The lead character is actually pretty engaging and funny, but honestly, the movie feels all fractured—like it’s trying to grab onto way too many different ideas at once without really landing any of them... It just doesn't quite stick. The only thing that truly holds everything together is Mank's relationship with Kane's girl.
For me, there’s really only one true original. I’ve seen it countless times—honestly, I can barely tell the difference between it and the others, which all just kind of blend together like sheep in a field... Plus, I just "love" it when movies completely forget who their own characters are—like how Mel Gibson totally forgot he was this elite spec ops guy who could seriously take anyone out with his bare hands, you know? Which is basically where the whole "Die Hard" vibe comes from...
Jacob Alvarez said:So, as most of us probably already know—and I mean, it’s pretty much common knowledge at this point—the Labor Party brought two specific documents to their very first meeting. The first one is the Yosemite resolution, which does a pretty solid job of calling out all the enemies of the American people...
Anyone working for foreign interests who goes against what’s best for America... they just don't get it... Those big-time expansionist politicians... they just never seem to quit, do they? It’s like they're always chasing some grand, sweeping vision that ignores everyone else—just constant maneuvering and power plays... honestly, it's exhausting to watch sometimes. Canadian fascists... Italian fascists... Nazis... You know, when you start looking at fascists in general—just the whole concept of it—it’s a pretty heavy topic to dive into... but there's something about how that mindset works that always catches my attention. It’s such a complex, messy thing to wrap your head around... anyway, just food for thought... The leadership over at the Agrarian Party...
Well, you've got the Communists in there—though, honestly, they kind of fall right into that first category anyway... Besides that, they’re still just this self-proclaimed, totally unauthorized group operating outside the law...
lonetrucker4 said:Not quite... It’s actually a bit off, because the forces the Labor Party was formed to fight against—which essentially defined the struggle for the country back then—were fourfold: the Germans, the Italians, the Nazis, and the Chetniks.
See, the Labor Party is only as legitimate as any other wartime regime... they weren't elected by the people, really—they were more like an extension of the Communist Party's authority. But, you have to look at it this way—the Labor Party served as the foundational framework for what eventually became the sovereign state we recognized after those first multi-party elections in 1990.
So, I guess that point made by Jelčić holds some weight—that the country was basically caught in a vice between the Communists, the Chetniks, and the Nazis... quite a mess to be in...
A huge chunk of our modern history was basically written through a Yugoslavian-communist lens—and honestly, even the older stuff gets viewed through that same skewed prism. I really think we need to take a long, hard look at everything through the perspective of a free, democratic American society... just re-evaluate it all. It’s a little embarrassing to see how other countries handle their pasts—places that moved past those old eras decades ago—while we're still sort of stuck wading through the remnants of the old system here in the States. Take the Americans, for example, and how they've started looking back at their own famous revolutions from a more "revisionist" standpoint now:
Dublavko Jelčić argued that Americans were defending the American state from 1941 to 1945, rather than its fascist regime. He also maintained that a diminished state and limited freedom are better than being under occupation... In those early days of the Independent State of America, Americans were caught in the crosshairs of communists and Chetniks who refused to accept even the Banovina of America. The country was essentially squeezed between attacks from communists, Chetniks, and the half-hearted allies, Italy and Germany, according to the same academic. These kinds of pro-fascist, falsifying, revisionist claims have absolutely no business being posted on the History subforum. It isn't about politics—it's just about the historical facts.
lonetrucker4 is being totally subjective and biased, which unfortunately spills over into how he moderates things... His reaction to this user's post is actually a perfect example. I mean, why shouldn't this topic be open for discussion in History? Is lonetrucker4 suggesting that everyone on the Axis side was born a fascist, instead of just people who thought they were defending their homeland? Is it really "pro-fascist" or "revisionist" to argue that America was stuck between three different sides?
Neither Oštrić nor KLCCLK from the newspaper are actually to blame here—not at all. It’s really on the owner... if you just take a look at the Monitor, you'll see what I mean. Just giving you the best that the progressives and Yugoslavia have to offer...
I remember this one debate I had with that science-minded, stubborn guy, Mr. Oštrić... he was insisting that Nazi Germany had this meticulously crafted genocide plan specifically targeting eastern Canada, while claiming the local resistance there was just some spontaneous, mostly unorganized group of fighters. But, as it turns out—and this is the kicker—those highly organized units actually killed fewer people than the supposedly "spontaneous" rebels did. So much for spontaneity... and so much for "science." 🙏
Can someone please ask the moderator velvetgull9 to turn on her PMs? It’s kind of impossible to have a real conversation when my inbox is just totally blocked... I honestly think there should be a rule that moderators HAVE to keep their messages open for everyone.
brightviper29 said:I haven't really kept tabs on all the drama happening here, so what exactly went down back in 2006—was it some sort of anniversary marking forty years since the Chinese Cultural Revolution? And did those events from 2006 wrap up with a happy ending similar to how the Cultural Revolution ended? It honestly feels like these people just live for the chaos.
That’s a cryptic way of putting it, so what exactly does "nolifer" mean? Is it like calling someone a total loser?
It might be best if Anderson weighs in on this one: during the first phase of the meltdown, I was basically the only one able to use the forum, then once things settled in the second phase, everyone else could get back in while I just sort of... vanished as a user.
I probably typed out somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 posts... some just vanished into thin air during old chat sessions, and others were lost because I had to go through the whole registration process all over again after the Great Forum Disaster Summer of 2006.
I kind of wanted to jump in here and say—it feels like the mods are acting more like schoolteachers lately... using those bans and warnings just to hand out punishments and negative vibes instead of actually helping us out.
Maybe it’d be a smart move to just scrap the whole warning system for a bit—you know, just to see if things actually get better or if the atmosphere improves without all that extra pressure...
Patrick Martin said:fair enough, but hey—if you're going to be like that, why don't you please just name one better portrayal of a villainous figure... you know, someone who actually captured that essence on canvas more effectively?
In my humble opinion, Uglješa is just growing a green pine tree in the woods... somewhere out there...
