Posts by Elizabeth Ruiz65

Even if we set aside the question of whether a person’s life actually matters based solely on their utility
how can anyone possibly predict who will
contribute to society in what way down the road? For all you know, someone you
currently view as a lost cause due to severe disability might actually be the next Stephen Hawking
Hawking. On the flip side, there are plenty of perfectly healthy people
who go their entire lives without contributing a single meaningful thing to the community. Are we going to
euthanize them too?

Dana Brooks3 said:Hey, give me a shout sometime😁

I think I'll pass on that... I'd rather spend my time practicing my intense stare in the mirror🤣

:-))

Maybe just practice it in your monitor reflection so you don't drift too far from the forum,
and—God forbid—fail to update us on your progress. =)

But Dana Brooks3, I couldn't help but notice.

Quincy:

Dana Brooks3 Registered: May 2006 Posts: 439

Quincy:

Elizabeth Ruiz65 Registered: May 2006 Posts: 437

Is there some kind of quantum physical connection that simultaneously
brought us to this forum and is now latently regulating our posting rhythm—essentially
braking our neurons when one of us posts a bit too much, and stimulating them
when one of us falls behind in the aforementioned post counts? 😕
If that were actually the case, your neurons should probably be braking for the next few
posts... 😉

It's a fascinating situation, really... hmm...

And if that is true, why would it be so?

(The X-Files theme song plays in the background)

So, I wonder why nobody thought to title the documentary "Who the hell
actually knows!?" It’s the kind of question—or rather, statement—that people who film things tend to make, implying
they're somehow shielding themselves from criticism regarding any mistakes or vague spots in
the film, because after all, who the hell would they know about quantum physics or other phenomena, right? =)

But setting aside that somewhat cynical observation, the documentary does feature several
intriguing concepts that can spark some thought, whether by expanding
one's horizons based on the direction the work takes, or perhaps by
denying those very same ideas to develop solid counter-arguments,
which might ultimately serve to strengthen whatever opposing viewpoints an
individual happens to hold.

In any case, things turn out fine.

Dana Brooks3 said:and, you say she rules... 😁 😉
I have no doubt she manifested her own reality just fine😁
yeah, you need that kind of power, and she ended up with the mindset🤣
(referring to something she said, for those who haven't watched 😬 )

Starting tomorrow, I might just try channeling Rathm myself. 😍

=)

Quincy:

- master your vision of the future - manifest your own reality - a connection with Bob !!! - learn everything in just four days - Come on Losers!

So, my grandmother actually dropped a massive amount of money on this documentary that's currently circulating all over
the globe, and people are even debating it on some random forum in America...
maybe there's actually some merit to this whole "manifest your own reality" thing after all. 😁

nimblemarlin6 said:I don't see it that way—here's why... Everything we learn in the epilogue is basically just fluff: how exactly the journalist managed to get her story, all in redundant detail. (Like photographing that banker who comes off as such a pivotal figure...) We just get a play-by-play of exactly how the Black man reunited with his family... It's superfluous. To me, that 10-minute epilogue doesn't actually serve a purpose—because everything that happens after the main plot has already been established during the film itself.
We know the reporter got that little black notebook, so we know she'll land her story. We already learned who was responsible for the conflicts and how things stand.
We also know the man's family is safe and he's wealthy now, so it's a given that everyone gets a happy ending...
Then there's that extra scene at the end with the conference regarding Sierra Leone, which, if you ask me, feels almost racist. You get this impression that the climax of the movie isn't the action, but rather the Black hero appearing "civilized"—wearing a tie, standing before a group of white officials in London.
The whole film is politically loaded regardless. For anyone who didn't catch that from the plot, they even throw text on the screen at the end displaying actual facts about Sierra Leone...
So, that's why I think those last 10 minutes could have been cut—it wouldn't have hurt the movie at all; if anything, it might have actually made it stronger.

From my perspective, the film actually gained strength by avoiding ambiguity,
an ambiguity that would have left room for interpretation regarding themes that the director wants to present
as being firmly tethered to reality. Personally, I thought the sequence
of photographing the banker worked quite well; those ten minutes maintain the emotional
intensity established when the plane flies into the sunset, and it all seems to culminate
with his appearance at the conference. As for the speech itself, I wouldn't
agree that it's racist; on the contrary, it offers his perspective on the very problem
that post-colonial critique has been deconstructing for the last thirty years: "How
do you speak for those who cannot speak for themselves? How do you represent them?"
The answer, of course, is to let them represent themselves. However, the issue
I see with that situation in the film is that speaking for others
requires power—a power the Black man only acquires at the end through a web of fortunate circumstances.
The paradox presented is that when you are powerless and want to speak to change
your state of helplessness, you need a certain kind of power before you can even
begin to speak. In other words, at that level, we're facing a deadlock that we can't strictly label
as a consequence of racism (before considering hypocrisy), since it doesn't just affect Black people, even though
it is depicted here from their perspective.

nimblemarlin6 said:That’s a fantastic movie—a genuine, old-school adventure flick. If this had come out back in the 50s, people would be treating it like a total masterpiece on par with something like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre...
Leonardo DiCaprio is just brilliant. Honestly, I’m calling it now: he’s going to churn out a ton of great films throughout his career and just keep getting better and more iconic. The female lead is great, too—as are the Black actor, Djimon Hounsou, and Imhotep (was it General Koetscsze or something? Regardless...). I really dig the actress; she isn't some typical Hollywood bombshell. It was also refreshing that they didn't lean into all that cheesy flirting, even though it's pretty obvious everyone got absolutely wrecked. The fight scenes are incredibly intense and feel so real.

One gripe, though—those last 10 minutes are totally unnecessary. The movie should have ended right when the plane flies off into the sunset with the Black man and his son, but hey, whatever.

It would be redundant if this were something like Indiana Jones, or some other pure
adventure flick that relies solely on a great story divorced from
everyday reality. But since the film also aims to be deeply
politically charged and connected to raising awareness about
real-world issues happening in places like Sierra Leone & Liberia,
those last 10 minutes are actually vital to fulfilling that purpose.
Fiction ends with a sunset, while reality operates on
entirely different channels. One has to realize that even if the characters are fictional, the film
is aiming for reality, providing entertainment while simultaneously offering
clear indications that the movie needs to be understood on a broader, more serious
level—one that goes beyond just satisfying the viewer's simple
sensory experience.

Hands down the best thing I've watched lately. It’s packed with subtle
political undertones that work because they avoid the trap of being overly
heavy-handed—something you see all too often when a director tries to make a point.
Those final 20 minutes actually moved me, which isn't something many films manage to do.

I’d highly recommend this to anyone who looks for more than just mindless popcorn flicks
(though it’s certainly entertaining enough for those) where the story ends just as the credits roll.
Instead, this is for people who want a film that leaves them with plenty to chew on
—in this case, specifically regarding the awakening of awareness toward parts of the world
that are perhaps far too overlooked here in the West.

Look, not every 606 number is an erotic hotline. Maybe a kid called just to
donate funds for demining the Midwest =)

bluebison8 said:How exactly does someone plan on adapting Morrowind when the game doesn't even have a coherent plot, let alone one that’s better than your run-of-the-mill trash?
BG2 is basically just like a movie with a pathetic plot—some guy trying to save his sister from a villain while just trying to survive. Honestly, how many Jean-Claude Van Damme flicks have already been made using that exact same tired trope?
You can forget about a Planescape: Torment adaptation. It’s already far too complex for the average moviegoer, and if they tried to simplify it just to make it palatable, there wouldn't be much left of the film anyway.
Most RPGs don't bother with much of a plot, do they? Their whole point is giving the player the agency to actually shape the story rather than just sitting there like a spectator watching it unfold.

Honestly, if you can't find a meaningful story in Morrowind, even with all its expansions, then what exactly are you doing with your life?
Just a thought—it’s pretty obvious at this point that we need to flip at least half of these locations around.
Are the main quests actually worth the detour, or should I just grab both Baldur games and call it a day?
The entire gate, including that final expansion—you’ve got to go through the whole thing from start to finish, all of it.
Locations, quests, or whatever other nonsense they throw at you—as long as it actually matters for the main quest.
Craft an epic saga, starting from the moment the protagonist's father is murdered and carrying through all the way to...
So, we’re really going to sit here and debate whether becoming a god or completely rejecting that divinity in the expansion is worth all the fuss? Is it actually a meaningful narrative pivot, or just more filler for the sequel?
He’s wrapped up in an audiovisual performance that feels like it was crafted by a master.
Lord of the Rings.

It’s not that games lack a compelling narrative; it’s just that everything seems to be built around mindless, repetitive filler.
It’s more about how the player actually engages with the world; isn't it really just about the way those stories unfold?
Honestly, their film adaptations tend to be so stripped down and sanitized that you end up losing the very soul of the original story. Is it even worth watching if they gut everything that made it interesting in the first place?
That’s really just the essence of it, isn't it? These games essentially present players with established canons exactly as they are.

Then again, there are certain games that simply exist as their own self-contained worlds, defined entirely by their sense of theatricality.
It’s already better than anything SHA could ever hope to produce, though I honestly don't know how a high-quality production could even attempt to capture this.
They’re in a much better light than SHA is. Honestly, who actually cares about SHA? If they want something worth their time, they should just go play something else instead.
Fahrenheit.

If they actually made a movie based on Morrowind or the whole Baldur's Gate saga, wouldn't those films easily run over
five hours each if they were actually faithful to the source material? =)

Gary Anderson38 said:I know what it’s like to take a kick to the face; whenever I see it, I actually feel nauseous.
Take kickboxing or MMA, for example. One solid high kick to the head can drop seasoned pros—massive, muscular guys who make a living absorbing hits—yet some fifty-kilo weakling just keeps on fighting... honestly, I'm getting worked up all over again. 😬

Well, she makes a living taking hits too, and let's be real, women are generally more used to taking them than men are.
(though unfortunately, everything seems to be becoming relative these days) =)

Harold James9 said:Where exactly did you get this hatred for creatures trying to survive?😕

As history shows, individual agency has always been the true engine of progress.🙂

Humanity only truly accelerated once we realized that hatred is a dead end.

I'm not saying hate doesn't exist, but it's nothing more than a primitive defense mechanism for the weak. There is no room for hate in true advancement and power.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Sure, you can interpret that image through your lens, but isn't it also possible it served
as a warning to cave dwellers about which predator was hunting them, so they knew
what to watch out for while foraging? It's basically the prehistoric version of a modern-day
"Wanted" poster taped to a telephone pole featuring some thief or serial killer.

Actually, I’d argue humanity only reached its current stage
after systematically crushing anyone who dared to get in its way.

😁

Anonymous said:I honestly don't have anything else to add—it’s just the truth. 🙂

My point was actually responding to briskgull27's idea that love is just a temporary illusion designed to keep the species going. After all, a species can propagate without love, provided we don't view the act of love and the biological drive to reproduce as one and the same (unless, of course, they happen to be).

To me, I believe love has a much deeper, more demanding purpose: its calling is to teach us how to truly live, a lesson we continue to learn as long as we're breathing.

If the primitive ancestor of man hadn't harbored a sense of compassion for every single one of those millions of beasts
that were actively trying to kill him, would we even be standing here today? Even if it doesn't fit the typical
romanticized mold, it wasn't just affection that brought humanity to this point. It’s more
about an inherent love for existence itself and a fundamental hatred for anyone attempting to extinguish that life.

The Girl from Ipanema said:it’s those movies you watch and then completely forget about
even exist... until someone decides to start a thread on the forum.😬

I guess that's half the point of a forum anyway—to remind you of all the things you'd already forgotten. =)

wearygardener13 said:And then there are those who take such immense pride in being part of the 0.0001%
of people who actually liked the movie—absolute snobs.

Then you have the crowd that enjoys projecting their own unresolved personal baggage onto threads about movies they haven't even watched, just to feel important.
Total snobs.
Besides, did I ever actually claim that *I* liked the film, 😁 or was I talking about whether certain people liked it? Once you realize that, you'll see the whole argument falls apart.
It seems some people, like yourself, are just desperate to herd everyone like sheep
into following someone else's opinion instead of thinking for themselves. That’s simply not my concern.

wearygardener13 said:0.0001%

6.9/10 (17,766 votes) 👍

Raymond Chase5 said:it's completely negligible, and that's exactly why some people think it has value, when it really doesn't

😕 I haven't heard a pseudo-argument quite like that in a long time. Why on earth would anyone
think something totally negligible actually holds any weight? 😁

Personally, I find the movie entertaining because of how it mocks certain social concepts
or pushes them into such hyper-real situations that I can't help but enjoy it. And that’s
not even mentioning the constant barrage of punchlines and off-the-wall dialogue.

Here is a sample of the kind of dialogue that permeates the entire film. It's genuinely fun to watch how
the movie takes stereotypes and pushes them so far that they cease to be
mere tropes and instead become pure satire. That's what makes the film
so much fun for me. Of course, these lines land much better within the context
of the actual movie, but an example won't hurt.

" We're not in infinity; we're in the suburbs. "

in a hardcore Christian household
"Mr. Hooten: Do you have a job, Tom?
Tommy Corn: I'm a firefighter.
Mrs. Hooten: Oh, God bless *you*! A hero!
Tommy Corn: I'm not a hero. We'd all be heroes if we quit using petroleum, though.
.
.
Cricket: Jesus is never mad at us if we live with Him in our hearts!
Tommy Corn: I hate to break it to you, but He is - He most definitely is.
.
Tommy Corn: [To Mr.Hooten] You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Hooten: I should be what?
Tommy Corn: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Hooten: And why's that? Why whould I be ashamed of myself?
Tommy Corn: You're a hypocrite.
Mr. Hooten: I'm a what?
Tommy Corn: You're misleading these children. 'Cause you're the destroyer, man.
Mr. Hooten: How am I the destroyer?
Tommy Corn: I saw that S.U.V. out there.
Mr. Hooten: My car's the destroyer? You wanna know how many miles per gallon I get?
.
MH: God gave us oil! He gave it to us! How can God's gift be bad?
TC:I don't know. He gave you a brain too and you messed that up pretty damn good.
.
Tommy Corn: If Hitler were alive, he'd tell you not to think about oil.
Mrs. Hooten: *You're* the Hitler! We took a Sudanese refugee into our home!
Tommy Corn: You did. But how did Sudan happen, ma'am? Could it possibly be related to dictatorships that we support for some stupid reason?
Mr. Hooten: You shut up! You get out!
"
=)

"Mrs. Hooten: Sometimes, people have additional questions to be answered.
Cricket: Like what?
Albert Markovski: Well, um, for instance: if the forms of this world die, which is more real, the me that dies or the me that's infinite? Can i trust my habitual mind , or do i need to learn to look beneath those things?
Cricket: We dont have to worry about those questions mom,do we?
Mrs. Hooten: No honey.
" =)

wearygardener13 said:two awards 🙂 😂

Two awards versus more than a thousand films that aren't.

Besides, I see no point in bickering over subjective taste at such an unconstructive
level. I genuinely enjoyed the movie in person (much like many others, which is
reflected in the IMDb ratings), and if someone notices something
they like in the original post, there's a chance they'll experience the same effect from this one.

It's not that I'm claiming the film is for everyone; rather, it's for those who appreciate philosophy
and a refined sense of humor and satire through a series of extravagant and less-than
polished situations. My only motivation is to point this work out to those exact types of people,
just as I was grateful when it was pointed out to me. But if we
set that aside—I didn't act in the film, I didn't film it, I didn't write the script,
nor am I being paid to promote it, so I have no hidden
interests driving me to defend it.

So, I fail to see the issue or why there needs to be such
forced attempts at disparagement?

Melissa Torres4 said:Even as someone deep into philosophy studies, I find this film to be nothing more than an utterly pretentious, self-indulgent mess. 🙂

So, that’s how he managed to snag two awards and four nominations, all while sitting at a nearly 7.0 rating from about 18,000 voters on IMDb. =)

Is there anything more unsettling than watching a film that feels like it’s slowly unspooling the fabric of reality right in front of you? Looking back at *Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind*, I can't help but wonder if we actually want to erase the things that hurt us, or if the pain is exactly what makes us who we are. It’s a beautifully messy exploration of memory and heartbreak, driven by that specific, surrealist touch you only get when Charlie Kaufman is behind the pen. Does removing the shadow of a lost love actually leave you with a clean slate, or does it just create a hollow space where a person used to be? Jim Carrey delivers such a grounded, quiet performance here—it's almost hard to reconcile him with his usual high-energy persona—and Kate Winslet is, predictably, luminous. With Jon Brion handling the score, the whole thing just hangs in the air with this melancholic, dreamlike tension. Is it a masterpiece of sci-fi romance, or just a very clever way to argue that suffering is unavoidable? Probably both.

wearygardener13 said:So, in short—is this movie just pretentious nonsense?👍>

Only if you lack any grasp of philosophy or have zero interest in high-brow
satire.