Change Your Image
WWu777
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told (2013)
Ignores important facts and falsely assumes Hitler to be 100% honest without basis
I watched about 80 percent of this long documentary series on YouTube before it was taken down. It was very interesting to hear the other side. But it's way too one-sided and biased and tries to portray Hitler as a saint who never did anything wrong. Yeah right. It also ignores a lot of important facts and distorts events too. That means it's definitely NOT an objective or unbiased search for the truth.
First, it assumes that Hitler was 100 percent honest and never lied. There is no basis for that assumption. It seems to have a personal bias and agenda to portray him as an innocent saint. It assumes that any excuse Hitler made to invade a country must be completely true and honest. For example, Hitler claimed that the German population at Danzig in Poland were being persecuted, as his excuse to invade Poland. All warmongers make excuses to invade or attack, but that doesn't make them true. Hitler could have used shills or agents to stir up trouble in Danzig, as US historians claim, to try to make Poland look like an oppressor.
Hitler also broke many peace treaties and invaded many nations in Europe which were neutral and never declared war on Germany - such as Belgium, Holland, Poland, Greece, etc. - without provocation. Yet this is all ignored and not justified or explained away. So how could Hitler be the innocent victim then, as this film portrays, when he was clearly the aggressor and invaded neutral nations? Am I missing something?
And if Hitler was so honest, then why did he break many promises to never invade those countries and violate many peace treaties he made, including the one with Stalin? Again, am I missing something?
Hitler did claim that the reason he invaded Russia was because they were going to invade him too. No one disputes that. But that's merely Hitler's claim and excuse to invade. There is no proof that it was true. Dennis Wise merely assumes that everything Hitler said must be automatically true by default. That's an unwarranted assumption. Many invading nations have used the "preemptive strike" excuse (including the US invasion of Iraq) but it doesn't make it true. Yet this documentary takes Hitler's words as fact and gospel truth without basis.
The maker of this documentary, Dennis Wise, obviously lacks any critical thinking skills and has an obvious bias and agenda. He is not a neutral objective truth seeker at all.
Moreover, this documentary is not professionally produced at all. It consists of old vintage stock footage from WWII and lots of scrolling text running on the screen without any professional narration, only background music. Anyone could use a free program like Windows Movie Maker to create such a documentary. It involves no cost, only time. Furthermore, much of the scrolling text contains assertions and quotes that are not sourced or documented, so their authenticity is suspect. When it comes to text scrolling on the screen, anyone can write anything, it doesn't have to be accurate or sourced. So the credibility of this documentary is highly suspect.
That being said, I agree that it is also unfair and biased for Western media and history to portray Hitler as a cartoon villain or mythological devil rather than a complex historical figure. So I do agree that Western historians and media are too biased against Hitler and that we need to have an understanding of Hitler's side, including his reasons and motives and whether he was right about some things. Merely demonizing him does not help the world understand him at all.
However, that doesn't mean that we should adopt the extreme opposite view that Hitler was a saint who did no wrong, as Dennis Wise has. Neither extreme is accurate. This long documentary by Dennis Wise is way too one-sided and tries to portray Hitler as an innocent victim and refuses to acknowledge any of his wrongdoings or faults. So it is not fair or neutral at all. Still, I'll give it 5 stars though, for presenting a lot of data from Hitler's side that most people don't know, so it is somewhat informative at least, even if it's too biased in the other direction.
For a more balanced and fair assessment of Hitler, and of his good traits and bad traits, and his complex motivations and character, I suggest you read the book, "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" by Professor Stolfi which you can find on Amazon.com.
Dances with Wolves (1990)
More like a spiritual experience than just a film!
I just saw "Dances With Wolves" again, the four hour extended version with an added overture, intermission and extra hour of footage. Wow I'm speechless. It's a lot more than just a movie. It's like a spiritual experience and a great epic as well. Every moment in it is meaningful and moving. And the masterpiece musical score makes every moment moving and soulful as well. I've never seen such a musical score complement a film so well.
What's special and unique about this film is that when the protagonist character John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) slowly transforms into a Native American soul, you (the viewer) feel like you are going through the transformation process along with him. That's what makes it like an experience, rather than just a film.
What's more, if you are a white American guy with a deep observant genuine soul and personality, you will relate to John Dunbar's character - his alienation from his white culture, as well as his connection with the Sioux tribe. (Thus this film has a Happier Abroad theme to it as well) Dunbar is the only deep observation genuine white character in the film, along with his lover, because the rest of the white characters in this epic seem so degenerate and hollow, or robotic, in comparison.
I would try to see this on a big screen though, so you can appreciate the scenery, which most of this film focuses on, even more than the characters. Set aside four hours and dim the lights to see it. Then you will understand what I mean.
I think it's one of the top ten best films of all time. And it's Costner's best role as well. On IMDb, almost everyone gave it a 10 out of 10. Also, on Amazon.com nearly every reviewer gave it 5 stars out of 5 as well.
You can get the DVD version on Amazon.com for 5 dollars or download it from Amazon.com for a few dollars.
I think it's a Happier Abroad film (referring to the movement I started at HappierAbroad.com) too because in the story, John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) experiences social connection, harmony and genuineness with the Sioux tribe, and then realizes how hollow and empty his white culture is. His soul slowly becomes Sioux, to the point where he doesn't fit in anymore with American life. The soldiers at the end who capture and persecute him look so degenerate, soulless and depraved compared to the Sioux tribe he joined. Only then do you realize the comparison.
Anyway, this is a must see film. It reflects the spirit and feeling of our movement at HappierAbroad.com. Everyone should see it to understand our point of view better.
9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction (2008)
Scientific, rational and credible debunking of the government's conspiracy theory
In this scientific groundbreaking film, Architect Richard Gage, Founder of AE911Truth.org, makes the credible case that the WTC and Building 7 were taken down by controlled demolition, and not fire as the government alleges. He uses the scientific method to make his case, and shows step by step, analyzing the data objectively, how the controlled demolition hypothesis fits the data 10 out of 10, whereas the government's "fire collapse at free fall speed" theory is ZERO out of 10 in fitting with the data.
This is a must see for anyone wondering about the truth about 9/11 and willing to question it without harboring a psychological need to believe the government's conspiracy theory.
Here are some key points in this film that the deniers of truth and rationality can NEVER explain away or account for: - Thermite residue and iron micro-spheres have been found in the WTC dust. This is HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of artificial explosives and chemicals used.
- There is no way that a small chunk of the WTC could plummet through the main portion of it, 80,000 tons of steel, like thin air, at near free fall speed. That is 100 percent impossible. Even a child knows that. It's common sense.
- Thousands of people from all walks of life heard explosions at the ground level of the WTC, just before the collapse. Some even heard them BEFORE the planes hit. This is well documented and there are many hours of video proving this. Even mainstream media reporters heard explosions and said it was a bomb. The simple explanation is that explosives were used or detonated, probably under the base of the WTC.
- Never before or after 9/11, have steel high rises collapsed from fire. Fire deforms a building gradually, and unevenly. You can't escape that. It does not demolish a skyscraper in seconds. Nor does it pulverize concrete to dust. That is a fact. You could pour kerosene all over the WTC and light it on fire, and the steel STILL wouldn't melt or even weaken. Only a deluded person totally out of touch with reality would deny that. If fire could do that, then the demolition company would be out of business and there would be no need to spend months rigging a building with explosives. Common sense. Even children know this. AE911Truth.org's qualified engineers and welders have tested fire's effect on steel, and found this to be true.
All lines of evidence say the official conspiracy theory and "fire collapse theory" are 100 percent wrong and 100 percent impossible. There's no way around it.
If you'd like to help AE911Truth.org, the producers of this film, please sign their petition and make a donation to their valiant efforts at: http://www.ae911truth.org
PS - I also strongly recommend you watch AE911Truth.org's new 2 hour film "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" in which scores of structural engineers and credible experts from many scientific fields, explain why the fire collapse theory of the WTC and Building 7 are false. Together they form an expert consensus and airtight case that is THE CLINCHER that wins this debate. You can watch it on YouTube by searching the title. I hope someone lists this new film on IMDb too.
The Secret (2006)
Good message but misleading about the power of thought
This film and its content shares a wonderful message and revelation that our thoughts affect our reality a great deal, which has a degree of truth in it and can be used for positive beneficial change in one's life. Yes the "law of attraction" is real. We do tend to attract more of what we think about, good or bad. I've experienced this myself and seen it in others' lives.
However, it is also very naive in the way it spins this New Age concept and the law of attraction. Thoughts are not "all powerful" as this film and other New Age gurus and books try to spin them as. Sorry to say but LIMITATIONS exist. We do not have total control over everything that happens and we cannot have "everything" we want, nor can we become "anything" we want as this film claimed, not in the literal sense. There are some things we just can't control, not even with the "law of attraction" or our thoughts. That's just simple reality and any down-to-earth person with common sense knows that.
No one can use their thoughts to walk through walls or fly like superman for example. Or move mountains, grow back amputated limbs, stop bullets, etc. If thoughts had that kind of power, the world would have been destroyed long ago, for many would have used such powers (The Secret) for evil or selfish purposes. Yet such limitations are never defined in films like this nor with many New Age gurus that teach this concept.
Also, while it is true that you do attract what you want and don't want, there are limitations and exceptions on that too, which this film never acknowledges. For example, there are plenty of times when I was positive and optimistic about an outcome, waiting in excited anticipation, yet the whole thing bombed and turned out to be a big disappointment and let down. And I can recall many times when I was worried and afraid that something terrible was going to happen, yet much to my relief, it didn't happen or turned out to be no big deal at all. Everyone has such examples. How does this film and its teachings explain such common occurrences? It doesn't.
To me, that's intellectually dishonest and a lack of common sense as well.
Simply put, if expectations always came true, as this film seems to imply, then disappointments and surprises would never happen. The Titanic would never have sunk, since everyone thought it was unsinkable. And the Y2K scares back in 2000 would have all came true, yet thankfully they didn't.
So I don't get why many wise knowledgeable New Age gurus whom I respect, such as Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, still teach that thoughts are all powerful and that expectations always come true and that everything that happens to us is in our control and a result of what we created, etc.
Furthermore, if "the secret" was that simple, then why doesn't everyone have only positive thoughts so that nothing will ever go wrong? Finally, it is not true that you can be whatever you want by thinking it or putting your mind to it. I can't become Michael Jordan for example, or the President of the United States. I don't have the talent and there are too many factors going against it that would make it impossible.
See my essay exposing the flaws and limitations of this "thought creates reality" concept, where I ask questions they don't answer, at: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm
In short, yes the law of attraction and positive thinking can and will HELP you get what you want, but it is NOT all powerful as some New Age authors claim. There are many factors and variables that we have no control over, including other people's wills, so we have to learn to work optimally with what we have that's within our reach.
A Foreign Affair (2003)
Fairly accurate portrayal of the bride seeking life in Russia, from a guy who spent a year there and seen it all
I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia. And the process of dealing with the big agencies and their commercialism was pretty accurate too. I don't know why A Foreign Affair endorses and recommends this film though.
I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications to prove it: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.
http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm
It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that hustles for that farmer to buy her gifts is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.
My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia?
WuMaster
- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com
Birthday Girl (2001)
Fairly accurate portrayal of Russian women, except for one big thing
I've had a lot of experience with women in Russia, and this movie portrays what a lot of them are like, unfortunately. They are very cunning, ruthless, and greedy, as well as highly unfair. From the robotic sex, the hustling for gifts, to the lies and betrayal, I've experienced it all in Russia.
I know what I'm talking about. And here are my qualifications: Here are the photojournals of my three trips to Russia in search of a bride. It includes thousands of pics of many hot Russian girls I met, black comedy, scams I was privy to, and the story of my mugging and appearance on Russian national TV.
http://www.happierabroad.com/Photojournals.htm
It's like Reality TV. You will love it. I spent a ton of time putting it together. So check it out. The Russian woman that Nicole Kidman plays is a lot like the Julia and Katya in my photojournals.
My 3 bride seeking trips in Russia happen to be very exciting and would sell, so why don't they make a movie out of my bride seeking adventures in Russia? However, there is one factual impossibility in this film, and that is the way which the guy orders his bride from a catalog and having her arrive at an airport. It doesn't work that way at all, so I don't understand why the media likes to perpetuate this. There isn't a single Russian bride introduction website that works this way, and I challenge anyone to find one that does. The fact is, you can only order the Russian lady's CONTACT INFO (email, address, phone number, etc.) from the website. From there, you correspond and then visit her, and if you want to bring her to your country, you start the immigration process at your INS office, and wait months after that. That's how it works in real life. You can't just order her to arrive at your airport. US Immigration would NEVER allow such a thing to happen.
WuMaster
- I got everything I wanted by going abroad! You can too! http://www.happierabroad.com
The Kingdom (2007)
Great action, but the realistic violence became predictable
I don't see why everyone is raving about this. It was lots of gory action, nothing more. There was no sense of glory or honor in this film. The action was mediocre and the ending very predictable. In the beginning, the film appeared realistic, but then it all went downhill when it became a typical "American team saves the day" type of movie where they just shoot all the bad guys so easily without getting hit.
Also, this film mispaints the rest of the world outside the US as a world where death, bombs and bullets constantly lurk around the corner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many who've been to the Middle East say it's nothing like portrayed in US news and movies, some even felt SAFER there than in the US!
See http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Page32.htm See my site for more info on the real world outside the USA matrix and propaganda at http://www.happierabroad.com
Remember that the US media wants to scare you from leaving your country, to keep you working and consuming like a busybee robot, while living in fear. Check out my site, it just might change your life :) Thanks.
Dr. Phil (2002)
Why is Dr. Phil so anti-men? Is he a puppet for the feminist culture?
On the hit show Dr. Phil, popular with US women but disliked by men, the woman's side is always taken. The bias is unmistakable, and understandable since their target audience is predominantly feminist females. But even worse, for some reason, they always bring on stupid men rather than intelligent ones, to use as punching bags for Dr. Phil and his feminist politically correct audience. For instance, when Dr. Phil does relationship counseling for couples, he usually lectures the male partner on what he's doing wrong, who in turn is incapable of defending himself. Instead, the stupid male guinea pig can only say regarding his alleged insensitive behavior "That's just the way I am. I can't help it." which provides a perfect target for Dr. Phil's preaching to the choir about how men "just don't get it". Obviously the show is screened and rigged this way to appease its female audience. For instance, they would never bring on someone like me who might out-debate Dr. Phil and make him look bad. This all perpetuates the feminist stereotype that men are stupid and wrong, and need to be educated, while women are innocent victims who can do no wrong.
King Kong (2005)
Great action scenes, but first half dragged too long
This was a great movie with lots of spectacular action scenes involving King Kong. The way Kong smashed things and people were funny and well done. And the Jurassic Park scene with the T-Rexes was a great addition.
However, the first half dragged out too long. It took the movie an hour to reach the island, and moved too slowly during that time.
The scenes with the bugs were unnecessary, gross, detracted from the focus of King Kong, and my friend with me found them unpleasant.
The end scene seemed rushed. Not enough action. It also made no sense for Kong to climb to the top of the Empire State Building to keep getting shot at like that. Kong seems too great to be finished off by bullets. In the island scenes, Kong fights very shrewdly, but in NYC, he doesn't at all. Climbing to the top of that building made no sense and had no tactical advantage.
Finally, it was never explained how they got Kong on that small freight ship, and there was no transition from there to NYC.
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! (2003)
My article debunking pseudo-skepticism
http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm
Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena - Winston Wu's widely acclaimed treatise debunking 30 pseudoskeptical arguments point by point, complete with references and citations.
Check it out. It contains irrefutable evidence for psi and other paranormal phenomena. Every argument of the debunkers is addressed point by point.
I don't want to say anymore, but this has to be a minimum of 10 lines for it to post, for some reason.