CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE Discussion - Page 2

post #51 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakay
Posting a very warm review of a movie that mercilessly and ineptly bashes liberals would indicate otherwise. Or maybe your sense of humor is just that of a fourteen year old, and I'm seeing a political bias where there isnt one.

Dude, sounds like you're the one with the political bias.
Reply
post #52 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakay
Posting a very warm review of a movie that mercilessly and ineptly bashes liberals would indicate otherwise. Or maybe your sense of humor is just that of a fourteen year old, and I'm seeing a political bias where there isnt one.
It's a movie with fucking puppets. What's not to like?

Anyway, it's a well known fact that Nick is a fascist.
Reply
post #53 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:17pm
I found the film frustrating, but the film isn't bashing liberals per se, but elite Hollywood Liberals, which is a different beast entirely. Unfortunately, I found most of the jokes aimed at them mean-spirited and unfunny.
Reply
post #54 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
I found the film frustrating, but the film isn't bashing liberals per se, but elite Hollywood Liberals, which is a different beast entirely. Unfortunately, I found most of the jokes aimed at them mean-spirited and unfunny.
Understandable, but when you wear your politics on your sleeve and use your celebrity or position to put it out in the public forum, you open yourself up to both praise and criticism...or puppet effigy as the case may be.
Reply
post #55 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweaterbydarwin
Understandable, but when you wear your politics on your sleeve and use your celebrity or position to put it out in the public forum, you open yourself up to both praise and criticism...or puppet effigy as the case may be.
Like two celebrities who make a puppet movie blowing up people they disagree with?


And South Park isnt non partisan, it hasnt been for 3 years.


Dont get me wrong, I am seeing this opening day, because I can at least enjoy the Bruckheimer spoofing.


But like "Thats my Bush", this too will be lame political commentary.
Reply
post #56 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
I guess this is subtly implying that bexcause I lean left I don't find humor that makes fun of left-leaners funny? Or maybe not so subtly.

Either way, nope. I just gave you a detailed example of the differences between the two. In fact, I specifically said I wanted the left-leaning jokes to be harsher and way more biting.

Let me elaborate on my example. They have a song "Freedom isn't Free" that's a hilarious paroday of Toby Keith-style oppourtnistic, country jingo bullshit. They don't have to call him by name or have a puppet of him. And it's in the background while a bunch of other funny shit is going on, so it's done pretty subtly. It's creative. It's not obvious. It's done so low-key and earnestly, that I'm sure some country fans would embrace the hell out of it if they heard it on contemporary country radio. And it totally keeps the flow of the movie going and enhances the scene.

By contrast, the Hollywood actor stuff stops the movie near-cold. The voices of the puppets don't match the real actors at all. None of them have any distinctive characteristics, so it's just 15 versions of the same joke. And while I can understand the skewering of Danny Glover, Tim Robbins, and Alec Baldwin, why on earth are Matt Damon, Liv Tyler, and Samuel L. Jackson in there? They serve no purpose. They aren't funny. And the repeating Matt Damon gag, while amusingly cruel, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It'd be the equivalent of the South Park guys doing something on Bush's whole cabinet, but they all have the same lame, non-applicable voices and act just alike. A real satirist would find specific things to hit them on or simply realize they're all the same character and just go with one or two of them. It's just dumb.

And I'm sure Michael Moore will probably laugh at the feeble treatment more than anything. I've seen web parodies of him that were funnier. A third grade kid could call him fat and says he eats a lot. AND? Do a parody of his sometimes cloying narration in his films. Do a parody of his Oscar speech. Do SOMETHING specific to the man.
I'm also left-leaning, and I expect I'd have a similar reaction. I'm anticipating that liberal jokes in the movie will be boring and uninsightful, and that's aggravating because I know they're intelligent and they should be above that. Another thing I find annoying is that it seems like the they want to say -- look, both sides are stupid -- but there is absolutely no parity between an incompetant and immoral invasion of a country in which thousands of people die and what Hollywood liberals do. In a way, I think they are cheapening the seriousness of what Bush has done with his foreign policy by doing that. Anyways, that's how it looks based on what I know so far about the movie.

But I am interested to see how rightwingers react to the movie. Will they find the whole thing stupid, or will they actually eat up all the liberal "jokes" and hate the war-mongering portrayals?
Reply
post #57 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:44pm
I would never say people like Tim Robbins and Sean Penn shouldn't be mocked, I just wish when they were it was either funny or sharp. Turning Matt Damon into a mongoloid is funny sort of, but not a particularly insightful commentary on him.
Reply
post #58 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:51pm
I don't really think this movie will have an political impact, so I don't care if they're essentially equating liberal actors to terrorists or trying to make Bush's doctrine sounds sensible with the "Dicks, Pusies, Assholes" bit.

As I said way above before I even saw the film, I just wanted them to be creative and funny, and their parodies of Hollywood liberals were neither. Esepcially in comparison to the rest of the film.
Reply
post #59 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:55pm
For anyone who is left-leaning who's seen this movie and finds the liberal jabs to be stupid and not creative, I'd like to hear your ideas for what would have been a more funny and appropriate way to make fun of the Hollywood liberals these filmmakers despise so much.

Also, I understand that there can be something off-putting about high-profile celebrities who use their fame and popularity to spread a political message, but mostly only when we don't agree with that message. For instance, Matt and Trey certainly don't have a problem with using South Park to spread their own political opinions, so that tells me that their problem with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore is the message they're sending and not the manner in which that message is sent.
Reply
post #60 of 154
10/13/04 at 4:58pm
This reminds me of when Starship Troopers came out and people thought it was pro-fascism.

Can't a movie just make fun of everyone and blow some puppets up without people taking it seriously?
Reply
post #61 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by durvasa
For anyone who is left-leaning who's seen this movie and finds the liberal jabs to be stupid and not creative, I'd like to hear your ideas for what would have been a more funny and appropriate way to make fun of the Hollywood liberals these filmmakers despise so much..
Like I said...make the parodies specific. I listed two ways in which you could do it with Michael Moore. Have Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn criticize the war and violence in Iraq and then have them punch out, beat, and mangle people who disagree with them. Don't put the likes of Liv Tyler or George Clooney in there if you're not going to do anything with them. And please...find a decent impressionist to handle their voices.

This isn't that difficult.
Reply
post #62 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:03pm
Well, it's worth noting when a comedy is unfunny, and that seems to be the majority of the comments.

How could it be funnier? It'd have to be a different movie, but targeting celebrities for being bubbleheaded more than active participants seems more apropos.

I guess the question is: Do celebrities make that much of a difference on the political front? I'd argue (when they aren't actually elected, which tends to be the turf of the right) not really. Alec Baldwin has made his politics public, but I can't think of a person who's followed something cause Baldwin believes in it.
Reply
post #63 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:10pm
You're focusing a lot on the FAG stuff, but that just comes in at the end of the film. I agree that business should have been stronger, but there are a lot of great jokes and scenes in the movie that come before, and some really strong ones that come after.
Reply
post #64 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
Don't put the likes of Liv Tyler or George Clooney in there if you're not going to do anything with them.
They did something with them. Probably not what you expected.
Reply
post #65 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
You're focusing a lot on the FAG stuff, but that just comes in at the end of the film. I agree that business should have been stronger, but there are a lot of great jokes and scenes in the movie that come before, and some really strong ones that come after.
The FAG stuff is pretty much the second half of the film, Dev. Not just the end. Aside from how Gary gets back in the game (vomit, montage, his loyalty "test" to Spottiswoode) - all of which was brilliant - I cannot think of anything in the second half that funny. The "panthers"? Cute for a second. Baldwin's "Fag" speech? Ehhh. The dick, pussy, asshole thing? Yes, I know it's a parody of that line of dialogue early on in films that gets repeated at a criitical moment in the climax....but I think the joke was less funny the second time around.

And again, I have to stress I didn't find Kim Jong to be funny at all. It was just Cartman with weaker lines.
Reply
post #66 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:18pm
Quote:
I guess the question is: Do celebrities make that much of a difference on the political front? I'd argue (when they aren't actually elected, which tends to be the turf of the right) not really. Alec Baldwin has made his politics public, but I can't think of a person who's followed something cause Baldwin believes in it.
I do think that celebrities can have a greater impact on the political process than normal people. When they say something, more people hear it, and more people will consider it. If I have something I want to say about the war in Iraq, I can talk to my friends or my family. A guy like Tim Robbins or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin can get on Larry King and talk to millions. It's tough to point to specific examples, because most people wouldn't admit to being swayed politically just because their favorite actor said something on TV, but I do think there's an impact.
Reply
post #67 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:20pm
I thought he was funny enough, but I've been following the crazy leaders of North Korea for a while, so I like seeing him portrayed that way. I thought that a bunch of the action stuff was funny - I'm just amused by graphic puppet violence, I suppose.

The film without a doubt loses steam in the second half, but I don't think it ever gets so awful that I disliked it. Just the Team America theme sung all sad was enough to have me giggling a while.
Reply
post #68 of 154
10/13/04 at 5:26pm
I don't see why the celebrity-thing is such a low point for so many. Parker and Stone have never really been on in impersonating celebrities. I mean, when the Baldwins get bombed in BL&U, no one said "Hey! They don't talk or act like that!" Did they overdo it in this film? Perhaps, but to say it weakens the whole second half is to ignore all the really good stuff.
Reply
post #69 of 154
10/13/04 at 6:01pm
Well, I'm not going to keep harping on it. There was plenty to like in the film, and it is good, funny, whatever..... but the second just isn't near as good as the first.
Reply
post #70 of 154
10/13/04 at 10:54pm
Question for those who've seen it. How much do you think a die-hard South Park fan who's seen many action movies and thinks hardcore left and right wingers are both living in a fantasy world would like this movie?
Reply
post #71 of 154
10/13/04 at 11:01pm
These guys get way too much credit. Not funny at all.

Try the 3rd season of Red vs. Blue for some animated humour.
Reply
post #72 of 154
10/13/04 at 11:09pm
For people who want to keep insisting South Park isn't partisan...

"America is our home, our team. And if you're not gonna root for your team, you should get the hell out of the stadium."

That was the moment alarm bells rang for me personally.

But hey - I still love the shit out of South Park and always will.

On a completely unrelated side note - do you think Alec B and Born Again Stevie B go all Celebrity Deathmatch over the Thanksgiving turkey these days?
Reply
post #73 of 154
10/14/04 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
I don't see why the celebrity-thing is such a low point for so many.
Because to target something for parody, one has to have a point. Are Danny Glover, Matt Damon, Liv Tyler and George Clooney so looney they'd support terrorists?

And as for the FAG stuff, who are the gay jokes playing to? There's a lot of homosexual commentary in this film, and for the most part it's not particularly Gay-friendly humor. Granted, fag is schooolyard insults, but with this film (ulnlike Bigger Longer and Uncut) it doesn't feel grounded. Satan becomes a positve character in that film, wheras all the FAGs in this are subjects of ridicule, and the homo content of this film seems a little more... offf. More meant as an insult. The reveal of one character's mistrust of the lead... dunno.

I love much of the film's sense of humor, showing things that have been imagined and practise by numerous 12 year old the world over, but when they try to make some sort of comment (and they are) the film loses its bearings. I guess the question is are Stone and Parker aware of the film's hypocrisy?
Reply
post #74 of 154
10/14/04 at 7:28am
Aren't these guys pals with Clooney?
Reply
post #75 of 154
10/14/04 at 11:22am
I find it amazing that this film with puppets is generating so much politically-charged talk.

And yes, Clooney was the voice of Stan's gay dog. And I didn't understand why they used Matt Damon and not Ben Affleck as a puppet, and thought the characterization of Damon was, although funny, not "realistic", if you can use that term about a movie with puppets. This makes sense now after I read this in an interview on Coming Soon!:

Quote:
CS!: Who did the voice for Matt Damon?
Parker: Actually, we both did.
Stone: We both did parts, but that's not a very tough voice. Anyone could have done that one.
Parker: The way that happened was funny, too. That wasn't in the script. We started getting the puppet molds back for the actors, but you can only use one skull that these faces go over, so sometimes you'd get a puppet that looked close and sometimes you just didn't. I remember the Matt Damon one we were supposed to shoot that day, and the puppeteers came down and were like "Here's Matt Damon!" and we were like "Dude! That doesn't look like Matt Damon! He looks retarded!" Honestly, out of all those people, we've met Matt Damon before, and he's actually a pretty cool guy and a talented actor. It's just because his puppet was screwed up that he got voiced that way.
Stone: It just shows that it's totally not personal.
Reply
post #76 of 154
10/14/04 at 1:59pm
Looks like I'll be waiting for this to come out on video. The clips I've seen are damn funny, though. One thing about SP:BL&U that got on my nerves was all the musical interludes.
Reply
post #77 of 154
10/14/04 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
Because to target something for parody, one has to have a point. Are Danny Glover, Matt Damon, Liv Tyler and George Clooney so looney they'd support terrorists?
Where is that written? I'd much rather the parody be completely false and funny than be grounded and played to death (see: Michael Jackson)

Quote:
And as for the FAG stuff, who are the gay jokes playing to? There's a lot of homosexual commentary in this film, and for the most part it's not particularly Gay-friendly humor. Granted, fag is schooolyard insults, but with this film (ulnlike Bigger Longer and Uncut) it doesn't feel grounded. Satan becomes a positve character in that film, wheras all the FAGs in this are subjects of ridicule, and the homo content of this film seems a little more... offf. More meant as an insult. The reveal of one character's mistrust of the lead... dunno.
It is what it is. In my esitmation, these guys don't care who they're offending or defending. Humor is their ultimate goal, not stressing a political view.

Quote:
I love much of the film's sense of humor, showing things that have been imagined and practise by numerous 12 year old the world over, but when they try to make some sort of comment (and they are) the film loses its bearings. I guess the question is are Stone and Parker aware of the film's hypocrisy?
If there is a target of parody it's action films. That's the only comment. I honestly believe that everything else is what the viewer wants to see. That's why there's all this silly argument about whether they're liberal or conservative.
Reply
post #78 of 154
10/14/04 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
Turning Matt Damon into a mongoloid is funny sort of, but not a particularly insightful commentary on him.
You sure they weren't parodying Johnny Damon?
Reply
post #79 of 154
10/14/04 at 5:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
I'd much rather the parody be completely false and funny than be grounded and played to death (see: Michael Jackson)
I guess you find it funny, but your statement is stupid. The concept of satire is that you mock people for what they are, and a good satirist would find new ways to attack Jackson if he were their subject. Unfortunately too often in modern comedy the reference is the joke. A reference isn't a joke. But in terms of stuff being not true, it's funnier and more insightful to attack Kerry as a flip flopper (tired though that might be) than as, say, a pedophile. Because one at least has a grounding in truth, therefore a point is being made. A better satirist would find something better than flip-flopping. But you attack idiots because they're idiots, and when you broaden the scope and include people who don't deserve mockery simply because they fit into the joke, then you've muddled you point. And again, to suggest that even the worst of them would get in bed with Kim Jong Il... it's sloppy storytelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
It is what it is. In my esitmation, these guys don't care who they're offending or defending. Humor is their ultimate goal, not stressing a political view.
Even in the absense of purpose a mindset and viewpoint is presented in a text. TA:WP borders on being homophobic in a way that Parker and Stone never have before. Stone and Parker are going after pretentious Hollywood twits, and for making this movie have joined their league by expressing opinions half thought out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg
If there is a target of parody it's action films. That's the only comment. I honestly believe that everything else is what the viewer wants to see. That's why there's all this silly argument about whether they're liberal or conservative.
So how does attacking the Baldwin's, Penn's, and Robbin's tie into action films? Are you saying it's empty? Well, maybe, but then why include it. Is it useless (therefore a waste of screentime) or insulting? You obviously haven't thought this through, Matt.
Reply
post #80 of 154
10/14/04 at 5:42pm
Once again I say:

"I find it amazing that this film with puppets is generating so much politically-charged talk."

I'm in wonder at the level that Andre has deconstructed this movie and it's plots and jokes. What's next, the critical political and social commentary on Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls?
Reply
post #81 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:07pm
http://chud.com/reviews/198
Reply
post #82 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
I guess you find it funny, but your statement is stupid. The concept of satire is that you mock people for what they are, and a good satirist would find new ways to attack Jackson if he were their subject. Unfortunately too often in modern comedy the reference is the joke. A reference isn't a joke. But in terms of stuff being not true, it's funnier and more insightful to attack Kerry as a flip flopper (tired though that might be) than as, say, a pedophile. Because one at least has a grounding in truth, therefore a point is being made. A better satirist would find something better than flip-flopping. But you attack idiots because they're idiots, and when you broaden the scope and include people who don't deserve mockery simply because they fit into the joke, then you've muddled you point. And again, to suggest that even the worst of them would get in bed with Kim Jong Il... it's sloppy storytelling.



Even in the absense of purpose a mindset and viewpoint is presented in a text. TA:WP borders on being homophobic in a way that Parker and Stone never have before. Stone and Parker are going after pretentious Hollywood twits, and for making this movie have joined their league by expressing opinions half thought out.



So how does attacking the Baldwin's, Penn's, and Robbin's tie into action films? Are you saying it's empty? Well, maybe, but then why include it. Is it useless (therefore a waste of screentime) or insulting? You obviously haven't thought this through, Matt.
I had a big point typed out and I lost it, so I'll just say this:

From what I can tell, Stone and Parker don't seem to have any big point to make other than to make folks laugh. There is a history of undercutting in their work and if you want to see a viewpoint, then that's fine. It can be done with any film and I think yours is quite valid and well backed-up. I just can't agree when I look over all of their work.

The same also follows for the inclusion of Baldwin, Penn, et al. Yes, action films are the big parody in this film, but they also go after celebrity opinion, American imperialism, the craziness of Kim Jong Il, etc. You may find the lack of consistency troubling or that they simply didn't think things out. I just think they're going for a laugh wherever possible. In my view, they succeeded most of the time.

But please don't say I haven't thought this through.
Reply
post #83 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:16pm
For the record, Parker and Stone spoke at a screening I was at last night and they said that they wanted to target the kind of actors who go on Crossfire to talk politics. They said they respect people who work political beliefs into their art (they used Springsteen as an example), but that having CNN cut to Sean Penn for info on Iraq was like cutting to Cookie Monster.

The movie does not make this clear. I agree with the point of view they stated at the screening, but it's their fault that they didn't get it across on film.
Reply
post #84 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
For the record, Parker and Stone spoke at a screening I was at last night and they said that they wanted to target the kind of actors who go on Crossfire to talk politics. They said they respect people who work political beliefs into their art (they used Springsteen as an example), but that having CNN cut to Sean Penn for info on Iraq was like cutting to Cookie Monster.

The movie does not make this clear. I agree with the point of view they stated at the screening, but it's their fault that they didn't get it across on film.
Those celebritiess aren't any less authoritative on Iraq than some of the "experts" they have on Fox News, like Coulter and Hannity. If Fox got its share of ribbing in the movie, I wouldn't mind so much.
Reply
post #85 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:32pm
Are there any sort of Dixie Chicks/Toby Keith gags?
Reply
post #86 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Are there any sort of Dixie Chicks/Toby Keith gags?
There is an AWESOME Toby Keith song-parody.
Reply
post #87 of 154
10/14/04 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Are there any sort of Dixie Chicks/Toby Keith gags?
Best gag in the movie is the Toby Keith parody song, "Freedom Ain't Free." Any time they played even a few bars of it, I was rolling.
Reply
post #88 of 154
10/14/04 at 10:24pm
I really admire Trey and Matt as I've stated, but the last couple of years I have noticed younger people "aping" things they hear on South Park. Most notably the anti semitism. I know it's supposed to be a joke because Cartman is a little fucking asshole, but some people (And I am talking in their late teens and early 20's) construe it as condoning such behavior, so they start mimicking the behavior. I know this because my younger brother does this very thing. "Jew" has become the new "fag" or "gay" for this generation. Instead of saying "That is so gay" they say "That is so jewish" or "you are such a jew"/ I wish I were exagerating but I am not. My younger brother, God love him, is a fucking tard. But that seems to be the pattern of people his age (18-23). So, these same fuckheads are going to go into Team America: World Police and come out thinking "Yay. America kicks ass! It IS our place to go to other countries and shove them around regardless of the consequences or civilian casualties. They are just a bunch of funny talking savages with diapers on their heads HA HA!". Americans as a group are fucking mindless. Why do you think we are being bombarded with these inane campaign ads from both sides? Because they know they work the rubes. And, by the way, speaking as a conservative: This imperalist nation building of the current administration is NOT based on conservative principles visit http://www.amconmag.com to find out what real conservatives think of the Bush administration.


Matt and Trey say that anybody who leaves their movie with a changed or solidified political position should not vote. BUt unfortunately the uneducated rubes do. Hell, if a 30 second soundbite can dictate a persons voting pattern for life, why is it so far fetched that a 90 minute puppet movie where liberals are equated to terrorists do the same?

Michael out.
Reply
post #89 of 154
10/15/04 at 12:27pm
Wow. I expected the "Why are they making fun of conservatives AND liberals? I'm confused!" bleating from some of the dummies around here, but not from Ebert. He drops the ball in a big way here:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/40921007
Reply
post #90 of 154
10/15/04 at 2:07pm
He doesn't seem confused at all.
Reply
post #91 of 154
10/15/04 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman
I'm in wonder at the level that Andre has deconstructed this movie and it's plots and jokes.
I'm not.
Reply
post #92 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:01pm
I'm confused as to how Ebert seems confused or drops the ball in that review.
Reply
post #93 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:06pm
Ah the movie would be funnier if I thought less!
Reply
post #94 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakay
I'm confused as to how Ebert seems confused or drops the ball in that review.
Here's two possible ways (I also posted these in the main sewer thread):

He says in the article:
"But it turns out the real threat comes from North Korea and its leader Kim Jong Il (voice also by Parker), who plans to unleash "9/11 times 2,356." "Why that would mean ..." says Gary. "2,146,316," says Kim Jong Il."

Kim Jong Il doesn't talk to Gary until the final scenes of the movie. This line is said to one of the Team America in his prison. And the response isn't "2,146,316", it's "That's right...nobody knows." And I thought about this after I posted it, and I may be confused and Spottswoode said this instead, and Kim Jong Il did say 2,146,316. But I know he doesn't say it to Gary, because he never talks to Gary directly until the finale at the show.

I do know he got this wrong--he also mentions "No. 1 on his [Kim Jong Il's] list: Blowing up the Panama Canal." No, it isn't. He gets pissed at the Chechnians (sp?) for blowing it up when he didn't order it.
Reply
post #95 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakay
I'm confused as to how Ebert seems confused or drops the ball in that review.
Well, aside from the fact that he complains about action movie cliches--seemingly without realizing that most of the cliches are both intentional and satirical in nature--he takes a puppet movie to task for having a nihilistic outlook, and he implies that making fun of the world's current situation is somehow morally irresponsible. In a PUPPET MOVIE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
I wasn't offended by the movie's content so much as by its nihilism. At a time when the world is in crisis and the country faces an important election, the response of Parker, Stone and company is to sneer at both sides -- indeed, at anyone who takes the current world situation seriously. They may be right that some of us are puppets, but they're wrong that all of us are fools, and dead wrong that it doesn't matter.
Seriously. He's mad at a satirical puppet movie made by the creators of South Park because it doesn't "take the current world situation seriously." If that's not dropping the ball, nothing is.
Reply
post #96 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:30pm
Great points, Slater.
Reply
post #97 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:43pm
First up: this "don't overanalyze it" stuff is bullshit. If you don't want to be intelligent about movies, that's your call, but don't imply that those who bother to think about film are in some way delusional. It's a cop out, it's bullshit, and it makes you look utterly ignorant. And I am saying that coming from a position of disagreeing with dre on this film almost completely.

Second, Ebert is not confused OR wrong. The movie, as much as Parker and Stone claim otherwise, IS a political satire. Actually I think that the film isn't nihilistic but rather dishonest - the filmmakers are covering their own feelings about the issues under a "we're joking" blanket. I think the movie is funny as is, when you realize that these guys are essentially children politically and that they can't articulate their beliefs, but it would be better and funnier if they could. If the anti-war parody stuff was actually all that FUNNY I would agree that the film is nihilistic - but it's essentially just meanspirited, so you get the idea that maybe these guys were afraid to air their real views.

A political satire should, at some point, have a POV.
Reply
post #98 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
First up: this "don't overanalyze it" stuff is bullshit. If you don't want to be intelligent about movies, that's your call, but don't imply that those who bother to think about film are in some way delusional. It's a cop out, it's bullshit, and it makes you look utterly ignorant. And I am saying that coming from a position of disagreeing with dre on this film almost completely.

Second, Ebert is not confused OR wrong. The movie, as much as Parker and Stone claim otherwise, IS a political satire. Actually I think that the film isn't nihilistic but rather dishonest - the filmmakers are covering their own feelings about the issues under a "we're joking" blanket. I think the movie is funny as is, when you realize that these guys are essentially children politically and that they can't articulate their beliefs, but it would be better and funnier if they could. If the anti-war parody stuff was actually all that FUNNY I would agree that the film is nihilistic - but it's essentially just meanspirited, so you get the idea that maybe these guys were afraid to air their real views.

A political satire should, at some point, have a POV.
Interesting points, Devin. So, what do you suspect is their real views?
Reply
post #99 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:48pm
They're essentially hawkish libertarians.
Reply
post #100 of 154
10/15/04 at 3:49pm
I actually think a lot of reviews from older critics who don't really understand the appeal of South Park humor will be similar to Ebert's.

Here's CSM'c take on it:

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.c...2s03-almo.html

Quote:
While it may seem superficially clever to spray the same childish irreverence onto flag-waving militarists, celebrity peaceniks, and everyone in between, the message that emerges is negative and nihilistic, taking no stands whatever - except, I suppose, that all grownups are equally stupid. If you're not a fan of naughtiness for naughtiness's sake, "Team America" is this week's must-miss movie.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE Discussion