World Socialist Website Uses Kill Bill To Get At Bush
I’m not sure I expected any less, but the World Socialist Website actually reviewed Kill Bill and managed to use the film to get a dig in on the Bush Administration. Here it is:
But Kill Bill originates from a director who sees a high body count as entertainment and violence as valid as any other human activity. Intentionally or not, such a film serves the purposes of this government
| Print article | This entry was posted by schlyer on November 12, 2003 at 10:39 pm, and is filed under Kill Bill. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 9 years ago
Jerkoff has obviously never seen a Rambo flick.
Any Van Damme films.
Or a John Woo movie.
about 9 years ago
I thought the World Socialist review was informed and reasonable. You left out the caveat of ‘Intended or not…’ when the film is linked to US military action in Iraq. Was this intended or not? as it skews the message intended.
As for records, try these:
More Iraqis killed than first Gulf War. Most number of Iraqis killed since their war with Iran. Highest proportion of civilians vs. military personnel killed in any conflict.
Yes, believe it or not, it isn’t just Americans dying in Iraq. All deaths are regrettable, but let us not discount the lives of the ordinary people who continue to die in their droves.
As for the flick, I though it was ham-fisted and (of course) derivative. If I wanted to see a martial arts flick, I would have gone to the (superior and more entertaining) original sources. I did like the soundtrack (as I expected) but sound was all-over the place.
Good luck!
about 9 years ago
Highest proportion of civilians vs. military personnel killed in any conflict. Oh please! Unless you can come with some stats to back it up, that claim is just ridiculous.
about 9 years ago
It is a fact that it in the first nine months of the Iraq war it has died more US forces then it did in the first 3 years of the Vietnam war (that is after the US officialy became a part of it)
about 9 years ago
Not even comparable – we had 17,000 troops in Vietnam after 3 years, we have over 130,000 in Iraq. Iraq is a much bigger operation at this point. And, unless you are going to tell me that the 1st three years of the Vietnam was was the bloodiest in US history, this still does not justify using the phrase record deaths.
about 9 years ago
Why not use the phrase record deaths? Just because you cannot see beyond the deaths of US troops. As said, there are more than just American armed forces dying there.
Most journalists killed.
Most Italians kiiled in service since WW2.
about 9 years ago
Now you are just being stupid. Its impossible for something to be a record if you qualify it by saying since WW2. And again you fail to provide any sources for your info.
I’m shutting down this thread.