Archives for posts with tag: celebrity

[For those who don’t know, icgayreviews LGBTQ ally Germanicus Fink was rousted out of his safe space at murderbymedia2 this week for allegedly failing to comply with heterofascist WordPress “terms of service”. His blog account was suspended after a few complaints, a little gunboat diplomacy, and some behind-the-scenes skullduggery from Vladimir Putin’s Ministry of Slavic Hate persuaded WordPress to rain on the pride parade. Stay tuned for future developments in the ongoing saga of this internet holocaust of all decency. In the meantime, enjoy Fink’s guest review of the Macaulay Culkin club kid classic Party Monster!]

Party Monster

This was a movie I’d have never been interested in seeing, but I was the victim of a ‘perfect storm’ that resulted in my watching it. I was having a bad day and talked to ICAreviews online. Culkin came up and I mentioned that in the recent pictures I saw of him he looked like a real mess, then he told me Macaulay had made this movie in an attempt to step back in the ole spotlight as an adult actor 12 years ago. Of course I’m not talking about an adult actor as in “adult films”, I meant as a grown up. You know, a big boy star.

I had free time so I decided to watch it out of curiosity. A couple of times I almost just turned it off, but then I figured I’d try to write something about it so I ‘manned up’ and decided to ‘take a hit for the team’, so to speak.

Of course I wondered why he chose a movie about homosexual party boys in New York as his grown up debut. I figured his motivation for picking this genre must be because maybe his voice never changed, or that it was a life style he was familiar with. I’ll have to leave it up to people who know something about him to answer that one. Possibly he made it hoping to cash in on a fad? When was that “club kids” trend big? The film came out in 2003.  I had the impression that that club kids buzz happened a bit before 2003, but I could be wrong.  Since the film focused on homosexuals and hard core drug abuse I guess those subjects will always have an appeal to both the morbidly curious and confused teenagers so I suppose it’s a moot point whether that craze lined up with the film’s release.

One thing any normal person will find immediately annoying about this film is how over the top gay most of the actors behave throughout it. I suppose there are some gays in real life who behave screaming, prancing around, Priscilla Queen of the Desert gay, but so many of them on the screen at the same time kind of gets on a guy’s nerves.

Culkin plays Michael Alig and Seth Green plays his best friend James St. James, two young New York homosexuals who liked to dress up in outrageous costumes, throw lots of wild parties and do all kinds of drugs all the time. My impression was that a lot of the film was just about broken people who just could not face reality, so they stubbornly clung to their fabulous degeneracy and did whatever it took to keep the party going. It was never a good time to quit so they just couldn’t stop and kept on going until either they imploded or crashed.

In one scene Michael abandons his mother after she shared in his television debut on a tabloid talk show about him and his “club kids” phenomenon. He hurriedly told her he couldn’t get her a ride back to the airport as he ran off with his dealer for more of the hair of the dog that bit him to fight his withdrawals. I think she summed up a lot of what this film was all about when she she said, “I came in a stretch limo, i’m not leaving in a bus”.

Of course this film will fulfill all your wildest expectations assuming your expectations are actually wild enough. Semitic Hollywood is always more than willing to promote a rainbow of antisocial behavior. Whether a film is for blacks, children or homosexuals it seems they are always encouraging people to act up, get out of control and destroy everything they can. If you can’t annihilate anything important you can at least lay waste to yourself and hopefully take a few friends with you.

Of course, misfits who are not independently wealthy and can’t face reality can only maintain their delusions with the help of duped normies. In this case they exploited a club owner with an eye patch who became a sort of surrogate father figure for Michael. By allowing him to host his well publicized parties at his club he funded Macaulay’s lavish, nonstop, party party all the f*cking time life style despite the fact he always complained that he himself barely broke even.

What’s the symbolism of the eye patch? I don’t know, maybe he didn’t examine this situation in depth or was just seeing it in two dimensions? Why did he sponsor all this degeneracy? Hard to say. I honestly can’t speak for his motivation here aside from his strange, paternal relationship with the Culkin character.

Maybe the patch just indicates that the man is missing something. He’s portrayed as very straight and normal so maybe we are to believe he was living vicariously through this flamboyant little peacock with his superficial philosophy and his high flown plans and unconventional dreams. Maybe the patch is meant to represent that he is deformed inside which is why he’s making all this madness possible. Maybe it was just to make him look ominous because he was the only straight, middle aged guy in the film and everyone else was young and marvelous. Or maybe he represents the self-Chosen who are the ones making all this current cultural decay possible and his eye was lost while struggling with narrow minded gentiles? You decide.

Since this film was obviously targeted at gays a lot of it had to do with “loss of innocence”. The first example of that is when he is talking about his childhood in a small town and how his male Sunday School teacher seduced him (this kind of stuff goes on ALL the time in small White communities goyim! Watch a few more of our movies and you’ll see!). The second instance is when Michael hooks up with a straight guy who he later seduces while they are hiding in a dumpster from a cabbie after they stiffed him on the fare. How’s that for symbolism? Of course all straight guys are totally gay just below the surface so they are easily seduced by any gay guy forward enough to try. Please make a note of that all you gay goyim!

They drag lots of innocent people with them into their self-destructive hell with drugs. Drugs seem to be EVERYWHERE in this film. This “loss of innocence” motif culminates in a depressing scene where Michael, his friends and his surrogate father are all getting pretty loaded in a swanky hotel room. The guy with the eye patch, who has never done drugs before and is married to a sensible, no nonsense conservative looking young woman is shown fried out of his mind on crack with a black and possibly a tranny prostitute. Also, there was a black drug dealer named “Angel” who nobody wanted around at first, but he seemed to become their main connection as the film progressed. Oddly, once this relationship had been established he always wore angel wings whenever he made deliveries to them. In the Hotel scene, as well as all the subsequent scenes he was always demanding his money. I guess he wasn’t really supposed to be an angel at all, but the devil come to visit them in hell to collect his dues.

In line with this theme of tricking people into doing unhealthy things there is a part where he tricks his friend James into drinking his urine when he christened their embarkation on this club gig with the eye patch guy. A pretty gross scene, but not the only scene involving the drinking of urine.

One of the more disturbing aspects of this movie is it encourages bisexuality, which in light of the AIDS epidemic strikes me as more than a little sinister. I suppose you can file that under seduction of the innocent. His girlfriend is some Midwest kid who caught him and his club kids on that afternoon talk show I mentioned earlier. She was star-struck by all the glitz and glamour of his superficial lifestyle so she got in touch with him and he invited her to come stay with him up in New York. There is a scene where they are both taking a bath together and he announces he had polluted the water, so of course she scoops some up, drinks it and sprays it on Michael. He then did the same and sprayed her. Since they are both now dependent on drugs, naturally they are encouraging each other’s debauchery. They are clearly not good for each other. Near the end of the film we hear she died of an overdose.

spit

Culkin gets pissy

Everybody in this film is out of control, that is, until the Culkan character gets in a spirited argument with his angelic, black drug dealer where he demands his money one too many times and we are led to believe he kills him in self-defense. Right after cutting up the body and dumping it in the river (after they used up all his drugs, of course) Mike decides to check himself into rehab. This is one of those films that starts near the end and loops around to the beginning and it began with Michael confessing to James that he killed his dealer as they shared some of the deceased’s stash. Seth then promptly OD’d and ended up in the ER.

I realize I may be giving way too much away about this film, but I had a bad day today and this is helping me take my mind off of my problems. Besides, be honest, how many of you were planning on seeing this turkey anyway?

So, as if “loss of innocence” weren’t bad enough, we are also treated to some rather base betrayal as well. In an effort to weasel out of a possible murder conviction for killing his connection, Micheal starts cooperating with the feds to bust his father figure for supposedly dealing drugs out of his club. Ironically he was the only person to express sincere concern about Michael’s drug habit. In fact he paid for the stint in drug rehab that Macaulay took advantage of after murdering his dealer.

I strongly dislike films like this, where people are out of control and doing stupid things. I was waiting the entire time for someone to get busted, and I wasn’t disappointed.

Michael’s constant friend throughout the film, Seth Green, wanted to be a writer but never actually wrote anything. It wasn’t all talk, he really wanted to write and did actually try from time to time, but he had a bad case of writer’s block. That is until he got so high one day that he hallucinated a giant talking rat who claims to have seen Michael’s struggle with his dealer. Michael got busted but he said he only acted in self defense, which was somewhat true, at least at first. While the black drug dealer was strangling Culkin some other druggie came out of his stupor and grabbed a hammer which was conveniently placed and hit the guy. Only he wasn’t quite dead yet. So Culkin beat him some more then tied him up and tortured him to death by injecting Drano into various parts of his body (use your imagination here you sick f*cks!).

The Seth Green character uses the information he got from his conversation with the giant rat to write a best selling novel, Disco Bloodbath, and then he takes this information to the police and has the star of the film arrested and put in prison. I didn’t know that the hearsay testimony of an imaginary, giant talking rat was admissible in court, but I guess in New York it is. That’s what happens when you live in a city that never sleeps I suppose.

I suppose here is where I do the content analysis. Party Monster was:

4. Anti-capitalist. Culkin is always letting people into the club for free, giving them free drink tickets and, of course, would rather murder his dealer than pay for his drugs.

3. Racist. Actually I guess it could be construed as being kind of racist since the only black character in the film gets beat unconscious and terribly tortured to death by Culkin.

2. Pro gay. This movie was so gay I felt that I needed an AIDS test after watching it!

1. Anti-drug. Despite showing people doing and enjoying drugs for nearly 2 hours they finally landed Michael in prison. So don’t do drugs, mmmkay?

I give it a 2. Maybe you’d give it a 3 or more if men screaming and swishing around all over the place for nearly two hours doesn’t give you a headache.

Germanicus Fink

[Who is Germanicus Fink? Read Aryan Skynet’s interview with him here.]

Have shopping to do and want to support icareviews? The author receives a modest commission on Amazon purchases made through this link: http://amzn.to/1OmHpbx

Odd Thomas

Anton Yelchin stars as Odd Thomas – which, the hero informs the audience, is actually the name on his birth certificate – a pleasant young man with an unfortunately morbid paranormal vocation. An “undercover detective for dead people”, he is able to see and receive communications from the deceased, who look to Odd for otherwise unforthcoming justice. Thus, Odd is able not only to assist Police Chief Porter (Willem Defoe) with the occasional murder investigation, but to attempt to prevent violent crimes from ever occurring. Odd alone is able to perceive the otherdimensional demons, called Bodachs, which congregate like tasteless tourists among the living just prior to a murder or some other evil event or catastrophe.

Odd knows something horrible is about to happen in his town of Pico Mundo, California, when swarms of Bodachs appear in conjunction with the arrival of Robert Robertson (Shuler Hensley), or “Fungus Bob”, or “Fungus Man”, as Odd alternately nicknames him. Odd is certain Robertson is up to no good, but he and Chief Porter are limited in what they can legally accomplish until more of Robertson’s plan materializes.

While the film’s computer-generated visual effects, including a bit of that irksome Blade-style speed-up/slow-down action, only range from good to tolerable, the central mystery confronting Odd is sufficiently interesting to sustain the 100-minute run time. The Bodach concept is exploited to taut effect in more than one suspenseful sequence, and the combination of the protagonist’s wholesomeness with the general unsavoriness of the subject matter makes for a winningly offbeat formula. Yelchin is amiable as Odd, while Addison Timlin, too, adds appeal as his bedroom-eyed companion Stormy.

3.5 stars. Worth a rental.

[WARNING: SPOILERS]

Ideological Content Analysis indicates that Odd Thomas is:

8. Class-conscious. The psychotic Robertson “inherited a shitload” from his mother.

7. Multiculturalist (i.e., pro-yawn).

6. Sexist! “I’m a woman. We all have issues,” Stormy explains. Later, loading a gun, she objects, “I don’t need protecting” – a pretense given the lie when she dies at the end.

5. Christian-ish. Odd believes in “a higher power” and picnics in a church’s bell tower. This church provides only the most tentative sanctuary, however, when someone or something invades its peace with malevolent intentions. Materialism is frowned upon (“It’s too bad a car can’t love you back”), as are the prevailing pop culture vanities of the age (“fame is the altar at which most people worship”).

4. Anti-family. Odd has the typical dysfunctional background, his mother having gone insane. Odd Thomas endorses the single mother in the character of Viola (Gugu Mbatha-Raw).

3. Gun-ambivalent. The Robertson plot keeps the bogeyman of the crazed mass shooter phenomenon alive, but any anti-gun sentiment indicated here is undercut by the fact that Odd defensively takes down one threat with a pistol. The additional development that the police force turns out to have been infiltrated by satanists points to the danger of giving the state a monopoly on firearm ownership.

2. Police-ambivalent and generally state-skeptical. Apart from Odd’s reliable collaborator Chief Porter, police are depicted in a derogatory light. Early in the film an officer slams a culprit’s head into a car door and quips that this is “one of the perks of the job.” By the end of the film, the force has no credibility whatsoever, with false flag theories even receiving a boost. Whether Odd is more properly viewed as a vigilante or as an extra-legal police auxiliary and black-bag man for the state is open to interpretation.

1. Anti-Semitic! Principal villain Robertson, a serial killer aficionado and aspirant, has exotic hair that “looks like a yellow yarmulke”. And could this character’s nickname, “Fungus Man”, be a derogatory comment on the Jewish people’s pattern of parasitic attachment to established cultures of the West? Odd, after discovering Robertson’s corpse in a tub, chooses to hide it in a disused gas chamber. Why? Is this supposed to be funny? Let Odd Thomas author Dean Koontz, writer-director Stephen Sommers, and all other perpetrators of this hateful celluloid libel know that the Holocaust will not be mocked!

Sofia Coppola’s latest effort is very much her own. Bright, punchy, or ambient music, an elegant eye, and a sardonic sense of humor imbue yet another examination of rampant girldom with Coppola’s trademark sensibility. Unlike Lost in Translation or Marie Antoinette, however, The Bling Ring features no strong or particularly likable central protagonist, and is consequently a much more detached and ironic study than its predecessors.

The Bling Ring opens with shots of the Facebook pages of characters Marc (Israel Broussard), Chloe (Claire Julien), and Rebecca (Katie Chang) – an appropriate means of introduction in this true crime story set in an amoral teenage order founded on trendiness and popularity. All attending a high school for affluent problem kids, these are the more sophisticated and fashionable counterparts to the hedonistic nihilists in Larry Clark’s Bully, operating out of the sinister psychological intersection of thug chic and a privileged entitlement mentality.  Along with like-minded recruits Nicki (Emma Watson) and Sam (adorable Taissa Farmiga), the group combines its vapid interests in celebrity, pop criminality, and haute couture by committing a series of casual burglaries of the homes of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and others.

An odd feature of these young people’s lives is how little concerned with love they appear to be. Tawdry apparel, dirty dancing, sex, and group acceptance interest them plenty, but these new teen creatures bear almost no resemblance to their grandmothers, the malt shop loiterers of old, with their puppy love crushes and idealism. The new teen queen is a kind of ravenous beast sustained by a constant regimen of dope, dainty baubles, irresponsible escapades, and protected from introspection by forbidding walls of abrasive music preoccupied with self-determined fabulousness.

It is difficult to watch The Bling Ring and not be reminded of another group of young Californians who targeted celebrity victims – namely, the Manson Family. In both cases, pathological fascination with the rich and famous, coupled with peer pressure, drugs, and an unhealthily violent cultural diet, result in celebrities being simultaneously venerated as idols and dehumanized as potential victims. Marc, reflecting on the meaning of his acts in the aftermath of his arrest, confides that after the story of his involvement hit the news, he received over 800 Facebook friend requests, suggesting that it is criminality itself as much as fame that attracts the adulation of the unsavory masses.

If The Bling Ring has any discernible shortcoming, it may be the dearth of surprising event, as the film proceeds along a fairly straight, predictable line as far as the plot. Apart from the signature Sofia Coppola seal in terms of color, design, and atmosphere, the film’s most attractive strength must be its delightful cast. Israel Broussard, featured in what, for lack of any real hero, is The Bling Ring‘s lead role, has a Byronic look and an enigmatic vulnerability that complements the Coppola aesthetic nicely; and all of the damsels in dissipation, from Katie Chang to Claire Julien, Taissa Farmiga, and Emma Watson, are irresistibly vile, divine, and luscious.

4.5 stars.  Ideological Content Analysis kisses Sofia Coppola’s ring and indicates that her most recent flourish as a dependable writer-director is:

11. Multiculturalist/pro-miscegenation.  People of different races interact as without the least consciousness of their physiological or cultural differences. One of the girls has a thug Latino boyfriend. The camera lingers longingly over untouchable Katie Chang.

10. Anti-wigger.  Pop veneration of the ghetto mentality goes hand in hand with nihilism, crime, and self-destruction.

9. Pro-police.  Authorities conduct their investigation and effect the necessary arrests professionally and without inflicting unnecessary harm.

8. Anti-religion.  Modern woman’s faith is junk spirituality, “the philosophy of the Secret”, a kooky, relativistic melange in which words like “Lord” rub shoulders indiscriminately with new age talk of “karma”.

7. Anti-gun.  Privately owned guns, this film appears to want to convince viewers in one very frightening scene, make homes less safe and endanger the mentally deficient.  However, the fact that one of the girls steals a gun and gives it to her thug boyfriend demonstrates that criminals are not above obtaining their guns illegally and that gun control legislation is therefore futile.

6. Philanthropy-skeptical.  One suburban family claims a commitment to charitable causes in Africa, but cannot identify the specific country where they are active.  This pretended philanthropy is played as a sympathy card after the girls are caught by the police.

5. Statist.  The pitiable demonstration of home schooling as practiced by one ditzy mother (Leslie Mann) is an implicit endorsement of public education.

4. Anti-drug.  Drinking and driving results in a non-fatal accident, which, however, fails to prevent the girls from going out and behaving just as carelessly as before. Accelerating substance abuse parallels the girls’ increasingly poor judgment and carelessness in their criminal endeavor.

3. Pro-gay.  Sexually ambiguous Marc shares his girlfriends’ interest in fashion (including high heel shoes) and refers to a male schoolmate as “hot”.

2. Class-conscious.  Coppola (perhaps responding to the criticism that Marie Antoinette depicted a self-absorbed aristocrat sympathetically without taking into consideration the economic plight of the French peasantry?) depicts moral decay as in part deriving from wealth and privilege (cf. Billy Madison).

1. Pro-family.  The horror wrought by permissive or absentee parenting is the unstressed theme that haunts The Bling Ring.

IRRUSSIANALITY

Russia, the West, and the world

Muunyayo

Farawaysick for a High Trust Society...

Fear of Blogging

"With enough courage, you can do without a reputation."

Alt of Center

Life. Liberty. And the Pursuit of Beauty

The Alternative Right

Giving My Alt-Right perspective

Logos

| literature |

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

parallelplace

Just another WordPress.com site

NotPoliticallyCorrect

Human Biodiversity, IQ, Evolutionary Psychology, Epigenetics and Evolution

Christopher Othen

Bad People, Strange Times, Good Books

Historical Tribune

The Factual Review

Economic & Multicultural Terrorism

Delves into the socioeconomic & political forces destroying our Country: White & Christian Genocide.

Ashraf Ezzat

Author and Filmmaker

ProphetPX on WordPress

Jesus-believing U.S. Constitutionalist EXPOSING Satanic globalist SCAMS & TRAITORS in Kansas, America, and the World at-large. Jesus and BIBLE Truth SHALL PREVAIL!