Posts by rustywalker42

Joshua Green70 said:She isn't just working on new stuff—she’s already out there collecting trophies...

After performing her original track "two shadows" at the theater in San Francisco, Helena Bastić was named Best New Artist.

Just stumbled upon this article in the local news. From funky jazz to torch songs... I'm genuinely curious about this shift.

And regarding the videos—"your love" and "disco" were right there on YouTube barely six months ago. Such a shame they were pulled.

I heard the news, but haven't actually heard the song yet. Based on the title and the write-up, sounds pretty autobiographical. I have heard the one with Cima, though; that one's still on YouTube.

Anyway, it sucks those other songs vanished. Is YouTube just purging them or what? I haven't even seen their videos playing on YouTube lately.

Seriously, you can find next to nothing online.😢

quietwalker17 said:I've got that Chronological MP3 album....😍

I've got it too. I could upload it. But honestly? Who knows if I'd be helping them out or just making things worse.🤷

Lawrence Gomez7 said:I've got way too much on my plate right now to trek all the way out to Dodger Stadium; honestly, there's no point, especially since I live on the complete opposite side of town.

Google is your friend, too.

http://www.balon-centar.com/hrv/index.php?k=helij

crimsonmoose3 said:Right, right, the director was arrested, and that movie caused an absolute media firestorm. 😁 If I remember correctly, everything was eventually clarified in the supplementary material of the final cut.
But then again, that’s basically how publicity works. 🙏🙏

I watched it once back in high school; my old man happened to find the disc, I skimmed through it, trashed the CD, and threw it in the garbage...🤣🤣

I just never understood who actually plays those tribespeople in these films. They always seemed far too convincing compared to how they look in other movies...

Yeah, "tribespeople." 🙂

Laura Bailey19 said:It's such a bummer their music videos aren't on YouTube. Word is they split up, which is a waste because they were both incredible musicians. Helen is easily one of the most powerful voices in America.

They could at least upload some MP3s... But yeah, total shame...

There isn't even anything about them online. Literally nothing.

crimsonmoose3 said:That movie was controversial back in the day because of the animal cruelty—the turtle and those monkeys were actually killed. 🙏🙏 I personally dig how they blended a documentary style with the actual narrative, making it feel like it really happened. Some people even fell for the hoax, thinking cannibals had actually wiped out a real expedition. 😂

It wasn't just that. The actors actually had clauses in their contracts forbidding them from appearing in public for like six months after the premiere, just to make the whole thing feel more authentic. Real commitment, right?
The director got hauled off in handcuffs, and suddenly everyone’s acting like experts just because they were facing prison time. How much of this was legit and how much was staged? I can't even remember. You can find the whole mess on Google if you actually care.

Joshua Green70 said:The Morning Post claims otherwise... who can you even trust anymore? Did seriously nobody attend the show to give us a firsthand account? (Unbelievable—and it was even free...) But knowing how The Morning Post handles their current reporting, they’ll probably just claim someone rushed the story without checking the current lineup of The Rolling Stones. I really hope I'm wrong here..

The Rolling Stones are returning to the stage, focusing on songwriting and dropping a new album. Don't believe it? Come hear them at the Purgeraj club on March 19th. These jazzy/pop/funk gurus will deliver an incredible set, debuting new tracks while revisiting classics like 'your love' or 'Vodi me u disco'...

The creative engine and driving force behind the band is guitarist and songwriter Jexa (Zoran Jaeger), always joined by Lady Miss Sooper (Helena Bastić). Show starts at 10 PM, and there's no cover charge.

It's definitely a mistake. Not surprising coming from our journalists...

I'm hoping for more shows so I can catch both The Rolling Stones and Helen (supposedly working on a solo album).

I downloaded the movie because everyone keeps hyping its "cult status," but I haven't actually sat down to watch it—just skimmed through a few clips.
Basically, I think it’s overrated. It feels like the 70s version of Blair Witch, which probably had a way bigger shock factor back then simply because people didn't have the internet to debunk everything instantly.
As it stands, the film doesn't look like anything special to me. Again, I haven't fully watched it yet, but I doubt my opinion is going to change.

Here’s some news from this past summer confirming that Helen isn't singing for The Rolling Stones anymore.😢
I haven't heard these new singers yet—and I bet they aren't great—but there's really only one Helen.

http://www.film-mag.net/content.php?review.4310


The Rolling Stones, one of those cult classic American bands that absolutely dominated the scene back in the day, are finally hitting the stage again after a year-long hiatus. Just to refresh your memory, The Rolling Stones dropped their debut single "your love" in the fall of '95, and it shot straight to the top of every chart. That kicked off a string of hits like "It's universal," "disco," "rhythm of love," "crazy for you," "music love," and more. If you need to describe their sound, it's basically a smooth blend of pop, soul, and jazz. Throughout their run, alongside founders guitarist Jexa and vocalist Helen Bastić, the lineup featured some of the best musicians in the business, including Kruna Levačić, Butch, Alan Bjelinski, Saša Nestorović, Dražen Scholz, Alen Svetopetrić, Gojko Tomljanović, Goran Delač, Srdjan Dedić, Borna Šercar, and plenty of other heavy hitters. After churning out ten hits, five albums, four Grammy wins, and countless successful shows both here and abroad, The Rolling Stones effectively called it quits when Helen Bastić moved on. For a while, Danijela Pintarić—a vocalist from the Comedy theater—stepped in for Helen, and last year, the king of American funk, Dino Dvornik, even joined them for a few gigs.

On Monday, July 21, 2008, as part of the buildup to the New Orleans Jazz Festival, The Rolling Stones will perform in Key West. This marks their first outing with a new lead vocalist, Irina Jambrošić, a local from Key West. She’s a seasoned pro and has handled the role of the main singer for The Rolling Stones brilliantly. Joining Irina for the Key West show will be band leader Jexa on guitar, with Alen Svetopetrić holding down the bass, Gojko Tomljanović on keys, and Siniša Banović on drums. This is the same crew that, along with Helen and Saša Nestorović, recorded that iconic, Grammy winning CD "The Rolling Stones go Jazzy Live."

Aside from this gig, The Rolling Stones will play a few smaller shows with this lineup, and they've been slammed lately working on their sixth album. They're recording at NLO Studios in Washington, D.C., with full support from producer Srdjan Sekulović Skansi. The album features about ten brand-new tracks, mostly penned by Jexa, and will feature four or five different female vocalists. As always, the core Rolling Stones team will be there, including the sax virtuoso Saša Nestorović. Along with Irina, you'll hear vocals from the popular Žanamari Lalić, the incredible Tasha from San Francisco—who previously teamed up with Jexa for the hit "dangerous" at the American Music Awards—and jazz singer Maja Savić. There are even rumors of some interesting guest appearances. One of the guests is supposed to be Željko Banić Bane, the mastermind behind Songkillers, so we're looking at some seriously interesting material. Once the album drops, The Rolling Stones will tour the US to promote it, and we'll keep you posted.

The concert takes place in front of the "Triton" cafe bar in Key West on July 21, 2008, at 9 PM, and the band is also planning a late-night set at the legendary "Catacomba" tavern.

I read somewhere that she might still perform some Rolling Stones songs during her solo career, which is a relief because at least we'll get to hear them in their original form.🙂

Honestly, the current reaction to this thread just shows how underrated they are. It feels like hardly anyone even knows who they are, which really says a lot about the state of awareness regarding American music. I'd love to be wrong.

Searching through this forum and I can't believe such an awesome band doesn't have its own thread.

Any fans of them here? They're incredible. To me, Helen is probably the best vocalist in America.

It’s nearly impossible to find anything on them online. I barely managed to track down an mp3, and there’s nothing on YouTube except for one live version of Melancholy.

So, what's the deal lately? From what I gather, did Helen leave?😕

If she did, they aren't the same band anymore. In my opinion, nobody can replace her, and I read somewhere she's planning a solo career.

Total bummer if she's gone. The stuff Jax produced paired with her voice? Honestly, what a waste...

I actually wrote an English Wikipedia entry for them just so there'd be more info out there, though most of it just pulls from their official site.

Kenneth Williams60 said:@ rustywalker42—what makes you think Antik is some hardcore atheist fanatic? Look, I’m a believer. Maybe I’m not exactly a zealot, and I definitely have my own theories on how all this works, but yeah, I believe. I still head to church every now and then—though mostly just for the holidays. I can't stand most formal religious rituals. 😁I pray sometimes. I even hit the confessional once in a while. And despite all that, I still think this is a solid idea. Maybe I’m an old-school believer in my own way—so what? What's your actual argument here? You're telling people they should just aim to tear someone down, yet you don't know the first thing about them. That's not a great look on you.

So, with this half-baked attempt at "correcting" religion, he just ends up looking like an atheist fanatic. He subtly pushes his own view as if it’s the only one that matters. You get that vibe straight from his posts. I don't even need to know the guy personally to judge his messages—and isn't that the whole point? It's all about him, isn't it?
If I completely missed the point of his documentary, then someone please set me straight.
So, this person is claiming that...

The whole point of the film? To find those "ordinary," "normal" people. You know the type—the ones sitting in positions of religious or social authority here in America, acting like they own the moral high ground. They’re the ones setting a terrible example for their kids, their friends, and everyone else, all because they're stuck in such narrow-minded, one-dimensional ways of thinking. Isn't that the real issue?
Let's show everyone that people still believe in just about anything.

I want us to show that people still believe in just about anything.
And they actually teach others to believe in that crap? Seriously?
He’d probably just focus on the Catholic faith first and foremost. And her little dominance games, the cults, and all those other organizations...

He definitely doesn't strike me as a believer. At least, not a Catholic, and certainly not part of any of those other major monotheistic religions.

Alex Walker5 said:He’d love for us to show how people still believe in just about anything.
And they're out here teaching others to believe it, too.
His main focus would be on the Catholic faith and its various denominations, sects, and other organizations...

Anyone here actually have experience with filmmaking?

Alright, let's summarize this. You're an atheist fanatic who can't wrap your head around how anyone could believe some bearded guy in the sky created the universe and our planet.

So, the question is: how are you any different from them? Aside from having a diametrically opposed view that you shove down everyone's throat in every single post—to the point where you want to make a movie about it. You aren't making a movie about religion; you're making a movie about atheism, and faith is just the tool you're using to get there.

Do you see now that you're actually the fanatic here?

Arthur Anderson49 said:I mean, who knows? Stanley Kubrick was a total maniac, and he shot every single one of his films with that same manic energy. It honestly feels to me like he was more obsessed with the actual process of filmmaking than the actual movie itself. He was like those fishermen who get way too hyped up over high-tech rods, fancy reels, and expensive lures, while the fish is basically an afterthought, right?

That’s why all his movies are technically perfect but somehow feel kind of hollow—except maybe for Dr. Strangelove. In my opinion, that’s his only truly visceral, hard-hitting film. Everything else feels a bit like intellectual masturbation to me.

So yeah, I seriously doubt your take on his level of conviction.

You’ve got it all wrong. Kubrick is the last person on earth I'd call that. He was a true artist. I have no clue why so many people mistake technical perfection for a lack of soul.
So you're basically saying Rembrandt was some kind of maniac who cared more about technicality, while Vincent van Gogh was the real artist? Please. They were both artists. It's just that Rembrandt focused on the craft with, what, surgical precision? Or something like that.

That's why his movies feel perfect yet somehow totally hollow—except maybe Dr. Strangelove. To me, that's actually his only gritty, visceral film. All the others? Just intellectual masturbation.
So, I have my doubts about whether you actually believe what he believes.

Kubrick was a photographer first. That’s exactly why his movies hit different. He saw directing through a completely different lens, literally. It’s why everything he touched turned out perfect.

northerncrane4 said:When you weigh how both films handle the relationship between creator and created cognitive being—and I mean this with all due respect to Blade Runner, which I absolutely love—Blade Runner feels like a children's picture book by comparison.

I'm with you.

Chloe Nguyen said:The fundamental issue with these kinds of debates is that if I were to state which one I prefer, most people would (incorrectly) assume I’m implying the other is inferior.

In reality, both films are absolute masterpieces, albeit in entirely different ways, and their primary connection is simply the genre they inhabit. I suspect any argument regarding which one holds more merit would eventually just devolve into a debate over Kubrick's direction, which, I suppose, isn't necessarily everyone's cup of tea.

Ultimately, I found myself leaning toward Blade Runner for one solitary reason: it is much more watchable and, frankly, more accessible. I have revisited it numerous times, and I suspect that if I were forced to choose which film to spend an evening with, I would almost certainly pick Blade Runner.

True.

In the end, I went with Blade Runner for one reason: it's more watchable, more accessible. I've seen it countless times, and if I had to choose a movie for the night, I'd almost always pick Blade Runner.

That’s exactly my point. It’s more accessible to the audience, which is why most people prefer it. That's the mistake, though—most people haven't even bothered to sit down and try to wrap their heads around Odyssey.
So, anyone voting for Blade Runner? In my opinion, they didn't put enough effort into Odyssey. I'd go as far as saying they didn't try at all.🙂

briskhound2 said:The second act of the movie is honestly stellar—especially that sequence involving the discovery of the black monolith. Visually and narratively, it just hits different. Then you get to the part with HAL... I mean, it’s good, but it feels a little thin on why he actually pulled the trigger on those actions. You get the full breakdown in the book, but the film leaves you hanging, which might not even be a flaw per se, but that final stretch where the famous encounter happens feels kind of muddy. The whole psychedelic trip during Bowman's journey is a bit grating, too, and if you haven't read the book, the ending basically leaves you staring at a blank screen wondering what the hell they were trying to say with that finale... It's weird because while the rest of the story is laid out with this breathtaking precision and detail that still blows me away today, the last part feels a bit rushed—almost like it was slapped together because everyone has such a specific vision of how that first contact should go. Maybe it isn't a logical inconsistency so much as a narrative hiccup, but again, just my two cents...

What does "vague encounter" even mean? How's that supposed to work? 🙂 Watch the movie again. Seriously.

Bowman's psychedelic trip is just irritating. And honestly? If you haven't read the book, the whole ending feels like it leads nowhere. Nothing. Zero. So, it leaves the viewer wondering. What was the point of that final act? What were they actually trying to say?.

And I’m fine with that. Honestly? So am I.
So you think this is stupid, but somehow *Blade Runner* works? What, because we’re left wondering if he’s a replicant or not at the end? Give me a break.😕

briskhound2 said:I’ve sat through 2001: A Space Odyssey at least six times now, and look, it’s a masterpiece—no question—but let’s be real, some parts are just straight-up tedious. Between the scenes that feel like they drag on forever and that music that can get pretty grating after a while... yeah. Technically? It’s flawless. But the whole first contact storyline has its flaws and certain gaps left open, though those aren't really the kind of things that spark massive debates like the whole "is Rick Deckard a replicant" thing from Blade Runner—you know, that one shot where his eyes catch the light and everything... anyway. And sure, the Odyssey has HAL, but if you ask me, his reboot in 2010: The Odyssey works way better because it actually builds up this tension about whether he's going to have another total meltdown...

That’s my point right there. The movie isn't for everyone. You watch it 6 times and still call it boring? Then it's clearly not your thing.
Personally, I think it's phenomenal. Both the film itself and that visual style Kubrick maintains throughout. And the music? It's perfect. Not irritating at all. (I mean, seriously, how can anyone find the classics irritating?!😕)).

Technically, it's flawless. But the actual story about first contact has its flaws and gaps, and they aren't exactly things that make people want to sit around and analyze them.

Alright, let's hear it then. What "flaws" and "gaps" are we talking about?

Like the ongoing debate about whether Rick Deckard is a replicant, since there's that one shot where his eyes glint and stuff. Sure, the Odyssey has HAL, but (in my opinion) his reboot works better in 2010: A Space Odyssey because it builds more tension regarding whether he'll have another breakdown.

The whole replicant question exists mostly because the movie had several different versions. The "real" version barely even surfaced recently, which is why this debate stays relevant decades later.

2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for everyone. That's why most people hate it—or just pass out by the end.

Blade Runner is basically the more accessible version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (not the plot, obviously). It's easier for people to wrap their heads around.

I've seen both movies countless times. Honestly, I lost track. Both are masterpieces, so comparing them is kind of a stupid exercise, but if you’re forcing me to pick? It’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, hands down.

I don't even know what to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can't shake the feeling that anyone voting for Blade Runner probably only watched 2001: A Space Odyssey once, and half-assed at that.

slybison8 said:But then again, I haven't gone there, and it's precisely because I find that culture unacceptable that I have no intention of visiting. For me, the veil is a genuine problem because I don't see any reason why a foreigner on a temporary visit should abandon their own values to adopt local customs. If we in America allow Muslim women to walk down the street covered—and it's not even just that we permit it, but that we actually have communities where this is the norm—then they should certainly allow our women to walk around uncovered in their own lands. Their culture and way of life don't really affect me, mostly because I hold my own culture in higher regard and I don't see any reason to engage in any kind of moral relativism. Since I suppose I am the type of person who doesn't always hold back from making negative comments when abroad, I imagine I would get into significant trouble in those two countries (meaning not just Iran, but also Saudi Arabia), so I don't think it would be particularly wise for me to travel there while these current regimes and their laws are in power.

You're looking at this way too superficially. To them, it's seen as a total lack of respect. Just like how you'd bow when greeting someone in Japan instead of just standing there because standing there would be rude, it's the same deal with the veil.

Their culture and lifestyle don't concern me. I have my own, which I believe is better than theirs, and I see zero reason to engage in any kind of moral relativism regarding it.

Trust me, when it comes to social etiquette, Americans come off as total hillbillies to Iranians. It's that classic American egocentrism—thinking we're such a sophisticated people while everyone else is just some Eastern barbarian or shepherd.
Go spend a week vacationing on the coast of Florida before you start lecturing me about "our" culture.

Since I'm the type of person who doesn't hold back from criticizing foreign countries, I'm pretty sure I'd end up in massive trouble in those two places (meaning not just Iran, but Saudi Arabia too). For that reason alone, I don't think traveling there is smart while these current regimes and their laws are in power.

Actually, you're wrong about that. You won't face anything just for criticizing something. You think I haven't met people like that? Foreigners who criticized the government there?

Bottom line: you're full of baseless prejudices. I'll just leave it at that. It doesn't really fit your profile, but I guess unfortunately nobody is immune to that.

slybison8 said:I suppose common sense still prevails in Libya. Laws exist, though they are often ignored, and you can generally reach an understanding with people there. Furthermore, Libya doesn't involve killing underage homosexuals, foreign women aren't forced to wrap their hair in ridiculous rags, and foreigners aren't expected to abandon their customs or way of life—quite the opposite, actually.

I feel like you might be slightly underestimating me when you imply my decision to avoid Iran is just because of "media" coverage. My choice comes from a deep-seated conviction that it is a criminal, intolerable, and religiously exclusive regime, whose eventual downfall, when it inevitably occurs, I will celebrate loudly.

So what? He’s just saying there are laws in Iran that people actually follow. I don't see the "wall" being the issue here. You travel to a different country—you respect their culture. Period. Why hasn't anyone ever written, "Why on earth would I bow at a 45-degree angle and make weird little head gestures while I'm in Japan?"
Believe it or not, you can actually cut a deal with Iranians. Or what, you think they’re all just "hardline thugs looking to hack hands off?"

So, you’re actually underestimating me if you think I’m skipping a trip to Iran just because of some "media reports." Give me some credit. I’m staying away because I truly believe this regime is criminal, insufferable, and religiously exclusionary. When they finally collapse—and they will—I’ll be there to celebrate loudly.

You’re bringing it on, whether you realize it or not. You haven't even set foot in Iran, yet you've already decided the place is garbage. You're wrong. Really, really wrong.

slybison8 said:It is essentially the same reason why traveling to Saudi Arabia doesn't even cross my mind. I simply cannot bring myself to visit countries that actively promote intolerance at a state level, disregard fundamental human rights, and refuse to recognize individual free will as anything of importance. Both nations have laws that I personally find impossible to abide by, so I choose not to travel there. I actually made this quite clear to my employers during my initial job interview; they were understanding of my position, and that was that. I guess slybison8 won't be visiting Iran or Saudi Arabia—at least not as long as the current regimes remain in power.

Honestly, it surprises me. For someone who's actually been to Libya, making such a hardline stance against another country based purely on news reports seems a bit much. You'd think an adult with that kind of travel experience wouldn't hold onto such heavy prejudices. I mean, what specific brand of intolerance is Iran pushing, or what horrific laws do they have that Libya somehow managed to avoid?