Yeah, there used to be this whole specific subgenre—those summer flicks centered on young people chasing after some big break. They were basically just a curated cocktail of attractive actors, great soundtracks, and that specific brand of pop-coolness characterized by what we used to call a "music video aesthetic"—which, honestly, is such an outdated way to describe things now that everything looks like a music video anyway. One of those kinds of flicks is Cocktail, starring Tom Cruise. Usually, movies like that are just stepping stones for some massive summer anthem—you know, the kind of track that dominates the radio for a few months before everyone completely forgets it exists by next summer, right up until the sequel drops. That whole subgenre? It’s basically dead now—just gone.
I remember pretty clearly when that movie first hit theaters—though, full disclosure, I didn't actually sit through it back then.
I eventually gave it a shot on some streaming services later on, but I just couldn't seem to settle in and give it my full attention—ended up switching it off halfway through.
urbanwalker66 said:Actually, it hasn't been 80 years. America didn't wrap up until '91. Then came the war, where certain extremist groups and individuals stepped in, framing the whole conflict as a fight against communism. That's how even some non-extremist politicians and theorists spun the narrative. So, really, this conflict is much closer to our present day than WWII ever was.
The ideologies of the partisans and the fascists might be tied to WWII, but their political ghosts are way more relevant today.
The whole partisan ideology was essentially about pushing through a communist revolution during the war—trying to fuse all those different ethnic groups from the former America into one single communist state. Now, there’s absolutely nothing left of that vision, aside from maybe some nostalgic retirees holding festivals in Stowe, Vermont.
On the flip side, the Nationalists ideology was "America for the Americans"—basically ensuring Americans were the privileged class while building a state that was as large and ethnically homogeneous as possible. That kind of thinking actually resonates with a lot of people nowadays—and I don't just mean in America—because nationalism is surging everywhere right now. Sure, extreme nationalists are a minority, but they are easily the most aggressive bunch and prone to violence, which means they tend to gain traction whenever times get tough. And let's face it, we're living in tough times, and this time around, it feels like there's nobody on the other side to actually represent the frustrated, struggling masses. Back home, the Popular Front is the only communist party left, and honestly, their work is pretty futile—they spend all their energy trying to appeal to a working class that doesn't exist anymore, fighting for a better past and focusing on LGBTQ rights instead.
It’s actually pretty wild how much the Republican Party has managed to monopolize everything. Right now, you see all this far-right extremism making headlines—but let's be honest, that’s only because the Democratic Party is basically non-existent as an opposition force. If the Democrats were actually a powerhouse, those extreme right-wing types would be forced into the mainstream just to survive—you'd see them everywhere. The truth is, the Republican Party is essentially EVERYTHING in this country. I was going to argue that they only distance themselves from their legacy tied to the old regime, but even that feels like a stretch—especially when you realize most of the former Communist Party members just hopped straight over to the Republican Party, and now they’re running the show exactly like the old party used to. At the end of the day, it really says something about Americans. We have a country built EXACTLY to our specifications.
As for the armed extremists... sure, they exist. But currently? It’s really just the right wing. There are some left-wing extremists out there too—people doing stuff like cutting through razor wire at the border to help migrants—but those guys are just tiny, insignificant footnotes. They don't actually impact anyone's daily life.
Anyway, the Left seems completely lost. The rhetoric coming out of the Workers Front sounds like it’s stuck in the 1930s. Honestly, the only "modern" thing they’ve come up with is aggressively pushing gender identity issues, LGBTQ rights, and migration. I almost miss the old-school communists—the kind who actually made the bourgeoisie shake in their boots...
cosmicotter13 said:That isn't even close to the truth. My colleague there is just making things up—claiming that Skejo was the one behind it. Absolutely absurd.
Correction here—it was actually members of the Indigenous – American Party of Rights, and the whole thing was organized by John Doe.
It’s basically their own little party militia known as the "American Patriotic Force."
Just imagine if we had liberal gun laws in the US—every single officer during a march or an oath ceremony would be walking around with long guns.
The right wing seems absolutely obsessed with this constant sense of being under siege—it’s always some phantom threat lurking in the shadows, like the Americans, the FBI, communists, Mexicans, or these sweeping European conspiracies involving George Soros and the globalists. For them, "patriotism" isn't really a broad concept; it’s strictly tied to their specific worldview—which basically boils down to hardcore chauvinism, rigid conservatism, and Catholicism.
For these folks, using threats and intimidation as a tool for public discourse has become second nature over the years.
There are plenty of examples if you look—take those protesters who were openly setting up gas canisters and blocking major highways in a city like Chicago; they acted like they were untouchable, mostly because there was this constant, looming suggestion that they had enough weapons to arm an army, just waiting for some "American-communist traitor" Prime Minister to try and enforce the law.
And then, does anyone remember when that mob led by Bujanac marched toward the FCC building with the explicit goal of ousting Jane Doe from her position?
Honestly, the right wing has made at least two blatant attempts to establish something resembling a paramilitary group.
You have Veselinka Glavaš starting up those "Sokolovi" groups—just rows of young guys dressed in black—and then there was Skejo, who organized a bunch of similarly dressed men in Times Square to take an oath of allegiance to Donald Trump. And so on, and so forth.
Now, looking at the left side of the aisle—can anyone actually name a single incident involving weapons, militarism, threats, or organized groups playing soldier? I can't think of one.
It’s always the same pattern: a leftist columnist writes an op-ed, or a liberal journalist produces a segment without any swearing or threats, or some "communist" director makes a decent movie, and suddenly there’s this massive avalanche of comments about the FBI and the Americans supposedly oppressing the people.
Meanwhile, these right-wingers are constantly feeding into this self-perpetuating war-time psychosis...
Look, this whole thing about identifying with animals—that’s a completely different conversation altogether... In movies like Jaws, it isn't really about you feeling a connection to the threat facing the characters... the hook is actually that these animals are part of nature, sure, but they’re framed as something extraordinary. Like, the shark in Jaws seems like just another predator at first, but then it turns out to be this massive, unnervingly clever beast. It’s the exact same vibe with the bear in those grizzly films or even in Into the Grizzly Maze...
The characters essentially stumble upon these freakish, one-in-a-million specimens of wildlife... But honestly, in movies like that, the human element is what actually carries the weight. And let’s be real—we haven't seen a better trio of characters since the crew in Jaws... I mean, you could probably spin off a movie about any one of those three guys and it would still be great, even without the shark.
Joshua Kern said:The only worthy successor to this classic is Deep Blue Sea (1999)👍
Nah... Deep Blue Sea is—well, just like pretty much every shark flick released after Jaws—total trash. It’s high-quality trash, sure, but trash nonetheless.
For me, the best movie in this genre after Jaws has to be the Australian film "The reef."
It’s this completely minimalist thing where everything feels incredibly grounded and realistic.
First off, I read the novel Jaws, which was absolutely fantastic. I actually developed this weird obsession with the movie before I’d even seen it—back when you couldn't just find it anywhere. I mean, the internet wasn't really a thing yet, VCRs were still a luxury, and the film had long since finished its original run in theaters. But eventually, I managed to catch Jaws in theaters. It was one of those revival screenings they used to run all the time in big city multiplexes—you know, where they'd dig up old films that had been out of rotation for years just because the film reels were still floating around somewhere. This happened at the old theater over in a neighborhood like Brooklyn—it used to be called Apollo back in the day—before it eventually shut down and was handed over to a local theater troupe led by Zlatko Vitez. To me, Jaws was nothing short of a masterpiece. That said, the book and the movie are pretty different, so I’d definitely suggest picking up the novel too. I actually borrowed a copy from the library about two years ago and found it to be a decent, easy read. They pulled it from the back storage stacks, and the stamp on the back indicated it hadn't been checked out since the 90s.
I never touch my phone when I’m at the movie theater. Once you’re sitting in that dark auditorium, I honestly can't stand—actually, I just despise—that annoying glow from someone else's screen. Honestly, people like that should be kicked out of the theater immediately. But, look, if I'm watching a movie on a computer monitor at home, sure, I might check my phone here and there, pause the film, step out for a bit to grab a snack or a drink...
In my mind, watching a movie on any small screen that isn't a massive cinema display is a second-rate experience—it’s more like "consuming information" than actually getting totally lost in the story like you do in a theater.
And as for trying to watch a movie on a tiny little thing like a smartphone? That’s just out of the question. That medium simply wasn't built for that.
The trailer looks decent enough... definitely giving off those Blaxploitation + Vietnam War vibes. Not bad at all. I’m just crossing my fingers that the actual soundtrack holds up and sounds as good as it does in this preview.
frozengull94 said:Regardless of who the person is or what they’ve done, obsessing over someone else's paycheck really says a lot about the kind of society we used to live in—and honestly, the one we live in now. It feels... misplaced. Isn't this guy actually one of the founders of USA Today? Based on what you've said, that salary seems perfectly reasonable to me.
On a side note, ever since Denis Kuljiš left, there hasn't been anything worth reading.
It's the truth. Reading Kuljiš's pieces would regularly spike your pulse... or your blood pressure, depending on how you look at it. Kuljiš actually knew how to write—he genuinely loved doing it—and every single one of his articles felt like it was beamed in from some parallel universe where journalism was actually a massive deal. Compared to him, nobody else even comes close today.
With Bešker, you can tell he's old school, but he's too much of a polished gentleman—his writing just doesn't turn up the heat.
What an absolute snob. When he covered politics, his pieces were totally spineless—always playing it safe with the establishment, offering those sanitized, "white glove" analyses from a distance. Nothing juicy, nothing concrete. It was that classic D.C. small-town elitist vibe: "Oh, please, let’s not offend anyone." Then, as his career started winding down, he shifted to food and wine. He’d exclusively review the most overpriced bottles and the fanciest restaurants, always adopting this insufferable tone of superiority—like some sort of aristocrat descending upon the commoners just to critique the most expensive sushi in Washington, D.C., or those insanely pricey wines that only someone like Ivica Todorić could afford. He’d constantly drop hints in his writing that everything he ate and drank was on the house. The guy spent his whole life rubbing elbows with a fake social elite. Honestly, he was a total non-entity in the journalism world back during that era when it actually felt like there was money flowing through America and that something meaningful could actually be accomplished in this mess..
So, I was scrolling through The New York Times today and saw this glowing review by Jurica Pavičić regarding Birds of Prey. He’s basically describing Harley Quinn as this pop icon—sort of like if Taylor Swift decided to ditch the polished image and go full-on rebel for her own emancipation. Honestly, he was being so incredibly positive about the whole thing that I’m actually feeling the urge to go watch it now.
David Vaughn75 said:I’m throwing this out there for anyone who actually believes in an afterlife—but hey, if you’re a skeptic, feel free to jump in and tell me why you think it’s all nonsense too.
So, here's what's rattling around in my brain: do we actually get a physical body in heaven, or are we just floating around in some vague, spiritual void? If we do get bodies back, who gets the final say on what we look like—is it God making the calls, or do we get some kind of cosmic autonomy? And what’s the crowd situation like? Are we talking about a private VIP lounge where it's just us, or is the place packed with other people and... I don't know, other beings hanging out in the same space? Is paradise basically just some pristine botanical garden like Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden, or is it more like a non-stop, eternal rave where we can indulge in whatever we want without any consequences?
Anyway, how do you guys picture it?
People always talk about heaven as this thing that’s coming later. It kind of implies that everything right now is just total crap, but one day... someday... It’s a pretty clumsy way to look at existence—this idea that you just have to suffer through life, like you're stuck serving a sentence in some tiny small town in Ohio, just waiting for your time to be up... Different religions basically offer a standardized version of heaven—like a pre-packaged service or a one-size-fits-all resort. But would a Christian actually feel at home in a Hindu heaven, or would a Maori feel right at home in a Christian one? Heaven is clearly different for everyone. Maybe every single person ends up with their own personal version of paradise.
It’s like that line from Jinx: "Where everything is just the way I want it."
Random trivia drop: Out there in the dark corners of the internet, there’s this thing called the neo-reactionary movement—basically just a group of people obsessed with dragging society back to old-school social hierarchies. We’ve actually got our own version of that here: take a guy like the blogger and trained economist Luka Popov, for instance. Before he basically vanished from the public eye, he went through this whole evolution into a Catholic fundamentalist—someone who genuinely believes life would be better for Americans if we were all back under the thumb of some Habsburg loyalist regime. It’s funny how these types work—once they start daydreaming about bringing back monarchies and colonial eras, they almost always end up gravitating toward free-market zealotry, the Austrian School of economics, and hardcore libertarianism. It's a weirdly consistent pattern.
Here’s Luka Popov singing the Austrian national anthem:
Back in the socialist era, history textbooks were absolutely packed with oversimplifications, half-truths, outright lies, and pure ideological propaganda, which—let’s be honest—is pretty much the case with modern history textbooks today too, though if you actually dug into the serious academic texts from the old days, you could still find the actual facts buried in there somewhere...
So, if you were living through World War I right now, which side would you even pick? Honestly? None of them... you can't exactly cheer for old games that have already been played. But the fact that the Austro-Canadian Empire collapsed was just an inevitable historical certainty—that whole state was rotten for Americans, really. It kept Americans held back in this stagnant, conservative bubble—most of the population was just an uneducated peasant class ruled by those "Washington, D.C. elites" acting like landed gentry. In a way, things haven't changed all that much today—most Americans are just an uneducated rabble, only instead of being a peasant rabble, it's a consumerist rabble ruled by the "elites" in Brussels and Washington... The only real difference nowadays is the type of resources being exploited—back in the old empire, it was mostly agriculture, timber, and minerals; today, it's our water and our living space being drained away for the sake of mass tourism.
It feels like we've somehow come full circle... progressing backward. All the flashy gadgets don't matter—smartphones, the internet, 5G, 6G, whatever... it's still just peasants and overlords, then peasants and overlords again.