Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

Not rated yet!
Director
Larry Charles
Runtime
1 h 22 min
Release Date
1 November 2006
Genres
Comedy
Overview
Kazakh journalist Borat Sagdiyev travels to America to make a documentary. As he zigzags across the nation, Borat meets real people in real situations with hysterical consequences. His backwards behavior generates strong reactions around him exposing prejudices and hypocrisies in American culture.
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!  
PJ Media Staff3
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno: He's No Borat
    PJ Media Every lightning bolt Sacha Baron Cohen caught in a bottle with Borat three years ago turns to static in Bruno.The new film, which backstrokes into theaters on a tidal wave of publicity over its coarse material, proves just how rare a cinematic feat was Baron Cohen's breakthrough role .Borat blended scripted sequences with Candid Camera-style pranks into one hilarious romp across America. Bruno attempts the same formula, but the staged sequences fall pancake flat while the Punk'd moments feel equally hollow.For the uninitiated, Bruno is Baron Cohen's gay Austrian fashionista, an irrepressible elf desperate for fame and fortune. His media platform, the Austrian show Funkyzeit, gets canceled after Bruno disrupts a Milan fashion show with his Velcro ensemble. Crushed, he cheers himself up by deciding to come to America to become "the biggest gay movie star since Schwarzenegger," an unfunny line that doesn't even make sense. He hooks up with a talent agent, shoots his own television pilot, and invites Paula Abdul to be interviewed while sitting on the backs of Mexican immigrant workers.Laughing yet?Bruno frontloads the gay sexual hijinks, which deadens their ability to shock us while showing how precious little new material Cohen cooked up for round two. The sexual gags are the only ones that work, but you'll feel more than a little dirty chuckling in your seat.It's also a mean-spirited affair, especially when Bruno makes a sexual pass at former presidential candidate Ron Paul.Yes, the film is relentlessly shocking but rarely in a clever or inspired way. Stay through the entire 82 minutes and you will be treated to the site of an undulating erect penis, more simulated gay sex than the entire run of Showtime's Queer as Folk, a black baby pinned to the cross a la Jesus, and an anal bleaching segment for good measure. Oh, and a guest on Bruno's show describes Jamie Lynn Spears' baby as "white trash" and suggests aborting it.Real or staged? Who knows. Unfunny? Yup. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/blog/sacha-baron-cohens-bruno-hes-no-borat/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 5 Actors with Careers That Are Collapsing
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle  Even in Hollywood, you have to deliver results if you want to remain employed. Every year stars fall off the A-list -- ask circa 2009 Nicolas Cage about that -- and find themselves in a shame spiral of B-movies, supporting roles, and eventually television (sorry, Robin Williams, who will be appearing in the CBS sitcom The Crazy Ones, and as the dad, no less). Who is about to fall off the top of the perch? var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Magnolia - Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 1. Tom CruiseThe success of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol less than two years ago gave his stock a bump, but apparently it was the stunts that were the star of that movie. In the three consecutive flops he’s made since -- Rock of Ages, Jack Reacher and the aptly-named Oblivion -- audiences didn’t even show up on opening weekend out of curiosity. Before Protocol, don’t forget, no one showed up for Knight and Day, Valkyrie or Lions for Lambs, either. Cruise is 51 years old, his boyish charm is finally gone, and he isn’t an action hero anymore. Audiences see him as their weird dad. He should give up on trying to rule the multiplex and start nosing around for more interesting roles like the one he had in Magnolia. Not that he’s fond of Paul Thomas Anderson anymore after Anderson made fun of scientology in The Master.Next up: Fighting aliens next summer in All You Need Is Kill. Sure. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/4/5/5-actors-with-careers-that-are-collapsing/ previous Page 1 of 5 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • 5 Movie Stars Whose Careers Are in Trouble
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Even in Hollywood, you have to deliver results if you want to remain employed. Every year stars fall off the A-list -- ask circa 2009 Nicolas Cage about that -- and find themselves in a shame spiral of B-movies, supporting roles, and eventually television (sorry, Robin Williams, who will be appearing in the CBS sitcom The Crazy Ones, and as the dad, no less). Who is about to fall off the top of the perch? var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'Magnolia - Trailer', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 1. Tom CruiseThe success of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol less than two years ago gave his stock a bump, but apparently it was the stunts that were the star of that movie. In the three consecutive flops he’s made since -- Rock of Ages, Jack Reacher and the aptly-named Oblivion -- audiences didn’t even show up on opening weekend out of curiosity. Before Protocol, don’t forget, no one showed up for Knight and Day, Valkyrie or Lions for Lambs, either. Cruise is 51 years old, his boyish charm is finally gone, and he isn’t an action hero anymore. Audiences see him as their weird dad. He should give up on trying to rule the multiplex and start nosing around for more interesting roles like the one he had in Magnolia. Not that he’s fond of Paul Thomas Anderson anymore after Anderson made fun of scientology in The Master.Next up: Fighting aliens next summer in All You Need Is Kill. Sure. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/7/12/5-movie-stars-whose-careers-are-in-trouble/ previous Page 1 of 5 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff1
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Donald Trump Is Fixin' To Make The Ricky Bobby Presidency
    After watching Donald Trump’s first “thank you” rally in Ohio on December 1, I did what any smug Republican now does: turned on MSNBC. The perpetually peeved Christopher Hayes looked like he had just eaten a batch of foul oysters. His face was ashen as he stammered to spin what he had just witnessed, which was perhaps the most hilarious in-your-face-mo-fo victory lap in presidential history. Trump’s subsequent “thank you” rallies—which seemed more like “thank me” rallies—were just as audacious, with lots of references to his big-league win and all the losers who can eat his dust, from his vanquished opponent to his enfeebled enemies (primarily the media). Then it dawned on me: This is like watching the fictional character Ricky Bobby win the election. The only thing missing was Trump saying, “I’m just a big hairy American winning machine…if you ain’t first, you’re last!” Will this be the presidency of Ricky Bobby? In the 2006 movie “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby,” Will Farrell plays a brash, America-lovin’ NASCAR driver who unapologetically flaunts all the perks of fame, from a “red hot smokin’ wife” to his mansion to celebrity endorsements (if you haven’t seen it, cue it up on Nextflix for some laughs. Amy Adams, Jane Lynch, Gary Cole, and John C. Reilly are in it, too). Life Imitates ‘Art’ Like Trump, Ricky’s fans love his shoot-from-the-lip, self-congratulatory style. They swarm him wherever he goes and he autographs anything from babies to breasts. Stadiums are filled to the rafters with cheering admirers eager for the next victory or malaprop to the media. He gives the middle finger to his competitors. His emotional outbursts are in defense of America, winning, money, or fame. Trade in the jumpsuit and racing helmet for a red tie and hair helmet and voila!—life imitates art, or at least a really funny movie. There are several LOL scenes in the movie, but one sticks out as particularly Trumpian: the family dinner. Ricky is seated at the dinner table, which is filled with Domino’s pizza, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Taco Bell, ready to say grace. The prayer becomes a non-sequitur stream of random thoughts from arguing about which Jesus to pray to—“Look, I like the baby version the best, do you hear me? I win the races and I get the money!”—to praising himself—“We just thank you for all the races I’ve won and for the twenty-one-point-two-million-dollars, whoot!” Ricky congratulates his two sons for being winners—“They’re winners, they get to do what they want!”—and ends the meal by making out with his wife on top of the table. Ricky’s antagonist is Jean Girard, a gay French race car driver played by Sacha Baron Cohen of “Borat” fame. His character could represent any one of Trump’s elite enemies from the media to academia to Euro globalist snobs. At one point, Ricky Bobby bumps into Girard during a race—“Hey, it’s me, America!”—and forces Girard to spill the macchiato he’s drinking in the car. Ricky’s other problem is the stuffy, uptight owner of Ricky’s racing team (he inherited it) who can only be compared to conservatives who hate Trump’s style but are stuck with him because he’s a winner. Real-Life Soundbites From the Movie Are we about to embark on a Donald J. Ricky Bobby Trump administration? Despite a gracious, magnanimous acceptance speech on November 9, Trump’s actions since Election Day signal more NASCAR driver than cautious diplomat (or weekend golfer). He’s run over everyone from flag burners to a Vanity Fair editor to the drone-stealing Chinese to the “Saturday Night Live” cast. Some of Trump’s recent comments and tweets sound like soundbites from the movie. During a post-election rally in Wisconsin on December 13, Trump told a raucous crowd that “We like people that win…we wanna start winning again…our country has to start winning again, okay?” In a tweet on December 27, he took credit for December’s consumer confidence level, “…THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald!” Trump spoke to the media on the steps of Mar A Lago on December 28 with boxing promoter Don King, who was holding huge American flag, then wished everyone a happy new year on December 31, “including my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do.” In the past week, Trump has blasted his predecessor Barack Obama, who looks like he’s trying a lil’ bump and run in his final lap as president. After weeks of subtle and non-so-subtle jabs from Obama and his spokesweasel Josh Earnest, Trump hit back. He mocked Obama for losing swing states he had personally campaigned in, and then this: “Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks. Thought it was going to be a smooth transition – NOT!” he tweeted on December 28. I mean, c’mon. Not even the best Hollywood screenwriter could make up this material. The Left’s unhinged post-election reaction will only embolden a Ricky-Bobbyish President Trump. Even some Republicans who opposed Trump seem to be coming along, eager for him to challenge the losers, the whiners, the crybabies, and the capitulators. So start your engines, January 20, 2017 is almost here. As Ricky Bobby would say, it’s time to shake and bake. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton5
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • I can fantasize, can’t I?
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    I can fantasize, can’t I?

    “Academy Award Nominee Borat”?

    Too much to hope for? Maybe not after last night, when Sacha Baron Cohen won the Golden Globe for Best Actor. Admittedly it was the comedy/musical category and Academy voters are notorious for insensitivity to comedy, particularly of a style as aggressively and determinedly lowbrow as BORAT. While the Golden Globe win is not nothing, I’m only 50-50 that Cohen will even get nominated (and he has no chance of winning … I’m no Alex Fung, circa 2000, but Forrest Whitaker looks to be in a “Dead Girl or Live Boy” situation).

    Cohen might get completely passed over, partly as I say because BORAT is a comedy, but also partly because the aesthetically-conservative Academy voters might not even consider BORAT a movie, but rather a gonzo reality-TV episode or a kind of documentary; JACKASS with a fake foreign accent. Admittedly, BORAT does resemble a very long (and very very funny) CANDID CAMERA episode and is one more example of the disintegrating division between documentary and fiction. But I don’t there can be any real question that what Cohen does in it should be called “acting.” He’s not a Kazakh journalist. If Cohen “breaks character” as Borat onscreen, the whole schtick becomes an offensive effort at giving offense (I now realize this is largely why I so despised the first JACKASS movie). In my opinion, BORAT didn’t even feature Cohen’s best 2006 performance — that would be his scene-stealing supporting performance in TALLADEGA NIGHTS, though I plan on voting for both performances in a certain movie-nerd poll. Still, no matter what … Cohen stole the whole Golden Globes show with his acceptance speech here.

    I was listening closely, trying to write down the best quote lines live for our paper’s Golden Globes story, while trying to keep a straight face while mentally censoring for “what can be printed in a daily newspaper,” while Cohen is bringing down the house, both in Hollywood and in Washington. My favorite line not in the paper: his walkoff when he thanks every American who hasn’t sued him.

    On reflection, I also think that part of the reason for the Golden Globe is admiration for everything that happened during the fall runup to the release of BORAT, which all that became part of the movie. With the exception of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, I can’t think of a movie that wasn’t obviously a commercial hit but was so successfully “sold” by the single-handed efforts of one man. DA ALI G SHOW was a cult-hit at best, but Cohen did a superb job of “building buzz” (the premiere at Toronto, Cohen staying in character for interviews for months, visiting the White House, baiting the Kazakh government, and so on — creating buzz for his own movie. It was the classic “little film that could,” entirely on Cohen’s back.

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    January 16, 2007 - Posted by | Actors, Golden Globes, Sacha Baron Cohen

    No comments yet.

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Zeit fur Funkyzeit
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Zeit fur Funkyzeit

    To quote G-Money: “We’ll be seeing a lot more of these.

    Sacha Baron Cohen is working on a BORAT sequel, based on Bruno, a garishly gay Austrian fashionista who is the only one of Cohen’s three principal characters who hasn’t had a movie yet (Ali G had a British-made film ALI G INDAHOUSE that went straight to video in the US). And some MMA fans reportedly were not amused as a supposed fight turned into a gay sex scene. Nor was a Dallas-area audience last month, lured out for a talk-show that turned into public gay passes and a 2-year-old “gay baby.”

    Now, I happen to think that several of DA ALI G SHOW’s funniest bits were Bruno’s (“in or aus: keep em in the ghetto or send em to Auschwitz?”; “Say hello to Austria Gay TV”; the rope line; the two fashionistas critiquing per Bruno’s “offscreen” cues). But I also think he had the worst moment in any of them, and it was cringeworthy in ways that mean these two reports are suggestive of the direction the film is going in.

    This scene is neither sufficiently outrageous nor sufficiently appalling (like Borat putting his waste in a Ziploc bag) to be inherently funny. Part of the reason is that Borat and Bruno are different characters. When a Borat sequel was signed, the Defamer story had the headline “Universal Bets $42 Million That Sacha Baron Cohen Can Continue To Taunt Middle America With Naive-Foreigner Characters.” That is exactly backwards. Borat is naive and so people do go and should go to great lengths to accommodate him, which can become hilarious. But Bruno is nothing if not a sophisticated urbanite, sensitive to the cues of social life at the center of the world.

    And there is no possible point about supposed “homophobia.” I don’t happen to think that man Jim did anything to deserve what Bruno was doing to him. Nor do I think seriously-based disagreement with me on that point is possible, except under the premise that being neither gay nor freely bisexual is some sort of crime, morally or legally (and AFAIK it isn’t, for now anyway). Jim just wanted to go dancing himself, and if he were anti-gay in any seriously blameworthy sense (and yes there is such a thing), then he would have refused to teach the steps to another man. But still, Bruno keeps coming onto him, repeatedly, after reasonable indications he should lay off. Anger at someone not taking a hint does not become “homophobia” merely because the person not taking the hint is a homosexual.

    If the reports from at least Arkansas are accurate, those fans were not engaged in “homophobia” either, but righteous anger over having been cheated and made to watch something they probably would rather not and definitely did not pay for. They paid to see some fights, not public sex. There’s always and everywhere an implicit right to truthful advertising, and it would be just as violated if the video box in the adults-only section for “Best of Randy Longhorn” contained the disc for “Best of Matt Hughes.” I simply have no sympathy for goaders and baiters, and I think they deserve the reactions they get, even the violent ones. But if BRUNO turns out to go where it seems to be headed, we can only conclude that “gay-baiting” has changed its socially acceptable form from “baiting of gays” to “baiting by gays.”

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    July 15, 2008 - Posted by | Homosexuality, Sacha Baron Cohen

    No comments yet.

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff1
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

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

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Look Who’s Back
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]2,303 words

    I do not go to the cinema all that often, but I do occasionally like to dip my toe into the global Zeitgeist being promoted by Hollywood or, less often, more or less liberal and state-subsidized European cinema.

    I most recently went to see Germany’s fascinating Hitler comedy Look Who’s Back [2](Er Ist Wieder Da), based on the best-selling book by Timur Vermes, in which the Führer miraculously reappears in modern-day Germany and, with people assuming he is a brilliant method actor, becomes a major television personality. I had been somewhat apprehensive prior to seeing the film but, in fact, was not disappointed. I recommend everyone, be they liberal lemming or nationalist dissident, to see this movie.

    In our world, Hitler is effectively the “Satan” of the globalist civil religion which is hegemonic in the West. We have been conditioned to have a Pavlovian reaction of horror to anything to do with Hitler and, what’s more, nationalists in general are ostracized and persecuted through association with Nazism (regardless of whether there is any actual association). Thus any genuine popular or elite engagement with the former German Chancellor is an important cultural event. The streets of Berlin were recently plastered with the (actor) Hitler’s face again, perhaps the first time this has happened since the war.

    The film has attracted a fairly high number of movie-goers in Germany itself. According to the Hollywood Reporter:

    The biggest surprise of the year [in Germany], however, was another German comedy: Look Who’s Back. David Wnendt’s adaptation of the best-selling satirical novel by Timur Vermes could have been a disaster. The plot has Adolf Hitler waking up, alive, unrepentant, and unchanged, in modern-day Berlin. Instead, it delivered both laughs and rave word-of-mouth (if mixed reviews), and earned more than $21 million.[1]

    (This was however considerably less than earned by a large selection of cultural junk food: Star Wars VII with $27.3 million in 2015 alone, Fifty Shades of Grey with $42 million, and Jurassic World with $48 million.)

    What does Look Who’s Back actually offer? Ostensibly, this is a smugly left-liberal film in the Daily Show mold. Hitler comes back. He goes on TV and rants against degeneracy. The people love him. Those who realize this might be the real Hitler and try to stop him are sent packing. Moral: We’ve still got that evil taint that makes us vulnerable . . . to Hitler.

    [3]

    There are a number of tired and trite Liebowitzian tropes, essentially lowbrow humor to make the semi-literate liberal audience feel superior to those low-class ethnocentric White people who are sensitive to nationalism. The Führer suffers a fair amount of gratuitous slapstick. The Bavarian conservatives (traditionally the most pseudo-Right-wing “authorized” party in postwar Germany) are described as wannabe-Nazis. A nationalist activist is mocked as a clueless idiot who can’t string a sentence together. The film half-ominously half-jokingly concludes with flashes of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders as would-be heirs, and of the Hitler character today driving around, being hailed or even saluted by cheerful onlookers (many of them minorities).

    If that were all the movie were about, this would be a pretty miserable outing indeed.

    However, it seems Vermes made a serious effort in immersing himself in Hitler’s words and reproducing his style. The relatively unknown actor playing Hitler, Oliver Masucci, often manages to successfully emulate the Führer’s ever-earnest, hyperbolic, and often impassioned manner. (My suspension of disbelief was, besides a few scenes where the Hitler character obviously does not behave like the historical Hitler, weakened only by Masucci’s deep brown eyes. Hitler’s were dark blue.)

    What’s more, to make the narrative compelling, the film makes a very serious and very successful attempt (for me anyway) in showcasing Hitler’s charisma. Hitler is constantly commenting, sometimes passionately sometimes with detachment, on the degenerate state of modern Germany.

    Hitler is simply shocked. Why are American Negroes allowed to spew filth and shout “nigger” on German radio as “music”? Why is German TV filled with garbage reality TV and frivolous cooking shows? Is not the education and enlightenment of the people the first task of the state, of any benevolent elite? Evidently the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany think not.

    Hitler’s observations are mostly on real-life German political life and culture. A matron, apparently a leading female Social Democratic politician, urges her followers to “knit for change.” Chancellor Angela Merkel is mocked. The German men Hitler meets are office-dwelling manlets, selfie-taking hipsters, and mama’s boy wannabe-journalists.

    A fascinating aspect is the film’s inclusion of apparently unscripted interactions between ordinary Germans and Masucci in character Hitler. Germans are happy to complain about the growing presence of immigrants and Muslims. An East German women claims voting is pointless and democracy is a sham (certainly this true for any nationalist vote). Hitler genially explains to a female dog breeder that breed-mixing leads to the destruction of the breed, such as the German shepherd. The breeder can only nod in agreement. (The scene is all the more striking in that, in German as in French, the word for “race” is also that for “breed.”) Hitler laments that Germany today has the lowest birth rate in the world.

    There is a very striking scene with football fans. Some run to Hitler and perform Roman salutes (still illegal in Germany today). Another cries out before Hitler: “I love you Germany!” Apparently these were unscripted. At one point, some well-dressed youths, with Hitler’s enthusiastic cheering, overpower and humiliate a filthy antifa leftist who had been shouting “Down with Germany!” This scene was by no means “ironic.”

    Hitler eventually gets on a television comedy show where he was expected to be a kind of freak show performer and ironically-not-ironically make racist jokes. (The weirdest part of this scene was that the show’s obnoxious host was a large-nosed German in blackface, so as to resemble President Barack Hussein Obama.) Instead, Hitler speaks as he always did, earnestly, about the terrible state of Germany. The TV show audience loves it and the film’s audience, too, is made to cheer for Hitler.

    The film then showcases a problem with the hegemony of “irony” and frivolousness in contemporary culture: That nothing can be taken seriously, not even the threat of Hitler. This is something that Andrew Anglin at the Daily Stormer has very successfully exploited, as even Jewish groups have acknowledged.[2]

    The film then accomplishes something quite significant: Giving today’s audiences a taste of the charisma and appeal of Adolf Hitler. This is no mean feat. We are so far from the Germany of the 1920s and 1930s that most of us cannot even understand how a man like Hitler could succeed in winning the love and dedication of so many in Germany, one of Europe’s greatest and most cultivated nations.

    The film does rather lose momentum about halfway. There is a ridiculously unrealistic scene, given the historical Hitler’s love for animals, in which Hitler shoots a small dog after being bitten. This is a necessary for a plot point and is a pretext to show Hitler’s penchant for massive, disproportional retaliation (this is a historically accurate point, I think of Hitler’s decisions, after failing to secure collaboration, to destroy Poland and Yugoslavia, not to mention European Jewry).

    The most terrifying scene is when Hitler visits the house of a grandmother described in the film as a demented Jewess. She recognizes Hitler and screeches like a witch, a banshee, a ghost. The audience can feel 10,000 years of hatred sink into their bones. Chilling.

    Jews’ only other appearance in the film is a brief mention by the media execs’ that putting Hitler on air could lead to their being harassed by the Central Council of Jews in Germany, thus highlighting to a mainstream audience the role of Jews in censorship.

    The final point of the movie is true enough: Hitler cannot simply be smothered into oblivion as the authorities of the Federal Republic might like, for Hitler represents something deep in the German soul (the call of the blood? The call of the sun? Wotan [4]?). Whatever Hitler appealed to in German psychology then, will exist, if only dormant, so long as there are Germans.

    After the state of Bavaria’s copyright on Mein Kampf recently expired, Hitler’s magnum opus is again a bestseller in Germany.

    A character seeks to stop Hitler once he realizes this is the real Hitler. The latter responds: “What are you going to do? End elections?” For all intents and purposes, that has indeed been the position of the Federal Republic, with the most systematic and official persecution of nationalists in the Western world.

    I have no idea what the book’s author or the film producers were thinking in producing Look Who’s Back. Any film portraying Hitler or nationalists in an even partially honest way is liable to humanize or glamorize them. This is certainly the case in Look Who’s Back, as in Downfall or American History X. Conversely, films with absurdly caricatural portrayals, such as Marlon Brando’s George Lincoln Rockwell in ROOTS, are liable to reveal Hollywood film makers as professional fraudsters.

    The film is definitely part of the wider trend of films and Internet culture which is desensitizing the public to Hitler and thus allowing us to move towards a more objective view of the man.

    I have no idea what effect this film has on “normies,” but the French-speaking audience I was with seemed caught between cringing and laughing. Many don’t seem to know what to think. A few clapped at the end.

    It is also noteworthy that a fair number of liberals and Jews are worried about the film. Masucci himself said the Germans loved to see and speak with him:

    [Masucci] said rather than being shocked about Hitler’s policies, the war and the Holocaust, men greeted him and seemed “happy to see me!”

    He said: “They forgot relatively quickly that the two cameras were running and began to pour their hearts out to this man, to say what was really on their minds.” [. . .]

    Mr Masucci said soon after he started shooting the film he saw the rise of Pegida. He added: “That didn’t surprise us that they suddenly went into the streets. Because this middle-class that’s swinging to the right, we’d already seen all that on camera.

    “By the end of our filming, our questions had totally changed. How can it be that so many people react so positively to Hitler, accept him like that?”[3]

    Reviewers have said that while the film’s irony and message may be positive, many watchers may not “get the joke” and actually be persuaded by Hitler’s points, whether on degenerate culture, Germany’s low birthrate, or race-mixing.[4]

    I believe these fears are warranted. The book and film were produced and came out before the migrant crisis was in full swing. The film opens with Hitler pondering: “Germany should have been destroyed,” and then cutting to daily life in today’s prosperous, happy Germany, to better show the absurdity of Hitler’s fears regarding Judeo-American and Judeo-Bolshevik hegemony in Europe.

    But is the German government, today, not more concerned about nationalist activists than foreign rapists as in Cologne? Are not the childless Germans themselves being, slowly but surely, physically replaced by a potentially endless tide of African and Muslim humanity? Is the German government and ruling class today not absurd, with its Chancellor assuring us one day that “Germany will change” as a result of Afro-Islamization and the next lamenting the “sham” of multiculturalism? Will there even be a German people in 100 years? Is “Germany” not destined to be, not a people, but a mere administrative division for multinational corporations and global plutocrats?

    Strangely, this film has yet to make much impact or attract much comment abroad. This is unfortunate given the global historical and cultural relevance of Hitler. Coming to terms with Hitler is not only a German problem but really a pan-European problem, likely a necessary component to rearming ourselves psychologically for survival.

    And, who knows, one day “he” might really be back . . .

    Notes

    1. Scott Roxborough, “Germany Box Office 2015: Record Year, Even Before ‘Star Wars,’” The Hollywood Reporter, December 22, 2015. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/germany-box-office-2015-review-849327 [5]

    2. Andrew Anglin, “SPLC Praises the Effectiveness of Anglin’s Trolling,” Daily Stormer, January 16, 2016. http://www.dailystormer.com/splc-praises-the-effectiveness-of-anglins-trolling/ [6]

    3. Andrew Anglin, “German Actor Traveled the Country Dressed as Hitler, Says People Were Happy to See Him,” Daily Stormer, October 7, 2015. http://www.dailystormer.com/german-actor-traveled-the-country-dressed-as-hitler-says-people-were-happy-to-see-him/ [7]

    4. There were similar fears about analogous scenes in Sacha Baron Cohen’s obscene film Borat, which is much less politically interesting. Borat includes a scene in which Cohen, playing an idiotic Slav from some backward nation wrecked by communism (in which Jews played a leading role), sings the song of his people to a saloon full of Arizonans in cowboy gear:

    In my country there is problem
    And that problem is the Jew
    They take everybody money
    And they never give it back
    Chorus: Throw the Jew down the well (repeat line)
    So my country can be free (repeat line)
    You must grab him by his horns (repeat line)
    Then we have a big party (repeat line)

    The cowboys are shown to be clapping and cheering and singing joyously (although there is reason to think Cohen filmed and edited this misleadingly). So-called “conservative” media Jews David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer took offense at White rural conservatives being portrayed in this most offensive manner (“snobbery”). Krauthammer thought this was inappropriate in an age in which real anti-Semitism was so pervasive abroad. “It is very hard to be a Jew today,” wrote Krauthammer with his trademark hysterical ethnocentrism and tribal narcissism. Meanwhile the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith fretted that many viewers would find the portrayal convincing: “we are concerned that the irony may have been lost on some of your audience – or worse, that some of your viewers may have simply accepted Borat’s statements about Jews at face value” (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, letter to Sacha Baron Cohen, August 9, 2004 http://archive.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20040809-hbo.html#.Vp-P0CorKM8 [8]).

     

    ...
    (Review Source)

National Review Staff1
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Sacha Baron Cohen’s Tired Elitist Shtick
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The British comedian’s condescending mockery was never funny. It’s no longer novel, either.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema1
Soiled Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

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

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Beer Chase
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Once again paying penetrating anti-homage to the South German state he loves to hate, rural Bavaria, absurdist arthouse comedian H...
    ...
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer1
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Variety: Kevin Hart Deserved to be Fired Because Movies Are About Equality, by Steve Sailer
    (”Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    From Variety (with some pictures I added): But ... That a few individuals' faces are worthy of being projected 40 feet high while millions of people with less glamorous faces sit in the dark, eat popcorn, and admire them? No! That's totally wrong. You see, Owen Gleiberman knows exactly what movies are about: Beautiful, fabulous...
    ...
    (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