Democrats policy of pitting people of color against each other is what failed in 2016. Data shows high black male vote for Trump is why Trump won
What a crackpot film. It is totally at odds with actual research by pew, Gallup and political scientis. This film is one objective untruth after another. You could watch this film and not know that more African Americans voted for Trump than the prior SIX GOP candidates in national elections. More African Americans voted for Trump the voted for Romney. McCain GWB firet election, GWB second election> More than voted for GHWB bus in both of his, more than Bob dole, or Reagan both elections as well -. and more than Gerald Ford.
In 2016, Over 16% of black men voted for Trump, in fact 37% of employed black men voted for Trump in 2016. 29% of Hispanic men voted for Trump, as opposed to 25% voting for Romney the prior election. The black male vote alone if it had been slightly lower would have meant Hillary winning.
What a crackpot film. Its central thesis is that western media depictions of masculinity are responsible for social violence. it also contends, in 1999, that violence would increase. Actually from the 1990's murder rates in the US fell -- for a generation.
And it is profoundly anti science. The data show that for 200,000 years, since the advent of homosapiens, and likely for millions of years since Australopithecus ancestors, about 80% of females overproduced while only between 30% to 40% of males did. We know why: because fought one another, individual and in organized groups.
The peer reviewed science in aDNA ancient DCA studies show this, and in fact there are consistently more male skeletons showing weopn injury and violent death in individual and mass graves compared to female skeletons. Virtually all violence among hunter gather tribes still in existence today ids male on male as well. Are they watching too much Brando?
literally the entire basis of claims in this film are the opposite of what the science shows, and the conclusions are absurd as a result
Along with the good Scandinavian police procedurals/noir, there is some total junk like this
Firstly the user that gave it tens stars has one review in their IMDB history, meaning they are probably in some way affiliated with this production. I'l keep it short: I'm a fan of Scandinavian noir police procedurals. But at this point a fair LOT of total garbage is being made in this genre and this is a perfect example. The acting is just unbelievably bad. so is the script dialogue and plot. Worst of all it deploys the same tropes and spot cliches that are becoming utterly tedious in the genre: Immigrant victim? Check. Lots of didactic moralizing? check. Ending plot twist to wrap everything in a bow, but is insulting to intelligence of audience? Check.
Clear that not a single one of the actors have ever been in the military
It isn't just US and VFW flags hung wrong, or patches all wrong, it is bearing of these guys, handing of firearms, stance, etc. It is clear that not a one of the actors has ever been in a military force whatsoever.
Portraying all of them as damaged is a nasty swipe as well since Vietnam combat veterans have been shown by data and peer reviewed studies to be more stable in their work and personal lives than same age, gender, income, education cohorts that never served in the military.
Skip this piece of nonsense.
I was surprised that Joe did nto challenge her on any of her assertions, almost none of which are backed up by the facts, in fact most of which are the opposite of what the peer reviewed work shows on what happened at the polls in the 2016 election .
Daryl's batty mom proves once again to be the biggest danger to survivors
Wow this was the worst second half of season premiere yet.
Firstly, the cinematography was so dark that half of what was going on was not even visible. This trope of being stuck in a confined space has been done too many times on TWD. Then of course there was one visible scene should never have been seen, but can't be unseen. Terror ok. Horror? sure? But extreme ICK sex? No thanks.
on top of that, Carol, the batty elderly lady who is Daryl's surrogate mom, would have been put down by any rational survivor group since she makes mistake after mistake putting them in profound danger. I'd rather have Homer Simpson in my foxhole than that doddering lady!
Lastly I know the show is fictional but there is no credible reason why any of the protagonist survivors don't just shoot Alpha. The top down structure of the whisperers plus the fact that they are virtually always out in the open make them amazingly vulnerable to firearms, in many cases a single gun, be it basic hunting rifle in longer range exposure that has occurred over and over, or pistol in the many close in confrontations. People saying the guns would be rusted or ammo would be low, simply haven't done any research.
I applaud nearly any attention to Washington, but there are some real problems here
Firstly why have non historians such as Bill Clinton and Colin Powell in this? Especially if they are going to make statements like Powell's: "He (Washington) could have been King." That is ludicrous. Worse yet I read an interview with one of the makers of the historians "advising" that this "contrasted" Washington with Trump. What? 1. The "refused to be king" nonsense has been as debunked as the Cherry Tree legend. 2. this points to a motive int eh glaring omission of any exposition at all on the power of the presidency at the time which was profoundly limited in nature literally almost that of simply a presiding officer at the time, when today when the US presidency in the 21st century is a profoundly more powerful office -- and one which arguably virtually the American colonial revolutionaries would consider tyrannical by its nature since FDR or earlier. Once you realize this is going on there is a bit of insidiousness and agenda to the selection of the short phrase sized quotes chosen by the makers.
As far as the military aspect, both the role of the militias, and the role of the French, is given very short shrift and it is made to seem the Continental Army was virtually the entire effort. Sadly one starts to wonder if this is agenda driven. Sure as cultural decedents of the British, we all like to hate on the French a bit. But at the time of the American Revolution they were a massive factor in Britain's inability to quash the revolution. The role of the militia was also key. The peer reviewed work looking at the writings of the British military leaders show this was more of a problem than the Continental forces. Yes, classically British military trained officers in the US continental Army downplayed the militia, did not like the militia tactic of attacking and fading/harassing, and irregular warfare. But the evidence is that this forced the British to constantly use resources, move men around, be unable to concentrate forces and eventually be beaten in a couple of key battles by the continental army. in this sense it is like the Viet Cong in Vietnam conflict. yes we beat the and NVA when they stood for fixed engagement, but they only made that mistake of participating in pitched battle a couple of times. The general effect of the Viet cong. and the US militia was to counter area denial, cause attrition of men, materiel and political will, to huge practical effect.
I give this four out of ten stars. See the HBO Adams series which is better acting and better history.
Watching this again after seeing a dozen years ago I realize it is in essence a "Lifetime channel" soap.
It is in fact so heavy and overbearing, with almost childish dialogue, and sorry to say for Delon fans, badly acted all around.
I give it two stars for the scenery, after all it is Côte d'Azur. but otherwise this is actually the pits of French cinema. The "Bigger splash" was just as bad
For a show that attacked stereotypes, it was a shame for them to perpetuate stereotypes of veterans
I give True blood, especially first four seasons or so seven to eight stars. It certainly is good fun to see its assailing and making fun of stereotypes.
That said the semi-wokeness indicated the bigotry of Hollywood itself when it comes to the portray of the single modern combat veteran, who it depicts as both a war criminal and deeply damaged by PTSD when the studies and data indicate that this is a extreme outlier and that most US combat veterans are in fact more stable than the same age/gender/background cohorts that never served in the military.
Probably the worste adaption of a great novel I have ever seen
The Razzie awards for worst films and acing performance doesn't have a category for "Worst Adaption" but if it did, this would be the winner for the decade it was made. Yes, "The Magus." 'A Series of Unfortunate Events" and others make the list but this has to be at the top.
Literally everything about this film is awful. Laughable script and dialogue, atrocious lazy acting. Do yourself a favor and read he book and never watch this abomination of a film
In the tradition of True Lies, Inglorious Basterds, Munich, slaughtering the bad guys
I like these kind of revenge fantasy works, be they hunting of Nazi, Arab terrorists, or as several East European films in this genre -- the gleeful hunting down and killing communist and socialists.
But if you compare this to "Inglorious Basterds" or the more fact based "Munich," I think even fans of "Hunters" will admit it pales by comparison. There is little dark humor, no suspense, the dialogue is thin. i would have preferred more effort. I give it six out of ten stars. Well worth a watch, just don'e expect much
Firstly we learn from this film that 15,000 people died along the EU 1985-2005 and the implication is that most are murdered by persons opposed to open immigration. The fact is the vast majority of these cases are deaths from drowning, and all but a handful of the reminder are persons who are killed negligently or intentionally killed by TRAFFICKERS -- which included nowadays Europeans non profits trying to facilitate illegal immigration.
And in this particular tragic case one would never know from watching this "documentary" that the majority of hunting accidents involving killings of third party persons in Europe are exactly this type of circumstance -- boar hunters firing rifles into fields at the time immediately after harvest. Why? because 1) at 3 am it is very likely the hunters would be firing at noise and movement, and 2) bullets travel a lot further than shotgun pellets, and in a corn, wheat or barley field, there are no trees to stop the bullets. This very same area has had nighttime hunting for DECADES. Moreover the people accused had no history of being anti immigrant.
I also do not understand the film-makers' focus on the a that Romanian authorities botched informing the relatives in Romania about the trial n Germany. This is made into some kind of smoking gun implication. but of what? The relatives were not witnesses to the event. There is literally nothing materially relevant to trial or charges that they would have offered.
It is a shame these two men died. But they were criminal crossing the border -- in a place with intensive hunting at peak hunting season. boar hunting is popular and necessary in Germany. The boars are actually feral pigs who are not natural in that habitat and who decimate crops as well. The hunt is well know in those couple of weeks it is allowed and non-hunters are not wandering around the area walking thorough someone else cornfields and ot wearing blaze orange.
Even the "burning and plowing of the field" is treated as some kind of conspiracy, when in fact he cornfield ARE burned at exactly that time. Just go to google and google up: Germany boar harvest hunting. The corn is harvested, boar hunts commence, a couple weeks later the field is burned and a day or tow after that plowed. BTW there are a few people shot from this hunting EVERY year in Germany.
The US by contrast has less hunting shooting accidents per hunters X hours of hunting than Germany. Why? Because bird shooting is done by shotgun where projectiles go a lot shorter distance, and rifle hunting is generally confined to tree stands where because one is elevated one tens to be much more likely to be firing toward and into the ground if one misses the target.
Piketty's own data show that income inequality in the US has increased under Democrats and decreased under GOP
This "documentary" is based on the work of former Marxist, now left wing darling economist Thomas Piketty.
What the viewer would never know from watching htis "documentary" is that the numbers in Pikettys own data sets for the past century also show that European income inequality has risen to levels larger than the US. Pikitenny original older data sets from hte post war period through the 1980's and 1990's.
Why was Piketty wrong? Because he had not accounted for widespread large-scale destruction of upper bracket wealth in WWII. We know know that despite -- and perhaps because of -- higher taxes on higher earners in countries like France which have high taxes on the very wealthy , income inequality has been growing there.
In the US Picetty's model predicted income inequality would drop under Obama compared to Bush, when in fact, as agreed by all economists income inequality grew under Obama much more than under Bush.
Lead female character is a rapist under the law in US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany and every developed democracy
Just imagine if the genders in this film were reversed the people hailing it would be condemning it as a excuse for rape.
And we are seeing rape portrayed here. While 16 maybe the age of consent in many countries, in EVERY developed country there is a specific exclusion of consent if the adult involved is a teacher or person with supervisory/"en loco parentis" role, ie a teacher etc.
this film actually blames the young man who is a rape victim.
Seriously all three of the June 2019 reviews are written by newly created single use accounts and which use dsame diction and wording.
Imdb pro shows me that the 16 "ten star" ratings so far were all done by IMDB accounts created in June 2019 and with no other activity either.
The maker sof this film spent more time shilling and manipulating IMDB than they spent writing the screenplay!
The jokes in this are cringeworthy, the acting abysmal.
90% of "ten star" reviews for this clunker are obvious fake single use IMDB accounts
What a total mess. And if while reading the revieers you start to marvel at the repetitive use of same phrasing, look at the account -- they are created same day as review. If you have IMDB pro you can see that the 9-10 star ratings are also upshilled by single use accounts created only to rate this one series
cringeworthy overacting, absurd script, lousy period fidelity, bogus history
Wow, this was just terrible.
The over acting, with this weird hushed voices speaking in rapid-fire is awful. The music soundtrack is so overbearing and could win the prize for most inappropriate soundtrack ever.
As far as historicity of this mess, women were under 5% of combatants (in or out of uniform) in the Spanish civil war -- that is a fact supported by the peer reviewed work. Secondly as many every day citizens supported the right as supported the communists. The communist committed as much mass murder as did the Franco forces.
All of the cherry picked combat veterans in this film have severe problems. The fact is the vast majority of combat veterans do not. Most combat veterans have higher paying jobs, less divorce and less criminal justice issues than the same age/gender cohort that are not combat veterans.
Do you think the makers leave their home doors unlocked?
Really do they obviously not leave their home doors unlocked. What they are promoting is forcing you and I to leave our home doors unlocked.
It is not bigotry or xenophobia to support a nation state having actual boundaries, it is a basic element of the responsibility of a nation state's government.