Washington Post pans gun-grabber film

[Perd Hapley]

'Miss Sloane' shows what happens when Hollywood abandons political common sense

There are little things that feel wrong in the movie — a PAC that raises just $15 million from three million donors, for instance, suggesting an average giving rate of five dollars per donor — as well as one big thing. The massive new background check law that forms the heart of “Miss Sloane’s” conflict is, simply, an absurdity. It is pitched as the sort of law that would “close loopholes” and stop mass shootings, despite the fact that background check laws have been unable to stop recent killings and proposed expansions of background checks would have done nothing to stop them. I found it hard to care about the machinations surrounding the bill since no one really addresses the fact that the bill itself is an empty nothing.

Yes, that's coming from the Washington Post. THE WASHINGTON POST says moar background checkz is not "common sense." Beautiful. Has anyone known of them to say this before? I know WaPo does have occasional flashes of insight.


Of course, it's not entirely negative:

Jessica Chastain, turning in an impressively intense, awards-caliber performance, stars as a hard-driving lobbyist...

[TommyGunn]

I have NO intention of seeing this film, at the theater, or on DVD.

[K Frame]

READ THE COMMENTS!

Holy hell, some of them are absolute gold!

Like this one:

"A political screed that was, no doubt, released to debut just in time for Ms. Clinton's election victory."

or

""We didn’t want the film being adopted by one side or the other of the argument... We didn’t want the film being adopted by one side or the other of the argument, because it isn’t a polemic. … I don’t think — the film is not political in its intent. It’s political in its milieu and it’s political in its, you know, the background of the story. But it’s more about political process to me.”
 
And this is where I started laughing, and could not stop."

[Jocassee]

Yes, that's coming from the Washington Post. THE WASHINGTON POST says moar background checkz is not "common sense." Beautiful. Has anyone known of them to say this before? I know WaPo does have occasional flashes of insight.

By Sonny Bunch

There's your answer. He's a writer for the Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, among others.

[RevDisk]

I did hear some other folks around the interwebz remarking that the main character is a fictionalized Hillary Clinton. A political character that is personally not very likeable that lives in a political world. In other words, a terrible person with severe mental issues who is willing to sacrifice everything to "win", and doesn't specifically care about the issue in question. Toss in a sop at, to Hollywood types, a noble rather than self-serving undertaking.

Seems fairly universally to be getting three stars or equivalent.

To give credit where it is due, there's apparently a very contrived scene where a gunman decides to try to shoot the plunky anti-gun lobbyist heroes. Which as far as I know has never happened in American history. Annnd is stopped by a CCW holder. I'm a bit shocked at that revelation. That they didn't take the over-the-top beat-them-on-the-head narrative, such as some evil Republican white male shooting down some plucky artistic minority female while waving a confederate flag and wearing a Trump hat. Solely a ridiculous narrative. There is some ambiguity. Not a lot, of course, just a touch. They also left the main character as a terrible unredeeming person.

[French G.]

Fighting the evil gun lobby who are entirely rich white men in smoky back rooms that smell of mahogany. Not a lobbyist funded by foreign enterprises who are anti American and against the millions of gun rights activists. Kinda like how Hollywood made Erin crockoshit a movie about the evil gun lobby. Think I will pass.