Search Box

Thursday, January 14, 2016


Watched Sicario (out on pay-per-view now) two nights ago, and my son and I liked it so much we watched it again last night. It's about an interagency force tasked with disrupting the Mexican drug cartels.

The soundtrack isn't really music, it's more just background noise designed to amplify the intensity of the movie. But it's still one of the greatest soundtracks I've ever heard.

The casting was near perfect. virtually every role was filled by someone who made you think, ah, that person is perfect for that role. The only possible false note was Emily Blunt as the nominal protagonist, a Phoenix FBI agent. But, it always helps to have a beautiful woman onscreen:

Blunt seems to be one of the few women who looks better without makeup (above) than with (shown below, at the Cannes premiere for the film):

I have no idea whether US law enforcement does the types of things they're shown doing; but it all seems plausible. And it certainly captured the destruction wrought by the cartels in Juarez.

As my son pointed out afterward, "This isn't exactly a let's-throw-open-the-borders movie." (He also said the military characters seemed realistic.)

Definitely worth watching.


Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

Thanks for the heads-up.

I get my recommendations as to what to watch from you and a few other bloggers. (Is that a sad admission? I work around real duds.)

Genuine beauties always look better without much makeup. And the makeup nowadays is really garish.

I once saw a lady Park Ranger out west who was one of those middle-aged ladies where you say to yourself, "why didn't she ever try to become a model?" Her face was not exactly conventionally beautiful but it was quite interesting & photogenic. She had one of those amazing model bodies that just don't age: must have been 6 feet, well proportioned, and naturally skinny. There's this stereotype in the manosphere that anyone who is good looking will just sort of naturally rise to the top, but that isn't true. I've seen remarkable looking people in all walks of life (and ugly people at the top as well). Maybe this lady is happier in her life than an ex-model, but I can tell you as someone who once worked in the industry (in a very low-level way, I did bookings once), she could at least have gotten a few jobs when she was in her teens. Bodies like that are simply God-given, and very rare.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
It makes sense to take recommendations from people with whom you agree on other matters. I know if I'm simpatico with someone on one matter, I'm much more likely to listen to their advice on another.

Yes, every now and then we stumble across beauties in out of the way places. Some of them never really do anything with their looks, they don't even try to marry someone rich. And agreed about some who do make it to the top of the modeling or acting world. I've seen tons of women who are better-looking than Julia Roberts, or Jennifer Aniston, or Demi Moore. And the latter two had the benefit of plastic surgery, too.

Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

Saw Roberts a long time ago (after Mystic Pizza) somewhere - she radiated charisma and you just KNEW she was going places. She had the kind of look that wasn't really classifiable other than "damn, she's good looking."

Moore - hot when young. Not a classic beauty, but very pretty when young, all used up now.

Aniston - well groomed, but was never even close to pretty. You could always tell she had coarse features - that nose, ugh! Small eyes, thin lips. Nothing special. Well preserved though. Not a beauty.

Charlize Theron -- a goddess. She has had surgery (the nose, a dead giveaway), but a goddess! Astounding! Unfortunately, she's also nuts. But breathtaking! One of the few actresses I would pay to look at.

Someone very smart said to me: a great actor is someone you pay money to look at.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug, WOTPT --
i think part of the reason Roberts stood out in Mystic Pizza was because the other actresses were all just ordinary-looking girls, whereas Roberts was the one who would have been elected prom queen because she looks good from a distance. But up close, she's got that big nose, short upper lip, and a mouth like the Joker's.

Aniston -- agree completely, as I wrote about here:

Theron -- agree completely about her, too. I've heard she's nuts too, though I don't know how you'd end up otherwise when you've watched your mother kill your father as a young girl. She's also a great actress (though that's beside the point of this conversation).

Witty line about great actors.

Anonymous said...

Off topic: I forget if I've recommended this blog before, but the guy is wicked smart and writes about interesting things. You might like it.


John Craig said...

"B" --

(Is this Lady Bug?)

Yes, I took a look at his first post, VERY interesting. And scary. And yes, he does sound quite smart.

Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

B was not me, Lady Bug.

About Roberts, c'mon! Stop being cruel. I saw her in person, I'm telling you, she was a knockout. Not in the classic sense, but an unusual, almost exotic beauty. Don't know about now.

About Aniston, "I have to wonder if Aniston's agent had some sort of arrangement with Men's Health." Yes, indeed. The PR industry is all lies and spin, and her agent pulled some strings. That's what all that "best looking" and "sexiest" is about. The shame is that at least in Hollywood the bullshit was about truly attractive people, but now? Nope.

Here's an example of a girl who never quite made it from starlet to star, but look at these features:,%20Jeanne/Crain,%20Jeanne_01.jpg

A gal who looked like this was *minor*!

Agree with you about Theron's acting. She's first rate. I was referring to her politics, which strike me as total masochism, and her adopting a black infant. What the hell will happen when he's 14? I hope he doesn't go postal.

Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

PS Have you heard all the breast-beating about the "white" Oscar noms? Are you sick of this shit? I am so fucking sick and tired, of this, John.

Only criticism I have of the noms is that Mad Max got 10 of them. Much as I love Theron's acting and looks, I hated this movie.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Okay, thanks, not you. I have to wonder if "B" is the author of the blog himself. It IS a good blog, though, at least the first article was interesting.

Yes, I suppose I was being mean. But I always thought Roberts was way overrated.

Agree with you about Crain. Several of those other women I listed in that post on Aniston never quite made it from starlet to star, either, but they were incredibly beautiful.

Yikes, hadn't known about Theron's politics etc. It seems a certain type of Hollywood star adopts black children as a prop to show how wonderfully open-minded an liberal they are. Hadn't realized Theron was part of that crowd.

Anonymous said...

Just a fan of Scott's blog, and not the author of it. I previously responded to your about libertarianism weeks ago.



John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
PS -- I hadn't even realized this year's Oscar nominations were out. I have heard of the fuss about not enough black nominations in previous years, would have thought they would have forestalled such fuss this year with some token nods in that direction. Agreed, such a fuss is always one-sided. Where is the outrage over no Mexican-American or Asian-American nominees? I remember an article in the NYT a year or so ago saying that the fact that only 11% of major league baseball players were native-born blacks was a "crisis," and that something had to be done about it. Blacks are 13-14% of the population, so that's not all that disproportionate. And meantime, 60% of the NFL and 80% of the NBA is black, but no one raises a fuss about that.

I guess the Academy members choose the nominees, and they are a harder group to pressure into being pc.

John Craig said...

B --
Okay, thank you, sorry, didn't remember your name.

europeasant said...

Women, What do they really look like? One day even I will find out. But like a well known philosopher said;
You can't live with
you can't live
Without them!

Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

I guess the Academy members choose the nominees, and they are a harder group to pressure into being pc.

I thought Argo was totally overrated, but that the character played by Arkin was hilarious. An old Jewish guy, the prototypical Academy member (although I know a lot who are not Jewish, very old Americana, if you know what I mean....), when the Affleck character tried to pitch an idea with horses, Arkin says, "Western? No."
Affleck: "It's not a Western."
Arkin: "If it's got horses, it's a Western!?"

I LOL'd.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Ha….that all does ring true.

Steven said...

thanks, I'll watch it. I don't fancy Emily Blunt though. (fancy is what we say here for being physically attracted to or having a crush on somebody...never heard Americans use it, u familiar?).

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, familiar with the word "fancy" used in that context. I'm surprised you don't like her, but I guess it's all a question of taste.

Steven said...

I know some women would be given an average rating of 9 and others 4 but individual tastes seem to differ quite a lot. One guys 'really attractive' can be another guys she's all right or not really for me. Same for women. I'm sure you've found some were really attracted to you and others just weren't.

John Craig said...

Steven --
True enough regarding male tastes….

Unfortunately regarding women's tastes, I've found a lot more of the latter kind of women than the former.

Lady Bug, Working on that Panther Thing said...

Re: Fancy, usage. America's pretty big, but in the NE, we use fancy as in, "fancy that," and "I don't fancy it," but the full meaning of the word in British usage, no. I learned that during a trip to Britain. It means like but not sexually desire here, in Britain, the latter.

About taste, there's no accounting for it! Occasionally I read Chateau Heartiste for some insight into a certain kind of male mentality. I disagree with a good deal of what they say and it's obvious I'm no PC liberal. He did a post on which Hollywood alpha real women "fancy": Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, and Warren Beatty. (LOL, it's kind of my idea of heaven to be able to choose among those four...although I have others I like more.)

CH stated dogmatically that a real woman would prefer Jack Nicholson above all the others. Well, my choice is the younger Clint Eastwood, and I'm sticking to it, and I'm a real woman.

(OT, CH sounds like a butthurt 14 year old most of the time.)

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
I know what you're saying about CH, but mostly he tells the truth. He tells it harshly, and at some level, seems to really dislike women (have to wonder what his relationship with his mother was like), and he does exude maladjustment. BUT, as I said, he does tell the truth, and he's witty, and I read him and enjoy his site.

BTW, as far as his advice on women goes, it all rings true. And I happen to know a young man who plays the game the way CH suggests, and this young man does very well with women.

There's another occasional commenter here, Gardner, very smart, who feels much as you do about CH. She despises him; but she has read him enough to despise him.

Steven said...

Lady bug,

We use it the way you said too.

CH's white nationalism is a value judgement, though his criticism of liberals can be entertaining. Also, he's not right about everything. Some of the evolutionary psychology theories inevitably turn out to be wrong because they're so speculative. dont get me wrong, eve psych is really interesting and theory underpinning it is sound. But I think he is most on solid ground when keeping it simple and talking about the qualities that women find attractive and about game. I've learned a fair bit from it. I wouldn't mind incorporating some but not to the point of being manipulative or a dick. I want to treat people well and I want to be honest. Am I not showing more strength by being stubbornly true to myself and still knowing I can be successful with women, rather than acting like a person I'm not in an attempt to please and attract others? It's possible to be a decent guy and treat women well and still have some of those alpha qualities and have a steady supply of sexual partners. There's something else that bothers me about it: I think it's the idea that the ultimate judgement of a man's worth and status is how many women he can attract or has slept with. That's the world view and I think the problem with it is it ignores other dimensions of life. It's a materialist philosophy, in which the whole purpose of life is to procreate, and I think it has a limited view of life and of what it is possible to achieve and embody in this world. Perhaps there are profounder truths and accomplishments he is entirely ignorant of.