More liberal indoctrination on how we so mistreat the poor Islams. But in truth, the information obtained by reading this and other blogs where we are reminded constantly of the favoritism provided to muslims from every government branch from the White House to the DHS, to ICE… it is not inconceivable that someday, somebody is gonna go off an innocent muslim…So why does the message of this movie offend you?

chucker on May 1, 2007 at 3:37 pm

IF you’re ever to become a SERIOUS film critic Debbiekins you have to realise that “Triumph of the Will” and “Birth of a Nation” were LANDMARKS in film making DESPITE their Aryan/white-supremacist philosophies!!!
YOUR pro-Zionist spin on everythang else is cute, but once you start denigrating art because of your politics you’re missing the boat:(—Art IS—and should only be judged on the criteria of whether or not it WORKS.
ONE PROB, EM’S REVENGE: THIS MOVIE ISN’T ART. IT’S JUST BORING AND POORLY DONE. IF I THOUGHT IT WAS WELL DONE, BUT JUST DIDN’T LIKE ITS MESSAGE, I’D SAY SO.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

EminemsRevenge on May 1, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Yea, Eminems, what she said. Perhaps you need an emenemena. Schlock is schlock regardless of message. People have been telling variations of the same stories since ancient Greece. Show me something new. ‘The Birth of a Nation’, studied that in the 11th grade (1965), landmark, what 1917, next.

John Cunningham on May 2, 2007 at 3:15 am

“The Birth of a Nation”. D. W. Griffith’s father, if memory serves me was an officer in the Confederate Army. 1917 was closer to post Civil War days than we are today. After the Civil War there was a complete breakdown of law and order in the South. In it’s early days the ku klux klan served a useful purpose. Local klans gave protection to their commuities. They outlived their usefulness when legitement law and order was restored and it evolved into to the grotesque hate group we know them as today. People take out of context Griffith’s seemingly favorable portrayal of the klan.

John Cunningham on May 2, 2007 at 3:38 am

Debbie: Actually, “Civic Duty” (and what a misnomer!) sounds like a direct rip-off of “Arlington Road” (which was indeed a good, though not great, movie, and is no doubt far better than this latest anti-White America screed — haven’t seen it yet, and have no intention of doing so, having read your review/summary).
Other than “24,” and even they are becoming more and more rapidly PC, I can’t recall any movie other than “Flight 93,” and “The Path to 9-11” on TV, that calls a Muslim terrorist a MUSLIM terrorist, and not some idiocy like “insurgent,” “mis-guided ute,” or worst of all “freedom fighter,” all belonging to some unknown religion.
Considering the source, I doubt we’ll ever see anything out of Hollywood that doesn’t denigrate America, first and foremost. At least until one of “24”‘s suitcase nukes goes off in Hollywood, instead of Valencia, and the survivors have to change their tune, involuntarily.

theendisnear on May 2, 2007 at 2:15 pm

This isn’t liberal bias, it’s Goebbels-quality propaganda to stamp out White group-identity, White confidence, and White preservation. Do any of you doubt that this movie, and a thousand other examples like it, are part of a conscious Genocide against whites? Are there opposite-themed movies where non-whites prey on whites, and whites are the victims?

davidlanham on May 3, 2007 at 1:53 pm