Escape to the Movies: Machete Kills

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Brockyman:

I saw the double post. lol. It happens to the best of us.

I see your point. I'm not a huge fan of sending troops into harm's way, and I also agree in changing legislation to allow for some types of drugs to be legal. However, there are a couple of ways I disagree in your premise.

1. Villains - The (vast majority of) people that run and work for these cartels are, well, evil. I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of the kinds of stuff they do to their enemies, but it makes the Italian Mafia look like school children having a playground fight. Tijuana neckties, dismembered people in the streets, bribery/intimidation at the highest levels of the Mexican government. Sometimes evil people just need to be exterminated... if the drugs became legal, they would move on to kidnapping for ransom (something they already do), sex trade, harder/newer drugs not made in the US. I know games like GTA V seem to make the criminal life heroic, but these people need to be punished

2. Military Level Equipment - Local police and officials don't have the manpower, equipment or will (thanks to threats) to deal with the problem. Navy Seals, Green Berets, and other Special Forces, along with air power have the means, training, equipment to take care of the issue with a lot less chance for intimidation.
Also, who's to say that after drugs became legal that they wouldn't use their weapons and equipment to destabilize and take over governments.

3. Trade - A secure, peaceful Latin America would more then make up for 80 billion in drug money with all of its natural beauty, oil and natural resources, and interesting and vibrant culture. If American and European tourists felt save, the tourism could almost make up that alone, not to mention the oil and mineral exports. I think the majority of Latin Americans would prefer to work in these professions then the drug trade.

Again, just food for thought. I do like your ideas and you put some thought into them.

In answer to your first point there are hundreds of thousand's (if not millions) of people working world wide for the drug trade and most of them are not evil, they are poor people in poor countries who grow/make the ingredients for the drugs and will have never used violence in there lives. The leaders of the cartels are villians as are those they employ to commit violence but the drug trade is not small the money involved for just cocaine is 4 times that of the entire US agricultural sector and the subsequent employment is also just as high.

For your second point the US military can kill anyone involved in the drug trade easily but so what? just look at the US's failed attempts to destroy terrorism and that is based on belief the drug trade is for money and no matter how many cartel leaders you kill there will always be a thousand times more of those willing to take over.

Next in responce to these two points.

(Sometimes evil people just need to be exterminated... if the drugs became legal, they would move on to kidnapping for ransom (something they already do), sex trade, harder/newer drugs not made in the US.)

If new drugs are invented immediatly legalise them thus costing the cartels all the money spent on R&D with no financial gain while for the other parts you said it yourself "they already do them" but the drug trade is the most profitable and nothing is more effective than taking away someone's source of income to "end them"

(Also, who's to say that after drugs became legal that they wouldn't use their weapons and equipment to destabilize and take over governments.)

Again they already do, that is what is happening in Mexico and Colombia right now.

I'd watch it just because I enjoyed the first one as to how overly ridiculous it was.

Sometimes a movie doesn't need a deep, developed plot to be enjoyable. As long as you're aware of what you're getting into and understand the movie's goal... then you're good! You can still dislike it of course, but it's better to know ahead of time is all.

Lady Gaga, to me looks like she's going to be my favorite actress in this movie. Don't ask me why XD
Also dat clap at the end. He seemed so impressed, and yet was thinking, "The heck did I get myself into?" Lol.

I had kind of hoped he was going to review Captain Phillips just because I want to know if there's actually anything to this movie, but Machete Kills is obviously the better choice for review material. Alas.

Caostotale:

All I'm saying is that I'm not interested in even opening up a discussion on Spanish-American discrimination when I'm watching trailer footage for a movie about a character who couldn't possibly be more of a white overgrown teenager's fantasy imagining of a bad-ass Mexican. On the surface, everything about Trejo's appearance and vibe makes him seem like one of the over-the-top caricatures from a GTA game.

But isn't that exactly the point Bob's making? I haven't seen either movie, but the whole thrust of Bob's review was that Machete *was* more than a caricature bad-ass Mexican movie, and that it had a deeper subtext that made it more interesting. That is - yes, it is a silly over-the-top action movie, and simultaneously it has something to say about immigration politics. The comparison someone made above to Robocop seems apposite here - a great action movie which also happens to be a commentary on consumerism and corruption of government by big business.

JimB:
I had kind of hoped he was going to review Captain Phillips just because I want to know if there's actually anything to this movie, but Machete Kills is obviously the better choice for review material. Alas.

Take a look at his Intermission column - he reviews it in some depth there.

MovieBob:
Machete Kills

MovieBob cuts into the latest Machete movie.

Watch Video

Good video Bob, but if you're going to show the gory bits of the video, can you put a warning in next time? Just got chewed out for accidentally scaring the crap out of my girlfriend's kid.

Huh, I didn't know he did movie reviews in his column. Thanks for the heads up, Flatfrog.

Looks like good fun, I'll probably watch it sometime because I can ignore some issues in anything so long as they're entertaining.

Caramel Frappe:

Lady Gaga, to me looks like she's going to be my favorite actress in this movie. Don't ask me why XD

You should probably look up the Aura lyric video while you wait to see it then :-)

Brockyman:
And of course Bob continues his "I have to talk about something ungodly liberal in every review" cliche. He's becoming like Brian in Family Guy, started out full of wit and humor as a straight man and devolving into a liberal cliche.

C'mom Bob, not everything has to be about something.

Also, border security isn't "anti-Mexican". While I know some people do have racist intentions, the majority of Americans that support border security just want to be secure. Most of them don't mind good, hardworking, TAX PAYING, LEGAL immigration, and most support making becoming legal easier for those who deserve it (i.e. not drug dealer, rapist ect).

Not everything in life is fueled by racism and sexism, and while they still do exist (and probably always will since stupid people can't be exterminated), it's not the end-all, be-all to everything, and consistently using it is like the boy crying wolf to the point most people don't care.

It's mostly a side effect of Republican policies from the 70's-90's biting them in the ass. Back when they decided to continue courting the Racist vote by shrouding it in the trappings of economic policies (yes, they actually did document that). Given that many of the same assholes are still in charge or have influence (and Republicans even now saying dumb racist/misogynist junk), you can see how it taints... well, damn near everything they say regarding anybody not White.

One last point
-I personally think the US should intervene in the cartel wars in Mexico NOW! I saw the Extra Credits about "Call of Juarez" and googled "Mexican Drug War" and got my first hand view of how horrible it is, and why people would want to get the hell out of there. I think the destruction of the cartels by US forces would allow a lot of peace an opportunity to return to Mexico, allowing people to return and be with family and friends they left behind. A safe and secure Mexico is good for Mexicans and Americans.

Plus, frankly the whole thing does spill over into the US from time to time.

Personally, I think they should first go ahead and cut their purse strings. Taxation and competition can do a lot to kill the allure of the drug business.

Robot-Jesus:

Brockyman:

Also, border security isn't "anti-Mexican". While I know some people do have racist intentions, the majority of Americans that support border security just want to be secure. Most of them don't mind good, hardworking, TAX PAYING, LEGAL immigration, and most support making becoming legal easier for those who deserve it (i.e. not drug dealer, rapist ect).

Arizona and Colorado have roughly the same sized Hispanic population. One has horrible "papers please NOW" laws and the other one doesn't. One is a mecca for retirees and the other one isn't.

Now why would having a large population of old white people make illegal immigration a much larger issue then it is without them?

Thank you for a perfect example of what I was talking about!

1. The Arizona immigration law isn't a "paper's now" law, as in people have to produce immigration papers on request at any time, like walking down the street. The law only mentioned it in reference of already ongoing criminal investigations, and allowed the state to enforce CURRENT US IMMIGRATION LAWS, which the US Government hasn't been doing for a long time across multiple political situations.
Basically if someone is arrested for a crime, their immigration status is check as part of the investigation, and deportation becomes an option. I don't know why this is considered a bad thing?
I know there could be ways it could be abused, but you could say that about any kind of law currently out there. I don't want to assume that you are intentionally miss characterizing the law for this argument, so I'm assuming that you just didn't know from the media that didn't do a good job explaining it.

2. I honestly don't get where you're going with the "retiree" argument honestly. Colorado is #5 on the AARP list for best states to retire in, Arizonia isn't in the top ten. Is you're argument that old people in Colorado want Hispanics to stay for a cheap workforce?

3. Of course you had to mention "white people". Reverse racism at it's finest. My opinion (and that of most people I know) don't want ANYONE coming over without following the laws, including Europeans, Africans, Asians, Australians, ect. Along with that, I (and those same people) feel that there should be a fast pass immigration to those with good intentions and records with marketable skills and without a criminal record (including Hispanics). I'm also well acquainted with many people, including those of Hispanic descant that favor border security.

4. Maybe you can answer these questions for me, in all seriousness and curiosity. I don't understand why people think this way, and if I did, it could help me to understand the other side.

-Why does the left give a free pass to illegal immigration by Hispanics into the US?
(YOU CAN'T USE "IT WAS THEIR LAND FIRST" AS AN ARGUMENT. 1. WE WON IT IN A WAR WITH A TREATY AND PAID FOR THE LAND 2. NATIVE AMERICAN'S WOULD GET FIRST DIBS ANYWAY. 3. IT'S THE BAST GTF OVER IT)
-Why is it considered racist to want others to follow laws that are less harsh then Mexican immigration law?
-Isn't it kind of racist in itself to give them a pass?
-Isn't it racist they have a group called "La Raza" (literally "the race") that has been legitimized in the debate?
-What level of border security should we have? What should immigration policy be? And what kind of tax structure or benefits would be allowed to non citizens

The first film was so dumb... I remember laughting, which means I was proberly enjoying myself but that pool scene was something else, I cringed... then got a boner, but a cringy kind of boner.

SAMAS:

Brockyman:
And of course Bob continues his "I have to talk about something ungodly liberal in every review" cliche. He's becoming like Brian in Family Guy, started out full of wit and humor as a straight man and devolving into a liberal cliche.

C'mom Bob, not everything has to be about something.

Also, border security isn't "anti-Mexican". While I know some people do have racist intentions, the majority of Americans that support border security just want to be secure. Most of them don't mind good, hardworking, TAX PAYING, LEGAL immigration, and most support making becoming legal easier for those who deserve it (i.e. not drug dealer, rapist ect).

Not everything in life is fueled by racism and sexism, and while they still do exist (and probably always will since stupid people can't be exterminated), it's not the end-all, be-all to everything, and consistently using it is like the boy crying wolf to the point most people don't care.

It's mostly a side effect of Republican policies from the 70's-90's biting them in the ass. Back when they decided to continue courting the Racist vote by shrouding it in the trappings of economic policies (yes, they actually did document that). Given that many of the same assholes are still in charge or have influence (and Republicans even now saying dumb racist/misogynist junk), you can see how it taints... well, damn near everything they say regarding anybody not White.

We can mainly agree on the last point so I cut it. I'm not against legalization of some drugs. Also, some proactive intervention could stop the violence from spilling across and helping the poor villagers that see the brunt of it every day.

To the point.

1. I don't get your "racist vote" thing. The Republican Party was founded by slave abolitionists in 1854 and included Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party had a very strong voice in Civil Rights legislation, and mainly democrats, including George Wallace in Alabama, were Democrats. Yes, there asshole that are racists in all parties, but there isn't any directly racist actions I've ever seen.

2. What "racist/misogynist junk" are you refering too? You whole "they say regarding anybody not White" already shows your bias, but I'd like to hear your opinion. I'll also give you a few examples others shoot out at as racist or misogynistic.

-Government shouldn't pay for abortions or birth control. This one is always held up as misogynistic, and thinking that is honestly, stupid. Small government activists don't want the government to pay for anything, or as little as possible. It's not anti-woman, but anti-spending

-Abortion. This is seen to an afront to women's rights. Take a look from a different perspective. The people on that side of the aisle see life as important and precious and see abortion as killing an innocent life. While I personally don't want legislation to make abortion illegal, I understand their point, and shudder that people use it as birth control when so many great things are out there to stop pregnancy

-Voter ID. This is probably the stupidest one I've heard. "It's RACIST" TO WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE IDs to VOTE!!! You have to have an ID to do almost anything in this country from writing and cashing checks, to traveling by car or air, ect. Why shouldn't you have to prove who you are to vote? An instead of talking about "disenfranchising voters", why don't those groups help underprivileged people GET THEIR STATE IDS!

PunkRex:
The first film was so dumb... I remember laughting, which means I was proberly enjoying myself but that pool scene was something else, I cringed... then got a boner, but a cringy kind of boner.

I think "cringy kind of boner" is the internet's phrase of the day!

TheRightToArmBears:
Intestines being pulled out and Clutch in the soundtrack? A movie after my own heart.

No, the movie's after your guts

:P

Stabby Joe:
Ever since Red State (a film that wasn't even that bad), Bob seems to have in for Kevin Smith recently, despite previously implying enjoyment of his past work. Confusing.

Not only wasn't it "that bad", it was unique, very low budget and pretty much all around awesome. The things that make it unique is pretty much what Bobby hated about it*, is what I got from his review of it. Everyone acts their ass off, people suddenly die Game of Thrones style for no apparent (story) reason.
It's not perfect at all (Smith has never been an action director of any merit), but the overall impression to me when the credits roll is "Wow, did I just see that? I'll have to watch it again!" I'd say it's tied for fourth place on my list of favourite Kevin Smith movies, which is somewhere in the middle, but it's the only one of the bunch that really made me go "wow".

*Why this translates into retroactively not liking his earlier stuff, I'm just as confused as you about. Maybe we're reading him wrong on that, and he just means "the old movies are still good, I just don't know what sort of "promise" we saw in him, and we probably never defined it".

DAT FINAL SECTION. Holy hell, I'm not sure why that made me laugh so much out of a "Good christ, did they just pull that?" kinda way, but I'm guessing that says it all about the Machete films, not seen a film be that creative in terms of violence and body parts, although I've gotta be honest, I've not seen many films.
Now need to track down the first on dvd before finding if this will play anywhere Near me, before resigning it to another "at some point in the future" dvd sale

Pulling a dude through a helicopter blade via his colon? A-okay! Nipple? Nooooooope.

Welcome to the future, lads and lasses. It's gonna be a repressive ride.

teamcharlie:
Pulling a dude through a helicopter blade via his colon? A-okay! Nipple? Nooooooope.

Welcome to the future, lads and lasses. It's gonna be a repressive ride.

Yeah, I always find that a touch ridiculous, like you're more likely to see a decapitation before a set of naked boobs. Yet which one's more likely to hurt? Or at the very least, leave a mark on the floor that requires a bit more than a fresh bottle of Disinfectant to clean up afterwards...

Brockyman:

SAMAS:

Brockyman:
And of course Bob continues his "I have to talk about something ungodly liberal in every review" cliche. He's becoming like Brian in Family Guy, started out full of wit and humor as a straight man and devolving into a liberal cliche.

C'mom Bob, not everything has to be about something.

Also, border security isn't "anti-Mexican". While I know some people do have racist intentions, the majority of Americans that support border security just want to be secure. Most of them don't mind good, hardworking, TAX PAYING, LEGAL immigration, and most support making becoming legal easier for those who deserve it (i.e. not drug dealer, rapist ect).

Not everything in life is fueled by racism and sexism, and while they still do exist (and probably always will since stupid people can't be exterminated), it's not the end-all, be-all to everything, and consistently using it is like the boy crying wolf to the point most people don't care.

It's mostly a side effect of Republican policies from the 70's-90's biting them in the ass. Back when they decided to continue courting the Racist vote by shrouding it in the trappings of economic policies (yes, they actually did document that). Given that many of the same assholes are still in charge or have influence (and Republicans even now saying dumb racist/misogynist junk), you can see how it taints... well, damn near everything they say regarding anybody not White.

We can mainly agree on the last point so I cut it. I'm not against legalization of some drugs. Also, some proactive intervention could stop the violence from spilling across and helping the poor villagers that see the brunt of it every day.

To the point.

1. I don't get your "racist vote" thing. The Republican Party was founded by slave abolitionists in 1854 and included Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party had a very strong voice in Civil Rights legislation, and mainly democrats, including George Wallace in Alabama, were Democrats. Yes, there asshole that are racists in all parties, but there isn't any directly racist actions I've ever seen.

Please, please stop with the "Well, we were on the good side a hundred years ago" argument. As the old question goes: "What have you done for me lately?" And the answer isn't good. I suggest you look up the term "Southern Strategy". Here's something to get you started -- an excerpt from a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[4]

Short version: in the Lyndon Johson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964), pissing off much of the South, save for Texas ('cause it's LBJ!). Barry Goldwater and the Republican Party moved to take the Southern states by appealing to racist voters. It worked, and the situation you mentioned for that past hundred years or so reversed completely.

2. What "racist/misogynist junk" are you refering too? You whole "they say regarding anybody not White" already shows your bias, but I'd like to hear your opinion. I'll also give you a few examples others shoot out at as racist or misogynistic.

"just too much that you don't know," Bennett said. "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
--Bill Bennet

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen." -- Richard Mourdock (R)Indiana (former, thankfully)

"These Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness...We are not going to have our men become subservient." Allen West (R) Florida (Also former, and proof that it's not only White Republicans that say dumb sh*t).

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Todd Akin (R) Missouri (Again, former, showing that people are much less tolerant of that thing anymore)

"The facts show that people who are raped -who are truly raped-the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."
-former Rep. Henry Aldridge (R-N.C.)

"As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
-Former Texas Republican gubernatorial contender Clayton Williams on rape

All of this was said in the past year.

-Government shouldn't pay for abortions or birth control. This one is always held up as misogynistic, and thinking that is honestly, stupid. Small government activists don't want the government to pay for anything, or as little as possible. It's not anti-woman, but anti-spending

I didn't say jack about this...

-Abortion. This is seen to an afront to women's rights. Take a look from a different perspective. The people on that side of the aisle see life as important and precious and see abortion as killing an innocent life. While I personally don't want legislation to make abortion illegal, I understand their point, and shudder that people use it as birth control when so many great things are out there to stop pregnancy

...Or this...

(And there are simpler ways of birth control than abortion, like pretty much all of them save for the surgical methods. And cheaper, too. So no, I don't see many women using abortion as a measure of birth control. That seems like getting a root canal every time you get a cavity.)

-Voter ID. This is probably the stupidest one I've heard. "It's RACIST" TO WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE IDs to VOTE!!! You have to have an ID to do almost anything in this country from writing and cashing checks, to traveling by car or air, ect. Why shouldn't you have to prove who you are to vote? An instead of talking about "disenfranchising voters", why don't those groups help underprivileged people GET THEIR STATE IDS!

...or this, for that matter.

MovieBob:
Kick Master snip

It's ok, I forgot it existed till you brought it up, but, yeah, its your standard 2D side scrolling beat em up, like Shatter Hand or Batman, but with a leveling system.

I need to see Charlie Sheen as the president. He'd be better then Obama. I just had a thought, Obama as himself in a movie!

SAMAS:
[quote="Brockyman" post="6.830794.20267586"]
Please, please stop with the "Well, we were on the good side a hundred years ago" argument. As the old question goes: "What have you done for me lately?" And the answer isn't good. I suggest you look up the term "Southern Strategy".

As opposed to the Democrats, who are nothing but a shining beacon of purity and all the is good in this world, right? Let's go to the "old question" and ask them(the democrats), what have you done for me lately?

Oh that's right, they decided to give companies a break but screw over individual people. Better yet, the democrat administration have set up a website that doesn't even work despite the fact that poor college kids are being forced against there will to use the website if they don't want to be fined. Just for kicks, watch Kathleen Sebelius dodge all of John Stewart's questions about whether or not the Affordable Care Act website is working properly:

Gee, what else can I look at when I think of that question, "what have you done for me lately"? Oh, I see that under the current administration, Edward Snowden is treated as a criminal, Chelsea/Bradley Manning was illegally put in prison for three years prior to being convicted for any crime, and is now serving a 35 year prison sentencing. Meanwhile Julian Assange still faces questionable charges that might be used by the US to get him extradited if he ever leaves the Ecuadorean embassy.
That's not even getting into the whole NSA spying program and how Obama basically said that we should trade freedom for security(despite previously being against such views) and we should allow the PRISM program to continue to run.
And who could forget the fact that NONE of the CEO's of any of the major banks that caused the 2008 economic meltdown have faced any jail time, and instead, said companies received tax payer funded bailouts, all the while people are having their houses foreclosed on them.

Then there is the fact that Obama seemed to be dead set on military intervention in Syria despite the fast majority of the US being opposed to it.

And finally who could forget about Libya? A move that SNL rightfully criticized for having a questionable justification.

Yeah, good thing those democrats are not as bad as those horrible republicans, right?

O_O
Looks amazing.
Desire.
Now.

Helmholtz Watson:

Yeah, good thing those democrats are not as bad as those horrible republicans, right?

Both of America's parties are essentially different shades of the same BS. I forget whose political model it is, but I'm very convinced by the one that describes things in terms of two different axes - one measuring a standpoint between authoritarian government and libertarian government and another measuring left (socialism) or right (unlimited capitalist) approaches to economic policy. On this diagram, both the Republicans and the Democrats fall decisively inside the upper-right quadrant of authoritarian/right-wing-economics, where the government is unstoppably powerful and works hand-in-hand with an ever-shrinking oligarchical class that lobbies on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats may be incredibly talented at appearing to be 'the modern Left', but all of that is insincere 'lifestyle liberalism' mixed with heaps of advertising and triumphalist nonsense. To me, it's simply galling to watch my dumb Democrat friends do asinine crap all of the time, i.e. slap some equals-sign sticker on the back of their car and assume that such an act amounts to political participation, go on running races to end discrimination, etc... Give me a break. Gay people will only gain privileges (i.e. not 'rights', such magic ideals have little bearing in the real world) in this country when the government decides that their taxable income is more important to them than pandering to poor, backwards, religious zealots. Women and minorities will similarly suffer until the government feels that their mistreatment is causing a net amount of money to disappear. As for these supposed 'leftists', not a one of them ever go to town meetings, vote in elections that aren't sensationalized presidential races (and sometimes they skip that too), read deeply about matters of wealth disparity, environmental sustainability, workers' rights, America's imperialist interventions in the third world, militarization of domestic police forces, etc...

Caostotale:
I forget whose political model it is, but I'm very convinced by the one that describes things in terms of two different axes - one measuring a standpoint between authoritarian government and libertarian government and another measuring left (socialism) or right (unlimited capitalist) approaches to economic policy.

I think you're thinking of the political compass.

O/T are you sure they've dialed back on the gore bob? Because some of those clips looked pretty bloody.

Anyone else going to see this just because of Danny Trejo?
I am.

I would watch "Danny Trejo kills some time while drinking a beer"
Where Danny Trejo just stares at the camera for an hour drinking a beer.

That would be fun.
Just saying.

This makes me so sad. I wanted to see this movie. :( Ah well, Netflix in three years, I guess.

BOB. I PLAYED KICKMASTER. YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WAS GOOD.

Brian Tams:
"If there's one drawback, its that the gore has been dialed back..."

Bob says, as a clip plays of Machete ripping out a man's intestines and throws it into the whirring blades of a helicopter, causing the man to be yanked into the blades and chopped into tiny pieces.

You need to watch the first one. It's more OTT and I love it.

teamcharlie:
Pulling a dude through a helicopter blade via his colon? A-okay! Nipple? Nooooooope.

Welcome to the future, lads and lasses. It's gonna be a repressive ride.

Not sure why you decided to bust the soapbox out, there wasn't really any discussion about sex with this whole thing before and Machete 1 had a lot of boobs just hanging around the place. I'm guessing this one will be at least somewhat similar.

Caostotale:
The comparison to Brian from Family Guy is actually pretty spot on, as the introduction of political/social/economic issues into a discussion on a mass-entertainment film like this is just about as self-defeating as any cartoon's feeble attempts to 'get serious.' I enjoy Bob's movie criticism, game discussions, etc... in and of themselves, but dearly wish he would stop trying to tie both into dopey and superficial left-authoritarian, pro-Democrat master narratives that won him over during those impressionable college years. It wouldn't be much different if an astute political philosopher or historian tried to throw some poorly-thought-out blanket statement over whole genres of movies or gaming.

All I'm saying is that I'm not interested in even opening up a discussion on Spanish-American discrimination when I'm watching trailer footage for a movie about a character who couldn't possibly be more of a white overgrown teenager's fantasy imagining of a bad-ass Mexican. On the surface, everything about Trejo's appearance and vibe makes him seem like one of the over-the-top caricatures from a GTA game. I similar wouldn't start discussing womens' rights while watching a porn video.

By and large I agree. I would say that considering the level of social and political comentary in the first Machete film it was reasonable and noteworthy that this has been dialed back in the newer film but that said I don't think that is a bad thing. I found the tone of the first film trying to talkle "big issues" from quite a bias standpoint jarring with the OTT violence and humour.

Overall I wouldn't damn Bob for broaching the subject but I wish he would be more aware of his own political bias when he talks about these subjects.

PunkRex:
The first film was so dumb... I remember laughting, which means I was proberly enjoying myself but that pool scene was something else, I cringed... then got a boner, but a cringy kind of boner.

You should get that looked at. I don't even want to think of what shape it turned into.

OT: I didn't see the first Machete because of the in-your-face message, which I couldn't tell if it was genuine or a parody of "message" movies from the grindhouse era, and Bob likes trumpeting in his reviews. Not every movie needs to be "about" something "deeper". I am fully able to enjoy movies on what I see and hear on screen, thank you very much. Honestly, when it comes to Tarantino and Rodriguez, I think I need a degree in film just to watch their movies.

SAMAS:

Brockyman:

SAMAS:

It's mostly a side effect of Republican policies from the 70's-90's biting them in the ass. Back when they decided to continue courting the Racist vote by shrouding it in the trappings of economic policies (yes, they actually did document that). Given that many of the same assholes are still in charge or have influence (and Republicans even now saying dumb racist/misogynist junk), you can see how it taints... well, damn near everything they say regarding anybody not White.

We can mainly agree on the last point so I cut it. I'm not against legalization of some drugs. Also, some proactive intervention could stop the violence from spilling across and helping the poor villagers that see the brunt of it every day.

To the point.

1. I don't get your "racist vote" thing. The Republican Party was founded by slave abolitionists in 1854 and included Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party had a very strong voice in Civil Rights legislation, and mainly democrats, including George Wallace in Alabama, were Democrats. Yes, there asshole that are racists in all parties, but there isn't any directly racist actions I've ever seen.

Please, please stop with the "Well, we were on the good side a hundred years ago" argument. As the old question goes: "What have you done for me lately?" And the answer isn't good. I suggest you look up the term "Southern Strategy". Here's something to get you started -- an excerpt from a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[4]

Short version: in the Lyndon Johson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964), pissing off much of the South, save for Texas ('cause it's LBJ!). Barry Goldwater and the Republican Party moved to take the Southern states by appealing to racist voters. It worked, and the situation you mentioned for that past hundred years or so reversed completely.

2. What "racist/misogynist junk" are you refering too? You whole "they say regarding anybody not White" already shows your bias, but I'd like to hear your opinion. I'll also give you a few examples others shoot out at as racist or misogynistic.

"just too much that you don't know," Bennett said. "But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
--Bill Bennet

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen." -- Richard Mourdock (R)Indiana (former, thankfully)

"These Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness...We are not going to have our men become subservient." Allen West (R) Florida (Also former, and proof that it's not only White Republicans that say dumb sh*t).

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Todd Akin (R) Missouri (Again, former, showing that people are much less tolerant of that thing anymore)

"The facts show that people who are raped -who are truly raped-the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."
-former Rep. Henry Aldridge (R-N.C.)

"As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."
-Former Texas Republican gubernatorial contender Clayton Williams on rape

All of this was said in the past year.

-Government shouldn't pay for abortions or birth control. This one is always held up as misogynistic, and thinking that is honestly, stupid. Small government activists don't want the government to pay for anything, or as little as possible. It's not anti-woman, but anti-spending

I didn't say jack about this...

-Abortion. This is seen to an afront to women's rights. Take a look from a different perspective. The people on that side of the aisle see life as important and precious and see abortion as killing an innocent life. While I personally don't want legislation to make abortion illegal, I understand their point, and shudder that people use it as birth control when so many great things are out there to stop pregnancy

...Or this...

(And there are simpler ways of birth control than abortion, like pretty much all of them save for the surgical methods. And cheaper, too. So no, I don't see many women using abortion as a measure of birth control. That seems like getting a root canal every time you get a cavity.)

-Voter ID. This is probably the stupidest one I've heard. "It's RACIST" TO WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE IDs to VOTE!!! You have to have an ID to do almost anything in this country from writing and cashing checks, to traveling by car or air, ect. Why shouldn't you have to prove who you are to vote? An instead of talking about "disenfranchising voters", why don't those groups help underprivileged people GET THEIR STATE IDS!

...or this, for that matter.

First, I through in the abortion and voter ID arguments and a preemptive strike because those are 2 of the most asinine and stupid comments my liberal friends make to me.

I'm not going to deny those people said those things... I don't deny these people are stupid (although I do think Allen West did have a point in his). I know that you don't know me personally but I was outraged and screaming at the TV when many of those things were said, especially the rape comments...

But there are two things you're missing. One - these views don't represent myself, anyone I know, including the elected officials I know and friends, family, and people I discuss this with, and I believe the majority of conservatives/republicans/libertarians . Two - It doesn't represent the party itself. I know that we like to demonize organizations for the actions of a few, but most people with common sense don't agree.

I can fill the entire forum with racist, stupid, ignorant, mean spirited, and despicable things that Democrats and liberals say including much Higher Profile people such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Bill Mahr, Bill Ayers (I don't think anyone in your list ever sent bombs anywhere...), Jane Fonda (traitor), Joe Biden (just his crap alone could fill a book), Al Sharpton, Barney Frank, and many more.

The meat of what I'm saying is that REAL CHANGE will never, never, ever happen as long as BOTH SIDES continue to demonize each other. Border Security DOESN'T EQUAL HATE, Pro Life DOESN'T EQUAL HATE, ect...

I think my side of the aisle (I'm more a libertarian personally but conservative economics make more sense) needs to get rid of most of the people on the list above and take another look at things like Gay Marriage, Abortion, and other social issues and put aside personal religious believes for so others can be happy.

However, this isn't going to happen as long as people keep calling their group "racists" or "homophobes" or "bigots". MOST PEOPLE aren't, and just need education.

I was very anti gay marriage in my youth, and the more I heard things like that, the more my heart was hardened. I didn't hate anyone, I was just very religious. Then I met real people, with real situations and saw there was a better way.

I've never hated people of different colors. I think all humans have the genetic ability to do anything and should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and of people. I think where things get dicey is when you though "culture" into it. A "stupid" white person would see a black or Hispanic man in a suit and tie, they think nothing of it, but they see a group of whites, blacks or hispanics, in a group with their pants to their ankles, sideways baseball hats, listening to loud threatening music, and yelling obsenities, then they will be scared. I'ts not because of the people doing those actions, it's the actions.

This same principle could be use for everything on both sides of the aisle.

To summarize, the whole list you went through is part of the problem... to pick and choose people to demonize a whole group is ... well... wasn't racism what you were fighting against?? If you REALLY feel that most Americans with a conservative/Republican leaning are racists, then we can't have a civilized debate. You need to look at yourself, realize that racists aren't in your soup and all around you, and try to work positively for what you believe.

Helmholtz Watson:

SAMAS:
[quote="Brockyman" post="6.830794.20267586"]
Please, please stop with the "Well, we were on the good side a hundred years ago" argument. As the old question goes: "What have you done for me lately?" And the answer isn't good. I suggest you look up the term "Southern Strategy".

As opposed to the Democrats, who are nothing but a shining beacon of purity and all the is good in this world, right? Let's go to the "old question" and ask them(the democrats), what have you done for me lately?

Oh that's right, they decided to give companies a break but screw over individual people. Better yet, the democrat administration have set up a website that doesn't even work despite the fact that poor college kids are being forced against there will to use the website if they don't want to be fined. Just for kicks, watch Kathleen Sebelius dodge all of John Stewart's questions about whether or not the Affordable Care Act website is working properly:

Gee, what else can I look at when I think of that question, "what have you done for me lately"? Oh, I see that under the current administration, Edward Snowden is treated as a criminal, Chelsea/Bradley Manning was illegally put in prison for three years prior to being convicted for any crime, and is now serving a 35 year prison sentencing. Meanwhile Julian Assange still faces questionable charges that might be used by the US to get him extradited if he ever leaves the Ecuadorean embassy.
That's not even getting into the whole NSA spying program and how Obama basically said that we should trade freedom for security(despite previously being against such views) and we should allow the PRISM program to continue to run.
And who could forget the fact that NONE of the CEO's of any of the major banks that caused the 2008 economic meltdown have faced any jail time, and instead, said companies received tax payer funded bailouts, all the while people are having their houses foreclosed on them.

Then there is the fact that Obama seemed to be dead set on military intervention in Syria despite the fast majority of the US being opposed to it.

And finally who could forget about Libya? A move that SNL rightfully criticized for having a questionable justification.

Yeah, good thing those democrats are not as bad as those horrible republicans, right?

Thanks for your thoughts.

One. John Stewart's ability to hide behind the "I'm an entertainer" is sickening. He is one of the people I should have refereed to in another post. Calling people "crazy" because they don't want the Federal government involved in their personal lives is part of the reason we can't get anywhere with anything.

If you believe in single payer/government run health care, meet me and the other "crazy" people on the field of ideas and debate instead of demonizing people for defaulting to freedom

Anyway, Bob's review read like this: The first film was strong because it was a neat action flick with a hidden meaning. This is a good action flick, but has lost the meaning, so it isn't as good. It's a solid observation - 90% of action films are pure right wing propaganda, so for Machete have a strong and relevant point to make, only to drop in the sequel, is commentable.

Essentially what I'm saying is: stop raving about the personal politics of the reviewer (who'd be considered "centrist" in any country that wasn't America) as though it made a difference in his opinion. He name dropped Kevin Smith, with added photo of Red State as something he hated. If his personal politics made a difference in how preferably he review a film, as your logic dictates, he'd have raved about that one.

Caostotale:
I similar wouldn't start discussing womens' rights while watching a porn video.

Surely that's a really good time...?

Also, I get the anti-Kevin Smith thing. Not that I agree, but it makes sense. Bob's an east coast amateur film maker who loves comics, geek culture and intelligent dialogue. He's even slightly overweight with a goatee and has the same ex-Catholic heritage. I'd put money that nearly every one who had met him over the last decade or so has asked his opinion on, compared him to, or talked endlessly about Kevin Smith - the dude who made it all work. Not only must that get frustrating in itself, but to watch Smith (the ONLY guy who the amateur nerd film worked out for) do very little with his potential, while the rest of that generation are lucky to get a writing slot on local television, must drive you insane.

See also: "Same beliefs, approached in an undignified way" and "Diva about being a large chap when the rest just deal with it".

Anyway, I reckon I'll get around to watching this, these sort of films are pure entertainment.

Reading through the nonsense in this thread, allow me to throw this at all of you:

All major and minor political parties have their policies for the sole purpose of controlling people and money. They don't care about anything else.

Republicans would be the easiest to call out, so they lay it on thick with the "patriotism" and the anti-taxes bullshit. Border patrols, anti abortion? Control, over economy and people. They oppose social health care simply because it costs money. Not because it will destroy the economy, because it won't. Not because it threatens freedom, because it doesn't. They sell themselves on "freedom and liberty" because it's an easy way to write off the many ways that they remove those things.

The Democrats are more direct. They offer a vastly improved way of life through security, but insist that they regulate that. Whether it's healthcare, food standards, pensions, welfare - they drag up the standards of the everyday man, but insist it's them that do it.

Reality is, they both are bad at their jobs, and they've been firing stupid propaganda for so long that the citizens are fried. The left isn't left enough, the right is, well, wrong, and they've been calling each other "nazis" and "commies" for so long that it's not going to change. Capitalism by itself isn't enough, and the US' brief time at the forefront is already coming fast to a close.

Brockyman:

Thanks for your thoughts.

One. John Stewart's ability to hide behind the "I'm an entertainer" is sickening. He is one of the people I should have refereed to in another post. Calling people "crazy" because they don't want the Federal government involved in their personal lives is part of the reason we can't get anywhere with anything.

If you believe in single payer/government run health care, meet me and the other "crazy" people on the field of ideas and debate instead of demonizing people for defaulting to freedom

One, I'm not a fanboy of Stewarts, so I'm not bothered that you don't like the guy. Two, I didn't say you were crazy, drop the red herring. Three, I see that you conveniently avoided mentioning how the democrat president defended the actions taken by NASA and the prosecution of whistle blowers.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here