Change Your Image
seandoel
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Antebellum (2020)
Is this movie "political"?
I'm perplexed that some reviewers on here have labelled the movie "political". As far as I'm aware there remains no political parties that deny the abhorrence of slavery nor racial oppression. This movie does not villanize white people, it villanizes villains. Moreover, the motives of the villains are undeclared and ambiguous - although there are hints at racial motivations but these are left for the viewers interpretation. To classify the movie as political suggests the producers had a political statement to make or political motivation. One can only presume that is to say they are suggesting racism still exists. This of course is not up for debate, its fact, it DOES. This is not political. There is a reason as to why the 'slave owners' are white and the 'slaves' are black. *The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.*
As a white man I am no more ashamed of the white villains in this movie as I am to white bond villains. I am not them.
One reviewer asked a question about the movie and questioned its continuity in doing so, so I thought I'd explain:
The reason Veronica doesn't have branding in the shower scene is simply because she hasn't been branded yet. After she wakes from the initial slavery scenes she hasn't dreamed that at all, it's a con, and it works. There are two time lines and they jump between them but the slavery scenes all succeed the "normal" scenes.
They also ask about why do they burn the cotton. Well why not burn the cotton? What else are they to do with it? They aren't really running a plantation to profit from cotton, it's not for sale.
Repossessed! (2009)
Awful
Did they cut the fun out of the show? Not much happens. No fun, no drama.
Call of Duty: World at War (2008)
An instant Classic
I've read so many articles rubbishing w@w and treyarch and I can't help but wonder if they've even given this game a chance. It seems a lot of people are just unhappy that they've gone back to ww2 and that initial annoyance has tarred their judgement.
I played the game and tried not to compare it to cod4 but as it is so simular it's hard not to. If your looking for an opinion on which game is better I honestly couldn't say. If you stuck w@w in having never played cod4 you would be amazed, having played cod4 it isn't so stunning.
As for the single player campaign its 10/10, its lenghty and diverse, it captures you in a atmosphere never seen before in a ww2 shooter. The graphics are stunning and the gameplay is challenging yet rewarding. The content is much more mature than seen before and this adds to the other-all experience.
The multiplayer offers players a long term service and the map packs are a welcome enhancement. The improvements from its predecessors are many although some of the maps don't seem to have been thought through. Zombie mode offers a great break while offering merit.
To sum up, if you want to play a really involved FPS any call of duty will do ya, however world at war is special and will keep thrilled for much longer than other games.