Posts by dustyscout53

Nah, actually—I read Dharma Bums before I ever picked up On the Road. Honestly, Dharma Bums totally blew me away, but On the Road was kind of a letdown for me. And yeah, I mentioned Ginsberg because he was gay. 😬
But hey, I personally think Paul Di Anno was a better singer for Iron Maiden, so my opinion doesn't really matter much anyway, right?

So, what did One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest teach you? You’re a total beatnik too, I can tell.

Man, screw Forman. 😁 😁 😁 😁
No offense, but I’m a sucker for a good intro—nothing personal.
What I mean is, Forman isn't really the point when you talk about One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; it’s all about Ken Kesey, the guy who actually wrote the book.
Ken Kesey was a Beat, more about living the life than just sitting around writing it. And the Beats? They were those folks who thought they were super deep and poetic, constantly getting squeezed by "The System." It kept encroaching on their freedom. That was the era of Allen Ginsberg, Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, and the rest. They were all obsessed with Buddhism—that whole idea that happiness is inside you, you just gotta find it.
Then Timothy Leary comes along with LSD. That stuff is heavy, right? Total taboo. It ended up messing with the Beats, who were basically the bridge to the hippies—people filling the gaps between trips with prose and poetry. Then the Vietnam War just wrecked everything.
The core takeaway from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is pretty grim: if an individual sticks too far out from the System, the System is gonna crush them. The rules are set by the machine, not the person. The System takes people who could be perfectly fine—kind of like how Jack Nicholson showed us in the movie (the Indian and his crew aren't any crazier than the "normal" ones)—and labels them insane because the System doesn't get them, or doesn't want to, so it just gets rid of them in a "clean" way.
America during the Vietnam era was its own kind of asylum, and Jack Nicholson is essentially Ken Kesey.
It’s that endless tug-of-war between the System and the individual, where the System always wins, no matter how strong the person is. Look, what I wrote here is probably pretty shallow—I've barely scratched the surface of what One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is trying to say—but if you're curious, just go read the book, dive into the Beat Generation, or check out some old interviews...
Anyway, the staff in an asylum is usually way crazier than the patients. But hey, staff is staff.
And Forman doesn't matter.
Either Forman totally missed what Kesey was aiming for, or back then, he just wasn't allowed to film what Kesey actually meant.

Just a quick rundown of what I read in the globusov article... though it barely even touches on the public job openings.
It’s just how the political game works, right? Like, say the boss is from the Democratic Party and his deputy is from the Republican Party. If the Democratic Party wins the election, the deputy stays put. If the Republicans take over, they swap him out for someone from the Libertarian Party.
I get the argument that these people know their stuff—and sure, management experience matters—but seriously, if you’re bringing someone in from a different industry, why not just run them through a proper public hiring process? For crying out loud, don't just appoint your buddies just because they're "your guys," regardless of talent. If they're actually as good as everyone says, they should be able to crush it in an open competition.

Bradley Fisher20 said:Man, dustyscout53—I told you ages ago that you’re more about the actual work than all this political nonsense. Not everyone is cut out for the grind, right? 🙂

And that counts as an answer? You're quite the philosopher, aren't you—really mastered the art of conversation...
Honestly, seeing the kind of trolls I run into in politics lately, I actually take your comment as a compliment. For every decent person trying to have a real discussion, there are ten guys like Bradley Fisher20. It’s all just a bit much for me.

Keith James812 said:Why is dustyscout53 coming at me in a thread about skinheads?

Like, why am I not allowed to ask what actually went down with the cops and those skinhead groups without dustyscout53 jumping in to shut me down?

Seriously—why?

It’s because you just switch your brain off the second politics comes up, Keith James812. It's like you think there's some rule saying "turn off your brain if you hang out here." Honestly, most of the mindless crowd on this site doesn't bother me, but you? You worry me—mostly because I know there's actually a shred of sense buried deep inside you, and you just refuse to give it any room to breathe when you start posting. That's why.

Eric Wells3 said:Forget about those Chinese people—they aren't just sitting around doing nothing...

In China, when someone gets shot, they actually send his family a bill for the bullet.😁

I mean, if it were a real democracy over there, they’d probably just let a guy take his own life with a knife instead of draining the state budget like this. And you want to know the best part? The guards bring their own old bullets and swap them out. They use the spent ones but collect the payout for brand new ones. Talk about a hustle, right? They can pull in like five bucks a year just off that little scheme. 👎

Bradley Fisher20 said:Look, this isn't about communism—it's just about protecting national interests, man.

So you think we should throw people in jail just because their business tanked? Honestly, you're right—that's got nothing to do with communism.😁 😁
I mean, if a company goes bankrupt, what then? We just toss the owners and their families behind bars too? Just because... life happens, I guess. 😁 😁 😛
Comparing this to communism, or China, or rice production and all that stuff... it's a stretch.

Bradley Fisher20 said:Embezzlement lands you in prison. And hiring unqualified people? That's basically just another way of betraying the public interest.

Betraying the national interest... man. Can you imagine getting stuck in a cell for six months because you "betrayed" the government? Honestly, there's probably a little bit of a radical in all of us...

Mickey Mouse said:How exactly are they held accountable? The only thing that actually happens is the director gets fired. This whole company has been stuck in this loop for ten years—revenue equals expenses, nothing grows—simply because they never bother with actual competitive hiring. And since Griffin didn't lose his footing, and legally he can't anyway, nobody's hair is even ruffled.

I never said anyone was being held responsible for the bad results. They should be, obviously, but they aren't. Maybe eventually, though.
It used to be that when a new party took over, the directors of state-owned companies were just swapped out automatically. Now, it looks like they’re picking people again without any public bidding process. Everyone should be hired through an open, competitive process. If I recall, Vera and Thomas Dragicevic were both chosen that way. And if you're hired through a legitimate search, the new administration shouldn't just toss you out, right? That's just one example of how the system ought to work.
Churchman was on thirteen NATO boards, and I think Lincoln was on seventeen. They were technically "volunteers." Honestly, who cares if they were volunteers or not? Being on thirteen NATO boards is just overkill. Didn't the Democratic Party have more people to put forward? If not, they should've brought in some independent experts instead of just stacking the deck with their own guys.
Sanders is the one who broke that tradition.
I reckon Racoon's wife pulled in a ton of votes for him. Actually, that's kind of a step in the right direction.

Eric Wells3 said:Take the first CEO of General Electric (they’re paying about $17 a month for that role now) right after the war—he was just some nephew of Mate Granić. Total amateur, honestly... had zero clue how to actually run a massive corporation...

But who's actually on the hook when things go south? The owner. And who owns General Electric? The government. There's your answer right there. We've been dragging our feet on privatizing companies like General Electric way too long... same goes for everything else. I'm not saying you don't see nepotism in the private sector, but at least heads tend to roll over there. In state-run companies, the favoritism just keeps going because nobody's truly accountable for the bottom line. We're still trying to wrap our heads around that kind of accountability, aren't we?

Look, I’m all for being against nepotism in theory—really, I am. But if my cousin offers me a gig? I’m taking it. And then I’ll go right back to preaching about how much I hate nepotism. It’s a total scam when you don't have those connections, isn't it?
And honestly, I find myself agreeing with Keith James812 more than most on this thread. 👍 😍

Michael Adams2 said:marrying a conservative guy... marrying dustyscout53... you can only marry "someone" or be married "to someone"

"marry for someone"—man, talk about a crime against grammar, right? 😱

She’s got no interest in being a housewife anyway—so she won't mind. Other girls get married, but Keith James812 gets hitched.

Keith James812 said:So you actually tried reporting this to the cops and they wouldn't even let you file it?

Seriously, Keith James812, why act so clueless? It's like you're really trying hard to marry some right-wing extremist or something—good for you, babe. With brains like that, they wouldn't even let you mop floors in Chicago, let alone anything else. 😁 😁

Frank Baker2, man, I love responses like this. 👍
Now, if I actually wanted to go toe-to-toe with you, I’d have to sit through the put samurai ten times just to figure out what parts of it really hit—you know? Honestly, it feels like Jarmusch took a much bigger bite out of that whole samurai vibe in his version than Tarantino did. Not that that was ever Tarantino's intention, obviously.
Tarantino loves playing with genres—just mashing things together that shouldn't work... To me, that seems way easier than the path Jarmusch takes.
If Tarantino and Jarmusch went head-to-head? Jarmusch wouldn't stand a chance. Tarantino would just pull a hidden pistol and end it. Way easier than mastering a katana, right?
And back to that linearity thing—I mean, you can't really watch a movie non-linearly. For me, that hospital scene is pure Tarantino, the Pussy Wagon is Tarantino, maybe a few other bits... but there's just not enough of him left in this one. It's missing those iconic scenes and those killer monologues. You see, Tarantino usually tells a story from the end to the beginning, but it looks like he's doing that with his career too. He should probably start making movies in reverse order.

Frank Baker2 said:It looks like after all these posts, the crowd has basically split into two groups: people who had a childhood shaped by QT—and everyone else who just settled for whatever other entertainment was out there... right?
I’m definitely part of that first group. Back when the Garibaldi theater in Rhode Island was still actually running, I used to head there as a kid with my buddy and my old man—whenever he was feeling bored—just to catch whatever random karate movies were playing... man, I basically grew up on that kind of shlock. I devoured every ninja novel I could get my hands on, fell in love with Japanese culture and all that stuff, and then... well, grew up and forgot it all.
So, I head to the theater with a buddy to catch Kill Bill—and honestly? I walk out feeling enlightened.
The poetry of that final showdown between the Bride and O-something—with that whole tribute to the samurai duel—is honestly like nothing I've seen in any movie... not even in Japanese cinema. That moment when Lucy Liu takes those hits from Uma and she just snaps at him with that total disrespect? That’s the absolute peak of the film for me.

If you think that fight scene is basically the peak of Japanese culture or whatever, then you’re pretty easy to impress. I see you think you’re one of the rare ones who grew up on kung-fu movies—but honestly? I was born in '75. I feel like everyone born in '75, or even a bit earlier like back in '70, was basically forced to spend their childhood watching kung-fu flicks. It warms my heart just thinking about those days, sure—but that doesn't mean I think Tarantino is some genius artist just because he dedicated a movie to them.
Maybe if Jarmusch hadn't filmed the put samurai—well, I don't know—but after that one, I doubt anyone could ever actually fascinate me with the whole samurai thing again.

copperviper71 said:Have you even tried blowing one up—just for clinical reasons, obviously—to see if she’s actually phobic about balloons specifically, or just anything inflated?

Man, give me a break—a balloon is a balloon, regardless of what you blow it up with... You're being so extra, honestly... just like a woman...

copperviper71 said:Was she scared of condoms too? You know, when you blow one up and it looks like a giant balloon with a tiny little bubble on top?

Trust me, we had much better uses for condoms than blowing bubbles... 😛

So, one of my exes was actually terrified of balloons. 😍 😍
You couldn't even walk up to her with one in your face without things getting weird. 😍
She’d skip weddings entirely just because of it—like, she had a legit phobia. 😍
Honestly, you have no idea what it's like dating someone with a fear of balloons. Next time you're having a rough day, just think about that and laugh, okay? I swear, someone who's afraid of balloons just can't be a bad person. 😍

Honestly, Tarantino should stick to writing dramas instead of action flicks—just pure dialogue. It’s like how Almodovar takes twenty years to drop his masterpiece, maybe something like Talk to Her, while Tarantino just breezes through it in thirty seconds. 😁 😁
And where did those legendary dialogues go? You know, stuff like "Pigs are filthy animals"?
He’s basically the American Dušan Kovačević, but he’s messing around with action movies now. You guys are being way too soft on him—probably because of Foxy Brown. Like critics have already said, this would’ve been an incredible film if he hadn't made Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction first; right now, it feels kind of formulaic.
I get it, though—Hollywood probably got to his head, just like it did with Metallica. Back when he was working at the video store and obsessively devouring movies, he had the time to obsess over every little detail. That’s why we got True Romance and Pulp Fiction, but here, those nuances just aren't there.
I don't think Tarantino is trying to reinvent the wheel or make some big artistic statement with this one. He just doesn't want to waste time digging deep for that old Tarantino vibe—because honestly, even this version of him is good enough to pay the bills and live a comfortable life.
I've seen True Romance about 20 times, and Pulp Fiction maybe just as many, if not more. But how many times am I actually going to sit through Kill Bill? That is the question.
Quentin totally played you guys, and you swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker.
You people... who can't see... you'll eventually realize...
😁 😁 😁

Bradley Fisher20 said:If someone thinks a movie is good just because of bits like these, then hey, they'll think it's a good movie.

It's heavy commercial stuff—basically just modern kids acting out their fetishes. Using names that are totally played out artistically.

Man, what you’re saying about Tarantino's life really explains how he approaches filmmaking and why those first two movies were so damn incredible. It's just different. Those were more like side projects added to his whole body of work. We should probably just thank him for that and stop getting bored with his newer stuff. Because that's it. Finished. Kill Bill basically told us that.

Man, I kind of see where Bradley Fisher20 is coming from. 😁 😁
Especially on a thread like this. 👍
I don't have much to say about the movie itself—it's not just for show, it's actually a solid film. There's that great line along the lines of: "If you charge at God with this sword, even God's gonna feel it," but honestly, after the path samurai, you can't really use any part of martial arts in your movies anymore.
I really dig how Tarantino philosophizes—maybe unintentionally—about the rape of women in comedy, specifically his take after talking to him. Like, pay $75 and give her back untouched. 😁 😁
That's a killer part. There are a few others too—I really ought to rewatch it.
Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of these action flicks; after five minutes, the action just stops working for me. And this is an action movie. So, it didn't quite click. Some critic once said that after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Tarantino can only go down, not up. If you factor that in, then the movie is actually great.
And violence is the law. 😁 😁
I caught the movie at 1:45 PM, and there were three kids sitting near us. For the first fifteen minutes, they had their heads in their hands, then suddenly they pulled out their phones, probably called their parents, and bolted. 😁 😁
Some woman after the film was clearly disappointed, saying you can only find movies like this on shady websites or through weird VHS ads. Maybe that's the point of his film. It's more like a tribute to his childhood, and from that angle—considering how eccentric Tarantino is—this is probably a warm love story. A drama about a woman in love with revenge and her phallic sword. And that whole idea about female leads and chick fights? That works.
But all that time spent on action is time Tarantino spends filming the stuff we actually love him for, and that's what I felt was missing. It isn't as tightly scripted, and besides, there's no need for a new Pulp Fiction. We'll see if there's a sequel. Why didn't Foxy Brown split things up? Why did it take Kill Bill?