By Rob Bricken in
Movies
Wednesday, May. 5 2010 @ 10:31AM
So Robert Rodriguez makes a goofy trailer for a Mexploitation movie called Machete for his Grindhouse double feature with Tarantino. It becomes so popular he decides to make a movie of it. The movie becomes about an evil politician who wants to deport all illegal aliens, who Machete has to stop (although there's a double cross along the way). The movie wraps production like, what, last year? Although it's due in September? And then, just a few weeks ago, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signs an immigration bill that pretty much allows the state to detain anyone who even looks like an immigrant, and deport them if they don't have their immigration papers physically on them.
...yeah. Machete has a Cinco de Mayo message for Arizona.
In other news, how the fuck did I not know that De Niro, Don Johnson, and noted pervert Steven Seagal were actually starring in this film? I blame myself, but I also blame you all for not keeping me informed.
...yeah. Machete has a Cinco de Mayo message for Arizona.
In other news, how the fuck did I not know that De Niro, Don Johnson, and noted pervert Steven Seagal were actually starring in this film? I blame myself, but I also blame you all for not keeping me informed.
Tags: Machete, Robert Rodriguez
72 comments
Comments
RedButcher said:
Is Machete legal or illegal?
If he is illegal he was taking jobs away from the American hitmen.
sal said:
The second thing that made my day...and its only 750 am...freaking sweet
Chad said:
Thought you didn't talk politics or religion here?
"signs an immigration bill that pretty much allows the state to detain anyone who even looks like an immigrant"
Is a totally false statement.
I know, I am a cop and work in Arizona. The law does nothing like that...only people who have not actually read it, think it does.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=6&image.y=7
Dave replied to Chad:
Chad, your mistake was thinking that facts matter.
Rebelcomix replied to Dave:
I think many of us have been making that mistake for a while now.
arsenal replied to Rebelcomix:
But if the mass media and a facebook group say its true it has to be right
bookfisher replied to Chad:
perception is reality, besides laws that relies on policeofficers judgement never is popular among thinking civilians, due to the few rotten apples in police.
That said I love when they put miniguns on bikes
Alex74 replied to bookfisher:
No, perception is an OBSERVATION of reality, and is often incorrect. Stage magicians use perception against thier audience all the time. Reality is truth, not a freaking illusion.
spoon07 replied to Chad:
Speaking for myself, (who personally feels this is a totally unconstitutional law) here's where I have the sticking point. What does "lawful contact" mean? That's such a broad term. If they see someone who appears to be Latino jaywalking will they stop them? Would they stop a white person jaywalking with the same zeal? What about they're walking their dog and the leash snaps or something and the police get involved? If the Latino doesn't have their wallet are they gonna get locked up until their legality is determined? The wording just seems too loose and that would open up all those agencies and government bodies would be vulnerable to lawsuit after lawsuit. And no disrespect to you or your brother officers but if I don't get hassled for being a big white guy wandering around I certainly don't think it's fair we have an updated DWB situation out there.
Hobbcore replied to spoon07:
It's already illegal (for adult citizens) to be out in public without identification on you. Also, there are plenty of other countries that require you to have your passport on you at all times, such as the Netherlands. How is this any different?
spoon07 replied to Hobbcore:
I've spent the last ten minutes looking that up to verify that and I can't find any reference anywhere that states it's illegal in the US to be anywhere without I.D. Could you cite your source please?
arsenal replied to spoon07:
I would guess that he is talking about having your drivers licence on you when you drive. That is my thoughts on that. But honestly I never leave without my wallet that has my id init.
PossibleMisnomer replied to arsenal:
First problem is that it's not just your driver's license. And no, you don't need one just to be walking around. I didn't have a Driver's License/State ID until I got to college. Nobody ever threatened me with jail/deportation/fines for it, even when I WAS stopped by the cops. (For riding my bicycle.)
My driver's license is ALL I carry on me for ID. Why? Because I don't want some jerkwad stealing more important forms of ID because I happened to get my wallet stolen.
Second problem is that you're putting all this in the hands of people. I'm not trying to paint all cops with the "power tripping" brush, but it's pretty plain to see in cases like Rampart in L.A. that when you give a group of people a new directive to "clean up the streets" and the citizens are waiting for action that people in charge are going to cross some lines, and in the end you're going to get a lot of lawsuits.
I'm not claiming that illegal immigrants in Arizona are not a HUGE problem. What I'm saying is that the law's got some serious problems with it, and it should have actually been rewritten before it got blitzed through. It ticks off a significant portion of the legal population, and it basically only addresses one part of the illegal problem.
It's unreasonable for people to be trying to tell you that the illegals aren't causing Arizona problems, and it's just as unreasonable as Arizona saying "This law is awesome, I don't want to hear any more about it! You people don't know anything la la la la la!"
arsenal replied to PossibleMisnomer:
You didn't have even a state ID till college? I take it you never got carded for movies or anything like that or used anything but cash? Everyone should have ID on them at all times, if for nothing else to identify your body.
Also try reading my post again, I stated you need a DL for driving, not just walking around, but my point still stands there is no reason for anyone to not have an ID on them, not a ss card or anything important, a state ID or DL.
PossibleMisnomer replied to arsenal:
Nope. Never had an ID. My parents didn't buy me a car, and didn't want to pay for me on their insurance, so I had no reason to have a driver's license.
Bank of America let me open up an account without anything more than my college ID, and I had credit cards, too. I was even renting an apartment. In fact, I even got a U.S. passport without any sort of State ID. I basically had no use for any sort of state issued ID, and nobody cared. Just because most people have one doesn't mean that it's necessary, or even that they "should" have one.
And I know you were only referring to having your ID on you while driving, but my point is, after reading the law, it seems pretty evident that you're going to need more than your driver's license to prove that you are a citizen. Illegal immigrant suspects stopped and questioned on a traffic stop are going to need their Soc. Sec. card, a passport, or their birth certificate to prove they're here legally.
arsenal replied to PossibleMisnomer:
I am blown away you survived that long and could get all that with no formal ID. But yes I do agree that people will need more then just an ID card to prove they are legal, would be a smart way to make this an easier situation
Hobbcore replied to spoon07:
That was my mistake. It is not illegal to be in public with out ID. Only to drive. But yet again I'd like to stress the second part of the comment that in many countries it is against the law for immigrants to not have there passports on them at all times. This is even European countries.
Kresh replied to spoon07:
Federal immigration law states that all legal immigrants need to carry their papers on them.
spoon07 replied to Kresh:
Where did you find that? Here's what I've found, that they do have to have proof of citizenship, but that's no different than domestically born citizens and social security cards. But it doesn't say anything about having to carry it with them.
http://public.findlaw.com/bookshelf-ssa-handbook/handbook.17/handbook-1725.html
Bill Binder replied to Kresh:
Immigrants, yes. Third generation Americans who are tan? No.
Mikey replied to Hobbcore:
BULL-SHIT
You are NOT required to ANY identification on you. Period. If you are driving, that is part of the driving privilege.
chad replied to spoon07:
The lawful contact language will be changed to be more public friendly, but for those in law enforcement it means we must have a valid law related reason for contacting the person. We can't just walk up to them and say, "Ver are yur papers?".
The law also states there must be reasonable suspicion that the person is illegal. That's not so easy to have as one might assume because unlike your average Joe on the street who sees someone and thinks, "illegal" a cop has to be able to articulate why he has formed that opinion.
But, as pointed out earlier...facts are just silly things that get in the way...
spoon07 replied to chad:
I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. How would it be enforced? Could you maybe give a for example on what counts as appearing to be an illegal immigrant?
Hobbcore replied to spoon07:
Can not speak english would be a good first indicator. Then you don't have to worry about racial profiling and you could find the illegal Russian immigrants in AZ also.
Suz replied to Hobbcore:
You can't tell what language someone speaks until you have spoken to them.
So presumably you mean going up to people and asking them to speak English? Which people would you approach using this methodology?
And that is also without even getting into the fact that in the Southwest at least there are many thousands of citizens whose families have been here longer than the Union (and certainly much longer that Arizona has been a part of the Union) but whose first language is not English.
On the other hand I guess Arizona more or less agrees with you since it is also taking steps to get rid of teacher's whose accents they deem incorrect;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html
Rachel Summers replied to Chad:
Thanks for clearing that up, Chad. I came here to post this. People only believe what CNN tells them.
I'm a hispanic living in South TX, and I wish they had that law here. :(
Law Dog replied to Chad:
AZ Cop here too. The bill doesn't really change much. The ones that were originally arrested and booked into 4th Ave. Jail got screening for immigration status to begin with.
Roger Mortis replied to Chad:
You know, when I saw the Grindhouse trailer for Machete, the only thing that was missing was some heavy-handed political subtext. Ugh.
Seriously, though, thanks for being a voice of sanity here, Chad. So many people have judged this law without actually researching it that we need more people like you to speak up.
JOE said:
So I guess Rodriguez has a problem with the way illegal immigrants are treated but not any of the crap noted asshole Stevan Segal does. Nice to know where his priorities lie.
Samuraiter replied to JOE:
To be fair, if one is going to put Lindsey Lohan and Michelle Rodriguez in a movie, one might as well go get Steven Seagal, too, LOL. If you are going to fix a cake, make it a BIG cake! :-) Lots of fun casting here, that's for sure.
Been wanting to see this since I first heard it was going to be official. Now I REALLY want to go see it!
Rebelcomix said:
That's not what the law says Bricken.
RoboKy said:
Not that I dont agree with your sentiments Rob, but I think I would have been best to keep your opinion about this whole topic to yourself, because it WILL start a nasty political discussion that wont end well for anyone.
As to Machete, I await this film with abated breath.
DebtsPaid said:
wow!!!!!! cant wait
bloodandmetal said:
you were saying that its a bad ass film because of those honkie actors you mentioned...noooo..motherfucker the movie is gonna be bad ass because of Danny trejo..one of the baddest fuckers ever puto...
RedButcher replied to bloodandmetal:
Danny Trejo is the shit. I want to see him take on the Predator.
Matt Henke replied to RedButcher:
That wouldn't be a very good fight because Danny Trejo would utterly destroy the Predator in like 30 seconds dude... but Danny Trejo vs. Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers, a Predator, an Alien, and oh I dunno throw in Chucky? and THAT would be a fair fight (although Trejo would still win)
Pretonius replied to Matt Henke:
I've got your epic fight right here,Danny Trejo Vs Chuck Norris in a no holds barred battle for the title of Supreme Bad Ass of the Universe.
mad_man_moon said:
Arizona is only enforcing a law that has been on the book for many years.Those (besides the illegals themselves)shouting loudest about this probably have never had to deal with the high crime and other nasty things that go with illegals aliens once they take root in an area.
Swampy replied to mad_man_moon:
"have never had to deal with the high crime and other nasty things that go with illegals aliens once they take root in an area."
that's total bullshit. Arizona's crime rate is at it's lowest in 30 years. This also goes for the entire country.
Immigrants, illegal or legal, don't bring crime the way pundits claim they do. They actually bring a DROP in crime. Mainly because they're here to make a better life for themselves and their families. Why would someone who has that goal in mind want to commit crimes?
Take a look at El Paso, Texas. It is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.
mad_man_moon replied to Swampy:
So what part of Texas do you live in Swampy?
Maybe this website will enlighten you a bit:
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
(I doubt it will,but it's worth a shot.)
swampy replied to mad_man_moon:
Here's one for you:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle#commentcontainer
Born, Raised, and Staying Texan.
mad_man_moon replied to swampy:
So as I asked before,where in Texas do you live? Sorry,but El Paso is only one of many,many towns along the Texas/Mexico border. One city does not prove a whole border is safe.
swampy replied to mad_man_moon:
"One city does not prove a whole border is safe."
Which city has proved that the whole border is dangerous?
Could you provide a city that demonstrates you claim that "high crime and other nasty things that go with illegals aliens once they take root in an area."?
mad_man_moon replied to swampy:
Here's a link from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/04/mexico.spring.break/index.html Also try reading Boo Radley's comment about your posted article.
Have a good evening and have a Happy Cinco De Cuatro (as our clueless leader in the White House called it last year.)
swampy replied to mad_man_moon:
The CNN article was talking about cities in Mexico (Juarez) and not the US (El Paso).
Remember the immigration problem is in El Paso, not Juarez.
To clarify, I'll ask again and note that I'm talking about US cities.
Could you provide a city that demonstrates you claim that "high crime and other nasty things that go with illegals aliens once they take root in an area."?
mad_man_moon replied to swampy:
Not that posting this will do any good but here goes:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125737965
Illegal immigration isn't just a problem in El Paso. It's everywhere and will only get worse.
If you seriously believe that crime goes down when illegals flood into an area,then the ivory tower you're living in better have a good lock on it. Goodnight and have a blissful life dear Swampy.
swampy replied to mad_man_moon:
"If you seriously believe that crime goes down when illegals flood into an area,then the ivory tower you're living in better have a good lock on it."
I don't live in an ivory tower. I'm just not paranoid.
You're painting illegals with a very broad brush. The illegals in the NPR story are directly linked to drug crimes. They crossed the border and then crossed back. None of them came across and started to live the US. They're not immigrants.
Crossing the border illegal is illegal, but that is the only crime the majority of immigrants commit.
Boo Radley replied to swampy:
Let's count the crimes.
1)Crossing the border.
2)Staying here without visas.
3)Working illegally.
4)Not paying federal income tax.
5)Not paying state income tax (where applicable).
6)Not paying FICA.
7)Driver's License.
8)Liability Insurance.
Seven of these crimes are committed daily; by definition, they are habitual criminals. There is no need to permit habitual criminals to live freely without fear of punishment. One cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce based on whim or the current political fad; they must all be enforced.
Boo Radley replied to swampy:
swampy,
I looked at the original article quoted in the Reason article. (Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men
By Rubén G. Rumbaut, Roberto G. Gonzales, Golnaz Komaie, and Charlie V. Morgan
University of California, Irvine )
Was this even published in a peer-reviewed journal? Or is it a self-published opinion piece? It's not a good article to use for "proof." Any first year graduate student will tell you: one paper does not create proof or a body of evidence.
The methodology has a critical flaw: their data is pulled from Public Use Microsample of the 2000 Census. The validity and reliability of illegal alien data from the US Census is too low to draw any relevant conclusions.
Given that their data source is completely unreliable, their conclusions have no use. You cannot make valid conclusions from invalid data samples. Period.
Find another scholarly article, and I might just take the time to review it for research ethics and validity.
And yes, I am a research expert.
Anonymous replied to Boo Radley:
"Find another scholarly article, and I might just take the time to review it for research ethics and validity.
And yes, I am a research expert."
Have you looked at Mad_Man_Moon's article?
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
I'd love to hear what you say about it.
mehtehjim replied to mad_man_moon:
i live in a predominantly black area, and there's a shitload of violence here too. Legal status has nothing to do with it. (black people don't either. It's poverty. The like, five white guys in my school would sometimes get in fights too.)
boredatwork replied to mad_man_moon:
Yet nothing is done about those that employ them. People act like finding illegals is hard, this is false. You know where they are, where they work and who employs them. Instead of treating the cause, politicians treat the symptoms, and idiots rally to the flag.
So inane, and everyone buys into this shit. If there are no employers, then there are no jobs, and subsequently no illegals. Or at the very least, cut back considerably.
PossibleMisnomer replied to boredatwork:
@boredatwork:
No, no. The law DOES address businesses. If you're caught KNOWINGLY hiring illegal immigrants as a work force, no matter how many of them you hire, no matter how long they'd been working for you, no matter how much money you took away from the people of Arizona, the maximum punishment is that you lose your business license at that specific location.
For 10 whole days.
Do you guys who support this law see why people think that the law's kind of bogus? It's only addressing one side of the illegal immigrant equation. It really seems like you don't honestly care about losing jobs, etc, when the law's not fining the people who are actively begging the illegals to cross the border so they can hand them your jobs.
mad_man_moon replied to PossibleMisnomer:
I agree that businesses are at fault,but that's not the whole scope of the problem. Maybe if Mexico would address its own issues there wouldn't be so many people trying to enter illegally. But I won't hold my breath to that.
PossibleMisnomer replied to mad_man_moon:
MadMan: You can only address the problems that you have the jurisdiction to address. I'm not saying it solves everything, but you gotta figure that majority of the illegals are coming to Arizona to get a job, to find work.
Why is that part being so thoroughly ignored?
Honestly if that part of the law was written to have some teeth, and the grounds for stopping someone were written up more clearly, with punishments for law enforcements officers using this law for racial profiling, I would have no problem with it.
They illegals are apparently a huge problem for the legal citizens of Arizona. If Mexico's having problems with drug and gang violence, appeal to the UN for help and get some damn troops on the ground.
But, when you look at the law objectively, you can't help but see all the things it overlooks. And with everything it's overlooking, the only thing the law in it's current form is spotlighting is getting those brown people off the streets.
If this law is truly about getting the Arizona economy back in shape, it's gotta be written so that it actually addresses the business part of the equation with some real punishment.
swampy replied to PossibleMisnomer:
Find another scholarly article, and I might just take the time to review it for research ethics and validity.
And yes, I am a research expert.
Have you looked at Mad_Man_Moon's article?
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/
I'd love to hear what you say about it.
swampy replied to swampy:
Oops! sorry, wrong person!
MattK said:
It loses JUST a bit for being too clean. The original trailer in Grindhouse was perfect. But I'm still awaiting this feature length masterpiece with the same awe and respect I had for Black Dynamite.
Matt Henke replied to MattK:
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - the trailer's a little too cleaned up, yet I still think the movie will be entertaining as hell!
Anonymous said:
Personally, in my line of work, people living in motels are worse than illegals...let's get rid of motel trash to start with, then we go from there.
Screw the politics, this movie is going to be fucking good fun.
knifeintheeye said:
Too awesome for words. Gotta see this flick!
Monty Prime said:
That trailer prompted me to look up the film, and I discovered something disturbing.
Apparently the main character is also the uncle of the kid from...
Spy Kids.
Yep. It's a Spy Kids spin off.
kenshiro replied to Monty Prime:
Pshaw. Danny Trejo is a universal baddass. Spy Kids is an freak occurence on his resume. It's more like, wtf, that knife maniac from Desperado is in spy kids?
Suz replied to Monty Prime:
Naw, Trejo and Rodriguez are cousins and he's in a bunch of his movies.
OTOH, Machete/Spy Kids has almost unlimited FFF potential.
Cosmicshaft said:
Kind of like stereotyping all police as corrupt and racist... nice way to be a hypocrite
vendetta said:
Actually thats NOT what the law is about but thanks for being an un-informed douche.
Capsulesn'Coffee said:
What an epic cast! Danny Trejo, Robert. Fucking. DeNeiro., Steven Seagal,Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, Michelle Rodriguez etc.
When I heard Rodriguez was turning Machete in a feature film I assumed it would be one of those projects thats kept on the back burner indefinably; so watching the above trailer naturally blew my socks off; God bless you Robert Rodriguez. Does anyone know if this is slated for a theatrical release or direct to video?(either way I'm going to watch the shit out of it on release day.)
Spazweez said:
Law blah blah. Profiling blah blah. Uninformed blah blah.
He real shame here is that this trailer doesn't include my favorite line from the Grindhouse version (as near as I can remember):
If you hire Machete to take out the bad guy -- make sure YOU'RE not the bad guy!
So much delicious cheese. Can't wait.
Mr Shrubber said:
LiLo? Oh HELL to the nah!
Brokehart said:
Well, I was going to get in here and point out the glaring falsehood in your article Rob, but I'm glad to see that most of the other readers have beaten me to the punch.
Can we please just stick to nerd news around here? That's why I come to Topless Robot. To laugh at things that are only serious in the realm of Nerddom. This place is an escape from the rest of the bullsh!t out there.
JPyke said:
Rabble rabble rabble!!!
Third Impact replied to JPyke:
Exactly!
