I was blown away by this film. It wasn't ruined by any "messages" and it didn't try to be anything it wasn't. I subsequently watched some Tom Cruise interviews (very interesting guy even if some of his personal views are strange) and one quote hit me: "My job is to entertain you. It's a privilege to be able to entertain you." I think it's that attitude that drives the success of this film. Hollywood should -- but won't -- take notes on what audiences actually want. They didn't learn anything from Mad Max: Fury Road so I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: Also wanted to note the irony that a Scientologist created one of the LEAST cult-like/ideological messaging in a movie in recent memory. I can't call the obvious propaganda cult-like but others might disagree.
I never would have thought it 10-15 years ago, but now Tom Cruise feels like the last of an old guard of Hollywood who just wants to make good, solid movies that entertain people. No "re-imagining for modern audiences", no agenda or political swipes, just good entertainment. I really appreciated his little intro where he thanked us for coming to watch the movie and that it was made for the fans.
I had zero expectations for a Top Gun sequel 35 years later and was pleasantly surprised at what I saw.
And one of his best movies is about to get cancelled for Cultural Appropriation... "The Last Samurai" is being axed from lots of streaming outlets because... muh insenstive.
I mean.. sure.. the sort of real story it was pulled from was a Frenchmen, but guess what... That dude still wasn't Japanese, and the moral of the story wasn't that the true last Samurai was a Gaijin, it was that the forward movement of... oh hell.. Life's too short. LOL
I loved The Last Samurai. For the story and the film itself; not because of Tom Cruise, though I agree it is one of his best films. I had a strong emotional response to the film and cried at the end and all the way home. That is the only film that has done that to me to that degree, and I still don't know why I had such a strong reaction. My teen son was with me, and he put his arm around me when we were outside, and he said "I know, Mom, I felt sad for the Samurai too." For me it was much more than that, it was the loss of a culture and other meaningful things. It would be a shame to retire the film.
Hollywood knows fully what most of America wants. Hollywood doesn't care. Hollywood is going to go out and preach and try to tell you all what you should think and how you should think it. The people who infest Hollywood are some of the most unintelligent clueless morons walking the earth. I don't fault them, with all that ego there just isn't any room for actual critical thinking or intelligence left to fit.
No, expect to continue to see remakes of mildly successful films of yesteryear that nobody wants to see again told with a female or minority as the lead instead of evil white men.
I mean, the best news of the past week is the president of Brazil telling Super Leo to shut up about what his administration is doing to fix the problems (rain forest) created by the previous corrupt president that Leo supports from the deck of his super yacht that burns more diesel fuel per hour than 1000 cars. This is your Hollywood celebrity in full display. Rules for thee, but not for me.
I find the willing collusion of critics and press interesting. For example, there is very little coverage in MSM about the real reason why Buzz Lightyear flopped. A large segment of the population simply doesn't want to expose their young children to LGBT content. Even the financial press tiptoes around the subject when discussing some obvious reasons why Disney stock is not performing well.
Besides that -- who the fuck cares about the fictional cartoon Buzz Lightyear is based on? The whole appeal of that character is that he struggles with coming to grips with the fact that he's a toy.
And if you are resting your opinion of Dilma (previous corrupt president of Brazil you mentioned) on her Supreme Court conviction, you should read up on Operation Car Wash. GG did fantastic work on this.
Whether Dilma was corrupt or not--or conversely responsible for the mass deforestation Bolsonaro's early policies clearly inflamed, literally--we will never know thanks to the corrupt actions of Bolsonaro's corrupt prosecutor and corrupt Supreme Court Justice buddy.
He's right and in general I'd say he's pretty good at his job. Even the mission impossible movies, they're sort of paint by numbers and they pump them out (I think there's close to 10 now), they're not winning Oscars or anything, but they're decent entertaining action movies.
They’re paint by numbers but very well made and high-effort. They don’t half-ass those things, Cruise ups the ante and throws himself into it 200% every time.
Probably -- although not all religions are equally damaging. I actually completely agree with some of the things Cruise has said about the pharmaceutical industry. Doesn't mean I'm for or against Scientology. Wish we could still have nuance in this country.
It is bizarre watching the clips from Cruise years ago going after anti-depressants and big pharma and sounding like a complete loon. I remember thinking he'd lost his mind. Now, however, I think - crap, he was onto something.
I disagree with some of what he said still, but I think he was completely genuine and asked totally fair and thoughtful questions. That interview - and the backlash that consisted of "don't question science" fundamentally misunderstanding science - was ahead of its time.
So if your point is that Hubbard was an opportunistic scammer, then I agree. But does it matter?
Here's two important characteristics of the best liars:
1. They can smell their own: they're tuned at spotting other liars and bullshitters
2. The best lies are wrapped around truth. Like a parent cooking something her kids like but sneaking vegetables into the recipe.
So you spot the bullshit, then you tell people (correctly) that the "experts" haven't fully explained things or are otherwise deceptive in order to gain their trust since you're the only one telling them what's plainly obvious to them. After that you sell them some different nonsense like volcanoes filled with alien ghosts.
My point is: just because Hubbard was a charlatan in no way means he necessarily used faulty logic in criticizing the mental health field. Cruise asked valid questions that should be periodically reexamined with objectivity and new data. If he got those questions and reasoning from Hubbard I don't see this as fruit from a poisoned tree.
I do not necessarily argue with your point about liars.
As a behavioral psychologist, I have spent time studying the literature and find what you wrote to be interesting...good analogies. Can't endorse as it is not an area I know particularly well from the literature side. I do work in fraud detection and see things that rhyme with what you say.
But whether or not he used faulty logic...I choose to ignore anything LRH might have said/written that correlates with reality.
There is *always* a better source for information than LRH.
That's kind of my point, though. If you balance Scientology against most other religions in proportion to the (Keyword) *proven* nonconsentual damage done to people and society (or at least actual evidence and not supposition and rumor) from what I've seen it comes way far ahead in terms of membership.
The worst things I've heard about Scientology is that it gets consenting adults to agree to dungeon endurance tests aboard their dumb ship where they're free to leave at any time but they don't get promoted. It's practically the "keep your hand on the car" contest sponsored by some radio stations over the years. Never heard of any pedophilia or actual evidence of anything illegal or particularly egregious. Just good ol' fashioned religion siphoning money from rubes, which makes it a true American institution, no?
I have very little sympathy for rich people and privileged, overpaid showbiz people allowing their gullibility to undermine them.
I think it just became acceptable to be bigoted toward Scientology because they're the newest kid on the block. Volcano alien ghosts is completely r_____ded, sure. But so is believing some dirty-dirty-slut when she claims she got knocked up by God, lol. It's all mockable if you take it literally.
Just to put this in perspective, of the top 20 highest grossing films of all time (not adjusted for inflation; there Gone with the Wind still rules) Top Gun is currently sitting at number 9 and is about to beat Jurassic World. It's the only film other than Titanic that sits in the top 20 and isn't a superhero movie. It's massive haul sits at a whopping $650 million. The audiences are screaming from the rooftops: this is what we want. Just give us this. And yet Hollywood has become fused with the Democratic Party -- and thus, movies have taken a massive fall.
Hollywood has become 1930s Soviet-style propaganda by now. If it always has to broadcast a specific message and is always monitored carefully for "mistakes" how can it ever be any good? Top Gun just works. It isn't challenging or memorable in the least bit but it does what movies are supposed to do in times of stress: take us away from our troubles, as you illustrate. Good stuff.
They put Stacey Abrams in a cameo as president of United Earth in latest season of Star Trek Discovery, an otherwise great series. It was a bad move to politicize this series.
Yes, if there was a United Earth, Abrams might eat it. As a tax lawyer, I have no respect for another would-be tax lawyer who insolvent and owing over $200,000; especially one who was working for a major law firm for a while. Interesting that her Wikipedia card does not mention her insolvency. Of course, now she is worth millions.
I edited this post to remove an inaccuracy. Abrams did not declare bankruptcy; rather, she was insolvent to the tune of $200,000 during her first campaign. She is now a multimillionaire. I wonder if she has paid off her debts?
Pro-tip for everyone else who liked Trek but knows that it's garbage now:
You can just re-watch DS9 (it has aged like the finest wines) and ignore all the new stuff.
DS9 has all sorts of political analogies, messaging, and allusions. But they also had top notch writers who knew how to do it with humor and panache and not let it completely overshadow the fun.
TBH the problem wasn't necessarily adding politics to the mix. The problem was always the drop in writing quality. The most talented and experienced people gradually left the franchise (because they get trusted to do bigger and better things) while the more mediocre writers took over (because middling writers don't get poached). After the franchise hiatus, Woke made it worse since "Intersectional Hiring Practices" will always necessitate de-prioritizing talent and experience. Then you have them chasing existing old trends instead of creating new ideas. That's how we got "Discovery."
Bad politics flows from simple-minded or inexperienced writers.
If most of the old writers are "old white men" as you claim (that's actually *YOU* being sexist and racist and Projecting, haha) then those people are naturally going to be more experienced, no? So what would make for better long term success of this bright Intersectional Writer's Room future: If you put *some* inexperienced but talented writers in the same room with them so they can learn OR if you instead fire most of the experienced writers and just flood the room with young, possibly talented writers that have to learn everything on their own?
2. You aren't aware that many writers rooms in the history of television weren't dominated by "old white men" and then presumed that I shared *your own* ignorant views. Look up "Roseanne." Look up "Married with Children." You'll have to google them but I didn't. I already knew these are just two examples of shows that weren't dominated by "old white men" but just good writers that *EARNED* their places through talent and hard work.
One last note: The ironic thing about your attempted rejoinder is that it was your own lack of experience and wild overconfidence that I don't know what I'm talking about that doomed you to getting schooled pretty bad, here. Go back to Twitter with that utterly lazy "quiet part out loud" snark. As you can see, I'm not having it. 😉
So let’s say you run a race track. And instead of just picking out the fastest cars for the race, you only take the fastest car of each color. And have a rainbow race. Will the cars be faster or slower?
For an antidote to the latest (not the earlier to be clear) politically correct Star Treks, try Blakes 7. Miserable effects, but excellent characterization, real antiheroes, and a narrative that is more relevant today than when it was made.
Way to alienate half of your potential viewers. I am a hard core TREK fan and I gave up on that show after its second season. I will not watch PICARD. Over at Disney, my wife and I watched OBI WAN KENOBI and BOBA FETT and we are sick of what they have done to STAR WARS. If you want a fun take on the destruction of Sci Fi, watch CRITICAL DRINKER over on YouTube.
It's interesting because, while I'm not a Treky, I always knew that the writer of the original series was a huge progressive, which is more than evident in the work without it being condescending or trite. This is the way!!
In the past, Star Trek at least had the decency to explore all sides of an issue. Sure, there was usually a point of view they favored, and they were pretty ham fisted about certain topics like religion. But they could be surprisingly fair on controversial topics ranging from terrorism to assisted suicide.
Not anymore. Now they just put black and white hats on people and call it a day.
Well, maybe they should have. Again, this is a show that showed sympathy for terrorism as a viable method for political change (STNG: The High Ground). Not because they agreed with it or endorsed it. The viewer was clearly not supposed to agree with the terrorist character, but to see how he felt he had no other options. They did it because they recognized that we live in a difficult and complicated world. Even extremist views have to be considered, if only to discover how they ended up there and how to change it.
The triteness was in the use of a hack politician in some weird aspiration of hers and the script writers, and was about as reflective and analytical as Nixon on "Laugh In". Less the juxtaposition and shock value, of course.
Dude...if you don't remember the scene where Simba grows the angel wings and soars through the air and uses eye laser beams to cut Scar in half, you gotta rewatch.
This was freaking laugh out loud funny--deserving more than the LOL acronym. "we’re nearly a decade into a crippling fun shortage. We have complexes about every holiday from Christmas to Thanksgiving to the Fourth of July, the president has been severely disordered or clinically dead for at least six years, and the most famous standup performance in a generation involved Chris Rock getting man-slapped by the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air." I'm glad you got to let loose, Matt. Who knew what kind of movie review maniac was hiding underneath the cub reporter demeanor?
Taibbi is the best humorist writing today. He’s as close to a modern Mark Twain as we're likely to produce. No arguments there.
On the other hand, with regard to the movie (which I haven’t seen), it seems Hollywood may have found the secret formula for a new and improved version of propaganda: anti-wokeism trumps anti-imperialism. Make it anti-woke, and those in the populist movement will not only start going to movies again, but may also gleefully accept a little imperialism. Imagine, if Hollywood--or a fork of Hollywood--allows or purposely orchestrates the death of cancel culture, many of us will be so giddy we might not even care about another little imperial excursion or two into Taiwan and Iran.
Jack, you always go to the heart of an issue. And I will confess that when I posted this comment, I thought it was in response to Matt Ehret, the anti-imperialist Canadian historian, for whom the humor was a walk on the wild side. When I realized my mistake, I edited out the black frame glasses but left the rest. For Taibbi, this level of wit is entirely IN character, to the benefit of all of us.
But you're right to be wary of the knee-jerk anti-wokism as much as the knee-jerk liberalism. You could as easily say "anti-wokism = Trump's imperialism." It's the same outcome.
You probably noticed (although I'm missing your comments!) that I did an episode based around my long threads on Matt's articles on Alex Moyer. It's called Appalachian Rage and looks at woke ideology as a cover for liberal disdain for 'white trash'--a form of racism. But I sometimes look over and see who this puts me in bed with and it's America First imperialists. So I'm resigned to potentially losing half of my audience with any given post. Here's that one, if I haven't lost you yet:
Totally agree! I was doubled over from start to finish. Matt, you might want to kick this thankless, outdated 'serious, honest journalist' gig to write comedy... maybe start with SNL (they could use some help)?
I saw the film in the IMAX and I was blown away. I feel like there’s never been a dude more made for a role than Cruise as Maverick. He really is that character. I’m sure some snowflakes found the movie jingoistic. I thought it was American exceptionalism in a totally fun and harmless way.
There is nothing fun or harmless about American exceptionalism. It's the rug under which the US sweeps all of its murderous and exploitative 'missions', foreign or domestic.
You know what I liked? Outside of the well-deserved homage to the women in the service of this country, not one damned shred of Woke. Tom's a weirdo but I thank him for this film.
There are so many ways I expected this movie to go woke and tear down Maverick's character, as is the case in most modern Hollywood movies (Star Wars). But it didn't. Maybe Tom Cruise is one of the few remaining actors with enough clout to not allow his character to be deconstructed?
The vast majority of content coming out of Hollywood these days is just reflective of a desire for psychological satisfaction. Woke writers have certain political convictions or affiliations through which they spin all storylines, and they pass this formulaic proselytizing off as “entertainment.” Maverick is the opposite.
Modern woke writers care more about inserting their message and agenda into whatever they are writing than the actual quality and story of their writing. They see whatever movie/show they are writing for only as a vehicle to get their messaging out.
Is it the writers though? Or is this what the propaganda machine wants to sell? I mean, let's be real. Hollywood has always to some extent been an arm of the corporatocracy in what they want to sell us and spin us or mold us too.
Hell, the entire Marvel Movie universe is a full on push to make a more compliant moldable society to make us think it's ok to accept authority as the answer.
Honestly, I'm not even sure they actually have the woke convictions. I think they are just pandering. If they actually believed that stuff maybe woke movies would suck less.
Last night I watched "The Comey Rule" on Netflix and was horrified to see this film treat Russiagate as a legitimate investigation rather than the costly scam it was. Another time I halted viewing a sci fi film that also seemed to be written by the CIA in conjunction with the FBI. You have to wonder who is funding these propaganda films and when will Oliver Stone make a new movie that unmasks the lies.
That sounds like it is as bad as FAIR GAME, the movie that tries to make Valerie Plane and Joe Wilson into heroes. I could not believe that the CIA was going after GW Bush. But when Hollywood gets on the side of a hack like Joseph Wilson IV you have to laugh. They are serving as the propaganda arm of the DNC.
The “lighten up, Francis” message of this movie review is great. I disagree the movie was “an ad for military hardware.” If anything, the DNA of this movie is “human man (and woman) over machine.” This is why the star piece of hardware turns out to be an obsolete F-14 Tomcat that is made tenacious only through the skill and daring of its human operators. This is not a movie about sophisticated military hardware. It is a movie about the American warrior spirit.
I absolutely agree with the "man over machine" theme--this is one of the reasons why I loved it as well. I took my 9 year-old to see it abroad while we were visiting family. Yes, it was fun--the theater was packed--we even had an intermission for more popcorn and beer!--and everyone was cheering and laughing and loving it. But I kept coming back to that subtext of "humans who know how to properly use and still have some measure of control over their tools."
I've thought about this a lot after reading Nicholas Carr's The Glass Cage. For a while now, agencies like the FAA, NASA, and the US Air Force have been trying to shift work away from people to machines, computers, automation in general because, the thinking goes, it is safer and "better" decisions can be made by those machines that effortlessly collect and collate necessary data. When the gyroscopic autopilot was first introduced, pilots were amazed and relieved. They didn't have to constantly focus on all the sticks and pedals and cables and pulleys, and it freed their eyes and hands and minds to look at more instruments, make more calculations, solve more problems. And planes got bigger, faster, and a lot more complicated. When the C-54 basically took off, flew, and nearly landed itself in 1947, people were already worried that pilots would soon become obsolete. Now (on commercial flights, at least), the flight deck is like one big flying computer interface--there is no more stick-and-rudder man. There has been a steady and sharp decline in accidents and deaths in commercial flights, due to mechanization and computerization--and that is a good thing. BUT, there is now a new type of accident in which the pilots, when forced to take manual control of their planes, make colossal mistakes because they've learned to rely too heavily on computer automation. Their reflexes are slow, their attention is lacking, situational awareness is shot, and their skill-level is just plain not up to snuff. There is a direct correlation between a pilot's aptitude with the controls and the amount of time that they spend flying without the aid of automation--they need to be able to touch and manipulate the tools and instruments precisely while constantly calculating and assessing their situations. They've got to be vigilant and able to read signals, distinguish significant signs from those that aren't. And they've got to practice. Constantly. A skilled pilot understands that there is always a tradeoff between stability and maneuverability. There's a tradeoff for everything.
And I bet you, Matt, there is some Tom-Cruise-y pilot out there that knows his plane like the back of his hand, wears it like a spandex leotard and can absolutely make that Death Star shot. Because humans can be that good.
On a side note: man, I love Real Genius and Willow. And I love American brainless entertainment--I spent this past weekend eating fried pickles and fried oreos and fried cactus taters and watching the demolition derby at the county fair with my sister, proud army vet XVIII Airborne, and soon to be married. The heat featuring the minivans was a particular favorite. Loved every minute of it.
Matt, I think you're unable to admit what you really liked about this film: It made you remember American pride.
There is nothing wrong with American pride. We have shameful things in our past and some linger to the present, but no more than any other country. Our sins are the sins of the human condition, no less but no more. And we have so much to offer. We created the modern world.
Leftist flagellation is based on hyperbole and distortion, but worse, it's gray and boring and destroys our life force. Let it go. Embrace the pride. It feels great.
What Trump winning did was uncover the rot that is elitist governance. The media is just the most visible manifestation of the lib elites running for the hills to figure out how to win back a working class that literally hates them (and vice versa). They know their policies suck on almost every issue which is why they are for allowing illegal immigrants and 16 year olds to vote. They figure those demos won’t do as much research as say a white high school educated truck driver who lost his job or has to pay $1000 for a tank of gas. As far as our cultural decline or the decline in fun in media, don’t expect that to change in the near future. Hollywood has literal social justice quotas that cause every movie to resemble an episode of Paw Patrol. The quota doesn’t require talent or looks just…ya know…social justice - whatever the fuck that is…depends on which DIE coordinator they hired to oversee the film.
So yes FUN is dead in 2022 and if you’re over 30 thank your lucky stars you got to experience American media before they went 100% insane. I’d say the movie biz has about 5 years to turn things around after that, much like the music biz, they will zero out as a cultural or financial force. As it stands Youtube will continue to grow as the go to media for the next gen so it’s probably a moot point. As a filmmaker myself, I hate to see it go, but as long as Hollywood puts politics above entertainment they don’t really deserve to survive…do they?
Nice review as always, Matt, but I paused at this line: "the best candidate for the enemy described is Iran, which not only didn’t violate our joint agreement with them..." You must be the only person in the world who believes that, I've seen dozens of pieces describing their flagrant and continuous violations of this supposed 'agreement'.
It is my understanding that Iran consistently refused to allow the oversight required to ensure they were honoring the deal. If that's correct, then how could Matt or anyone claim to know what they were (or were not) doing?
Exactly. And there's enough evidence from people who weren't wedded to the success of the deal suggesting Iran was not paying the slightest attention to to the deal terms (and spending the $150 million that Obama shipped them while doing so).
You're a very credulous person, you know that? Speaking of 'propaganda', wow... I bet you believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", too!
I'm actually not credulous and that's what bothers you. And as a Canadian, I can choose my doctor any time, thank you. But I'm not surprised you jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the situation
Meh. As opposed to the what now must be tens of billions of dollars Washington D.C. has spent supporting their terrorist groups? Wake me up when Iran actually commits a terror attack on us or shoots down one of our airliners.
Also, conventional weapons aren't going to do the trick on the Iranian nukes, so flying around Top Gun style with iron bombs has got to be about somewhere else.
Lucky for us Cruise has accepted his patriotic role as fun machine. Highly recommend The Edge of Tomorrow for brainless stims, it’s is the Maverick of alien movies.
A great movie and it's a shame it didn't perform better. I also recommend Oblivion with Tom Cruise from around the same time. Great sci-fi movie with a killer synth soundtrack.
I'm guessing you meant "...behind Top Secret! and Real Genius." :) And yes, I completely agree that those Val movies were the best. And much like Chris Knight, I too regularly reflect on the immortal words of Socrates when he said "I drank what?"
Effective teaching tools, no doubt. Remember the scene in Weird Science where Michael Berryman’s post-apoc biker character asks the protagonists “Can we keep this between us? I could lose my teaching job.” Fucking eerie, considering the times we live in.
Yeah, I’m dumb enough to have enjoyed the movie as well. I had to go by myself because my friends and family thought the movie would be a complete waste of time. For me it was a couple of hours of fun, which was exactly what I needed.
I probably will never see the movie. My wife is a progressive who hates Tom Cruise. She also hates any movie that is overly macho. We tried to watch the series FOR ALL MANKIND but she turned it off after the halfway point in the first episode because it had all these NASA astronauts acting so masculine.
Oh, it is fun! ;-) I am lucky to be married to her, in spite of any sacrifices.
She hates all of the unwanted attention she gets because she is so beautiful. Growing up she said she felt like "an antelope at the watering hole." She had to learn to start wearing baggy clothes because anything showing her figure was a bit too provocative. Seriously! A gay friend of hers once told her that he would go straight if it meant having a relationship with her.
Feeling a bit bad for this comment, Hugh. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but (perhaps) just the way you worded it made it seems like her sensibilities govern the house, and as a progressive, that seems...limiting?
True. However, she is amazingly creative and talented. She grew up very poor and pulled herself out. I am amazed that she does not have the standard rural Ohio accent that all her high school classmates have. She is an amazing person and her positives outweigh her negatives. Having a person like this in my life teaches me to be sympathetic to progressives. Just because I don't agree with them does not mean I should hate them or ignore them (the way they ignore us).
Ever so often I win a battle...always indirectly. I could hear her listening to NPR during the January 6 hearings. After the Hutchinson testimony, she said that she could not believe the woman because Hutchinson had not been subjected to cross examination. Yay team!
I might go see TOP GUN: MAVERICK if one of our mutual friends suggests it. I've gone to plenty of movies that way.
No. But she is crazy beautiful. I first met her in 1989 and she was...oh...my...God...GORGEOUS. I had the most amazing crush on her. She was only 19 and I was 10 years older than her and so it was a little on the creepy side; I became friends with her. We did not become a couple until 2007 so we had a long history together.
She is now 52 and she is still oh...my...God...Gorgeous! I suppose if I did not have this long history with her things might have been different. As it is, we are better together as a couple than either of us would be alone. I think this is the crucial issue for any relationship: if being in that relationship makes you a better person, you should stay in it.
"For All Mankind" was the 2nd piece of propaganda. I had to turn it off. The preachiness and the propaganda were unbearable. Maybe we need a trigger warning for this crap.
"I’d argue it wasn’t near the second-best Kilmer movie of the period, being clearly behind Top Secret! and Real Genius. If drunk enough I might even argue for Willow)" Someone obviously has not seen Tombstone which was his part of a lifetime.
The only movie i'm really itching to see these days is the Elvis one. Not because i'm the world's biggest Elvis fan, but the guy who plays him looks incredible.
I saw Willow back-to-back at the $1.00 movie theater in the 80s and then watched it numerous times on video. And it wasn't for the storyline! Val Kilmer with long hair was hilarious and eye candy when me and my best friend was in high school. (Forgive the bad grammar, brain fog.)
I was blown away by this film. It wasn't ruined by any "messages" and it didn't try to be anything it wasn't. I subsequently watched some Tom Cruise interviews (very interesting guy even if some of his personal views are strange) and one quote hit me: "My job is to entertain you. It's a privilege to be able to entertain you." I think it's that attitude that drives the success of this film. Hollywood should -- but won't -- take notes on what audiences actually want. They didn't learn anything from Mad Max: Fury Road so I'm not holding my breath.
Edit: Also wanted to note the irony that a Scientologist created one of the LEAST cult-like/ideological messaging in a movie in recent memory. I can't call the obvious propaganda cult-like but others might disagree.
I never would have thought it 10-15 years ago, but now Tom Cruise feels like the last of an old guard of Hollywood who just wants to make good, solid movies that entertain people. No "re-imagining for modern audiences", no agenda or political swipes, just good entertainment. I really appreciated his little intro where he thanked us for coming to watch the movie and that it was made for the fans.
I had zero expectations for a Top Gun sequel 35 years later and was pleasantly surprised at what I saw.
And one of his best movies is about to get cancelled for Cultural Appropriation... "The Last Samurai" is being axed from lots of streaming outlets because... muh insenstive.
I mean.. sure.. the sort of real story it was pulled from was a Frenchmen, but guess what... That dude still wasn't Japanese, and the moral of the story wasn't that the true last Samurai was a Gaijin, it was that the forward movement of... oh hell.. Life's too short. LOL
I loved The Last Samurai. For the story and the film itself; not because of Tom Cruise, though I agree it is one of his best films. I had a strong emotional response to the film and cried at the end and all the way home. That is the only film that has done that to me to that degree, and I still don't know why I had such a strong reaction. My teen son was with me, and he put his arm around me when we were outside, and he said "I know, Mom, I felt sad for the Samurai too." For me it was much more than that, it was the loss of a culture and other meaningful things. It would be a shame to retire the film.
Hollywood knows fully what most of America wants. Hollywood doesn't care. Hollywood is going to go out and preach and try to tell you all what you should think and how you should think it. The people who infest Hollywood are some of the most unintelligent clueless morons walking the earth. I don't fault them, with all that ego there just isn't any room for actual critical thinking or intelligence left to fit.
No, expect to continue to see remakes of mildly successful films of yesteryear that nobody wants to see again told with a female or minority as the lead instead of evil white men.
I mean, the best news of the past week is the president of Brazil telling Super Leo to shut up about what his administration is doing to fix the problems (rain forest) created by the previous corrupt president that Leo supports from the deck of his super yacht that burns more diesel fuel per hour than 1000 cars. This is your Hollywood celebrity in full display. Rules for thee, but not for me.
I find the willing collusion of critics and press interesting. For example, there is very little coverage in MSM about the real reason why Buzz Lightyear flopped. A large segment of the population simply doesn't want to expose their young children to LGBT content. Even the financial press tiptoes around the subject when discussing some obvious reasons why Disney stock is not performing well.
Besides that -- who the fuck cares about the fictional cartoon Buzz Lightyear is based on? The whole appeal of that character is that he struggles with coming to grips with the fact that he's a toy.
I missed that it flopped. Wasn’t it because Buzz blows another toy or something? Yea I don’t want my kids watching that
There are a couple of lesbian toys who kiss in the movie.
How do you know the sex/gender of toys? Do toys identify and have pronouns and land acknowledgements and so on? IDK - I didn't see it.
Besides, this remains the best of the Toy Story spin-offs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeZ7p-_HDMs
It's Meathead's Hollywood now...
LOL! and he offends the living shit out of me with his arrogance and self assigned superior intellect. Officially “ Fake Meathead.”
Like.
Well said, good sir.
Like
And if you are resting your opinion of Dilma (previous corrupt president of Brazil you mentioned) on her Supreme Court conviction, you should read up on Operation Car Wash. GG did fantastic work on this.
Whether Dilma was corrupt or not--or conversely responsible for the mass deforestation Bolsonaro's early policies clearly inflamed, literally--we will never know thanks to the corrupt actions of Bolsonaro's corrupt prosecutor and corrupt Supreme Court Justice buddy.
I agree with this. Sadly again, my rant is still about Leo. He personifies the stupidity of Hollywood to a tee.
And apt that you use stupidity rather than similar terms...reminds me of a Gervais quote:
"Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid." - Ricky Gervais
Yep. You're unfortunately 100% right. It needs to be ignored and forgotten or nothing will change.
He's right and in general I'd say he's pretty good at his job. Even the mission impossible movies, they're sort of paint by numbers and they pump them out (I think there's close to 10 now), they're not winning Oscars or anything, but they're decent entertaining action movies.
They’re paint by numbers but very well made and high-effort. They don’t half-ass those things, Cruise ups the ante and throws himself into it 200% every time.
Good article about how Cruise sort of resurrected himself after alienating some based on his Scientology bizarreness:
https://www.vulture.com/article/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick.html
Just in time for an exhausted country! :)
I think that people (or maybe just Media) are disproportionately critical (and bigoted, really) of Scientology compared to other religions.
Just my take as an Agnostic.
Probably -- although not all religions are equally damaging. I actually completely agree with some of the things Cruise has said about the pharmaceutical industry. Doesn't mean I'm for or against Scientology. Wish we could still have nuance in this country.
It is bizarre watching the clips from Cruise years ago going after anti-depressants and big pharma and sounding like a complete loon. I remember thinking he'd lost his mind. Now, however, I think - crap, he was onto something.
Especially with the recent revelations about depression and serotonin!
I disagree with some of what he said still, but I think he was completely genuine and asked totally fair and thoughtful questions. That interview - and the backlash that consisted of "don't question science" fundamentally misunderstanding science - was ahead of its time.
But Cruise's authority was L Ron...
Chalk that up to blind squirrel finding a nut.
So if your point is that Hubbard was an opportunistic scammer, then I agree. But does it matter?
Here's two important characteristics of the best liars:
1. They can smell their own: they're tuned at spotting other liars and bullshitters
2. The best lies are wrapped around truth. Like a parent cooking something her kids like but sneaking vegetables into the recipe.
So you spot the bullshit, then you tell people (correctly) that the "experts" haven't fully explained things or are otherwise deceptive in order to gain their trust since you're the only one telling them what's plainly obvious to them. After that you sell them some different nonsense like volcanoes filled with alien ghosts.
My point is: just because Hubbard was a charlatan in no way means he necessarily used faulty logic in criticizing the mental health field. Cruise asked valid questions that should be periodically reexamined with objectivity and new data. If he got those questions and reasoning from Hubbard I don't see this as fruit from a poisoned tree.
I do not necessarily argue with your point about liars.
As a behavioral psychologist, I have spent time studying the literature and find what you wrote to be interesting...good analogies. Can't endorse as it is not an area I know particularly well from the literature side. I do work in fraud detection and see things that rhyme with what you say.
But whether or not he used faulty logic...I choose to ignore anything LRH might have said/written that correlates with reality.
There is *always* a better source for information than LRH.
Or a nut finding a bling squirrel; ironically, either works.
Is Nicole or Katie the bling squirrel in this analogy?
That's kind of my point, though. If you balance Scientology against most other religions in proportion to the (Keyword) *proven* nonconsentual damage done to people and society (or at least actual evidence and not supposition and rumor) from what I've seen it comes way far ahead in terms of membership.
The worst things I've heard about Scientology is that it gets consenting adults to agree to dungeon endurance tests aboard their dumb ship where they're free to leave at any time but they don't get promoted. It's practically the "keep your hand on the car" contest sponsored by some radio stations over the years. Never heard of any pedophilia or actual evidence of anything illegal or particularly egregious. Just good ol' fashioned religion siphoning money from rubes, which makes it a true American institution, no?
I have very little sympathy for rich people and privileged, overpaid showbiz people allowing their gullibility to undermine them.
I think it just became acceptable to be bigoted toward Scientology because they're the newest kid on the block. Volcano alien ghosts is completely r_____ded, sure. But so is believing some dirty-dirty-slut when she claims she got knocked up by God, lol. It's all mockable if you take it literally.
Scientology isn't any more bizarre than any established religion. It just seems so because it was founded so recently.
Just to put this in perspective, of the top 20 highest grossing films of all time (not adjusted for inflation; there Gone with the Wind still rules) Top Gun is currently sitting at number 9 and is about to beat Jurassic World. It's the only film other than Titanic that sits in the top 20 and isn't a superhero movie. It's massive haul sits at a whopping $650 million. The audiences are screaming from the rooftops: this is what we want. Just give us this. And yet Hollywood has become fused with the Democratic Party -- and thus, movies have taken a massive fall.
Hollywood has become 1930s Soviet-style propaganda by now. If it always has to broadcast a specific message and is always monitored carefully for "mistakes" how can it ever be any good? Top Gun just works. It isn't challenging or memorable in the least bit but it does what movies are supposed to do in times of stress: take us away from our troubles, as you illustrate. Good stuff.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross/?ref_=bo_cso_ac
They put Stacey Abrams in a cameo as president of United Earth in latest season of Star Trek Discovery, an otherwise great series. It was a bad move to politicize this series.
If there were reason against "United Earth", its that right there!
Yes, if there was a United Earth, Abrams might eat it. As a tax lawyer, I have no respect for another would-be tax lawyer who insolvent and owing over $200,000; especially one who was working for a major law firm for a while. Interesting that her Wikipedia card does not mention her insolvency. Of course, now she is worth millions.
I edited this post to remove an inaccuracy. Abrams did not declare bankruptcy; rather, she was insolvent to the tune of $200,000 during her first campaign. She is now a multimillionaire. I wonder if she has paid off her debts?
Same outfit that retired Kavanaugh’s credit card debt
She paid off her debts with Soros money after she became a Democrat Debutante.
It's all someone else's fault, no doubt.
Wikipedia would never say anything untoward about Stacey or "Recession." LOL
Has Biggie conceded yet?
Careful, she might should have been gobner of Ga…pretty sure she still claims she won in 2018 and still hasn’t conceded
Alert the press
Pro-tip for everyone else who liked Trek but knows that it's garbage now:
You can just re-watch DS9 (it has aged like the finest wines) and ignore all the new stuff.
DS9 has all sorts of political analogies, messaging, and allusions. But they also had top notch writers who knew how to do it with humor and panache and not let it completely overshadow the fun.
TBH the problem wasn't necessarily adding politics to the mix. The problem was always the drop in writing quality. The most talented and experienced people gradually left the franchise (because they get trusted to do bigger and better things) while the more mediocre writers took over (because middling writers don't get poached). After the franchise hiatus, Woke made it worse since "Intersectional Hiring Practices" will always necessitate de-prioritizing talent and experience. Then you have them chasing existing old trends instead of creating new ideas. That's how we got "Discovery."
Bad politics flows from simple-minded or inexperienced writers.
"Quite parts out loud," LOL.
Okay. Two things:
1. You glossed over "Experience"
If most of the old writers are "old white men" as you claim (that's actually *YOU* being sexist and racist and Projecting, haha) then those people are naturally going to be more experienced, no? So what would make for better long term success of this bright Intersectional Writer's Room future: If you put *some* inexperienced but talented writers in the same room with them so they can learn OR if you instead fire most of the experienced writers and just flood the room with young, possibly talented writers that have to learn everything on their own?
2. You aren't aware that many writers rooms in the history of television weren't dominated by "old white men" and then presumed that I shared *your own* ignorant views. Look up "Roseanne." Look up "Married with Children." You'll have to google them but I didn't. I already knew these are just two examples of shows that weren't dominated by "old white men" but just good writers that *EARNED* their places through talent and hard work.
One last note: The ironic thing about your attempted rejoinder is that it was your own lack of experience and wild overconfidence that I don't know what I'm talking about that doomed you to getting schooled pretty bad, here. Go back to Twitter with that utterly lazy "quiet part out loud" snark. As you can see, I'm not having it. 😉
It's fun to watch leftists get beat up on. They are so not used to it.
So let’s say you run a race track. And instead of just picking out the fastest cars for the race, you only take the fastest car of each color. And have a rainbow race. Will the cars be faster or slower?
Wow, I already felt bad about myself, the world and the Carolina Panthers.
And then you lay this revelation on me. Uncle!
For an antidote to the latest (not the earlier to be clear) politically correct Star Treks, try Blakes 7. Miserable effects, but excellent characterization, real antiheroes, and a narrative that is more relevant today than when it was made.
I've seen screen clips of this cameo that make me cringe.
Way to alienate half of your potential viewers. I am a hard core TREK fan and I gave up on that show after its second season. I will not watch PICARD. Over at Disney, my wife and I watched OBI WAN KENOBI and BOBA FETT and we are sick of what they have done to STAR WARS. If you want a fun take on the destruction of Sci Fi, watch CRITICAL DRINKER over on YouTube.
The Critical Drinker is the most trustworthy movie reviewer out there.
It's interesting because, while I'm not a Treky, I always knew that the writer of the original series was a huge progressive, which is more than evident in the work without it being condescending or trite. This is the way!!
No, I gave up on the show after the end of the 2nd season. The 3rd season looked to be unwatchable.
In the past, Star Trek at least had the decency to explore all sides of an issue. Sure, there was usually a point of view they favored, and they were pretty ham fisted about certain topics like religion. But they could be surprisingly fair on controversial topics ranging from terrorism to assisted suicide.
Not anymore. Now they just put black and white hats on people and call it a day.
Well, maybe they should have. Again, this is a show that showed sympathy for terrorism as a viable method for political change (STNG: The High Ground). Not because they agreed with it or endorsed it. The viewer was clearly not supposed to agree with the terrorist character, but to see how he felt he had no other options. They did it because they recognized that we live in a difficult and complicated world. Even extremist views have to be considered, if only to discover how they ended up there and how to change it.
But totally typical and totally trite.
The triteness was in the use of a hack politician in some weird aspiration of hers and the script writers, and was about as reflective and analytical as Nixon on "Laugh In". Less the juxtaposition and shock value, of course.
If the lion king is a superhero movie I really need to rewatch it... 13 of the top 20 from your linked list are not superhero films.
Dude...if you don't remember the scene where Simba grows the angel wings and soars through the air and uses eye laser beams to cut Scar in half, you gotta rewatch.
I was going to make a pithy "Soviet Realism" comment, but you beat me to it.
*grumble*
Just say it. Hollywood is a communist propaganda campaign. There.
This was freaking laugh out loud funny--deserving more than the LOL acronym. "we’re nearly a decade into a crippling fun shortage. We have complexes about every holiday from Christmas to Thanksgiving to the Fourth of July, the president has been severely disordered or clinically dead for at least six years, and the most famous standup performance in a generation involved Chris Rock getting man-slapped by the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air." I'm glad you got to let loose, Matt. Who knew what kind of movie review maniac was hiding underneath the cub reporter demeanor?
Taibbi is the best humorist writing today. He’s as close to a modern Mark Twain as we're likely to produce. No arguments there.
On the other hand, with regard to the movie (which I haven’t seen), it seems Hollywood may have found the secret formula for a new and improved version of propaganda: anti-wokeism trumps anti-imperialism. Make it anti-woke, and those in the populist movement will not only start going to movies again, but may also gleefully accept a little imperialism. Imagine, if Hollywood--or a fork of Hollywood--allows or purposely orchestrates the death of cancel culture, many of us will be so giddy we might not even care about another little imperial excursion or two into Taiwan and Iran.
Jack, you always go to the heart of an issue. And I will confess that when I posted this comment, I thought it was in response to Matt Ehret, the anti-imperialist Canadian historian, for whom the humor was a walk on the wild side. When I realized my mistake, I edited out the black frame glasses but left the rest. For Taibbi, this level of wit is entirely IN character, to the benefit of all of us.
But you're right to be wary of the knee-jerk anti-wokism as much as the knee-jerk liberalism. You could as easily say "anti-wokism = Trump's imperialism." It's the same outcome.
You probably noticed (although I'm missing your comments!) that I did an episode based around my long threads on Matt's articles on Alex Moyer. It's called Appalachian Rage and looks at woke ideology as a cover for liberal disdain for 'white trash'--a form of racism. But I sometimes look over and see who this puts me in bed with and it's America First imperialists. So I'm resigned to potentially losing half of my audience with any given post. Here's that one, if I haven't lost you yet:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/appalachian-rage
Totally agree! I was doubled over from start to finish. Matt, you might want to kick this thankless, outdated 'serious, honest journalist' gig to write comedy... maybe start with SNL (they could use some help)?
I saw the film in the IMAX and I was blown away. I feel like there’s never been a dude more made for a role than Cruise as Maverick. He really is that character. I’m sure some snowflakes found the movie jingoistic. I thought it was American exceptionalism in a totally fun and harmless way.
There is nothing fun or harmless about American exceptionalism. It's the rug under which the US sweeps all of its murderous and exploitative 'missions', foreign or domestic.
Well yeah maybe but we’re cooler than you.
Jesus, you're a fun sponge.
Matt Damon was meant to be Mark Whatney. I agree with you, but there are people just meant to be certain roles.
You know what I liked? Outside of the well-deserved homage to the women in the service of this country, not one damned shred of Woke. Tom's a weirdo but I thank him for this film.
There are so many ways I expected this movie to go woke and tear down Maverick's character, as is the case in most modern Hollywood movies (Star Wars). But it didn't. Maybe Tom Cruise is one of the few remaining actors with enough clout to not allow his character to be deconstructed?
I never thought I’d say it, but thank god for Tom Cruise’s ego!
Or maybe it’s just that there’s only room for one cult in his head.
Either way, it was refreshing.
Same. I practically watched with bated breath, just waiting to be disappointed.
The vast majority of content coming out of Hollywood these days is just reflective of a desire for psychological satisfaction. Woke writers have certain political convictions or affiliations through which they spin all storylines, and they pass this formulaic proselytizing off as “entertainment.” Maverick is the opposite.
Modern woke writers care more about inserting their message and agenda into whatever they are writing than the actual quality and story of their writing. They see whatever movie/show they are writing for only as a vehicle to get their messaging out.
Is it the writers though? Or is this what the propaganda machine wants to sell? I mean, let's be real. Hollywood has always to some extent been an arm of the corporatocracy in what they want to sell us and spin us or mold us too.
Hell, the entire Marvel Movie universe is a full on push to make a more compliant moldable society to make us think it's ok to accept authority as the answer.
I'd say it's a combination of both.
Honestly, I'm not even sure they actually have the woke convictions. I think they are just pandering. If they actually believed that stuff maybe woke movies would suck less.
Last night I watched "The Comey Rule" on Netflix and was horrified to see this film treat Russiagate as a legitimate investigation rather than the costly scam it was. Another time I halted viewing a sci fi film that also seemed to be written by the CIA in conjunction with the FBI. You have to wonder who is funding these propaganda films and when will Oliver Stone make a new movie that unmasks the lies.
“written by the CIA”
“You have to wonder who is funding these propaganda films”
I think you have your answer.
That sounds like it is as bad as FAIR GAME, the movie that tries to make Valerie Plane and Joe Wilson into heroes. I could not believe that the CIA was going after GW Bush. But when Hollywood gets on the side of a hack like Joseph Wilson IV you have to laugh. They are serving as the propaganda arm of the DNC.
Um, the military is funding them. Seems obvious. We dump enough funds into the black hole that is the Pentagon. Hollywood is their pr firm.
I must share your brainwaves Patricia. I agree with what you write 100%
You have my condolences. :-)
The “lighten up, Francis” message of this movie review is great. I disagree the movie was “an ad for military hardware.” If anything, the DNA of this movie is “human man (and woman) over machine.” This is why the star piece of hardware turns out to be an obsolete F-14 Tomcat that is made tenacious only through the skill and daring of its human operators. This is not a movie about sophisticated military hardware. It is a movie about the American warrior spirit.
I absolutely agree with the "man over machine" theme--this is one of the reasons why I loved it as well. I took my 9 year-old to see it abroad while we were visiting family. Yes, it was fun--the theater was packed--we even had an intermission for more popcorn and beer!--and everyone was cheering and laughing and loving it. But I kept coming back to that subtext of "humans who know how to properly use and still have some measure of control over their tools."
I've thought about this a lot after reading Nicholas Carr's The Glass Cage. For a while now, agencies like the FAA, NASA, and the US Air Force have been trying to shift work away from people to machines, computers, automation in general because, the thinking goes, it is safer and "better" decisions can be made by those machines that effortlessly collect and collate necessary data. When the gyroscopic autopilot was first introduced, pilots were amazed and relieved. They didn't have to constantly focus on all the sticks and pedals and cables and pulleys, and it freed their eyes and hands and minds to look at more instruments, make more calculations, solve more problems. And planes got bigger, faster, and a lot more complicated. When the C-54 basically took off, flew, and nearly landed itself in 1947, people were already worried that pilots would soon become obsolete. Now (on commercial flights, at least), the flight deck is like one big flying computer interface--there is no more stick-and-rudder man. There has been a steady and sharp decline in accidents and deaths in commercial flights, due to mechanization and computerization--and that is a good thing. BUT, there is now a new type of accident in which the pilots, when forced to take manual control of their planes, make colossal mistakes because they've learned to rely too heavily on computer automation. Their reflexes are slow, their attention is lacking, situational awareness is shot, and their skill-level is just plain not up to snuff. There is a direct correlation between a pilot's aptitude with the controls and the amount of time that they spend flying without the aid of automation--they need to be able to touch and manipulate the tools and instruments precisely while constantly calculating and assessing their situations. They've got to be vigilant and able to read signals, distinguish significant signs from those that aren't. And they've got to practice. Constantly. A skilled pilot understands that there is always a tradeoff between stability and maneuverability. There's a tradeoff for everything.
And I bet you, Matt, there is some Tom-Cruise-y pilot out there that knows his plane like the back of his hand, wears it like a spandex leotard and can absolutely make that Death Star shot. Because humans can be that good.
On a side note: man, I love Real Genius and Willow. And I love American brainless entertainment--I spent this past weekend eating fried pickles and fried oreos and fried cactus taters and watching the demolition derby at the county fair with my sister, proud army vet XVIII Airborne, and soon to be married. The heat featuring the minivans was a particular favorite. Loved every minute of it.
Great post.
Fun fact: the top F14 pilot in history is Iranian.
This is one of those things that ought to be true even if it is not.
It is. Jalil Zandi is credited with 11 kills, more than any other Tomcat pilot.
Matt, I think you're unable to admit what you really liked about this film: It made you remember American pride.
There is nothing wrong with American pride. We have shameful things in our past and some linger to the present, but no more than any other country. Our sins are the sins of the human condition, no less but no more. And we have so much to offer. We created the modern world.
Leftist flagellation is based on hyperbole and distortion, but worse, it's gray and boring and destroys our life force. Let it go. Embrace the pride. It feels great.
What Trump winning did was uncover the rot that is elitist governance. The media is just the most visible manifestation of the lib elites running for the hills to figure out how to win back a working class that literally hates them (and vice versa). They know their policies suck on almost every issue which is why they are for allowing illegal immigrants and 16 year olds to vote. They figure those demos won’t do as much research as say a white high school educated truck driver who lost his job or has to pay $1000 for a tank of gas. As far as our cultural decline or the decline in fun in media, don’t expect that to change in the near future. Hollywood has literal social justice quotas that cause every movie to resemble an episode of Paw Patrol. The quota doesn’t require talent or looks just…ya know…social justice - whatever the fuck that is…depends on which DIE coordinator they hired to oversee the film.
So yes FUN is dead in 2022 and if you’re over 30 thank your lucky stars you got to experience American media before they went 100% insane. I’d say the movie biz has about 5 years to turn things around after that, much like the music biz, they will zero out as a cultural or financial force. As it stands Youtube will continue to grow as the go to media for the next gen so it’s probably a moot point. As a filmmaker myself, I hate to see it go, but as long as Hollywood puts politics above entertainment they don’t really deserve to survive…do they?
Nice review as always, Matt, but I paused at this line: "the best candidate for the enemy described is Iran, which not only didn’t violate our joint agreement with them..." You must be the only person in the world who believes that, I've seen dozens of pieces describing their flagrant and continuous violations of this supposed 'agreement'.
It is my understanding that Iran consistently refused to allow the oversight required to ensure they were honoring the deal. If that's correct, then how could Matt or anyone claim to know what they were (or were not) doing?
Exactly. And there's enough evidence from people who weren't wedded to the success of the deal suggesting Iran was not paying the slightest attention to to the deal terms (and spending the $150 million that Obama shipped them while doing so).
There's no evidence at all, except the unfounded gossip of those who were wedded to the failure of the deal
If no one could claim to know then how come you do?
No he's not the only person who believes that. Anybody who has followed the story and not simply swallowed propaganda pieces knows that
You're a very credulous person, you know that? Speaking of 'propaganda', wow... I bet you believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", too!
I'm actually not credulous and that's what bothers you. And as a Canadian, I can choose my doctor any time, thank you. But I'm not surprised you jumped to a conclusion without any knowledge of the situation
I call BS- as a Canadian you cannot choose your doctor anytime you'll be lucky if you even have one!
Maybe I wasn't precise enough. As a Québécois, I can choose my doctor anytime
Wow. Talk about not keeping up. They said they can, themselves. Is that propaganda too?
"Iran's atomic energy chief says country could build a bomb but has no plan to"
By Raffi Berg
BBC News
Published
2 days ago
To keep up you have to remember the elements of the story. America pulled out of the agreement a couple of years ago
Talk about deflection.
So answer the question - is that statement from Iran propaganda or not?
How would I know?
Crap. I was sucked in by a troll. Good on you.
Exactly. Used the money to support their terrorist groups and speed up their supplies of materials and equipment for the nuclear bombs.
How would you know that?
Meh. As opposed to the what now must be tens of billions of dollars Washington D.C. has spent supporting their terrorist groups? Wake me up when Iran actually commits a terror attack on us or shoots down one of our airliners.
Also, conventional weapons aren't going to do the trick on the Iranian nukes, so flying around Top Gun style with iron bombs has got to be about somewhere else.
Lucky for us Cruise has accepted his patriotic role as fun machine. Highly recommend The Edge of Tomorrow for brainless stims, it’s is the Maverick of alien movies.
A great movie and it's a shame it didn't perform better. I also recommend Oblivion with Tom Cruise from around the same time. Great sci-fi movie with a killer synth soundtrack.
I started reading in a state of high dudgeon: how dare Taibbi praise an obviously mindless, jingoistic film like this?
By the time I finished reading I wanted to see the movie.
He's right about Americans being fun-deprived. That needs to end.
See it. You'll have a great time.
I'm guessing you meant "...behind Top Secret! and Real Genius." :) And yes, I completely agree that those Val movies were the best. And much like Chris Knight, I too regularly reflect on the immortal words of Socrates when he said "I drank what?"
Fuck! Yes, those are two of my favorite movies. I was teaching my son the other day how to deal with adversity in an adult and mature fashion...
Top Secret! will never not be funny.
Effective teaching tools, no doubt. Remember the scene in Weird Science where Michael Berryman’s post-apoc biker character asks the protagonists “Can we keep this between us? I could lose my teaching job.” Fucking eerie, considering the times we live in.
No “Tombstone”?
“I’m your Huckleberry” still one of the best lines evah
Tombstone! That’s just my game. It’s in my Top 5 Val movies for sure.
Beat me to it! Great minds and such.
Yeah, I’m dumb enough to have enjoyed the movie as well. I had to go by myself because my friends and family thought the movie would be a complete waste of time. For me it was a couple of hours of fun, which was exactly what I needed.
You have to be dumb to enjoy the movie?
I probably will never see the movie. My wife is a progressive who hates Tom Cruise. She also hates any movie that is overly macho. We tried to watch the series FOR ALL MANKIND but she turned it off after the halfway point in the first episode because it had all these NASA astronauts acting so masculine.
Your marriage sounds fun.
Oh, it is fun! ;-) I am lucky to be married to her, in spite of any sacrifices.
She hates all of the unwanted attention she gets because she is so beautiful. Growing up she said she felt like "an antelope at the watering hole." She had to learn to start wearing baggy clothes because anything showing her figure was a bit too provocative. Seriously! A gay friend of hers once told her that he would go straight if it meant having a relationship with her.
Agreed!
Feeling a bit bad for this comment, Hugh. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but (perhaps) just the way you worded it made it seems like her sensibilities govern the house, and as a progressive, that seems...limiting?
True. However, she is amazingly creative and talented. She grew up very poor and pulled herself out. I am amazed that she does not have the standard rural Ohio accent that all her high school classmates have. She is an amazing person and her positives outweigh her negatives. Having a person like this in my life teaches me to be sympathetic to progressives. Just because I don't agree with them does not mean I should hate them or ignore them (the way they ignore us).
Ever so often I win a battle...always indirectly. I could hear her listening to NPR during the January 6 hearings. After the Hutchinson testimony, she said that she could not believe the woman because Hutchinson had not been subjected to cross examination. Yay team!
I might go see TOP GUN: MAVERICK if one of our mutual friends suggests it. I've gone to plenty of movies that way.
Jeezus dude, does she make you wear a dress?
No. But she is crazy beautiful. I first met her in 1989 and she was...oh...my...God...GORGEOUS. I had the most amazing crush on her. She was only 19 and I was 10 years older than her and so it was a little on the creepy side; I became friends with her. We did not become a couple until 2007 so we had a long history together.
She is now 52 and she is still oh...my...God...Gorgeous! I suppose if I did not have this long history with her things might have been different. As it is, we are better together as a couple than either of us would be alone. I think this is the crucial issue for any relationship: if being in that relationship makes you a better person, you should stay in it.
Why do progressives hate Tom Cruise? I wasn't aware of that.
"For All Mankind" was the 2nd piece of propaganda. I had to turn it off. The preachiness and the propaganda were unbearable. Maybe we need a trigger warning for this crap.
"I’d argue it wasn’t near the second-best Kilmer movie of the period, being clearly behind Top Secret! and Real Genius. If drunk enough I might even argue for Willow)" Someone obviously has not seen Tombstone which was his part of a lifetime.
Am i the only one who loved him in the Doors?
I'm your huckleberry.
We watched this last week. It is one of Kilmer's better roles. I'll always love Real Genius the most.
Seriously, where's the love for, imho, the finest role Val ever played?
Chris Siherlis
Great call.
It’s an absolute sin Val wasn’t nominated for BA after playing Jim Morrison. He was incredible.
The only movie i'm really itching to see these days is the Elvis one. Not because i'm the world's biggest Elvis fan, but the guy who plays him looks incredible.
Yes.
Same
He had several good roles. Doc was great in a supporting role. I also liked him in another supporting role as Perry in Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang.
He had an amazing cameo in an otherwise juvenile, series "Entourage". Worth viewing that episode alone.
I saw Willow back-to-back at the $1.00 movie theater in the 80s and then watched it numerous times on video. And it wasn't for the storyline! Val Kilmer with long hair was hilarious and eye candy when me and my best friend was in high school. (Forgive the bad grammar, brain fog.)
That could be considered a different period of his career.
Loved him in Tombstone, even if he did seem to be acting in a completely different movie than the rest of the cast