Archives for posts with tag: Michael Chertoff

The Rewrite

Hugh Grant, never an actor this critic particularly liked, has become more palatable with age – tarnished, less handsome, and hence more accessible. These qualities are on fine display in The Rewrite, which reunites the leading man with Music and Lyrics writer-director Marc Lawrence. Grant is Keith Michaels, a has-been screenwriter who, failing to find new work, takes a job as a writer-in-residence at an unglamorous public university.

Irreverent and a womanizer, Keith finds a capable foil in snooty and arch Austen scholar Professor Weldon (sexy over-the-hill performer Allison Janney), who does what she can to bring his sojourn at the school to an end. Complicating Keith’s private life are amorous coed Karen (Bella Heathcote) and single mother Holly, the latter part enlivened by an astonishingly well-preserved Marisa Tomei, who exhibits wonderful chemistry with Grant.

Certain supporting characters, particularly among the students, may be too broadly drawn for all tastes, but each serves a purpose and is more or less amusing. Whiplash’s monstrous J.K. Simmons demonstrates his remarkable range here by essaying the instantly lovable role of Dr. Lerner, the avuncular head of the English department, while still-boyish Get a Life clown Chris Elliott turns in the expectedly funny turn as the university’s dweeby Shakespeare specialist.

A touching and sharp romantic comedy that transcends the ghetto of its genre, The Rewrite ought to appeal with equal charm to discriminating men and women moviegoers alike. Consistently interesting and rewatch-worthy, this one is highly recommended.

Keith Michaels (Hugh Grant) regales Dr. Weldon (Allison Janney) and Dr. Lerner (J.K. Simmons) with his unorthodox take on the merits of Jane Austen's body of work, drawing the scandalized glares of bystanders in the process.

Keith Michaels (Hugh Grant) regales Dr. Weldon (Allison Janney) and Dr. Lerner (J.K. Simmons) with his unorthodox take on the merits of Jane Austen’s body of work, drawing the scandalized glares of bystanders in the process.

5 stars. Ideological Content Analysis indicates that The Rewrite is:

10. Drug-ambivalent. Weed seems to be okay – with Keith, if not with Dr. Lerner – but the film’s attitude toward alcohol is more nuanced. Proving true the adage “in vino veritas”, Keith is overly frank in unfriendly company, and Holly feels obligated to drive him home in another instance. He is described as “trying to fill a spiritual vacancy with alcohol.” Fraternity hazing leads to the hospitalization of sci-fi nerd Billy Frazier (Andrew Keenan-Bolger). Notwithstanding all of this, a tipsy Hugh Grant remains very charming.

9. Pro-gay. “Are you a lesbian?” Keith asks Holly. “I wish,” she responds.

8. Anti-gun. “I was hoping you were pro gun control,” Keith says to Dr. Lerner.

7. Irreligious. Heaven is “a fairy tale designed to make a five-year-old boy go to sleep.”

6. Anti-slut. Keith’s brief fling with sexually experienced student Karen leads to disaster.

5. Anti-Semitic! 9/11 criminal Michael Chertoff’s body scanners, Keith suggests, are merely “cancer-causing cash conduits”.

4. Family-ambivalent. His wife, Keith says, was “smart enough to divorce me”. Karen hates her father. Balancing the story’s failed relationships, however, is Dr. Lerner’s lachrymose domestic bliss with his wife and several daughters.

3. Egalitarian. At stake is Keith’s initial conviction that talent cannot be taught – an assertion that the people-loving Holly intends to challenge. Falling on the side of nurture as opposed to nature, The Rewrite to this extent lends itself to the programs of leftist social engineers.

2. Pro-miscegenation. Keith, tasked with selecting his students based on the strength of their screenplay submissions, instead looks at their online profiles and stocks his roster with a bevy of multicolored cuties including an Asian, two negresses, and a Jewess. The viewer is given to understand at the end that an unexpected Jew-congoid hookup is imminent.

1. Sexist! Dr. Lerner diagnoses icy bitch Professor Weldon as “elitist, lonely, [and] miserable.” Keith, meanwhile, earns major Nazi shitlord points with this drunken faculty cocktail party rant:

Forgive me, but I’m just a little bit tired of female empowerment. […] Well, just, honestly, though, everything seems to be about female empowerment nowadays, you know. Any meeting I go to in Hollywood, someone says, “You know what we need? A kick-ass girl, that’d be a great twist.” Except every movie has a kick-ass girl, you know, some martial arts CGI slow motion woman who kicks the crap out of every man in her path. Can I tell you what would be truly innovative? A movie without a kick-ass girl, or better yet, a movie where a woman gets her ass kicked.

Rainer Chlodwig von Kook

Have shopping to do and want to support icareviews? The author receives a small commission for purchases made through this link: http://amzn.to/1Nmozz5

Passenger 57 (1992)

Passenger 57 (1992)

A number of seemingly insignificant films of the 1990s, revisited in the context of the New World Disorder of the present millennium, yield disturbing resonances of what was to come. One such work is the Wesley Snipes action vehicle Passenger 57, a movie which, in addition to hosting much of its action aboard an airliner, is concerned with the rising specter of international terrorism.

Produced by Jonathan Sheinberg – who, this writer suspects, may be Jewish – Passenger 57 has Snipes playing counterterrorism expert John Cutter, goaded into taking a job as an airline’s security consultant. Before boarding the fatal flight that preoccupies him for the rest of the story, Cutter delivers a lecture on terrorism to his clients:

Do you know how many airlines have been hijacked in the last three years? [. . .] Twenty-seven. Almost every commercial airline in the world has had to cope with terrorism. All except one. The Israelis have never been fucked with. They never let them on the plane.

The lesson here is clear. If only the nations of the West would look to Israel for guidance – and place savvy blacks in positions of leadership, of course – the world could be spared this presently savage pandemic of skyjacking terrorism.

Later, when stopped by airport security, Cutter is made to pass more than once through a metal detector. “Ever notice how the real suspicious ones never seem to have any trouble?” he muses aloud. “Right,” agrees Cutter’s colleague Delvecchio (Tom Sizemore). “That’s how they get on the plane.”

The identity of this “they” and those “real suspicious ones” is unspecified, but the viewer, given the context of other remarks – as well as the long Hollywood tradition of caricaturing Muslims – is left to assume that Cutter and Delvecchio are referring to Arab terrorists. Charles Rane (Bruce Payne), the villain of Passenger 57, is a mad European and not an Islamic fanatic; but viewers are also informed that despite being “linked to several bombings in London and Ireland [. . .] because of his close ties to the Middle East, he’s been untouchable” – whatever that means.

Unfortunately for those who died on September 11, 2001, or as casualties of the wars that followed, American “security” was in Israeli hands at the key airports that day. ICTS International, an Israeli firm, had responsibility for “security” at each of the airports from which the “al Qaeda” hijackers are alleged to have embarked – and this same company also ran the “security” at the airports at which the “Shoe” and “Underwear” bombers boarded flights, in addition to having a hand in the London 7/7 event. Fortunately for ICTS, the Patriot Act just happened to include a provision precluding lawsuits against foreign “security” companies operating on 9/11.

9/11 provided the Orwellian pretext for the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, as Secretary of which Israeli citizen Michael Chertoff lined his pockets by hawking the body-imaging scanners that suddenly seemed so necessary in the wake of the “Shoebomber” and “Underwear Bomber” incidents. Understandably, Chertoff did not publicize the fact that body-imaging contractor Rapiscan was represented by his own Chertoff Group.

“Always bet on black,” Cutter advises the arrogant Rane in Passenger 57’s most quotable sass; but, given the subsequent turn of events on this chronically fucked-up Zionist-occupied planet, would he not have been closer to the mark to suggest that Rane and his fellow gentiles “always bet on Jew”?

Rainer Chlodwig von Kook

Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes

Here is a worthy addition to the venerable Apes franchise. Like the original Heston classic, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is by turns poignant, thought-provoking, and unintentionally humorous in telling the tragic story of what befalls humanity in the wake of its decimation by a simian flu and the resulting collapse of civilization.

What little remains of Bay Area humanity lives together in downtown San Francisco, led by capable ex-soldier Dreyfus (Gary Oldman). The civilizationally ascendant apes, led by intelligent chimpanzee Caesar (Andy Serkis), inhabit the forest surrounding the city, unaware that humans have survived the plague.

When a chance encounter and death bring the two mutually resentful species into conflict, members of both groups believe their continued existence is at risk. At stake in this exciting installment of the franchise is whether peace is possible or full-scale war between the two tribes is an inevitability.

4.5 stars.

[WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS]

Ideological Content Analysis indicates that the symbolism or subtextual resonance of the ape/human relationship in Dawn is variable, changing in meaning from scene to scene, so that a single comprehensive interpretation is impossible. Anecdotal analysis follows, however, yielding the following diagnoses:

4. Multiculturalist. All races live together in harmony in progressive post-collapse San Francisco. The diverse makeup of the human element, including blacks, softens the association that racially insensitive viewers are likely to draw between apes and blacks. That parallel is exploited, however (see no. 3), and the abstract sense that the apes are akin to the teeming anthropoid scatology constituting the world outside the West – and, increasingly, the West itself – is also unavoidable. (cf. no. 1)

3. Anti-gun. With the planet essentially set back to zero, the original sin that disrupts this new potential Eden is not the eating of fruit, but the bearing of arms. Carver (Kirk Acevedo), a character who bears a suspicious resemblance to George Zimmerman and who, given his Anglo name, is presumably supposed to be some kind of “white Hispanic”, sets the plot in motion when he panics and shoots a (no doubt angelic) chimp in the forest. Apes, at first hopeful of peaceful relations, confiscate and destroy a few of the humans’ guns. Carver later disobeys Caesar’s terms of cooperation by sneaking a gun into ape territory, putting a baby chimp in danger and alerting emotionally susceptible moviegoers that the guns in their homes are a multitude of dead baby tragedies waiting to happen.

2. Green. It is man’s energy dependency which brings him into conflict – in this case, with apes – when Dreyfus determines to get a power plant operating again. No alternative energy is available, viewers are told, the implication being that, had America’s government, in its wisdom, been allowed to invest more of its tax booty in clean, green energy alternatives, the humans’ post-apocalyptic plight might have been avoided.

1. Crypto-Zionist. The misleading notion that the American energy appetite – lust for oil, for instance – is responsible for drawing the country into its conflicts abroad only serves to distract from the reality that it is the Israel lobby, not hootin’, hollerin’ Texas oil barons, who have exercised a Svengali-like influence on American foreign policy in recent decades.

More interestingly, the climactic sequence of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes invites an interpretation according to which the humans, led by Dreyfus, are Jews, and the apes are the primitive gentile hordes. As this interpretation would have it, the climax of the movie presents a kind of encrypted dialogue between two competing Zionisms. Some explanation may be necessary for the uninitiated in matters Judaic as to why goyim might be cast as apes. What too few gentiles understand is that Talmud-taught Jews hold non-Jews to be subhuman, their word for a gentile woman, shiksa, meaning an “unclean animal”. The Yiddish slur goyim, furthermore, is used synonymously with “cattle“.

The name of the human leader, Dreyfus, calls to mind the notorious Dreyfus Affair, which, as Jewish history would have it, constitutes one of the most rabid episodes of anti-Semitism in the history of Christendom (practically the entire history of Christianity being a mere buildup to the “Holocaust” if Jewish historian Raul Hilberg is to be believed). The name Dreyfus, then, suggests a Zionist martyr, as do his words and actions in this momentous sequence.

Toward the end of the film, the simian army has taken control of San Francisco, with bloodthirsty ape usurper Koba* (Toby Kebbell) and his followers occupying a downtown tower as headquarters. Dreyfus and his fellow human-Jews, unknown to the ape-gentiles, have planted explosive charges under the tower – a tactic clearly reminiscent of the Israeli Mossad‘s controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Dreyfus, defending his decision to eradicate the ape-gentiles when fellow human Malcolm (Jason Clarke) expresses his horror and his hope that ape/human reconciliation is still possible, explains that he is detonating the tower in order to save the human race (i.e., Jews). His position, in other words, is that every ape-gentile must die so that Jew-humans might survive. He then proceeds to explode the tower, himself along with it, considering his act of mass murder a selfless martyrdom. The actual result of his action, however, is that full-scale conflict between ape-gentiles and Jew-humans is now a permanent feature of their inextricable histories. Ape-gentiles will always be hostile and on the defensive from now on because the vindictive Jew-humans can “never forget”.

The Jewish screenwriters of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes appear to intend for their film to function both as a symbolic cover-up for the Jews in subliminally excusing them from principal responsibility for America’s wars of intervention – and, for the tuned-in members of the audience, as a warning to the hardcore terrorist Zionist establishment represented by such figures as Adelson, Netanyahu, Silverstein, Chertoff, Zelikow, Kissinger, Zakheim, Krauthammer, Kristol, Perle, and the rest of the Talmudic rats responsible for the Jew World Order under which gentiles are currently dying and suffering unnecessarily. Push too hard, they caution, and you might just give away the game.

*”Koba”, whether coincidentally or not, was the nickname of supposedly anti-Semitic Joseph Stalin (responsible for the “black years” of Soviet Jewry).

 

Dislike Ideological Content Analysis on Facebook or stalk Rainer Chlodwig von Cuck on Twitter or Google+

IRRUSSIANALITY

Russia, the West, and the world

Muunyayo

A Vote Will Never Negate Nature...

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!