TEAM AMERICA: World Police

Mona

Critical Thinker
M
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
286
I absolutely loved this movie, for most of the reasons stated in this review. Not one to experience incontinence as a rule, I nearly did pee my pants laughing.

Is it offensive? Oh, so completely, but then, these are the guys who brought as South Park. And 1inChrist or other Xian fundamentalists, or prudes of any stripe, would not enjoy it; trust me, you guys, stay away. (Also, it is a bit unseemly to be laughing at terrorism, and if anything in that regard happens prior to the election, expect to see this movie quickly pulled.)

But (and this is why I'm posting my appreciation in this forum), the movie well captures why I am voting for Bush, even tho it never references him, or even faintly alludes to the man-- or any other contemporary American politician. I'll expand on that if discussion ensues.

I'm a hawkish libertarian political junkie who has never quite lost her appreciation for the humor she liked at 15, when her folks tried to keep Mad out off her hands. As the reviewer implies, that is a combination that guarantees I'd adore Team America. Other libertarians, whether hawks or not, might also enjoy it, as would many non-religious conservatives. Whether pure peacenik Dems would, I'm not so sure, notwithstanding that it does depict American "world policing" as reckless and destructive.

"America, ◊◊◊◊ yeah.":D
 
Good review Mona. I'm dying to see this movie as well. I think "South Park" is a work of art, due mainly to the great comedy writing. I really enjoyed the South Park movie as well.

I caught Matt and Trey on a late talk show (Jimmy Kimmel?), and was surprised to see them upset with Michael Moore. They felt Moore had misrepresented them in "Bowling for C", by having a similar South-Park-like animation following their interview, which somewhat implyed it was done by them. Matt and Trey said they got their "come-uppance" by blowing up Michael Moore in their latest movie.

Charlie (blowed he up real good!) Monoxide
 
I've often felt that those two guys go for the really easy joke. I'd rather they just not have the joke, than go for the really easy one.

I did enjoy the two songs, Freedom costs a buck 0 5, and America, F#$k yeah! But beyond that, I didn't find it all that funny.

I'm not easily shocked by profanity. And when you take away the profanity, and the incredibly easy jokes, you're left with them writing a message onto a 2by4 and smacking you in the face with it, and not much else.



Edited to add: I am pretty far from the peacenik dem too.
 
I watched this right before I left for Honduras last week.

Jesus Tittyf*cking Christ it was funny. And I kept saying Jesus Tittyf*cking Christ the whole time I was in Roatan.
 
Mona said:
But (and this is why I'm posting my appreciation in this forum), the movie well captures why I am voting for Bush, even tho it never references him, or even faintly alludes to the man-- or any other contemporary American politician. I'll expand on that if discussion ensues.
Click to expand...

I saw the movie and liked it and while I am very impressed with South Park, I don't think the film was the best thing since sliced bread. I was impressed with the send up of cliché-riddled action movies. And the sex scenes were pretty funny.

How does the movie capture why you are voting for Bush? The movie points out that there are places other than the Middle East that are grave threats to the U.S. Bush isn't doing jack about South Korea.




Mona said:
Whether pure peacenik Dems would, I'm not so sure, notwithstanding that it does depict American "world policing" as reckless and destructive.

"America, ◊◊◊◊ yeah.":D
Click to expand...

Why would peacenik Dems not find the movie funny given that it makes fun of those dopey country-western songs about hollow patriotism, songs like "America, F*** Yeah."
 
Charlie Monoxide said:
Good review Mona. I'm dying to see this movie as well. I think "South Park" is a work of art, due mainly to the great comedy writing. I really enjoyed the South Park movie as well.

I caught Matt and Trey on a late talk show (Jimmy Kimmel?), and was surprised to see them upset with Michael Moore. They felt Moore had misrepresented them in "Bowling for C", by having a similar South-Park-like animation following their interview, which somewhat implyed it was done by them. Matt and Trey said they got their "come-uppance" by blowing up Michael Moore in their latest movie.

Charlie (blowed he up real good!) Monoxide
Click to expand...

Oddly, the Michael Moore getting blown up was not that funny -- but when the I.N.T.EL.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. computer identifies the intruder as a "socialist weasel," that was.

The send-up of Alec Baldwin and the rest of F.A.G. (Film Actors Guild) was freakin' hysterical. And the encounter between Kim Jong Il and Hans Blix, oh ◊◊◊◊, just TOO precious.

Puppet sex, oh Jeezus, I was falling out of my chair. (I've read they had to take the hetero oral sex shctick out to preserve the R rating, and the homo scene was not explicit, but the gymnastics which remain are a total hoot.) My adult son and I also were in fits of laughter at the puking in the alley, which leaves some unamused and grossed out. But then, the scene in Witches of Eastwick where the minister's wife keeps puking cherry pits had me in tears of unbridled mirth, too. I guess I'm in touch w/ my inner-adolescent; emetic humor works for me.:D
 
Re: Re: TEAM AMERICA: World Police

Ladewig said:
I saw the movie and liked it and while I am very impressed with South Park, I don't think the film was the best thing since sliced bread. I was impressed with the send up of cliché-riddled action movies. And the sex scenes were pretty funny.

How does the movie capture why you are voting for Bush? The movie points out that there are places other than the Middle East that are grave threats to the U.S. Bush isn't doing jack about South Korea.


Why would peacenik Dems not find the movie funny given that it makes fun of those dopey country-western songs about hollow patriotism, songs like "America, F*** Yeah."
Click to expand...

Because as reckless as Team America is, they are ultimately the only ones who have the sense to realize that something needs to be done about the bad guys other than talking to them or sending them a "very angry letter." (Hans Blix; HAHAHAHAHAHA.)

In the end, we do need to fight the bad guys. And Kim Jong Il is giving WMDs to Islamic terrorists, in the film; the Islamic terrorists really are a threat, however ineptly and even destructively Team America takes them out.

Dopey songs and puerile jingoism exist; they sure do. But a strong defense against assh*les who want to kill us is still the right thing to do, and America, for all of its faults, is in the best position to take on the job.

It seemed clear to me that Stone and Parker have criticical affection for jingoists, but utter disdain and contempt for the anti-war pretensions of the left. That's about like me. I've been participating in some outright conservative online venues lately, due to my hawkish stand on the WOT, and in them I've seen many, many sentiments expressed that disgust me, even tho I agree with the foreign policy of the poster at the end of the day.
 
The thing that shocked me most about this movie was the fact that it was thrown together so quickly. There were a few production errors in the final cut that reflected this.

Read up on the trials, tribulations, and time spent on this film and you will have a newfound appreciation for Matt and Trey.
 
Aside from the review I linked in my seminal post which I think analyzes the film as well as anywhere I've seen, I think this movie is profoundly anti the anti-war left because of reviews like this in Slate.

An excerpt: "That's the part that has Sean Penn wringing his hands and must have puzzled a lot of people who assume that Parker and Stone, with their toilet talk and blasphemy and camp sensibility, are flaming lefties. But they're not; they're Cato Institute-level libertarians. They actually hate liberals as much if not more than their right-wing counterparts. The biggest surprise in Team America is that there's no Barbra Streisand to kick around (or disembowel, or decapitate)."

Indeed, I believe it is Stone who is on record as saying he hates liberals more than conservatives. This movie shows it.
 
Yeah there's something in it to offend almost everyone.

I about fell off the chair during the scene in the Egyptian cantina with the music from star wars, and the chase scene from Indy and the lost ark.
 
I took from the movie this:

America isn't the one take care of the whole world. I know Americans think that they're the only really important people in the world and that we have to take care of everyone, whether we are the only ones that can destroy the terrorists (such as Team America), or the only ones who can bring about peace (Such as the F.A.G's). I truely wish every American could live in a foreign land for more than a month, just to see that the whole planet has a say in what happens in the world, not just America.
 
Re: Re: Re: TEAM AMERICA: World Police

Mona said:
Because as reckless as Team America is, they are ultimately the only ones who have the sense to realize that something needs to be done about the bad guys other than talking to them or sending them a "very angry letter." (Hans Blix; HAHAHAHAHAHA.)

In the end, we do need to fight the bad guys. And Kim Jong Il is giving WMDs to Islamic terrorists, in the film; the Islamic terrorists really are a threat, however ineptly and even destructively Team America takes them out.
Click to expand...

But Team America doesn't take them all out - the bomb
at the Panama Canal
shows that no matter how many terrorist you shoot rocket-propelled grenades at there will always be someone willing to plant a bomb.




Mona said:
Dopey songs and puerile jingoism exist; they sure do. But a strong defense against assh*les who want to kill us is still the right thing to do, and America, for all of its faults, is in the best position to take on the job.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do need to fight the bad guys, but why do you think Kerry is not prepared to fight the bad guys? Bush's attitude toward fighting bad guys like Kim Jong Il is to build a missle defense shield.

We have a limited amount of resources available to fight the bad guys so the decisions made at the top are very important. Leaving aside whether or not we should have gone into Iraq while we were fighting in Afghanistan, I believe that the way we invaded Iraq was the result of a poor decision. The Pentagon staff asked for more soldiers and the people at the very top, Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush, told them that the task could be accomplished with fewer soldiers because in Bush's words "we are not going to have casualties." (1)

The Bush folks put their faith in the word of Ahmed Chalabi, a man who later told Iran that the U.S. had broken some of Iran's codes. When Chalabi was accused of using U.S. tax dollars to feed America false intelligence, Chalabi's response was, "Intelligence people are supposed to do a better job for their country, and their government did not do such a good job."



(1) As quoted by ardent Bush-supporter Pat Robertson
 
Mona said:
(I've read they had to take the hetero oral sex shctick out to preserve the R rating,
Click to expand...

I've read that, too, but during the sex montage (cue the Montage song), there was pretty graphic oral sex stuff. I suspect that Trey and Matt started that rumor just to get more publicity ( and to show how gullible the press is).
 
Ladewig said:
I've read that, too, but during the sex montage (cue the Montage song), there was pretty graphic oral sex stuff. I suspect that Trey and Matt started that rumor just to get more publicity ( and to show how gullible the press is).
Click to expand...

Nah, they really did have to cut out a lot of stuff in the hetero sex scene, like the puppet goden shower -- it's all in the DVD, though. As Matt said somewhere, they let them blow Liv Tyler's head off, but the golden shower and some of the other sex had to be "whittled" off or they couldn't get the R rating. How sick is that?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: TEAM AMERICA: World Police

Ladewig said:
But Team America doesn't take them all out - the bomb
at the Panama Canal
shows that no matter how many terrorist you shoot rocket-propelled grenades at there will always be someone willing to plant a bomb.






Yes, we do need to fight the bad guys, but why do you think Kerry is not prepared to fight the bad guys? Bush's attitude toward fighting bad guys like Kim Jong Il is to build a missle defense shield.

We have a limited amount of resources available to fight the bad guys so the decisions made at the top are very important. Leaving aside whether or not we should have gone into Iraq while we were fighting in Afghanistan, I believe that the way we invaded Iraq was the result of a poor decision. The Pentagon staff asked for more soldiers and the people at the very top, Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush, told them that the task could be accomplished with fewer soldiers because in Bush's words "we are not going to have casualties." (1)

The Bush folks put their faith in the word of Ahmed Chalabi, a man who later told Iran that the U.S. had broken some of Iran's codes. When Chalabi was accused of using U.S. tax dollars to feed America false intelligence, Chalabi's response was, "Intelligence people are supposed to do a better job for their country, and their government did not do such a good job."



(1) As quoted by ardent Bush-supporter Pat Robertson
Click to expand...


Come on! It is Team America that stops Kim and his Muslim terrorist partners from destroying the world! All while F.A.G. is doing its damndest to stop them in the name of peace and love. (It is a bit wacky to be having a serious foreign policy discussion centered on this incredibly funny but bizarre *puppet* movie, is it not?)

The movie is contemptuous of the U.N., and in the end, the supremely unilateral Team Americas has to save the day against all the foreign dignitaries and Hollywood lefties rallied at a f*ck-witted "peace conference."

About Robertson's quote, I never pay any attention to him, and seldom believe him, including here. Why would you? Nobody would claim there would be no casualties. Did we need more troops? Certainly not to prevail, and all of the prognostications from the anti-war crowd about how unwinnable that war was were B.S. Winning the peace is proving more difficult. This is unassailably true.

As for Chalabi, that may have been an error. Those occur during war. When we partnered w/Stalin for WWII we were blindsided by his planting domestic espionage cells in the govt, all while official policy was to depict Uncle Joe and the U.S.S.R. as a benevolent experiment showing a brave new approach to political organization; at war's end, we let him keep much of Eastern Europe and thus subjugate it. Nevertheless, he was a necessary ally during WWII. Choices are not always easy, and the least awful alternative is sometimes the best one can do. Hindsight is 20/20.

But I do agree our resources are limited. I doubt, however, that Bush has in mind merely a missile defense system to deal with Kim. In any event, I literally have no idea what John Kerry would do, for his positions have been all over the map. But I do know his Senate record, and it has nearly always been to oppose intervention, weapons systems, and intelligence expenditures. His greatest claim to fame is as an over-the-top war protestor. There are reasons why the anti-war left supports him, and those are the reasons I do not. Wrong man for the wrong war at the wrong time.
 
I haven't seen the movie , but from the description most who liked it would enjoy one of my favorites- Dr.Strangelove ( or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb). Stanley Kubrick early '60s. You should be at least passingly familiar with history ( in re the USSR VS US) , but even on its face it's over the top,
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TEAM AMERICA: World Police

Mona said:

About Robertson's quote, I never pay any attention to him, and seldom believe him, including here. Why would you? Nobody would claim there would be no casualties.
Click to expand...

I aspire to be more open-minded, so I will reconsider my belief that Robertson was telling the truth. I'll take some time to investigate the quote and the White House response in more detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom