| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| My Review of The Soloist... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 16 2009, 11:08 PM (247 Views) | |
| Post #1 May 16 2009, 11:08 PM | Joe E. Holman |
|
Movie title: The Soloist (2009) Spoilers ahead: No --- Let me get the synopsis of the film out of the way before I begin the uncivil rant I have planned. The Soloist is a rendition of the true story of Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, a homeless schizophrenic musical prodigy living in Los Angeles. Los Angeles Times reporter Steve Lopez is in a rut and needs a good story. Because of the Newspaper’s declining readership, the paper is forced to undergo cutbacks. Lopez gets his much-desired story when he comes across Ayers. The movie follows Lopez, from going to crazy lengths to get bizarre stories, to going out of his way to befriend a man who makes being helped as easy as chewing broken glass. The performances of the two main characters are beyond gainsaying. Robert Downey Jr. as Steve Lopez was a solid choice. Jamie Foxx, as the genius cello and violin player Nathaniel Ayers, should win Best Actor for his scarily well-done adoption of a character every bit as quirky as Dustin Hoffman’s “Raymond Babbitt.” While the acting was runner-up for “too good,” the directing was mediocre. We have a sulking reporter, flashbacks from Ayers’ childhood when his life seemed to be on track, some very moving moments of musical entrancement (I honestly teared up during one of them), close-up shots of a scary-looking man who won’t be helped and who at one point threatens to gut his best friend like a fish. It’s a modified version of Rain Man, but with a less lively plot, and it’s loaded with propaganda. Since my emotions take over at this point, I’ll stop and give it a grade before proceeding. It’s a stout C+. On the merits, it does fairly well. Nothing I will say can take from that. What I can do is sound the alarm on the invading army that approaches. It’s the army of radical liberal propaganda. The army is highly visible, marching forward unabashedly, and so are the left-wing messages in the film. They are the dreams of radical socialist change agents. Not a single idea is unique or surprising. We’ve heard it all before. The movie is wrapped in American flags. If I had taken the time to count them, I wouldn’t have noticed much else. We have flags, flags and images of President Bush, Katrina, and great segments of scenes with the homeless and obviously mentally ill being victimized by a cruel, white-run society. The vein of thinking couldn’t be clearer if it were sprayed with Windex—the corrupt, oppressive, white, upper-class, with their money and their conformity is the problem in the world today and why America sucks. Bush and the damn German-Scotch-Irish whites with their wealth…they are what has been putting down the poor. Time to spread the wealth around! We have Obama to take care of that now, but that didn’t matter. It was too hard to focus on a new agenda. It’s much easier to bash the hell out of the old one. Even though Bush is gone, it’s still no fun if he’s not picked on. That says a lot about liberal thinking. They attack in the name of change and “progression” and “transforming.” Nothing is ever really good enough. I’m no Christian. I once was a Christian preacher, and now I’m an atheist who wrote a book about it. I’m no Republican. I don’t know where I stand on half of the issues, but I know what I don’t stand for, and I know what I hate. I know I don’t believe in prayer and I’m no fan of the Christian right, but I do believe having a white, too-evangelistic music instructor getting told off when asking Ayers to pray before a performance was yet another way of saying, “Fuck off, evangelicals!” There are no accidents in movies, friends! Screaming, “Screw you, praying Republicans! We socialists are enlightened!” just wasn’t necessary, and it isn’t all that is done. Lopez speaks from his belly when he rejoices that the city chucks out more and more money to build more and more homeless shelters. Only sometimes does the city “get things right” giving, as he puts it. That’s what it’s all about with liberals. No one can have anything nice. If you do well and build yourself a nice big house, you’ve got to share it. Heaven freakin’ forbid there be inequalities! And there’s more—and we’re not talking about resetting scoreboards at football games so that the Little League losing team won’t get their feelings hurt. We’re talking about the show-all moment of how a liberal thinks, and that is by exhibiting the same level of fascism as in his bigoted rightwing counterparts. Hearses used to take people to church by force. The golden age of popes and priests once had its stranglehold on the world, and thankfully, lost it. But left or right, mankind always becomes what he hates the most. At a point in the movie, Lopez goes before the director of a homeless shelter and tries to get Ayers his much-needed medical treatment since he refuses of his own accord to take medication. When he is informed that Ayers is not obligated to receive treatment, Lopez says what any wayfaring radical liberal would say to someone who refuses to comply with their policy: “Force him.” All those centuries of oppressive popes, with their shackles and dungeons and thumbscrews, haven’t taught Lopez a thing. That’s the way liberals are—oppose their agenda and they won’t go the tolerant route, even though logic says to. They’ll seek to suppress the opposition through any effective means, whether we are talking about a so-called Fairness Doctrine or a geeky liberal’s forcing his help on those who don’t want it. Right-wingers are guilty of this too, though you have to walk a little further right to encounter that than you do on the left. I, for one, am interested to see how the Obamunists will do, but I’m not optimistic. (JH) --- Grade: C+ (2 ½ stars) Rated: PG-13 Summation: A journalist befriends a homeless musical prodigy living on the street in Los Angeles. Director: Joe Wright Starring: Jamie Foxx “Nathaniel Ayers,” Robert Downey Jr. “Steve Lopez” Genre: Biography / Drama / Music |
 
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 May 17 2009, 04:23 AM | Bonzolee |
|
I agree with most of the actual movie review, but I have to say the rant was a bit much. I think you've missed the boat completely as far as historical accuracy is concerned. You are talking about leaders or government that believe that they can best change the world. That government is the best force to keep things in check. That the leader or the group at the top know the best decisions for the group. That, they will force their opinion and beliefs on the public at large as law in an attempt to, in their minds, better change the world, hoping that everybody who is resistant will eventually come to appreciate the decisions made. This inevitably leads to conflict, as some people don't want to go down that path. That path will either weaken them, or they simply oppose it on an ideological level. Things usually get pretty ugly. Look at the Neo-Cons. They attacked Nixon and Kissinger for their foreign policy (for things like backing groups that rape, torture, and other sinister things). Decades later, the Neo-Cons do the very same thing themselves, whether it's Iran/Contra, the Iraq War, or the treatment of prisoners. They became the very thing they claimed to have grown disgusted at. You have a great point with the "But left or right, mankind always becomes what he hates the most" statement. Dead on, for the most part. But, I think your lens are a bit dirty. In part, the Reagan administration was flooded with that sort of mindset (of forcing ideas onto the public for the improvement of all). Look at their foreign policy. Look at his rhetoric. Look at the constant "good/evil" framing on every issue imaginable. Reagan brought the Christian right into government. He turned Nixon's grey world into one that was divided into two sections; good and evil, black and white. I'll say it: I like Nixon over Reagan. Probably an unpopular view, but I think Nixon did pretty damn good, myself. He just failed miserably on the moral side of things, and as a result, his presidency will probably go down as a wash. Yes, he made some pretty bad strategic moves as well, but just about everybody does that. It's the complete trashing of morals that did him in; not only with the way he acted as president, but with some of the decisions he made, and some of the shit Kissinger got away with. Really, politics wasn't made for people like Nixon. The man would have probably had more fun as a writer or something. Clinton ran on a message like I described (government can solve the problems), but once in power, he handed power over to the free market in a rather new, experimental strategy, all based on a rising belief (based on a science, of sorts) that government is not effective enough to solve the problems, and the most effective way to bring about the will of the people is through the free market. The free market can best address the problems of the country. England also went this route. As we are finding out, neither idea is correct. The Bush administration was full of Neo-Cons, and you can bet your ass that they acted in a way to achieve their own personal vision. I shouldn't even have to go in to that one. Now, Obama's administration has – in my honest opinion – NOT been ruling in that way so far. But, his rhetoric has been all about it, and I think he believes it. The question is: how will he attempt to carry out his agenda? Bush 43 did a lot more forcing than Obama has yet to do, but we're still way too early in the Obama administration to really get a feel for how he's going to do his job in the long term. Joe, don't get me wrong: I think you hit on some pretty damn good political and historical points. It's just that the way you chose to apply them reeked of what I like to call "cartoon politics". Really, I feel what you wrote was more like "political junk entertainment" than anything of real historical substance. Google "negative freedom" and "positive freedom" for yet another angle of what I've been talking about. Two good starting points: 1. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ 2. http://www.answers.com/topic/positive-negative-freedom I'd argue that the views you expressed are not your own, but merely the result of a larger structure that wants you to think that way. If anything, as far as political views are concerned, you've kind of become negative freedom roadkill. You see things the way others want you to see them. The way they are being presented by our media, government, and culture. And for the record, no– I do not back either the pure positive or pure negative position on freedom. I believe in a compromise of sorts. Edited by Bonzolee, May 17 2009, 04:26 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #3 May 18 2009, 01:29 AM | Joe E. Holman |
|
I concur. Yes, it was too far, but that was intended. Sensationalism has its value. :-) As you know, I don't bate in your political league, but I think you're right about Nixon. Elaborate on the highpoints of the guy if you would. |
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 May 20 2009, 12:17 AM | Dan |
| Interesting review Joe. Haven't seen it myself but one look at the trailer and I can clearly see that the movie is what I call "Oscarbait". |
 
|
| We are dumb all over | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Holman's Movie Reviews Sub-forum · Next Topic » |
4:49 PM Jul 31
