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:
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.
•50% cliché scenarios you see in every action movie
•30% exposition, lazy plot devices, and bad acting
•20% hilarious culturalsatire and racist stereotype jokes
•10% whacky sexual situations
Funny mindless entertainment and no insane agenda shoved in. Although, I did notice a trend among all three films. It was something I never noticed growing up, and may seem unimportant even now, but it clearly seeps into the subconscious of many viewers…
"The Outdated Fatshaming Fantasy of ‘Little Miss Sunshine’"
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:
(47:32 – 49:47)
(50:29 – 52:50)
(58:54 – 59:51)
When I first heard his crude, (and strangely poetic), analogy I laughed out loud. It was so absurd and harsh I couldn’t help it. Perhaps because there was truth in what he said and it was an uncomfortable schadenfreude burst of laughter. Anyway, just a day or two after listening to that, Cosmo decided to put this land whale on their cover:
This is nothing new, and if you look at who’s pushing the _____ acceptance agenda, you’ll find that the guys above are spot on with their takes. And it’s especially true of Hollywood. This is something I discovered while rewatching Heathers after looking into the people who made it. When you ask yourself how things got so crazy in 2018 with trannies and freaks galore, just go back and watch some old films. Hindsight is 20/20, and it’s clearly incrementalism at work, boiling us frogs alive.
So what kind of hideous monsters are behind Little Miss Sunshine? I could post some unflattering pictures to support my narrative, but in all honesty my sleuthing found that the screenwriter and directors of Little Miss Sunshine aren’t hideous gremlins. They actually seem pretty cool and they have a good track record with the art they produce. But they are progressive weirdos and it shows.
I tracked down the original Arnold article that triggered Arndt and it’s exactly what you’d expect. Granted, the “despise losers” line does sound harsh, but with the full context it’s nothing worth fussing about. Schwarzenegger starts off by encouraging the chess nerds, joking about how they intimidate him and are “the true heroes.” And he ends the speech by saying, “it’s not how much you make, but how much you give.” Real run-of-the-mill pep talk stuff, no?
And I’ve seen some of Arnold’s other speeches that mirror the Little Miss Sunshine‘s X rules for success bit. But the funny thing is that I used to listen to these speeches at the gym, because I found them so motivational that I’d play ’em over and over when I needed an extra boost. Whereas the screenwriter was repulsed by them and not inspired in the least. And much like a game of telephone, by the time this beta interpretation of Arnold finally got filtered through everyone in the studio, the script went from an already anti-Chad slant to an insanely anti-Chad one:
Apparently a similar wringer process happened when they hired him to write Star Wars, btw. Allegedly Arndt is gay and that’s part of his “woe is me” persecution themes. Whether those are rumors or not, he was still clearly a progressive – just not progressive enough for the regressive anti-whites who run Hollywood it seems. By the end of the filming process he was fired and they hardly used any of his original script. We’ll never know exactly what went on behind the scenes, but in the interviews regarding script changes to Little Miss Sunshine, he said the studio wanted the father’s character to be more in-depth, whereas Arndt wanted him to just be a one dimensional comic relief. On the other hand, with Star Wars Arndt apparently made it too much about the likable Luke Skywalker patriarch and JJ protested. So that begs the question, would Little Miss Sunshine have been more or less anti-Chad if it remained true to Arndt’s initial vision?
Who knows? Who cares? Hollywood is full of androgynous degenerates. So the only real debate they have is if they want to make characters less masculine in order to make them relatable/likable (in their eyes), or if they want to make them hyperbolically macho in order to lampoon them as enemies. Two sides of the same shekel.
To the man’s credit though, he does write amazing scripts. And to be fair, I think most leftists have good intentions with all this egalitarian fantasy crap. I don’t think they had any clue it’d get out of hand like it has. Nevertheless, watching this film a decade later is very different knowing what I know now. It’s much harder to see it as a cute and inspirational movie. Instead I view it as one of the seeds planted that lead to the anti-fat shaming, genderless blob of a society that we live in now.
Not sure if I’d go as far as Greg Johnson would, because I think criticizing the status quo is essential for a healthy society to progress, and history shows there is a natural cycle/pendulum swing with pros and cons on both sides. But at this point I’m just so jaded it’s hard to appreciate Hollywood’s culture of critique.
Maybe that’s mainly because the film is dated… I remember being on the forefront of the body positivity shift. I love ｔｈｉｃｃ girls and would always encourage women to feel confident with their curves. But then every disgusting goblin in society jumped on the bandwagon and soiled the movement.
Minor spoiler memes
If you can think of this film as a criticism of modernity, and focus on the family values aspect, it’s great. Do your best to think about how a good family will stick through thick and thin, and have unconditional love for each other. Think of this as an attack on the bizarre and grotesque children’s beauty pageant phenomena in America. Likewise, realize that any decent parent would encourage their prepubescent child not to care about their body image, especially when they are healthy and only have a little baby fat like the film’s star had. With these things in mind, (and combined with the amazing cinematography, acting, chemistry, and soundtrack), Little Miss Sunshine is still worth watching and supporting.
Yup. Another overly simplistic plot line about evil capitalists who try to exploit the environment at all costs. And of course they just HAD to make it clear that they were Republicans. In one scene, the cartoonishly evil fat cats say:
I’m sure I’m gonna’ regret this, but maybe you should talk with Dolittle.
And what? Give in to a bunch of beasts and lower life forms?
I took on the Democrats! I can take on a bunch of animals!
Yeah, that “lower life forms” thing has undertones of racism, huh? Which is funny because, as always, the left projects their own subconscious bigotry when they add parallels to civil rights movements. In the climax of the film all the animals around the world go on strike. A similar proletariat struggle to what the “Planet of the Apes” remakes have. So… what? Are they implying minorities are lower life forms? Or just that evil white people and Republicans think of them like that? In this film it’s not so bad because animals are just as intelligent as humans. But their logic starts to thin out when their metaphors get extended too far, as I talked about in my review of “Valerian.”
In addition to Republicans, the movie also made fun of country bumpkins in a few scenes. But it also made fun of the spoiled city bear, and besides, the voice of the country bumpkin bear was African American, so I guess it evens out? The anti-white agenda was very subtle and seemed more like a PC thing. Easily ignored.
Oh, and the subplot involving Eddie Murphy’s teenage daughter being a defiant thot may irk you.
There was no real feminist agenda, the script seemed to be just satirizing the current state of gender relations. Jokes about alpha males, hypergamy, power struggle in the marriage, etc. But I can’t help and wonder if historians will look at stuff like this as a decline in the West that lead to our eventual collapse / hard reset. Or if historians will look at this stuff as just a by-product of trans-humanism; the more advanced humans became, the more the natural order of things was disrupted. Crazy b**ches were just bumps along the road, bumps that technology eventually evened out. A sign of decadence and an age of abundance. Who knows? But it’s hard not to think about this stuff and how cringeworthy it must be for other cultures to see a daughter and wife walk all over the patriarch protagonist throughout the film.
Speaking of man’s relation to nature and the natural order of things, there’s a growing subculture within the rightwing that is adamantly environmentalist. Partly just joking, but many truly desire a pre-industrial revolution state. (Or at least they claim to want this, while continuing to mooch off their parent’s while playing videogames and tweeting about how bad technology is…) Of course, these are the extreme outliers in the political spectrum: anarcho-primitivists, eco-fascists, neo-pagans, etc.
But it’s not just outliers that care about the environment. I grew up with a neocon mom who made us recycle and used to hate how it became politicized. I’m ranting off topic here, but it’s worth delving into before watching any environmentalist movies, even goofy ones like “Doctor Dolittle 2.” Because this Alt Right podcast makes a good point: we need to stop being reactionaries within leftists’ framing. It’s fine to troll and debate the specifics of climate change hysteria, but to give in to their imaginations and concede that rightwingers just want to watch the world burn is silly. Libertarians like Penn & Teller say that recycling is pointless, and constitutional conservatives like Steven Crowder say environmentalists often cause more harm than good. That’s all fine and dandy.
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.
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.
Rainer Chlodwig von K.
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!
This is a fanciful movie about how Charles Dickens may have been inspired to write his most famous work, A Christmas Carol. It reminded me of Shakespeare In Love a bit because it is a “what if” on how they came up with their greatest works. Christopher Plummer plays the fictitious Scrooge and has the best scene when he and Dickens are arguing on how to go forward in the story. So it is a very creative way to relay what a character is thinking which is always a difficult concept to portray on film.
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?
Anyways, back to “Dr. Dolittle.” The moral of the story was to quit denying your genetic gifts regardless of what society pressures you to do. The film follows Eddie’s lifelong struggle as he tries to hide his identity to the point that it even manifests in his daughter. In a heartwarming scene towards the end, Eddie Murphy says this to his self-conscious and quirky offspring:
No matter what happens, you be who you are. And you love who you are.
So in a sense, it’s a bit of an identitarian movie…
Maybe I’m a product of incrementalist propaganda, idunno. But even though I noticed the PC affirmative action crap, I still enjoyed this film. Even today. I think partly it’s because Eddie Murphy is truly funny and so is Chris Rock. Their positions of power seem earned and fitting. Also, one of the main characters, a dog, is voiced by Norm Macdonald. And he’s an anti-PC legend. So pay to watch this and do your best to ignore the subtle anti-white bias.
The “anti-patriotism” rating is not because it’s anti-American, but because it’s the same-old same-old borderline socialist crap. You know, the evil businessman trope.
Not much to analyze in this one…
Iuhnno, lotta’ white people for a change. That was nice. But of course, like with all Hollywood films, they wait until the climax to inject maximum diversity and feminism.
The main character’s best friend had a virtual reality avatar that was a macho, cyborg orc thing. You could tell they used some mild audio masking software, but you could still tell his best friend was a female. There were tons of cues and foreshadowing. Like, they kept calling the orc a “dude” or “bro.” But Hollywood’s non-binary tranny agenda made it obvious for anyone who’s woke. So when the big reveal came to show that it was a black woman, I was unsurprised, and unannoyed. Instead, I turned to my girlfriend and shouted, “I toldja’ so!” Also, they don’t outright say it, but she’s certainly a lesbian since she tried making out with another woman in the film and dresses like one.
Overall, “Ready Player One” was pretty entertaining. Probably because the male lead wasn’t a total f**got. The overabundance of strong female characters didn’t detract from his heroism. Pretty rare nowadays. *cough* Lookin’ at you “Force Awakens” *cough* Although, if you know anything about #GamerGate and gamer girls, the way the heroines were portrayed may be off-putting for you. After all, it’s not just physical differences that require gender-segregated competitions:
(4:18 – 5:38)
Not a big deal, though. Suspend your belief and pretend you’re only watching the outliers. The part that’s harder to ignore is the way they try to makeup for having 2 white leads romantically involved with each other, by shoving in a bunch of diversity and women extras jammed in whenever they could. Similar to what they did in “La La Land” as well as “The Martian” and “Snowden.” Like clockwork, too. Always in the capstone.
Check out this super knowledgable, nerd girl leading the research team, coming up with epiphanies and lecturing the fat white leader.
And can’t forget the token black guy, vital to solving complex problems:
Or how bout this group of 60% )))non stereotypical((( lawyers? Looks like they just finalized the paperwork necessary for seizing farmland.
Honestly, the casting wasn’t so bad; still a surprising amount of whites.
It just feels like those carefully chosen crowds that stand behind politicians.
Oh, and the other reason the film got “anti-patriotism” ratings was because the protagonists’ parents were stupid rednecks with mullets. Yup, the Go-To demographic to sh*t on in movies, (next to Russians of course). These white trash guardians were killed off and the audience wasn’t lead to feel any sympathy for them. It was a Cinderella type dynamic and their deaths were bittersweet for the audience.
But fret not, ‘cuz the main character found a better family online in the form of an intersectional, ragtag crew. And together these colorblind proletariat took down the ruthless, bourgeois businessman!
Meh, everything above is just nitpicking.
Go see the film if you’re in the mood for CGI action. The 80’s nostalgia genre is getting stale, but it sure as hell beats Super Hero movies, no? Pay if you must, I’m not violently opposed to it. I only discourage paying because of rumors about Spielberg and because the multicultural casting choices were apparent enough to distract from the film.
"The Cognitive Dissonance of ‘Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets’"
The movie had some redeeming qualities. The two protagonists were fairly charming and of course the entire movie was visually stimulating. But there was just so much globalist cliché crap shoved in, it’s very close to a “skip” rating. You won’t pull your hair out watching this film, but it’ll be very frustrating to say the least. So only watch it if someone else suggests it, and hope it’s in somewhat of a social setting where you can scroll on your smart phone to keep you sane during woke / feminist / anti-colonial hot takes.
(1/6) I also think it’s funny how if you point this out they assume you’re the racist one. But to anyone slightly awake, their cognitive dissonance is painfully obvious. Pretty much any Sci-Fi movie shows this. Like “Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets” for example. pic.twitter.com/YJcHBZtSfT
They had the cliché “Avatar” blue smurf noble savage thing going on, but with an added layer of gender neutral wokeness ‘cuz it’s the current year. So on one hand, they showed primitive tribes as living in harmony until evil colonialists came.https://t.co/xBs6B6yYfl
(4/6) …and feel no sympathy for when they were slaughtered by the very same colonial people. Although these aliens’ racial roots weren’t as obvious as the Star Wars (1-6) aliens, they’re still clearly based on African and/or Polynesian tribes.https://t.co/kSJuglM6Dc
(5/6) So they simultaneously push for globo-homo multiculti anti-nationalist stuff with futuristic federations, but also have to admit not all cultures/races are equal in order to have a plot. To be fair, tho are these aliens based on what I think they…https://t.co/47O4wXYHKF
"The Sprechgesang & Pizzagate Elements of ‘All Dogs Go To Heaven’"
• Good nostalgia trip.
• No overt agenda.
• Lovable characters.
• Great animation.
To start off with something lighthearted I noticed, this musical is full of spoken word songs. Not sure if it was planned or if it was just because some of their actors couldn’t sing. But it creates a unique film-watching experience, and is one of the many nuances that make this cartoon seem suitable for adults. But that’s also probably why none of the songs are memorable…
I guess in some operas there’s a very difficult technique only pros can pull of called Sprechgesang or the twelve tone technique.
Here’s an example (no need to watch the whole thing):
I think it’s like abstract art. Sometimes it truly is a sign of skill and artistic genius, but often it just seems like an untrained moron. After some googling, it looks like others felt the same ambivalence to the singing on display:
Before the complicated Sprechengang technique was invented, there were lesser forms of half singing throughout history. I have a feeling that “All Dogs Go To Heaven” lies somewhere in between. Reynolds certainly isn’t skilled enough to do the fancy 12 Tone Technique, but it seems like a conscious choice made by Don Bluth to keep the film down to Earth. Who knows? But here’s some interesting trivia from TV Tropes:
Alright, two other fun things before we get to the dark and depressing:
There were politically incorrect jokes at the expense of
Ah, the good ‘ol days! When gender bending was for comic relief.
Now for the pizzagate stuff. So, I was reminded of an alleged child trafficking camp found in Arizona while watching this scene:
If you have never heard of this Arizona discovery, here’s a quick run down:
> Veterans searching for homeless vets stumble upon a child trafficking camp in Arizona
> Turns out there are lots of connections with the Clintons, Rothschilds, NXVIM cult, etc.
> This info starts spreading around the net and vigilantes/investigators show up to assist
> Suddenly a serial killer goes on a spree and happens to “””coincidentally””” kill JonBenét Ramsey’s psychiatrist
Yeah, pretty fishy, huh?
If you want to know more, here are some links & in depth summaries: ⬅
But Alex has tried to distance himself from anything related to these pedogate investigations, ever since James Alefantis’ lawyers threatened to sue. So take his disavowal with a grain of salt, (as you should with pretty much everything you read online).
I got burnt out with pizzagate investigations a while back and have been trying to take breaks from politics off and on for the past year. 90% of political stuff is speculation or things out of your control and just gets you stressed for no reason. So I try to focus on this site instead of just raging at some migrant crime article or degenerate SJW. I’m plenty redpilled, and at a certain point you’re not being informed, you’re just addicted to the feeling of superiority/outrage. But alas, it’s my passion and borderline addiction, so I never successfully go cold turkey from politics. Which is why I know about this Arizona thing. But I am not up to date or fully aware of where the pedogate investigation has gone since 2017. Just vaguely.
Having said that, I still firmly believe the Clinton Foundation and many other corrupt elites in Media/Government are involved in child trafficking. And every new whistle blower that comes out affirms this more. Whether you think it’s a satanic cult or not doesn’t matter. Who cares if these freaks get their kicks by LARPing as satanists or if they actually are satanists?
To me, what’s important is that there’s enough proof to conclude that many of them are actual pedophiles, and some are even murderers. As Paul Joseph Watson points out, there are plenty of proven, real world examples of this being the case, so is it really that far fetched?
Anywho, please research and make up your own mind. Aimlessly googling will bring up flat Earther whack jobs, or FakeNews MSM “””debunking””” links. I suggest starting with Ben Swann’s 5 minute, objective summary that aired on CBS News. And then with watching the Netflix documentary “Who Took Johnny?“
Unfortunately, being redpilled ruins pretty much every movie for you. And you can’t help but be reminded of all the sh*tty hard truths you know, even during intended leisure time. Often for no real reason at all. But this time, the connection my brain made might not be a fluke.
It turns out the child actress (Judith Barsi) was murdered by her “abusive” father when “All Dogs Go To Heaven” was in production. Now, based on what Corey Feldman and other whistle blowers have said about rampant pedophelia in Hollywood, one can’t help but wonder if Judith is somehow connected to this grand pedogate investigation. Did her father kill himself out of guilt? Psychosis? Or was it a potential cover up like the JonBerét Ramsey psychiatrist murder?
Well, after some googlingduckduckgo-ing, it looks like I’m not the only one who suspects foul play.
This one is less circumstantial evidence and much more hearsay, but here’s a quick run down:
> There are several conspiracies and supposed contradictions surrounding Judith Barsi’s murder
> Some say it was a satanic murder on account of her being burned alive
> Some say that the alcoholic father was framed
> Some say the autopsy photo was faked
> There’s an anonymous source that leaks rumors and claims to be a Hollywood lawyer
> According to him, Stephen Speilberg is a pedo freak and abused Judith among others
> Apparently another Speilberg victim, (the little girl from poltergeist), was anally raped to death
This is an ongoing investigation so check for updates elsewhere, but here are some links & in depth summaries: ⬅
I guess I’m glad I was unaware of her murder before watching this classic. But the film in and of itself is already pretty heavy and full of tearjerker moments – with or without pizzagate thoughts in the back of your head.
If I ruined this film for you, let me suggest a new way to view it.
One of the theories about her death is that the father was a an alcoholic a**hole but not an abuser. And according to the official story, he managed to stay sober for a bit before her death. Steps 4 through 10 of Alcoholics Anonymous are all about doing deep introspection and facing ugly truths about your life. I’m not saying her father went to AA, but that it’s likely that many of the parents who pimped their children out to Hollywood must have done mental hula hoops to do so. Often members of AA discover they were trying to repress bad memories (both harm they inflicted upon others, and harm inflicted upon them). According to this anonymous whistle blower, Heather O’Rourke may have died because her parents naively believed the lie they were told about her illness. As American Beauty points out: “Never underestimate the power of denial.”
So perhaps he came to grips with the pedophilic exploitations of his little girl in his moment of clarity, and tried to rescue her. Maybe he had a redemptive transformation, (much like this film’s protagonist), and was seen as a threat to the Hollywood child trafficking racket. Seems like a very reasonable motive for someone to kill the entire family; and a drunk with a bad reputation like Judith’s father is the perfect patsy.
As far as the little girl in the cartoon, it shouldn’t be hard to make the mental leap ‘cuz of what IMDb states:
To be honest, it’s quite the stretch. California is a cesspit full of corrupt and disgusting people, so it’s not hard for me to be skeptical of the LA Times articles about Judith’s father, or the police reports. But her father’s first wife wrote a book and discusses his abusive nature which lead to their divorce. The whole thing is tragic, and it’s possible that everybody in Judith’s life was a piece of sh*t. But at least now you have an alternative theory to make the film digestible.
The day Commiefornia goes bankrupt can’t come soon enough…
Too bad it’s too late to boycott this movie. Besides, the parent companies are complicit, so if your intentions are to make a statement against sexual abuse you should really boycott all of Hollywood. Cancel all your subscriptions and torrenting everything that’s not an indie release. But since these custom ratings are meant to focus on giving Hollywood a message about liberal propaganda and affirmative action, I guess you can pay for the DVD if you so choose. Maybe Don Bluth is a good guy and he gets royalties. Tough call. I say just watch it if it’s free.
Anyways, hope you enjoy the film despite all its baggage. Either way, lemme’ know what you think in the comments below and post your own theories/connections if you have ’em.
Definitely see this film. Feel good movie that’s family friendly. Obviously don’t expect too much, but at least there were no infuriating political agendas shoved in it. The only thing that may irk you is that it revolves around the nerdy beta male shtick that’s been played out. Yet another fantasy role reversal where the Chad military get owned by nerds. If you’re woke to why this is such a common trope, it can distract you from the humor. But without that premise the film wouldn’t work as a comedy. Instead it’d have to be like “The Last Starfighter” and you can watch “Ready Player One” for that reboot. Anyways, they are all lovable characters, (except for Q-bert, that voice was very cringeworthy), so just relax and enjoy the cinematic junk food that’s free of political crap.
This was a pretty great film. Not gonna’ lie. It’s just sad that we can’t have these same themes in movies lead by white people and about my nation. One of the most popular animated movies (worldwide) was “Frozen” but the themes weren’t about the importance of familia, respecting your ancestors, unity, patriarchy, etc. like “Coco” was. Instead, if we’re lucky enough to get blue eyed blondes as leads at all, they have to denigrate the males and have protagonists spit on their traditions/culture. Buzzfeed puts it best: they are always “subverting the Disney formula:”
It’s just all so tiresome. So for that reason alone, you should not pay to support this film. But on top of that, they made it a statement about Trump. I did some digging and it turns out that “Coco” was in the works since 2010. I’m certain Trump’s election rhetoric made them drop everything and prioritize “Coco” but we’ll likely never know. It seems they announced production of the film right around the time that Trump seemed to be the likely winner of the Republican primaries. But even if it was all a big coincidence, all the people who worked on the film made several statements that made the film clearly an anti-Trump movie. Thankfully, though, the story was already established and nothing in the film itself is political. There were no allegories about walls or anything like that.
Well, I guess you could argue that Héctor being prevented from reuniting with his family was due to strong border control, but they don’t seem to demonize the border agents or the policy. Nor do they glorify it or make it a central point like “Black Panther” does.
So, I think it was more of a relatable theme for the Mexican American target audience, but without the political commentary intended. Easy to ignore, and it didn’t even cross my mind until after the film. As for the affirmative action ratings, it’s tough to say. I’d honestly get bored with only European princesses with slight variations. We are all interested in exotic lands and have been since long before Hollywood. But clearly, Pixar/Disney are just going through a checklist of minorities to make movies about. At least it was a homogenous staff so no character felt out of place, or like they didn’t earn their spot as an actor. Which also allowed for more character depth, without screams of racism because they accidentally portrayed the one dark character negatively. It’s similar to “Black Panther” in that regard. Think Hollywood is learning multiculti doesn’t work well? Nah… Oh, and there are strong females but they were 100% accurate from my experience with hot blooded Latinas and their matriarchal grandma. Lastly, the anti-god ratings are only there because it portrays a different after life, and worship of ancestors. If you’re a strict Christian, this may bug you. But they don’t mention god once, and most Mexicans are Catholic despite this aspect of their culture. So it’s up to you…
All in all, consider this a point for Hollywood in the culture war. This was really well-made, visually stunning, and had a solid plot to boot. And as a nationalist, I really do support all peoples having pride in their culture. I’m not gonna’ give the cliché “I’m not racist, I have black friends” routine, because there’s no appeasing progressives with that, and because I am racist. Hell, unlike the champagne socialists, I lived and worked in the Mexican ghetto that they avoid like the plague. (Which in this case is fitting, because the cheap maids they import are sometimes literally bringing the plague with them…) I really enjoyed my time immersing myself in other cultures, and even picked up some Spanish while teaching cute ‘lil Mexican kids English. But travel and real world experiences made me racist more than anything else. Crime and welfare statistics don’t resonate as well as memories tied to the five senses. So yeah, I am both racist and I also want these people to thrive in their own communities.
This personal tangent is more of an appeal to my rightwing brethren who get blackpilled and spend too much time filled with hate. It’s hard not to when you’re politically woke. But I think it’s important to not get too caught up in the nationalist echo chamber, while purity cycling into hate & despair. A truly intelligent person should be able to foster the rage when needed, and lighten up upon command. There’s a reason George Soros funds Black Lives Matter and other such groups. The elites have a win/win strategy. They either divide and conquer us, or subvert the nation through migration. But it’s clear that the source of these problems, the puppet masters, are the politicians. These third world migrants are useful idiots just like AntiFa. I think a truly stoic, politically savvy, and socially effective person knows how to harness these emotions for good. Here are some great clips that I think you should keep in mind before seeing “Coco” so that you can enjoy it:
But of course, this is how propaganda works. Even intelligent people see these movies and the sentimental stuff seeps into their brains. Public support for open borders or endless war, skyrockets when those pictures of dead/sad children evoke our paternalistic instincts. So don’t be fooled! Remember, they can keep their culture on the other side of our, great, big wall.
Meh. Pretty entertaining so if you want to pay for it you can. It’s what you’d expect a buddy cop sequel to be. I gave it gay ratings only because they made fun of a flamboyantly gay stereotype. Not PC at all, and no pro gay agenda. As for the other ratings, one could argue that Jackie and Chris are affirmative action hires right off the bat, and the movie is full of non whites. So it should get 5/5. But since both of them feel like they truly are funny and truly earned it, I didn’t consider them in my affirmative action rating. The 2 point score is because of all the side characters in the film. It’s much darker than the first Rush Hour.
Oh. I guess I should also give a heads up, in case you’re a nationalist Asian man reading this, because you may put off by the aggressively sexual black man creeping on local woman throughout the movie. But as an anti-feminist, I thought it was just light hearted sexual humor. Chris had the same tendencies in his “Friday” movies with black women. So try not to get too uptight about it. Especially since Jackie hooks up with the voluptuous Latina woman in this movie.
For me, as an anti-feminist, I miss the days when those jokes were allowed so I thought it was funny. Idk, just depends on the viewer I guess. Speaking of which, one other thing I noticed, (now that I’m hip to the JQ), was how out of place this scene was:
It was clearly just an inside joke for the (((small community))) who runs Hollywood. It didn’t really make sense with the rest of the film or his character. No big deal, but just stood out to me, that’s all. And I guess I’m not the only one who was confused by it:
All in all, I think it’s worth checking out. And I look forward to watching the 3rd one soon. These guys really do have great chemistry and are fun to watch. Everything mentioned above is only the kind of stuff that red-pilled weirdos would notice, so you shouldn’t be pulling your hair out upon viewing. T’sall easy to brush aside…
So watch it for some decent nostalgia vibes if you feel like.
"“Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom”: An Allegory About Demographic Apocalypse?"
Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) is reluctantly recruited by ex-girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) to rescue as many species of dinosaurs as they can from Isla Nublar before the island’s volcano erupts. The enterprise is being bankrolled by a mysterious philanthropist (Rafe Spall) – but is his offer what it appears to be? Most importantly, can the unfossilized and feral creatures be contained after they are transported to safety? Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom delivers the mayhem fans are expecting and more, with the volcano’s explosion providing the perfect pretext to fill the screen with giant reptiles of every variety as they scurry and stomp for their lives.
Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is:
4. Feminist and pro-miscegenation. Representing the Coalition of the Fringes are a tattooed Latina man-hater (Daniella Pineda) and a nebbishy mulatto computer whiz (Justice Smith).
3. Anti-white,anti-gun, and animal-rights-militant. Ted Levine appears as a “great white [sic] hunter” whose hobby of assembling necklaces from the teeth of endangered species earns him a dinosaur jaw’s worth of trouble. Guns, in addition to being unreliable, are problematic in the possession of trigger-happy white men in particular.
2. Disingenuouslyantiwar but actually anti-Slav and neoconservative. The dinosaur rescue operation turns out to be a nefarious military-industrial plot – what? social justice hijacked for capitalist plunder? I’m shocked! – and the movie climaxes at an auction at which arms procurers from around the world bid on weaponizable reptiles. Present at the auction are representatives from Russia, Slovenia, and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. “Too many red lines have been crossed,” as well – ostensibly with regard to Frankenstein genetic science, but probably also in reference to Syria.
1.Racist! Bookending the film are testimonies from learned elder of science Jeff Goldblum, who warns that humanity, by saving the dinosaurs, is risking its own extinction. Underlying the film is the West’s anxiety about the acceptance of “refugee” populations from the Third World. The dinosaurs, as savage, prehistoric animals – rather like Africans, the film seems to imply – are objects of both amazement and civilizational trepidation. Indicative of the mingled fear and excitement experienced by mentally ill social justice warriors in the presence of rapefugees is an unsettling scene in which a dark-colored dinosaur creeps into a little girl’s room and hovers over her in her bed, extending a claw to caress her. This same child’s decision at the end of the film to release the dinosaurs into the modern world can be read either as a parody or a celebration of naïve Europeans’ – and particularly women’s – childishness and erotic retardation in ushering in their own racial and cultural annihilation. She makes her momentous choice after discovering that she is a clone and not the person she thinks she is – which is to say, after having her sense of identity undermined.
Alternatively, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom can be read as an allegory about the danger inherent in providing succor to Jews. After rescuing the dinosaur-Jews from the volcano-Holocaust, western man is faced with the problem of how to survive with these troublesome creatures in his midst – an interpretation bolstered by an attempt to exterminate the dinosaurs with cyanide gas at the end of the film and which, furthermore, would put a somewhat different and perhaps self-revelatory spin on the aforementioned scene of the giant lizard in the little girl’s bedroom.
Magic Mike himself, big badass Channing Tatum, stars as a Capitol policeman and would-be Secret Service agent who gets his chance to play at the real thing when he and his daughter (Joey King) tour the White House on precisely the day real-life Obama…
The first 40 minutes of the film were okay. I got sucked in and was super pumped about it, to be honest. Sure, it was cheesy, but it was a relatable white cast with the American entrepreneur spirit. Then it slowly started sneaking in more and more “diversity” and equated literal freaks in a freakshow with African Americans. (Really shows what the left thinks of their pets.)
This is just the same old same old. Hollywood’s revisionist history has to add 21st century sensibilities and make EVERYTHING about race. This was a huge let down and not worth analyzing in depth at all. But rest assured, all the clichés you’d expect were in it. Like evil rich white parents looking down on race mixing hopeless romantics.
They even spell out the already in-your-face symbolism with these line from a critic:
Putting folks of all kinds on stage.
All colors, shapes, sizes.
Presenting them as equals.
Another critic might have even called it
'a celebration of humanity'.
"The Misguided Teen Angst of “Heathers” and the Incremental Anti-White Creep of Hollywood"
Just rewatched one of my favorite films. The casual immorality was something that stood out this time now that I am red-pilled. I’m no saint. Quite the opposite. But I wonder if future generations will watch films like this and see how promiscuous our society was, and how so many of the problems and angst were created because we stopped respecting the founding traditions & patriarch that created our civilization and kept it in tact.
I wouldn’t say this film is particularly against religion. It’s just a dark comedy that pokes fun at morbid things, while dismissing religion as an ineffective coping mechanism. You could even interpret the movie as being pro-tradition, and pro-religion since it lampoons most church goers as just going through the motions, but without true devotion and concern for what is righteous. There’s even some parallels to Romeo & Juliet themes, in regards to the disrespect the young lovers have for the ruling forces of the universe.
But I’m 95% sure that wasn’t the intent of the script. The intended message of the movie was likely to satirize modern culture and its cold response to teen suicide. The conclusion seems to be that parents just don’t understand, high school will always suck, and if only we showed more love & compassion to kids there’d be less unhappiness. But you and I both know that’s not the case. This movie was made in ’88, which makes it somewhat prophetic when you think about the school shooter epidemic we have now. A lot of the same problems are still going on today – even worse than before. But to the film’s credit, they did correctly peg lack of love as the cause of all this.
But it’s not the goofy #LoveWins kind of unconditional love we hear spouted from the left. It’s more of a lack of belonging in this modern, hyper consumerist world we live in. We have been robbed of our ancestor’s religion, race, gender, and nation. We’re not allowed to embrace those things anymore, let alone be proud of them. Instead of loyalty & pride in your community, you are only allowed to have loyalty & pride to an arbitrary group of interchangeable Africans who wear designated colors that represent your area.
(And thanks to the sexual revolution/destruction of the family, many of us don’t even have patriarchal figures to disrespect even if we wanted to.) So instead, we replace this giant hole with vice. Simple pleasures like Tinder and new iPhones. Hook up culture and shallow friendships that continually leave us unfulfilled. And yet we keep doing the same sh*t and are shocked when things only get worse.
It’s no wonder suicide is on the rise, especially with white males. I won’t argue my case for why this is, because it’ll take too long, but if you’re interested this documentary shows that most school shooters are a product of big pharma. And these tworants by Nick Fuentes or this rant by Jean-Francois Gariépy also hammer across the point about the degeneration of modern society and how hedonism won’t bring you true happiness. But if you already agree, here are two artsy fartsy shorts that perfectly exemplify what this film feels like:
The other thing I noticed with my post-red pill viewing was how they made the blue-eyed blondes the bad guys. I watched it with my Russian gf this time, and within the first 10 minutes she said, “God, American schools always seem like hell!” I explained that Hollywood exaggerates things and that actually when I went to school it was more like the movie “21 Jump Street” where the weird kids were cool. Which in all honesty is likely due to Hollywood’s transformative propaganda combined with the Columbine school shooting that scared society straight like JD’s character intended when he plotted to blow up the school.
But still, even when talking to my elder family members, school was never like they portrayed it on the big screen. Or at least not that bad. Which is why we have to look at who is making these films to truly understand why school is depicted in such a way.
You see, this anti-white incrementalism has been around in Hollywood from the very beginning and only now (with absurdly obvious “Star Wars” and “Get Out” kill whitey type movies) do we notice it. But long before that, if you pay close enough attention, you’ll see that the blue-eyed blonde types gradually became the villains/morons more and more overtime:
So I did some research on where the “dumb blonde” meme began.
TL;DR Hollywood popularized the phrase 'dumb blonde.'➡Click for the full explanation.⬅
There are several theories on the etymology of the dumb blonde jokes and the stereotype that blondes are dumb. Using Google’s Ngram Viewer we can try to get to the bottom of things. If you don’t know, it’s a free service that lets you create graphs based on the frequency each phrase occurs within the entire database of books they’ve scanned. The chart below is from 1877 – 1980, comparing several intelligence related search terms.
Some of the phrases I searched such as “genius blonde” or “retarded blonde” had no results whatsoever. The very first mention I could find relating to blonde intelligence (or lack thereof), was in 1878 and it was “intelligent blonde” that first hit. So right off the bat it seems clear that Hollywood coined the term.
For frame of reference here are charts for variations of beautiful and ugly from the same time period (1877 – 1980) to make the comparison easier, even though the first mention of “beautiful blonde” (in 1803) predates “dumb blonde.”
As expected, society values outer appearance more, but nevertheless it can help us ball park things. Here you can see it without the unpopular search terms cluttering things up:
It becomes obvious that this term was indisputably a product of Hollywood, roughly around the time Hitler was coming to power spouting off about blonde superiority. Again, another zoomed in graph with varying search terms supports this theory:
(There were other books that mention “dumb blonde” before Anita Loos’ novel, but I couldn’t find free copies of these works online. So if anyone can get a copy please leave ’em in comments below or email us Thank you!)
But other theories go even further back. Apparently, the promiscuous stereotype of blondes can be traced to ancient Roman laws that forced prostitutes to dye their hair blonde. To me, this seems like more of a stretch and only focuses on the sexual part, not the intelligence. So instead, let’s focus on the somewhat more recent suspected origin (which also happens to be a prostitute).
There’s definitely something to this theory. (The oldest recorded use in google’s corpus for the phrase “dizzy blonde” was in the 1860’s.)
And for a closer look:
Still, even the synonymous senior phrase seems fairly insignificant considering it occurs on par with “smart blonde” and “intelligent blonde.” Neither of which became idioms of their own. But to the credit of the dizzy blonde theorists, it seems clear that the notion of a ditsy blonde had been around long before Hollywood. Especially since “dizzy brunette” is an almost non existent phrase in the google literature database. Still, things don’t really kick off until the 1920’s/1930’s.
Something to take note of, though, is that “dumb dora” wasn’t exclusive to blondes. In fact, the two most famous incarnations started out as brunettes.
The first incarnation was a cartoon of a 1920’s flapper girl with black hair. But after the dumb blonde shtick made it to the silver screen, the meme had coopted the original color-neutral phrase, and the cartoonist followed suit. He ended up giving up on “Dumb Dora” to pursue another airhead named “Blondie.” Then, once that subversion was complete, Hollywood set its eyes on undermining the husband/wife dynamic. And sure enough, the cartoonist towed the line again, until his original creation was completely inverted.
But upon researching this claim about film limitations on dark hair, I found no evidence to support it. It’s true early black & white television required bizarre makeup tricks for a decently composed end result, but there were several actors/actresses with dark hair working at the time, like Mary Astor. And every source I came across just mentioned the makeup as seen below:
Occam’s Razor would suggest that it was a stylistic choice more than anything. A lot of the famous female leads at the time were blondes and this was before affirmative action so if “gentlemen preferred blondes,” that’s who got the part. Sex sells. It could also be because contrast always works well with comedy duos. For example, thin & tall Abbott standing next to short & fat Costello. Or like Young Chic’s original Dumb Dora cartoon, with a black haired female and a blonde male suitor. Who knows? Well, I emailed my conjectures to a makeup historian from one of the sources above, and he was equally as skeptical:
I don’t mean to assume nefarious motives, but I’d be remiss not to mention the Jewish ingredients that may have played a part. Perhaps this stylistic choice was biased in favor of the Jewish sensibilities and subconscious preferences of the overwhelmingly Jewish members of Hollywood. If you think it’s a myth that Jews are overrepresented in Hollywood, I suggest you watch the documentary called “An Empire of Their Own – How the Jews Invented Hollywood” or you at least read this passage from Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda:
So, without a doubt, Jews were the founding fathers of Hollywood and remain over represented in the industry to this day. And the facts remain whether you think it’s a conspiracy or not. The only part that’s debatable is if Tinsel Town’s core identity matters and if we can prove its influence.
So, while watching these clichéd blondes and cartoonishly evil jocks on screen, I was reminded of 2 books I read about Hollywood. Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up & Sing and Ben Shapiro’s Primetime Propaganda.
There you have it. Plain and simple. To us non-Jews we just see a movie about a quirky girl fighting off the obnoxious cool kids. Most people can relate and will cheer for the protagonist. Especially when the script makes the antagonists one dimensional monsters. But what goes over our heads is the Jewish animosity towards WASPs. And if I were to explain this outright, people would think I was a tinfoil hat nazi, no?
Well, aside from anecdotal evidence, Pew Research backs this up as well:
I only had a hunch while watching and decided to research and just kept finding more and more evidence that supported my gut feeling. It turns out I’m not alone. Other than Jews themselves admitting to the WASP hatred that’s central to the film, I just googled and found an Alt Right author who came to the same conclusion (with more insight into the symbolism than me) in his book:
I am well aware of Godwin’s Law, but does it still count if this obsession with Hitler is not your own? According to Pew Research, most Jews are secular and the biggest unifying part of their identity is “remembering the holocaust.” So surely this nazi complex plays a part in how roles are cast, (whether subconsciously or not), as Shapiro’s excerpt about Mel Brooks proves. It’s much like this clip of Jordan Peterson arguing that whether you’re an atheist or not, it doesn’t matter because you can never completely divorce yourself from the Christian society you were born into. It permeates into more than you can possibly imagine and is likely responsible for most of the way you think:
Well, then is it farfetched to think that the overly sexualized, dumb blonde shtick is likely an extension of what the Torrah teaches about goys/shiksas, since it sounds an awful lot like how the Quran talks about infidels and the chosen ones’ claim to infidel women?
But to be fair, many theologians say these passages are misinterpreted or taken out of context. And at any rate, if the largely speculative psychoanalysis about shiksas has any clout, it’s not very apparent in “Heathers” since it has a female lead. So if you’re interested in the shiksa hypothesis, you can check out what other bloggers theorize about it. For now, let’s move onto how the inferiority complex of most liberal types (gentiles and Jews alike) is manifested in Hollywood.
So basically, Hollywood is full of a bunch of freaks and losers with bitter memories of high school. And now the rest of the world thinks American high school is a living hell. An interesting theme throughout Ben Shapiro’s book is the debate on if Hollywood’s relationship with society is more transformative or more reflective. Clearly it’s both and a vicious cycle. At first, when Hollywood started casting more beta males, it was because the beta males who ran the industry identified with such characters, just as they identified with blue-eyed blondes being their (perceived) enemies. A great anecdote to prove this point can be found in part of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech about his come up:
Without a doubt, the market wanted alpha male chads with big muscles, blonde hair, and blue eyes. But the nepotistic elites insisted on giving roles to people like Dustin Hoffman and Woody Allen. They couldn’t fathom anyone identifying with Arnold because they couldn’t. Unfortunately, our society has changed (largely due to this propaganda) so more and more of us can identify with the awkward “nice guy” male feminist soyboy. So what was once a discriminating casting choice in spite of profits, has slowly become justified. Fake it ’til you make it, I suppose.
Despite all its flaws, I still have a soft spot for the movie, its charming cast, and its amazing soundtrack. All the anti-white stuff will likely slip under the radar so it’s easily brushed aside by the viewer. Furthermore, you can think of the whole thing as a satire on the decline of Western Civilization due to lacking morals/tradition. Rather than a commentary on teen angst due to lack of love & tribal cliques. If you go into it with these perspectives in mind, I think you’ll still really enjoy the film. Pay if you’d like, because it’s pretty late to care about boycotting it at this point. Besides, Winona Ryder isn’t the most outspoken actor, only guilty by association. :^)
He bashes Trump and Trump supporters in this, but you should be able to take a joke. And to be fair, he seems like he tries to be unifying and say redeeming things about rightwingers. It’s just still incredibly lopsided. The reason I say that you shouldn’t pay for it, is because the message should be clear from “our” side. White men and rightwingers shrug off this nonstop hate more than any other demographic. (Despite what you hear about white fragility and other projection from SJWs…)
Proof of this, is in the anecdote Dave tells about his SNL appearance. He said he was just doing improv presentation and said something off the top of his head about how we should give Trump a chance or something. He’s clearly not a Trump supporter, he says he voted for Hillary, and he’s just trying to say something kind of neutral. But even that is too much for Hollywood. He was demonized and caught so much flak that he said he wish he had never said it all just because it wasn’t worth all the trouble. Bingo. That’s why The Overton Window has continuously been pushed left. They do no let up. It’s only free speech supporting rightwingers who are forgiving. Not Muslims or leftists or any sort of minority. Which is why now every commercial, movie, tv show, etc. only makes white men the morons. It’s why tv only dares to make fun of Christians, not Muslims. So, take a joke, laugh at yourself, but don’t pay to do so.
You can see here, Dave was brought on and grilled about his minuscule gesture of unity and forced to backtrack:
Other than that, the typical victim mentality was on display. Dave says he was jealous of rappers who grew up in the hood. This is one of the most harmful things to the black community in America today. As Thomas Sowell points out in “Black Rednecks & White Liberals,” what they consider “black culture” actually came from the white trash highlanders (Scots/Irish) in the American South. But since white liberals are too afraid to criticize these shitty cultural traits, they never grew out of it.
Likewise, as Devin Carbado points out, this notion of “acting white” if you speak correctly and work diligently is why so many blacks underperform.
Now, if you’ve read my other reviews, you know I don’t shy away from being a “racist piece of sh*t.” Call me what you like, I don’t care. But even race realists like me, who believe in the bell curve of race & IQ still recognize that blacks in America were MUCH better off before the 1970’s. Good intentions pave the road to hell and I know blacks can do better. Which is why I am a strong supporter of Black Nationalists like The Hoteps. And it’d be nice if these privileged celebrities got on board as well…
Dave also talks about being just rich enough to be poor around whites. Again, I see another reason why forced integration and multiculturalism doesn’t work. I think the vast majority (#notall) of people feel better and do better when they are in a homogenous community. (And before you attribute Dave’s success to being around “privileged” whites, he talks about starting his stand up career doing shows for drug dealers in NY. So that’s debatable.)
He also adds in the typical victim olympics crap, where he tries to shut up his SJW critics by going on about how bad it is as a black man in America. Pretty frustrating to watch this dead horse beaten to a pulp on his 4th special in a row. But overall, he has some good insight, great laughs, and his partisan bashes clearly come from a place of love and not animosity like the rest of Hollywood. So check it out if you have free time. The reason I actually went and watched all four of his specials in a row, is because I saw this video analyzing the brilliance of Chappelle’s performance. Watch this if you’re still on the fence about him and these specials.
Again, pretty funny. Worth watching, just like the past 2 specials. But I wanna’ take the time to nitpick some things.
He said South Africa should have been a blood bath. Well, Earth to Dave… it is a bloodbath and has been since Apartheid ended but the mainstream media hides this because it doesn’t fit their race baiting narrative you swallow.
TL;DW: The standard of living for both whites and blacks was better under Apartheid. Likewise, the notion that South Africa belongs to blacks is wrong. Dutch settlers built a civilization in barren land that no one lived in or was native to. And it’s just random tribes that migrated to benefit from white civilization, who are now demanding it be given to them as a birthright. While horrifically torturing innocent whites in the process.
Heated debate between South Africans on the subject of white genocide and land grabs:
Also, he joked about how black women aren’t #METOO-ing people because they are too proud and loyal to their black brothers.
And then immediately after talks about his Asian wife. LOL! C’mon, Dave. Be a little introspective:
"“Deep in the Heart of Texas: Dave Chappelle Live at Austin City Limits”"
Funny show. Good commentary all in all.
Still bizarre to see how far the victim mentality goes in the black community. A multimillionaire goes on stage and in each special whines about slavery and how evil whites treat him as they cheer him on. He kept saying: “It’s a tough time for the blacks.” He was referring to the Black Lives Matter BS the media goes nuts with. But I don’t need to get into the statistics of why that’s all BS because you probably already know. Instead let’s take a foreigners’ perspective. Both Japanese people and African Africans are annoyed at the African American victim mindset:
So, one of the tell tale signs in this special that shows Dave’s mentality is how he said he was expecting a racist banana for 20 years during his career. So when it finally happened, of course he thought it was racist. But when you google the guy who did it, it’s clearly a hipster f*gg*t and the whole thing was truly coincidental.
I experienced this myself with one of the black girls I dated back in the States. She was over analyzing and reading between the lines inventing racist experiences that definitely didn’t happen. I thought she was crazy and too sensitive but gave her benefit of the doubt for a few of the times. Fast forward a few years when I was living in Japan as an expat and I had the same dynamic with my Japanese gf but in reverse. I kept explaining how I was positive so and so responded to me in such and such way because I was a Gaijin!
I think it’s a little of column A and a little of column B. If Dave’s other anecdote about being hit with a snowball and called the “N word” was true, then I get why he’s uptight. And it can create a tense mindset and vicious cycle. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find anything on the snowball story because I guess he dropped the charges. Since he’s a comedian it’s hard to know what aspects are hyperbole, absurdism, or reality. But now that we have body cams and CCTV footage, and even with this banana peel story being google-able, I highly doubt Dave’s side of the story. Most likely, he is a race OBSESSED man and 90% of his bad experiences are as bullsh*t as the NAACP president’s racial profiling experience:
Nevertheless, I still find Dave hilarious and this stand up was clever and insightful on variety of subjects. (Even the commentary on race relations despite the victim spin.) So support the man by renting it or buying the DVD…. that is, if you aren’t boycotting NetFlix.
"“The Age of Spin: Dave Chappelle Live at the Hollywood Palladium”"
Pretty funny. Plus he gets bonus points for offending trannies in this special. Look at this f*gg*t. He responded exactly like the easily offended Millennials that Dave lampooned in his special:
I mean, c’mon. Dave even tells an anecdote about a white woman screaming at him at a show, and how you can’t beat black dudes in the “victim olympics.” Guess Tyler didn’t get the message. (I don’t care enough to read the blog post, and am not sure which routine this blogger was talking about or the timeline of events. Doesn’t really matter though because there’s an endless supply of outraged queers anyway.) Not much else to say. Check it out if you like racism, rape jokes, and other uncomfortable expressions of social commentary.
Interesting documentary. Fascinating man. And a bit of an as*h*le.
As with “The Barkley Marathon” documentary, the baby boomers may rub you the wrong way. One old geezer is convinced he saw Charles shrink to the size of a gnome and swears by it. There are also some truly hideous dumb broads that illustrate what the myopic, self-indulgent, hippie lifestyle eventually turns you into. A bearded cat lady.
But even though they were Bukowski’s peers, he hated them too so don’t be deterred. One of his most famous poems, (the one this film is named after), is all about the red pill blues:
Still resonates today, huh?
He was a very hard worker, with a “Protestant work ethic” that he didn’t betray, and yet he recognized what a disgusting and pitiful system we live under now. He was a vagabond with legitimate grievances who still put in 15+ years at the post office. A true working man’s hero, he slaved away and sacrificed so that he could do what he loved. Ironically, he achieved the American Dream by bashing it. Much like Michael Moore, but more like-able. An interview with his publisher puts things into perspective, detailing how Bukowski was a functioning alcoholic with a machine-like production of literature despite working full time. This was only possible because he rejected the modern world and lived in minimalist poverty for decades. Much more respectable than the bourgeois beatniks he’s lumped in with. But to be fair, he definitely was a degenerate hedonist as well; something this documentary doesn’t shy away from. Instead it just explores the root causes and lets the audience make up their own mind on if Bukowski was more of a product of his hot-blooded genes or his rough childhood.
Conclusion? If you’re not into literature or American history, then you may want to skip this film. Especially if you’ve never heard of Bukowski. But you don’t have to be a poet to appreciate this movie either. God knows I’m certainly not– I’d only briefly heard some of his poems before, but was still captivated throughout the doc. So check it out if you feel like, and pay to do so if you can afford it.
Man, I love documentaries. I realize this more and more as I compare them with my movie-going experience with the usual Hollywood tripe. This one was great too. I don’t want to ruin anything, so just watch it when you have time. One thing I will say, though, is that this has some nice themes. Typically, documentaries present as neutral observers and merely dramatize things for emotional responses. But this one had a fitting “moral of the story” interwoven with the philosophies espoused by the eccentrics on screen.
Likewise, not all documentaries have a story arch, but since this is a race, there’s a natural climax to follow. Which is why it’s slow in the beginning. So give it some time and pace yourself. Also, fair warning, the chain-smoking Baby Boomer who doesn’t practice what he preaches may rub you the wrong way at first. But as you learn more about the event and the family of participants, you may find it all rather endearing.
Pay to watch, and give yourself an hour ‘n half to get inspired!
I’m sure by now, you’ve already heard the theories about how Black Panther is actually Alt Right because of its protectionist/ethnocentric themes. But they threw in a scene at the very end, during the credits, (no spoilers), that makes me wonder if it was added last minute in post production for fear of rightwingers making a point. Who knows?
Anyways, the film was okay. Just another typical super hero movie. There were 2 white guys in the film; one was a cartoonishly evil South African who called Wakandans savages repeatedly. The other guy was a consistently dumbfounded CIA agent who fumbled about in awe while being condescended to by all the super advanced Wakandans.
Other than that, because the cast was mainly black, the plot could include some variety in the characters. There were actual brown bad guys and multidimensional, flawed POC. Crazy, huh? This is really what redeemed the movie. It allowed for some interesting (whether intentional or not) self criticism. No spoilers, but there was some social commentary on the inadequacy of black fathers and black on black violence.
There’s a scene where one of the villains is angry for being racially profiled. Then he immediately proceeds to murder everyone and commit a robbery based on “We Wuz Kangz” delusions. I think the irony was lost on them with this social commentary, though…
Of course we all know that the main premise of the film is that if it wasn’t for evil colonialism stealing the wealth, then Africa would be rich. So let’s look into that a bit…
The accepted narrative taught in school:
“But other than exploiting resources the West was built on slavery!”
Yeah, about that…
But since I went in expecting an insane “everything is whitey’s fault” message, I was happily surprised. It wasn’t that bad. Especially when you take into account the self criticism of the black community that was part of the film. Likewise, the casting was great. A truly a charming lot, especially Black Panther’s sister. She is friggin’ adorable.
And Black Panther’s character finds a nice balance of being masculine but not a macho trope. Lots of good relationships on display with subtle nuances expressed wonderfully by the actors. So, I must give props to the casting director(s), but I’ll reiterate and say that I really think it was possible because the film was >90% black and allowed for the writers to conceive without concern for twitter outrage mobs. They were relatable, human.
Maybe should be your takeaway. Both the meta and the plot itself prove that diversity is not our strength. Perhaps all races can avoid conflict, and reach our fullest potential by living in largely homogenous societies. Memes and banter aside, black separatists like The Hoteps have my respect. And if you, dear reader, come at this film from the perspective of an ally to the black empowerment groups and try to just ignore the evil colonial narratives, you might actually be able to enjoy it.
This was a pretty good movie by Kenneth Branagh with one glaring liberal Hollywood casting decision. They insert a black character where there was none in the original novel nor in any of the film incarnations of this Agatha Christie novel. Unfortunately it seems that the “oscars-so-white” movement controlled Branagh’s decisions in how he cast his movie.
Just as in the new Winston Churchill movie, Darkest Hour, they anachronistically either add a black character or make one of the original characters black- when they NEVER could have been there historically. This is in actuality an example of soft bigotry in my mind. No, blacks weren’t riding trains in London in the 1930’s and no,
there probably weren’t any high class black doctors riding elegant trains from Istanbul to London around the same time period.
This isn’t a happy point I am making. It is simply the truth and to try to change history for the sake of political correctness is just sad. And frustrating while one watches a movie.
"‘The Man Who Fell To Earth’ is typical 60’s and 70’s garbage"
This 1976 film is incoherent and choppily edited, full of 1970’s tripe. The scenes go on and on and then arenseemingly randomly spliced together. It is obsessed with naked bodies (especially Bowie’s) trying to shock the audience. It is pretentious- an artsy film where no one acts rationally. This throws you off and is why David Mamet said this about screenwriting : any good story should have a beginning a middle and an end. (this is why french movies are trash) Artsy movies like this Bowie -fest are purely ego driven- let me photograph a flower and I will force you to watch the image for way too long.
If you’ve never seen this film, you should. Quite bittersweet watching it again recently. It wasn’t that long ago that we could cathartically laugh at the differences between our cultures. I know that it was just Hollywood fantasy and that multiculturalism almost always leads to tribal tension. Case and point being Patrice O’Neal’s savage roast:
But at least in ’98 we could bond through fiction. Now even that isn’t allowed. Can you imagine if they made “White Men Can’t Jump” today? Think it would have the same “Rush Hour” type vibe of relatable social satire that lampoons/venerates both adversaries equally?
Pshh. C’mon. Only cartoon villain or traitorous cuck for white roles. You know the deal. And since SJW’s are insatiable, they’d have to make Woody Harrelson an Asian chick. Turns out “Rush Hour 4” just got confirmed as in production. Don’t get your hopes up. Get ready for a “Ghostbusters” style reboot where Jackie Chan is played by a woman and Chris Tucker becomes a non-binary tranny.
Anyways, the original “Rush Hour” is pretty great, wholesome, and actually humorous since the jokes are based in reality. No overt agenda noticeable. I didn’t give any affirmative action rating because both actors were clearly picked due to their charm and skills. And their race makes sense because of the premise.
I was a big fan of the “Broken Windows Theory” explanation, (popularized by Malcolm Gladwell), of why crime was greatly reduced in the 90’s. But then I read “Freakonomics” and discovered their opposing theory that claimed legal abortion was the real reason crime dropped, since less unwanted hooligans born = less unwanted crimes committed.
Occam’s Razor and my gut say the abortion theory held much more sway. But what’s with the false ultimatum? Isn’t it just a percentage debate? Several factors lead to the decrease in crime, and abortion was just the biggest factor, right?
Idk. I started searching around and was surprised to find that a founding father of the race realist movement, Mr. Steve Sailer, was one of the earliest critics of the abortion theory. Strange, no? Most Alt Right type people are in favor of legal abortion for obvious reasons…
Steve may be a eugenics mad man and “pro-choice” for all I know; his beef is just with the “unreliable” source data. If you’re interested, here were some American Renaissance comments that helped sum things up:
Likewise, here are links to both the Freakonomics and Steve Sailer posts that collect the back and forth of the ongoing debate between them. This is above my pay grade so I’ll let you decide.
But regardless of your take on that specific point, there are tons of fascinating theories in the film that you’ll enjoy, especially if you’re a race realist. Like, the anticlimactic conclusion revealed at the end of the film, that confirms that even when you throw money at the problem you can’t improve educational gaps without addressing the source of the problem.        
You see, the filmmakers and their economist buddies tried to incentivize students to work harder by rewarding them with limo rides and hundreds of dollars. But to no avail.
For us “redpilled” folk, it seems glaringly unmistakeable why it didn’t work. They even address rampant cheating in Chicago schools early on in the film, and at one point prove that black sounding names make minimal difference (if at all) with respect to occupational success. And then right after that, unintentionally argued in favor of eugenics. But of course all throughout the film, they make sure to sprinkle in disclaimers and conclude each segment by pointing to a red herring and/or a non-causal correlation. For example, at the end of their bribing students experiment, you hear the economists brainstorming and suggesting that perhaps if they started the experiments earlier in the student’s lives it might work.
Think someone should tell them they’re on a fool’s errand and that there are already transracial adoption studies that prove the (much more evident) root cause of the performance gap consistent across all nations? Or is that exactly what they wanted the audience to do? Dropping subtle redpills via the Socratic Method? Doubt it…
Pretty good. The documentary was surprisingly fair. Simultaneously dishing out criticism and praise; with of course more of the latter since this is a posthumous TV special walking on egg shells. Don’t worry though, ‘cuz Bill Burr is here to cut through the BS and dismantle the Steve Jobs hype:
All stand up should be taken with a grain of salt, but Bill makes some very valid points, some of which are actually addressed in the film. Like this interview with one of Steve’s ex partners at Pixar:
Regardless of what you think of Jobs, he did revolutionize the industry and lived an interesting life while doing so. So love him or hate him, it’s worth taking a moment to get engrossed in this biopic.
Great documentary. No political agenda crap added in at all. Fascinating story of a guy with a few screws loose who lived ahead of his time. This is the second time I’ve watched this movie and I found it even more riveting the second time ’round.
Not much to say about it without ruining your viewing experience so just trust me and watch it. Especially if you fit on either of the bottom two political compass quadrants, and don’t like the direction society is going with respect to the dystopian surveillance. Since I have nothing unique to say about this film, why not read my review of “Snowden” or watch these videos that touch the the same subject matter:
As Braving Ruin says above, you really can’t avoid surveillance unless you want to live completely off the grid and outside the modern economy. But you can limit the amount of psychological corruption you subject yourself to. Zuccerberg may tempt you, but fight it! Don’t give in! Delete that sh*t right now!
The anti-patriotism rating is maxed out because the entire movie is a critique of our Military Industrial Complex. If you identify with the paleocons more than the neocons that hijacked the GOP, then you won’t mind this critique because there are no jabs at soldiers or anything like that. And may I remind you that a Republican president is the one who coined the term “Military Industrial Complex” :
Even Laura Ingraham, a staunch defender of Bush throughout his presidency, has realized how the globalists have been screwing the American people from both parties for decades:
So, be sure to check out the film. It’s very redpilled. So much so, that the film addresses the most taboo of redpills, the JQ.
From The Guardian interview with the director, Todd Phillips:
“Dead Kennedys sang about it,” he says. “That’s what I grew up on. It’s such bullsh*t they sell people, that war is about protecting your freedom, but meanwhile people are making billions and billions of dollars. It’s like, ‘F**k this, the system is rigged.’ The system is set up for the rich to get richer and everybody else to stay where they are. It’s a really depressing reality, and the more you can shine a light on it through movies and articles and books, the better it is.” And besides, he says, “It just felt like, ‘Wouldn’t it be fun to do the 23-year-old Jewish version of Scarface?’”
He admires how ballsy the War Dogs leads were in real life. Despite their unscrupulous exploits, these two underdogs took on the government and, until they started cutting corners, won big-time. “To me the guys are heroes,” says Phillips. “The government knew that they couldn’t source 100m rounds of AK ammo in the middle of a drought after two Iraq wars. So they went to these two kids knowing they were gonna source it in a shady way, and as long as nobody knows, wink wink we’re cool. For me the film is an indictment on the US government and their process of procurement, and the guys are kind of awesome.”
Except after digging into Todd Philipps a bit, it seems like he might be trying to make a point by poking fun and criticizing his own people as he’s known to do. Apparently he got Mel Gibson to do a cameo in “The Hangover 2” but the cast was angry about it so Mel’s role was swapped out. And it also turns out that Todd Philipps frequently cameos as a stereotypical Jew himself, and even wears the same “chai” necklace that Jonah Hill does in “War Dogs.”
I guess the dry cleaner Jewish character wasn’t in the book, but I didn’t classify that as Affirmative Action since another Jewish character in the book (different real life partner) was omitted. So, not much of a change. Also the Latina wife was apparently based on the real life girlfriend of the main character. Besides, she looks pretty white to me.
It’s worth noting, there are discrepancies between the two partners in real life and they are in legal battles over it, so take most of this with a grain of salt.
So is Todd a Jew who’s redpilled on the JQ? It’s not out of the question. There are several Alt Right Jews who love their people and yet still agree with the grievances that goys have. Perhaps that’s why Zach Galifianakis alluded to an inside joke they have where they say Todd is “the worst Jew in Hollywood.” Idk, I doubt it. To me it seems more likely that he is at most: an anti-Zionist, secular, Democrat Jew. And that any redpills about Jewish involvement in U.S. foreign policy was accidental. Realistically, he is just having some fun by satirizing Jews and their tendencies while mainly focusing on criticizing the American government.
(Minor spoilers and language warning!)
Regardless of his motivations and intended subtext, I say go see the film and pay to do so! Very fascinating story.
"‘Annihilation’ is a female ghost busters that made less sense"
‘Annihilation’ starring Natalie Portman had me excited, as it is the same writer and director that did ‘Ex Machina,’ an amazing film. Unfortunately ‘Annihilation’ did not meet these expectations.
Disregarding the poor scientific explanations (like a character turning into a plant because her DNA refracted like light through a prism, or a dying character’s voice transporting into a zombie bear’s vocal chords via the same refractions…WTF?), the entire premise was based on nonsensical feminism. The biggest government secret in the history of the world is immediately revealed to Portman’s character, solely because her husband was involved. The person who reveals this top secret information is the on site Psychologist (another female). These two team up with two other females, a paramedic and a scientist of some sort. The second line out of the paramedic’s mouth is her hitting on Portman’s character, because lesbians.
The reason they created this team of four females was because the previous groups were comprised of men (all of which never returned). Obviously the most rational decision is to give untrained, random women top secret government information, hand them each an automatic weapon, and send them into an unknown and highly dangerous area.
The movie luckily has some redeeming qualities, for instance, the only person that used the machine gun correctly was Portman’s character, who they explain was in the Army. The females also mostly behave like untrained women would behave if they were dropped into an unknown forest full of monsters.
In reality, I think the movie was most likely a metaphor for what people want in life, as they mention each woman is ‘broken’ in some way, looking for something. But this doesn’t excuse the ridiculous scenario of sending four untrained, non-government affiliated females into a highly dangerous and untrodden territory, just because they’re women.
Sequels usually suck. It’s hard to balance giving what the audience liked in the first place, and also giving them something new without deviating too much from what clicked originally. Sadly, this film was just the same exact formula, but with slight changes. If it was an homage or two, it would have been cute. But the whole thing felt like one throwback after another, and just came off as lazy.
This one was also more feminist. Not horribly so, but enough to irk the viewer. And unlike the first one that featured Chinese railroad workers without making an overtly anti Western message, “Shanghai Knights” made it very clear how evil the British Empire was. Evil colonial bastards…
No spoilers, but here are some lines that stood out and felt unnecessary:
The keeper of the Imperial Seal.
Just the man I was looking for.
You Chinese are very progressive.
Pei Pei's married to her work in San Francisco.
She's gonna fight my battles for me.
Come on. Let's go.
What? What are you doing?
It's kinky. I like it.
It is my dream that the Chinese people
will follow India's example and one day embrace British rule.
The Chinese are very proud.
They place family and honor above all else.
Well, I'm sure we can break them of that.
You've got to hand it to the Chinese.
They're awfully ingenious, Lord, aren't they?
Does your incompetence know no bounds?!
The movie had Owen Wilson make a bunch of jokes at the expense of the British, bragging about The American Revolution and poking fun at their teeth. So at first glance, my anti-patriotic rating may seem off, but upon closer inspection you’ll see that Owen Wilson is satirizing the obnoxiously proud American abroad, and that both countries are being lambasted.
Oh, and for anyone who cares, the same willy nilly free love continued in this one. They just wrote Lucy Liu out of the script and said she was busy working in another city. And even though Owen Wilson gets married at the end of the first one
he is single again without explanation. The movie is funnier with him continuing his horn dog shtick, so it was a smart choice on the writers’ part. But that means all the same points I made about the first film apply to the sequel as well. We’re supposed to cheer the white protagonist on as he attacks other white men, subverts the government, and dates outside his “tribe.”
Yeah. It’s no big deal in these films. But that’s partly because I’m a white man and my monkey brain doesn’t get “triggered” (for lack of a better word) when I identify with the man. So despite if I like the couple or not, I point ’em out regardless.
Mainly, because part of STFUhollywood.com’s purpose is to talk about race in cinema when no one else is willing to. And also because it’d be hypocritical if I only complained when a black man was with a white woman in films. C’mon, how do you think Asian men feel when they see these kinds of scenes? Lastly, because this kind of incrementalism is exactly why Hollywood depictions are so bat sh*t insane right now. They always start with the occasional, socially acceptable, boundary pushing stuff. And then they get to the point where EVERY commercial looks like this:
To give benefit of the doubt, I think many writers just want to push an anti racist agenda, and the anti-white part stems from the white guilt of our society as a whole. Like, if they ever portray a minority in a negative light there will be a million Buzzfeed articles and social media “””protests””” the next day. Colorblind whites get raked over the coals for innocent mishaps:
So you have to constantly keep race in the forefront of your mind to survive. I know many of these regressives are nefarious and were anti white from the get go. But I think there’s a huge number of well-intentioned SJW’s in the movement as well, who ironically foster even more racism in their quest to end it.
Okay. Rant over.
Should you see the film? No. Not because of political stuff, it was pretty apolitical all things considered. Just because it’s a bad movie. Only watch it if someone else insists.
The white male protagonist is effeminate and incompetent. No big deal, though, because it’s a buddy cop movie and they chose to make Jackie Chan the straight man. But Jackie normally does slapstick humor with his fighting, so why not make him the goofy one? Well, they did the same in “Rush Hour” so it’s not a white guy thing, per se. When you compare any American to the robotic / hierarchical Far East that generally focuses on saving face, it makes perfect sense.
There’s some Chinese railwork slave labor stuff in there but they didn’t make it all the white devil’s fault. Likewise, there were some savage native American tribes counterbalanced with peaceful and wise ones. For every aspect of the movie that could have been interpreted as a jab at conservatives, there was an equal and opposite scene following it.
Looking back from 2018, I can see how the film is stacked against white men. They make up the majority of the bad guys and the one white guy we are supposed to empathize with sides with other tribes. In the context of the movie, it makes perfect sense and I still root for Owen Wilson’s character. But you may be irked if you have the knowledge of how cinema has evolved from these subtle tones of cooperation and tolerance in 2000, into parading blatant traitors as heroes while fostering self hatred amongst the audience in 2018. We all know, that if the characters were based proportionately to crime statistics and average personality traits for their demographic then you’d have to be mental to cheer the protagonist on. But that’s why this agitprop is so effective. It is both subtle, (so anyone who calls it out is seen as a nutjob), and unrealistic, (so audience members internalize morals and pattern recognition divorced from truth).
Ann Coulter’s “¡Adios, America!: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole” demonstrates this best:
A sixteen-year-old Hmong girl who was gang-raped and forced into prostitution by some Hmong men never told her parents about it, explaining that her mother would only say, “You deserved it.” Like I haven’t heard that before! This exact episode has appeared on Law & Order a dozen times, but the rapists were always preppie fraternity guys.
Let’s talk about some minor subtext that’s worth noting since that’s the point of this site. Midway through the film Jackie Chan overhears Owen Wilson downplaying their friendship when some white girl says something racist about the “Chinaman.” This creates a bromance version of the RomCom cliché where a misunderstanding causes tension before they make up. I feel ambivalent about this because it’s historically accurate but also projects 21st century obsessions with racial equality into the past. Oh well.
Fast forward to the end of the movie after Owen Wilson’s “bad guy” bandit character has transformed into a good guy, and he seals the deal by marrying a native American woman. Which, btw, was Jackie Chan’s wife up until the very end of the film when they needed a quick plot device so that Jackie could get with his romantic interest, Lucy Liu.
For me this wife swap was fine. It’s the Wild West, why not? But I’m sure this is problematic for SJW’s because it displays indigenous women as promiscuous floozies, and this absolute lack of morality is bound to irritate the religious fundamentalists. Now my eyes are open to this gradual degeneracy and how this seemingly harmless stuff pushes the Overton Window inch by inch to the left. But still, let’s lighten up a little, shall we?
Speaking of which, the bloopers showed a harmlessly flirty joke between Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu that I guarantee would spark some #MeToo garbage if it was shown today. Check it out, the chemistry is quite adorable:
Now, the subversive thing that I actually thought might be intentional was when Owen killed his nemesis. The whole scene is in a church which may be alluding to something, but my gut says the setting was chosen just for the Old Western aesthetics. The part that stands out is when Owen shoots the antagonist through his sheriff badge and they zoom in on “U.S.”
I know, I know. I feel like one of those conspiratards who make hour long videos pointing out Occult Illuminati symbolism that they just pull out of their ass. So take this with a grain of salt, please.
But if you think it’s out of the realm of possibility, please read this passage from Ben Shapiro’s “Primetime Propaganda.”
Overall, it was very heartwarming and worth sitting through.
The white protagonist is a fumbling pansy, but that’s his character as the geeky scientist trope. Definitely easy to ignore and not get too annoyed by. There were a couple scenes and lines in there about a woman being strong and tough, while making the white men seem like threatened bigots blind to how badass chicks can be. ◔_◔ But that is also to be expected. Just a cheesy family flick, so don’t take it too seriously. Most of it you can ignore. Besides, there are tons of jokes about different cultures and crossdressing that couldn’t be done today without shouts of transphobia and whitewashing.
If you didn’t already know, the original novel and film adaptation didn’t have a Chinese sidekick. Jackie Chan’s character, was a Frenchman. I’m normally a stickler about this stuff, but I really don’t think this was a forced affirmative action decision. Jackie Chan was very popular at the time and it seems more gimmicky of a decision than a political one.
One thing that made me think, was how they portrayed the stupidest character of the film as a redhead. They don’t explicitly say it, but red head typically means Irish, no? I did some research and the guy who plays the ginger is Scottish.
Who knows? None of this matters, and I wish this crap didn’t pass my mind at all, but sadly Pandora’s Box of Identity Politics has been opened. If every tribe but one acts in its own selfish interests, ignoring it won’t make it go away. What are you, a commie? Think you can fight human nature and get everyone to agree to be stoically selfless for the greater good of society as a whole? C’mon… that’s why Hollywood has gotten so bad in the first place. Time to change strategies and stick up for ourselves. No more shrugging it off. They won’t stop pushing until every film is like Star Wars and Black Panther. Anyways, pretty sure I didn’t see a single other redhead in the film, so it seems reasonable to think they type-casted Ewen Bremner for a reason.
To an outsider, this stuff usually goes unnoticed. Like when I watched movies with my Russian girlfriend, she wouldn’t pick up on the subtle accents of the southern Americans that are always depicted as dumb hicks. Nor do most Russian audiences realize that entire films like “Three Billboards” are an attack on the rural parts of the United States. Likewise, most Westerners don’t detect the “Idiot from Osaka” trope in Japanese film. Go figure, outsiders don’t recognize local intersectionalities. I guess it’s true what the progressives say: “Racism = Prejudice + Power”
The protagonists are sold out by yet another corrupt Irish cop (this time in America).
I did some research and the original novel was written by a Frenchman. And the 2004 remake was directed and written by white American men. So there is really no reason to suspect that this seemingly anti-Irish sentiment is intentional. It’s probably just like the rest of the film’s cast; racial stereotypes. But they couldn’t get away with any negative stereotypes about non whites so they did so only for the Brits and Irish.
I also searched the novel and couldn’t find anyone with red hair except for the captain of a ship. I did discover that Detective Fix (the dumb Irish cop) was actually sly and intelligent in the book, but I couldn’t find anything about him being Irish or having any physical attributes that would allude to it.
Iuhnno. No big deal. Just watch the film and ignore this insignificant stuff that I’m overanalyzing.
Frankly, I don’t think this is a big problem. If you can’t satirize reality, then the film loses any depth. You can’t relate to the characters because the writers try so hard to not offend. I just find it fascinating to explore this now that SJW’s got me “woke.” Turns out Hollywood’s negative depictions aren’t just a problem for “people of color.” Well, unless you consider gingers honorary coloreds…
Okay. Rant over. Should you see the film?
Meh. Don’t go out of your way to see it but if it’s on, you can chuckle a bit and be entertained without an enraging agenda.
Worth a watch. Overall good moral to the story, albeit not very traditional. This goes into the whole chicken or the egg debate with Hollywood of if its plots have a transformative or reflective relation with society. Whether you like it or not, the bizarre new social norms of courtship and divorce portrayed in the movie may be relatable to your own life. There was also brief dialogue about feminism and women’s studies in the beginning, but the film was made in 2003 so it ended there. No spoilers, but the end of the film may be interpreted as gynocentric. It promotes values that you’ll agree with, but they fail to explore the part that females play in the destruction of healthy relationships. Ah well, it’s a film targeted towards women; would you expect a James Bond movie to play devil’s advocate against womanizing?
Aside from analyzing the political stuff, the main love interests were very charming. I definitely got sucked in, rooting for them to get together. The plot was not a typical RomCom premise, but the way they portrayed the side characters definitely was cliché. Little to no depth, so the audience doesn’t feel conflicted when rooting for X and Y couple to get together. That’s okay, though. That wasn’t the focus of the movie. Another small thing that bugged me was the symbolism throughout. Pay attention to the colors and clothing. At first it was clever, but they overdid it and kept literally pointing to it in each scene.
Check it out, though! Definitely worth seeing, at least once.
Not a lot to say about the film. Senseless comedy. Not preachy, though, so that’s great. A man gets raped and there’s some gay jokes in it. Definitely feels dated because of that stuff. In fact, the very premise of pick up artists couldn’t be a blockbuster movie unless they were beaten to death or 100% female pick up artists.
It’s weird rewatching films now that I’m “redpilled” because I realize how nihilistic and amoral they are. Even the inconspicuous ones. Like most romantic comedies, the characters are all selfish and only focus on their feelings. Disregarding any sacred oaths or promises, and the whole time the audience is okay with it because the bad guys are so one dimensionally evil you can’t possibly sympathize when they are betrayed.
Whatever. No big deal since this is just a comedy for the sake of comedy. Still weird seeing these actions get normalized. I was gonna’ write about how it encourages hypergamy, but the cliché of romcoms is that the rich guy is the one the lead female leaves for the starving artist type. Is “tummy feels hypergamy” a thing? If you contribute to the destruction of the family unit because of emotions instead of financial greed, is it any better? Should we shun the gold digger or the impoverished single mother more? Damn it. Why can’t I just watch a movie without these kinds of thoughts barging in? Damn redpill… Okay, ’nuff overanalyzing. This movie is 1 part obscene and 1 part humorous, topped with a Libertarian Vine Vaughn icing to complete the intellectual junk food package. Hits the spot!
I had no idea the first time I watched it, but it turns out John McCain had a cameo for a fraction of a second. You’d prolly miss it too if you’ve never seen it before. I’m just wondering if it may have been a prank of sorts, and a dog whistle to let the audience know that the whacky politician family that the story revolves around, is a hyper conservative family. Guilty by association. Afterall, we’re all sexually repressed and violent. Who knows, though? Even if it is a dog whistle, I could give a rat’s a** because I’m so used to unnecessary, brazen, anti-Republican exposition jammed into films at the most absurd times, that this appearance didn’t phase me at all. Could also be because I hate McCain’s guts…
In conclusion, go ahead and take an hour or so to laugh at stupid sex jokes with little-to-no political agenda.
Good premise. Thrilling cinematography. Worth watching.
You see, they changed the message of the novel, (which was apparently very pro-life, anti-immigration quota, and all about strong morals being necessary for a healthy society), and tried to turn it into an Antifa type movie. The messages aren’t shoved down your throat like most Hollywood movies, so thankfully it leaves it up to interpretation. People like the fat, lisping, Marxist Boomer f**got: Žižek, interpret this movie as showing late stage Capitalism and the dangers of holding onto your roots.
I, on the other hand, interpret the film as a warning of our multicultural hell hole dystopia to come if we don’t reverse current trends. It’s not a coincidence that George Soros and KGB both support BLM. It’s a classic divide and conquer tactic. Some people say that lowering the average IQ of the populous in order to create an obedient consumer class is the goal of this forced demographic replacement. Idk. The motives are hard to prove, and quickly get into conspiracy theory territory. So let’s avoid any convoluted conjecture and keep it Occam’s Razor for now.
Basically, free market conservatives forsake the working class and the future of their nation’s stability for the sake of cheap labor. Whereas, the leftists love to import new voters while getting “social justice” bonus points. And the foreign powers like KGB and Soros encourage this because when civil unrest occurs, government overreach is “justified.” And when a nation’s power is centralized, it’s easier to subvert, bribe, and control the country as an outsider.
The CIA does the same thing but much worse, we do straight up military coups. As well as other forms of divide and conquer tactics like funding revolutionaries/extremists since most of these nations are ethnically homogenous. It’s just part of foreign policy I guess. Anyways, I’m ranting. The point is, that’s what was in the forefront of my mind while watching this movie. And what I hope is in the forefront of yours.
For more on the differences between the book and the film, click below. Spoiler warning, though!
1.) They invented the black character, Kee, and made her the mother. In the book, Julian was the mother and she was white. The father of her child, was also white. As well as the child.
Book Passage - Mother's Ethnicity
Book Passage - Father's Ethnicity
2.) I haven’t read the whole book, so it’s hard to say what political messages the author aligns with. If you know please leave it in the comments below. But here is an interesting passage that seems to be critical of champagne socialists and neoliberalism that exploits migrants for cheap labor at the expense of the country. To be fair, though, Xan is the villain of the novel. So it’s hard to say…
Book Passage - Government/Immigration Debate
3.) In the book, they clarify that it was the male sperm count dropping to zero that caused the crisis. In the movie, they just say “infertility.” Again, I haven’t read the book, so it could be a meaningless change. But I wonder if there wasn’t symbolism behind this. For the progressive film director, it could be a subtle pro feminist change. For the book author, it may have symbolized the failing leadership of men in modern society. Or perhaps, an extended metaphor of the book title which may imply that if you’re not children of god, first and foremost, then your society will crumble. Who knows? Please post your theories/evidence in the comments below.
4.) The resistance group in the book is a Christian pro-democracy/human rights squad. In the movie, they are a militant Antifa faction. This is an alright change because they made these Antifa extremists the bad guys of the film. So even though they added a leftist tinge and made the protagonists leftists, at least they didn’t make it blatantly binary. There are good and bad people of all colors, and all ideologies in the film. So it doesn’t feel like it’s shoved down your throat like, say, the Star Wars resistance.
Conclusion? Disregard Alfonso Cuarón’s attempts to make you feel bad for refugees and immigrants. Instead, take a good look at the hell hole you’ll be living in if you continue to ignore basic realities of human nature.
I highly recommend watching this film, so don’t let the “watch if free” make you think otherwise. It’s just the progressive agenda that completely pissed on the original, and the replacement of various white characters that bugged me. So…
Goofy and nostalgic movie (nostalgic for the era and style of film; this was actually the first time I ever watched it). Great to watch when you want to relax and laugh after a long day.
The whole movie is one big tranny joke. It’s chock-full of gay jokes, race jokes, and fat jokes as well. You don’t realize what you got until it’s gone, I guess. I grew up watching “Married… with Children” and all sorts of low-brow comedy. Then, after a while I grew a taste for more dry humor and more esoteric (admittedly f**gy hipster nu-male) type stuff. But then the SJW’s made everything taboo, so comedy started to die. So, take a moment to bask in politically incorrect humor for an hour or so.
2.) The moral of the story was that spoiled, pretty girls should be thankful for their privilege. Reminds me of this TV special where a feminist went undercover and realized men have it harder:
3.) A blasian character is embarrassed of her Korean heritage and tries to act black as a running gag. Great social commentary on the reality of our anti-white / Afrophilic culture.
The main character’s little brother sneaks into her room and cross dresses. I originally thought this was just for sh*ts & giggles, but later on they hug and talk about accepting each other for who they are. So it may have been a fail safe in case they were accused of homophobia? Don’t worry about it though. Very minor.
Meh. You can support the film, but if you never see it, you’re not missing out. It’s made by the same guys who did “Napoleon Dynamite” and is really just a second rate version of that. Lots of dry, weird humor. There’s absolutely no way that the same film could be made today. Lots of “Tim & Eric” style ugly people who were casted solely due to their hideous appearance. And tons of jabs at Mexico for being a sh*thole. Not to mention the “whitewashing” that Jack Black does as a German/British/Russian/Jewish man, playing a half Mexican. And then there’s the midget fight scenes…
Ha… now that I think about it, this movie was pretty great. Watch the full thing or just random clips on YouTube. Either way, there’s no agenda being pushed so it’s okay in my book.
Great movie! Amazing motifs that are cleverly depicted. It will inspire you, warm your heart, and leave you with philosophical questions to ponder in regards to your own life. Definitely go see it!
The “diversity” in the cast was well placed and fitting because the script was all about jazz and show biz. Except for the opening scene which tries to jam as many non-whites in as possible to reach their quota:
Oh, and these unimportant characters, (who don’t even have any lines if I recall correctly), that get screen time in the middle of the movie for no reason other than to get two birds with one stone: 1.) segue time passage scene and 2.) SJW bonus points:
Don’t worry, though. All the truly talented African American jazz musicians throughout the film makeup for the patronizing affirmative action hires. Also, John Legend’s character is flawed and multidimensional so it helps to add some realness to him instead of being just another infallible POC character like the ones Hollywood has been vomiting out lately.
So, ignore these minor flaws and check it out today!
Just recently watched this movie again. It was made a few years before 911 so the parallels with how we treat barbaric Muslim invaders is purely accidental. Afterall, Bush didn’t coin the Orwellian “Islam is a religion of peace” lie until after the attacks. But boy oh boy, is this film right on the money. I feel stupid giving such a slapstick movie 4 stars, but it does a great job of making fun of various stereotypes equally. Stupid hippies, warhawk neocon generals, naive academics, jingoist hicks, etc. It’s really saying something about how bad Hollywood has gotten, when all it takes to make me happy is objective satire, but oh well.
The really great part about this film, (in a sick & twisted way), is how it perfectly depicts the regressive liberal mindset. No matter how many times the aliens betray their trust, the humans keep blaming themselves, and keep pontificating some new excuse to continue being doormats.
After this, the academics and politicians think that maybe Doves aren’t peace symbols and may have offended the aliens. So the humans send out a transmission explaining that the aliens have “nothing to fear” and Earth “means no harm.”
Upon receiving, the aliens laugh their asses off at such weakness, then proceed to ogle our women. Eventually, the Earthlings arrange a meeting with congress in order to mend the bad first impression.
At this point, most people are getting the picture. But the deceitful tactics and naive olive branches continue:
It’s like how regressives never consider that maybe other cultures don’t respect peace at all. Maybe they only want to conquer and rape. Maybe they hate you for your very way of life and will never adopt your values. The big difference is that the aliens seem to have better “taqiyya” game than the Muslims who explain perfectly clear why they hate and fight us. And yet, we continue to let them walk all over us again and again.
Steven Crowder points out how countries have gone to war for much less than what the modern migrant scum have been doing. It’s quite heartbreaking to see Western Civilization willingly kill itself and accept such abuse, but you gotta’ laugh at the absurdity of it once in a while, or else you’ll go mad.
So, turn your brain off for a few moments to enjoy this goofy, nostalgic disaster film!
Parts of the film seem like unnecessary pain and suffering for the sake of it, but that’s okay. It’s to be expected of a drama chick flick. It’s done well enough to get you sucked into their world and invested emotionally.
The script contained two slights against conservatives that irked me and seemed unnecessary. So I did some research comparing the book with the film. More often than not, my hunch is proven right after sleuthing around. For example, when a “based on a true story” script randomly changes the ethnicity of real person to fit a diversity quota. But in this instance, it looks like the book author is just as bat sh*t as J.K. Rowling, so the script changes weren’t a big deal…
1.) The main character is naked when he time travels so he puts on whatever clothes he can get his hands on. In one instance, he ends up getting in a fight with “homophobes” for calling him a “f**got.”
I thought this definitely had to be a Hollywood invention. Guess not. Although, this book excerpt makes the quirky and charming scene seem much more sociopathic:
Book Passage - Heterobashing
2.) In the film, the wife’s father is an evil Republican hunter. I kid you not, this is word for word from the script:
If you “Ctrl + F” search the book there are no results for “right-wing,” “Democrat,” “Republican,” or “conservative.” But there are 2 brief mentions of “politics” and they have nothing to do with the father:
Book Passage - Politics 1
Book Passage - Politics 2
So, in other words, Hollywood decided to deviate from the source material in order to take a jab that isolates half their audience for no reason. Think that’s bad? Well the father kills the husband in a hunting accident.
Damn 2nd amendment gun nuts taking away the lives of those we love!
3.) Well, to be fair, the father doesn’t pull the trigger, it’s his son who pulls the trigger. And that’s the same in the book too.
Book Passage - Death
4.) So, even though she didn’t say the father was Republican in the book, her characters still have leftist undertones, and she is a proud anti-Republican “heathen.” ¯\_(・_・)_/¯
"‘Darkest Hour’ was pretty great except for one annoying scene"
Darkest Hour is what you’d expect, a long and wordy biopic. If you’re a World War II history buff, you’ll probably love the attention to detail and incredible Winston Churchill speeches performed by Gary Oldman. However, there is one scene that almost ruined the entire movie. Winston Churchill decides to ride the train to get a feel for how the blue collar layman feels about Hitler and the war. A bit on the contrived side already, but digestible. Of course, there is a man of African decent on the train, sitting amongst white people. He’s even sitting next to a white woman and giving his input and joining in the camaraderie of the train car.
This might not seem egregious at first glance, but for a move that is set on being so historically accurate, this really pulls you out of the movie. Segregation laws were not enacted in the United Kingdom until the ‘Race Relations Act of 1965.’ While it may have been possible that a black man was on a train full of white people in 1940, it is highly doubtful. And even more unbelievable is his interaction with the other people and ability to speak up and be treated as an equal. In a movie where they probably got an expert for every tiny prop, down to the napkins they use at meals, it is jarring when this scene begins. This scene never actually took place in reality, I think they just needed a black person in the credits after ‘Dunkirk’ was chastised for not being diverse enough.
See Darkest Hour but just skip past the subway scene, it doesn’t add to the movie and it is obvious feel good Hollywood b******t.
Don’t waste your time. Per usual, any Hollywood movie based on a small town will be incredibly racist in its portrayal of Southern whites. With – of course – no sense of irony or self awareness in regard to its blatant hypocrisy as it spouts off platitudes about the horrors of small minded bigots.
I can hang with the stupid Southerner trope even though it’s been done to death. Not with this film, though. It’s a caricature of a caricature since the British director knows even less about the American South than the average champagne socialist director in L.A.
There are only five worthwhile white men in the film, and even coming up with five is a stretch.
1.) Redeems himself by committing suicide:
Perhaps some silly symbolism about the patriarchy being on its way out and how the best thing to do is to not fight it. You see, this character has cancer and decides to just end it, saving the women in his life the pain of watching him slowly struggle against an unwinnable fight (i.e., the honorable thing to do is to help speed up the death of the white man). Even if I’m projecting a deeper meaning onto the plot, the point still remains, that the most likeable white male in the film does an honorable thing by killing himself. And I think it’s fair to assume this aspect of the script must stem from the anti-white zeitgeist we live in:
3.) Throughout the film, this cop is the worst scum imaginable, save for the moments he embarrasses himself by acting like a buffoon.
He redeems himself once he gets hospitalized by the protagonist’s molotov cocktail, and decides to forgive her and shrug it off. The director claims he doesn’t want to show a simplistic good and bad dichotomy, but he clearly portrays this character in a more positive light once he becomes a cuck. I’ll admit it, you do sympathize and root for him when he decides to become a martyr. He lets himself get his ass kicked in order to collect DNA samples from attackers who are suspects in the murder case. I