Regarding, and my downward spiral.

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.

Entertainment Industry Nostalgia: February 1990

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

Relaxation music.

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.


Cinema Paradiso

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).



Video Games

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.


Batman (NES)

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.

To bad this was in 1989, kinda hoped to dig into it a bit for the 90s nostalgia, especially since I watched it in the 90s.

Television Shows

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.”

Rodeo Drive (February 5, 1990 – May 4, 1990; Lifetime Television)

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!



Other Cultural Stuff

Migrating from Facebook (plus a pre-2016-election debate)

For about a year now, I’ve been looking for an excuse to get out of Facebook; delete my account.  I haven’t really been using it to catch up with or communicate with friends I’ll likely never see again.  Been mostly using it just for news updates.  Well, considering how they’ve been biased about news posts, even going to far as to delete posts and accounts that are conservative leaning, acting like hypocrites, showing how fucking political and biased they are, I’ve just been waiting for the one thing to nudge me far enough to say, “Fuck it.”  Well, even though I kinda knew this to some extent, there’s the whole data collection thing that has exploded, news of them doing this with Obama and Trump, but trying to do it for Obama’s advantage more than for Trump (even though I find it questionable no matter who they’re doing it for).  So, fuck it.  My days on there are numbered, and it’ll likely only last for one more week.

But before I do that, I’m going to carry over a conversation I had in 2016 with a college history professor on Facebook, a professor of whom I was a student of many years ago.  That’s all I’ll say about it.  I won’t give any names, but some of you nosey fucks will likely track down the quotes and get the names anyway, and there isn’t much I can do about that.  Whatever.

This long-running rivalry/debate proved to be a turning point for me in my life, where my eyes got opened to just how ignorant people can be.  And it resulted in me becoming more political, which is something I hate being.  But the times call for such a thing, because times require the average person to have some knowledge in politics considering how desperate things are getting at times (depending on where you live).  The fact that society got to the point where Hillary Clinton was that close to getting elected says something.

So, here’s the debate (I am “Me”, the teacher is “Professor”, anyone else is Commenter #1, #2, #3, etc.; any reference to my real name will be replaced with “Anomalous Host”, and their names will be replaced accordingly).  Keep in mind I’m not as well-knowledged about these things then as I am now.  Keep in mind, I wished him a happy birthday in August 2016, prior to the rest of these posts.  Oh, and one other thing.  Going back to these older posts has just reinforced my decision to leave Facebook.  Why?  Because those motherfuckers took down some of the posts and comments made in this half-year-long discussion we’ve had, and some posts I know I made independent of the discussion that are now gone.  Mark Zuckerberg can go fuck himself, right up his pro-censorship dickhole:


August 8, 2016

Me:“Not voting is a vote for Trump!” or “Not voting is a vote for Hillary!”

Rubbish! Voting for neither, or not voting at all, is still a statement on what you want from the leaders of this country! You want to make a statement by not choosing either of the 2 evils, vote for an independent:

Don’t Throw Away Your Vote By Voting Trump or Hillary;


Up to this point, me and the professor got into a back-and-forth regarding Obama’s handling of ISIS.  Couldn’t locate those posts (because they got removed by Facebook), but what follows is all that remains.


August 13, 2016

Professor: Anomalous Host might note that this isn’t POTUS’ first rodeo.

I double-checked on this before I posted it.

BREAKING: President Obama Flips Trump The Bird As American Airstrike Kills ISIS Leader (DETAILS);


August 14, 2016

Me: Been doing some thinking since my debate with Professor. Regarding the state of the Middle East. He’s right in that we can’t really afford a full scale war. But at the same time, I don’t believe we can afford to stay completely out of it either. I think Obama has been forced into a compromise that could potentially lead to something that works, that can hopefully continue into the next presidency, whoever ends up winning.

America Can’t Do Much About ISIS;

Professor: This is a well-written piece; I agree with several of the points.


August 17, 2016

Me: This Is What The War Against ISIS Really Looks Like;


October 10, 2016

Professor: The word from the bird. ” Most guys respect women, some guys don’t, but never have I heard anyone use your particularly disgusting brand of sadism that refers to women as objects and not people. Even the most debauched club-hopping party animal talks about women more civilly than you.”

Dear Donald Trump: I played in the NFL. Here’s what we really talk about in the locker room.;


October 11, 2016

Me: For those who don’t think election fraud isn’t a real thing:


Professor: Oh, no, Anomalous Host, I *do* think it isn’t a real thing.

Professor: So it’s casual convo on a hidden cam. The Exclusionary rule notwithstanding, where are the convictions, Anomalous Host? This is just him ranting about how bad “those people” are.

Me: Where are the convictions for Trump?

Professor: We’re talking about election fraud. Where are convictions?

Me: North Texas woman arrested for voter fraud;

Professor: Got it.  Lightning Strikes more common in Texas than in-person voter fraud,;

Me: Has amnesty been as commonplace in the past as it has in the past 2 years?

Professor: The largest amnesty is Simpson-Mazzioli.  Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – Wikipedia

Me: No large arrests either time huh? Because it doesn’t happen, or because it’s not enforced?  The Voter-ID Myth Crashes;

Professor: Of course the National Review would accuse Dems of abetting voter fraud.

Me: Says the guy who uses Wikipedia as a source. Would the Washington Times be more satisfactory?  Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to register,;

Professor: We’re done here.

Me: Bye bye.


I mean seriously, a college history professor using wikipedia as a source?  Most of them (at least back when I was in college) wouldn’t wipe their ass with a report that used wikipedia as a source.


October 12, 2016

We cannot change society without changing our own behavior. If we want to change, we have to change.


October 15, 2016

Commenter #1: Wow. So, this was just for fun it wasnt supposed to mean anything. I certainly apologize that this post has offended you so much. While I believe in being open to people with different views politically, socially and religiously, I feel that such a tirade is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Commenter #2:Who tiraded? It was like 3 sentences. But seriously folks, this voter fraud bullshit from drumpf’s camp is baseless and dangerous and we have an obligation to shut it down.

Professor:The human blobby has ways to shut that kind of thing down.

Me: @Commenter #2 I wouldn’t say baseless. The whole stealing from Bernie nomination aside, George Soros is a Clinton donor after all, and he’s in charge of the voting machines in 16 major states.  George Soros-funded group serves as poll-watcher in 16 states;

Commenter #2:There’s so much glaringly, obviously, horribly wrong with drumpf that Clinton won’t have to commit fraud.


October 16, 2016

Me: This is disgraceful. No matter who you support, this shouldn’t happen to either side:

North Carolina GOP Office burned, graffiti sprayed nearbye;


October 17, 2016

Me: I’m A Sexual Assault Victim Who Still Supports Trump;


October 17, 2016

Me: Devious, aren’t they? The more of this you watch, the more pissed you’re going to get. Remember that “69 year old woman with oxygen tank punched in face at Trump rally” story? Apparently, she was trained to birddog. So are others who are mentally ill and such, paid by the DNC (or a faction of it). Despicable.


October 24, 2016

CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year;


I have vague recollections of some other conversations we had over Facebook between then and the next entry.  At some point, me and the professor talked about the pros and cons of the border wall, and more or less agreed to disagree, citing sources that showed how Israel built a wall that successfully kept out enemies in the past, while other countries like China and, I think, even Rome built walls and were less successful at keeping immigrants out.  Basically, for every source brought up that supported my side of the argument, the professor could bring up one that supported his side.  I think it’s situational and dependent on the situation as to whether or not border walls work (where the wall is located, if it’s during a time of war, the technology available, are there waterways, etc.).  Also got into a brief discussion regarding guns, and how some random cunt showed up to say something along the lines of how all men shouldn’t be allowed to have guns but all women should.

Also, I brought up some negative points on Hillary Clinton, we went back and forth on them, he didn’t read my links in details (and I don’t think he even read some of the links he brought up in detail either, since I read whatever he brought up, made a response to it, and he responded as if the post was pure unquestionable truth even though I brought up valid points that debunked it).  So I was getting a bit frustrated with him at this point, as he didn’t seem to be taking my anywhere near as seriously as I was taking him.

The below thread I initially posted in response to Professor continually bringing up the news of Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old in, I don’t know, around 1990 or something at some rich guy’s place during a party.  In some past post/thread, I made an argument on Bill Clinton’s sexual accusers, and the professor said it didn’t matter because he was never convicted or proven guilty of those crimes.  Keep that in mind.


November 5, 2016

Me: @Professor: Well, guess this is off the table.  Woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at 13 drops lawsuit.;

Professor: OK

Professor: This leaves… many women who have made accusations?

Me: Less than the number that made accusations against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. As you have stated several times in their defense, just because someone makes an accusation doesn’t make the accusation true. There should be evidence. Or by your standards, a conviction.

Professor: The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet;

Me: You know, the last time we got into a discussion like this, I made a similar post about Hillary, which you dismissed as a hack job and virtually ignored it. I’d like to know if you’re going to do the same here, and if not, why I should treat this post with anymore respect than how you’ve treated mine?

Professor: I remember the Clinton era and the continuous attacks on the Clintons. Essentially, it was this. Since the right did not have any substantive issues on which to attack Clinton, they assaulted his character. In case you don’t recall, the entire Clinton administration passed without one single indictment. Clinton did the US a great deal of good and had solid, decent policy ideas. Trump has nothing, and this is horribly disturbing. I sat through eight years of attacks on a decent man, Bill Clinton. I don’t regard these endless decades of attacks as anything but revenge by a Right that keeps losing and losing and losing, and which has no agenda save tax cuts for the rich, which have damaged this nation a great deal.

Me: I could say the same in this regard about Trump. Nothing substantive to attack him on, so they attack his character. As for nothing substantive with the Clintons, let me try this again. Many women have made allegations against Clinton some settled, some decided to become silent. It’s quite similar to the whole Trump debacle going on when it comes to the women of his past. In both cases, they’re nothing solid enough to be proven to be true, there’s only the word of the women. But then there’s something like this:

Professor: But as I said, Clinton had policies which concretely helped this country. Trump has none whatsoever and can’t explain any that he might have.

Me: I talked about how he does in an earlier discussion. Don’t you remember? How I believe his tax plan is better for the economy than Clinton’s?

Commenter #1: on a side note President Clinton was empeached by congress. that really happened.

Commenter #2: Bill Clinton was impeached by a Congress led by folks doing the same thing they were accusing him of doing. See Newt Gingrich. They spent $70 million or so tax dollars on this, which probably makes that the most expensive BJ on the planet. And the Republicans forced us to pay for it. Plus impeachment is the process of making a formal charge. It is not a conviction. As I recall, no conviction happened, right?

Professor: Anomalous Host, I read it. His tax plan is tax cuts for the rich- Reaganomics all over again. It did not work in the 80s. Doesn’t now.

Me: Glad you brought that up. Remember that site you posted in one of our past discussions that demonstrated how the economy supposedly did better under democratic leadership, though with no explanation as to why that is? I think Reaganomics and Bill Clinton are a perfect example for one of the reasons. It isn’t something that worked right away, true, because that’s the nature of trickle down economics. Eventually all of his Reganomics policies went into effect, and then Bill Clinton came into office to reap the benefits of it as the positives of the policy started coming to fruition. In other words, Democratic leaders piggy back off the economic policies of the Republican predecessors.

I’m interested in discussing more on that topic.

Me: Care to watch any of Clinton Cash? At least the part that talks about Haiti?

Commenter #2: Haiti was a disaster for all of the major charities. The Red Cross took in millions of dollars for Haiti, and built like 6 houses. The Clinton Foundation has supplied medicine, etc to vast swathes of humanity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, however, if they suffered similar issues with aid to Haiti as the Red Cross did.

Professor: Anomalous Host, that makes no sense at all. Reaganomics only works for Democrats, who do the opposite of Reaganomics? Then why did the nations who used Keynesian principles recover from the Great Depression? While those who didn’t failed to recover? This is trolling.

Me: @Professor: I don’t see how that makes no sense considering this isn’t just some theory I made up. Look, here’s how my mind works. If someone brings up some point of view, some subject, some policy that I don’t agree with, I express why. If some evidence is brought up that supports their view, I research to see how strong that evidence is. If there’s something that seems to refute it, I bring it up. If I can’t find anything that refutes it, or if all other refutations seem too weak to consider, I relent and slowly come to accept that other policy/view/subject. Now prior to you bringing it up, I didn’t know that much about Reagonomics. So I looked it up, saw that there are people who agree and disagree on whether or not it was successful, focused mostly on the portions that state why it was successful, but also looked at some of the arguments which state why it was not. So after doing that looking, I made a response in a very simplified and generalized way that supports the theory that is held by supporters of Reaganomics that made sense to me. If there is a fault in that theory, believe me, I want to know about it, and I fully expected you to let me know about it so I can research it a little more. Because it’s conversations like this that encourage me to research and gain knowledge and know how to respond if I’m in a future debate like this with someone else, which may in turn influence how I see politics and thus influence how I vote in the future. I don’t call you a troll for bringing up points that I disagree with if they are points worth addressing. Keynesian economics is also something that I didn’t know anything about until I started looking it up for the past dozen minutes. So now I’m more aware of it, and aware of the arguments for and against it, like how the expenditures in WWII helped get us out of the depression because war expenditures are Keynesian in nature. But there’s also the fact that too much regulation on business can stifle business. Plus it makes one wonder why there isn’t more regulation on loans and credit since those have proven to be the main things that lead to a depression in the first place. And I wonder if Reagonomics is really THAT much different from Keynesian principles. I don’t know all the facts, and I don’t pretend to. The reason why I choose to get into conversations like this is to probe for information, to learn information, see if it sways me from one point of view to another. I don’t always choose to relegate my time to doing so. And I know you don’t either, since you don’t seem to read many, if any, of the links I bring up to other sites that support my position, even though I read each and every one of yours. But I can understand and respect that if you’re a busy man and don’t have the time to do that. But I find it disrespectful for you to not take my position seriously, not to take my arguments seriously, brush off several of them as hack jobs and trolling that should be ignored because they threaten to burst that protective titanium bubble you live in. And I find it very disrespectful for you to call me a troll when I am trying to have a conversation I can learn from. And I’m not going to continue having conversations like this with you if you continue to treat me with such disrespect.

Me: @Commenter #2: Hillary Clinton’s State Department would oversee the reconstruction effort in Haiti. Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills was responsible for the allocation of US tax dollars. Bill Clinton, appointed special envoy to Haiti for the UN, was named co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission along with the Haiti prime minister. The Clintons had the interest of special donors in mind. Haitians were largely left out of the decision-making process in the IHRC. $124 million was used on project Caracol, was supposed to create 60,000 jobs and economic growth. This was done on the northern part of Haiti as opposed to the southern part where the damage was done from the 2010 earthquake/hurricane. Beneficiaries of this were Gap, Target, and Walmart, to name a few. Factory in Caracol was built, and the beneficiary companies profited off of it with the low-wage workers, and this left the rest of Haiti minimally affected. There’s more to add, but that’s a start. Is any of that false?


There were likely other posts, and I really wanted to find them and bring them over, but there are at least 2 threads made that had relatively good discussions in them that are lost forever (or at least kept hidden in the private Facebook database).  So because Facebook took those down, on top of the other bullshit it’s been doing over the past few years, I’m taking down my account a week from now.  Will this reduce my site coverage?  Probably, but I don’t really care right now.  Having my normal profile and my site page on Facebook isn’t helping its exposure all that much either.

Plus, honestly, social media isn’t all that healthy, and it can be addictive.  Well, on that note, onto, and

On the topic of films “based on true stories/events”

“[…] any time you hear the words ‘based on a true story,’ that’s usually a translation for ‘We bought the rights to this story, took out the boring parts, then made up just about everything else.'” — Bill Simmons

“I don’t think the movie should be more important than the truth.” — Greg Paspatis

“History is written by the victors.” — Winston Churchill

So I was going to talk about the film All the Money in the World, but I’ve failed to come up with enough content to make it a worthwhile review entry. I’ve been stuck with writer’s block over the past few weeks (that, and I’ve been working longer job hours, dealing with the flu, trying to complete projects so I can review them on this site but get side-tracked by something, plus plain old procrastination), so I’ve been struggling to get back on this site and post some new content. But believe me, once I get a couple of these “projects” out of the way, I’ll get my groove back in no time. These are projects I intend to make a post about.

But anyway, after seeing the above mentioned film, it got me thinking about another topic I’ve been wanting to discuss for a while now, a topic that came up after seeing Hidden Figures, and revisiting a childhood favorite of mine, Remember the Titans. Movies based on true stories/events. In the past, I never really made that much of a deal over films like these. After all, as I’ve been told in the past, “it’s just a movie”. No need to make a big deal about it, no need to bitch about it, just simply enjoy it or don’t, and leave it at that. The thing is though, I’ve learned over the past couple years that the “it’s just a movie” argument is bullshit. That’s like saying the novel 1984, or A Clockwork Orange, or Animal Farm, “is just a book.” Because, as I’ll demonstrate, there are things going on that make it clear that it’s more than just a movie.

Continue reading

Top 20 Fight Scenes

Yep, a top whatever number list.  This is by no means definitive, as I’m sure there are plenty of films out there I haven’t seen that potentially have fight scenes better than what is listed here.  However, I do consider myself to have enough knowledge and experience with action scenes throughout the years to make a list like this.

Now, when I mean top fight scenes, this does not include any that involves projectiles.  No guns, no shurikens, no lasers, none of that bullshit.  These fights have to mainly involve hands, fists, knives, swords, etc.  I mean, theoretically, I suppose you could throw a knife and call that a projectile, but there are also action scenes where someone rips another guy’s arm off and beats him to death with it and throws it at someone, thus making a dismembered arm a projectile.  For all you know, someone could slice limbs off and karate kick those limbs at their opponents while the limbs are still in mid-air from being sliced off.  There’s always a way to bend/break the rule.  Regardless, I’ll do my best to stick with those standards.  Sorry John Wick fans.

First, some runners up:

Runners Up

Star Wars

Basically anything from The Empire Strikes Back and onwards, they put on some pretty damn great sword duels.  Though I did find the one in The Force Awakens to be lacking (along with the rest of the movie).  Honestly, out of all of them, my favorite is the battle from Empire Strikes Back, and here’s why.  They fight like samurai in that film, while in the prequel trilogy they’re more like circus acrobats, showing off just for the sake of showing off.  But it’s not just the grounding (ie providing some semblance of realism in a sci-fi fantasy film) that makes it good, let alone the choreography.  It’s also the story the fight tells, how Luke shows that he definitely has potential to be a great jedi and is capable of besting Vader, but is inexperienced and too emotional, while Vader has complete control over his emotions and knows exactly what he’s doing and what he’s involved in.  And this is all told as the fight progresses, Luke starting off with some confidence, knowing that he is scared, but believes this must be done.  And he demonstrates that he is capable of challenging Vader, besting him in brief instances, only for Vader to turn the tables by using his force powers on Luke to show how out of his depth he really is, and wears him down until he is cornered.  The changing of the scenery matches with all this as well, the red lights demonstrating the fear Luke has and the aura of Vader’s reputation, to the bright tunnel showing that Luke has confidence amidst the darkness, to things darkening and running out of color to show that it really is hopeless for Luke.  And throughout all this, we eventually realize Vader is testing Luke, leading up to the twist that brings to light Vader’s true motivation, and provides more depth and an intriguing backstory for Luke.  A combination of story and choreography truly makes it a fight to remember, while the rest are fun just for the spectacle rather than the depth.  That being said, just about all my entries are more for the spectacle than anything else, so consider me a hypocrite when it comes to the other entries.

Magnificent imagery.


City Hunter

This film has a couple fairly decent fight scenes, but the one that stood out was the absolutely classic Street Fighter parody fight.  I swear, this is a better Street Fighter film than any of the live action films just because of this scene.  Yeah, it’s goofy and cheesy as hell, but at least it’s accurate to the games goddamnit!















































Way of the Dragon and Fists of Fury

I respect the Bruce Lee vs. Chuck Norris fight more than I enjoyed it.  Fists of Fury, on the other hand, had much better fights, but none that I thought stood out enough for this list.  But don’t worry, Bruce Lee won’t be excluded from this list.  I’m going to include what I consider to be his best work.  Stay tuned.


They Live

Come on, it’s a WWF fight put onto film.  Plus it goes on forever, which adds to the humor of it all.  This fight had to be brought up just because.













































Broken Path

Probably never heard of this movie have ya?  Honestly, I’d almost recommend it, except that this fight does the one thing I fucking hate in any fight scene ever.  Having the good guy receive one hell of a one-sided beat down, only occasionally getting in a hit or two, before shrugging it all off and beating the bad guy to death in a quarter of the entire fight time.  It’s bullshit, but I can’t help but admire the amount of work and effort that must’ve gone into this.  Hate it too much to like it, but enjoyed the first 3/4ths to much to ignore it.











































Special Forces

Scott Adkins, this guy is never going to get a fair shot in Hollywood because Hollywood is run by hacks, pedophiles, molesters, left-wing nuts, and just plain old-fashioned cocksuckers.  Thankfully that won’t stop Adkins from outputting decent martial arts films.  Personally, I think his best film is Ninja II (the first Ninja film isn’t all that great, though it is worth watching just to see a central character from that film get offed pretty damn fast in the sequel, to the point where it just becomes fucking hilarious after all the effort made to save said individual’s life in the first film).  But this movie Special Forces contains what is arguably his best fight.









































Well, that’s enough of the warm-up, time for the actual films.  Don’t consider the ordering definitive.


Actual Top 20 List

#20 Universal Soldier: Regeneration

Jeanne Claude Van Damme vs. Dolph Lundgren.  A sequel that’s better than the original, and on a lower budget too.  In fact, Scott Adkins would go on to star in the sequel to this one, which also isn’t a half-bad movie in of itself.  What makes this fight stand out is seeing how much power these two have behind their punches, smashing through walls left and right, falling several stories to the ground, and having a gnarly ending.  And it all works because we know that these are super soldiers, stronger, faster, and more durable than the average soldier.  Basically something you would hope for in a Dragon Ball movie (you know, before those freaks got so strong they didn’t even wince at bullets).







































#19 Rapid Fire

Poor Brandon Lee, dying before his time.  At least he managed one decent fight scene that manages to strive towards that of Bruce Lee.  Brandon Lee vs. Al Leong.  The movie itself is just so-so.  It’s a decent enough watch, so-bad-it’s-good at some points (Brandon Lee’s acting wasn’t as good as it would be in The Crow), but managed to keep me entertained.





































#18 Chocolate

The fights are fun, but as the film goes on, things start to get a bit monotonous.  That being said, the finale at the apartment complex provided that extra “Ooomph!” to make it stand out from everything preceding it.  Plus it’s great to see a martial arts flick with a woman who can kick ass, and is choreographed well enough to make it seem like she is capable of kicking ass, and not having too many of those bullshit fast cuts to cover up the fact that the girl isn’t capable of kicking ass like this.  Although this sequence does raise 2 questions.  1.) Just how many minions does this villain have at his disposal, considering how many got offed prior to this scene?  2.) Why the fuck don’t these idiots take a hint?  Seriously, doesn’t it ever get to the point where they have to start thinking, “Ok, we’re not capable of kicking this girl’s ass.  You’re on your own boss.”?  Made me a fan of Jeeja Yanin, who would go on to display more of her talent in Raging Phoenix among others.



































#17 BKO: Bangkok Knockout

I’m not going to lie, this movie really isn’t that great.  The story sucks all kinds of ass, and you’re not going to give a shit about any of the characters.  The only thing that makes this film worth watching is all the fight scenes that are littered throughout this film.  Seriously, the whole thing is basically non-stop fighting scenes.  While they’re all fun in their own way, the stand-out fight is the cage fight.  I’m amazed that this was pulled off without wire-work (or if there was wires involved, it was used pretty damn well because I couldn’t tell).

































#16 Man of Tai Chi

Keanu Reeves, he knows what he’s doing when it comes to making martial arts films.  This film delivers on providing bitchin’ martial arts fights.  It does have its shares of issues however, mainly how dumb the villains get when it comes to handling this female cop who’s onto them.  Plus they threw away their opportunity for what could’ve been the best fight in the last 20 years by having the protagonist Tiger Chen puss out on fighting Iko Uwais (that guy from The Raid films, more on that later).  But despite that, there’s still some great fights, including the finale fight between Chen and Reeves.  It’s the one fight that made me go, “Hey, Keanu’s still got it!”  This was before John Wick came out for the record.































#15 Game of Death

Now this.  This is Bruce Lee’s magnum opus.  It would’ve put all his other films to shame if he completed it, but he didn’t.  He died before he could finish it.  Because of that, they scrapped what footage they could and put it into a piss-poor excuse for a Bruce Lee film.  If you want to see this as it was originally intended (minus any footage Bruce Lee didn’t shoot), then go watch the documentary A Warrior’s Journey, which is a special feature on some editions of Way of the Dragon (not the 40th anniversary edition unfortunately), which is not only a solid documentary on the man, the myth, the legend, but also compiles all that footage Lee shot, and shows it the way Lee originally wanted.  Bruce Lee facing off against 3 men, 1 on a different level of the tower Lee is climbing for the treasures at the top (sounds like inspiration for some videogames doesn’t it?).  The highlight is the first fight, a nun-chuck fight.  Don’t think I’ve seen that replicated in any other movie, save for a brief duration during the finale of Black Dynamite.




























#14 Dragons Forever

Jackie Chan vs. Benny “The Jet” Urquidez.  I’d say more, but I’m going to save that for a later entry below.  Let’s just say this particular film is a bit special for Jackie Chan, as this would be the last film he would do with his pals Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao.  This was their swan song movie, and it didn’t disappoint.


























#13 Special ID

Ah, Donnie Yen.  No top fight list is complete without him showing up somewhere.  This particular fight scene demonstrates the influence of mixed martial arts, UFC stuff, making its mark in films.  The way they fight and the mixing of submission moves demonstrates a shift in martial arts films, though I don’t believe this shift caught too much weight.  It showed signs early on with Flash Point (was tempted to add that, but decided on this one instead), and it matured greatly here.  The MMA style looked more natural in this film.

























#12 Ip Man

Yep, Donnie again.  While this movie is good, I don’t hold it in as high of regard as most people seem to.  That being said, the whole thing is worth watching just to get to this amazing fight in the middle section where Donnie takes on 10 men in a dojo.  Easily the best moment in the movie.























#11 Oldboy

The infamous long take that inspired all other long take fight sequences.  One man against an army.  Absolutely incredible sequence.





















#10 Wheels on Meals

Ah, and here’s the first time Jackie Chan fought against Benny “The Jet” Urquidez.  Their first encounter so good, audiences demanded it happen again, which it did in Dragons Forever.  This was also when Jackie Chan was teaming up with his two buddies and making several films with them, including Project A among others.  But it’s the fight between Jackie Chan and Urquidez that makes this film stand out.  Benny is a fucking beast.  I swear, this guy moves as fast as Bruce Lee.  Not to mention, in reality, Benny had gone undefeated in the kickboxing world.  And Jackie Chan said something during post-production, jokingly of course, that he could probably whip Benny’s ass anytime he wanted just like he did in the film.  Well, soon after that, Benny met Jackie outside, and challenged him, basically all like, “If you were being serious, try me out right here right now.”  Jackie backed down, stating it was just a joke.



















#9 Ip Man 2

I’m hesitant to put another Ip Man film on here.  But screw it, I like this fight.  Donnie Yen returns in the sequel in a finale that I consider to be better than that of the previous film.  Fairly intense fight where Ip Man takes on someone who is clearly stronger than him.

















#8 The Girl from Naked Eye

The movie itself, it’s not all that special.  And if it wasn’t for this fight sequence, it would be forgettable.  But it has this 4-on-1 fight near the end that is not only a long take, but it looks completely believable.  This seriously looks like something that could be pulled off in real life.  Everyone gets more and more exhausted and out of breath as the fight goes on, and the protagonist doesn’t get out of it easily.  The protagonist gets the shit kicked out of him, and it shows.  Yet he manages to overcome the odds.  More believable than the Oldboy fight sequence, and quite possible the most realistic and grounded many-vs.-one fight sequence ever put on film.  I guess it’s because it’s not that well-known that made me push it so high on the list, but it’s not like I couldn’t change my mind sometime down the line.  It’s unfortunate that the main star, Jason Yee, hasn’t really been in anything else noteworthy, save for The Dark Knight Rises.  He never really got to show off his martial arts skills in anything else that’s notable.














#7 The Legend of Drunken Master

Jackie Chan again (this will be the last one with him, I promise).  This is my favorite film of his.  It’s so good that there are 2 fights in this film that I think are equally good, so I couldn’t just pick one.  Jackie vs. the axe gang, with awesome use of bamboo.  And the finale fight, of course, include a portion where Jackie falls onto a giant bed of fiery coals that makes me cringe every time I see it.  Oh, and the finale took several months to film.  The quality shows.




















#6 Tom Yum Goong (aka The Protector)

Finally, Tony Jaa makes an appearance.  This was the film that made me a fan of his.  Christ, several great fights in this film, I’d hate to only choose one.  But I’ll only choose one, the long take going up several flights of stairs.  Oh, and if you ever see this movie, be sure to see the Thai cut, the Tom Yum Goong version.  Increases the length of some fight scenes and makes the film flow more naturally.








#5 The Man From Nowhere (aka Uncle)

A knife fight during the finale.  Short and sweet.  Not much else to say.  Bin Won vs. Thanayong Wongtrakul.






#4 SPL: Killzone

Donnie Yen again, and this will also be the last one for him on this list.  This time he faces off against Wu Jing.  A knife against baton fight that has an unbelievable speed and pace to it.  I don’t know of any other duo who could’ve pulled this off.




#3 Tiger on the Beat

The finale in this movie is the best finale I’ve ever seen in an action film ever.  Can’t say the entire finale made this list because, well, guns and bullets are involved.  However, there is one thing that manages to be better than the gunfights.  A chainsaw duel with Conan Lee.  This chainsaw duel makes the one in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 and Motel Hell look like pillow fights by comparison.

No video for it, but here’s a link to a site that does:


#2 Ong Bak 2

The entire finale.  Man, Tony Jaa doesn’t just do hand to hand combat and use different martial arts styles in a few situations, but also uses multiple types of weapons, and fight around and on top of an elephant.  How can you not love this sequence?


#1 The Raid 2

There’s Iko Uwai again.  This demonstrates why Tiger Chen should’ve fought against him in Man of Tai Chi.  The last major fight scene in the film.  Going from hand to hand fighting, until the villain realizes he can’t win in a fair fight, so then knives get involved and ratchet up the tension, along with the blood drops.  Going up against Cecep Arif Rahman.




To close this out, I’m taking this discussion away from movie fights and towards a fight that matters, that affects all Internet users.  December 14th, the FCC and that cocksucker Ajit Pai are going to vote to end Net Neutrality.  This isn’t the first time the FCC threatened to destroy it, but it could be the last, if they succeed.  Because if they fail to end net neutrality, they will try again 1-2 years after that, and if they fail, another 1-2 years after that, and on and on until it is repealed.  So protest, go to, call your congressmen who likely won’t listen to you, do what you can to let your voice be heard even if big corporations like Verizon and Comcast will do everything they can to drown you out.  This is something worth fighting for.  Honestly, the best we can hope for is to delay, delay, delay, until someone like Kim Dotcom finishes creating some alternative to the Internet that will hopefully last just as long if not longer, until the whole process repeats again.  Don’t let these assholes throttle and block without a fight.

An out of nowhere discussion on feminism, masculinity, and tranny.

So I didn’t intend to get into a debate, but this kinda ended up happening.  Putting it on this site just in case the comments get removed for some reason (anything is possible).  Started in the comments thread of this video, starting with MakiPCR’s response to Comic Book Girl 19’s review: