An episode so dangerous you can't watch it online right now. The vaccination debate has reached ridiculous levels. We are barred from even discussing vaccines online now?? Complete insanity
Reviews
7 Reviews
Spotlight
(I) (2015)
Unbelievably Good. Waiting for the Same Movie about Vaccine Injuries
8 January 2018
The story is what drives this movie. It follows like a great detective novel. And of course its true as we all know. The exact same thing is happening at grander scale with vaccines. Its the exact same scenario. No one can believe anyone would intentionally hurt kids in this country. We think people are essentially good. The people who should be saying something, doing something, are looking the other way, completely complicit in the cover-up.
What is happening in pediatrician's offices at "wellness" check-ups and at the CDC will make the Catholic priest scandal of the 2000s look like a minor speed bump. The modern vaccine era will go down as one of the most horrific periods in human history.
There was no autism before 1986, almost zero. We now have 3.5 million autistic kids and young adults. The rate for boys is 3.5%. 288,000 kids in the last 3 years. And autism is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no such thing as "SIDS". It doesn't exist in nature, no other species in the animal kingdom has it. We are literally killing kids in America with vaccine shots and no one is doing anything about it. ADD, ADHD, allergies - 50% of kids are being affected by vaccines.
Parents have seen it first hand, but no one is asking them what happened. No one is interviewing the parents for the news. It takes a lot of people to run a successful cover-up, a lot of denial, and that's exactly what is happening. To say "vaccines don't cause autism" is adding insult to injury to parents who have seen their children regress into autism right after the MMR shot. The pertussis shot and SIDS is even worse
Where are the heroes? Where are the newspaper reporters? Autism rates continue to climb. The only reason rates have slightly abated the last few years is because of the antivaxxer movement. They are today's true heroes. They are the only ones with real guts, shouting in the darkness, as this madness continues. How much longer? Wake up America.
What is happening in pediatrician's offices at "wellness" check-ups and at the CDC will make the Catholic priest scandal of the 2000s look like a minor speed bump. The modern vaccine era will go down as one of the most horrific periods in human history.
There was no autism before 1986, almost zero. We now have 3.5 million autistic kids and young adults. The rate for boys is 3.5%. 288,000 kids in the last 3 years. And autism is just the tip of the iceberg. There is no such thing as "SIDS". It doesn't exist in nature, no other species in the animal kingdom has it. We are literally killing kids in America with vaccine shots and no one is doing anything about it. ADD, ADHD, allergies - 50% of kids are being affected by vaccines.
Parents have seen it first hand, but no one is asking them what happened. No one is interviewing the parents for the news. It takes a lot of people to run a successful cover-up, a lot of denial, and that's exactly what is happening. To say "vaccines don't cause autism" is adding insult to injury to parents who have seen their children regress into autism right after the MMR shot. The pertussis shot and SIDS is even worse
Where are the heroes? Where are the newspaper reporters? Autism rates continue to climb. The only reason rates have slightly abated the last few years is because of the antivaxxer movement. They are today's true heroes. They are the only ones with real guts, shouting in the darkness, as this madness continues. How much longer? Wake up America.
The Emporer's New Clothes - A Disservice to People Fighting Cancer
9 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
So I'm watching the 6 hour Ken Burns/PBS, "Cancer: Emperor of all Maladies" and I'm bashing my head against the wall, it's so frustrating to watch.
They interview like 6 Nobel prize winners for cancer research in the documentary, and every time they understand something new about cancer, immediately they discuss working on a "new chemotherapy treatment".
--> **Food quality, air quality, water quality, lifestyle choices, are not discussed in this 6 hour documentary on cancer** <-- I kid you not.
Dr. Sidney Farber found a chemical in the 1940's that helped leukemia kids survive for a couple months longer. People were amazed, a new children's hospital was built, and innumerable chemicals started getting tested on kids, giving us chemotherapy today.
In the 1960's there were 3 schools of thought on the cause of cancer: viruses (e.g. Epstein-Barr), chemicals from the environment, and genes. All have validity.
Eventually they figure out that every cell in the body is capable of mutating into cancer given the right circumstances. In 1971, Nixon announces during the State of the Union address a "war on cancer". Billions of dollars are dedicated to it in the coming years and everyone thinks progress is being made. A statistician comes around in the 1980's and shows, much to everyone's chagrin, that in fact, no, were are not making much progress on cancer.
The first episode describes how the tobacco industry "brilliantly" clouded the issue on cigarette safety 50 years ago...and then this documentary proceeds to do *the exact same thing*.
They say we have no idea what causes cancer: "It's very complicated", "We can't pin anything down". The epidemiologist interviewed about Love Canal, NY couldn't produce any link between the 20,000 barrels of toxic waste in the ground and cancer. Seriously?
Its mind numbing. They identified "chemicals" as a possible cause in the 60's, but there is no follow up. Where is the section identifying carcinogens that cause normal cells to mutate into cancerous ones? Where is the section on clean food (with natural antimutagens) *preventing* cells from mutating?
Not one diet recommendation: "Steer clear of sugar, avoid trans fats, careful with mercury in tuna, watch your red meat intake" -nothing. Its like the entire industry is in denial on food. I would love to know exactly when these doctors stopped believing "we are what we eat".
The medical establishment's approach to and treatment of cancer is completely wrong. Instead of working on prevention through cleaner food and a cleaner environment and researching treatments that compliment the body (primarily diet and lifestyle), they run around like chickens with their heads cut off for the last 40 years looking for crazy chemical drugs to give us.
A big disservice of a documentary. Keeping people in the dark on what causes cancer and then promoting chemotherapy as the best way to develop treatments? Terrible.
A sad chapter in American history. An unconscionable waste of time, money, and effort spent going down the wrong road.
They interview like 6 Nobel prize winners for cancer research in the documentary, and every time they understand something new about cancer, immediately they discuss working on a "new chemotherapy treatment".
--> **Food quality, air quality, water quality, lifestyle choices, are not discussed in this 6 hour documentary on cancer** <-- I kid you not.
Dr. Sidney Farber found a chemical in the 1940's that helped leukemia kids survive for a couple months longer. People were amazed, a new children's hospital was built, and innumerable chemicals started getting tested on kids, giving us chemotherapy today.
In the 1960's there were 3 schools of thought on the cause of cancer: viruses (e.g. Epstein-Barr), chemicals from the environment, and genes. All have validity.
Eventually they figure out that every cell in the body is capable of mutating into cancer given the right circumstances. In 1971, Nixon announces during the State of the Union address a "war on cancer". Billions of dollars are dedicated to it in the coming years and everyone thinks progress is being made. A statistician comes around in the 1980's and shows, much to everyone's chagrin, that in fact, no, were are not making much progress on cancer.
The first episode describes how the tobacco industry "brilliantly" clouded the issue on cigarette safety 50 years ago...and then this documentary proceeds to do *the exact same thing*.
They say we have no idea what causes cancer: "It's very complicated", "We can't pin anything down". The epidemiologist interviewed about Love Canal, NY couldn't produce any link between the 20,000 barrels of toxic waste in the ground and cancer. Seriously?
Its mind numbing. They identified "chemicals" as a possible cause in the 60's, but there is no follow up. Where is the section identifying carcinogens that cause normal cells to mutate into cancerous ones? Where is the section on clean food (with natural antimutagens) *preventing* cells from mutating?
Not one diet recommendation: "Steer clear of sugar, avoid trans fats, careful with mercury in tuna, watch your red meat intake" -nothing. Its like the entire industry is in denial on food. I would love to know exactly when these doctors stopped believing "we are what we eat".
The medical establishment's approach to and treatment of cancer is completely wrong. Instead of working on prevention through cleaner food and a cleaner environment and researching treatments that compliment the body (primarily diet and lifestyle), they run around like chickens with their heads cut off for the last 40 years looking for crazy chemical drugs to give us.
A big disservice of a documentary. Keeping people in the dark on what causes cancer and then promoting chemotherapy as the best way to develop treatments? Terrible.
A sad chapter in American history. An unconscionable waste of time, money, and effort spent going down the wrong road.
In Time
(2011)
Original, Entertaining
14 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Enjoyed this movie very much. A futuristic thriller that very well could happen. Time as money is a great concept. Shows you that money is really just a means to an end.
The sets and the style were great, especially in New Greenwich. Reminded me of "Upside Down". Loved the cars. Liked the way some pieces of the story were left unexplained, like what's going on in the rest of the world and who the other mega wealthy are.
Justin Timberlake seems to be getting better with every role. Shame Olivia Wilde was not in the movie long. Nice to see Cillian Murphy getting some screen time, a good actor. Amanda Seyfried was good. Amber Heard should have made this movie instead of "3 Days to Kill".
The sets and the style were great, especially in New Greenwich. Reminded me of "Upside Down". Loved the cars. Liked the way some pieces of the story were left unexplained, like what's going on in the rest of the world and who the other mega wealthy are.
Justin Timberlake seems to be getting better with every role. Shame Olivia Wilde was not in the movie long. Nice to see Cillian Murphy getting some screen time, a good actor. Amanda Seyfried was good. Amber Heard should have made this movie instead of "3 Days to Kill".
The Americanization of Emily
(1964)
Could Have Been Better
12 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Okay movie, but a little frustrating to watch.
Main 2 problems:
1) Romantic waffling between James Garner & Julie Andrews
2) Too many messages
The majority of issues stemmed from the script. I would have bet a paycheck this movie was based on a book, its not! The script has way too much dialogue and you never seemed to know what direction the movie and the characters are going to go in next.
The romantic leads in a movie can fall in love and break up, but not 6 times! There were 3 separate cycles of disliking each other and then liking each other with lots of convoluted dialogue in between. Andrews and Garner are appealing characters you root for, but after all the waffling, you start to lose interest.
It feels like a message movie. It comes off as a kind of a cool antiwar movie at first, but then some characters start to turn patriotic and Garner looks like the bad guy and the movie gets a little dark. My best guess is that the movie was trying to show all facets of war and how everyone has different motivations, but the script was a little too much dialogue about the psychology of war and the movie loses its way and its charm. (Maybe more for Tarantino fans?)
And really the only reason the movie is shot in black & white is so it can include 5 or 6 war newsreel shots at the end which is unfortunate. I think the picnic scene between Andrews and Garner in color could have really boosted the movie, especially if they had smoothed out the romantic arcs better.
The title is a bold choice. Had the movie worked better, it would have been fine. As it is, I'm not sure how Emily was really "Americanized".
Main 2 problems:
1) Romantic waffling between James Garner & Julie Andrews
2) Too many messages
The majority of issues stemmed from the script. I would have bet a paycheck this movie was based on a book, its not! The script has way too much dialogue and you never seemed to know what direction the movie and the characters are going to go in next.
The romantic leads in a movie can fall in love and break up, but not 6 times! There were 3 separate cycles of disliking each other and then liking each other with lots of convoluted dialogue in between. Andrews and Garner are appealing characters you root for, but after all the waffling, you start to lose interest.
It feels like a message movie. It comes off as a kind of a cool antiwar movie at first, but then some characters start to turn patriotic and Garner looks like the bad guy and the movie gets a little dark. My best guess is that the movie was trying to show all facets of war and how everyone has different motivations, but the script was a little too much dialogue about the psychology of war and the movie loses its way and its charm. (Maybe more for Tarantino fans?)
And really the only reason the movie is shot in black & white is so it can include 5 or 6 war newsreel shots at the end which is unfortunate. I think the picnic scene between Andrews and Garner in color could have really boosted the movie, especially if they had smoothed out the romantic arcs better.
The title is a bold choice. Had the movie worked better, it would have been fine. As it is, I'm not sure how Emily was really "Americanized".
Hitchcock
(2012)
Wish I Was Watching an Actual Hitchcock Movie
19 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As a lifelong Alfred Hitchcock fan, I was thoroughly disappointed with the film. It is a deceitful docudrama in the Oliver Stone vein.
Alfred Hitchcock obviously had an amazing life. Why go to the trouble of fabricating whole facets of his life? I was dying to know facts about his childhood that influenced him. This movie gives you nothing, not even flashbacks. There are no reports of marital strife between him and his wife in real life; they never mortgaged their home to make a movie. Half the movie is a soap opera of supposed marital tensions between he and his wife that never existed.
I heard a story his father conspired with the local police chief to leave a young Hitchcock in prison overnight to teach him a lesson. Where's that story? How did he get into films? From Berlin to Hollywood? Wouldn't those make for a good movie?
I wouldn't care so much except they went to the trouble of getting a complete A-list cast of actors as if they were making some kind of definitive Hitchcock movie.
Are movie executives so immature, so cowardly they don't think anyone can make an interesting broader perspective biography that audiences can handle? It strikes me that this movie just plain fell into the wrong hands. The DVD menu comes up like you're watching Spiderman or something.
I was so hungry to watch a great Hitchcock movie and to get this tripe just plain made me mad. Time to hit the library and read some good non-fiction on Hitchcock if Hollywood is going to be so inept.
Alfred Hitchcock obviously had an amazing life. Why go to the trouble of fabricating whole facets of his life? I was dying to know facts about his childhood that influenced him. This movie gives you nothing, not even flashbacks. There are no reports of marital strife between him and his wife in real life; they never mortgaged their home to make a movie. Half the movie is a soap opera of supposed marital tensions between he and his wife that never existed.
I heard a story his father conspired with the local police chief to leave a young Hitchcock in prison overnight to teach him a lesson. Where's that story? How did he get into films? From Berlin to Hollywood? Wouldn't those make for a good movie?
I wouldn't care so much except they went to the trouble of getting a complete A-list cast of actors as if they were making some kind of definitive Hitchcock movie.
Are movie executives so immature, so cowardly they don't think anyone can make an interesting broader perspective biography that audiences can handle? It strikes me that this movie just plain fell into the wrong hands. The DVD menu comes up like you're watching Spiderman or something.
I was so hungry to watch a great Hitchcock movie and to get this tripe just plain made me mad. Time to hit the library and read some good non-fiction on Hitchcock if Hollywood is going to be so inept.
Somewhere
(2010)
"Nowhere" - Creepy Pretentious Art Film
13 September 2012
After reading good reviews for this movie, I thought I'd take a chance after being disappointed with "Lost in Translation" a few years ago. Big mistake. Sofia Coppola's movies all have the same depressing, bleak tone.
The movie stumbles through the day to day life of a movie star's seemingly great but empty life. I hoped the introduction of his daughter into the story midway would create some kind of epiphany for the main character, but no, the story maintains its dismal tone and goes "nowhere".
Seeing positive reviews for this movie is something right out of "The Emperor's New Clothes". These are movies only a film student or movie critic could like. Mainline reviewers see something in these movies no one else sees.
Sofia Coppola forgets the first rule of movie-making: To entertain. There is no dialogue. How these movies get green lighted is a mystery. Someone needs to check her into a clinic for depression. You could watch your neighbor do yard work and be more entertained. No more of these movies for me.
The movie stumbles through the day to day life of a movie star's seemingly great but empty life. I hoped the introduction of his daughter into the story midway would create some kind of epiphany for the main character, but no, the story maintains its dismal tone and goes "nowhere".
Seeing positive reviews for this movie is something right out of "The Emperor's New Clothes". These are movies only a film student or movie critic could like. Mainline reviewers see something in these movies no one else sees.
Sofia Coppola forgets the first rule of movie-making: To entertain. There is no dialogue. How these movies get green lighted is a mystery. Someone needs to check her into a clinic for depression. You could watch your neighbor do yard work and be more entertained. No more of these movies for me.
Tell Your Friends