Posts by northerncrane4

dustyscout53 said:What does that even have to do with anything? You watched it—you're the one who should be summarizing it, not me.

Oh, right—I forgot you’re such a devotee of George's style of critique—where you just recap what happened in the movie or show.

dustyscout53 said:I haven't seen it—how many times do I have to tell you?

And how am I supposed to know if I'm right, or if I'm following some obscure academic's playbook or acting like Romanov's sister? Film criticism isn't a platform for lecturing people on your personal worldview.

dustyscout53 said:It’s about me, man—it's about the people.

But you clearly haven't even seen the movie—how many times do I have to say it?

Paul Mendoza8 said:Look, millennial—not everyone acts like you, sliding into DMs with that "Hey, I heard you're a big deal, let's connect, I really need to know who you actually are" vibe.😉

Please—he found out from another source; clearly, he’s been doing his homework.

dustyscout53 said:Look, I’m really only focusing on two things here:
a) your dry-as-dust critique
b) Taylor Swift's brilliant analysis

a) I assume you meant "my dry post."
b) Given how much you praise her, I’m starting to suspect "Taylor Swift" is just Ernest Hemingway using a pseudonym.

dustyscout53 said:By comparing the two, I'm questioning your authority.

Then again—you aren't even attempting to fix that overly wordy impression of yours; you won't even tidy it up like that intern from the local clinic, but hey, not even that.

Honestly, I thought you might manage to string together at least one intelligent sentence about the film.

But who, my friend, for whom? And why, neighbor, why? So you can get some free enjoyment out of my verbal flourishes? Or maybe eventually use them in one of your short stories?

dustyscout53 said:No, she’s finally redirecting everything she wants to know about me toward my inbox—as you can tell from this thread—because the second I show up, she feels the need to ask something that should stay strictly private. So, if you think I actually want her back in this discussion, you're dead wrong.
I'll let her back in when she starts asking what I had for breakfast or when I used the restroom—since clearly, that's all she cares about. Typical groupie behavior. 😎

I don't know—I'll just point out once more that you didn't even acknowledge my sub-intellectual take on that movie until Paul Mendoza8 finally posted. Or, to use the legendary eternal question—what came first: the grouch or the stalker?

dustyscout53 said:Who else would you even talk to if I hadn't shown up? Who—some random nobody? Man, you should be thanking me for even being here. 😁 😁

Look, man—if this works for you, far be it from me to complain. But it’s obvious you’re just desperate to drag Paul Mendoza8 back into this. You're absolutely relentless. 😢

dustyscout53 said:MrBeast, are you here to talk about the movie or just to pick on me?

The film. Then you showed up...

And the rest is history.

dustyscout53 said:Please—one person merely saw the movie, while the other actually watched it.

Don't tell me you actually stumbled upon this cliché for the first time today in Vice Media.
Besides, you haven't even seen him—let alone actually watched him—so you’re basically an outsider in this thread. The only thing that makes sense is if the mods rename him to "unspecified."

dustyscout53 said:Mia pulled way more detail out of the movie—meanwhile, the gentleman probably showed up to the screening exhausted and slept through half the film. Honestly, one has to wonder how much he’s getting paid for these reviews; I can't exactly blame him for slacking off. 😁

dustyscout53 fell in love!

dustyscout53 said:Whatever. How can a guy not feel any shame writing a review like that? 😳>

Imagine that! Two different people watch the same movie through two completely different lenses—and both actually back up their takes with solid arguments. Oh, and to top it off, they both work for the so-called "liberal media." Truly an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of cinema.

dustyscout53 said:I might as well wrap up my input here—might as well give this thread one last shot.

A heroic retreat, then.

dustyscout53 said:It actually moved me. I appreciate it when people can process what they've seen after a movie and actually share that experience with others.

See, some people actually pay for that kind of depth—others go see the movie before letting themselves feel anything at all. Then there are those who just sit around reading reviews instead.

dustyscout53 said:For those looking for a slightly—let's say—more profound critique of the film:
http://vice.com/look/we...77&NrSection=1

There's another similar take right here:

http://www.radio101.com/?section=2&page=4&item=939

Now, let's see yours—post your own movie review. A one-person "expert jury" will grade them, and the most eloquent writer gets a glowing shout-out.

dustyscout53 said:I really tried to squeeze some actual intelligence out of you regarding this movie, but I came up empty.

That’s because you succeeded with Miss Taylor Swift—and all five of them. To each their own. I bet that lovely girl actually enjoys "You and I and everything we know."

dustyscout53 said:To expand the discussion—you clearly view yourself as a film authority, which is fine, and I consider myself an expert in various fields. But once you declare yourself an expert, there are always enough sycophants around to confirm it. And that's when things go sideways: you start believing a weak, stereotypical, and generic critique is more valuable than others simply because it was voiced by you—the "expert."

Don't you think it would be incredibly pathetic to post a three-page analysis of a film that no one else on this forum has even seen? What's wrong with you? It's not like I'm some prolific writer!
Man, if you actually watch it, I'll write ten pages and email them directly to you—just for you. 😍
Besides, don't think I haven't noticed that you only paid attention to this thread once Paul Mendoza8 showed up.

dustyscout53 said:And we'll talk about MetLife once it hits DVD.

I highly doubt it. Honestly, I don't see why you even bothered trying to start a conversation now. 😕 Seems like Taylor's critique really struck a chord with you.

Paul Mendoza8 said:So, does this mean he’s up for some award at Sundance? Maybe a Human Rights prize?

"The Unspecified Award"—for Best Actress.

dustyscout53 said:Look—Taylor says there’s a massive difference between just looking at MetLife and actually seeing it. Based on what northerncrane4 wrote here, I can't tell if you've even watched the movie, or if you just read a headline about trans people and rushed to drop some intellectually lazy, stereotypical post. 🙂

It's playing over at Times Square—showtimes are 5:00 PM and 8:50 PM—so do us all a favor and go see it before we talk. Or, you know, just listen to the woman.

When was the last time you actually sat in a movie theater?

dustyscout53 said:Well, that’s certainly a minimalist critique. I actually spent my morning reading one of Taylor Swift's pieces in Vice that was... let's just say, significantly less "minimalist."

Women—they love anything long-winded and sprawling. And apparently, Hannah prefers being given more word count to fill up space, especially since nobody else seems interested in writing for Vice anymore.

Typical indie fare. You pick a "big theme" and then execute it in such an anemic, formulaic way. The lead actress is the only thing worth noting—everything else, from the unconvincing supporting cast to the bloodless script and sterile direction, was clearly just pandering to the festival crowd. 👎

Ethan Perez97 said:That little sweet girl was already using cocaine by the age of twelve. 😬

Steve was handing out nothing but handfuls of cash on set.

Soon enough, the Catatonic Front will arrive—and just like that, the balance shifts. 😬

Dark City All the way!

Dark City is straight!!!!