Critic Review - Christian Science Monitor

[Jarecki's] analysis is far too simplistic.

October 5, 2012 Full Review Source: Christian Science Monitor | Comments (7)
Christian Science Monitor
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Azi Mandias

Azi Mandias

The irony of a 66 word review dismissing this film as 'too simplistic' is too rich to ignore.

The irony of Christians, who live in fear of their doctrines, books and sacraments being declared enemy of the state, turning a blind eye to open state-sponsored attempted extermination of others is too sad to behold.

Oct 10 - 09:44 PM

Des Akkari

Des Akkari

look at the source....stooge!

Oct 14 - 08:24 PM

Greg Pellerin

Greg Pellerin

This review should be discounted. A review from the CSM would have to come out on this side of the line because of the bias of it's readers and editors.

Oct 17 - 09:18 AM

Ab Normal

Ab Normal

The inclusion of Christian Science Monitor's review is ridiculously lazy.
This is their ENTIRE review:

‚??The House I Live In,‚?? Eugene Jarecki‚??s documentary about the domestic ‚??War on Drugs,‚?? makes the point that over the past 40 years, 40 million arrests have been made, making America the world‚??s largest jailer. Yet drugs are cheaper and more available than ever before.

Jarecki‚??s thesis is that law enforcement targets minority communities, but his analysis is far too simplistic. Since when did pushers become victims? Grade: C+

- did a child or troll write this review?? Talk about simplistic!

Is this Peter Rainer guy a film critic or a staunch anti-drug czar/tobacco/alcohol lobbyist? NO explanation of WHY it's simplistic. It seems like the "reviewer" didn't even watch the film. There's a reason why on this issue, BOTH conservatives and liberals agree that the drug war has been an egregious failure and waste of time and money. God forbid the Christian Science Monitor would take an extra 5 minutes to write a more detailed explanation other than "drug dealers are bad. period". What a pathetic excuse for a news company that claims to be the opposite of a 'narrow lens'.

Rotten tomatoes: please remove this joke of a film criticism. For a more analytical criticism, look at Time Out New York's review, which was both constructive and critical.

Oct 17 - 09:11 PM

Caroline Chamberlain

Caroline Chamberlain

I guess it should come as no surprise that a writer from "Christian Science Monitor" wouldn't think it would be necessary to back up an assertion with a strong argument or examples. Don't review movies if you are just going to be lazy and spew religious doctrine.

Oct 22 - 02:41 PM

Michael Rich

Michael Rich

while i can't comment on the review because i haven't seen the movie (would love to see it if it played anywhere in my area, though), the christian science monitor is not a religious newspaper and is one of the more reputable mainstream media publications. just an FYI.

Oct 24 - 12:43 AM

Jeremy Pike

Jeremy Pike

Was this criticism supposed to be self-defeating?

Oct 29 - 08:02 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile