Sunday, May 14, 2017

King Arthur: AMAZING!

I have been writing about King Arthur Legend Of the Sword since the first trailer came out: did I like it? I LOVED IT!!! The only way I could have liked it more was if I had seen it in 3D, because--from the very first screen shots--it's geared to be viewed in 3D. I got sick Friday and that really threw my schedule off for the weekend, but I am about half-way done with the review. I feel like everything I have written heretofore applies to what we see in the film, but obviously there is much more, so much more! I could not be happier or more impressed with Guy Ritchie. So, why is it getting such bad reviews and supposedly bombing?
This isn't great quality and I apologize, but I did want to briefly discuss the importance of this logo. It's a crown, sure, but it's also an "A" for Arthur and a "V" for Vortigern, demonstrating how a "V" can be an upside-down "A," in other words, how Vortigern, who is not a legitimate ruler, can appear to be the power of the crown, but is really just a perversion of power and what government rule is supposed to be. 
I think there's an easy explanation: look at what happened to Spectre. Spectre, the last James Bond film, exposed the New World Order, and King Arthur is exposing the satanic and occult ties in Hollywood and politics; who owns the box office and media outlets reporting on the box office? The same people being exposed by King Arthur, not only for their own active participation in the occult, but for supporting Hillary Clinton and her participation in the occult. Remember, when Ritchie and company made this film about two years ago, it was expected that Clinton would be the next president (or even that Obama would find a way to just stay in office). Hours and hours before anyone could have known, a couple of news outlets began picking up that King Arthur was "bombing," and then everyone started reporting it; There wasn't as much money being pulled in because so many early showings (Thursday evening, and 3D showings) were being canceled before the film even began playing; when I got to my theater, three shows of King Arthur had all ready sold out. So, why would they cancel early showings?
Why would film companies want to pan the films they themselves spent over a hundred million dollars to make? There are actually several advantages. One, there are things more important than money, like influence. If people, such as myself, think that there really are satanic influences at work in Hollywood and politics, then a film "exposing" such things bombing makes me look like an idiot for believing such things; in other words, rather than the film validating my view, I'm being isolated and (according to liberals) will be far less likely to discuss such matters with others because a film talking about the same topics bombed. Additionally, King Arthur is a challenge about the good which has been accomplished by white males, who are the number one enemies of liberals; why support a film that supports your enemy? Then, good and reasonable reader, you are like, "If you are right, then why would they even make the film to begin with?" and the answer to that is simple: propaganda. If you like a film that didn't do well at the box office, then you, too, are a loser, and who wants to be a loser? This is the same reason you will never see the liberal media reporting that a candidate they favor for an election is losing or trailing behind in the polls, no one--they believe--is going to get out and support a loser, because people want to be associated with winners. So by spreading the word that a film isn't good, they think it will make you ashamed that you wanted to see it; if you do go and see it, and liked it, and tell others about it, those others are going to think you're crazy and have horrible taste, because the professional critics are telling everyone it's horrible. To the liberals, it is horrible; it's awful! They don't want to see anyone butting up against their treasured thesis's of how reality works and what power is all about.  
For at least two reasons: first, it would take longer for word of mouth about how good it is to get around if people weren't getting to see it Thursday, then go to work/school Friday and talk it up, so people would only have the "professional" critics (read: "liberal") to go by when deciding if they would go see it. Second, cutting out Thursday showings meant slashing profit-possibility: those are the die-hard fans, and it's easier to get into see a film Thursday night, then Friday day (and, in this case, papers were all ready reporting that it was "bombing" before the Friday movie audiences even made it to the theater!); not to mention that 3D viewing opportunities have also been slashed. So, just like with Spectre, they hope to drastically reduce the number of people going to see King Arthur so they can say, "See? No one supports white males anymore, and no one wants to see an exertion of male authority, so we're not going back that way," and that's a narrative they can use to continue feeding us propaganda like Wonder Woman and Guardians Of the Galaxy. I will get this up asap, and please, go and see it because it's amazing!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner