November 30, 2015

Spectre: A two-and-a-half-hour music video cycle (not bad)

I allowed myself to get dragged to the movies with family over Thanksgiving weekend, since I'd heard that the new James Bond movie, Spectre, wasn't as bad as the last couple. I'd only seen the Pierce Brosnan ones before, and pieces of the Connery and Moore movies on TV over the years. Not going in with high expectations, I still didn't mind the experience.

The acting was OK, the storytelling implausible and forced in many places, and the cinematography too bleak (not unlike Interstellar, which the D.P. also shot). But the score is viscerally engaging, placed into the foreground of the experience, and lasts for over two-thirds of the movie (100 minutes of music during the 148-minute running time).

It's hard to nitpick the plot, characters, and cinematography in what amounts to a cinematic take on the overwrought music video form circa 1990. The dialog, acting, etc., is just that one-third of the really long video where the director tries to make it larger than life, with honest-to-God actors in addition to the music playing.

The movie is not treated as one single long video, either, but more of a cycle of videos that are only loosely related by narrative. Breaking the movie down into a series of shorter, more easily digestible videos made the running time fly by, whereas mediocre action movies feel bogged down after 90 minutes.

In a welcome change, the locations, set design, and costumes were not used to turn the movie into one long metrosexual ad campaign from GQ, but more to set the mood for one of those music videos that shoots in exotic locations just 'cuz.

The only down-note was the dispensable music video over the opening credits. It was flamboyantly homosexual, decadent, and full of falsetto, making a horrible contrast with the opening action scene where Bond stalks an assassin while tribal percussive music plays.

And as it happens, this one must be the gayest Bond production of all time. Open gays include the singer of the theme song, Sam Smith; the screenwriter John Logan; and actors Ben Whishaw (Q) and Andrew Scott (C). Blind Gossip ran an item about the actress playing the lead Bond girl, Lea Seydoux, being a lesbian (other than having a wasp waist, she had no sex appeal). Daniel Craig has gay rumors surrounding him, has zero chemistry with any woman in the movie, and is sporting the closest thing to a gay-whoosh hair-do that the producers will allow James Bond to wear. Director Sam Mendes seems like a huge closet case (also directed homoerotic American Beauty starring not-so-closeted Kevin Spacey). Actor Christoph Waltz (the main villain) shows a decent level of gayface on Google Images, as does Ralph Fiennes, who may have pioneered the gay-whoosh trend back in Schindler's List.

I mention all this to show that despite the Young Republican level of gay influences, Spectre wound up basically watchable and entertaining, albeit as a series of music videos rather than a proper movie.

Sometime I might torture myself by watching Skyfall, which was made by largely the same team with about the same level of gayness going into it, only with Javier Bardem being the closeted gay actor playing the villain (the character himself being a bit less closeted). I haven't heard great things about the score, so I'm assuming that it won't follow the music video cycle approach that Spectre did. That would leave only the toxic levels of homoeroticism typical of 21st-century blockbusters -- no thanks.

I've been wanting the music video medium to make a comeback, so we can enjoy a little visual storytelling while being engaged by music we haven't heard before, with the narrative elements being an after-thought. Now that Hollywood screenwriters can't seem to write good dialog, characters, and plot, they might as well take a back seat to the composers and cinematographers. Once the ability comes back, then shift the focus back toward storytelling.

And really, what other than a James Bond movie lends itself so naturally to being a series of music videos shot on exotic locations, featuring models, and mostly dispensing with narrative? If they took this way forward (and removed the gay elements), I'd be a regular viewer for sure.


  1. I have that "gay swoosh" haircut. I thought it was just an SS haircut.

  2. Nope, it's a 100% gay signal. It's only a coincidence that some Nazis wore it -- and even then, maybe not so coincidental, if they were part of the large homo contingent among the Nazis.

    I think it's more of the gay tendency toward caricature and copying what the cooler older kids were doing five years ago -- in this case, a kiddie cartoon version of a faux hawk. Gays think and act this way because infantilization is the defining trait of their broader syndrome (including "ewww, girls are yucky").

    As with the Nazis, there is a major homoerotic group within the Alt-Right. First they convince impressionable and naive young guys with no family ties into adopting their gay whoosh hair-do, and pretty soon they're convincing them that only sodomy will save Western Civ -- the glory that was Greece!

  3. Ag- I'm a bit surprised you've never seen the 80's Bonds, but maybe you didn't realize that prior to Craig, they were never serialized (each movie stood on it's own).

    The 60's movies are quintessential to the period (some of them are still some of the highest grossing movies of all time), but I just don't really care for 60's pop culture so the Connery movies don't do much for me. A lot of people hold his 2nd Bond movie (From Russia with Love) up as a highlight of the series but I couldn't even figure out the plot. The very dated blue screen effects are distracting too.

    Roger Moore took over in 1972, long after the series had dabbled with self-parody. Moore (especially in the 70's) took a very light approach. I find his approach to be more fun, but hardcore fans and film snobs tend to disdain 70's era Bond as cheap pandering. Besides, 70's fashion will always be an easy target.

    By 1981's For your Eyes Only, the series definitely took on a sleeker and urgent tone. Of course, 80's culture in general was in some ways in effort to seek atonement for the naivete of the 70's.

    The 80's Bond movies are my favorite. The effects and fashions of the period certainly hold up better than the earlier movies, the characters are a bit less goofy, the film stock looks much better, and the plots are relatively easy to follow. The Tim Dalton movies (from '87 and '89) really went for grit and I do like them though Dalton was plainly not capable of Connery's wit or Moore's charm. License to Kill in particular came off as an effort to compete with the very violent action movies of the late 80's.

    The series became less and less popular after Connery left and after '89's License to kill flopped, the studio and the producers weren't sure of what to do. Legal squabbling ensued, eventually causing a frustrated Dalton to quit the role.

    The Brosnan movies came about in the mid 90's, which as we all know was the beginning of the end for exciting art. Goldeneye is technically impressive but ironically, the "progressive" attempts to be fashionable seem equally dated as the misogyny of the 60's Bonds. Bond's boss is now a stern Silent gen woman, and the villain has a butt kicking babe sidekick who gets off on killing people. I don't really remember much about the other Brosnan movies, other than the villain of Tomorrow Never Dies being obnoxiously hammy.

    The Craig movies (which started in the mid 2000's) barely qualify as Bond movies. Now firmly of a cocooning period, the color and humor of the franchise has been drained. We see morose and wan attempts to be "thoughtful" or "realistic" that make the movies a chore to watch. Craig seems to be on the verge of falling asleep. So much for being a man of action.

  4. '80s Bond movies were good at least for giving us the Duran Duran theme song for "A View to a Kill".

  5. I'm sure there are some good Bond movies out there, but already when I was in high school, there were too many to sift through. You had to be a hardcore Bond fan or film geek to go through them. And it was more for the proto-Spike TV crowd, who would spend their movie-watching time going through all the Jackie Chan movies.

    If you saw them more or less when they came out, it wouldn't have been hard to keep up. But I've rarely heard them praised as one of the best spy / thriller / action movies, so I figure why bother.

  6. Very short hair is a sign of cocooning. When cocooning was at it's lowest ebb (the mid 70's-very early 90's) very few men had crew cuts or shaved their heads. Not sure why gays pick such an unappealing version of very short hair, which isn't appealing in any form, really. Shouldn't gays be nearing the point that they move on from the whoosh?

    It seems like cocooned men think that even remotely grown out hair makes them effete.

    Back to bond, the best theme songs are from the 80's (when else?)

    For Your Eyes Only (Sheena Easton) -

    A View to a Kill (Duran Duran) -

    The Living Daylights (A-ha) -

  7. So the only haircut that looks good on my egg-shaped head that I've been getting since 2005 makes me a faggot now. Great.

  8. "I'm sure there are some good Bond movies out there, but already when I was in high school, there were too many to sift through."

    The Bonds are pure escapism, though some (especially License to Kill) go for grit. They aren't praised for being particularly evocative of anything, besides the period they were made in. If nothing else, it's fun to see how fashion changes from one period to another.

    If the plot is ridiculous or convoluted (as it often is), just turn your brain off and enjoy the stunts (which are some of the best in movie history if that means anything to you), scenery, and stylish clothes.

    By the way, it's funny how people simultaneously acknowledge how terrible the post 1989 Bond theme songs have been while looking down on the 70's or 80's Bonds. Music is the best way to figure out how cool an era is.

  9. A major problem with spy movies set during a period of status-striving is that such a climate leads to most conflict being internal, internecine, not foreign threats. Or at least, the foreigners easily pass through our non-existent defenses because the leaders are asleep at the wheel while they fight amongst one another for ever greater status.

    The spy genre assumes that most squabbles within the country are not a major threat. That means having to take on a threat outside of the country. But then the country being spied on must also have few internal conflicts, or else there's no need for furtive espionage -- our guys could just waltz across the border, openly question people, kill people, and leave without the leaders even being aware.

    In other words, spies are like clever little pathogens trying to evade the immune system of a nation. If the immune defense has been taken offline, there's no need to be clever -- the pathogens will just swamp the defenseless host.

    We don't need to spy on civil war-torn African shitholes, but we did need to spy on the internally stable Soviet Union during its Midcentury heyday.

    As the "all in the same boat" Great Compression gave way to the ruthless status-striving era, threats to order in America would come from within America -- hence the rise of the conspiracy thriller during the mid-to-late 1970s. All of those still hold up incredibly well -- Three Days of the Condor, The Parallax View, etc.

    By now that has grown into a near state of civil war, so there would have to be something greater than a small cabal vs. a lone hero. There doesn't seem to be much room for a spy or even network of spies in our setting.

  10. Actually I keep my hair really short because I wear a fuckin hard hat all day long.

  11. I'd consistently heard Spectre was worse than Casino Royale or Skyfall, but having grown up on the mediocre Brosnan Bond films I never really got into it and haven't seen any of Craig's. Like you, I find the sheer quantity of Bond films to be a bit of a barrier to jumping in. Whereas with Mission: Impossible, I'm sure I'll see the latest eventually even if I don't expect it to match up to DePalma's original (many who feel that betrayed the show think Rogue Nation is better).

    Interesting you mention international conflict, since "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" was made up by the film franchise because they were too cowardly to use Fleming's S.M.E.R.S.H as Soviet villainous organization. The reality of foreign threats can by themselves make filmmakers unwilling to depict them. See The Sum of All Fears (or don't, I haven't seen any of the Jack Ryan films made after Harrison Ford was replaced) and the replacement of Arab terrorists with American neo-nazis (Clancy himself once had a subplot of "mountain men" attempting a terrorist attack, but they were rather insignificant). Clancy was basically taking the premise of Thomas Harris' Black Sunday and replacing the blimp with a nuke, and that got turned into a film without much controversy. But that was before Arab terrorists had carried out a major attack on American soil (although the Hanafi siege by a Nation of Islam splinter group took place right before the film's release).

  12. "Nope, it's a 100% gay signal... I think it's more of the gay tendency toward caricature and copying what the cooler older kids were doing five years ago -- in this case, a kiddie cartoon version of a faux hawk. Gays think and act this way because infantilization is the defining trait of their broader syndrome (including "ewww, girls are yucky")." <==== this??

    I don't know, it looks like a pretty normal men's haircut. About as plain as they come. Walk into a Kansas Applebees on a Thursday night and you'll see dozens like it.

  13. My favorite part of watching the Bond films is how the movies merely follow the contemporary-popular action movie feel of their times. Thus, the 1960s Bond looks like a 1960s police/spy action thriller, but the 1970s Bond looks like a weird 70's action movie (often combined with scifi movies of the time), the 80s Bonds try to be 80s-action movie-esque, the Brosnon-90s Bond films are action-thrillers in the vein of the Fugitive meets Demolition Man, and the "reboot" 2000s Bonds are attempts at Batman Begins + Bourne-superman +grittiness.

    Bond movies are merely big-budget studio schlock combined with the fact that there is no over-arching hand guiding them or treating them as "art" or anything more than fun schlock (Cubby Broccoli, the long time producer, might have had some sort of steadying hand during his time, but not much). All the fans need is minor service check ins (the Martinis, the funny-named chicks, the easy getting laid, the casinos, the high class rolling, the walther pkk, tongue-in-cheek jokes with Moneypenny, fucking with Q, "Bond, James Bond", etc.)

    This makes them vastly different from other schlock fest-sequel fests. Horror movie sequels that try to be arty or deviate from the original too much get universally booed (Look at Halloween III or the attempted reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street). When Die Hard gave up the trope of off-duty-cop-artifically-trapped-in-a-geographic-area-and-has-to-save-marriage, the series fell off the cliff (I'm talking about Die Hards 4 and 5). And just imagine the backlash if someone came out with The Incredibles 2 done in anime-style.

    But Bond can get away with changing it's style so long as those check ins occur, so it merely various the action sequences/cinematography to match the action movies popular at the time. So Bond movies are actually good time capsules of what other movies look like when that particular Bond was shot.

    Anyway, the first 2/3 of Skyfall were good, minus the huge gay-innuendo scene with Bond and Javier, which all the queens were raving about and really was disturbing. The last 1/3 of the movie---the sequence in Scotland---was just laughable unbelievable, even for a Bond film. Secret agent + 1 old woman + 1 old man defend Bond's ancesteral home against a company of mercenaries? And just how did Javier get a military-style helicopter to attack rural Scotland? Too many obvious Fridge Moments.

    I liked Casino Royale because it managed to hide its Fridge Moments well, except that the film should have been the only "reboot" film; instead, it was the first of a trilogy of the reboot of the series (Casino Royale + Quantum of Solace + Skyfall), which was a drag, since you're not watching Bond films for character development, but that's exactly what they were.

  14. @TGGP:

    Interesting you mention international conflict, since "S.P.E.C.T.R.E" was made up by the film franchise because they were too cowardly to use Fleming's S.M.E.R.S.H as Soviet villainous organization.

    A constant Eskimo-Hollywood theme post-Hays Code has been that the real enemies are billionaire right wing white gentile men in the U.S., and not the Soviets/Arabs/ Blacks who ostensibly are the most logical suspects of the crime in question. Since the Eskimos view Middle America as its greatest enemy, any film they make makes sure that Middle America/Middle American Values are the "true" culprit.

    The use of SPECTRE over SMERSH was part of this---SPECTRE merely wants money, and sets rivals against each other profit. So the cold war is really caused by greedy capitalists(!).

    That, and when the SPECTRE was invented, the Eskimos and other loyal leftists in the U.S. still harbored hopes about the Soviets building a paradise--heck, Kim Philby had just defected to the USSR the same year the first Bond came out. So protecting the USSR from criticism or being the "bad" guys in the movies was about political propaganda. Note that the Soviets still get such protection today (note the outcry when the last, horrible Indiana Jones film changed the bad guys from the Nazis to the Soviets), despite the fact that the Soviet crimes dwarf the Nazis. This is pure politics, post-Hays, rearing its ugly head.

  15. What is the relevance of the Hays Code?

  16. "I don't know, it looks like a pretty normal men's haircut. About as plain as they come. Walk into a Kansas Applebees on a Thursday night and you'll see dozens like it."

    Anything with shaved sides and back, and a strong sideways top looks gay whoosh-y in today's world. Especially when the guy sporting it doesn't wear a flannel shirt and a camo ballcap, but instead waxes his whole body.

  17. "All the fans need is minor service check ins (the Martinis, the funny-named chicks, the easy getting laid, the casinos, the high class rolling, the walther pkk, tongue-in-cheek jokes with Moneypenny, fucking with Q, "Bond, James Bond", etc.)"

    That's what turns me off -- these cargo cult references don't create any continuity throughout the franchise. The only constant is spy going on an exotic adventure, meets women, gets out of a tough situation against the villain, etc. -- that could be any action/thriller with a spy protagonist.

    What's supposed to unify and distinguish the Bond movies is Bond, the persona. But his character changes with every actor who plays him, often in contradictory ways -- womanizer or closeted homo, smoker or anti-tobacco evangelist, unflappable or struggling to keep it together, etc.

    I'm sure some of the ones I haven't seen are decent, but there's no reason to sift through those spy movies as opposed to other spy movies.

    I suspect I'd like the Connery ones the most because the plots would've made more sense (Cold War / Great Compression backdrop). Still, I've never heard people hail them as among the great movies, whether arty or prole, other than hardcore Bond franchise fans.

  18. You are literally the only one who thinks shorter on the sides, longer on top is gay signaling instead of a standard haircut.

  19. Read again: shaved on sides and back, strong sideways whoosh on top. Could be short instead of shaved on sides and back, if they're trying not to stand out so flamingly.

    Google images: undercut hair (the technical name for the gay whoosh). As shown here:

    100% homo hair-do.

  20. It's a variation of a taper haircut that's trendy right now. Taper haircuts have been around for a long time. Unless barber shops are secret bath houses I think you're reading way too much into fag trend-hopping.

  21. "Taper haircuts have been around for a long time."

    But not cartoonishly over-stylized, not as high-contrast, not flamingly attention-whoring -- and not paired with a waxed body like Bond has during the intro credits.

    Anyone who has lived in a metro area with a decent-sized gay population knows that the gay whoosh hair-do is unique to the gays.

    Either you don't have a very whoosh-y hair-do and you don't live around any gays to know what the gay whoosh looks like, or you're unwittingly sporting a homosexual hairstyle and trying to rationalize how not gay it is just cuz it vaguely resembles something a normal man might have worn sometime in the past.

  22. "Gay buttsex is just a variation on man-woman buttsex, which is trending in porn nowadays. Man-woman buttsex has existed for a long time. So there's nothing very gay about one man getting stuffed up the butt by another man."

  23. @TGGP:

    What is the relevance of the Hays Code?

    During the Hays Code era, traditional Catholic, conservative protestant, and Middle America values were protected from Eskimo attacks. Screeners would keep films from attacking the U.S./patriotism, keep casual sex restricted, and all-in-all impose a "family values or boycott" system on the vast majority of Hollywood productions.

    Furthermore, these screeners were no dummies, but astute film buffs; they often banned or complained about films just on the basis of suggestion/symbolism which Hollywood Eskimos tried to slip past them. They were akin to PhD's in Art History employed by the Vatican to make sure the art sponsored by the church was up to Catholic dogma: they really did see subtle clues and hints in films/TV that most of the public might miss but still promoted degeneracy.

    And blaming Middle American values for evil was verboten. Communists in the Hays Code era--especially post WW2--were often the bad guys. Law -and-order morality was supported by the art. And the vaunted blacklist--basically, commie traitors to the U.S.---kept the truly degenerate filmmakers from overloading the industry with filth.

    Unsurprisingly, the period of the Hays Code coincided with the Golden Age of Hollywood: the period where there was a vast number of high quality pictures made that not only sold well to the public but were also technically brilliant and hold up well today. Turner Classic Movies (TCM) might as well be called the "Hays Code Channel", as the majority of its programming is from this era, with only occasional forays into 1920s-silent films and post-Hays Code "classics".

    After commies destroyed the Hays Code system, Eskimos were free to attack Middle American values. Hence all of a sudden "communists" stopped being the bad guys in James Bond and suddenly became private, white billionaires bent on profit/destroying the world. We got more skin flicks, swearing, and gore in movies to titillate audiences into not noticing the movies were worse and to advance lefty social causes.

  24. The mid century had a lot of melodramatic, dull, kiddified slop as well. Many of the lead actors were closeted.

    Swearing saw a noticeable uptick in the 90's. The record for number of F words was initially set by Scarface ('83), which few other 80's movies attempted to match. Then around 1990 a number of "gritty" mobster and "urban" movies started to come out which featured vulgar hoodlums. This profanity began to spread to other genres in the 90's and early 2000's. It's declined a bit in movies (which have been sanitized for Millennials) but the borderline nihilistic tone of many scripted TV shows offsets this.

    Entertainment coaresend in the late 60's and 70's because middle aged Silents wanted to prove how "cool" they were after being ignored and repressed in the 40's-early 60's. Silents in particular have made a lot of movies about criminals, outlaws, rebels, and weirdos. After all, when Silents came of age in the late 30's-50's they were never actually menaced or harmed by psychos.

    Boomers tend to make movies that are very moralistic. Boomers began to make attempts in the 80's to clean up the cynicism and moral ambiguity that dominated 70's entertainment. Even in the 70's, Boomers like Stallone and Spielberg were making movies that championed heroism and defending one's family.

    Now the fact that the Boomers themselves were often scoundrels makes no difference. They still love good Vs. evil themes. Keep in mind also that the Boomers were teens or kids when crime began rising in the 60's. Thus, why Boomers like Steve Sailer insist on draconion anti-crime laws and stiff sentencing. As long as a given Boomer manages to avoid being arrested, why should they care that drastic anti-crime policies needlessly destroy the lives of so many?

    The police and courts make everything a living hell for anyone who happens to run afoul of the law. The most minor mistake or negligence can result in the loss of one's job, one's spouse, one's children, one's home, and one's freedom. And of course, getting competent legal representation is generally a headache if you aren't rich.

    Once you get out of the slammer, you typically have to deal with all kinds of restrictions (with harsh penalties for disobedience) and getting a job or place to stay can be impossible with a record.

  25. "After commies destroyed the Hays Code system, Eskimos were free to attack Middle American values. Hence all of a sudden "communists" stopped being the bad guys in James Bond and suddenly became private, white billionaires bent on profit/destroying the world. We got more skin flicks, swearing, and gore in movies to titillate audiences into not noticing the movies were worse and to advance lefty social causes. "

    No need to be coy with "Eskimos". Jews like John Milius and Steven Spielberg were behind stuff like Dirty Harry, which was red meat to blue collar regular Americans in the 70's and 80's.

    By the 80's, Stallone, Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, and Chuck Norris were blasting through (sometimes dark skinned) commie hordes, serial killers, and drug dealers. Perhaps not necessarily wholesome, but certainly not at all left wing.

    Hollywood gives the public what they want.

    Also, the music of the 40's-early 60's is absolutely dreadful. I've tried watching movies from back then, and the constant bombast (or dull austerity) of the music scores dates the movies badly.

    People act like the synths and electric guitars used in very late 70's/80's movies give them a headache, but I find them to much more effective at setting an exciting mood than the clumsy orchestral stuff of the mid-century.

    Warriors (1979) Intro -

    Note also how effective nightime outdoor photography is at establishing mood. Photography was much brighter and uniform (e.g., boring) in the 40's-early 60's.

  26. Poor Danny Radcliffe. I guess being an pint sized English Millennial queer is just not too good for one's career opportunities. His last several movies have been awful, and the public (even today's addled viewers) has absolutely no desire to see him mincing around in a non-Harry Potter movie. His recent Frankenstein movie is tanking terribly (like, historically bad) And even the Harry Potter movies were D.O.A. to anyone born before 1986.

    That Whoosh hair is really, really, really, gay. Just like how Aaron Rodgers is really, really, really straight. To claim otherwise is being willfully ignorant. Queers wear the most exaggerated version of it because number 1, even when grown out or well coiffed it still isn't that long (queers have always shied away from substantial amounts of hair, whether it's a 70's bowl cut style, in 80's mullet style, or a 90's in the eyes slightly style). Secondly, they delusionally think they are making some kind of statement about how "bold" they are. Yeah, right. Why not wear a longer style, if you want to stand out?

    Queers never stand out in a cool or mature way. Straight guys experiment with their look to get more respect from friends or attract girls. Which also can lead to wearing jewelry. But homos are caught in this odd netherworld where they want to be "trendy" and "impressive"yet can't do certain things so they usually end up stopping short of actually achieving a good look.

    Millennial fags obviously are even more hard-up than Boomer or Gen X fags. 80's culture taught people that it was cool to be tough and mature looking. So even some gays managed to look reasonable back then. But decades of dorky post early 90's culture have really done a number on Millennials, gay or otherwise.

    1. Fuck I don't know. It's tapered down to a 0 by my ears because I wear safety glasses at work and I leave enough on top to comb. I just thought it looked good. Now internet says it's a lavender triangle on my head.

  27. "His recent Frankenstein movie is tanking terribly (like, historically bad)"

    Victor Frankenstein must have the gayest cast & crew ever. Daniel Radcliffe is barely closeted. Andrew Scott is out. James McAvoy has gayface and a whooshy 'do on Google Images... and looking totally straight embracing and caressing Michael Fassbender, and being kissed by him (anyone on the X-Men movies is suspect based on being birds of a feather with Bryan Singer):

    Freddie Fox has major gayface and whoosh 'do.

    Mark Gatiss is out.

    Callum Turner is a barely closeted twink with a cartoon pompadour.

    Daniel Mays has gayface and a whoosh.

    Screenwriter Max Landis (Jewish nepotism) has major gayface and an avalanche of gay whoosh hair:

    Director Paul McGuigan has flaming gayface, thick gay nerd glasses, and as faux hawk-y / whooshy of a hairdo as a baldo can have.

    Producer John Davis has dead-eyed gayface.

    How could it ever have bombed with audiences? It's 2015, and bigots are still afraid of a $40 million excuse for a four-month fag orgy centering on Harry Potter.

  28. With that long of a gay orgy among more or less the entire cast & crew, you can bet all of them were high on meth etc for a good portion of the filming.

    I can't imagine you get very good acting from a bunch of queers high on meth and still bruising from last night's poz injection. But what do I know? I'm still living in Some Previous Year.

  29. @Feryl:

    You're cherry picking. Yes, there have always been assimilated Eskimos or others proud of Middle America, but, as Kevin McDonald has pointed out, the majority of Eskimos are hostile to traditional Middle America ethics. The same disdain Eskimos have historically had for all un-citified rustics. The vanguard of the left is always majority Eskimo.

    Hollywood has long had the after-school special picture to tsk-tsk white gentiles with moral lectures. In the post-Hays era, these after-school specials were combined with a lot more sleaze and were much more vituperative. Hollywood awards season is about rewarding the most left-friendly movie, and has been for years. And now they try to shove such themes into blockbusters as well (do you think the black trooper in Star Wars: The Diversity Saga is there because he was the best actor for the job?)

    If you think Hollywood is purely profit based, then the awards season wouldn't exist. Nor would these messages. The Eskimos have a hatred of Middle America, and it shows in there recurring attacks and themes.

  30. p.s. don't forget the theme of those 70s dystopian movies and Dirty Harry films was "we can't stop this crime wave, it happens"---all to absolve blacks of their hand in the tremendous crime rampant.

  31. Whores guy - You're sweeping generational character under the rug. Boomer Jew John Milius (co-creator of Dirty Harry) felt much more passionately about street violence and how to combat it than Silent gentile Eastwood ever did. Eastwood did his action movies so as to finance the more genteel stuff that he was really interested in.

    Silent Gen Jews, like Silent gentiles, were the main force that unleashed the wave of gnarly, blasphemous, quirky, irreverent movies in the late 60's and 70's. Boomer teens lapped this stuff up at the time, but by the 80's aging Boomers were embarrassed by the disco era. They began railing against less than decent entertainment (heavy metal, porn, etc.) while also forming a distinctly conservative and no-nonsense column that questioned the liberal excesses of the 70's which were overseen by Silents (like Roe V Wade, lowering of the drinking age, radical civil rights agendas, etc.)

    The Jews are of course of a distinct character (I want them out as much as you) but they also are influenced by generation. Silents of all stripes are the ones who got us into this current mess. Boomers are just too selfish and hotheaded to get more done, unfortunately.

  32. Can we get an 80's style action movie (which is earnest rather than smirking) with Schwarzie, Willis, or Stallone rescuing his grandson from a ring of scumbag Hollywood pedos? Ideally, with maximum carnage of actually gay actors portraying the perps.

    Stallone's last Rambo movie did portray the south Asian villain as a pedo.

    Frankenstein - apparently, there is a limit to just how much abnormality Americans will swallow (oops, poor choice of words).

    Do the David Geffen's of the Hollywood cesspool realize the Faustian bargain they've made? They sense the public becoming more tolerant of weirdos, so they start to dangle greater and greater prizes in front of homos and trannies. Get on the casting couch. "We'll get ya started with a smart agent, a sham girl friend, a battalion of lawyers and publicists to nag, manipulate, threaten, and cajoe the whole system into making you look witty, dashing, and 'family friendly'. But please don't post screeds on Twitter about how people in Kansas are retarded, we don't want your contempt for normal people too obvious. We know that many people born over the last 30-40 odd years have ill-conceived notions regarding propriety and social graces, but we'll try to fix that."

    Yet, what if the public just won't accept most of these actors? "Gee, I might have to miss out on weekly blowjobs from Ryan Reynolds if his movies keep tanking".

  33. @Feryl:

    We are on the same page on most of this, but I can see where you're coming from---I was at your point once too. I think what converted me was Kevin McDonald and his research and writings. I would suggest reading his site:

    McDonald is an academic who marched with the Eskimos in the 1960s, but then started to notice how all the left wing movements were led/funded/protected by a majority of Eskimos. He studied their characterizations in history and at present and came to the conclusions that Eskimos have a natural hostility to any dominant gentile culture, and thus try to upset it or cause social upheaval, and that this hostility is not "evil" but merely a way Eskimos protect/support group interests.

    You can't run from generalizations by cherry picking exceptions. In fact, these exceptions prove the rule; you notice them because they are out of place, like a black against affirmative action. Milus

    I'm not condemning Eskimos for watching out for their own group interests, but I am condemning them for doing so by severely harming good societies and good gentiles by destroying peace and promoting discord. I'm hoping (as many have done) that the creation of Israel as a "safe space" for Eskimos might lessen this impact, since the major reason Eskimos seek destabilization of a gentile culture is because Eskimos are/were never the majority in that culture, and so felt a fear that the culture might turn on them. Since Israel is a total-Eskimo culture, it could serve to draw the destructive Eskimos there and make them feel secure and thus stop societal destruction. Unfortunately, that has not occurred as of yet.

    Now Eskimos, in these movements, have always convinced the fringes of the dominant gentile culture to join in--the mentally diseased, the uber-wealthy elites with god complexes, the other ethnic minorities that can be stirred up. But the fact that they lead these movements, and have consistently lead them and made up the vanguard and the loudest people in these movements cannot be denied when you study them historically.

  34. More interesting than the plot of the movie itself is the subtext of why James Bond turns down a hot young chick in the teaser scene but then practically devours 900-year-old Monica Bellucci ten minutes later

  35. The young babe didn't have a fabulously glamorous apartment to get him in the mood.

    Still can't get over their writing James Bond as the gay eunuch of a man-hating lesbo.

  36. I remember when Belluci was practically the hottest woman on the planet. It almost seems strange thinking of her as being old now, though I haven't seen any of her movies from this decade (the most recent would be Don't Look Back, wherein the anonymous Italian dancer rather than her or Sophie Marceau was most attention-grabbing). I decided to check wikipedia, and Belluci is between 3 or 4 years older than Craig, so possibly the first Bond girl to be older than the actor playing Bond (I'm relatively ignorant of the series) but certainly the oldest Bond girl in the series.

    You've written about cat vs dog owners before, and I recently read about Nielsen tracking differences between them. Direct access to the data is for subscribers, but Vulture notes that Empire is popular with dog but not cat owners, while the reverse is true for American Horror Story. Since Empire is a more popular show overall, this could just mean that dog-owners are more typical of the population.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."