Posts by northerncrane4

kozz said:And whose side are you actually on? 😬

There’s more than just two sides—if I even had a group to call my own.

Ethan Ramos39 said:Good grief—so, is the movie actually any good or not?

It doesn't.

I’ll take this moment to quote Uncle Terry Pratchett:

"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides."

This is exactly the kind of movie that deserves this level of debate.

dustyscout53 said:northerncrane4, you were out of line in this thread—I gave you a polite heads-up, yet here you are acting like some pedantic nerd over your little rulebooks.

Keep your mouth shut until I call on you again. And you might want to think twice before you start the next thread...

I'm always watching. 😎

🙂

You're finished.

dustyscout53 said:Well, there it is—Jessica Nguyen85 laid out our thoughts. It’s a great move. Finally, this forum is actually becoming functional! 🙂

Asking for this thread to actually become functional would be asking for way too much.

dustyscout53 said:The actual plot of a movie doesn't interest me—that should be obvious after reading a few pages of this. Any six-year-old can grasp a storyline. What matters is how the film hits you personally and how you interpret it—that's the entire reason this forum exists, IMHO. When you write something as stereotypical and mind-numbingly dull as...

Alternative cinema—more like experimental indie stuff. 🙄

😲 Dustyscout53—man! You just don't get it. Do you even know the difference between an alternative film and an indie one? Indie films used to be seen as breeding grounds for free-thinking talent—though they haven't been for a long time now. If you actually understood the current state of global and American cinema, you'd see exactly what the core issue is with this movie—something I've already stated quite precisely and concisely. Are you familiar with any standard screenwriting textbooks? They lay out every beat for a "road movie," including requirements like having the protagonist's goal revealed by page 17. Does Mimi Rogers know that? Honestly, how do you have the nerve to lecture me on staying in line when you lack even that basic knowledge? You should be embarrassed.

dustyscout53 said:For just one reason—I believe MrBeast can actually write a coherent film review. If I thought he was an idiot, I wouldn't even bother talking to him. 😍

I even offered you ten cards—just for you. The only catch was that you actually had to watch the movie so we could be on the same page. But no—you just want me to summarize it for you.

All right, fine. It’s not like you walked away empty-handed. Here—Jessica Nguyen85 has laid out all your shared little delusions using a mountain of "wonderful" metaphors—(there are even sperm cells involved!!!).

dustyscout53 said:I'd probably just say I've watched way too many American movies.

So, there it is.

dustyscout53 said:So I'll say it again—if you actually have some formal film education, especially if it’s from an American institution, just throw it in the trash.

The main argument? American cinema.

And I suppose you've read plenty of reviews for American films, haven't you?

Richard Hernandez13 said:Shame on you—you didn't even mention me. 😬

Since you're already here, you might as well move this thread over to the "MetLife" section—specifically under "good review of MetLife by Mimi Rogers." As for the other one? Toss it into either "Literature" or "Other Media."😎

AND HERE HE COMES!

If only Astrid, Nate, and milk would show up—then my entire inner circle would finally be gathered in one thread!

dustyscout53 said:northerncrane4, you creep—why exactly are you stalking my posts on here? 😲 😁

Yeah, you're right. I don't just follow your posts on the forums—I actually print them all out and tape them to my bedroom walls. I even take the ones directed at me, blow them up to A4 landscape, and secure them with double strips of Scotch tape. All 35,848 of your posts now cover the four walls of my room. It’s—I have to admit—quite a fascinating sight.

Yesterday, after a long stretch of silence, my grandfather wandered into my room—just to ask if I’d seen his baking soda, though he couldn't even get the words out. He just stood there, looking lost, staring at the walls before backing out and quietly closing the door behind him. Poor guy. It’s been at least six months since he last set foot in here—back when my walls were still plastered with those diagrams of cow digestive systems—so I suppose the sudden change was a bit much for him to process.

dustyscout53 said:It’s easier if you just open your eyes.

Here he goes again...

dustyscout53 said:Then just have Paul Mendoza8 film you. It'd be a better alternative to porn anyway. 🙂 🙂

Deal. Besides—I'm already thinking about you whenever I want to procrastinate.

dustyscout53 said:Look, I'm the editor-in-chief here. Watch the show—you might actually learn something. 😎

I'm rarely home by two in the afternoon.

dustyscout53 said:What are you even talking about? Did you get some massive paycheck or something—is that why you’re rambling since sunrise? Get a grip. 😁

Now FOX is going to drop a show all about the film—except they won't.

dustyscout53 said:Don't be such a pedant. A review is primarily about interpreting the film—uncovering symbols, comparing it to other movies, and so on.

Exactly. The movie title is right there in the headline of the critique.

Dennis Martin6 said:The movie would’ve actually worked if that charming Native American stablehand had just shoved his hunk of a boyfriend into an oven. As it stands—it's boring.😢

What is wrong with you? She actually likes him for who he is. And he isn't out there hooking up with mares during lonely nights at his ranch—he's busy playing guitar. 😎

dustyscout53 said:Look, let me break this down for you—if MetLife is a bad movie and you claim it is, then I’d rather just read Taylor Swift's review and watch the version of the film playing in my head. It’s a matter of reality versus illusion, or the illusion of reality—a much deeper philosophy than what belongs on this forum.

But Taylor Swift's reviews wouldn't exist without that film. By deciding you won't even watch the movie that the specific review relies on, you're arrogantly dismissing the very film you're trying to defend—without having actually seen it. What's the point of the movie to you, then? To trigger a surge of positive emotions in one person (in this case, Taylor Swift), which then gets translated into the style of critique you enjoy. To put it more simply, you're just enjoying secondary smoke.

dustyscout53 said:Reviews aren't written just to prove someone right. Film criticism is precisely a platform for explaining—laying out—one's own worldview.

A review is primarily information about the film. Only then does it become information about the critic—which, if the critic is skilled, should be less noticeable.

dustyscout53 said:Conceptually, we disagree.

Fine. You're fascinated by parasitism.

dustyscout53 said:I don't know Taylor Swift. As far as celebrities go, I only know MrBeast and you. 😍 😍

Neither I nor Paul Mendoza8 are Boris.