Kermode and Mayo's rant - Sound of Freedom 'review'

 

Kermode and Mayo's rant 'review' of the

Sound of Freedom

Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo are two ex-BBC film reviewers now on social media; they used to have a large following when on the BBC 5 Live film review slot on Friday afternoon, but now, after having left the BBC, they languish as one of the least popular of the 'known' YouTube movie reviewers. And you can see why they tend to be quite mean-spirited, especially when it comes to films that portray Christian and moral values - their Sound of Freedom review is a case in point. Below is my reaction to it.

Wow, a film review is somewhere in the middle of this 'rant'! This mini-review was done during the top ten films countdown for the week's box office. However, it's 99% rant and 1% review. Kermode's hatred for this film and Jim Caviezsel is palpable. He gets in a QAnon dig within the first 30 seconds, trying to discredit the film and Caviezsel immediately; however, Mr. Kermode, QAnon, and the right are not illegal, just as your brand of loony leftism isn't. When this film was made, QAnon did not even exist. It was acquired by Disney (another form of child abuse, according to many) when it bought Fox and then tried to bury it.

He also seems upset that the film has been endorsed 'by the likes of Donald Trump,' he rants and he raves on that it wouldn't have been successful 'if a bunch of nutball right-wingers hadn't come out and said that this is such an important film,' and rather than actually talk about the film Kermode blusters on:

 'Trump has spent a lot of his time dog whistling to the nut-ball right wing lunatic fringe who "believe" in inverted comers that he is involved in a fight against a cabal of Satanic Paedophiles ...' stutters as he has run out of rant words and says ... 'blaugh'...

Then, he mentions QAnon again. Kermonde then admits that the film has nothing to do with QAnon, but he keeps mentioning it and continues to do his best to discredit the film. Then again, he mentions Trump doing a screening and repeats himself, 'he's dog whistling to the QAnon lot.'

Kermode then again knocks the film without actually saying why, just a blatant assertion that the film is 'completely unremarkable and not very good exploitation thriller.' He says the only reason it's shown is that 'Trump did a screening, and when your leading man is Jim Cavisel ... Jim Cavisel played Jesus in the Passion of the Christ, it seems he's become convinced that he really is the Messiah.'

           Talk about hyperbole! Kermode is throwing everything at this film except the proverbial kitchen sink! Mayo then twerps in with 'he's an idiot' then after those words of wisdom from the every present but seldom heard sidekick. Kermode continues his tirade with another assertion: 'he's also a very bad actor.' Kermode's hatred of Cavisel is so unprofessional, so personal it would seem, that he has no qualms about calling him an idiot again and rants on to say 'when someone's personal behavior is so rampagingly  stupid!'... -  just because he addressed a so-called right-wing gathering who are concerned about child sex traffic (pity the left/liberals don't do more).

Perhaps the real reason the left/liberal legacy media are so appalled at the success of this film is because it's taking up media space with a Christian values narrative, intruding on their world, and they know it's actually exposing the corruption and abuse that is inherent in the mainstream media? God is actually mentioned as inspiring people in the film against child sex trafficking. Why are the left/liberal types in the mainstream media so scared of this film? Is it because their MSM world is implicated? I suggest that Kermode and Mayo calm down and go to the nearest cocktail bar and have a nice glass each of bitter and twisted,

BBC to Verify the news

 

BBC Verify

Can it be trusted?

 First of all, BBC Verify is supposed to be a group of 60 BBC journalists who form a highly specialised operation and have the investigative skill to verify if any piece of news, whether on social media or the mainstream media, is true. With clever manipulation of images and computer graphics and AI, any image can be manipulated to say what every image provider wants. People are constantly bombarded with news, and it's difficult to tell what is happening. The Ukraine-Russia war is a case in point. If you watch one set of You Tubers, Russia has lost all her tanks and then some, and if you watch another set, Ukraine hasn't any troops left. So, this could (in the right hands) be a good thing?

            The big problem is the mainstream media also seem to be guilty of loading the news to suit the liberal Western viewpoint. And as the BBC is part of the Main Stream Media, it is difficult to see them in a verifying role. The BBC has a set of secularist left/liberal values, and it has been evident in the past that they have loaded the news and current affairs programmes to suit this left/liberal viewpoint. Therefore, while it would be fantastic if there was an organisation to get to the bottom of the truth in an objective way, the BBC are not the organisation to do this. They often market themselves as honest and objective, but on many issues, they are not; re abortion, Alfabet people, feminism, national interests first, and anything Woke, they simply cannot be trusted.

Blasphemous Amazon

Tradition Family and Property are campaigning against Amazon's Blasphemy Page!

You might like to sign their petition.

Amazon Features 91 Blasphemous Products on “Blasphemy” Page

Amazon has become infamous for promoting products offensive to Jesus Christ and Catholics around the world.

But things have gotten worse. Now, Amazon has featured a “blasphemy” page on its website. This page makes no mention of Mohammed or Buddha. Instead, it exclusively attacks Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith.

Sign Now Against This Unthinkable Attack on Jesus Christ and His Church

This page is not accidental. On Amazon, the page’s title reads, “Blasphemy! The Best Religious Novelty Items.”

On her own blog, the page’s organizer Laura Sweet dubbed the collection “More Jesus Novelty Gifts Sure To Send Me To Hell.”

And this is not just a single blasphemy. On this single Amazon page, there are ninety-one highly irreverent products for sale.

NO to Blasphemy! Sign here and make a difference!

The products available on this page make me sick to my stomach.

Here are a few of them:

• “Inappropriate Coloring Books Sarcastic Jesus: Cuss Word Jesus Lets You Know What He Really Thinks,”
• Santa VS Jesus The Epic Party Adult Card Game,
• A “Teazus” Tea Infuser,
• “The Grilled Cheesus Sandwich Press,”
• “Nun Bowling,” where the user knocks over 10 small nun figurines for fun,
• and many, many more!

These are appalling!

Yes, I Will Sign Against These Horrendous Blasphemies!

As Christians, it is our duty to rise up and oppose these insults to all that is sacred!

Please, I urge you:

SIGN NOW Against This Outrageous Blasphemy!

Which is the Wokest Classical Music station?

 

Which is the Wokest Classical Music station?

Classic FM or BBC Radio Three

If there is one place in the media world where modern themes of the Alphabet people and the pro-abortionist would have the most negligible presence, it would be here among the great composers and religious music of the past millennium. Classical music is all I listen to on the radio these days. Even cricket is interrupted by anti-carbon protesters, so it's just BBC Radio Three or Classic FM these days.

 

However, I often turn off Classic FM more often than BBC Radio Three. This last time I turned off Classic FM was after the presenter announced a local Gay Pride event in the same vain as she would a village fair. In the last year, I also had to send an email of complaint that they were not balanced regarding reporting on abortion. They only had the pro-choice interviewee present to interview on a pro-life issue. Radio Three, on the other hand, do have the occasional woke play, but this one can always avoid. I also remember Classic FM having Peter Tatchell on air and given free rein to attack Pope Benedict when he came to England with no one to speak for the Church present. All so typical of the Main Stream Media, sometimes called the legacy media, but perhaps we thought we could expect better from stations that owe their existence to music that either came directly from the Church or was developed from it.

By Prayer Crusader, St Philomena

The Female Gaze

 

Understanding the Female Gaze

In Barbie and Jane Austin's Emma films.

What is the female gaze? Is it the same as the male gaze? There is a theory that the male gaze is a predatory one, that men are always on the lookout for conquest, therefore their enjoyment of seeing a female is one of how to triumph over her; and yet, men can often be just as romantic and self-sacrificing as women. Some would argue that this self-sacrificing is part of the male DNA, in that men, especially when they become fathers, need to protect the family unit. Therefore, the male gaze is ultimately one in which they are looking for someone to sacrifice for. The female gaze is slightly different: they are looking for a man who can take care of them and any children which they may have together. Now this may all seem stereotypical and out of date; however it has been proven that this is the basic way in which man/woman relationships have worked since the dawn of time.

Let us look at two recent films that some say challenge this. First, the 2020 film Emma. This is based on Jane Austin's book of the early nineteenth century, so surely this cannot be a Woke feminist film? Well no, of course not, but it does revel in the female gaze; the character Emma and the mainly female audience are given the male lead and rakish supporting male character as something to look at and think about. Then we have the new 2023 film Barbie. This, so many of the film reviewers have stated, is an outright piece of Woke feminist garbage. However, as the days go by and more reviewers come to the film and indeed to the reviewers, some are saying that the film is the opposite of Woke and feminist propaganda. The film starts with a take on the 2001 Space Odyssey film's beginning where the apes are infused with intelligence from a mysterious monolith then start to use bones as weapons and tools, thus beginning man's long progress to civilisation. The beginning of the Barbie movie references this and has a huge Barbie appear among young girls playing with baby dolls who then after touching the huge feminist Barbie start to bash their baby dolls in the same fashion as the apes with bones.

The film then goes to Barbie land where all the Barbies rule and the Kens (the male companion of Barbie) are down trodden. Barbie goes through an existential crisis and leaves Barbie land with Ken for the real world to find her girl owner who is very unhappy. In the real world the "Patriarchy" men rule she is treated in a sexist way. However, Ken likes the Patriarchy and brings it back to Barbie land where men then rule what has become Kendom. However, when Barbie returns she sets the men against each other and the Barbies rule again. Only for Barbie to return to the real world as she has discovered she has a vagina and visits a gynaecologist. Could this be a tell tale part whereby the feminist trope has been reversed and Barbies actually want to have babies after all?

Could Barbie actually be an anti-Woke anti-feminist film after all, and the female gaze was more evident in the 2020 Emma film?

By Prayer Crusader St Philomena

Barbenheimer

 

Barbie

A new Woke movie to push the message?

 

This is not a review as I've not seen the movie nor do I intend to. However, there are enough reviews and on line talk about the film to know what it's all about.

 

The film stars Margot Robbie as Barbie; in fact all the female characters are called Barbie, it even has a Trans Doctor who is also call Barbie. Ken the male lead is played by Ryan Gosling. The film or at least the first act is shot in a kind of day-glow colour that makes you feel sick, like you’ve eaten too many sweets. (I have seen the trailer and many clips from reviews).

There are a few recurring comments I am seeing so here is a summary.

 

·                     This is not a film to take children to even though it has a PG 13

·                     It is full of adult themed jokes.

·                     It pushes the Woke message very strongly.

·                     It is subversive in that it is jokey, colorful, fun (well sometimes) has song and dance routines, when it doesn't get ugly.

·                     It hates men especially white men.

 

What these film producers, writers and directors need to understand is that white men have a right to exist like everyone else, and they need to be treated fairly like everyone else. There are just too many avenues of Woke opening up and it’s getting past the point when we are just going to accept it all.

 

Summing up - A sickly surreal fantasy that hates the patriarchy and that is full of Woke themes. This is not a children's film, therefore protect your children from it.

 

Barbie is released at the same time as Openheimer; there is a strange meme going around please see the image used in this post. Interesting, what do you think?

 

Sound of Freedom movie

 Sound of Freedom

Why are Hollywood and the Main Stream Media so opposed to this film?

Sound of Freedom is a recently released anti-child-trafficking film directed and co-written by Alejandro Monteverde and stars Jim Caviezel as Tim Ballard. Ballard, who is a former government agent, embarks on a mission to stop sex-trafficking and rescue children from the cartels. The low budget movie has been a surprise success, even knocking the latest Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny off the top box office spot.

So why have Hollywood and the Main Stream Media (MSM) gone into melt down over this film? One would think that they would be applauding this as a bold movie sticking up on the side of innocent children, but no! The Guardian (that Woke leftie rag) called it a "QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America".  What are they talking about? The same horrid rag's Cuties review was largely supportive of that child exploitive film, so what does that tell us about the Main Stream Media and child sex-trafficking? So we ask you who are the people doing these reviews, what is their agenda? Why do they want this movie to fail so much and why are they so defensive?

Could it be that the film has a strong male lead who is fighting for justice against the cartels who are supplying children to the same woke media who are the recipients of the trafficked children? Hollywood does not want you to watch this movie; why? -  because some, perhaps many there are actually part of the child exploiting ring, they are the last link, the recipients. Their faithful MSM reviewers secretly know this and cover up for them. This is why devout Catholic, Jim Caviezel never gets the big film roles he deserves; Hollywood doesn't want good people.