I watched Oliver Stone's movie from 2012, “Savages” today. The story hits the brutality and violence of the Mexican drug cartels pretty hard and I thought the story overall handled cannabis growing fairly well. And I thought the acting pretty good, especially Benedicio del Toro.
What I found outrageous was when a main character is kidnapped by a Meican cartel and goes a few weeks without smoking some weed. Then she asks Selma Hayek, who plays the Mexican drug lord, to let her use some of this “stuff we are fighting over” to help her concentrate. So Hayek asks her, “ How long she has been using”?
“How long have you been using”? I found those words very offensive and it just showed to me they really had no idea what they were talking about, which makes you wonder about the veracity of the whole movie. Equating weed with hard drugs like acid, using meth (tweaking), heroin or cocaine (crack-heads) is just plain stupid.
I have had trouble watching Stone's drivel before. In his JFK he showed a black hatted FBI agent take Oswald's rifle into the morgue and put Oswald's dead hands on it so his fingerprints were on the gun. The fact was that was never proven. It's true Oswald's prints were not on it at first, then were. But how they got there is actually just pure speculation.
In Stone's Nixon he shows Anthony Hopkins as Nixon walking around with a glass of gin with the ice tinkling. The fact was Nixon was Quaker and a teetotaler. Now I hated Tricky Dick as much as anyone but come on, if you're gonna portray some historical figure, especially one from our recent past, at least get SOME facts right. I know about literary license and these are just movies, but come on.
The thing that bothers me most about Stone and his revisionist history is that the young people, like my Grandkids, will see that crap and think “So THAT's the way it was”. NO IT WASN'T. And that latest shit about “how long have you been using?” is so propagandized and off base equating cannabis with hard drugs it is actually just more establishment anti-weed rhetoric. Even though he tries to tell a story, that part of it was totally unnecessary.
What I found outrageous was when a main character is kidnapped by a Meican cartel and goes a few weeks without smoking some weed. Then she asks Selma Hayek, who plays the Mexican drug lord, to let her use some of this “stuff we are fighting over” to help her concentrate. So Hayek asks her, “ How long she has been using”?
“How long have you been using”? I found those words very offensive and it just showed to me they really had no idea what they were talking about, which makes you wonder about the veracity of the whole movie. Equating weed with hard drugs like acid, using meth (tweaking), heroin or cocaine (crack-heads) is just plain stupid.
I have had trouble watching Stone's drivel before. In his JFK he showed a black hatted FBI agent take Oswald's rifle into the morgue and put Oswald's dead hands on it so his fingerprints were on the gun. The fact was that was never proven. It's true Oswald's prints were not on it at first, then were. But how they got there is actually just pure speculation.
In Stone's Nixon he shows Anthony Hopkins as Nixon walking around with a glass of gin with the ice tinkling. The fact was Nixon was Quaker and a teetotaler. Now I hated Tricky Dick as much as anyone but come on, if you're gonna portray some historical figure, especially one from our recent past, at least get SOME facts right. I know about literary license and these are just movies, but come on.
The thing that bothers me most about Stone and his revisionist history is that the young people, like my Grandkids, will see that crap and think “So THAT's the way it was”. NO IT WASN'T. And that latest shit about “how long have you been using?” is so propagandized and off base equating cannabis with hard drugs it is actually just more establishment anti-weed rhetoric. Even though he tries to tell a story, that part of it was totally unnecessary.
