Hollywood Confronts Terrorism

By -
by Bob Clasen
________________________

Finally,a Hollywood movie has mustered the courage to squarely confront the problem of International Terrorism.

In their latest movie, writer-directors Trey Parker and Matt Stone (of "South Park" fame) choose as their villain Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. In the movie's plot, Kim is providing WMD to arab terrorists in a huge conspiracy to destroy the world. Kim's key allies are the Film Actors Guild whose misguided but idealistic actors do not realize that in opposing Team America they are pawns of evil. Among the Film Actors featured prominently in the film are George Clooney, Janeane Garofalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Helen Hunt. Alex Baldwin is the President of FAG and is pilloried mercilessly. Also pitted against Team America is Michael Moore.

The only persons who can fight this evil is "Team America; World Police." All roles played by puppets (inspired by the old television show some of you may remember, called "Thunderbirds." In the course of fighting terrorists, the eager members of Team American accidentally create some unfortunate "collateral damage" to, among other things, the Eiffel Tower and Arch de Triumph. Hee Hee.

The movie was originally given a NC-17 Rating by the MPAA. It was reduced to an "R", after a sex scene between two puppets was edited. If you are offended by scatalogical language or the potty mouth, Bill O'Reilly, you probably should pass on this one. In fact, after watching this movie, I am going to demand the same thing as O'Reilly's producer demanded for having to listen over and over and over to O'Reilly talk dirty (without ever complaining to anyone): $60 million dollars.
_______________________

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can't recall where but there is a site that has a letter Sean Penn wrote to the directors.

He was not complimentary about the movie these boys did.

nai
11:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How About Kids Accounts?

By -
posted by Bob Clasen Mr. President, Let's Share the Wealth By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 8, 2005 President Bush said he was open to other people's ideas on how to fix Social Security, so I hope he'll listen to mine. My idea starts with a blunt political observation. Personal accounts - as they are currently envisioned - are going to be hard to pass. Every important Democrat opposes them. Jim McCrery, the Republican who is chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee, says the president's plan will have to fundamentally change if it is to have a chance. So my idea is this: If the president's current version of personal accounts stalls, he should consider another version - one that is more likely to win broad support, and that achieves all the goals of an "ownership society." The personal accounts I'm thinking of would be inspired by a proposal called KidSave, which was floating around in the late 1990's. KidSave wa...
Read more

Democrat Party: "Dependency-Bureaucracy Complex"

By -
by George Will ____________________________ If Sept. 11 had never happened -- if debate about domestic policy had not been drowned out by the roar of war -- the potential domestic ramifications of this election would give it unusual nation-shaping power. To understand why is to understand some of the Democratic rage about the specter of a second term for George W. Bush. He has a multifaceted agenda for weakening crucial components of the Democratic Party, factions that depend on cosseting by the federal government. Consider trial lawyers and organized labor. John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as running mate was a blunder, and not just because Kerry probably will lose Edwards's North Carolina. The Edwards selection ratifies a provocative fact: trial lawyers have become the Democrats' most important faction. This has energized small-business owners, the self-employed, doctors and others who worry that they live one lawsuit away from ruin. Such people, now arous...
Read more

Victory in Fallujah

By -
_____________________ by Ralph Peters New York Post November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists. Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts. The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday. On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis...
Read more