Gal Gadot again

Thought it time to “do” Gal Gadot again [with the “t” spoken] but the MSM beat me to it. The strange thing this time round was that it wasn’t anti, quite pro in fact, at least at the start.  I’d written this in draft:

DC/Marvel are Ok, her role is just a role and she’s already looking round for others, her anti-jihad politics are good, her American associations not so good but we can cut her some slack on that.

She was on all the leftist media – Fallon, Kimmel, the stock shows like Today, she was gushing and giggling. Ok, she must put herself about for her career and she does seem nice, as well as being a fine specimen of womanhood.

The latter, methinks, there’d not be all that much debate over.

Gorgeous woman, whatever views she has and the company she keeps. My previous draft added:

Probably best to look no further or we might find she’s refused to be on Fox or something like that. She’s OK, she must disappoint the left that she simply married and has two children … how boring for an Ellen Degenerate, for example.

Prophetic words.

The negative evidence began to accumulate.

But there was still something else to support her over – the way the leftoids on every forum attacked her for being … yep, you’ve got it … Jewish.

In my eyes, that was her high point, but then came the Degenerate interview, then she kissed a woman full-on, justified it in the press, then kissed some stray man on one of the shows, not even a cast member.  Interesting view of marriage.

Now it began to dawn why the leftist media, but not Fox and the Deplorable media, were going ape over her and yet they were conflicted too because they love ISIS and Hamas.

Bit by bit, youtube picked up that I was following her and so they were offering clips and many of these – well, they were unfortunate because I’d really wanted to like her, despite the rabid feminism.

But the evidence kept building in her statements in various interviews and that reminded me of Wolfie’s comment a few days back:

I think quite a lot of us knew that from the start, James wanted to hope for better.

… to which I replied at the time:

True. Naivety personified.

Sadly, this clip below then appeared. She herself still looked fine and clean but the sleazy SNL had to dirty it by having some revolting butch specimen interrupt her and make weak smutty jokes, which she “put up with”:

In another interview, I couldn’t believe when she started making jokes about her “bush” and her “boobs”, obviously thinking that that was the way to get on in Left Liberal Land.  And she was the one who brought it up, not the man she’d just had thrown off Justice League II for sleaze [possibly correctly too from all accounts], although my Dutch friend Kassandra pointed out:

And that’s when my interest in this disappointing woman who is, after all, an actress who will do whatever’s required to make it in Hollywood, waned, especially as the next vid was from Watchmojo, supposedly “slamming” Justice League and that raised yet another issue.

Seems this “slam” heading was based on Rotten Tomatoes, whose critics averaged 56% but the audience averaged 86%. There was much discussion below the youtube about this discrepancy. One commenter, who called himself a nerd, pointed out that this was hardly “slamming”, in fact it was a “mixed” review.

Film reviews

Which shifts attention now to the whole business of film critics and who gets paid to say what. But it also focuses on the audience. Methinks there’s a case that the 86% who bothered to register in order to vote were committed game movie watchers in the first place anyway.

Just how, say, an N.O. panel of judges would have voted is in the realm of speculation.

Someone pointed out that the RT rating is quite critical to a movie’s chances and one suspects that so is an audience percentage.

Going to the Skyfall and SPECTRE reviews, I was always astounded that the audience weren’t aware of the glaring faults of the film, though the cinematography was wonderful. There were so many reviews which were saying roughly the same thing.

So it becomes near impossible today, in our Era of Lying or rather our Era of Lies Being Exposed, to know if a film is good or not. It was once that reviewers like Ebert, Berardinelli or Norman were not ‘alf bad, you could get the general idea. Not now.

How good is JL? Who knows, unless you’re a gamer boy or girl. How good is Gal Gadot as an actress? Who knows? How good as a person? Surprisingly and disappointingly poor, despite the pleasant manner and those eyes.

Then again, her countryman “Bibi” has shown how a nice smile and pleasant, articulate manner, plus a clean image, can go a long way in the west, compared to, say, bearded jihadis or leftists.

Another one I was checking out, following a Wail article on her going to a jungle in Australia [I’d like to know where there’s a jungle in Australia but no matter] was someone called Toffolo:

Yes, all right, it was the diminutive size and blonde hair, got me bang to rights, guv’nor.

What a sleazebag she was.  In an interview on youtube, she went on about eating “balls” and a “penis”. She joked with the audience that they’d probably like to see her eating a penis.

Yeah, right.  I don’t mind the power of suggestion and a look of innuendo from a pretty woman but have a bit of subtlety, love.  The ghost of Wolfie kept saying to me though – what do you expect from a reality “star”?

Seriously, is the only choice in western women that between raving feminazis and trollops? Is there no one in the middle any more? Is there no finesse to womanhood?

So, in summary, there’s not all that much out there to entertain, or so it seems – you might beg to differ.

7 comments for “Gal Gadot again

  1. November 18, 2017 at 17:19

    Right on cue, Chuckles sends the blogpost link for Vox:

    I had some time to kill in town today. Didn’t want to drive back home just to turn around. Decided to roll the dice and see the Justice League Movie. Consider this me taking one for the team. It was abysmal. Just flat out boring. But it was offensive, too.

  2. Distant Relative
    November 18, 2017 at 19:25

    In the interest of fairness, the MIC Toff[olo] in the pink ensemble heading for IACGMOOH was talking about “Bush Tucker Trials” in which the nether regions of Kangaroos are presented on a platter for the contestant to eat – hence her mention of the aforementioned eating penis and testicles. GB TV viewers who watch this bilge vote for which victim they would like to see face this ordeal. No eat means no dinner for the rest of the camp, only emergency rations of beans and rice.

    Start at 1.27 Other than that, as you were. Seems she has a penchant for older male politicians. Cause for concern, methinks. Boris could end up with her as his new step-mother….. (His father is in the “jungle” with her.)

    • November 19, 2017 at 07:40

      Ah, I’m not up with the finer details.

  3. November 18, 2017 at 21:54

    Abysmal film, I agree, without even seeing it. The characters are not ‘heroes’: they are cardboard cut outs.

    The woman doing the interviewing had a voice that could strip paint at ten yards.

    • November 19, 2017 at 07:41

      Further reviews seem to confirm this.

  4. November 19, 2017 at 09:04

    Will probably never see the movie.
    But she’s definitely a babe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.