Re: The Butler: Not Really "Revisionist History" Tossup among: (1) :carolvs: "Oprah's in it!1!" (And will probably get a nomination.) (2) "Hanoi Jane is in it!!!11!" (3) "Why don't they make movies like that about white people, huh? Huh?" Because if it was really about it being "revisionist history," T.R would have plenty to say about The Exorcist, Goodfellas, and all those other "based on a true story" films (which The Butler is not; there's a distinction between "based on" and "inspired by" that's obviously too subtle for him, especially since he hasn't seen the movie), or at the very least Forrest Gump, which was not only tedious, but silly. He might even review Backstairs at the White House, though he's probably never heard of it. At the very least, he can give Pain and Gain equal time, but that doesn't seem to bother him. Otherwise, it looks as if he's just hatin' on a couple of outspoken female celebs. Probably because he knows deep in his heart that neither of 'em would ever make him a sammich.
It wasn't always like this. I still remember Mississippi Burning,which was a great film that also dealt with the civil rights movement. You didn't see any misleading titles of "Inspired by a True Story" since it was only loosely based on real life events and many new characters were added. "Ghosts of the Mississippi" on the other hand was able to use the true story angle because they took few liberties with what actually happened and it was still entertaining. Anyone that thinks a true life story can't be made into an interesting movie lacks creative skills. Hollywood has gotten more lazy and cheap as the years have gone by.How many reboots have there been these last ten years? The horror genre has pretty much been tapped out(Texas Chainsaw just did its SECOND reboot) and now they're moving into superheroes. Spiderman's reboot was barely ten years after the first one came out.
Re: The Butler: Not Really "Revisionist History" Hey now, Oprah really is a horrible person. She never met a pseudo-science quack she didn't like, and that really is bad for people, and she loosed Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz on the world. Dr. Oz regularly licks Deepak Chopra's anus, and Chopra is the quack of all quacks. He's almost Uri Geller levels of bullshit. And that's only because he leaves the spoons at home. It's going to take at least 2 more generations for this culture to shed the outright damage she's done to science understanding, medicine, psychiatry, and reading tastes. And the ripples will be felt for 5 generations! And you try to hand-wave that horror away with "outspoken"?!?!?!
Re: The Butler: Not Really "Revisionist History" Yah, okay, she needs to be held accountable for unleashing Dr. Phil on the universe. But the Oprah Hate started long before he showed up. It's funny that the hate more often than not emanates from the Bootstrap mob, considering she's a model for what they're always yawping about. Well, except for being a woman. And not white. And while I've seen her give some fair-to-middling performances (The Color Purple, The Women of Brewster Place), a great actress she is not. She'll get the nomination simply for being Oprah. Whether she'll win or not depends on (A) who she's up against and (B) how many other feel-good awards the Academy tosses at this film. Because as a film it could have stood some serious editing in spots. And the "official" title is annoying...
