Hillary's America...

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

In a world, where some 70 year old lifelong public servant is considered the antichrist even though her policies are more in line with the status quo than any other candidate...from convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, it's...Hillary's America (great title, by the way).

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Of course, when all of that was happening, the Democratic Party was still the party of racists among others and the Republican Party could still claim to be the party of Lincoln.  Of course, conspiracy theories work especially well if you cite a person's life out of context and without concern for the passage of time.

tjohn said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Of course, when all of that was happening, the Democratic Party was still the party of racists among others and the Republican Party could still claim to be the party of Lincoln.  Of course, conspiracy theories work especially well if you cite a person's life out of context and without concern for the passage of time.

You think Jackson_Fusion doesn't know all that? Of course Jackson_Fusion knows that. That's the lie they teach you in school, tjohn. If you want to know the Truth, you have to see this film so you can get woke and stay woke. Except not THAT woke, you know... The other woke. The one we can't talk about because of the GD political correctness police.

Went to the movies. Saw that that was playing. I thought: Who would actually go to the Theater and pay money to see a political hit piece?

Then I saw a well-known MOL poster exiting the Theater. He said he had come from seeing the film we were going to see "Cafe Society".  I expressed my question to him as to who would pay good money to see the Hillary film and his answer was "ajc".

I thought he was kidding.

The Hillary film is about Margaret Sanger?

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Having read the link, it's obvious that isn't the "major point" at all.  It's not even the point made on the Margaret Sanger reference ("To reiterate the old canard that Margaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people ...") in the film.

That "review of the review" is as accurate as the claims in the film, I'll give you that.

nohero said:

Having read the link, it's obvious that isn't the "major point" at all.  It's not even the point made on the Margaret Sanger reference ("To reiterate the old canard that Margaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people ...") in the film.

That "review of the review" is as accurate as the claims in the film, I'll give you that.

You know, of course, that right wingnuts never tire of taking Margaret Sanger comments completely out of context in order to support whatever argument they are trying to make at the moment.

nohero said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Having read the link, it's obvious that isn't the "major point" at all.  It's not even the point made on the Margaret Sanger reference ("To reiterate the old canard that Margaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people ...") in the film.

That "review of the review" is as accurate as the claims in the film, I'll give you that.

What did you think of the film then? 

ridski said:

tjohn said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Of course, when all of that was happening, the Democratic Party was still the party of racists among others and the Republican Party could still claim to be the party of Lincoln.  Of course, conspiracy theories work especially well if you cite a person's life out of context and without concern for the passage of time.

You think Jackson_Fusion doesn't know all that? Of course Jackson_Fusion knows that. That's the lie they teach you in school, tjohn. If you want to know the Truth, you have to see this film so you can get woke and stay woke. Except not THAT woke, you know... The other woke. The one we can't talk about because of the GD political correctness police.

Now now Ridski, I didn't say anything like that, nor would I. 

Characterizing me in such a way is as unfair as if I characterized you as a lazy minded purveyor of lowbrow snark that adds nothing to any discussion- ever- except playing the role of providing clap clap "you go girl" snap ups and mad wicked burns directed at the right people, and by right I mean the wrong type, know what I mean, dear?

You do, right?

It would be like that, except way meaner by virtue of being right. on. the money.

Politifact did give Clinton a Pants on Fire about her comments about Comey and the emails. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

I'm so confused. What does Margaret Sanger have to do with Hillary Clinton? Will I have to see the movie? Or can you just spoil that part without giving away the plot?  Nothing worse than going into a cinema knowing *exactly* how a film is going to play out.

RobB said:

I'm so confused. What does Margaret Sanger have to do with Hillary Clinton? Will I have to see the movie? Or can you just spoil that part without giving away the plot?  Nothing worse than going into a cinema knowing *exactly* how a film is going to play out.

According to the review she hung out with the klan but not really. 

Now, be warned- I'm going for the 2nd order review of the movie, since I won't be watching it, and am going only by the review pasted above (which is getting raves from all the right sort). 

It appears that, despite the title, the movie has next to nothing to do with Hillary. She's not mentioned in any substantive way in the review, which seems odd, given that the movie is supposed to be about how Hillary is The Beast (the one from the Bible, not Hank McCoy). So either the movie isn't about Hillary or it's a weird review.

There are several reviews of my review posted here already. From those you should be able to form your own review, and thus opinion.

ajc! you're the best, brother. I haven't seen you at the train station for quite some time. what gives? I bet you're running train concessions up and down the Essex line. don't get a big head with that Short Hills money.

it's like your own Trump type franchise dynasty! baby!

Jackson_Fusion said:

ridski said:

tjohn said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Of course, when all of that was happening, the Democratic Party was still the party of racists among others and the Republican Party could still claim to be the party of Lincoln.  Of course, conspiracy theories work especially well if you cite a person's life out of context and without concern for the passage of time.

You think Jackson_Fusion doesn't know all that? Of course Jackson_Fusion knows that. That's the lie they teach you in school, tjohn. If you want to know the Truth, you have to see this film so you can get woke and stay woke. Except not THAT woke, you know... The other woke. The one we can't talk about because of the GD political correctness police.

Now now Ridski, I didn't say anything like that, nor would I. 

Characterizing me in such a way is as unfair as if I characterized you as a lazy minded purveyor of lowbrow snark that adds nothing to any discussion- ever- except playing the role of providing clap clap "you go girl" snap ups and mad wicked burns directed at the right people, and by right I mean the wrong type, know what I mean, dear?

You do, right? ">

It would be like that, except way meaner by virtue of being right. on. the money.

"> 

Well of course it would be right on the money. I mean come on, it's not like I ever posted actual arguments against certain positions backed by facts and reason in the past, and then saw the same positions posted by the same people over and over and over and over and over and over for the last 12 years so I gave up on bothering, did I?

ridski said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

ridski said:

tjohn said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

jamie said:

This looks like a pretty good review of it:

http://www.avclub.com/review/hillarys-america-completes-lunatic-political-trilo-239791

The review is pretty awful. The major point seems to be "Margaret Sanger wasn't so bad. Sure, she courted the Klan, but not every day!"

Of course, when all of that was happening, the Democratic Party was still the party of racists among others and the Republican Party could still claim to be the party of Lincoln.  Of course, conspiracy theories work especially well if you cite a person's life out of context and without concern for the passage of time.

You think Jackson_Fusion doesn't know all that? Of course Jackson_Fusion knows that. That's the lie they teach you in school, tjohn. If you want to know the Truth, you have to see this film so you can get woke and stay woke. Except not THAT woke, you know... The other woke. The one we can't talk about because of the GD political correctness police.

Now now Ridski, I didn't say anything like that, nor would I. 

Characterizing me in such a way is as unfair as if I characterized you as a lazy minded purveyor of lowbrow snark that adds nothing to any discussion- ever- except playing the role of providing clap clap "you go girl" snap ups and mad wicked burns directed at the right people, and by right I mean the wrong type, know what I mean, dear?

You do, right? ">

It would be like that, except way meaner by virtue of being right. on. the money.

"> 

Well of course it would be right on the money. I mean come on, it's not like I ever posted actual arguments against certain positions backed by facts and reason in the past, and then saw the same positions posted by the same people over and over and over and over and over and over for the last 12 years so I gave up on bothering, did I?

Illegitomato no corborundiuma or something I always say. 

You must be relentless. With enough effort and good intentions, one good soul can win over everyone on the Internet. 

(If they kept coming back, obstinately uneducated.... maybe they found your actual facts and reasons to be uncompelling. Don't give up!)

In defense of Ridski, I have always thought of him as l sharp minded purveyor of highbrow snark.

In defense of ridski, wit and snark stand apart.

Wow, how often do you see such a big gap between the critics' score and the audience score on rottentomatoes?

A few snippets from critic reviews on rottentomatoes, as opposed to the glowing audience reviews. One audience member claims that Tim Cook (head of Apple) has Siri giving misleading theater search results for this movie because he's a Hillary supporter.

------------

This thing is madness.

If your conservative uncle's forwarded emails were a movie, they would be Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, a dull grab-bag of stale talking points and wildly revisionist history.

This is an embarrassment to propaganda films.

A series of conspiratorial talking points familiar to Breitbart-oriented readers, but reshuffled in a new, startlingly illogical order.

Doesn't even qualify as effectively executed propaganda.

A profound failure of unprecedented proportions. An embarrassment for Republicans, Americans, and pretty much the rest of humankind.

Little more than an extended version of the kind of political screeds that can be found online with only a minimum of effort, this is just a terrible movie.

kthnry said:

Wow, how often do you see such a big gap between the critics' score and the audience score on rottentomatoes?

That's a 76% difference. The original America by Dinesh D'Souza sports a massive 80%; it's the second highest differential between critic and audience scores on RT. Movies like this are critic proof anyway. They have a built in audience and are usually promoted heavily on talk radio and rw websites and church outings. 

Is the original the one that opens in the halfway house D'Souza was calling home after his felony conviction for campaign finance law violations?

RobB said:

Is the original the one that opens in the halfway house D'Souza was calling home after his felony conviction for campaign finance law violations?

Good question. Looks like I have old sources so my numbers are off.

2016: Obama's America is Critics: 25% Audience 73%. 

America: Imagine The World Without Her is Critics: 8% Audience 84%. That's the one he presented from a halfway house. The new one is 

Hillary's America and that one stand at Critics: 4% Audience 80% right now.

Tokyo Rose was more even handed.

Finally something that makes FoxNews look fair and balanced by comparison.

Are you completely nuts?  Do you suppose African Americans don't understand that the Democratic Party shed the racists in the course of passing civil rights legislation and those racists found a new home in the Republican Party.

Are you incapable of understanding that the party of Lincoln is no longer the Republican Party.

ajc said:
"Margaret Sanger" is just a small blip in the movie. She's one of Lying Hillary's many radical mentors; really no big deal, she is just another racist Democrat in the film. IMHO, it's a must see for blacks, (AKA African Americans);who have been screwed so badly for so long, they don't know what to believe anymore. Also, all the younger, gullible, high minded folks who still believe in "Hope and Change". And, of course there's no hope for all the run of the mill left wing nuts, like most of you who are addicted to the Political Soap box, and who will never go to see the film. Listen, I'm not going to waste my time by arguing the merits of seeing the film on MOL. I'm just happy to be the messenger... Adding one more thing, if any of you remain Democrats after seeing this film; and learn the history of who and what the Democrat Party really is, you have to be really messed up...