According to Bill O’Reilly, the right-leaning US newsman and real-life Stephen Colbert, The Bourne Ultimatum is “a slick propaganda package” and “a perfect storm of misguided ideology, silly plotting, and absurd conclusions.”
O’Reilly posted a review on his site completely obliterating Paul Greengrass‘ movie. Here’s a choice cut:
“I knew this movie was trouble when I read the reviews. Almost all the critics liked it. The only way American movie critics would like a violent car chase film like this was if it bashed the USA, which, of course, it does.
“The CIA guys are bad, bad, bad. And just to make sure Indonesian and Pakistani audiences get the picture, the CIA chief issues his evil orders with the American flag clearly seen on his desk. No language barrier here, no sir. The U.S. intelligence agencies are fiendish enterprises, which want to hurt Matt Damon and actually force Julia Stiles to cut her own hair. How could they?”
O’Reilly is entitled to his opinion, of course, but his review is annoying purely for the fact he can’t see any further than the perceived anti-American sentiment in the film. He seems to hate the movie purely because Jason Bourne is fighting his own government and not cave-dwelling terrorists or crazy Commies.
It brings up an interesting thought, though. Is it acceptable for a reviewer to bring their personal politics to the table when reviewing a film, a TV show etc? For instance, whether you are left or right-minded, surely you can admit that Sam Peckinpah (Straw Dogs is often cited as an attack on the left) made some excellent movies. Shouldn’t the same rules apply to The Bourne Ultimatum?
source – /Film
3 Comments
I think that as evident in many critics on both sides is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Yes, even in supposed unbiased critiques. Because the fact is, no one can wholly keep their beliefs and opinions out of a piece of their own writings. As with almost anything that anyone writes, the reader can almost always understand what side of the aisle they are on. If a writer can complete an entire write-up without any of this occurring, then they are trully an excellent critic…obviously there are not hardly any of these out there in that field. The reader is now left up to the CHOICE of believing what he reads or not believing what he reads. If everyone looked at a tabloid and believed what they read, then we would live in a pretty screwed up place…wait…so that’s what is wrong with us.
“Is it acceptable for a reviewer to bring their personal politics to the table when reviewing a film, a TV show etc?”
As long as it an asshat like O’Reilly, the sexual-harrassing walking turd, then sire, because everyone already knows what he’s going to say two days before he says it. “REal” reivewers on the other hand should never bring their biases to a review. They should judge it on it’s own merit, not in terms of what they think it “should have been” or wanted it to be.
Anyway, is there anyone out there who acutally takes a moron like Barfbag Bill O’Reilly seriously?
Reviewers like that make me laugh, reading far more into a movie than any sane person would. More often than not studios/writers are looking for a bad guy, and don’t consciously think “I’m going to bash the US government through the machinery of my film’s plot”. That’d be like judging the entire US and US government on the president’s “Bushisms” which I find equally distasteful. Sadly, the latter does actually happen.