An American Carol (2008) Reviews

• More of a parody of the conservative movement

  grayner-22008-10-17

  As I read the reviews here of the film, I see many comments of the type "I think like that..." which is further evidence of certain aspects of the hard-right mindset than it is about problems with liberals. One can debate about whether something is "funny" or not, I found this film funny for about 5 minutes, the rest was boring and some of it downright offensive. First, as full disclosure, I am a liberal but am NOT a fan of Michael Moore. I agree with much of what he has to say but I think he loses the power of some of his arguments by being overly provocative I also find him unpleasant as a personality. But when we look at this film, we see the basic problems of the conservative mindset, everything is a caricature, everything is so simple good guys vs. bad guys. One could argue that these could be a caricature of the movement itself, but from the reactions here, it would seem that those who liked the movie see it as "socking it to those liberals..." First let's look at the basic premise of the movie: Mike Malone wants the 4th of July Holiday banned because he, in his heart of hearts, hates America. Um, again, I don't particularly like Moore, but should a caricature not have some remote basis in fact? Watch Sicko, watch Fahrenheit 911, watch Roger and Me. Where exactly is a hatred for America and patriotism? Exactly in which scene does this occur? What does he say to suggest this? In fact, this is the typical reductio ad absurdum strawman that conservatives love to build - so-in-so is bad! He is fat! He hates America, he loves terrorists. Don't listen to him or respect him. Take Moore's last film, Sicko. Moore discusses the millions of Americans who are not give adequate help by the health care system. He touches on cases of people who have none. He compares and contrasts France and Cuba. Now instead of having a substantive discussion, where conservatives say 1) I disagree with Moore BECAUSE.. 2) Moore's point on X is wrong BECAUSE... 3) The facts he presents on health care in Cuba are not true BECAUSE... instead we can engage in these childish stereotypes and name calling INSTEAD of addressing the fact that 46 million people, including children, have no health care in the US. Yeah, let's laugh at the fat man who hates America..it's easier than addressing the issue at hand, some people are literally dying because they got laid off or because their insurance company won't cover them. Thus, the whole premise of the film is so flimsy and ridiculous. To the conservative mind, saying it is bad that millions of hard-working Americans have no health care means you hate America. Objecting to a disastrous military policy in Iraq means you hate America. And the stereotypes abound from there. Michael Malone is taken through history a la Christmas Carol and shown that it is wrong to hate America...One of my favorite examples is how he is shown by the example of the Civil War that not all war is bad. Now let's dissect this a bit: stereotype: all liberals are against all war no matter what. As stupid as the stereotype that conservatives want war all the time. Fact is, this is not true, many liberals SUPPORTED the war in Afghanistan because the Taliban was housing bin Laden, who was directly associated with the murder of our citizens. But just because you object to the Iraq war, you are against every war in all cases. Yeah, right. The civil war...let's think for a nano-second about that: that war was fought by people opposed to slavery in the Northern States against the conservative South. I won't go into the complex argument here about what each party Republican and others were very different then but I will point of that those "red" states that went Bush in 2004 almost exactly matched the "slave states" during the Civil War. Sure, we are supposed to believe that those very conservative states where they sill want to fly the confederate flag today were the ones who were anti-slavery? Yeah, sure. And then of course, we have the portrayals of Muslims and Mexicans in the film. To the conservative mindset, all Muslims, be they from Morocco to Iran to Afghanistan to Indonesia, to Sudan, to America and Europe and Turkey are all the same...they all dress the same, all talk the same...all are potential terrorists who hate America. And everything else is a silly stereotype too. Rosie O'Donnell is a fat lesbian with strong opinions. So therefore, she should be laughed at and ridiculed, not worthy of having an opinion. And for those who say, "It's a comedy, lighten up"... um, I just found it not funny, from scenes at Ground Zero (real classy) to cheap physical humor (look at that fat pig Moore eat all in sight...) it is light on the humor and heavy on the conservative fantasy And for those eager to say it is like Airplane, um, no. Airplane was funny because it was completely absurd. There were silly jokes, many groups were parodied in a gentle way. Here it is all about building the strawmen and then trying to build a parody around that. Kind of like making a "liberal" film where George Bush is out on some hunting range, shooting down Muslims for sport....Conservatives would not find that amusing and it would be as absurd as the "Michael Moore hates all of America" premise.. And for those ready to proclaim "typical liberal response", you should know I expect to also pan Oliver Stone's film "W" when it comes out. Although I loathe Bush, it is also a series of silly stereotypes which does not bring the dialogue forward...

  More

• I thought it was funny

  GMP12008-10-06

  Okay, before anyone levels accusations, I have seen the movie and I'm writing this on behalf of myself, not some organization on either side of the political spectrum. Now, that said, here's my opinion... Is this the funniest movie ever made? No, it's not. Is it your civic duty to see or avoid this movie at all costs? No, it isn't. I will say, though, that I thought the movie was very funny. In some parts (like the "documentary" about "radical Christian terrorists"), it's both funny and sharply satirical. And, in other parts (like Malone getting constantly knocked around), it's more garden variety slapstick comedy. Either way, I laughed and so did the other people in the audience. And, as noted, there are a couple of scenes that actually try, and do, provoke some thought, mainly the scene at St. Paul's. Finally, when you get right down to it, Malone (the pseudo Michael Moore) doesn't come across as all that awful a guy, even if he is a self-absorbed jerk. I know that this movie has inspired a considerable amount of controversy and has resulted in heated exchanges. All I'll say, though, is that I thought it was OK and I enjoyed it. And if it does inspire some kind of dialogue about conservatism (or the lack thereof) in Hollywood, so be it. I will admit, though, it was nice to see a movie that at least tries to show the U.S.A. in a favorable light. That's become somewhat rare.

  More

• What's next for Zucker? Pro Nixon, Pro McCarthyism movie?

  Slug-32009-12-10

  I loved Airplane! I think it's a staple on the American comedy scene. In fact, I love several of David Zucker's movies, but he seems to have lost his understanding of the American psyche in his last few attempts. An American Carol, for instance, could just as well have been a pro-Nixon movie, released soon after Watergate. I'm sure there will be a few who will find Zucker's portrayal of Michael Moore funny and they would likely find a Zucker portrayal of Martha Mitchell to be humorous, as well. The irony comes in Zucker's failure to realize that most people side with Michael Moore on his opinions, as well as the facts that support his opinions, which Zucker pokes fun at by treating them as if they were untrue. As a Liberal, I didn't expect to agree with Zucker's political views, and yet, I felt compelled to watch it and give it a fair shake, believing that my difference in politics might not prevent me from finding it funny. Unfortunately, An American Carol ended up being as disconnected from reality as I'd feared beforehand and I can't help wondering what Hollywood genius figured it would be a good idea to make fun of a controversial American political icon, just as the vast majority of Americans were figuring out that his serious accusations were justified. If Zucker were around for the Boston Tea Party, he most surely would have had a blast ridiculing Samuel Adams, and those throwing tea overboard, and I'm sure he wouldn't have spared American revolutionaries for wanting independence, either, because Zucker seems all about protecting the establishment, no matter who it is and what faults it may have. I may sound motivated by politics, but that's really not the impetus for my harsh review at all. We've all seen funny political humor that was driven by views that we didn't share, but this is different because Zucker is trying to force humor that just isn't there. Michael Moore offers a plethora of opportunities for humor, but there is nothing funny about portraying people as wrong, when in fact, they were right. And if I am wrong on this, then I have a great idea for a satire about Abraham Lincoln foolishly trying to end slavery, which I'm certain will have it's fans as well.

  More

• Better Than I'd Expected

  ann-882008-10-03

  I saw this at the AFR Film Festival in DC this evening. I wasn't expecting much having read a lukewarm online review from someone who saw it when it was screened at the Republican Convention. I was, however, very pleasantly surprised. I doubt this modern day conservative retelling of Dickens' A Christmas Carol will ever find an audience, as it will be ignored/roundly dismissed by the MSM critics, but it is a solidly funny satire and delivered more than its share of laughs (at the expense of Michael Moore, the ACLU, Fidel's Cuba, today's college professors, Rosie O'Donnell, Jimmy Carter, and anyone who frets about the treatment of those incarcerated at Gitmo.) As the "Michael Malone"/Michael Moore character, Kevin Farley not only looks the part but gives a credible and easy-to-watch performance. He actually makes the character likable, even when he's saying or doing something obnoxious. The characterization could have been much "meaner" but Farley walks the fine line between hard edge satire and keeping Malone open to his big screen redemption. The film even had moments that were unexpectedly moving, especially the segment when Mr. Malone receives some somber "feedback" from the father of his country and when Malone sees "ghosts" in the audience at the end-of-the-film Trace Adkins concert. Favorite bits: the trailer of Rosie's Radical Christianity documentary and the chorus of college profs singing about the glories of 1968. If you're an unreconstructed conservative you're going to love this film. Left of center libs (the five or six who actually go to the movie) will walk out of it after about five minutes sputtering obscenities. You'll have to judge whether or not you want to spend your time and money depending upon where you fall between those two extremes.

  More

• It's about time...

  bmennen2008-10-03

  My friend and I LOVED this movie (disclaimer: we are both conservatives). A David Zucker/Airplane like comedy...wrapped up with good old-fashioned patriotism. The late Chris Farley's kid brother was better than expected, the pacing was fast, and there were MANY laugh out loud yucks. One of my favorite parts involved the ACLU...but I won't ruin it for you. There was spontaneous applause during parts of the movie and at the end. One slight correction: when the Michael Moore character visits St Paul's Chapel in NYC and is met by General Washington, he stands next to the pew that the Washingtons used during the 15 months President Washington was in NYC. The pew is shown towards the middle of the church, but in actuality is against the north wall. With that nit picked, let me say God Bless America, David Zucker, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammar, Dennis Hopper and the rest of the people that worked on this funny yet important movie.

  More