Movie Review: Dallas Buyers Club

DallasBuyersClubby Brad Nelson   3/4/14
I don’t usually watch the Oscars. And rarely do I watch first-run movies (the culture having become so inane). But I heard that Matthew McConaughey won the best actor Oscar, so I thought I’d take a look at this movie. I liked McConaughey in Sahara, to name one of his films.

Let me sum this movie up: It’s the embodiment of the condescending liberal “compassionate” stare (Jennifer Garner should get an Oscar for this alone) at those who are not as enlightened as they are….in movie form. (And prescription strength!)

This is kiddie porn for the liberal mindset. What could be more titillating than a “redneck” getting the AIDs virus and overcoming all his bigotries and misconceptions (all gays are good, all heterosexual white males are bigots) to become a full part of the liberal “compassionate” world where everyone is a victim?

Aside from that, this is a pretty boring movie. And I won’t say anything against Matthew McConaughey except that had Lassie starred in this role, she would have been given an Oscar. It was, once again, the subject matter, not the acting, that gained Matthew the Oscar. Someday a film like this could be part of an official and mandatory government “Re-education Camp” regimen. For now, this stuff is mostly voluntary.

But Matthew should be given some kind of Weight Watchers award at the very least. How he lost that kind of weight to make this movie is anyone’s guess. And it is certainly haunting to look at him as his health deteriorates. And it’s not that he doesn’t do a good job. I think he does a fine job. But is this really an Oscar-worthy performance? I think it was more a matter of the type of role he was playing.

Just remember before watching this: Gay is good and AIDS is a victim’s virus, not a completely preventable disease. Imagine if the resources that went into these soft propaganda films went into films promoting sexual responsibility and restraint.

The “non-judgmentalism” that predominates today condemns people to either disease or destructive lifestyles. But it’s great for propping up the feel-good narcissism where it can be illustrated (at no cost to themselves) how much people “care.” But might the actual and truly caring person (as seen in one scene) have been the father who looked down on his son’s playing the part of a transvestite (and who died from it)? Just a thought.

After the initial setup, at the forty-three minute mark the movie turns from a victim-of-the-week movie to a sort of Odd Couple type of movie wherein McConaughey (in partnership with a transvestite) starts to sell illegal (and supposedly helpful) drugs to those with AIDS. And this leads us then to the homophobe “fish out of water” movie in which McConaughey is hawking his hopefully curative drugs in gay bars, etc., to people he heretofore would never have mixed with. (Yep. This is an “immersion” movie. You are purposefully being immersed just by watching it. Have fun! And wear some protection!)

Mixed in with all this is a health nut movie where we get into the virtues of these drugs rather than those other drugs. This gets a bit tedious, especially the self-righteousness that is constantly on display. (Yes, I know that this movie is based on a true story, but these aspects are not reduced much by knowing it.) This also becomes a sort of anti-FDA movie as well. The FDA is “the man” getting in the way of cures (no doubt because they are all homophobes).

Eventually, McConaughey becomes a sort of drug-dealing Robin Hood as he goes to Mexico to get drugs that can’t be legally acquired in the U.S. and sells them (at $400 per subscription — this is the “Buyers Club” aspect). And it’s a profitable business indeed.

By the end of the movie, you should have come to also understand that cross-dressers are people too. Jared Leto looks suitably bizarre in his (her?) dress. People are raving at his performance. But is it the performance that is so good or just that this rather bizarre fetish is being mainstreamed? I think the latter.

And libertarians will especially love Dallas Buyers Club. Morals take a complete back seat to the market, at least from McConaughey’s point of view.

Missing completely from this movie is anyone looking on from the sidelines and rolling their eyes a little at all this…unless you include me in the audience. One wonders if this underclass of people aided and abetted by this non-judgmental shtick wouldn’t be better served if traditional moral values were instilled in them. What many of these people need is a good mental health professional or someone telling them “Don’t do that.”

The message that you should get form this type of movie is that gender-bending is not inherently healthy. Instead, you get a “gays are victims” movie-of-the-week with McConaughey looking suitably pathetic. Your heartstrings aren’t tugged. They stick a heavy chain on them and stretch them taut with a 4 x 4.

Now, that’s not to say that anything portrayed is not a human tragedy. It is. As to whether this movie is cinematically interesting, I found this to be more of a TV-grade melodrama than anything else.

So, make of this movie what you will. But if you’re looking for an evening of entertaining drama, this isn’t it. It ultimately feels like one of those over-the-top Boston Legal “nag” episodes. Instead of blaming the FDA or authorities, how about these people stop doing drugs, stop having anal sex, and start getting some help from mental health professionals for the various bizarre perversions or inclinations. Instead, those who engage in extremely reckless behavior ask us all to treat them as victims. I just can’t buy into that philosophy. • (1855 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Movie Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Movie Review: Dallas Buyers Club

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Interesting that McConaughey thanked God after he won, since that doesn’t seem to fit the movie’s content. But you shouldn’t suggest notions about using this in re-education camps to the Fascist Messiah (who must be presumed to be spying on this and other enemy websites one way or another) lest he act on the idea.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Let it be said, Tim, that I don’t hate a movie just because it is gay-themed. I’ve seen a couple gay-themed movies that are much more interesting than this. L.I.E. is one of them, with Brian Cox. But, caution, this movie really does deal with gay themes. That is, it’s not looking at the gay world through a soft-focus lends. That is (again), surely why it makes for pretty good cinema. It’s a story rather than propaganda.

      Dallas Buyers Guide was certainly better than Brokeback Mountain. (And I’m going to go out on a limb: If anybody liked that latter movie, there’s something wrong with you — at the very least in regards to your cinematic tastes.) And I would say that Matthew McConaughey was certainly much more deserving of an Oscar than Tom Hanks was for his totally token Oscar for the bland and highly over-rated movie, Philadelphia.

      It’s perhaps not fair to knock Matthew for a good, but hardly memorable, performance just because he also won a token Oscar. Matthew (unlike Hanks) actually plays it pretty well. No complaints there.

      And I’m not sure how McConaughey squares thanking God with that movie. Oh well. People thank God all the time for winning the big game, somehow supposing that God prefers, say, the 49ers to the Cowboys.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        That happens a lot in sports, but at the Oscars? I understand the crowd didn’t cheer the comment (though they cheered soon after for something else they said). I doubt I would be interested in a “gay-themed” movie because I’m not part of the target audience (or so I would figure). There are a lot of movies I haven’t seen and would like to have done, so why start with something like that?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I doubt I would be interested in a “gay-themed” movie because I’m not part of the target audience (or so I would figure).

          Yes, I see what you’re saying. But I like a movie that poignantly tells a good story about life. And although I wouldn’t want to be an actual soldier in a war, I like war films. And just as I wouldn’t want to be someone’s butt-buddy, I like a film that shows a real-life segment of humanity that actually exists out there. (And, boy, are some of those segments really “out there.”)

          That said, I would like my memory erased, and that time back, for having watched “Brokeback Mountain.” The same goes for “Avatar.” Some movies are so stupid you wished you hadn’t stepped on that overturned rake in the farmyard.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          ” I’m not part of the target audience”

          But you are a target as you don’t kowtow to the politically correct fagboy fascists.

          I was just discussing this with a sharp fellow. These people have co-opted the language and we let them get away with it.

          This is way I never use the word “gay” to describe a homosexual. The word has a perfectly good meaning and I will not let these people take it from me. Should I think of homosexuals when I read Nietzche’s, “The Gay Science”? How about the movie, “Our Hearts Were Young and Gay”? Was this 1944 movie about two lesbians?

          Have you noticed how they have formed the question of homosexual marriage? Something that has never taken place in history and is perverse at its very root? “Marriage equality”.

          They keep bashing us over the head with the word “equality” as if equality of dishonestly, degradation, flaccid thought, outcome, and disease are all goals we should all aim for.

          Orwell understood how the Left abuses the language and warned us accordingly. We need to pay attention and fight back.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            You no doubt have noticed that I avoid the use of “gay” to describe homosexuals. Words do evolve in meaning, so I can accept that this change can happen, but this was a hijacking, not evolution. And I’m even less likely to use such an abomination as “marriage equality” (unless it means equal standards for the husband and wife).

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I had, literally, the same thoughts as I wrote my post, both about words evolving and marriage equality.

              The word charity in 1611 had a somewhat different meaning than it does today. Such change is normal.

              But the fascists homosexual lobby is trying to change the meaning of the word marriage in a few years, just as you see they did with “gay”. I, for one, am not willing to sit by and accept it.

              This hijacking of the language goes even deeper and not only confuses some people, but also makes for ugly, unwieldy words and grammar.

              Once over twenty years ago, I was visiting a friend at his office. I walked in while he was speaking to a woman and he introduced me as “a businessperson in Asia”. I wagged my finger and said, “no, I am a businessman in Asia”. He smiled, corrected himself and thanked me for not letting him fall into the habit of politically correct speech.

              I particularly loath the word “Chairperson”.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Actually, I probably could have accepted referring to homosexual “marriage” without the quotes (I’m sure I’ve done that myself in the past) if it weren’t for the misbehavior of the Lavender Thought Police. If they don’t like the Saudi approach to homosexuality, how about we compromise on Uganda?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        “supposing that God prefers, say, the 49ers to the Cowboys.”

        Hmmm. I think there is some misunderstanding here.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          My mistake. Apparently God favors (at the moment) the Seattle Seahawks, suckuh.

          Now, back to discussion of the movie, AIDS: It’s Somebody’s Else’s Fault.

          I think we can all see where the culture is going. And like a runaway freight train, I don’t think there’s any putting it back in the barn. But if we could cast a real loooong vision out over our culture, we’d see that it is self-destructing. We’d see that — as unpopular of a notion as this may be with the Burger King homogenized democratic crowd (mob, really) — there is much wisdom in the Judea-Christian tradition regarding sexual restraint.

          Yes, yes, we all know a time or two when this good principle has been taken to an extreme. What good principles hasn’t? That’s certainly not news. But our culture is trying to have it’s cake and f*** it too. The idea of simple sexual restraint or discipline is called “repression.” Thank you, Dr. Freud, and all you Marxist college professors out there, for that one. But there were some darn good reasons that genie was put back in the bottle.

          And if we are truly honest about the effects of sexual anarchy and license, we could count up every day how devastating it is to people. Whatever “benefits” are gained by some guy being able to wear a dress to the office, the costs in human wreckage are enormous.

          This is what makes this movie so silly. It’s as if the entire episode of AIDS is taking place in a vacuum, as if they got the disease one day when some crop-dusting plane veered off course.

          But to properly define this epidemic, we have to not see it as the fault of George Bush. It’s not the fault of “homophobic” cowboys. It’s not the fault of the FDA. It’s the fault of a narcissistic and slightly twisted society (or a segment of that society) that wants to act with all the abandon of a traveling freak show and yet pay no consequences for it.

          I pity those who have AIDS. But the compassionate thing to do isn’t to be accepting of the behaviors that lead to the transmission of this disease.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            “I pity those who have AIDS. But the compassionate thing to do isn’t to be accepting of the behaviors that lead to the transmission of this disease.”

            There was the equivalent of AIDS for a long time. It was called syphilis. If you got it, you first started to fall apart and then died from it or a weakened system. When I was young, we called such things “social diseases”. One was not glorified if one contracted such a disease, as promiscuity was not seen as laudable or heroic, which is how today’s immoral arbiters of morality see it.

            But even these people knew that there would be a limited sympathy for the bath house crowd so they started a fierce campaign to divert attention to the risk of contracting HIV through blood transfusions. There was a real risk of this, but who gave the bad blood to begin with? Those paragons of virtue the bath house crowd.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    “And libertarians will especially love Dallas Buyers Club. Morals take a complete back seat to the market, at least from McConaughey’s point of view”

    Come on Brad, only phony libertarians will like the themes in this movie. There is a big difference between individual freedom and taking responsibility for one’s own actions and the victim themes of this movie.

    “Instead of blaming the FDA or authorities, how about these people stop doing drugs, stop having anal sex, and start getting some help from mental professionals for the various bizarre perversions or inclinations. Instead, those who engage in extremely reckless behavior ask us all to treat them as victims. I just can’t buy into that philosophy. ”

    Well said, and this libertarian agrees completely. Behavior has consequences, both good and bad. If someone decides to engage in risky behavior knowing that all manner of STD’s are more likely, they should not claim to be the victim. Self discipline and free will its a b&&ch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *