Skip to main content

These gypsy tears will keep you safe.

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
(2020)

(SPOILERS) I wasn’t going to watch globalist stooge Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. I’m not a fan of sub-Beadle’s About comedy cruelty generally, however “justified” the recipients are, and I was even less keen to see another incarnation of this “public service” format where Cohen valiantly exerts every propagandising tool in the book to shame those who aren’t on the same page. Not square with the liberal Hollywood bubble/MSM spin on the world? Dare to speculate about conspiracy theories? Sacha will set you straight. So why did I change my mind and give Borat 2 a look? Well, I figured, since the new-improved woke Oscars were giving it some attention – Baron Cohen is fully aboard the woke train, obviously, by satirical inversion, right down to the hate-based intolerance (that justified comedy cruelty again) – I’d investigate what he’d done to wow them so. My takeaway? Yes, Maria Bakalova is clearly a talented comic actress. She deserves better.

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, timed to inflict maximum damage prior to the election – what, in case the vote rigging didn’t work? In case voters required a vulgar smut merchant to sway their opinion at the last minute? – also summoned (probably the best word) a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. I don’t think anyone seriously believes it’s going to win statuettes for either, but it represents a “We stand with you, even though we, like you, aren’t too sure about just what it is our masters are up to this time, but we’ll play along obediently just like we always have” salute. The same is true for Baron Cohen’s two-decades-too-old caricature of a performance in The Trial of the Chicago 7. He’s been a good and dutiful servant this last year.

Baron Cohen repackages the same old jokes for the same good liberal cause in much the same way as Michael Moore and his partiality-infused documentaries. You know, before everyone decided Moore was too much of a pillock to have boosting their team. So as before, if you extol or sympathise with any of the areas targeted by Borat, you are, by association, reprehensible scum, morally and mentally backward and enormously off-piste. The best way to sledgehammer this home is to pick as victims idiots, naïfs or those too polite to say anything; all are equally guilty under Baron Cohen’s sociopathic gaze. Sowing division and embracing excoriation is the determining factor here. All crimes deserve equal vilification, should you condone or saying nothing in response to obtuse baiting in relation to sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, incest, anti-abortion, holocaust denial, pandemic denial, vax refusal, adrenochrome belief, QAnon belief or Republicanism generally. It’s surely no coincidence that Guantanamo Hanks – or was it his brother – cameos, given he’s been the focus of much of the adreno-talk. A public service from Baron Cohen then, to clear all that up.

Baron Cohen’s comedy thrives insidiously on the “They have it coming” premise of confronting people with assumed ingrained vices or bigotry (he knows who they are just by looking at them); the key is for them to react in the wrong way. Being the “right” way for Baron Cohen’s dirty little enterprise (everyone, that is, except for Jews in synagogues sending out the right positive messages). In contrast, it’s okay to be racist and sexist and homophobic and oppose free speech as long as it’s acceptable racism and sexism and homophobia, and you’re still free to speak, and you’re popular/endorsed by the media. Accordingly then, every one of Baron Cohen’s underlying stances is in support of the MSM; if you find yourself at variance with that in any fundamental way, he will ferret out your viewpoint as either untrue (a fact) or invalid (a position).

In addition to his politically-correct incorrectness, Baron Cohen’s penchant for puerile shock humour is alive and unwell, serving up various repetitions of mocking those prudish enough to prefer not to have dick pics repeatedly shoved in their faces, or Borat squatting to take a shit, or his daughter performing a fertility dance while surfing the crimson wave. And then there’s the crapstick, bargain-basement straining for laughs – Borat doesn’t understand phones! Borat surfs porn! Borat wanks! Borat kisses a man! Borat wears a John Landis disguise! (Perhaps that one wasn’t intentional.) Borat dresses as Klansman! Borat wears a Trump suit!

Curiously, I noticed Baron Cohen as Borat doesn’t wear a mask or observe social distancing when he visits Jeanise Jones. So he’s either mocking the deadliness of the plandemic and those who believe it to be deadly, or he’s staged a scene in which his character gets a cheap laugh about the deadliness of the plandemic, the same deadly plandemic he is elsewhere validating (“Oh no, the Americans are victorious in their battle against science”). Either way, way to go Sacha.

Some have suggested Baron Cohen has not only played Mossad but he is Mossad. Borat Subsequent Moviefilm certainly knows the correct buttons to push in psychological warfare operations, and Baron Cohen would surely love to be crowned ringmaster/ court jester of the great game as it reaches its crescendo. Unlikely, though, as long as he’s also making Grimsbys. I seem to recall I was reasonably positive about The Dictator, although Anna Faris may have been a significant part of that. I doubt I’ll make that mistake again. One star (and that’s for Bakalova).

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.