Seller7862

Hollywood is proselytizing, telling you there is nothing more anti-American ... un-American ... intolerant ... ugly and unfair, than to persecute someone simply because their politics are different than yours.

Truth is there is no hypocritical organization on earth more sadistic in its application of career destruction based on a person's personal beliefs ... than Hollywood. Is there an industry in the USA more anti-free-speech? More dedicated to promoting violence as a solution to all problems?

Journalism? ... maybe. But that's not a win for Hollywood. Since they have become sisters over the last 50 years.

And the reason for that is simple. Because they have the same anti-civilization goals.

First, I wonder how they find these people? Did they talk people into this lifestyle change in exchange for $$$$$$$ Second, these type of shows began after the global economic meltdown that began in 2008. So what you have is people pretending this is an organic fad. The show where you have children and young parents, aren't being honest about the desirability and choice involved. For example one episode (2016) has a cute couple in their early 30s with 3 pre-kindergarten boys. And the focus is how great this will be for everyone. Lol They need to make a follow-up episode of what type of disaster that became ... or how they avoided misery by giving up on the project after 2 years.

In summation, downsizing is a good idea, but in the past that used to happen organically when kids left the home and couples neared retirement age. They are selling this idea as a fashion statement. And as we all know, the whims of fashion are never long-lasting.

Gave it a 10 to piss off the orthodox PC crowd.

I used to be a fanboy until Broccoli's heirs ruined the franchise. Folks, if you want to watch enjoyable 007 escapist films, focus on the ones predating Tomorrow never dies. Live and Let die was Roger Moore's favorite. My Moore-era favorite was The Spy Who Loved Me. I would put LALD somewhere in the middle. Mainly because Broccoli/Saltzman were learning how to transition away from the Connery-era films. And yes, that era of films were the best 007 films imo.

Science fiction allows for outlandish ideas like aliens in saucers visiting Earth.

Let me explain how silly (ring ring).

"Excuse me, I need to answer my phone." "Hello. WUT!! Are you kidding me?!? You don't say. Wow, color me shocked." Well, I'm a little embarrassed. The joint chiefs of staff just called and notified me that the Pentagon has been tracking U. A. P.s for decades and there is indeed UFOs violating our airspace on a daily basis.

So it appears the Obiden administration will be mailing a book related to this development to every man, woman and child (as long as they are the right color, gender and sexual orientation).

Look for the book in your mailbox. It's title? TO SERVE MAN.

More Political science than actual science.

The planet is not allowed to change temperature because if it does we will all die.

Dumb Stupid Idiotic Moronic Anti-science Irrational fear Catastrophists posing as scientists. They must all worship the God they call AOC.

I want to vomit when watching educated people trying to scare people for political purposed.

Then this movie will be hard for you to enjoy ... unless you are a huge fan of caddyshack, meatballs, animal house, grease and all the other coming-of-age genre movies starting with THE BAD NEWS BEARS and ending with UP THE CREEK.

The main issue with this movie is it can't decide whether it is an homage to or parody of a genre which parodies itself.

On the upside there is a lot of talent in this movie (some of which reached its zenith with this film school project) The downside is talent can't fix script written by confused drunk clown.

Those movies ... all of them, are better than this movie.

Watching this film makes the Ludovico experiment look like a week at Disneyworld. It makes Manos the hands of Fate look like Gone with the Wind. It was made in 1966, two years before Hollywood green-lighted nudity.

If this film had been made in 1968, and contained nudity, it might not be the worst thing ever put on film. But it wasn't and it is.

I luv this series ... and other reviewers have captured its brilliance.

But ... the way they ended it was over-the-top silly. So they get a 9 instead of a 10

When you watch this documentary it makes you realize that fewer humans equal more beauty ... more EDEN ... more LIFE ... more bio-diversity ... more sanity.

All we do is make the Universe an ugly, irrational, dystopian place.

Released in 2010 ... remember that financial crisis? You know, the one that was only partially self-inflicted? Anyone who saw this movie in 2010 could probably relate. Either personally or by extension. It's a brutal and honest and entertaining movie. "You haven't hit rock bottom if you can say you've hit rock bottom" That sums up this movie. We all suffer greatly in this lifetime. And it has little to do with the intolerance of others. It has to do with us and our inability to learn the simple lessons that childhood provides. Number 1 lesson? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Some people in denial about basic human nature stopped by to rate this episode. Sigh.

5.7 I know I know, I'm a broken record. I guess that's what I get when I live in a nation that is okay with a China-puppet installed in the White-House. The movie has its flaws, but there must be a conspiracy against either Travolta or Ephron. Or maybe religious folk object? I'm not sure which, and I'm too lazy to research which answer is the the truth.

For a minimum of 10 months of every year human beings are completely controlled by the darker angels of their nature. But 1 or 2 months of every year we remember that soul-crushing pursuits do more than crush our spirits, they crush families, they crush biology, they crush all things that make life worth living. Christmas movies/songs/tv shows/books/decorations/traditions ... in short, all that is Christmas remind us that the better angels of our nature help to extend our lives, help us to be healthier, help us to appreciate what is truly beautiful, what is truly worthwhile, Christmas helps us recapture our youth. But not all of our youth, just the parts we are nostalgic for. At Christmas-time we find the strength to listen to the better angels of our nature. Remember that, next time it isn't Christmas-time.

Our journey to being a banana republic started before 1996, but this movie reminds us by that time it was a steamroller that had control of even our most cherished traditions, like Christmas. The cast has talent no doubt, but the production checks off every woke wet dream on their list. But back then it wasn't called "woke", it was called political correctness. Now this movie doesn't ruin Christmas nor does it diminish truly great Christmas movies, and you no doubt are mentioning A Christmas Carol as the original woke Christmas tale. And that is a good point to make countering this review. But Charles Dickens was lamenting those who don't understand the true Christmas spirit. This movie is more about throwing a bone to the religion of PC. It does a good job of it. It does a poor job of capturing the innocent magic of the Claus family.

As some others have said, this movie works because it captures what summer camp is when we remember it years later. Growing up, twice I went to summer camp. Once as an innocent pre-teen. the second time as kid in the grip of puberty. Created a lot of fond memories as well as some painful awkward ones. Because of the time of life we experience these social interactions they leave a lasting impression, and this movie captures that magic, and leaves it's own warm impression. Of course I saw this movie a couple years after I had attended my 2nd and final summer camp, so the nostalgia worked on my young mind in a way I think Reitman was hoping for. Speaking of Ivan Reitman. I assume that he was a big fan of the film "Bad News Bears", because this movie borrows much of its sensibility from that movie. Just the right mixture of comedy and tenderness. I gave it a 9. It deserves a 7, but the 6.2 rating convinced me it deserved a bump. So ...

It would be this movie. Now maybe you think that is an insult, or maybe you think it is a compliment. But I see it as a net positive. Breathing some new life into the tale of Camelot. One of the most told and retold stories in Western literature.

Remember, the stories of Camelot were built up over centuries.

The 12th-century French writer Chrétien de Troyes, who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance that became a significant strand of medieval literature. In these French stories, the narrative focus often shifts from King Arthur himself to other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table. Arthurian literature thrived during the Middle Ages but waned in the centuries that followed until it experienced a major resurgence in the 19th century. In the 21st century, the legend continues to have prominence, not only in literature but also in adaptations for theatre, film, television, comics and other media.

and then this ...

Le Morte d'Arthur (originally spelled Le Morte Darthur, ungrammatical Middle French for "The Death of Arthur") is a 15th-century Middle English prose reworking by Sir Thomas Malory of tales about the legendary King Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin and the Knights of the Round Table-along with their respective folklore. In order to tell a "complete" story of Arthur from his conception to his death, Malory compiled, rearranged, interpreted and modified material from various French and English sources. Today, this is one of the best-known works of Arthurian literature. Many authors since the 19th-century revival of the legend have used Malory as their principal source.

I can do without the virtue-signaling and apocalypse-derangement-syndrome. The royal "we" is over-used. It always indicates a petty dictator is trying to peak his head out of their mouth. We should do this ... we should do that. That changes from "should" to "must" too often. Freedom means people get to choose their own lifestyle. None of these "planet savers" mentioned voluntarily scaling back procreation. Squeezing more and more people into tinier spaces reminds me of soylent green. I do applaud the conscientiousness, and I agree with more efficient use of space. I just don't like people telling others that just because they prefer something, others should also prefer it.

Lol . . . I scrolled down to the front page review and was met with what you see in the header . . . and then the classic theme popped into my head . . . it's like the Cosmos was commenting on what Jordan Peele brings to the table . . . or maybe what contemporary society brings to the table . . . which is mostly nightmares, which makes Jordan's contribution redundant

Probably the best Sci-Fi movie from the golden age of science fiction. From 1950 - 1967 , Hollywood was working to perfect a sci-fi formula (it would culminate in 1968 with Kubrick's 2001 a space odyssey and the more profitable Planet of the Apes). Needed to be technically impressive and a good story that included a morality tale. While Stanley Kubrick was reported to say, "He wanted to create the quintessentially good sci-fi movie", implying all that had come before were bad, he was wrong, and no less than Arthur C Clarke said so. Clark referenced Fantastic Voyage as proof that Kubrick was wrong. I would choose a film from 10 years earlier: Forbidden Planet. This film was influential and you can see it's influence from Star Trek (the menagerie) to Prometheus. There were many fine sci-fi films from the 50s, but this was the best. Innovative special effects (that included help from the Disney company which is credited in the end titles) to break-thru techniques with the soundtrack. All in all a fine adventure for the mind and soul. It should be among the Top 250. But then that's just one man's opinion.

The new totalitarians. 10 stars. In reality it probably deserves an 8, but like I said, at this point it's important to weight things in favor of truth. Go take a look at the ratings of documentaries that don't serve a PC propaganda narrative. Now on to the movie. A civil war epic that must have impressed Michael Bay . . . go watch Pearl Harbor to see what I mean. The story of a love triangle set against the reality of an epic war. Those fixated on politics can only see historical fiction, not realizing that's exactly what it is designed to be: Fiction inter-twined with the existential struggle of a nation trying to avoid suicide by nearly beating itself to death.

What does the ruling class want to do to the peasant class when they won't bend to their will? Get rid of them or torture them. It's always been this way. Only now the ruling class has gotten every institution to be their propaganda department. Media, academia, military, business, religion, even law enforcement drop to their knees to worship at the alter of absolute power and corruption. The thin blue line is going away to be replaced by the wide bloody Marxist red line. After November when the elites take back absolute power, they will be coming for the hard-working decent people. They won't forget you took away their power for 4 years. And they will do horrific things to you when you don't surrender all your rights. The first one they will be taking away from you? The most important one. The one that allows the other's to exist. The 2nd amendment.

Giving it a 1 star is way too generous. A minus 1 would be more apt for this travesty called a movie which should have definitely been nominated and won the raspberry award that year. There is not much by way of plot. As usual, there is an overload of unnecessary useless "comedy" at inappropriate times that made me roll my eyes everytime. And the villain.. where do i even begin!! Its almost 4 years and i still dont get why he was IN the movie in the first place. Anyone having an iota of common sense and self respect can give this movie a very well deserved hard pass. I pity the people giving this movie a 9 or 10. For the love of god there are better movies that deserve to earn more money than this garbage.

^^^^^^^ safricarr -- author of the sewage you see above. It's depressing this person can vote and procreate, helps explain the world as it is today.

Hitchcock is one of the best directors ever. The special affects will make you cringe. But you'll probably forgive that because of other elements like: script, cinematography, location, thought-provoking eco-commentary, etc. Why did I give it such a high rating? Because in the hands of another director this story would've come across like Plan 9 From Outer Space. I also like the fact that the movie spends as much time making you think as it does tapping into your primal fears. It's my favorite Hitchcock movie. Is it his best? That's for others to decide.

I love this movie. Plenty of talent and great songs. And I like the message, that homo sapiens have no real idea how beautiful this world is because they only define beauty as something that puts people at the center of the Universe. There is more beauty, courage and decency in a little of cats or dogs than the entire history of the human race.

This was the better movie despite the lower IMDB rating and fewer awards. Not wildly better, just a little better. The problem I had with the movie is they didn't delve into Capote's formative years as much as they should. The movie is 150 minutes long and adding another 10 or 15 minutes to give us additional insight into the years leading up to In Cold Blood would not only be useful, but illuminating. Good stories do a lot of illuminating.