Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Neo-Nazi movie reviews,
March 16, 2002 2:41 PM   Subscribe

Neo-Nazi movie reviews, because neo-Nazis need culture, too. It's not all slurs against Jewish and black people (although there is a lot of that); there's also deep cultural insight, like: [Via the April 2002 Esquire, not online]
posted by kirkaracha (37 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
This site is disturbingly fascinating and reminds me of the ChildCare Action Project's movie reviews. It's got the same obsessive compulsion with seeing "offensive" messages in any material. Who knew that Corky Romano was "more anti-White than most other movies out there"?
posted by kirkaracha at 2:46 PM on March 16, 2002


haha

Perhaps because he's bored, or just to be a pain in the neck, Lestat's lyrics give away crucial vampire secrets, so the rest of the vampires set out to kill him. Meanwhile, Akasha, the Queen of the Damned, is brought back from her statuesque hibernation -- drawn back into the world by the lure of Lestat's hypnotic music.

Haha pain in the neck get it?

Anyway, I came acrost that site a while ago, and, honestly it was entertaining. The guys writing these things are suprisingly literate. It's sad they belive what they do, but I don't think they are going to have much negative effect on the world.
posted by delmoi at 3:04 PM on March 16, 2002


"I really should stop going to movies. Every time I give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt, approaching a new film with an open mind and a non-suspicious attitude, the brothers Juden treat me to yet another feast of 'black is good, white is bad.'"

...Touché.
posted by Down10 at 3:06 PM on March 16, 2002


Did I mention the Aryan (Jude Law) was good looking? I just have to say when it comes to men, Aryan men are the cream of the crop. I can't for the life of me know what a beautiful Aryan woman could see in a monkey man. Blond hair and blue eyes looks good.

Brilliant. I wonder what hosting company provides the webspace for this garbage?

It all looks to me like it could have been written by teenagers.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:09 PM on March 16, 2002


Bwa ha ha. Nutzy!

I have to agree with a small segment of their Legally Blonde review. What is UP with every judge in every movie and T.V. show being an Black woman? This is what Hollywood does as integration? C'mon. There should be an association of women actors who refuse to take the token Black judge role anymore.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 3:14 PM on March 16, 2002


From the Wonka review: Eighty percent of the people don't care about your problems, and the other 20% are glad you have 'em.

Hey, all truth is God's truth. :)
posted by Erendadus at 3:24 PM on March 16, 2002


From the review of Monsters, Inc.

I won't give away too much of the movie, because I am going to recommend it, despite its unavoidable presence of Jews and negroes. This was one of the few recent movies I have really enjoyed. Much of the humor was superb, and the kid was cute as a button. There was no mention of race, and all but one of the human children shown were White. There were a couple of jabs directed toward Southerners, but not enough to hypnotize the kids into hating them.

The film was released by Disney, which is owned by Jew Michael Eisner and staffed by several other of his tribesmen. Still, at least it's not "Hardball" or the Cuba Gooding dogsled movie.

posted by ColdChef at 3:26 PM on March 16, 2002


And, the Harry Potter movie:

"The film has a few flaws, but they are outshone by its outstanding messages. In one scene, the gamekeeper laments about his pet dragon, which has been sent to live in Romania with the other dragons. A young student points out that the dragon will be much happier being with his own kind. Can you remember the last time any character in a movie said something like this?"
posted by ColdChef at 3:30 PM on March 16, 2002


insomnyuk: the netblock is owned by "Cox-OCHS 920 Calle Negocio, Suite #F San Clemente, CA 92673 US"

here is a list of other stuff they host.
posted by delmoi at 3:43 PM on March 16, 2002


I must say that that LOTR review was disturbing because it reminded me of everything I have to repress or not think very hard about when I read Tolkein -- the way that so much is about bloodline and inheritance and purity of generations; how consistently "swarthiness" is a sign of evil; how Saruman's "cross-breeding" is one of his greatest sins -- in short, the thread of racism that runs through Tolkein's vision. The idea that white-supremacy creeps can see Jackson's film and identify half-orcs with their "mud people" rhetoric gives me chills.

Don't get me wrong: much of the "interpretation" of the film on this site is simply a projection of the racist worldview, and doesn't jibe with what I think is in Tolkein. But there's a sympathy between Tolkein's focus on race and the fantasies these assholes live by. I wish I didn't think that.
posted by BT at 3:44 PM on March 16, 2002


Oh, btw. These guys don't know how to review moives, they give away way to much of the ending. So don't read reviews of movies you havn't and plan to see.
posted by delmoi at 3:46 PM on March 16, 2002


hehe...I love it when idiots try to make themselves sound intelligent by using "big" words they don't even know the meaning of. Case in point:

"Planet of the Apes," which I perceived recently, is the most blatantly racialist film I've found, maybe ever."

Ohman...that just KILLS me! The guy who wrote it is probably in his 20's or 30's but comes across as a 12-year-old in intelligence and writing skills. Thanks for the link - that site is PURE ENTERTAINMENT!
posted by xochi at 4:10 PM on March 16, 2002


What We Are
We are a group of disgusted and disaffected writers driven out of academia and journalism by the Semitical Correctness that has denatured our culture.

"Driven out of academia" sure is a high-falutin' way of sayin' "kicked out of the 4th grade"!
posted by xochi at 4:17 PM on March 16, 2002


Idiots? I don't think so. I have to say, this essay is a disturbingly savvy dissection of the perverse similarities between "Fight Club" and white-supremacist fantasies like the The Turner Diaries. These guys may be working from some unacceptable premises but that doesn't mean they're not astute--both as analysts and as provocateurs.

xochi, I don't reallly see your point. Apparently there's something that's supposed to be self-evidently damning here, but I don't know what it is. "Perceived"?
posted by rodii at 4:17 PM on March 16, 2002


here is a list of other stuff they host.

Well, at least they don't discriminate between viewpoints or content; they host a relatively diverse group of sites, including- oh, the irony!- the www.actjewish.org domain.

Y'know what I can't stand? As much as I hate what they have to say, I support their right to say it and form a place to talk to each other. What I thus can't stand is that people like this would never extend me the same courtesy if our roles were reversed- not me, not with my cinnamon-toast colored skin and jet black hair.

Oh yeah- why are people posting their "favorite" reviews from this site? Folks, this isn't actually "funny", this site and its reviews; just because they're ignorant mofos doesn't mean they don't represent dangerously ignorant mofos.
posted by hincandenza at 4:17 PM on March 16, 2002


Well, I can't speak for anyone buy myself, but I do find something funny in the way they find the "hidden agenda" in children's movies.
posted by ColdChef at 4:28 PM on March 16, 2002


What rodii said- they aren't stupid, per se, because the points they make about Fight Club are ones that have long disturbed me, namely the parallels between Fight Club and Nazism:

Was Fight Club a rebuke of the mindset that leads to fascism and Nazism (a la "The Wave"), showing how seemingly innocuous or even amusing counter-culture pranks can evolve into outright hatemongering and violence- in the process rebuking the audience itself, which likely was approving of the Pitt/ Norton characters earlier in the film?
Or was it a tacit approval of that mindset, but approval granted only because it was focused on anti- consumerism, as opposed to the more obviously loathsome anti-Semitism? Allusions like the manufacture of soap from the bodies of the despised group- in Fight Club, this is the materialist wealthy- are way too strong to be coincidental, so what exactly was the intention of the writer and director of this film?

But stupid or not, they're terribly, horribly wrong-headed.
posted by hincandenza at 4:34 PM on March 16, 2002


While the intent of the site is offensive, the content is pretty hilarious.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:54 PM on March 16, 2002


Yes Rodii, the useage of "perceived" is a perfect example of someone using a "big" word incorrectly in an attempt to sound more intelligent. I can practically guarantee he got that one out of a thesaurus.

Other words used incorrectly:
"evince"
"imbibes"
"trope"
"marxist-ly"

(from Planet of the Apes)

I'll give "Narziss" credit though, he did use "plagiary" correctly. Rodii, the essay you linked to was actually written by someone with writing and critical thinking skills. The guy who wrote the review of "Planet of the Apes" is just an ignorant, racist chump.
posted by xochi at 5:00 PM on March 16, 2002


xochi: using "perceived" like that is acceptable, amongst its meanings is "to attain awareness or understanding", so perhaps the writer meant that he understood the film separately from viewing it, if you see what I mean. I often find that my perception of a film's meaning changes well after the credits roll.

hincandenza: I think it's really important to bring things like this into a forum like MetaFilter, where most of the people are sane and can look at it from a more informed perspective. I think the less you marginalize ignorant mofos, the less able they are to be dangerously ignorant mofos. I'm glad some of the reviews were posted here, some of them are interesting, and some are very amusing. Wacky people are funny.

And I suspect the stupid:smart ratio is comparable in almost any given group.
posted by biscotti at 5:15 PM on March 16, 2002


biscotti,

You made the same mistake the author of the article made. "Percieved", when looked at strictly by its definition, looks correct. But he didn't "perceive" the damned film, he watched it, viewed it, masturbated to it...whatever. It is NOT proper useage of the word. I think you're giving him too much credit.
posted by xochi at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2002


RJ: “What is UP with every judge in every movie and T.V. show being an Black woman? This is what Hollywood does as integration?”

What is UP with the judge of the Andrea Yates trial being a black woman? Is that what passes for integration in the Texas judicial system?
posted by raaka at 5:34 PM on March 16, 2002


xochi: it was certainly unusual usage of the word, but I don't see that it's necessarily incorrect, he could have been talking about understanding the film, rather than viewing it. But maybe you're right and I'm giving the author credit for more originality of word use than he warrants.
posted by biscotti at 5:50 PM on March 16, 2002


Biscotti: No. NOBODY who knows how to use the language says "I perceived Planet of the Apes recently." You could say, "I perceived Planet of the Apes to be the most racist movie ever," but it is NEVER used flat out like this.
posted by EngineBeak at 6:01 PM on March 16, 2002


EngineBeak: people often use words unconventionally (and ungrammatically) to imply a different meaning, this is no different (or conceivably could be no different, since it's likely that I'm overestimating the author).
posted by biscotti at 6:11 PM on March 16, 2002


That's some damned funny stuff. Ah, too bad so many good things in life must be evil...
posted by Aikido at 6:38 PM on March 16, 2002


I was under the impression that 'Fight Club' (or at least the book which is a much better work of art than the film) was all about how we mustnt trust any ideology unquestioningly and that all of this was the product of an entirely diseased mind (this is made extra clear in the book, particularly in its much stronger ending).

I found all of the work by turns spine chilling and hilarious. I mean people can't really think this, can they? Their review of Black Hawk Down was worrying:
"There is little in "Black Hawk Down" about which I can complain. It even showed the Somalian rabble (to whom the soldiers referred as "skinnies") raiding the downed helicopters and scavenging the soldiers' bodies. There is even a moving scene of the apes stripping and carrying the body of a dead White soldier like a trophy. The image of that White hero bobbing upon the sea of stinky chimps should be enough to stir the blood of any White fence-sitter, especially if he saw the real-life pictures on which that scene was based. The movie didn't show the Somalian soldiers using their women and children as human shields (which was also the case in real life). Doing so might have caused the audience to sit up and say, "Hey! These animals need to be put down! Countries like Somalia are the reason nuclear weapons were invented."
I mean people, that's just wrong in so many ways. He could start by reading The Making Of The Atomic Bomb, but I fear it wouldn't do much good. To be honest people like this are part of the reason that I study history. Just so I can tell them in excrutiating detail with immacualte reference to primary sources exactly where they're wrong.
posted by nedrichards at 6:49 PM on March 16, 2002


I know well enough about using words unconventionally. This guy is not James Joyce. He did not use the word incorrectly, he used it wrongly. A person only can be said to "perceive" a movie if he isn't paying any attention. Perceive : watch :: see : look at.

Da-da-da-da da-da-da-da da-da-da-da Your turn!
(as in, Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi hot dog)

And yes, Fight Club was some load of stink. Go from the legitimate challenge, "Has clever worked for you?" to, No? Try violence! Cult of pure, unthinking being, the violent metaphysic. & you know that the kids are just going to lap this up (as has happened). The movie did not even get close to showing how wrong this goes.
posted by EngineBeak at 7:00 PM on March 16, 2002


Fight Club was all about showing how wrong fascism and violence are. For once it was a movie that expected the audience to think and judge, not just to 'perceive' *ahem* -- the book makes especially clear the wrongheadedness, and attraction, of violence and fascism. I think it's especially telling that these crazies here read into the movie exactly what we're supposed to come away not thinking -- the point of the movie was that violence is seductive, our materialism is a cul-de-sac, but that violence just substitutes one compulsion for another. It confronts a lot of realities, instead of just 'sending messages.'

And not to derail the thread: the craziest thing I read was: Mulholland Drive, like all of Lynch's movies, is a categorical indictment of the decadence of modern American society by a man who truly believes in traditional White American values. ????
posted by josh at 7:27 PM on March 16, 2002


man who truly believes in traditional White American values.

Ray Davis, who often enough knows what he's talking about, would concur. Not sure if I'd go so far myself, though.

& yes, to anyone who thinks, Fight Club can be seen as indictment, but far too many of its fans don't seem to do so. Maybe my experience was colored by having watched it with a couple of bozos.
posted by EngineBeak at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2002


I didn't like Fight Club, partially because I don't like people who make $20 million per movie lecturing me about consumerism. Plus, I like IKEA.

Actually, hincandenza pointed out the ambiguous nature of the film that is probably behind why I didn't like it.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:48 PM on March 16, 2002


Hey, I love Ikea -- I'm sitting in an Ikea chair right now -- but I tend to think that Fight Club is more about masculinity than comsumerism anyway, using comsumerism as a proxy for immasculation -- which is especially true of the book, which is pretty light on consumerism and pretty heavy on not having a father, not being a man, etc. etc. etc. It's kind of the male version of Amy Hempel's stories, which inspired Chuck Pahlanuik and are kind of getting at the same issues from a different angle. -- At the same time, as a college student, I'm surrounded by folks for whom No Logo is the Bible, and they would look at Fight Club as a big subversive victory for the ethos of anticonsumerism and the left. Anyway, not to belabor Fight Club -- I just think, to the extent it's problematic, it's because it's maybe a little irresponsible, not because it's a blockheaded movie. I know a lot of kids who think it's about how kicking ass and blowing up buildings is awesome, but then, they also think A Clockwork Orange and Lolita are awesome for all the wrong reasons too -- basically they're irredeemable.

And true enough about David Lynch EngineBeak -- he is one sentimental Norman Rockwell guy deep inside (and now that I think about it -- are there any non-white people in his movies?). But somehow I think the 'American values' he has and the ones these Nazi nuts have aren't really the same . . . At least, I hope not . . .
posted by josh at 9:00 PM on March 16, 2002


Just so I can tell them in excrutiating detail with immacualte reference to primary sources exactly where they're wrong.

Then please do so. There is some evidence that Somali warriors (or peasant fighters depending on your flavors) did use women and children as sheilds. The Iragi's did that during the Gulf war with great impunity, claiming death of kith and kin, when no such thing occured. I don't wish to defend the rascist interpretation of Black Hawk Down, but please, if you're going to spout arrogant and snide commentary, then do what you say you can do. You've studied history, where is the interpretation of the white power movement incorrect?

This comment of mine is based solely on the belief that the neo-nazi movement prides itself on the derision of liberal freedoms. As long as we vainly and vacuously deny thier whims, we are succeptable to the arguments that they bring up; that there is enough truth to their commentary that they will convert others. Saying you can prove them wrong isn't enough. Do it, if you can.

I was horrified by the interpretation/review of the Fellowship Of The Ring, most of all. When I read the Turner Diaries, I kept asking myself what these fools hope to achieve. When I understood that what they see as innevitable, based on a leap of faith that defies all logic, I began to understand how clearly they believe in magic ... the magic that will allow white folk to survive a nuclear holocaust as easily as allowing the cute white hobbits to cross the broken planes of Mordor and deliver us all from the "darkness". That magic was a fairy tale, but "the Cat Woman", whomever she might be, truly considers it a mandate for the impossible, that we must overcome all odds to bring white rule to its magical conclusion. *shudder*

Black Hawk Down is truly a horrific movie (better a book) that does bring to play the race card. Laughing about how we know more of history than the reviewer is the hieght of foolishness, simply because we empower their sense of magic when we do.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:20 PM on March 16, 2002


josh - that's absolutely true about David Lynch. I remember thinking that about The Straight Story. David Lynch making a G-Rated movie seemed odd at the time, but along with the usual Lynchian strangness, there was a lot of genuine sweetness as well.

This delicate balancing of grotesquerie and sentimentality is present in a lot of "offbeat" artists. Witness the genuine closeness of the families in John Waters' films or for a masterpiece of the form, the scene between Mario Incandenza and Millicent Kent in David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest. One could argue that finding the humanity in the "bizarre" is the main thrust of these artist ouvere(sp?).

BTW, Richard Pryor was in Lost Highway, that makes at least one non-white person in a Lynch film.
posted by jonmc at 10:04 PM on March 16, 2002


Wulfgar!. You're right. Black Hawk Down is a very bad movie (and not just because of the lack of character development). I wasn't exactly laughing about having greater knowledge but I understand your point. I would note that the Blackshirts in Britain in the 1930's were largely constrained by just how preposterous they looked so I wouldn't underestimate the power of ridicule.

I too was totally horrified when I read these (and jonmc's link in the thread above) and may have been slightly rash. I personally don't know too much about white power, especially in the states. I do know quite a bit about nationalist movements in Europe and the UK and how preposterously wrong they are when put against anything approaching the facts. Many of these groups use similar rhetoric to that of 'White Power', although they often use it more against geographical or language based distinctions (e.g. Welsh anti-English groups).

As for how dubious racial theories are when applied to history: there was the otherwise Brilliant German historian who posited in the 30's that significant characteristics of the population of various towns in North Western Germany were present because Tilly's army had stopped there for two weeks in 1630. David Irving was a Holocaust denier and prominent WW2 historian. Unfortunately he was rather good at being a historian and did much good work on the mechanics of the Nazi regime. However he extrapolated that since the Poles had rebuild one of the Gas chambers at Auschwitz (after earlier tearing it down) that they had rebuilt the entire camp to make it seem as if people had been deliberately killed there. It's quite sad to see such a great mind perverted in this way.

I agree with your point on magic, it's the leap of hope that says if I do this or if these people go away then my miserable life will return to a state of happiness that it can only have known in this glorious ancient time. My job is to point out that not only did this ancient time never exist but that pogroms aren't exactly connected with economic progress in a country.
posted by nedrichards at 4:58 AM on March 17, 2002


"He did not use the word incorrectly, he used it wrongly"....he used it wrongly?....hahaha..want to joins me on circutspeaking wrongly of...whata git. what fukstick get up and try and make a mark, paint my ass into a semantic corner MOFO.

In 'Willi Wonka'....remember the part about the person whom won the ...what...fifth ticket. had a t.v. news scene in the movie....member? The annoucer holding up a newspaper (probably The Guardian)...the newspaper showed a picture of the guy...well, in the movie, the guy in the paper is Martin Boorman. bravo about Irving, that twit.
posted by clavdivs at 10:17 AM on March 18, 2002


HA
posted by clavdivs at 10:17 AM on March 18, 2002


« Older Yo La Tengo take your requests...  |  "Britney Underground takes you... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments