Annie Hall

Not rated yet!
Director
Woody Allen
Runtime
1 h 33 min
Release Date
19 April 1977
Genres
Comedy, Drama, Romance
Overview
In the city of New York, comedian Alvy Singer falls in love with the ditsy Annie Hall.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum). 

    ( ̄^ ̄)ゞ 
(☞゚ヮ゚)☞  No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Murray N. Rothbard (a.k.a. Mr. First Nighter)4
The Mises Institute



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Arts and Movies - Vol. 10.8, August 1977

    Annie Hall, dir. by Woody Allen. With Allen and Diane Keaton.
    This is Woody Allen’s best film to date. I went to this movie on my guard because of my fellow critics’ “assurances” that Annie Hall, at long last, transcended “mere humor” to acute social significance. But don’t you believe it; Annie Hall is a constant stream of hilarious, scintillating wit. The movie is totally ethnic; it sparkles with “in” ethnic references and local references to New York. As a matter of fact, the best way to approach Annie Hall is to be a Jewish intellectual from the West Side of Manhattan. But Outlanders seem to enjoy the film, too, although one sometimes wonders how. New Yorkers will particularly enjoy Woody’s blistering rending of Los Angeles life and culture…

    Read More...

E. Michael Jones1
Fidelity Magazine



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • A Goy Guide To World History Fixed Sync Full Version | "Annie Hall" @ 2:04:08
    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff10
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • No, That's Not Creepy At All
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll $(document).ready(function() { $('.audio-video-player').mediaelementplayer();});GE takes the notion of human capital seriously.Having bet the ranch on electing President Obama (twice) and supporting ObamaCare, not the least of which through its ownership until recently of NBC and MSNBC, General Electric is now running ads promoting its healthcare software starring Hugo Weaving as the sinister Agent Smith from The Matrix.I know Agent Smith is a beloved baddie, much like Darth Vader from the Star Wars movies; as James Lileks once quipped, Smith, as portrayed by Weaving, is akin to the characters portrayed by Tony Roberts in Woody Allen's earlier, funnier movies such as Annie Hall and Play it Again, Sam -- the only non-neurotic in the film; the only character having any fun. But given how deeply GE is plugged into the Obama Gleichschaltung, that's quite an...interesting choice for GE's healthcare spokesman.Beginning around 2007, strange messages started emerging from GE and the television networks it owned at the time. First GE, which makes it's money selling, among other things, light bulbs, told us that we all needed to turn ours off, for the good of the planet. The following year, the large conglomerate got deeply into bed with first candidate and then President Obama; NBC and (particularly) MSNBC are essentially a de facto propaganda wing of the administration, to the point where the White House has emailed in "corrections," which were read on the air by the latter network.At the beginning of the Obama administration, GE CEO Jeff Immelt was appointed to the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, presumably helping to see the administration's now annual "Recovery Summer" debacle, leading near monthly "unexpected" bad economic news. Regarding Obama and Immelt, in January of 2011, Timothy P. Carney of the Washington Examiner wrote:Since his party’s November shellacking, President Obama has worked hard to show America that he is not anti-business, notably by picking General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and Chicago banker Bill Daley for prominent posts in his administration. But their selection does not mean Obama is “pro-business,” at least as the term is commonly understood. The president is no champion of open markets and free competition. His idea of being friendly to business means more government subsidies and corporate-government cooperation, both of which are mother’s milk to Immelt and Daley.Obama joined Immelt on Friday at a GE plant in Schenectady, N.Y., to announce his appointment as chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Like Obama’s pick of Daley as White House chief of staff, the selection of Immelt sparked applause from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and, in the eyes of the media, defused the Republican charge that Obama is anti-business.But the anti-business charge against Obama was always off target. “Anti-free market” was — and is still — more accurate.Immelt and Daley don’t represent a new side of Barack Obama — they represent the unhealthy collusion of Big Business and Big Government that has always been the essence of Obamanomics.Around that time, the Clarion Advisory blog asked, "Remember the outrage over Haliburton & Cheney? So where’s the outrage over GE and the Obama Administration?”I remember for much of the Bush Administration, hearing how evil it was for all the ties that Cheney had with Haliburton and how it was wrong for a company to have so much access in the White House so where did that outrage go when it comes to how cozy GE is with Obama?  It’s the same thing, actually even worse.  GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt was just named to chair new White House Economic Group after already having had a position in the White House when he served on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Funny it was evil for Cheney to have ties to Haliburton and not actually have a position at Haliburton but it’s O.K. to actually have a company chairman to chair a group in the White House and the MSM response is crickets chirping and a lot of nodding of heads?GE has gained much with this administration.  The banning of incandescent lightbulbs?  GE has got you covered with their CFLs.  Wind turbines?  GE has got you covered.  High speed rail?  GE wants that action too.  Electronic health records?  Oh yeah, GE’s Health Division is all over that.  Clean coal technology?  Check.  GE has got that too.  Smart grid?  Another check.  GE is ass deep into that!It also seems that now whenever Obama needs to highlight something economic, there’s GE always ready with some kind of news.  Just in time for China’s visit, GE announces a turbine deal, a Chinese railway deal, and a airplane deal with China.  That’s just this week.  Remember that trip to India in November?  Well looky here.  Another deal and guess who with?  GE of course!  India and GE sign power equipment deal.  The article even states that it was timed to coincide with Obama’s arrival.  How’s that for coordination?More recently, when the Obama administration decided to punish those who support the Second Amendment (concurrent with, as we're seeing now, the administration's deep antipathy towards the First Amendment), GE was happy to lend a hand. In April of this year, the Wall Street Journal is reporting, “GE Capital Cuts Off Lending to Gun Shops:”This month, Glenn Duncan, owner of Duncan’s Outdoor Store in Bay City, Mich., said he received a letter from GE Capital Retail Bank in which the lender said it had made “the difficult decision” to stop providing financing services to his store. Other gun dealers have received similar notices.GE is at least the second big financial firm to retreat from the gun business following the school shootings, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults in December.Days after the killings, private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said it would try to sell the gun company it owns—Freedom Group Inc.— which makes brands including Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin and H&R.The moves highlight how companies, closely attuned to the concerns of investors and employees, have reacted to public horror caused by the attacks, even as complicated political considerations doomed new gun-control legislation in the Congress.GE is based in Fairfield, Conn., and many of the GE’s employees live around Newtown, and several have children in the Sandy Hook elementary school, where the shootings took place. Peter Lanza, the father of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza, is an executive at GE Capital. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt held a town hall meeting with affected employees after the shooting, and the board has been updated on efforts to help staff, a person familiar with the matter said.“Industry changes, new legislation and tragic events” led GE Capital to reexamine its policies on financing firearms, spokesman Russell Wilkerson said.I think Agent Smith would approve of all of GE's actions during the past six years or so; no wonder he was chosen to be a spokesman for what is arguably America's most corporatist conglomerate. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/6/1/no-thats-not-creepy-at-all-2/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Nolte1
Daily Wire / Breitbart



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Countdown: The 165 Greatest American Movies Ever Made (66-90)
    Hud (1963) You don’t look out for yourself, the only helping hand you’ll ever get is when they lower the box. Another one of those roles Paul Newman could have easily won the Best Actor Oscar for. Here he plays one of the most despicable, amoral characters ever; a full-throated villain in the charismatic package of the perfect physical specimen that was the 38-year-old. Presented in stark, Oscar-winning widescreen black and white (gorgeously filmed by the legendary James Wong Howe), Hud is an unsparing morality tale that makes the audience just as complicit as the young man played by Brandon DeWilde. We too are at first charmed and fascinated by Hud; by his composure, his cool, his cynicism, the mistaken impression he is merely being his own man. Slowly, though, the facade is peeled away until the private hell we leave Hud to feels like justice. Oscars went to a never-sexier Patricia Neal, as the housekeeper torn apart by her attraction to Hud’s virility and potential, and the the fact that she has seen enough of life to know that his rotted core can only mean a life so miserable the sex will eventually not be worth it.  Melvyn Douglas
    ...
    (Review Source)

Millennial Woes1
Scandza Forum



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • My Entire DVD Collection [multi-parter] | Love and Death | 1:08:37 | 👎
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff2
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Dachau Blues: Applying History to Science & Science to History
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]3,124 words

    Nicholas Kollerstrom
    Breaking the Spell
    Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2014

    Dachau blues those poor jews
    Dachau blues those poor jews
    Down in Dachau blues, down in Dachau blues
    Still cryin’ ’bout the burnin’ back in world war two’s
    One mad man six million lose.

    — Captain Beefheart, “Dachau Blues” [1] 

    Blue has always been the colour with which I identify. It’s the sea, the density of a mood, solitude, the colour evoked by Marc Almond’s voice; it’s a French poem and a concentrated head of cornflowers bunching in a white vase. Blue is the color that stretches like a cat in one’s mind.

    — Jeremy Reed[2]

    Blue, blue, electric blue/That’s the colour of my room
    Where I will live/Blue, blue

    Pale blinds drawn all day/Nothing to do, nothing to say
    Blue, blue

    — David Bowie, “Sound and Vision”

    Just as Nietzsche, at the end of his sanity, only wanted to be a professor in Basel,[3] or, perhaps more modestly, just as George Costanza always wanted to be — or at least pretend to be — an architect,[4] I always wanted to have attended (note the past perfect tense) the London School of Economics [2], graduating with a M.Sc. in the Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method.[5]

    Just as Harvard was classier than MIT,[6] and Oxford classier than Harvard, the LSE topped them all by combining both class and a sleek, technocratic edge; more EU mandarin than Big Bang nerd. And, of course, philosophical study in the midst of science would cut down significantly on the bullshit factor.[7]

    But although my scholastic fantasy may have been purely subjective,[8] the hard edge I imagined philosophy having there (unlike the difficult but superficial academic twaddle of “analytic” philosophy stateside) resulted in some pretty significant work being done there, by the likes of Sir Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, and, ultimately (and admittedly to their despair)[9] the “anarchist epistemology” of ex-Luftwaffe pilot Paul K. Feyerabend.[10]

    Briefly,[11] Feyerabend insisted that the study of the history of science revealed that actual scientific progress requires a multiplicity of rival theories to generate the data that empiricism requires to test theories;[12] conversely, science stagnates during periods of theoretical conformity (such as mediaeval scholasticism, or Kuhn’s “normal science”).

    Such theoretical conformity results in what Lakatos called “degenerating research programs,” which fail to make new, confirmed predictions, and handle disconfirmations through ad hoc “auxillary hypotheses;” for example, the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy.[13]

    So imagine my delight to find this former University of London academic (close enough and we’ll look at that “former” business) employing the radical philosophy of science of Feyerabend and his mentors, Popper and Lakatos to one of my favorite areas of post-war culture distortion . . . . [T]he [H]olocaust.

    Kollerstrom, a now former professor of the history of science, had the novel idea, as explicated by James Fetzer in his Foreword (The Holocaust Narrative: Politics Trumps Science), to apply the Official Methods of Science to the claims of the Holocaust.

    Specifically, he applied the following simple experimental test to the core of The Holocaust Hypothesis:

    Hypothesis: Six million Jews were exterminated by the National Socialists.

    The method used to exterminate many if not most Jews was Zyklon B in human gas chambers.

    If Zyklon B was used, the corpses would have been a bright pink, and the walls of the chambers blue.

    There is no photographic, eye-witness, or current physical evidence of either effect.[14]

    Therefore, the Holocaust Hypothesis is false.

    Surprisingly, the reaction to his little contribution to scientific debate was rather not as he had anticipated:

    Naively, I did not apprehend that what I reckoned or hoped to be a scientific question was apparently more like a deeply religious one.

    The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II . . . This is considered absolutely forbidden. How strange is that?

    Searching for answers to this further puzzle, Kollerstrom discovers he’s stumbled into an area that can only be called a Public Religion, heresy from which is subject to social exclusion, or worse. As Andrew Hamilton wrote in another context:

    Reason and empiricism have been banished, outlawed by governments or suppressed by dominant cultural elites and institutions in a manner essentially replicative of Communism. Bizarre fantasies and cult beliefs of the most primitive sort reign in their stead.

    In particular, the history of Germany, 1933–1945, has been subsumed to the needs of a bizarre new religious cult. Its elaborate mythology . . . was constructed and imposed during the lifetimes of people who actually lived through the historical events, proving the supremacy of collective social constructions, even false ones, over the limited personal experiences of individuals. Surprised National Socialists formally accused of genocide universally responded with half-belief: “This is the first I’ve heard of it!”[15]

    In all this, Prof. Kollerstrom resembles those 9/11 skeptics who have eschewed black ops and reptiles to focus on questions of purely scientific plausibility.[16] Reflecting on how so many bodies could have been disposed of, he muses, like an engineer confronting the Towers’ collapse, that the official narrative is:

    a bizarre explanation of how they were all burned, which tends to violate known laws of physics.

    Which is pretty ironic, since while it’s no surprise that he’s a UK 9/11 sceptic, it turns out even the UK skeptics turfed him out at the first sign of “Holocaust Denial.”

    Sure, empty radar-guided planes and missiles striking the Pentagon, that’s just good solid investigative work and speaking truth to power, but ask whether the walls of the “gas chambers” show evidence of, like, actual use of cyanide gas, you know, and everyone loses their minds [3]![17]

    For all this, we have to ask: cui bono?

    Kollerstrom’s answer is: having genocidally destroyed Germany,[18] the Allies looked around and at each other and said: Well, we can’t take the fall for this.[19]

    So, by various means, including the use of torture,[20] a Holocaust Hypothesis was concocted and leveraged onto wartime propaganda to shift the blame for “the destruction of a people” to the defeated National Socialist regime.

    Now, what lifts this from a mere historical footnote is that this Hypothesis has become an all-purpose excuse for intervention everywhere to “prevent another Shoah” or “head off [literally] the next Hitler.”

    At Nuremberg the foundation was laid for a civilization based upon Horror and Untruth: horror because we were asked to believe that six million Jews were gassed for no reason whatsoever, and untruth because it never happened.[21]

    And that’s what terrifies the Powers That Be:

    People who don’t have the common sense and curiosity to ferret out the truth end up as nothing more than compliant, subservient, slaves. This is as the Ruling Class and big money special interests want it. The biggest threat to a corrupt regime is when truth moves away from the “conspiracy theory” fringes and into the mainstream.[22]

    Speaking of “moving into the mainstream,” the reader will have noted that I’m taken with this blue business. It brings to mind, at least to my mind, an appropriately Aryan archeofuturist angle to Kollerstrom’s project:

    The permanence of the ferrocyanide bond carries with memory of what happened seventy years ago. We here seek to remember what happened then.

    As the cyanide percolated through those walls, sixty years ago, our truth percolates through the solid walls of establishment Denial.

    Two can play the “never forget” game.[23] As Kollerstrom sums up the situation:

    What is here going on is a Clash between Science, which represents the human capacity of rational thought, and religion, whereby a high priesthood decrees what the people have to believe and threaten and “excommunicate” those who will not bow down.

    All of which connects up with another of Feyerabend’s themes: since Science will use the State to enforce orthodoxy, and the State will have its own reasons to do so,

    The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.[24]

    Thus, Feyerabend supported the right of American parents in the ’80s to exempt their children from being taught dogmatic Darwinism in the name of “science,” since all theories, even ones as apparently “stupid” as Creationism, are capable of producing the data needed for rigorous testing of even — or especially — the most accepted hypotheses.

    If you don’t like standing alongside creationists, and for more modern instances, consider IQ:

    If neo-Stalinism wins the battle by shutting down research on the genetics of IQ — and especially the science of race differences in IQ, that will represent the victory of politics over science, of language over legitimate research.[25]

    Or, perhaps, childhood vaccination raises your Federalist or Distributist hackles:

    No less a champion of government in your face than Hillary Clinton jumped into this debate with a whacky Tweet that argued that because the Earth is round and the sky is blue and science is right, all kids should be vaccinated. What she was really saying is that in her progressive worldview, the coercive power of the federal government can be used to enforce a scientific orthodoxy upon those states and individuals who intellectually reject it.[26]

    Four Appendices discuss the “Hoefle Telegram,” the “Tall Tales” of Elie Wiesel and others, a dryly humorous recitation of the all the crimes attributed to NS Germany (from a “pedal-driven brain-bashing machine” to head-shrinking and compulsory violin-playing), and a compendium of EU and UN laws relating to Holocaust speech.

    The Bibliography presents a guide to the Essential Books (there’s only seven, so feel free to master the literature!) as well as Carlo Mattogno’s “technical studies” of the various camps, British Intelligence decrypts, the three volume report compiled by the International Red Cross (before the appearance of the Holocaust story), and even a guide to searching of the online transcript of the Nuremberg proceedings.

    Kollerstrom suggests, perhaps facetiously, that readers might consider putting a brown paper cover on the book (which actually would draw more attention, I would think) or else using the Kindle. Those taking the latter course will appreciate that the kindle is well-formatted, including the all-important linking of text to endnotes. There is also an index, apparently based on the print edition, which, the entries not being linked, does not really supplant the use of the “search” function.

    Trying to suggest where Coleman Francis had gone wrong in filming his brilliant notion of combining aviation and adultery, The Skydivers, one critic suggested that “Instead of having the actors do their own skydiving, he had the skydivers do their own acting.” In the same spirit, I could say that as a science writer, Kollerstrom’s talents lie on the science end of the spectrum. Despite a superficial appearance of organization, the actual text is often vague and meandering, leaving the reader unsure of the significance or of where this is going. He also tends to overuse common metaphors, like “breaking the spell,” as if he were proud of having discovered them.[27]

    But these are superficial criticisms, in the face of the amount, and importance, of the factual information offered here. Literary flaws don’t really matter since Kollerstrom isn’t doing literary writing, or even, in the end, science writing. To avert back to the spell breaking metaphor,[28] he’s conducting a counter-spell, turning the Elite’s magic — science — back on themselves. As Williams S. Burroughs wrote, in the voice of Hassan i-Sabbah:

    Boards Syndicates Governments of the earth Pay – Pay back the Color you stole –

    Pay Blue – Pay back the blue you stole and bottled and doled out in eye droppers of junk – Pay back the blue you stole for your police uniforms – Pay that blue back to sea and sky and eyes of the earth –

    Not the ovens . . .[29]

    This book would make an excellent start for someone new to the “revisionist” idea, since it introduces a new, simple, entirely scientific argument against the official story, while also providing a guide to further research. And purchase, of course, will be a show of solidarity with another martyr to Liberal Orthodoxy.

    Notes

    [1]  “Dachau Blues,” Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band, Trout Mask Replica (Straight/Reprise, 1969).

    [2] Bitter Blue: Tranquilizers, Creativity, Breakdown (London: Peter Owen, 1995), p. 14.

    [3] “In the end, I would much rather be a Basel professor than God.” Letter of January 6, 1889 to his mentor at the University of Basel, Jacob Burckhardt.

    [4] “George: Why couldn’t you have made me an architect? You know I always wanted to pretend that I was an architect.” – Seinfeld, “The Marine Biologist” (1994).

    [5] Despite its name, even in its extended form (London School of Economics and Political Science), the LSE like most fancy schools, offers a degree program in Philosophy, Politics and Economics ( or some variation on the phrase — PPE, PEP, etc., like the variations on “Peace on Earth/Purity of Essence” (POE, EOP, etc.) that Capt. Mandrake tries out to find the recall code in Dr. Strangelove.

    [6] In terms of The Big Bang Theory, Wolowitz is uncool not because he has “only” an M. Eng., but because it’s from MIT.

    [7] Above the gate of Plato’s academy, a sign read “Let no one enter who doesn’t know geometry.” Oxbridge and Harvard did the same thing by requiring that philosophy be studied in the context of classical languages (which of course Plato had taken for granted; barbarians (those non-Greeks whose speech was just “bar, bar” need not apply). Cf.: “Mathematical studies were scarcely ever “supervised” ideologically in the Soviet Union, as even the omniscient high priests of Marxism did not pretend to understand them; consequently, standards were upheld and Russian mathematical science was saved from temporary destruction. (Leszek Kołakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: Vol. III, The Breakdown [Oxford,1978]; “Marxism as the ideology of the Soviet state,” p. 102 )

    [8] “He imagined himself doing picturesque things in a picturesque manner” says a classmate, mocking Fr. Rolfe/Baron Corvo’s claim to have had a vocation to the priesthood. See A. J. A. Symons, The Quest for Corvo: An Experiment in Biography (1935; London: Folio Society, 1992) and my “E-Caviar for the Masses!” here [4].

    [9] “I heard what you were saying. You — you know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy [sic] is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.”– Marshall McLuhan, Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977); for my meditation on McLuhan’s odd wording see my blog post “You Mean My Whole Fallacy Is Wrong!” here [5].

    [10] Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (London: Verso, 1975). 4th ed., with introduction by Ian Hacking, New York: Verso Books, 2010.

    [11] James Fetzer gives an excellent concise account in his Foreword.

    [12] Since all so-called “data” are actually determined by theories (“theory-laden”) only rival theories can produce rival data.

    [13] To anticipate, “Holocaust Studies” is such a degenerating research program; for example, the “dean” of such “scholars,” Raul Hilberg, has explained the absence of any documentary or eye-witness evidence for an extermination plan by invoking the otherwise unknown idea of “bureaucratic telepathy.” Indeed, the very core of the theory of the Holocaust is a textbook example of an ad hoc hypothesis, described by Kollerstrom as, “An especial and unique weapon of mass destruction was used: one which did not exist before the war, nor after the war, but only during it.”

    [14] Apparently, as no one had thought of this test being used, no one thought to manufacture evidence of the expected result. Similar embarrassing lacuna occur in the early Holocaust narratives, such as the use of electrocution, geysers of blood, etc. As a side note, the walls of the delousing chambers are bright blue.

    [15] Andrew Hamilton, “Alfred Rosenberg in Translation,” here [6]. That the total lack of awareness, apparently genuine surprise, not merely obstinate denial, of every defendant at Nuremberg, to say nothing of the complete lack of any documentary proof — orders, manifests, what have you — could be accounted for by postulating “denial” or “cover-up” is a paradigm example of an ad hoc hypothesis in defense of a degenerating research program.

    [16] Such as, obviously, Physicists and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    [17] “In a ‘free’ society we can’t suppress dangerous truths altogether. So we have to be immunized against them. That’s why Hollywood lets dangerous truths appear on screen, but only in the mouths of monsters: Derek Vinyard in American History X, Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York [7], Ra’s al Ghul in Batman Begins, the Joker in The Dark Knight, etc.” — Trevor Lynch reviews The Dark Knight, here [8] and in Trevor Lynch’s White Nationalist Guide to the Movies (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2012).

    [18] The real Holocaust (which of course means, as Kollerman points out, massive buring, not gassing) happened to the German people. Hellstorm by Tom Goodrich, details all their appalling torture, enslavement and mass murder at the end and after the Second World War. See J. A. Sexton’s review here [9].

    [19] Neocons and Iraq, anyone?

    [20] Is it any surprise that today’s JudeoCons are the leading cheerleaders for torture, both for “national security” here and to fabricate “evidence” for interventions abroad? See “Senate report finds CIA torture produced ‘fabricated’ intel and thwarted no plots; After waterboarding, 9/11 mastermind told interrogators what ‘he thought they wanted to hear’” by Michael Isikoff (December 9, 2014) here [10]; and for the case of Alan Dershowitz, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History by Norman Finkelstein (University of California, 2005).

    [21] Literally as I write these words, O’Reilly is ranting about Nazis, and last Tuesday Bibi Netanyahoo has demanded that his pocket politicians (“our” legislators) listen to his harangue on the topic of Iran delenda est.

    [22] “Gallup CEO: America’s Unemployment Rate is One Big Lie,” here [11].

    [23] See my review of Timur Vermes’ Look Who’s Back, here [12].

    [24] Feyerabend, op. cit., p.295.

    [25] “The Sharks of Marx: Science vs Censorship;” February 4, 2015 by Tobias Langdon http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/02/the-sharks-of-marx-science-vs-censorship/ [13].

    [26] “To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate? [14] Judge Joseph Napolitano, Town Hall, February 05, 2015. Remember, as Trevor Lynch said, “In a “free” society we can’t suppress dangerous truths altogether. So we have to be immunized against them.”

    [27] “Award-winning” translator Joachim Neugroschel suggest that one difference between American and British prose style is that American’s eschew what they perceive as “clichés” while Brits welcome them as “idioms,” reliable, tried and true; see his Introduction to Mann’s Death in Venice and other Tales (London: Penguin, 1999).

    [28] Ever notice how obsessed filmmakers are with the whole “breaking the German code” trope, which rivals, or rather, supplements, the Holocaust obsession? Projection, much? Or mis-direction: these are the codes you should be looking at. . . .”

    [29] Nova Express. You can listen to his last words in multiple languages here [15]. For more on Burroughs, magic, and counter-spells, see my review of The Magical World of William S. Burroughs, here [16].

     

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Weekly Standard Staff1
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Louis and Woody
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ...
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema2
Soiled Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Hôtel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    When most people hear the word Barbie they think of a plastic blond doll with all the right curves. Unfortunately, most people do not ordi...
    ...
    (Review Source)

The American Conservative Staff1
The American Conservative



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Social Change Didn't Kill the Romantic Comedy
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    It feels like at least once a year, someone writes an article wondering what happened to the romantic comedy, and why we don’t make ’em like we used to. And usually, that article concludes that social change is a primary culprit. Thanks to the upending of hoary class and race divisions, thanks to feminism, thanks to the sexual revolution, there are no longer any plausible obstacles – class or racial difference, family disapproval, etc. – to put in the path of true love. And without obstacles to triumph over, there’s no story. So the romantic comedy as a genre must go to ever more absurd lengths to gin up said obstacles. Moreover, since Jack and Jill can plausibly sleep together from the moment they meet, there’s no sexual “payoff” to the central question of the movie, no “will they or won’t they.” So, again, romantic comedies have to resort to ever more elaborate explanations for why two people won’t sleep together, or lumber along a polymorphously perverse landscape in which the “payoff” is whether two people will . . . decide to have less sex with other people than with each other? Share a checking account? You see the problem. For a recent example of this kind of argument, see here. And the argument is wrong. The golden age of the cinematic romantic comedy was pretty much 1940, the year that (give or take a few months) gave us “The Philadelphia Story” and “The Lady Eve” and “His Girl Friday.” So what are these stories about? What are the obstacles to getting boy and girl together? In “The Philadelphia Story,” Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant divorce at the start of the movie, and the plot is about getting them back together. The external obstacle is that Hepburn is engaged to marry another guy – as it happens, a less socially-suitable match for her than Grant was. She’s no virgin, he’s no virgin, and the resolution hinges on her realizing just the degree to which her new fiancee prizes a kind of ersatz virginity in her, which clinches her decision to throw him over. So much for the need for social obstacles, or for sex to be the payoff. In “The Lady Eve,” the obstacle to Barbara Stanwyck getting together with Henry Fonda is that she’s a con artist in the process of taking him for a ride. Which is about as high-concept as the most ludicrous devices of today’s Hollywood – and yet, it works beautifully because as a metaphor for one approach to love and romance it’s enormously resonant. Meanwhile, the plot requires Stanwyck to seduce Fonda a second time, pretending to be a perfect lookalike for herself, just so she can dump him. This is precisely as plausible as nobody seeing through Viola’s or Rosalind’s disguises as men in Shakespeare’s classic romantic comedies – that is to say, completely and totally implausible, and it doesn’t matter a whit. So much for absurd obstacles being a problem. “His Girl Friday,” meanwhile, is another “comedy of remarriage,” (and, like “The Philadelphia Story,” another one involving Cary Grant). Grant and Rosalind Russell were married before, she wised up and left him, and now has found a better match – and he’s going to win her back by . . . getting her to report on a death penalty case for him. Because, you see, the way to a woman’s heart is through her typewriter. So much for the idea that feminism ruined the romantic comedy. I could go on. What’s the obstacle in “Roman Holiday?” Audrey Hepburn is a literal princess, and this is her last (and only) adventure before settling down to her proper role in society. No sexual payoff – heck, no happy ending! Wonderful movie. What’s the obstacle in “Annie Hall?” That . . . well, that . . . gee, the only obstacle is that Alvy Singer is Woody Allen, who’s not somebody you’d want to spend your life with. So he loses the girl, in the end. (Which means maybe that one does have a happy ending.) What’s the obstacle in “The Princess Bride?” The male lover is dead! Well, mostly dead. But that’s no obstacle to true love! The only way to make the supposed formula – which essentially none of the great romantic comedies follow – work is to parody it by exaggeration. Which still works – brilliantly. The most common obstacle in a romantic comedy remains as plausible as it ever was: one of the parties is already engaged to somebody else. If you really want to up the ante, have both parties be already married to other people – and also previously married to each other – and then contrive to have the two exes run off with each other while on their honeymoons with their new spouses. Note the date on that decadent scenario. The point is, a romantic comedy is about being forced, by circumstance, to learn who you are supposed to be with, and stay with, and choosing that person. You don’t really need any proper obstacles at all. Ever see “Oklahoma?” What, precisely, makes Laurey spurn Curly, and even consider Jud Fry, even for an instant? Her reluctance to choose her obvious intended is entirely – entirely – due to the fact that Curly seems so sure she will be his he doesn’t even need to ask her. How, exactly, has social change made that particular obstacle obsolete? The genre that has obsolesced is not romantic comedy but romantic tragedy. Romeo and Juliet is tough to update. You could set it in a community where you still have arranged marriages and honor killings. Or you could turn the “families” into rival mafia clans, or into warring ethnic groups. But all this does is displace the heart of the tragedy away from the lovers and onto the larger society. At the end of Romeo and Juliet, you think, “gosh, the way you fall in love as a teenager – it’s never really that powerful again, is it? – powerful enough to kill you?” You don’t think “feuding is so terrible – look how it ruined the lives of these two lovely kids. There oughta be a law.” But a version of the latter is precisely what you think at the end of West Side Story – among other thing, because Maria – not some second-string prince, but the romantic lead – tells you that’s what you’re supposed to think. So why do romantic comedies suck? Well, do they? On the way home from a trip recently, the in-flight movie was “Pitch Perfect.” Now, “Pitch Perfect” is no “His Girl Friday.” It’s a story about rival groups of a cappella singers. The girl group needs to get their act together to finally win the big national sing-off, which means the new “alt chick” brunette and the controlling blonde holding the pitch pipe will have to learn to put aside their petty differences in the interests of general awesomeness. But the subplot is a romantic comedy. Alt chick needs to wake up and realize that the earnest guy from the guys’ a cappella group who’s been wooing her hard the whole film is, like, a great guy for her. Which is completely obvious – but her resistance is also completely plausible because it has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with her and what else is going on in her life. Again, it’s not a great movie, and the romantic comedy subplot is pretty paint-by-numbers. But it works just fine. It doesn’t make you cringe. It isn’t “obsolete.” The romantic comedies that suck are the ones that adhere to a formula that none of the great romantic comedies of yore followed. They try to make both protagonists as “relatable” as possible by making them into everymen and everywomen – thereby depriving them of any interest. They focus overwhelmingly on the romance, treating the rest of the universe as so much “business” for low comedy, rather than exploring other themes that might reflect productively on the romance at the center. And they gin up artificial external obstacles instead of persuasive, character-driven internal ones. But these kinds of flaws bedevil movies in general. And even some classics suffer from them. Have you seen “An Affair to Remember” lately? That’s the movie that nobody will shut up about in “Sleepless in Seattle.” And it’s, well, it’s kind of irretrievably camp. (Don’t take my word for it; I’m a man. Go ask my wife. She’ll tell you.) It’s particularly funny that we’d be talking – again – about the death of the romantic comedy the year that “Silver Linings Playbook” – a romantic comedy – got nominated for just about every possible Oscar (and the romantic lead, Jennifer Lawrence, won for Best Actress). “Silver Linings Playbook” is an interesting movie to read as a commentary on the romantic comedy genre. Remember this story from The Onion?: Denny Marzano, a 28-year-old Torrance man, was arrested Monday for engaging in the type of behavior found in romantic comedies. Marzano was taken into custody after violating a restraining order filed against him by Kellie Hamilton, 25, an attractive, unmarried kindergarten teacher who is new to the L.A. area. According to Hamilton, Marzano has stalked her for the past two months, spying on her, tapping her phone, serenading her with The Carpenters’ “Close To You” at her place of employment, and tricking her into boarding Caribbean-bound jets. Well, that’s the kind of crazy stuff that the Bradley Cooper character might think was a good idea as a way to get his ex-wife back. Indeed, he does stalk her, does flirt with violating the restraining order. Because he’s crazy. In a sense, his arc in the film is precisely learning that his devotion to a particular narrative form – in his case, the comedy of remarriage – was a species of insanity.  (Compare with, say, “There’s Something About Mary,” where the insanity of romantic comedy tropes is much more comprehensively lampooned, but our hero gets the girl he’s been acting crazy about anyway, in spite of his participation in those tropes.) Only after he realizes this can he be open to the possibility of new love, with somebody more appropriate (because she’s also nuts). Lawrence’s character, meanwhile, has been called the first clinically manic pixie dream girl, but in fact her whole (absurd) dance competition scheme is the opposite of the sort of “loosen him up” strategy that the MPDG usually employs. She’s humoring him, because he needs a “plan” to get his wife back. And, meanwhile, that plan will give her ample opportunity to show him just how desirable she is. There are a lot of ways I could criticize the film, but the point is, the best evidence the romantic comedy isn’t dead is the existence of a film like this – again, not in the same league as “His Girl Friday,” but hardly the kind of film that would lead one to question the viability of the genre. Most movies most of the time are terrible. They were mostly terrible in 1940. If you want to make a great romantic comedy today, go back to the great comedies of 1940 and ask why they worked. It isn’t because there were arranged marriages (there were none) and it isn’t because women couldn’t get a divorce (all the female protagonists of the movies I cited are or get divorced) or couldn’t have sex (no virgins in evidence – though I don’t mean to suggest that virginity is an obstacle to a successful romantic comedy; far from it). They work because they go internal, into character, to find both the conflict and its resolution, and they work because they don’t isolate the world of romantic love from the rest of the social universe. That’s a formula that will never be obsolete. Because it isn’t a formula at all. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith1
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Sony Pictures Classics Nears Fake Milestone
    (”Annie Hall” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The ever-obliging press raves, “Sony Pictures Classics is nearing a real milestone with ‘Midnight in Paris.’!” Er, no it isn’t. “Midnight in Paris” is about to earn more dollars than any other Woody Allen movie. But so what? Those dollars are worth less and less. Saying “Midnight” is about to set a record is like saying a baseball slugger is about to set a home run record in an era when they move the fences in five feet every year. “Midnight” is going to gross maybe $42 or $45 million in its entire run. “Annie Hall” grossed $38.3 million — in 1977. That’s the equivalent of $143 million today. “Midnight in Paris” is nowhere near being Woody Allen’s biggest hit. Why does SPC care? Because they want to be able to run print and (later) DVD ads proclaiming that this is Woody Allen’s biggest hit ever. In other words, they want to have an excuse to blow some money proclaiming their own marketing genius. The movie hasn’t even broken even yet.]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail