khanbaliq2

Thor: Love And Thunder was easily the biggest disappointment of the summer for me. I do like the trailers that got made for the film. The people that make trailers for films by Marvel Studios do a good job. The film itself, however, turned out to be easily the worst Marvel film so far. I didn't expect Marvel to release a film this bad, but it happened. This is the first Marvel film that I don't want to see again. I'd rather be apprehended by Elon Musk's private right-wing militia than to see Thor: Love And Thunder again. Well, fine, the film is not that bad. But I definitely don't look forward to seeing it again. What makes it bad is the fact that almost everything in it is played for laughs. Nothing can be taken seriously. There are too many jokes and too much silly stuff. I'd say that about a third, or at most half, of the comedy in the film is effective, but the rest is mostly cringeworthy. Christian Bale, as usual, attempted to deliver a good performance, but his performance got wasted on a film where it doesn't belong. Since this is a Marvel film, the costumes and the special effects that got made for it are good as usual. But, again, they're wasted on a misguided film. I don't know if it was Taika Waititi's intention to make the film this bad. It probably wasn't. He was probably given too much freedom to do whatever he wanted and this has resulted in something farcical. I like every Thor film by Marvel that came before this one. Thor: Love And Thunder has a 64% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It doesn't deserve this rating. The rating should be rotten, quite rotten. I've never trusted Rotten Tomatoes because of one simple reason. Most professional film critics in the West are not reliable. They are bought and paid for, they are politically motivated, or they simply don't know what they're talking about. Hollywood films have been getting worse for several decades already, but the professional film critics either don't realize this or they don't want to talk about this issue. Therefore, they award high scores to films that don't deserve praise, they clobber films that don't deserve to be clobbered, and they go about their jobs as if nothing has changed. This is why I almost never check what they have to say on Rotten Tomatoes. If Thor: Love And Thunder hadn't had some propaganda in it, I think that its rating on Rotten Tomatoes would have been much lower. Unfortunately, many people simply repeat what they read on a website like Rotten Tomatoes. If a film is certified rotten on this website, they think that it's a bad film. This is not how I think. But, anyway, since Thor: Love And Thunder is a film by Marvel Studios, I still went to see it in a theater. Not everything about it is bad. Some of the comedy works, especially at the beginning. The direction is misguided but fine. The performances by the actors are fine. But, overall, the film is a disaster because nothing in it can be taken seriously. In addition, the action is disappointing and almost non-existent. Of course, there is one thing that could have saved Thor: Love And Thunder in its present state, or at least partially redeemed it. This would have been an inclusion of Zeus's planned orgy in the end credits scene. Or we could have at least been shown how Rich Evans defeats Thanos singlehandedly in an alternate universe. But instead what we got was Zeus talking to his son Hercules about killing Thor. How disappointing.

As for The Vision Of Escaflowne, I would say that it's my second favorite out of the three shows, behind Evangelion and ahead of Cowboy Bebop. Escaflowne is the most consistent out of the three shows when it comes to quality. It starts out well and it remains good until the end, but I must say that some of the early episodes are my least favorite episodes of the show. There isn't a noticeable dip in the quality of animation or storytelling after the first few episodes. The reason why Escaflowne isn't ahead of Evangelion for me is because it doesn't quite reach the same heights as Evangelion. The characters in Escaflowne are appealing, but they're not as interesting as the characters in Evangelion. What's also worth mentioning is that the creators of the show clearly wanted it to appeal to girls and not only to boys. The main character, Hitomi Kanzaki, is a school-girl. There isn't a shortage of scenes of her and the other female characters talking about their feelings for male characters and trying to get together with male characters. I must say that these scenes bored me. Escaflowne features impressive mecha designs and action scenes, but it has fewer memorable action scenes than Evangelion. However, the story of Escaflowne may be just as interesting as the story of Evangelion, perhaps more so. Evangelion is ultimately a story featuring aliens and about how these same aliens created mankind. Escaflowne is ultimately a story featuring Atlantis, a civilization of legend and lore that thrived 12,000 years ago on Earth, and about how the Atlanteans created Gaea. So, anyway, my three most favorite episodes are The Guided Ones, The Edge Of The World, and The Girl From The Mystic Moon. Although Evangelion is my most favorite one out of the three shows, I have to say that watching Escaflowne moved me the most this time. It's because there are things in the show that I didn't realize before and because I got to see some of the episodes in a new light. When it comes to characterization, Escaflowne manages to reach some of the heights of Evangelion. Some of the scenes in Escaflowne are simply incredible, like when Allen's father briefly meets Hitomi's grandmother in the Mystic Valley. What's also worth adding is that I watched all three of the shows this time with English subtitles. I didn't turn on the English dubs. English dubs for anime are almost always disappointing because they're lower in quality than the original Japanese language and sound tracks and because sometimes even the meaning of what is said gets changed. This is obvious, for example, in an OVA like Rurouni Kenshin: Trust & Betrayal, where, in some scenes, the excellent dialogue got changed completely. I was a bit stunned when I found out that the people that made the English dub for this OVA completely changed some of the dialogue for the dub. Some people praise the English dub that got made for Cowboy Bebop, but I think that it's not really good. I don't like that some of the words got changed for the dub, and I don't really like some of the performances. I think that Escaflowne has the best English dub out of the three shows, although this dub too isn't worth praising much, in my opinion. It's kind of funny that now that I'm done watching the three shows again, I feel a little sad that they're over. There's so much to like about the three shows, and I can watch them over and over again. I appreciate them now even more than I did when I watched them for the first time, partly because I now realize that good anime shows like these just don't get made anymore. I can obviously watch these shows whenever I like because I own them on video, but I can't simply spend all of my time watching anime. I have to do other things too, though I probably won't wait another several years before watching them again. What's also impressive is that all three of the shows are original creations. They weren't adapted from manga. However, manga based on these shows did get released.

I briefly reviewed Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse (2018) in one of my posts soon after it was released in theaters, and it seems to me that some people got the idea that I don't like this film. This is not the case. I went to see this film 2 or 3 times when it was playing in theaters. I own it on video. I even have the soundtrack. It's just that I like Incredibles 2 (2018), which was released in the same year, slightly more than Into The Spider-Verse, and I don't think that Into The Spider-Verse is the best Spider-Man movie or the best superhero movie ever. I think that Spider-Man 2 (2004) is still the best Spider-Man movie ever. I would say that both Into The Spider-Verse and Incredibles 2 have replay value. This is something that I can't say about many films that got made in the last two or even three decades. When I watched Into The Spider-Verse for the first time, I felt that something is not quite right with it, although I already realized that it's a special film. Into The Spider-Verse features a number of inspired scenes, appealing and detailed animation, a rather epic story, some good characterization, and many neat details. Still, perhaps the only main character that appealed to me back then is Peter B. Parker because I could relate to this character in a few ways and because he knew what he was doing. Miles Morales, who's the main main character in the film, didn't appeal to me in any way. I didn't even know about Miles Morales before I watched the film. For most of the film, Miles plays the role of comedic relief, and only at the very end does he get to do anything heroic by himself. There's also the fact that Into The Spider-Verse is a very kinetic film, in which almost everything happens fast. Therefore, it has to be seen more than once in order for the viewer to understand and to notice everything that happens in it. So, not only was seeing Into The Spider-Verse for the first time a new and somewhat odd experience for me, I didn't really find any of the main characters truly appealing. However, seeing Across The Spider-Verse in a theater made me like Into The Spider-Verse even more than I already did. First of all, both Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy get more character development in Across The Spider-Verse, thus turning them into more appealing characters. Second of all, many people (especially young men) have already been expressing their sweet hard love for Across The Spider-Verse, and especially for Gwen Stacy, on the internet. A few of them have been calling Across The Spider-Verse the best thing ever. Good for you, guys. But I don't share your euphoria. Perhaps it's because I'm a little more knowledgeable. Therefore, my reviews don't come down to phrases like "Best movie ever!" or "F*ck this movie!". Third of all, the animation style of Across The Spider-Verse is somewhat different from the animation style of Into The Spider-Verse. In some scenes, the animation of Into The Spider-Verse is almost photorealistic. But the animation of Across The Spider-Verse is often almost impressionistic. Both films feature some beautiful and detailed backgrounds. Fourth of all, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Across The Spider-Verse is a better film than Into The Spider-Verse. I think that they're equally impressive, though Across The Spider-Verse is perhaps a more exciting film. Fifth of all, all of the people in the auditorium where I got to see this animated film were adults. Most of them were in their late-twenties, thirties, or early-fourties. Some of them were old people. All of them were enjoying seeing the film a lot. What is going on here? I had a similar peculiar experience when I watched Titanic (1997) in a theater in February of this year. Most of the people in the auditorium were women, mostly young women, and some of them were truly excited and were even crying by the time the film came to an end. When the credits began to roll, these members of the fair sex all began to talk excitedly about the film. All I can say is that James Cameron knows how to make films that appeal to both men and women. No wonder his films bring in so much cash. Sixth of all, seeing Across The Spider-Verse later made me spend half a day on watching Into The Spider-Verse again on video. I watched some scenes several times, and I often paused the movie in order to look at the backgrounds and the character designs. It's true that Gwen Stacy sometimes moves like a ballet dancer in this film too. Before watching Across The Spider-Verse, I barely knew anything about Phil Lord and Christopher Miller because I had no interest in what these filmmakers have done. But, after taking a look at their filmography, it turned out that they worked on several films that I like quite a lot, and I got to see most of their films in theaters.

This year saw the release of two enjoyable films by DC Studios - Shazam! Fury Of The Gods and The Flash. If Walter Hamada is the man that's responsible for the DC Studios films that got released in the last few years, he deserves praise, in my opinion, because I enjoyed seeing almost every DCEU film that got released from 2019 to 2023. The Flash, in particular, is my favorite film of this year so far. Sure, it's not as good as, let us say, Across The Spider-Verse, but it affected me the most. The Flash is admittedly silly at times, but almost everything else in this film works well. It's clear that plenty of effort and money went into making The Flash. After The Suicide Squad (2021), The Flash is my favorite film in the DCEU. First of all, the cast, especially Ezra Miller and Michael Keaton, delivered good performances. The Flash does seem like a star vehicle for Miller. There are a few scenes in the film that are actually moving. This is something that can be said about only several superhero movies that got made in the last decade because most of them attempted to deliver only laughs and entertainment. But The Flash still features some effective comedy. One of the reasons why The Flash is often effective is because it features a good music score by Benjamin Wallfisch. What's also worth mentioning is that The Flash is kind of like a comeback for the American flag. The American flag is in the film for a bit and it looks glorious when it appears. The American flag hasn't looked this good in a film for about a decade or more. Sure, the American flag isn't a very good actor. The performances of the American flag are mostly stiff and of one note. But the American flag doesn't get cast in films because of its acting chops. It gets cast because of its good looks. There were rumors that the American flag had turned to drugs, and perhaps this is the reason why it looked bad in the films in which it appeared in the last decade. But I'm here to tell everyone that the American flag is back! Not since the 1990s has the American flag looked this good on screen. Perhaps the American flag has been spending time at the gym and consuming dietary supplements.

I'm not some Marvel fanboy. In fact, I don't like to be a fan of anything. Therefore, I was honest when I reviewed Taika Waititi's sloppy, even disastrous, Thor: Love and Thunder. But Wakanda Forever is another success for Marvel Studios. Seeing this film was the best experience that I had in a theater in a long time. When the film came to an end, I thought that it's now my favorite film from Phase Four of the MCU. But, after thinking some more about this, I decided that Spider-Man: No Way Home and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness are on par with Wakanda Forever. Some people have claimed that Kevin Feige has been giving directors more creative freedom since Phase Four began. If this is indeed the case, I understand why the output of Phase Four was uneven when it comes to quality. Wakanda Forever has director Ryan Coogler's style all over it. First of all, there aren't many action scenes in the film because it seems to me that Coogler prefers to focus on character development. This doesn't become a problem in the film because the performances of the actors (especially of Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, Angela Bassett, Michael B. Jordan, and Tenoch Huerta) are good, the cinematography is good (for a modern film), the direction is good, and the music is good. Therefore, the scenes of people talking aren't a snoozefest here. I cared about Shuri's struggle more than I cared about T'Challa's struggle in Black Panther (2018). It seems that Shuri intentionally puts on a suit that looks similar to N'Jadaka's suit from Black Panther because she wants to get revenge. I do like the first Black Panther film, which contains more action scenes, but I like Wakanda Forever more because it's directed better and because it's more polished. Perhaps the reasons why this is the case are because the film has a bigger budget ($250 million) and because production and filming took longer. Or the reason could have been because Feige was more involved in making Wakanda Forever as good as possible. I think that the filmmakers and the actors wanted to make a fitting tribute to Chadwick Boseman, who died in 2020, but they also didn't want the film to be a waterworks show. The country of Wakanda is a more believable place in Wakanda Forever than in Black Panther. Since Wakanda Forever is a Marvel Studios film, it might gross more than $1 billion by the end of its theatrical run. Its popularity also means that it has already gotten plenty of hate from the haters that hate its "woke" content and plenty of praise from the lovers that love the MCU. I'm neither a hater nor a lover of the MCU. I simply like it because it's a good film and because it's another fantastic addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" This is not Michael Corleone talking. This is me talking. I wasn't planning on making a post this early, and I definitely wasn't planning on making a post about the films that have come out in theaters recently. The post that I was going to make first was going to be about the future of the USA because this is what the Americans that follow my blog want to know about. Americans are known for being selfish and self-centered. Therefore, most of them are only interested in knowing about what's happening to them and around them. They have no idea, and they're not interested in, what's going on in the world. When it comes to what's going on in the world, they simply believe what the American authorities tell them to believe. In this way, they're just like the people in other countries. Americans also make up the largest demographic among the followers of my blog. Well, there are over 300 million of them, after all. I've already made at least one post about what will happen in the USA in the future. But I can make another, more detailed post, as well as adding other information. However, worrying about what my followers think and want has never been a thing of mine. Recently, someone called me a bigot on the internet. It seems that some people are offended by my bad, right-wing jokes. Well, I guess that I have been on a minor campaign of bigotry for a while. I don't have to make jokes, but sometimes I can't help it because seeing how some people react to them is quite amusing. Moreover, some of the most active people that follow my blog are controlled opposition figures, assets, influencers, and propagandists. They're people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Webster Tarpley, Paul Joseph Watson, or Patrick Henningsen. One of my followers informed me about these right-wingers. I didn't know about some of them and the many other controlled opposition figures that follow my blog because I don't listen to them or search for them on the internet. I was hoping that these people would stop following my blog, but it seems that no amount of bad jokes can turn them away. Well, this isn't a big deal, but I still managed to lose some followers because of my bad jokes, and this is just fine with me. Pleasing people is not what I'm into because my channel and my blog don't bring me any income. By the way, Alex Jones has become a pro at knowing what his followers want to see and hear. He has a new look now because he's older, and his act nowadays is that of an older angry white man because pretty much all of the people that listen to him are badly informed white reactionaries and right-wingers that are dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the USA. Anyway, since the bought and paid for film critics have been at it again, I can no longer look away. Well, they're always at it because this is what they get paid to do. I can't, however, ignore their ramblings this time. For now, I will overlook the fact that Rich Evans is an American treasure and instead focus on what the bought and paid for film critics have been saying about Top Gun: Maverick (2022). Some of them have said that Top Gun: Maverick is better than Top Gun (1986). I can't let this slide. Initially, I wasn't going to see Top Gun: Maverick or any other new film in a theater. I got to see Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022), and this was enough for me. Since I like this film, I saw it again on home video. This time I had time to notice the other good performances in the film, aside from those by the main cast. Only Xochitl Gomez delivered a faulty performance, but she's still only 16 years old. I like how Chiwetel Ejiofor acted in the film, particularly in the scene set in the New York Sanctum, after Karl Mordo meets Stephen Strange and America Chavez. Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Ejiofor, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are experienced actors, but their performances in the film are probably as good as they are because Sam Raimi was the director. Anyway, it so happened that I got to see Top Gun: Maverick because I was near a theater when I decided to see it. I went to the center of the city in order to see my sister, but she wasn't home. Therefore, since I didn't have anything else to do in the center of the city at that time, and since I had to go to the washroom, I went to the nearest theater, where I then got to see the film. Finding a public washroom, especially one in the center of the city, has been quite a problem ever since the COVID-19 mandates got introduced. Although the mandates have been abolished for the time being, it's still not easy to find a working public washroom or an open public washroom. Life hasn't exactly returned to normal. Just about every place that you can go to still closes at 9 p.m. Anyway, I wasn't expecting to be disappointed by Top Gun: Maverick because Tom Cruise has an impressive filmography. Even most of the films that he has starred in in the last decade or two are watchable. Few of them have replay value but I will point out that I enjoyed seeing Edge of Tomorrow (2014), Knight and Day (2010), Tropic Thunder (2008), and the Mission Impossible films. In my opinion, Minority Report (2002) is one of the best films of the last two decades and it definitely has replay value. Still, I wasn't expecting to be impressed by Top Gun: Maverick. After seeing it, I can say that it's a fine film. For a modern film, it's very good. But it's not better than Top Gun in any way. The characters in Top Gun: Maverick are kind of appealing, though not as appealing as the characters in Top Gun. The action and the footage of planes flying is mostly exciting, though not as exciting as the action in Top Gun. As to be expected, the soundtrack for Top Gun: Maverick is nothing to talk about. The soundtrack for Top Gun, however, is one of the most appealing aspects of the film, including the score by Harold Faltermeyer. Penelope Benjamin, played by Jennifer Connelly, is in the film only for Pete Mitchell to have a love interest. So, on the whole, Top Gun: Maverick is a competently made and mostly entertaining, though formulaic, film. Aside from films by Marvel Studios, I think that Top Gun: Maverick is the best new film that I've seen since Free Guy (2021). It's not as good as Free Guy, however, and it's definitely not as good as Top Gun. Top Gun can be seen again and again, and this is what people do. This isn't what I do, but I did see it again recently because I haven't seen it in years. It's one of the most well-known films of the 1980s. Top Gun: Maverick, on the other hand, has little or no replay value. I didn't enjoy seeing it as much as some of the other sequels or remakes that got made in the last decade, like Creed (2015), Creed II (2018), or The Great Gatsby (2013). Still, I wasn't at all disappointed by it. I think that the glowing reviews by the bought and paid for film critics that Top Gun: Maverick has received can be attributed to the fact that it features certain propaganda. Let's not forget that these are the same people that wrote glowing reviews about Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), which is at best a mediocre film. In my opinion, it's simply a bad film. But this bad film has a score of 93% on Rotten Tomatoes. This fact should tell you how many of the so-called professional film critics are bought and paid for. The Force Awakens was released in theaters not that long ago, and, therefore, I remember the hype that was created for the film quite well. This hype was mostly artificial and not real. Still, there were many people that were genuinely excited because they were finally going to see a new Star Wars film. The hype is the thing that made The Force Awakens one of the highest grossing films of all time. Even I fell for the hype because back then I didn't know as much as I do now. Because of the hype, I expected to see something great, something on par with the original Star Wars trilogy. Some people said that Disney would right the wrongs that George Lucas had created with his prequel trilogy. So, I went to see The Force Awakens as soon as I could. The auditorium where I saw the film was full of people. However, when the film came to an end, I thought, "Is that it?" Some people even clapped. I didn't clap because I didn't want to lie to myself and because I'm not a Star Wars fan. The Force Awakens was clearly not the great motion picture experience that I expected. So, I left the cinema and didn't think about The Force Awakens for quite some time. Later, after reading some good reviews by honest independent critics, I realized that The Force Awakens is a faulty, bland, and forgettable film and that it's a rip-off of Star Wars (1977). Even George Lucas's prequel trilogy is better than the tiresome The Force Awakens and its sequels. What happened is that The Walt Disney Company purchased Lucasfilm for several billion dollars and then made an unoriginal product, with the usual Disney formula, as quickly as possible in order to cash in on its new popular IP. However, I'm not one of those young, reactionary white (mostly American) men that have been "Trump supporters" for the last several years and that hate the oligarchical propaganda, policies, and restrictions that have become more prominent in the last decade, as the economic depression continued to drag on. I'm more open-minded. Therefore, I'm not going to say that I hate every Star Wars film that got released by Disney. Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) is the one Star Wars film that got released by Disney that I like. I think that it's the best Star Wars film since the original trilogy. Unfortunately, it's also the Star Wars film that performed poorly at the box office. I also like a few scenes from Rogue One (2016), though I think that this film as a whole is not enjoyable to watch.

In the last several months, I've seen some very enjoyable films on home video. Seeing just about any film that got made before the 2000s is a pleasure for me. Even the so-called bad films that got made in the 20th century now appear to be good if they get compared to modern films. The film that I enjoyed seeing the most is The Shooting Party (1985). I had no idea what it's about before I began watching it. I picked it up only because it's a film from the 1980s. This British drama film turned out to be a delight. The clothes and the makeup for the actors in this film were perfect. The acting is excellent. In short, it's a well-made historical drama. Like so many other films that got made before the 2000s, it has an artistic touch, which is something that almost all films that got made after the 1990s lack. Another memorable British film that I got to see recently is The Wicker Man (1973). This is an unusual film. It's usually advertised as a horror film, but it's not really a horror film. I'd call it a detective story, though the twist at the end of the film overturns the expectations of the viewer. The main thing that makes The Wicker Man work well is Edward Woodward's excellent performance in the leading role. The other cast members delivered good performances as well. I had heard of this film many times before deciding to see it, but the film's poster had always put me off from seeing it for some reason. Well, now that I've seen it, I can say that it's definitely worth seeing. Another horror film that I got to seeing is Altered States (1980). This film is one of my favorites from the 1980s. There's a lot to like about this science-fiction horror film. Now that I've see it again, I can point out that the direction by the famous director Ken Russell is very good. There's a good cast, good acting, good special effects, good dialogue, and a good music score by John Corigliano. It's just an all-around high-grade and memorable picture. Another film from the 1980s that I watched recently is The Prince Of Pennsylvania (1988). This film didn't make it on my list of the 50 best teen movies of the 80s, but this was perhaps a mistake because The Prince Of Pennsylvania has some good scenes, especially at the end. Since it's a film from the 1980s, I can watch it from beginning to end without any problems, but it's still not a bad film by any means. I was surprised because it has some good comedy, a good cast, some memorable scenes, and it's definitely worth seeing. I certainly enjoyed seeing the Poltergeist trilogy again. The first film, Poltergeist (1982), is known as a so-called classic horror film. It deserves this honor because it really is a well-made film with many memorable scenes. The cast, the acting, the special effects, the music, and the story in it are all good. It's one of the most well-known films of the 1980s. So, what about the sequels? The sequels were made in order to cash in on the popularity of the first film. But are they bad? Not at all. They're competently made and enjoyable films. The cinematography in the sequels is also often beautiful. The acting is just fine. The special effects are good and inventive. Some people criticize the sequels for not making much sense and for being cash grabs. But this doesn't make them bad films, and I had a pleasure watching them. Like so many other so-called bad films from the 1980s, they now seem good if they get compared to modern films, which are bland and have no artistic touch. I'd rather watch the Poltergeist trilogy than Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, for example. I've already pointed out in one of my posts that I like to watch Westerns now. The Western that I liked seeing the most recently is Arizona Bushwhackers (1968). Like many other Westerns, it's set during the American Civil War, which is a war that I became interested in after listening to Webster Tarpley talk about it almost a decade ago. It was a big and bloody war. It's quite interesting to read about it, as it turns out, and, therefore, I recently acquired a book, 'Battle Cry of Freedom' by James M. McPherson, in order to learn more about this war. I began reading this book only recently, and I don't yet know how good it is, but I have to start somewhere. It's a book from the 1980s, and it's critically acclaimed. So, I have a feeling that it will be a good read. I watched Arizona Bushwhackers because Yvonne De Carlo had a role in it. Another famous actor who had a role in it is Howard Keel, who also had a role in Dallas from 1981 to 1991. Well, I'd recommend seeing every Western that I've seen so far, but Arizona Bushwhackers is the one that I enjoyed seeing the most recently. Another film from the 1960s that I decided to see is Red Desert (1964). Since I'm not against seeing foreign cinema, I've already seen many films from overseas, like European, Soviet, Japanese, and Hong Kong films. I got to see many foreign films when I was in my teens and early twenties. For the last several years, however, I've been focusing on seeing Hollywood films that I haven't seen before. I like Red Desert very much, and I think that it's a memorable film, though it hasn't become one of my favorite films. There's a certain artistic quality to it, but it's clearly not a film meant to entertain. It's a film for adults because it was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Antonioni and cinematographer Carlo Di Palma managed to make Monica Vitti look quite attractive in this film. Richard Harris also had a role in this Italian film, but I didn't know that he's in it until I looked at some info about Red Desert on the internet. Red Desert is definitely worth seeing for those people that like foreign films or artistic films.

Since I'm a follower of certain blogs, I am aware of Martin Scorsese's criticism of superhero movies, particularly of films by Marvel Studios, at the end of 2019. Scorsese's statement made for some amusing news and debates. Well, since it can be fun to argue about films, I think that I will provide my opinion as well. In general, I think that Scorsese is right. The most successful films in Hollywood now, the films that make the most money, can be compared to theme park rides, but I wouldn't place the blame for this on Marvel or on superhero movies. Companies like the Walt Disney Company want to make as much money as possible. This is why they make films that are meant to appeal to as many people as possible. This is why they also screen their films in other countries, particularly in China, where there is a large capitalist market. These films can't have much violence or nudity in order to be suitable for children. They have to contain some action and some spectacle. They have to contain at least a little humor. They usually feature appealing and famous movie stars like Dwayne Johnson. Most importantly, they have to be entertaining. These films also feature propaganda from the establishment, like most other films. Because these big budget films have to have all of these and other elements, they end up being formulaic and not very memorable. They are meant to entertain, to get people into cinemas, to make as much money as possible, and nothing more. This routine has actually existed for many decades already in the West, but, because it has become wearisome in the last decade or two, even major newspapers are now printing articles about it. It's unlikely that people will see these big budget films more than once because they're not very well made now and because there isn't much substance to them. But I think that Marvel isn't to blame for this. And superhero movies in general aren't to blame for this. Formulaic big budget films have existed before Disney got into the habit of releasing several such films through its studios every year. I think that they existed even before the 1970s, when Steven Spielberg made the blockbuster Jaws (1975) and when George Lucas made the blockbuster Star Wars (1977). It's just that they used to be a lot better and more memorable. I think that there's nothing wrong with making entertaining, action-packed movies. There should be variety in cinema. Not every film has to be a drama film. Before big budget science-fiction movies, or big budget action movies, or big budget superhero movies, or even big budget animated movies became the norm in Hollywood, Hollywood studios made big budget Westerns, big budget historical epics, and big budget adventure films. Examples include King Kong (1933), Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), The Sign of the Cross (1932), Duel in the Sun (1946), Unconquered (1947), The Robe (1953), 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954), The Ten Commandments (1956), Ben-Hur (1959), How the West Was Won (1962), Cleopatra (1963), or Lawrence of Arabia (1962). Since then, genres like the Western and the Historical Epic have lost their popularity. These films were also meant to entertain and to get as many people as possible into cinemas. Therefore, I think that the problem now isn't with the fact that Western studios are trying to make as many big budget blockbusters or as many superhero movies as possible but with the fact that such films are worse and more formulaic than they used to be. Disney is simply the most obvious offender in this respect because of its size and success. Not only big budget blockbusters have been getting worse in the last decade or two. Drama films, comedy films, horror films, romantic films, and all the other films have been getting worse too. The reason why people pick on Marvel is because of Marvel's popularity and success. Marvel follows the same formula, or at least a similar formula, as the other studios. What makes Marvel different is that it does this better. Films by Marvel Studios, with Kevin Feige at the head, end up being better than films by other studios. I think that this is the reason why Marvel has become successful. Marvel has even created its own cinematic universe that has mass appeal. Sure, Marvel films aren't masterpieces of filmmaking, but almost all of them are still good, entertaining films, and this is the reason why people go to see them. Frankly, I'd rather see a Marvel film than another dull Hollywood drama film or another dull Hollywood horror film. I can bring up a film like Godzilla (2014) as an example. I went to see this film at a cinema right after it was released. Back then, I was younger and I didn't know as much as I do now. I also paid attention to the opinions of film critics. Now I know that most Western critics are bought and paid for, and they praise films that they get pressured to praise. Anyway, because Godzilla got praised by many critics when it was released, I was somewhat excited to see it, although even then I was beginning to realize that almost all of the films that are being made are dull and have no replay value. Godzilla turned out to be a bad film, with characters that aren't at all interesting, with a monster that rarely appears, with a bland music score, with poor direction, and with all the other problems that are characteristic of modern films. It became a memorable viewing experience for me because this film simply bored me. I couldn't wait for it to end. But I stayed until the end of the film because I like to finish watching a film once I begin watching it. Looking back, I now realize why many (controlled) people praised this film while also criticizing and denigrating the 1998 Godzilla film, which is much better and more entertaining. The film from 1998 features criticism of the military, and the film from 2014 promotes the military. The main character, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, is a navy lieutenant. In other words, the film from 2014 features propaganda that the establishment approves of, and this is why this bad film gets lionized by the bought and paid for film critics. Anyway, I now realize that studios in the West just can't make good films anymore. Sure, they sometimes release fine or passable films. For example, I enjoyed seeing Free Birds (2013), Men in Black 3 (2012), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), Kick-Ass (2010), Horrible Bosses (2011), X-Men: First Class (2011), Pitch Perfect (2012), or Rise of the Guardians (2012). But such films are uncommon now, and great films are almost non-existent. This problem doesn't apply only to the movie industry in the West. It applies to all of the other industries as well. Western people simply can't make great things anymore. They make dull and bad-looking cars. They make bad music that isn't memorable or enjoyable. They write dull, simple, and boring books. They make simple and bad-looking art. They build bland buildings that sometimes contain structural problems. They make food that often isn't cooked well or food that is dull even if it's supposed to be fancy. Western fashion trends are boring and not memorable. Do I have to go on? I can of course use words like "sucks" or "stinks" when it comes to some of the things that get made in the West now, but I prefer to be polite. Anyway, this is my take on the state of cinema in the West. In the last few years, I have rarely gone to see new films in theaters. Of course, one of the big reasons why this is so is because you now have to have a vaccine pass in order to get into a cinema. But the biggest reason is because I now realize that almost all of the films that get released aren't worth my time because of their bad quality. I'm not in my late teens or early twenties anymore, and I would rather spend my time on doing something that I think is worthwhile. On a more positive note, I have finished watching the third and fourth seasons of Cobra Kai. I've already made a post in which I pointed out that I like this show, though I don't think that it's as good as some people claim. For me, it's certainly not better than The Karate Kid (1984), which is one of the best teen movies of the 1980s. I don't really like The Karate Kid Part II (1986) because I think that the new characters aren't that interesting and because the setting (Okinawa) is boring, at least in this film. The Karate Kid Part III (1989), however, is more than a guilty pleasure for me. It's a film that I really like. It's silly but entertaining. It features some good fight scenes, just like the first film. The score by Bill Conti is used to good effect. And the new villain, played well by Thomas Ian Griffith, is absurd and memorable at the same time. Anyway, while Cobra Kai is certainly nothing special when it comes to filmmaking, it continues to be entertaining. I think that the acting of some of the actors in the main cast has improved. And Thomas Ian Griffith delivered the goods yet again in his role as Terry Silver. I think that except for William Zabka, Thomas Ian Griffith is the best actor in the cast. By the way, why has a third season of The Boys not been released yet? The Boys is another show that I enjoyed watching in 2019 and in 2020. Oh well. I guess that I'll have to watch Lost in Space (2018) instead.

The people that follow my blog have probably noticed that I'm again watching all of the films by Marvel Studios in order. This is my third time doing this. I began doing this by accident and out of curiosity at the end of March, mostly to see how well the films from Phase One of the MCU fare against subsequent films in the MCU. The films from Phase One are a little special to me because I got to see them in theaters at a time when I began going to theaters more often than I had before. Moreover, I saw these films in theaters that no longer exist. One of these theaters was called Empire Granville 7 Cinemas and the other was called Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade. Seeing a film in these theaters definitely added to the enjoyment of seeing a film because their auditoriums were built in the old style and their decor was appealing. For example, I remember that after I finished watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, which is one of the best films in the MCU, in one of the auditoriums of Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade, in the spring of 2014, I came out to the well-designed foyer on the second floor and stopped to look around for several minutes and to look through the large windows at the scenery outside. It was sunny and warm outside, the trees were blooming, and the strong sunlight was beaming through the windows of the foyer. So, I took a moment to stand in the sunlight and enjoy the view. There were also no people around me at that time. The closure of the two theaters saddened me. Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade was the last one that was closed, in 2019. Since then, I haven't been going to theaters as often as I had before because the experience was no longer the same. The theaters that got built in the 2000s are simply bland. At that time, I also finally came to the conclusion that movie studios in the West can't make films as competently as they did before the 2000s. Almost all of the films that got made after the 1990s have no replay value. Anyway, I got to see all of the films from Phase One for the first time in theaters. I remember in which theater I saw each film, what the weather was like on that day, and even what happened on that day. I got to see Iron Man (2008), the first film from Phase One, at Cineplex Cinemas Esplanade. This is also where I got to see The Incredible Hulk (2008) a little later on. Of course, at that time, I had no idea what the people at Marvel Studios were planning, that they had an idea of creating a cinematic universe. The film from Phase One that I liked seeing the most at that time is Thor (2011). It's still my favorite film from Phase One. Admittedly, it's not the best film from Phase One. That honor goes to Iron Man or The Avengers (2012). But it is my favorite because I got to see it in my favorite theater, Empire Granville 7 Cinemas, on a sunny day, at the end of spring. And the films featuring Thor have remained some of my favorite films from the MCU ever since. I still get excited when I see the Bifrost travel sequence in the first Thor film. There's also the fact that I like the characters, the action, the music, and the comedy in this film. I'd like to point out that I like all of the films that got made by Marvel Studios. I don't consider any of them to be bad. I like seeing some of them more than others, but I consider all of them to be enjoyable. I know that I criticized Avengers: Endgame (2019), but I still like this film a lot. Perhaps the film that stood out the most to me this time is Iron Man 2 (2010). I like it more now than I used to. There are some really neat touches in this film. The MK V armor is my favorite Iron Man armor. It looks fantastic. The comedy in Iron Man 2 is quite effective. Sam Rockwell, in particular, is very funny in some scenes. The dialogue is good and so is the action, especially the fight at the end involving Black Widow. The only letdown is the music, which isn't very memorable, but this isn't a big problem. One thing that I have noticed when seeing the films from Phase One again is that they're not geared toward children as much as the films from Phase Four. The films from Phase One are more serious and edgy than subsequent MCU films. They even contain a few horror elements. The Incredible Hulk, in particular, contains a few scenes that can be called scary. I think that after Marvel Studios got acquired by Walt Disney Studios in 2015, MCU films began to be geared mostly toward children, and the typical Disney messages began to appear in MCU films. The one film so far where this is most obvious is Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings (2021). I enjoyed seeing this film, but not as much as I thought I would. The film is clearly geared toward children because it features many cute mythological creatures and childish comedy. At times, it even seemed like a Disney animated film because of all of the CGI action and characters in colorful costumes. Even the presence of Tony Leung Chiu-wai, who looks good as usual, and the cool-looking rings can't distract from how lightweight this film is at times. But I've got to say that the return of Trevor Slattery was a welcome surprise. Moreover, the short All Hail The King (2014), in which this fake Mandarin appears again, is a must-see film, as I've recently discovered because I've never seen it before. I enjoyed watching Black Widow (2021) and Eternals (2021) about as much as Shang-Chi And The Legend Of The Ten Rings. These films are good, but they're not my favorite MCU films. I like Scarlett Johansson's performance in Black Widow and I like the action. Natasha Romanoff is much more appealing as a character in this film than in any of the previous MCU films. In Eternals, I like the CGI and I like the action. When it comes to characters in this film, I think that the character interactions are hit or miss. The big surprise of Phase Four for me so far was Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021). I waited to see this film on home video because I couldn't go to a theater when it was released in theaters. It's because vaccine mandates were still in effect at that time. The films in the MCU featuring Peter Parker as the main character have never been my favorites. They're good, but they just don't click with me as well as other films in the MCU. May Parker, played by Marisa Tomei, is not an interesting or appealing character at all in the Spider-Man films. She didn't have much screen time anyway. Tom Holland was the right age to play Peter Parker, but he's not all that good in the role. Tobey Maguire remains the best Peter Parker for me because he's a better actor. Anyway, while Tobey is as good as ever in Spider-Man: No Way Home, the real surprise is Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker. Andrew delivered a very appealing performance, and he's better in this film than in the two awesome (terrible) Spider-Man films that he starred in. I mean, in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), Paul Giamatti delivered a simply majestic performance as the Rhino. How can you top that? So, the inclusion of the three Peters and the fact that their friendship was filmed well elevated this film to my favorite film of Phase Four so far and to the best Spider-Man film in the MCU so far. But this is how I felt before Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness (2022) was released in theaters. I got to see Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness several days ago. I can easily say that this film is now my favorite film of Phase Four so far. The reason why this is the case is because I enjoyed watching it from beginning to end. The previous films in Phase Four, even Spider-Man: No Way Home, were hit or miss for me. But Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness isn't only a feast for the eyes from beginning to end. It also features good performances from Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams. Some critics criticized the inclusion of the Illuminati, but I actually enjoyed seeing this group of superheroes. I found Earth-838 to be very appealing visually. Even the Earth of the destroyed universe looks incredible. By the way, Olsen, who plays Scarlet Witch, looks better in this film than in any other film in which she has appeared. Her makeup and costume look perfect. Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness is by no means a perfect film. The plot and the characters can be criticized. America Chavez didn't have to appear in this film, and she was included only as a way of finally introducing this character in the MCU. But I don't expect to see The Godfather (1972) or Gandhi (1982) when I go to see a film by Marvel. Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness is simply an entertaining, delightful, and well-directed film, and this is good enough for me. So, while Phase Four has suffered somewhat from interference by Disney, I don't think that MCU films are bad now. For example, Spider-Man: No Way Home and Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness have become some of my favorite MCU films.

Initially, I wasn't going to see The Batman (2022). When information appeared about this film and its release, I had almost no interest in it. I didn't care about who played the role of Bruce Wayne. When it comes to superhero movies, DC Films has a bad track record. Therefore, I wasn't going to waste my time and money on another DC blunder. But then, about a week ago, when I was taking out the trash late in the evening, something very unusual happened. When I was walking back to the house, I heard a familiar laugh. At first, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I turned around and began walking toward the nearby bushes, where I thought that the laughter is coming from. The darkness was illuminated by only a few nearby lights. The familiar laughter and giggling continued on and off. Finally, when I was close to the bushes, one of them ignited, but the flames weren't consuming it. The burning bush spoke, and I realized that the laugh and the voice belong to the one and only Rich Evans, the god of bad movies. Rich, speaking through the burning bush, said, "You will see The Batman." In my amazement, I said, "Rich, no. Please. It's like 3 hours long. I don't think that I'll be able to withstand seeing such an atrocity." Rich said, "Silence! You will see The Batman, and you will tell everyone you know about how bad it is." After that, the flames and the voice of his holiness, Rich Evans, disappeared. I mean, I couldn't defy a god. Therefore, I decided to see The Batman on home video. I definitely wasn't going to pay the price of a ticket to see it in a theater. But I must admit that I was a little curious to find out how bad the film really is. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the Batman comics. I like the Batman films that were directed by Tim Burton a lot. His Batman films are still the best by far. I can even put up with watching Christopher Nolan's Batman films, with all of their flaws. But The Batman is something else. It's a modern film, it's a film by a different director, and it's a film by DC Films, a studio that just can't make a good superhero movie. After seeing The Batman, I understand why the god of bad movies wanted me to review it. This film really is a new level of low. It's a film that has no reason to exist except to make money, to make the dumb masses throw away their earnings only because the bought and paid for film critics told them to do so and because it's a new film. This fact makes me weep for the human race, for how misguided and foolish people are. Anyway, The Batman is a mish mash of elements from other, better films. It's clear that the director, Matt Reeves, wanted to make a kind of film noir, but he doesn't have the skills or the knowledge to do this well. The detective story in The Batman, around which the clunky plot is structured, was clearly taken from Seven (1995). Seven is a superb film, but The Batman rips it off in a lame way and doesn't do anything original with the detective story. The cinematography by Greig Fraser is so dark that I couldn't see what was going on a third of the time. The music by Michael Giacchino is passable but certainly nothing special. The costume designs are bland and forgettable. There's little action. The action scenes are brief, simple, and not memorable. The characters are poorly developed. None of them stand out. Robert Pattinson does almost nothing as Bruce Wayne. He has the Batman suit on for almost the entire run time of the film. We're informed that Wayne is a philanthropist, but we don't get to see him doing any philanthropy and we don't get to find out what kind of philanthropy he's involved in. Gotham City in this film is an uninteresting and grungy place that's stocked with uninteresting people and sights. Like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, The Batman features certain propaganda from the establishment, but I won't get into explaining what this propaganda is. If you want to check what this propaganda is about, see this badly-directed and badly-conceived film for yourself. In conclusion, The Batman is incompetent, modern filmmaking at its most obvious. I just hope that the god of bad movies doesn't make me go through a trial like this again.

Seeing Ready Player One (2018) again in May made me remember some things that I haven't thought about in years. I saw Ready Player One for the first time when it was released in theaters. Back then, I wasn't really impressed by the film. Maybe that's because I wasn't in the right mood when I saw it. I saw it in a rather small, dull auditorium in a new cinema, and I went to the bathroom more than once during the screening. But, when I saw it again in May of this year, it left quite an impression on me. I now think that it's one of the most enjoyable films of the last decade. For me, it now stands along films like Dredd (2012), Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), Logan (2017), Incredibles 2 (2018), Toy Story 3 (2010), Lincoln (2012), Room (2015), and even The Wolf Of Wall Street (2013). I can rewatch these films again and again, and there haven't been many such films made in Hollywood in the last decade. I am familiar with the pop culture that is featured in Ready Player One. I know about the films and the music that get mentioned. Only when it came to video games was I not fully in the know. It's because I didn't grow up playing video games. I've got to say that the only home video game console that I've ever had before I reached my twenties was the Atari 2600. My father brought it over for a few weeks when I was little. I don't know where he got it. This happened at a time when the Atari 2600 was several generations behind the consoles that existed. So, while other children got to play on their Nintendo consoles, for example, I got to play on the Atari 2600, and only for a few weeks. And the games that were on it weren't even the best. There was Custer's Revenge, which is a game that's notorious due to its goal being to rape a Native American woman. There was Pac-Man, which people think contributed to the North American video game crash of 1983 because it's a bad game. And there were a few other games that I don't remember well. I played the games, but I didn't enjoy them because they looked so primitive. Nowadays, the Atari 2600 is considered to be a pop culture icon and the first popular home video game console. It plays a part in the story of Ready Player One. But, when I played it as a child, I didn't like it much. My "parents" didn't let me do anything that they thought interfered with my schoolwork. They took away anything that they thought I was spending much time on. Therefore, I didn't get to watch much television, or read books for children, or play with toys, and I certainly didn't get to have a game console. Moreover, I don't come from a wealthy family. Some people may think that I had a middle class upbringing, but I actually had a working class upbringing. I went to a regular school and got a regular Western education that was intended to keep the masses obedient and not knowledgeable. I had no money when I was a child, and I rarely had money when I was a teenager. I had only a few toys, and I had to draw and make my own action figures out of paper. In this respect, things got only a little better when I became a teenager. I acquired a small television set that could play VHS tapes after I finished the 8th grade in high school. But I couldn't buy any tapes because I had no money. So, I had to borrow tapes from my local library. In this way, I became familiar with popular Hollywood films. On that same television set, I also got to see many films from Hong Kong because it had an antenna and was thus able to show a few local channels in black and white. I began working at my local library when I was in the 10th grade, but part-time work doesn't result in thousands or even hundreds of dollars of income. So, the first console that I acquired when I was in my twenties is the PlayStation 2. I bought the slim model of the console, when the PlayStation 2 was already at the very end of its lifespan. The fact that this console has a built-in DVD player, and that it can play PlayStation 1 games, played a factor in my purchase. I still have this console, along with a remote control that I bought for it. The first video games that I bought for my PlayStation 2 were Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy Tactics, Metal Gear Solid 2, and Final Fantasy X. Now, for anyone who knows something about video games, it should be clear that all of these games are excellent. Metal Gear Solid 2 is the best game in the franchise, in my opinion. Final Fantasy Tactics is easily one of the best and most memorable video games of all time. Chrono Cross is the perfect Japanese RPG. Games like these no longer get made. I've noticed that in the last decade the video game industry in the West and in the Chinese nation of Japan began to resemble the movie industry and the publishing industry. The video game industry is now dominated by monopolies that release unoriginal and dull games. Therefore, I don't have much of an interest in games that got made after the 2000s. There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Nintendo continues to release fantastic games, even if they are sequels. Pikmin 3 for the Wii U, for example, is a fantastic game that I finished playing about a month ago. Unfortunately, because of the low sales of the Wii U, not many people got to play this addictive and polished game. By the way, the Wii U is my favorite console. I will discuss it in a future post. I haven't even purchased a Nintendo Switch because I think that it's lacking in features, and I'd rather use the Wii U that I have because of its much better backward compatibility and features. The new games don't have ambitious stories, or innovative gameplay, or memorable music. Therefore, games like Xenogears, Pikmin, or even Pokemon Red and Blue no longer get made. Since there's no innovation in gameplay, the focus nowadays is on graphics. But what good are better graphics if the game is boring to play? And the graphics may be more advanced but still look worse artistically. I will discuss this and other matters in future posts. The first handheld video game console that I bought is the PlayStation Vita. The fact that it plays games, music, and videos, and features backward compatibility via the PlayStation Store, played a factor in my purchase. It also has a web browser and features apps like Netflix. I still have this console, and I've got to say that I like it very much. I've never had a handheld console before I bought the Vita several years ago. When I was in the 7th grade, my sister brought me a Game Boy that her friend had. In this way, I got to play on a Game Boy, which was already outdated at that time, for several days. The only game that was on it was Pokemon Red and Blue. Fortunately, I got to finish the game before my annoyed mother forced me to return the handheld. There is a part in the game in which I got stuck for a day or more. It's when I couldn't find the move Cut in order to cut down trees and proceed to the next town. Somehow, if I remember correctly, I was able to acquire the move Fly before I acquired Cut (or was it the other way around?). Going back and forth between various town and roads and looking for any clue that might help was quite annoying. These days, solutions to problems such as these can easily be found in a video game guide. Of course, I would have preferred to play on a much better handheld that was available at that time. It's called the Muslim Boy, and the Game Boy is actually a lame knockoff of this great Islamic console. The Muslim Boy was developed by Jihad Electronics. It featured unforgettable games like Super Muslim Bros, Muslim Man 2, Wariobeard 3, Muslim Or Die, Camel Racing, Arab Street Fighter II, Jihadvania, The Legend of Aladdin, New Muslim Super Studs, and Star Sheikh. The Muslim Boy was powered by a nuclear battery that could be taken out to power something like a Toyota war truck. Don't ask me how that works. Muslim science is way too advanced for me to explain. Moreover, some of the parts of the Muslim Boy were perfect as replacement parts for the AK-47 assault rifle, which is another impressive Muslim invention, just like the Toyota war truck. Allegedly, Shigeru Miyamoto stole many of his ideas from the great Muslim video game designer Muhammad Muhammad. Anyway, I enjoyed seeing Ready Player One enough that I saw it again only two days later. I don't have an interest in the story of the film, which is about the OASIS. What appeals to me is the fact that the film is well made, that it's entertaining, and that it has appealing characters. After a turd like Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (2008), I thought that Steven Spielberg has lost it in his old age. But he came back with Lincoln and Ready Player One. I'm now considering buying the book by Ernest Cline on Audible, just out of curiosity. The video game industry is one of the industries that are being promoted by the Western establishment as a distraction for the masses, somewhat how "bread and circuses" played a role in Ancient Rome. Still, most of the consoles and games that were made before the 2010s are great, and I have no problem with people playing good video games. I can recommend looking at a book like Art Of Atari by Tim Lapetino. It's amusing how the now primitive Atari video games had covers made for them that look so much better than the covers made for modern video games.

N an earlier post, I wrote about how only two films that were released in theaters during the summer pleased me. They're Toy Story 4 and Spider-Man: Far From Home. Well, Avengers: Endgame played in theaters during the summer too, but I don't consider it to be a very good film. There were also several other summer movies that I kind of like. So, when it comes to new Hollywood films, it wasn't a good summer or a bad summer. It was an average summer. I mean, one can't expect an excellent new film to be released every week. Who would have the time to go to a theater every week? This isn't realistic. Well, anyway, after the summer movie season came to an end, Hollywood quickly released several enjoyable films that make the summer movie season pale in comparison to this autumn movie season. I haven't seen every film that has been released in the autumn yet, but I can say that Terminator: Dark Fate, Zombieland: Double Tap, Maleficent: Mistress Of Evil, and Abominable are worth seeing. Most are so good that they can be seen more than once. I'd also like to see 21 Bridges, Charlie's Angels, Frozen 2, and Jojo Rabbit. Joker is a film that I think isn't worth seeing more than once. It's not a bad film. For a modern film, it's good, but the filmmaking leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, it's no Apocalypse Now (1979). That's for sure. There are a few moments of brilliance in Joker, but, for the most part, it's a rather dull film, and I'm not judging it based on its message or content. The performance by Joaquin Phoenix is good, but not extraordinary. The cinematography doesn't look very good. Most of the scenes in the film aren't interesting. And the direction, though certainly better than average for modern times, isn't very good either. What did surprise me is how much I enjoyed seeing It Chapter Two and Doctor Sleep. I don't think that these films are very good, but they're better than I expected them to be. In It Chapter Two, the director, Andy Muschietti, showed more of his artistic side, as he did in his fine horror film Mama (2013). It Chapter Two is more atmospheric, better shot, and features better acting than It (2017). And it doesn't rely as much on silly jump scares. All of this added together made it a more enjoyable film for an adult like me. But the film still suffers from the fact that, like It, it was made to appeal to as large an audience of modern moviegoers as possible. Doctor Sleep is another well shot and atmospheric film that was directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed the fine horror film Oculus (2013). As a film, Doctor Sleep is kind of enjoyable. The novel by Stephen King is, in my opinion, bloated and rather dull. Still, the film isn't much better because there's nothing about it that stands out. The acting is fine, but not great. The story is fine, but not very interesting. The cinematography is good, but not in any way truly appealing. The music isn't memorable. Some of the scenes are good, but most of the scenes are just passable. By the way, one of the horror films that I really enjoyed seeing lately is Candyman: Farewell To The Flesh (1995). It's better than I expected it to be. The first film, Candyman (1992), is, in my opinion, fantastic when it comes to its artistry. It's easily one of the best horror films of the 1990s. When I was thinking about it, I thought that it must be the best of the 1990s, but then I remembered that Scream (1996) was released in the 1990s too. Scream is overall a slightly better film than Candyman. With Candyman: Farewell To The Flesh, the filmmakers at least attempted to make a good film, and in some ways they succeeded. It's obviously inferior to Candyman, but the acting, the cinematography, and the direction still make it worth seeing. And, finally, I'm almost done with my Marvel Cinematic Universe marathon, which I began in May of this year, when I watched Iron Man (2008) again. From then on, I've been watching every MCU film in order, and I'm still not quite finished. Of course, it hasn't been an obsession with me because I haven't been watching the films one after the other all in one sitting. I've seen many other films in this time period too. In this way, I've now seen every MCU film at least twice, and I don't consider this to be a bad thing because MCU films are good. There still hasn't been a single bad MCU film. Quite impressive. The years 2018 and 2019 are particularly memorable in the history of the MCU because Marvel released four fantastic films one after the other. They're Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Ant-Man And The Wasp, and Captain Marvel. When I watched these films again on home video I noticed how well made they are. The acting is good. The stories are interesting. The music is fitting. The entertainment factor is high. The special effects are excellent. Need I say more? I can say that by the time Phase Three began in the MCU, Marvel truly found its groove.

Snyder's 300 is a bucket of filth that somehow manages to get praised by brainless Americans and by some bought and paid for professional film critics. Sure, 300 isn't the only bucket of filth that has been made in Hollywood in the last two decades. There have been many such buckets of filth. But I think that 300 is the film that is most representative of all of this filth. 300 is much louder, much more distasteful, and much more historically inaccurate than The 300 Spartans (1962), which is actually a fine film that's worth seeing. In addition, I noticed that it promotes militarism and oligarchical rule. Sparta, the Greek city-state whose citizens and customs are portrayed as being worthy of imitation in the film, had oligarchical and militaristic rule. But Classical Athens, the Greek city-state whose citizens are portrayed as weak and ineffective in the film, had democratic rule. In fact, Athens is the birthplace of democracy and the model of democracy. It also became the most prosperous Greek city-state after the Greco-Persian Wars. Now, if you want to know what a real democracy should be like, you should read some history books about Classical Athens or at least look at the Wikipedia page about Fifth-century Athens. It's quite different from the so-called democracy that exists in the USA. In addition, I recommend reading Carroll Quigley's books 'The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis' (1961) and 'Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History' (1983), which provide even more useful information and conclusions about Ancient Greece. I think that this is important because most people these days don't know what democracy is supposed to be like, partly because of the fact that they get a bad education in school. This is why some middle class people fall for oligarchical swindles like libertarianism and why other middle class people think that democracy is a failure and thus become irrational pro-fascists. The overwhelming majority of Americans, for example, don't care about democracy. They don't even know what it is. What they do care about is the empire that the USA possesses. Therefore, when you criticize the American political system, they respond in a calm and apathetic manner. But, when you criticize the American empire and overseas operations, they respond in a heated and confrontational manner (even in a psychotic manner). The same goes for class structure in the USA. This is the case because they've been taught to think like this by the American ruling class. They've been taught to think that they have a right to trample on others and to stick their noses in every crack. But, when it comes to democracy and their economic rights under capitalism, they take a conservative and unconcerned position. This isn't true for all Americans, but it's undoubtedly true for most Americans.

It's that time again, the time for updates, since enough time has passed. First of all, people asked me to give my opinion on the summer films of this year, and I'm not against doing this. How good are the films that have been released this summer? I'm now ready to give my take. I must admit that I've seen only several films this summer, and most of them were made by the The Walt Disney Company. But the ones that I did see didn't really disappoint me. Toy Story 4 is the best film that I saw. This film had a long development period because of the departure of John Lasseter from Pixar Animation Studios. I read about this in Animation Magazine. Because of this, and because of the fact that the film is yet another sequel to Toy Story (1995), I had the feeling that Toy Story 4 might be somewhat disappointing. But this film surprised me when I saw it because it's not only the best Pixar film since Incredibles 2 (2018). It's also one of the best Pixar films of this decade. In my opinion, the director, Josh Cooley, delivered the goods. The characters have never looked better. The voice work is excellent. The humor is frequent. And we get to find out new things about Woody and the gang. It's true that the film is formulaic, and it's yet another sequel from Pixar, but, when the film is this good, I don't feel like complaining. Still, I didn't enjoy seeing Toy Story 4 as much as I enjoyed seeing Incredibles 2. Incredibles 2 is, in my opinion, the best Pixar film of this decade, even surpassing Inside Out (2015) and Finding Dory (2016) in terms of craftsmanship. I went to see it more than once in a cinema. Can you believe that Incredibles 2 could have been even better if Brad Bird and Pixar had been given more time to make it? The film is almost perfect as it is, but it could have been even better. The only thing that weighs it down is the lack of a truly memorable villain. But, otherwise, the film is perfect, in my opinion. Thank goodness that films like this can still be made from time to time in Hollywood. Bird deserved to win a second Oscar for his work, but, because of political reasons and because he already has one Oscar, the Oscar for Best Animated Feature was instead awarded to the filmmakers of Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse (2018). By the way, I finally figured out why Into The Spider-Verse isn't an entirely satisfying film. Miles Morales, the new Spider-Man, is supposed to be the main character. But he spends almost the entire film either being a sidekick to Peter B. Parker or acting as comic relief. Only at the end of the film does he get to do something on his own, but, by that time, it's too late for any character development for him. Therefore, Into The Spider-Verse lacks a fully developed protagonist. The animation style is also something that I find to be not entirely to my liking. It makes the film seem like a gimmick at times. Anyway, I've already posted my review of Into The Spider-Verse on my blog, and I don't have to go into it in more detail. By the way, if you like the animation style of the film, I can recommend getting the art book 'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - The Art of the Movie'. The only other film that I fully enjoyed seeing this summer in a cinema is Spider-Man: Far From Home. It's yet another example of Marvel's domination of the superhero genre in film form. Marvel continues to put the other Hollywood studios to shame. Even the recently released Shazam!, which is thought of by some people as the best DC film of recent years, doesn't come close to the best Marvel films. I mean, really, is it that hard to make a good action film these days? I guess that it is, especially one with plenty of special-effects. Instead of lively, enjoyable flicks, we often get dour, distasteful flicks like Venom (2018), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), or Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice (2016) from the other studios. How depressing. It seems that the only film form in Hollywood that has consistently delivered good films in the last decade is computer animation. In my opinion, Far From Home doesn't rank among Marvel's best, but it's still a good flick. Tom Holland is definitely the best on-screen Peter Parker so far. So, there you go. I enjoyed seeing two films in a theater this summer, and both of them are films from Disney. I guess this means that this summer has been disappointing when it comes to new Hollywood films. But there are other new films that I found to be... passable, though not fully enjoyable. They are Annabelle Comes Home, Detective Pikachu, Missing Link, The Angry Birds Movie 2, Pet Sematary, The Secret Life Of Pets 2, Aladdin, Us, Hobbs & Shaw, How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, and Alita: Battle Angel. I saw almost all of these films long after they were released in theaters. I decided not to include The Lion King among these "just fine" flicks because seeing it felt strange to me. Firstly, this film was made entirely using computers. There are no human actors or real locations. But the film was still made to look as realistic as possible. Maybe this means that it can't really be called an animated film, or maybe it can. It's almost a scene for scene copy of the original 1994 film. This means that there's nothing original about it except for the way it was made. The animals, since they were made to look as real as possible, aren't as expressive as in the original animated film. In addition to all of this, I saw the original animated film only a few days before I went to see the remake in a theater. All of this added together made the film a strange and unenjoyable experience for me. Still, Pumbaa did fart once. But let's move away from this somewhat depressing picture and focus on something else. The people that follow my blog should know that most of the films that I see aren't new Hollywood films. If it's a Hollywood film, it's most likely one from the 1980s or it's a so-called classic Hollywood film. Many films from Hollywood's Golden Age really are a pleasure to watch for me. These films are well-acted and optimistic. By the way, if you've read the science fiction novel Titan by John Varley, you should know that Gaea, the old alien being that Cirocco meets at the end of the story, is obsessed with watching films from Hollywood's Golden Age. I'm currently reading the book 'Majestic Hollywood: The Greatest Films of 1939' by Mark A. Vieira.

I don't review films often, but I think that Avengers: Endgame (2019) is worth talking about. First of all, I saw Captain Marvel (2019) for the second time recently, and this time I paid for the ticket. I now think that it's one of the best MCU films, if I'm being honest. I've never been a Marvel fan because I don't like to be a fan of anything, really. In my opinion, being a fan of something is for uninformed people. But Marvel films, for example, are worth seeing at least once because they contain messages from the Anglo-American establishment. The only problem is that you have to be informed in order to notice and understand these messages. Marvel films are also enjoyable to watch. I'm not one of those people who dislike Brie Larson because of something that she said. She plays the role of Carol Danvers in Captain Marvel. I've got better things to do than hating some woman actress. I mean, what do people expect at this point? Sure, I guess that they need an outlet for their anger, and there are many things to be angry about these days, especially for white middle class men, but picking Hollywood as the object of hatred seems silly to me. Hollywood has been feeding them propaganda their whole lives, but now, all of a sudden, they are angry because some actress bluntly stated the agenda. I don't mean to insult them because I understand their situation, but I think that they should pick up a book and read once in a while. They'll feel better and be more informed. This is actually one of the problems with Western people now. Carroll Quigley mentioned this matter in one of his interviews. Western people hardly ever read anymore. Instead of reading, they watch television or see films. Nowadays, there's a new distraction, which is playing video games. Therefore, because of their lack of knowledge and lack of critical thinking, Western people can be so easily manipulated by the authorities. When it comes to me, what I find a little interesting about Brie Larson is that her personality is kind of like mine. This is a rare case. Therefore, I really don't feel like hating her. Anyway, Captain Marvel, the character, doesn't play an important role in Avengers: Endgame, as it turns out. I did find Larson's acting to be pretty good in the film. Carol Danvers is important in her own film, but, in Avengers: Endgame, her importance in the story has been way overblown before the release of the film. Avengers: Endgame is kind of a mess. It's not really a piece of garbage because there are good things in it, but the script is so poorly written that the film ends up being one of the worst MCU films, and perhaps the worst one. Honest reviewers on IMDb have already pointed out the numerous flaws of this film. There's fat, pathetic Thor. There are the inconsistencies with time travel. There's the silly humor. There's the poorly thought out final battle. There are the continuity problems. Yep, this film is a real stinker in some ways. Still, I did find it to be entertaining. It didn't make me feel bored. I think that out of the two most recent Avengers films, Avengers: Infinity War (2018) was much more important for Marvel and the filmmakers than Avengers: Endgame. Therefore, Avengers: Infinity War contains the cool action, the filmmaking craft, and the important messages that the filmmakers wanted people to see. Avengers: Endgame, on the other hand, turns out to be a film with leftovers. Thanos said his piece about overpopulation and limited resources in Avengers: Infinity War. He succeeded in killing half of all life in the universe with the snappening. Naturally, Marvel couldn't let this be the end of the story. People would have been outraged at such a depressing finale. Therefore, Avengers: Endgame had to be made so that the Avengers could defeat Thanos and undo his doings, though Thanos does have a few more things to say this time as well. This time he makes a little speech about rewriting history and brainwashing people. In addition, Iron Man and Captain America had to be killed off because Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans have been playing these roles long enough. In addition, the writers and the filmmakers saw an opportunity to patch up some of the inconsistencies from previous MCU films. Rene Russo came back to better develop the character of Frigga because of a lack of development in Thor: The Dark World (2013). Hawkeye gets more screen time as well because people complained about his lack of screen time in previous films. So, the filmmakers wanted to service the fans, and the fans sure did get serviced with Avengers: Endgame. They got serviced hard. In my opinion, Avengers: Endgame turned out to be a leftovers and patch up film after the main event that was Avengers: Infinity War. And, of course, Avengers: Endgame sets up the next phase of the MCU. Funnily enough, the directors, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, are now responsible not only for some of the best MCU films but also for the worst and most ridiculous MCU film.

I finished reading the book 'Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932 - 1945, and the American Cover-Up' by Sheldon H. Harris. I think that it's essential reading for those who are interested in World War II. But it's a good book to read for anyone, really. The history that this book covers has been suppressed in the USA because Japan is a close ally of the USA. It has also been suppressed in other countries. In the book, there's information about what happened to the American POWs that were captured by the Japanese after Japan attacked the Philippines. Japan, as it turns out, had the largest biological weapons program in the world at that time. The author also wrote about post-war Japan and about the domination of conservatives and reactionaries in Japanese government. I haven't yet finished reading Nikolay Danilevsky's 'Russia and Europe: A Look at the Cultural and Political Relations of the Slavic World to the Romano-German World'. But I have come across more interesting information in the book that is worth mentioning. Danilevsky pointed out that there have been three periods of development and growth in the history of Western civilization. It's almost certain that this is where Carroll Quigley got the idea that there were three separate ages of expansion in Western history. I know that Danilevsky's book was very influential for Quigley because he mentioned it in two of his books. Moreover, Danilevsky even wrote the dates of these periods of development, though Danilevsky didn't go into them in detail and he didn't discern that they happened because of different instruments of expansion. Currently, I'm also reading Immanuel Velikovsky's 'Worlds in Collision' and Oswald Spengler's 'The Decline of the West'. Since I haven't yet finished reading these books, I can't comment on how much I like them or dislike them. I have been enjoying reading both of them so far, and I will tell what I think about them after I'm done reading them.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019) turned out to be a little better than I expected. Well, in some ways, it's about as good as I expected it to be and, in other ways, it's a little better. There's nothing fantastic about it, but it's not a bad way to spend two hours because it's a good film. Some of the CGI I liked, especially views of Iron City and Zalem, and some of the CGI I didn't really like. Alita herself, partly a CGI creation, wasn't unpalatable, which is something that's important in this film. So, it wasn't a bad decision for me to go and see this film. I think that I should have gone to see Aquaman (2018) in a theater because it turned out to be better than I thought it would be. I can say that the director, James Wan, delivered with this film. There's nothing great about it, it's actually average overall, but it has some nice bits and it's entertaining. I think that, in this particular case, I should have listened to Grace Randolph.

I can point out that when I make posts on my blog about the films that I see, this doesn't mean that I recommend these films. These are simply films that I've recently seen. But, since I usually see films because I want to see them, I would recommend seeing almost all of them. I know that many Hollywood films feature American propaganda, but this doesn't stop me from seeing them and enjoying some of them. Since I've been sick for the last few weeks, and since I can't wear my glasses for now, I've been spending my time on watching films, and I've seen a number of films that I can really recommend. The one film that I've seen not long ago that I would definitely not recommend is The Predator (2018). It's just a bad and vile film. But here are examples of films that I would recommend. Most of them are old Hollywood films because there's no point in spending time and money on seeing new Hollywood films. New Hollywood films are just not good if they're compared to old Hollywood films. The Hindenburg (1975) features good special effects and is definitely worth seeing. The Raid (1954) is a neat Western set during the American Civil War. Young Winston (1972) is a classy adventure about Winston Churchill in his youth. Nightfall (1957) is a good film noir in black and white. The Miracle Worker (1962) features some of the best acting by actresses in the 1960s. Crimes of the Heart (1986) is a good southern gothic film that features good performances from the leads. The Morning After (1986) includes one of the best performances by Jane Fonda. 'night, Mother (1986) is an interesting drama with only two roles. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974) is simply essential viewing, and it features an excellent performance by Ellen Burstyn. Forever Young (1992) is one of those neat little romantic science fiction films from the 1990s. The Fly (1986) is just plain awesome. Bachelor Party (1984) is a surprisingly funny comedy from the 1980s. The White Buffalo (1977) is a Western that features Charles Bronson and... a big white buffalo. Nuff said. Assassination (1987) is another unintentionally funny and enjoyable piece of action junk from Cannon Films. Tough Guys (1986) is a pleasant and somewhat moving comedy. Coma (1978) is an excellent suspense film that was directed by Michael Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame. Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954) is an impressive epic in which Victor Mature "acts". It's set in Rome and features gladiator fights. Avenging Force (1986) is yet more action junk from Cannon Films in which Michael Dudikoff delivers yet again in the leading role. April Fool's Day (1986) is quite a good mystery slasher film that was filmed in British Columbia. Death Wish 3 (1985) features Charles Bronson talking about killing bad guys, with a wicked little smirk on his face. Death Wish 3, by the way, is one of those 1980s flicks, like RoboCop (1987), that show the decay and economic depression that took place in the USA in those years. American Dreamer (1984) and Bad Medicine (1985) are two funny comedies from the 1980s that I would definitely recommend seeing. Agnes of God (1985) is worth seeing simply because of the excellent performances by Anne Bancroft and Jane Fonda. A Soldier's Story (1984) is a fantastic drama, and I can't believe that I've never heard about it before I saw it. Country (1984) is yet another fantastic drama that has been forgotten in the mainstream. Well, anyway, I can go on and on with this list, but these are some of the most memorable films that I've seen in recent months.

Since a few people have asked me why I don't like Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse that much, I've decided to reveal my issues with it. First of all, I do like this film. It's easily the best wide-release film that's now playing in theaters, but I think that it's not a great film or the best Spider-Man film. The main character, Miles Morales, turns out to be one of the least appealing and least interesting characters in the film, although he's given plenty of time for character development. The most appealing character, in my opinion, is the original Spider-Man (Peter Parker or Peter B. Parker). Morales seems like a poor copy of the original Spider-Man, except that, for some reason, he also has additional, unoriginal powers like invisibility and bio-electric energy. In this case, the creators of this character just couldn't come up with a new, original superhero. This isn't surprising because hardly anything that's made by people in the American entertainment industry these days is original. Therefore, they took an old, beloved character and made him black. Morales isn't a terrible character. He's appealing, but he's lacking, in my opinion. In the film, Morales is also not a science wiz. He's simply a laid back, normal teenager, who just likes to draw and who even gets bad grades in order to transfer to a less prestigious school. Apparently, the filmmakers thought that such a character would be cool for today's audience and fine for being a superhero. This doesn't work, at least for me. Can this normal, laid-back teenager really be a superhero? Is he a good example for black teens and kids? In addition, there are, perhaps, too many Spider-Man characters and too many supervillains. A few of them are just ridiculous, though they're still kind of likable, and they add little or nothing beneficial to the film. The only character with enough development and enough appeal is, yet again, the original, Peter B. Parker. Still, even with all of this baggage, the film has several good scenes that make it worthwhile to see it again. The filmmakers can be praised because of this. But these scenes aren't enough to make Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse perfect or great. So, this is my take on Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse. It's very good, it's fresh and well-animated, but it's weighed down by a few poor characterization and filmmaking choices. That's too bad. The score for this film is nine out of ten from me.

When it comes to what I've been reading lately, I've been able to get my hands on a few interesting history books. The first one is 'Russia and Europe: A Look at the Cultural and Political Relations of the Slavic World to the Romano-German World' (1869) by Nikolay Danilevsky. I don't know if this book is easily available in English now. I know that it used to be available because Carroll Quigley mentioned it in one of his books. Apparently, Danilevsky was the first man to divide the cultures that have existed in history into types, and, now that I've been able to get my hands on this book (because it's easily available in Russia now), I can see that Quigley was very much influenced by this book. It's no wonder, really, because Danilevsky's book features some brilliant writing. Another book that I've been reading is World History in 4 volumes (1887) by the German historian Oskar Jager. It's one of the books that Andrei Fursov recommends. Like Danilevsky's book, this book too is either not available in English or is difficult to find. It is readily available in Russian, however. For me, it became somewhat special because Jager's writing got me interested in the Ancient Greeks for the first time. The third rare book that I've been able to get my hands on is 'Political Equilibrium and England' (1855) by Ivan Vernadsky. It's mainly about the geopolitical struggle of the British Empire against the Russian Empire in the 19th century. Unfortunately, the copy of this book that I've been able to download is in the Russian language of the 19th century. It's not available in English and, as far as I know, it's not available in modern Russian either. I can still read the book, but this is not easy to do because there have certainly been some changes in the Russian language in the last century. Thankfully, the book isn't too thick. The one book in English that is readily available, and that I've been listening to lately on Audible, is Cosmos (1980) by Carl Sagan. I finished watching Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which is the thirteen-part television series based on the book, several months ago, and I quite enjoyed it, actually. So, I decided to get the book too, and Audible offers a very good new recording of it. The only downside to a few of Sagan's works is that they feature American oligarchical propaganda. This is something that I've noticed about other American sci-fi writers, like Isaac Asimov. In the 1970s, and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union in the late-1980s, American and British sci-fi writers began to heavily promote the Anglo-American oligarchical agenda. This agenda is about typical oligarchical fuzz, like population control, the green movement, and their geopolitical aims. I'm not really against the preservation of nature. This obviously has to be done, but the rest of the propaganda isn't really to my taste. This is also why I don't like Frank Herbert's novel Dune that much. It's undoubted that Dune is one of the best-written science-fiction novels in the English language, but the oligarchical propaganda that it contains isn't entirely to my taste. First of all, Dune is about a future that's not really progressive. In the antiquated future of Dune, the interstellar society is ruled by noble houses in control of individual planets. So, this is certainly not some futuristic, improved society that you might see in a franchise like Star Trek. It's not even a democratic society. It's a hierarchical society of nobles and royalty that very much appeals to the modern Western capitalist oligarchy. It can also be said that Dune is in tune with the environmental agenda of the Western elite, and this is why this old novel remains so popular and why it's promoted so heavily in the West. Dune was published in 1965, and, in the decades since then, the science-fiction genre in the West has largely been turned by the Western elite into a genre that promotes the environmental agenda. This is not something that I find to be very distasteful, but it is something that should be noted.

There was a bit of fuss about this film so I watched it (it's not easy to find though). It can't be taken seriously because it's obviously propaganda. The film's poster alone should tell you that; the statue of the worker and the peasant on top of a pile of human corpses. I've seen similar anti-Soviet documentaries before. The film includes a creepy narration, huge red titles, constant footage of corpses, and it's full of errors. If you already have a good knowledge of the Soviet regime and of the two World Wars then you won't find much that's new in The Soviet Story. This film just turns up the heat on what's been said before, and the way it does this is by showing gruesome footage backed by an effective musical score. Is it an objective film? No. Any good documentary should be. This film's intent is to just be anti-Soviet. It's because of this that The Soviet Story won't be taken seriously by viewers in the future. The best documentary about the Second World War is called The World At War (1973). The World At War does not demonize the Nazi regime but provides an objective look at it's failures, evils and even triumphs (which mostly happened in war). It shows what caused those evils. The Russians are shown in a positive way, as they should be because Hitler was broken in Russia, and the Soviet Union suffered 19 million civilian deaths. No one can argue with that. None of this information is included in The Soviet Story. One of this film's strongest points is that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies before 1941. Not true. They did have a pact, but Stalin approved it only because he wanted the USSR to stay out of the war at that time. It's well known that Stalin's purges caused the deaths of many people. Perhaps as many as 1.2 million. The Soviet Story makes a case that this spread to Soviet occupied lands. That's mostly true, but there were hardly any such murders in the Baltic states. Another thing that puzzles me is why the film is called The Soviet Story. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991, and yet what's shown in the film happened before 1950. Shouldn't it be called something like The Evils Of Stalin's Regime? There were no famines or purges after Stalin's death in the Soviet Union. What about the Cold War and the Space Race?

I read that several members of the European Parliament (all from Eastern Europe) gave this film positive reviews. And yet there are others like Tatjana Zdanoka (Latvian MEP) and historian Alexander Dyukov who said that the film has errors and that it's a propagandistic odd job, which is given out to be "a new word in history". Dyukov alleges inconsistencies in the film and questions the credibility of some of the film sequences and conclusions of some of the Russian and Western historians interviewed in the film. Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ijabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and "effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word", whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ijabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors.

Edvins Snore, the director, should really be ashamed of his film. He included scenes which weren't even about what was said. There was a scene where officers are drinking and giving a toast. The film claims this as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration. In fact, there were no Russians present at that meeting. Another example is a scene where Russian war dead were shown from World War I. The film instead claims that these were Ukrainian dead from the 1932 famine. I know this because this same scene was shown in the acclaimed British documentary series The Great War (1964). And these are just the scenes that I know of. There are definitely more of these. A news story about the film informed me that pictures taken at Nazi concentration camps were presented as pictures taken at Soviet labour camps in the film, and that a Latvian pro-Nazi parade was said to be a Soviet parade. A fake picture made by Nazi followers was presented as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration, in it Heinrich Himmler is shown touring Soviet labour camps and "learning" from the Soviets. Can a movie that has so many errors (some even intentional) be taken seriously? Of course not. And what's more disturbing is that Snore at the end uses his film to take a stab at the second president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. How does a Russian president fit in a film about the Soviet Union? No wonder The Soviet Story wasn't released on home video. No one would buy this historically inaccurate horror flick.

I guess the question is why was The Soviet Story released? The answer is to spread anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiment. The Soviet Union disintegrated two decades ago, so what is the point of a film that strongly criticizes a regime that hasn't existed for a generation already? The answer is, yet again, politics. Latvia (the country where the film was made) and other former Soviet satellites are afraid of Russian domination. Even with the fall of communism the situation in those countries hasn't improved much, and in some cases deteriorated. The current government blames Russia, even though Russia isn't involved in those countries' internal affairs. The Soviet Story is a badly made film, but those with anti-Russian feelings are going to eat it up. I don't recommend it because The Soviet Story is in parts untrue and in all parts extreme. To say that the far right is just like the far left is a major mistake. Those looking for trustworthy information should find something else (preferrably a history book).

Well, it's not surprising that Avengers: Infinity War is going to become one of the biggest box office successes in cinema history. This film has been out for less than a week and already pretty much everyone who goes to the cinema has seen it, except for me. I haven't seen it yet because I don't get the urge to do what everyone else is doing. So, I'll probably wait until I can borrow it from some library. I actually like the films that Marvel makes, but I don't jump up and down every time one of those films is released. My favorite MCU films are Thor (2011), Ant-Man (2015), Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Doctor Strange (2016), Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), and Thor: Ragnarok (2017). Pretty much all the Marvel films are enjoyable, but the ones that I've listed are my favorites. The recently released Black Panther isn't one of my favorites. It's not a bad film by any means. It's good. It's more serious that the usual Marvel flick. It's just that only a few characters in the film appeal to me. The film also doesn't quite have the emotional weight that it should have. When it comes to the characters, it lacks the appeal of Thor or of Iron Man, for example. Since Marvel films contain some Anglo-American propaganda, it can also be interesting to see them because of what they're about. Some of the information in these films actually surprised me. For example, in Captain America: The First Avenger, the fictional terrorist organization Hydra uses some odd weapons and technology. Steve Rogers (Captain America) doesn't fight against regular German troops in the film but against Hydra troops armed with extraordinary weapons. Such weapons are usually the stuff of science-fiction, but I later learned that the Nazis did actually have some of those extraordinary weapons. Some of this technology and weaponry wasn't intended for mass production and some of it wasn't fully developed when Nazi Germany was defeated. So, for example, the Germans did have plans to create the Amerikabomber, which was a long-range strategic bomber for the Luftwaffe that would be capable of striking the USA from Germany. In the film, the Red Skull attempts to use a similar bomber to strike the USA. At one time, Adolf Hitler considered the creation a giant tank not so different from the one that the Red Skull uses in the film. So, if the Germans hadn't been defeated in World War II, such "miracle weapons" would have become a reality already in the 1940s or the 1950s. In the sequel, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, we find out that some members of Hydra were recruited by the American espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D after World War II. Something similar happened in real life too because the Americans did bring German and other European scientists, psychiatrists, and agents to the United States after World War II. Some of these people, like Ukrainian nationalists, were so-called war criminals because they were engaged in mass killings in Europe.

When it comes to what I've been reading lately, I can recommend Paul Kennedy's book 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' (1987). It's a history book with some good information that was recommended by the historian Andrei Fursov. I finally finished listening to The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoyevsky a few months ago. It's a thick book, and I had to listen to it for about 25 hours. I'm now listening to the Complete Stories of Sherlock Holmes (in 3 volumes) by Arthur Conan Doyle. The narration is by Charlton Griffin, and I've got to say that I'm really enjoying listening to these releases. It's not only that the narration is very good, it's that I haven't yet read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Therefore, this is something that's new for me. Since Doyle was a Mason and a member of the British establishment, his novels contain some interesting information about British intentions in the second half of the 19th century. Another book that I'm almost finished listening to is Dispatches by Michael Herr. Dispatches was one of the first pieces of American literature that portrayed the experiences of soldiers in the Vietnam War for American readers. Herr's book is surprisingly funny at times, though he mostly describes the behavior of American soldiers and their actions. Carl Sagan's The Dragons Of Eden, which is another book that Fursov recommended, is an interesting read. I got The Dragons Of Eden right after I've read Sagan's well-known 1985 novel Contact, which is one of the more memorable hard science fiction novels that I've read. I personally prefer to read books on my tablet, by using the app Play Books. Other times, when I feel like it, I buy books at second hand book stores. But, for the most part, I read books on Play Books or I listen to them on the Audible app.

Some of the novels that I've already read are Inherit The Stars (1977), which is a personal favorite, Blood Music (1985), The Visitors (1980), The Robots Of Dawn (1983), Titan (1979), Beyond The Blue Event Horizon (1977), Mission Of Gravity (1954), The Godwhale (1974), Triton (1976), In The Ocean Of Night (1977), Ender's Game (1985), and Dune (1965). When it comes to Dune by Frank Herbert, I'd recommend getting the unabridged audiobook narrated by Scott Brick and Orlagh Cassidy, among others. I'm not at all a fan of Frank Herbert's work, and his science fiction novels aren't among my favorites, but the audiobook is a compelling listen that includes music and sound effects. Although I'm still reading the manga Berserk by Kentaro Miura (I'm now reading the 16th volume), I've finished reading Battle Angel Alita by Yukito Kishiro a few months ago. I've already read famous manga like Rurouni Kenshin, Death Note, Maison Ikkoku, Akira, Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Wind, and Fullmetal Alchemist, but Battle Angel Alita is hard to get because it has been out of print for years. Therefore, you can read it only on the internet or on an app for now. I've thought about reading it for several years, way before I knew that there was talk of adapting it into a film. Sure, the artwork is the biggest draw, but there's also a pretty good story that includes the theme of social control. Battle Angel Alita: Last Order is the continuation of the story that features more of Kishiro's fantastic artwork.

I've got to say that I'm not fully satisfied with my video about the best teen movies of the 1980s. There are at least two movies that I should have included. They are Footloose (1984) and All The Right Moves (1983). I myself wouldn't call Footloose an '80s classic, but it's still good enough to have made it to my list, though it wouldn't have been in the top 20. Footloose is an epic story about one teen's struggle to... dance and listen to pop music in some American backwater town. Footloose does have a good soundtrack, which is one of my favorite soundtracks of the 1980s. The movie itself isn't bad, and it has some good performances, but it's the soundtrack that I really like. The one movie that definitely should have made it to my list is All The Right Moves, which is easily one of the better teen movies of the 1980s. Unfortunately, I somehow forgot about this movie while I was making my list. What a bummer. First of all, there are good performances from Tom Cruise, Lea Thompson, and Craig T. Nelson. But every performance in this movie is solid. Then there's a good story with a message, which is actually not an uncommon message in Hollywood movies. No matter how hard life gets in the US of A, you can still pull through and triumph if you really try. Well, you can believe that if you want to. Unfortunately, there are a few things that, for me, weigh down this commendable, realistic look at life. One is the presence of sex jokes. The other is the presence of American football. The sex jokes kind of cheapen this otherwise good movie, and I've never been a fan of American football. These two things are staples in many other American teen movies. By the way, All The Right Moves was available on Netflix for a while, but it later disappeared.

Now, let's get to my thoughts about Star Wars: The Last Jedi. I have not seen this movie, and I'm not planning on seeing it because I learned my lesson after seeing Star Wars: The Force Awakens. But the controversy surrounding this movie is quite interesting. Of course, as I predicted, The Last Jedi, while not being a good movie, got showered with praise by paid movie critics, just like the awful The Force Awakens was showered with praise. Many ordinary and honest people, however, said that The Last Jedi is even worse than The Force Awakens and that it ruins the legacy of Star Wars. Some grown men even said that it made them cry because they had to sit and watch their favorite franchise being ruined by Rian Johnson and Disney. In other words, the peasants rebelled. It seems that not all Americans are brainless consumers yet, as the people at Disney may have thought. The Disney propaganda machine and its buddies in the media and on the internet decided to fight the backlash. Numerous articles began to be released online claiming that the people that don't like The Last Jedi are either obsessed fans or grown men who live in their mothers' basements. Even more favorable reviews of The Last Jedi by Disney's buddies and army of paid critics appeared as well, claiming that The Last Jedi, though certainly not being a good movie, is still kind of original and that it tries something new. But, wait a minute! Didn't the people at Disney say that these new Star Wars movies are for the "fans"? Now, all of a sudden, they're saying that these fans are annoying crybabies and that the movies are really for children (because children often don't care about the quality of movies and because the propaganda in Disney movies is meant to influence children). But Disney and its numerous partners in crime are going even further. The popular website Rotten Tomatoes has recently announced that it won't tolerate users who are intentionally voting down Disney movies because of their anger with The Last Jedi. The reviews and ratings of such users will be removed from the website. Criticism of the Disney monopoly and its bad movies will not be tolerated. In addition, the popular website IMDb recently changed the way user reviews can be viewed. Yes, you no longer have the option of which reviews you want to read, be they old or recent, negative or positive. Now all reviews are in only one section and only the most popular reviews can be viewed easily on the website. Still, even this measure didn't prevent the fact that user reviews of the The Last Jedi on IMDb are almost all negative. But let's not forget about Google (the owner of YouTube), which is another popular American website that's heavily involved in censorship online. Try finding a negative review of The Last Jedi by using the Google search engine. You'll have a very hard time doing this because only reviews that praise The Last Jedi are easily found on Google. Honest reviews by ordinary people are intentionally pushed back. You can still find such reviews, but it'll take some time and effort.

It's worth pointing out that I'm not a hater of Disney or of the messages in its movies. I wisely didn't even go and see The Last Jedi in a theater because, as I've mentioned, I learned my lesson after seeing The Force Awakens. I didn't see The Last Jedi simply because it's a bad movie. But what Disney has been doing (releasing unoriginal remakes of beloved movies and crushing dissent) is biting. But this sort of behavior is typical in the USA. Of course, Disney isn't the only Hollywood studio that's releasing bad and unoriginal movies nowadays. What still surprises me sometimes is that some people still think that The Force Awakens is a good movie, though they didn't like The Last Jedi because of its obvious flaws. Well, this just shows that not everyone is rational and informed. Many people are mindless consumers who just want to watch CGI and explosions on the big screen. My younger sister, for example, is such a person. I'm sometimes stricken by the irrational things that she says. And, yes, she does own an iPhone, like many other mindless consumers. Well, such are the people that are being brought up by the capitalist system. They don't question the system or the authorities, and they live for mindless entertainment and consumption. That's why those awful Transformers movies directed by Michael Bay made hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.

Sure, I will write a review, maybe a short one, about Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017), which is seemingly the worst Star Wars film ever. But, for now, I'd like to get into the Gundam franchise. I already made a list about the best Gundam releases. However, not all of them are all they're cracked up to be. Well, first of all, instead of watching the original series, I'd recommend watching Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team, Mobile Suit Gundam: Char's Counterattack, Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket, and Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz. I think that these are the best of the best of the Gundam releases. Yoshiyuki Tomino, with his 1979 original series, may have started the franchise, but it's admittedly a rather dull series, for the most part. Tomino is fine at showing the realities of war, and he knows his science, but his direction doesn't make the original Gundam a truly compelling series. If you compare the Gundam franchise to other giant robot anime series, you'll see that not one of the Gundam releases reaches the heights of The Vision Of Escaflowne, Neon Genesis Evangelion, or Macross Plus. Still, the four Gundam releases that I listed are very good, and I'd recommend them to anyone.

In the 1980s, Japanese animation was lower in quality than American animation or Soviet animation. But some of what Japanese animators made in the 1980s is very good and original. Anime became even more popular in the 1990s. More quality releases appeared as well, in part because the quality of animation improved. But, in the 2000s, anime began to turn into repetitive, unoriginal schlock. Judging by user comments, I see that some people are smart enough to realize that this is the case, that the anime industry in Japan is producing unoriginal schlock now, similar to how Hollywood is producing unoriginal schlock now. In this environment of creative stagnation, releases that are good and original are rare.

I recently watched the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983) in order to see how good these films really are. I already pointed out that I won't be seeing Star Wars: The Last Jedi in a theater because Star Wars: The Force Awakens really disappointed me. The Force Awakens is perhaps the most shallow, uninspired piece of filmmaking that I've ever seen in my life. Actually, recently, I got a lot of enjoyment out of reading user reviews of The Force Awakens on IMDb. Almost all the popular reviews on IMDb gave this film a rating of one out of a possible ten stars. On the other hand, almost all paid film critics praised The Force Awakens when it was released. As some people pointed out, this shows that film critics working for popular newspapers and websites can't be trusted. They praised The Force Awakens because they were paid by Walt Disney Studios or because they were pressured. There is a word in the English language that describes this situation. It's corruption. What's interesting is that Disney has been pressuring movie theaters into showing The Last Jedi in all the largest auditoriums when the film will be released. In other words, it seems that Disney wants to make as much money as possible in as little time as possible with the release of The Last Jedi. Make of this what you will. Possibly, The Last Jedi is a disappointing film, just like The Force Awakens. Therefore, Disney wants to make as much money as possible before negative reviews by honest film critics begin appearing on the internet. I'm sure that The Last Jedi will be showered with overwhelming praise by paid film critics upon release, just like the awful The Force Awakens was. I'm not saying that The Last Jedi will be just as bad as The Force Awakens. Rian Johnson probably managed to make a better film than The Force Awakens. But it's possible, maybe probable, that The Last Jedi will also turn out to be a disappointment and a cash grab.

Anyway, let's get back to the original trilogy. I've got to say that I was rather impressed by these three films, especially by The Empire Strikes Back. The visuals impressed me the most. I don't really think of Star Wars as science fiction. This is why I didn't include Star Wars films on my list of the best science fiction films. For me, these films are more like space fantasy or science fantasy. But the visuals of space and spaceships in these films are some of the best ever put to film. George Lucas created quite an imaginative world in Star Wars. There is no doubt that Lucas is a visionary. But, of course, Lucas grew up at a time when Americans were brought up to be inventive, capable, and original. For the last several decades, however, Americans have been brought up not to be inventive and knowledgeable but to be uninventive and obedient. Such is the policy of the capitalist American ruling class. Therefore, Americans don't really invent anything anymore and they can't come up with original ideas. I've seen the original Star Wars trilogy four times, I think. Now that I'm no longer a teenager, I realize that these three films are quite impressive pieces of filmmaking. The special effects are particularly impressive. But Lucas and company were also smart enough to bring in experienced British actors in order to make certain scenes more meaningful. As it turns out, many of the novels in the Star Wars Expanded Universe are worth reading too. I'm now reading Heir To The Empire, Deceived, and Darth Plagueis. What I should mention is that I'm not hating the new Star Wars films because I'm just a hater. I'm not obsessed with Star Wars, and I've never been a fan, but I still wanted these films to be good. Unfortunately, they're not good. They contain propaganda, just like the original trilogy did, but they are unoriginal corporate cash grabs. On the other hand, The Empire Strikes Back is such a good film that I got an urge to watch it again after it was over.

I will offer my thoughts about the new Star Wars: The Last Jedi trailer. This new trailer, by the way, again got me to think about how bad of a film Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) is. I began watching videos and reading articles that criticize and pick apart this film, and I'll later post some of these videos on my blog. I've known from the beginning that it's not a good film, but I now realize that The Force Awakens is truly the worst Star Wars film so far. I really enjoyed watching and reading the negative things that people have to say about it. Here are a few reasons why it's so bad:

• It is pretty much rip-off of Star Wars (1977). In addition, it is a much worse film than Star Wars. Why should I watch an inferior version of a film that already exists? I'd rather watch the 1977 original. And, not surprisingly, I haven't seen The Force Awakens since that one time in December of 2015.

• The new characters (Kylo Ren, Rey, Finn and others) are not interesting or appealing. They're pretty much inferior copies of old characters like Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. These new characters are just more proof that screen writers in Hollywood can no longer write believable human characters.

• The Starkiller Base makes no sense. How could the First Order create a weapon that's several times bigger than the Death Star? Where did they get the time or the resources for this? In addition, the laws of physics don't apply to this thing. Is The Force Awakens more of a fantasy or more of a science-fiction film? The Starkiller Base is a result of poor screenplay writing.

• So, The Force Awakens offers nothing new when it comes to plot and characters. It also offers nothing new when it comes to fashion or technology. Almost everything in The Force Awakens is something that we've seen in Star Wars films by George Lucas.

• In short, The Force Awakens is a cash grab. It's not original. It's not art. It doesn't feel epic like the other Star Wars films. It's just a corporate product that was made to play it safe, to appeal to "fans", and to earn as much money as possible. It's just mind-numbing.

Well, there you have it. There are many more reasons why The Force Awakens is such a bad film. It's even worse than the Star Trek films that J. J. Abrams directed. The latest trailer does make Star Wars: The Last Jedi look somewhat promising. Rian Johnson probably made a much better film than The Force Awakens. But I won't be seeing it in a theater because The Force Awakens left such a bad taste. I'll be boycotting The Last Jedi just like I boycotted Rogue One (2016).

What can I say? Thanks to The Force Awakens, the prequel trilogy that George Lucas directed doesn't seem so bad now. At least the prequels have some originality. Even that romance that was played out by Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman doesn't seem so bad now. By the way, I once read that Portman strives to keep a good image as an actress by not appearing in trashy movies. That's admirable, I thought, especially when compared to other Hollywood actresses. But, as it turns out, according to a gossip website, even she appeared in at least one movie without every item of clothing on her. I haven't seen Hotel Chevalier (2007), which is what that amusing cartoon that I posted earlier about, but I have seen The Darjeeling Limited (2007). I've seen it so long ago that I can't remember what happened in it, but I did include it on my list of the ten best movies of 2007.

So, The Force Awakens is truly awful. But I'll mention that there's another film that's even more painful to watch. It's Casual Sex? from 1988. I'll admit that I like watching Hollywood films from the 1980s. Even the bad films from that decade don't seem so bad when compared to many modern films. So, what can go wrong? But Casual Sex? is so dull that it took me about a month to finish watching it. Sometimes, I watched it several seconds at a time. It felt like a chore. It's very dull. It stars Lea Thompson and Victoria Jackson, but there's nothing original about this film, and nothing interesting happens in it. If you'd like to get tortured, watch this film.

Is Alien: Covenant (2017) really that bad? I did say that it's a disappointing film. What I meant by this is that it's just disappointing and not terrible. In my view, Covenant is a slightly better film than Prometheus (2012) because it makes a little more sense. A few people said to me that they kind of like Covenant. I can understand why they think that. Covenant is entertaining, and it does make more sense than Prometheus, but it also has some of the same problems. Because Covenant is a film by director Ridley Scott, it's a given that it looks very good. And, honestly, I'd like for him to make a sequel to Covenant. I'm a little interested in what he might be able to do with a sequel.

The biggest disappointment of this year at the cinema for me was the film It, which was directed by Andy Muschietti. It didn't even seem like a film to me. More like a collection of nonsense. I can't believe that so many people are praising this film. Sure, it's kind of entertaining, the acting is fine, and there's some humor, but this is where the good stuff ends. And, unfortunately, I fell for the hype. I had a good feeling that I'd be somewhat disappointed by this film because it's hard to adapt Stephen King's thick novel to film, but I didn't think that it would be such a mess. Now I understand why Cary Fukunaga dropped out during the production phase. It seems that he intended to make a good film that respected the material in the novel. The film that we got in the end has few similarities with the novel. What made my viewing experience worse is the fact that I finished reading the novel just several days earlier. It was still fresh in my mind, and I remembered pretty much everything that happened in the novel. When I was watching the film, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There was plenty of swearing that isn't in the novel. There's no explanation of who Pennywise is. The film is set in 1989, but the filmmakers still decided to make the characters do what they did in 1958. This doesn't work at all. I can't imagine children, and even grownups, behaving like this in the 1980s! I still can't believe that I wasted my money and time on this turd. Avoid it!

So, I finally finished listening to the audiobook of Stephen King's It. It took quite some time because it's about 45 hours long. I didn't get as much enjoyment out of the novel as I did when I read it years ago. I still enjoyed listening to most of it, especially the first half, in which King explains the history of Derry. It's when the reader doesn't yet know what It is. The novel is by no means a masterpiece, and I don't like a few aspects of King's writing, but It still seems pretty good to me after all these years. Now that I'm done with It, I'm listening to Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Idiot, which is a novel that I've wanted to read for quite some time. Instead of reading The Idiot, I decided to listen to the audiobook since I had a few credits to spend. What's also worth noting is that I've noticed a rather interesting trend in American fiction of the 1980s. I'm now reading a few American science-fiction novels from the 1980s, and something that pops up even in the genre of science-fiction of this period is anti-Soviet propaganda. I'm sure that many people know about the writer Tom Clancy, about the fact that his novels are pretty much anti-Soviet, pro-American military propaganda. Well, all of this isn't a coincidence. The fact that Ronald Reagan praised Clancy's propaganda novel The Hunt for Red October (1984) wasn't a coincidence too. As historian Andrei Fursov explained, the Americans, when Reagan was president, intentionally raised tensions with the Soviet Union. The Americans released a lot of offensive anti-Soviet propaganda in the 1980s. The fact that Hollywood released many action films in the 1980s also wasn't a coincidence. The Americans were intentionally trying to create an atmosphere of tension, violence, and confrontation. They did this because they had a strategy of trying to weaken the Soviet Union and possibly cause it to collapse. It's because they saw this as one of two ways of getting out of the economic crisis that was affecting the West since the early-1970s. The other way for them was war. In the end, we all know that the Americans succeeded, thanks to people like Mikhail Gorbachev. The collapse of the Soviet Union allowed the capitalist ruling class of the West to postpone a serious economic crisis until 2008.

Some people have been asking me what I think about the summer movies that have been put out in the last few months. Therefore, this is what this post will be about. I haven't been making any film-related videos lately. My videos of late are mostly about culture and sociology, and not about film or anything else. But I still go to the cinema once in a while, mostly to see the special effects featured in Hollywood films. I've read a few articles on the net that state that this year's summer movies are disappointing, that, overall, it hasn't been a blast for moviegoers this summer. Well, I can agree and disagree. Almost all of the films that I've seen this summer are entertaining. But, then again, I haven't seen that many films this summer. I think that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is the best film in the franchise since Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is in third place for me, and I don't want to see Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End again. Spider-Man: Homecoming is pretty good. It's certainly not the best Spider-Man film ever, as some people have been (suspiciously) saying. It's in third place for me, after Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Spider-Man (2002). Other 2017 summer movies that I consider to be pretty good are Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Kong: Skull Island, Wonder Woman, The Fate of the Furious, Baywatch, and Baby Driver. Now, I don't mean that these films are masterpieces. They're just fine. They entertained me. I didn't mind seeing them one time in a theater. They are, of course, nothing like Apocalypse Now (1979) or The Idiot (1958), for example. By the way, The Idiot by director Ivan Pyryev is one of the best films that I have seen in a long time. What a shame that this magnificent Soviet film doesn't get any recognition in the West because of ideological and political reasons. It should be as well known as War and Peace by director Sergei Bondarchuk. The cinematography is gorgeous and the acting is superb. This is easily the best film adaptation of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's works. The Idiot is highly recommended by me. The Brothers Karamazov is the only Dostoyevsky novel that I've read so far. But, after seeing the 1958 film adaptation of The Idiot, I now have an urge to read the novel. Anyway, when it comes to this year's summer movies, there have also been some disappointments, like The Mummy and Alien: Covenant. So, overall, it has been an average, and not a bad, summer movie season, in my opinion. Nothing truly great like Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) or Dredd (2012) has been released so far this year. Good films like these are rare now. It seems to me that the number one goal of Hollywood film studios now is to make films that are first and foremost entertaining and that feature many special effects, in order to draw in crowds of people. Even the not so good films now are entertaining. The number two goal is propaganda. And quality is only in third place or lower. I think that I've already made a post about the fact that Hollywood has been releasing unoriginal and dumb films for about three decades already. But pretty much everything has gone down in quality and originality in the USA in the last several decades. It's not that all Hollywood films are bad now. Some of them are still good, if not great. It's just that there's nothing new. There's no originality. There's no inventiveness. So, as a sentient organism, and not as one of the sheeple, I have to say that things s*ck, which is a phrase that Americans often use. I should mention that I did see one film not long ago that's not that good but that's still daring and kind of original. It's The Space Between Us (2017) by director Peter Chelsom. Watch it until the end, and I think that you'll be surprised by how old-fashioned, daring, and sweet it is. Another thing worth mentioning is that I saw Rogue One (2016), which is the second Star Wars film made by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, after it came out on video. It is, as I expected, rather dull. I don't want to see it again. It disappointed me even more than Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015). There are only two moments in Rogue One that stood out for me - when Galen Erso delivers an emotional message to his daughter, Jyn Erso, about the Death Star, and when Chirrut Imwe, who's a blind warrior, gets a bag put over his head. One of the few directors working in Hollywood who can film science-fiction well is James Cameron. I heard somewhere that Cameron read many science-fiction novels when he was growing up. If this is true then this must be one of the reasons why he's good at filming science-fiction. Still, his latest film, Avatar (2009), didn't impress me much. Some parts of Avatar are inspired, but, overall, it's not great. Cameron is clearly getting old, and making an original film in Hollywood is difficult now anyway. Lack of originality isn't the only problem with Hollywood films. Another important problem is poor characterization. This comes down to scripts and acting. There's a serious shortage of appealing and interesting characters in Hollywood films now, and not just in summer blockbusters. Those dull, medium and low budget Hollywood dramas and romances feature unappealing characters too. If you want to see good characterization, see The Idiot (1958) as an example. That film puts Hollywood films, and especially summer blockbusters, to shame.