Someone once said something to the effect that media bias is so obvious that it's not even worth debating. If it was debated, one of the primary evidences of it, apart from liberal advocacy masquerading as "news" reporting (by far Exh #1), would be movie reviews. Movie reviewers tend to be so lockstep, rigidly liberal in their viewpoints that it's laughable.
Case in point: Bella
This tremendous movie has been out for a couple of weeks now. However, its been ignored by the majority of movie reviewers. According to the movie review site 'Rotten Tomatoes', there are a whopping 48 reviews of Bella. To give you some contrast, American Gangster has 167 reviews. Beowulf -- which hasn't even opened yet -- has 79 reviews.
And, of course, of those 48 reviews, many are negative. The reviewer for the Detroit News called it "A barely disguised anti-abortion tract". Gee, we can't allow movies to be taken over and turned into political propaganda now can we? Gosh, what was 'Lions for Lambs' about?
Obviously, many of Hollywood's movies are just that -- political propaganda. Take, for example, 'The Cider House Rules' from a few years back. That movie was a polemical tract agitating for abortion rights as a moral imperative. But, did reviewers blast it as a "not-so-thinly disguised pro-abortion tract"?
Not exactly. Here's what one reviewer said:
The film begins in the 1920s, where we are introduced to young Homer Wells, a resident of a secluded orphanage inPoke these liberal Hollywood apologists in the eye. Go see Bella this weekend.
. Taken under the wing of the orphanage’s director, Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine), Homer grows up in the institution, watches the other children find homes and comes to accept the fact that he will likely spend his entire youth there. Under the doctor’s tutelage, Homer even learns how to deliver babies and perform abortions, even though the idea of the latter is at odds with his personal beliefs. St. Clouds, Maine