New James Bond Movie is very Leftist and has anti-semitic undertone

[SavetheWest]

First thing you should see is the writer's resume from IMDB.

Mini Biography
CPaul Haggis is the award-winning filmmaker who, in 2006, became the first screenwriter, since 1950, to write two Best Film Oscar winners back-to-back - "Million Dollar Baby" (2004) directed by Clint Eastwood, and "Crash" (2005) which he himself directed. For "Crash," he won Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. The film also received an additional four nominations including one for Haggis' direction. "Crash" reaped numerous awards during its year of release from associations such as the IFP Spirit Awards, the Screen Actors Guild, and BAFTA.

In 2006, Haggis' screenplay collaborations included the duo Clint Eastwood productions "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima," the latter earning him his third screenplay Oscar nomination. He also helped pen "Casino Royale," which garnered considerable acclaim for reinvigorating the James Bond spy franchise and has written the screenplay for the next Bond production "Quantum of Solace."

Haggis' directorial follow-up to "Crash" was "In the Valley of Elah" which he wrote, directed, and produced, for Warner Independent Pictures. The film, which starred Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, was a suspense drama of a father's search for his missing son, who is reported AWOL after returning from Iraq. Jones earned a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance in the film.

Most recently, Haggis and his partner Michael Nozik formed Hwy 61 Films, based at United Artists. Their first venture is an adaptation of the celebrated Australian novel "The Ranger's Apprentice."

Haggis was born in London, Ontario, Canada and moved to California in his early 20s. For over two decades he has written, directed and produced television shows such as "thirtysomething" and "The Tracey Ullman Show," and also developed credits as a pup writer on many Norman Lear sitcoms. He created the acclaimed, if short-lived, CBS series "EZ Streets" which the New York Times cited as one of the most influential shows of all time, noting, that without it "there would be no Sopranos."

Haggis is equally committed to his private and social concerns. He is co-founder of Artists for Peace and Justice, a working board member of EMA (The Environmental Media Association) as well as the advocacy group Office Of The Americas, among others.



The movie is about this hidden group of businessmen/politicians who influence world affairs on behalf of corporations in third world countries and are everywhere in government.  One of them is a former Israeli Mossad agent and the others are a Russian and an aide of the British prime minister.  The head bad guy is French.  They are an organization that is used to overthrow elected governments in Haiti, Bolivia and other Third World countries.  One country that has been troublesome in Venezuela, which they talk to the CIA about being Marxist.  The CIA is evil in this movie, except for the good black CIA officer (played by Jeffrey Wright who played Colin Powell in W) who tried to help a rogue Bond fighting the evil people in the British government who work for corporate masters. 

The international Illuminati type group, poses as corporate philanthropists but are actually pumping water out of the ground to destable Bolivia and sell the water at a premium.  This is a recent obsession of the left, where they think corporations are hoarding water from third world countries.  Now, for those who don't know, Bolivia and Venezuela both have communist/socialist/anti-semitic governments.  Chavez's aides have blamed certain rabbis for helping the anti-Chavez opposition which is the same old, find a a few Jews and blame them for the massive non Jewish opposition trick.

There are jabs at America and the Bush administration in the movie too.  One thing that struck me was that they state that the Illuminati group work with the right and the left which seemed like the director was covering his butt from being accused of propaganda.  I am very suspicious of the intentions of the movie and it is a pro South American leftist flop.

The movie is also a let down from the last one.

In case you were worried, I did not pay for the movie and got a free pass.   

[RanterMaximus]

The last thing we need is another James Bond film.  Sound like just another piece of Hollywood garbage.

[SavetheWest]

I try not to go to movies anymore but I thought at least James Bond was a safe bet.  James Bond turned from fighting evil people and the Russians to fighting business, MI6, the CIA for South American leftists. 

The Bond girl is also a Bolivian agent and she's trying to kill a corrput general.  I felt like I was at some leftist professor's Salvator Allende lecture. 

[mord]

I saw 1 that was more then enough

[SavetheWest]

it's a total waste of time

[syyuge]

In that case James Bond 007 should be voted as Euro-Communist 001 of the year 2008.

[Xoce]

Debbie Schlussel didn't think it was THAT bad.  I found it to be enjoyable.  Here is Schlussel's review:

From http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/quantum_of_sola.html

"Quantum of Solace" Will Leave You Barely Shaken, Only Slightly Stirred

By Debbie Schlussel

The best thing about "Quantum of Solace"--the latest James Bond flick--is that the aptly-named villain-in-chief, Dominic Greene, is an environmentalist wacko, a "green" fanatic.

And, like most of them, he's a Gulfstream eco-hypocrite, who actually rapes the land and victimizes indigenous peoples, while raising money in the name of helping them. The movie debuts today, and I was shocked that Hollywood dared go there, especially since the script is co-written by uber-leftist Paul "Crash" Harris.

Still, the villain was boring. He doesn't compare to Blofeld (full name: Ernst Stavro Blofeld)--my favorite repeat Bond villain (best played by the late Telly Savalas)--or even Jaws. Not even close.
quantumofsolace.jpg

And aside from portraying the green movement as utter hypocrisy, the movie was dull, only so-so. Note to the Broccoli family (which owns the rights to Ian Fleming's James Bond movie franchise): Stick to more glamorous locales than Bolivia (the setting for a significant chunk of this movie), which was very Bolivi-oring.

As was the case with "Casino Royale" (read my review), I continue to struggle to like Daniel Craig as the new James Bond (sadly, the first James Bond actor to have posed nude--not classy, just gross; Sean Connery came very close to doing the same) . I want to like him as Bond. He is masculine, hot, charismatic, and sexy . . . in a haggard, Vladimir-Putin-lookalike kinda way (I also try to forget his horrid role in the equally horrid pan-terrorist "Munich"). And they love to show this well-toned Bond with his shirt off, great for red-blooded women like me.

But the humorless script didn't help him much. James Bond is supposed to be fun and casual--a hail fellow well met who is a good sport and doesn't take himself too seriously, even when he's getting the bad guys. But this movie was the exact opposite. It was smothered under the weight of seriousness, revenge themes, and bitterness. Don't get me wrong--I love revenge, a motive and response which is under-rated and over-panned. But I just didn't feel it here. It was empty and stupid.

One turn-on: Fortunately, Craig's Bond wasn't girlie-manish and metrosexual in "Quantum," my chief objection to him in "Casino Royale."

I wasn't overly thrilled with Craig's debut in "Casino Royale", but I liked this one far less. I now have a better appreciation for "Royale", which really was far more Bondian in tradition, tempo, and demeanor. "Royale" had a discernible, plausible plot and heart-pounding action. This one had lots more action, but it was mostly dull and unexciting action, which left me cold. That's unless you count the scene of Bond repeatedly walking through massive flames of fire, unhurt. That's a "Come on?!" moment that's hard to believe. And while, yes, most Bond movies have stunts that are just not believable, the flamewalker stuff was just blatant in-your-face BS.

There was some great shooting and cool gun scenes. Love those guns--suave men with guns are hottt. But other than that, yaaawn.
danielcraig2.jpgvladimirputin3.jpg
Daniel Craig: Bond . . . James Bond, or Putin . . . Vlad Putin

And this one was missing even more of what Bond is all about and what makes male moviegoers want to be him and female movie fans want to "date" (euphemism) him: "shaken/not stirred" drinks, sexy women, and cool gadgets. Does our depressed economy translate into a shortage of all of those? Apparently so. While Ian Fleming's written-page Bond was actually not a womanizer, that's not the bachelor (except in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service") Bond we've come to know on-screen. But in "Quantum", Bond has only two women (who are strikingly flatter than General Motors' profits and the main course at IHOP). The cool gadgets? Well, there aren't any. Didn't you hear? Sharper Image went out of bid'ness. And the drinks? Well, "shaken, not stirred" is gone from the Bondian dialogue. I don't remember even hearing the "Bond, James Bond" line.

Especially in this sad economic state of affairs, we more than ever need more of this stuff in our escape at the movies. And they gave us less. It's like we flew coach on Northwest to Greater Bondia, and they not only took away the peanuts because of someone's allergies and the snacks to cut costs, but they ripped the cushions out of the seats, too. Plus, they lost our bags (but not the bags underneath Craig's eyes).

Oh, and remember "M," the elder Bond boss? It was bad enough when un-Bond-like women's lib transformed Bond's boss from male to female (Judi Dench). Now, it's worse. The senior citizen was supposed to be a cameo, but now she's a co-star. Too much of her, far too less of Bond women, gadgets, cars, and drinks. What is this--"AARP Magazine" on film? Apparently, Helen Thomas is doing the casting for Bond girls now and the guys writing Dench's growing share of dialogue think she's one.

Then, there's the murky, absurd "plot". It's a mess and hard to discern. The movie takes place immediately after "Casino Royale", but you needn't have seen that to understand this. Bond and M discover moles in the British Secret Service that work for this unnamed criminal organization. Apparently this same organization is responsible for killing Bond's true love (agent Vesper Lynd who is killed at the end of "Casino Royale"), and he wants revenge. Meanwhile, he meets a Bolivian woman who has her own similar motivations in trying to stop the eco-villain and his criminal organization from installing their own dictator in Bolivia, a corrupt general. Asleep yet?

And the plot isn't just weak. As with all weak plots these days, it's anti-American, the fail-safe Hollywood plot device. Two geeky, evil CIA agents are working with the eco-terrorist villain to help the corrupt general take over Bolivia, and only Bond--of course!--can stop them. Not that I love the pan-Arabist Valerie Plamesque CIA, but hey, the MI-5 and -6 guys ain't no saintly champions of Western values either. Kim Philby, anyone?

The one cool thing in the movie was ripped off from "Goldfinger". A Bond girl is found dead in Bond's hotel room covered in black oil. Remember the Bond girl found in a hotel room covered in gold paint? Been there, seen that.

Yes, there are some funny lines in the movie, but very few and far in between, unlike most Bond films. And, frankly, the best line in the movie was a serious and true-to-life one uttered by the eco-terrorist:

    While America is tied up in the Middle East, Latin America is falling like dominoes to the Communists.

So true, and it's something I've been shouting from the rooftop of this site for a number of years, as President Bush did nothing to stop Daniel Ortega and other Communists from retaking power in our Southern Hemisphere neighbors.

Exit question: Will Hollywood ever have the guts to make James Bond fight Muslim terrorists the way he fought Cold War Communists? James Bond bedding scantily-clad Muslim women under the noses of Bin Laden acolytes, then rubbing their faces in it and his bullets, is exactly the excitement we need. And so does he.

Bottom line: The movie was entertaining and not objectionable. But it just wasn't what we expect from James Bond. Not only wasn't it a great Bond movie. It wasn't even an average one. It was just okay, and--as much as I hate to say it--in terms of a Bond movie, it was sort of mediocre. I love James Bond and James Bond movies. But I don't love "Quantum of Solace." It was just "eh". That's why I can only give it . . .

ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS

[momofsixbabes]

My husband and I wanted to see this movie. However, in hearing your review, we won't. I won't spend money on any movie that is antiJewish-how awful.

[SavetheWest]

I think Debbie Schlussel was reading into the movie.  The Greene character was not an environmentalist, he owned a company that practiced environmental philanthropy.  The movie was clearly trying to show that companies that try to be environmentally friendly are just as evil as other companies. 

She also misunderstood the line about Marxism.  The Greene character was saying that Latin America was falling like dominos and was trying to sell the CIA on a coup in Bolivia.  It was trying to mock the fear that America and companies have about Latin American populist/Marxist moevments. 
The current Bolivian government was never discussed but in case someone doesn't know it is under Morales, a S. American Indian who has legalized coca and has put in cleaning ladies into government posts...literally and nationalized most industry and done land redistribution.  He is also best friends with Chavez.  This was the government that they were trying to overthrow and who the suppossedly righteous Bond girl worked for. 

I heard Michael Medved's review after I had seen the movie and his review was spot on. 

[SavetheWest]

My husband and I wanted to see this movie. However, in hearing your review, we won't. I won't spend money on any movie that is antiJewish-how awful.

That's why I posted this.  I made sure all my friends and family skipped this movie.  It may only be a few hundred dollars that they lose but a review like Medved's has an even bigger effect. 

[Ulli]

I have watched it. Really a bad movie and it is boring and not very logically.

The American was a real cowboy-caricature. But I think this movie will be in Europe very successfull.

Conspiracy kitsch a la carte 

[SavetheWest]

It wasn't very good at all but it will probably make more than the $250.00 million it cost to make and market the film, unfortunately.

[Ulli]

It wasn't very good at all but it will probably make more than the $250.00 million it cost to make and market the film, unfortunately.

I have noticed, that if you add a little bit anti-americanism spiced with a pinch anti-semitism to a movie, you can create a blockbuster in the muslim world and Europe.

Have you seen Valley of the Wolves? This movie is so bad and the actors so terrible, under natural circumstances is has to be a flop. But it became a blockbuster in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves_Iraq

The best part has Gary Busy as crazy alcohol addicted Jewish doctor, that cuts Muslims in pices and sent the parts to hospitals in New York and Tel Aviv. 

But Billy Zane as a Muslim-killing Christian is great also. I was unable to stop laughing.

[Xoce]

Interesting posts, NWJTF.  When I watched it, the "lesson" I learned was that politicians and other power-hungry entities purposely impoverish populations in order to destabilize and acquire power via a demagogue who promises free crumbs to the masses.  (venezuela's chavez, the USSA-formerly known as the USA, etc)  The movie seemed to make the audience think twice about all that is being done, and all that is prevented from being done in the name of the "environment."

The movie reflects what obama wants to do with his anti-coal policies (bankrupting them and making prices "necessarily skyrocket"), no domestic drilling etc, and increased dependence on foreign oil in the name of "environmentalism."  The Americans will suffer, become increasingly poor and more readily support a politician who promises them government hand-outs.
A marxist dictatorship is ushered in, and the private entities which helped create the destabilization or otherwise paved the way for the leader are rewarded with monopolies.
Just like MSNBC is now being rewarded for it's loyal propaganda.
Fannie Mae leaders (economic crisis composers) are taking positions with the obama administration.

Obama on coal http://whatsarugula.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/obama-electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket/
MSNBC gets $139 billion gov guarantee http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/15/pinkerton-msnbc-strategy-support-obama-get-139-billion-government-
Obama and Fannie Mae http://sweetness-light.com/archive/forget-what-obama-said-about-lobbyists-ii

But I suppose I read into the movie what I wanted to...
And there WAS a LOT rolling of the eyes-inducing moral relativism going on.  And I don't mean in terms of "who can you trust" which is essential to any Bond movie.  There was instead a genuinely leftist ambivalence regarding good and evil, everyone is corrupt in their own way and who is to judge nonsense.

With regard to the ex-Mossad agent, I took that to mean he was a "badass" (i.e. smart, strong, and elusive) rather than to conclude that it was a anti-semitic smear.

Perhaps I was watching the movie with rose-colored glasses on.

But regardless, almost everything coming out of hollywierd is leftist and does not deserve to be supported.

[Xoce]

I can't seem to locate the Michael Medved review of this movie.  Could someone help please?

[SavetheWest]

I can't seem to locate the Michael Medved review of this movie.  Could someone help please?

go to www.michaelmedved.com

He usually has the reviews on the drop down menu.



I thought the movie was going in the direction of making fun of Al Gore types too but the fact that it was a company, made it different.
The reason I believe it was very left wing was, the writer is Paul Haggis, he also wrote, in the Valley of Elah, an Iraq war movie with Tommy Lee Jones.
The left is now obsessed with corporations owning the water supply.  Forget that none of these nations like South Africa and Bolivia have been able to figure out how to get clean water.  The companies brought clean water and charged minuscule amounts in these countries.  Morales of Bolivia nationalized the water supply that the companies brought in and the left praised him to no end.  Paul Haggis is also involved in Latin American issues so he brought the water issue into the movie because that is a hot button issue. 
There is a new documentary called, Flow, about companies owning the water supplies of the world.  What they don't tell anyone is that none of these countries had clean water until the companies brought it in.  They then get upset because they are selling it.  There is an issue of sinkholes caused by companies pumping water out which also came up in the Bond movie. 

The people who were wicked in the movie were trying to control the water supply, disguising it as corporate philanthropy.  This was trying to show that companies are always evil, especially when they try to show they are doing good.  The CIA gave the OK to overthrow the government when the Greene character brought up the Marxist governments that gained power. 

The main reason I believe this was the point of the movie were the people involved in it.  From the "White Stripes" in the Bond Song to the writer, to the actors.  They are all very, very left wing. 

[SavetheWest]

It wasn't very good at all but it will probably make more than the $250.00 million it cost to make and market the film, unfortunately.

I have noticed, that if you add a little bit anti-americanism spiced with a pinch anti-semitism to a movie, you can create a blockbuster in the muslim world and Europe.

Have you seen Valley of the Wolves? This movie is so bad and the actors so terrible, under natural circumstances is has to be a flop. But it became a blockbuster in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves_Iraq

The best part has Gary Busy as crazy alcohol addicted Jewish doctor, that cuts Muslims in pices and sent the parts to hospitals in New York and Tel Aviv. 

But Billy Zane as a Muslim-killing Christian is great also. I was unable to stop laughing.

I heard about this one.  Only a nutcase like Gary Busey would participate in this.

[Ultra Requete]

What you epect from Hollywood anyway take your kids into hunting trip instead of waisting your money on this lefty crap. Valley of the Wolves Iraq on other hand is one more reason to not let Turkey this half muslim  half nazi country into EU.

[momofsixbabes]

Sounds good. I agree.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Most recently, Haggis and his partner Michael Nozik formed Hwy 61 Films

Well, what do you expect from a fagola?

I recall reading a few years back that Paul Haggis was behind an effort to grant drivers' licenses to illegals, so the above does not surprise me.

[SavetheWest]

Most recently, Haggis and his partner Michael Nozik formed Hwy 61 Films

Well, what do you expect from a fagola?

I recall reading a few years back that Paul Haggis was behind an effort to grant drivers' licenses to illegals, so the above does not surprise me.

No wonder there was no Bond love scene. He didn't know how to put a man/woman scene like that into the movie.

 


I was suprised that they turned the Bond series into a political statment though...