petegallows

...but as a biopic, as always - why do they always feel the need to reinvent the story? If the story was interesting enough to make a film about it to begin with, stick to the story!

If it was just a film, I would probably score it higher...or would I actually score it lower, just because the story is so unrealistic - and that's the thing. It's a true story, for the most part. Just very, very unbelievable. Life is often weirder/more interesting than fiction.

The good - the film did have that 70s and 80s feel and atmosphere. The story is so obscure, most people around the world would have no idea about the background, or the people in it - except for old time wrestling fans and people who listen to Jim Cornette, or similar wrestling podcasts (there are no similar wrestling podcasts to Jim Cornette..) or Vice documentaries. This makes it pretty "brave", making a big budget film about a family, that people outside of the US - that are into this sort of thing, wouldn't normally know, or care about one bit.

It was done well, the acting was good for the most part. It did show the gritty life of pro wrestling, the mentality, the messed up mind of Fritz and it almost made you believe in the Von Erich Family curse. Maybe Kevin is the only one that isn't cursed? Or maybe his curse is that he's the only one that has to live, without all his brothers? Maybe the curse is real after all.

The in ring action was well done, Chavo Guerrero Jr looked great, I had no idea he was supposed to be in it, he looked decades younger than he is.

The scene, where the brothers meet in the afterlife was actually pretty heart warming.

The bad - they didn't stick to the "script" = life. They totally left out the youngest son. Fritz didn't like him (if he was naming and ranking his favourite sons, as he would, Chris would probably come up at number onehundredandtwentythousand..after going through the phonebook).. because Chris was way too small and didn't make a good wrestler...so the film-makers just left him out completely as well.

Poor Chris took his misfortune very hard and took his life as well, he probably is indeed cursed, even after his death, since there was no space in this big budget (lisp) "major motion picture" for his little self at all. Maybe they didn't want to spam the film with so much ache and so many suicides, but hey - it happened! Fritz also offed himself and I don't believe it was mentioned either.

Zac was buff af in this film, he did very well, but he also looked way too old and both him and the Kerry guy looked way too small/short. I fault the camera work for this, it is not the first time a shorter actor played a part of a tall person, but this is probably the first film I've ever seen, where it was blatantly obvious.

Let's say you couldn't tell in the ring, you could, but let's say you just didn't know, because you don't know how tall the other guys are supposed to be. But among normal people, general public, a wedding?

I was schocked when I found out Joaquin Phoenix was 5'8" after watching him play Johnny Cash in I walk the line. I assumed he must be 6'2", he just looked tall in the film to me - that's how you do it. That's what film making (and wrestling) is supposed to be about - suspend your disbelief. The Iron Claw failed miserably in this particular aspect.

Ric Flair's loud, incoherent, slobbering and lisping rambling is hard to emulate - I get it, but the guy totally failed though. He looked good, looked better physically than Ric ever did, but they should have had the vocal track dubbed by some of the very few people, who can actually commit to it and do it properly. Ric Flair himself would probably ask for a billion $ to do the voice himself (and of course he's like 700 years old at this point), but maybe Jay Lethal could have done it? Because this actor was so bland compared to Ric, if Ric was anything like this as a performer, he would only be able to afford one second hand alligator shoe..over his lifetime. Nobody would watch that. Nobody would ever buy into his character. If you can't use the actual footage of the promo, or do a voice-over by someone like Jay Lethal...maybe just leave it out altogether?

Lance von Erich was a big fiasco for Von Erichs, that was also omitted - he was not mentioned at all, "he" was only shown in the ring for a few brief seconds. Apparently Lance scenes (played by MJF) didn't make the cut. Bit of a shame.

*******

For the people unfamiliar with the story, this film could provide an interesting insight into the lives of one wrestling family, and let them peek behind the curtain a bit, or just provide some entertainment for a couple of hours.

For people who follow the behind the scenes of pro wrestling - The Iron Claw was well made, wasn't embarrassing like many other depictions of pro wrestling in film or on tv (like Jesse Ventura story, oh poor Jesse..), the film even did justice to some aspects of the business, but it was also a bit of a let down, having so many crucial historical inaccuracies in it. Overall, the film is better than I expected.

What a roller-coaster. I've just finished the entire series, it took me probably a year and if there's another season, or another 10 seasons, I would watch it, but.... I am writing this upset, because of the totally unnecessary and foolish ending.

I get that you have to reinvent yourself, introduce new characters, ideas, subplots, issues, how else are you going to bring more stories..

However, as the series went on, it was very obvious, they didn't know what to do anymore, the plots made a very little sense, everything was way to repetitive. For example:

• Saaammy (and sometimes Dean) would end up tied to a chair towards the end of so many episodes, I've lost count. You'd think, that when this starts happening to a person on a regular basis, they'd get multiple blades and cuff keys hidden within reach in their jacket sleeve, watch strap, have a little pouch sewn in on the inner side of jeans behind their back, keep a blade in there, pull out a little (silver) blade or a cuff key and you're out of there, especially since the monsters always seem to leave them in the room alone, or are constantly distracted. Again,it's not about running through everyone on an easy mode, it's about learning from experience. The hunters would have definitely figured it out.

• the boys would get their behind handed to them in very underwhelming scenarios, after being hunters for maybe 3 decades, it made no sense - how did they get worse over time? Just jobbing to any schmuck ghost, or whatever, flying across the room and getting beat up. Yes, they needed a challenge, can't just run through everyone in an easy mode - but maybe the monsters should have been more impressive, rather than some run of the mill vampires etc. Again, also having a silver blade hidden in a forearm holster, ideally retractable (boxcutter style, but a proper silver blade) blade, would save them from being beaten on/choked/ground and pounded on a regular basis. They lose their weapons all the time and get beat up all the time, they'd figure it out in all those years.

• the Chuck/angels deal was just nauseating. A little too much, draaaaggeed ooon for way to long. The series was much more enjoyable, when they were hunting monsters. I liked Cass, but too many unimpressive angels, very obvious random extras (good for them, they got Supernatural on their resume...but whan an unimpressive bunch), nodding their heads, fighting with angel blades, while looking very mediocre. If you have to engage in a hand to hand combat, wouldn't you have some soldier/fighter lookings mofos instead of an office personnel in suits and Lt. Columbo coat? This is fearce Angel Seraphina, or whatever, but she's in a vessel of a 130lbs lady from HR, her name is Judy, she's gonna fight you with angel blade...same goes for the Demons. I am sorry, I am not afraid of some pencil neck geek Jimmy from sales department. Why do most of the later demons/angels look like office clerks? Why does Heaven look like office nightmare?

• horrible British characters, for the most part. Crowley was fantastic, until they stupidly killed him off, Rowenna detto, the rest of them super-un-likable. By that I don't mean evil characters I don't like, because they're so evil...I mean - "I don't want to see this character any more". Like the horrible woman in the earlier series, the thief lady with British accent? Couldn't stand her.

• many of the season's finales were completely underwhelming. You build something up for 20 plus episodes, oh my, how are they going to solve this... and then...pow, right in the kisser and it's all over. The apocalypse fight etc.

• the boys kept using fake credit cards, had zero means of income, even after finding the bunker. Bunker has everything, but no trust fund, gold, something..to explain how they get food and gas money. Still using just fake credit cards? Bobby was a hunter, bud he had a scrap yard, the other woman in early seasons was a hunter, but had a bar

• Sammy, such an important character, got very interesting when he started to gain his powers, visions etc. He was chosen by the Yellow eyes guy, a special kid...then suddenly- nothing. No visions, nothing. "Hey Sammy, remember how you used to have your visions and stuff? How you could see the future?" - "..No..". What a waste. The series is called Supernatural! They deal with demons, Lucifer, angels, God, various gods, why not allow him also to keep that bit of mysterious, supernatural aspect? Nah mate, here's a knife and a gun instead. Be like your brother, but worse. They really could have kept Sammy more special, instead they made him into a whiny vegan hippie.

• the spells obviously work. They can send angels away, after cutting themselves and writing a special sign in their blood...cool touch. Why not learn a couple more spells and tricks?

• John Winchester never coming back, although everybody else did...- until he comes back, looks almost 20 years older..because the actor is..he's thin as a rail, but they didn't even try to conceal it. No hair dye, no jacket to make him look buff and younger. And he's suddenly a father of the year, who's proud of his boys. He was supposed to be the younger, despotic version of himself, who just appeared in the future, why does he look frail and why is he suddenly so different? Would it kill them/and the actor - to appear as a ghost a couple of times for five minutes earlier on, in the previous seasons? It would have been so much better for the series. Did the actor hate the series that much? Would he cost them so much, they couldn't afford a filming day?

• grandpa Campbell / X-Files Skinner guy, no thanks. What an annoying character.

• the overall ending was absolutely insanely brutally unnecessary. If it wasn't for this horrible last episode - if the last episode was the previous one, the series would have been so much better as a whole. Jack is the new God, he's a good guy..why would he even bring the monsters back? Why wouldn't he just bring back the animals and the mankind?

Now to the good things:

• pretty much everything else. It had some incredibly funny episodes, like X-Files used to do every now and then. Some characters were just great, loveable, like meeting a good friend for a beer.

• Dean, what a character, funny, witty, probably 95%+ of viewers most favourite character.

• Crowley, arguably the best character that came along once the series went downhill with the whole angels storyline. He saved so many of the seasons with his presence. Should have kept him on for sure. The series was never the same without him.

• Bobby, another good character, again, killed him prematurely, brought him back as a ghost, from another dimension etc. That's the thing, no death is terminal in this Supernatural universe..

• Sammy, the whiny, annoying brother, but we like him anyway. (I wish they kept him with his supernatural visions. They still let him dabble in magic, but should have done more with his character. Being Rowena's apprentice for a while would have been interesting)

• the bunker of Men of Letters, what a great idea, it was satisfying to finally see the boys have a proper and very interesting home.

I might reconsider the rating, because I did enjoy the series - but honestly, enjoyed it mostly DESPITE many...many lacklustre episodes and whole seasons. It had a few fantastic characters that made it worth watching, some very well done plots, unfortunately, these brilliant episodes were few and far between as the series progressed.

Is wrong.

Some of you here claim Hancock "has no proof" - yet Gobekli Tepe is scientifically proven - not by Hancock - to be as old, as he claims it to be. Google the site and see what age you can find.

Once again - Gobekli and Karahan Tepe are indeed around 11-12 thousand years old (- which is universally agreed at this point), then everything they ever taught us about our ancient history is simply wrong.

Imagine, we have suddenly discovered some new information - just like some started to claim a few hundred years ago, that Earth isn't flat or that the sun doesn't orbit around Earth - people who claimed this, were burned alive, because scientists of that time "knew better". Now we all (well most of us) agree with this as a fact. In a few decades, all the kids will know about Gobekli Tepe and hopefully many other places yet to be discovered and it will be accepted.

You can't have it both ways - there was this joke about an old man at the zoo, looking at a giraffe all day long. Giraffe was walking around, chewing on the leaves, resting. The man was just shaking his head. They were closing up for the day and asked the man to leave. As he was leaving, he said "that animal you have there cannot possibly exist, it just makes no sense..", he walked away still shaking his head.

I was on Malta in 1997, visited most of the megalithic sites - they told us, "these are the oldest man made structures in the world" - well, and they were wrong. (Unless they are not 5-6 thousand years old - as they thought, but are also 11 thousand + years old - in which case, the scientists were very wrong still - wrong at establishing the real construction date). In 1997, it was universally believed, that it was a fact. Gobekli Tepe was only discovered/serious digs started in 94/95, it took a few years to determine the actual age.

Graham Hancock dares to ask questions.

He dares to say (and I am paraphrasing) "well, if Gobekli Tepe is admittedly this old - you have to admit, you were wrong about our history. Our ancestors from that era obviously weren't nearly as primitive, as you claim. What else did you get wrong? What else do you claim, although you have no proof for whatsoever? Let's investigate, let's study, let's talk about it"

The self assured, but very obviously mistaken historians and archaeologists: "no, you're a pseudo-scientist"

Oh, OK then...

There's no way, they were building such structures, while being just hunters and gatherers - although that's what these series also claim.

Why and how would you build all that, while having no certainty, that you can have enough food in the surrounding area? Unless you can grow your own food and raise your own animals, you'd never do that - unless it was some "garden of eden", with nothing but endless supply of food growing and running around.

But anyway, let's imagine for a while, that a huge cataclysm destroys most of the world in the next few days. You survive, a few thousand people around the world survive, but no technology survives. No internet. Most roads are gone, no electricity, no running water, no medical care..

...then some brainiac 20 thousand years from now asks - "so, if those people did exist and were not primitive, were are their houses? Where's their rubbish" - well, my friend, it's overgrown, under the sea, disintegrated - did you really expect your particular timber, or brick house will survive 10- 20 thousand years? After a cataclysm? Think about it. Look at a 100 year old abandoned shed. Now imagine it in 5 thousand years, 10 thousand years. What is it going to look like? All the huge pyramids in Mexico were overgrown - it only took a few hundreds of years of neglect, it all became a jungle.

You know what could possibly survive all that? - such as a huge cataclysm and possibly ten thousand + years of climate change, vegetation grow, nature taking over in general? - A huge, megalithic structure, ideally burried under ground..like Gobekli Tepe and others.

Is Graham Hancock right about everything? No, he doesn't have to be.

And remember one more thing, while you're reading this and clicking thumbs down on my comment, on this wonderful website.. somewhere in a remote jungle, there's a small slender guy, chasing some squirrel sized animal with a spear or a blowgun, which is the most advanced piece of technology, that he ever held in his possession. You and this little savage guy can live at the same time, living totally different lives, a few thousand km from each other. His people will live like that for another bunch of thousands of years, unless we interfere with their lifestyle.

In 2024, you still have modern people and primitive savages living "side by side"..if you have these savages living in stone age conditions today in Amazon jungle, how can anyone in their right mind claim, that it wasn't like that also 12 thousand or more years ago?

Those Amazon rainforest tribes could never build their own Gobekli Tepe today and they would never ever try, it would never occur to them - "hey, let's build this huge, megalithic structure..". Maybe in a few thousand or tens of thousands of years they eventually would. Those people are the hunters and gatherers.

Builders of Gobekli Tepe were obviously far ahead of that. So you want a proof - other, than it's scientifically proven, that these sites are that old? Here's your proof - today's hunter and gatherers have built nothing but some primitive shacks. And it's 2024.