Review of The Alamo (2004) by Samuel G — 08 Apr 2004

Here's what has been updated today ...

The review for [B]The Alamo[/B] has been added to the site. I enjoyed this film but probably because I have a decent amount of knowledge on the subject and most people going to this film most likely won't.

The preview page for [B]Kill Bill (Volume II)[/B] has been added to the site.

The trailers for [B]Spider-Man 2[/B], [B]Love Me If You Dare[/B] and [B]The Manchurian Candidate[/B] have been added to the [B]Screening Room[/B].

... And don't forget to check out our review of The Rock's [B]Walking Tall[/B], which should appear some time tomorrow evening.

Now onto politics!

With all the over-bloated publicity following the release of Richard Clarke's "non-fictional" account of the Bush administration's response to terrorism prior to 9/11, this was bound to happen. It seems Sony Pictures has optioned film rights to Richard Clarke's nonfiction best seller "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror" for producer John Calley ... though this is not a guarantee that the book will be made into a movie, Come on! This is Hollywood we are talking about! They take every opportunity thrown at them, no matter how ridiculously drulled out it is, to bash Bush. I can see the poster now with the tagline "Based on a True Story". Hey! If they can claim that with Hidalgo and get away with it, they can do the same with this film adaptation.

(Communist) Russia never ceases to amaze me with their illogic ... [B]"Russia calls for ceasing fighting in Iraq, Russian Foreign Ministry declared in its published release. We should prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and further escalation of violence. Many people died in recent fighting. The humanitarian situation has substantially worsened"[/B] ... Of course! G-- forbid the US soldiers should defend themselves against Shiite terrorists who are attacking them and causing civil war within a country in which we are trying to restore order to.

The Democrats wanted it and they got it ... just not in the way they thought it would be, so they decided to spin this as best they can. Their headline? [B]"Al-Qaida Threat Included in Bush Memo"[/B] but once you get into the article, the story changes from the headline. [B]"The same month as that briefing of Bush, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaida operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said. Those August 2001 reports -- among thousands of varied and uncorroborated threats received by the government each month -- weren't deemed credible enough to tell the president or his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the officials said. Neither involved the eventual Sept. 11 plot"[/B] ... Notice the use of the word "uncorroborated" and yet you had Richard Clarke up on Capitol Hill saying that the Bush administration had this right in front of their face and they did nothing. Not to mention that few if any of these reports actually reached the desks of either National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice or President Bush. So this is the Democrats damning evidence that they were harking about?

Hope everyone has a happy and safe holiday weekend ... Even if you aren't Christian, I suggest you see [B]The Passion of the Christ[/B] this weekend. Believe me ... If you haven't seen it and you see it this weekend, you'll thank me.