• Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account. You can also register with your Facebook or Twitter login.

Last movie you saw

February

I think, therefore I am, I think ...
Saw Once Upon A Time In Hollywood yesterday, it was way better than I thought. Really good.
 

Alias

Well-Known Member
Saw Once Upon A Time In Hollywood yesterday, it was way better than I thought. Really good.
I saw it too and really enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of Brad Pitt but I really liked his character in this movie. He did a good job. I also love how it captured that whole era. Good movie.
 

Alias

Well-Known Member
Taxi Driver with clowns. I love that movie and I loved this one too. Joaquin was brilliant.

 
Last edited:

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
I didn't really like JOKER. I just was not captivated, the actor was good, but the character was a bit meh. Plot was hollow and simplistic. I think the film really must depend on his much you got sucked into the performance.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie
I quite enjoyed this, it's not something that is amazing but it's a nice thing to have. Provides some better closure on the Jesse Pinkman character and a better ending. So it's good, some might find it unnecessary but I think we're much better off having this epilogue for the character. So it's a worthwhile addition to Breaking Bad.
 

reepbot

TINA ARENA FOREVER!
I didn't really like JOKER. I just was not captivated, the actor was good, but the character was a bit meh. Plot was hollow and simplistic. I think the film really must depend on his much you got sucked into the performance.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie
I quite enjoyed this, it's not something that is amazing but it's a nice thing to have. Provides some better closure on the Jesse Pinkman character and a better ending. So it's good, some might find it unnecessary but I think we're much better off having this epilogue for the character. So it's a worthwhile addition to Breaking Bad.
Do you think the controversy surrounding the joker was well founded (the extra security in American theatres), or was it a mountain out of a molehill?
 

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
Do you think the controversy surrounding the joker was well founded (the extra security in American theatres), or was it a mountain out of a molehill?
I don't really know how to assess it. The film can be disturbing for some people.

I think it just fits certain narratives that go on about the threat of "white male incels." This film as a mental white guy as the lead, he feels rejected by society and acts out. Which is a very simplistic way of looking at it. So there is kind of a link between the two and it created the moral panic. Moral panics over films are nothing new. There's not just a flip, usually, it was conservatives having them, not it's progressives.

I personally think certain peoples ideologies perpetuate certain narratives, regardless of how real or large they are. So the "moral panic" was really just about perpetuating the threat of incels, as a way to justify that there is a real threat about incels that people should be worried about.

There are a crazy bubble and echo chamber, so everyone has to take it seriously, perpetuate the narrative regardless of merit. In progressive media, are people really going to come out and go, "no white male incels" are probably not really a threat? Of course not.
 

reepbot

TINA ARENA FOREVER!
I don't really know how to assess it. The film can be disturbing for some people.

I think it just fits certain narratives that go on about the threat of "white male incels." This film as a mental white guy as the lead, he feels rejected by society and acts out. Which is a very simplistic way of looking at it. So there is kind of a link between the two and it created the moral panic. Moral panics over films are nothing new. There's not just a flip, usually, it was conservatives having them, not it's progressives.

I personally think certain peoples ideologies perpetuate certain narratives, regardless of how real or large they are. So the "moral panic" was really just about perpetuating the threat of incels, as a way to justify that there is a real threat about incels that people should be worried about.

There are a crazy bubble and echo chamber, so everyone has to take it seriously, perpetuate the narrative regardless of merit. In progressive media, are people really going to come out and go, "no white male incels" are probably not really a threat? Of course not.
I kind of got the impression that some in the media were almost hoping that something horrible would happen in the cinemas.
 

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
I kind of got the impression that some in the media were almost hoping that something horrible would happen in the cinemas.
While maybe not hoping for something terrible to happen, they were hoping for the perceived validation of their ideologies that possibly could occur.
 

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
that white straight men are bad?
Kind of. This isn't really the place for this discussion though. Identity politics and intersectionality is full of contradictory thoughts. They've established white cis-gendered males as the most privileged and the worst people. Yet there's plenty of other identity groups who do visibly bad things more than white men. They just want any chance for an opportunity to say things like, "see white men are the worst, not Islamic state-inspired terrorists." Stuff like that.
It's why every time some white guy shoots up a school in America, you read about people talking about the problem with "white males." Targetting the whole group, in a way you're told not to when it comes to Islamic extremist terrorists or African American men. Despite the fact, white males commit fewer mass shootings and less gun violence than African Americans. You read reports that the coverage is different, black mass shooters get little coverage, white get lots but not being American it's hard to tell if you're just reading objective reporting or right-wing trash pushing racism. For fairness, while most mass shooters aren't white men, most of the really large mass shootings are white men.

Incels are a special bunch because some of them are awful. Especially in the current age which is hyper-focused on misogyny and relations between men and woman. My girlfriend introduced me to the world of incels because she has a fascination with them. There's a fair amount of hatred and resentment towards women. There has been incel violence. However, it becomes quite evident they really just hate themselves more than anything. It's all hyper-focused and segmented into different groups based on their soi called "flaws." They have common ground but are quite divided.

Subsets like 'shortcel,' which are men who are upset they are so short and think that is why they can't get woman. Calling themselves 'manlets.' They hate, 'tallcels' because they think if they were tall it'd go a good way to solving their issues. So 'tallcels' shouldn't complain. Then there's 'gymcels' guys who get buff to try and get women but then still fail. Large segments are racially based, with names like, "currycels," "ricecels" and so on. It's definitely not a "white guy" problem.

So you have large communities online talking quite openly about issues with woman, so it's easy to see why people are concerned and their memes have focused around some incel mass shooter. I can understand why someone reading their forums would be worried. Mostly though, they're just people with shitty personalities and I would bet a lot of them are somewhere on the spectrum and just don't know how to relate to other people. It's a strange problem for society.

The idea of "white men" being rejected by the world does butt up against the notions of "white privilege." It causes problems with the theory and so it probably is then cast off into its own separate thing as to not undermine the central premise of intersectionality. Instead of focussing on the social issues, just put it in the, "white man bad" category. When it's not about that at all. It's awkward, often unfortunate men of all races who have formed a community where they reinforce their strange, often outdated or toxic ideas and act as a coping mechanism for their dispair in an ever more isolating world.

It becomes an easy group to point your finger at.
 

reepbot

TINA ARENA FOREVER!
Kind of. This isn't really the place for this discussion though. Identity politics and intersectionality is full of contradictory thoughts. They've established white cis-gendered males as the most privileged and the worst people. Yet there's plenty of other identity groups who do visibly bad things more than white men. They just want any chance for an opportunity to say things like, "see white men are the worst, not Islamic state-inspired terrorists." Stuff like that.
It's why every time some white guy shoots up a school in America, you read about people talking about the problem with "white males." Targetting the whole group, in a way you're told not to when it comes to Islamic extremist terrorists or African American men. Despite the fact, white males commit fewer mass shootings and less gun violence than African Americans. You read reports that the coverage is different, black mass shooters get little coverage, white get lots but not being American it's hard to tell if you're just reading objective reporting or right-wing trash pushing racism. For fairness, while most mass shooters aren't white men, most of the really large mass shootings are white men.

Incels are a special bunch because some of them are awful. Especially in the current age which is hyper-focused on misogyny and relations between men and woman. My girlfriend introduced me to the world of incels because she has a fascination with them. There's a fair amount of hatred and resentment towards women. There has been incel violence. However, it becomes quite evident they really just hate themselves more than anything. It's all hyper-focused and segmented into different groups based on their soi called "flaws." They have common ground but are quite divided.

Subsets like 'shortcel,' which are men who are upset they are so short and think that is why they can't get woman. Calling themselves 'manlets.' They hate, 'tallcels' because they think if they were tall it'd go a good way to solving their issues. So 'tallcels' shouldn't complain. Then there's 'gymcels' guys who get buff to try and get women but then still fail. Large segments are racially based, with names like, "currycels," "ricecels" and so on. It's definitely not a "white guy" problem.

So you have large communities online talking quite openly about issues with woman, so it's easy to see why people are concerned and their memes have focused around some incel mass shooter. I can understand why someone reading their forums would be worried. Mostly though, they're just people with shitty personalities and I would bet a lot of them are somewhere on the spectrum and just don't know how to relate to other people. It's a strange problem for society.

The idea of "white men" being rejected by the world does butt up against the notions of "white privilege." It causes problems with the theory and so it probably is then cast off into its own separate thing as to not undermine the central premise of intersectionality. Instead of focussing on the social issues, just put it in the, "white man bad" category. When it's not about that at all. It's awkward, often unfortunate men of all races who have formed a community where they reinforce their strange, often outdated or toxic ideas and act as a coping mechanism for their dispair in an ever more isolating world.

It becomes an easy group to point your finger at.
I feel that incels are a dangerous and terrifying group that should be looked at as terrorists. I just think that some in the media are using the word incel as a lazy way to criticise a movie, as well as trying to whip up unnecessary hysteria to sell more clicks to their site.
 

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
Terminator Dark Fate

As a sequel to Terminator 2, it's not good and insulting. It's really just a remake/ reboot disguised as a sequel. Which seems to be the trend these days, such as with Star Wars. Similar to that, it does so at the expense of what came before it.

That said, it's actually a solidly entertaining and good action film. The mess of the franchise between T2 and this softens the impact of how disrespectful it is to the original two films.
 

up_all_night

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
Ready or Not

This was a really entertaining film. Young lady marrying into a rich family and discovers they have a tradition of playing a game on the wedding night to bring new people into the family. The game that gets chosen is "Hide and Seek" and when they find her, they have to kill her to appease a curse. It's quite fun and entertaining. I definitely would recommend this film.

Samara Weaving is very good as the lead.
 
Top