Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avatar. Show all posts

Friday, December 16, 2016

Star Wars, Mysticism and Dr. Strange

A timely post from www.thebereancall.org about mysticsim, Dr. Strange, and Star Wars. This follows this post about the SPLC. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.


Mysticism... and Dr. Strange


Monday, March 12, 2012

Wknd Box Office: John Carter, A Thousand Words, Friends With Kids, Rampart, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/  reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post some of the movies from last week and  THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed!  This all  follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!





Wknd Box Office: John Carter, A Thousand Words, Friends With Kids, Rampart, We Need to Talk About Kevin

By Debbie Schlussel



As you’ll see below, it’s a Netflix weekend because I really didn’t like any of the new movies debuting in theaters, this weekend. I did not see “Silent House” because the screening was late at night, and I didn’t want to attend with a trial early in the morning the next day with over an hour drive to get to the trial. Sorry. I’ll try to see it over the weekend and post my review, so stay tuned. Here’s what I did see:




* “John Carter“: Sorry, but I was bored to tears by this “Star Wars: Phantom Menace” “rip-off.”  I put the word “rip-off” in quotation  marks because the author, Edgar Rice Burroughs (who also created and wrote “Tarzan”), was really ahead of his time (back in the late 1800s) in writing science fiction involving a Civil War veteran mysteriously transported to Mars and involved in wars between various species-nations.  He dreamed this stuff up when it was new and exciting, more than a century ago.  But now that his work is finally a movie, it’s old hat, passe, the same old thing we’ve seen a million times before.  The aliens look almost exactly like Jar-Jar Binks or the “Avatar” (read my review) creatures. The pet “dogs” look like miniature Jabba The Hutts (or is that, “Jabbas The Hutt?”).



The story, aside from also being all-too familiar, is also boring, uninspired, and extremely confusing. I don’t speak “alien,” and haven’t a clue what they were fighting for or why. Nor did I care. I was so bored that I was trying to come up with a drinking game for each time Dominic West (who plays a villain) came on screen and noted how he didn’t look nearly as handsome as in HBO’s “The Wire.” Yup, that’s what a girl like me thinks about when the story is so dull and I’m trying to find a way to stay awake and pass the time. And West is one of the biggest names in the movie, which should tell you something.



I liked the first and last ten minutes of this movie. The rest was a custom-made excuse for a double shot of espresso. Yaaawn.



HALF A REAGAN




* “A Thousand Words“: More evidence that some things from the ’80s don’t stand the test of time and shouldn’t make a come back. And I’m not talking the ghost of Michael Jackson, neon clothes, or leg warmers. Nope, this time around it’s Eddie Murphy, the star of this boring, unfunny “comedy.” Sorry, but he’s just not funny anymore. His ’80s-style dopey humor just isn’t funny in 2012. At least, it wasn’t in this movie.



I can’t say the message in this movie is so bad, but if you need this movie–or any movie–to figure out that money and ambition aren’t more important than love and family, well you probably won’t get it, anyway. I mean, it’s not exactly a novel or genius insight.



Murphy plays a wealthy, high-powered Los Angeles literary agent who tries to hook a New Age Indian guru (think Deepak Chopra, and just as phony) as his latest author. Murphy is very materialistic and cares more about money and status than about his wife, his son, and his Alzheimer’s-stricken mother. He’s also bitter about his father, who left them when he was young. The Indian guru makes a tree appear in his yard that loses leaves with each word Murphy speaks. The tree is an extension of Murphy, and when it loses all its leaves and dies, so will he, so he stops speaking.



You can probably figure out the predictable ending. The movie was silly, boring, and I barely laughed. Sorry, Eddie, but even “Beverly Hills Cop 17″ or “Five More 48 Hours” would be more exciting. Your time has come and gone.



HALF A REAGAN




* “Friends With Kids“: Real-life unmarried “life partners” Jennifer Westfeldt and Jon Hamm made this unoriginal, annoying movie glorifying random sex and kids in unconventional single mother households. Yes, it has a predictable ending with a decent message, but getting there wasn’t worth it. Mostly, this was just a really long, repetitive, raunchy movie starring two very unattractive people in a chick flick. The guy, Adam Scott, looks like Liza Minnelli. The woman, Westfeldt, looks like an aging warped Cabbage Patch doll. It was painful to watch two such unattractive people in what you know will finally turn out to be a sappy romance. It’s not that I’m vain. It’s that I enjoy unenjoyable, liberal-minded movies even less when they feature such weird looking people in a “romance.” Even the real-life alter ego of the very hot Don Draper, Jon Hamm, looks terrible.



And who on earth can take a movie that features married couples shrieking, fighting, yelling, and otherwise connipting in nearly every other scene? No thinks. I can wait outside divorce court and see much better fireworks and arguments. This is “comedy?” Riiiight.



The story: a guy (Scott) and a girl (Westfeldt) are close friends who share every detail about their sex lives, but they aren’t sexually attracted to each other. Their other friends are all married with kids, but miserable because they have kids. So Scott and Westfeldt decide, since they don’t want to ruin their dating relationships and romances, that they should have a kid together and continue to date other people. It works out well for most of the movie, until, well . . . if you can’t see the predictable movie ending coming, you’ve never seen a movie. There have already been several equally or only slightly less annoying movies with nearly or exactly the same story line.



In real life, lefties Hamm and Westfeldt (both produced the movie, and she wrote, directed and stars, while he co-stars) don’t believe in marriage and have lived together for ten years. They also don’t believe in kids. And that’s kind of the message they are sending here, despite the predictable, sappy, annoying ending.



Skip at all cost . . . unless you like non-stop, overwrought melodrama and chick flicks at their worst mixed with vile filth that just isn’t funny.



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR BETTY FRIEDANS




* “Rampart“: This is (very loosely) based on the true story of corruption among real life Los Angeles police officers in the late ’90s, Woody Harrelson plays a corrupt L.A. cop in 1999. He sets up criminals, kills innocent and not so innocent people, is involved in robberies, stealing, and drugs, and cheats on his wife with various women. He’s violent, dishonest, and a piece of crap who drinks, etc. He is married to the sister of his first wife, and has kids with both of the sisters, who live in the same compound. The movie was depressing, boring, and pointless. Plus, the corrupt cop thing has been done to death already and done better in “Training Day,” “Internal Affairs,” “Serpico,” and a host of others.



Skipworthy.



FOUR MARXES



* “We Need to Talk About Kevin“: The weird-but-talented actress, Tilda Swinton, was nominated for an Oscar for her starring role in this creepy and pointless movie. But there’s little acting. It’s more like brooding and looking sweaty and emotionally barren. In fact, to me, Jasper Newell, the actor who plays her son, Kevin, as a little kid, is the real star of this movie. For such a young kid to get the wicked nature of a person so spot on–well, that’s great acting. Sadly, the great acting was in a horrifying movie not worth the time you’ll waste. It’s way too artsy and herky-jerky, tells you very little, and what it does tell and show you, you’d rather not see.



Later, another actually plays Kevin in a movie that eventually shows us he’s a horrifyingly violent person who commits unspeakable acts against his family and others. Not worth watching unless you are the guy who is selecting Gitmo cinema-torture. An arthouse movie best skipped.



THREE MARXES

Friday, February 19, 2010

Cultural Challenge of the Week: Narcissism‏

This is a review from Rebecca Hagelin about the recent trend in Naricism in webpages such as Facebook. This follows this post about extreme anti-Ameriancism in movies.For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.



Cultural Challenge of the Week: Narcissism‏

"Love your neighbor as you love yourself" is a Biblical command with at least two very clear meanings.We are to love others, and we are to love ourselves.It's pretty basic, but incredibly powerful. Sadly, in our pop culture it seems that many of our young people are focused only on the "self love" part, and have even perverted that love into an obsession with themselves. And, when that happens, it's impossible to fulfill the first part of the command: to truly love others. Why? Because to love someone means you are willing to sacrifice for them. To consider their needs and desires before your own. But, if everything is "all about me," it's pretty difficult to see the hurt in someone else's eyes. It's up to us, as adults and parents, to stop and reflect on how we can save our own children from a life of selfishness and obsession with themselves. And, it starts with looking at what our own priorities are: How do we live? Do our children feel as if we as moms and dads are always focused on our own careers and desires at the expense of spending time with them? Do we hand the responsibility over to others to teach, entertain and take care of children while we work endless hours to have the life we want? If so, we're teaching them to do the very same thing. This is such a common problem in our materialistic, goal-driven world that it is the topic of the Culture Challenge of the Week.
Culture Challenge of the Week: Narcissism

Deeply embedded in today's culture, narcissism has crept into our children's mentality like a thief in the night, actually robbing them (and everyone around them) of much dignity and happiness.Young people spend hours every day updating their Facebook pages, post and e-mail countless pictures of themselves, and plug their ears with music to create a self-indulgent existence, shut-off from everyone around them. I recently went online and viewed the page of a friend-of a-friend-of a-friend-of my daughter's on Facebook and discovered literally hundreds of pictures of the girl posing like a super model.Where are our children learning to be so obsessed with self? From adults, of course.In 2006, Time Magazine voted "You" as the "Person of the Year." And, why not? Peruse the popular magazine covers and they are all about indulging in your own desires and fantasies. Just watch television for a couple of hours and you'll walk away feeling as if you owe it to yourself to have an affair, spend lavishly on yourself, and be your "own man" at the expense of everyone else. And then there's the American obsession with pornography -- the ultimate objectification and degradation of other human beings. Men, women girls and boys are all there for your personal pleasure in millions of websites, advertisements, shows and publications. The heaviest users of online porn are teenagers and young adults, and it is teaching them that people are objects to be used and discarded at will, and that the only thing that matters is indulging in fantasies. When our kids are consuming such raunchy material, how on Earth will they ever understand what it truly means to love someone, to be committed to another unconditionally, to even value human life?And, look at the economic mess we are in. Too many spent way beyond their means on trinkets and toys and demanded the best when their budgets could afford what was "only" good enough. They bought homes and cars and gadgets a plenty, with the swipe of an interest-only loan or a "special low introductory rate" credit card. America is largely an entitlement society where we demand that the government provide us with health-care, retirement, and a comfortable life, with no concern of who will pay for utopia.
Then there is the phenomenon of abortion on demand, without apology, through the ninth month of pregnancy. Have all the sex you want, with whomever you want; and, if you get pregnant, just "terminate" it regardless of how the father may feel. And the baby? What baby? It's just tissue, remember? How convenient.Our kids see our selfish, irresponsible ways and learn the lesson, 'It's all about me.'How to Save Your Family from, "Me, me, me!" When our culture is all about "My body, my career, my choice, my, my, my..." what is a parent to do?Thankfully, we've known the answer all along: Practice the Golden Rule."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."The wisdom in this Biblical admonishment is so self-evident that it is universally admired, but tragically, rarely followed. It is the basic tenant for successful human relationships, the economy, personal finances, you name it. Imagine the good that could accomplished, the human suffering that would be replaced with human achievement, if we treated others with the dignity and thoughtfulness we ourselves crave. The two greatest gifts we can give our children are to teach them to love God with all that is within them, and to love their neighbors as they love themselves.Here are five easy ways to start:
Invest time in your kids rather than being obsessed with your own career and hobbies. If your kids see that you are not concerned about them enough to sacrifice your own desires and pour into their lives, how will they ever learn to pour into others? NOTE: This is not to be confused with indulging your children in their every whim. Quite the contrary: When you spend time with your children teaching them how to live well and thoughtfully, you are molding them into decent, loving human beings. It takes both time, attention and patience to raise children who are stable, mature, polite and considerate. These qualities do not develop by accident, or from part-time parenting.
Be a role model. Considerate, well-mannered, thoughtful children come from parents who exude those behaviors themselves. Evaluate the media you consume. Does it promote selfishness? If so, stop the magazine subscriptions, change the channel, and get an Internet filter! (By the way, check out http://www.mympowerbox.com/ for a soon-to-be released all-in-one tool to filter both the internet and television shows.)
Share stories of kindness. Start seeking movies, books and shows that teach what is highest and best; that glorify human decency instead of depravity.
Be generous. You may not be rich, but everyone can be generous with their time and talents. There's nothing more selfless than giving to someone who can't possibly ever repay you. Your kids are watching you all the time, and when you are generous, they learn to be generous too.
Practice "Random Acts of Kindness." Think of something nice to do for someone else every day, and then do it. Consistently.Narcissism eventually leads from self-love to self-loathing. But, living the Golden Rule is a powerful way to spread joy, improve the human condition, and develop true self-respect. Your children are waiting for you to show them the way.
My prayer for your family this week is that each member will practice kindness toward each other member in at least one tangible way. Why not issue the challenge over dinner tonight? You can get the ball rolling by explaining the need to practice thoughtfulness, and then saying one kind comment about each person around the table.As you consistently take deliberate steps to connect with your children, you each will experience the joy that families were created to know.

Have a great week! Warmly,Rebecca

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Jamestown—America’s First Experiment in "Assimilation"


A timely article from http://www.vdare.com/ about the original story of the colonists at Jamestown. Click here to get the book.This is an interesting article to read in regards to the Avatar movie. See also here for the original,parallel story at Plymouth rock.For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Jamestown—America’s First Experiment in "Assimilation"



The 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown occured this Monday, May 14,2007.The "commemoration" festivities ("celebration" has been banned as politically incorrect) focus a great deal of attention, as VDARE.COM’s Allan Wall recently noted, on the wickedness of the colonists and the victimization of the natives. Perhaps, it is implied, if the English had been less ruthless and intolerant, the races could have avoided bloodshed and learned to live together in harmony. Sounds familiar? It should—because it’s not much different from what the Open Borders Lobby claims about our immigration disaster. The Left is convinced that "racism" is the source of all problems and that we’d all be holding hands if only those wicked white "racists" would simply dematerialize. Meanwhile, on the Respectable Right, neoconservatives, libertarians and Country Club Republicans tell us not to worry because we’ll "assimilate" all the newcomers and make them just like us. The true story of Jamestown, however, ought to cool this optimism. Most of it can be found in David Price’s Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation, which presents a story very different from the one described above. The truth is that when 105 English colonists arrived in Virginia on April 26, 1607, they had no intention of murdering and exploiting the natives. On the contrary, they knew of the brutal treatment native peoples had received at the hands of the Spanish and were convinced that they could do better. Nor did the colonists did not come with any preconceived notions of racial superiority. "The English," according to Price, "did not believe that white people like themselves were innately superior and the natives innately inferior." Some even believed that Indians—unlike Africans or Moors—were originally born white and attributed their darker skin to excessive use of body paint. On the whole, the English saw the Indians as very much like their ancestors had been before they received the civilizing influences of the Roman conquest and of Christianity. They were determined to bring these things—civilization and salvation—to the Indians as well, and to make the poor, benighted natives as much like themselves as possible. Their vision for Virginia was that of an integrated society where the natives would adopt "English ways" and live together with their benefactors in peace. Of course, this was not the colony’s top priority. Making money was. The colonists had orders from their employer, the Virginia Company, to look for gold and a passage to the Pacific. Yet whatever their financial motives, the idea that the colonists were hell bent on wiping out the natives from the very beginning is simply false. You can call their intentions "cultural imperialism" if you like. But they certainly weren’t genocidal. After some initial incursions, the English established friendly relations with the local Indians and set to work building their base at Jamestown. They were careful to choose a site located on unoccupied ground. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, ordered his men not to train in the use of weapons or to build any fortifications. Such precautions were unnecessary, he believed, for he and his men had come in peace. Wingfield was soon forced to change his mind. Hundreds of Indians attacked the settlement a few days later and killed several colonists. Only cannon fire, which terrified the Indians, saved the day. One man who did not have any romantic illusions about the Indians was John Smith, a hard nosed adventurer who had spent most of his life fighting and exploring. In the winter of 1607, he set out with a handful of men to explore. On the way, his party was ambushed by Indians. These supposedly innocent creatures subjected one of his men, George Cassen, to a grim fate. According to Price:
"The natives prepared a large fire behind the bound and naked body. Then a man grasped his hands and used mussel shells to cut off joint after joint, making his way through Cassen’s fingers, tossing the pieces into the flames. That accomplished, the man used shells and reeds to detach the skin from Cassen’s face and the rest of his head. Cassen’s belly was next, as the man sliced it open, pulled out his bowels, and cast those onto the fire. Finally the natives burned Cassen at the stake through to the bones." To avoid meeting the same end, Smith told the Indians that he was a chief. They took him to their leader, Powhatan, who ruled over most of the region’s tribes (collectively known as the Powhatans). On the way, Smith learned that Powhatan’s brother, Opechancanough, wanted to wipe Jamestown off the map. So he bluffed about the colony’s defenses and said that if any harm came to him his men would come to avenge him. But when he was finally brought before Powhatan, he made the same bluffs, but to no avail. The great chief ordered his head to be smashed between two rocks. It was then that Powhatan’s favorite daughter, Pocahontas, intervened on Smith’s behalf and saved his life. When Smith finally returned to the colony, he found everything in disarray. Less than half of the original colonists were left, most having either died or returned to England. Smith assumed command. He appears to have understood that the Indians were not gentle creatures yearning for civilization and Christianity, but a dangerous threat to the survival of the colony. Force, he believed, was the best way to deal with them. Thus, when Indians stole some of the colony’s tools and weapons, Smith captured a few thieves and told Powhatan he would hang them if the stolen property was not returned. The Indians captured some of the colonists and proposed a prisoner exchange. Smith, however, decided to launch an attack instead. He didn’t kill any Indians, but he did burn down some of their villages. Powhatan reluctantly freed the captive colonists. In the end, Smith never got back the stolen goods, but his actions did frighten the Indians into an uneasy peace. In the months that followed, Smith continued his hardheaded, practical approach. His good sense was evident in other areas as well. In the spirit of St. Paul, he told shirkers that if they didn’t work, they wouldn’t eat. He also encouraged the colonists to abandon their search for gold, and urged the Virginia Company to send farmers and fishermen instead of lackeys looking to get rich quick. Yet the low-born Smith never won the affections of his employers. In 1609, the company called him home. His replacements were mostly upper-class incompetents. Once Powhatan met them, he resumed harassing the colony. By the spring of 1610, starvation and Indian attacks had killed all but 100 of the 500 colonists Smith had left behind.Just in time, a fleet of ships arrived with new settlers and fresh supplies. Slowly but surely, the colony began to grow and prosper. Price tells the familiar story of how Pocahontas was captured and converted to Christianity, how she married John Rolfe and went to England, how her husband began planting tobacco and how that disreputable plant made the colony profitable.He also recounts how a Dutch ship arrived in 1619 with a cargo of African captives, marking the beginnings of slavery in America. The English, however, do not appear to have ever entertained any illusions about Africans being white. In contrast to the natives, there were no recorded attempts to convert them to Christianity. "Notions of black racial inferiority", Price writes, "seem to have been firmly in place in the colony from the start". Yet efforts to civilize the Indians continued. Price writes that, even after all of the troubles it had encountered, "[t]he company in London still believed in winning the natives over to English ways, with the ultimate result of an integrated society in Virginia, one rooted in Protestant Christianity and English culture." The colonists even set aside 10,000 acres for the purpose of building a Christian college for Indians. The man put in charge was George Thorpe, perhaps the first diversicrat in American history. Although his official title was "deputy of the college lands" and he reported to the governor of the colony, he conceived of a much larger role for himself. As Thorpe saw it, the failure to convert the Indians was due to the bigotry of the colonists. What was needed, he believed, was Christian kindness and understanding. "Thorpe came to believe", Price explains, "that the veterans of the colony wrongly viewed the natives as antagonistic and untrustworthy . . . It was time, he said, to put these preconceptions aside, and to make the natives feel loved". As Thorpe wrote:
"In my poore understandinge if there bee wronge on any side it is ours who are not soe charitable to them as Christians ought to bee, they beinge (espetiallye the better sort of them) of a peaceable and vertuous disposition." He went on to recommend that the company should provide the natives with gifts, especially English clothing, and should make a public declaration of their love and affection for the Indians and their intent to convert them to Christianity. Thorpe did have some basis for his theories. One of the Indians who had come to England with Pocahontas had lived for a few years in his house in London as a servant, and even elected to stay after Pocahontas’s death. Thorpe taught him to read and write, and eventually converted him to Christianity. His success led him to believe that the problem must be with the colonists. In other words, Thorpe was exactly like modern-day immigration enthusiasts, liberal and conservative, who base their opinions about immigrants on the limited contact they have with their Mexican housekeepers and gardeners. Like Thorpe, they believe that a little affection (usually imagined, I find) between them and their subservients makes them qualified to dispense advice to the rest of us, who have to deal with all of the problems that their housekeepers and gardeners, and their offspring and relatives, bring. Thorpe set to work putting his theories into practice. With the governor’s backing, he had powers that today’s diversicrats would envy. To make the natives feel as welcome as possible, he reversed earlier practices and allowed them to roam throughout the colony freely. He also made sure that anyone who harassed the Indians or made them feel uncomfortable was promptly disciplined. When a few Indians complained to him of being frightened by some dogs that had barked at them, Thorpe had the dogs publicly hanged. "He thought of nothing too deare [costly] for them", Price quotes one chronicler as writing, "and as being desirous to binde them unto him by many courtesies, hee never denied them any thing that they asked him."Not everyone approved of these new policies, but most eventually accepted them. Tellingly, as Price explains, this probably had more to do with money than anything else. "Smooth relations with the natives", he writes, "meant unhindered profits and an extra source of labor." Thus most colonists embraced the changes and even began inviting the Indians into their homes and feasting them at their tables. The Indians’ new leader was a particular object of Thorpe’s interest. Powhatan had been succeeded after his death in 1618 by his brother Opitchapam. But real power lay in the hands of another brother, Opechancanough, the man who years earlier had wanted to destroy Jamestown. Thorpe lavished attention and generosity on Opechancanough. He built him an English-style house, and discussed with him the possibility of sending Indian boys to come and live in the colony and receive an English education. No doubt he hoped that separating the boys from their families would make them easier to convert and civilize. During their conversations, Opechancanough hinted that he was considering converting to Christianity. Everything, it seemed, was working as planned. Then, late in 1621, a few colonists received word from some disaffected Indians that Opechancanough was planning an attack. This caused a brief panic, but the chief of the Powhatans denied everything. The English took him at his word. "It was more appealing", Price writes, "from the colonists’ point of view, to assume the best than to assume the worst, since the lookout duty was an unwelcome diversion of energy from more lucrative pursuits." And so everything continued as usual—until the morning of Friday, March 22, 1622. It began like any other. The Indians traded and bartered with the settlers, worked along side them, ate at their tables, smiled and laughed and interacted with them in all of the ways that the English had come to expect. There was not the slightest indication that anything out of the ordinary was going to happen. Then, all of the sudden, the natives began their attack. As Price writes, the Indians "slaughtered men, women, and children with the colonists’ own swords and work tools—axes, knives, saws, and hammers. In an instant, hundreds of English were lying lifeless." According to one contemporary report, the Indians:
"Not being content with taking away life alone . . . fell after againe upon the dead, making as well as they could, a fresh murder, defacing, dragging, and mangling the dead carcasses into so many pieces, and carrying some parts away in derision, with base and brutish triumph." As for George Thorpe, the objects of his affection subjected him to a special fate. Isolated on his plantation, he received no news of the attack. One of his servants found the natives’ behavior suspect and warned his master, but Thorpe brushed his fears aside. The servant wisely fled. Shortly thereafter, the natives fell upon the plantation and stabbed Thorpe to death. Then, it was reported, they "cruelly and felly [fiercely], out of devilish malice, did so many barbarous despights and foule scornes after to his dead corpse, as are unbefitting to be heard by any civill eare." So much for Christian charity. Fortunately, Jamestown itself escaped harm. One colonist had found out about the attack beforehand and rushed to inform the governor, who quickly prepared for defense. The outlying farms and plantations, however, were not so lucky. By the end, as many as 400 people were dead—roughly one third of the entire colony. When the news reached England, the poet urged that the colony stay true to Thorpe’s ideals. But few paid any attention. The attack had sparked a seismic shift in opinion. Now, Price reports, the English began" target=_blank elimination and expulsion. After several years of fighting, a peace treaty was signed in 1632. Years after the March 22 attack, the colonists were still observing and commemorating it. More than twenty years later, in 1644, Opechancanough launched another surprise attack. He killed even more people, but the colony had grown so much larger that the impact was far less. The English struck back. Eventually disease and warfare whittled away the Indian population to the point that by the end of the 17th century, a historian could write that For most of the next three centuries, Americans remained true to Smith’s practical approach to race relations. Only recently have they reverted to the naiveté of Thorpe. The colonists at Jamestown spent years trying to turn Indians into Englishmen, only to find that, lo and behold, the Indians preferred their own culture and their own ways. I am entirely confident that in the years to come, assimilationists will be similarly disappointed (except for those who never really believed in it anyway) to find that Mexicans, Arabs, Asians and others stubbornly remain what they are. What happens then is anyone’s guess. If there is anything else to be learned from the Jamestown experience, it is that Anglo-Saxon naiveté is not a permanent condition. Let us hope, however, that it will take something other than bloodshed to awaken Americans to what is happening to their country.

Kevin Carter [email him] lives in the Washington D.C. area.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Don’t Believe the Hype: “Avatar” Stinks (Long, Boring, Unoriginal, Uber-Left)

This is a review from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ If you have already seen this movie, you can comment about her accuracy, but if you haven't, this is something you should read before you do see it, especially it's treatment of the military which results in stories like this. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.

Don’t Believe the Hype: “Avatar” Stinks (Long, Boring, Unoriginal, Uber-Left)
By Debbie Schlussel
If you want a Cliff’s Notes (or, I guess, Debbie’s Notes) version of my review of “Avatar,” refer back to my review of the just as awful (but about half as long) “The Battle For Terra,” (which was released in May). The story, plot, etc. of the two movies are exactly the same.
Despite the out-of-control hype over “Avatar,” the movie is silly, long, boring, and heavy-handed. And did I mention, sleep-inducing? I’ve heard other movie critics and reports say that the 3D animation in this movie is “the most visually stimulating movie I’ve ever seen,” “the best 3D ever,” “Oscar material,” “will change cinema forever,” “a Hollywood colossus,” and even that it “caused motion sickness.”
Don’t believe the hype. This bloated, highly overrated movie is none of these . . . with the exception of the “Oscar material” claims, since we know that the contemporary Academy Awards famously award far-left tripe like this. Did James Cameron really spend years of his life on this rotten stew?
Clocking in at nearly three hours, “Avatar” is an incredible waste of time. It’s essentially a remake of “Dances With Wolves” and every other movie where we evil Americans terrorize the indigenous natives, kill them, take their land, and are just all around imperialistically wicked and inhumane. Oh, and we’re destroying the environment, clearing precious giant trees and natural landscapes and killing rare animals and their habitats, in order to invade and harvest valuable substances under the ground. Sound familiar? Yup, just like a million diatribes from Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and every other far-left outlet about how we invaded Iraq for oil.
Yes, “Avatar” is cinema for the hate America crowd.
And, like “Dances With Wolves,” there is, of course, the standard stock White male and/or human character who “becomes one of them” and sympathizes with their plight, begging the evil humans–or evil Americans, take your pick–to stop the invasion, destruction, and wholesale theft. It’s been in a million movies you’ve seen, including this summer’s far superior if equally heavy-handed and manipulative, “District 9″ (read my review).
The story: Sam Worthington (who was fantastic in “Terminator: Salvation” – read my review) plays Jake Sully, a paraplegic U.S. Marine, who was injured while at war. His twin brother, who died under other circumstances, was a scientist and part of a government project developing “avatars” for interaction with the native race of the planet Pandora (wow, what an original planet name). He’s not actually working for “the government” or “the military,” but a contractor a la Blackwater. Yes, the propaganda is that thinly-veiled.
The U.S. has invaded Pandora to harvest a valuable mineral beneath the earth. It is using the avatars–beings comprised of the mixed genetic material of their human operators and the alien race on Pandora–to communicate with the natives and try to get them to cooperate and sympathize with the human goals. Each avatar is controlled by the mind of the human possessing its DNA, while the human is “sleeping” inside a computer-equipped pod.
Jake is recruited because he has the same DNA as his deceased twin and, like his brother, resembles his avatar and can connect with it. The scientists are headed up by Susan “Sigourney” Weaver who plays her typical indignant, bitchy liberal self. Weaver is mad that the military people don’t want to understand and interact with the natives and instead want to harvest minerals instead of keeping the ancient trees that interact like computers with the other beings on the planet. But Jake is secretly working for the Marine General who wants to ship in, destroy the trees and the natives, and ship out, so we can save the dying earth, where “they’ve destroyed the mother” (meaning, Mother Earth).
Ultimately, though, Jake falls in love with one of the most prominent natives, the chief’s daughter, and learns to fly his flying dragon. He begins to oppose the Marine General. But it is too late. The soldiers are ordered in to start destroying Pandora’s nature and people.
Sound exciting to you? Trust me, I’m making it even more interesting than it is. I could barely stay awake. And the 3D isn’t as great as people are saying, either. Smurf-like natives made to look like overgrown American Indians, complete with warpaint, mohawks, and long ponytails (that have computer-like USB cable tendrils in them, which can communicate with nature–ludicrous). Does that sound like earth-shattering stuff to you? They looked like Jar Jar Binks with arrowheads. That’s not to mention the basically topless state of the female avatars, whose nipples are barely covered by a few strategically placed threads. Nice for a PG-13 flick with audiences sure to be populated by kids galore.
Sure, it was cool to see floating mountains and different animals and plants in bright colors. But ten minutes of that was enough. I didn’t need a full-course meal of three hours of America-hatred to go with it.
And I laughed a lot . . . at times that were supposed to be serious. To me, this joke of a movie was ridiculous in its absurdity and overt hating on Western civilization.
My father used to say that one can judge the strength of capitalism and freedom in a society by the level of creativity and originality in that society. “Avatar” is yet another loud, garish example from Hollywood that capitalism and freedom in America aren’t strong at all. It’s neither original nor creative.
It’s just a long bore. And a waste of your ten bucks. Not to mention three hours you’ll never get back.
Why drive to the movies, pay for tickets, and spend hours in a dark room, when you can just as easily read Noam Chomsky or the speeches of Hugo Chavez in the comfort of your own home and couch?
Same difference.
“Avatar” is an intelligence test. If you fell for it, you failed.