I never knew Gary Oldman was a bigot. Thanks Tiptoes.
594265
To put it plainly, this is a film in which the pivotal role of a dwarf is played by Gary Oldman, waddling around on his knees with the help of a cane. Other, actual, dwarves are relegated to limited and inexplicably comedic roles with Peter Dinklage playing the most substantial of the roles for real dwarves, a random man whose inclusion in the story defies explanation. Why Dinklage would participate in this is beyond me as he is hardly unemployed. Many dwarf actors face such difficulty and cannot be faulted for taking the work but when he walked on set and saw the Oldman shuffle (did I mention he walks on his knees throughout the film, faking being a dwarf) I am surprised that he did not turn around and go home. In fact, I'm surprised the entire case and crew did not go on strike at seeing such an offensive display of bigotry.

Similar to the exceptional nausea experienced when watching Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer and C. Thomas Howell in Soul Man, sporting their versions of Black Face, I found myself pausing this to pop some Dramamine and, when that didn't work, some Meclizine, just to make my way through this genuine horror show. I haven't been this offended since watching a very white Kate Hepburn in Yellow Face as a Chinese girl in Dragon Seed and that came out during World War II.

How could Oldman do this role, day after day, on his knees, playing at being a dwarf? How much less than his most special and super talented self must Gary Oldman find dwarf actors to be, that he would have the gall to act on his knees while Warwick Davis waits in the wings and Peter Dinklage waits in the wings and every other talented male dwarf actor you can think of waits in the wings ready and able to NOT walk on their knees in a film about supposed acceptance of midgets and dwarves. Not to mention the fact that Oldman's role, as the fraternal twin of Matthew McConaughey could have been better played by Dinklage himself, who was actually born in the same year as McConaughey and not eleven years earlier as Oldman was.

I don't know if I'll ever look at Oldman the same way again. Actually, I'm pretty sure I won't. And what in the world were McConaughey and Beckinsale thinking? What, Beckinsale wouldn't ever really be attracted to Dinklage or Davis or any other highly talented male dwarf actor because she's so bigoted that they had to cast Gary Oldman to make her feel less icky? What is wrong with these people? What is wrong with them?
3556449
In the movie "Silence of the Lambs," when Jodie Foster was profiling the I believe as-of-yet-unknown Buffalo Bill character, she opined something like, "No; transvestites are usually quite passive."  Well, Ms. Foster was making a generalization, one that surely didn't hold for Mr. Bill.  But I believe that the average American might make the same mistake.

And I think that the average American feels the same way about most members of the LGBT community.  Hey, society likes to bunch all of these groups together, so I'll go with it.  But for anyone who thinks that gays as well are always friendly and non-violent, he or she needs to read "Angel of Darkness" (AOD) by Dennis McDougal.

Perhaps even Michael Stone, the creator of "Most Evil" and the 22-point Scale of Evil, may need to rethink that scale after reading this book.  Looking at his scale, I think that Randy Kraft might go to 25, or off the charts.  Mr. Kraft was one of the most torturous serial killers ever, more torturous than anyone that I can think of off-hand.  And I've read a lot of books about a lot of serial killers.  I won't even write here some of the things Mr. Kraft did; you'll have to read them for yourself since I'm just not in the mood to discuss them.

(While I do like the show "Most Evil" and am a fan of Mr. Stone's work, I think that he's off base a bit on some of the people in his scale.  As an example, he only gave Ted Bundy a 17, and Mr. Bundy was surely worse than that.  On the other hand, Mr. Stone rates Richard Kuklinski at the highest end of the scale -- 22 -- and that hit man surely wasn't that evil.  I've read books, watched movies and seen YouTube videos about him, and in general, Mr. Kuklinski didn't kill for "pleasure," even though there were some people he wanted to kill.  And did.  But for him, it was usually "just business," so I'd go with perhaps a 14 or so -- to borrow from Mr. Stone's own definitions -- as someone who "kills to benefit himself.")

I read "Yosemite Murders" awhile back, another book by Mr. McDougal that is really good, which partially influenced this purchase.  And after seeing a "Most Infamous" episode on ID about Mr. Kraft, I just had to read this one.  And while AOD is occasionally very gory, I certainly wasn't disappointed.

There are a few things that I thought about while reading.  1.  There have been many serial killers that have "worked" the I-5 freeway.  Randall Woodfield, Keith Hunter Jesperson, Roger Kibbe, William Bonin, and even Gary Ridgeway, to name only a few.  Obviously, Mr. Kraft decided to join them.  2.  Most serial killers are into photography, as was Mr. Kraft.  They like to keep pictures as trophies.  (Another oddity:  many serials like to ride bikes, the non-motorized type.  I've always joked in a very dark way, "Show me a guy riding a bike AND taking pictures, and I'll show you a serial killer."). 3.  It's most likely coincidence, but Mr. Kraft's boyfriend made candy, while Dean Corll did as well, and both were gay.  Obviously, the boyfriend never killed anyone though, although Mr. Corll killed many.

One unusual thing for me while reading:  usually, when I read true crime, I get really bored reading about the trial phase.  It usually drags on seemingly longer than the trial itself.  But here, I actually was looking forward to the trial; I was actually getting tired of reading about all of the killing.  This killer not only was horrific with his acts, but he was horrific with his numbers as well.  Put it this way:  Tiger Wood's scorecard as of late, even with his bad back, rivals this guys numbers.

I'll go with a fairly strong recommendation on AOD, if you have the stomach for it.  Oh, mercy.  After reading this book, you might realize that the meek might not inherit the earth after all.
549861
well, it seems that you who read the ending of LOTR as an allegory didn't pay much attention to J.R.R. Tolkien's own introduction in which he denounces his work as an allegory. Such nitpicking on a remarkable achievement in film, storytelling, set design and ensemble acting is in my mind unfair and elitist. No film-to-book adapation is ever perfect, and people need to get used to that fact. Peter Jackson accomplished something insurmountable with grace, style, and flair...that achievment should not be ignored or cheapened by pseudo-intellectual hogwash.
4620895
It could have been a good movie, wasn't it pure bigotry: The narrating has an interesting structure, but finally, all what seems to be good and creative serves only the purpose of upholding family values in the most obvious and disgusting way: Leaving your family and intending to be independent causes paralysis (for you can't move any more with it), death or severe mental problems until you decide to come back. Even Bette Davis can't save the movie which is nevertheless sometimes touching. For anyone who speaks german, see my longer review on spielemagazin.de.
1867433
I am amazed as I read this.  How much have I missed.  Movie after movie, that I've seen, long before I became culturally aware of Arabs and anti-Semitism and the beauty of that culture and the awfulness of racism.  And I did not know.  But Shaheen lays it out too clearly to contradict, in an introduction that lays out the philosophical base for his arguments, and then in copious notes on 900 different movies.  And suddenly I realize that the Black Stallion, a movie I loved as a kid, stigmatizes Arabs.  Suddenly I realize those Porky Pig cartoons where he's a legionnaire are anti-Semitic.  Suddenly I realize that&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Back-to-the-Future/dp/B00006AL1E/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Back to the Future</a>&nbsp;really engages in the classic stereotypes of the evil, bad, terrorist Arab.  And I mourn.

As Shaheen makes it clear, it is not that he is arguing that Arabs should never be portrayed as the bad guys.  It is only that, when we see them in the movies, they almost always are.  And when they're not, we see only a stereotype, of a greedy, lust-driven Arab surrounded by a harem, which has nothing to do with real harems but everything to do with American preoccupation with sex, and perhaps reveals more of who we in the West are than who the Arabs are.

This isn't the kind of book you read cover to cover- it's a resource book, and extremely extensive in the information and racism in each movie presented.  It's ideal for picking up right before you watch a video, or right after, to contemplate another perspective than that of the movie, and to discuss.  But there are some times I think when Shaheen misses.  He lambastes farces, like Ishtar, which are true to the nature of a farce, and poke fun at Arabs and song-writers and the CIA and camels and the West- everyone in the movie.  At other times I think he misses the point of a movie made in American culture, like The Siege.  While Arabs are the terrorists in&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Siege/dp/B00005221K/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Siege</a>, it is quite clear that Bruce Willis, the military leader, is the true bad guy, and the greatest tragedy in The Siege is when Americans decide to remove freedom in place of security, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society which gives up it's freedom for the sake of security, deserves neither."  The movie is writ on the backbone of our collective shame for what we did to the Japanese in World War II; and written on the collective forgetfulness we have as we now do the same thing to Arabs.

But small points, on a few movies.  Overall, it is impossible to come away from this book with the thought that Hollywood is at all equitable in it's treatment of groups, especially Semites.  It is impossible to view movies the same way again.  I wait with dread the next great production of Hollywood, where out of nowhere, Arabs will again appear as the caricatured, ignoramus villains- perhaps the bad guys in Ironman, perhaps responsible for all of Indiana's troubles in the next Jones installment.  I am left with sadness, and a question I do not have an answer to:  Which is worse- that there are 900 movies portraying Arabs, and 50 portraying them positively; or that the majority of movies I have seen in my life are on Shaheen's list?
83375
What is wrong with you lame people? Don't you understand what's going on? ANSWER ME!!! Leave this planet and go and watch Top Gun. You are obviously all puritans of the highest degree. We all know books and films are totally  different mediums and should be viewed without prejudice. It's no good  being elitist and dropping into the conversation 'Oh, it's not half as good  as the book'. Most people can read, so for all of those who haven't read  it, go buy it, then watch the movie and form your own opinion.
2712768
I saw this one late last night with some buddies, and I was unenthusiastic about a serious movie. Usually on such an occasion I'd fall asleep, but "the Believer" kept me alert long past the conclusion.

This is not a tired treatise on racist ignorance, nor does it pound home the obvious irony by predictable means. Danny is ignorant, but not in a run-of-the-mill skinhead sense; his irrational hatred is matched by his intelligence, his schizophrenia by his articulate expression. It's not enough to call this guy a bigot. He knows the Torah front to back, and his analysis of it requires a far more thoughtful response than any character in the film gives.

More subtle moments in the film added depth as well. I was genuinely creeped out when the columnist for the NY Times finished his interview, and Danny sticks the gun in his mouth, saying "Guy, if you run this, I'll kill myself." For anyone else, that would have been a ridiculous threat.

The film meanders a bit and loses steam in the last third, but its power remains, and the conclusion is a treat. A complex, as opposed to straw-man, portrayal of bigotry, irony, and self-analysis.
1568530
This movie is great.  I have never seen any movie with  discrimination before.  After i finished watch this movie, i was surprise who much it feel to be discriminated by other and they didn't know who you are.  In this movie, it showed all kind of discrimination such color skin, nationalities, and stereotype.  In the real world, discrimination would never change.  I hope that any one who watched this movie could think about discrimination and take it more seriously.  I will be very disappointed if i did not watch this movie.
764818
[spoilers]Dustin Hoffman's character, obviously Jewish, leaves the comfort of urban American and travels to rural England, where his civility is perceived as wimpish and his inability to fit in as standoffish.  He has a lovely sexy wife who is from the area.  The local badins decide this unprotected weak outsider is easy prey and antagonize him to the point of one man screwing his wife in a pseudo-rape scene.  There is a tremendous buildup of Hoffman turning the other cheek and trying to be a good sport for what seems like hours and then we finally have the explosion literally as Hoffman can take no more and fights back with a vengeance.  The good ol redneck boys of the UK never knew what hit them in classic over the top Peckinpah fashion.  This film is unusually insightful into the character of the average circumcised nice guy American who wants to get along but will kill you when push comes to shove.  Just ask Al Qaeda.  The Hoffman character is not cool has no style and can't **** worth a damn but he can certainly crudely lash out when he feels threatened.  Late twentieth century American caucasion male to a t
1393562
Borat is an awesome over the top comedy. If you are easily offended or religious I would probably stay back. This movie hits really hard on stereotypes and was banned in some countries.
503183
I COULDN'T BELEIVE THAT DAVID SPADE CAME OUT WITH A FUNNY MOVIE. ITS ABOUT TIME. THATS ONE MOVIE I WILL BUY.
1228579
Straight up, this is the most infuriating movie I've ever seen. I'd never heard of it until a friend of mine recommended it to me a couple of weeks ago. I knew nothing about Ike and Tina Turner, and this definitely educated me about them. Tina's life is a modern-day tragedy and I'm grateful that everything ended up ok for her. This movie did a great job of showing how horrific domestic abuse is.
4859485
I am a devout highly conservative Christian. I believe the Bible is God's Word, and I live by it. I'm annoyed by liberals, atheists, etc..

HOWEVER....i also enjoy films (all sorts) and this movie was just so over the top that I think it actually hurts people that try to spread the Christian faith. The overall message I agreed with - that being that there really is a problem with atheists not just being happy to be non-believers, but forcing others to believe the same thing. As the film points out - God gives man free will to think as he chooses. So the overall message, I agreed with. I thought interplay between the debate of whether God exists or not was well done too.

But it was the characters making the point - that I had a huge problem with. They were written so LOUD and OVER THE TOP - it was ridiculous. It was almost cartoonish and so dumbed down that you'd think it was a movie targeted at 5 year olds.

Dean Cain's character just dumps his hot girlfriend after she tells him she has cancer? Seriously? I know lot of jerky guys, but I cant think of anyone that would do that. That was pointless. You don't need to throw in stuff like that to have the audience get a feel for the character. We already got it. He's a scumbag.

The Muslim dad beating the crap out of his daughter. Ok fine no doubt this happens but I don't see the point. If you are going to show him kicking her out of the house for being a Christian, why not just go full ISIS mode and have him chop her head off too.

Liberal blogger that tries to ambush conservatives like the Robertsons? Ok that is probably on point but the actress was way too hot playing her. Most of these people that do this are ugly girls or skinny jeans wearing feminine men (think the Obama guy trying to sell health insurance).

The Professor was a good actor but again the volume was turned way up on him too. He needed to be played in a more subtle intellectual way. And his conversion should have been gradual - not just all the sudden.

The blonde girlfriend of the main character - super hot. But she was also super dumb. Are we really to believe that this girl would dump her boyfriend (who she'd been dating for 6 years) because she was afraid he might get a C in the philosophy class for taking the challenge? Really? She was worried he might not get into law school because he got a C in a freshmen class? And she dumped him over it? Ridiculous.

The main character- i thought he was the most well developed in the entire movie because he wasn't portrayed so over the top. But everyone else around him was - they were practically caricatures - and that was the entire issue.

Pretty well made movie. Good enough acting, not great. Premise of the film was good. But the characters were awful. Its not the worst movie ever made, but it reminded me of a dumbed down Michael Moore type film that hates on everything conservative. Only this was hating on atheism and liberals.

As a conservative, we can make much better and smarter films AND have them have a Christian theme than this movie.
864224
So unbelievably sexist, tacky, racist and silly. I can't believe I saw this when it originally came out. I had forgotten just how weird it was. Pretty much a boob fest for the guys.
2770252
I discovered this movie by accident.  You have to have a certain sense of humor and if you are easily offended, this movie is not for you.  It is dead on in it's stereotyping of people(dumb jock, Asians mysterious and experienced in the secrets of martial arts, ghetto stick-up men).  Lots of profanity and the use of the "n" word.
4834355
the boss sells out; never thought i'd see the day.  he's for the little guy, right?  sure.  so he makes an exclusive deal with one of the most corrupt, anti-little guy corporations in the world.  tell me some more about tom joad, bruce.  time to change the tune.  boycott this thing.
4059665
There is no question that this makes "Borat" look like a Disney movie.  Sasha Baron Cohen and company push things about as far as they can be pushed in this movie.  Not for the easily offended, for sure, and maybe not even for the "only somewhat easily" offended.

There are big differences between how the Bruno character is used to push people's buttons and how the Borat character is.  Borat/"Borat" uses a clash of cultures to poke fun and to draw out prejudices.  But on some level, the Americans who get punk'd in "Borat" are trying to be good hosts and educate this odd stranger on American customs and sensibilities.  What passes for a "custom" or "sensibility", as we see in the movie, varies depending on the prejudices of the host.

The title character in "Bruno", however, seems more interested in testing those sensibilities and pushing the matter as far as he can.  He isn't trying to trick us into revealing our hypocrisy so much as he is trying to see how much unease and awkwardness we can tolerate before lashing out defensively.

"Borat" was funny because the joke was on us.  "Bruno" is more akin to forcing people into an unwitting game of sexual "Fear Factor".

I give Cohen credit for having the stones to put his physical safety on the line for some of the scenes (though I question the wisdom of it).

"Borat" was outrageous and "Bruno" is certainly outrageous too, but for different reasons.  "Bruno" has its share of laughs, but they are often uneasy laughs.  The footage of the recording of Bruno's charity song at the end of the film features some high-powered cameos that actually undermine the comedy, with the possible exception of the reveal of a certain piano-playing musician's piano bench.

Does this movie serve to only reinforce the "gay stereotype"?  Probably only for those who mistakenly feel that the over-the-top flamboyance that Bruno displays is the normal behavior for homosexual men.  It isn't, not by a longshot.  Those who are supremely homophobic would probably not be interested in seeing this movie anyway.  My suspicion is that the ones who would get the most angered by this film are the types who appear in the "cage match" scene in the film.  Those are the ones that I fear would fail to see the film for the theatrical event that it is and instead use it as further ammunition in their prejudicial war against people who are different from themselves.

"Borat" was funnier because Borat was like a cross between a child and a bull in a china shop.  "Bruno" is considerably more outrageous but sometimes tries too hard and as a result isn't as funny.

Based on what we can and do see in the theatrical cut of "Bruno", I really can't imagine there being an Unrated Version for DVD that has more footage.  Well I can, but I'm trying somewhat hard not to.