joelweymouthtais

It has been said that Glenda Jackson.was overacting. Emma Hamilton was crude and vulgar, that characteristic was captured greatly. Historically, she was a tramp and died in poverty after the death of Nelson. The character who played Harding said it best,

England needed a hero not a saint. He had said that Nelson was a great man by both was he did and what he was.

The battle did not show the details, however, Nelsons plans never were that complicated. His approach or "touch" was always to go right at them and break the line of battle and turn the fight into a melee. This tactic was no longer viable with the creation of the dreadnought, and long range guns. Had Nelson lived in 1917, his tactics would have spelled disaster for the British Navy: hence, the tactics were and are irrelevant to the story. The detail of preparation and conduct of a battle in the Victory in the age of sail is quite interesting.

This is an interesting and powerful story of an imperfect man being great. The current list of leaders and politicians are "perfect" men or women, but mediocre and incompetent. I would much rather have a Nelson, than a Biden, or a Lloyd Austin or Mark Milley.

Prey can be considered as a prequel. In Predator 2, was the Predators are leaving, they have many weapons from hundreds of year before meaning the Predators had been to earth before. That was understood from the first Predator. This is an attempt to answer why the first Predators had come to earth. AVP/AVP Requiem had started a genre where the predators had been coming to earth for thousands of years. That universe happily has been tossed. This reignites the franchise with a more plausible explanation that the writers were detail oriented enough to "lessen" the technology of the predators weapons and speculate how the predator approaches a NEW "preserve" to hunt. The female hero was also done in a way that was not "preachy" or "woke". More in the line of Aliens. I recommend this highly.

This supplies a view. It is slanted, but so are most documentaries. It approaches from the Christian perspective. People who call this poorly researched, have no clue about what research is. I am sure those who attack the "research" do not even have a college education. And as far as scientists are concerned, many defenders of evolution are not scientists, though touted as such. Bill Nye is not a scientist, he doesn't even have a post graduate degree. His degree is in Mechanical engineering. Charles Darwin was not a scientist. His degree was in Theology. Henry Lyell who produced the geological layers was not a scientist, he was a lawyer. The basis of Darwinism, which was embraced wholeheartedly by Hitler, is not science, but sloppy research. Those who are triggered by this should read more contrarian views. These issues invokes most of the unscientific vitriol from those who hate this movie. Fact is, Isaac Newton was also a creationist. When evolutionists produce someone on his par, then I might take them seriously.

This movie is another view point. Listen to it. I did not say believe it. All of you are inundated with the contrary view points. Maybe it is time to get a different view point for the basis of balance. True SCIENCE observes all points.