I remember briefly seeing a trailer for this film in passing and thought it was a horror film. Within the first 10 minutes it seems pretty dumb and goofy until you realize that it’s a dark comedy. They lower your expectations from the get go and every scene afterwards gets compoundingly more clever. For example, it starts with the easy one liner phrases that the lowest common denominator will get like the antagonists saying “dumb redneck” and the protagonists saying “snowflake.”
But eventually the dialogue gets into open-to-interpretation stuff like the revisionist tortoise & hare analogy that pointed out how Right-Wingers are so used to being in the upper echelons that they have rested on their laurels and are now being cucked by the tards.
Loved the Kill Bill homage and having a tig ‘ol bitty blue eyed blonde as the lead was awesome even if there are unintentional feminist undertones that must come with a twig beating people up. But it’s a somewhat slapstick comedy and her backstory explains her bad ass-ness away so relax.
Oh and Dennis from Always Sunny was great it in this and I had no idea he was in it. Only briefly though. To be honest, the film was only a 3/5 star film, but as a super biased Right-Winger I fell in love with it. But even if you are a Centrist the way the plot evolves will likely win you over by the time it’s over. The bias against liberal elites was clear but there’s enough self-deprecating jabs at us conspiracy theorists, White trash, and Fox News Boomers to make it bearable for moderate lefties too.
Very charming. Definitely watch and support!
Most older movies have really slow pacing and bad timing. And rarely are timeless. Although this film isn’t as fluid as other classics like “Casablanca” it still stands up to this day. Just give it some time to get into the plot (around 25 minutes or so).
Without spoiling too much, it’s basically a super redpilled movie on the failings of democracy. Not quite a “Might Makes Right” conclusion, but a more pragmatic realpolitik “people are dumb lemmings” social commentary. Their depiction of police is fitting for today’s day and age as well. Right Wingers need to wake up and realize “Blue Lives Matter” ain’t it. Stop being bootlickers and understand the law only has as much value as the people backing it with violence say it does.
There’s even a cameo by the very genuine & authentic, Mitt Romney:
I am fully aware that my new pseudonym sounds pretentious and gay. I’m just being cheeky and having fun with English. My old pen name was “Libertarian Agnostic” but decided I should do the test again since my views have changed quite a bit since I started blogging. And also because it looks bad to only have staff reviews by the same guy over and over. But obviously if I am telling you this I am not trying to make a sock puppet account and be deceptive. Full transparency. ^_^
Anyways, the TL;DR is that I am a race realist who generally likes freedom but has gotten increasingly socially conservative the older I get. But I also understand that bloated authoritarian organizations create inefficiencies, suffering, corruption, etc. So when I meet people IRL and don’t want to sound like a complete f**got I’ll just say I’m an independent. Or if they seem somewhat political I’ll just say I’m a Paleo-Conservative or Minarchist Libertarian. Truth be told, I’m a one issue voter: immigration. And have lost faith in the system after the 2020 election and probably won’t vote again. That’s okay though ‘cuz I think we are gonna’ balkanize regardless. Hopefully sooner rather than later but could be a couple decades. Who knows?
But just for fun, lemme’ LARP and speculate in more detail.
My most recent test results (June, 2021):
For screenshots of every answer I gave on the test along with an unedited verbal diarrhea explanation click below:
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
5th.) Falling Down
6th.) American Beauty
7th.) The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
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.
• rape jokes
• gay jokes
• fat jokes
• sexual harassment jokes
• mental health jokes
• beastiality jokes
• racist jokes
• transphobic jokes
• midget jokes
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.
PS: Fun fact: it was directed by Bob Saget!
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.
This movie came out almost 30 years ago- in 1993- and garnered countless nominations and awards. It is one of those movies that showcase a year in the life of a person or a family with all their hardships but with no real purpose in the end. There is no payoff. There is thankfully no agenda, but this maybe due to it having been made so long ago. Depp and DiCaprio are at the beginning of their A-list acting careers, but it is reminiscent in content (certainly not in quality) of the sitcom Roseanne. It is 2 hours of brutish people doing brutish things. Those sorts of films never, in the end, make me feel good.
I guess I’d pay for it (I know even though I said what I said) but it was so critically acclaimed and the beginning of both their careers…. maybe just for that reason. I am glad I watched it, since it’s considered a movie classic to some extent.
The Last Boy Scout is a super raunchy, gory, and incoherent buddy cop movie by the same guy that did Top Gun. There surprisingly isn’t a lot of the, “white guys walk like this, while black guys walk like this,” humor and the race of the cops doesn’t seem to play huge role in the plot or dialogue. Don’t worry though, there is some Hollywood bull crap for sure.
One of the first scenes we see in this film is Damon Wayans character in bed with a white super model. This is shortly followed by his character being a proper female chauvinist and saving another white woman from being harassed by a fellow white football player. This was definitely the most unbelievable scene in the movie (for comparison, there’s a scene where a guy falls into the blades of helicopter – much more realistic). Hollywood wants us to believe that a washed up, drug addicted NFL quarterback comes to the safety of a prostitute! But finally, the movie gets rational and we see this character in a seedy Los Angeles strip club where his girlfriend works (Halle Berry).
Bruce Willis’ character is a disgusting, depressed, lowlife that once cared about morals and values. Throughout the film we see him berate his wife and daughter, drink constantly, and only care about himself. However, with the encouragement of his new black friend, he slowly regains his righteousness and saves the day. Thank God for drug addicted hoodrats!
Besides the egregious scenes in the beginning, there isn’t too much leftism in the movie. One of the villains appears to be gay, but they don’t make a point of it or shove it in your face. The main antagonists are of course an evil white rich men, what’s new? The movie itself is definitely not for children though, as there is nudity, vulgar language, and violence throughout the entire film. If you like 90’s action movies, but don’t want to rewatch Die Hard, this is a decent movie you should watch for free (just start it 20 minutes in to avoid the beginning scenes).
I was curious to see this only because it had won best picture at the Academy Awards last year and I have found that any best picture is usually voted ‘best’ for a reason. It turns out it is an extremely well made movie. For almost the entire length of the film, (which by the way is subtitled), it is hard to tell what will happen next which is always a good sign in a script. The set up takes a large portion of the film, and as many movies do, near the end events start to get exaggerated. There is no agenda that I can remember and overall it has a good, original storyline. This is all topped off by the fact that it is the very first best picture awarded to a foreign film.
Days of Thunder is an action/drama by Tony Scott (same guy that did Top Gun) starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. It is pretty much a less exciting Top Gun, but about NASCAR. If you are a fan of NASCAR though, it will probably be more enjoyable.
Overall, it was still refreshing to watch a ‘normal’ Hollywood movie with almost no liberal agenda. The most Hollywood part of it all was the premise that one of the best NASCAR drivers was a random guy from Los Angeles. Other than that, there is no affirmative action, no overwhelming feminism, and the acting is pretty decent. I also learned quite a bit about NASCAR and ended up watching the Daytona 500 a few weeks later.
Fun fact: John C. Reilly stars in this movie as a mechanic. He later starred in Talladega Nights, a parody of Days Of Thunder. Both movies even mentions using the ‘sling shot’ method to win races. Check this movie out for a good ol’ American film about one of America’s favorite past-times.
Even in 1993 Hollywood was pushing diversity and immigration in America. I watched this movie once when I was a kid and laughed at the silly antics and childish slapstick humor. What I didn’t realize was how the antagonist of the movie is an evil conservative bureaucrat set out to deport all illegal immigrants. Throughout the entire movie, the director Steve Barron negatively depicts the antagonist trying his hardest to enforce the law. In one scene we see him yelling at a boat of migrants, telling them they cannot come into the U.S. (ironically he says something which most Americans would agree with today, “We appreciate your situation, but we have problems of our own”). In another, he is pitching a violent idea of how to keep once deported Mexicans from reentering the country. It is unfortunate to rewatch these movies and discover we were being brainwashed for so long.
However, what I think the director and producer were not aware of is the hidden message within. In the end, we see the Coneheads go back to their native planet, which is inhabited by a grotesque, violent, and very odd culture. In the very same move in which Hollywood is trying desperately to show how wonderful all people from all cultures are, they simultaneously show that the illegal immigrant Coneheads come from a dystopian and barbaric land. Even the immigration officer is taken to the planet and immediately stripped down, chained up, and humiliated. Shortly thereafter, the entire Conehead nation returns to Earth to conquer it. The moral of the story? We really do need immigration officers to prevent an entirely foreign culture from infiltrating and dominating and ours.
With all of that said, it is still a silly and fun movie to watch with the family. The father cares deeply for his wife, is a provider for the household, and is protective of his daughter. He even practices his own prejudice and does not want his child dating a foreigner (for good reason, Chris Farley’s character is an obese loser). Just be sure your children are old enough to know that the bad guy in the film might not be such a bad guy in the real world.
A tense psychological drama, this movie keeps viewers guessing for most of the film as to what exactly happened to Nick Dunne (Ben Afleck) wife who goes missing. It is very reminiscent of the Scott and Lacy Peterson case of two decades ago, which was most likely used purposefully in order to side track the audience.
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.
( Cartoon via H8KU . )
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.
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.
Ramtha (JZ Knight) Drunken Racist Rant ( Censored Clips )
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 News and Observer RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Sunday, January 9, 1994
The News and Observer RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA Monday, October 31, 1994
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
Charlottesville in a nutshell:
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:
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
This is one of those movies that portrays exaggerated character doing ridiculous things. If you can watch it with that in mind it can still be entertaining. (Personally I like a more realistic storyline.) Overall it was a fun movie to watch and has some really nice ideas when attempting to describe the back story of Santa. This reminded me of American Beauty in the sense that it is a bizarre and crazy story but in the end it succeeds in making a point.
And finally I would never notice let alone have a problem with any race or gender in a movie. The problem today is it is now an agenda hitting you over the head. So the fact that they made Mrs Claus black….well that to me is absurd and an agenda-based casting decision. Which makes me angry and disgusted. When in the real world it would not have even been a thought. Now it is all I see. Too bad huh? An example of the carnage of the left.
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
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
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
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
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
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,
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
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
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.
Murdoch Murdoch “Yellow Dawn” episode:
⚠️ (Content warning, language warning.) ⚠️
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Overall this is a fantastic movie. One reason is: it is complex. There are so many films made for the lowest common denominator audience member now that something that is difficult to follow is almost a treat. I don’t think even the film makers thought anyone could follow all of the plot points the first time through. The time element is probably the most difficult to follow because this is different than anything we have ever seen- this isn’t going forward and backward within our own timeline, it is watching time going in the other direction simultaneously with the people going in real time forward. That is an affect that is very hard to keep up with!
Another element in the mix is the sound because it does make it difficult to understand what is being said at times- yet through all of this I would recommend this film. Just plan on seeing it a second time. At least.
1917 is a solid WWI film. It doesn’t have as many cool action scenes as other war films, but it does have several good sequences. The film has a couple of plot twists and includes an unexpected and inglorious death of one of the main characters that reminds the viewer how quickly and randomly someone could die in the first world war. The film did go out of its was to include as much diversity as possible for a WWI film by inclusion Sikh Indian soldiers fighting along side the British.
Midway tells the story of the battle of Midway, duh. However, Midway is different from Pearl Harbor which focus around a boring love story. Midway presents only the real history and nothing superfluous. A true story of how American exceptionalism and heroism defeated the Japanese Empire through brains and bronze. Even though this was created by a Hollywood that, for the most part, hates America, this film contains a large amount of American patriotism, however it is dedicated to both American and Japanese sailors who died in the battle (kinda cringe). All the ships and airplanes are accurate, they did a great job on this film. Would highly recommend!
I absolutely love this one! It’s a light film noir that takes place in 1940s L.A. and mixes live-action and animation. It is incredibly well done and it’s awesome seeing so many beloved classic Warner Brothers and Disney characters on the same screen. Bob Hoskins plays the lead and gives a perfect performance. I’ve watched this one dozens of times since I was a kid and it never fails to keep me entertained and delighted.
A documentary about girls getting into the porn industry. Pornography has become so common, accepted, and even celebrated in our society when it’s been doing massive harm to us all and exploits women in the worst ways possible. This film centers on a few girls in particular, and while there’s plenty of sad and disturbing moments, it could be a lot worst, showcasing the true horror a lot of girls involved in porn go through. Although the subject matter is very graphic, there’s no shots of anything too graphic, just some brief T&A. I’d recommend this to anyone one who ever watches porn and also to teens who will no doubt be exposed to porn. This might be a good starting point to scare anyone looking to go into the industry, and guilt anyone that watches porn.
Although this is one of the weaker films in the franchise there’s still a lot to like here. It does move along at a leisurely pace with lots of shots showing off the scenery, so you have to be in the mood for that sort of thing. The story is good, but when compared to other Star Trek stories, it’s mediocre. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is top of the line. And it’s awesome what this film meant, reuniting the series cast and reinvigorating the franchise. If you’re looking to get into Star Trek movies this might not be the place to start, you could skip it and go straight to Wrath of Khan (1982).
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.
Check it out!
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
This movie was very well done and thankfully stuck to the historical truth of what happened when two old Texas Rangers were called out of retirement to help capture Bonnie and Clyde. Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson are cast as the lead characters whose increasing age cause them to question their ability to do what was needed to crack a case in the 1930’s- drive the ‘highways’ for months in search of clues, talking to folks and working out how to finally nab these outlaws.
In contrast to the 1969 Bonnie and Clyde with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, this movie showed what their crime spree was actually like. They were treated like celebrities in the original 1969 movie (which the populace believed them to be at the time) and their story was shown from their point of view. This new version is from the police and detectives perspective (ostensibly the truth of the case) which is 180 degrees from that public perception.
Overall it is well worth watching, Costner and Harrelson put on great performances and give the audience a feel for the country at that time. Most roads were dirt roads, most people lived in very small towns, most were simply eking out a living. No wonder two young lovers keeping out of the reach of law enforcement for over two years was an exciting story to be romanticized. Possibly due to the simple fact that this was a story of what actually happened, it does not appear that Hollywood was able to slip in any of it’s agenda.
Good spooky fun that’s appropriate for the whole family! Feature length film that switches up the Scooby formula. Has some really good catchy music. The animation isn’t anything to write home about in the grand picture of cartoons, but compared to the old Scooby TV shows it’s a giant improvement.
At first I wasn’t really getting into this one. I felt the humor and style was kinda heavy handed and I guess I just wasn’t in the mood for this sort of movie. But it slowly keep winning me over and by the second act I was hooked and really enjoying it. Turned out to be a lot of fun! A really good modern horror comedy.
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Modern cannibal movie that pays homage to films like Cannibal Holocaust (1980), and has social commentary about activism. Pretty brutal and hard to watch at times, great gore effects. Some plot holes, but overall I liked it. The tone isn’t brutal and hardcore throughout the film, it centers on college eco activists and there’s a lot of laughs too. Also it’s well shot, some really great cinematography.
I should mention I’m not really well-versed in the cannibal sub-genre. I’ve only seen Cannibal Holocaust (1980) before and didn’t really like it.
This may be the most difficult review I will ever do. When this movie first came out there was an outcry- this was the most outrageous pile of garbage Hollywood has ever made. A story of a man seducing a young kid to have sex with him? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? The right trashed it mercilessly, the left applauded it. Yet another chasm between the two sides of the political spectrum. How in the world could anyone applaud this movie??
Well, you can’t if you understand the surface storyline alone. (which, btw, I don’t know how this can happen if you actually do watch the movie) The profound nature of the film is on display immediately with the opening credits. The credits are paired with photos of iconic statues from the ancient world (which also happens to be part of a subplot in the movie- the boys’ father is working within academia to catalogue ancient artifacts which, in one scene, we see being dredged up out of a lake in northern Italy) These images begin the story and are exactly what change the premise of the film – that this is not just more garbage from Hollywood – it is the deepest film I have ever seen.
Now I would even go so far as to say that this is one of my favorite films because of what it portrays. It attempts to show us the meeting of two souls- a story that we mostly know from antiquity. Alexander and Hephastion, Jonathan and David, Apollo and Patroclus. This is the story of two souls who- no matter their sex or any other possible descriptor imagineable- find one another in a life changing summer in Italy.
‘If I could have him like this in my dreams every night for the rest of my life I would stake MY LIFE on dreams. And be done with the rest of it.’ This lofty Shakesperean rhetoric is what makes this the deepest movie I have ever watched. If you can take out the details of who these people are, then you get it. And you will love it.
oh- the title of the movie. It says everything. Two people are so close they are each other.
The original mummy movie with the great Boris Karloff can be a little dull at times but has a good story and several incredibly beautiful shots. Personally I like the Khairs mummy movies with Lon Chaney Jr. from the 40’s better, but certainly still enjoy this one too. I feel like this one is middle of the road for the Universal monster classics.
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:
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Practically perfect in every way. Every component that goes into filmmaking is exceptional throughout these movies. The CG does show it’s age compared to modern movies but that’s normal, and it’s actually holds up pretty well for being nearly 20 years old. If you’re intimidated by the run times, you don’t have to watch it all in one sitting ya dangus!
Gay! As in it’s lame and also kinda homo erotic. Although it’s a weaker entry in the franchise there’s still a lot of great stuff in this movie. Like all horror fans I’ve heard talk about this movie, I never saw it as being gay at all, it’s just very “80’s.” If you saw the first one and are wanting more Elm St. but don’t necessarily want to go through the whole franchise you can skip this one and go straight to part 3, which holds better continuity with the first film anyway.
German expressionist film, massively influential. Required viewing for film buffs and horror fans.
It tells the story of an old hypnotist, Dr. Caligari, who entrances a man by the name of Cesare, who is said to have been asleep for 23 years, in order for him to commit murders in the night. The sets are jagged with distorted dimensions that give it a more fictitious dreamlike feel. In the first act the story begins by being told by a man in a mental institution so the German Expressionist style can be interpreted as the warped psyche of this mad man. Twisted and pointed shadows and light were painted directly on to the sets to further the distorted perception. These sets also helped to convey a feeling of unease or the impression of a nightmare which matched the horror plot of the killer on the loose. The costumes of Dr. Caligari and the somnambulist Cesare also reflect this style with exaggerated black clothes and pointed hair and make-up. It’s also worth noting that this is one of the earliest films to have a nonlinear plot with most of the film being the flashback of a character introduced in the beginning and returning to the characters from the first act at the end, now with revealed knowledge of these characters. Something else that makes this film unique is a somewhat twist ending that reveals characters in roles that are unexpected and then a somewhat ambiguous ending.
S. Craig Zahler is back with a solid and satisfyingly rough follow-up to the jaw-dropping Brawl in Cell Block 99, reuniting with Vince Vaughn and teaming him up with Mel Gibson in a literally gut-ripping, downbeat buddy cop brutalizer. Seasoned detective Brett Ridgeman (Gibson) and partner Anthony Lurasetti (Vaughn) are caught on video using excessive force in the apprehension of a Hispanic drug dealer, creating a scandal for their police department, and get suspended without pay by their superior (Don Johnson). Both men need money – Lurasetti because he plans to propose marriage to his girlfriend, and Ridgeman because his daughter is no longer safe in their ghettoized neighborhood and the family needs to get out. At the extent of his tether, Ridgeman hatches a half-baked plan to rip off a heroin dealer that winds up with him and his partner pitted against a gang of formidable paramilitary bank heisters. A career highlight for Gibson equal to his over-the-hill hero roles in Edge of Darkness and Blood Father, and yet another impressive entry in Vaughn’s growing résumé of scary tough guy characters after True Detective and Brawl in Cell Block 99.
4.5 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Dragged Across Concrete is:
Anti-drug. Troy Kittles plays ex-con Henry Johns, whose stint in prison illustrates a very possible outcome for a dealer. His mother, a heroin addict, has turned to prostitution. It is also mentioned that the dealer Ridgeman mistreats has been selling drugs to children, undermining any potential audience sympathy for the criminal.
Ableist! Lurasetti compares a hearing-impaired woman’s speech to a dolphin’s.
Anti-Semitic! Writer-director Zahler, as Soiled Sinema’s Ty E. puts it, is an artist who seems to have “transcended his Jewishness”, which may account for the brief and harmless but stereotype-oozing portrayal of the friendly jeweler Feinbaum, who says his wife has two brothers who are therapists and three sisters who are lawyers.
Homophobic! Henry dismisses his “cocksuckin’ father” as “a yesterday who ain’t worth words.” Disapprovingly, Ridgeman fails to see “much of a difference these days” between men and women, and also mocks Lurasetti’s “gay hair s**t” disguise.
Media-critical. Chief Lieutenant Calvert (Johnson) derides the anti-police bias of “the entertainment industry formally known as ‘the news’”, which “needs villains” and fabricates them if necessary.
Natalist, i.e., sexist! Unexpectedly, the movie features a tender (albeit offbeat) portrait of a new mother, Kelly Summer (Jennifer Carpenter), desperately trying to avoid going back to work after using up her maternity leave. The necessity of keeping a job seems cruel and absurd now that she has a baby. Her proper place, she realizes, is at home with her child. Her boss, Mr. Edmington (Fred Melamed) describes her as a “radiant vision of maternity”. The section of Dragged Across Concrete that follows Kelly is even more affecting on a second viewing.
Class-conscious. “My job [in a bank] is so stupid,” Kelly laments. “I go there and I sell chunks of my life for a paycheck so that rich people I’ve never even met can put money in places I’ve never even seen.” Henry’s little brother Ethan, meanwhile, sees big game hunting as “rich white people s**t”. There is also the suggestion that those with wealth have the means to elude the law, as Ridgeman at some point in the past allowed the son of businessman Friedrich (Udo Kier) to escape punishment for an unnamed crime in exchange for a future favor from the well-connected father. Ridgeman no longer believes in a meritocratic American dream. “I don’t politick and I don’t change with the times and turns that that s**t’s more important than good, honest work,” he tells his partner, determining: “We have the skills and the right to acquire proper compensation” for thankless years of public service.
Race-realist – with exceptions. “They’re so cute before they get big,” says Ridgeman’s daughter Sara (Jordyn Ashley Olson) – ostensibly with reference to lion cubs, but subtextually referring to the black boys who harass her when she walks home from school. “This fucking neighborhood, it just keeps getting worse and worse,” frets Mrs. Ridgeman (Laurie Holden). “You know I never thought I was a racist before living in this area. I’m about as liberal as any ex-cop could ever be, but now,” she demands, “we really need to move” or else, “someday, you and me,” she tells her husband, “we are in a hospital room with our daughter talking to a rape counselor.”
Ridgeman and his partner are both depicted as casual racists. “I’m not racist,” Lurasetti jokes: “Every Martin Luther King Day I order a cup of dark roast.” In a twenty-first century world in which “digital eyes are everywhere”, however, old-school law-and-order enforcers like Ridgeman and Lurasetti are living on borrowed time. “Like cell phones, and just as annoying, politics are everywhere,” Calvert observes. “Being branded a racist in today’s public forum is like being accused of communism in the fifties. Whether it’s a possibly offensive remark made in a private phone call or the indelicate treatment of a minority who sells drugs to children […] It’s b******t – but it’s reality.”
Softening Dragged Across Concrete’s racial edge is the presence of Henry, the conspicuous specimen of Africanus cinematicus played by Troy Kittles. This ghetto thug with the soul of a poet is given to saying things like, “Before I consider that kind of vocation, I need to get myself acclimated” and is at all times depicted as being more astute than those around him. His little brother Ethan, too, is portrayed as an underprivileged but bright lad of great potential. The case can be made that Dragged Across Concrete makes examples of its most prominent bigots by punishing them while rewarding Henry in the end. Ridgeman, who has refused to change with the times, is taught the important lesson that he “should have trusted a n*****.”
Try as it might to seem hip and relevant, Emilio Estevez’s hero-librarians vanity project The Public never manages to shake a vague feeling of being something slightly quaint left over from the 1990s. Estevez, in a role perhaps intended to reference the actor’s iconic turn as a cool school library detainee in The Breakfast Club, appears as an idealistic but hardship-weathered employee of the Cincinnati Public Library whose personal and professional ethics are tested when a mob of crazy homeless men occupies the facility and demands to be allowed to use the library as an overnight shelter on a bitterly cold evening. Curiously, writer-director-producer Estevez appears to cling to the outmoded liberal convention of the white savior coming to the aid of downtrodden blacks and browns – in 2019. Star-power casting, with Christian Slater and Alec Baldwin also appearing, make the movie more watchable than it probably deserves to be.
3 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Public is:
Green. Annoying but well-meaning millennial chick Jena Malone rides the bus to work to reduce her carbon footprint, and the presence of a taxidermied polar bear (“Beary White”) in the library serves to remind the viewer of wildlife impacted by melting ice caps.
Anti-drug. One subplot involves the search for a missing opioid addict (Nik Pajic). Estevez’s character is also revealed to be a recovered alcoholic who once lived on the streets.
Media-critical. A self-promoting local reporter (Gabrielle Union) intentionally misrepresents the protagonist’s stance of solidarity with the homeless, leaving viewers with the impression that he is a madman holding hostages inside the library. Her cameraman (Ki Hong Lee) objects, but is ultimately complicit in the duplicity. Provocatively, the term “fake news” is applied to the mainstream media rather than to independent commentators.
Communist. “To each, according to his needs” is very much the moral of the film.
Racially confused. The Public represents a partially naïve effort at postracialism while also including distinctively anti-white elements. Against expectation, the film casts black actress Gabrielle Union as the unlikable reporter – showing that blacks can also be bad – but other blacks in the movie appear well-intentioned or victimized, with some depicted as harmlessly insane. Jeffrey Wright, however, appears as a polished and capable black library director. Christian Slater plays a slickly dressed law-and-order prosecutor and mayoral candidate who, though his political party is never mentioned, represents a heartless all-white Republicanism that must eventually give way to a more inclusive vision represented by his compassionate black political opponent.
Oddly, the movie opens with an angry black rapper shouting “Burn the books!” and ranting about tearing down monuments as various unfortunate street people appear queuing up to get into the library and out of the cold. The rap’s apocalyptic vision forecasts what is presumably the fate awaiting reactionary whites who fail to get “woke” and join the fight against inequality. European-American literary heritage in The Public is a universal legacy and an inspiration for all of “the people”, but Europe’s classical civilization is also insulted. The setting of Cincinnati invokes Cincinnatus, the exemplar of selfless public service, but the name “Athena” – evoking the Greek goddess of wisdom – is given to an eccentric old anti-Semite (Dale Hodges) who suspects those around her of belonging to “the Tribe”, while another of the vagrants (Patrick Hume) is nicknamed “Caesar”, with antiquity symbolically displaced, homeless, and reduced to pitiable madness in the context of multicultural modernity. A library book defaced with a swastika, meanwhile, reminds viewers of the persistent threat of white bigotry.
More interesting is the treatment of the preserved polar bear, “Beary White”, which – whether intentionally or otherwise – evokes “polar bear hunting” or the anti-white “knock-out game” in a ghettoized urban setting in addition to bolstering the global warming messaging. The film concludes with a shot of the towering, fierce, and triumphant-looking polar bear, which is perhaps intended to symbolize the moral victory of white-liberal-savior-with-soul Emilio Estevez, who redeems himself and his race and hopefully avoids the hunt by self-sacrificingly taking up the cause of impoverished minorities. The irony of such an interpretation is that the life-like bear is merely a feat of accomplished taxidermy and that the once-majestic creature is already dead inside.
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:
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.
Just watch it if it’s on TV.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood:
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 disaffected white 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:
To oversimplify, it’s the nuanced beliefs of National Socialists and Fascists who dislike both Capitalists and Communists.
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
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.
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood:
Chloe Grace Moretz, who began her career in a skintight superhero costume as a sexually exploited child in the disposable Kick-Ass films, embraces her prostitution to the cultural Marxist establishment in her role as a teenage lesbian cruelly condemned to be treated at a totalitarian Christian conversion therapy camp. There, she is insensitively disciplined by a suspiciously cold and masculine Christian psychologist (Jennifer Ehle) and mentored by a friendly reverend (John Gallagher, Jr.) who, unsurprisingly, turns out to be a recovered homosexual himself. The Miseducation of Cameron Post has little point apart from further demolishing western civilization and tediously depicting Christians as stupid, corny, boring, mean, and hatefully judgmental.
The other major objective of the film is to tempt young women into lesbian relationships. The unsightliness of male-male physicality is prudently kept off-screen, but more than one sultry scene of hot, quick lesbian seduction is featured. A key meta moment occurs in the sequence depicting Moretz’s first girl-girl experience. She and a friend (Quinn Shephard) are hanging out and watching Donna Deitch’s 1985 film Desert Hearts and find themselves overcome with lust during one of the movie’s lesbian scenes. This, of course, is how The Miseducation of Cameron Post is intended to function. With its much greater reach than this obscure eighties predecessor, The Miseducation of Cameron Post is designed to get mentally malleable adolescent girls to question their own pedestrian sexuality and wonder if it might not be more rewarding to luxuriate in a childless life of unending slumber parties and digitally induced, guy-free orgasms.
I find a great irony in this movie’s contrived shock moment of homo horror, when gay boy Owen Campbell, tortured by the contradiction between his Christian ardor and his burning desire to gobble a c**k, freaks out and mutilates his genitals, leaving a pool of blood on the floor of a bathroom for Chloe Grace Moretz to find. Are Bible-thumpers really the ones bullying young men into cutting off their penises, though, or is that messaging emanating from some other quadrant of our cultural landscape?
3 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Miseducation of Cameron Post is:
Democratic. When Moretz and two of her pals at last escape from Sobibor, they hitch a ride in a pickup truck that boasts a Clinton Gore sticker – the Democratic Party being the vehicle that will carry Americans forward into a more enlightened future.
Multiculturalist. Moretz’s buddies at camp include American Honey’s mystery-meat dreadlocks vixen Sasha Lane and fellow pothead Forrest Goodluck, a laid-back Native American lad with “two spirits”.
Pro-drug. Dope enhances the thrill of an intense backseat lesbian encounter, and Moretz also bonds with her new gay camp companions over weed.
Anti-Christian. Yes, apparently Christianity isn’t quite dead yet – or, at any rate, Hollywood wants to make absolutely sure, and so continues to flog its carcass. “How is programming people to hate themselves,” the screenplay poses, “not emotional abuse?” (I wonder if the buffoon who wrote this line has, in this same spirit of fairness, taken an honest look at the ways in which whites are typically depicted in Hollywood fare.)
Anti-family, antinatalist, and pro-gay (i.e., pro-AIDS). Gay as the U.S.A. is these days, it still isn’t proactively putrescent enough to satisfy the ass venerators in Hollywood. Movies have given us gay teens, gay parents, gay artists, gay cowboys, gay scientists, gay singers, gay strippers, gay soldiers, gay superheroes, gay angels, gay Holocaust victims, and even gay Nazis – and yet, as The Miseducation of Cameron Post capably demonstrates, there remain still-ungay filmic frontiers to be reamed in trailblazing explorations. As long as there are virgin goyish bloodstreams yet to be blessed by the gift of a full-flowered autoimmune disease, and homophobic churchgoing bigots yet to be epically BTFO’d on the big screen with feels and thotness, Hollywood can hardly afford to flag in its valiant venereal efforts.
American Honey’s McCaul Lombardi stars as Keith, a directionless Baltimore wigger and drug dealer just released from prison and attempting to find his place in the world. At stake in the formless, meandering story is whether the poorly behaved and inarticulate protagonist will settle into the family pattern of working-class tedium and community coexistence or fall back in with the white nationalist gang with which he became affiliated while incarcerated. Keith bowls from one unnecessarily unpleasant situation into another, getting into fights, making a little money, and chasing after various specimens of ghetto tail. Lombardi is an intense performer, and Jim Belushi is likable as his boring but well-meaning dad. What at first appears to be a downbeat and largely pointless character study, however, is revealed to be an accidental comedy once the filmmaker’s ridiculous intentions are taken into consideration.
4 out of 5 stars – in part for the unintentional humor furnished by the director in the DVD extra features. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Sollers Point is:
Anti-drug. Diminishing marijuana’s glamor, a thug mentions that his stash had recently been stuffed up his ass. The film also offers a putrid portrait of an aging, heroin-addicted w***e hawking her unappetizing wiles on a roadside.
Pro-family. Keith’s father does what he can to protect and provide for his wayward son, and other family members are also helpful and affectionate. Keith seems to be troubled by his absence from his niece’s life.
Multiculturalist, pro-miscegenation, and anti-white. Baltimore appears in the film as a more or less functional chocolate city marred only by the presence of reckless and immature young white men and trashy white women. Keith’s father, at least, seems to be a good man as evidenced by the fact that he hangs out and plays cards with blacks – so not all white people in the movie are criminals or addicted to dope. “I was really interested in reflecting the diversity of this neighborhood in southeast Baltimore,” soyboy writer-director Matt Porterfield explains in an interview included on the Sollers Point DVD, “but I wanted to sort of focus on the ways in which they shared space rather than the divisions, you know?” The way in which Keith shares space with his black neighbors, however, seems to entail an inferior and deferential role. When Keith’s wigger nationalist acquaintances roll up with hostile intentions, Keith’s black thug neighbors come to his aid by throwing liquor bottles at the white gang’s van; but then they expect him to pick up the broken glass littering the street – which he obediently does. Keith, Porterfield says, has to “figure out who his people are”, and as Porterfield concludes, “his people in the film are white and black” – which may go a long way toward explaining why the character is so lost. Interestingly, the writer-director describes his movie as “a portrayal of a white male in society trying to find his place,” adding that Keith is “not being given any traditional rites of passage.” I burst out laughing, however, when he added that the protagonist is “representative of, you know, a large portion of the population that put our current president in office. […] It’s tapping into a cultural energy that we all kind of want to understand, that put Trump in office.” Which, of course, is 2016 in a nutshell. The Dems should never have underestimated Trump’s appeal to the wigger jungle fever ex-con MAGA drug dealer demographic!
Will this animated adaptation of DC’s 1992 “death” of Superman storyline please those old enough to have read it when it first appeared? Considering that grown men still sufficiently juvenile to persist in taking an interest in comic book characters must have rather low standards for keeping themselves entertained, one assumes that it probably will. In between automobile-chucking super-brawls, personal drama involving the Man of Steel’s tense relationship with Lois Lane keeps this feature-length production from becoming overly monotonous – but, as with most superhero sagas, the ethnic subtext remains the most intriguing aspect.
3 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Death of Superman is:
Anti-Russian. Lex Luthor mentions having enjoyed a “private performance by the Bolshoi”, connecting Russia with supervillainy in audiences’ minds.
Anti-gun. A police officer’s passing reference to assault weapons highlights the danger to law and order posed by private firearm ownership.
Feminist. Strong, sarcastic, frowning women abound.
Black-supremacist, with blacks disproportionately represented in prestigious and powerful positions. The mayor of Metropolis is black, as are the two top scientists at S.T.A.R. Labs.
Judeo-globalist and anti-white. Superman, whose creation was a Jewish response to the Nazi concept of the Aryan superman and whose Justice League receives funding from the one-worldist United Nations, represents a confident Jewish self-concept, with Kal-El (interpreted by some as meaning “Voice of God” in Hebrew) being a Kryptonian (i.e., a crypto-Jew) who conceals his power behind the nerdy façade of the WASPy-sounding “Clark Kent”. Significantly, “Kent” occupies a position of influence in the media through his job at the globalism-evoking Daily Planet (although DC obfuscates Jewish control of the media which in this series is “White” via the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Perry). “Kent”/Superman is an effective arbiter of truth and justice as long as kryptonite is not utilized against him – i.e., as long as his enemies do not confront him with his secret Jewishness. Lex Luthor – whose name echoes history’s second-most-notorious critic of Jewry – almost seems to be explicitly criticizing Jewish influence when he decries “obsequious cretins who worship aliens, believing them to be the agents of justice. But I have seen the alien’s true face,” he explains. “I understand his threat.” Luthor’s subtextual anti-Semitism is then emphasized when he employs the German word “ubermensch”. It is moral exemplar Superman, however, who selflessly saves his archenemy when Doomsday comes.
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs was surprisingly non-political. It is a dark humor film by the Coen brothers that depicts several short stories set in the ‘Wild West.’ There is some silliness, gore, and drama throughout the entire movie, but very little political correctness.
For instance, there are a few scenes with warrior American Indians, and refreshingly enough they behave how you’d imagine warrior Indians would behave! There is a story involving a timid woman heading west in need of men’s help (these characters also openly admit their belief in God and it wasn’t satirical). Plus, there are no handicapped-hispanic-transgender protagonists, there are no head strong women beating up hardened cow boys, and there is no black on white revenge porn that was so prominent in Django Unchained.
If you like Coen Brothers films and have over 2 hours to kill, this Netflix movie is worth it! It truly feels like you’re peering into what life may have been like in the Old West. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, but most importantly you won’t be triggered by the PC b******t!
The Leisure Seeker is little more than a piece of scurrilous hate mail that disguises itself as a valedictory love letter to the Baby Boomer generation. Donald Sutherland and Helen Mirren play John and Ella Spencer, an elderly couple whose twilight years are rapidly fading to black. John is a retired literary scholar whose intermittent lapses of long- and short-term memory at times reduce him to petulant childishness, and Ella is dying of cancer and getting by on pills and alcohol. Conscious that they both have little time left, Ella, without informing their worried son and daughter, is taking a final road trip with John to Key West for a life-and-death-affirming pilgrimage to Ernest Hemingway’s house. The title refers on the literal level to the Spencers’ gas-guzzling motor home and on the figurative level to hedonistic selfishness as the outmoded vehicle in which the Baby Boomers tripped, crashed, and will righteously burn. Morbid vitriol thinly veiled as bittersweet dramedy, The Leisure Seeker will hold the most appeal for the unperceptive.
3.5 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Leisure Seeker is:
Gun-ambivalent. Ella defends herself against redneck highway robbers with a shotgun, but the senile old man’s access to the weapon is intended to cause the viewer anxiety, and Ella discards the shells after the would-be muggers have gone. Guns, if permitted at all, should be placed in women’s responsible hands, the movie appears to suggest.
Pro-gay. It is strongly insinuated that the Spencers’ cake-baking son Will (Christian McKay) is a homosexual. Ella is not only unperturbed, but seems to be fond of the idea.
Pro-miscegenation. John and Ella barge uninvited into a retirement home to visit her black ex-boyfriend, Dan (Dick Gregory), who, as it turns out, does not even remember who she is. Ella’s wistful expression on seeing him again makes clear, however, that her memories of him are dear.
Anti-white. The Leisure Seeker evinces resentment and distrust toward the Baby Boomers, whose revolutionary potential and openness to new experiences have ended in mindless, maudlin conservatism. The film is set shortly before the 2016 presidential election and a tacky pickup truck flying Trump flags rolls into view during opening credits as Carole King can be heard lamenting, “it’s too late, baby, now it’s too late, though we really did try to make it.” In a later sequence, John, in one of his absent states, confusedly wanders into a crowd of Trump supporters robotically chanting “USA! USA!” and seems to be enjoying himself until his wife retrieves him like a mother apprehending an errant toddler. This is the film’s representative Trump voter: a senile and disoriented bumbler in need of supervision. Disingenuous appeals to Boomer nostalgia are inevitably undermined, as when John and Ella’s attempt to resuscitate the disco spirit makes her nauseous and causes their dance to be interrupted when she abruptly vomits. Displaying their insensitivity to the people of color oppressed by their hegemonic ancestors, John and Ella visit a theme park simulating colonial America and blithely ignore the background actors performing as toiling negro slaves. Their self-absorption reveals that the Boomers have failed to make amends and that further generational redress will be necessary. They repeatedly bore and annoy the younger and browner people around them, such as when John insists on discussing Hemingway with strangers in restaurants. In one key scene, however, John encounters a bright black waitress who turns out to be a Hemingway scholar herself (as contrasted with a ditzy white waitress featured in a previous scene). When John suffers a memory lapse and cannot recall a passage from The Old Man and the Sea, the black waitress finishes his thought for him, demonstrating that the white man has become a redundancy and that non-whites are fully capable of serving as the repositories of high culture going forward.
This is an okay Afrikaans-language thriller about a schoolteacher, Emma (Leandie du Randt), whose car breaks down in South Africa’s arid Karoo region on her way to her father’s home for a holiday visit. Compounding misfortunes, Emma is witness to a drug-related execution and must flee for her life through the desert whilst pursued by a gang of criminals. Unfortunately for the bad guys – led by the icy Bosman (Neels van Jaarsveld), who comes across like a cross between Gian Maria Volonté and Bono – it turns out that the resourceful Emma was trained in military survival skills by her ex-Recce father. Will the direness of her situation be enough to goad Emma to finally dispense with her philosophy of nonviolence? Furthermore, will she ever learn to shoot straight? Finding out makes for a fun hundred minutes.
3.5 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Hunting Emma is:
Family-ambivalent. Emma’s father (Tertius Meintjes) is depicted as a devoted parent whose lessons stand his daughter in good stead in the face of a challenge. Emma, however, displays a distaste for domesticity, and teaching seems to fulfill whatever impulse she has toward motherhood.
Class-conscious. One of the crooks is a rich, recreational criminal.
Feminist. “My favorite kind of kitchen work – ironing,” martial arts expert Emma declares after tediously dispatching a sexist gang member with an iron. This fight, significantly, takes place in an abandoned home.
Anti-white. Leave it to South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry, the agency responsible for Black Economic Empowerment, to facilitate the production of a film in which the threat to a woman traveling alone through the “Rainbow Nation” is a pack of white rapists and drug dealers. Emma’s mocha-colored students, meanwhile, give a glimpse of the country’s non-white future.
This enjoyable Australian outback adventure stars Gareth Rickards as Buzz, a rugged “rover” hired by a group of eco-activist weenies to get them across a difficult, mountainous terrain and to the site of a new American mining venture where they plan to film a documentary on the project’s environmental impact – and the sense of urgency to their mission gets ratcheted up a notch when Buzz realizes the group is being pursued by the relentless and enigmatic “Ranger” (Jono Cheal). The characters, though never developed too deeply, are likable enough, and the movie’s rapid pacing and wilderness setting prevent it from ever getting boring. Frizzy-haired slob Sam Glissan deserves a special mention, as well, for his supporting role as the salty and indomitable Scraps.
3.5 out of 5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Rough Stuff is:[WARNING: SPOILERS]
5. Abo-empowering. While whites are allowed to play the heroic roles, a bit of ethnomasochism does creep into the film at the end when Buzz, having discovered the site of a cache of gold, abstains from seizing the booty so as to let an elderly abo have it, the implication being that he is somehow more entitled to it for having a more organic and intimate connection to the earth. It is interesting to note, however, that Buzz nearly drives himself off of a cliff after virtue-signaling.
4. Green-ambivalent. Rough Stuff stops short of discrediting environmentalism altogether, but does suggest that those activist types drawn to such causes are frequently naïve, poorly informed, fanatical, or possessed of ulterior motives.
3. Anti-feminist. The comic supporting character Skye (Katie Garfield) represents feminists as obnoxious and unnecessarily combative. Not content to keep her viewpoints to herself, she more than once attempts to infect her more feminine comrade Tori (Hayley Sullivan) with her corrosive ideology, encouraging her to be more sexually assertive and insisting that the patriarchy has conditioned Tori to deny her true wants and needs. Skye’s militancy is revealed to be hollow, however, when – after stubbornly refusing to allow a man to carry her across a stream – she finds herself stuck and petulantly cries out for help. Her pampered stupidity, too, comes out when it suddenly dawns on her that there will be no ladies’ rooms available in the outback. Women can talk tough or even shoot guns, but ultimately require rescue.
2. Anti-corporate. The eco-activist group’s leader, Eric (Jamie Kristian), turns out to be plotting a terror attack on the mining concern – which plot in turn is revealed to be a scheme of the mining multinational to discredit conservationists. The corporation, in addition to staging a series of eco-terror false flags around the world and lobbying the Australian government for special privileges, is also skirting government regulations by initiating the exploitation of a new region before securing public permission
1.Populist. Rough Stuff gives audiences a masculine, self-reliant, working-class hero in Buzz, and the movie evinces a healthy distrust of both left-utopian activism and nihilistic, big-business concerns. Traditional sex roles are reinforced, as is the dignity of the rustic Australian as opposed to globalizing and cosmopolitan forces.
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…
View this post on Instagram
Still worth watching. But content wise, it’s the worst of the series, so don’t expect much.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood:
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:
Make physiognomy a respected practice again. pic.twitter.com/sNPEWBrM1U
— Adam (@PunishedAd) August 30, 2018
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.
TL;DR from my Heathers review:
And an update for Little Miss Sunshine:
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.
— Aetius (@ptmk25) August 30, 2018
— Black Pigeon Speaks (@navyhato) October 25, 2018
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.
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood:
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 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
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.
Hmmm, what else? There’s a scene with the crocodile hunter that’s a bit morbid now that he died. Just worth noting…
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:
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood:
I have mixed feelings about Allan Konigsberg. Revelations about his sexual proclivities as well as my own awakening to the director’s participation in a massive tribal project of hostile culture distortion make it impossible for me to like “Woody Allen” the way I did when I was younger; but it would be dishonest of me to pretend that his body of work did not influence my intellectual development. Coming from a blue-collar Midwestern background, Konigsberg’s stories of New York sophisticates were exotic and illuminating. His movies made me want to become a literate person so that I could be witty and impress complicated women. And – as much as I dislike to concede it – he has continued to produce worthwhile entertainment well into his decrepit years.
Wonder Wheel is no exception, and offers exactly what those familiar with the writer-director’s filmography have come to expect. Its tawdry tale of two shiksas – older, married woman Kate Winslet and naïve stepdaughter Juno Temple – who both fall for sophisticated and handsome Jewish aspiring playwright Justin Timberlake contains a great deal of Hebraic wish-fulfillment, particularly with Jim Belushi portraying the boorish and slovenly goy alternative. Set in the bustling Coney Island of the 1950s, Wonder Wheel is both a rather painful melodrama and a comfortable nostalgia piece, evoking fondness both for America’s past and for Konigsberg’s, so that the whole experience seems like old times.
Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Wonder Wheel is worth seeing if viewers can do so without putting any money into the filmmaker’s probably candy-filled pockets. Also:
Anti-drug. Looming over Ginny (Winslet) and Humpty (Belushi) throughout is the specter of alcoholism which threatens to reassert itself over their wills in times of stress. Ginny embarrasses herself in a drunken state at the end of the film.
Borderline pedophiliac. Juno Temple, like previous Konigsberg muses Mariel Hemingway and Christina Ricci, evinces a childlike presence despite her experience. The word “Toys” is visible in a shop window in a scene in which Mickey (Timberlake) picks up Carolina (Temple) to give her a ride, slyly emphasizing her youth.
Anti-family, anti-marriage. “Don’t ever have kids,” Ginny advises. Marriage, too, is “scary”. Ginny is only “going through the motions of lovemaking” while she has “so much to give” to a smart and beautiful Jewish boy. Ginny also insinuates that Humpty has incestuous inclinations toward his daughter when she accuses him, “You treat her like a girlfriend.”
Anti-white. Carolina rejects the “dull, colorless, boring [i.e., WASPish] guys” her father would have preferred she marry. Instead, she falls in love with a tribesman. There is a sort of malicious glee in Konigsberg’s decision to name the head of the household “Humpty”, presenting the American father of yesteryear as a gruff and abusive but fragile figure destined to fall and never to be restored to his previous station. Humpty distrusts the influence of movies and radio – i.e., the Jewish-dominated mass media – on his family, calls psychology a “phony head doctor” racket, and is probably therefore suspect in Konigsberg’s imagination as a potential anti-Semite. Carolina’s son (Jack Gore), meanwhile, is a little pyromaniac – symbolic of the potential of every goy boy to grow up to perpetrate the world’s next Holocaust. Sadly, waitress Carolina must endure the indignity of serving “redneck clowns” in her clam house – representing the ever-present threat posed by rustic deplorables infiltrating and crudely stinking up the nice, respectable, kosher stronghold of New York City.
This is a fun romantic comedy- especially for girls. It follows two girlfriends who get themselves deeper and deeper into trouble in the world of espionage which includes loads of criminals as well as handsome british spys . Kate McKinnon really shows her comedic talent in this and the relationship between the two makes for a very entertaining film.
One element that stood out though as I watched it were the violent scenes that were way over the top.
As an audience member you are watching a somewhat light hearted comedy and these scenes just didn’t work for this type of film. It was very strange and I don’t know if I’d ever seen anything like this before. Then the credits rolled and I found out the movie was written and direct by a woman, Susanna Fogel.
Later I ran across an interview with Fogel where she wondered if the criticism the film was getting over this point was due to the gender of the main characters. She wondered if the same criticism would be leveled if it were a male-driven storyline.
So the film itself was mostly free of liberal messaging but the one strange quality that I noticed was indeed debated in the whacky liberal bubble of Hollywood. The gender of the characters had absolutely nothing to do with whether the level of violence was out of place in this slaptick comedy!
Although Hollywood can still get their agenda into period pieces this film did not attempt to end western civilization in anyway! (Luckily period pieces tend to deal with the politics of the time they are portraying and not present day concerns.) So happily this was an agenda free hour and 44 minutes of cinema.
Note: I looked up whether the movie stayed historically correct and it turns out it did!
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:
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…
“Nice to meet you, I’m Rose!”
“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:
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.
Other reviews by Libertarian Agnostic:
Search all Staff Reviews from STFU Hollywood: