ridiculous.
Secondly, liberals at some point have to begin basing their arguments in reality. Here is a film that was built during Bush's tenure, and cites the Patriot Act as a legal way to hold American citizens in jail without trial forever. However, I watched the movie in 2012, a few months after President Obama actually made such indefinite prison stays without trial legal. I mention this all because Smith knows very, very little about politics. Every time he mentions anything politics, it's like he just read the left wing pamphlet on that subject. He admits that he gets almost all of his politics from his wife, a former MSM writer and admitted man hating feminist. Not to mention that he's in a business notoriously filled with left wingers who have been known to blacklist folks who have the nerve to have different politic beliefs.
Why do I bring up those political issues? Because it's obvious that Smith didn't do any research for this film. He got a bug up his ass about what he thought would be a good story, and it IS for half of the movie.
The whole film just seems rushed and chaotic, and not in a good way. It's like the writer/director was constantly high or something...oh wait.
There are just plot holes galore, lapses in logic, way too convenient plot devices, shallow characters, characters with ridiculous motivations, no plausibility, etc.
I would honestly argue that there wasn't even a story told here. There was no beginning, middle, and end. There were no protagonists or antagonists. It was all a scenario fueled by weed, a total lack of knowledge of the government, and a hatred for religious extremism.
Anyway, one of the things I took away from this film and the more than a year of hype and reviews I was exposed to is that the majority of people who saw this film are either kiss asses or living in some deluded world where they think government agents are going to storm their house any second.
I'd like to say it's me, and my silly little rule about plausibility in a storyline, but that wouldn't help me explain all the flaws in the story and shallow characters.
I'm sure Smith's biggest ass kisser or most hardcore fans would try to explain away my review by saying I'm super religious (nope), pro government (not especially), a right winger (nope), anti-Kevin Smith (still love ALL his other films, still listen to his podcasts, would pay to see his Q&As, and can't wait for his next movie...so no), etc.
The truth of it all is that Kevin Smith made a turd. It happens. Everyone says Jersey Girl was a terrible film, but it simply had a terrible showing at the box office. That doesn't mean the movie sucked. That movie was decent, but has a terrible reputation thanks to being released during backlash against "Bennifer". This movie truly sucked, and yet it gets more praise than Jersey Girl.
Red State is a great concept that derails itself once it leaves the church's walls.
If you're a Smith fan, I'd still tell you to see it once. If you're not a fan of his, you can skip it. Although, I'm betting that my review might inspire at least one person to check it out, if for nothing more than to see if me or the sycophants are right...
If the whole film was like the first half, this would easily be a 7 despite all the convenient plot devices (I keep mentioning them before they're SOOOOO stupid.). However, overall...
3 out of 10.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I liked it. I do consider it to be a sort of horror film, but more of a character study horror of the bogeymen that liberals fear most. The first half is crazy-religious-nuts-will-get-you horror, and the second half is crazy-federal-agents-will-get-you action-horror.
I agree with all your other points, especially about how absurdly certain things were handled. I do think especially that the federal agents were clearly ridiculous caricatures, but no more so than the religious nuts were. It's a study in a clash of extremes neither of which really exist in the real world, but that liberals fear do exist just like that.
I took it for what it was, and as such was quite pleased. 8 out of 10.
I agree with all your other points, especially about how absurdly certain things were handled. I do think especially that the federal agents were clearly ridiculous caricatures, but no more so than the religious nuts were. It's a study in a clash of extremes neither of which really exist in the real world, but that liberals fear do exist just like that.
I took it for what it was, and as such was quite pleased. 8 out of 10.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I do consider it to be a sort of horror film, but more of a character study horror of the bogeymen that liberals fear most.
I kind of like that. A horror movie for liberals.
I still hated it. More so because I heard Smith on an episode of SMODCAST just today talking about the importance of plausibility regarding a film he recently saw.
I honestly think his concept here was really sound, but perhaps he smoked a bit too much weed while writing it.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I found the movie to be anti-government, more than anything else. The religious peeps were just nutballs... but you typically do not see federal agencies portrayed as just not giving a shit.
Leisher started the spoilers, I will continue:
John Goodman, ATF Field Office Manager, is on the phone, he explains to his boss that the local sheriff shot someone. They are in a massive firefight. There aint no media and no cameras there, and there aint gonna be. Then apparently, he gets the order to wipe the place clean... no witnesses... then the ATF can make up their own story about what happened. John Goodman explains that there are kids... apparently his boss doesn't give a shit... then he starts saying, "I need this order in writing."
In the end, the ATF peeps reviewing what happened also just absolutely don't give a shit. They turn off the camera, and gleefully say that these peeps will be locked up forever with no hope of a trial, and will be subjected to rape. "What do you think, this is September 10, 2001? We aren't accountable any more."
A lot of people already feel like heavily religious peeps are all crazy to some extent, and we've all seen the Westboro Baptist bullshit, so that is nothing new or shocking. But this is the first time, especially in Obama's America, that the government was portrayed as soulless, murdering monsters.
Interesting that it is called "Red State." That really makes no sense to me.
This movie is on Netflix, and right after it I also watched the next Kevin Smith Q&A, which has Smith not only talking to a 12 year old girl and dropping F-Bombs at her over and over, and also told her that she used to be cum, but he talks about this movie for a while, too.
Edited By GORDON on 1348885931
Leisher started the spoilers, I will continue:
John Goodman, ATF Field Office Manager, is on the phone, he explains to his boss that the local sheriff shot someone. They are in a massive firefight. There aint no media and no cameras there, and there aint gonna be. Then apparently, he gets the order to wipe the place clean... no witnesses... then the ATF can make up their own story about what happened. John Goodman explains that there are kids... apparently his boss doesn't give a shit... then he starts saying, "I need this order in writing."
In the end, the ATF peeps reviewing what happened also just absolutely don't give a shit. They turn off the camera, and gleefully say that these peeps will be locked up forever with no hope of a trial, and will be subjected to rape. "What do you think, this is September 10, 2001? We aren't accountable any more."
A lot of people already feel like heavily religious peeps are all crazy to some extent, and we've all seen the Westboro Baptist bullshit, so that is nothing new or shocking. But this is the first time, especially in Obama's America, that the government was portrayed as soulless, murdering monsters.
Interesting that it is called "Red State." That really makes no sense to me.
This movie is on Netflix, and right after it I also watched the next Kevin Smith Q&A, which has Smith not only talking to a 12 year old girl and dropping F-Bombs at her over and over, and also told her that she used to be cum, but he talks about this movie for a while, too.
Edited By GORDON on 1348885931
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:Interesting that it is called "Red State." That really makes no sense to me.
Makes perfect sense. Clearly all of these characters are evil scary Republicans, after all. Everyone knows Democrats would never do that sort of thing.
Edited By TPRJones on 1348922735
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Yeah I see what you are doing... but they made clear to state that those religious peeps were way off anyones charts, where even the KKK and other supposedly republican extremists were disowning them. The religious peeps themselves didn't self identify with any particular group.TPRJones wrote:Makes perfect sense. Clearly all of these characters are evil scary Republicans, after all. Everyone knows Democrats would never do that sort of thing.GORDON wrote:Interesting that it is called "Red State." That really makes no sense to me.
I don't know, maybe my impressions of things that are supposed to be left and right aren't accurate any more. I associate government agencies with the left, but I think the ATF is supposed to be the right. I dunno.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."