I’ve never had an iTunes, Spotify, MailChimp, Stitcher, or Pinterest account, so that’s no bother for me to ignore them from now on. Facebook, I’ve just deleted my account which I’ve had deactivated (by myself intentionally, Facebook didn’t deactivate my account against my will) over the past several months. Fuck them, and fuck Zuckerberg.
YouTube, well, I’m not going to go so far as to stop using that platform altogether. After all, there are plenty of users using that platform who are just as outraged over this Orwellian tactic of censorship as I am, and are making videos expressing their frustration, and I’d hate to stop supporting them. So I’ll stick with YouTube, for now, but I’ve got an account up on BitChute just in case, and Vimeo, and DailyMotion.
LinkedIn, you’re fired. You’ve never helped me get a job anyway (I’ve done just fine without you), and you’re Google owned anyway.
And for a bonus mention, there’s also a website called YouPorn that has also banned InfoWars. I’m not going to bother questioning why their content would be on that site, though I find it amusing to imagine the scenarios. But one thing is for sure, there’s plenty of other websites to jack off to, including my own.
I don’t condone the banning and censoring of a platform just because one disagrees with their news and opinions. They say it’s because they promote hate speech; to that I say take a good look at 30% of all the other people that utilize your services, and see how much of a cocksucking hypocrite you really are. What they really mean is, “We are banning these people because their politics don’t agree with ours, and their news articles aren’t biased in the way we want them to be biased.”
So I’m going to retaliate. I’m going to download the InfoWars app just out of spite. I’m going to visit their website more often (some of their news articles aren’t half bad; Alex Jones isn’t the only guy doing things there, he can be avoided if he’s too much for you). And I’m going to go about transitioning from Gmail to other mail services. Maybe ProtonMail, or Zoho, or something. And I sure as shit ain’t giving any of the websites who banned InfoWars a penny of my money. Because they’re not just going to stop with InfoWars if they see they can get away with it, especially just a few months from a midterm election. They want to see if they can get away with this and censor others, like what Youtube and Facebook and Twitter have been doing in the past, only on a smaller scale. They’re already trying to do something similar to Fox News, among others. They want to ban/censor all conservative sites, and all conservative speakers. They’ve raised the stakes. I say many others should do likewise against them.
PS: Goddamnit! I fucking hate it when it comes to shit like this. I didn’t want this! I didn’t want to live in a time where censorship gets so extreme it starts affecting politics and elections! I didn’t want to get into a position where I’m defending InfoWars and fucking Alex Jones! It’s forcing me to get more political than I am now. And it’s also encouraging me to use the Brave web browser as opposed to Chrome or Firefox. This is bullshit!
And it turns out these assholes are just proving the point of that film Death of a Nation. August 4, 2018, the pro-Trump rally in Portland, Oregon gets attacked by ANTIFA thugs, and results in at least one person getting his skull cracked open and pouring out blood (he lived). You know, like the black shirts in Pre-WWII Italy did to other peaceful protesters and assemblies.
And on top of that, YouTuber Jeremy Hambly (of the channel The Quartering) gets attacked by an SJW at GenCon, allegedly by a guy who wears a “Punch Nazis” T-Shirt. At GenCon.At a boardgaming convention. In my type of atmosphere, my type of hobby. It’s not just limited to filmgoers and film critics, now we have board gamers to worry about. The worst part is that this SJW thug is supposedly one of the people running a booth at GenCon, and owns a shop. A police report is filed, Jeremy followed the proper procedures for GenCon in terms of reporting unacceptable activity such as harassment and violence (let alone assault), and GenCon officials do nothing. The police so far do nothing. Rather, GenCon would rather ban users from their Twitter feed who bring up the topic (90+ users last I checked), and YouTube would rather take down the video where Jeremy brought up the incident on his channel. Thugs physically attacking people for their political beliefs, authorities not doing much to dissuade them, and media outlets covering it up as much as possible. Tell me that’s not similar to the shit being brought up in this film? Tell me this isn’t something that will lead us down to either a civil war, or the rise of a socialist dictatorship?
YouTube may have taken down the video [EDIT: not the case, see below], but that’s why alternatives such as BitChute exist. And long story short, if you want to keep video evidence of something to support your arguments that you’ve found on YouTube, download it yourself. Otherwise, it’s nice to have alternatives. Try supporting BitChute just for the sake of having a platform alternative. Though that being said, it’s based in the U.K., so it’s questionable if even this will last considering all that’s been going on down there. Also, feel free to support Jeremy in his lawsuit:
Edit (8-6-2018): Ok, so I read through The Quartering’s tweets, and it turns out he made those YouTube videos “private” for now in an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating until the legal endeavor is over. YouTube didn’t take those videos down. That being said, I still support BitChute because there were (multiple) times in the past where YouTube did in fact block videos or have them removed (sometimes an entire channel, like the recent InfoWars), while BitChute has remained reliable (even if their “streams” aren’t always stable).
I prefer not doing trailer reviews, mainly because they tend to be pointless in the long-run. Speculation is usually left best-unsaid until the film comes out and is watched and reviewed properly. It’s the same reason I don’t speculate (and altogether avoid) trailers for video games. They don’t always show the relevant bits, and sometimes they just flat-out lie to you. So basically what I’m saying is, this could be just a one time thing at worst, a once in a long while thing at best. And the only reason I’m doing it is because I’m a Godzilla fan (mainly of the Heisei series from the 80s and 90s), and because I do have opinions regard the trailer that I’d like to express. And the main thing I aim to express is caution.
Ok, so right off the bat I’m not liking the trailer. Seriously, not joking here. They start out by showing a kid with binoculars on the roof of a building seeing “armageddon” coming in the form of clouds, likely caused by Rodan or something. What’s wrong with all that? The kid, that is what’s wrong. Every single mother-fucking kaiju film in existence who has featured a kid somewhere in the movie has had their enjoyment level brought down a notch or two because of it. The first fucking Gamera movie. Son of Godzilla. Godzilla’s Revenge. Godzilla vs. the Sea Monster. Kenny’s are the bain of all those movies and more. Why call them Kenny’s? Because Brandon does.
The other thing about the trailer, it says “the mass extinction we have feared is coming, and we are the cause. We are the infection.” Sounds like another green peace message thing about how mankind is fucking up mother nature, and mother nature will respond in kind by threatening to wipe out mankind. Normally, I’d be irritated by themes like this. But in all fairness, that does tend to be the general theme for kaiju flicks. The monsters show up because we used nuclear bombs (any respectable Godzilla origin story that doesn’t claim Godzilla is ghosts of the path seeking vengeance; yes there is a Godzilla film that does that), or because we do too much polluting (Hedorah), or some other such thing (the monsters used to exist, then went into hibernation until we started nuclear energy which woke them up again, like in Godzilla 2014). The main thing that irritates me is that the trailer is so on-the-nose about it. Well, we’ll see.
“But like all living organisms, the Earth released a fever to fight this infection. Its original, and rightful rulers, the titans. For thousands of years, these creatures have remained in hiding around the world. And unless all the titans are found, our planet will perish, and so will we. They are the only guarantee that life will carry on.”
Wait a minute, what’s this? This seems to imply the humans aren’t the “infection.” That the titans (not to be confused with the other Titans movie coming out; fuck it, I’m calling them Kaiju) are being woken up to fight something else. But they just said, “We are the cause, we are the infection.” So what gives? Best answer I can think of is that there are other monsters around the planet who have awakened due to mankind’s pollution and damage and climate/environment change who aim to kill off mankind to restore the balance. In the previous film, with the Cloverfield monsters who threatened to destroy mankind by feeding off nuclear energy humans created, Godzilla awoke to balance things out by feeding off of (or killing) those other monsters which threaten its own existence. So I guess this film is taking that concept but making it bigger. Now it won’t just be Godzilla waking up to fight some monsters, he will be teaming up with others (Ghidorah and Mothra and Rodan, or at least 2 of those 3) to fight the newly awakened menace which remains mysterious in the trailer. If it goes with the tradition of the previous Japanese Godzilla films (and why shouldn’t it? Hollywood isn’t original anymore. The best they can do is remake/reboot something and not fuck it up), it will most likely be Godzilla with Mothra and Rodan teaming up against Ghidorah at the end. You know, like in the first film Ghidorah made an appearance in.
So in other words, the film-makers want to give what the outspoken critics of the previous film want, more monsters, more action, more monster fighting. More more more!
That is ultimately what makes me worried (aside from Kenny). The reason why the 2014 Godzilla film worked for me is precisely due to its restraint. And that’s the big key word, “restraint”. Because of that restraint, it made me more and more eager for the monster action to happen. And when it did happen, it had some great payoff moments. Because of that restraint, it made the moments when Godzilla used his flame breathe seem epic. Because of that restraint, it made me hooked to the action when it was going on. As opposed to something like the Michael Bay Transformers films; which don’t get me wrong, I love those films (except for The Last Knight, fuck that movie), but the main complaint about them is that they are action overload with no substance to them. That, and they complain the action is tedious, monotonous, which ultimately resulted in it becoming boring because we were given it so often (a complaint I also use against the majority of Marvel films, but these fucking hypocrites always say, “That’s different!” Like hell it is). I worry the same fate may befall this film.
On the other hand, there may be a chance that it doesn’t. For on thing, there was only so much they could make Godzilla do to the monsters in the 2014 film before it got too monotonous. In this film’s case, assuming he does face off against Mothra/Ghidorah/Rodan (prior to possibly teaming up with them), we might get some variety in the action. Though I say that with my fingers crossed, considering every single one of those new monsters can fucking fly. None of them are grounded. How about replacing one of them with something more distinct (preferably Rodan, since he’s similar to the flying Cloverfield monster in the last film). How about Biollante? Hedorah? Anguirus? Though come to think of it, I guess Godzilla’s most memorable opponents were the ones that had flying capabilities. Plus Ghidorah tends to walk about as often as it flies. Alright, I’ll give the film a pass in that regard, especially since I don’t know yet what other, if any other, monsters will be in the movie.
In any case, the diversity of monsters would make for more interesting battle scenes, so it may actually be in the film’s favor to use less restraint. But I really hope it doesn’t go overboard with it. I really hope it’s a good thing, and that it doesn’t give us too much of a good thing. In any case, I might just go to the theater to watch this thing when it comes out. But not on opening day, not unless a group of friends talk me into it or something.
But one last thing in regards to the trailer. All the titans need to be found? They are the only guarantee that life will carry on? Seriously? I’d like to see what excuse they can pull out their ass to justify that reasoning.
Ok, now going outside the box and looking at the director and screenwriters, and what their film history is.
Director and Screenwriter Michael Dougherty: directed Trick r’ Treat, Krampus. Ok, I enjoyed those films. Plus with Krampus, he seems to now how to do a decent (albeit not exceptional) action scene. I just hope he doesn’t turn into one of those directors who can work wonders with a small budget, but falls apart when given a big budget project. As a screenwriter, he’s hit and miss. X-Men 2 was good; haven’t heard good things about X-Men: Apocalypse, but he did write Krampus, and a couple of the stories in Trick ‘r Treat. So it could go either way with him.
Screenwriter Max Borenstein: Worked on the 2014 Godzilla film (plus) and the Kong: Skull Island film (minus). The latter makes me worried, as I fear he may be going down the path of giving too much. And I didn’t like the Skull Island movie.
Screenwriter Zach Shields: Also worked on Krampus, and a bit of Trick ‘r Treat.
They might pull it off. At worst, they will produce a mediocre film. At best, it could be something exceptional. Just have to wait and see.
PS: Does seem like there’s a little too much blue hue in the trailer though, with most of the monsters, save for Rodan.
Like so many inspirational “Top whatever-rounded-to-the-nearest-5th-or-some-bullshit-numberof-some-general-subject” lists that are out there, this one is going to be a simple one, with no rank or general order whatsoever. It is simply a list of memorable characters in film who outta be killed. Characters who survived through whatever ordeal they were put through in a movie who shouldn’t have, because they are annoying as fuck, sometimes just because they survived an ordeal. Note, for all those who are already throwing a fit and trying to call the police on me to SWAT my ass, this refers to the characters the actors play, not the actors themselves, I’m sure most of them are moderately decent people just like yourself.
Yeah, I’m filling bloodthirsty today. So without further ado, here’s the first individual who should have porcupines with poison-laden quills thrown at her:
Rey from Star Wars VII
Overpowered Mary Sue bullshit annoys me to no end. And this applies to those Gary Stu cocksuckers too when I get to them. She should’ve crashed that Millennium Falcon in attempting to fly it, and killed both herself and Fin, then the whole SJW uprising in Star Wars would’ve ended right then and there. Or Kylo Ren could’ve sliced her up when he dueled her.
Here’s the next little twat who should have sound-speakers blared so loud his tongue is blown out of his mouth and his eyes blown out of his head:
Samuel from The Babadook
And no, cunthole kids aren’t safe from this hit-list, especially this little annoying shit who screamed his lungs out endlessly after doing something outrageous that harmed someone else. The mother should’ve strangled him to death and then smashed his head in with a bowling ball.
Here’s the next asshole who should crash into a tree and get ejected through the windshield and then smash through a dozen cactus’s and land in a scorpion nest:
Kaneda from Akira
Here’s the fucking Gary Stu I was talking about. Oh sure, he gets punched and knocked back by big beefy security guards a couple of times, but that’s not going to matter when he can get through most security measures, and tackles Telekinesis master Tetsuo with a laser gun more effectively than an entire army of people with those same guns could 10 minutes ago, nevermind surviving all these ridiculous situations that should’ve left him crippled at best. This problem is only amplified in the 6-part manga series. His body should’ve been filled with lead, his brain should be gushing out of his eye sockets, and his whole body should be smashed by a boulder. Or if nothing else, Tetsuo should’ve telekinesized his ass all over the walls of a hallway. Fuck Kaneda, and his egotistic punk attitude and his Stu-iness.
Here’s the next pussy who should have a red hot poker shoved up his dickhole:
Shinji from Neon Genesis: End of Evangelion
Biggest pussy in the world who fucked the world up its greenhouse fart emitting asshole. Asuka should’ve chopped his balls off after he jacked off in front of her, Misato should’ve blown his brains out to put him out of his misery, his dad should’ve convinced his mother to abort him, that gay angel should’ve fucked him to death. Any of those actions would’ve literally saved the world. Fuck Shinji, and fuck End of Evangelion.
Here’s the next bitch who should be scalped and thrown into a pool full of great white sharks:
Willi Scott from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
She bitches and moans so much, she makes me seem like a decent person by comparison. Does more harm than good, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why Indy would want to keep her whiny-ass along for the journey, let alone why the fuck she would even go with him. The Indians should’ve killed her and cooked and ate all her bodily organs and thrown the rest to the crocodiles.
Here’s the next group of pricks who should try surviving in a fridge amidst a nuclear holocaust, after it lands in an active volcano spewing magma:
All the main protagonists in the Fast & Furious franchise
Fuck those guys and girls, they get away with too much shit and are too skilled to the point where they know how to manipulate the laws of physics. The number of times they should’ve died in fights, shootouts, and car accidents (with all due respect to Paul Walker, RIP) is so high, Thanos would’ve made sure they were on the snap list.
Here’s the next broad who should be stoned to death, with an overdose of coke laced with cyanide:
Sylvia from The War of the Worlds (1953)
“Aaaaaaaaagggggghhhh!” God almighty, shut the fuck up! Run outside and scream and get lazer-blasted to dust by those aliens why don’cha?
Here’s the next twerp that made me a supporter of abortion:
Fred from Fred: The Movie
Has the most annoying fucking voice in the universe, has no good qualities about him whatsoever, is a stalker, and his dad is John Cena. The Undertaker should show up and tombstone him straight to hell where Kain is waiting to give him an eternal beating.
Here’s the next little bitch that deserves to be subjected to all the horrible stuff you here happening in the worst neighborhoods of Detroit:
Charlie Sandin from The Purge (2013)
The kid was a dumb fucking asshole who caused his dad to get killed, and the stranger just sucks. All those purgers should’ve wiped them out along with the rest of the family. Serves then right for having a dumb cunt kid doing a dumb cunt thing so a bunch of psycho cunts will want to kill them all. The dad is the only one who should’ve lived.
Here’s the next bastard who should overdose on steroids after overdosing on Viagra, causing his dick to self-implode and make him bleed to death:
John Triton from The Marine
The fact that you gave birth to Fred is bad enough, but being an unkillable Gary Stu who makes Schwarzenegger and Stallone seem mortal by comparison without being in their league is unforgivable. The T-1000 should’ve violated you through all your holes with his liquid spike shit.
Here’s the next douchebag who outta get pummeled by life-sized rock’em sock’em robots before Jason from Manhattan shows up to finish him with an uppercut:
Nick Van Owen from The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Literally the cause for all the problems everyone endured on the island, both those he hated as a radical PETA member, and those he was friends with. Should’ve been gored by a triceratops, eaten by a T-Rex, shit out and finished off by the Compsognathus.
Here’s the next broad who should be thrown into a shallow pool filled with sea urchins:
Tina from Waterworld
She just annoys the fuck out of me, ok!? That’s reason enough. Fuck Tina, Tina sucks. Her and the main cast should’ve been devoured by some sea monster, while Kevin Costner’s character gets chopped up by Dennis Hopper (just because he came around to liking her).
Here’s the next (and last) person who should be cock-punched by the wolverine:
Casey Ryback from Under Siege
Normally I wouldn’t care. But when Steven Seagal is in the same film as Tommy Lee Jones and Garey Busey, I start to think he isn’t good enough for this film, and should’ve been riddled with bullets. And cock-punched by Busey and Jones at the same time.
That being said, my opinion would change completely if this scene was in the movie:
On that note, here’s the last bunch of cunts who should be thrown into an oven and roasted alive:
The Mothra Twins from Godzilla vs. Mothra (aka Godzilla vs. The Thing)
If I don’t here them talk or sing again, it won’t be soon enough! Godzilla should’ve burned them, or squished them with his foot. Better yet, someone should’ve accidentally stepped on them, that would’ve made my day.
PS: I love cartoon characters. No matter what you say about them, you don’t feel bad.
It’s true that there are many, many movies that are “just movies,” entertaining enough but with little weight behind them. And there are many movies that are nothing more than complete wastes of time and space. But the ones that really grip people’s imaginations, the ones that inspire passionate discussions and debates, the ones that are outright adored by people from all over the world and from every conceivable background…these speak to something much deeper. They’re not “just movies.” — Silentology
“Dude, chill out, it’s just a movie.” “Don’t take it so seriously. It’s just a movie.” “It’s no big deal, it’s just a movie.” “It doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a movie.”
When I hear lines like that, half the time I wanna smash these people into the cement and curb-stomp them into oblivion. The other half of the time, I’m thinking, “Yeah, they’re probably right, it’s no big deal, no need to get worked up over something like this.” And to be honest, I believe either response can be appropriate depending on the context (I exaggerated on the curb-stomp part for those who can’t tell when I am or am not being serious, but punching them is ok, especially if they’re women). Because when someone says, “It’s just a movie,” that’s like saying, “It’s only a book,” or, “It’s only a game.” Or to bring up the point more bluntly, that’s like saying to someone who’s read/watched William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Why are you analyzing Hamlet? Dude, it’s just Shakespeare.” To which many literary critics would respond as articulately as possible, “Fuck you you tasteless twat!” You mine as well as say the works of Homer, Aristotle, Mark Twain, Orson Welles, among others, don’t really amount to anything significant.
But here’s the thing. For some people it does mean something. Sometimes it’s more than that for a lot of people. All of the above (movies/games/books) acts as a form of entertainment, and/or escapism, and/or education. And often, one partakes in this entertainment with others, friends and family. Hell, sometimes they partake in it with complete strangers. If you sit on the bleachers of a sports event, or in the middle of a crowded movie theater, or walk around at a Con, how many around you tend to be people you know? How many are strangers? People you don’t know, people you may not want to hang around with under other circumstances, and yet here they all are for a common purpose, to be entertained by something you would find entertaining. It’s an experience. An experience where you forget about the problems in the world, escape into the world the film portrays, and maybe even discuss the events in the film after the show is over with those strangers.
“Wasn’t that scene awesome?” “Oh, that guy had it coming.” “What do you think this means?” “Where do you think things will go from there?”
If you’re not careful, you may become a nerd.
So when someone says, “It’s just a movie,” they mean it shouldn’t be taken (that) seriously. And why shouldn’t it be taken seriously? Well, I’ll bring up each and every argument made towards that statement, and put them through the meat grinder.
Argument #1: It’s just entertainment. Analyze it too much, and you’ll take the fun out of it.
This argument is directed towards two areas: at the individual who analyzes the film, and at those who read/listen to the analyst. For the former, the risk is that the individual will ruin the film for his/herself. For the latter, it’s that the individual will ruin the film for others (for purposes of this writing, let’s assume there are no spoilers revealed because everyone has seen the movie).
In regards to the former, this depends on the individual. Honestly, analyzing a film can be like analyzing comedy, determine how/why a joke is funny and what philosophical/psychological links that are involved with making someone laugh. Honestly, I was scared just dipping into such subject matter in my Philosophy 101 course. I don’t want to analyze comedy because that does risk me being analytical about all comedy and focusing and the how and why I should consider it funny, and how/why other people are finding it funny. Thus I could end up spending my time thinking about it critically rather than just having fun with it. Thus one could have films like It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World lose their enjoyment if they ponder stuff like why it’s considered funny to have this idiot set off explosions in a basement that he and his wife are locked in, rather than laughing at the absurdity of the moment. Or even slasher films, where someone gets killed in an over-the-top manner which delights audiences (most likely because they couldn’t wait to see this dumb sack of shit character get wasted by the disfigured fuck wearing a mask). Or a John Woo shoot-em-up flick from the 80s or 90s.
It’s like Bruce Lee said, “Don’t think! Feel! It’s like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all of the heavenly glory!” So one should be sure to have fun with a film first and fore-most.
Ah, but then there comes the other side of the coin. After all, being analytical allows one to pick up on the messages/lessons meanings within the film, stuff that can affect one’s life for the better (or at least one would hope). For instance, the Bruce Lee quote mentioned above. It’s a good life lesson is it not? Yet how would one appreciate it if they weren’t at least somewhat analytical about the movie? And at the same time, it’s a line that encourages one to not be so analytical to the point where they would miss out on the “heavenly glory.” Thus through analysis, one learns they shouldn’t overdo analysis. The level of fun one can have with a movie can increase when they become analytical about it. Take the reviews I made for The Dark Crystal and Ghost in the Shell for example. The Dark Crystal is a film I have always enjoyed on a surface level ever since I was a child, giving no thought as to the in-depth meanings one can find in the film if one reads into it. And yet when I did read into it when I got older, it only enhanced the experience, and putting my thoughts on the subject online has encouraged others to check the movie out, if not give it a second look to more fully appreciate it. Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, was a film I didn’t care for too much on a first watch, but then later regarded it as a masterpiece when I did read into it, analyze it, and find all these meanings within it.
But of course it is possible to have one’s enjoyment of a film lowered the more they do read into it. Lately the focus of that has been The Last Jedi, but that’s a tale for another time. There is an anime film called Origin: Spirits of the Past, which I initially enjoyed upon a first watch, partly because I didn’t know what to expect, and was happy to let the film surprise me. But after an initial watch, the re-watch-ability of a movie often tends to rely on finding depth to it by reading into it (with the possible exception of action films where you just want to rewatch sequences of bullets flying, of explosions, of people/things beating the hell out of each other, etc.). In the case of Origins, it just came off as just another, “Rainforests are to be respected, stop fucking them up for the sake of technology, m’kay? Or else mother nature will fight back, m’kay?” Plus one could notice things they missed before, which could make a film worse for them just as easily as it could make it better, it just depends.
In the end, the argument, “Your analyzing will kill the pleasure to be had,” is bullshit because analyzing a film can enhance the viewing experience. And if it does the opposite, then maybe the film wasn’t as good as you first thought. After all, there are plenty of other films out there to experience that you will find to be great. Besides, it’s the truly great films that stand the test of time precisely because film critics analyze it and find it to be worthwhile then and now. It’s how films like The Searchers are remembered, how Star Trek is remembered, the original Star Wars trilogy, The Godfather, etc. They’re not remembered just because some people watched it and thought, “That was nice,” before moving on with their lives. Hell no. They’re remembered because they impacted lives in some way. Because there was something to be had along with the entertainment. The analysis can give you insight into your life. And it can allow you to respond more fully to all that a film (and those who created it) has to offer.
Which brings me to the whole “You’ll ruin the film for others,” argument. Anyone who makes that argument is a candy-ass. Mamby-pamby whiny overaged-tit-sucking vermin who have no sense of pride, of independence, or of having their own opinion they’re willing to defend.
“I liked the film.”
“Well I thought it sucked!”
“Great, now the film sucks and my life sucks! Boo-fuckity-hoo!”
You mean to tell me that you’ve seen a film that you enjoyed greatly, then read some schmuk’s review online where they give a compelling argument as to why the film isn’t great and why they didn’t enjoy it, and you bitch about it because this convinced you that the film is worse than you thought and therefore can’t enjoy it as much as you used to? If that happens, either the reviewer was making some really good points, or you’re too flaky for your own good. I mean, for crying out loud, you act like every movie you saw as a kid you enjoy just as much if not more-so when you got older. Fuck off. There are several films I enjoy that I have seen negative reviews of which, while some do bring up good points, I enjoy the film regardless of the negatives pointed out. For example, I enjoyed Mad Max: Fury Road, yet still found this negative review delightfully entertaining, and I still watch and enjoy the film regardless:
Hell, I’ve even convinced a film critic or two to appreciate a movie more thanks to the insight I provided on the movie. Case in point, Forest Taylor of Slaughterfilm learned to appreciate the film Angel Heart (will get around to making a review for that at some point) after listening to my insights:
Your tastes in film can change, whether it’s because time affects how you see and enjoy things, or because the opinions you subject yourself to affect how you see and enjoy things. Here’s a scary thought: what if a film affects how you see and enjoy things?
Argument #2: It’s just entertainment, it’s not telling you to live your life this way.
We should take the ethics of movies seriously precisely because the people who make them don’t want their ethics to be taken seriously. Because movies are pervasive, because they reach us when our guard is down, because we unconsciously relate so many choices in our lives to the stories they tell, their influence is like that of folk tales three hundred years ago. — http://www.spectacle.org/1295/movintr.html
That may be true for a good portion of films, though that depends on the film, who’s watching it, and how impressionable they are. But let’s just ignore the fact that documentaries exist which tell you how to live your life (ex: Supersize Me says don’t eat fast food, especially McDonalds, Citizenfour says don’t trust the Internet, smartphones, or the NSA, End of the Line says stop eating fish), just for a minute. Let’s ignore those propaganda films like Tell Your Children (aka Reefer Madness) which say you shouldn’t smoke weed or you’ll become a homicidal maniac. For the sake of argument, let’s just say we’re only talking about films which aren’t blunt in their messaging, that seem to exist more for the sake of the story and the entertainment value than anything else.
So, Black Panther (a film I still haven’t seen, in case you were wondering) was hyped up prior to release. Many were excited for it, and many were told to be excited for it. It’s almost like people were expecting some Return of the Jedi event from the 80s or something, or the arrival of the first Star Wars prequel, or the arrival of The Force Awakens. But unlike those movie where it was all about the arrival of pure sci-fi/fantasy escapism (which has it’s own nerd culture), Black Panther’s arrival was touted as a cultural revolution (an over-the-top reaction in my opinion, but it’s the narrative most mainstream outlets want to go with, so…).
“So it can serve as the forefront of a rallying cry to actually come together – as a people, as a culture – to celebrate us, to celebrate our skin, to celebrate Africa, to celebrate who we are in 2018.” — Kristen Thompson
In other words, a film hailed as a black people’s movie that will have a positive effect on the black community, much less anyone else of any other race. That’s right, the greatest thing since the first on-screen interracial kiss on Star Trek, the greatest thing since Sidney Poitier bitch-slapping that white racist in In The Heat of the Night. A film to signal the age of empowerment. Try saying, “It’s just a movie,” to them and you’ll get labeled racist. Try telling them to chill and they’ll throw grape juice at you. Clearly, from critics to newscasters, many promoted the idea that Black Panther stood for something significant in American culture, and thus many would state that it is more than just a movie. A movie that will impact lives (though that’s advertising outside of the film, not within it). For all I know, the film succeeded in doing just that.
Then there’s those controversial films from the 70s. Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Walking Tall. If nothing else, Dirty Harry’s impact involved people constantly quoting the line, “‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?” And Death Wish was deemed controversial because some felt it would encourage many to become vigilantes, more-so because the film was released at a time when the crime rate was high and many didn’t think the police were doing enough (a climate which helped Dirty Harry become popular, as many enjoyed seeing a cop who just got things done without always doing things by the book). And Walking Tall, encouraging people to carry a big stick (ala Theodore Roosevelt), stand up for yourself, and get things done yourself to make the community better, even if that means going against officials.
Each of those films had their fair share of making an impact on people through the actions of the protagonists, the lines they said, and the messages one can read within the film. Hell, you could watch the movie Cinema Paradiso and know that film can have a major impact on one’s life, because that’s basically what that movie is about. Films that can teach one morals, dialogue, demonstrate how certain things work, showcase relationships, show different perspectives, offer greater understanding of people and places around the world, enhance the imaginations, find role models, offer unique forms of education, among other aspects of enlightenment. Whether you like it or not, films can influence one’s opinion, maybe even their life. Films can inspire.
Argument #3: It’s just entertainment, it’s not history.
Cinema has perhaps the greatest potential to be the most effective mass media instrument. Besides proving cheap entertainment for masses, it can easily become a means of mass instruction and mass education. — Siddhi Bahadkar
The excuse for artistic license to overrule reality for the sake of entertainment. This is something that mainly applies to films based on a true story. A reason to distort the truth. This is something I addressed in an earlier blog entry titled On the topic of films “based on true stories/events” Long story short, distorting truth in a film that is made for entertainment can have real-life consequences which can be infuriating. Distorting the truth in the film Remember the Titans got the real-life Herman Boone to be glorified for acting in ways he didn’t. Distorting the truth in Selma caused a woman to be outraged at the false depiction of LBJ, and thus write her own opinion article on it.
On the other hand, distorting history can be fun if it’s obvious history is being distorted. For instance, how Hitler died in Inglorious Basterds. Or the stuff depicted in History of the World Part I. How about anything Monty Python did?
When it comes to films based on true stories, one should take the “true story” aspect with a grain of salt, go ahead and be entertained, and then do a little research to see how accurate the film is. If nothing else, it offers an excuse to learn some history. Learning what a film did right and did wrong in terms of historical accuracy can enhance the viewing experience in its own way.
The “It’s just a film” excuse is bullshit. Films have too much of an impact on people’s lives to be considered that irrelevant. That’s like telling a Raider’s fan, “It’s just a game.” If something can bring out that much passion in an individual, then it’s more than the sum of its parts.
And the constructive criticism goes both ways. I expect myself to show deeper insight and appreciation (or bash it for being the dumb piece of shit it is) for a film just as much as I expect others to do the same towards films I have experienced myself. Case in point, as I stated earlier, I got Forest Taylor of Slaughterfilm to gain some more insight into Angel Heart. He did the same for me, with his analysis of Predator.
“Cinema has become a powerful vehicle for culture, education, leisure and propaganda.” — Vikas Sha Mbe
Edit (7-4-2018): Got a counter-argument for some of the stuff I said in this post, sort of. My initial comments in a thread on the Slaughterfilm website (which, admittedly, is what got me to make this blog post in the first place):
The Last Jedi “It’s just a movie, calm down.”
Fuck off. It’s more than a movie to a lot of people. Some films are more than just films. They exist as a form of entertainment, and entertainment is something everyone needs (yes, “need”, not “want”). And if you listen to the discussions and arguments, you’ll find that they make good points for being pissed at the movie. It’s not that it’s a movie, it’s what the movie represents.
For the neutral folk like yourselves, if it means nothing, then it’s not a discussion you should be involved in. Considering you’ve mentioned the film and the controversy on a few occasions, so you mine as well as drop the pretense, since you seem to care. For others who were fans of the star wars saga/franchise, it represents a major irreparable flaw in the Star Wars universe, with story flaws, character flaws, betrayals of personalities/rules setup in the past (and in the same film), and a film that exists more as feminist anti-capitalist propaganda and less as a Star Wars Story. And then there are those who don’t really give a damn about Star Wars in general, and just enjoy the movie for the spectacle (shutting their brains off to anything requiring 2 seconds of thought), and/or are all for the feminist anti-capitalist message (and they’re all hypocrites).
In addition, the film represents where the Star Wars franchise is headed unless something is done soon (assuming it’s not too late). Some get too violent or illogical about it, such as that fund-raising event to remake the film (it’s not that they will remake it themselves, they want to raise funds to give to Disney under the agreement that they will remake the film with the raised budget in the way these fans desire), and it’s wishful thinking in my opinion. Others troll supporters of the film on Twitter and stuff, calling them shills and whatnot (but in all fairness, they are right some of the time). But if nothing else, this is a backlash against Disney for doing the same thing to the fans, sending their own shills to troll them, convincing youtube to demonetize accounts, remove comments/videos/accounts, and not taking anyone’s arguments seriously, even if it’s well-founded criticism.
This isn’t just a rabid fan-base, it’s also a rabid corporate-base. The fans don’t want to see anymore Star Wars films released that are this politically driven, and are protesting both the film, future Star Wars films, and Disney, until they either get taken seriously, or until Star Wars dies. They just want a film where the writers, directors, and producers know the lore and the source material, and wish to create a new film with great care in this regard. The fact that the new film took less care than the prequel trilogy did says something.
As for the character who played Rose, I’m not so sure she quit Instagram because she was being relentlessly trolled. There’s no record showing her being trolled, no comment screenshots, and not even her word on it. It’s the word of Disney staff saying that’s how it is. Comes off as some other form of damage control by using anti-feminism as a scapegoat or something.
Christ, and I was about to recommend a movie for you guys to continue on with the batshit crazy Japanese flicks (Suicide Club, available on YouTube, uncut). I have an idea, why don’t you give me a reason not to take this seriously. “It’s just a movie” is not an excuse that will hold weight. I guarantee it. That’s like saying Seven Samurai is only a movie, or that The Godfather is only a movie. Movies can change lives, and people make a living making and critiquing/talking about movies. Besides, if it was just a movie made solely for entertainment purposes and nothing else, Kathleen Kennedy wouldn’t be promoting the message “The Force is Female.”
So what do you say? Put into practice what you said many many months ago?
“Having them exist is an opportunity for conversation.”
“If people would just sit the fuck down, and talk about things…”
And here’s my counter-argument to their counter-argument:
Nice counter-argument to what I said. I pity you don’t consider one other thing that throws a wrench into your entire stance. The corporations that make the films, and how much they care about the films (or not). While it’s true they largely exist just to create films to make a profit off of them, there’s other factors to consider. George Lucas didn’t create Star Wars just to make money, it was to tell a story he had a personal investment in. Same thing with the prequels, though with more mixed results. Oliver Stone did something similar with his film Platoon, as did Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now, and so did Akira Kurosawa with Dreams. In those cases, the film was a method of expressing their own personal/political/philosophical views, or just to tell a story they felt needed to be told. It wasn’t just a cash-grab for them.
On the other side of the coin, corporations also make films for similar reasons pointed out in John Carpenter’s They Live: subliminal messaging (sometimes it’s too blunt to be considered subliminal, at least in terms of being subtle). Sometimes the films are made to encourage audiences to think in a certain way, a “herd mentality”. And sometimes a film is made with little to no passion other than the subliminal message, which is something many critics nowadays are picking up on because it’s difficult to avoid. And if the film becomes more about the message than about the story, which is what many critics of The Last Jedi are arguing against, then the criticism is inevitably going to be about the message. And the director and others responsible for making that film lash out at the criticism, becoming just as bad, if not worse, than the worst of those they argue against.
And it would be nice if many could just, “make their own damn movie.” The problem is that many face obstacles from corporations like Disney, among others, because the film industry has become political. Films like 2018’s Death Wish can’t be released without facing criticism, saying it’s “the wrong film at the wrong time.” Films like 2017’s The Red Pill can’t be made without resorting to Kickstarter after backlash over the direction it was heading, as a documentary. And, of course, there’s the cancellation of conservative television shows such as Last Man Standing despite the fact that it was doing so well in the ratings compared to other shows on similar channels. Many people like me have a right to be pissed when the kinds of films/shows we want aren’t getting made simply because they don’t fit in with.
Lastly, you can claim all you want that “it’s just a movie” for you, but that statement would be easier to swallow when, considering this is a podcast that is all about violent/bloody/gory/rapy movies, you guys say you’re not interested in some so-and-so movie like 2018’s Death Wish because it’s about some old upper-class white dude turning into a vigilante and killing people. Sounds like some of the media you’ve been watching over the past few years has had an impact on the types of films you’d be willing to watch. I’m not saying you have to watch that movie, I’m just giving an example. There’s other films I can recommend over that one.
Oh, right, and one other thing. If films didn’t have an impact on your lives in any way, in particular films with rape scenes in them, then how do you explain the “rape jar”?
LetterBoxD. I’ve been a member of that site since March 2013 (for over 5 years now), thanks to recommendations from the podcast Slaughterfilm. What kept me invested in this website was how one could log the films they’ve watched, optionally rate the film from 1/2 a star to 5 stars (so it’s more like a scale from 1-10), and optionally leave a review of any length, whether it be a word, a sentence, a paragraph, or an essay. The reviews started simple, as I didn’t want to put as much effort into them as I did on a college essay of such subjects. But as time went on, I became inspired by other reviewers, some of which who are no longer there. Reviewers who go the extra mile, make detailed analysis of films, and make one learn something more about the film, gain extra insight into it. The type of reviews that make me envious, making me think, “I wish I was as talented as these guys.” They inspired a lowlife like me to make an effort like that from time to time, though they make this stuff look easy.
Reviewers such as Adam Cook, CinemaClown, Aaron, and Dragonknight were all inspiring reviewers to me, as well as to others (more recently Kevin Jones). Then there were those who demonstrated just how interactive and fun of a community letterboxd could actually be. Cinemonster and his annual Hoop-Tober challenge, where he challenges himself and other users to watch 31 horror-themed films following certain guidelines (ex: there must be 1 film directed by Tobe Hooper). David Topper and his Noir-November challenge. All these users on this unique social-media site broadened my horizons, got me to seek out films I would likely never have seen without their encouragement. And the occasional smartass reviewer who didn’t hold back on some foul language in his earlier reviews, such as Todd Gaines (a name taken from the film Go, which has nothing to do with the board game, though there is a Korean film that can indulge people on that). And how we would comment on each others reviews. Sometimes I would go deep and discuss the heavy themes of the film, critique another review, challenging its stance on a film, which resulted in some nice debates that continued to produce more insight into the film and the conversations it can produce. Other times we would just lightheartedly bust each others’ balls. It was fun times.
Then the years passed, and I sought others to follow, who’s reviews I thought would also provide interesting insight. Naturally, I sought those who were the most popular, who had the most followers. Because surely the more followers they have, the more there must be a good reason for it, right?
Cue 2016. Yeah, that was a rough year, the year where mainstream media went full-tilt in making everything so politically heated to the point where friends became enemies on social media, where family members (in real life, not on the web) became torn asunder. Where some of our ugliest natures were brought into the light. It’s the year where everything began to slowly but surely fall apart. It began innocently enough. One user who I followed at the time was Sally Jane Black, one of the most popular users on the site at the time. She (or he, not sure which, the profile states the individual is trans) wrote a review on that 2004 ice hockey film Miracle, which starred Kurt Russel. Here’s a portion of the review (which is most of it):
I wish the United States were worthy of the dreams portrayed here, of the pride, of the glory given it in the chants and the uniforms and the flags. Of course, it isn’t and never will be, and never has been either, but for over two hours this movie does a good enough job of helping you like that these kids believe it anyway. You never lose sight of the fact that we live in a vile hellhole of country that has systematically and intentionally marginalized people in the name of venomous self-interest, but you just kinda don’t mind that these kids and Kurt Russell are sacrificing everything actually good in their lives for the glory of a nation that would eat them alive if they weren’t all white cishets.
I looked at the comments, some of which got ugly, and made a comment of my own. I didn’t use any foul language, and I don’t remember what I said exactly, but it was something along the lines of, “Chill out, America isn’t that bad, especially compared to the other countries out there.” In the past, I would usually get a reply, and engage in a back-and-forth discussion. Sometimes they wouldn’t want a discussion, to which I would think, “Fair enough, I’ll end it here.” Not so this time. This was the first case where I discovered that users could be “blocked,” which results in you not only being unable to make anymore comments on any of their reviews, but also be unable to “Like” one of their reviews. On top of that, any comments you have made on their reviews becomes invisible to everyone (hence why I’m unable to retrieve my exact comment on the review). This was off-putting, and my first experience encountering the intolerant, the anti-patriot, and the anti-patriot LGBT. Little did I know that 2016 would be the start of a breeding ground for people like this, who multiply quickly, and begin to have numbers that can’t be ignored.
It was petty, but I couldn’t fully get over it. Like most social media sites, it becomes easy to turn a small thing into a big thing. It’s the manner in how closeted someone like that is, despite claiming to have come out of the closet. How closed off and isolated they make their beliefs/politics, unwilling to be challenged. Taking the fun out of back-and-forth constructive (or ball-busting) debates. And debates are one of my passions, especially when it goes hand-in-hand with all other passions, including film and games. In hindsight, it was less the individual and more of what the individual stood for (SJW) that made me slowly transform my feelings towards them from semi-respect for a fellow reviewer with different opinions albeit interesting ones, to shock at seeing that their opinions and personality become less interesting and more ignorant and filled with loathing, to disliking them altogether when looking upon their other reviews that came soon after this one.
I thought that would be an isolated incident. I thought wrong. As the months/years went on I began to realize I had been blocked by others. At some point, I decided this should be something I should be a bit proud of, making reviews that unintentionally offend (well, with some exceptions; there are reviews I make that I hope do offend others, making them outraged, encouraging them to comment, seeing if that will lead to some more debate). So I made a list of those who have blocked me; a list composed of films that are linked one way or another to the individuals who have blocked me (each film representing an individual, mainly because it’s either a review that I wanted to “Like” but couldn’t, or because of some comment). There was one exception where some guy was trolling/spamming me, so I blocked that little cocksucker, but that’s the one exception. More on this later.
Come 2017, when I watched and reviewed a documentary called The Red Pill. Since Sally Jane Black (whose initials SJB made it irresistible for me to use the term Social Justice Bitch) was still on my mind, I mentioned her name in the review, stating that the review was partly for her. I even made a unique intro and outro paragraph taking a jab at her. A few months later when I made a comment about something that led me to take another look at my review, I found that it wasn’t there. It was gone. Wiped from history, wiped from the records (not to mention all the “Likes” were gone). It was at this point I became infuriated, but was glad I saved the review on this blog site so that it was easy to put it back up on Letterboxd. And I did mail the moderators about this, and they basically stated something about not using a user’s actual name in the review in a negative light. “So shouldn’t I have been given at least a warning to edit the review before it gets taken down?” I thought. Apparently not. But losing the review was one thing, losing all the comments in the review thread made it hurt even more. One of those I got into a heavy back-and-forth debate with was user Cameron M Johnson. And much to my delight and everlasting thanks, he had kept screenshots of most of the comments, so I was able to repost them.
It was at that point when I realized that Letterboxd isn’t all that reliable, that they’re capable of deleting content quite easily at the behest of winy little bitches. So I held my blog site with much more importance when it comes to storing records of note-worthy reviews/topics than I do a social media site. Bottom line, no matter how much you may trust it, no social media site is safe from censorship.
But anyway, I blamed Sally Jane Black for the whole ordeal. I had doubts that she was the one who flagged the review, but if it wasn’t her, it was definitely one of her followers. In any case, attacking her would end up being an attack on them, so I placed the blame on her. Not fair, not ethical, but at that point it was no longer something petty to me (hey, I’m just telling it like it is; I’m aware that this makes me come off as an asshole, and I won’t deny that I kind of am one; at least I admit it).
But after I had a month or so to cool off, I did my best to brush it off. Didn’t want to pursue the matter any further. I made an effort to try to let bygones be bygones. Because I knew deep down that I shouldn’t hold grudges like this. It’s not healthy, and there are more important battles to fight. Did maintain a growing number of people on the Bridges Burned list however (the list of those who have blocked me). Meanwhile more users became more radical/emotional with their reviews, still fanning the flames started up in 2016, and exploded near the end of 2016 when Trump got elected president, which spurred a lot of users to make reviews on films that weren’t about the films at all and ran on tangents that went like, “Trump is evil, America is fucked, conservatives and cop-lovers and patriots all deserve to choke in hell, boo-fuckity-hoo, fuck my life and fuck you.” The back-and-forths I’ve had resulted in a few more people blocking me (intolerant bunch of fuckers), and there became less of them overall. Less reviews that invite discussion, less people willing to comment, including those of the past I have followed. Guess it’s the inevitable result of years going by, people are bound to move on. Though I still stuck with reviews. Plus I found other users I personally believed to be worth following, particularly Arielrocks5, another LGBT, but one who is cooler than SJB. She seemed like the female equivalent to Todd Gaines, a smartass, a ball-buster, and had fun energetic reviews (though she was also one of those who did one of those tangent reviews recently mentioned). Have to admit though, my interest began to wane on the site, to the point where I didn’t put forth an annual monetary donation to make me a pro member. Just wasn’t feeling it this time around. Was hoping something would ignite that spark in me as has happened in the past. So far, it hasn’t happened.
Cut to recent times. Something eventually happened with me. A result of slow degradation, slow buildup of frustration. A realization that there weren’t enough like-minded people like me that I could find on that site. Don’t get me wrong, alternative opinions are nice and all, but they get tiring after a while, especially when I can’t find a way to agree with them. 4-5 star reviews for films I thought sucked, 1 star reviews for films that I thought were good (or at least decent). Too many of those, making me wonder why the hell these are the most popular reviews on that site, with those viewpoints. Especially for praise for The Last Jedi (seriously, where the hell is the review equivalent to MauLer and E;R and The Dishonoured Wolf for that movie on letterboxd?). So I finally snapped after watching the film The Book of Henry, a film that got largely negative reviews from just about everyone. And I posted a review which contains these excerpts:
My thoughts are I no longer trust any of you hypocritical assholes that I follow. I no longer trust your ratings, or your reviews. I thought this movie was fun, albeit a bit far-fetched (but compared to the shit you people give high ratings too, it’s firmly grounded in reality by comparison). The unbridled praise you give for some films that I think are shit (ie Star Wars: The Last Jedi), and the unbridled hate for some that I enjoyed in the past (ie Warcraft). Then again, why should I be surprised? It’s my firm belief that every film critic, no matter who they are, where they’re from, or however long they’ve been reviewing films is a fucking hypocrite (and I’m no exception to this).
It is also said that one shouldn’t spread hatred, or express disapproval over stuff like this, about what others think about a movie, or something like that. To that I said bullshit. Fuck that, and fuck you people for scoring this film so low, and double fuck you for making me trust in your opinions a long while back. That’s over now. Might just change my ways over this shit. Up until now I’ve been trying to only “Like” reviews that seemed well-thought-out analyses of movies, whether it’s a paragraph, or an essay in length (very rarely does a one-sentence review cut it). Difficult to do that now. So I’m just simply going to “Like” reviews that I find entertaining. And that entertainment comes in-part with confirmation bias. Everyone seems to be doing it, so why not me? The difference is, I have better tastes than most of you bottom-feeders. That is harsh, but it’s a harsh world, and I’ve accepted that hardly any of you give a damn about me or my opinions anymore than I usually give a damn about yours when it doesn’t match up with mine.
There are some reviews with a different opinion (and thus love/hate) regarding a film that I actually appreciate. Those who love/hate the movie Mother!, I see merit in the arguments for and against the film. Warcraft, I can understand some of the flack that film gets, considering it’s stripped down version of what it should’ve been. Blade Runner 2049, despite its faults, I can understand and agree with those who have a greater liking for that movie than I do.
But there are some films where the praise/hatred for it I just don’t get. Some of it I fault for ignorance, people intentionally shutting off a large enough amount of their brains to where they become the retarded masses a movie, with plot holes up the ass and condemnation for everyone else, was made for. Some of it I fault for them being raised wrong. Some of it I fault for the type of people letterboxd attracts a high enough amount of, the type that start off small and don’t seem like a big deal, until there’s so many they put a stain on just about everything. Some of it I fault herd mentality (and not just your friends, but what sources of influence you listen to that tell you whether or not to like something, and you do so without much thinking, like the sheep you are, letting them sheer your wool as easily as you give your time and money). Some of it I fault on the number of decent reviewers who used to be on this site who have left for good, and are never coming back.
Either way, I trust none of you. I despise a lot of your opinions. And I’m done trying to play nice on this site. This isn’t about a popularity contest, about trying to get the most followers. This is about me giving my own opinions and analysis on films that I can have on record for myself. If anyone else is entertained by these reviews, good for you, suck on a lolipop. Everyone else can suck a boil-covered dick. Your opinions are ass, and you wouldn’t know how to defend them on any form of objective grounds.
“But being entertained by movies is a subjective thing! I don’t have to defend my opinions on why I cherish/revile this thing to someone like you!”
If films can be cherished or reviled, then so can the reviews, if you can call them that.
A few days after making this review, I see another review from ArielRocks5 that I wanted to “like,” but couldn’t. She had me blocked. And I know this had to have happened recently, because she had “liked” my review for Cinema Paradiso, which I had made on June 4 (compared to the Henry review made June 15). I figured I would lose some followers over that review, but I honestly wasn’t expecting her to be one of them. I think back on the previous year or two where we had some fun times and fun reviews. I liked some of hers, she liked some of mine. Exchanged comments. Laughter at some of the things we said, even in spite of us have extreme disagreements over a few things, such as the 2016 Ghostbusters film which she loved, and I hated. On the other hand, I guess I shouldn’t have been too surprised, considering she follows a few people who have blocked me, including SJB. This one managed to hit me a bit. So I proceed to add her to the Burned Bridges list…
…only to find that the list had disappeared, like that Red Pill review once did. Guess I should’ve known, moderators don’t like people making reviews where user names are mentioned, why should it be any different for lists? Yet I should’ve seen this coming, as SJB actually commented on a thread I had participated in regarding the Vietnam War, mentioning I had a list of haters. Funny how news of that spreads to someone who has blocked me and shouldn’t have any interest in me after doing that. I did leave a warning on my Red Pill review that should some deletion without warning of that sort ever happen again, I take the gloves off. Yet, I’m too tired. Too tired to have this anger continue to drive me; that only works in short spurts for films that pissed me off. Too tired to have a hate-filled tirade about how pissed I am about all this. Because ultimately, it’s nowhere near as big of a deal as losing the review and the comments (which got replaced). But I couldn’t let this go without saying something about it either.
So it comes down to this. How much of this is on me? Did I go too far past the line too often? Am I as filled with self-loathing and loathing for others as those who also have self-loathing and loathing for someone like me? Why is it that my tastes in film are so different from the average letterboxd user? Why are so many so filled with hate for people and things that don’t deserve their misguided hatred? Why am I so affected by something that should be so petty? Why is it that they would rather block me than unfollow me when I’m not even spamming the comments (let alone hardly commenting at all)?
But then I think, “You know, I’m not the one blocking them, they’re the ones blocking me. I put up with their reviews which I think are shit-taste most of the time, but they don’t put up with mine. I get in debates with them some of the time, but a portion of them would rather block me to end the debate rather than state they no longer wish to debate with me (I never stick around when I’m asked to leave).”
Conclusion: some of the fault is mine, I share some of the responsibility for my downward spiral on letterboxd. But so do they. They have grown more intolerant and more political since 2016. And I blame the mainstream media and cocksucking Hollywood for subliminally messaging people into becoming this intolerant/political/divisive, to the point where they don’t even want to have a debate, to where they don’t want their views challenged, to where broadening one’s horizons is now discouraged. They follow a herd mentality, and like a movie because someone/something else tells them to. I debate to break them from this trend, or else see what arguments they have to convince me to fall into the trend, or vice-versa, but little to no users will have it anymore. So I say thank God (though I’m not religious) I’m not like them. As vicious and dickish as I am now, I’ve got nothing on many of these people. But I still hold out hope that the trend will break; that fun can be had again; that everyone’s tolerance levels are built back up. While it does pain me to not be around others who have a similar mindset, who have similar tastes, I would rather take the pain than live a lie.
The only thing I regret is that I wasn’t born a more patient and nicer individual. But I will not regret the things I’ve said when I have spoken honestly, even if it’s blunt to the point of pain. Blunt remarks are the ones most prone to a response. And it’s not that there aren’t other reviewers who don’t share my point of view, it’s just that they’re not on letterboxd, which is crazy considering how many users are on that site.
Well, here’s to hoping things will improve down the line, and happy 5 year anniversary.
PS: Yeah, I inserted a bunch of random gifs just in case you didn’t give a shit about anything that was written.
Ok, finally finished up February 1990. Going lighter on the “Cultural Etc.” stuff because, well, I was too lazy to methodically track down ads and clothing styles and stuff from that month. So here it is, the noteworthy music, movies, and shows from February 1990.
Last month was just a warm-up compared to what was unleashed this month in the music industry.
MC Hammer: Please Hammer, Don’t Hurt ‘Em
Everyone knows U Can’t Touch This, even if it is a rip-off of Super Freak by Rick James (bitch) .
KLF: Chill Out
Primus: Frizzle Fry
Too Many Puppies, and John the Fisherman were the big album hits. I can only listen to this album in small bursts, like 2 songs at a time tops before I’ve had enough.
Damn Yankees: Damn Yankees
High Enough, Coming of Age, and Come Again were among the big hits, and this album was known for reviving the career of Ted Nugent. Despite what they say the big hits were, my personal favorite song from this song is “Tell Me How You Want It.”
The Cramps: Stay Sick
Garage Band with several songs that take a big nod to other songs (God Damn Rock & Roll is a heavy nod to Old Time Rock & Roll by Bob Seger). UK band.
Riot: The Privilege of Power
Decent rock n’ roll album, though I find the intermissions between songs questionable. Upon a listen, didn’t find any notable standouts, but I didn’t hear any weak songs either, so it’s an all around solid album.
Peter Wolf: Up to No Good
Not bad. The best song is a toss-up between Up to No Good, and Shades of Red-Shades of Blue.
Gamma Ray: Heading for Tomorrow
Would’ve been my favorite of the month if only it didn’t have several weak songs stacked atop the few excellent songs (the standouts are Lust for Life, Free Time, and Heading for Tomorrow). First studio album of the German metal band. I strongly recommend the original version as opposed to the remastered version. Best song on the album is the one the album is named after, which runs at a vast 14 minutes (though there are various versions of this song, one of which is the live version which runs at an insane 20+ minutes).
Oingo Boingo: Dark at the End of the Tunnel
Arguably their last good album.
Eric Johnson: Ah Via Musicom
The way he plays that guitar, especially in Cliffs of Dover.
While the music album selection improved this month, it’s debate-able as to whether or not the film quality improved or worsened or stayed the same compared to January 1990. None of the films were as good as Tremors (in my opinion), but some of the others sure gave last month’s top films a run for their money.
Mountains of the Moon
Think of this as The Lost City of Z, except better. While the locations may not involve tropical rainforests, it’s still an adventure film where two men form a common bond over exploring the unknown (to England) locations, yet become torn apart due to semi-political conflicts at home. Sure doesn’t hold back on the violent moments (as brief as they are), nor the harshness of the environments confronted during exploration.
Hard to Kill
Not one of the better Steven Seagal films in my opinion, yet for some reason a lot of Seagal fans hold this film in high regard. I’m only including it here for that reason, otherwise it’s forgettable to me.
Fun film. Great practical effects work, an adrenaline-filled finale, music that sounds like a Batman-rip-off (understandable considering both films were conducted by Danny Elfman), and David Cronenberg playing the villain. Be sure you see the director’s cut.
I reviewed this movie. TL;DR: a fun drama film that’s all about nostalgia and love for films and how they can shape one’s life and one’s community. Likely the film of the month (while last month, in my opinion, it was Tremors).
More or less about as decent as last month’s selections, except that this month would get a game release on the NES that would go down as an all-time classic. Rollerball (NES)
Fun little pinball game, which weren’t all that common on the NES, or in general as far as I know for back then.
Super Spike V’Ball (NES)
Well, I guess the NES just wouldn’t let Sega get away with being the only console to release a beach volleyball game, so they had to take their shot at it, even if they had to port it from the arcade to do it! And they did a decent job from what I’ve seen.
Golf (Game Boy)
Gotta give the Game Boy something just out of pity, like the last episode. Don’t get me wrong, this game has its fans back in the day, and it’s decent, but it’s not anything I would ever want to play today.
One of the big NES classics in the same vane as Ninja Gaiden (and probably just as difficult; hard as hell). Need I say more other than the 90s knew how to make a solid film-to-game adaptation? Sega would follow suit in the months to come. And as great as this game is, while it should have by all right been the best game of the month, something else came out that would top it, and practically every other NES game ever made. And I’m not so sure I have the willpower today to get good enough to beat this thing. But it is fun, so long as I don’t get pissed enough to throw the controller and the console out the fucking window.
Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES)
Well, it’s Super Mario Bros. 3. Nothing else is going to top this for game of the month. Was definitely a contender (if not winner) for Game of the Year. A game so hyped up (and lived up to it), that there was an entire movie created for the sole purpose of being a glorified advertisement for it.
I could only find 3 shows that were halfway decent, though none of them lasted the year, let alone half the year. These are mostly sympathy picks, key word being “mostly.”
A so-so game show that was never going to be popular, but the host made it entertaining.
Elvis (February 6 – May 19, 1990; ABC)
Show didn’t gain enough ratings, so it was cancelled, and re-released along with the unaired episodes as a 4 hour miniseries. Honestly, the show seemed ok to me. Maybe audiences got Elvis fatigue during this time period, or the show wasn’t advertised enough. Then again, a lot of great shows got cancelled before their prime from the late 80s to about 2010 (seriously, fuck you people for cancelling Firefly, Surface and Deadwood). It is what it is.
Nasty Boys (February 19 – July 20, 1990; NBC)
“Is this College Boy?”
“No, this is Donald Trump.”
Ok, now this show was so fucking fun in the way only the 90s could be (well ok, late 80s too). What the early 90s crowd thought awesome cops were like (more gangster than cop, but in all the right ways). Entertaining for the cheese and the awesomeness. Seriously, fuck you people for cancelling Nasty Boys!