|
December 11th, 2008 | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
|
Quote:
There was this guy named Symmachus - he was a pagan Roman Senator at the very, very end of the Roman Empire. He is the guy who fought, eloquently if pretentiously, for the remnants of Roman tradition against the new, populist, democratic, we-are-all-equal christianity, which was as political and as hypocritical then (entrenched in power and wallowing in luxury while preaching bull shit to the morons who eagerly sopped it up) as it was throughout its history (when it had real power). Rome - the greatest empire in the history of the world, which had brought the longest period of peace in the history of the world (the record stands to this day - 133 years), was presided over by the Statue of Victory in the Senate House. Anyway, though it was obvious that the way the old Rome worked.... worked, and the way the new Rome worked...didn't, the asshole Emperor, under the control of the new jewy religion, took the statue away and destroyed it. It sucks to believe in the old ways and be stuck at the end of things. Very sad, very hopeless. Charlie Varrick and the Eastwood Dirty Harry movies were made by Don Siegel. He was pretty talented as an action director (a jew). Showgirls - well, I had seen a couple of Verhoeven's Dutch films way, way back. I had never heard of him and was seeing a lot of really bad pretentious European Art movies at the time and his films really stood out. They moved like lightning (all his films do), were very funny in wonderfully weird but appropriate ways and were jaw droppingly raunchy (Spetters has to be seen to be believed - a guy and a girl have a casual conversation while lying down naked, and as they talk she idly stokes his dick - and yet, it isn't porn at all, not remotely. That's just one example of how unusual he is). Then he came to Amerika and I skipped RoboCop because the spin was it was super gory and full of 'gratuitous' violence. I went to Total Recall and didn't like it much (and still mostly don't) and stopped thinking about Verhoeven. Then, when Showgirls came out, I got interested again, but only because of the reviews. It's like the politicians are going to now fix the catastrophe which is swallowing what's left of this place. Yeah, the criminals are going to defeat crime. Well, the critics, the agents, the writers, etc. are all part of the Amerikan Entertainment Industry. The critics literally flipped out in those reviews because, somehow (three gigantic commercial hits in a row) this objective guy with laser vision had decided to commit suicide (Verhoeven always sought self immolation whether he knew it or not) by telling the unvarnished, non-spin truth. Not having seen the movie, I really wondered at the near psychotic reviews. They weren't writing about a movie (by the standards of the normal movie review/pan), they were writing about the devil himself. I was told that Elizabeth Berkeley fled into the darkness, weeping, after reading the reviews (they are really mean spirited and draw blood personal - she is an evil person for doing the movie). When Verhoeven was voted that worst movie award, he showed up to the ceremony and made a typically loopy Paul Verhoeven speech, which left the twittering Hollywood smart asses in the audience very confused. His acceptance speech was along the lines that he was very happy to be given the award, because being accused of being a smut peddler, a schlock artist and a slime ball, proved that now he was accepted as a real american! Their initial smirks and titters turned to frozen horror (it has been reported to me). Being in this racket, the intensity of the hatred the movie engendered made me want to see it. Shit, Hollywood churns out 'message' movies like sausages coming off the end of a line and good or bad, these social studies audio visual aids for 3rd grade retards hardly ever even rate a yawn. Here was a movie that has the critics literally in convulsions. Shit, isn't it 'just a movie' like all the others? So, I saw it and loved it and love it. It's insanely excessive for sure (which I don’t mind at all) and really, really beautiful to look at. When I go to a movie, the lights go down and pictures appear in front of me. It seems logical to consider the imagery as important. Verhoeven's pictures are very easy on the eyes. They are way more that nice to look at though - the information about the characters is in how we see them, how they are staged relative to each other and how the camera is staged/moves relative to the characters...his is the most sophisticated film making in the world (and extremely hard to do). It's not that Showgirls or any of the other Verhoeven movies take our side (racially) and attack either niggers or jews. He isn't into that and Verhoeven doesn't seem to have any racial consciousness at all. He looks at the world, and sees what I see, but has the ability to put it up there for all to see. He doesn't go the final distance and say - 'and, the reason things are the way they are is because the jews pull the strings'. But he does show things as they are and the slant he brings to this.... realistic depiction of how the modern world works is to condemn that world. Showgirls calls the 'entertainment industry' by its right name (whores and pimps) and that clearly includes groups like the critics, the media in general, the managers, etc. The critics didn't like being called what they are and either did Hollywood. Thus, despite his really good commercial track record, he basically killed himself when he made Showgirls. It's one thing when an incompetent calls you names, that's easy to laugh off. When someone with this much talent does, it's kind of unanswerable and thus best to get rid of him before he can do any more damage. Since things are in the pipeline for a long time on this level of filmmaking, Verhoeven was already into Starship Troopers when Showgirls came out. So, he got to do it exactly his way. That way (the movie read as a documentary about the moron millions here in amerika, so easy to manipulate, so willing to be turned into chop meat, so lacking in any kind of cultural identity at all, etc.) just confirmed what the system had learned from Showgirls. Starship Troopers was knocked almost as hard as Showgirls - for being 'fascist' for lacking 'heart' (that's the intention - it's objective, not manipulative, and it’s mostly condescending ironic in lots of ways) and for being a dumb movie about dumb kids fighting dumb bugs (it is, and it isn't). Characters in Verhoeven's movies usually lack any kind of overt self-awareness, are usually projecting a fake, artificial reality (are acting instead of living) and are usually not brilliant rocket scientists. He stays as far away as he can from the Hollywood stereotypes of noble characters out to make the world a better place and all that baloney. Nomi (Berkeley) wants to be a high-grade stripper ('dancer’, as she calls it) because...being rich and famous is what life is about, right? Like most of us here in this nightmare world, she never (well, she sort of finally does) defines what 'rich and famous' means or considers whether or not there might be a price tag, let alone whether those things are worth anything in the first place. Not that Showgirls or ST are perfect. Formally they more or less are. The are wildly excessive, vulgar and constantly in your face. But, he's as much a product of this dismal world as everybody else. He isn't going to be John Ford (who celebrates tradition and white community), let alone Howard Hawks (the last major Hollywood director to make movies about normal males in a male run world, shown as a good world, who think and act logically, bond with each other to combat a common threat and are completely non neurotic) because this kind of a world makes those kinds of artists impossible. He's genuinely loud and obnoxious (Verhoeven) - which initially masks the intellectual sophistication of his films (though I think you have to be blind to not see how beautiful they are). It even took Hollywood a while to figure out that this guy is dangerous to their status quo and then get rid of him. It's harder for the average moviegoer because that average moviegoer doesn’t usually see the subtlety underneath the vulgarity let alone understand that the world his films document explain that vulgarity (along with his own nature). Wow, I blab a lot. I could be working, but this is way more fun. |
|
December 17th, 2008 | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
|
Linder - Remember your thread on the best way to kill Christianity?, or something like that? Well, Gott answered it.
If you can handle Matthau, you might check out "The Taking of Pelham, One, Two, Three". Early to mid 70s, I think. I always liked Robert Shaw. Movies, as a whole, seem to interest me less and less as time goes on, with exceptions for memory's sake. Gott, do you mind if I ask how old you are? |
December 17th, 2008 | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,705
|
Charlie Varrick - I remember seeing that movie and feeling a lot of jewiness coming through - perhaps jews trying to portray goys as they see them, but then overdoing it. Even so, it was a decently entertaining movie.
|
December 17th, 2008 | #25 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
|
Quote:
After he does it he utters some famous words: "I allow very few men to speak to me in that tone. Few caucasians. And no nigras at all." Last edited by Steve B; December 17th, 2008 at 11:39 PM. |
|
December 29th, 2008 | #27 | ||||
The paranormal silent type
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where you least expect
Posts: 8,265
|
Die Finanzen des Großherzogs
http://www.arte.tv/de/film/stummfilm...s/2361704.html
I was watching this silent film and stumbled on what I would have expected to get filmed at least 8 years after. Quote:
Here's a cast listing: http://www.filmportal.de/df/cb/Ueber...,,,,,,,,,.html Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Abel Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Kind Lampshade Maker; December 29th, 2008 at 07:34 PM. |
||||
December 29th, 2008 | #28 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mazonnawar Citadel
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
Apparantly Showgirls is the kind of movie that you love to hate. I've never seen it, but my older brother and I have very similar tastes in movies and he says it probably is one of the worst movies ever. He did get the showgirls box set on sale for the shot glass, nipple coverings, and the showgirls drinking game that comes with it. It's the kind of thing you do at a bachelor party purely to get pissed drunk, as the game involves massive amounts of drinking. Then the movie might be good. So I wouldn't chalk this up to a jewish hollywood conspiricy, I think it just is a bad movie. However, I do enjoy bad movies sometimes, only they have to suck to the point where it's entertainment. My brother hasn't given it that green light for me, so I don't think I'll go out of my way to see it, I'd play the game though and watch it. Starship Troopers I remember being entertaining, but if you want some really all around awesome movies, give Anime a try. Perfect blue, Ghost in the shell, Akira, Patlabor I and II, Neon Genesis are all amazing. Films that have blown my mind. And don't forget, It's the wrath of Khan!! |
|
December 30th, 2008 | #29 |
The paranormal silent type
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where you least expect
Posts: 8,265
|
I know what you mean, Uncle Dolphy. Sometimes they show certain moves that are so absurd that they're actually funny and you don't know if the humor is intentional or not. Kinda' like some people who are so dense that you think they are actually smart, but hiding it, because nobody can be that unintentionally stupid
__________________
|
January 8th, 2009 | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
We Own The Night (2007)
We Own The Night (2007). Stars Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, Robert Duvall. Crime drama about the "Russian" (read: Jewish) mafia. There's a scene where one of the main bad guys is explicitly identified as a Jew (he's wearing a Star of David pendant). It's also about a rootless, cosmopolitan white guy (who uses the last name Green and never talks about his family so that he can hang out with the Jewish in-crowd) who gives up his selfish, hedonistic lifestyle (including a Puerto Rican girlfriend) in order to serve his community and honor his family. There are many subtle and not-so-subtle racial and ethnic messages and jabs throughout. The moral of the movie seems to be that even though Jews may look like us and pretend to be our friends, they are a seperate, predatory group who undermine and exploit our communities and are not to be trusted.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
January 8th, 2009 | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Comments about Idiocracy
Quote:
Still, it's not every day that a mainstream movie comes out which advocates eugenics, no matter how softly, and a comedy no less, so it deserves a place on this list. Idiocracy wasn't remarkable, but I didn't find it painful to sit through either, and there were some things in it that made me laugh. It was better than an Adam Sandler movie.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
January 8th, 2009 | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Equilibrium (2002)
Equilibrium (2002). Starring Christian Bale. Pretty much a Matrix knockoff, but interesting in that the totalitarian reality controllers in this one are trying to destroy Western culture (or what's left of it) in order to eliminate "hate" and establish "peace on earth." Prohibited items in this dystopian future include the Mona Lisa, a Beethoven record, and a book of the poetry of W.B. Yeats. Everyone is forced to take a drug called Prozium (a reference to Prozak?). There's even an uppity nigger as the main bad guy; a definite no-no in Hollywood movies these days. No wonder this movie got buried. Read Celtic Patriot's review here.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
January 8th, 2009 | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Das Boot (1981)
Das Boot (1981). One of the rare war movies showing WWII from the German side, without the usual Allied/Jewish propaganda/stereotypes (which only seem to be getting harsher and more ridiculous as time goes on). Set on-board a U-boat. Besides being politically incorrect, it's an amazing film in its own right, notable for the tense, dark, foreboding, claustrophobic atmosphere. I'm not one to get emotional over movies, but the ending always brings tears to my eyes. Hollywood has produced some knockoffs over the last decade (U-571, K-19, Below), but none have come even close to touching Das Boot.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
January 13th, 2009 | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Archangel (2005)
Archangel (2005). Starring Daniel Craig. Finally, a movie that demonizes Joseph Stalin instead of Hitler! It's a political thriller set in modern Russia. Made for TV. A bit slow in parts, but it picks up near the end and has some good, unexpected plot turns throughout. As icing on the cake, it has some of the most beautiful women I've seen on celluloid in recent memory (excluding the hideous negress at the beginning).
According to IMDB, Mel Gibson's Icon Productions originally owned the film rights to the novel the movie is based on. Guess that project never materialized. Too bad. It would've been great if Gibson could have brought the message of Archangel to the masses. http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspi...icle28713.html Quote:
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
|
January 13th, 2009 | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
|
Verhoeven and rape
What is it with Verhoeven and rape? Rape is a recurring thing in his movies:
1) In Spetters (if my memory serves me right -- it's been over 12 years since I saw that movie), a male character is gang raped by fags. 2) In Flesh+Blood, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character is gang raped. 3) There was a rape scene in Showgirls. Moreover, in two of these movies, the characters enjoy being raped. In Spetters, the guy enjoys being raped so much that he becomes a homosexual (prior to which he was a vicious "homophobe"). I can't say I found this especially clever or un-PC on Verhoeven's part; he's just repeating the homosexual lobby's line that whoever dislikes homos must be one himself. In Flesh+Blood, Jennifer Jason Leigh's character enjoys, or at least pretends to enjoy, being raped by Rutger Hauer's character. "Go on my brave soldier, my brave soldier..." Then there's the scene in Showgirls. When Siskel & Ebert were panning Showgirls, I remember them being particularly offended by the rape scene. Everyone I went to the theater to see the movie with were offended by it too. Me, I found it funny. Not because there's anything I find amusing about rape in itself, but because of the way the scene was set up: this poor idiotic negress expected a Harlequin romance from this Fabio/Engelbert Humperdinck-type character, but instead ends up being sadistically beaten and sodomized. Such romance! Verhoeven is making fun of Hollywood cliches, and the scene also reinforces one of the central themes of the movie: that everything in show biz is an illusion, and that beneath the illusion, everything is ugly. It's too bad most people couldn't get past the brutality of the rape scene or the T&A aspect of Showgirls, because it really was a good movie whose story has a lot in common with great (timeless) literature. It deserved better than to be written off as a sexploitation movie (though the marketing didn't help in this respect). Been trying to find a copy of Showgirls (with or without the shot glass and nipple tassels) to rent since I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, but no one seems to have it. Might have to download it if/when I go back on high-speed. I also looked for Robocop the last time I was in my favorite video store and they didn't have it, but they did have Starship Troopers. I saw Starship Troopers on TV several years ago and don't remember being all that impressed (it was entertaining, but not much else), but perhaps I'll see something in it this time that I didn't see before. I remember a friend of mine having gone to the theater to see it because it was "controversial," but that friend couldn't clearly explain to me what it was that was so "controversial" about it.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history. http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/ |
January 13th, 2009 | #36 | |
The paranormal silent type
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Where you least expect
Posts: 8,265
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
January 13th, 2009 | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
|
I am pretty sure that Taxi Driver was a major inspiration for Dr. Pierce's novel Hunter. The film has several very stereotypical Jews, Easy Andy the stolen-gun salesman, and the three Jews that Travis Bickle kills at the end of the movie when rescuing the girl prostitute, Iris. The film was favorably reviewed in Dr. Pierce's tabloid.
Bickle's motive though isn't really idealistic. He seems to be just trying to find an interesting way to destroy himself. He would have shot Iris and himself at the end if he hadn't run out of ammunition. Other people think that he is a hero at the end only because of this failure. Perplexing story. I have always been puzzled as to what Bickle's attitude was supposed to be when he was listening to Scorsese in his cameo role obsessing about killing his wife because she is screwing a nigger. Bickle seems blank the whole time. Maybe Scorsese's rant is the reason why Bickle tried to shoot Iris at the end. Probably if I got a copy of the novel on which the movie was based, it would clarify some things.
__________________
Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White. www.national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com www.noncounterproductive.blogspot.com www.williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com Last edited by Hadding; January 13th, 2009 at 04:06 PM. |
January 13th, 2009 | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
|
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a very misogynistic story. This is a lot more obvious if you know something about Ken Kesey's novel. The men in that mental hospital are all screwed up because women have taken their balls away, more or less. Jack Nicholson's character, the criminal McMurphy, appears as a kind of messiah who helps the men overcome their subjugation to the oppressive mother figure, Nurse Ratched. He gets the men involved in some typical male activities (watching sports on TV, fishing) and brings prostitutes into the hospital so that they can overcome their sexual inhibitions. This is all accomplished in spite of the mother figure's opposition. Nurse Ratched in the novel is supposed to have enormous breasts, and McMurphy at the end of the novel doesn't strangle her but tears her blouse open, exposing her gigantic breasts. At that point the men see her as a sex object rather than a stern mother and cease to be intimidated.
There is a kind of racial angle to the novel also, insofar as the Chief is the product of a marriage between a White woman and an Indian. The Chief's psychological problems are rooted in this. The Chief's father felt inferior and was under his mother's thumb, resulting in the Chief having the problem of all the men in the ward, not knowing how to live like a man. The anti-feminist significance of the novel was much less clear in the movie, directed by Jew Miloš Forman. The screenwriters' names are Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman. No wonder that Kesey's story, like the men portrayed in it, had its balls removed before it reached the screen. Now that I've told you, next time you see the movie you can fill in what the Jews cut out.
__________________
Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White. www.national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com www.noncounterproductive.blogspot.com www.williamlutherpierce.blogspot.com Last edited by Hadding; January 13th, 2009 at 05:34 AM. |
January 13th, 2009 | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
|
Quote:
I think he is of the opinion that, as an artist' 'nothing human is foreign to him' - his interest in people and what makes us - all of us - tick. It's certainly easy to find him very irritating (which is what he wants) but the meaning in your post is totally off base and can't be remotely supported. When he was making Spetters (the gay rape Igor mentioned), Verhoeven had to go to one of his production assistants, who is gay, to get the scoop on the logistics of gay sex. The PA guy found Verhoeven's lack of knowledge and entire attitude 'bourgeoisie' and hopelessly clueless. |
|
January 13th, 2009 | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
|
[quote=Igor Alexander;916643]What is it with Verhoeven and rape? Rape is a recurring thing in his movies:
You left out a bunch of rapes! Too much to think about in your post to answer now and this is that same shitty laptop with the tiny keys so I keep fucking up. I'll reply when I can think of something worth saying.... One thing though, PV is a very raunchy guy. He wants to piss off the viewer and that's one way to do so - that those two PC scumbags were offended by the rape (the worst, most awful one in his movies) is right on target. 88 |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|