Review: Anna Kendrick, Scrappy Little Genius…


Why “genius”? Kendrick’s memoir is the best-written of all from the samples I’ve perused. More than a thrown-together PR gambit, she put in the effort to make this a stand-alone autobiography. She’s either a free-writing savant, or has really good editors. Probably a mix of both. And, who knows? Being from Maine, she may have gotten a little help from the…King…of horror?

This isn’t to say the content was any better than the others. Like Faris and Collins, Kendrick is a typical Hollywood leftist. But unlike the other two ladies, she is not a left-coaster. She was raised by marginally conservative ethnically-Irish parents in Maine. She mentions her religion twice in the memoir, both with quick, passing, allusions. She briefly mentions something about attending church in her youth, but she doesn’t expound. Later, when discussing her grandmother’s death, she says something like: “My grandmother was very pious…I’m not…”

Ok. So Kendrick is a generic neo-pagan government-schooled atheist with an a-typical childhood. She won big with an early Broadway career and had to be educated in spurts. One admirable thing about Anna though – while she waived off higher education to pursue her acting career, it seems she’s continued educating herself, reading broad and deep.

She gives a humorous anecdote about filming the recent comedy “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates” (a foul and degenerate flick). In between filming, she was reading that massive tome “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”, a book many Alt. Right pundits are familiar with. Unfortunately for her, the cover art featured a large swastika and she recounts how co-star Zac Efron ragged her about it. She covered the image with tape for the remainder of the shoot, but it’s admittedly quirky for an actress to care enough to read something like that.

The major theme of her memoir is that, despite her skyrocketing fame, she fights hard to remain a grounded, “normal” person. She admirably works to keep fame and fortune from going to her head.

Moreover, I don’t recall her mentioning “feminism” the entire book, but even if she did, she doesn’t devote entire chapters to it. The closest she comes, and, subsequently, the closest she comes to being repulsive, is when she discusses her view of pre-marital sex. Like the other Anna I’ve reviewed, Kendrick swallowed the pop-feminist idea that girls are supposed to have pre-marital sex as often as possible, while complaining about the “stigma” and working to overcome old notions of Christian propriety. And, like the other Anna I’ve reviewed, she’s predictably miserable because of it.

Hopefully Kendrick is grounded enough to have a small chance of avoiding feminist ruin. Ideally, she’ll marry some Irish Catholic guy from Maine and settle in some big cottage by the bay in Bar Harbor. Maybe raise a family in private and spend her wealth and influence on harmless charities (like rescuing widlife).

Hopefully she’ll keep writing…

Review: Lily Collins Unfiltered…


Oh, this girl is going to come to a terrible end.

Kind of pretty, right? Even without all that caked up paint on her face, and without Hollywood photo-magic, she’s not bad-looking. Unfortunately for her, she’s a mischling (her maternal grandfather was jewish). While this undoubtedly helps her acting career, it’s wreaking damage on her looks as, in typical fashion for jewish females, the older she gets, the more pronounced her jewish features, and (sorry to say) the less attractive she is on camera. (Check out photos of her during the filming of “Okja”).


Now, before you dismiss me as a terrible, unempathetic, bigot…(I mean, I am all of those things, but not for this)…let me admit that even at her ugliest, she’s still has a subtle hint of classic beauty. I think so about Rachel Weiz as well (another Hollywood jewess), but Weiz is much older, already complaining about her “jewish nose” (in the tabloids) and is reduced to making soft-core lesbian porn to stay relevant. It’s unfortunate for Collins because, reading her memoir, you get a feel for how obsessed she is with her looks. The girl is going to explode emotionally the day she looks in the mirror and realizes she’s no longer the prettiest girl on the movie set.

It’s cliche’, but she’s pretty “on the inside”…or, at least, she could be if she frees herself from that garbage Hollywood feminism. Like Anna Faris (whose book I reviewed recently), she’s mired in the same relationship failures caused by a lust for unbounded desire. A rebellion against femininity.

Fortunately for Lily, it’s not as ingrained in her as it was in Anna. She’s still young and naive about her chances. She’ll be as cynical as Anna within the decade.

Her memoir reads like a sermon from a teenage girl, instructing her elders in the ways of love and life. There are very few anecdotes from her career as an actress and celebrity. It’s all rational rule-giving about how to deal with boys (breakups are always the boys’ fault). I wouldn’t want to discourage Lily by discounting her hard-learned life-lessons (no matter how skewed they are by feminism); but, she’d have done far better to present those lessons through anecdotes rather than as direct statements. Let us learn *through* your experiences, Lily, instead of just having to take your word for all of it. I mean, imagine a photographer who climbs to the top of a mountain and there, before him, is an incredible scene. Instead of snapping away, however, he takes a selfie with his back to an unremarkable rock wall. Collins has done the same. She’s a wealthy young actress in Hollywood and yet, her memoir is a lengthy detailing of her relationship advice. In *that* respect, she’s no more an authority than any other girl her own age.

At any-rate, I think both Lily and Anna Faris are beautiful women, humble and loving. Though Anna is more artistic and literary, while Collins is more analytic and philosophical.

Both have been twisted by feminism…

Please God, Let This be the Last Exorcism

Is Hollywood serious?

Another exorcism movie?

“The Last Exorcism” hits theaters today.  I don’t plan on seeing the film, because I’ve grown tired of movies that take my mind to bad places and then leaves it there while managing to insult my religion along the way.

How many times are we going to see this same story?

Shotgun predicts the plot:

1.  Distressed, and somewhat naive, Christian parents reach out to some Roman Catholic (or equally non-theologically sound) priest for help with their demon possessed daughter.

2.  The priest is all confident and prideful, but clearly a tool…(as all Christian ministers are.)

3.  The cute little girl’s body gets all jacked around in scary, impossible ways.

4.  The priest is like…yeah, ok, she must be possessed.

5.  They do the exorcism while all sorts of spooky things take place around them.

6.  The exorcism doesn’t work, because…that would imply that the Christians actually have some power or authority on Earth, and plus, it wouldn’t be theatrically appealing.

7.  Satan wins.

The end.

Now…some of you exorcism-movie aficionados may reply that “Emily Rose” didn’t end on such a creepy, defeatist note, and so there’s nothing saying that this one will!  True I’d say, nor did “Exorcist: The Beginning” end on a defeatist, ugly note, however, the running trend is to end with some sort of cliff-hanger or open-ended conclusion where the (presumably Christian-sheeple) audience is left with the idea firmly planted in their ignorant heads that, Christ didn’t defeat Satan and demons are probably going to possess you tonight while you’re trying to drink yourself to sleep!

I guarantee it!

If Hollywood wants to make a movie that will draw in the Christian crowds, let them re-make something about knights and chivalry, bravery and heroism.  Let them do a remake of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, keeping all the Christian symbolism.

Instead, we get little girls crawling around on ceilings and having their heads twisted in all sorts of weird ways.

The power of Christ compels me not to watch this movie.

Movie Review: The Invasion

The “Invasion” gets three and a half stars out of a possible five star rating in the Shotgun movie scale. 

As usual, I have to warn the reader that this review may contain spoilers. 

For those of you familiar with my other reviews, you’ll know that I have yet to give a rating higher than two stars for any movie.  

So why is this one different” you may be asking? 

Well, when it is all said and done, “The Invasion” presents a clear message about humanity; a message that is in total accord with the traditional Christian doctrine of total depravity. 

The movie is set in present day America, and and begins with a space shuttle falling out of the sky in a devastating explosion.  Debris is trailed all over the world.  The debris is infected with an intelligent fungus type alien that attaches itself to human DNA, and takes over the mind of its host during REM sleep.  Kidman finds herself waging an internal battle between her convictions about humanity and her present reality; all while fighting off the urge to fall asleep and trying to save her son from the sad fate of all the other humans who have been infected. 

The central theme of the film is articulated fairly well by an exchange between Kidman’s character and Roger Rees (who plays a Russian diplomat) at a dinner party.

As contrived as the dinner table conversation may have seemed, the content of it never-the-less accurately demonstrates (in my opinion) an antithesis between a more modernist approach to mankind’s apparent depravity, and the view of the postmodernist.  (Kidman proudly proclaims at the climax of the debate that she is a postmodern feminist.)

Rees it seems, is pessimistic about the nature of man.  He says the following to Kidman, (who plays a psychologist):

“A veneer of civility hides our true self impulses. That’s the nature of our world, yes? Civilization is an illusion, a game of pretend.  What is real is the fact that we are still animals, driven by primal instincts as a psychologist you must know this?”

Assuming knowledge of psychologists, and their habit of prescribing medications, Rees continues:

“Can you help me? Can you give me a pill to help me see the world the way you Americans do?  Civilization crumbles when we need it the most.  In the right situation we are all capable of the most terrible crimes.  To imagine a world where this was not so…this is to imagine a world that ceases to be human.”

I love the way Rees’ character points out the absurdity of prescribing pills to solve a difference in worldviews.  He displays his belief in evolutionary materialism when he describes us all as animals, acting on our own primal instincts.  This is apparently a bad thing for Mr. Rees, as well as Kidman, who belies her characters postmodern leanings in her first response:

“To be honest, when someone starts talking to me about truth; I hear what they are telling me about themselves more than what they are saying about the world.”

In postmodern thought, there isn’t much room for truth claims about the external world.  Subjectivism and relativism prevail.  This is even clearer in her concluding comment:

“I’ll give you that we retain basic animal instincts, but you have to admit that we’re not the same animal we were a few thousand years ago.  Read Colberg, Maslow, Graves, Wilbur, and you’ll see that we’re still evolving.  Our consciences are changing.  500 years ago postmodern feminists didn’t exist, yet one sits right beside you today.  While that fact may not undo all the terrible things that have been done in this world; at least it gives me reason to believe that one day things may be different.”

I’m not sure who those guy’s are that she suggests for reading, but I googled Maslow, and found the following description about his book, “The Psychology of Science”:

A fascinating glimpse of what science and medicine might be like if we could work to “re-humanize” them. Maslow contrasts humanistic science with value-free, orthodox science, and offers a new knowledge paradigm to replace classical “scientific objectivity.”

Maybe Hollywood script writers are more informed than I previously thought?  Maslow’s book (if this review can be trusted) seems to fall right in line with Kidman’s argument:

Humanity needs to change its basic nature in order to rid itself of the depravity that is so prevalent in the world! 

Kidman, Maslow, and the writers of “The Invasion” are right.  As humans, we need to undergo a fundamental change in our very natures.  Unfortunately (for them), this will not be achieved by evolution or new scientific psychological methods, but rather through the regeneration of our hearts by the workings of the Holy Spirit. 

This movie gets three and a half stars for pointing out humanities depravity, and our need to be changed on a fundamental level. 

Maybe one day, we’ll get a movie that glamorizes Christ and His wonderful gift of salvation as an answer to this depravity. 

Whoaaaa… I must have fallen asleep writing this, because something like that could ONLY be a dream!  Maybe I’m an alien now?