The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTrevor Lynch Archive
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Some of my best reviews are about Quentin Tarantino, but this won’t be one of them. Tarantino has gone from a director I loved (see my essay on Pulp Fiction), to a director I loved to hate (see my reviews of Kill Bill I and Inglourious Basterds), to a director I just hated (Django Unchained), to a director I just ignored.

Tarantino’s only great movie is Pulp Fiction, and at this point it is safe to declare that one a fluke. The rest of his works range from the distasteful (Reservoir Dogs), to amiable piffle (Jackie Brown), to nihilistic deconstruction (the Kill Bill movies), to genocidal—although self-deconstructing—anti-white Jewish wet dreams (Basterds), to genocidal anti-white black wet dreams (Django), to a movie I never bothered to see (The Hateful Eight).

And that brings us to Tarantino’s ninth feature film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I planned to skip this one too, but the reviews, both positive and negative, intrigued me, and quite to my surprise, I really liked this film.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not touch on deep moral themes like Pulp Fiction, but it is better than the rest of Tarantino’s films. It is not distasteful in the ways we have come to expect from him. It is not especially violent, gross, obscene, or anti-white. Basically, it is another Jackie Brown—well-crafted, likeable, and not particularly offensive. I am inclined to be grudging with superlatives in Tarantino’s case, but Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is definitely his funniest film, and although he might cringe to hear it, it is also his most morally wholesome and satisfying story.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is set in Hollywood in 1969. It tells the story of two buddies, Rick Dalton (Leonardo Di Caprio), who stars in TV cowboy dramas, and his stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Rick’s attempt to transition from TV into movies has failed, his series Bounty Law has been canceled, and he is now playing guest heavies in TV series, drinking a lot, and dreaming of restarting his career. Rick has lost his driver’s license due to DUIs, so Cliff is now his driver and sidekick.

The main Dalton-Booth plotline, which meanders along at a rather leisurely pace, is intercut with two subplots, one about Cliff Booth meeting a member of the Manson “family” and visiting the Spahn Ranch, where they are squatting, to check in on its owner, George Spahn, whom Booth had met some years before filming at his property. The other subplot is about Dalton’s new neighbor, Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), following her through her life in Hollywood.

Dalton, with the help of his loyal friend Booth, manages to pull out of his career slump by hard work, getting a grip on his drinking, and just general decency. He ends up in Italy, starring in three Westerns and a Eurospy romp, returning married to an Italian starlet, with fifteen pounds of pasta added to his frame.

He arrives home just in time to team up with Cliff and bring about a fairy-tale happy ending to one of Hollywood’s most gruesome true stories, which makes sense of the Once Upon a Time . . . title, which I thought was an allusion to Sergio Leone, but that was just a clever diversion.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a geeky, ultra-detailed nostalgia fest, filled with vintage cars and clothes, period songs and advertisements, and a fat volume’s worth of TV, movie, and pop-culture trivia. The movie brims with actual historical characters, all of them well-cast and well-realized. The fictional characters are rich pastiches of still other historical characters. The clips and posters for fictional movies and TV shows are brilliantly realistic and often hilarious parodies. It’s all very self-indulgent, but one has to admire Tarantino’s immense energy, attention to detail, and devotion to historical authenticity.

But this poses a problem for today’s SJW critics. Windbag Richard Brody at The New Yorker condemns the film as “obscenely regressive” and “ridiculously white.” (I find The New Yorker obscenely progressive and ridiculously Jewish, but that’s a topic for another day.) Brody is silent about the fact that some of these obscenely white characters and actors are Jewish, although in other contexts, of course, Jews are “diverse.”

Once Upon a Time is Hollywood, of course, is all about historical exactness and verisimilitude. Hollywood in 1969 was an overwhelmingly white and Jewish town. It was swarming with liberals, hippies, and downright communists, but by today’s PC-standards, such people seem like ultra-reactionaries.

But being true to the times is no defense in an industry that now peoples medieval and Elizabethan England with Negroes. It would have been a complete violation of Tarantino’s commitment to historical accuracy to black up the cast, but artistic integrity means nothing compared to the imperative of The Great Replacement. I am sure Richard Brody would have no problem with Samuel L. Jackson playing Roman Polansky. Lord knows I wouldn’t.

Tarantino has always made prigs squirm by putting racial epithets on the screen. Here, Rick Dalton sneers about “beaners” and Cliff Booth admonishes Dalton not to cry in front of Mexicans. They also refer constantly to dirty “hippies.” In one of the funniest scenes in the film, Bruce Lee pretentiously holds forth on the set of The Green Hornet until Booth has enough, calls his bullshit, and then humiliates him in a fight.

Feminists actually pushed up their problem glasses, scrunched up their faces, and counted the lines spoken by women. They are not amused.

Dalton and Booth, moreover, are two-fisted “paleomasculine” heroes, brimming with strength, mastery, honor, and camaraderie. And at the end, the excessive TV and movie violence that moralists love to condemn is shown to cathartic, redemptive, and downright hilarious.

Tarantino hasn’t become a reactionary, of course. He’s still a self-hating white shitlib. But he’s also an artist with his own stubbornly-held vision, and he and the leading edge of the Left Zeitgeist have parted ways.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is full of Tarantino trademarks: a complex narrative structure, quirky characters and dialogue, a leisurely pace, banal foot fetishism, and a love of putting complex and intelligent dialogue in the mouths of Negroes. Although there are no Negroes in this film, so Tarantino accomplishes the same comic effect with an eight-year-old white girl. The performances by DiCaprio and Pitt are by turns affable and riveting. The scenes at the Spahn Ranch are utterly suspenseful and creepy, the closest Tarantino has come to creating a zombie flick.

I highly recommend this film, simply as well-crafted grown-up entertainment that does not go out of its way to insult the intelligence, race, or moral sensibilities of its overwhelmingly white audience.

 
• Category: Arts/Letters • Tags: Movies 
Hide 259 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. fenestol says:

    The following review applies to every one of this dog’s movies: Tarantino lifts his hind leg and sprays on the audience.

    • Agree: Moi
    • Replies: @Revelation
  2. Only a complete retard would say there are “great moral themes” in a piece of stupid, utterly manipulative and pandering, fratboy crap like Pulp Fiction. Must be a fratboy.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @John Yuma
    , @Anon
  3. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website

    I have the same opinion of Tarantino that Trevor Lynch expresses here, and I feel the same way about Hollywood. I was reluctant to go see Once Upon a Time…, but after reading what Steve Sailer and some commenters on his blog had to say about it, I decided to go see for myself. Steve is right, his commenters are right, and Lynch is right. Go see for yourself.

    There is a lot more depth, too, in the movie than this review covers. Cliff Booth, for example is a wonderful character who embodies the side of American Man that we have left behind. Pussycat and Sharon are two sides of Woman, one innocent and one climbing the Hollywood hills. Tarantino turns them upside down, so that innocence, her feet clean and virginal, has fallen to a place where we do not expect to find her.

    And so on…

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Maria Elisa
    , @Thirdeye
  4. Kirt says:

    I’m not an overall fan of Tarantino and have passed on most of his flicks. But I really enjoyed this one. I lived in LA during the time of the Tate killings and Tarantino gets the vibe (and apparently the characters) just right while re-writing history to a much happier ending. Big thumbs up for this one.

  5. Leni says:

    The comments on Blacc people in LA at that time are quite telling. I recall visiting a relative in Alabama during the Sibbil rahts era. I was surprised as Hell when we flew into Birmingham to put it mildly. A relative had married a Navy man from there, White of course, and thought of his entire clan of being KuKluxers. My parents and I were picked up at the airport by a BLACK MAN. In fact, he was a friend of the supposed klan members, who were anything but the stereotypes. People just worked, did their business and socialized with whoever they pleased, which tended to be those they worked with. Surprise, surprise. Hell, I never saw black people in California till high school. I still remember being called n***ger by my classmates in elementary school because I have an olive complexion. Thought it was hilarious then, and still laugh at the memory. The point is that the supposedly bad South was more integrated by a long shot than Southern California. The suburban movement exacerbated the situation even more. But Hollywood’s bullshit would have us believe that Alabama was some kind of Israeli apartheid state. Again, horse sh*t. Same thing for New Jersey. Went there for TDY. Great place. Hollywood likes to call it a dump. Probably is in Newark , but the reality is it’s a beautiful place, ponds, wildlife and family farms. While Hollywood is a dump and has been a sh*thole since the 50s. Even worse now.

    Moral of the story is Hollywood and its owners lie and have been lying to the rubes since time immemorial.

    • Replies: @Emslander
    , @Patriot
  6. syonredux says:

    My thoughts:

    Overall:Pretty good QT. At the very least, it’s superior to his last two outings (Django and Hateful Eight)…..

    Best Scene: Probably either the visit to the Spahn Ranch (nicely sinister) or the beautifully quotidian scene where Pitt’s Cliff Booth prepares food for his dog.

    Ode to Driving in ’60s LA: Lost count of how many times we watched characters blissfully drive around SoCal while listening to the radio…but all those scenes were very enjoyable…

    Cowboy America vs the New Order: Lots of implicit/explicit comparisons between the Damn Dirty Hippies and the iconography of the Old West: Hippies walking past a mural of James Dean in Giant, Dicaprio’s Dalton balking at the idea that his character on the Lancer Tv Western is going to look like a Hippie/Hell’s Angel (“1869 meets 1969!”), the Spahn Ranch itself (where lots of Westerns were shot) being taken over by the Manson Family, etc

    Most Politically Incorrect Moment: Pitt’s Cliff Booth getting the best of Bruce Lee in a sparring match (no hitting the face) on the set of the Green Hornet.

    Where’s Samuel L Jackson?: There are no Black people in the movie….At least none that I saw….and this is coming from a director who managed to have Black characters in the Occupied France of Inglourious Basterds…

    QT’s Cleanest, Least Violent Movie?: For a QT movie, the dialogue is pretty clean. And the brutal violence is limited to the very end, where Cliff Booth and his faithful pooch curb-stomp the Manson Family….

    Stand-out Performance: Everyone’s good, but Pitt does an excellent job capturing the Zen-like calm of a WW2 vet who’s been through hell on earth.

    Young Women are scary: Interesting how QT frames the Manson women as the real threat:they out-number the men, sing creepy songs, assemble in sinister throngs, spout dogma (E.g., the scene in the car where the pale Manson girl goes off on a tirade about the moral rightness of killing the star of a ’50s Western TV series)….Perhaps a past-as-present commentary on how women act as the Mao-esque enforcers of WOKE-America?

  7. Toy says:

    DiCaprio can never act right. He alwats projects this strained intensity that never matches his roles. As if you couldn’t already tell by the grand canton between his eyes. He ruins every movie he has ever been in.

  8. Dumbo says:

    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not touch on deep moral themes like Pulp Fiction

    I stopped reading here. Which “deep moral themes” are investigated in Pulp Fiction? Is it in the “bring out the gimp” scene? From what I remember it’s basically what the title says. Tarantino was always mostly about making people laugh about violence and other over the top stuff, and dialogs about Madonna or fries with mayonnaise. He may have some talent, but Kurosawa he ain’t.

  9. What isn’t brought up here is truth. Suffice it to say Sharon Tate makes out better in the film than she does in ’69 (alas). If you are ok with that –I’m not– than this picture can really work for you.

    If on the other hand you like the actors involved and just want to see them do their work in a 60’s LA backdrop. Go for it: it’s pretty entertaining in a Tarantino type way. Just kind of stupid too.

    As for Sharon Tate she appears to be a doll and what Polanski did to deserve her , IDK?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  10. theMann says:

    Jesus, Mary , and Joseph, what would it take to get everyone at Unz Review to FUCK OFF about this film already.

    BTW, agree with commenters numbers one and two 100%.

    • LOL: Z-man
    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  11. JimDandy says:

    Whew, I wasn’t sure where you were going with this and I was about to get really pissed off, because I loved this movie. I agree with everything you said about Tarantino’s movies, aside from Reservoir Dogs, which, in my opinion, was a total gamechanger knockout when it came about. Ironically, people who see it today for the first time might find it rather run-of-the-mill, precisely because they have seen SO many films that were profoundly influenced by it or, indirectly, by other films that were influenced by it.

    The opening line of Steve Sailer’s review of Hollywood was perfect and honest advertising for the film: “The stifling conformity of the Great Awokening has now driven even Quentin Tarantino to the subversive right.”

    It’s interesting that when creating Brad Pitt’s character Tarantino clearly based him in part on Donald “Shorty” Shea, a stuntman who lived at the Spahn ranch. Shea hated Manson, in part because the Manson clan hated blacks and Shorty’s ex-wife was black. Shea ended up kicking the shit out of Manson after Manson beat up a female native American friend of his. Sadly, Manson and Co. ended up later murdering Shorty in revenge.

  12. No blacks in this movie? Hallelujah!!!

  13. @theMann

    On the strength of SS’ review, I went to go and see it and it was just tedious. At least IB was covertly anti-semitic.

  14. iffen says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The hippies are a return to primitivism. A theme that has been around since the Roman sages were decrying Roman decadence and praising German barbarians. In a magnificent horse riding scene that the Lone Ranger and Silver could only dream of, Tex rides to the rescue. The primitive hero fails while modernity and Cliff drive off victoriously into the sunset on Happy Trails.

    I like your take on innocence and virginal. But he mixes everything together here. The decadent and promiscuous hippie chick has the virginal clean feet while the air-brushed Playboy party girl has dirty feet. The virgin should have clean feet while the slut should have dirty feet. Does he not allow for pure virginity and innocence in a woman?

  15. Blankaerd says:

    What great movies have come out in recent years?

    I stopped bothering with movies and series altogether as they’re all too diverse and typically extremely shallow in their storytelling. If I do watch a movie it’s going to be an older one. (pre-nineties as that was a big turning point when PC and diversity quotas were greatly increased) I feel like Hollywood has lost its creative spirit and is now only churning out movies that will guarantee success; endless remakes of already great movies (sometimes ending up making it worse) and franchises like Star Wars that are now completely ruined (even if it was never great to begin with)

    My question was not a rhetorical one by the way.

  16. Sounds like a movie I would enjoy, unlike anything else that has flowed out of the Hollyweird sewer pipe in the last few years.

  17. For the moment suffice it to say,

    I came out of this movie having a had profoundly enjoyable experience. Even the counter factual was well done as it served for the purpose of the overall sense of innocence lost of what might have been – by embracing a naivete’ harmlessness of Hollywood’s acting community (Whatever innocence Hollywood has or had real or imagined).

    Mr. Tarantino remains a great story teller and the cast chosen to tell this story did a wonderful job. I even managed a smile and a chuckle from the increasingly annoying use of precocious little kids in film.

    There’s a lot going on on this film, the arguments, suggestions, meanings about a variety of subjects, not the least of which is the isolation of Hollywood from everything and everyone else around it and the desirability to keep it that way. The relationship between the Mr. Pitt and Mr. DiCaprio in the film does a wonderful job of how the outsiders protect that insider world and even serve as its salvation, feeding its ego, protecting its ego, encouraging its ego, sacrificing self to ensure that its ego survives.

    Smile. There’s a lot going in this film.

    There’a a lot going on.

  18. @Blankaerd

    What great movies have come out in recent years? … My question was not a rhetorical one by the way.

    I only see movies when they’re free on TV, so I sort of have a five-year lag, but:

    2013 – Gravity. Remarkable effects, Bullock and Clooney are both perfect.
    2012 – Life of Pi. Metaphorical poetry.
    2009 – District 9. Not the movie I was expecting, deeper than typical scifi.
    2008 – Benjamin Button. Pitt is a melancholy hero, and finally something by Taraji P. Henson I can get behind. This is one of my favorites.
    2004 – Finding Neverland, but just the last third.
    2002 – Chicago. Director Rob Marshall hit every scene perfectly, from a well-paced script that modified the play just right.
    2001 – Moulin Rouge. Wherein I realized director Baz Luhrmann is either psychotic or a genius.
    2000 – Gladiator. Old-time Hollywood epic at its finest. Same movie as Braveheart.

    My recent “guilty pleasures” include We’re the Millers, Secret Life of Pets (great Alexandre Desplat score), Spy, Deadpool, Galaxy Quest, The Green Mile and others I can’t recall right now.

    P.S. Pulp Fiction is shit. As is Birdman, La La Land, and every other Jewish propaganda project.

  19. Gordo says:

    I’ve gone off Tarantino, like in the way when you see through a magician’s trick.

    But this film was entertaining, I would recommend seeing it, however I’m not sure I liked it.

    The Manson plot was bizarre, I mean WTF was that all about.

  20. Anon[424] • Disclaimer says:

    Tarantino`s movies , good movies ???? they are disgusting .

    That was a movie : Il padrino ( 1972 )

  21. GeeBee says:
    @obwandiyag

    You clearly haven’t read the 2011 review of Pulp Fiction which Mr Lynch linked to. I did so, and I have to say it contains within it – and in the form of using the events in the film as exemplars of his theme – one of the most remarkable analyses of the overarching (yet little discussed, much less understood) socio-economic and political battle that defines our times. I refer to the triumph of Modernism (and its late-phase offshoot, so-called Postmodernism) over Traditionalism.

    The latter enshrines spiritual values, and is characterised by the cardinal virtues of duty, truth, goodness, beauty, self-sacrifice and, above all, honour. The former is really nothing more than materialism and the primacy of money. This great and seemingly final victory of Modernism has, as it were, seen the merchant installed on the ruins of throne and altar, and all talk of ‘Left’ vs ‘Right’; Communism vs Capitalism; Liberalism vs Conservatism is little more than a discussion of who gets to ‘own’ the shallow, tawdry and deracinated world of Modernism, in which Homo economicus, the wretched sub-species brought into being to serve his masters’ ends, crawls abjectly in the loathsome shadow of Zio-America and its Globo-homo ‘New World Order’.

    Modernism’s final victory over Traditionalism’s last great bid for freedom occurred on the 8th May 1945 (the blackest day in the history of the White race). Since that day, the original division of men into masters and slaves has been subsumed into a new, Modernist society in which almost everyone has been bribed, brainwashed and bludgeoned into accepting their status as mere slaves. Traditionalism took for granted that our societies would be composed of (and more especially led by) men whose credo was ‘death before dishonour’. In today’s world of shallow materialism, a man’s worth is no longer measured by his devotion to courage, truth, duty and self-sacrifice, but rather by the balance he can boast of at the bank. We have become despicable hedonists, whose pathetic mantra is ‘dishonour before death’.

    • Replies: @Emslander
  22. The way I understand what happened to Sharon Tate (who was my father’s secretary before she moved to California) was that the Manson people break in to Dalton’s actually happened and occurred before Sharon Tate was murdered. Manson’s people were in fact killed in their attempt.

    Manson’s people had mistakenly picked a house, which they believed was the Tate house but were caught out before they could correct their mistake resulting in the carnage we saw in the movie.

    This angered Manson so much that when he had his people return to the Tate house, they made the murders there particularly gruesome.

    I could be wrong about all of this but this is what I understand from my wife who read about these murders…

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  23. @Blankaerd

    You are right about your criticisms about current Hollywood film. Like you, I mostly watch older films or classic cinema.

    However, there have been some gems in all this recent slop. A good number of them can be found in the increasing quality of the independent films.

    A 2018 film I would call one of classic excellence is that of “Novitiate”, which shows a young women’s journey through the nunnery of the 1960s and who ultimately rejects its hypocrisies.

    “Labor Day”, a 2017 movie, with Josh Brolin is quite good for its romantic drama.

    However, you are right. Today the majority of movies are complete rubbish and are mostly created for the moronic audiences that populate theaters today…

  24. Logan says:
    @Blankaerd

    I feel like Hollywood has lost its creative spirit and is now only churning out movies that will guarantee success

    The hilarious part is that these formulaic movies, apparently with the inexplicable exception of the superhero genre, are not all guaranteed of success and indeed often do not succeed. The feminist Ghostbusters for instance.

  25. @Mark James

    SPLIT IMAGE

    In many ways, Charles Manson and Roman Polanski were similar.

    One was an Irish Protestant from the honkytonk streets of Southern Ohio and Kentucky, the other a Polish Jew.

    But they were both of the same silhouette. Marked psychic trauma from horrific childhoods, both physically short with short men’s complexes, both eerily charismatic, both obsessed with young girls, both heavy drug users, both obsessed with Satanism.

  26. @iffen

    iffen

    Sharon Tate was not innocent when she met Roman Polanski. She had nearly married Jay Sebring, a drug-dealing hairstylist with mob connections known as the “candyman”.

    The house was full of drugs-surprisingly, Manson’s followers did not steal them-a half of a kilo in cocaine, 30 grams of hashish, mescaline, MDA (Which Frykowski had subcontracted from a Canadian dealer to introduce to the US market).

    As Roman Polanski pointed out, Sharon had stopped using drugs during her pregnancy. But she had used LSD previously.

    Not that these people deserved to be killed for this. Melcher was the one who continued to screw around with a dangerous lunatic and promise him recording contracts he had no intent on delivering; Wilson stole one of Manson’s songs.

  27. TRM says:

    “to a movie I never bothered to see (The Hateful Eight).” – You missed his best work. I divide his movies into 2 groups. Classic Tarantino (RD, PF, HE) and Weird Tarantino (KB I & II, IB). I find them all to be weirdly entertaining in a mindless way but I’m firmly in the classic camp.

    Hateful Eight was his best work IMHO.

    • Replies: @James M Dakin
    , @DRMANCHILD
  28. @JimDandy

    JIM

    Manson killed Shorty because he believed that he had informed the police of the stolen dune buggies in order to clear Manson off the property so that Spahn could sell it. Whether Shorty Shea actually informed the police or did not is unclear.

    Manson was released by the police after the Spahn ranch raid. Amazing, considering he was a parolee. This leads credence to conspiracy theories.

    Curiously, Manson got his ass kicked both by Shea and Dennis Wilson but continued his association with both of them. Shea trusted him enough to get in a car with him.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  29. Gunga Din says:

    The last film I went to see was the Stars Wars film with Liam Neesom many years ago. It sucked, the sound system was way too loud, and a young couple had brought their screaming, crying infant and would not take him outside. Never again. What little I’ve seen of today’s films, they are too PC and the acting is terrible. Thank God for Turner Classic Movies.

  30. @TRM

    Thank you. If you love QT dialog, Hateful Eight was about his best movie. I can’t believe so few see this.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  31. the closest Tarantino has come to creating a zombie flick.

    I take it you haven’t seen “From Dusk ’till Dawn”?

    BTW, here’s a gratuitous view of Salma Hayek from the movie.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @ThreeofSwords
  32. wayfarer says:

    Parents used to live in an apartment complex about a block from “Warner Bros Studios” in Burbank, California.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Studios,_Burbank

    Remember spending time staring through the studio’s chain-link fences when I was five years old. Watching actors in their costumes, as they wandered around the 2-D sets. Going home, turning on the television and realizing it was all just a fake world. Lost my fascination with the entertainment industry at a young age.

    Worked a few jobs in the industry, and met or got to know quite a few “famous” people. One of the more interesting characters was the stuntman and close friend of my younger brother, Will Harper.

    He has an interesting story.

    “Snatched From the Fire.”

  33. @Nancy Pelosi's Latina Maid

    Scratch Finding Neverland, I was thinking of Saving Mr. Banks. Similar theme, senior moment.

    And POS-of-the-Decade Award goes to Boyhood. Tablet magazine says

    Boyhood is not only the best movie many of us may see in 2014—it’s one of the least Jewish serious movies around.

    … which is completely false. Especially notable is the scene where the housewife in her doorway fantasizes about making love to Obama, while her conservative redneck neighbor threatens to shoot us if we don’t get off his property. Followed by stars Ethan Hawke and Ellar Coltrane ripping up McCain yard signs and driving away with them in their trunk.

    You don’t necessarily need a shyster banker character to represent Jewish values. Like Michael Moore, director Richard Linklater pisses on Americana but thinks it’s okay since he’s doing it from Austin (or Flint).

  34. Anonymous[425] • Disclaimer says:

    the excessive TV and movie violence that moralists love to condemn is shown to cathartic, redemptive, and downright hilarious.

    shown to be

  35. Emslander says:
    @Leni

    The whole of the Los Angeles basin is now a third world shithole. In 1962 it was paradise. By 1969 it had become Charles Manson and then it went downhill. The regular world out here is just struggling to hang onto something. If a fantasy Hollywood is all we can get, it might hold us over.

  36. Boycott Hollywood/Plato’s Cave.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  37. I am deeply opposed to most everything Hollywood when it comes to the social order and politics.

    But the entertainment industry can and has produce some great films that inspire and move the needle on social and inter/intrapersonal issues as well as educate and even aspire to “wholesomeness”. I am careful here because when anyone talks about something that includes a high degree of taste — the standards one uses to determine a quality a film varies.

    “Unbroken” by directed by Angelina Jolie, an ardent enemy of my kind of political and social conservativism. She probably think anyone who actually endorses celibacy, much less adhere’s to it should locked up.

    “Chronicle’s of Narnia” in spite of themselves, though that hat trick they did with the theme song was petty beyond petty.

    “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day” painfully worth the watch — great fun and painfully funny.

    “The Way”

    And I guess what one means by recent matters . . . but there are very good films that don’t require diving into Hollywood’s political and social agendas.

    Case in point: anyone promoting “Boyhood” as anything other than “not at all typical boyhood” claiming it has merit beyond the experiment. I watched it with a woman and she thought it well — not familiar to any boys she knew. I am being polite.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  38. Emslander says:
    @GeeBee

    You’re only really talking about the billboard themes of traditionalism. Everybody knows that there was plenty of cowardice, sexploitation, hedonism and materialism in the pre-modern world. The heroism of this time is unrecognized, unrewarded (in this life) and deliberate.

  39. John Yuma says:
    @obwandiyag

    Only a complete retard would say there are “great moral themes” in a piece of stupid, utterly manipulative and pandering, fratboy crap like Pulp Fiction.

    Agreed — and that dancing scene was especially idiotic. Anyone watching it in real-life would have laughed like a loon.

    The film was vile, as well. As one reviewer noted: “The way that this picture has been so widely ravened up and drooled over verges on the disgusting. Pulp Fiction nourishes, abets, cultural slumming.”

  40. Morphine2 says:

    Haha this has got to be one of the stupidest movie reviews I’ve ever read. I guess if you’re a writer, and the rent is due, you just sit down and churn something out.
    Toss in some grad school lingo (“nihilistic deconstruction”, “genocidal and self-deconstructing”, etc) so that the reader knows he is in the presence of an expert. Btw, remember that time you walked out of a movie theater and said to your wife, “I thought the theme of nihilistic deconstruction was fascinating”?
    Yeah, me neither, because that’s not actually a thing plus no one talks like that.

    Lynch chides other reviewers for viewing this movie through the lenses of progressivism, feminism, and race. Then proceeds to do the exact same thing through the whole fucking review.

    If you think Tarantino’s movies are distasteful, amiable piffle, obscene, nihilistic, wet dreams, or are simply too
    persistently genocidal or self-deconstructing, then for heaven’s sake don’t go see them.

    But if you’re a normal person, and you just want to go see a decent movie and be entertained without having to pick the goddamned thing apart, this is a pretty damned good movie. You get to hang out with Brad Pitt, cruise around LA, meet a bunch of other interesting people, listen to cool music, walk around with a serenely beautiful Sharon Tate, and see some bitchin’ retro cars and clothes. It’s languidly paced and ends with an utterly fictional spasm of hilariously
    satisfying violence.

    But where are the Jews?
    Where are the Negroes?
    Where are the women?
    What do the characters really represent?
    Is this film overly self-deconstructing, or even…nihilistic?

    Who gives a shit? You don’t have to overthink every single thing, ya know. Life is short. Go see a good movie. Relax and enjoy it.

  41. John Yuma says:
    @Blankaerd

    The turning point for me was Blue Lagoon in 1980. Clearly intended for ignorant teenagers, it was panned by critics, but nonetheless a major box-office success which grossed app. $60 million ($240 million in today’s dollars). This set the tone for Hollyweird producers going forward: “since dumb kids go to movie theaters more than adults, let’s make crap aimed at them.”

    • Replies: @Feryl
    , @NoCriticHere
  42. Che Guava says:

    I always appreciate your reviews, Trevor.

    Wanted to read your reviews of the others you gave links to, Inglourious is a link to a review of one of those Swedish crime dramas with a tattoo and piercing woman, and the byline is something like Paul Gottfried.

    My summary of Tarantino below.

    I think you over-rate Pulp Fiction, although I enjoyed seeing it and see your points re. the plot. Never wanted to see it again, although I have, at a friend’s house on vid.

    I really liked True Romance, I suppose he was only the screenwriter on that, but it falls into a subgenre of the time, your namesake (surname) also did a good one in similar flavour, Wild at Heart.

    Reservoir Dogs, never seen, perhaps I should watch it some time, perhaps not. From the shorts, it looks pretty violent and boring.

    Jackie Brown, I got so bored that I walked out, and I am not an impatient watcher, for example, I had no trouble with watching von Trier’s Dogville without an intermission, although I badly needed to micturate by near the end.

    I sat through the putrid Inland Empire by David Lynch, hoping for mnre than a few interesting moments per hour, but that was never the case.

    Point is, I am a very patient viewer, Jackie Brown was just a total bore.

    Kill Bill, I preferred part II to part I, the scene in the giant Ginza restaurant, with the 5,6,7.8s playing, and things happening to drive the plot before, in the background, and after, is great. As a whole, it is a pretty poor movie, but a few scenes (as that above) are great.

    I have no desire to watch the whole again.

    Then we come to the Death Proof/Planet Terror pair, the latter is far better.

    Death Proof is great until the final scenes, the proper endhng would have been Kurt Russell’s character wiping out most of the four multi-culti and somewhat dykey antagonists, with a possible sequel where one or two survive, and come back to get him in a sequel. The best ending would have heen Kurt Russell drivimg off in his death-proof car, after wiping out their chase.

    Instead, Tarantino signals his intentions by appearing in a scene at a bar with the women. It is pathetic.

    After that, I was watching nothing by him, no Inglorious, no Django, no Hateful 8.

    Perhaps the new one will be worth watching at the cinema, but I always have trouble taking Di Caprio seriously when he acts as an adult, and believing that Brad Pitt isn’t gay.

  43. @Steve Naidamast

    STEVE

    You’re wrong. The ending of ONCE is pure fiction.

    Charles Manson had associated with Terry Melcher and partied at Polanski’s house several times prior to Melcher moving out.

    On one occasion, Manson did show up after Tate had moved in seeking Melcher. Tate never spoke to him, but they saw one another. She would refer to him later as “that creepy-looking guy”. In the words of Vincent Bugliosi, he was treated “shabbily” and may have resented this.

    Exactly why he targeted Tate is unknown. It has been theorized that the Helter Skelter theory was propitiated by Bugliosi so as not to drag Hollywood names who had long used Manson’s women as hookers and purchased drugs from him into the case and that Bugliosi was under pressure from Hollywood to simply dismiss the entire thing as apocalyptic.

    A number of Hollywood actors recall Manson-Michael Caine met him, Melcher definitely knew him and Dennis Wilson lived with him at one point (Tex Watkins met Manson through Dennis Wilson).

    In the case of Labianca, Manson had once parked his bus outside the house next door and Labianca had called the police to chase him off. Manson apparently resented this.

    Yet, Manson was beaten up once by Dennis Wilson. So why didn’t Manson set his sights on Wilson.

    However, the mundane reality is that by the summer of 1969 Manson was deep into drug deals gone bad. The first one involved a mob-connected vending machine owner who subcontracted Tex Watkins to sell 25 kilos to a black gangster and Watkins ripped the man off. This resulted in the black dealer threatening to come to the ranch with Black Panthers and Manson showed up and shot (But only wounded) him.

    This prompted Manson to request Straight Satan bikers to protect him from Black Panthers. The bikers agreed, but wanted drugs.

    Manson approached Gary Hinman, a music teacher who sold mescaline on the side. The drugs were apparently bad and the bikers threatened Manson which led to Hinman being killed. A Manson associated ended up caught and jailed and Manson feared he would confess which would have put Manson in prison for life with his record so he hoped to commit the Tate and La Bianca killings in part to throw the police off the trail.

    We can say without a doubt that the Tate killings were not about drugs because there were huge piles of drugs all through the mansion-cocaine, mescaline, MDA, hashish. None of Manson’s gang stole any of them.

    In the case of La Bianca, there is some evidence that Manson stole what he could and then immediately went to the biker clubhouse in Venice and paid them in order to get out from underneath the drug debt due to Hinman’s bad batch of mescaline.

    Shorty Shea was killed because Manson believed he was a snitch who had led the police to Spahn on the stolen dune buggy raid.

    The other Beach Boys contend that Dennis Wilson-who was also racist and prone to violent outbursts-and Manson got into an altercation with an African-American at Spahn ranch and both shot the African-American and dumped his body in a well. However, Manson followers claim that Wilson was so high on LSD at the ranch that he hallucinated this…on the other hand, some have been paroled and would not want to confess to another murder.

    Bugliosi himself believed that Manson was responsible for as many as 35 murders after getting out of jail in 1967. All of this happened in an amazingly short period of time. Manson was paroled in early 1967 from Terminal Island and was only on the street for two years.

    Curiously, Manson saw Dennis Wilson once after the Tate-Labianca murders. Again, mundanely, Manson seemed to simply want his money for the song CEASE TO RESIST. It is speculated by Beach Boys that Manson committed the murders in an attempt to scare Wilson into paying him some amount for the use of the song.

    There is no question that Charles Manson was a serial killer. None. Bugliosi himself believes that Manson was responsible for far more homicides than he was ever convicted of.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @SunBakedSuburb
  44. @Morphine2

    MORPHINE

    There is a Jew in ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. He’s played by Al Pacino. Of course Al Pacino is as Italian as meatballs in real life but he’s played Jews (And Hispanics) before so no big deal.

    Also, Gypsy Share, one of Manson’s girls was Jewish.

    In the book HELTER SKELTER, Bugliosi advanced some evidence that Charles Manson’s father might have been a Jewish chef. Manson himself denies this, claiming to be wholly of Irish and Scottish descent…Manson is usually played by English or Irish actors (Or WASP Americans like Steve Railsback). And yet, Manson’s eyes were very black despite his purported Irish and Scottish roots.

    Where are the Negroes? Well we know Manson shot one over a drug deal gone bad (Albeit he was sort of dragged into this by Tex Watkins, who was introduced to him by Dennis Wilson) and it is odd that Tarantino did not include that in the film by way of introducing Charlie. Other Beach Boys claim Dennis Wilson (Also a racist) confessed to getting into an altercation with a black at the ranch and shooting him and then assisting Manson in dumping in a well. Family Members deny this and no body was ever recovered. Then again, Shorty Shea’s body was never recovered either prior to Clem Grogan agreeing to show authorities where it was in exchange for parole-he was the only member of the Manson family to actually get paroled back in 1985.

    Women? The film is full of them.

    The characters of Pitt and Dicaprio seem to have been inspired by a number of different hell-for-leather actors and stunt men of the era. There is some of Neville Brand, some of Clint Eastwood, some of Nick Adams…

    • Replies: @Gordo
    , @Morphine2
    , @JimDandy
  45. Anon[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    Only a complete retard would say there are “great moral themes” in a piece of stupid, utterly manipulative and pandering, fratboy crap like Pulp Fiction. Must be a fratboy.

    Someone didn’t like the “dead nigger storage” line.

    Luckily for our shattered egos, negro comments about White “frat boys” are innately irrelevant.

  46. @syonredux

    “Where’s Samuel L. Jackson?”

    Making beaucoup bucks off credit card commercials and complaining about systematic white racism.

  47. Bad Links says:

    Dunno what’s up with the links to previous reviews, but the one about Inglorious Bastards does lead to a post with that title, but the content is Paul Gottfried’s review of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I searched Lynch’s posts here (which is presumably how he himself got the inaccurate link), and somehow the preview did have some words from Lynch’s review in it, so I web-searched it with quotation marks and come up with this:

    http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirReaders/english/Atzmon–Inglorious-Bastards.php

    That’s obviously Gilad Atzmon’s review, but for some reason the entirety of Lynch’s review appears underneath Atzmon’s.

    Maybe all these false links are some sort of post-modernist joke, but the Lynch review is worth reading. I’ve only seen snippets of Bastards on the box, and found it boring. The review shows why it’s repulsive into the bargain.

    [Fixed.]

  48. Since the election of Trump with the help of billionaires Adelson and Saban, the ruling class has loosened its tight grip on the collective neck of White-Christian America, in reciprocity for the recognition of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel and looking the other way about Golan Heights, so why shouldn’t Hollywood do the same, albeit via latest Tarantino film… don’t worry, the lull is temporary and the heavy boot of “the great replacement” will pressing against the delicate neck of the beleaguered majority not so soon. It’s calm before the storm!

  49. @Cloudswrest

    Lynch was talking of the films that Tarantino has directed. Robert Rodriquez directed that one, though Tarentino wrote the screenplay and also acted in it. I must say that Salma Hayek’s dance was one of the sexiest bits that I have ever watched on screen. But big snakes give me the creeps.

  50. Gordo says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    In the book HELTER SKELTER, Bugliosi advanced some evidence that Charles Manson’s father might have been a Jewish chef. Manson himself denies this, claiming to be wholly of Irish and Scottish descent…Manson is usually played by English or Irish actors (Or WASP Americans like Steve Railsback). And yet, Manson’s eyes were very black despite his purported Irish and Scottish roots.

    Bugliosi also said in the book that he found a juvenile detention record on Manson that stated that Manson’s father was black.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  51. Morphine2 says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Mr. Stryker,
    The questions near the end of my original comment were intended to be rhetorical. As if they were questions a liberal/progressive/SJW viewer or very important film critic might ask themselves instead of simply enjoying the movie at face value.
    The questions were not meant to be taken literally. I was not actually posing those questions in regard to this movie. They were simply a rhetorical device intended to skewer the self-seriousness of so many film critics.

  52. Che Guava says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Most of what you are saying has nothing to do with a film review.

    Also of dubious accuracy.

    I have read the novel by Bugliosi, it is very interesting, I am sure that it reflects the truth by a high percentage, much over fifty, perhaps into the eightieth percentile.

    Who really could care now? These were things that happened before most of us were born, or at the time of infancy..

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Che Guava
  53. syonredux says:
    @iffen

    The hippies are a return to primitivism.

    In OUATIH, they’re dumspter-diving trash.

    A theme that has been around since the Roman sages were decrying Roman decadence and praising German barbarians. In a magnificent horse riding scene that the Lone Ranger and Silver could only dream of, Tex rides to the rescue.

    He doesn’t rescue anybody. Cliff’s already gone. And Cliff is the true hero in the scene. Note how he risks his life to attempt to save the blind owner of the Spahn ranch, a man that he knows only slightly (Cliff did stunt work on his ranch years ago).

    The primitive hero fails while modernity and Cliff drive off victoriously into the sunset on Happy Trails.

    That’s a complete misreading of the scene. In this scene, Cliff is the hero, the man with a code of conduct who will not tolerate an insult.

  54. @Jeff Stryker

    Manson is paroled in ’67 to San Francisco and immediately gathers followers. Manson and his followers relocate to LA in the spring of ’68 and immediately has contacts in the entertainment industry. Manson was an operative for a network that combined Satanism, narcotics and human trafficking, and intelligence connections.

    Manson had contact with Louis “Jolly” West, an MKULTRA psychiatrist operating a clinic for hippies in San Francisco in 1967. Manson had connections to the Process Church — a splinter faction of the Scientology cult — while in San Francisco and LA. The Process Church originated in London in the mid-60s and was partially led by Mary Ann MacLean, a former high society prostitute and MI6 asset.

    The Manson Family was a particularly dark psyop.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @Alden
  55. @Toy

    A whole canton? That’s quite a bit more than a mere canyon.

    Seriously, though, he face itself has always disturbed me. It has a weird, pushed-in baby doll look to it, like the kid in Pasolini’s Roma.

    Come to think of it, so does Tarantino’s.

  56. @Gordo

    GORDO

    I stand corrected. Bugliosi said the report stated “a light-skinned Negro cook who called himself Colonel Scott.”

  57. JimDandy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    The accounts I’ve read tell of Manson and several other guys wrestling Shorty into the car.

    Chaos is an excellent book on the subject. I do believe there was much more to the story than the public has been told. And Bugliosi was a bonafide psycho and a liar.

  58. @Che Guava

    CHE

    1969 was before my time. The public is fascinated with Manson for the same reason they are fascinated with Mussolini or Rasputin, in the words of Bugliosi himself Manson is that 1/1000 of the one percent of the population who become cult leaders.

    As far as a film review goes, I found it to be typical Quentin Tarantino. Hiring actors nobody remembers like Nicolas Hammond from the original Spiderman TV series (Late seventies), pop culture references to other actors nobody here would remember (Nick Adams, Neville Brand are some of the influences on the DiCaprio character), giving his Kiwi muse (Mistress?) a pointless role because the woman has an annoying presence and cannot act (She must be mad in the sack) and so on.

    Jackie Brown never caught on because it hit the cinemas the same month as Boogie Nights, which most people here would not remember (I was 23 at the time). All the rough-and-ready filmmakers of the late nineties who imitated Tarantino with execrable films like Killing Zoe, Keys to Tulsa etc. have come and gone but Tarantino is still around.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  59. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @iffen

    This is a dyadic movie. There are two stories going on simultaneously: The Show and the dirty reality.

    Note that Cliff Booth wears moccasins. That makes him a primitive, an Indian in western parlance, like Pussy and the Manson family. Real suspense plays out at the ranch at the same time that Rick Dalton (Cliff’s “boss”) acts in the Hollywood western.

    The primitive, “real” side of things is: Cliff Booth/Pussycat/the ranch. The Show, the civilized, modern side, is: Rick Dalton/Sharon Tate/the studio.

    This is like the age-old dichotomy between matter and mind.

    These are two sides of life and people. Every one of us puts on a show outside but also lives a real life inside and at home. Seldom does anybody use a toilet in the movies, but we all do every day. Real life is dirty, like Sharon’s feet. (Yes, Sharon is the archetype of “The Whore,” while Pussy is a lost innocent with clean, virginal feet.)

    Think about The Wizard of Oz. The Wizard was a man behind a curtain, and the characters were also Dorothy’s family back in Kansas. There was the colorful, Hollywood fantasy and the real, black-and-white life at home.

    Stay for the credits after Tarantino’s film and you get to see a Rick Dalton TV commercial for cigarettes and how good they are for you, and you get to hear the theme for Batman, another fantasy hero from the childhood of so many of us viewers.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @iffen
  60. Feryl says:
    @Toy

    I could buy Leo in his teenybopper roles, but after he got older, yeah, he doesn’t seem all that convincing at projecting toughness or maturity. I mean, a boyish actor like Tom Cruise at least seems aware of his limitations and makes the best of his God-given emotional and physical character. But what exactly is behind the now sustained casting of Leo in roles that don’t suit him?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    , @Colinsky
  61. Laugh.

    Well Mrs. Pinault (Salma Hayek) doesn’t have the legs of Ms Tina Turner nor the power, but that dance is alluring.

    Though, I still prefer the legs of Ms. Joely Richardson, “I’ll Do Anything” (fun film). Though apparently acknowledging a woman’s beauty is a political error — strange this – so mentioning her legs must be criminal.

    ———————————

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  62. Feryl says:
    @John Yuma

    In the late 70’s (when we got stuff like Star Wars, Halloween, and Animal House) it was becoming clear that older children and teenagers are the ones who will see the same movie in the theater multiple times. Also, young viewers are the primary audience for big “event” movies that make tons of money upon initial release, whereas older viewers are more dependent on word of mouth. It’s called the movie “business” for a reason. You can’t blame the studios for wanting to make more money.

  63. @SunBakedSuburb

    SUNBAKED

    Well, we discussed that in the article about the book Chaos.

    Personally, I don’t think Manson’s relationship with Wilson and Melcher has a ring to conspiracy about it. Charles Manson had intentionally sent his girls out to hitchhike in the hopes that some horny celebrity would pick them up. Which is one reason why nobody hitchhikes anymore-you might pick up somebody like the members of the Manson family.

    Dennis Wilson and Terry Melcher liked girls and drugs. They were not the only celebrities who slept with Manson’s harem-surprisingly, old Sadie and Leslie have been tight-lipped about which celebrities they slept with.

    We do know that Tex Watkins was a friend of Dennis’s initially. He was a mid-level drug dealer with a front as a wig shop owner who sold large quantities of marijuana. Dennis Wilson viewed Tex as a hanger-on and mooch and eventually cut him off; Manson says as much.

    There is evidence that Dennis Wilson was far more deeply involved with Manson than was ever made public; he refused to testify at the trial unlike Melcher. Manson and Tex Watkins had both been in Melcher’s house on Cielo Drive.

    Few people are aware that Angela’s Lansbury’s daughter was one of the Manson girls although she was underage and Angela got her away from the family before the crimes occurred. But not before she ran up huge bills.

    The other Beach Boys have stated that Dennis Wilson-a racist and gun fanatic himself-had shot a black in an altercation at Spahn ranch and he and Manson buried him in a well. However, Manson disliked blacks. And the Manson followers claim Dennis Wilson was simply on LSD and hallucinated this.

    If there was a conspiracy, I suspect it had to do with drugs. Frykowski was also a drug dealer-this was his sole support as a Polish immigrant in America. He and Abigail Folger had actually gone cross-country selling drugs previously to arriving in Hollywood. Jay Sebring was also reputedly a cocaine dealer, known in Hollywood as the “Candyman”.

    Some have theorized that one of them “burned” a mob-connected supplier who reached out to Manson or Watkins.

    The events leading up to the murders were half-assed drug ripoffs. It started when Tex Watkins ripped off both his mob-connecting supplier and the black dealer Bernard Crowe, whom Manson shot after Crowe threatened to extract Watkins from the Spahn Ranch.

    This in turn led to Manson inviting the Straight Satan Motorcycle Gang to the ranch for protection. They then approached Manson for mescaline and Manson purchased some from Gary Hinman which turned out to be a bad batch and Manson was then in trouble with the bikers. Hinman pulled a gun on a Manson follower who then killed him.

    Overall, this is just half-assed drug deals gone bad.

    And yet, you have a point. Susan Atkins was a friend of Anton Levay and a performer at the Satanic Church. Bugliosi found pornographic films-this is muted in the book but it is in there on file-of Roman Polanski and Sharon with others in hooded robes conducting rituals. Polanski himself was obsessed with Satanism-he lobbied hard to get Sharon Tate the part in the film. Even more curiously, John Lennon was shot outside the Dakota where the Mia Farrow film was made and of course Manson was obsessed with The Beatles.

    You also have a point about Manson’s parole officer. The killing of Shorty Shea occurred after the raid at Spahn Ranch-Manson believed that Shea had tipped off the police. And yet Manson was released on that charge. As a multiple recidivist criminal on parole, that should have put him back in the slammer. Yet he got out and proceeded to kill Shea, who obviously never expected Charlie to see the light of day again.

    Finally, law-enforcement believe Bruce Davis may have killed the guy in London. This was never proved. If it is true, why?

  64. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.

    Do not shy away from acknowledging beauty, or the power of beauty, wherever you see it. You are actually showing great respect. The name-calling clowns are too stupid to see what you see. Women are beautiful. Nature wants men to see that, and we do.

  65. Rurik says:
    @Jon Baptist

    Boycott Hollywood

    good advise

    What I’m wondering is what the box office would say about De Nero’s new movie The Irishman.

    Now that De Nero has outed himself as a crybaby SJW, what is the reaction from his fan base going to be?

    ‘Take this you racist Italian American Trump voters!’

    ‘Christopher Columbus was a racist scumbag just like Trump!’

    ‘And all you God damn deplorable racist Italian scumbags!’

    • Replies: @Jon Baptist
  66. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @Morphine2

    Hear, hear; but to arrive at the product you enjoy, someone has to use these concepts and whatever else he can to build the damn thing. You flush your toilet and just think you’re taking a shit, but somebody had to understand plumbing to put it all together so you could sit on it, as you are doing here.

    • Replies: @Morphine2
  67. Patriot says:
    @Leni

    Absolutely true that 1980 South was the complete opposite of that portrayed by the Lying Liberal Media.

    I grew up in California, where we were taught that the South was a cesspool of ignorant, toothless, backwards racists. In 1981 I took a postdoc position in Georgia, and over the next 9 years lived in or visited most of the South, including cities, small town, and back woods – Black and White.
    Here is what I discovered:

    1. Racial relationships were 10 times better in the South, where Blacks were friendly and kind, and did not carry a chip on their shoulders. Northern Blacks were seathing with rage, caused by constant indoctrination from Northern Whites about White racism.

    2. White Southern society was polite, mannered, moral, relaxed, family-centered, and much more intellectual than I had been led to believe. Not everyone and everywhere, but, in general, more so than in California.

    3. I came to love Southerners and the South, and disparage shallow, false, posturing, Northerners.

    4. It is the constant drumbeat of Racisim, and “You are a victim”, from our media, politicians, and academia that fuels the fires of racial discord and hatred. If certain Whites would stop screaming about this false narrative, we could probably live in peace.

    • Agree: Old Palo Altan
    • Replies: @Rhett Langston
  68. syonredux says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Real life is dirty, like Sharon’s feet. (Yes, Sharon is the archetype of “The Whore,” while Pussy is a lost innocent with clean, virginal feet.)

    Pussy is a prostitute. She’s gets rides in exchange for fellatio:

    Note that Cliff Booth wears moccasins. That makes him a primitive, an Indian in western parlance, like Pussy and the Manson family. Real suspense plays out at the ranch at the same time that Rick Dalton (Cliff’s “boss”) acts in the Hollywood western.

    The primitive, “real” side of things is: Cliff Booth/Pussycat/the ranch. The Show, the civilized, modern side, is: Rick Dalton/Sharon Tate/the studio.

    As Pussy notes in the clip, Cliff’s a stuntman; unlike actors, he’s actually risking his life. In the land of make believe, the stuntman represents reality.

  69. Muggles says:

    Since the only film I’ve seen in the past three years was the black comedy (produced in France) The Death of Stalin I can hardly evaluate either this film or most of the comments made.

    One thing seems evident. Like the current Ident-O-Marxism now in lefty vogue, films made in Hollywood now are either amped up comic books and/or fairy tale stories, designed for children and screen addicts, or navel gazing productions about show biz, El Lay, and the numerous trials and tribulations of clawing ones way up the ladder to meaningless fame and fleeting fortune.

    This film is more evidence of that. Perhaps technically pretty good, as some LA-centric products tend to be. Lots of score settling in most, and site locations are easy to find and relatively cheap. No airfare required.

    But just as the self absorbed woes of bitter femninistos, ever fatter formerly skinny gay fellas and others who eagerly blame everyone else for whatever failures they have, self absorbed Hollywood gets very boring very quickly. #MeToo somehow made a Hollywood truism into some sort of McCarthyite-Stalinist purge movement (absent even the show trials) in 21st century America, yet sheds no new light on the subject. We are left with nothing but shrill unproveable accusations and more bad films laden with talent-less quota queens that no one watches.

    Hollywood has become dull and even sinister as a subject. Even the most gruesome horrors of the past history of the place fails to spark much interest. At this point, Hollywood’s self absorption has just become #MeTooMuch. Even the Toronto-as-NYC films of yore now seem more interesting. Alas.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  70. Anon[189] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Most Politically Incorrect Moment: Pitt’s Cliff Booth getting the best of Bruce Lee in a sparring match (no hitting the face) on the set of the Green Hornet.

    It wasn’t really that politically incorrect. A basic element in Tarantino’s movies is that Jews and blacks have moral authority and dominance over whites (and everybody else, but the Jewish/black vs. white dynamic is primary), so this bit did not cross this ultimate line. Tarantino would never have, for example, portrayed Pitt’s Booth beating Muhammad Ali. In fact, Tarantino said in a recent interview that he was inspired to make this scene because he had heard Bruce Lee claim that he could beat Ali. The scene was sort of an indirect way of Tarantino asserting black dominance.

    Interestingly enough, there’s no black people in the movie precisely because of Tarantino’s insistence on black moral authority and dominance over whites. He could only make the two masculine white men heroes in a film without blacks.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  71. JimDandy says:
    @Feryl

    It’s all subjective. But he doesn’t play a tough guy in this movie. He plays an actor who plays tough guys. A lot of actors who play tough guys are straight up pussies in real life. In “The Aviator” he played a crazy rich guy. Even in “The Departed” he played a fairly privileged kid who goes fish-out-of-water because of some complex. I thought he was great in all three of these films.

  72. Morphine2 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Okaaay…

    The word “literally” is vastly overused, often incorrectly.

    But here goes.

    I literally have no earthly idea what your comment means.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  73. @syonredux

    ONCE UPON A TIME IN REALITY

    Sharon Tate was raped at the age of seventeen in Italy on a military base by a GI. Contrary to public conceit, her career began as a bit part actress/extra in Italian films while her father was stationed there.

    Sharon arrived in Hollywood and soon began dating Jay Sebring. He insisted on an open relationship; he enjoyed tying up and whipping women in cocaine-fueled SM games. This is all in Helter Skelter and a matter of public record.

    Sharon’s drug of choice, however, was LSD. On the set of FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS, she ditched Sebring the lowly hairdresser and drug dealer for Roman Polanksi. She subsequently introduced him to LSD during which they made pornographic films.

    Having moved onto a director, Tate continued to see Jay Sebring. Roman was cool with this; next to her bed was a half-smoked joint indicating that Sebring lay beside Tate and got high before he retired to bed.

    The Tate residence was just loaded with drugs-surprisingly, the equally drug-addled killers did not steal them. Sebring had both grams of cocaine and marijuana in his car. There was also 30 grams of hash in Folger’s room. Also MDA, which both Folger or Frykowski had huge amounts of in their system.

    Then there was the porno films. Bugliosi destroyed them, but mentioned there were other parties present besides Sharon and Roman, who were having sex on camera.

    Bugliosi noted that as soon as Sebring was reported as dead, his drug customers (Mostly celebrities) broke into his house and ransacked it for drugs.

    Sharon Tate was innocent, but hardly a virginal innocent.

    • Replies: @Whitening
  74. Grumble grumble . . .

    Excuse me, but Mr. Bruce Lee did not get beat. He got thrown, the fight continued and was interrupted.

    It is not beyond imagining that Mr. Bruce Lee in any number bouts under estimated his opponents and got stung.

    —————————————————

    “The name-calling clowns are too stupid to see what you see. Women are beautiful. ”

    Laughing sigh. Its seems strange to have to defend that one finds women attractive. Miss Ann Coulter in her little black dress and knee/thigh high boots —- she is going to get my attention.

    So shoot me — I like women.

    Laugh.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  75. @Rurik

    Great point bringing up De Niro. He fits in perfectly because he personifies the garbage that comprises all of Hollywood. https://www.timesofisrael.com/de-niro-strong-arms-schwarzenegger-over-trump/

    De Niro has no problem supporting the IDF that shoots children and pregnant mothers. However, he sure has a problem with Schwarzenegger supporting Trump. That doesn’t stop Bob from taking a picture with Saban. Saban has a great rapport with fellow Zionist gangster Adelson who is Trump’s benefactor.

    Also note Larry King of Russia Today was in attendance. What does that tell us about the perceived http://www.unz.com/article/hollywood-reboots-russophobia-for-the-new-cold-war/ ???

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3903840/Joanna-Krupa-Robert-Niro-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-support-Beverly-Hills-fundraiser-benefiting-Israel-Defense-Forces.html

    • Replies: @Mark James
    , @Rurik
  76. Ragno says:

    The readers dumping on Trevor Lynch ought to click the link for his review of DJANGO UNCHAINED, which is not only the single best review of that film, hands down – it’s one of the best film-related essays I’ve ever read.

    Can’t really give HOLLYWOOD yea or a nay – haven’t seen it, nor am I in any hurry to do so, but I notice with some annoyance that once again Tarantino has taken the lazy man’s way out – grossly falsifying history as he did in his Nazi flick, INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. In fact, reading Lynch’s laundry-list of QT’s blatant historical fuck-ups in DJANGO has convinced me that this rewrite history to my specifications tactic, rather than some form of poetic license or creator’s prerogative, is simply a shaken martini of apathy, sloth and plain old unwillingness to work. With its own built-in defense/excuse against any sort of critical blowback, as it allows him to hide behind “I meant to do that, dumbass”… the sort of stance that allows him, if challenged or called to account, to reduce and thus dismiss everything from simple sincerity to what supposedly are his deepest-held beliefs as only poses, to be discarded as the circumstances dictate.

    When the pendulum swings back as it inevitably must, and an entire lost generation of movie watchers comes at last to understand that technical proficiency in lieu of actual soul – worse, masquerading as soul – is the very cutting edge of 21-st century vileness, Tarantino will certainly be the personification of that vileness.

  77. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @Morphine2

    I literally have no earthly idea what your comment means.

    That’s okay, I don’t either.

    All seriousness aside, I’m just saying writers and moviemakers are aware of the subtexts and they use them to produce the product you enjoy.

    There is Cliff Booth behind Rick Dalton, and there is the subtext behind the story you are watching. Clever, huh?

    But you know this already, and of course you don’t have to think about it to enjoy the movie.

  78. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    It wasn’t really that politically incorrect.

    Not according to the WOKE…..

    Interestingly enough, there’s no black people in the movie precisely because of Tarantino’s insistence on black moral authority and dominance over whites. He could only make the two masculine white men heroes in a film without blacks.

    Quite possible. QT has a lot of issues where Blacks are concerned….

  79. syonredux says:
    @Muggles

    Since the only film I’ve seen in the past three years was the black comedy (produced in France) The Death of Stalin I can hardly evaluate either this film or most of the comments made.

    There’s some good stuff amidst the dreck: Manchester by the Sea, Love & Friendship , Silence, The Nice Guys, Phantom Thread, Dunkirk, ….

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  80. Colinsky says: • Website
    @Feryl

    Wait a minute, “Tom Cruise at least seems aware of his limitations and makes the best of his God-given emotional and physical character?”

    Is this the same Tom Cruise who’s nearly a midget but has arrogated himself into the role of Jack Reacher, whose distinguishing characteristic throughout 23 novels has been that he is 6’6″ tall, a physical mountain of a man able to disable everybody in a donut shop without dislodging any powdered sugar from his own donut in his left hand?

  81. Poophead says:

    I highly recommend this film, simply as well-crafted grown-up entertainment that does not go out of its way to insult the intelligence, race, or moral sensibilities of its overwhelmingly white audience.

    I feel the same way about Taboo II.

  82. @syonredux

    Perhaps a past-as-present commentary on how women act as the Mao-esque enforcers of WOKE-America?

    Yep. An interesting aspect of this film. – Has a lot to do with Jordan Peterson’s remarks about the tendency of women to succumb to leaders – and to enforce rebellions.

  83. @Jeff Stryker

    …law-enforcement believe Bruce Davis may have killed the guy in London. This was never proved. If it is true, why?

    Which guy in London are you referencing?

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  84. mcohen says:

    Hurricane dorian will head for delaware.So right track away from coastline of carolina up then a spin left with direct hit on delaware.
    D for dalet.According to this article it is a no chance.lol

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://delawarestatenews.net/editor/delaware-is-small-target-during-hurricane-season/amp/&ved=2ahUKEwiH1MGfpq7kAhX77XMBHd4lAw0QFjAOegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw27rEK4EuGd6c6XRMRoIemJ&ampcf=1

  85. @Buzz Mohawk

    I saw the film for the same reason as you, because of Sailer’s recommendation. I laughed a lot, at Bruce Lee, at Dalton’s self-pity and at those preposterous hippies who are despised by commonsensical people like Booth and Dalton. Great entertainment that doesn’t denigrate anyone as inglorious bastards did with the Germans.

  86. fnn says:

    Once Upon a Time is Hollywood, of course, is all about historical exactness and verisimilitude.

    Well, I’m pretty sure Pit Bulls were not a thing in 1969 Hollywood.

  87. Late Night

    The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind

    Dunkirk

    Churchill

  88. @Blankaerd

    What great movies have come out in recent years?

    American/Britain:

    **masterpiece
    *great
    ^not super but very good of its kind

    [MORE]

    Blackcoat’s Daughter**
    Mother!**
    Hail Caesar!*
    Kings of Summer*
    American Animals*
    Robocop remake
    Aquaman(dumb but amazing effects)^
    Ant-Man(ingeniuos, the best supoerhero movie)*
    Moana(I don’t like this kind of animation, but best of its kind)
    Rush
    Mule
    Dunkirk*
    The Little Stranger
    Gravity*
    Silence**
    Damsels in Distress**
    The Day
    The Ward^
    300 Rise of Empire(trash but Eva Green is fabulous in it)
    Twilight series(ridiculous but great as eye candy)
    Inside Lleywn Davis*
    Risen
    A Serious Man*
    Tron Legacy*
    Blue Jasmine
    Inception
    Tomorrowland
    World’s End**
    Slow West*
    Life of Pi*
    August: Osage County
    The Counselor*
    Me and Orson Welles
    American Sniper
    C.O.G
    Joe
    Split^
    Mistress America^
    The Conspirator
    Ender’s Game
    Paterson
    The Informant*
    Before I Disappear
    Hot Summer Nights(uneven but promising)
    First Man
    Hereditary
    Journey’s End*
    The Witch
    Can You Ever Forgive Me?
    Last Rampage^
    You Were Never Really Here^
    First Reformed^
    Embrace of the Serpent^
    Jeepers Creepers 3^

  89. @JimDandy

    There’s some Judo Gene LeBell in the Cliff booth character, as well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_LeBell#Television_and_film_work

    Steven Seagal’s mouth writing a check his ass couldn’t cash.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  90. @EliteCommInc.

    Bruce Lee never fought in any competitive tournaments and no one ever saw him defend himself on the street.

    Great athlete, great teacher, interesting philosopher…everything else is unproven.

  91. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @syonredux

    I went too far calling Sharon “The Whore.”

    Jeff Stryker is closer to the truth in his reply:

    Sharon Tate was innocent, but hardly a virginal innocent.

    Her pregnancy is an alternative history which in this case is about to begin.

    One really does wonder how things would have been different if America had been saved by Cliff Booth. As his T-shirt says, he is the champion, the hero and the biggest reason why those of us who are tired of Hollywood find this movie worthwhile.

  92. “Bruce Lee never fought in any competitive tournaments and no one ever saw him defend himself on the street.”

    I don’t think I make those arguments. But he did spar as part of his training. And given the amount of work in films, it is not unlikely that something of the sorts might occur.

    No point giving anyone, including Mr. Bruce Lee God like status. Whether he caught one or two has nothing to do with whether he fought or entered tournaments. I say that with all due respect to Jim Kelly, who states that Bruce was “untouchable”, but I don’t think he would claim that Mr. Lee never took a hit or two, in sparring — and as I understand, it was “full contact” sparring.

  93. Based on the review here I went and saw this movie today. It’s actually two movies: The first is a plodding “half decade-in-the-life” of a Western TV star that was well enough done to still be interesting in spite of DeCaprio’s at times over-acting (he also had moments of brilliance,) and yet these first two hours were ruined for me by the sadistic, over-the-top, worst of “From Dusk ‘til Dawn” demons-meets-Linda Blair’s Regan MacNeil fantasy Manson killers death scene. What a repulsive jolt. Like when you see a pretty girl look your way and then smile, only to reveal a mouth full of black, rotten teeth; it’s a complete deal-breaker that makes you forget any remnant of the enjoyable previous two hours. If you can walk away right when they enter Dalton’s house, your life will be richer for it. I’ll even spoil it for you: The bad guy and gals die gruesome deaths, the star and his wife emerge unscathed, and the ever self-sacrificing hero of the movie (Booth) escapes with minor injuries.

    You’re welcome.

    Tarantino is a brilliant story teller, made an ogre by the need to rape his audience when they are most vulnerable.

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    , @Revelation
  94. roo_ster says:
    @Toy

    Disagree.

    I started off hating DiCaprio in his younger roles. The role that made me reconsider him was that of the arms deal er in Blood Diamond.

    • Replies: @Toy
    , @Chris Mallory
  95. @Jon Baptist

    he sure has a problem with Schwarzenegger supporting Trump

    I have no idea if Arnold voted for Trump. As a registered Republican he likely did. But just google Arnold/Trump and you will see what the former Gov’ of Ca thinks of the president. He doesn’t like him. At all.

  96. @John Yuma

    Blue Lagoon was acceptable kiddie-porn for the mainstream- A natural progression from the sexually charged 60s and 70s.

  97. @syonredux

    Dunkirk was insufferable because of its interjection of Millenialist sensibilities into the dialogue of 1940s war-torn Europeans. I grew up in the household of a WW2 vet and can say they could none afford the navel-gazing angst portrayed throughout the movie.

    • Replies: @Toy
  98. syonredux says:
    @Blankaerd

    What great movies have come out in recent years?

    Defining “recent” as less than 15 years ago and confining ourselves to the Anglosphere, the following films come to mind:

    The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

    The Grand Budapest Hotel

    Silence

    Zodiac

    Dunkirk

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  99. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    KEVIN

    Charles Manson and Bruce Davis met because they were both scientologists-Manson had discovered the cult in prison.

    Joel Pugh was an American who had been a boyfriend of one of the Manson girls-Sandra Good-and had grown scared of the group and fled to London.

    Bruce Davis moved to the UK in 1969 to join a Scientology sect ostensibly.

    In UK, Davis fell in with Charles Manson’s distant relatives, themselves druggy lowlifes. He was kicked out of the Scientology group.

    Before leaving the UK, Joel Pugh was found dead.

    It is suspected by Scotland Yard that Bruce Davis and Manson’s cousins-though Charlie’s family was from Scotland they were all over the UK-killed Pugh.

    Why? We don’t know. Some believe that it was because Pugh had seen something. Manson is thought to have murdered dozens more people than the nine he was eventually apprehended for.

    Others simply believe Manson was upset that Pugh wanted to leave the cult. Like all cult leaders, he basically kept his cult intact by threatening people who wanted to leave. Pugh left, believing he was safe overseas.

    This is all conjecture of course. Nobody was ever charged. Pugh was reportedly depressed anyhow. Perhaps he was killed in a robbery. Nobody knows.

  100. Che Guava says:
    @Che Guava

    You have a point. I had enough interest to read the book (difficult for me at the time), also read ‘net posts from people who were communicating with him in letters late last decade (play-act nazi crypto-satanists).

    I think you are a little foolish to compare Manson to the cliched rote list of twentieth-century dictators, every one of them, from Mussolini to Mao, had some favourable actions and qualities.

    I had an Italian friend when overseas, enjoyed discussing Mussolini with him, like me, an old-school leftist, none of the intersectionality (po-mo, post structuralist, Vienna school) crap, he said that his father liked Mussolini until the Concordat with the Vatican (so, anti-clerical).

    God-free Roberts provides us with regular fairy-tales about China and its history, but the truth is, Mao was not all bad at all.

    IMHO, China of now would be just as modernising if Deng’s short-term counter-revolution never happened. Westerners always ignore that it was immensely destructive to rural healthcare and education.

    Manson was the leader of a minor cult.

    His album is pretty interesting, one of the titles was Mechanical Man, which, IIRC, Devo either covered or plagiarised.

  101. Che Guava says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    You have a point. I had enough interest to read the book (difficult for me at the time), also read ‘net posts from people who were communicating with him in letters late last decade (play-act nazi crypto-satanists).

    I think you are a little foolish to compare Manson to the cliched rote list of twentieth-century dictators, every one of them, from Mussolini to Mao, had some favourable actions and qualities.

    I had an Italian friend when overseas, enjoyed discussing Mussolini with him, like me, an old-school leftist, none of the intersectionality (po-mo, post structuralist, Vienna school) crap, he said that his father liked Mussolini until the Concordat with the Vatican (so, anti-clerical).

    God-free Roberts provides us with regular fairy-tales about China and its history, but the truth is, Mao was not all bad at all.

    IMHO, China of now would be just as modernising if Deng’s short-term counter-revolution never happened. Westerners always ignore that it was immensely destructive to rural healthcare and education.

    Manson was the leader of a minor cult.

    His album is pretty interesting, one of the titles was Mechanical Man, which, IIRC, Devo either covered or plagiarised.

  102. GAPING PLOTHOLE

    Manson had been to the house many times before when Melcher lived there. He knew the address well.

    Manson knew a bunch of hippie actors and a Polish drug dealer lived there, not tough guys. He had met Tate and the others when he went up there looking for Melcher and was told he’d moved.

    Manson was not a tough guy. None of the family were. Dennis Wilson beat Manson up on one occasion. So did Shorty Shea. Manson was 5’2 and survived prison on his wits. He understood positions of strength. He knew that druggies in early middle-age and actresses lived there, not guys like Leonard or Brad.

    Manson knew and planned to invade that house. Much is made of motive, but the biggest one was that these people could be overpowered easily.

    • Replies: @Toy
  103. mcohen says:

    Saw the movie and found it mildly amusing.Probably the only character of note was the dog.The thought of a pitbull grabbing you by the nuts is frightening.The coen brothers make good movies.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  104. Toy says:
    @NoCriticHere

    You put into words what I couldn’t.
    Now I know exactly why I’ve always viscerally despised Hollywood history. All those modern sensibilities they anarchronistically inject into the past is just snide gaslighting to make feminism, faggotry, and liberalism seem normal and universal. All implying that I am abnormal and extreme, therefore I must be wrong. Welcome to Airstrip One.
    These movies spit on the memory of the people who were there, trivializing their firsthand accounts in favour of the emotionally potent (((Hollywood))) version of events. These movies pretend to document the event, but they are really rewritting the past.
    Who could forget the “based on a true story” disclaimer? Some of the worst lies ever told have been based on the truth. But a half truth is a full lie, proving that these Hollywood kike-roaches are nothing but liars. I despise them so much. Why do they get to own the myths and narratives of my identity and culture? What spineless cucks gave them that special privilege, because I do not remember any hordes of jewish alpha male conquerors ever invading my country and taking everything over.

  105. Toy says:
    @roo_ster

    Leonardo DiCaprio usually starts off ok in the beginning of a role. But the second the script gets dramatic all he is capable of doing is screaming and exaggerating his emotions in a desperate hope that intensity will compensate his obvious lack of verisimilitude. His characters always seem so bizarre and out of synch with the atmospheres of the movies. He would be a much better actor if he never spoke again.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  106. Toy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Yeah, but being able to beat up a 5’2 manlet isn’t really the definition of tough either.

    I don’t know much about Mason, but if the mythology of him is true, then there is much to admire about him. I just wish Roman Polanski was home that night. That was the saddest thing about that event.

    • LOL: Alden
  107. @roo_ster

    I thought DiCaprio was good in Blood Diamond. He made The Departed worth watching as well, along with Mark Wahlberg.

  108. @Toy

    TOY

    Manson’s following included a couple of Jews (None involved in the murders however) and none of the victims were Jewish. Fail to see your point.

    Much has been made of Manson being “terrifying”. In fact, Manson was said to have been sexually abused in prison by other inmates, including blacks. No other convict ever reported being terrified of him. Dennis Wilson was not terrified of him. He had a scary stare and that is about it.

    However, the film is sheer rubbish. Manson would never have gotten the wrong house because both he and Tex Watkins had been there for parties when Terry Melcher lived there. They knew the address very well. Manson had returned, looking for Melcher, when he met Tate and the others. He knew the house was occupied by stoned hippies.

    Tarantino overlooks the fact that most of this was a result of drugs. Manson was Melcher and Dennis Wilson’s drug dealer and supplied them with girls from the Manson family. Frykowski was a drug dealer who was only in the US because he was a major drug dealer. Jay Sebring was also a drug dealer and a cocaine addict. Tate and Roman had an open relationship and he was beside Sharon Tate in the bedroom smoking a joint when the killers burst in.

    • Replies: @Toy
  109. “However, the film is sheer rubbish. Manson would never have gotten the wrong house because both he and Tex Watkins had been there for parties when Terry Melcher lived there. They knew the address very well.”

    Trying to make sense of a climax that is by choice a fictional account designed to provide an emotional expiation for Hollywood seems a a tad fruitless.

    And under the circumstances, I found it plausible that they could very well get the wrong house.

    That whole scene with car in the driveway was hilarious and tense given the circumstances. There plan was up in the air after that. The film is shadow of actual events so that an entirely different history of “what might have been”.

    Dalton’s hopes are revived by an invitation by new stars who actually know who is and admire him. Miss Tate’s hope’s and dreams are maintained as she starts her new career. Mr. Sebring goes on to be a successful producer.

    Had they made the drug use and issue, it would have made the wrong house even more plausible.

    Hollywood is free and safe to pursue their ambitions and joys saved from the dangers outside.

  110. JimDandy says:
    @SteveRogers42

    For sure. I’m sure the scene with Bruce Lee was inspired by the time Gene manhandled Lee in real life. He was a beast.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  111. JimDandy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    And Sam Wanamaker, Jew.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  112. @JimDandy

    JIM

    Bear in mind that Seagal allowed Kelly to choke him. To say that Seagal or Bruce Lee were complete frauds is unfair.

    The scene in the film is clearly in Pitt’s imagination. Tarantino has stated that.

    Nobody believes that a fifty-something chain-smoking borderline alcoholic stunt man would have defeated Bruce Lee or would have put in the time necessary to learn a martial art.

  113. @JimDandy

    JIM

    A couple of Manson’s followers were Jews. Catherine Share, for example. There was another one, who I have forgotten. Neither of them participated in the murders, however.

    Roman Polanski was Jewish and he is in the film, albeit briefly.

    Terry Melcher was half-Jewish. Though he is not seen in the film.

  114. @syonredux

    15 yrs is too long for ‘recent’. I think he meant like last 5 yrs.

    The Grand Budapest Hotel is too cute. I stopped watching after 30 min. I still think Rushmore is Anderson’s only truly remarkable movie.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  115. @Jeff Stryker

    Wasn’t the Bruce Davis sent by Manson to London episode a murder-for-hire job? That is, Manson receiving orders from the Scientology splinter-faction known as The Process? This was Ed Sanders’ speculation in his book The Family.

    As you illustrate in the above comment, Manson and those around them were deeply involved in narcotics trafficking. That’s how these intelligence-connected networks are funded, with proceeds from narcotics, weapons, and human trafficking. The latest example being Jeffrey Epstein who was an operative for a private intelligence network connected to Mossad. His role was trafficking weapons and children for the network. He also ran the now infamous compromise operation.

  116. @Che Guava

    All the rough-and-ready filmmakers of the late nineties who imitated Tarantino with execrable films like Killing Zoe

    Roger Avary who did KILLING ZOE was not an imitator but peer of Tarantino. They developed the style together. They worked on PULP FICTION together. I don’t like KILLING ZOE, but Avary is a more impressive(and original) stylist than Tarantino. RULES OF ATTRACTION is about a bunch of odious scum, but it is a stunning piece of film-making.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  117. @Che Guava

    God-free Roberts provides us with regular fairy-tales about China and its history, but the truth is, Mao was not all bad at all.

    Mao was all bad beginning with the Great Leap. He accomplished NOTHING except for totally kicking out the foreigners, but he went too far in his regard as China needed trade and world influence to develop. Mao even managed to alienate the USSR, leaving it totally isolated. Stalin killed millions but built heavy industry. Mao destroyed the economy. Stalin’s cultural policies were brutal, but he did appreciate the arts and there was some flowering under his reign. Ballet, classical music, cinema, and etc. Mao was a total philistine when it came to arts, and there is NOTHING to show for culturally. Mao’s reign was of total non-achievement and tremendous amount of loss.

    IMHO, China of now would be just as modernising if Deng’s short-term counter-revolution never happened. Westerners always ignore that it was immensely destructive to rural healthcare and education.

    Rural healthcare and education under Mao? Red Guards with zero medical knowledge playing doctor in the countryside? Rural education as in dumb Maoism crammed into the minds of rural folks. One inadvertent positive side of Mao’s intellectualism was that many educated people were sent to the farm to do manual labor. I suppose some, in contact with rural bumpkins, taught them a thing or two.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Che Guava
  118. @Toy

    “I just wish Roman Polanski was home that night.”

    But then Macbeth (1971) and Chinatown (1974) and The Tenant (1976) wouldn’t exist. Polanski is a great filmmaker, and a horrible, quite possibly evil person.

    • Replies: @Toy
  119. Sharon Tate’s father was Military Intelligence involved with both the San Fransisco LSD scene and the LA Movie factories.

    She is not dead, or if she is, she died of old age.
    The entire Cielo setup was a Movie Set.

  120. Mr. Anon says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Unbroken was a big surprise. It was pretty good, and did not seem to pay homage to the customary PC/SJW shibboleths.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  121. Mr. Anon says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I find Tarantino to be repellent and I haven’t seen one of his movies since Pulp Fiction back when it came out 25 years ago. But I went to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood on the stength of Steve Sailer’s review and just because I wanted to see something that was at least well made. Most movies now seem to be comic-book-based movies or just awful PC-suffused garbage, and most are just poorly made. Tarantino does at least know how to make a movie that looks good.

    I thought it was mostly pretty good. The period detail was impressive and lovingly reproduced. I dug the “LA lights up at night” scene with all the neon-lights turning on to the sound of the clunk of circuit disconnects (anybody else remember the old A-frame Wienerschnitzel joints?). The Lancer film-set part dragged on a bit and was kind of boring, but the rest of the film held my attention. The portrayal of the Manson family was suitably creepy.

    There were a lot of 1960s movie references that only a die-hard film buff would pick up on. I think the movie was, in part, an homage to Hitchcock, or at least to Bernard Herrmann. When Cliff is looking through the ranch house for Spahn, the soundtrack is, I think, from Psycho. And in the WWII movie scene, when Rick is torching the German staff officers with his flame-thrower, the music is from Herrmann’s unused score to Hitchcock’s Torn Curtain. That might be the first time that particular movie music has been used in an actual movie.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  122. syonredux says:
    @Priss Factor

    15 yrs is too long for ‘recent’.

    My choices were under 15 years. The oldest picks were from 2007 (Zodiac and The Assassination of Jesse James)

    I think he meant like last 5 yrs.

    Did he offer a definition? One of your picks (A Serious Man) was from 2009….

    The Grand Budapest Hotel is too cute.

    I think that it’s just cute enough. It’s the apotheosis of Wes Anderson’s dollhouse aesthetic.

    I stopped watching after 30 min.

    I’ve watched it about a half-dozen times.

    I still think Rushmore is Anderson’s only truly remarkable movie.

    Thought that it was OK. Only watched it once.

    Incidentally, kudos for making Damsels in Distress one of your double asterisk picks. It’s a great movie and seriously underrated.And it’s also profoundly conservative :

    “I love cliches and hackneyed expressions of every kind. Do you know why? Because they’re largely true: The hundreds, perhaps thousands of such cliches and hackneyed expressions our language has bequeathed to us are, in fact, a treasure-trove of human insight and understanding.”

    —Violet in Whit Stillman’s Damsels in Distress

  123. syonredux says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    The scene in the film is clearly in Pitt’s imagination.

    Was it? I took it as a recollection scene, Booth thinking back on the events that led to his current status as Rick’s gofer.

    Tarantino has stated that.

    Where did he do that?

    Nobody believes that a fifty-something chain-smoking borderline alcoholic stunt man would have defeated Bruce Lee or would have put in the time necessary to learn a martial art.

    That’s why Cliff Booth is a fictional character:

    “Cliff is a World War II hero and one of the deadliest guys alive. He could kill you with a spoon, a piece of paper or a business card. Consequently, he is a rather Zen dude who is troubled by very little.” – QT speaking to USA Today

  124. peterAUS says:

    Seen the movie.

    That face bashing was……..wow…..

    Brad Pitt, 55 …on the roof? The man has his diet and training perfect I guess. Genes help too, but, smart and hard work and self-discipline are evident.

    Fight wise, I did expect a bit more. Like Western (dirty) boxing vs Jet-Kune-Do/whatever.

    A bit too much of a foot fetish thing even for Tarantino.

    Good movie. Very watchable.

    Looking forward to seeing, apparently, 4.5 hours version to come up.

  125. Thirdeye says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I don’t know if I’d call Pussycat innocent. She seemed more manipulative than anything else. But the real fount of deep womanhood was the eight year old actress: innocent, wise, kind, and nurturing at a critical juncture for Dalton.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Revelation
  126. Buzz Mohawk says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    The soundtrack and shot of the gate at the very end — when Rick Dalton walks through, up the driveway and into the alternative American future with the Sharon Tate people — reminded me of a horror flick. Or was it from the end of Citizen Kane? Not sure, but it seemed unexpectedly ominous.

    Sometimes I think QuentinTarantino is just mixing things up and f*cking with our heads.

    It’s like the whole dirty vs. clean feet thing, and whoever belongs to whatever side of reality. Tarantino can do whatever he wants, and I think he knows that. We are the dorks who try to figure it out. The commenters here who have criticized us, those who just enjoy the damn movie, are right. Maybe, or maybe not. Quentin probably doesn’t even know.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @iffen
  127. “Unbroken was a big surprise. It was pretty good, and did not seem to pay homage to the customary PC/SJW shibboleths.”

    It was a peasant surprise. A tad top heavy at times. But a very very good story and well directed. Though I squint a little on the issue of how PC. She did not highlight the relationship to that Lt. and Olympian Louis Zamperini had with faith. But she instead focused on him as a man — and there is nothing wrong with that per se. But I suspect, that Ms. Jolie’s choice was deliberate and very PC, even if just her own.

    Though the brutality of the Japanese POW treatment and conditions was not spared, in my view.

    Still I agree a very good film.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  128. iffen says:
    @Thirdeye

    But the real fount of deep womanhood was the eight year old actress: innocent, wise, kind, and nurturing at a critical juncture for Dalton.

    Then what happened. He slammed her into the damn floor.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  129. @syonredux

    Regardless of what QT said about it (and he could have said it was a daydream to avoid PC flak), from a dramaturgical stand point, the way it is played, shot, and cut indicates that it is clearly a flashback memory of a real event. (I mean real to the character, not the actual Bruce Lee).

    Here is the sequence:

    1. Brad Pitt, a skilled professional stunt man, is ordered to do a humiliating task: go up on somebody’s roof and do a nuisance repair job.

    2. Pitt climbs up on the roof on a hot sunny day. The whole thing is sort of a headache, it’s not how he should be spending his time. His mind wanders to…

    3. On a studio lot, working professionally, Pitt gets tangled up with Bruce Lee, who insults him. Pitt responds by throwing Lee into the side of a car. His boss yells at him, fires him, tells him to pack up his stuff and leave at once. Nether implication is that Pitt will never work in movies again, he’s just ruined his reputation by beating up an arrogant star.

    4. Back in the present, on the roof, doing his grimy task, Pitt chuckles to himself and says something like, “OK, fair enough.” Meaning he deserved to have his career derailed, but it was worth it to be the Man Who Kicked Bruce Lee’s Ass.

    From the internal logic of the movie, the scene was clearly real. Plus it is realistic dramatic foreshadowing, in that it shows why, later on, Pitt is not the least bit scared of three creepy weirdos with guns and knives.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @SteveRogers42
  130. ” His boss yells at him, fires him, tells him to pack up his stuff and leave at once.”

    Well, sort of.

    The deeper issue is that he has been warned to keep a low profile. Because the person calling the shots is a women who thinks he got away with murdering his wife. She didn’t like him before and she certainly wants his head for killing her friend. Having not avoided a challenge — he invited the very thing he had been warned to avoid.

    What sealed the deal was not the manly challenges, that no doubt are not uncommon among men, but rather causing a commotion so as to invite the one person he was warned to avoid.

    He is actually fired as a suspected murderer of his “nagging of a b . . . wife.”

  131. syonredux says:
    @Priss Factor

    You know, I had totally forgotten that the old boy was still alive….and blogging, too!Nice to see that he retains his fondness for Edgar Rice Burroughs:

    https://uncensoredsimon.blogspot.com/2011/02/princess-of-mars.html

  132. @Cloudswrest

    Thanks for posting this.

    It appears that the German band Rammstein may have used this scene as inspiration for their music video for their song “Kein Engel”, since the movie came out in 1996 and Rammstein’s DVD with this song in 1997. Love their snake dancer better.

    As for “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, I only went because my son wanted to see it and it was being shown in 70mm. It had its moments, but…. Maybe if I saw it a second time? No, thanks.

  133. Toy says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    So you’re glad he got away with sodomizing a little girl coz movies?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  134. Toy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Wrong, a bagel-burning whore and her satan spawn were prevented.
    Manson did nothing wrong.
    Sharon Tate totally deserved it.
    She was no muh aryan princess, she was complicit in all that drug dealing and Hollywood scuminess.

    • Troll: Chris Mallory
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  135. Mr. Anon says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    True that the movie did somewhat soft peddle Zamperini’s faith, however it was still respectful of Christian faith (Catholic faith, no less). That is rare enough in movies nowadays.

  136. Blankaerd says:

    Thank you all for your recommendations.

  137. iffen says:
    @Thirdeye

    Huh?

    A nihilistic cynicism that questions the existence of a deep fount of virtuous womanhood.

  138. @Toy

    TOY

    Actually, Sharon wanted Roman’s friends to leave. It was Roman who insisted that Frykowski and Folger be allowed to stay in the house; she knew very well that both Frykowski and Sebring were both drug dealers of the mid-level. Frykowski trafficked in Ecstasy, a new drug in America at that time (The first time MDA was mentioned in court was when it was found in the Tate residence). Sebring was a cocaine dealer-supposedly out of his hair salon.

    Tate had split up with Sebring because he was a drug addict. He would never have been a film producer or anything else depicted in once upon a time…a few years down the road he would have discovered freebasing and probably ended up another broke crackhead. Producing films requires money and Sebring had a huge cocaine habit.

    Frykowski was, in the words of Roman, a man of great charm and no talent. He’d moved to the US to become a drug dealer.

    Tate herself would have divorced Roman Polanski anyhow after the case in 1977. I cannot see him curbing his innate desires.

    • Replies: @Toy
    , @Alden
  139. iffen says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    4. Back in the present, on the roof, doing his grimy task, Pitt chuckles to himself and says something like, “OK, fair enough.”

    Cliff, the epitome of manly virtues, refuses to give in to voyeurist desires and look toward the window. Instead, the scene is flipped, he takes of his shirt and through the camera the woman becomes the voyeur.

  140. iffen says:

    My brief synopsis: Nice guys finish last, women are raging sluts and that’s the way our society likes it.

  141. Old Prude says:
    @NoCriticHere

    Thank you. I knew Tarantino would crap things up. Now I know when.

  142. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Also, the “reality” of the Bruce Lee scene serves to validate Booth as a confident and competent street fighter who might be expected to prevail later on over three armed attackers. If the earlier scene was some sort of internal fantasy, it wouldn’t serve to set up the more important fight at the end of the film.

    Booth’s effortlessly-agile vertical triple jump onto the roof also lets the viewer know that the character is not just another late-’40’s guy who enjoys a few cocktails and cigarettes. If it wasn’t important to show his unusual physical prowess, QT could have had him just climb on the roof with a ladder, like an ordinary mortal.

    • Agree: syonredux
  143. “That is rare enough in movies nowadays.”

    I think your comment is “fair enough”. It’s a pretty intense film.

    You might also enjoy . . . “Hacksaw Ridge”

    ———————————————————————

    “Then what happened. He slammed her into the damn floor.”

    That’s a movie device, part of the scene. Though I suspect it could be some manner of internal subconscious revenge or irritation with her. I don’t think so. I think it is the movie device in which “the woman” reminds the cowboy of his place in the world and to buck up and do hid duty. In this case you get female innocence in a child. But I think he is moved to press forward to jeep at it. And it’s no coincidence that his best “performance” is that seen. And as the later exchange goes on to tell — he checks on her person afterward and lo and behold, she is none the worse for wear and a sort of redemption is achieved.

    Of course I could be reading too much into the scene and the film in general. Laugh.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  144. iffen says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    What could be more humilating than having your woman leave you for some flashier guy?

    Having your woman leave you for a fat tatooed lesbian.

    Brandy leaves Cliff for the Italian eye candy.

  145. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor

    Priss, you mis-place your reply. The comment re. claimed copiers of Tarantino was not by me.

  146. AceDeuce says:
    @syonredux

    That chick is Andie McDowell”s daughter, BTW–she looks/sounds a lot like her mom.

  147. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor

    Priss, as you would well know. China under Mao maintained contact with the Communist Parties, particularly in Poland and Romania.

    Albania, under Hoxha, was the only far-abroad state to be a Chinese ally.

    After his meeting with Nixon, Chinese foreign seemed to feel free to set up nationalist movements to thwart USSR geo-politics. That backfired on the home front, with massive riots against African ‘students’ because of their atrocious behaviour.

    However, I would challenge you to say, for example.that The Red Detachment of Women (ballet) and The White-Haired Girl (dramatic opera) are not masterpieces. They are, of course, only so as masterpieces of totalitarian art, but masterpieces none the less.

    Watched any of the crap Hollywood Jews crap out lately? Neither have I

    Yet, masterpieces they certainly are. Chinese people of now are divided in their assessment of such works, but many still like them.

    One may apply the same logic to Triumph of the Will, etc. I am very glad to have had the chance to view it at a cinema. OTOH, we who viewed it there had to joke about such entities we invented as the United Association of Deutsche Gardeners.

    The opening parts really are on that level, but we enjoyed and were impressed by the whole.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  148. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor

    One thing to add, the CPC did nothing against Japanese forces (except for one light skirmish, it was only the Nationalists who fought, so the big ‘victory over Japan’ parade next week is a complete joke.

    I hope that some Chinese people understand this.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  149. syonredux says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “Then what happened. He slammed her into the damn floor.”

    That’s a movie device, part of the scene.

    he checks on her person afterward and lo and behold, she is none the worse for wear and a sort of redemption is achieved.

    Exactly. He proves himself as an actor, and the girl is perfectly fine (“I got pads!”).

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @iffen
  150. @syonredux

    “Exactly. He proves himself as an actor, and the girl is perfectly fine (“I got pads!”).”

    Though the comment I was responding to suggested something less amiable. But I acknowledge your agreement.

  151. iffen says:
    @syonredux

    Absolutely not.

    QT is slamming the entire concept of:

    … real fount of deep womanhood … innocent, wise, kind, and nurturing …

    into the floor.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  152. @Che Guava

    However, I would challenge you to say, for example.that The Red Detachment of Women (ballet) and The White-Haired Girl (dramatic opera) are not masterpieces. They are, of course, only so as masterpieces of totalitarian art, but masterpieces none the less.

    They are amusing for one viewing. Beyond that, they hold zero interest. Also, when we consider the destruction of so much culture during this period, we must ask ‘all that destruction for…. this?’

    And it’s not comparable to TRIUMPH OF THE WILL which has stunning film-making. Madame Mao just turned Western ballet into cartoons where some angry-looking girl makes a lot of fists and then clenches a pistol while hopping around like a lunatic.

  153. @Toy

    Echoes of his Revenant character (hey maybe they’ll give me a second oscar? Lol. )

    And there was some Apache (Inglorious Bast.) coming from Brad Pitt also.

    Guess it’s too much trouble for actors to create completely new characters these days.

  154. @Che Guava

    One thing to add, the CPC did nothing against Japanese forces (except for one light skirmish, it was only the Nationalists who fought, so the big ‘victory over Japan’ parade next week is a complete joke.

    It’s a way for the government to gradually the foster the notion of a United China, to eventually erase the distinctions between KMT Chinese and communist Chinese. For a long time, the CCP vs KMT feud was so bitter that Red China made little of the fact that the Nanking Massacre happened. After all, it was the KMT that got slaughtered there. But the current regime is less about representing only the CCP than all of China regardless of ideology. Smart move there. What is dumb is alienating Japan. China and Japan should come to terms and gradually push the US out of Asian Pacific. But their petty politics has made it so easy for US to play divide and rule among Asian nations.

  155. syonredux says:
    @iffen

    Absolutely not.

    QT is slamming the entire concept of:

    … real fount of deep womanhood … innocent, wise, kind, and nurturing …

    into the floor.

    Are you OK?

    • Replies: @iffen
  156. @Toy

    Karma is coming for Polanski. He’ll answer for his crimes.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  157. iffen says:
    @syonredux

    ‘Abandon hope all ye who enter here’

    Are you OK?

    Of course I’m okay.

    QT has given us hope for redemption. Even though we (society) have slammed the womanly virtues into the floor, women (those virtues) can protect themselves and survive.

    Now, as to the symbolism of pads as protection for women and the womanly virtues …

    • Replies: @syonredux
  158. @Jeff Stryker

    Seagal pretty much is a complete fraud.

    Way back in those Fabulous ’90s he was making public statements about what an unstoppable badass he was, to the point that a dozen actual fighters publicly challenged him to put up or shut up.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=-M8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=steven+seagal+the+dirty+dozen+bob+wall&source=bl&ots=vBikkhHtOS&sig=wQmvnV_eZZCEd5e-DfVVGQN-TUM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi93Ii8vd7PAhWB6oMKHRGlCuMQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=steven%20seagal%20the%20dirty%20dozen%20bob%20wall&f=false

    Seagal wasn’t intrested in any actual – you know – fighting. One of these guys even drove to Seagal’s dojo and camped out in his car in the parking lot, but The Master used his ninja invisibility skills to avoid any contact.

    And as far as athleticism, he ain’t exactly Cliff
    Booth:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=nkskuSXqUD0

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Jeff Stryker
  159. syonredux says:
    @iffen

    Abandon hope all ye who enter here’

    Are you OK?

    Of course I’m okay.

    You’re okay, but are you OK?

  160. syonredux says:
    @SteveRogers42

    And as far as athleticism, he ain’t exactly Cliff
    Booth:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=nkskuSXqUD0

    And that was Seagal at his physical peak……Whereas nowadays…..

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  161. @syonredux

    Seagal was born in in 1951. The guy is in his late sixties.

    He was a latecomer to Hollywood, He was already in his forties in the nineties. Not exactly a kid.

    Lee on the other hand died when he was 33 years old or something.

  162. @SteveRogers42

    Brad Pitt is in fairly good shape for a 55 year old.

    This man is only five years short of sixty. Kind of like Charles Bronson.

    If you go back to the early 1950’s when Charles Bronson first got into films, that man is ripped.

  163. “… real fount of deep womanhood … innocent, wise, kind, and nurturing …

    into the floor.”

    Had he not checked on her, I might think you have some room, but as he clearly checks on the young girl’s welfare, I think your suggestion is a stretch.

  164. @syonredux

    REDUX

    I’ve read various statements in the press regarding this. One is from Tarantino himself, speaking to VARIETY in reply to Shannon Lee’s criticism of the portrayal of her father.

    In the context of the film, it is inferred that nobody wants to hire Pitt because he killed his wife (And somehow got away with it) and not because he sparred with Lee. “I don’t dig the vibe he brings to the set,” is Russell’s reply to DiCaprio. Not “he damaged my wife’s car” (I think it is inferred the obnoxious Kiwi is Russell’s wife).

    Assuming the flashback is real, we can also assume that Pitt had been a stuntman for decades and had already been trained by choreographers when Lee-born in 1940-was only in a kid. He also mentions being stationed in the Far East during the war, so we can assume that Cliff had some martial arts training overseas as well. Doubtlessly, he’d been in numerous brawls in before.

    Brad Pitt is amazing. This man is nearly sixty years old. Yet he has the physique of a college athlete. In that sense, he reminds me of Charles Bronson.

  165. @SunBakedSuburb

    SUNBAKED

    Polanksi is already in his eighties. That is questionable. He was 46 years old in 1977 when he raped the girl-older than I am now and France has shielded him.

    People overlook the degree to which Manson and Polanski were similar. Both were small men whose lack of stature caused ego problems.

    Both suffered horrendous childhoods that left them with psychic trauma.

    Both were obsessed with Satanism.

    Both made amateur porno films.

    Both used drugs on the women.

    Both loved sodomizing young girls. Diane Lake said this was how she was initiated at age 14 into the family; of course we all know what Polanski did.

    Both were friends of Terry Melcher.

  166. @Jeff Stryker

    By my count, Bronson was 54 years old when he made Hard Times, and that was when I decided that Mr. Bronson was on my list of people not to mess with.

    He evidently had steel cables where most people have arms:

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  167. Che Guava says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I haven’t seen the movie yet, but your description brings to mind the ending of A Nightmare on Elm Street, the original, of course.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  168. @Patriot

    I was born in the South,but raised in the Northeast; visiting in the South frequently. Your observations about race relations were also mine. Popular psychology in the Northeast readied me to expect a Simon Legree, with a whip, on every street corner.

  169. iffen says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The soundtrack and shot of the gate at the very end — when Rick Dalton walks through, up the driveway and into the alternative American future with the Sharon Tate people …

    It was The Pearly Gates for Rick.

  170. @Che Guava

    CHE

    Craven hated that ending and wanted Kreuger dead when Nancy turned her back in the bedroom scene.

    Just as John Carpenter hated the ending of HALLOWEEN when Loomis looks down to see that Michael Myers has disappeared after being shot off the balcony.

    In both cases, executive producers wanted sequels.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  171. @SteveRogers42

    STEVE

    In my mind, there was a marked difference between Bronson in the seventies and Bronson in the eighties. Once he turned sixty in 1981, he just seemed to look his age and by the time he was roughing up punks in DEATH WISH 3 it looked ridiculous.

    But of course Bronson was a two-pack a day man until he was in his early sixties. I recall reading some article somewhere that he quit in 1983.

    Of course Bronson was short. He was the only actor honest about his height and made it clear he was 5’8. He towers over Daniel Trejo (Who sort of became his replacement so it is ironic that Bronson semi-discovered him in the eighties) in DEATH WISH IV.

    Also, Bronson was a coal miner from the age of 16 who volunteered for dangerous jobs to make more money.

  172. Rurik says:
    @Jon Baptist

    De Niro has no problem supporting the IDF that shoots children and pregnant mothers.

    That’s the thing.

    If he said he hated Trump because of his support for the genocidal regime in Israel, then I’d respect him.

    But instead, it’s very clear that he hates Trump = because he hates the ‘Deplorable’, working class white males who put Trump into office (and are his fan base). The.. in a word – ‘racists’.

    Who’re being officially discriminated against and replaced in an unprecedented wave of cultural and ethno genocide. But if they object, little Bobby De Nero wants to punch them in the face.

    Guys like Schwarzenegger and Mickey Rourke and Bryan Cranston seem to me to be ‘hating on’ Trump in order to keep working in (((Hollywood))), but for De Nero, it’s obviously personal.

    I hope his movies bomb, big time. And Italian Americans remember Robert De Nero when Columbus day is nixed for being racist.

  173. Che Guava says:

    You are correct. However, it is impossible for the current polity.

    There are also justifiable points of resentment, from the amount of aid from Japan, the role of Japan in normalising the CPC-ruled mainland in terms of international diplomacy, the extent of tech theft (best exemplified by China’s call for tenders on high-speed rail, they may be payhng a few patent royalties to SNCF and JR, but the whole point was to steal tech, there never was an intention to award a single contract).

    Thus the several disasters in early high-speed rail in China.

    Many other examples.

    China also has many legitimate grievances, both historical and contemporary. The ludicrous claims of Japan to islands to the south of the former Ryuukyuu Kingdom (Okinawa), the fact that our foreign minister was threatened with no ‘return’ of Okinawa, if as had been agreed between the USSR and Japan, a peace treaty was drawn up on the basis of the two southernmost Kuriles to Japan.

    Okinawa is not even really and never was a part of Japan, but was annexed in the mid-to-late 19th c. They had a tributary relationship with the Shimazu, who had earlier seized their northernmost islands, but the southern part remained in tributary relations with China, and only with Japan’s southermost domain, which was an open secret at the time, I would guess.

    U.S. officers at the time were aware of this, so far more intelligent than their successors of now, they supported Ryuukyuu independence. Sure. It would have likely have remained a giant U.S. base complex, possibly on better terms than now.

    However, the situation of now, where the Okinawans could not win a vote (but it came very close abt. ten years ago, I suspect ballot stuffing as the reason, her policy was to kick out the bases, but there are just too many invaders (in this case, mainly Japanese). She came so close to winning the election.

    In any case, I have been too verbose. Japan’s meaning to the U.S.A. is a set of military bases, but, also, as a bonus, blocking the Pacific w.r.t. China.

  174. @Jeff Stryker

    I flipped through Jim Brown’s autobiography to read the part about filming The Dirty Dozen. He described Bronson, who was 45 +/= during filming, like this:

    “I flew over to London with Charles Bronson. He was the strangest mofo I had ever met. I sat right next to him, man did not say one word to me. He stared straight ahead, appeared to be brooding. I spoke to him once, but I knew not to say too much. After that, I was surprised at how much help he gave me on the set. I like men I can’t intimidate, and I liked Bronson. He was tough and forward, if you were weak you’d be scared of him. He used to be a coal miner, never pretended he hadn’t. Bronson was in tremendous physical condition. He would walk to a car, stop, jump right over it. The London women were after his ass. He wasn’t a face man, but they liked his body and they liked his walk – Bronson had a great walk, tight and contained. Watching Bronson, you could tell he thought he could fight. I don’t know if Bronson could fight or not, but you didn’t want to fuck with him. The mental thing he carried around was no joke.” Jim Brown Out of Bounds

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  175. @Chris Mallory

    MALLORY

    Bronson wasn’t a big man. Five eight (Unlike Burt Reynolds and other short men of the era, he never claimed to be taller than he was) and about 170 pounds. Jim Brown was not a huge man-he was small for a pro ball player-about 6’2 and 220. Funny he should have found Bronson intimidating.

    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
  176. @Jeff Stryker

    Jim Brown was (is) a connossieur of intimidation and male antler-clacking. Bronson was a WW2 combat vet, which is probably what JB was picking up on — the Cliff Booth effect.

  177. “Absolutely true that 1980 South was the complete opposite of that portrayed by the Lying Liberal Media.”

    I think you are mistaking history of political correct posturing for netter relations. Sure as long as blacks made no complaints, white southerners noted just how well they got along with “their” blacks. It was those troublesome northerners agitating for equality.

    • Troll: Chris Mallory
  178. @TRM

    My favorite True Romance an early screen play of his. This scene is classic.

    • Replies: @WhiteWinger
    , @Che Guava
  179. Toy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    She din du nuffin wrong.
    She waz a good girl bout to turn her lyfe round.
    Yes… that’s why she decided to get impregnated by Polanski’s disgusting jew spawn.
    C’mon, abortion was as normal as brushing your teeth back then, coz muh women’s lib! And this traitorous whore didn’t even have the decency to use a coat hanger. I’m glad Dr. Manson made the appropriate arrangements. He choose wisely to abort the whore as well.

    • Troll: Chris Mallory
    • Replies: @Alden
  180. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Thanks for the information.

  181. I am afraid, those many of have don’t have much imagination when it comes to sensuousness . . .

    Because along with an slow moving earth’s circumference of lava tube of sensuality that invades every pixel, Ms. Angelina Jolie has a Marianas Trench depth of something yet asking to be discovered/uncovered . . .

    And I couldn’t find a single photo that demonstrates that sense. Though there are tons of wonderful images.

    but for sensuality: lying backwards over a sprawled out over a red Ferrari or Lamborghini comes mighty close

    for the Marianas: standing alone face forward as a bullet just grazes past her face . . . (she even manages to pull off a sense she feels the breeze as it passes).

    Mr. Pitt might want to reconsider, letting this woman go despite what a pain she may be — that’s usually a two way street.

    Cheers.

  182. Alden says:

    Polanski has a movie at the Venice film festival. It’s another about Saint Dreyfus the holy martyr. I’m sure it will win all sorts of awards.

  183. ” Troll: Chris Mallory ”

    Just look at the history. It’s accurate that the south gentile relations with blacks has a tame history, unless you examine periods in which blacks acted as citizens. The riots, land confiscations, murders, and other mechanisms to deny blacks power and once accomplished . . .

    Sure whites say all is good and well. That doesn’t take a degree to understand or review. But look at the utter mayhem about statues. Statues of men who literally made war against the US and cost about a million lives. based on a knee jerk reaction to an election that did shift southern fortunes one iota and wouldn’t have.

    The south held the trump card of rebellion, when they pulled that trigger as they did — they wasted it.

    Note: I have no particular animous against southern statues – part of our history. But I certainly get why others might have a different opinion. Things were fine in the south until someone actually voiced opinions about the rebel symbol — then there was trouble. Free speech is not a one way corridor.

  184. @EliteCommInc.

    correction:

    knee jerk reaction to an election that did not shift southern fortunes one iota and wouldn’t have.

  185. @EliteCommInc.

    It appears you have confused free speech with anarchy, and the rule of law with mob rule.

  186. “It appears you have confused free speech with anarchy, and the rule of law with mob rule.”

    If you are seeking a response, I will need some clarification on where the confusion exists. What i mean by free speech is that one is allowed to make a counter argument. Though rioting might be considered “free speech” I am shy to suggest it because of the coercive violence.

    I am not sure what you mean by mob rule. Mob rule can certainly be coercive without being violent.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  187. @mcohen

    There is a nod to the Cohen brothers True Grit in Once upon a Time… – the two takes with Di Caprio and the girl – first in front, second in the saloon.

    • Replies: @mcohen
    , @Chris Mallory
  188. The only reason why Tarantino made this movie was so his fictional Sharon Tate can give birth to Polanski’s rape baby. His entire career is a love letter to the types of Jews who made him famous, namely Harvey Weinstein. All his movies’ villains are perceived enemies of those Jews: Klansmen, “nazis,” rednecks, hippies, even the (presumably racist) LA cops in Reservoir Dogs. All White, of course, except for the yakuza in Kill Bill.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  189. Che Guava says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Jeff,

    Yes, I read about it. There is some reference to it on the DVD (which has three endings), and the money man talking about it.

    Craven (RIP) directed at least two of the sequels, though. They weren’t bad, even if most of the rest were. So he can’t have been too furious.

    I didn’t watch the Halloween sequels, until the pretty good final one.

    I also ignored most of the Fri. the 13th/Jason sequels, but you’ve likely seen it, Jason X is a pretty great reference-fest., cheap as hell, much wooden acting, I loved it.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  190. @Che Guava

    CHE

    Craven didn’t direct any of the sequels. Jack Sholder directed the second (He did the Sci-Fi film HIDDEN) and this was sort of weak. Chuck Russell did ELM STREET 3 and went on to do THE MASK with Jim Carrey (This sequel was arguably the best of the lot). Renny Harlin did the fourth ELM STREET.

    Craven produced them and wrote the script for one. But he had intended for the film to end with the first one.

  191. mcohen says:
    @Dieter Kief

    I missed that.cheers

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  192. @mcohen

    Thanks! There’s two of us now, standing on the bridge between the Titans, below us the raging waters of neglect and ignorance! – But we hold out! – There might even be a third one in the misty distance, trying to find this shaky bridge! – It won’t take long! Our just case is too sound and solid!

  193. @EliteCommInc.

    No one had a problem with statues 10 years ago because there isn’t a problem with statues. The same as no one had a problem 10 years ago whether cops or citizens were shooting unarmed blacks that they were being attacked by. The poor white guy in Detroit recently was murdered by unarmed blacks and had he been able to defend himself with lethal force, he no doubt would’ve been prosecuted by the same corrupt system that incites blacks to begin with.

    That’s the difference between what is free speech and what is incitement which, is not afforded the same legal protection as free speech. But that depends of course, upon who’s doing the inciting, as we saw in Charlottesville and the resulting prosecutions and lacks thereof.

    But you have no real experience with Southern black-white race relations except for the salacious headlines you’ve read from afar, just as 2-3% whites in the South owned slaves, the rest are content to live and let live, miscegenation notwithstanding. And if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the entirety of human history.

  194. “No one had a problem with statues 10 years ago because there isn’t a problem with statues. The same as no one had a problem 10 years ago whether cops or citizens were shooting unarmed blacks that they were being attacked by. ”

    The issue of civil war emblems first started in the late 1980’s concerning the rebel flag. It was just a ripple. But anyone think that the black population living in the South thought of Southern civil war heroes as heroes, doesn’t comprehend the meaning of political correct authority. That you honestly believe that blacks in the South embraced the Flag of South sincerely in any manner other than to avoid ruffling the feathers of whites . . . is to mistake that political correctness for docility.

    And I would grant out that as subsequent generations have to come to the fore that issue has gained some steam– and even whites got the message that the flag is the flag of a rebellion against the US that it flies at all anywhere is an indictment of the country’s real views regarding blacks and freedom. One only flies an emblem of the rebellion if in fact they are still in rebellion, that’s the message and that rebellion as a symbol represents a society that claimed a state’s right to imprison other human beings and use them as chattel and in no small cases on par with beasts of burden.

    good grief, what a murder in Detroit has to do with the Confederate flag and it subsequent symbols is strange, unless you believe that the flag was used as a mechanism to instill fear in blacks to ensure compliance.

    In truth the symbol has nothing to do with contemporary crime. It is tragic that anyone murders anyone. However, there’s no evidence that blacks as a majority or even as a minority of thinkers save some strange outliers that blacks are anymore entitled to kill whites as vice versa. The symbology and that incident has no relevance in this discussion and your muddying the water is uncalled for. But it does support my position. That in the face of a free speech discussion your retort is one predicated not relevant or related material but some extreme totally unrelated.

    Just because blacks were polite in the south to southern sensibilities does not mean they were in agreement. Whether it’s the flag, statues, bathrooms, education . . . it has only been when they voiced opposition — then of course,

    “uppity” is the turn of phrase voiced in a myriad of ways. And that is practice among whites North South East and West. Liberals and Democrats are not foreigners to manipulating power on black silence. And it makes sense to be silent when you are out of the power position — lest, whites and others get you mixed up with the police and falsely accuse and destroy your life. And underdogs know this game very well. I suspect that blacks in the US know better than most.

    But it has only since gaining some clout in social, economic and political force that the black population (and not all of them) have been willing to express some sentiments on the issues of just what those symbols have meant and what they imposed as the same. I think we should embrace all of goods and ills. But if you can’t grasp the bizarre juxtaposition of Gen Lee as hero at West Point of all places — then you don’t understand loyalty to country and what Gen lee so politely chose as course of choice against the nation that bore him and blessed him. Odd this, Gen Lee did not say let the states deal with John Brown — he went out to arrest him, then Col Lee, I think.

    Note my comments are not based on modern standards — but the standards of the time concerning loyalty to country.

    Pres. Jackson would have had his fellow southerner hung for joining the rebellion.

    —————————-

    I am going to let slide the “police” inclusion here. I think I am on safe ground to acknowledge the use of the “attacking black man” has after 100 plus of use is finally losing its force. Fortunately and sadly as increasing video reveals, the police are not so clean as advertised, and that is now becoming a reality to more and more whites. Something that blacks have cataloged since they left plantations and something whites claimed was a thing of their imagination.

    It appears not so much. There is no war on police. But there is acknowledgement that there are problems with the conduct of enough officers to be concerned.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  195. Amended: “One only flies an emblem of the rebellion if in fact they are still in rebellion, that’s the message ”

    One flies the flag for any number of reasons — excuse my self acknowledged narrow view — and my comments first line is too narrow.

    One can certainly exhibit pride in their forefathers, even that pride was against the country of their birth. No issues. I support free speech. But I certainly acknowledge the concern/objection of others that states have as an official emblem that symbol that which made war on the US.

    But this issue is not new, the meaning if civil war symbols, flags or otherwise.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  196. Che Guava says:

    I don’t think that you are correct, at least the final one was directed by Craven. Earlier, one where he wrote the script.

    In any case, the original and last are the best.

    The original, such a great horror film, to me, the transitions from dreams to reality, brilliant.

    My most scary viewing was after taking (unwisely) anti-psychotic pills (not for me, but fnr a friend at the time), they put one on a bad trip, but intensify the horror.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  197. @Che Guava

    CHE

    What is interesting is the original cast. For my money, the Spanish guy who played Ron Lane showed the most talent. He was the only actor who seemed to breathe in the role. For some reason Depp, who was only 21, did not stand out as an actor. He was rather flat.

    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  198. @EliteCommInc.

    The war was started by the tyrant Lincoln.

  199. @Dieter Kief

    I haven’t seen “Once…..”, so was it the Cohen Bros’ True Grit or the original that won John Wayne the Oscar for Best Actor 1969.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  200. @Staudegger

    “Hippies” were the enemies of the Jews? Ignoring the fact that many of the hippie leaders were Jews.

    • Replies: @fnn
  201. @EliteCommInc.

    It was secession, not rebellion. Lee was loyal to the nation that bore him, the State of Virginia as it should have been.

  202. fnn says:
    @Chris Mallory

    “Hippies” and the New Left began as separate phenomena. The former had Germanic roots, the latter mostly brought into being by Jewish Red Diaper Babies. But the Vietnam War protests brought about a lot of cross-fertilization between the two things .

    Hippie Origins:
    https://www.takimag.com/article/the_original_nature_boys_steve_sailer/#axzz1yyVmEzBZ
    https://www.hipplanet.com/hip/activism/hippie-roots-the-perennial-subculture/

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  203. “It was secession, not rebellion. Lee was loyal to the nation that bore him, the State of Virginia as it should have been.”

    This is an old retort.

    Supremacy Clause in response to the ineffective Articles of Confederation which each state signed on to support.

    The states used all of the federal mechanisms to resolved disputes, including the Supreme Court.

    And no state was an independent nation. That ended with the US Constitution and the Supremacy Clause sealed that arrangement.

    The war commenced when the state of South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter.
    ——————————–

    Despite the counter-factuals this film has a better grasp on history than you are willing to demonstrate in your comments.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  204. JimDandy says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    He was a white gentile badass in the movie, and he was tougher than Bruce Lee. Nothing you can do about it now.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  205. @JimDandy

    JIM DANDY

    Considering the film was a work of fiction, there is nothing anyone can do.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
  206. @EliteCommInc.

    “One can certainly exhibit pride in their forefathers, even that pride was against the country of their birth.”

    The irony that this also true of “Old Glory.”

    In which case you must not be in disagreement with the anarchists who came after the “Stars and Bars” simply as a warmup exercise in the pursuit of their main goal: The destruction of the real prize and all that she stands for.

    There was plenty of blame to go around leading up to the Civil War and it can be argued by their actions that slavery was the North’s moral fig leaf of choice to justify their own version of enslavement upon the agrarian South. (And here you go again, albeit on a much smaller scale: You detest the blacks and anarchists just as much but hey, if they can be used to suit your political ends, then… Lyndon Johnson has nothing on you moral selectitude.)

    In your arrogance you are only too blind and happy on your moral high horse as you assign thoughts and motives to the collective mind of a people who you neither know nor have attempted to empathize with, which is why you’ll be standing alone when the ones whose indefensible actions you now defend, train their sights on you next.

    “Pride goeth before a fall.”

  207. @JimDandy

    Chuck Norris was unable to defeat Bruce Lee in his prime and Norris was better-trained than a fiftyish borderline-alcoholic who’d probably been a pack-a-day man since he was ten years old.

  208. Hrw-500 says:

    Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a interesting attempt to do an alternate history movie theme. Had Sharon Tate lived, I wonder if she could had become an has-been due to competition from Raquel Welch or later in the 1970s from other stars like Farrah Fawcett, Carrie Fisher, Sally Field, etc…?

    And speaking of movies with alternate history theme, just imagine what if a producer do a movie featuring some uchronias like for example Mark Chapman shooting Yoko Ono instead of John Lennon or Hendrik Verwoerd avoided his assasination in 1966 by Dimitri Tsafendas?

  209. “There was plenty of blame to go around leading up to the Civil War and it can be argued by their actions that slavery was the North’s moral fig leaf of choice to justify their own version of enslavement upon the agrarian South.”

    Uhhhhh, this is really very simple. There’s no mystery here. Despite clear declarations from the president newly elected that he had no intention of risking civil conflict over slavery because it was legal and he had no intent of pursuing a policy to change that —

    South Carolina attacked the sovereign US. That was an act of war and the response was a war response.

    Period.

    Whatever disputes disagreements should have been pursued by every means legal and in place. One state chose war and the other states followed — during the war of 1812, the country fought as a country, not as separate countries —

    all the ring around the posey temper tantrum, but this, and that . . . and the north hates blacks to — despite its truth — is simply irrelevant.

    —————————-

    “You detest the blacks and anarchists just as much but hey, if they can be used to suit your political ends, then… Lyndon Johnson has nothing on you moral selectitude.)”

    and the rest . . . I have no idea what you are on about. I have my personal view of symbols quite clear.

  210. ” . . . which is why you’ll be standing alone when the ones whose indefensible actions you now defend, train their sights on you next.”

    I have no idea what you are talking. I am a conservative.

    hated by blacks, whites, browns. yellows, definitely Hollywood, women (even nonfeminst women), the religious. democrats, leftists, independents, republicans, rightists, libertarians . . .

    I am keenly aware of what it means to be out looking out . . . as for being targeted. Get in line, it’s long and filled the distinguished and distinguished alike.

    Though most other animals seem to take to me quite well.

    Laugh.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  211. Whitening says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Wellllllll, never knew that, but it doesn’t surprise me that those drugs were that prevalent throughout the extremely wealthy in L.A. as of then – among musicians and the movie industry,yes, but not to people like that. And you’re right, it proves Tate was anything but “innocent” as the media and others tell the story.

  212. Whitening says:

    I fear Tarantino’s childish rewriting / revisionism / Alternate Universe version of history, will open the door to other filmmakers to do the same, with the same ridiculous results. Surprised it hasn’t happened yet. See how easy it is?

    Too bad I’ll never get to make my version of this story….where The Family go on their murder spree, but instead of the 6-7 victims that were murdered, The Family slaughters dozens of music and movie Leftists, from Jane and Peter Fonda,Jack Nicholson, Bert Schneider and Bob Rafaelson, Candace Bergen, Robert Altman,Alan Rudolph, Crosby,Stills ,Nash & Young, Van Dyke Parks, Leo Penn and his young son,SEAN, Hugh Hefner, Marlon Brando, surviving members of the Hollywood Ten, all the Laurel Canyon music makers( Big, small, future stars in the ’70s )….you get the idea.
    They then leave all their anti-White messages in blood. The Race War happens, only in my version, Blacks don’t come anywhere near winning, they’re beaten pretty easily, as Whites everywhere are reawakened to their Pride, even in San Francisco, where the Haight-Ashbury, Rolling Stone magazine HQ, and Berkeley are ransacked clean of all Leftist radicals. Pro-Whiteness returns to a favorable status not seen since the 1800s, in the media, the movies, TV, et al. THE END. EAT IT, QUENTIN, self-loathing Whitey!!!!

  213. @EliteCommInc.

    The creation does not rule over the creators.

    The war started when Lincoln refused to negotiation the removal of Federal troops from Southern Soil and instead attempted to provision and reinforce those hostile forces occupying the sacred land of the South. Lincoln did negotiate the removal of other troops from the Southern Nation.

    Lincoln was a tyrant and got what he deserved. A shame he was not strangled in the crib.

  214. @Chris Mallory

    Supremacy Clause – union by choice case closed

    Fort Sumter federal territory located in the US in the state of South Carolina named after a South Carolinian hero. And welcomed as federal installation by South Carolinians as long as it defended their slice of land.

    Squirm, twist, yell, shout, have your philosophical entreaties — but at the end of the day, South Carolina had no unique jurisdiction over the installation and no authority to demand its abandonment.

    I don’t have any views on the peculiar creator ruler line. It’s quaint but has no force as by law the state of South Carolina signed on to be part of the US and as such becomes subject to said authority until by law otherwise released.

    Firing in Fort Sumter was an act of treason.

    ——————————————-

    The debate about succession would have been a very interesting one had the Southern states actually used it in some manner of due process, but as they chose war — the country responded in kind.

    Tell you what — if you can show me a single senator looking to get rid of federal installation today, maybe we can chat. Show me of any South Carolinian seeking to get rid some military fort or base.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  215. @Chris Mallory

    Lincoln was an opportunist. Little different than the vast majority of politicians in their time. Slavery had to end in the west, (regardless that there were still at the time white slaves captive in Islamia,) so he had that horse to ride on.

  216. @EliteCommInc.

    “I have no idea what you are talking. I am a conservative.”

    Laugh.

  217. “Laugh.”

    You are welcome to provide evidence otherwise.

  218. “(regardless that there were still at the time white slaves captive in Islamia,) so he had that horse to ride on.”

    I won’t comment on the opportunistic perspective about Pres. Lincoln — and we are far afeild from reality, but i don’t think the US executive had any authority in the region you suggest and he certainly was the global king of the whites with a mandate to rescue these whites.

    Too too hilarious.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  219. @DRMANCHILD

    The “Sicilians have Black blood” scene???? That’s an early example of his anti-White, race-baiting propaganda, that he’s unleashed in almost every film he’s done . And he really believes this! ALL Sicilians do not have Black blood, and the Moors were not Black either, they were North African ARABS.

    • Replies: @drmanchild
  220. ” . . . the Moors were not Black either, they were North African ARABS.”

    I think I will stick with Sir William Shakespeare on this one.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Othello-by-Shakespeare

    Correction: . . . was not the global king of the whites with a mandate to rescue these whites around the planet

  221. @WhiteWinger

    I’m not disagreeing with you but they got the olive skin and dark eyes somewhere. Could it be a new minority? OSM (Olive Skin Matters). I want my free shit. I just love the scene between two great actors. Some of which was ad-libbed. My mother is 1st gen this is her DNA
    Italy
    84%
    Southern Italy
    Calabria
    Sicily
    Turkey & the Caucasus
    14%
    Greece & the Balkans
    2%
    I see no African and she’s as olive skinned, dark haired and eyed as they come. I totally agree with you on Tarantino he’s a Douche of the highest degree

  222. @EliteCommInc.

    I was opining that slavery was a widely practiced institution from the dawn of humanity up until that time, not that Lincoln had any interest in its occurrence outside the US.

    I would weigh your take on the supposition that the South could’ve used legislative or diplomatic means for secession against the sabre-rattling of the US, which can be interpreted as provocation on Southern soil which also may have presented a “clear and present danger,” in that the North had taken the first military steps, and that on the front lawn. Shades of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

  223. “I was opining that slavery was a widely practiced institution from the dawn of humanity up until that time, not that Lincoln had any interest in its occurrence outside the US.”

    Well, it makes as much sense now as it did then. Because the US is predicated on a philosophy that all men are created equal. That is what made slavery an anathema here. It’s quaint to bemoan that slavery was universally practiced — but its practice among various societies was unique among them.

    For the US slavery juxtaposed against the reality of “all men are created equal” and was bound to turn in upon itself eventually.

    —————–

    “I would weigh your take on the supposition that the South could’ve used legislative or diplomatic means for secession against the sabre-rattling of the US, which can be interpreted as provocation on Southern soil which also may have presented a “clear and present danger,” in that the North had taken the first military steps, and that on the front lawn. Shades of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.”

    And the twisted logic continues. My position is that the Southern states did not pursue legitimate avenues. And no it would not have been provocation as the legislation was made to legalize slavery, there is no reason to believe that the same legal could have been advanced via the same process to allow a state to be free and separate. Furthermore, they could have advanced the same in the Supreme Court.

    The clear and present danger standard was not noted until 1919, about sixty years after the conflict in question. And contrary to your advance, it would not have been applied to an open debate and discussion in Congress or the Supreme for separation. The clause was applied to subversive behavior. it’s application was to wartime activities. Clearly advocacy in the courts and legislature discussion or debate on the question of severing a state’s union would be legal and proper in the legislature and furthermore — said would be engaged instead if war.

    That discussion makes the suggestion of the subversive standard incorrect because the discussions in Congress regarding the state of the union and concerns of the citizens of the US via their elected representatives entirely moot. That would be what I refer to as “due process”. In otherwords as opposed to a war to overthrow the government said process would actually employ the standards and practices of the government such the ability authorize a state into the union — the same could be utilized to cecede, leaving the US fully intact minus one.

    Now I have no views on whether said arguments could have prevailed. And my view is a counter factual to what actually did happen. But clearly not all avenues to avoid were not pursued.

    ——————————

    Note: the US was going to defend S. Vietnam regardless of the Tonkin amendment. The US would not have responded with war had the south not first engaged war.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  224. Che Guava says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Rod’s predicament is touchingly great.

    Depp is pretty bad, foreshadowing every piece of crap he acts in, at least for many years lately (he did have many interisting roles for a time, but long ago now). He is just a bag of puppy-fat in Elm St. The bed-blender sceme, in terms of splatter, is pretty good, but only as splatter.

    Heather Langenkamp is perfect as Nancy. The woman who plays Tina, also quite brlliant. Nancy’s mother, also very good.

    Also, of course, Craven’s favourite choice to play a cop, John Saxon (RIP), does a great job as Nancy’s father.

  225. Note: the US was going to defend S. Vietnam regardless of the Tonkin amendment.

    The US would not have responded with war had the southern states not first engaged warfare.

  226. Che Guava says:
    @DRMANCHILD

    I agree, it is also my favourite.

    I never understood the fuss about Pulp Fiction, it was entertaining, cut in an interesting way, in terms of time, but not much really.

    The best part of Kill Bill was in part 2, in Ginza, the giant restaurant scene with the 5,6,7,8’s playing, and much happening with that as the foreground. Otherwise, not so interesting.

  227. @EliteCommInc.

    For the US slavery juxtaposed against the reality of “all men are created equal” and was bound to turn in upon itself eventually

    The institution of slavery was as socio-economic as it was cultural in the preindustrial age. There is no argument that it was in contradiction to “all men are created free” except in the morally paper-thin context of “all men” belonging only to the white races. Ask Darwin.

    Note: the US was going to defend S. Vietnam regardless of the Tonkin amendment.

    Exactly. Another moral fig leaf.

    The US would not have responded with war had the south not first engaged war.

    Is this what your retro-divining crystal ball told you? Economic sanctions and military action in proximity have long been acknowledged as “acts of war.”

    When your neighbor who has shown repeated hostility shows up on your front porch armed to the teeth, it is a judgement call whether to sue for peace or to meet force with force. GW Bush would characterize it as a “preemptive strike”.

    The clear and present danger standard was not noted until 1919,

    It may not have been codified until 1919, but it has been recognized as such from time immemorial.

    But clearly not all avenues to avoid were not pursued.

    Check that double-negative, Sparky.

  228. @James M Dakin

    If you love QT dialog, Hateful Eight was about his best movie.

    The worst part of his movies is the gore and non- stop profanity.

    The most insufferable party of his movies is the pedantically fascile dialog. It’s Coen brothers for comic strips.

  229. “The institution of slavery was as socio-economic as it was cultural in the preindustrial age.”

    You still at it. The measure of that morality is not by modern times. The measure of morality is by their times. The debate at the Continental Congress was a debate about that contradiction — in other words, the founders knew it was at issue.

    Good grief look at Pres Jefferson’s own self debate (personal turmoil) and twisted logic. The fact slavery existed in no way suggests that it existed as universal moral good or even ok. As the history of slavery makes very plain — slave runaways, slave revolts, etc.

    In the US against the foundation of freedom, a war for the same — it was absolutely a matter of concern. It almost broke any union. And the matter continued to plague the country to this day. The founders were well aware on intelligent, diligent blacks operating as all other men as the free blacks in their midst and even according to European history —

    There is no way to defend the founders – it was a monumental flaw in their entire proposition and that by their standard and by their own discussion.

    ————————————-

    laugh. it’s a moral fig leaf you brought to the table. Out of context, rejected by the “clear and present danger standard” and utter useless in any debate regarding the Southern states choice to engage in war before pursuing other means. it has no bearing on the issues and when formulated was applicable to speech during wartime or advocacy for war — completely the opposite of a legislative debate seeking redress that would end with states being severed from the union.

    Take responsibility for your contentions. My response is a reflection of the reality of Vietnam. Why people insist on dragging Vietnam into every discussion on war in spite of the blatant incorrect points of comparison is funny.

    You went the colonies, to the civil war to 1919 to 1964 without so much as a relevant connection between them.

    ————————————–

    Rely on technical complaint as you will. It will not assist you in any way from getting out of the Canyon you have dug yourself. There is little defense for the southerners who engaged in treason. They were extended grace over the backs of blacks. The triple and quadruple negatives that matter are those that have hamstrung our country and the constant attempt by others to justify falsehoods and the consequences that came them.

    And to be clear, “grace” is extended in spite of wrong or because of it. Correcting a wrong is not grace, that’s undoing what should have never been done – that called righteousness. Falsely accusing someone requires righteousness as those who committed the wrong have no moral authority to extend grace. Grace would be the wrong forgiving or in some manner easing the redress required.

    There’s no rope long enough to rescue you.

  230. @Chris Mallory

    At first glance the Coen brothers. Not last, because of the drunkard in their movie (Jeff Bridges) – and the fabulous young girl actress Hailee Steinfeld. The Coens said, they had been looking for a girl like her – with true grit – for a long time, and they succeeded in the end.

  231. @fnn

    Thanks for the two Hippie-links! – Don’t know exactly what to make of them with regard to Tarantinos take on the Hippies, but nevertheless, these links sure are interesting!

  232. @EliteCommInc.

    If you can find me a current senator who is not a lickspittle traitor to the people they claim to serve?

  233. “If you can find me a current senator who is not a lickspittle traitor to the people they claim to serve?”

    Not my burden. But I thought that the contentions are that southerners were not capable of being traitors because their loyalty was to their state. Yet in the case of maintaining federal installations and the income streams they provide, their loyalty is now traitorous.

    Certainly southern honor is not capable of being bought.

  234. But then we are talking about a society that supported a war for freedom while maintaining slaves to protect their personal incomes. And then upon nationhood, classified said slaves as persons for the purpose of using that personhood to ensure a positive vote count in Congress to the end of protecting the very same incomes.

    And I agree that the north was just as interested in the dollars garnered from slavery.

    So it appears that southerners are to willing to betray that which they say is fundamental, if that betrayal will increase their incomes. Based on the arguments made for southern honor at the end of the day income streams trump even honor and integrity of purpose.

    ——————————————-

    It might be a good idea to stop defending the act of war by southern states and simply acknowledge it was an error/mistake. Otherwise one is forced to use very twisted logic, incorrect history, and self defeating arguments.

    Like liberals throwing every kitchen sink to support the unsupportable. One might find themselves as Charlie Manson, promoting a color war for the purposes of being on top.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  235. Yet Hollywood refuses to make any movies which state that 65 million were killed in their Leftist Progressive Marxist USSR Gulag extermination camp system.


    GULAG films https://gulagfilms.org/

    The largest genocide in recorded human history and total silence from Hollywood, for over 100 years.

  236. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    I will not go to see this movie because I hate modern theatres with their horrible amplified noise and endless commercials. As for Tarentino, I wouldn’t waste my time going to see anything he makes or has made. Look at his face, its pure evil.

  237. @EliteCommInc.

    Your virtue-signaling has been duly noted.

    Slavery, after the onset of the Industrial Age would’ve died a natural death in the egalitarian U.S. without the threats of the North which led to the secession and preemptive strike from the South.

    Defending/ identifying with the antebellum South is not a defacto defense of slavery no matter how much your need to be on the moral high in this comments section is.

  238. “Your virtue-signaling has been duly noted. Slavery, after the onset of the Industrial Age would’ve died a natural death in the egalitarian U.S. without the threats of the North which led to the secession and preemptive strike from the South.”

    I don’t think you know the meaning of “virtue signaling”.

    It’s an interesting idea that slavery would have died out. Perhaps, but I think the evidence is pretty clear given the aftermath that the country would have been an apartheid nation and given the numbers successfully so. That in spite of the Constitution.

    However, there is no evidence that there was any official threat from Northern states.

    Pres, Lincoln made it clear, he had no intention of submitting any legislation to free slaves. His position: slavery was legal as per the Constitution and he could not arbitrarily end it nor did he seek to.

    Hmmmmmm . . . I did not make any argument suggesting that defending Southern ethos, itself was a defense of slavery. The civil war was not an attack on “Antebellum Southern Aristocracy” or life. It was soley in response the attack by a southern state against the US in an attempt to sever the Union.

    The primary issue of why the southern states revolted was slavery and while one can make some distinctions — they are very tough. Let’s just admit that slavery was considered ” a way of life”.

    The problem is always – the very cause of the country. That declaration of independence and what it dilleneates as a cause for war is magnitudes by 100 for slaves to revolt. It so deeply contradicts everything the country stands that it destroys the very core of the nation. it all but erases it. How men of faith could it, I have no idea. And then to violate how the “good book” says slaves ought to be treated —- the entire enterprise in the US cannot be justified save as to do the unjustifiable call human beings property. This is not a problem of the south – but for the US.

    But at the end of the day, had the southern states not fired on Ft. Sumter they could held on to the hypocrisy that was slavery.

    • Replies: @NoCriticHere
  239. @EliteCommInc.

    That declaration of independence and what it dilleneates as a cause for war is magnitudes by 100 for slaves to revolt.

    In principle, maybe. In reality, no. Slaves had no Constitution before or after their arrival in the US. Were imported slaves even considered US citizens? No. They were scarcely considered Homo sapiens. and were not alone in their plight in that it can be established through The Naturalization Act of 1790 which was only to only include “free white peoples…” Imagine that, a budding nation protecting homogeneity.

    But the question is moot. There was no coordinated “slave revolt.”

    It so deeply contradicts everything the country stands that it destroys the very core of the nation. it all but erases it. How men of faith could it, I have no idea.

    Here you go with the hand-wringing again. And that from the same guy who earlier spoke of the contemporary moral culture. If you can’t place yourself in the pre-industrial age when there wasn’t a Walmart on every corner, and no Amazon.com, then you’re unqualified to defend your own assertions. Was chattel slavery going too far. Of course it was. When haven’t societies gone too far? The good ones sense it and rein back in. That bad ones continue and make worse as we see in Africa and the Middle East, where chattel slavery and other atrocious human rights violations, many exclusively racist in nature, are in practice to this day.

    And please remember, it was white men and women of Faith who’s consciences would not but demand they see the end of that institution. So if you want to accuse, you must moreso offer your debt of gratitude. And not yours only but the ungrateful masses who’ve also forgotten whence their freedom was purchased.

    the entire enterprise in the US cannot be justified save as to do the unjustifiable call human beings property. This is not a problem of the south – but for the US.

    No kidding but you’ve bent the conversation all the way around from college kids and their agitators committing vandalism against government property, to “slavery was a US problem in need of rectification,” as though there’s an argument somewhere that it wasn’t, and to presumably justify the current events because of it.

  240. Excuse the delay some speaker tech, issues on another system that is in constant use.

    “In principle, maybe. In reality, no. Slaves had no Constitution before or after their arrival in the US. Were imported slaves even considered US citizens? No. They were scarcely considered Homo sapiens. and were not alone in their plight in that it can be established through The Naturalization Act of 1790 which was only to only include “free white peoples…” Imagine that, a budding nation protecting homogeneity.”

    I see you are still at it. Uhh excuse me. But the Declaration the philosophical foundation for the revolution ans that establishing a nation was written before any official established cause of nationhood. Your constant squirming is humorous. Free black persons worked and lived in the colonies and did as all others. When I was kid, my teachers loved to pull out the Crispus Attucks card as a black who along side white colonials fought for freedom. Now I won’t parse through the issue of just how human blacks were considered in the colonies. And I am not going to defend the practices that discriminated against them — that would be me being as hypocritical as the many of the founders – not all but many.

    So I will agree with you that founders practiced hypocrisy regarding black persons even if they were free persons.

    Unfortunately, as free blacks did conduct business, attended church, spoke the King’s English, paid taxes, ate, drank and even chose which side to fight on in the revolution, commadered ships at sea, read, wrote the King’s English — I think it is a very safe bet that whatever discrimination they faced, the colonials saw them as people. And the Constitution makes it clear that they were “playing fast and loose” with reality of that when it came to consider the vote count with 3/5’s clause. And that is where the hypocrisy is in full tilt as North and south battled over how many of those persons could counted to the electorate —- laugh. Clearly they were people, even if one wanted to hopscotch around with rhetoric for legal reparte’ sad part of our history for sure. I am not going to defend that either.

    I would say that the abolitionists made the issue very clear. It was hypocrisy through and through. You remind me of people who support murdering children in the womb. No rhetorical turn of phrase to reclassify humans as something less for the purposes of denigrating that which according to Pres. Jefferson endowed by the creator as inalienable/unalienable right.

    I have no idea what you by hang ringing as stated before. These standards are not mine nor are they contemporary. They were the issues of the day. There’s not a month that goes by in which the issue what to do regarding slavery and blacks is not an issue. I cannot recall the reference, but there is a book that records the legal proceedings of the time, and barely a month passes in which the legal issue slavery is not on some judges docket, even in the south. The moral question is not new — and the complaint by abolitionists makes that abundantly clear. It is not as if one needed an awakening. it is not as if people suddenly woke up one day in 1860 all alight and aflame with a revelation that “slavery was counter to the purposes of the country”. Take a look at Harper’s from that period, not two months goes by without the issue of slavery as issue.

    Nor am I going to rebut that the same hypocrisy exists to this in the US. As for being qualified. I think the record is historically is rather deep from sea to shining sea. My limit here has been about justification for either slavery and the civil war

    slavery: economic gain
    civil war: economic gain and the protection of slavery to that end

    trying to hod tie the US to European and US ventures in Africa based on some supposed character flaw doesn’t have much in the way of support. And is another discussion. I understand why you want to run from this one — however, I intend to remain where I entered.

    I beg your carelessly entreaty to whom I owe gratitude. That simply is a comment out of time and space — say as far as Pluto as to relevance. I owe no more or no less than any other citizen. I have no idea why even suggest something so obtuse.

    —————-

    I am unaware of any argument I have made regarding college students, government property or vandalism. Allow me to correct your off the wall reference.

    What I said was that the south is not alone in culpability. I said that in reference to your conted(s) that the North hated blacks as well. Something I am more than willing to grant out. Furthermore,

    This conversation started out to address the issue of the old tit for tat about who started the civil war. it had nothing initially to do with slavery as the primary area of discussion. That has occurred as progression and as usual I think was the press by those defending the attack on Fort Sumter, which would not be my position.

    My sole position on slavery is very simple. Based on the morality of that time and place – it was hypocrisy – period. And there were no small number of colonials who knew so and no small number who made that case.

    There is no room to hide behind –“But in those days,” based on the rhetoric about what that meant to be human by the most read, and intellectually expressive men of the time. And of course we are grappling with those consequences.

    In short, you persist on digging those ever deeper. No virtue required to observe that reality.

    • Replies: @roo_ster
  241. roo_ster says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    You sure are a windy sperg cluttering up this and other comment threads.

    Welcome to the ignore feature.

    • Replies: @Alden
  242. “You sure are a windy sperg cluttering up this and other comment threads. Welcome to the ignore feature.”

    Laughing. Ohhh I am crushed. Look I know that my failure to tow some sacred cows around my neck troubles many. But it’s those sacred cows that have fueled mountains of failure. A growing number in the country want to move forward, and they are abusing southern sensibilities to do it.

    Certainly, not all things southern are bad — but the unhunged attempts to defend the civil war are just roundly defeated by historical fact. In many respects the knee jerk emotional reaction is irrational of any “jew” or “black” about whom there is constant complaint.

    Your failure to find adequate response wind bag or not will not change whether I am on ignore or not. In the mean time, I will remain crest fallen.

    Laugh.

  243. foulkes says:
    @Toy

    Agree.

    I’ve never understood why he is so popular. He is a watery actor. His best performance was in Catch Me if You Can, simply because he looked young enough to play a teenager

    That is until .. Hollywood. I thought he shone here. He was believable as Rick

  244. “He ruins every movie he has ever been in.”

    Over the top. He did not ruin:

    The Departed
    The Aviator
    Revolutionary Road
    Inception
    Wolf of Wall Street
    or even

    J. Edgar or the Titanic.

  245. @fenestol

    I dont agree. I hated Django, and though Basterds a Jewish wank fantasy, but OATIH is a really really good film.

    Take the stick out of your butt.

  246. @Thirdeye

    “But the real fount of deep womanhood was the eight year old actress”

    A character based on Jodie Foster….

  247. @NoCriticHere

    You dont get it. Most people go into to the film with a basic awareness of Sharon Tate and her hruwsome end.

    Thus most people, including me, watch the first two hours of pre-diversity LA enjoying the moment but with dread thinking they know what is coming.

    When the film goes into the “once upon a time” alternate history, its cathartic to see the dirty hippies get their comeuppance.

    • Agree: Alden
  248. Alden says:
    @SunBakedSuburb

    That was the Haight Ashbury free clinic. It was set up so middle class White hippies wouldn’t have to endure the horrors of sitting in waiting rooms with ghetto blacks at the Free County hospital. It was primarily a STD birth control and pregnancy clinic. The pregnant girls were set up with welfare for themselves and the babies which subsidized the hippie community.

    If there were any elite nefarious plots going on, it was using the White hippies to create a barrier that prevented the Fillmore Divisadero blacks from expanding into Masonic Heights inner Richmond neighborhoods

    It worked!!!!!!!!

  249. Alden says:
    @Jeff Stryker

    Angela Lansbury and husband moved the family home and children to rural Ireland to get them away from Los Angeles.

    It’s very easy to meet entertainment people in certain residential and business neighborhoods of Los Angeles. If you’re a pretty young woman, it’s extremely easy to attract entertainment industry men. Just walk around, park the car and get out sit down in a coffee shop, just exist

    It’s easy to see how Manson operated. Send the girls to wander around the recording studios bars and clubs where the musicians roadies sound engineers hung out. Go to the beach and shopping centers hang out near restaurants in Malibu and a pretty girl can meet if not a celebrity, a friend neighbor or business associate of a celebrity in 30 minutes.

  250. Alden says:
    @roo_ster

    Elite commie seems to be a black preacher professor of BS studies with a good command of standard English. His comments really aren’t comments. They are lectures he labors over for hours. The long winded black preacher style is obvious. He’s recycling 1950’s early 60’s rhetoric that blacks are really normal human beings who just need an equal chance to prove themselves.

    He’s easy to ignore.

  251. Alden says:
    @Toy

    Abortion was illegal in 1967. She was married and wanted a baby. Why would she want an abortion? You’re just jealous she married a Jew. Why do you care who married whom 54 years ago?

  252. (EliteCommInc.) which has no political references at all.

    “Elite commie seems to be a black preacher professor of BS studies with a good command of standard English.”

    Black preacher – not even close

    As with many that peruse this site, your powers of soothsaying are bankrupt. When all else fails make nonsensical assessments that have no relation to the subject.

    laughing.

    Good grief.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Trevor Lynch Comments via RSS