Debate! Right-wingers commit more murders than any other political group in the U.S.?

Nothing can break me out of my slumber like a potential debate on a wild subject.  So I’ve been tweeting and gabbing a bit here and there, but not really finding it in me to make another full-blown blog post.  Until now.  Hope they don’t disappoint me.

So this all started, sort of, with that shooting at Thousand Oaks.  So the same sort of arguments came up that usually come up around this point in time before anyone has any time to grieve (because let’s face it, many people who weren’t in the area give less of a shit about the victims and more of a shit about using them as a means to an end to make a political point about gun control, or lack thereof).  “We need more gun control!”  “It happened because it was in a gun-free zone!”  “Conservatives suck dick!”  “Liberals suck dick!”  You know, all that stuff.

But I was taken off-guard when the topic came up that far-right extremists are statistically proven to be more responsible for these “massacres” than left-wing extremists, let alone muslim-extremists (I wonder of the last two should be grouped together, considering how much left-wingers go down on Allah worshipers).

Let me start at the Twitter tweet (because let’s face it, it’s only on Twitter where I can find people with differing opinions to debate with, Gab is currently just an echo chamber; it’s going to take another couple years before that changes, if it lasts that long) where someone who goes by the name Historian‏ @NeolithichHist got involved in the discussion to finally make it interesting (ie offer me a real challenge).  Someone else did something like that in an earlier Twitter debate I had which got too convoluted, and I’ll include her in the discussion should she choose to get involved in this current one (I can handle double teaming should it come to that).

1

Every single time huh?  As opposed to every other time where someone illegally obtained a gun to go kill people?  Because statistically, those who don’t legally purchase a firearm (or who don’t legally obtain a firearm) are much more responsible statistically for gun crimes than those who do.  But that’s just addressing the “legally purchased a gun” portion.  He’s primarily taking aim at “white conservatives.”  I’m not entirely sure where to find a study that takes aim at people by grouping them by their politics (identity politics is a dangerous topic to get dragged into, which from what I understand many left-wingers live by).

The difference between identity politics and people identifying with politics is this: The Left uses the concept of identity politics to spread division and strife amongst people.  So they bring this group into a room, and they tell them something different in this group, and there’s something different in this group, and they pit them against each other.  […]  On our side, and on the side that I think better represents what we believe, is that we use people… all we use things to identify with politics. So we say… Ok, this group of people learn differently, they have a different culture.  We understand that.  But we’re telling everybody the same thing.  […]  And that message is unity, freedom, and American values.  Big difference, huge difference, and we have to understand that difference.  And therefore we can reach outside of the box.

Finding studies that group people by their race, on the other hand…

According to a 2015 Brookings Institution study, 77 percent of white gun deaths are from suicide. Only 19 percent are homicides. Even when you combine homicides and suicides, the white-male death rate from guns is approximately 16 per 100,000. For white women, the rate is less than five per 100,000.

[…]

A staggering 82 percent of African-American gun deaths are homicides. Only 14 percent are suicides. The overall gun-death rate for black males is roughly double what it is for white males, and for black males between the ages of 20 and 29, the rate is approximately 89 per 100,000.

[…]

Gun deaths are lowest in the population that owns the most guns. Fully 41 percent of white households report owning a gun, compared with only 19 percent of black households. Among white Americans, there are more guns, but there’s less crime. Among black Americans, there are fewer guns, but there’s more crime.

[…]

After all, there is ample evidence that federal officials can be extraordinarily lax when it comes to gun crimes, especially in cities where the death toll is highest. As recently as 2012, the districts encompassing Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York ranked last in federal gun-crime enforcement per capita.

[…]

Cries for gun control will lose their potency when crime loses its potency.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/02/20/gun-violence-and-race-conservatives-gun-owners/

But I know what some of you might be thinking.  “82% of African-Americans killed by guns?  How often was it white people doing them in?”  Well not that often.

According to the American Community Survey 2016 estimatesLos Angeles is 49 percent Hispanic, 29 percent white, 8 percent black, and 11 percent Asian.

The findings of the “Los Angeles Police Department Homicide Report” for 2017 are unsurprising for racial realists. According to this analysis, both the victims and perpetrators of violent crime in Los Angels are young, non-white, and poor. Of the 282 homicides which occurred in Los Angeles in 2017, 177—62.8 percent—were gang related.

Of all homicides committed in 2017 in Los Angeles, 72 percent involved handguns. Shotguns and rifles accounted for only one percent each. “Assault weapons”—the weapons targeted by current gun control push—accounted only for one percent. Firearms were used in 93 percent of homicides committed by gang members.

Suspect descriptions were provided for 146 of the homicides, yielding 171 suspects (some incidents involved more than one suspect). Of these suspects, 52 percent were Hispanic, six percent were white, and less than two percent were Asian. An astonishing 40 percent were black, despite blacks comprising less than ten percent of the city’s population.

https://www.amren.com/features/2018/04/the-color-of-gun-crime-in-americas-big-cities-race-new-york-city-chicago-new-orleans/

So what else does he got?

 

2

 

 

3

4

And that’s where we left off, plus my mentioning that I’d carry this over to another website.  So, regarding that article he linked to

The only Islamist terror attack in Pennsylvania over the past 15 years was committed by Edward Archer, a mentally ill man who shot and injured a police officer in early 2016, later telling investigators that he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Far-right episodes of violent extremism were far more common.

[…]

A new database compiled by The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute examines that claim by looking back over a nine-year period, from 2008 through 2016. The findings are dramatic: Far-right plots and attacks outnumber Islamist incidents by almost 2 to 1.

There are 201 incidents in the database, sorted broadly as Islamist, right wing (including white supremacists, militias and members of the so-called Patriot and sovereign citizens movements), and left wing (including animal right militants, environmentalists, anarchists and Black Lives Matter sympathizers). Most of the Islamist incidents are thwarted plots, indicating a significant investment of law enforcement resources. Most of the others are successful acts in which attackers damaged property or inflicted human casualties.

[…]

  • Right-wing extremist terrorism was more often deadly: Nearly a third of incidents involved fatalities, for a total of 79 deaths, while 13 percent of Islamist cases caused fatalities. (The total deaths associated with Islamist incidents were higher, however, reaching 90, largely due to the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas.)
  • Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities – making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/home-is-where-the-hate-is/

Have to admit, it’s a very extensive article.  The quotes above aside, it also points out how federal resources are used to target Islamists far more than right-wing-extremists.  Which is disproportionate to the number of crimes right-wing-extremists commit compared to Islamic extremists, or even left-wing-extremists, which even when combined is still lower than the crimes committed by right-wing-extremists.  The point the article is making is that right-wing-extremists (implying extreme conservative whites) are more responsible for acts of domestic terrorism, and causing fatalities by those terrorist acts, than any other political/religious group in the United States.  As far as I can currently tell, there’s no disputing this (though I am open to opinions, with data to back them, that oppose this conclusion).

However, don’t be fooled by this.  This found a way to take the broad discussion of dangers posed by groups based on their political/religious leanings, and narrowed it down in a way to make it appear that we should all be more critical and wary of right-wingers than left-wingers (there’s the muslims too, but for the purpose of this discussion we’ll leave them out of this for now; they were worth mentioning just because of the context the above article is to be taken).  It only focuses on acts of terrorism, as the article defines it.  It doesn’t take into account gang-violence, non-terror related incidents of fatalities.  You know, where the big numbers are.

Let’s take into account the population of the United States and, statistically, how ethnically diverse it is (though that can be a bit tricky with the Latino population, given the illegal immigration issue).  According to StatisticalAtlas.com, out of a population of over 200 million people in the United States, 62% are White, 17% are Hispanic, and a little under 13% are Black.  Now with those numbers in mind, you would think crime stats would be similar to fit with those percentages.  Since whites compose the majority of the population, you would expect the majority of the violent crimes to be committed by whites, mostly against other whites, sometimes against other races (the higher the number of other races, the greater the chance they will be a victim of the majority race).  And you would expect Hispanics to make up the second highest amount of violent crimes, with Blacks taking third place.  In a perfect and fair world, where everyone is the same and equal, and treated as such, that should be the case.  And by the logic of that RevealNews.org article, that seems consistent with it at least in terms of race (at the moment, I can’t locate an article mentioning the ethnic percentages of what makes up those who identify as right-leaning, left-leaning, or just down the middle, so I wouldn’t know how to begin taking apart an argument stating that right-wingers are more dangerous because they’re composed more heavily of whites than left-wingers, anymore than I could make an argument supporting that view).

That being said, it’s not a fair and perfect world because we, as humans, are not a far and perfect species.  We have political differences, we have cultural differences, and we have different hobbies.  Because of those factors and more, anomalies are to be expected.  The issue is what to make of those anomalies and how to address them without making things worse.

So with that in mind, back to the statistics.  The RevealNews.org site states that right-wing-extremists are responsible for the deaths of 79 people from 2008-2016.  An 8-year time-span.  Not that I think nothing should be done about combating terrorist acts or anything, regardless of what race and political-party-supporters are doing them; but this is small potatoes.  79 deaths over the course of 8 years.  Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.  Non-white people, non-domestic-terrorist people, can beat that number in 1 year, in 1 city (not State, not County, City).  Most of those committed by people who don’t legally own firearms.  A good portion of those committed by non-white (and thus one could assume, by some strange logic, non-right-wing) individuals.

So they want to argue that because there are more right-wing-extremists in a white-majority country committing the most domestic terror acts on a white-majority population, we should do… what exactly?  Have more gun control or eliminate guns when it’s statistically proven that More Guns = Less Crime?  Have white guilt?  Have right-wing guilt?  I say we’re taking the wrong approach with that mindset, given some inconvenient facts that go against such conclusions.  Consider the overall scale of crime.  The overall crime rate, according to DisasterCenter.com, has been decreasing since 1991, without a single year of uptick.  That being said, according to the same source, the murder rate has sort of always been in flux; but recent years have shown that it has been on the rise since 2014, and hasn’t gone down since.  More than 17,000 U.S. citizens per year are murdered; it’s been that way since 2016.  That’s too many just to simplify the argument down to, “But right-wing-extremists killed nearly 80 people in 8 years, roughly 10 people a year on average!”  The problem is broader in scope than what domestic terror acts can account for.  Certainly broader in scope than what right-wing-extremists can account for.  Don’t let mainstream media which lives for sensationalism fool you into thinking otherwise.

On a side note, this does seem to fit an interesting pattern.  A similar spike in overall murder rates occurred in 1999, with the number continuing to rise until 2003.  So if the pattern is to repeat, that number should start to fall by, oh say, by either this year or next year.  They seem to go by roughly 4 year patterns of rising and falling; making it seem like they coincide with presidential elections.  Not sure if that’s a coincidence or if the political climate across the history of the U.S. is a contributing factor.  On the other hand, I’m not so sure these are normal times we’re living in.  Hindsight is 20-20, so time will tell.

What else do you have for me Historian?

 

Edit (11-24-2018): Here’s an interesting article: Armed Citizens Have A 94% Success Rate Of Stopping Would-Be Mass Shooters According to FBI Data

Mystery Review for Black History Month and Valentine’s Day

So, what to review for this time of the year; this time of the month?  I’ve been pondering a few films to review for black history month; which, to be honest, I think is kind of a stupid thing, because if there’s going to be a black history month, then there should be a white history month, or a red history month, or a pink history month, etc.  Kinda racist to leave all the other races out, don’t you think?  Just have a plain old-fashioned history month!

But I digress.  I could review 12 Years a Slave (2013), directed by Steve McQueen, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor (and no, I couldn’t type that name correctly without copy-pasting it, and I refuse to believe that guy could either until he was in middle school), who was awesome in that one judo movie Redbelt.  But despite the great directing and cinematography (especially that) and acting, it’s just a basic run-of-the-mill slave film that just looks real nice.  It may be basic, but it’s still pretty damn great, but also depressing, so not exactly the most entertaining popcorn flick I’d rewatch often.  But then again, neither is Requiem for a Dream, and that film is pretty damn good too.

I could review Django Unchained (2012), but that film is overrated.  Seriously, it ran out of steam after the first big gun battle.  Even during that sequence, the realism walked out the building.  Now I know what you’re thinking, it’s a Tarantino film that is only similar in name only to the Italian film it ripped off (which I recommend over this), and it’s supposed to be all about the homages, the callbacks, the retro vibes.  Because Tarantino can’t really do anything all that original, though he is capable of writing some absolutely fantastic dialogue.  But that’s the thing.  The whole, “But it’s retro!  It’s supposed to be over-the-top and a bit cheesy and exploitative!” is something I just see as a lame excuse to disguise the flaws inherent in some of his films, mainly with this and Death Proof (despite the incredible stuntwork that film pulled off) and Kill Bill (though I find it impossible to hate those movies despite my gripes).  The difference between his films and those he pays tribute to is that the latter took itself dead-seriously, thinking without any doubt it was the most bitchin’ thing in the world, when it is really cheesy as hell and all the more entertaining because of it.  Tarantino’s films, with the exception of Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, are intentionally designed to give that feel, are very self-aware, which makes it all the more easy to critique and give them hell for it.  It’s a bad excuse to let realism get thrown to the wind during Django Unchained’s last 20-30 minutes, especially when Tarantino’s films (at least prior to Kill Bill) were firmly grounded in realism.  Plus I have reason to believe this is one of the films, if not the film, that started the whole white-guilt/black-power element that’s been plaguing films in a negative way since then, though not all are bad.  But I’ve rambled enough about that with this paragraph, so I’ll just end it by saying this movie was meh.

I could review Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, except that I already did that.

I could review Super Fly (1972), which is a fun movie, but not THAT fun.  Sure it has a hilarious chase scene where you can see the camera cord bounce in and out of frame off and on (stuff like that brings a smile to my face, at the very least, when watching these old 70s blacksploitation films), some somewhat amusing fight scenes (especially the hilarious finale fight), and a smoking hot bathtub sex scene.  But all in all, it’s just a slightly above-average flick with a lot of big lull points with some sparse entertaining bits here and there.

I could review Shaft (1971), arguably the most famous blacksploitation (the spell-check wants me to auto-correct that word to “transplantation”) film of all time, especially with that kick-ass theme music, plus those pen metaphors for colors; but that would be too easy.

I could review Black Dynamite (2009), but that would also be too easy, even if it is one of the only films I’ve seen next to Bruce Lee’s Game of Death that has a nun-chuck vs. nun-chuck fight against Michael Jai White and Richard Nixon, but I think that reason is enough to convince you of how fucking epic that movie is, and is mandatory viewing.

I could review Black Panther (2018), but fuck that.

Nope, not going to review any of those.  I’ve got something else in mind.

From 1992,

the one,

the only,

the legendary…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I could’ve saved this for April Fools, but then you would think this is a joke.

Rated: 3 / 5

“Wherever there is a male race, or lifeform in the universe, that is oppressed by females, we’ll come and free them, for a gay universe!”

“Oh it’s real!  It’s damn real!”

Yes, this movie exists.  Yes, it was made to troll the shit out of people.  And yes, I’m trolling the shit out of you too with this review.

So the film begins where Star Wars and Star Trek began, in space, in the universe.  A calm peaceful universe where men are free to live and express themselves freely, and watched over and cared for (in more ways than one).  The gayniggers (the film title indicates that is one word, the narrator speaks as if it’s two separate words, but I’m just going to go with the one-word format for this review) come from the planet Anus, a “male only” world.  They pilot a ship, with crew members named ArmInAss, Captain B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls, Mr. Schwall, and D. Dildo.  They come across Earth, and are ready to not pay it much mind until they find out there are “female creatures” on the planet, which makes one of them ask, “What in the phallus is going on down there!?”

So they go down to Earth determined to save men from the oppressive females (probably because the #metoo movement caused them to take over the world, and eliminated honey badgers in the process), and start by killing hookers in some city.  Then they start killing females in Russia, a country who’s language is incomprehensible, and is untrustworthy.  Then they go to Asia, where the women, and I quote, “eat with branches, have yellow skin, and are very unfriendly.”  Then they go to Germany to eliminate females, who are all blonde and hate dark skin.  Then they go to America and kill Mr. T’s girlfriend, then ArmInAss tries to fist Mr. T, who then gets angry and squeezes his tight muscular buttcheeks together and rips his arm off, which causes him to get welcomed onto the ship as a replacement crew member, with the new name M.B. Cheeks.  And after all this, one stays behind to lead the Earth into a peaceful gay future.

Oh yeah, and speaking of arms in asses, did I mention there’s a “Holy Asshole” that they stick their arms into?  And that one of the gayniggers transforms into a white European?

It’s worth mentioning that this film is intentionally badly dubbed, in that the voices don’t always sync with the lip movement (to say the least).  The music can be decent (and funky) at times (even if it steals the theme from S.W.A.T.), and the narrator has a nice ASMR voice (pray he never uses it on you, or else you’ll get to relaxed and then Surprise!  Butt-sex!).

goodbye white pride

So I guess the theme to take away from this movie is that it’s ok to be gay, learn to live without women, and should women start oppressing men, pray to the stars and then gayniggers from outer space will show up and blast women into oblivion and make men not be such pussies anymore (the world belongs to the dicks and assholes).  Happy black history month, and happy valentine’s day.

Jumanji (1995) and Welcome to the Jungle (2017) dual review

Jumanji is one of my favorite films from the 90s.  It’s not just a good kid-flick, but a good film in general.  So when I heard they were making a sequel to it, all I could think was, “Why?”  Then I saw the trailer, and I thought, “WHY!?!?!?”

My second thought was, “So this is what it feels like to have your childhood raped.”  So I expected this to be terrible going in to see it.  That probably should’ve worried me, because setting expectations so low provided a decent chance for the film to rise above them.  Which is ultimately what happened, and that pisses me off even more.

I wanted a film that gives me plenty to rant and rave about damnit!  It’s supposed to be worse than Star Wars: The Last Jedi!  In all fairness, The Last Jedi is a better film than this one, but that’s only because this film is simple mediocrity, with no aspirations whatsoever (make the movie, have fun, cash out) where as at least The Last Jedi at least strives to be more than that.  And for that matter, so did the original Jumanji movie.  From here on out, when referring to the 1995 film, I’m just going to call it Jumanji, while this new one I’ll call WttJ (Welcome to the Jungle).

 

Rated: 4 / 5

Welcome to the jungle, we’ve got fun and games!

When watching Jumanji, I admire several things about it.  This film is a drama, with some adventure and comedy thrown in.  At its core, it’s a film about taking responsibility and facing your fears, and the consequences of not doing so.  It takes a long while before this becomes evident, as the film does a somewhat unique style on how it introduces our main characters.  I haven’t seen very many films that pull this off successfully.  First we’re introduced to Allen, a young boy who doesn’t want to live a life his father wants for him, and wishes to run away rather than face his father on the issue (at least not too much).  His girlfriend is introduced more slowly, first by dialogue discussions between Allen and the bullies, and then she is revealed later on.  Then they (unintentionally) play the game, a mystical board game that looks too well-made from a wooden design standpoint for something that isn’t well known (thus helping with that mystic aura it gives off, sound effects and musical complimentary notes aside).  An accidental play, much like how life throws unexpected surprises (some good some bad) at us.  Allen is sucked in, and disappears, much as how he intended to run away and disappear.  And his girlfriend, Sarah, runs away rather than tries to help him get out of the game (but, in all fairness, she was just a girl at the time, and was scarred emotionally by the whole ordeal, so it’s easy to sympathize with her, just as it’s easy to sympathize with Allen).

Then we are introduced to 2 other characters, Peter and Judy, who we become acquainted with and spend more time with than we did with Allen and Sarah.  These two kids also desire an escape from their current lives, which have gone downhill ever since their parents’ unfortunate death via an airplane crash, while on their way to a ski vacation.  It’s not until far later in the film that Allen appears again, due to the 2 new kids playing the game.  And even later on, Sarah finally re-enters the film.  The main characters aren’t firmly established until the film is practically halfway over.  Have to admit, when taking it in that context, this film seems rather daring.  Having the main protagonists appear early on, then disappear for a good portion of the first hour, and then re-appear to continue the story.  The film eases its way into allowing the viewers to be familiar with the main protagonists.  And it works.

Oh yeah, and Lilith from Cheers is in this.

As the film goes on, Allen, now an adult played by Robin Williams in one of his best roles, eventually comes to realize not just how much his father loved him despite the fight they had, but also what can happen when he runs from his fears.  When he visits the old shoe factory, after going through his old town and seeing how terrible it has become compared to what it once was (think Detroit before and after the 60s), he meets a homeless man who is familiar with the town’s history, who must’ve been associated with it to some extent in the past before becoming how he is now.  His speech to Allen about how the town became how it is now, how the Shoe Factory went out of business, how it was all because Allen’s father searched for Allen endlessly after Allen disappeared, no longer caring about anything else but finding himself.  Likely blaming himself for Allen’s disappearance, thinking he ran away because of him (which is true, but under a different context).  It’s such a tear-jerking moment, especially seeing this realization wash across Allen’s face, realizing not just how much his father loved him, but how much damage his running away has caused (metaphorically speaking, as his disappearance was caused against his will, though he did intend to run away prior to that).

But the film doesn’t just settle for the character trying to right the wrongs of the past.  It also shows how Allen’s character has evolved.  Not just turning into a survivalist with his time in the jungle within the game, but also with how he has become like his father.  He is still afraid, hates himself for not being more mature earlier on, but also becomes angry at Peter for wishing to continue playing the game.  Because Allen knows what will happen if they do so, that more creatures, and individuals, and weather conditions will emerge from the game to make things worse.  He warns Peter of this, but also knows that Peter is right.  This doesn’t make him any less angry, and eventually tells Peter in his anger that he needs to man up and face all of this like a man, because it’s Peter’s doing for causing this to happen.  Immediately after doing that, Allen realizes how he’s acting like his father in the past, and also realizes how he’s being hypocritical, and tries to comfort Peter after this.

Regarding the facing of fears and taking responsibility, the film handles it as it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  And longer one runs from their own fears, the worse things will get.  This is shown early on with Allen confronting these bullies after running from them earlier, the bullies chasing him because he went out with their leader’s girlfriend (Sarah).  It results in him getting beat up, but then things more or less work out after that.  With him running away from his father, and staying away for years (again, the film plays with this with him wanting to run away, and him escaping to Jumanji unintentionally and against his will), this causes consequences resulting in the town going bottom-up economically when the Shoe Factory shuts down due to his father searching for him.  It’s also shown from a more metaphorical standpoint with them playing the game, something they must do to resolve everything, and it continually makes things worse not just for the main characters, but for the town around them.  It’s not until near the end of the game when Allen finally conquers his fear, his primary fear being that of his own father.  It’s some heavy-hitting metaphors, reminding me of Silent Hill 2 with how everything in that game is basically a projection of the protagonists own fears and desires.  And yes, I just compared Jumanji to Silent Hill 2.

Jumanji being a 1995 film, two years after Jurassic Park hit theaters, CG is used, but it’s used along with practical effects.  Granted, the film hasn’t aged THAT well, but it doesn’t look all that terrible either, all things considered.  The CG is dated, but acceptable.  Most of the practical effects work, but a couple are laughable (those spiders, I lose it every time they show up).  Then there’s instances of blending CG with actual objects, which do a good job of making them seem more real.

 

 

 

Practical spiders.

 

 

 

Blending CG with real objects.
Honestly, I still think this effect works.

So, yeah, a film that I still think is great today.  It still works as a character drama mixed with a fun adventure film, with some decent comedy moments thrown in for good measure.  Emotional, fun, all around solid even with the somewhat dated effects.  As for the sequel…

 

 

 

Rated: 2 / 5

Welcome to the jungle, it gets worse here every day!

So like I said, I expected to despise this film.  And it started off meeting those expectations.  So some metal drummer punk finds the board game in the sands on the beach, more or less picking up where the last film left off.  Except that the last film left off with the board game on some beach in Mexico, Puerto Rico, or some place where they speak Spanish.  You know, it’s times like these that I think it might be a good idea for American film studios developing a temporary partnership with some foreign studio and allow them to take a jab at the property, whether it’s a remake or a sequel.  Seriously, it might not be a bad idea, and a perfect way to inject a different and fresh style into the film.  Granted, everyone will be of a different ethnicity and speaking a foreign language and viewers would have to read subtitles (unless they’re lazy assholes who refuse to watch any movie subtitled), but for those of us who care, it would be worth it.

But I digress.  Ignoring where the board game wound up in the previous film, this metal dude gets the board game out of the beach sand, takes it to his home, and opens it up to see what it is.  He sees it’s a board game, and says something along the lines of, “Who plays board games anymore?” before tossing it aside onto his stack of Playstation games.

Fuck you you fucking fucker!  Board games are fucking awesome, even back in the 90s!  What, cocksuckers like you never heard of Crossfire!?

How about Forbidden Bridge!?

Kiss my dick and suck my ass!  You deserve whatever fate befalls you for pissing off the Jumanji game!

But rather than letting curiosity get the better of him to try out the game, you know, by hearing that drum beat or something (which doesn’t fucking happen!), the board game transforms into some Atari cartridge game or something so that he can play it.  What the fuck!?

Scarily enough, this is likely foreshadowing.

So that’s basically how they decided to make this into a sequel to Jumanji, by having the board game transform into a video game just for the fuck of it.  And you know, from here on out, aside from this dumb fucking reference to the first film that happens in the middle of WttJ, this movie is completely different from Jumanji!  They could’ve called this film ANYTHING else, anything not associated with Jumanji, and I wouldn’t be forced to do this comparison bullshit.  It has more in common with Tron than it does Jumanji.  Stop making half-assed sequels and remakes Hollywood!  Do what Disney has been doing since the 90s, ripping off stories and making them their own (The Lion King = Hamlet + Kimba the White Lion, Pocahontas rewriting history, The Little Mermaid being more lighthearted than the original source, etc.).  Rip off movies, stop trying to claim that they’re remakes or sequels!

Tron

*deep breathe*  Ok, with that out of the way, and after metalhead gets sucked into the videogame, the film basically becomes its own thing that bares little resemblance to Jumanji.  4 kids get put into detention, one for be a snot-nosed bitch who refuses to turn her cell phone off, 2 of them because they cheated on their school assignment, and the other because she mouthed off to the PE teacher.  And in detention they stumble across this game (somehow), and plug it in, play, and get sucked into it, each becoming a different character based on which character they chose at the start of the game.  So each of them is given a new body with certain personality traits that peak through occasionally.

Like being so black and unfunny it pisses the Republicans off.

Now, before I continue, it’s worth noting that the dumb fucks who made this movie think that cartridge games actually have a loading screen.  Did any of you motherfuckers ever play a Sega Genesis or a Super Nintendo?  None of those fucking consoles had loading screens.  Why?  Because cartridges are faster than CDs!  Just take a USB drive compared to a fucking Disc for comparison in today’s world!  On that note, I wouldn’t be surprised if games eventually went back to a cartridge style play, assuming everything doesn’t wind up online (not likely since Net Neutrality has been killed and now cocksuckers like Verizon and Comcast can start throttling other companies if they don’t pay a little extra, like in 2005 when Comcast delayed BitTorrent traffic, or in 2007 when AT&T censored Pearl Jam, or 2007-9 when AT&T forced Apple to block Skype, or in 2011 when MetroPCS announced it would block streaming services over its 4G network except for YouTube, or 2012 when Verizon blocked tethering app use on their phones, or when Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix until 2014 when Netflix agreed to pay them extra, or 2014 when T-Mobile used data caps to manipulate competition, until 2015 when net neutrality was in place until 2017 when that went away [those dipshits will likely throttle my site now just for bringing that up]).

Too much stress for the hair to endure.

With that tangent out of the way, the plot of the film is that our 4 heroes need to return a green crystal McGuffen to a big McGuffen statue in order to win and get back to the real world.  So no, there’s no trying to roll a 5 or an 8 on the dice.  That’s all I’ll say about the plot.

Honestly, the only time she was funny was during her make-out scene with The Rock, which was definitely one of the funnier moments of the film.

So, are there any deep character moments in this film?  What the hell do you think?  Of course there isn’t!  As if you would think otherwise after seeing any of the trailers.  There’s this theme of friendship, and acceptance, not being selfish, and of tranny stuff like being a woman trapped in a man’s body, or a wimp trapped in a muscular body (or vice-versa), or an average-looking chick trapped in a hot chick’s body.  There’s a line in the movie that goes, “What you are on the outside is not what you are on the inside,” which is stating that it’s your character and personality that counts, not your looks, but it’s more fun to think of this is as a transgender message.  Personally, I think the tranny theme existed just so Jack Black could do that role of acting like a woman.  And in his case, it works, because he completely steals the show from everyone else.  He gets the most laughs and produces the best comedic charisma out of everyone, even doing better than Dwayne Johnson (who also got a couple laughs from me here and there, by doing his usual The Rock routine).  He must’ve loved doing this, and I’m not going to lie, despite my gripes, it was fun watching him do this role.

Or maybe I’ve misjudged this film.  This bit could be a complex female fat joke.

This movie exists primarily to be a comedy, not giving much of a shit about the dramatic moments, which would be fine if it was funnier than it is, but it isn’t.  The film is just another typical forgettable comedy affair that offers some chuckles here and there, but nothing that’s going to be all that memorable.  It’s not the trainwreck I expected it to be, but it’s still a desecration to the Jumanji film, and it does not deserve to have that word in its fucking title.  I would’ve liked it more if it had nothing to do with that title.  Just being called Welcome to the Jungle would’ve been fine.  Hell, I’d be interested if they just called it Atari Jungle or something.

Oh, guess that title was already taken by this suckass film.

So in case you didn’t guess from the rating, this movie is a pass.  You’re better off tracking down and watching the Jumanji animated series.  And you can buy the entire series right now on DVD, all 3 seasons for less than ten dollars (hey, if this fucking movie is going to have advertisements in it, then so will this review!).

 

PS: Oh, right, and there were some blatant obvious advertisements in this film, mainly with Sony, their PS4, their smartphone, and Dave & Busters.  Well, at least they kept it game-themed with the ads.

 

 

Let’s Play the Google Bias Game! (1)

Alright, who’s up for a game where you find out how biased the search engines are?  It’s easy, as you’ll see.

For this entry, you just need to do 2 different searches.  Image searches.  Type in “white couple”, and see how many images pop up of a white couple.  Then type in “black couple”, and see how many images of a black couple show up.

Bing results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 28/30 (including 1 gay couple with a black baby, and 1 lesbian couple)
93% accuracy

DuckDuckGo results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 43/53
85% accuracy

Google results of “white couple” image search:

Actual white couple count: 27/40 (including an image of Trump and Hillary, and some woman going to prison [doesn’t have to do with a “couple”])
68% accuracy

 

 

Bing results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 30/30
100% accuracy

DuckDuckGo results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 56/56
100% accuracy

Google results of “black couple” image search:

Actual black couple count: 39/40
98% accuracy

 

 

 

What other biased/inaccurate searches can we come up with?