@Citefer said:

@VobIdem said:

Part rehash, part feminist lecture, part celebration of being black, the sequel to Coming To America felt like multiple things except a comedy.

It was enjoyable seeing Cleo McDowell, Lisa McDowell King Jaffe Joffer, Oha, Randy Watson, etc again but there's very little there to make it must-see. It was more of a walk down memory lane with a bunch of unmemorable new faces along for the ride.

I hope others have a better time watching it, because it was just ok

Come rovinare un bel film con stronzate femministe che tanto piacciono ad Hollywood. Poi alle persone viene da vomitare per questo schifo e vota Trump! Lo voterei solo contro questa immondizia di società amata da Amazon ! BLEAH

C'è qualcosa che ti piace? Forse dovresti continuare con i film realizzati prima del 1950?

The movie was a big disappointment. For a comedy movie there were very very few funny bits and the best I got was a smile at a couple of parts, but beyond that it was more like some kind of boring family drama. As you mentioned, Vobldem, and as I suppose was to be expected , you get your share of feminism and political correctness shoved down your throat with the subtlety of a jackhammer. I'm not sure there were too many parts in the movie where we got to watch the movie for more than five minutes without somebody telling the viewers how women are marginalized in Zamunda (even though they are just as able as men!) or how the protagonist got discriminated because of his ethnicity/origins etc. I should also mention that for all forced attempted wokeness and political correctness it is kind of ironic that Leslie Jones' character got Murphy's character drunk and high and basically rapes him. I guess it's only wrong when the roles are opposite.

I noticed Eddie Murphy was one of the producers and I can't help but to wonder what the hell was he thinking? 30+ years later this is what he thinks the fans of the original movie want? An unfunny movie where the original cast are barely supporting characters and the supporting characters roles from the original movie mostly amount to brief cameos that comes off mostly as a desperate attempt at fan service. Eddie Murphy himself looks miserable in this and I can't really remember any part of the movie where he actually tries to do any comedy. Instead we get Leslie Jones trying to redo her role from Ghostbusters and Tracy Morgan who was never funny and the lead actor who also doesn't seem to have much penchant for comedy.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

While I'm quite convinced the ratio is nowhere near that lopsided, judging by how often someone "comes out of the closet" saying something that is so behind the times it gets them into trouble, I won't fight you on that, quibbling here is not worth our time, IMHO.

I am compelled to quibble over your concern about "propaganda" - for me, when I think about America, I'm of the firm opinion that the overwhelming weight is heavily tipped to false narratives and revised history about the reality of American history in its exploitation of PoC and other marginalized people. If "propaganda" is the problem, the "Hollywood left" is only in contrast because it has begun to fight against the status quo of historic white male dominance.

Isn't Hollywood portrayals of rugged heroes rescuing damsels in distress propaganda? Sure it is - and, if this is an objective conversation, it should be easy to concede that - but most men like that, so they've got noooo problem when Hollywood propagandizes ideas and ideologies that stroke their insecurities. They love to hear Clint Eastwood or James Woods or Bruce Willis or...or...or...express their ideas, no problem there.

But when Hollywood tells a different story, all of a sudden, it's preachy propaganda? GMAFB.

What??? Hollywood is ultra liberal. They even admit it. So stick your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears all you want ,but facts.!

Also learn the difference between fiction and propaganda. Coming to America was fiction. Coming 2 America is propaganda. What YOU hate or like has nothing to do with it.

@CelluloidFan said:

@VobIdem said:

I suppose not. Especially in a movie where nearly every character is played by an African American actor, some characters just have to play the antagonist role or create some type of conflict.

But both Patrice McDowell and Darryl were lousy people

No, actually, Patrice and Darryl are lousy representations of people... that's why I say they were "bad" representations.

I fail to see what the film being a "black film" full of black actors has to do with there necessarily being negative characters in it...? It sounds like you're holding the "black film" up to a different standard than one would "non-black" films.

Hi Vobldem. What I meant to state in my earlier post that I've quoted is that Patrice and Darryl are representations of lousy people. This is what happens when you rush to post a post because you're about to watch a film. They're not lousy representations, I'd say that they're okay representations....

@CelluloidFan said:

Hi Vobldem. What I meant to state in my earlier post that I've quoted is that Patrice and Darryl are representations of lousy people. This is what happens when you rush to post a post because you're about to watch a film. They're not lousy representations, I'd say that they're okay representations....

Hi, CelluloidFan. I tried my best to understand your initial earlier post and failed, so thank you for clarifying.

I appreciate it.

@Ilikegoodmovies said:

What??? Hollywood is ultra liberal. They even admit it.

"They" admit it? Who is "they"? How did "they" admit it? Tell me, is America conservative or progressive? How would "America" admit what it is?

Also learn the difference between fiction and propaganda. Coming to America was fiction. Coming 2 America is propaganda.

Because propaganda can't be fiction, and fiction can't be propaganda? Wow. Thanks, professor.

What YOU hate or like has nothing to do with it.

If you changed "YOU" into "WE", we might have found a point of agreement.

At any rate, thanks for sharing your opinions.

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

There may well be a lot of social justice messages coming out of Hollywood today but the assumption made is that this is because Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. And of course there will be people in the business who identify as such but there are also a hell of a lot of conservatives too. The people at the top, the ones with the money and who make the decisions will generally be conservative. The reason we get so much social justice themed content in media is because the people at the top see it as a way to make money. They're merely exploiting the latest trend, delivering what they think audiences will see as hip and probably don't give a crap about the agenda either way. It's basically taking liberalness and packaging it as a commodity. The left as a product of the right.

Some of the filmmakers themselves may well not be liberal but are merely molding their story to fit what they think will make their film successful or simply cohering to the instructions of the film's producer.

The assumption always seems to be that it's the left that's responsible for the negative aspects of social justice. But we forget that these kinds of corporations are capitalist at core. They are going to do whatever they think will make them money. The theories and agendas may come from the left, but the propulsion of them to the forefront of the zeitgeist is due to the right.

So it's both sides that are to blame and both sides that occupy Hollywood. And when I say "blame" I mean that loosely because not all liberals are the same and not all conservatives are the same. There is a tendency of both sides to stereotype every member of the opposing side as representing the very worst of their chosen political ideology.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

There may well be a lot of social justice messages coming out of Hollywood today but the assumption made is that this is because Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. And of course there will be people in the business who identify as such but there are also a hell of a lot of conservatives too. The people at the top, the ones with the money and who make the decisions will generally be conservative. The reason we get so much social justice themed content in media is because the people at the top see it as a way to make money. They're merely exploiting the latest trend, delivering what they think audiences will see as hip and probably don't give a crap about the agenda either way. It's basically taking liberalness and packaging it as a commodity. The left as a product of the right.

Some of the filmmakers themselves may well not be liberal but are merely molding their story to fit what they think will make their film successful or simply cohering to the instructions of the film's producer.

The assumption always seems to be that it's the left that's responsible for the negative aspects of social justice. But we forget that these kinds of corporations are capitalist at core. They are going to do whatever they think will make them money. The theories and agendas may come from the left, but the propulsion of them to the forefront of the zeitgeist is due to the right.

So it's both sides that are to blame and both sides that occupy Hollywood. And when I say "blame" I mean that loosely because not all liberals are the same and not all conservatives are the same. There is a tendency of both sides to stereotype every member of the opposing side as representing the very worst of their chosen political ideology.

So well said - thank you.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

There may well be a lot of social justice messages coming out of Hollywood today but the assumption made is that this is because Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. And of course there will be people in the business who identify as such but there are also a hell of a lot of conservatives too. The people at the top, the ones with the money and who make the decisions will generally be conservative. The reason we get so much social justice themed content in media is because the people at the top see it as a way to make money. They're merely exploiting the latest trend, delivering what they think audiences will see as hip and probably don't give a crap about the agenda either way. It's basically taking liberalness and packaging it as a commodity. The left as a product of the right.

Some of the filmmakers themselves may well not be liberal but are merely molding their story to fit what they think will make their film successful or simply cohering to the instructions of the film's producer.

The assumption always seems to be that it's the left that's responsible for the negative aspects of social justice. But we forget that these kinds of corporations are capitalist at core. They are going to do whatever they think will make them money. The theories and agendas may come from the left, but the propulsion of them to the forefront of the zeitgeist is due to the right.

So it's both sides that are to blame and both sides that occupy Hollywood. And when I say "blame" I mean that loosely because not all liberals are the same and not all conservatives are the same. There is a tendency of both sides to stereotype every member of the opposing side as representing the very worst of their chosen political ideology.

So well said - thank you.

Cheers, dude!

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

Lloyd, I don't know if you've seen it or not, but the classic Rashomon by the late, acclaimed director Akira Kurosawa presents a mix of narratives that contradicts, if not renders obsolete, your ostensible view of history as this fixed set of events. Rashomon tells the story of the rape of a Japanese woman and the murder of her husband from four different narrators - four different versions in all, in one film. It illuminates exactly how subjective the concept of "truth-telling" really can be. I think you should check it out, if you haven't already.

@aholejones said:

The movie was a big disappointment. For a comedy movie there were very very few funny bits and the best I got was a smile at a couple of parts, but beyond that it was more like some kind of boring family drama. As you mentioned, Vobldem, and as I suppose was to be expected , you get your share of feminism and political correctness shoved down your throat with the subtlety of a jackhammer. I'm not sure there were too many parts in the movie where we got to watch the movie for more than five minutes without somebody telling the viewers how women are marginalized in Zamunda (even though they are just as able as men!) or how the protagonist got discriminated because of his ethnicity/origins etc. I should also mention that for all forced attempted wokeness and political correctness it is kind of ironic that Leslie Jones' character got Murphy's character drunk and high and basically rapes him. I guess it's only wrong when the roles are opposite.

This is what I hate so much about modern movies. In the veiled notion of equality, these female characters do or say things to male characters that they’d never be okay with if the shoe was on the other foot. That’s not equality.

That being said, that was not the only thing I disliked about this film. There’s no way it could live up to the original film. It’s just a different time and different era of the world - among other differences. I simply, genuinely did not find it that funny, while the original is an 80’s classic.