If Pulp Fiction, Nobody, Breaking Bad, American Beauty, and Falling Down, all had a baby, it would be this movie. A bit dated and cheesy at parts, but fantastic overall. The middle may lose you but stick around until the end and I’d say it redeems itself. There is a great reoccurring theme of a tamed wolf that works great as the social commentary of the emasculated modern male, but also the cucked White guy as well. And because this film was before the woke era, they drop hard R’s willy nilly and are realistic about the racial tribalism in the crime world. Also very redpilling about female psychology and staying true to who your woman fell in love with.
Two things come to mind that fit with the message of the film. The first, is the YouTuber, UberBoyo’s analysis of Nietzsche’s take on the betamale losers subverting the warrior class and messing up the natural order in society:
Introducing Nietzsche: The WARRIOR Philosopher – [Animation from Thus Spoke Zarathustra]
The second is a great sample I heard on Mr. Bond’s “Like A Diamond” cover from his “Screw Your Optics” mixtape. Which I now realize comes from the movie “Siberian Education.” (One more thing to add to the “To Watch” list.)
“The winter did not seem to have an end, and the pack was starving to death. The leader of the pack, the oldest of them all, was out in front comforting the young wolfs, telling them that the spring was coming. But, at a certain point, one young wolf decides to stop. He says he has had enough of cold and hunger, and he says he’s going to live among the men; because the important thing is to stay alive. The young wolf lets men catch him and, as the years go by, he forgets that long time ago he was a wolf. One day, many years later, as he’s hunting with his master he runs obediently to collect the prey. But he realizes that the prey is the old leader of the pack. He falls silent for shame and the old wolf speaks and says to him: “I die happy because I lived my life as a wolf; you, on the contrary, belong neither to the world of wolves nor to the world of men. Hunger comes and goes but dignity, once lost, never returns.”
I know 5 stars is a bit much, but I just really enjoyed this film and it fits my favorite non-genre of midlife crisis memento mori carpe diem plots. As of now that would be ranked as:
1st.) Stranger Than Fiction
2nd.) Office Space
3rd.) Fight Club
4th.) Thursday
5th.) Falling Down
6th.) American Beauty 7th.) The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
8th.) Click
9th.) Nobody
Definitely support the creators of this film. Buy or rent a copy if you can.
Skip the movie not for boycott reasons but because it’s just not that good. I only sat through it because I like the notion of the Muse and am a bit of a new age kook. Unlike “City of Angels” that Steven Pressfield recommended, this is not a feel good movie about the metaphysical. In fact, his book “The War of Art” was written in 2002 and this film was made in 1999. So no relation.
It was okay, but the Jewish humor of constant victimhood and obsession over money just didn’t land well. Only few people, (Larry David for example), can pull such stuff off for global audiences. So seeing the Muse as an obnoxious and greedy figure was just not as enjoyable to watch. However, it was a good analogy for what creative types go through. Willing to sacrifice every comfort and throw thousands of dollars into a hole chasing their creative whims. Jordan Peterson breaks that down better than the movie does here:
Fantastic film with the god father of modern comedians who aren’t absolute trash, Norm Macdonald, as the lead. Lots of the classic actors of the 90’s SNL era. Back when they actually had funny actors. No woke BS in the film. In fact quite the opposite.
There was no agenda and no message. Just a funny movie with the sole purpose of making you laugh with crude humor. Definitely not family friendly but not uncomfortable to watch with your family unlike all the new streaming movies that always have explicit sex scenes. No awkward stuff like that. My only gripe was that the cliché bad guy was a one dimensional rich fat cat. But whatever. They also made fun of hobos and Chris Farley is hilarious.
Speaking of which, hearing Artie talk about Chris Farley and behind the scenes here:
Nick DiPaolo And Artie Talk Chris Farley
And Chris Farley’s nose shtick seemed to be brutal foreshadowing…
#1376 Artie Lange Reveals What Happened to His Nose | Joe Rogan
Two thumbs up. 4/5 stars. Definitely recommend, but guy humor for sure.
Pretty great film. I had never seen it before but always love the idea of angels and demons. Yokai anime are my favorite and other Hollywood movies about ghosts or angels are in my top 10. So I am a bit biased. Very fascinating to see Nicholas Cage not be crazy for once, but he’s just so friendly and kind that he is creepy so two sides of the same coin I guess…
Anyways, I would recommend this film for sure. The main love interest is a strong womyn™ doctor and another main character is a Black angel. There are some obligatory feminist moments and of course robbers are White whereas the Black guys are businessmen or whatever. But this is to be expected and my standards are so low in terms of propaganda/agenda that this stuff doesn’t even phase me anymore. Oh! But the “in the arms of an angel” song that is now Pavlovianly associated with abused dogs is played during a crucial moment and you can’t help but get sucked out into the real world. Real buzzkill.
All in all, don’t let those elements prevent you from seeing this pleasant film with solid philosophical / pro-Faith themes.
Definite bait and switch. You will not be getting a White guy on a rampage against hoodlums that you come across in real life (Mexicans/Blacks). Instead, you get yet another John Wick Russian mafia vendetta. So for me, as someone who deeply loves Russia, the film was nonstop schadenfreude. And a lot more “schaden” than the “freude” to be honest.
However the bait and switch in it was also what made the film more interesting than the other types in its genre. Is it yet another midlife crisis White guy snapping type movie (e.g. Fight Club, American Beauty, Click, Stranger Than Fiction, Office Space, etc.) ? Or is it another patriarchal revenge porn type movie (e.g. Mad Max, John Wick, Taken, etc.) ? Well it’s a mixture of the two and the dark comedy bits make it worth the watch. Lots of clichés subverted and a few twists and turns that kept things interesting to the very end. One one hand, not having the typical divide and conquer Hollywood BS about evil Whites v.s. Blacks was a relief. But on the other hand, it’s disappointing to see more stereotypical Russian bad guys. They are the only safe group to hate nowadays and the Russophobia in recent years makes me sick.
Other parts in the film made me wonder if this movie was a PR piece for alphabet agencies and stoking anti-Russian sentiments now that Beijing Biden is in office and we need a scapegoat to counter the pro-Russia Trumpism of recent years. I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes out that the CIA or FBI was somehow involved in this film like they were for many others. But after googling a bit it doesn’t seem so. Once I looked into the director, it turns out it’s the same guy who made Hardcore Henry. His (((early life))) section on Wikipedia is what you’d expect from anyone in Hollywood, but he is also a Russian who spent a lot of his childhood there. So the Russian bad guy thing might just be out of convenience and comfortability, along with being a safe group to hate nowadays. Not an agenda, per se.
Regardless, I am on the fence about if you should pay to see it. Pay to see it because we need more films about White males who reject modernity trying to turn them into beta bug men pencil pushers. ( Very redpilling subplots about female attraction and men keeping true to their purpose and not giving it up for any woman. ) But if you are sick of anti-Russian clichés, then don’t pay, and go rent the latest Rambo where he goes ham on a bunch of Mexicans with a very similar crescendo to Nobody‘s.
"“What the Bleep Do We Know!? (2004)” Is Anti-Big Pharma & Anti-Semitic?"
Author Rating
2
This is a nostalgic film from back in the day. Recently, I was talking to a guy about manifesting and quantum physics and decided to give it a watch. It’s free on YouTube right now as well, so I figured what the heck. TL;DR basically everything they say in the film is false. But I am a believer in positive thinking and many successful people are as well. At the very least placebo effect and rewiring your brain through actions is something we can all agree on. But I take it a step further and get a little “woo woo” with it. The book “Think And Grow Rich” talks about the power of the mind and describes Law of Attraction kind of principles. Yet, this was written in the early 20th Century and is inspired by influential men who changed history such as the based anti-semite, Henry Ford. Which is why I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water just because of a few crazies and wine aunts who soil its reputation.
There are tons of modern equivalents to people like Ford. The question is, is it selection bias? Successful people tend to be optimistic and confident, but what about all the hippie bums who babble about the power of manifesting? Tough call. My take away is that it’s a tool like anything else, and most plebs just don’t follow through. “Consistency beats hard work every time.” The way I see it is that affirmations/meditation/positive thinking/etc. are like going to the gym. And the people who have the best results go to the gym regularly and have routines based on obtainable goals that they put the work in for. I would wager that Will Smith and Steve Harvey check their Vision Board daily and meditate religiously. Whereas that art ho witch in your History class just likes day dreaming in the shower.
The Secret, according to Mac and Dennis.
The best example of why I have faith in the outlandish aspects of positive thinking and not just the mechanistic placebo effect aspect, is listening to Scott Adams describe his experience with affirmations. He is a skeptic atheist and what he describes seems to be more than just coincidence and confirmation bias. Although, he and I will both admit that there’s no way to prove that, and logically it is just confirmation bias / placebo. Regardless, it seems to work. Which is why the general take away from “What The Bleep Do We Know” is a good one imho. Even if it is accompanied by tons of pseudoscience myths and poor analogies.
Besides, I love that deaf actress from Seinfeld so that makes the film enjoyable to watch. The retro 2000’s vibes, and politically incorrect jokes about fat women and perverted bosses was a plus as well. Oh, and there is a theme of being against prescription drugs and pro self improvement. Definite rightwing values. However this comes along with muh “empowered womyn™ don’t need no man” messages as well, but whatever.
Alright, so I saved you the time of trying to track down all the studies they mention but it’s really not too important. Spoiler alert: they’re all BS. Feel free to ignore all the screen shots and links at the bottom of this review. But before you do, there are three main things that popped out that deserve your attention.
1.) TM
2.) Ramtha
3.) The Power of Group Meditation
When I first watched this film back in the day, I had no clue that two of the main people interviewed throughout, are nutjobs/con artists. One is a cult leader who claims to channel an ancient warrior god from Atlantis named “Ramtha.” And the other is a “TM” (Transcendental Meditation) Cult member who follows some curry-goblin grifter.
Let’s start with TM. I was listening to Tim Ferris interview Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry was going on and on about how amazing TM was for his life. And how he was teaching his kids how to do it. Personally, I don’t do as well with mindfulness meditation which seems to be more of an Eastern approach. This is the kind taught in the HeadSpace app, and has you focus on physical sensations of breath and touch, in an aim to quiet the mind so you disassociate. I prefer Western/Stoic type meditations and daily thought experiments. For example, thinking of 5 things you’re grateful for in the morning, or visualizing yourself in the third person going about your day as you would want if you were a Sims character with no temptations/self control issues. Or like what “Think And Grow Rich” suggests, which is to imagine you in and a group of men you respect helping you decide what to do to achieve your goals and dreams. Literally have imaginary discussions at length with JFK or whomever.
Anyways, I try to be open minded and decided to look into TM. It turns out it’s just repeating a mantra over and over until you zone out. Simple enough and surely something that works since we all agree that actions affect your emotions more than the other way around. But the more I looked into it, the more red flags arose. It’s super expensive and secretive, and they trademarked the phrase itself. And every time this guru pops up, he is asking for more money. Which is exactly what I found when I tried to get details on if the experiment mentioned in “What The Bleep.” They prayed to reduce crime, it didn’t work, and yet this curry-goblin still asked for millions of dollars in taxes to expand the program and pay people to repeat these mantras.
Alright, now this Ramtha character. Not much to say but it’s hard to tell if these people believe their own sh*t, or are just sociopaths. Because her interviews from the 80’s have a different persona/accent than the ones depicted in “What The Bleep.” And her accent/persona slips away as she gets drunk. Speaking of which, it turns out she shares something else with fellow positive thinker, Henry Ford. She’s also an anti-Semite. … BASED! I tried searching everywhere for the video and finally found a few censored clips. I’ll upload it on Archive.org and save a copy here on RightWingTomatoes. But if anyone can find the original uncut footage please post it in the comments below. Every link I found was dead and flagged by her legal team.
Yeah, when the little basketball kid asked about the rabbit hole, I had no idea this is what I signed up for…
Ramtha claims to be a God of sorts and that we are all Gods too. The film went on about how there is no good and evil. And bashed organized religion. Hence the 4/5 “Anti-God” ratings. It would be 5/5 but many Christians believe God is in all of us as well, and the film didn’t directly bash Christ. Regardless, if I only knew who Ramtha was when I first saw the film…
JZ Knight Ramtha Merv Grifin Show 1985
Oprah & J.Z. Knight – Deceived Clip-2
New Age Advocate Channels an Ancient Spirit on Command | The Oprah Winfrey Show | OWN
(Not “Ramtha” but the same exact hustle and gibberish. Abraham Hicks is another channeler but she is boring to watch.)
The last thing worth mentioning is about the group meditation experiment mentioned in the film. Everything I looked up said it was BS, but there was a little bit of nuance to some of the people defending it. Overall, I was convinced enough to not bother tracking down the crime rates to check for myself. If anyone else feels like it, please comment below. I’m fascinated in the truth about the power of prayer because it definitely seems like something modern Academia would poo poo at face value. I remember hearing about how the conspiracy talk show host, Art Bell, had all his listeners send mental energy towards bringing rain to an area in Florida with a dry spell. Supposedly it caused flooding. Again, I was too lazy to go deep into scrutiny, but I’ll post the archive links below for others who want to.
But basically, of all the claims in the film, the one that I am most open to is the power of group prayer. And I am reluctant to just take mainstream media opinions from skeptics™ despite how many I stumbled upon. These people often didn’t cite their sources and just appealed to “Science” in the abstract. Pretty ironic, considering these Rick & Morty scientism types are the ones who make fun of New Age types for misconstruing Quantum Physics as a religion.
Bottom line is that A.) we are all superstitious, B.) positive thinking works, and C.) I’m open to a little bit of the “woo woo” side of positive thinking. Don’t bother watching this film again. Feel free to skim through the debunking screenshots below and laugh at Ramtha interviews instead. ✌?
"The Truth About Charlottesville & The “Alt-Right: Age of Rage (2018)” Agenda"
Author Rating
2
Pretty decent movie. Decided to watch it after I stumbled upon the brief Murdoch Murdoch review of it. For those in the Dissident Right it’s like watching a car crash in slow-motion because we know how it really screwed things up for us and we’ve already watched all the clips and interviews ad nauseam. And this time it’s even more frustrating because they act like the Alt Right is the one starting the violence. However, I was impressed with how they actually showed the cops doing nothing and letting the violence take place. Still, for an accurate breakdown with cited sources and even an independent report on the entire event click here:
You can also confirm this from lefty NPR as well. And for a detailed breakdown of James Fields’ case specifically you can check out these Red Ice reports here and here. Basically some dumb kid trying to leave the rally was forced into AntiFa mobs due to retarded cops. You can see the brake lights on as he goes towards the crowd. It seems that he assumed the crowd would disperse, or perhaps he did want to run them over. But at the very least we can say he wasn’t accelerating into them at full force from the beginning. He was honking and pressing the brakes until some AntiFa punk hit the back of his car, he panicked and accelerated. Once he was mobbed by the crowd he reversed outta’ there.
Still dumb, and still should be charged. But the fat chick that died actually died from a heart attack, and wasn’t hit by his car. The kangaroo court case was just as corrupt and biased as the entire set of events that lead to Charlottesville being a loss for the Dissident Right. For a breakdown of that you can listen to “Alt Right Truth” interviewed by JF here, and him being interviewed by Mike Enoch here. But for the clip of the car crash breakdown you can just watch these two videos:
FAKERY IN THE ‘ALT RIGHT: AGE OF RAGE’ DOCUMENTARY (JAMES FIELDS)
CHARLOTTESVILLE: MAKING A MURDERER – STICK GIRL’S REVELATIONS
The absolutely revolting and unnerving SPLC Jew talking about how phrenology is fake science while being a perfect example of it was amusing. His bizarre George Lucas hair and excessively dexterous lips, all smashed together on a tiny munchkin face will leave you feeling queasy.
And this is old news, but I remember people pointing it out when the film first came out. If you look in the background he is tracking the decreasing number of Whites globally:
Really gets the ‘ol noggin’ joggin’…
And there are some cheap shots done through deceptive editing like when even the SPLC goblin was praising Jared Taylor for being a trilingual Yale alumni world traveler pacifist, the editor cut to him playing a saxophone in a silly parody song. Such scumbags. Oh well, in the end it only “humanized” the Alt Right like when Jimmy Fallon rustled up Trump’s hair.
Other than that I just want to address some issues with the repatriation criticism. Goblin George Lucas brought up a good point about India’s Muslim/Hindu partition. They are right when they say that violence is inevitable even in the best case scenarios. Maajid Nawaz doesn’t want the gravy train to stop so his intense reaction is understandable :
But to hear the other side, you can listen to Ryan Faulk (Alt Hype) explain how an “ethnostate” could be formed relatively peacefully. And he gives several examples of balkanization happening without violence in history. It’s worth noting that he has since changed his mind on advocating for an “ethnostate” and says that just balkanizing along political lines is more realistic and objectively better because of sh*tlibs. Both videos are linked above and all the cited sources are in their respective descriptions. Also, Greg Johnson’s “White Nationalist Manifesto” addresses the moral & logistical concerns very well, and I highly recommend the (audio)book. Lastly, although it wasn’t a mass exodus, a sizable chunk of unwanted Latino expats living in Japan were paid to leave and never come back. Not a single drop of blood was shed. Would reversing immigrant trends in such a manner be such a bad thing?
And to be clear, the term “ethnostate” is autistic and bad optics. It’s a redundant term that makes no sense to most people around the world and to any American prior to the 1965 Immigration Act that was forced on them. What we really mean when we advocate for repatriation and talk about White identity is really just wanting a homeland. Japan is not 100% Japanese and they don’t ethnically cleanse any non Yayoi blooded citizens. They just are not retarded about letting taco gremlins sprint across the border to score a 14th amendment touchdown by sh**ting out a baby. They don’t just let anyone and everyone vote in their elections. It’s common sense. So just as Jared Taylor has expressed discontent with the term “Alt Right” because it insinuates we are abnormal, I think it’s important not to use esoteric genocidal sounding terms with normies.
At this point, I think it’s pretty damn obvious that the media milking Charlottesville was just bias and slander. The cuckservatives now realize how often the lefty mayors set up Catch 22 situations, because during the George Floyd 2020 riots there was a car running over protestors like every other week.
And for anyone who is still out of the loop, Steven Crowder did a great video proving that Trump did not say nazis were good people. Send it to normies who still buy the MSM narrative.
Leftists REACT To “Very Fine People” Myth DEBUNKED! | Louder With Crowder
Anyways, decent film. Not insanely biased like the hit jobs VICE makes, but still not something you should support. I use the Netflix password of someone else and saw it was streaming so not sure if that counts as being a hypocrite but whatever. If you have someone’s Netflix password check it out, but you’re not missing out if you don’t. Watch this instead:
I was happily surprised watching this film. Everything I saw was accurately portrayed and the analysis was on point. Most of the people interviewed were actually in tune with the image board subcultures except for a few douchey people interviewed. Matt Furie seems alright, but it’s hard to root for him in the end. He reminds me of the Techno Viking guy not understanding the internet and the Streisand Effect. Which is part of why you can’t hate the guy either, he’s clearly an aloof stoner with no ill will. It wasn’t until he started talking sh** about Alex Jones and other normie conservative types that I stopped having much sympathy for him. I wish he would be like Ben Garrison who finally realized he should stop fighting and be thankful he has millions of people willing to promote him for free. We should all be so lucky.
But Matt’s not a Libertarian so it’s unlikely he’ll ever accept partnership with far right conspiracy types like Ben did. But perhaps the ADL refusing to cooperate with him and being unapologetic at ruining his life may redpill him a bit.
Anyways, great documentary and worth watching. Fantastic production quality and animation. Never got bored during interviews. And it seemed like really fair reporting that didn’t demonize people like Eggy. (That’s amazing coming from a PBS doc!) Currently, it’s free on the PBS website here. Check it out if you have the time. (^_^)-b
I saw this a while ago so it’s not fresh in my brain. Therefore, I’ll keep this short. Basically, it was great and entertaining and had very sweet moments with Lum and Ataru. The Mulder & Skully “oh em gee they finally were romantic instead of at each other’s throats” type moments that are few and far in between in the regular series.
But this still felt like just an extended episode rather than a legit film. Of course, you have to already know the characters to enjoy the film, so watch the show first a bit. But the plots of each episode and each movie don’t intertwine. You just need to understand the social dynamic and appreciate the characters before watching one of the films imho. Once you do, you could watch any film, really. In which case, I’d suggest the 2nd film, “Beautiful Dreamer.” This one was just okay but still worth a watch.
"“Urusei Yatsura Movie 2: Beautiful Dreamer (1984)”"
Author Rating
3
Awesome film. I have been going through and watching the entire Urusei Yatsura series over the past year or two. ( Usually when I detox from politics and ban myself from Twitter/Imageboards/etc.) The show gives a mindless entertainment break that is not sequential/chronological like the more serious anime series out there. And even though I wasn’t alive then, nor living in Japan as a kid, the 80’s vibes activate my nostalgic member berries big time. The first film felt like an extended episode, or straight to VHS. This one you could imagine on the big screen. Granted, if you don’t know the characters already you likely won’t enjoy it as much. There’s tons of character development and social dynamics that you need to be aware of going in. So watch some episodes first. Not all, but at least a handful.
Even without pre-existing knowledge of the characters, you gotta’ love Japanese storytelling. Despite the clichés of mecha, floating naked test tube chicks, and peeping tom onsen crap, most anime is hard to predict. And to be fair, this is one of the biggest criticisms of Japanese media, because they often have a great premise but no idea how to end it. But at least you are left guessing with how the plot will end, and “kill Whitey” is rarely the moral of the story. In fact, because their sense of morality is so different from ours you often sympathize with the bad guys and they blur the line as they spew some philosophy. I guess nowadays that’s been done ad nauseam, (e.g. “Breaking Bad”, Spaghetti Westerns, Film Noir, etc.), but the Japanese version has a different vibe to it. Hard to explain…
It’s not like they are trying to implement a gimmick. Or be subversive. It’s more like they just genuinely view things less binarily and don’t feel the need to push a moral of the story. Maybe it comes from their humble / passive culture. Instead of lecturing, they simply explore ideas with no clear conclusion because only an egoist feels righteous enough to do that. Or perhaps they are more concerned about isolating themselves from the community by having very outspoken beliefs? Or something to do with how Asians tend to copy well but innovate less, and can be book smart but have trouble seeing the bigger picture. Idk. But a good example of their moral ambiguity is how their “demons” (yokai) are not always evil. Many are just mischievous and whacky like the Shirime yokai. It’s a dude with an eyeball on his a**. That’s it.
Likewise, they don’t have the White guilt and overrepresented demographics in their media that would prevent them from having non PC images like these without some big side plot about how racists are evil or whatever. The Third Reich images are just nonchalantly in there with no agenda or second thought because they thought it was funny. Simple as.
Actually, on second thought, towards the end where the dream yokai is talking about how he made an aspiring artist, Hitler, become a deranged dictator was kinda’ preachy.
If you watch it, lemme’ know what you think. Because I still didn’t get an agenda vibe from that.
Anyways, overanalyzing Japanese culture may be pointless here; perhaps they’re just genetically predisposed to be freaks like the birds of paradise. I mean, c’mon. We all know the Japanese are infamously weird – and g*d d*mmit – I love them deeply for it. The lyrics of one of Urusei Yatsura‘s theme songs and the 3 minute scene of episode 32 will give you a good idea of what to expect in their 2nd film.
“Let’s put weird and weird together, and make it even weirder!”
Uchuu wa Taihen da! – Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)
So yeah, if you want a trippy, retro, bizarre, and sweet anime film to watch that’s not full of clichés, then give it a go after about ≥20 episodes of the series under your belt.
So, in “Joker” the film is about the disaffected White males sh*t on by society. Or, the normie take on it, is that it’s about mental health issues and the loner sh*t on by society. Whatever. I interpret it as disaffected White males. But either way, one of the biggest criticisms of the film was how they made the viewer sympathize with the bad guy too much and excused his actions.
Well, “Unhinged” seems like taking the same premise of “Joker” but going to the extreme where there are no redeemable qualities in the disaffected (mentally ill) White male. He is indisputably the antagonist, not the conflicted protagonist.
“They don’t give a sh*t about people like you, Arthur.”
The film seems like it was written by a soy boy cuckf*g suburbanite who had a bad day in traffic when a Chad republican in a truck honked at him. He didn’t say anything, bottled it up, then lived a woulda-coulda-shoulda vicariously through his screenplay. Making the Chad a one dimensional psycho, and making himself a woman ‘cuz that’s basically what he is. If this sounds like pure conjecture on my part, google Carl Ellsworth and tell me I’m wrong.
Anyways, despite being torture porn and full of inversions of reality, (e.g. the protagonist main chick is fighting with her leech/dead beat ex husband in a divorce because he is trying to take the house she worked hard for), the film is enjoyable. I think an apt analogy would be how the Storm Troopers were meant to be the bad guy nazis but fans overwhelmingly love them and identify with them more. For example, the scene where he rants about the parasitic divorce lawyer f**king over hardworking men without consequence, as he smashes a coffee mug in the man’s face and stabs him in the neck.
SUUUUPER satisfying to watch. His monologue was on point for the MGTOW types who know all the stats.
The other deaths, not so much. A bit too sick and twisted and the victims were all innocent. However, White boys don’t do normal murders very often. We bottle it up until we snap and go psycho.
So it’s a very schadenfreude feeling watching his rampage. More discomfort than entertainment though. Therefore, I wouldn’t recommend it unless other people you’re with want to watch it.
But to give credit where credit is due, the film had a scene where the TV news reporter, (coincidentally reminiscent of the social worker in the “Joker”), said something about society celebrating and recognizing all its members because “those left behind are doomed to rage like a volcano.”
Also, at the end, although the protagonist chick killed the guy, (with a cheesy, previously foreshadowed action hero phrase I might add), she later almost t-boned a jerky driver and was about to honk before stopping. Her son, in the back seat, said, “Good choice.” And since the intro of the film played a montage of news channels talking about incidents of road rage, and the lady at the gas station nonchalantly said, “He’s road ragin’,” the theme was pretty clear. Personally, I am glad they weren’t too one-sided and made the protagonist take responsibility as well. But it basically legitimizes what Russel Crowe set out to do. He wanted to teach her a lesson for being an uppity and inconsiderate c**t. Now she will remember him forever and be a more cohesive member of society.
So…. we should all go on vigilante crusades when we wanna’ rage quit life? Is this the answer to 3rd wave feminism? Hmm I guess might does make right.
So yeah, could be interpreted as advocating for disaffected White males, but it’s a stretch. Mainly it’s an anti-White, anti-male propaganda horror flick that will fuel irrational hatred of us from the rest of society. Therefore, don’t pay to see it, and only watch it if others insist.
This was a fantastic film. I expected slapstick 80’s stuff, but was surprised that it was actually pretty somber and intense. Sure, the anti-Soviet propaganda and initial premise is a bit goofy, but after the first 20 minutes the movie gets deep. Very easy to imagine yourself in their shoes. Absolutely loved the clever role reversal (and ironic homage to our country’s roots) of having Americans be the guerrilla revolutionaries. Likewise, the Cuban antagonist’s B plot could serve to parallel how Americans in our universe should feel about the wars we wage. Former revolutionaries should be sympathetic to the peoples’ struggle rather than imperialist occupational goals. Idk… Cool aesthetics either way. Cowboy ISIS guerrillas.
The character development and relationships didn’t have too much time to expand outside of the brothers, but you still feel for them. They also humanize the bad guys, without sacrificing the film’s patriotism. Which is almost unheard of in Hollywood, so huge breath of fresh air. And as someone who loves Russia, I was glad to see that “no more brother wars” element of the film.
The best (and most iconic) example of that was when the American rebels struggle to execute a traitor from their group
and have this exchange:
Not sure what the screenwriters were going for, but I interpret that as the logical third position. Basically, war is hell and usually unjustified but sovereignty is the exception. We have a right to exist. etc. etc. Both screen writers have right leaning filmographies, (relative to typical Hollywood libsh**s), so the humanizing of the Cuban, and self reflection on senseless Soviet killing was likely intended as a nationalist message imho.
Aside from that, there seems to be a lot of backstory alluded to that was never fleshed out. I looked up online to see if it was based on a novel, but guess not. Anyways, ’twas a unique movie viewing experience 100% worth your time. Even if it’s outdated. Like, it was weird to hear them talk about how the Chinese were allies with the Americans, and the Russians were the ones to invade. Nowadays it seems like the opposite scenario would occur. Which is why I’m bummed that the remake had to change to North Koreans instead of Chinese so they could keep their box office profits in tact. Now both movies are unrealistic fantasies out of touch with reality. Will watch that next and see if they pull it off though…
Oh and I just rewatched the Murdoch Murdoch “Yellow Dawn” parody and it’s 10 times funnier. (Go figure.) I mean, I got the references the first time around even though I had never seen “Red Dawn” just because it’s a cultural icon. But obviously it’s better with the entirety of the film fresh in my brain.
I pressed play thinking I was watching the “Hocus Pocus” film, but was surprised to find it was a different retro witch film. Never had heard of it, but it was great. One of those “practical effect” movies from the 80’s / 90’s like the early Peter Jackson films. Creative camera angles and cuts combined with art pieces make it a lot more fun to watch.
Nothin’ to analyze really besides the fact that it reminds me of pedogate stuff and the German accent of the antagonist reminds me of an old Jewish one. So before things totally derail into a film about mice, it could be a good analogy for blood libel (((elites))) tryin’ to diddle and sacrifice your kids.
The phrenology/physiognomy of the witches seems to fit our “preconceived notions” and parallel our reality a bit…
The film’s ironic setting is solid social commentary knowing what we now know about nonprofits/govt agencies being magnets for child trafficking. Hiding in plain sight, right under our unhooked noses.
Overall it was real wholesome, and just scary enough to make it special for Halloween. Would totally watch this with my future children, maybe age 7 and up? ( I remember having nightmares about “Gremlins 3” as a kid so it’s up to your discretion. Surely 12 year olds can handle it. ) Besides, the mouse element it more lighthearted than “Gremlins” and both have outdated visuals that may be laughable to modern audiences. So perhaps, age 9 sounds about right.
What about adults? Well, if you’re not a “practical effects” fan, you can skip this one. It’s not a classic like “Never-ending Story” or many other 80’s/90’s films that are required viewing. But since it’s a Jim Hensen film, I’d recommend it. In fact, I wrote about the pedogate elements of his “All Dogs Go To Heaven” film here. It’s a stretch but you gotta’ wonder if a man with a genuine & pure love for kids got into showbiz, saw some shady stuff, and addressed it through his art. Some Kubrick style catharsis and dog whistling. Iuhnno… I miss when movies still had wiggle room for your own ham-fisted interpretation v.s. the in-your-face woke messages of today. Speaking of which, they are remaking “The Witches” and it’s gonna’ be an all Black cast set in civil rights era Alabama. Surely there’ll be some anti-White propaganda shoved down your throat. Thankfully the original film has none, and is simply a nice experience.
I thought it was written by Mel but it wasn’t. Lots of stuff seemed to be parallel with his life: recovery, Catholicism, nazi father figure, etc. But the screenplay was based on a book and it was written and directed by other folks. Anyways, great film. Nice twist for the typical revenge type father daughter trope. Great acting and foreshadowing and symbolism throughout. Really badass protagonists as well. For example, the female lead didn’t kick ass like a typical Hollywood movie, instead she was helpful by using her charm. The Alcoholics Anonymous aspect was also refreshing and added some great social commentary and relatable satire throughout.
"“Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead (2006)”"
Author Rating
4
Awesome movie. Super racist and sexist, but all in good fun with no targets left un-satirized. I had never seen it before, but definitely think Troma type movies are the wave of the future for dissident voices sick of Hollywood BS. Of course, this is a super raunchy movie with childish humor for degenerates like me. If you are a purity spiraling bible thumper type or Wignat, you may not like (((Lloyd Kaufman)))’s work. I understand that, but I can’t pretend not to enjoy such films even now. I look forward to watching more of them, but probably won’t have much insightful analysis. I guess it was annoying and noticeable that they didn’t make fun of Yahweh, but made fun of Jesus and Allah. So it wasn’t 100% bipartisan with who it lampooned. Go figure. Still, I am impressed that they made Muslim jokes like that and never got death threats. I just googled and didn’t find anything about Lloyd being hassled by Muslims. Guess they are too underground. Did find this gem tho:
I was watching the film over the Christmas holidays, and now that I’m woke to the JQ I immediately had a hunch that the film was written by a Jew about his insecurities. The reason is because most Hollywood films champion the immigrant or outsider. I discovered this from a documentary / book called “An Empire of Their Own.” I highly recommend it. Here are relevant clips to help you understand how this relates to Rudolph and how I instantly knew Jews were behind the victimhood story:
Sure ’nuff, Rudolph was no exception:
Here’s a link to that article, and a link to an Alt Right satirical article (NSFW) elaborating on Rudolph’s origins.
To be honest, I put the film on in the background for the children I was with. Therefore, I hardly payed attention and so I can’t expand much further. Oh well, you’ve probably already seen it.
It is very nostalgic and the claymation was done in Japan apparently. So you’ll be able to enjoy it, but not like you used to. Unfortunately it’s kinda’ too late to boycott, but I still say reject the victimhood subversion of our culture and refuse to buy the DVD.
"The Christchurch Shooting is reminiscent of ‘Rampage’ (2009)"
Author Rating
3
So, the reason I decided to watch this flick is because someone on a political message board suggested it. The implications of course, being the resemblance to the Christchurch Shooter.
But on second thought, you could perceive this as a manlet rage fest. (The main character literally makes fun of a victim by saying, “You look retarded when you stand up!”) Or perhaps a disaffectedwhite rampage story, similar to how BlackPilled describes “Office Space.” The common theme throughout is how society is messed up, materialistic at the expense of the planet. Against the capitalist bankers. Occupy Wall Street was in 2011 so it seems like this was riding a zeitgeist of people fed up after the 2008 bail out? Donno.
But after reading the Christchurch Shooter’s manifesto, (who bashes capitalists and is a self described Eco Fascist), it seems this film is indeed very relevant. One of the markings on the shooter’s gun was the “Third Position” symbol:
And of course, “Rampage” conjures up images of right wing death squads like the ones seen in the anime “Jun Roh.” The main character even says, “You think people are equal? Nobody is equal.”
So you’d think that the director is a closet nazi or right winger. Unfortunately, after some googling it turns out he’s a hardcore anti-racist lefty who made a holocaust movie about how evil his German ancestors were. So you can strike that theory. It seems that he’s yet another director who decided to make a psychopathic right winger cliché with no remorse. This is evident when at the end of the movie the main character frames his leftwing political activist friend for all of his evil deeds. Perhaps a social commentary on how the media was demonizing the Iraq War protesters? (You hear news reports about Iraq in the background during the intro.)
If I can be an armchair psychologist for a second, it seems like Uwe Boll has pent up violent fantasies and projects them onto right wingers. Like most leftists do. The film is conflicted, because the main character is not a cartoon villain, and his actions are cathartic for most viewers. But unlike Quintin Tarantino’s recent string of f**k whitey films, (where the main characters ruthlessly kill evil whites), Uwe Boll makes the evil white guy the main character.
For what it’s worth, there’s no feminist/affirmative action/LGBT stuff in it, so that’s nice. There’s hardly a plot though. Just a gore fest.
Oh, fair warning! The shaky camera technique is used through the entirety of this film. Not just the action scenes. Which normally irks me, but in the case of “Rampage” it’s a bit nostalgic and feels fitting.
I was gonna’ say don’t pay to see it because I thought the film was anti-right winger propaganda. But after doing more research on the director, I have no clue. Seems like a cool dude and the film may and his characters may be more multifaceted than I thought. So what the hell, pay to watch if you can.
•50% cliché scenarios you see in every action movie
•30% exposition, lazy plot devices, and bad acting
•20% hilarious culturalsatire and racist stereotype jokes
•10% whacky sexual situations
Funny mindless entertainment and no insane agenda shoved in. Although, I did notice a trend among all three films. It was something I never noticed growing up, and may seem unimportant even now, but it clearly seeps into the subconscious of many viewers…
"The Outdated Fatshaming Fantasy of ‘Little Miss Sunshine’"
Author Rating
4
Just before watching Little Miss Sunshine I listened to a fitting podcast that touches on rightwingers and beauty, because of my review of Doctor Dolittle 2. And I’m tellin’ ya, you gotta’ listen to these sections of the podcast, because they perfectly summarize the motives behind Little Miss Sunshine and every film like it:
When I first heard his crude, (and strangely poetic), analogy I laughed out loud. It was so absurd and harsh I couldn’t help it. Perhaps because there was truth in what he said and it was an uncomfortable schadenfreude burst of laughter. Anyway, just a day or two after listening to that, Cosmo decided to put this land whale on their cover:
This is nothing new, and if you look at who’s pushing the _____ acceptance agenda, you’ll find that the guys above are spot on with their takes. And it’s especially true of Hollywood. This is something I discovered while rewatching Heathers after looking into the people who made it. When you ask yourself how things got so crazy in 2018 with trannies and freaks galore, just go back and watch some old films. Hindsight is 20/20, and it’s clearly incrementalism at work, boiling us frogs alive.
So what kind of hideous monsters are behind Little Miss Sunshine? I could post some unflattering pictures to support my narrative, but in all honesty my sleuthing found that the screenwriter and directors of Little Miss Sunshine aren’t hideous gremlins. They actually seem pretty cool and they have a good track record with the art they produce. But they are progressive weirdos and it shows.
I tracked down the original Arnold article that triggered Arndt and it’s exactly what you’d expect. Granted, the “despise losers” line does sound harsh, but with the full context it’s nothing worth fussing about. Schwarzenegger starts off by encouraging the chess nerds, joking about how they intimidate him and are “the true heroes.” And he ends the speech by saying, “it’s not how much you make, but how much you give.” Real run-of-the-mill pep talk stuff, no?
And I’ve seen some of Arnold’s other speeches that mirror the Little Miss Sunshine‘s X rules for success bit. But the funny thing is that I used to listen to these speeches at the gym, because I found them so motivational that I’d play ’em over and over when I needed an extra boost. Whereas the screenwriter was repulsed by them and not inspired in the least. And much like a game of telephone, by the time this beta interpretation of Arnold finally got filtered through everyone in the studio, the script went from an already anti-Chad slant to an insanely anti-Chad one:
Apparently a similar wringer process happened when they hired him to write Star Wars, btw. Allegedly Arndt is gay and that’s part of his “woe is me” persecution themes. Whether those are rumors or not, he was still clearly a progressive – just not progressive enough for the regressive anti-whites who run Hollywood it seems. By the end of the filming process he was fired and they hardly used any of his original script. We’ll never know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but in the interviews regarding script changes to Little Miss Sunshine, he said the studio wanted the father’s character to be more in-depth, whereas Arndt wanted him to just be a one dimensional comic relief. On the other hand, with Star Wars Arndt apparently made it too much about the likable Luke Skywalker patriarch and JJ protested. So that begs the question, would Little Miss Sunshine have been more or less anti-Chad if it remained true to Arndt’s initial vision?
Who knows? Who cares? Hollywood is full of androgynous degenerates. So the only real debate they have is if they want to make characters less masculine in order to make them relatable/likable (in their eyes), or if they want to make them hyperbolically macho in order to lampoon them as enemies. Two sides of the same shekel.
To the man’s credit though, he does write amazing scripts. And to be fair, I think most leftists have good intentions with all this egalitarian fantasy crap. I don’t think they had any clue it’d get out of hand like it has. Nevertheless, watching this film a decade later is very different knowing what I know now. It’s much harder to see it as a cute and inspirational movie. Instead I view it as one of the seeds planted that lead to the anti-fat shaming, genderless blob of a society that we live in now.
Not sure if I’d go as far as Greg Johnson would, because I think criticizing the status quo is essential for a healthy society to progress, and history shows there is a natural cycle/pendulum swing with pros and cons on both sides. But at this point I’m just so jaded it’s hard to appreciate Hollywood’s culture of critique.
Maybe that’s mainly because the film is dated… I remember being on the forefront of the body positivity shift. I love ｔｈｉｃｃ girls and would always encourage women to feel confident with their curves. But then every disgusting goblin in society jumped on the bandwagon and soiled the movement.
Minor spoiler memes
Leftist Expectations:
In Reality:
If you can think of this film as a criticism of modernity, and focus on the family values aspect, it’s great. Do your best to think about how a good family will stick through thick and thin, and have unconditional love for each other. Think of this as an attack on the bizarre and grotesque children’s beauty pageant phenomena in America. Likewise, realize that any decent parent would encourage their prepubescent child not to care about their body image, especially when they are healthy and only have a little baby fat like the film’s star had. With these things in mind, (and combined with the amazing cinematography, acting, chemistry, and soundtrack), Little Miss Sunshine is still worth watching and supporting.
Yup. Another overly simplistic plot line about evil capitalists who try to exploit the environment at all costs. And of course they just HAD to make it clear that they were Republicans. In one scene, the cartoonishly evil fat cats say:
I’m sure I’m gonna’ regret this, but maybe you should talk with Dolittle.
And what? Give in to a bunch of beasts and lower life forms?
I took on the Democrats! I can take on a bunch of animals!
Yeah, that “lower life forms” thing has undertones of racism, huh? Which is funny because, as always, the left projects their own subconscious bigotry when they add parallels to civil rights movements. In the climax of the film all the animals around the world go on strike. A similar proletariat struggle to what the “Planet of the Apes” remakes have. So… what? Are they implying minorities are lower life forms? Or just that evil white people and Republicans think of them like that? In this film it’s not so bad because animals are just as intelligent as humans. But their logic starts to thin out when their metaphors get extended too far, as I talked about in my review of “Valerian.”
In addition to Republicans, the movie also made fun of country bumpkins in a few scenes. But it also made fun of the spoiled city bear, and besides, the voice of the country bumpkin bear was African American, so I guess it evens out? The anti-white agenda was very subtle and seemed more like a PC thing. Easily ignored.
Oh, and the subplot involving Eddie Murphy’s teenage daughter being a defiant thot may irk you.
There was no real feminist agenda, the script seemed to be just satirizing the current state of gender relations. Jokes about alpha males, hypergamy, power struggle in the marriage, etc. But I can’t help and wonder if historians will look at stuff like this as a decline in the West that lead to our eventual collapse / hard reset. Or if historians will look at this stuff as just a by-product of trans-humanism; the more advanced humans became, the more the natural order of things was disrupted. Crazy b**ches were just bumps along the road, bumps that technology eventually evened out. A sign of decadence and an age of abundance. Who knows? But it’s hard not to think about this stuff and how cringeworthy it must be for other cultures to see a daughter and wife walk all over the patriarch protagonist throughout the film.
Speaking of man’s relation to nature and the natural order of things, there’s a growing subculture within the rightwing that is adamantly environmentalist. Partly just joking, but many truly desire a pre-industrial revolution state. (Or at least they claim to want this, while continuing to mooch off their parent’s while playing videogames and tweeting about how bad technology is…) Of course, these are the extreme outliers in the political spectrum: anarcho-primitivists, eco-fascists, neo-pagans, etc.
But it’s not just outliers that care about the environment. I grew up with a neocon mom who made us recycle and used to hate how it became politicized. I’m ranting off topic here, but it’s worth delving into before watching any environmentalist movies, even goofy ones like “Doctor Dolittle 2.” Because this Alt Right podcast makes a good point: we need to stop being reactionaries within leftists’ framing. It’s fine to troll and debate the specifics of climate change hysteria, but to give in to their imaginations and concede that rightwingers just want to watch the world burn is silly. Libertarians like Penn & Teller say that recycling is pointless, and constitutional conservatives like Steven Crowder say environmentalists often cause more harm than good. That’s all fine and dandy.
And there’s clearly an agenda (with double standards) being pushed that we must not submit to:
A.K.A. stop having babies, open your borders, and enable 3rd world countries to keep overpopulating and over-polluting. ⬅ (click here to show more)
BUT we can still have an appreciation for beauty and a desire to preserve it. We can still nourish our deeply rooted connections with nature. Afterall, isn’t it always the Republican stereotype who goes hunting & camping, and lives away from the cities? If you keep this in mind, and try to embrace it, the cliché tree hugging hippie bullsh*t storyline won’t bother you as much.
As always, I overanalyzed a slapstick cookie cutter family movie. I know, I know. I didn’t have high expectations going into it and that’s why I could actually enjoy it despite its flaws. I just thought I’d share my ramblings in hopes that you could enjoy it as well.
Anywho… the final verdict? Don’t go out of your way to watch this film, but if your kids want to see it or it’s the only thing on TV, then it’s worth sitting down for.
It’s bizarre re-watching childhood movies now that I’m “redpilled.” I truly was colorblind in many ways back then. Because holy crap, are there a lot of black people in this film. Compared to 2018 affirmative action, it’s nothing, but still it’s very intentional and not representative of the 13% of our population. And as usual, all the stereotypes are flipped. The nerdy black genius entrepreneur keeps the hospital running and his Jewish partner is concerned that the third (white gentile) partner is too greedy and is sacrificing the greater good of the community for short term monetary gains. ? There were racial stereotypes in animal form though. For example, Mexican cholo rats, an Italian gangster possum, and a self-hating pigeon who wishes he was a hawk.
Speaking of which, there’s an uncomfortable hierarchy in the black community where the men all chase after “red boned” or “yellow boned” women. In other words, they all try to get light skinned women. The marriage on display in this film is the average black man’s fantasy. One that most white people are oblivious to. We just see a mixed couple. But Eddie Murphy’s wife has green eyes and is clearly more white than black. And if you’re not a sheltered yuppie champagne socialist, you’ll know that this dynamic is most evident in South America and Africa. The funny thing is that SJW’s started saying it was white privilege and systemic bla bla jargon bla bla that caused this preference. So then the casting directors went from this:
To this:
They say it’s only “white standards of beauty” that make us prefer Kristen Wilson over Leslie Jones. But really this just reveals their subconscious racism. Because you can have super dark skin, frizzy hair, a round nose, big lips, etc. and still be incredibly gorgeous. Why the pendulum swing into ugliness? Why pretend the emperor has no clothes instead of finding a nice balance like these chocolatey goddesses?
Hollywood made this mistake with Rose in “Star Wars” and real, authentic Asians hated her. Guess they didn’t get the white guilt, fat shaming memo…
『ローズですよろしくね！』 “Nice to meet you, I’m Rose!”
『イウオークがしあべった！？』 “Did that Ewok just talk!?
Anyways, back to “Dr. Dolittle.” The moral of the story was to quit denying your genetic gifts regardless of what society pressures you to do. The film follows Eddie’s lifelong struggle as he tries to hide his identity to the point that it even manifests in his daughter. In a heartwarming scene towards the end, Eddie Murphy says this to his self-conscious and quirky offspring:
No matter what happens, you be who you are. And you love who you are.
So in a sense, it’s a bit of an identitarian movie…
Maybe I’m a product of incrementalist propaganda, idunno. But even though I noticed the PC affirmative action crap, I still enjoyed this film. Even today. I think partly it’s because Eddie Murphy is truly funny and so is Chris Rock. Their positions of power seem earned and fitting. Also, one of the main characters, a dog, is voiced by Norm Macdonald. And he’s an anti-PC legend. So pay to watch this and do your best to ignore the subtle anti-white bias.
The “anti-patriotism” rating is not because it’s anti-American, but because it’s the same-old same-old borderline socialist crap. You know, the evil businessman trope.
Not much to analyze in this one…
Iuhnno, lotta’ white people for a change. That was nice. But of course, like with all Hollywood films, they wait until the climax to inject maximum diversity and feminism.
The main character’s best friend had a virtual reality avatar that was a macho, cyborg orc thing. You could tell they used some mild audio masking software, but you could still tell his best friend was a female. There were tons of cues and foreshadowing. Like, they kept calling the orc a “dude” or “bro.” But Hollywood’s non-binary tranny agenda made it obvious for anyone who’s woke. So when the big reveal came to show that it was a black woman, I was unsurprised, and unannoyed. Instead, I turned to my girlfriend and shouted, “I toldja’ so!” Also, they don’t outright say it, but she’s certainly a lesbian since she tried making out with another woman in the film and dresses like one.
Overall, “Ready Player One” was pretty entertaining. Probably because the male lead wasn’t a total f**got. The overabundance of strong female characters didn’t detract from his heroism. Pretty rare nowadays. *cough* Lookin’ at you “Force Awakens” *cough* Although, if you know anything about #GamerGate and gamer girls, the way the heroines were portrayed may be off-putting for you. After all, it’s not just physical differences that require gender-segregated competitions:
(4:18 – 5:38)
Not a big deal, though. Suspend your belief and pretend you’re only watching the outliers. The part that’s harder to ignore is the way they try to makeup for having 2 white leads romantically involved with each other, by shoving in a bunch of diversity and women extras jammed in whenever they could. Similar to what they did in “La La Land” as well as “The Martian” and “Snowden.” Like clockwork, too. Always in the capstone.
Check out this super knowledgable, nerd girl leading the research team, coming up with epiphanies and lecturing the fat white leader.
And can’t forget the token black guy, vital to solving complex problems:
Or how bout this group of 60% )))non stereotypical((( lawyers? Looks like they just finalized the paperwork necessary for seizing farmland.
Honestly, the casting wasn’t so bad; still a surprising amount of whites.
It just feels like those carefully chosen crowds that stand behind politicians.
Oh, and the other reason the film got “anti-patriotism” ratings was because the protagonists’ parents were stupid rednecks with mullets. Yup, the Go-To demographic to sh*t on in movies, (next to Russians of course). These white trash guardians were killed off and the audience wasn’t lead to feel any sympathy for them. It was a Cinderella type dynamic and their deaths were bittersweet for the audience.
But fret not, ‘cuz the main character found a better family online in the form of an intersectional, ragtag crew. And together these colorblind proletariat took down the ruthless, bourgeois businessman!
Meh, everything above is just nitpicking.
Go see the film if you’re in the mood for CGI action. The 80’s nostalgia genre is getting stale, but it sure as hell beats Super Hero movies, no? Pay if you must, I’m not violently opposed to it. I only discourage paying because of rumors about Spielberg and because the multicultural casting choices were apparent enough to distract from the film.
"The Cognitive Dissonance of ‘Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets’"
Author Rating
2
The movie had some redeeming qualities. The two protagonists were fairly charming and of course the entire movie was visually stimulating. But there was just so much globalist cliché crap shoved in, it’s very close to a “skip” rating. You won’t pull your hair out watching this film, but it’ll be very frustrating to say the least. So only watch it if someone else suggests it, and hope it’s in somewhat of a social setting where you can scroll on your smart phone to keep you sane during woke / feminist / anti-colonial hot takes.
(1/6) I also think it’s funny how if you point this out they assume you’re the racist one. But to anyone slightly awake, their cognitive dissonance is painfully obvious. Pretty much any Sci-Fi movie shows this. Like “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets” for example. pic.twitter.com/YJcHBZtSfT
(2/6)
They had the cliché “Avatar” blue smurf noble savage thing going on, but with an added layer of gender neutral wokeness ‘cuz it’s the current year. So on one hand, they showed primitive tribes as living in harmony until evil colonialists came.https://t.co/xBs6B6yYfl
(4/6) …and feel no sympathy for when they were slaughtered by the very same colonial people. Although these aliens’ racial roots weren’t as obvious as the Star Wars (1-6) aliens, they’re still clearly based on African and/or Polynesian tribes.https://t.co/kSJuglM6Dc
(5/6) So they simultaneously push for globo-homo multiculti anti-nationalist stuff with futuristic federations, but also have to admit not all cultures/races are equal in order to have a plot. To be fair, tho are these aliens based on what I think they…https://t.co/47O4wXYHKF
"The Sprechgesang & Pizzagate Elements of ‘All Dogs Go To Heaven’"
Author Rating
4
• Good nostalgia trip.
• No overt agenda.
• Lovable characters.
• Great animation.
To start off with something lighthearted I noticed, this musical is full of spoken word songs. Not sure if it was planned or if it was just because some of their actors couldn’t sing. But it creates a unique film-watching experience, and is one of the many nuances that make this cartoon seem suitable for adults. But that’s also probably why none of the songs are memorable…
I guess in some operas there’s a very difficult technique only pros can pull of called Sprechgesang or the twelve tone technique.
Here’s an example (no need to watch the whole thing):
I think it’s like abstract art. Sometimes it truly is a sign of skill and artistic genius, but often it just seems like an untrained moron. After some googling, it looks like others felt the same ambivalence to the singing on display:
Before the complicated Sprechengang technique was invented, there were lesser forms of half singing throughout history. I have a feeling that “All Dogs Go To Heaven” lies somewhere in between. Reynolds certainly isn’t skilled enough to do the fancy 12 Tone Technique, but it seems like a conscious choice made by Don Bluth to keep the film down to Earth. Who knows? But here’s some interesting trivia from TV Tropes:
Alright, two other fun things before we get to the dark and depressing:
There were politically incorrect jokes at the expense of
Ah, the good ‘ol days! When gender bending was for comic relief.
Okay.
Now for the pizzagate stuff. So, I was reminded of an alleged child trafficking camp found in Arizona while watching this scene:
If you have never heard of this Arizona discovery, here’s a quick run down:
> Veterans searching for homeless vets stumble upon a child trafficking camp in Arizona
> Turns out there are lots of connections with the Clintons, Rothschilds, NXVIM cult, etc.
> This info starts spreading around the net and vigilantes/investigators show up to assist
> Suddenly a serial killer goes on a spree and happens to “””coincidentally””” kill JonBenét Ramsey’s psychiatrist
Yeah, pretty fishy, huh?
If you want to know more, here are some links & in depth summaries: ⬅
But Alex has tried to distance himself from anything related to these pedogate investigations, ever since James Alefantis’ lawyers threatened to sue. So take his disavowal with a grain of salt, (as you should with pretty much everything you read online).
I got burnt out with pizzagate investigations a while back and have been trying to take breaks from politics off and on for the past year. 90% of political stuff is speculation or things out of your control and just gets you stressed for no reason. So I try to focus on this site instead of just raging at some migrant crime article or degenerate SJW. I’m plenty redpilled, and at a certain point you’re not being informed, you’re just addicted to the feeling of superiority/outrage. But alas, it’s my passion and borderline addiction, so I never successfully go cold turkey from politics. Which is why I know about this Arizona thing. But I am not up to date or fully aware of where the pedogate investigation has gone since 2017. Just vaguely.
Having said that, I still firmly believe the Clinton Foundation and many other corrupt elites in Media/Government are involved in child trafficking. And every new whistle blower that comes out affirms this more. Whether you think it’s a satanic cult or not doesn’t matter. Who cares if these freaks get their kicks by LARPing as satanists or if they actually are satanists? ↑ (via Ben Garrison)
To me, what’s important is that there’s enough proof to conclude that many of them are actual pedophiles, and some are even murderers. As Paul Joseph Watson points out, there are plenty of proven, real world examples of this being the case, so is it really that far fetched?
Anywho, please research and make up your own mind. Aimlessly googling will bring up flat Earther whack jobs, or FakeNews MSM “””debunking””” links. I suggest starting with Ben Swann’s 5 minute, objective summary that aired on CBS News. And then with watching the Netflix documentary “Who Took Johnny?“
Unfortunately, being redpilled ruins pretty much every movie for you. And you can’t help but be reminded of all the sh*tty hard truths you know, even during intended leisure time. Often for no real reason at all. But this time, the connection my brain made might not be a fluke.
It turns out the child actress (Judith Barsi) was murdered by her “abusive” father when “All Dogs Go To Heaven” was in production. Now, based on what Corey Feldman and other whistle blowers have said about rampant pedophelia in Hollywood, one can’t help but wonder if Judith is somehow connected to this grand pedogate investigation. Did her father kill himself out of guilt? Psychosis? Or was it a potential cover up like the JonBerét Ramsey psychiatrist murder?
Well, after some googlingduckduckgo-ing, it looks like I’m not the only one who suspects foul play.
This one is less circumstantial evidence and much more hearsay, but here’s a quick run down:
> There are several conspiracies and supposed contradictions surrounding Judith Barsi’s murder
> Some say it was a satanic murder on account of her being burned alive
> Some say that the alcoholic father was framed
> Some say the autopsy photo was faked
> There’s an anonymous source that leaks rumors and claims to be a Hollywood lawyer
> According to him, Stephen Speilberg is a pedo freak and abused Judith among others
> Apparently another Speilberg victim, (the little girl from poltergeist), was anally raped to death
This is an ongoing investigation so check for updates elsewhere, but here are some links & in depth summaries: ⬅
I guess I’m glad I was unaware of her murder before watching this classic. But the film in and of itself is already pretty heavy and full of tearjerker moments – with or without pizzagate thoughts in the back of your head.
If I ruined this film for you, let me suggest a new way to view it.
One of the theories about her death is that the father was a an alcoholic a**hole but not an abuser. And according to the official story, he managed to stay sober for a bit before her death. Steps 4 through 10 of Alcoholics Anonymous are all about doing deep introspection and facing ugly truths about your life. I’m not saying her father went to AA, but that it’s likely that many of the parents who pimped their children out to Hollywood must have done mental hula hoops to do so. Often members of AA discover they were trying to repress bad memories (both harm they inflicted upon others, and harm inflicted upon them). According to this anonymous whistle blower, Heather O’Rourke may have died because her parents naively believed the lie they were told about her illness. As American Beauty points out: “Never underestimate the power of denial.”
So perhaps he came to grips with the pedophilic exploitations of his little girl in his moment of clarity, and tried to rescue her. Maybe he had a redemptive transformation, (much like this film’s protagonist), and was seen as a threat to the Hollywood child trafficking racket. Seems like a very reasonable motive for someone to kill the entire family; and a drunk with a bad reputation like Judith’s father is the perfect patsy.
As far as the little girl in the cartoon, it shouldn’t be hard to make the mental leap ‘cuz of what IMDb states:
To be honest, it’s quite the stretch. California is a cesspit full of corrupt and disgusting people, so it’s not hard for me to be skeptical of the LA Times articles about Judith’s father, or the police reports. But her father’s first wife wrote a book and discusses his abusive nature which lead to their divorce. The whole thing is tragic, and it’s possible that everybody in Judith’s life was a piece of sh*t. But at least now you have an alternative theory to make the film digestible.
*sigh*
The day Commiefornia goes bankrupt can’t come soon enough…
Too bad it’s too late to boycott this movie. Besides, the parent companies are complicit, so if your intentions are to make a statement against sexual abuse you should really boycott all of Hollywood. Cancel all your subscriptions and torrent everything that’s not an indie release. But since these custom ratings are meant to focus on giving Hollywood a message about liberal propaganda and affirmative action, I guess you can pay for the DVD if you so choose. Maybe Don Bluth is a good guy and he gets royalties. Tough call. I say just watch it if it’s free.
Anyways, hope you enjoy the film despite all its baggage. Either way, lemme’ know what you think in the comments below and post your own theories/connections if you have ’em.
Definitely see this film. Feel good movie that’s family friendly. Obviously don’t expect too much, but at least there were no infuriating political agendas shoved in it. The only thing that may irk you is that it revolves around the nerdy beta male shtick that’s been played out. Yet another fantasy role reversal where the Chad military get owned by nerds. If you’re woke to why this is such a common trope, it can distract you from the humor. But without that premise the film wouldn’t work as a comedy. Instead it’d have to be like “The Last Starfighter” and you can watch “Ready Player One” for that reboot. Anyways, they are all lovable characters, (except for Q-bert, that voice was very cringeworthy), so just relax and enjoy the cinematic junk food that’s free of political crap.
This was a pretty great film. Not gonna’ lie. It’s just sad that we can’t have these same themes in movies lead by white people and about my nation. One of the most popular animated movies (worldwide) was “Frozen” but the themes weren’t about the importance of familia, respecting your ancestors, unity, patriarchy, etc. like “Coco” was. Instead, if we’re lucky enough to get blue eyed blondes as leads at all, they have to denigrate the males and have protagonists spit on their traditions/culture. Buzzfeed puts it best: they are always “subverting the Disney formula:”
It’s just all so tiresome. So for that reason alone, you should not pay to support this film. But on top of that, they made it a statement about Trump. I did some digging and it turns out that “Coco” was in the works since 2010. I’m certain Trump’s election rhetoric made them drop everything and prioritize “Coco” but we’ll likely never know. It seems they announced production of the film right around the time that Trump seemed to be the likely winner of the Republican primaries. But even if it was all a big coincidence, all the people who worked on the film made several statements that made the film clearly an anti-Trump movie. Thankfully, though, the story was already established and nothing in the film itself is political. There were no allegories about walls or anything like that.
Well, I guess you could argue that Héctor being prevented from reuniting with his family was due to strong border control, but they don’t seem to demonize the border agents or the policy. Nor do they glorify it or make it a central point like “Black Panther” does.
So, I think it was more of a relatable theme for the Mexican American target audience, but without the political commentary intended. Easy to ignore, and it didn’t even cross my mind until after the film. As for the affirmative action ratings, it’s tough to say. I’d honestly get bored with only European princesses with slight variations. We are all interested in exotic lands and have been since long before Hollywood. But clearly, Pixar/Disney are just going through a checklist of minorities to make movies about. At least it was a homogenous staff so no character felt out of place, or like they didn’t earn their spot as an actor. Which also allowed for more character depth, without screams of racism because they accidentally portrayed the one dark character negatively. It’s similar to “Black Panther” in that regard. Think Hollywood is learning multiculti doesn’t work well? Nah… Oh, and there are strong females but they were 100% accurate from my experience with hot blooded Latinas and their matriarchal grandma. Lastly, the anti-god ratings are only there because it portrays a different after life, and worship of ancestors. If you’re a strict Christian, this may bug you. But they don’t mention god once, and most Mexicans are Catholic despite this aspect of their culture. So it’s up to you…
All in all, consider this a point for Hollywood in the culture war. This was really well-made, visually stunning, and had a solid plot to boot. And as a nationalist, I really do support all peoples having pride in their culture. I’m not gonna’ give the cliché “I’m not racist, I have black friends” routine, because there’s no appeasing progressives with that, and because I am racist. Hell, unlike the champagne socialists, I lived and worked in the Mexican ghetto that they avoid like the plague. (Which in this case is fitting, because the cheap maids they import are sometimes literally bringing the plague with them…) I really enjoyed my time immersing myself in other cultures, and even picked up some Spanish while teaching cute ‘lil Mexican kids English. But travel and real world experiences made me racist more than anything else. Crime and welfare statistics don’t resonate as well as memories tied to the five senses. So yeah, I am both racist and I also want these people to thrive in their own communities.
This personal tangent is more of an appeal to my rightwing brethren who get blackpilled and spend too much time filled with hate. It’s hard not to when you’re politically woke. But I think it’s important to not get too caught up in the nationalist echo chamber, while purity cycling into hate & despair. A truly intelligent person should be able to foster the rage when needed, and lighten up upon command. There’s a reason George Soros funds Black Lives Matter and other such groups. The elites have a win/win strategy. They either divide and conquer us, or subvert the nation through migration. But it’s clear that the source of these problems, the puppet masters, are the politicians. These third world migrants are useful idiots just like AntiFa. I think a truly stoic, politically savvy, and socially effective person knows how to harness these emotions for good. Here are some great clips that I think you should keep in mind before seeing “Coco” so that you can enjoy it:
But of course, this is how propaganda works. Even intelligent people see these movies and the sentimental stuff seeps into their brains. Public support for open borders or endless war, skyrockets when those pictures of dead/sad children evoke our paternalistic instincts. So don’t be fooled! Remember, they can keep their culture on the other side of our, great, big wall.
Meh. Pretty entertaining so if you want to pay for it you can. It’s what you’d expect a buddy cop sequel to be. I gave it gay ratings only because they made fun of a flamboyantly gay stereotype. Not PC at all, and no pro gay agenda. As for the other ratings, one could argue that Jackie and Chris are affirmative action hires right off the bat, and the movie is full of non whites. So it should get 5/5. But since both of them feel like they truly are funny and truly earned it, I didn’t consider them in my affirmative action rating. The 2 point score is because of all the side characters in the film. It’s much darker than the first Rush Hour.
Oh. I guess I should also give a heads up, in case you’re a nationalist Asian man reading this, because you may put off by the aggressively sexual black man creeping on local woman throughout the movie. But as an anti-feminist, I thought it was just light hearted sexual humor. Chris had the same tendencies in his “Friday” movies with black women. So try not to get too uptight about it. Especially since Jackie hooks up with the voluptuous Latina woman in this movie.
For me, as an anti-feminist, I miss the days when those jokes were allowed so I thought it was funny. Idk, just depends on the viewer I guess. Speaking of which, one other thing I noticed, (now that I’m hip to the JQ), was how out of place this scene was:
It was clearly just an inside joke for the (((small community))) who runs Hollywood. It didn’t really make sense with the rest of the film or his character. No big deal, but just stood out to me, that’s all. And I guess I’m not the only one who was confused by it:
All in all, I think it’s worth checking out. And I look forward to watching the 3rd one soon. These guys really do have great chemistry and are fun to watch. Everything mentioned above is only the kind of stuff that red-pilled weirdos would notice, so you shouldn’t be pulling your hair out upon viewing. T’sall easy to brush aside…
So watch it for some decent nostalgia vibes if you feel like.
The first 40 minutes of the film were okay. I got sucked in and was super pumped about it, to be honest. Sure, it was cheesy, but it was a relatable white cast with the American entrepreneur spirit. Then it slowly started sneaking in more and more “diversity” and equated literal freaks in a freakshow with African Americans. (Really shows what the left thinks of their pets.)
This is just the same old same old. Hollywood’s revisionist history has to add 21st century sensibilities and make EVERYTHING about race. This was a huge let down and not worth analyzing in depth at all. But rest assured, all the clichés you’d expect were in it. Like evil rich white parents looking down on race mixing hopeless romantics.
They even spell out the already in-your-face symbolism with these line from a critic:
Putting folks of all kinds on stage.
All colors, shapes, sizes.
Presenting them as equals.
Another critic might have even called it
'a celebration of humanity'.
"The Misguided Teen Angst of “Heathers” and the Incremental Anti-White Creep of Hollywood"
Author Rating
4
Just rewatched one of my favorite films. The casual immorality was something that stood out this time now that I am red-pilled. I’m no saint. Quite the opposite. But I wonder if future generations will watch films like this and see how promiscuous our society was, and how so many of the problems and angst were created because we stopped respecting the founding traditions & patriarch that created our civilization and kept it in tact.
I wouldn’t say this film is particularly against religion. It’s just a dark comedy that pokes fun at morbid things, while dismissing religion as an ineffective coping mechanism. You could even interpret the movie as being pro-tradition, and pro-religion since it lampoons most church goers as just going through the motions, but without true devotion and concern for what is righteous. There’s even some parallels to Romeo & Juliet themes, in regards to the disrespect the young lovers have for the ruling forces of the universe.
But I’m 95% sure that wasn’t the intent of the script. The intended message of the movie was likely to satirize modern culture and its cold response to teen suicide. The conclusion seems to be that parents just don’t understand, high school will always suck, and if only we showed more love & compassion to kids there’d be less unhappiness. But you and I both know that’s not the case. This movie was made in ’88, which makes it somewhat prophetic when you think about the school shooter epidemic we have now. A lot of the same problems are still going on today – even worse than before. But to the film’s credit, they did correctly peg lack of love as the cause of all this.
But it’s not the goofy #LoveWins kind of unconditional love we hear spouted from the left. It’s more of a lack of belonging in this modern, hyper consumerist world we live in. We have been robbed of our ancestor’s religion, race, gender, and nation. We’re not allowed to embrace those things anymore, let alone be proud of them. Instead of loyalty & pride in your community, you are only allowed to have loyalty & pride to an arbitrary group of interchangeable Africans who wear designated colors that represent your area.
(And thanks to the sexual revolution/destruction of the family, many of us don’t even have patriarchal figures to disrespect even if we wanted to.) So instead, we replace this giant hole with vice. Simple pleasures like Tinder and new iPhones. Hook up culture and shallow friendships that continually leave us unfulfilled. And yet we keep doing the same sh*t and are shocked when things only get worse.
It’s no wonder suicide is on the rise, especially with white males. I won’t argue my case for why this is, because it’ll take too long, but if you’re interested this documentary shows that most school shooters are a product of big pharma. And these tworants by Nick Fuentes or this rant by Jean-Francois Gariépy also hammer across the point about the degeneration of modern society and how hedonism won’t bring you true happiness. But if you already agree, here are two artsy fartsy shorts that perfectly exemplify what this film feels like:
1.)
2.)
The other thing I noticed with my post-red pill viewing was how they made the blue-eyed blondes the bad guys. I watched it with my Russian gf this time, and within the first 10 minutes she said, “God, American schools always seem like hell!” I explained that Hollywood exaggerates things and that actually when I went to school it was more like the movie “21 Jump Street” where the weird kids were cool. Which in all honesty is likely due to Hollywood’s transformative propaganda combined with the Columbine school shooting that scared society straight like JD’s character intended when he plotted to blow up the school.
But still, even when talking to my elder family members, school was never like they portrayed it on the big screen. Or at least not that bad. Which is why we have to look at who is making these films to truly understand why school is depicted in such a way.
You see, this anti-white incrementalism has been around in Hollywood from the very beginning and only now (with absurdly obvious “Star Wars” and “Get Out” kill whitey type movies) do we notice it. But long before that, if you pay close enough attention, you’ll see that the blue-eyed blonde types gradually became the villains/morons more and more overtime:
So I did some research on where the “dumb blonde” meme began.
TL;DR Hollywood popularized the phrase 'dumb blonde.'➡Click for the full explanation.⬅
There are several theories on the etymology of the dumb blonde jokes and the stereotype that blondes are dumb. Using Google’s Ngram Viewer we can try to get to the bottom of things. If you don’t know, it’s a free service that lets you create graphs based on the frequency each phrase occurs within the entire database of books they’ve scanned. The chart below is from 1877 – 1980, comparing several intelligence related search terms.
Some of the phrases I searched such as “genius blonde” or “retarded blonde” had no results whatsoever. The very first mention I could find relating to blonde intelligence (or lack thereof), was in 1878 and it was “intelligent blonde” that first hit. So right off the bat it seems clear that Hollywood coined the term.
For frame of reference here are charts for variations of beautiful and ugly from the same time period (1877 – 1980) to make the comparison easier, even though the first mention of “beautiful blonde” (in 1803) predates “dumb blonde.”
As expected, society values outer appearance more, but nevertheless it can help us ball park things. Here you can see it without the unpopular search terms cluttering things up:
It becomes obvious that this term was indisputably a product of Hollywood, roughly around the time Hitler was coming to power spouting off about blonde superiority. Again, another zoomed in graph with varying search terms supports this theory:
Likewise, Phrase.org.uk comes to the same conclusion:
(There were other books that mention “dumb blonde” before Anita Loos’ novel, but I couldn’t find free copies of these works online. So if anyone can get a copy please leave ’em in comments below or email us Thank you!)
But other theories go even further back. Apparently, the promiscuous stereotype of blondes can be traced to ancient Roman laws that forced prostitutes to dye their hair blonde. To me, this seems like more of a stretch and only focuses on the sexual part, not the intelligence. So instead, let’s focus on the somewhat more recent suspected origin (which also happens to be a prostitute).
There’s definitely something to this theory. (The oldest recorded use in google’s corpus for the phrase “dizzy blonde” was in the 1860’s.)
And for a closer look:
Still, even the synonymous senior phrase seems fairly insignificant considering it occurs on par with “smart blonde” and “intelligent blonde.” Neither of which became idioms of their own. But to the credit of the dizzy blonde theorists, it seems clear that the notion of a ditsy blonde had been around long before Hollywood. Especially since “dizzy brunette” is an almost non existent phrase in the google literature database. Still, things don’t really kick off until the 1920’s/1930’s.
Something to take note of, though, is that “dumb dora” wasn’t exclusive to blondes. In fact, the two most famous incarnations started out as brunettes.
The first incarnation was a cartoon of a 1920’s flapper girl with black hair. But after the dumb blonde shtick made it to the silver screen, the meme had coopted the original color-neutral phrase, and the cartoonist followed suit. He ended up giving up on “Dumb Dora” to pursue another airhead named “Blondie.” Then, once that subversion was complete, Hollywood set its eyes on undermining the husband/wife dynamic. And sure enough, the cartoonist towed the line again, until his original creation was completely inverted.
One unsourced fan site says the producers made her dye her hair, but her husband’s biography says it was a hair stylist:
But upon researching this claim about film limitations on dark hair, I found no evidence to support it. It’s true early black & white television required bizarre makeup tricks for a decently composed end result, but there were several actors/actresses with dark hair working at the time, like Mary Astor. And every source I came across[1][2][3] just mentioned the makeup as seen below:
Occam’s Razor would suggest that it was a stylistic choice more than anything. A lot of the famous female leads at the time were blondes and this was before affirmative action so if “gentlemen preferred blondes,” that’s who got the part. Sex sells. It could also be because contrast always works well with comedy duos. For example, thin & tall Abbott standing next to short & fat Costello. Or like Young Chic’s original Dumb Dora cartoon, with a black haired female and a blonde male suitor. Who knows? Well, I emailed my conjectures to a makeup historian from one of the sources above, and he was equally as skeptical:
I don’t mean to assume nefarious motives, but I’d be remiss not to mention the Jewish ingredients that may have played a part. Perhaps this stylistic choice was biased in favor of the Jewish sensibilities and subconscious preferences of the overwhelmingly Jewish members of Hollywood. If you think it’s a myth that Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood, I suggest you watch the documentary called “An Empire of Their Own – How the Jews Invented Hollywood” or you at least read this passage from Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda:
So, without a doubt, Jews were the founding fathers of Hollywood and remain over represented in the industry to this day. And the facts remain whether you think it’s a conspiracy or not. The only part that’s debatable is if Tinsel Town’s core identity matters and if we can prove its influence.
So, while watching these clichéd blondes and cartoonishly evil jocks on screen, I was reminded of 2 books I read about Hollywood. Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up & Sing and Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda.
So if the Jewish identity of Mel Brooks affected his creative output, do you think the Jewish identity of the “Heathers” creators would have any impact?
(Despite first glances, the JewOrNotJew site is ran by philo-semitic Jews, and is not Alt Right to say the least.)
There you have it. Plain and simple. To us non-Jews we just see a movie about a quirky girl fighting off the obnoxious cool kids. Most people can relate and will cheer for the protagonist. Especially when the script makes the antagonists one dimensional monsters. But what goes over our heads is the Jewish animosity towards WASPs. And if I were to explain this outright, people would think I was a tinfoil hat nazi, no?
Well, aside from anecdotal evidence, Pew Research backs this up as well:
I only had a hunch while watching and decided to research and just kept finding more and more evidence that supported my gut feeling. It turns out I’m not alone. Other than Jews themselves admitting to the WASP hatred that’s central to the film, I just googled and found an Alt Right author who came to the same conclusion (with more insight into the symbolism than me) in his book:
I am well aware of Godwin’s Law, but does it still count if this obsession with Hitler is not your own? According to Pew Research, most Jews are secular and the biggest unifying part of their identity is “remembering the holocaust.” So surely this nazi complex plays a part in how roles are cast, (whether subconsciously or not), as Shapiro’s excerpt about Mel Brooks proves. It’s much like this clip of Jordan Peterson arguing that whether you’re an atheist or not, it doesn’t matter because you can never completely divorce yourself from the Christian society you were born into. It permeates into more than you can possibly imagine and is likely responsible for most of the way you think:
Well, then is it farfetched to think that the overly sexualized, dumb blonde shtick is likely an extension of what the Torrah teaches about goys/shiksas, since it sounds an awful lot like how the Quran talks about infidels and the chosen ones’ claim to infidel women?
But to be fair, many theologians say these passages are misinterpreted or taken out of context. And at any rate, if the largely speculative psychoanalysis about shiksas has any clout, it’s not very apparent in “Heathers” since it has a female lead. So if you’re interested in the shiksa hypothesis, you can check out what other bloggers theorize about it. For now, let’s move onto how the inferiority complex of most liberal types (gentiles and Jews alike) is manifested in Hollywood.
So basically, Hollywood is full of a bunch of freaks and losers with bitter memories of high school. And now the rest of the world thinks American high school is a living hell. An interesting theme throughout Ben Shapiro’s book is the debate on if Hollywood’s relationship with society is more transformative or more reflective. Clearly it’s both and a vicious cycle. At first, when Hollywood started casting more beta males, it was because the beta males who ran the industry identified with such characters, just as they identified with blue-eyed blondes being their (perceived) enemies. A great anecdote to prove this point can be found in part of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech about his come up:
Without a doubt, the market wanted alpha male chads with big muscles, blonde hair, and blue eyes. But the nepotistic elites insisted on giving roles to people like Dustin Hoffman and Woody Allen. They couldn’t fathom anyone identifying with Arnold because they couldn’t. Unfortunately, our society has changed (largely due to this propaganda) so more and more of us can identify with the awkward “nice guy” male feminist soyboy. So what was once a discriminating casting choice in spite of profits, has slowly become justified. Fake it ’til you make it, I suppose.
CONCLUSION:
Despite all its flaws, I still have a soft spot for the movie, its charming cast, and its amazing soundtrack. All the anti-white stuff will likely slip under the radar so it’s easily brushed aside by the viewer. Furthermore, you can think of the whole thing as a satire on the decline of Western Civilization due to lacking morals/tradition. Rather than a commentary on teen angst due to lack of love & tribal cliques. If you go into it with these perspectives in mind, I think you’ll still really enjoy the film. Pay if you’d like, because it’s pretty late to care about boycotting it at this point. Besides, Winona Ryder isn’t the most outspoken actor, only guilty by association. :^)
He bashes Trump and Trump supporters in this, but you should be able to take a joke. And to be fair, he seems like he tries to be unifying and say redeeming things about rightwingers. It’s just still incredibly lopsided. The reason I say that you shouldn’t pay for it, is because the message should be clear from “our” side. White men and rightwingers shrug off this nonstop hate more than any other demographic. (Despite what you hear about white fragility and other projection from SJWs…)
Proof of this, is in the anecdote Dave tells about his SNL appearance. He said he was just doing improv presentation and said something off the top of his head about how we should give Trump a chance or something. He’s clearly not a Trump supporter, he says he voted for Hillary, and he’s just trying to say something kind of neutral. But even that is too much for Hollywood. He was demonized and caught so much flak that he said he wish he had never said it all just because it wasn’t worth all the trouble. Bingo. That’s why The Overton Window has continuously been pushed left. They do no let up. It’s only free speech supporting rightwingers who are forgiving. Not Muslims or leftists or any sort of minority. Which is why now every commercial, movie, tv show, etc. only makes white men the morons. It’s why tv only dares to make fun of Christians, not Muslims. So, take a joke, laugh at yourself, but don’t pay to do so.
You can see here, Dave was brought on and grilled about his minuscule gesture of unity and forced to backtrack:
Other than that, the typical victim mentality was on display. Dave says he was jealous of rappers who grew up in the hood. This is one of the most harmful things to the black community in America today. As Thomas Sowell points out in “Black Rednecks & White Liberals,” what they consider “black culture” actually came from the white trash highlanders (Scots/Irish) in the American South. But since white liberals are too afraid to criticize these shitty cultural traits, they never grew out of it.
Likewise, as Devin Carbado points out, this notion of “acting white” if you speak correctly and work diligently is why so many blacks underperform.
Now, if you’ve read my other reviews, you know I don’t shy away from being a “racist piece of sh*t.” Call me what you like, I don’t care. But even race realists like me, who believe in the bell curve of race & IQ still recognize that blacks in America were MUCH better off before the 1970’s. Good intentions pave the road to hell and I know blacks can do better. Which is why I am a strong supporter of Black Nationalists like The Hoteps. And it’d be nice if these privileged celebrities got on board as well…
Dave also talks about being just rich enough to be poor around whites. Again, I see another reason why forced integration and multiculturalism doesn’t work. I think the vast majority (#notall) of people feel better and do better when they are in a homogenous community. (And before you attribute Dave’s success to being around “privileged” whites, he talks about starting his stand up career doing shows for drug dealers in NY. So that’s debatable.)
He also adds in the typical victim olympics crap, where he tries to shut up his SJW critics by going on about how bad it is as a black man in America. Pretty frustrating to watch this dead horse beaten to a pulp on his 4th special in a row. But overall, he has some good insight, great laughs, and his partisan bashes clearly come from a place of love and not animosity like the rest of Hollywood. So check it out if you have free time. The reason I actually went and watched all four of his specials in a row, is because I saw this video analyzing the brilliance of Chappelle’s performance. Watch this if you’re still on the fence about him and these specials.
Again, pretty funny. Worth watching, just like the past 2 specials. But I wanna’ take the time to nitpick some things.
He said South Africa should have been a blood bath. Well, Earth to Dave… it is a bloodbath and has been since Apartheid ended but the mainstream media hides this because it doesn’t fit their race baiting narrative you swallow.
TL;DW: The standard of living for both whites and blacks was better under Apartheid. Likewise, the notion that South Africa belongs to blacks is wrong. Dutch settlers built a civilization in barren land that no one lived in or was native to. And it’s just random tribes that migrated to benefit from white civilization, who are now demanding it be given to them as a birthright. While horrifically torturing innocent whites in the process.
Heated debate between South Africans on the subject of white genocide and land grabs:
Also, he joked about how black women aren’t #METOO-ing people because they are too proud and loyal to their black brothers.
And then immediately after talks about his Asian wife. LOL! C’mon, Dave. Be a little introspective:
"“Deep in the Heart of Texas: Dave Chappelle Live at Austin City Limits”"
Author Rating
3
Funny show. Good commentary all in all.
Still bizarre to see how far the victim mentality goes in the black community. A multimillionaire goes on stage and in each special whines about slavery and how evil whites treat him as they cheer him on. He kept saying: “It’s a tough time for the blacks.” He was referring to the Black Lives Matter BS the media goes nuts with. But I don’t need to get into the statistics of why that’s all BS because you probably already know. Instead let’s take a foreigners’ perspective. Both Japanese people and African Africans are annoyed at the African American victim mindset:
So, one of the tell tale signs in this special that shows Dave’s mentality is how he said he was expecting a racist banana for 20 years during his career. So when it finally happened, of course he thought it was racist. But when you google the guy who did it, it’s clearly a hipster f*gg*t and the whole thing was truly coincidental.
I experienced this myself with one of the black girls I dated back in the States. She was over analyzing and reading between the lines inventing racist experiences that definitely didn’t happen. I thought she was crazy and too sensitive but gave her benefit of the doubt for a few of the times. Fast forward a few years when I was living in Japan as an expat and I had the same dynamic with my Japanese gf but in reverse. I kept explaining how I was positive so and so responded to me in such and such way because I was a Gaijin!
I think it’s a little of column A and a little of column B. If Dave’s other anecdote about being hit with a snowball and called the “N word” was true, then I get why he’s uptight. And it can create a tense mindset and vicious cycle. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything on the snowball story because I guess he dropped the charges. Since he’s a comedian it’s hard to know what aspects are hyperbole, absurdism, or reality. But now that we have body cams and CCTV footage, and even with this banana peel story being google-able, I highly doubt Dave’s side of the story. Most likely, he is a race OBSESSED man and 90% of his bad experiences are as bullsh*t as the NAACP president’s racial profiling experience:
Nevertheless, I still find Dave hilarious and this stand up was clever and insightful on variety of subjects. (Even the commentary on race relations despite the victim spin.) So support the man by renting it or buying the DVD…. that is, if you aren’t boycotting NetFlix.
"“The Age of Spin: Dave Chappelle Live at the Hollywood Palladium”"
Author Rating
3
Pretty funny. Plus he gets bonus points for offending trannies in this special. Look at this f*gg*t. He responded exactly like the easily offended Millennials that Dave lampooned in his special:
I mean, c’mon. Dave even tells an anecdote about a white woman screaming at him at a show, and how you can’t beat black dudes in the “victim olympics.” Guess Tyler didn’t get the message. (I don’t care enough to read the blog post, and am not sure which routine this blogger was talking about or the timeline of events. Doesn’t really matter though because there’s an endless supply of outraged queers anyway.) Not much else to say. Check it out if you like racism, rape jokes, and other uncomfortable expressions of social commentary.
Interesting documentary. Fascinating man. And a bit of an as*h*le.
As with “The Barkley Marathon” documentary, the baby boomers may rub you the wrong way. One old geezer is convinced he saw Charles shrink to the size of a gnome and swears by it. There are also some truly hideous dumb broads that illustrate what the myopic, self-indulgent, hippie lifestyle eventually turns you into. A bearded cat lady.
But even though they were Bukowski’s peers, he hated them too so don’t be deterred. One of his most famous poems, (the one this film is named after), is all about the red pill blues:
Still resonates today, huh?
He was a very hard worker, with a “Protestant work ethic” that he didn’t betray, and yet he recognized what a disgusting and pitiful system we live under now. He was a vagabond with legitimate grievances who still put in 15+ years at the post office. A true working man’s hero, he slaved away and sacrificed so that he could do what he loved. Ironically, he achieved the American Dream by bashing it. Much like Michael Moore, but more like-able. An interview with his publisher puts things into perspective, detailing how Bukowski was a functioning alcoholic with a machine-like production of literature despite working full time. This was only possible because he rejected the modern world and lived in minimalist poverty for decades. Much more respectable than the bourgeois beatniks he’s lumped in with. But to be fair, he definitely was a degenerate hedonist as well; something this documentary doesn’t shy away from. Instead it just explores the root causes and lets the audience make up their own mind on if Bukowski was more of a product of his hot-blooded genes or his rough childhood.
Speaking of which, I found out that he was born with 1/4th Jewish blood and somehow managed to still be anti-semitic. (Supposedly.) And you see some of that briefly in the film as he rants about Jewish attorneys or drives with an iron cross over his rear view mirror. But I get the vibe he’s just a drunkard in a non-PC era, with a chip on his shoulder after living in predominantly Jewish Hollywood for so long. And irrespective of his impetus, it’s such a bittersweet breath-of-fresh-air to witness unfiltered passion rage on. A window into the generation that spit on tradition and forsake western civilization, but also a window into what kind of expression was once possible before social media lynch mobs and SJW censorship.
Conclusion? If you’re not into literature or American history, then you may want to skip this film. Especially if you’ve never heard of Bukowski. But you don’t have to be a poet to appreciate this movie either. God knows I’m certainly not– I’d only briefly heard some of his poems before, but was still captivated throughout the doc. So check it out if you feel like, and pay to do so if you can afford it.
Man, I love documentaries. I realize this more and more as I compare them with my movie-going experience with the usual Hollywood tripe. This one was great too. I don’t want to ruin anything, so just watch it when you have time. One thing I will say, though, is that this has some nice themes. Typically, documentaries present as neutral observers and merely dramatize things for emotional responses. But this one had a fitting “moral of the story” interwoven with the philosophies espoused by the eccentrics on screen.
Likewise, not all documentaries have a story arch, but since this is a race, there’s a natural climax to follow. Which is why it’s slow in the beginning. So give it some time and pace yourself. Also, fair warning, the chain-smoking Baby Boomer who doesn’t practice what he preaches may rub you the wrong way at first. But as you learn more about the event and the family of participants, you may find it all rather endearing.
Pay to watch, and give yourself an hour ‘n half to get inspired!
I’m sure by now, you’ve already heard the theories about how Black Panther is actually Alt Right because of its protectionist/ethnocentric themes. But they threw in a scene at the very end, during the credits, (no spoilers), that makes me wonder if it was added last minute in post production for fear of rightwingers making a point. Who knows?
Anyways, the film was okay. Just another typical super hero movie. There were 2 white guys in the film; one was a cartoonishly evil South African who called Wakandans savages repeatedly. The other guy was a consistently dumbfounded CIA agent who fumbled about in awe while being condescended to by all the super advanced Wakandans.
Other than that, because the cast was mainly black, the plot could include some variety in the characters. There were actual brown bad guys and multidimensional, flawed POC. Crazy, huh? This is really what redeemed the movie. It allowed for some interesting (whether intentional or not) self criticism. No spoilers, but there was some social commentary on the inadequacy of black fathers and black on black violence.
Minor spoiler
There’s a scene where one of the villains is angry for being racially profiled. Then he immediately proceeds to murder everyone and commit a robbery based on “We Wuz Kangz” delusions. I think the irony was lost on them with this social commentary, though…
Of course we all know that the main premise of the film is that if it wasn’t for evil colonialism stealing the wealth, then Africa would be rich. So let’s look into that a bit…
The accepted narrative taught in school:
The reality:
“But other than exploiting resources the West was built on slavery!”
Yeah, about that…
But since I went in expecting an insane “everything is whitey’s fault” message, I was happily surprised. It wasn’t that bad. Especially when you take into account the self criticism of the black community that was part of the film. Likewise, the casting was great. A truly a charming lot, especially Black Panther’s sister. She is friggin’ adorable.
And Black Panther’s character finds a nice balance of being masculine but not a macho trope. Lots of good relationships on display with subtle nuances expressed wonderfully by the actors. So, I must give props to the casting director(s), but I’ll reiterate and say that I really think it was possible because the film was >90% black and allowed for the writers to conceive without concern for twitter outrage mobs. They were relatable, human.
Maybe should be your takeaway. Both the meta and the plot itself prove that diversity is not our strength. Perhaps all races can avoid conflict, and reach our fullest potential by living in largely homogenous societies. Memes and banter aside, black separatists like The Hoteps have my respect. And if you, dear reader, come at this film from the perspective of an ally to the black empowerment groups and try to just ignore the evil colonial narratives, you might actually be able to enjoy it.
If you’ve never seen this film, you should. Quite bittersweet watching it again recently. It wasn’t that long ago that we could cathartically laugh at the differences between our cultures. I know that it was just Hollywood fantasy and that multiculturalism almost always leads to tribal tension. Case and point being Patrice O’Neal’s savage roast:
But at least in ’98 we could bond through fiction. Now even that isn’t allowed. Can you imagine if they made “White Men Can’t Jump” today? Think it would have the same “Rush Hour” type vibe of relatable social satire that lampoons/venerates both adversaries equally?
Pshh. C’mon. Only cartoon villain or traitorous cuck for white roles. You know the deal. And since SJW’s are insatiable, they’d have to make Woody Harrelson an Asian chick. Turns out “Rush Hour 4” just got confirmed as in production. Don’t get your hopes up. Get ready for a “Ghostbusters” style reboot where Jackie Chan is played by a woman and Chris Tucker becomes a non-binary tranny.
Anyways, the original “Rush Hour” is pretty great, wholesome, and actually humorous since the jokes are based in reality. No overt agenda noticeable. I didn’t give any affirmative action rating because both actors were clearly picked due to their charm and skills. And their race makes sense because of the premise.
I was a big fan of the “Broken Windows Theory” explanation, (popularized by Malcolm Gladwell), of why crime was greatly reduced in the 90’s. But then I read “Freakonomics” and discovered their opposing theory that claimed legal abortion was the real reason crime dropped, since less unwanted hooligans born = less unwanted crimes committed.
Occam’s Razor and my gut say the abortion theory held much more sway. But what’s with the false ultimatum? Isn’t it just a percentage debate? Several factors lead to the decrease in crime, and abortion was just the biggest factor, right?
Idk. I started searching around and was surprised to find that a founding father of the race realist movement, Mr. Steve Sailer, was one of the earliest critics of the abortion theory. Strange, no? Most Alt Right type people are in favor of legal abortion for obvious reasons…
Steve may be a eugenics mad man and “pro-choice” for all I know; his beef is just with the “unreliable” source data. If you’re interested, here were some American Renaissance comments that helped sum things up:
Likewise, here are links to both the Freakonomics and Steve Sailer posts that collect the back and forth of the ongoing debate between them. This is above my pay grade so I’ll let you decide.
But regardless of your take on that specific point, there are tons of fascinating theories in the film that you’ll enjoy, especially if you’re a race realist. Like, the anticlimactic conclusion revealed at the end of the film, that confirms that even when you throw money at the problem you can’t improve educational gaps without addressing the source of the problem.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
You see, the filmmakers and their economist buddies tried to incentivize students to work harder by rewarding them with limo rides and hundreds of dollars. But to no avail.
For us “redpilled” folk, it seems glaringly unmistakeable why it didn’t work. They even address rampant cheating in Chicago schools early on in the film, and at one point prove that black sounding names make minimal difference (if at all) with respect to occupational success. And then right after that, unintentionally argued in favor of eugenics. But of course all throughout the film, they make sure to sprinkle in disclaimers and conclude each segment by pointing to a red herring and/or a non-causal correlation. For example, at the end of their bribing students experiment, you hear the economists brainstorming and suggesting that perhaps if they started the experiments earlier in the student’s lives it might work.
Think someone should tell them they’re on a fool’s errand and that there are already transracial adoption studies that prove the (much more evident) root cause of the performance gap consistent across all nations? Or is that exactly what they wanted the audience to do? Dropping subtle redpills via the Socratic Method? Doubt it…
Anyways, whether you disagree or not, they bring up a lot of intriguing theories and peculiarities. The section on Sumo wrestling was the most fascinating by far. Check it out when you have time!
Pretty good. The documentary was surprisingly fair. Simultaneously dishing out criticism and praise; with of course more of the latter since this is a posthumous TV special walking on egg shells. Don’t worry though, ‘cuz Bill Burr is here to cut through the BS and dismantle the Steve Jobs hype:
All stand up should be taken with a grain of salt, but Bill makes some very valid points, some of which are actually addressed in the film. Like this interview with one of Steve’s ex partners at Pixar:
Regardless of what you think of Jobs, he did revolutionize the industry and lived an interesting life while doing so. So love him or hate him, it’s worth taking a moment to get engrossed in this biopic.
Great documentary. No political agenda crap added in at all. Fascinating story of a guy with a few screws loose who lived ahead of his time. This is the second time I’ve watched this movie and I found it even more riveting the second time ’round.
Not much to say about it without ruining your viewing experience so just trust me and watch it. Especially if you fit on either of the bottom two political compass quadrants, and don’t like the direction society is going with respect to the dystopian surveillance. Since I have nothing unique to say about this film, why not read my review of “Snowden” or watch these videos that touch the the same subject matter:
As Braving Ruin says above, you really can’t avoid surveillance unless you want to live completely off the grid and outside the modern economy. But you can limit the amount of psychological corruption you subject yourself to. Zuccerberg may tempt you, but fight it! Don’t give in! Delete that sh*t right now!
The anti-patriotism rating is maxed out because the entire movie is a critique of our Military Industrial Complex. If you identify with the paleocons more than the neocons that hijacked the GOP, then you won’t mind this critique because there are no jabs at soldiers or anything like that. And may I remind you that a Republican president is the one who coined the term “Military Industrial Complex” :
Even Laura Ingraham, a staunch defender of Bush throughout his presidency, has realized how the globalists have been screwing the American people from both parties for decades:
So, be sure to check out the film. It’s very redpilled. So much so, that the film addresses the most taboo of redpills, the JQ.
From The Guardian interview with the director, Todd Phillips:
“Dead Kennedys sang about it,” he says. “That’s what I grew up on. It’s such bullsh*t they sell people, that war is about protecting your freedom, but meanwhile people are making billions and billions of dollars. It’s like, ‘F**k this, the system is rigged.’ The system is set up for the rich to get richer and everybody else to stay where they are. It’s a really depressing reality, and the more you can shine a light on it through movies and articles and books, the better it is.” And besides, he says, “It just felt like, ‘Wouldn’t it be fun to do the 23-year-old Jewish version of Scarface?’”
He admires how ballsy the War Dogs leads were in real life. Despite their unscrupulous exploits, these two underdogs took on the government and, until they started cutting corners, won big-time. “To me the guys are heroes,” says Phillips. “The government knew that they couldn’t source 100m rounds of AK ammo in the middle of a drought after two Iraq wars. So they went to these two kids knowing they were gonna source it in a shady way, and as long as nobody knows, wink wink we’re cool. For me the film is an indictment on the US government and their process of procurement, and the guys are kind of awesome.”
Except after digging into Todd Philipps a bit, it seems like he might be trying to make a point by poking fun and criticizing his own people as he’s known to do. Apparently he got Mel Gibson to do a cameo in “The Hangover 2” but the cast was angry about it so Mel’s role was swapped out. And it also turns out that Todd Philipps frequently cameos as a stereotypical Jew himself, and even wears the same “chai” necklace that Jonah Hill does in “War Dogs.”
Minor Spoilers
I guess the dry cleaner Jewish character wasn’t in the book, but I didn’t classify that as Affirmative Action since another Jewish character in the book (different real life partner) was omitted. So, not much of a change. Also the Latina wife was apparently based on the real life girlfriend of the main character. Besides, she looks pretty white to me.
It’s worth noting, there are discrepancies between the two partners in real life and they are in legal battles over it, so take most of this with a grain of salt.
So is Todd a Jew who’s redpilled on the JQ? It’s not out of the question. There are several Alt Right Jews who love their people and yet still agree with the grievances that goys have. Perhaps that’s why Zach Galifianakis alluded to an inside joke they have where they say Todd is “the worst Jew in Hollywood.” Idk, I doubt it. To me it seems more likely that he is at most: an anti-Zionist, secular, Democrat Jew. And that any redpills about Jewish involvement in U.S. foreign policy was accidental. Realistically, he is just having some fun by satirizing Jews and their tendencies while mainly focusing on criticizing the American government.
(Minor spoilers and language warning!)
Regardless of his motivations and intended subtext, I say go see the film and pay to do so! Very fascinating story.
Sequels usually suck. It’s hard to balance giving what the audience liked in the first place, and also giving them something new without deviating too much from what clicked originally. Sadly, this film was just the same exact formula, but with slight changes. If it was an homage or two, it would have been cute. But the whole thing felt like one throwback after another, and just came off as lazy.
This one was also more feminist. Not horribly so, but enough to irk the viewer. And unlike the first one that featured Chinese railroad workers without making an overtly anti Western message, “Shanghai Knights” made it very clear how evil the British Empire was. Evil colonial bastards…
No spoilers, but here are some lines that stood out and felt unnecessary:
The keeper of the Imperial Seal.
Just the man I was looking for.
A woman.
You Chinese are very progressive.
Pei Pei's married to her work in San Francisco.
Modern woman.
She's gonna fight my battles for me.
Come on. Let's go.
What? What are you doing?
It's kinky. I like it.
It is my dream that the Chinese people
will follow India's example and one day embrace British rule.
The Chinese are very proud.
They place family and honor above all else.
Well, I'm sure we can break them of that.
You've got to hand it to the Chinese.
They're awfully ingenious, Lord, aren't they?
Does your incompetence know no bounds?!
The movie had Owen Wilson make a bunch of jokes at the expense of the British, bragging about The American Revolution and poking fun at their teeth. So at first glance, my anti-patriotic rating may seem off, but upon closer inspection you’ll see that Owen Wilson is satirizing the obnoxiously proud American abroad, and that both countries are being lambasted.
Oh, and for anyone who cares, the same willy nilly free love continued in this one. They just wrote Lucy Liu out of the script and said she was busy working in another city. And even though Owen Wilson gets married at the end of the first one
he is single again without explanation. The movie is funnier with him continuing his horn dog shtick, so it was a smart choice on the writers’ part. But that means all the same points I made about the first film apply to the sequel as well. We’re supposed to cheer the white protagonist on as he attacks other white men, subverts the government, and dates outside his “tribe.”
“Only an evil racist would care about race mixing! Why even point it out, ya’ evil nazi!?”
Yeah. It’s no big deal in these films. But that’s partly because I’m a white man and my monkey brain doesn’t get “triggered” (for lack of a better word) when I identify with the man. So despite if I like the couple or not, I point ’em out regardless.
Mainly, because part of STFUhollywood.com’s purpose is to talk about race in cinema when no one else is willing to. And also because it’d be hypocritical if I only complained when a black man was with a white woman in films. C’mon, how do you think Asian men feel when they see these kinds of scenes? Lastly, because this kind of incrementalism is exactly why Hollywood depictions are so bat sh*t insane right now. They always start with the occasional, socially acceptable, boundary pushing stuff. And then they get to the point where EVERY commercial looks like this:
To give benefit of the doubt, I think many writers just want to push an anti racist agenda, and the anti-white part stems from the white guilt of our society as a whole. Like, if they ever portray a minority in a negative light there will be a million Buzzfeed articles and social media “””protests””” the next day. Colorblind whites get raked over the coals for innocent mishaps:
So you have to constantly keep race in the forefront of your mind to survive. I know many of these regressives are nefarious and were anti white from the get go. But I think there’s a huge number of well-intentioned SJW’s in the movement as well, who ironically foster even more racism in their quest to end it.
Okay. Rant over.
Should you see the film? No. Not because of political stuff, it was pretty apolitical all things considered. Just because it’s a bad movie. Only watch it if someone else insists.
The white male protagonist is effeminate and incompetent. No big deal, though, because it’s a buddy cop movie and they chose to make Jackie Chan the straight man. But Jackie normally does slapstick humor with his fighting, so why not make him the goofy one? Well, they did the same in “Rush Hour” so it’s not a white guy thing, per se. When you compare any American to the robotic / hierarchical Far East that generally focuses on saving face, it makes perfect sense.
There’s some Chinese railwork slave labor stuff in there but they didn’t make it all the white devil’s fault. Likewise, there were some savage native American tribes counterbalanced with peaceful and wise ones. For every aspect of the movie that could have been interpreted as a jab at conservatives, there was an equal and opposite scene following it.
Looking back from 2018, I can see how the film is stacked against white men. They make up the majority of the bad guys and the one white guy we are supposed to empathize with sides with other tribes. In the context of the movie, it makes perfect sense and I still root for Owen Wilson’s character. But you may be irked if you have the knowledge of how cinema has evolved from these subtle tones of cooperation and tolerance in 2000, into parading blatant traitors as heroes while fostering self hatred amongst the audience in 2018. We all know, that if the characters were based proportionately to crime statistics and average personality traits for their demographic then you’d have to be mental to cheer the protagonist on. But that’s why this agitprop is so effective. It is both subtle, (so anyone who calls it out is seen as a nutjob), and unrealistic, (so audience members internalize morals and pattern recognition divorced from truth).
Ann Coulter’s “¡Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole” demonstrates this best:
A sixteen-year-old Hmong girl who was gang-raped and forced into prostitution by some Hmong men never told her parents about it, explaining that her mother would only say, “You deserved it.” Like I haven’t heard that before! This exact episode has appeared on Law & Order a dozen times, but the rapists were always preppie fraternity guys.
Spoilers!
Let’s talk about some minor subtext that’s worth noting since that’s the point of this site. Midway through the film Jackie Chan overhears Owen Wilson downplaying their friendship when some white girl says something racist about the “Chinaman.” This creates a bromance version of the RomCom cliché where a misunderstanding causes tension before they make up. I feel ambivalent about this because it’s historically accurate but also projects 21st century obsessions with racial equality into the past. Oh well.
Fast forward to the end of the movie after Owen Wilson’s “bad guy” bandit character has transformed into a good guy, and he seals the deal by marrying a native American woman. Which, btw, was Jackie Chan’s wife up until the very end of the film when they needed a quick plot device so that Jackie could get with his romantic interest, Lucy Liu.
For me this wife swap was fine. It’s the Wild West, why not? But I’m sure this is problematic for SJW’s because it displays indigenous women as promiscuous floozies, and this absolute lack of morality is bound to irritate the religious fundamentalists. Now my eyes are open to this gradual degeneracy and how this seemingly harmless stuff pushes the Overton Window inch by inch to the left. But still, let’s lighten up a little, shall we?
Speaking of which, the bloopers showed a harmlessly flirty joke between Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu that I guarantee would spark some #MeToo garbage if it was shown today. Check it out, the chemistry is quite adorable:
Now, the subversive thing that I actually thought might be intentional was when Owen killed his nemesis. The whole scene is in a church which may be alluding to something, but my gut says the setting was chosen just for the Old Western aesthetics. The part that stands out is when Owen shoots the antagonist through his sheriff badge and they zoom in on “U.S.”
I know, I know. I feel like one of those conspiratards who make hour long videos pointing out Occult Illuminati symbolism that they just pull out of their ass. So take this with a grain of salt, please.
But if you think it’s out of the realm of possibility, please read this passage from Ben Shapiro’s “Primetime Propaganda.”
Overall, it was very heartwarming and worth sitting through.
The white protagonist is a fumbling pansy, but that’s his character as the geeky scientist trope. Definitely easy to ignore and not get too annoyed by. There were a couple scenes and lines in there about a woman being strong and tough, while making the white men seem like threatened bigots blind to how badass chicks can be. ◔_◔ But that is also to be expected. Just a cheesy family flick, so don’t take it too seriously. Most of it you can ignore. Besides, there are tons of jokes about different cultures and crossdressing that couldn’t be done today without shouts of transphobia and whitewashing.
If you didn’t already know, the original novel and film adaptation didn’t have a Chinese sidekick. Jackie Chan’s character, was a Frenchman. I’m normally a stickler about this stuff, but I really don’t think this was a forced affirmative action decision. Jackie Chan was very popular at the time and it seems more gimmicky of a decision than a political one.
One thing that made me think, was how they portrayed the stupidest character of the film as a redhead. They don’t explicitly say it, but red head typically means Irish, no? I did some research and the guy who plays the ginger is Scottish.
¯\_(・_・)_/¯
Who knows? None of this matters, and I wish this crap didn’t pass my mind at all, but sadly Pandora’s Box of Identity Politics has been opened. If every tribe but one acts in its own selfish interests, ignoring it won’t make it go away. What are you, a commie? Think you can fight human nature and get everyone to agree to be stoically selfless for the greater good of society as a whole? C’mon… that’s why Hollywood has gotten so bad in the first place. Time to change strategies and stick up for ourselves. No more shrugging it off. They won’t stop pushing until every film is like Star Wars and Black Panther. Anyways, pretty sure I didn’t see a single other redhead in the film, so it seems reasonable to think they type-casted Ewen Bremner for a reason.
To an outsider, this stuff usually goes unnoticed. Like when I watched movies with my Russian girlfriend, she wouldn’t pick up on the subtle accents of the southern Americans that are always depicted as dumb hicks. Nor do most Russian audiences realize that entire films like “Three Billboards” are an attack on the rural parts of the United States. Likewise, most Westerners don’t detect the “Idiot from Osaka” trope in Japanese film. Go figure, outsiders don’t recognize local intersectionalities. I guess it’s true what the progressives say: “Racism = Prejudice + Power”
:^)
Spoiler
The protagonists are sold out by yet another corrupt Irish cop (this time in America).
I did some research and the original novel was written by a Frenchman. And the 2004 remake was directed and written by white American men. So there is really no reason to suspect that this seemingly anti-Irish sentiment is intentional. It’s probably just like the rest of the film’s cast; racial stereotypes. But they couldn’t get away with any negative stereotypes about non whites so they did so only for the Brits and Irish.
I also searched the novel and couldn’t find anyone with red hair except for the captain of a ship. I did discover that Detective Fix (the dumb Irish cop) was actually sly and intelligent in the book, but I couldn’t find anything about him being Irish or having any physical attributes that would allude to it.
Iuhnno. No big deal. Just watch the film and ignore this insignificant stuff that I’m overanalyzing.
Frankly, I don’t think this is a big problem. If you can’t satirize reality, then the film loses any depth. You can’t relate to the characters because the writers try so hard to not offend. I just find it fascinating to explore this now that SJW’s got me “woke.” Turns out Hollywood’s negative depictions aren’t just a problem for “people of color.” Well, unless you consider gingers honorary coloreds…
Okay. Rant over. Should you see the film?
Meh. Don’t go out of your way to see it but if it’s on, you can chuckle a bit and be entertained without an enraging agenda.
Worth a watch. Overall good moral to the story, albeit not very traditional. This goes into the whole chicken or the egg debate with Hollywood of if its plots have a transformative or reflective relation with society. Whether you like it or not, the bizarre new social norms of courtship and divorce portrayed in the movie may be relatable to your own life. There was also brief dialogue about feminism and women’s studies in the beginning, but the film was made in 2003 so it ended there. No spoilers, but the end of the film may be interpreted as gynocentric. It promotes values that you’ll agree with, but they fail to explore the part that females play in the destruction of healthy relationships. Ah well, it’s a film targeted towards women; would you expect a James Bond movie to play devil’s advocate against womanizing?
Aside from analyzing the political stuff, the main love interests were very charming. I definitely got sucked in, rooting for them to get together. The plot was not a typical RomCom premise, but the way they portrayed the side characters definitely was cliché. Little to no depth, so the audience doesn’t feel conflicted when rooting for X and Y couple to get together. That’s okay, though. That wasn’t the focus of the movie. Another small thing that bugged me was the symbolism throughout. Pay attention to the colors and clothing. At first it was clever, but they overdid it and kept literally pointing to it in each scene.
Check it out, though! Definitely worth seeing, at least once.
Not a lot to say about the film. Senseless comedy. Not preachy, though, so that’s great. A man gets raped and there’s some gay jokes in it. Definitely feels dated because of that stuff. In fact, the very premise of pick up artists couldn’t be a blockbuster movie unless they were beaten to death or 100% female pick up artists.
It’s weird rewatching films now that I’m “redpilled” because I realize how nihilistic and amoral they are. Even the inconspicuous ones. Like most romantic comedies, the characters are all selfish and only focus on their feelings. Disregarding any sacred oaths or promises, and the whole time the audience is okay with it because the bad guys are so one dimensionally evil you can’t possibly sympathize when they are betrayed.
Whatever. No big deal since this is just a comedy for the sake of comedy. Still weird seeing these actions get normalized. I was gonna’ write about how it encourages hypergamy, but the cliché of romcoms is that the rich guy is the one the lead female leaves for the starving artist type. Is “tummy feels hypergamy” a thing? If you contribute to the destruction of the family unit because of emotions instead of financial greed, is it any better? Should we shun the gold digger or the impoverished single mother more? Damn it. Why can’t I just watch a movie without these kinds of thoughts barging in? Damn redpill… Okay, ’nuff overanalyzing. This movie is 1 part obscene and 1 part humorous, topped with a Libertarian Vine Vaughn icing to complete the intellectual junk food package. Hits the spot!
I had no idea the first time I watched it, but it turns out John McCain had a cameo for a fraction of a second. You’d prolly miss it too if you’ve never seen it before. I’m just wondering if it may have been a prank of sorts, and a dog whistle to let the audience know that the whacky politician family that the story revolves around, is a hyper conservative family. Guilty by association. Afterall, we’re all sexually repressed and violent. Who knows, though? Even if it is a dog whistle, I could give a rat’s a** because I’m so used to unnecessary, brazen, anti-Republican exposition jammed into films at the most absurd times, that this appearance didn’t phase me at all. Could also be because I hate McCain’s guts…
In conclusion, go ahead and take an hour or so to laugh at stupid sex jokes with little-to-no political agenda.
Good premise. Thrilling cinematography. Worth watching.
You see, they changed the message of the novel, (which was apparently very pro-life, anti-immigration quota, and all about strong morals being necessary for a healthy society), and tried to turn it into an Antifa type movie. The messages aren’t shoved down your throat like most Hollywood movies, so thankfully it leaves it up to interpretation. People like the fat, lisping, Marxist Boomer f**got: Žižek, interpret this movie as showing late stage Capitalism and the dangers of holding onto your roots.
I, on the other hand, interpret the film as a warning of our multicultural hell hole dystopia to come if we don’t reverse current trends. It’s not a coincidence that George Soros and KGB both support BLM. It’s a classic divide and conquer tactic. Some people say that lowering the average IQ of the populous in order to create an obedient consumer class is the goal of this forced demographic replacement. Idk. The motives are hard to prove, and quickly get into conspiracy theory territory. So let’s avoid any convoluted conjecture and keep it Occam’s Razor for now.
Lawn care is too expensive. Koch brothers cater 2 Latinos, hoping 4 votes- http://t.co/5XQgsdyXSw
Basically, free market conservatives forsake the working class and the future of their nation’s stability for the sake of cheap labor. Whereas, the leftists love to import new voters while getting “social justice” bonus points. And the foreign powers like KGB and Soros encourage this because when civil unrest occurs, government overreach is “justified.” And when a nation’s power is centralized, it’s easier to subvert, bribe, and control the country as an outsider.
The CIA does the same thing but much worse, we do straight up military coups. As well as other forms of divide and conquer tactics like funding revolutionaries/extremists since most of these nations are ethnically homogenous. It’s just part of foreign policy I guess. Anyways, I’m ranting. The point is, that’s what was in the forefront of my mind while watching this movie. And what I hope is in the forefront of yours.
For more on the differences between the book and the film, click below. Spoiler warning, though!
1.) They invented the black character, Kee, and made her the mother. In the book, Julian was the mother and she was white. The father of her child, was also white. As well as the child.
Book Passage - Mother's Ethnicity
Book Passage - Father's Ethnicity
2.) I haven’t read the whole book, so it’s hard to say what political messages the author aligns with. If you know please leave it in the comments below. But here is an interesting passage that seems to be critical of champagne socialists and neoliberalism that exploits migrants for cheap labor at the expense of the country. To be fair, though, Xan is the villain of the novel. So it’s hard to say…
Book Passage - Government/Immigration Debate
3.) In the book, they clarify that it was the male sperm count dropping to zero that caused the crisis. In the movie, they just say “infertility.” Again, I haven’t read the book, so it could be a meaningless change. But I wonder if there wasn’t symbolism behind this. For the progressive film director, it could be a subtle pro feminist change. For the book author, it may have symbolized the failing leadership of men in modern society. Or perhaps, an extended metaphor of the book title which may imply that if you’re not children of god, first and foremost, then your society will crumble. Who knows? Please post your theories/evidence in the comments below.
4.) The resistance group in the book is a Christian pro-democracy/human rights squad. In the movie, they are a militant Antifa faction. This is an alright change because they made these Antifa extremists the bad guys of the film. So even though they added a leftist tinge and made the protagonists leftists, at least they didn’t make it blatantly binary. There are good and bad people of all colors, and all ideologies in the film. So it doesn’t feel like it’s shoved down your throat like, say, the Star Wars resistance.
Conclusion? Disregard Alfonso Cuarón’s attempts to make you feel bad for refugees and immigrants. Instead, take a good look at the hell hole you’ll be living in if you continue to ignore basic realities of human nature.
I highly recommend watching this film, so don’t let the “watch if free” make you think otherwise. It’s just the progressive agenda that completely pissed on the original, and the replacement of various white characters that bugged me. So…
Goofy and nostalgic movie (nostalgic for the era and style of film; this was actually the first time I ever watched it). Great to watch when you want to relax and laugh after a long day.
The whole movie is one big tranny joke. It’s chock-full of gay jokes, race jokes, and fat jokes as well. You don’t realize what you got until it’s gone, I guess. I grew up watching “Married… with Children” and all sorts of low-brow comedy. Then, after a while I grew a taste for more dry humor and more esoteric (admittedly f**gy hipster nu-male) type stuff. But then the SJW’s made everything taboo, so comedy started to die. So, take a moment to bask in politically incorrect humor for an hour or so.
2.) The moral of the story was that spoiled, pretty girls should be thankful for their privilege. Reminds me of this TV special where a feminist went undercover and realized men have it harder:
3.) A blasian character is embarrassed of her Korean heritage and tries to act black as a running gag. Great social commentary on the reality of our anti-white / Afrophilic culture.
Minor spoiler:
The main character’s little brother sneaks into her room and cross dresses. I originally thought this was just for sh*ts & giggles, but later on they hug and talk about accepting each other for who they are. So it may have been a fail safe in case they were accused of homophobia? Don’t worry about it though. Very minor.
Meh. You can support the film, but if you never see it, you’re not missing out. It’s made by the same guys who did “Napoleon Dynamite” and is really just a second rate version of that. Lots of dry, weird humor. There’s absolutely no way that the same film could be made today. Lots of “Tim & Eric” style ugly people who were casted solely due to their hideous appearance. And tons of jabs at Mexico for being a sh*thole. Not to mention the “whitewashing” that Jack Black does as a German/British/Russian/Jewish man, playing a half Mexican. And then there’s the midget fight scenes…
Ha… now that I think about it, this movie was pretty great. Watch the full thing or just random clips on YouTube. Either way, there’s no agenda being pushed so it’s okay in my book.
Great movie! Amazing motifs that are cleverly depicted. It will inspire you, warm your heart, and leave you with philosophical questions to ponder in regards to your own life. Definitely go see it!
The “diversity” in the cast was well placed and fitting because the script was all about jazz and show biz. Except for the opening scene which tries to jam as many non-whites in as possible to reach their quota:
Oh, and these unimportant characters, (who don’t even have any lines if I recall correctly), that get screen time in the middle of the movie for no reason other than to get two birds with one stone: 1.) segue time passage scene and 2.) SJW bonus points:
Don’t worry, though. All the truly talented African American jazz musicians throughout the film makeup for the patronizing affirmative action hires. Also, John Legend’s character is flawed and multidimensional so it helps to add some realness to him instead of being just another infallible POC character like the ones Hollywood has been vomiting out lately.
So, ignore these minor flaws and check it out today!
Just recently watched this movie again. It was made a few years before 911 so the parallels with how we treat barbaric Muslim invaders is purely accidental. Afterall, Bush didn’t coin the Orwellian “Islam is a religion of peace” lie until after the attacks. But boy oh boy, is this film right on the money. I feel stupid giving such a slapstick movie 4 stars, but it does a great job of making fun of various stereotypes equally. Stupid hippies, warhawk neocon generals, naive academics, jingoist hicks, etc. It’s really saying something about how bad Hollywood has gotten, when all it takes to make me happy is objective satire, but oh well.
The really great part about this film, (in a sick & twisted way), is how it perfectly depicts the regressive liberal mindset. No matter how many times the aliens betray their trust, the humans keep blaming themselves, and keep pontificating some new excuse to continue being doormats.
After this, the academics and politicians think that maybe Doves aren’t peace symbols and may have offended the aliens. So the humans send out a transmission explaining that the aliens have “nothing to fear” and Earth “means no harm.”
Upon receiving, the aliens laugh their asses off at such weakness, then proceed to ogle our women. Eventually, the Earthlings arrange a meeting with congress in order to mend the bad first impression.
At this point, most people are getting the picture. But the deceitful tactics and naive olive branches continue:
It’s like how regressives never consider that maybe other cultures don’t respect peace at all. Maybe they only want to conquer and rape. Maybe they hate you for your very way of life and will never adopt your values. The big difference is that the aliens seem to have better “taqiyya” game than the Muslims who explain perfectly clear why they hate and fight us. And yet, we continue to let them walk all over us again and again.
Steven Crowder points out how countries have gone to war for much less than what the modern migrant scum have been doing. It’s quite heartbreaking to see Western Civilization willingly kill itself and accept such abuse, but you gotta’ laugh at the absurdity of it once in a while, or else you’ll go mad.
So, turn your brain off for a few moments to enjoy this goofy, nostalgic disaster film!
Parts of the film seem like unnecessary pain and suffering for the sake of it, but that’s okay. It’s to be expected of a drama chick flick. It’s done well enough to get you sucked into their world and invested emotionally.
The script contained two slights against conservatives that irked me and seemed unnecessary. So I did some research comparing the book with the film. More often than not, my hunch is proven right after sleuthing around. For example, when a “based on a true story” script randomly changes the ethnicity of real person to fit a diversity quota. But in this instance, it looks like the book author is just as bat sh*t as J.K. Rowling, so the script changes weren’t a big deal…
1.) The main character is naked when he time travels so he puts on whatever clothes he can get his hands on. In one instance, he ends up getting in a fight with “homophobes” for calling him a “f**got.”
I thought this definitely had to be a Hollywood invention. Guess not. Although, this book excerpt makes the quirky and charming scene seem much more sociopathic:
Book Passage - Heterobashing
2.) In the film, the wife’s father is an evil Republican hunter. I kid you not, this is word for word from the script:
If you “Ctrl + F” search the book there are no results for “right-wing,” “Democrat,” “Republican,” or “conservative.” But there are 2 brief mentions of “politics” and they have nothing to do with the father:
Book Passage - Politics 1
Book Passage - Politics 2
So, in other words, Hollywood decided to deviate from the source material in order to take a jab that isolates half their audience for no reason. Think that’s bad? Well the father kills the husband in a hunting accident.
Damn 2nd amendment gun nuts taking away the lives of those we love!
3.) Well, to be fair, the father doesn’t pull the trigger, it’s his son who pulls the trigger. And that’s the same in the book too.
Book Passage - Death
4.) So, even though she didn’t say the father was Republican in the book, her characters still have leftist undertones, and she is a proud anti-Republican “heathen.” ¯\_(・_・)_/¯
Conclusion? It’s hard to get upset at Hollywood for injecting politics unnecessarily when the author is doing it herself. I doubt she was upset about the storyline changes.
Overall, it was a cute movie and the chemistry between the cast made it worth the watch. Support it if you’re not a stickler about giving money to leftists.
Don’t waste your time. Per usual, any Hollywood movie based on a small town will be incredibly racist in its portrayal of Southern whites. With – of course – no sense of irony or self awareness in regard to its blatant hypocrisy as it spouts off platitudes about the horrors of small minded bigots.
I can hang with the stupid Southerner trope even though it’s been done to death. Not with this film, though. It’s a caricature of a caricature since the British director knows even less about the American South than the average champagne socialist director in L.A.
There are only five worthwhile white men in the film, and even coming up with five is a stretch.
Spoilers
1.) Redeems himself by committing suicide:
Perhaps some silly symbolism about the patriarchy being on its way out and how the best thing to do is to not fight it. You see, this character has cancer and decides to just end it, saving the women in his life the pain of watching him slowly struggle against an unwinnable fight (i.e., the honorable thing to do is to help speed up the death of the white man). Even if I’m projecting a deeper meaning onto the plot, the point still remains, that the most likeable white male in the film does an honorable thing by killing himself. And I think it’s fair to assume this aspect of the script must stem from the anti-white zeitgeist we live in:
Sadly, this is the only part of the film that reflects reality since white men are way more likely to commit suicide in real life, but thankfully, the rest of this movie only portrays libsh*t psychobabble and not reality:
:^)
2.) Midget so he scores victim hierarchy points:
3.) Throughout the film, this cop is the worst scum imaginable, save for the moments he embarrasses himself by acting like a buffoon.
He redeems himself once he gets hospitalized by the protagonist’s molotov cocktail, and decides to forgive her and shrug it off. The director claims he doesn’t want to show a simplistic good and bad dichotomy, but he clearly portrays this character in a more positive light once he becomes a cuck. I’ll admit it, you do sympathize and root for him when he decides to become a martyr. He lets himself get his ass kicked in order to collect DNA samples from attackers who are suspects in the murder case. It was the most clever plot device of the film. But again, take a moment to pause and zoom out. Am I the only one who sees the ethno-masochistic undertones here? Even if I’m overanalyzing and the director didn’t mean anything by this, doesn’t it say something about his psyche? But c’mon. This is intentional. Another f**gy Baby Boomer with not so subtle anti-American motifs:
Woah… deep, dude.
◔_◔
Before that, Sam Rockwell’s character was borderline retarded and extremely malicious (like most of the whites in the film but just the most extreme case). Aside from his transformation there is very little character development in the film. And at the climax, to complete his metamorphosis, he sets out on a vigilante crusade with the feminazi to go kill a random white soldier for a crime they aren’t sure he committed.
Yup. They even checked that box off as well. Hell, I’m the first to talk trash about American foreign policy. Our track record is atrocious. But as with the rest of the film, don’t expect any nuanced or unique perspectives from its critique. Just more meaningless occurrences that find a way to conclude with f**k whitey.
It turns out they never catch the rapist/killer the mother is looking for. And throughout the moviegoing experience all you get is more instances of white men being cancerous. Instead of criticizing Muslims who actually burn people alive and rape women to death, they take the brave route of accusing American soldiers of committing such acts without consequence. Nevermind the fact that American soldiers are traumatized by the pederasty and risk their careers to save rape victims. Nah. White men are demons who need to be eradicated. Hmmm, let’s throw in a scene where she can berate a Catholic priest… yeah! That’s what this film needs. Bravo, Hollywood! Keep speaking truth to power! (－‸ლ)
The funny thing is that even though the film bent over backwards to constantly sh*t all over white people, they still faced SJW outrage. I guess being a martyr and fratricidal vigilante doesn’t cut it thesedays if you want to atone for your white sins. He should have just killed himself like Woody Harrelson.
4.) The young billboard owner who fumbles over his words awkwardly to help the feminazi. He shows no signs of “toxic masculinity” as he turns the other cheek after getting thrown out of a second-story window.
5.) The feminazi’s son who just whines and complains, but at least isn’t shown as a complete moron.
The rest are cartoonishly rude and dumb. Do not waste your time. Avoid at all costs.
Pretty much everything I said about the first film applies to this one. Morgan Freeman plays a smaller part so they add a few more black extras in the background. A latinX professor for a brief cameo. And they make up for their lack of diversity with a few “strong female leader” moments, but you can just let it slide as teen angst I guess.
One thing I really like is how they make the characters relatable. They never make just one dimensional bad guys. For example, a USDA health inspector comes to visit and is just doing his job. He wants what’s best for the dolphins and reluctantly enforces regulations. Likewise, another antagonist is the owner of the aquarium: a businessman explaining that if they don’t capitalize they won’t be able to save as many animals as they have been. For such a cheesy movie, I am always impressed with the premise and character development underneath.
On the negative side of things, it feels like one of those straight to DVD Disney channel movies, and the overall arch is very similar to the first one. But that’s always hard to do when making sequels; stray too much and the audience lose their connection. Stay to close to the original and we feel like it’s a rip off rehash. So let’s cut them some slack. All things considered it was worth the 2 hours and may be worth renting.
Cute family movie. There are lots of broken homes in the plot, but it’s just for easy sympathy points from the audience. I didn’t sense any agenda being pushed in this regard; the father figures were all respectable men. Another really refreshing theme (perhaps unintentional) was showing how the education system has failed boys. Without any spoilers, the protagonist has trouble in school and spaces out because he is not challenged with hands on, technical stuff. Instead, lowest common denominator crap. So if you are a homeschooler or have suffered through subpar public schools as I did, then that will be a nice bonus.
Likewise, it was a breath of fresh air to see a businessman who was not a one dimensional boogie man. And despite it being about wildlife rehabilitation, there were no hippie climate change anti human progress motifs. Shocker, right? The opening scene starts by showing fisherman accompanied by ominous music as they disregard the ecosystem. But this is totally understandable, because it was the malfeasance of the fisherman that caused the dolphin’s injuries in the first place. Respect for nature is something we can all get on board with, and something you should instill in your children. Keyword is “respect” not “idealistic worship.” Throughout the film there are other fisherman who are portrayed as responsible and multidimensional. Clear divide between killing and eating fish as a fisherman, while simultaneously being devoted to helping the high IQ marine life. Much better balance than the typical oversimplified noble savage, (human = bad / nature = good), type crap we normally see…
As far as the actual content of the film, it’s just a typical feel-good cheesy family movie. Lots of clichés an bad acting, but overall very cute and decent enough to get you sucked in. Definitely check it out. The one thing that irked me was that they had to inject “””DIVERSITY””” into the “based on a true story” storyline, by replacing this guy:
With this guy:
If you can get past the (white guilt spawned) black savior trope, it’s a good way to kill 2 hours, and even worth spending money on.
The movie was okay. Same ‘ol worn out pro nature, noble savage, man/industrialization is evil, BS from Hollywood. It wasn’t 100% stupid white men being shown up by women but a good portion of it. Sure enough, black dude is a scientist, every war America has fought was unjustified, and if we were just kind like the women, then the perfect harmony of nature would still be in tact. Yadda yadda yadda. So sick of this narrative… But there were a couple good white guys too, an evil black guy, etc. So it was somewhat balanced, just not something you should go out of your way to see. If it’s the only thing on, and you have to pay for it, go ahead. If you miss it, oh well.
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
Yup. “Based On a True Story” movies are the way to go. Best way to ensure minimal Hollywood BS. (Keyword: minimal.)
This movie addresses some tough topics but I think all ages can see it. Any negative components can be portrayed as a PSA against drug use. And since this was based on the book by a real recovered homeless drug attic, it’s realistic! No crap about how everyone on the street is a saint who can’t afford to eat. And as someone who’s spent a good portion of his adult life on the streets, or in the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous, I can also vouch for its accuracy. Granted, it’s still a movie so they embellish and add some cheesy melodrama, but that’s to be expected. Without the snippets of soap opera dialogue and cat trainer action scenes, then this would be just some depressing indie flick. Instead, it allows for the whole family to enjoy it.
Anyways, back to the junkie stuff. A big theme of the film is something you hear in the 12 step programs quite a lot:”Selfishness, self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles.” Basically, pray for others and try to live for your loved ones first and foremost. And even though it’s counterintuitive, you will find that you get more than you could have ever dreamed of if you trust in a higher power and go down that path. Stop trying to do things your way, go one step at a time, and it’ll all work out. Lucky for you, though, you can appreciate that sentiment and life lesson through the eyes of a cat instead of having to hear a bunch of divorced middle-aged men chant their slogans at you. 😛
Speaking of which, a good portion of the film was spent switching the camera to show the point of view of the cat. Ironically, the use of a POV camera angle without a human voice over allowed for a heavier anthropomorphization and deeper connection between cat and audience. Just like real pets, nothing can compete with our own projected emotions/thoughts. Whenever the script calls for a voice actor, it’s a constant subconscious reminder that you’re watching trained animals chasing food while people in a studio talk. Not with this one, though. There’s quite the profound bromance between protagonists, and you can’t help but get caught up in it.
As for political elements, this was very apolitical. The love interest is a hippie vegan type and someone makes a brief joke at the expense of Rupert Murdoch. Completely innocent and ignorable, IMHO.
Watch this movie, and pay to do so!
Shameless plug: If you’re interested in proof that hobos spend their money on drugs, then watch my ghetto DIY documentary on YouTube. I went undercover with hidden camera spy glasses and lived on the streets/in the shelters and proved the point that this film does; the best way to help an addict is to give them a sense of purpose. Help with support in moderation, not money. Treat them as a human, not as a helpless baby. Try to balance out tough love with a helping hand.
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
This felt like a movie that Hollywood made specifically for the Red States. Lots of pandering. So, I say support it even if it was low budget and cheesy at parts. It’s a great film to watch with the family; they portray a family unit in a traditional, but realistic way. There’s also some symbolism about getting out of your comfort zone to become a man. Good morals like “no guts, no glory.” Hardwork pays off. Etc. All good themes. And even some anti-government lines in there, but from a conservative perspective.
For example, the mom complains about the bureaucratic policies of the local police force. Some aspects were even critical of the wars in the middle east and the military industrial complex, so it could be perceived as anti-patriotic depending on what kind of right winger you are. If you’re like Ann Coulter, and are tired of neocon wars, then you’ll probably agree. But even if you’re not, don’t worry, it’s a minor few lines and not a major plot point. In fact, it’s the villain who brings up the criticism, so it’s left up to the audience’s interpretation. Rest assured, it’s not some anti-war movie that slanders American troops. Quite the opposite.
Something else to take note of is the high levels of “diversity.” The love interest is a Mexican girl and the protagonist’s best friend is also Mexican. But it feels like “Breaking Bad” or “White Men Can’t Jump.” The film explores the positive and negative sides of both cultures. For example, the angsty white boy is criticized for his disrespect towards his parents, and lack of loyalty to his familia. But the Mexicans aren’t saints either, as their cultural baggage of crime and dishonesty are also in the script. IMHO, it felt like a reflection of our reality as Americans in 2017 rather than propaganda pushing for diversity. But you may think differently. There was one part where a Mexican male criticized the female Mexican for flirting with the white guy. He said, “You’re a traitor to your race.” And she replied, “Mexican isn’t a race, stupid.” This girl is a tomboy type, BTW, but the director didn’t feel the need to emasculate all the male characters to “empower” her, and most of the other characters fit into gender roles, so don’t stress the feminism bit either.
It’s up to you. If that stuff sounds infuriating, then maybe skip this film. But it was a very small part and I personally, thought this movie wasn’t anti-white like Star Wars. The interracial stuff seemed like a normal plot point, without a hidden agenda. In fact, as a Colorado boy growing up with tons of Mexican friends, this was very nostalgic. Pretty accurate depiction of both cultures so it may even hit close to home for you as it did with me.
Check it out if you’re in the mood for a feel good, family friendly, patriotic movie!
This one is a bit tricky:
❌ It was produced by J.J. Abrams.
✅ They didn’t make Captain Kirk a black midget trans woman.
❌ It was directed by a Taiwanese-American and funded by a Chinese company.
✅ But in catering to a traditional Chinese audience they cut out a gay kiss.
❌ They added some cheesy “empowered” female characters showing men how it’s done.
✅ They were aliens so it doesn’t suspend your belief and they still made strong male leads.
❌ The overall moral of the story was “diversity is our strength.”
✅ The plot is ambiguous enough to leave to interpretation.
As I stated in the video below, China’s growing influence is bittersweet. I think it helps balance things out for sure. There are strong female characters but it’s not anti-male. There’s a diverse cast, but the Chinese don’t put up with virtue signaling and shoving LGBT agendas down the audience’s throat. A strong, white man is still the leading role without any self-deprecating slights adding into the script. Furthermore, (and we’ll never be able to verify this is 100% China’s influence but still), a black male is a bad guy.
Man, it’s sad that I am now happy when I see a black antagonist… Growing up, it was a nice mix. Sometimes the hero was black, sometimes white. You never thought about it. Sometimes the black characters were gangsta’ thugs, or posh nerds (e.g. Fresh Prince of Belair, Family Matters). It never felt forced and didn’t even pass my mind that one of my favorite shows as a kid was a “black show.” Maybe that’s my so-called “white privilege” showing, but if what’s happening now is “checking our privilege” then things were better off before…
Due to (SJW race baiting and) Hollywood’s insanity, they’ve created a Pavlov’s Bell but with the opposite intended result. Instead of me associating black men with heroism and intelligence, (as I subconsciously did when watching stuff like Independence Day, The Matrix, Blade, etc.) Nowadays, I get a strong gut reaction encouraging discrimination one way or the other. If the black man is portrayed negatively I have a big sigh of relief. (Positive reinforcement.) If they are portrayed as scientists I am instantly annoyed/enraged. (Negative reinforcement.) Especially if it’s over the top and crammed in at the last minute like they did with Snowden or The Martian. And it’s Pandora’s box as well. Because even when Hollywood dials things back a bit like they were before, I am still super sensitive to “POC” portrayal now. It’s in the forefront of everyone’s minds so even non statements are statements. I’m sure if I went back and watched Urkel I’d be pissed off at their unrealistic depiction of the black family unit. *sigh*
It’s up to you, but IMHO we gotta’ pick our battles. To be honest, it’s much easier to stomach their pandering to China’s audience than their SJW pandering. Because all it means is that there are more Asian actors and more Asian settings. Sometimes they make the Chinese gov’t save the day and that sh*t is boycott worthy, but in this instance there is no such thing. In the future, we all work together in harmony. Just one, unified human species. Which leads me into the whole progressive agenda topic.
The creator of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry, was all about the progressive agenda. The biggest themes were all about optimistic humanism and social commentary about cultures/races getting along. They spearheaded the interracial and globalist motifs in movies. But like with all forms of art, their shock value fizzles with time. We take for granted that Kirk and Uhura kissed, or that there was a Russian crewman on board. But back in the Cold War/Civil Rights era, that stuff was a big deal. So to me, all of the diversity we see on set in 2017 just seems like a continuum of the series instead of reinventing it like with the feminist Ghostbusters reboot. Which, to George Takei’s credit, he actually fought against:
Takei tried to convince him to make a new character gay instead. “I told him, ‘Be imaginative and create a character who has a history of being gay, rather than Sulu, who had been straight all this time, suddenly being revealed as being closeted.'”
…
“I said, ‘This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them.”
Shocking that George Takei gets it, but thank you! That’s exactly it! Ben Shapiro sums it up best:
Sadly, the left has really screwed everyone in this department. Because no matter what you do, it’s “problematic.” The average nerd doesn’t care whatsoever about diversity so long as it doesn’t overshadow or twist the characters/plot we’ve grown a sentimental attachment to. But if we follow Takei or Shapiro’s advice and create new characters, then we might offend people for “tokenism” like Simon Pegg warns:
“He’s right, it is unfortunate, it’s unfortunate that the screen version of the most inclusive, tolerant universe in science fiction hasn’t featured an LGBT character until now. We could have introduced a new gay character, but he or she would have been primarily defined by their sexuality, seen as the ‘gay character’, rather than simply for who they are, and isn’t that tokenism?”
Ugh. (－‸ლ) There’s no winning. That’s why so many of us potential “allies” to the LGBT/Social Justice community are now just so sick of it that we are becoming true bigots. I used to see gay and lesbian couples in shows like HBO’s True Blood and think nothing of it. Now I see that stuff and I feel disgust. Thankfully, I hadn’t kept up with all this hubbub about Star Trek f*ggotry before seeing the film. Unless you’re in-the-know, the final product is a very subtle and brief scene that will go over most people’s heads. In other words, it’s safe to show kids. I had a hunch but waited ’til after the movie to google and confirm. My girlfriend was completely oblivious to it and just thought it was his uncle or something.
I guess that ambiguity is the best we can hope for from a Hollywood movie for now. Just as America teamed up with Russia to fight Germany, it looks like conservatives might have to team up with China to fight Hollywood…
The decision to make John Cho’s character, Hikaru Sulu, a happily married gay man came with its own share of controversy stateside. But according to Cho, even the brief scene between Sulu and his family was cut down from a more romantic version. “There was a kiss that I think is not there anymore,” Cho told Vulture. (It’s not.) While co-writer Simon Peggsays the decision to cut the kiss was “not coy,” the resulting scene was certainly platonic enough to create plausible deniability. Thanks to interviews from members of the cast and crew, there’s no question, here in the U.S., that Sulu is gay. But China still has very strict censorship rules that mostly exclude any depiction of homosexuality on-screen. While the kiss may or may not have been cut out of deference to American values, it will certainly curry favor with Chinese censors.
I found a feminist site that said Cho might be lying and that the scene was never even filmed. I donno’ and I don’t care. Just happy things turned out okay. So, something else to take note of, is that you could argue that they encourage Spock to race mix his species into extinction without concern:
But it’s not definitive. Just a side plot with no conclusion. And it may be a big focus in the next Trek film. So hold your outrage. All things considered, this movie was surprisingly apolitical, which is why I gave it such a high rating. As far as action movies go, it’s pretty run-of-the-mill. Pretty good balance of CGI explosion stuff sprinkled in between quirky dialogue and character development. But as The Economist laments:
“Star Trek”’s producers now take their task of stripping politics out of their movie universe. The television series and some of the films studiously explored the big moral questions facing a bloc as diverse as the Federation, from the limits on cultural integration right through to how a peace-loving organisation should tackle imperial forces. The three most recent “Star Trek” films strip out these moral and global questions, and instead focus on how to stop bad guys who want to kill a lot of people.
This has me torn. The script clearly had very leftwing morals (like Arrival) about how nationalism is bad and organizations like the EU are great. The main villain was ranting about unity and you could read between the lines 100%, but dismiss it due to vagueness. No spoilers, but some parts could be even interpreted as rightwing. For example, warnings about certain demographics not assimilating well and the need for strong borders. And it even addresses the risks of letting refugees in. Likewise, you could interpret some of the plot as being against endless wars. Not the cliché “love wins” & “give peace a chance” platitude crap, but it seems to recognize past wars (and some current battles) as necessary, but for the need to adapt with the times. The “America First” audience members can for sure get on board with these themes, considering our recent track record in the middle east, and our possible cooperation with Russia to fight ISIS. And lastly, one of the plot points could be interpreted as not being anti nationalist, but anti-hivemind or anti-groupthink. Lots of wiggle room in this one.
I absolutely love that they are trying to keep Star Trek apolitical. But it seems like they wrote a leftist indoctrination manifesto, and then afterwards had producers come in and hack away at the liberal BS until only the bare bones were left. Rather than starting with an apolitical vision from the get-go. For this reason, the end result suffers and I have to agree with The Economist a bit. The philosophy behind the film was as emaciated as a Chinese political prisoner. Oh well. We gotta’ pick our battles. If starving the script of depth means less liberal BS, then keep up the good work, China.
Commend their efforts to tone things down and pay to support this film.
For those of you that are reading these reviews/rants chronologically, I’m beating a dead horse. My bad. It’s just that, when taken at face value, the premise of this site goes against everything I stand for, so it’ll take some time to get used to. But as I’ve stated in other reviews, the nitpicky nagging hags, (as seen in the pic above), have forced us pro free speech shruggers to play identity politics too. Thankfully, you have this site to help! We’ll stoop to their level and point out all the “problematic” elements so you don’t have to. You can continue shrugging but with a helpful guide to know which films to skip or not. ^_^
Anyways, the reason I say that right-off-the-bat is because the first thing that stood out to me was this movie’s “sexist” portrayal of the father figure. He’s a doofus.
On the brightside, the grandfather is venerated and there’s really no feminist undertones other than the dad bashing. Sadly, all of the alpha male types are bad guys/d-bags, but this is more of a reflection of the direction our society is going than feminist agitprop, IMHO. More adolescent males than ever can now better relate to the awkward beta male fumbling over his words with a complete lack of confidence. To be fair, this is nothing new; teenagers have always felt angsty and out of place. Super Man was boring because he was too great. So they added Cryptonite. Which is why Spider Man was such a success: realistic, relatable, yet heroic and pithy. Except nowadays it seems like today’s characters are getting a lot less Spidey and a lot more Petey.
But which came first: the chicken or the egg? The fruitcake writers with daddy issues or the safe space triggered millennials? ? As Ben Shapiro says in “Primetime Propaganda” it’s a debate of how transformative v.s. reflective art is:
“Liberals in Hollywood tend to believe that their shows are not transformative of the audiences who watch them—rather, they say, they are reflective of prevailing realities. These creators and executives see themselves as documentarians of inarguable truths, not propagandists attempting to change hearts and minds. This may seem bizarre to those of us who have actually met people who live in Alabama or Texas or Kansas and have a different take on life than those who sip lattes at the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf in West Los Angeles.”
…
“While most liberals believe that their programming reflects reality because it reflects their reality, some liberals are more cynical. Some know that their programming is transformative but cite ‘realism’ as a defense to their proselytizing agenda. David Shore, creator of House, scoffed at such attempts. ‘I think there’s a knee-jerk reaction from people to some extent to say, “It’s just reflective, it’s just reflective, you can’t hold me responsible” from people within the industry,’ he said. ‘That’s a cop-out because . . . we’re also thrilled by the fact that we’re touching people’s lives.’ Shore’s assessment is right on the money. Television affects Americans whether we like it or not. And here’s the bottom line: Television reflects those who create it and transforms everybody else. If the creators are liberal—and they are—that liberalism will have an effect on Americans. Television acts as a magnifier for television creators’ liberal life experiences—those experiences now become the basis of a prevalent element in American life. Liberals’ reality becomes our reality.”
Ben Shapiro also goes on to explain how the degeneration of the family unit, accompanied with marketing departments targeting specific demographics within the family, (e.g. MTV for teen girls, HBO for dads, etc.), exacerbates this vicious cycle of transformative v.s. reflective.
There is good news, though. The relentless push by deconstructionists and post modernists has now made things go full circle. There’s a growing movement and a pendulum swing back towards tradition. So, if you can get passed the father bashing, this movie is full of #TradLife imagery. And the character development of the protagonist could even encourage your fruitcake son(s) to be more manly like Grandpa was.
(｡•̀ᴗ-)✧
This movie is basically X-Men but with a woman instead of Professor Xavier, so you could interpret some of her lines as being an empowered female putting a man in his place. Or that they glorify the single mother figure head of the household v.s. the evil patriarchy. But it’s a stretch. This movie was very tasteful in the feminism department.
But with an X-Men parallel, comes the same cliché civil rights analogies. Only that, unlike the illegal immigrant mutants metaphor in “Logan,” this one is about Jews in the 40’s. Oh well. Almost all white cast except for the bad guy who was black. Which btw, caused quite the uproar among cultural marxists. So for that reason alone, you should pay to see this film. Even if it wasn’t that great of a film. Just to get the message across that audiences will respond well to films without affirmative action/revisionist history. And especially because Tim Burton was so open about this in interviews as he nonchalantly dismissed SJW’s. You may have noticed the 1/2 point “Affirmative Action” rating. Ironically enough, Samuel L Jackson’s character was actually white in the book and another character in the book was turned into a woman. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Let’s take what we can get, shall we?
Aside from political stuff, and as far as the actual film goes, you can read any of the other reviews for an in-depth analysis. But just briefly, I’ll say that this was scarier than Tim’s usual films so you should probably only let your older kids see it. I’m not sure what happened though; maybe a producer noticed this halfway through production, because the beginning of the film has a completely different tone. It went from eerie and somber to suddenly slapstick and upbeat. The villains even became a bit cringey, like something from “Goosebumps” or Arnold Schwarzenegger’s pun spewing role in the 90’s Batman movie. Needless to say, this sudden shift in gears wasn’t pulled off as well as Ryan Gosling’s artsy farsty “Drive,” but at least it will keep things lighthearted for the kids you do let watch it.
Other than that, the film lacked deep meaning, and some parts were clearly rushed from the book. But it’s so visually enchanting that I recommend it. You will be entertained from start to finish and there’s no politically enraging message. And who knows? Maybe the sequels will be better and worth investing time into. 100% support this film!
This one was much better than the last one as far as character depth and chemistry. Also they replaced that last chick with a funnier more personable actress. Which, apparently was due to pregnancy but could be due to other reasons kept secret for publicity’s sake. Like asking for too much money, or not being a crowd favorite. Anyway, some feminist news site complained:
When I see that stuff I think what I’m doing is equally as stupid. But dammit, they make us play the identity politics game. Their insane intolerance is why Hollywood continues to escalate its propaganda. Studies show that despite the media portraying us as the most intolerant, rightwinger, white men are actually the most tolerant towards other political views:
We shrug it off. They protest. For that reason alone, you should boycott this film. To let Hollywood know that we’re sick of them catering to China and bitter spinsters. I have nothing against China, and even lived in Taiwan for a bit. It’s just that if we don’t take a stand, we will continue to see movies push “diversity.” Not true diversity. But anti-white casting. More and more Chinese protagonists and white men as bad guys.
So, yes. The virtue-signalers nitpick no matter what and now I do the same. :/ I noticed that the main chick had a few “empowering” one liners and gender role reversals at the expense of the white men. But the feminist site noticed there were too many men in this film. I, on the other hand, noticed that the police chief was upgraded from black man to a black woman this time around. And that like most movies nowadays, China played a crucial role in the plot. A good 2/3rds of the film takes place in Macau and Mark “Crazy Liberal Loon” Ruffalo (a.k.a. reason #2 to boycott this film) even speaks Mandarin. Grrr….
Anyway, all the same things I said about the 1st film apply to this one as well. Except they just added a bit more “diversity”, feminism, and even a slight jab at god:
To be honest, I’d suggest watching the film, though. It was pretty entertaining. Nothing mind-shatteringly fresh, but for a lowest common denominator action movie, it was pretty clever. It may be just another super hero movie, but using magicians instead and having an “Ocean’s Eleven” angle made it bearable. Creative enough to sit through, methinks. But just like the first film, there were some cheap plot twists that don’t really seem justified. It just felt like the writers’ room trying to come up with the best possible way to shock the audience, even if it didn’t make sense for the characters/continuity. Rest assured, there’ll be some plot devices that explain it away in the 3rd film, but still…
TL;DR Watch the film if someone else wants to, pay if you must, but be warned there’s lots of Chinese influence felt throughout and Mark Ruffalo is a central role.
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
Just a typical blockbuster action movie. Nothing to really delve into analytically.
There was a tiny bit of women being bossy and physically superior to men without superpowers but nothing heavy. Of course they had to make the police chief black among others. But not crazy J.J. Abrams affirmative action. It’s just, they portray white rich men as one dimensional boogey men, exploiting the poor and minority classes. Which is really the underlying theme of the movie: the same ‘ol 99%, Robin Hood, “balance out income inequality” cliché crap.
It’s makes sense, though. If the majority of your audience can relate to middle class or lower, then of course you appeal to them. And to be fair, it’s not blatantly obvious propaganda. Just subtle things a conservative will pick up on. The script was clearly written through the eyes of a liberal who views the rich v.s. poor dynamic in such a simplistic manner. Speaking of which…
The main problem with the film is with Mark Ruffalo. He plays an important role in the movie, and in real life he’s a liberal loon. But because Morgan Freeman is an anti-race baiter and took Hillary’s defeat graciously, it makes up for it. Also, Woody Harrelson has quit weed and is an independent. So, how do you decide? Is Mark so obnoxious that he overshadows the other redeeming actors? Tough call. To be honest, I’m unaware of all the other casts’ political activity, and that’s fine. That’s how it should be. I’m sure if I search, I will find out that they are all liberal by default. And have said something stupid. Oh well.
I don’t think any of us should be so anal that we don’t see movies if the actors are Democrats. That’s unreasonable and just plain foolish. The point of this site is to oppose the actors who are obnoxious with their political views like Mark Ruffalo and Meryl Streep. So it’s up to you. If you don’t mind supporting the movie due to it having a large cast/mixed bag. Then go ahead. For me, I think you should watch it only if it’s free. You’ll be able to enjoy the action and supporting cast enough to make it worth seeing. But since it’s basically just another super hero movie with a minor twist, don’t stress it if you miss it.
Not much to say. You know what to expect when going into a cheesy family friendly movie like this.
I thought it was cute. Just an old fashioned feel good movie. No hidden agendas. The moral of the story was just to appreciate your family more and make them a priority over fake relationships and money. That’s it.
The bad guy was even dark skinned. *gasp* And all the main characters were rich white people.?Crazy. I know. They did have to make the doctor a black woman, but whatever… No big deal. Oh, and there was a small gag at the expense of a George W. Bush photo. Again, no big deal. All in good fun. All reasonable.
One of my favorite Adam Sandler films is “Click.” This felt like a less poignant version of that. Same premise: a whacky and mystical Christopher Watkins teaches the workaholic dad a lesson. If you want a laidback, silly movie to watch with your kids/significant other, then go see this. And pay to do so!
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
I hated this garbage and almost stopped halfway through. I’m not sure if I can watch another Disney movie after this. Visually it’s amazing, but the agendas pushed make this unbearable to sit through. I swear, Disney is the absolute worst when it comes to liberal BS in Hollywood.
You can google “Moana feminist” and look up results yourself. Just batsh*t crazy, anti-male propaganda from start to finish. You may think I’m overly sensitive or overanalyzing, but the symbolism is getting more and more audacious with each new flick. Go check for yourself. They even put in allusions to genitalia in this one…
“Without my hook (penis/masculinity) I am nothing.” ~Maui
It’s not quite castration, but a female god takes away that macho guy’s power by taking away his big magical hook. Sure ’nuff, he learns that he needs to tone down his bravado for there to be peace in the world, and if he didn’t steal/hurt the hearts of women, then there would be harmony for all. (This also parallels man’s achievements of industrialization damaging Mother Earth and disrupting the balance that once was. They foreshadow this in the beginning, by singing about how the tribe gets everything they need from the Earth without advanced technology. Clichéd noble savage agitprop.) It is only after the men learn to stop bickering, and let the women do what they want, go down the path they desire, that things work out.
Oh, and the arrogant male lead learns that he’s mistaken at the end. It wasn’t all his accomplishments in previous generations that sustained their society. But rather, mother nature and femininity that birthed everything, including his hook and anything he achieved with it. It was only when he became overly confident like Icarus, that things got messed up. In other words, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” And you can only be happy and content with your manhood if you tone it down, literally kowtow, and constantly check your privilege. Hand your nuts over to the matriarchy, lil man! Better recognize, Queen Bee! “Who runs the world??? DAS RITE.”
This phallic symbolism is also contrasted with the magical stone that has “the power to create life.” Any guesses what that might allude to? ◔_◔ The stone also is called a heart and represents the love necessary to combat the evil in the world. Blech. Typical infantile bullsh*t from Hollywood. It’s like the female brain is incapable of understanding any complex thoughts without filtering them down into simplified emotions. It’ll come as no surprise that the moral of this story, like most films thesedays, is #LoveTrumpsHate
I know I may sound crazy to you, like those people who see illuminati symbols in everything. But I’ll leave you with 2 videos to prove my point. One is a brief interview with the film creators explaining the feminist/pagan crap, and another is a reviewer (hippie lady who liked the film) going in detail supporting my feminist symbolism theories:
(spoilers in video below)
If that’s not enough to convince you, just search the feminazi blogsophere, they all loved it. That should be enough to warn you not to see this utter piece of trash.
The only redeeming qualities?
1.) Visually stunning.
2.) A cameo by one of the “Flight Of The Conchords” guys.
3.) A song intended to denigrate men, that became an accidental anthem for manhood.
“Toxic masculinity” created the civilizations that gave you the freedom to nag. You’re welcome.
I loved this film. Pay to see it. It’s long and tough to watch though, so prepare yourself.
Even as an agnostic, I thought this film brought up some great philosophical questions, with no obvious pushed conclusion. It’s left up to interpretation and felt more like a retelling of events than Christian propaganda. Obviously, it portrays faith in a positive light, so Christians will enjoy it, but in a more nuanced way than Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” or “Signs” so even militant atheists could get a kick out of it. Truly masterful writing with tons of symbolism, foreshadowing, and parallels. But I won’t focus so much on that aspect, since I’m sure most of the other reviews/blogs already do.
Besides, they say to write what you know; so as someone who lived in Japan for 2-ish years and also went to Japanese jail, I’ll stick to that. My experience behind bars was probably the most cataclysmic experience in my 20’s and part of what “redpilled” me into becoming pseudo Alt Right. Well, all my travels have shaped my current views about race/culture/religion, but it was the traumatic experience locked up, stuck with only my thoughts, that made these bottled up realizations come to the light. Of course, what I went through was not even a tiny, microscopic, fraction, of an iota of what this film is about. But let’s just say I could relate a bit…
ほんとうにへんなきもち。。。なつかしいおもいで、わるいおもいでいろいろがどうじに。
I wasn’t sure who to root for in the film. The Japanese who were fighting to hold onto their culture or the Gaijin I could identify with? No spoilers, but watching the dialogue between two foreigners (one older, one younger) felt like my idealistic pre international vagabond self, arguing with my post jail hardened rightwng self. The two of them were debating over the reoccurring analogy brought up in the film. The Japanese ruling class said that Christianity had no place there and could not grow. And that the foreigners didn’t even try to understand the faith and customs of the locals before imposing their ways. One priest explains that the Japanese “Christians” who were praying, weren’t praying to the same god that the Portuguese taught of. It was misinterpreted, soiled, and lost in translation. They prayed to physical objects and nature, as they were accustomed to. This was countered with saying that only the intense resistance from the higher ups was what kept Christianity from flourishing there, and that any race could welcome it equally.
This heated debate had me torn. It reminded me of when I went to Haiti. I saw the same thing. They are all “Christians” there. Like, hardcore bible thumpers who tried proselytizing me. But it wasn’t the same form of Christianity. All the so called “Christians” simultaneously practiced Voodoo and spit on their pee to prevent witch doctors from taking their souls. Likewise, my buddy went to Africa and told me about how the witch doctors there take AIDS medication provided from the West, and crush it up for some ceremony. Others synthesize an intoxicant from the medicine and get high from it instead.
We must take a people’s nature into consideration before trying to change a people’s ways. Is it wise to try and force Jeffersonian democracy on the Islamic tribes of Afghanistan? What is the best way to go about helping impoverished African countries? Perhaps just giving free stuff actually hurts their economy more, and perhaps encouraging mass migration fuels their brain drain problem.
Now, you can look at examples of places like South Korea and argue that Western culture and ethics made them better than before. As a Western chauvinist, I’d agree. But as a pro nationalist, it goes against my ethos of combating forced multicultural globalist crap. And let’s take that analogy in a different direction. In the film they show a test of faith, the Japanese outed secret Christians by making the villagers step on a picture of Jesus. Extreme vetting. Now, one could argue, their “xenophobic” and “brutal” ways are what allowed them to continue as the country we know today, and not some kind of Portuguese mixture like what we see the Philippines as. Perhaps if native Americans were as intolerant to foreigners as the Japanese were, they’d still own their lands?
These questions have never been more important to answer than they are right now. With the current “””refugee””” crisis raging on and technology allowing for migration to happen like never before, we MUST come to a concrete consensus before it’s too late. Clearly, 100% isolation creates oppressive and stagnant sh*tholes like North Korea. Martin Scorsese’s film, (like the Japanese themselves), address this. Western science and technology was indispensable for the little island even if Christianity never took root:
Furthermore, history is full of civilizations clashing and melding together. Cowboy hats originated from Mexicans, French fries are actually from Belgium, and the Japanese written language is from China. “Diversity” can unironically be a strength in some cases. And very often inevitable:
(language warning)
Where’s the balance, though? Which cultures and peoples should we discriminate against, and how much? If you don’t appreciate Muslims coming to your lands trying to convert and change your local population, then how do you feel about Christian missionaries doing the same in Africa? Yes, yes. I know what you’re thinking, “Muslims are violent and it’s a false comparison.” Or, “I wouldn’t mind Buddhists doing that.”
Exactly! We can no longer accept post modernist, bullsh*t cultural marxism in an increasingly connected Earth. Whether you’re a Christian, Alt Right, atheist, liberal, whatever, you MUST ponder these questions and come to a conclusion. Otherwise, the demographics who are convinced their way is the only way, will dominate. We must respect our traditions, for they are what got us here today, and make us who we are.
One of the many themes throughout the movie, is the assurance the Japanese give that they aren’t cruel or evil, but practical. As they see it, it is logical to torture the Christians for the greater good of their people. I’m not trying to say that the Japanese don’t have their own set of strong morals, but that they are based on different priorities. Things that have kept them a cohesive people on their own terms. I think the important takeaway from the film, is just the value of your peoples’ religious moral code. Jordan Peterson explains it best:
But as times change, so should we. Maybe the Christian “persecution complex” displayed in the film is part of why the West is disintegrating before our eyes. That turn the other cheek, altruistic, masochistic philosophy works great for keeping a society peaceful and intact. But as we saw with the Byzantine Empire, can be a death sentence…
For that reason alone, this film is worth seeing. Get the ‘ol noggin’ joggin. Spark some convos about what we can learn from each other as cultures. From history. But when you also take into account all of the gorgeous cinematography, acting, and clever script writing, it becomes an instant classic. 5 stars!
Go see it, now!
On a lighter note, if you want a great example of cultures mixing in harmony, I highly recommend watching the 19th episode of “Samurai Champloo.” [English subtitles][English voice dub]
It’s a more comedic interpretation of the Christian persecution in Japan. As you can see, they portray foreigners with HUGE noses. Something I had never noticed about white people in comparison to Asians until I lived there. Big noses are in the eye of the beholder, I guess…
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
It goes without saying, but if you are 100% convinced that he’s a traitor with no redeeming qualities, then you should skip this film. He is, afterall, the protagonist and things are dramatized to make him seem heroic. If you were on the fence, as I was, when I sat down to watch this film, then I highly suggest it. The movie does a great job of exploring this philosophical dilemma, while also making Snowden’s case. As Ben Shapiro frequently repeats, “Two things can be true at once.”
Perhaps, Snowden did American citizens a favor by exposing the overreach of the State, while also committing treason and harming the lives of American servicemen abroad. Furthermore, we’re given a false dichotomy over and over again: “Which would you rather? Terrorist attacks & privacy? OR safety & no privacy?” (－‸ლ)
“That’s why the National Security Act of 1947, creating the CIA, expressly prohibited the agency from engaging in domestic operations. Now we have to spy on Americans because of all the imported Tsarnaevs and Zazis. We have created two huge problems where none existed before — domestic terrorism and government spying — all to help the Democrats win elections by changing the electorate.
Not only do our post-1965 immigration policies create an unemployment problem, not only have they massively increased the crime rate, but now all Americans are being asked to give up their civil liberties to fulfill Teddy Kennedy’s dream of bringing the entire Third World to live right here in America. (And vote Democrat!)
When we’re referring to ‘American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki’ — provoking Rand Paul to carry on for 13 hours about Obama killing an ‘American citizen’ with a drone — the phrase ‘American citizen’ has lost its essential meaning. We don’t have a drone problem. We don’t have a spying problem. We have an immigration problem.”
I’m not trying to convince you Edward is a hero, (especially considering his Soros connections), but in order to enjoy this film it is ESSENTIAL that you are at least open to the positive aspects of his whistleblowing. So you ought to probe all the differing opinions on him once again now that things have died down a bit. When Snowden’s leaks first dropped, opinions were extremely polarized, but as you can see in this clip, both sides found some commonground when given time to reflect:
Another thing that’s essential to enjoy the film, is the ability to put yourself in his shoes. You can still judge him and think he’s a POS at the end of the day. But Oliver Stone and Joseph Gordon-Levitt really focus on his personal life and give its romance as much screentime as the leaks. The alternating storylines help add variety and keep the pacing. But they also achieve the film’s biggest goal: to humanize this figurehead and force you to empathize with his stress, paranoia, and the pressure looming over such a historical decision. You watch his character alter overtime from a hardcore patriot to a more skeptic dissident. (This linear transformation was exaggerated/simplified for the big screen of course; his views have always been scattered and he has been a Ron Paul supporter since at least 2008. Nevertheless, what he experienced in the field shaped his views today and make for a good chronicle.)
Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to say he should have handled things better. But what would you have done differently? Really. How do you think you’d have handled things in the heat of the moment? Facing those what-ifs in an intimate way is worth seeing the film in-and-of-itself.
Besides, Snowden doesn’t seem like such a bad guy when you start thinking about the pardoned freakshow that is Chelsea Manning, and the magnitude of danger “zir” unleashed onto our servicemen…
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Another point addressed in the movie is the downplaying of domestic terrorism in comparison to a government with too much power. It portrays the NSA/CIA as more concerned with the long game of preparing a counter to the possibility of a super power like Japan or Russia attacking us. All of this seems reasonable to me, but it’s obvious Oliver Stone is trying to validate Edward’s actions. Don’t worry, though. The film keeps all of this fairly subtle and doesn’t get preachy. They even criticize both Obama and Bush somewhat evenly.
The only thing that reminds you of the liberal bias in media is the pinch of affirmative action thrown in towards the end… Remember, it’s based on a true story. That means the equal outcome liberal fantasies are minimized in the script, but the director will still get yelled at for not having enough diversity, so they inevitably sneak in some 1984 type history “edits” wherever they can.
Thankfully, cultural marxism hasn’t soiled our society so much so that they’d cast an African American to play Edward Snowden, but it seems like they are inventing black people to inject into the plot. In the beginning, it’s realistic. A black drill sergeant, CIA agents, whatever. All things that probably happened in real life. But towards the end, (like with most movies thesedays), they start throwing in more and more. And even if it’s an insignificant role, it’s gotta’ be an honorable one. For example, a no name military drone pilot has to be a black woman. Okay. Fair enough. I’m sure there are some in real life. Why not? But one of the geniuses Snowden gets paired with is an Urkel type. And just like with “The Martian,” the black nerd plays a crucial role in the climax of the film. And guess what? Both actors are also rappers in real life. ?
“‘Man, why does every black actor gotta rap some?’ I don’t know, all I know is I’m the best one”
I went to the IMDb page and noticed that they only added “(as so-and-so)” to black characters. ?
It’s not that every black actor had this next to their name, but everyone with this next to their name, happened to be a black person. Perhaps this is for legal purposes to avoid libel laws? Maybe it’s just the actor’s choice and it’s a coincidence? I donno. Just speculation. But I tried and couldn’t find anything on the real Patrick Hayes… I think the racists in Hollywood blackwashed history again.
I first discovered Hollywood filling the gaps of “based on a true story” movies with POC when I saw “The Big Short.” Same thing. It’s all a bunch of white people in real life so they had to invent things to appease the disillusioned “equal outcome” audience members. So sure enough, the climax of that movie also depends on the help of a totally bad-ass black chick, Kathy Tao. (Nice Asian name… (ಠ_ఠ?) I searched everywhere, and couldn’t find anything on her either.
Pretty sure Patrick and Kathy are as fictional as the rapper scientist is in “The Martian.” If anyone can prove me wrong, please do. Being red pilled is exhausting… :/
Another minor criticism, is that the antagonist of the film is a bit cliché and melodramatic. Not as one dimensional as James Cameron’s bad guy, but a bit cheesy like ’em:
Oh well, that’s bound to happen when trying to make computers exciting. All things considered, I think Oliver Stone handled this task wonderfully; the final product is an intense film that will engage you either philosophically or emotionally throughout. Go see it and pay to do so!
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
Man… this had so much potential. Instead of making it an action packed blockbuster alien invasion movie, they decided to focus on character development and emphasize the POV. A very similar opening to “28 Days Later” or “Walking Dead.” Which amplifies the intensity more than any big budget explosion sequence ever could. You’re forced to wonder what it’d be like if that happened to you. Before you even know about the characters, you feel a bond.
They even have a brave and eager male lead contrasted with the nervous and overwhelmed female lead. Again, the connection grows as the characters relate to real people in your life. Then ever so gradually, the film sneaks in jabs here and there. It starts with the main boss being a black man. No biggie. Not in your face, but the oppression olympics were made clear. And blacks rank higher on the victim hierarchy, then women, then white guys. Which – coincidentally – matched perfectly with the level of authority the 3 main characters were given. ? But they didn’t pay too close of attention to it so it could have been easily dismissed if the rest of the movie didn’t play out as it did.
Another positive element to the movie was its approach to alien life. No spoilers, but it always bugged me that Hollywood lazily based their aliens off of animals on Earth. In this film they get a bit creative and try their best to make things as foreign as possible. Fascinating premise. Completely soiled. :/
I’ll try avoid giving away the third act, but just know things get exponentially worse. They sneak in some cheap shots at Alex Jones (or some online conservative gun nut like him), and then slip in a southern accent for some dumb soldiers as well. And the original realistic, yet strong female lead thing is just scrapped 20 minutes in, as they have to make it 100% clear to the morons watching, that a woman needs a man as much as a fish needs a bicycle. To be fair, there are white people in positions of power higher than that one black guy, but guess what? They make whitey the bad guy. (⊙０⊙) He’s an irrational warhawk that continuously butts heads with the main chick, despite all her efforts to talk some sense into him. Doesn’t he get it? We’re just afraid of things we don’t understand. But if we show kindness, the entire world can get along, speak Esperanto, and sing Kumbaya. #LoveTrumpsHate
If only it wasn’t for those cocksure cis scum men who rule things… ◔_◔ The dumb broad even alludes to the worn out logic Islam Apologists make. You know, how they say that if we admit that Muslims are correlated with violence, that we will radicalize more with our “us v.s. them” rhetoric. It can’t possibly be that some cultures and races truly want to harm us. No. We are just misunderstanding them and making them respond violently. So we need to be careful. Maybe if we turn the apple gun emoji into a toy gun, that’ll help… ? Huh, I think they’re really onto something with this film. Let’s get more females in positions of power. We should base all of our most crucial decisions on emotion. Especially ones that the fate of humanity rest upon. ?
Similar to “The Martian” they make China play a central role and even say Pakistan helped with an essential discovery. Geeze! ( ˘ ､ ˘ ) Thanks a lot, Drumpf. You’ve isolated our great ally, Pakistan, with all your “America First” talk. Now we’re doomed if there’s a global catastrophe. How can we solve the energy crisis without the magic Djinn techniques of Pakistan’s nuclear engineers?
The anti-nationalism and pro globalist d**k riding is strong in this movie. And it gets stronger and stronger with each scene. They also try ripping off “Interstellar” and fail miserably. And before you think I’m just a nay-saying right-winger who’ll complain about every movie, I shed a tear during “Interstellar.” But “Arrival’s” dull soundtrack and weak chemistry made that feat impossible. There’s also some “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” themes tossed in as well, but they just fall flat. I’ll admit it, I was engrossed throughout this film. But not with the characters’ personal lives, but rather the mind experiment put forth. And since the mind experiment was essentially one big PSA for gun control and the UN, it made this film not worth seeing. Even if it’s free. Don’t bother.
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
It’s weird, they seemed to have cast their version of Gaston based on Robbie Rotten (pictured above), and a La Fou based on Jack Black. But couldn’t afford the original actors. All things considered, those 2 personas were fitting choices for the live action adaptation. And speaking of La Fou, all the hype about him being gay made my expectations of this film very low, but it really wasn’t that bad. I was preparing for some intrusive gay rights crap added to the script, or at the very least some inappropriate Labyrinth type f■■gotry…
Which is why I was totally unprepared and sideswiped when bombarded with “diversity” in the first 20 seconds. I heard no fuss about the affirmative action in this one, so it came out of left field for me. Very over the top, though, so I couldn’t help but laugh. It’s like they had to cram in as much as they could right away to get SJW’s off their back. A few slight “Imma’ strong woman and don’t need no man” moments but nothing infuriating like Star Wars. Just brace yourselves and expect the first 30 minutes to be a bit frustrating.
Then come all of the redeeming qualities during the middle hour of the movie. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the ’91 version and I don’t enough care to rewatch it, but from what I remember it’s VERY similar to the original. Which is why it’s bittersweet. Yet another Hollywood reboot, capitalizing on our nostalgia while simultaneously ruining it with hidden agendas. Anyway, the elements that were kept are quite beautiful. The extended metaphor is absolutely fitting for the roles men and women play in real life. We need each other. Much like the prince before he was cursed, bachelors can lead a life of hedonism and simple pleasures. Becoming narcissistic, cold, selfish, and self-destructive. I’ve seen many guys get rescued from the downward spiral of drinking themselves into depression and playing video games all day at a dead end job, by meeting a sweet girl.
Likewise, I’ve seen countless cat lady spinsters who could really use a bit of structure and cold, sternness to get their lives in order. Not to mention the complete paradigm shift of the mind once a person has a child of their own. All those silly platitudes melt away as they harness their emotions for good: protecting their children’s future. (I’m lookin’ at you Merkel…) But even without kids, married couples rub off on each other, (pardon the pun), as the man learns to think more micro and the woman thinks more macro.
Statistics show this for both genders, too. Men tend to be motivated to work harder and get raises when they have a family to provide for. And women tend to find true happiness in interpersonal relationships and keeping their home as a castle. These are all great themes to teach your kids.
And it finds a good balance for the feminists – like Belle’s reinventor, Linda Woolverton, who apparently emphasized back in ’91 that Belle not just be a one dimensional damsel in distress, but rather a bookworm with other goals and aspirations aside from marriage. (Yep… Hollywood’s been pushing its revisionist history agenda for quite some time now, but in this instance it seems sensible IMHO.) I watched this with my girlfriend and I could see her get giddy whenever Belle was showered in decadent beauty. But unlike other Hollywood romances that appeal to a female’s desires to be worshipped for merely existing, Belle isn’t a gold digger, and she isn’t leading Gaston on in a love triangle like the thot in the Twilight series. Instead, she earns her keep and you see a very charming harmony grow between the main characters as they both learn to balance out their feminine/masculine elements. Normally, this lack of creativity in rehashing old stories would bug me, but I was won over because of how low my expectations were going in. If I had a daughter, I would be totally okay if she saw this movie with a friend, but I wouldn’t pay to see it. Maybe I’d just torrent it if my kid insisted, or better yet, rent the 90’s version. You can do as you please. ?
Similar to the Jungle Book, you don’t know how much affirmative action is shoved down your throat, because the majority is computer animation. (And just in case you’ve been living in a cave – spoiler alert – they don’t stay as inanimate objects forever.) So the last 30 minutes are frustrating. Maybe sneak a flask into the theater and play a drinking game: a shot for every mixed race couple you spot. And of course, they put an out of place looking black guy right up front in the mob. And wouldn’t ya know it? He’s the only one who seems unafraid of the beast when the rest of the stupid white people are outraged. ◔_◔ Also, there’s some jokes about La Fou being a gay and a crossdressing joke with other side characters. Don’t stress it, ‘cuz it’ll likely go over your kids’ heads, and if you were oblivious to Disney’s new management shoving cultural marxismprogress down our throats, you’d let it slide too.
In fact, if the same gay jokes were in the original cartoon, you would just laugh at it, and SJW’s would be outraged. Context is everything, I guess. So try your best to ignore it. The diversity on the other hand, is impossible to ignore but at least it’s not anti-white, so you can take it lightheartedly. Yes, it’s a kids cartoon. But there have been many great kids cartoons that appeal to all age groups, and it’s an art that Disney and Pixar have mastered before. But sadly, they missed out on developing a deeper connection with the mature audience members this time. Imagine, you start to get lost in the rich 1700’s scenery, you put yourself in the shoes of the traumatized post Bubonic Plague generation, and you begin to forget you’re watching a cartoon as you analyze the subtle facial features of a duo in denial of their growing sexual tension… and right as you start to feel some faint, slight flickering of sentimentality– BAM!
Every. Frickin. Time. As soon as the fourth wall left your mind, they’d unintentionally SMASH it to pieces for PC’s sake. Nevertheless, this movie could have been worse. I say don’t support this film out of protest of the gay/diversity stuff they’re jammin’ into every Disney movie, even if in this instance it wasn’t so bad. As for Emma Watson? She tries to be an activist, but it’s all with good intentions and never as inflammatory as other actors. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ No big deal.
So, if you’re with people who are watching it, it’s worth sitting through. Just don’t pay.
I didn’t put any “Anti-God” points because only the very strictly religious would have a problem with the talk of the force. Star Wars has always shown spirituality and faith in a positive light. Although, on this one they make it seem like more of an Eastern religion than a Christian one, I guess. No big deal. Pretty sure George Lucas “culturally appropriated” ancient Kung Fu stuff when he came up with all the Jedi concepts in the first place. That aspect of the film felt fitting.
As far as the actual movie goes, it was better than “The Force Awakens,” but that’s not saying much. They really amped up the affirmative action on this one with the cast, but the anti-white nazi themes weren’t as in your face. Still obvious undertones, but no red banners/roman salutes… and *gasp* there were even some good guy whiteys! ?
Pretty frustrating to have this insane revisionist history going on in all aspects of our lives, though. If you don’t know the premise, just know that it’s a prequel that takes away some of episode 4’s accomplishments. Moral of the story: the white man can only achieve things by stepping on the backs of minorities. ( ﾟｏ⌒) It’s funny that they can claim “artistic expression” or that it’s just fantasy, so they can do what they want when it comes to Sci-Fi or things like the musical, “Hamilton.” But having rape scenes in “Game Of Thrones” or wanting white characters to fit the feel of a medieval setting is not allowed. That’s racist. Tsk tsk tsk.
To be honest, I zoned out for a lot of this movie. Just lots of cookie cutter action scenes and Michael Bay type explosions. Which is weird, because there were a lot of deaths in this (no spoilers) and so I should have felt something… at least once. Now, if it’s possible to try and take off my crazy right wing tin foil hat for a second, and attempt to look at this objectively, I think I can still say that there really wasn’t much character development to allow the viewer to feel a connection. (Nor charisma or chemistry for that matter.) Nothing even close to the father figure relationship between Luke and Obi-Wan. Or the tension between Han Solo and Leia. Ironically, the breakout star was the blunt robot sidekick with a programming error that removed his filter so he talked like an autistic Sheldon type.
But other than that, it was just Star Wars by numbers. Except with a bunch of strong minorities bossing people around instead. The one part that got me excited was Darth Vader’s cameo. If you don’t care about spoilers, go and google it. Pretty bad ass.
Oh man… what’s happening? (ʘ_ʘ) I used to root for the good guy. Way to go, Hollywood. Your incessant preaching has turned me into a fascist. Thanks a lot.
People debate about how Anti-Trump the plot was. I didn’t sense it at all. I just sensed the multicultural shtick throughout. But apparently the writers tweeted some political stuff and then quickly deleted it. No surprise there; of course the writing room is full of left-wingers – duh. It’s just a matter of how much their biases have affected the finished product.
The thing that irks me, is that when you talk about all the hidden meanings you’re dismissed as “just as crazy as SJW’s.” But that’s a cop out. The truth is that Hollywood has a liberal agenda. And I can point you to dozens of interviews where the creators openly admit it. The same cannot be said for supposed racism/sexism in current films. In the 60’s? Sure. Nowadays??? They’re just looking for things to get offended about.
My side of the political spectrum just wants to enjoy films without the BS. Who cares if there’s a black guy or a woman lead? That’s nothing new. Just don’t make that the main focus of the film when it doesn’t need to be. Don’t make every bad guy a white person. Don’t avoid stereotypes so much that you make the roles unrelatable and lifeless.
In the end, the same goes for this as for what I said in my review of “The Force Awakens”:
“Boycott this film 100%. Star Wars movies never flop because it has such a cult following and cultural legacy surrounding the brand. Even the prequels everyone hated made good money. Which is why you can be sure that you’ll see this movie at a friends house or on TV eventually if you haven’t already. DO NOT rent it online or buy the DVD.”
This was the first movie that pushed me into making this site. I had been living abroad for a while and hadn’t kept up with new movies and their trends. I remember hearing about the “Boycott Star Wars” hashtag and thinking it was silly. After all, who cares if there’s a black guy or a woman in it?
But then when visiting home I saw it and was severely disappointed. I kept waiting for things to get good. It just got worse with each scene. The only white men in it were evil pieces of sh*t. And everybody’s already known that the Storm Troopers were supposed to be nazis. But at least before, the parallels were somewhat subtle. Now they all of a sudden have red banners and a roman-type salute jammed in there. It’s not about diversity, it’s about shoving an agenda in your face. (－‸ლ)
It took an hour to see a single white man and when you do it’s a blue-eyed blonde man, maniacally ranting and raving with veins popping out of his forehead. JJ Abrams’ agitprop couldn’t be more obvious if he tried. Just absolutely horrible writing.
I get it. It’s a pendulum swing from George Lucas’ racial stereotypes from the previous films. And let’s be honest, unless you’re a die hard Star Wars apologist, George’s aliens… let’s say…lacked depth.
Which is why I was hopeful about this movie before seeing it. I thought things would just be more balanced out. Nope. Without giving away too much, the entire plot is just everything in reverse. HARD reverse. Like broken transmission, Tokyo drift, flip 20 times, land in a ditch and start on fire kind of reverse. Instead of having a normal Will Smith black guy, this one had to be the farthest thing from even the slightest inkling of a racist stereotype. So he is a super effeminate pacifist with no athletic abilities at all. At one point he tries to save the girl protagonist in a chase scene, which ends when she kicks so much ass that his jaw literally drops in astonishment at how much of a feminist bad ass she is. ◔_◔
And then they made Han Solo a sad divorcee type father figure past his prime. Even he isn’t allowed to be cool anymore. Which could have been a cute gag if it wasn’t shoved down our throats with all the other anti-white stuff. Being a physically unfit doddering old man wasn’t enough. He had to be emasculated in terms of his beloved Millennial Falcon too. I’ll let you guess which of the new “diverse” characters knew more about his ship than he did and had to help him. Either way, the message was clear: f**k white men.
Now, you may think I’m crazy if you’re not as upset about this new Blaxploitation 2.0 fad we’re going through as a society. Maybe you’re right. Many of my peers who noticed the PC stuff just ignored it and enjoyed the action. But even so, many left wingers and run-of-the-mill Star Wars nerds were upset at how easily one of the Jedi characters achieved such a high skill level in such a short time.
? Spoiler Alert? (Click to view)
Apolitical reviewer addressing the ‘diversity’ aspect of the film:
⚠ Warning! This video contains foul language and spoilers! ⚠
No spoilers, but surely this forced agenda of trying to empower “diversity” characters has soiled the script. Gavin McInnes said something to the affect of, “They tried so hard to make the black guy non threatening, that he had the personality of a dish rag.” Which is really a shame, because the original Finn seemed pretty cool…
And apparently, making him black wasn’t enough, he’s gonna’ be gay too… Does that mean he actually is a stereotype since he was such a sissy throughout the film? Bet that’ll piss off the majority of African Americans who are openly homophobic without remorse, as well as trigger the SJWs for being “problematic.” Hmmm, maybe they’ll just make Luke gay instead.
Boycott this film 100%. Star Wars movies never flop because it has such a cult following and cultural legacy surrounding the brand. Even the prequels everyone hated made good money. Which is why you can be sure that you’ll see this movie at a friends house or on TV eventually if you haven’t already. DO NOT rent it online or buy the DVD.
Of all the super hero movies coming out lately, it was fairly creative and an interesting take. Great scenario, great cast, and it even got pretty good ratings from other conservatives. But as Sonny Bunch points out, X-Men is beating a dead horse with the cliché civil rights analogy. And for me, the Mexican immigration under overtones were too much too handle. Sure enough, the main antagonist was an evil white male (with a southern drawl) leading a group of evil white men (in military garb) who hunt down little minority orphans through the woods. Instead of focusing on this dystopian future’s white genocide, it focuses on Logan’s heroic white knight actions that secure the existence of a little Mexican girl on her journey to the utopia that is Canada.
Gee, wouldn’t it be great if Hollywood liberals actually followed through with their threats and moved to Canada instead of just propagandizing for it? ◔_◔ Well, at least Justin Cuckdeau is making this film’s dream become a reality with his lift of visa requirements for Mexicans. Perfect timing to encourage more self deportation under the Trump admin. Canada, YES! Rescue as many mutants–er, I mean, Mexican refugees as possible, Justin!
One scene shows a Mexican mother fleeing from evil whitepeople who are preying on the little girl, and while running away, the mother takes the time to tell the camera how the evil whitepeople discriminate against her and “think that [Mexicans] are stupid, but that [Mexicans] aren’t.” Or something to that effect. And then another part of the movie shows a bunch of evil white hicks harassing the innocent black farmer who is hosting Wolverine. Of course, Logan performs some more white knight martial arts, and pays the black man back for his hospitality by beating up the evil racists. I could go on and on, but I don’t want to spoil too much, and you get the idea. Aside from a couple cholos that get beat up, it’s pretty much nonstop Caucasian bashing for 2 hours.
Sorry, but the racism was just too much to handle; could not enjoy this whatsoever. Skip it!
Fantastic! Take your kids to see this one for sure. Absolutely gorgeous animation and a worthwhile reboot that brought something new to the experience while staying true to what made the original great. Very tough balance, but Favreau did it.
The only reason the Affirmative Action ratings have points is because after watching the movie, I watched the voice actors. A good chunk of the main characters are “people of color.” But you would have never known it was the case since everyone has an animal avatar. There were no sassy black stereotypes or victim narratives, just charming British accents with baritone vocal chords. And of course, it makes perfect sense for the main character to be Indian due to the setting of the movie and its original character. Both SJWs and rightwingers can be pleased with the casting choices on this one.
The parts where the film deviated from the Disney cartoon, were perfect. My memories from the Disney classic are vague, but there are enough easter egg references to give you that nostalgic feel. Plus, we’ve never had the technology to allow for the anthropomorphic equilibrium on display here. All of the tiniest mannerisms mimicked the zoo on point; it was only the facial features that gave them the human touch necessary to get invested emotionally.
Bill Murray and Christopher Watkins’ characters couldn’t have been casted better, and made things a bit more multidimensional, so the adult viewers could stay engaged. Which was easy throughout, because there was definitely a darker feel to this film – apparently staying truer to the original 1894 book by Kipling than the Disney counterpart. No wonder this was an impressive film! Worth seeing even if you have no youngins.
The motifs are ambiguous enough to leave it up to the viewer’s interpretation. No strong propaganda, aside from the usual “man is destroying nature” dynamic we see time and time again. Which is why I gave it a smidgen of “Anti-Patriotism” in the ratings. Just another cliché “noble savage” message. But this was done tastefully and could even be argued to have been in defense of man, rather than nature. Without giving any spoilers, the other strong themes emphasized were:
1.) respect tradition to keep social cohesion
2.) recognize your differences, accept the weaknesses and strengths alike
3.) with great power comes great responsibility
Again, this could be because it was following Kipling’s plot moreso, but I didn’t sense any subtle liberal undertones. This movie could even spark a great convo with your kids about nationalism and multiculturalism from a realistic perspective.
My take on the biggest moral of the story:
One other thing to take note of: the infamous Scarlett Johansson has a cameo in this film. It’s brief, so even if you really hate her for all her stupid political activism, she’s easily ignored. Not worth boycotting, IMHO. Check it out, and pay for it, if you’d like!
Want a good twist? M. Night Shammalammadingdong is back! I loved this movie. Keeps you on the edge of your seat and guessing throughout. And thanks to the amazing performance by James McAvoy, (reminiscent of Andy Serkis’ award winning performance as Gollum), this movie actually has replay value, unlike the other M. Night films that lose their gusto once the surprise is spoiled. Of course, to enjoy this movie as much as I did, you have to be a fan of psychological thrillers. If you’re not, you might consider it. Especially, when you take into account the recent game-changers: Stranger Things, It Follows, and The Babadook. It seems like cookie cutter super hero movies are on their way out, and artsy horror flicks are on their way in.
As for the Hollywood BS ratings, this was a breath of fresh air. The opening scene worried me, but everything works out. There are no political agendas shoved into the plot, only some philosophical themes left up to interpretation. The only reason I gave it ½ a misandry point was because of the strong female protagonists fighting against the evil man, but this seemed merely coincidental. Don’t worry, no feminist crap, just women using realistic means to protect themselves throughout.
Also, great script and chemistry between the cast so you fall in love with the characters and are unsure who to root for, like with the Hannibal TV series. Although, some of the supporting cast acted in a peculiar way, so I was unable to tell if it was amateur or intentional in order to keep the audience questioning everyone’s sanity. Either way the final performances accomplished their goal… well, except for Jessica Sula. Great eye candy, but not the best at emoting. :/
Now, if you kept up with the Pizzagate investigation, this movie will freak you out for its premise alone. Do yourself a favor and watch the documentary, “Who Took Johnny” and watch some interviews with Kim Noble before seeing Split. The similarities will make your skin crawl because Shyamalan clearly did his research on Dissociative Identity Disorder before working on the script. And regardless of how skeptical you are of Pizzagate claims, doing research on D.I.D. victims and being aware of the grotesque/harsh reality of our underworld will amplify your movie going experience tenfold. For better or for worse…
On a lighter note, this movie triggered SJW’s for its portrayal of crazy people and trannies. For that reason alone, you should throw your money at M. Night. 😉
The anti-god themes rating was only there for the most strict religious followers to be warned: reincarnation is a core theme of the movie. But it doesn’t preach anything and feels very heartwarming throughout. The average setting is in a farm town with characters out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Perhaps all these reboots and period pieces represent a subconscious longing for the pre 1965 Immigration Act era, whose demographic changes are shown as the plot of the movie advances in the timeline. Don’t worry, though, all the “people of color” felt natural and didn’t inject random social justice plot lines. The only thing that will irk you (if you are to look for it) is that the only bad guys/negative characters in the movie (4 & 1/2 total) are white men. Surprise surprise. ◔_◔
If you’re sick of Hollywood’s father bashing, then you might want to skip this film…
And the cop characters are “people of color.” But this doesn’t distract from the movie too much and is done fairly tastefully. Seemed like more of a casting choice to avoid SJW complaints, rather than SJW directors trying to push an agenda. There are quite a few dysfunctional families, but they don’t glorify single motherhood, quite the opposite. Which is a big plus for the movie: they encourage living in the moment, prioritizing love, and persevering in hopes for a strong family unit.
They casted a voice actor with a similar voice to Michael J. Fox for a reason; yet another nostalgic rehash of an older movie. Except this was apparently based on a book. So, much better premise than “Homeward Bound” and overall more interesting for the adult viewer. But at times, the drama felt unnecessary and forced. I found myself often just frustrated with the characters’ stupidity rather than sympathetic as the director intended. But as with most book-to-film adaptations, poor plot devices can be attributed to trying to cram a novel into only 2 hours. For those who read the book, here are the differences (spoiler alert).
I never read the book, but I’m sure that some of the clever justifications for the plot to move along in a seamless fashion got scraped for times sake, or events swapped out to reach a wider audience for profit’s sake. Oh well, it’s to be expected. Nevertheless, the story draws you in and you get caught up in the sappiness of it all. Which is why it might be a bit heavy for young viewers. It’s family friendly, but very sad throughout so make sure your kids are old enough to handle deep themes. If they are, this could be the perfect film to spark philosophical discussions and/or address a death in the family.
Pay to watch it if your kids wanna’ see it, but don’t go out of your way to view it on your own. If you miss this one, that’s okay. Great premise and cute story, but lots of cliché filler scenes for the majority of the film.
•「”Anti-God Themes”」 rates the amount of slander towards Christian ethics.
»»————————————————–¤————————————————–««
• 0 = apolitical or conservative
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are non-existent or the theme(s) *gasp* lean right.
(E.g. The EPA depicted as bad guys v.s. the entrepreneur good guys in “Ghostbusters.”
• 1 = fitting
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) seem realistic and don’t feel forced.
(E.g. The homosexual/atheist aspects of “The Imitation Game” were based on a true story.)
• 3 = bit preachy
‣‣‣ If the liberal theme(s) are one-sided and take up a significant focus of the movie.
(E.g. The affirmative action aspects of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”)
• 5 = overwhelming
‣‣‣If the liberal theme(s) are too much to handle and ruin the movie.
(E.g. The pro gun control, anti-white aspects of “The Purge: Anarchy.”)
Review / Rant:
Great movie. Definitely worth supporting. The gay thing didn’t bother me at all because that was a crucial factor in what became of Alan Turing’s life. I was just happily surprised that they didn’t do some Hollywood revisionist history and inject “diversity.”
Also, since it’s about fighting the nazis they can portray the white people as protagonists. Since, ya know, the antagonists were other white people. Only in these types of war films is it okay to portray a simplistic (pardon the pun) black and white, good v.s. evil plot. If Alan Turing helped to create the atom bomb, you better believe this movie would paint him in a negative light… But I digress, this was an awesome movie all things considered. Great acting all around and fairly historically accurate for Hollywood. Also a truly important story to be told. Both of the stories that they jump back and forth between: his homosexual struggles in an oppressive society and how he worked thanklessly to help win the war.
We must learn from our past. But the degradation of the family unit is directly correlated with the degeneracy of our society. Opponents of same sex marriage were accused of using the “slippery slope fallacy.” I used to argue this point myself back in the day. But now that I see society advocating against basic facts of biology and celebrating child abuse… I am starting to think the traditionalists were right.
There is a balance between the way we used to treat our sexual “deviants” as we did with Turing, and the absolute insanity we have going on now. Surely this story was chosen to be told because of the political standings of the Hollywood elites, but if you try to ignore that and look at things objectively, you can enjoy the lessons from this biopic.
Not all heroes fought on the front lines. And not all heroes fit the macho mold. And as technology advances maybe wars will be determined by the beta males with a tech fetish more often than not… ? #BetaMaleUprising
^ (
^ (
^ (
^ (
(Seems Jewish but can’t confirm.)
via:
via:
via:
Want a good twist? M. Night Shammalammadingdong is back! I loved this movie. Keeps you on the edge of your seat and guessing throughout. And thanks to the amazing performance by James McAvoy, (reminiscent of Andy Serkis’ award winning performance as Gollum), this movie actually has replay value, unlike the other M. Night films that lose their gusto once the surprise is spoiled. Of course, to enjoy this movie as much as I did, you have to be a fan of psychological thrillers. If you’re not, you might consider it. Especially, when you take into account the recent game-changers: Stranger Things, It Follows, and The Babadook. It seems like cookie cutter super hero movies are on their way out, and artsy horror flicks are on their way in.
Also, great script and chemistry between the cast so you fall in love with the characters and are unsure who to root for, like with the Hannibal TV series. Although, some of the supporting cast acted in a peculiar way, so I was unable to tell if it was amateur or intentional in order to keep the audience questioning everyone’s sanity. Either way the final performances accomplished their goal… well, except for Jessica Sula. Great eye candy, but not the best at emoting. :/
throughout. The average setting is in a farm town with characters out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Perhaps all these reboots and period pieces represent a subconscious longing for the pre 1965 Immigration Act era, whose demographic changes are shown as the plot of the movie advances in the timeline. Don’t worry, though, all the “people of color” felt natural and didn’t inject random social justice plot lines. The only thing that will irk you (if you are to look for it) is that the only bad guys/negative characters in the movie (4 & 1/2 total) are white men. Surprise surprise. ◔
