Movies - short reviews, recommendations, opinions, discussions...

Watched about two thirds of The Meg (2018).

It's the first Statham movie that I didn't finish watching.
What a multicultural disease.
Besides the subtle and not so subtle faggotry and cucking, I just don't care about the actors in that movie as a group. It's like you dropped into some multicultural advertisment made by a (((shitlib))). You just don't care if they are all getting eaten by a shark.

In a different movie, with a more homogeneous cast, be it a Chinese movie or a Black Americans movie or a European movie they'd be fine. It's not like there is not any potential in some of the actors/roles individually. It's that as this multi-cultural disease troupe they are a big turn-off (in my case literally).

Maybe it's also that the script writer made the characters extra shitty.
Nobody likes a (((shitlib))) nor a (((neo-conserve))) for that matter. Nobody likes them, they can't even stand themselves. How could such "people" write a likeable character? Where would they take the likeable stuff from? You gotta write something of yourself into the character every time. Where would you find that likeable stuff, the charm?

AutSider wrote:

King Arthur

...

Saxon leader was a good character, one of his soldiers wanted to rape a woman after conquest and he kicked him off her and I think "oh shit, a moral fag" then he proves me wrong and says "don't breed with these people, they'll give you weak offspring"

They try their best to vilify the sentiment of being against mixing.
If mixed people would be particularly strong the powers that be would not be in favour of it. They are for promoting weakness in all areas, it ensures hegemony until internal collapse.

Anfang wrote:

Interview with Yaginuma Kazuyoshi

Y.K., director of Netojuu no Susume (Recovery of an MMO Junkie) wrote:

But, even among those who know that Hitler was a friend, do you understand that Hitler and the Nazis were fighting against Christianity?
Hitler was trying to kill Christianity. He knew it was a Jewish mind control weapon.
Christian mind control matches the fraud in big finance, military power and political power.

Honorary af Aryan

*Honolaly Alyan

Another honolaly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

Wikipedia wrote:

In 2006, he published an article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, claiming that attractive people are 26% less likely to have male offspring. In a letter to the editors regarding Kanazawa's claim that attractive people are more likely to have daughters,[17] Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman points out that a correct interpretation of the regression coefficients in Kanazawa's analysis is that attractive people are 8% more likely to have girls, an error that Kanazawa acknowledges. Gelman argues that Kanazawa's analysis does not convincingly show causality, because of possible endogeneity as well as problematic interpretations of statistical significance in multiple comparisons. While Kanazawa claims that the former error is "merely linguistic" and that he addressed the latter two in his initial article, Gelman maintains that his original criticism remains valid.

This sparked interest....because I've made a similar observation.
I noticed that attractive males usually have daughters.

Along the same lines i also noticed that the first born is usually physically similar to the parent of the opposite sex, and the second born to the parent of the same sex.
Usually = on average.

Attractive = symmetrical./proportional.
The classic Greek definition of beauty.
It has to do with order, and functionality within order/chaos. It would reveal genetic health to resist flux and to attain a higher level of physical symmetry.
Necessity, makes proportionality a sacrifice of symmetry...forced upon life by chaos and interactivity. But proportionality can reveal health by expressing itself in symmetry between the proportions of the different organs and the body parts it produces.
If there were no chaos the perfect, beautiful form would be a sphere, when observed from our four-dimensional space/time perspective.....

It's been a while since I've watched this movie and I think I've missed part of the plot.

It's kind of like the first half of The Matrix but darker and came before The Matrix.

Never seen it.
Looks interesting.

@37:20
As the leader of this cult of grey faced strange "men" called Mr. Book says: "Shut it down!", which makes them induce an unnatural sleep in all non-grey faced men.

Description of the movie, I recommend watching the movie before reading:

Almost all movies I watched lately are shit.

Watched the movie Venom and wow, what an absolute piece of turd. I knew it's going to be bad, but this bad... wow. Movie starts with brown and women scientists, annoying nigger rap music and the lame, soulless main character being reminded to feed the cat by his suit-wearing strong independent woman whom he apologizes to throughout the movie even when she moves on to another man. Which about sums up the movie. Also I can't stand Tom Hardy and that brown fag is the worst villain and actor ever. 1/10. And to think that for a second I considered giving money to see it instead of waiting... phew.

Then a few days ago I watched some thrillers, also disappointing. Spoilers ahead (not that there's much to spoil). According to piece of shit movie The Game, bullets which can penetrate doors and floors are blanks.
According to another piece of shit movie, Identity, a ten year old kid can hunt and kill like 15 adults in a night and shake a door so hard it almost breaks the hinges. What's the point of making a thriller if they don't even follow their own goddamn clues and just pull retarded shit out of their ass as an explanation instead of creating an interesting and sensible story that makes you go "aaahhh, how did I not see that, now it all makes sense".

Even some movies which are supposed to be brain-dead fun promote retarded concepts, like this idea of the main character "stealing" the girl from the villain like I've seen recently in Venom, Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift and Never Back Down. Taking another man's leftovers and kissing the mouth that sucked your opponent's cock and swallowed his semen is portrayed as some grand victory. And you can't identify with the antagonist either because he's a retard who doesn't point this out and takes the opportunity to mock the protagonist but instead cares about the slut and tries to take her back even though he usually has an infinite supply of such sluts. Almost only characters I ever sympathize with are antagonists, or sometimes protagonists in medieval settings.

Not very surprising as in a sick society a movie which has protagonists represent health would get criticized and boycotted if not banned.

The people making movies are apparently all degenerates and/or mentally impaired or insane and I've noticed that leftists are the most obsessed about movies, which I don't think is a coincidence. Movies, like fictional stories in general, are good vehicles for spreading your ideas by using emotional associations instead of having to rationally argue them, meaning that they are most useful for the propagation of lies and degeneracy. The very idea of escaping into fictional stories and man-made realities like video games and movies is sort of leftist and degenerate in and of itself. Which is why it's so hard to find a "based" movie or a "based" video game, because the very things - movies, video games and similar - are themselves "unbased".

Such things can only be healthy if they are produced in an unhealthy system with the ultimate intention of undoing the unhealthy system by propagating healthy attitudes in whatever mediums are available and widely used. Because yeah you have to use the tools at your disposal.

In the long-term and in and of themselves, these things are probably not very good, except perhaps to teach and entertain children and average to lower intelligence people.

You get what you subsidize and personally, none of that crap is worth subsidizing or supporting in any way.

I had heard about Venom getting some bad critiques by the professional reviewers, so I thought maybe it's not that bad poz wise. Started the movie and first there is this relationship story which I didn't find relatable. How could any man (or woman) want to be in such an upside down progressive fabbot relationship?

So I skipped through the movie thinking that maybe the action scenes are worth it.
As it turns out they are very boring, the cockblock of action scenes if you will. No impact. The "bad guys" get beaten up in a way which would have killed anybody three times over yet they all just shake it off to come back for more every couple of minutes. I began skipping through the action sequences as well.

The only more or less good bits are where the Venom creature (parasite inside him) talks with Tom Hardy. Everybody else in the movie is a fabbot, even the women are fabbots, what the hell.

Here's my top ten list for the last ten years.

1. You Were Never Really Here, 2017
2. Prisoners, 2013
3. Under the Skin, 2013
4. The Master, 2012
5. The Act of Killing, 2012
6. Himizu, 2011
7. We Need to Talk About Kevin, 2011
8. In Bruges, 2008
9. Enter the Void, 2009
10. Martyrs, 2008

Imo the last five years have been in overall terrible for cinema in relative terms.
This kind of movie and director gives me hope for the future though: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_1

Just watched Aquaman....major propaganda film.
Aquaman is now a Christ figure - half Roman/Half Native....stand-in for Jew.

European culture is constantly bashed.
Special effect were amazing.

Why does he laugh so much?
He partially gets-it.
World War Z, is a metaphor for my own War Like no Other.
it is about the infection of 'nihilism'....producing minds detached from reality, denial of the body, so that it begins to rot.
The virus is nihilism, and it has evolved into a parasitical symbiont, but that's another issue the movie does not even hint at.

The virus can only be tricked by pretending to be infected by it.
Nihilists do not attack nihilists....they attack healthy minds, vigorous psyches.
Quantities over qualities.
Zombies are individualistic, seemingly taking their ,own path towards their target, but they move like a single organism, guided by shared hungers - needs, appetites.
This is the modern....who believes he is an individual, but is a part of a collective. One unified by shared needs/desires.
Modern behave like herds, though they believe they are independent and rebellious and resistant to group dynamics - too 'complex' as they put it. The fact that they are convinced that they are 'too complex to be categorized' makes them all the more easy to manipulate; it is because many deny the existence of human nature which makes it easier to exploit their human nature.

Subjectivity leaves the objective world just as indifferent as it has always been, and forever will be.
It's not the world that suffers due to an error in judgement; it's not the world that adjust to accommodate perspectives.    

He even missed the symbolism of the vampire: blood-sucking, and represented in early silent films as hooked-nosed...hint, hint.
The Vampire looks like the product of in-breeding. its 'immortality' alluding to the ideal, not the physical form.  
The Vampire dies....he is dead....what lives is the idea of him. He feeds on 'blood' means he feeds on emotion, ego, the flowing gushing pathos of the living.
He feeds on hope....represented by money.
Vampires live in ancient mansions because that's where wealth resides....wealth built over centuries of milking the surrounding towns. They are old-money.
They are 'sexy' because money seduces all needy minds.

Warning: Spencer is an effeminate cuck who got divorce raped by a dyke wife and then made to pose in front of a rainbow flag by his openly and proudly liberal and feminist girlfriend.





He's a joke.

He also attacked Andrew Anglin and weev, some of the few people in the Alt-Right who actually do things and affect reality while he focuses on writing essays on obscure, irrelevant nonsense.

And he looks, talks and gesticulates like a fag. Wouldn't be surprised if he's secretly taking it in the butt.

As for movies, I watched the Truman show recently. I recommend it, it's similar to the Matrix. It unwittingly exposed the movie industry for one big joke that it is.

AutSider wrote:

Warning: Spencer is an effeminate cuck who got divorce raped by a dyke wife and then made to pose in front of a rainbow flag by his openly and proudly liberal and feminist girlfriend.

I also recall you looking down upon the preference for a masculine woman. Think of it as you may but i recall hearing that modern ideal man for women is a conformist in public and a beast in bed.

It seems to me that the opposite of this is a man who is a rebel in public and the natural realm and a conformist so to speak in bed and likely prefers a dominant woman in the realm of the "home". Perhaps you think the man should always dominate, but perhaps there is not enough vitality for that, perhaps there never was and we romanticize men as these hypermasculine men who dominate in all realms.

Weininger's formula of attraction applies.

Satyr wrote:

Weininger's formula of attraction applies.

Don't, Briffault's law and Hypergamy say otherwise?
Id say Weininger's "equilibrium" mostly only applies to men, women are less likely to prefer a mate that compliments what they lack in themselves.
They will largely settle with a male that is as dull and feminine as them, although i have witnessed some dull/ugly women who have pursued me, decrying my desire for a woman with more depth and beauty.

Briffault offers a rational choice....Weininger an instinctive disposition.
Wieninger offers an explanation of what underlies attraction.
Briffault offers insight into what pragmatism underlies female socio-economic judgement.

Her Hypergamy may result in a lifetime of sexual dissatisfaction, misery....and adultery.
This is the gene/meme conflict.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

AutSider wrote:

Warning: Spencer is an effeminate cuck who got divorce raped by a dyke wife and then made to pose in front of a rainbow flag by his openly and proudly liberal and feminist girlfriend.

I also recall you looking down upon the preference for a masculine woman. Think of it as you may but i recall hearing that modern ideal man for women is a conformist in public and a beast in bed.

It seems to me that the opposite of this is a man who is a rebel in public and the natural realm and a conformist so to speak in bed and likely prefers a dominant woman in the realm of the "home". Perhaps you think the man should always dominate, but perhaps there is not enough vitality for that, perhaps there never was and we romanticize men as these hypermasculine men who dominate in all realms.

I have no idea what you're even talking about. Women are easy to dominate, only men can truly test other men's "vitality". Dominating women in all realms is basic for men in a healthy society, in-group and out-group male hierarchies are the real tests.

If "men" can't even pass that basic test... lol. Current reality happens, I guess.

And yeah, you seem to know my opinions about masculine women already. About as healthy to society as men becoming feminine and cutting off their dicks and putting on a skirt. More a symptom than the disease itself, but still undesirable.

Dominate is a bad word, you don't dominate anything(read Satyr), the state dominates her and yourself and neither of you can dominate eachother(even the act of penetration and impregnation is not a domination anymore since its effects can be reversed), the only other option is something like imposing oneself onto other within the relationship, using ones wit and masculine/feminine energies to steer the relationship and the partner within it towards the desired outcome, mindful of the limitations and risk during the process. Also, you overestimate how many males are masculine and to what extent, outside the insecure, berserk(also Satyrs idea) teenegers and other dickheads overcompenseting men are not that agressive and dominant, if anything this sort of raw, vulgar and un-feminine type of agression and style of dominance is what I have mostly seen from females in positions of power whilst men tended to be more feminine and subtle. This is my own opinion based on my own life, dont take it as some scientifically backed opinion.

In primate groups males dominate not through aggression alone, but through feminine guile.
Brutal males are defeated when the group rises up to dethrone him. Alpha males act as a mitigate between group social dynamics.
This is transferred, in human systems, into the role of a 'king' or a 'leader'.

Only in environments where external threat no longer exist do matrilineal systems evolve, such as Bonobo.
They were pushed to the highlands, due to troop competitions - similar to what human races experienced - and when the ice Age subsided they were left with resources and no predators.
Bonobos evolved to use intercourse to validate and reaffirm hierarchies - preventing disputes from becoming overly physically threatening.
This is the exception to the rule, which is every other primate on this planet - including homo sapient.
War is the norm, physical force, social hierarchies we call Paternalistic - male dominated.

Chimpanzees go to battle, in the same way humans did, in their history.

But, also among chimpanzees- our genetically closest relatives - we see many human behaviours - like beta male and female alliances, and the need for a more diplomatic approach to settle internal strife.
The most brutal males don to make good leaders, nor are they tolerated for long by the rest of the members of the troop.

All this is accessible in documentaries....it's not me speaking. Do not take my 'word' on anything.
Search for yourselves.

Study nature and see how animal behaviour relates to human behaviour - adding only the component of 'meme', via language, to complicate and confuse...especially imbeciles and desperate degenerates, who use this 'confusion' to establish and affirm their modern mythologies.

On another matter, in line with the thread's OP...
Star Trek Discovery season 2 is about to start.
A study in Modern Nihilistic propaganda, for anyone interested in what principles and in what way they are manufactured and spread among the young and the feeble.
This is social engineering, at its finest.
They want to change the world, but they cannot, so they settle for changing humans and warping their understanding and their relationship with the world.

A warrior must know his enemy intimately.
A hunter must see, feel, think, as his prey does.

The difficult part, for some, is how to prevent empathy from crossing over to emotional antipathy and sympathy.

polishyouth wrote:

the state dominates her and yourself and neither of you can dominate eachother

Yes the state (enforced by a collective of men) is ultimately most dominant. But even now in modernity the average man is still able to dominate the average woman and do what he wants with her - until police arrives and dominates him.

polishyouth wrote:

. Also, you overestimate how many males are masculine and to what extent, outside the insecure, berserk(also Satyrs idea) teenegers and other dickheads overcompenseting men are not that agressive and dominant.

I don't have a high estimation of modern men's masculinity, quite the opposite in fact.

Since we're in a movies thread, just watch an old school cowboy movie with John Wayne and such. That era was already degenerate, yet the difference between men (and women) then and now is very clear.

I don't know why some people here are taking the current average white male as some ideal to then compare things to and determine what is "too aggressive" and "hypermasculine". Seems to play right into the hands of our enemies, who are constantly dragging down the average.

polishyouth wrote:

if anything this sort of raw, vulgar and un-feminine type of agression and style of dominance is what I have mostly seen from females in positions of power whilst men tended to be more feminine and subtle. This is my own opinion based on my own life, dont take it as some scientifically backed opinion.

What? This sounds like a troll...

Anyways.

What I advocate simply logically follows from the cost-benefit analysis of what makes a society powerful. When I say "dominance" or "aggression" I don't mean being mean for the sake of being mean or constantly starting fights for no reason or such nonsense, thinking that that is what I mean is the result of feminist indoctrination that all masculine forms of dominance are necessarily abusive, primitive or whatever. The old oppression story about how male dominance is inherently evil and aggression is never justified. That's just a lie they used to strip men of authority and delegitimize masculine behaviors, it has no basis in reality.

If you rationally think about all this for a second, you'll realize I'm right.

The casting seems alright, might be a fun light hearted film to check out, by Terry Gilliam, 30 years in the making

Looks good from the trailer.

Lucy: A brainwashing piece sent to you by Hollywood. Lucy an obvious metaphor for Lucy4.


This was a rigged movie, as part of a brainwashing piece. The Trump election was also rigged.

It accomplishes 5 things:
1. Brainwashes females with nihilism that they are all powerful, moreso than even gods.
2. Put Trump into power, to utterly squash their moral values and beliefs.
3. Cause a schizophrenia, females believing they are all powerful, yet have no power. Resulting in rage and toxic hysteria, such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3VhoKCIkM

4. Causing further division and strife, furthering the collapse and splintering of the west.
5. This causes a ripple effect where people who believe in supernatural/magic/conspiracies are shamed, since females lost hope of being all powerful with magic/supernatural and are now bitter about it, ridiculing the more sensible magic due to failing at absurd hollywood nonsense.


The Jews, seemingly, have no motive, for destroying the West. If the West is fallen then they will have no benefits and it will fall to China.

The only rational explanation is that Jews are not Jews, but space-aliens, furthermore Jews are not Hebrews, Jews are but 1 of the 12 Hebrew Israelite Tribes of Jakob, the Judah.

This is further explained with Alex Jones, a controlled opposition, to ensure that anyone who believes in space-aliens is assumed to be illogical and "crazy", such as Alex Jones.

Space alien motive would be same old same old, extinct human race in order to take over the planet. Honestly I can't blame them, the vast majority of humans are bad people imo. If I was space aliens, I wouldn't feel that sorry for humans tbh. I do think though that there are good people here and there.

I recommend the Riddick franchise, relatively low poz and finally a main character I could identify with. Very primal themes too

What are the odds that this new movies will be LGBTSJEWFUed up?
(((Lilly and Lana Wachowski))) are separated.
Too much reality must have triggered those latent sexually neurotic genes.
Perhaps a transsexual Reboot of The Matrix.
Who is in the real matrix, i.e. the inter-subjective noetic meta-universe?
The theatre, the movie, or the audience watching?

Is not the corruption of the very idea of a reality what this film does?