Žižek wrote a solid piece about these "pacifists," drawing lines between the new right wing and Putin....
As the main player in this cultural war, the Kremlin has used its proxies to intervene not just in Mexico, but also in Canada—warning them not to even dream about joining NATO. Unfortunately, Western leftists and pacifists completely miss the geopolitical dimension of Putin's "denazification" project. As Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the British Democratic Party, recently complained: "Sending weapons to Ukraine won't bring a solution; it will only prolong this war. The War in Ukraine could drag on for years."
This whole stance basically implies that Western governments should just let Russia occupy Ukraine. It’s a bizarre kind of "pacifism"—one that puts pressure on the victim (telling them they shouldn't defend themselves too vigorously) and their supporters (telling them they shouldn't help the victim much), rather than putting pressure on the aggressor.
Western "pacifists" are demanding that we "de-demonize" Putin. Their logic? Since negotiations will have to happen sooner or later, we ought to treat him like a future partner. Honestly, it should be the exact opposite: the attack on Ukraine forces us to re-demonize Putin—not necessarily as an individual, but as the face of a dangerous geopolitical and ideological project.
It’s an old-school movie—the kind I haven't seen in ages. The plot and the acting really carry it. Sure, people are going to nitpick the story itself, but from a technical standpoint? This thing is masterfully crafted from start to finish. Honestly, even the sentimental stuff at the end didn't bother me one bit.
He knows how to write Aaron Sorkin and how to direct.
Bottom line: great movie.
Exactly—the production value is top-notch. As for the plot, it's just your typical Aaron Sorkin move—there's always that emotional payoff where they get to humiliate some religious zealot or, in this case, a government judge. It almost feels like watching those "got rekt" compilations on YouTube. 😁 It would have been being cool if Aaron Sorkin had done a little cameo, like appearing through the window of that cafe or something. 😁
I bet directors thought exactly like you—it doesn't even matter if the characters are total cardboard cutouts. They just figure everything’s been done before, so why bother? Let's just keep recycling the same old crap, since we're basically just music video directors anyway—just wrap it up in some fancy photography and a decent soundtrack. Fine, but I don't see what kind of conversation that actually sparks: Jim Crow in high-end restaurants? 🤷 What was it that triggered this for you?
You think Black people don't criticize movies or the clichés they're stuffed with?
It's interesting how the synopsis actually masks the twist—it's a total red herring. Structurally, the twist is the only way the movie works, and it’s the only way it could have been a surprise.
That's true, but the twist itself is just some banal blaxploitation trope 🤷
The movie got trashed quite a bit, mostly because of reviews like the one above, but if you had a slightly more open mind and understood the context, it's actually a pretty solid film.
The soundtrack is solid, though. 😁
Regarding the restaurant, she was given a small table when there were three of them. Plus, the other Black woman is overweight, and I'd be complaining too, whether I were rich or poor.
But this wasn't just any restaurant, and they aren't middle class (the main girl's apartment gets more screen time than some actual characters 😁), and that scene where she accepts his drink even though it isn't something classy like champagne 🤦—all of that is just meant to define them through their consumer habits, nothing more. Like some kind of Karen caricature.
At the reception, you see the receptionist rolling her eyes, much like how you might roll your eyes if some guy from a marginalized group stood at your desk thinking he's entitled when he might actually be.
Imagine a movie about Romani people that's supposed to tackle oppression and systemic discrimination, only for the characterization to boil down to the fact that they didn't get the table they wanted in some ultra-expensive restaurant. Yeah, sure, Romani people will totally relate to that story. Great. It would be way more interesting to make a movie about Assata Shakur, whom they quote in the film, rather than these pathetic "attempts at dialogue."
The Film kicks off with a quote from William Faulkner: "The past is never dead, it's not even past." And honestly, that’s the whole deal—the plot is non-linear, which is where they try to hide their little twist. It’s absolutely stuffed with those tired liberal clichés designed to kiss up to both white and Black elites—the peak cringe moment is definitely that pretentious feminist scene in the restaurant. Sure, the feminism might be Black, but it’s purely liberal ideology; apparently, we’re all supposed to march in solidarity just because she didn't get a prime table at some upscale bistro or had to wait two seconds at the front desk of a fancy hotel. Where are the wealthy gays in this progressive narrative? Oh right, the directors. The whole thing feels like someone sat down with a PhD and tried to turn social justice into an Excel spreadsheet. 🙄
Surprisingly solid—maybe even a bit cold—look at a specific moment in history. It follows the Alfred Dreyfus case, but strictly through the lens of the intelligence community. Honestly, I don't see any issue with the fact that we aren't diving into Zola's world here; instead, we're stuck with some military figurehead. The military guy did his job just fine, though I’m really not feeling his mistress or why her role is supposedly so pivotal 🤷 The most > scene for me was that simultaneous newspaper reading 😍 Also, that quick little nod to phrenology? Totally worked 😁
nimblemarlin6 said: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:
Now this is what I call a great off-topic thread.
It’s funny how you royalists always try to drag up the past just to cast yourselves as part of some high-society aristocracy—you never seem to see yourselves as the common peasants, do you? 😁
Noah Roberts46 said:People are out here kneeling—honestly, I just don't get it. Who else is she supposedly directing better than the actual nominees? I’ve been reading that the script is solid, sure, but does a good script automatically mean the direction is top-tier? Not necessarily. It feels like more of the same feminist posturing.
Maybe you’re kneeling—but honestly, your posts are constantly kneeling too, always groveling over political correctness and feminism.
Forget the mainstream hype and just try focusing on the actual substance for once.
I dig the Latin in the headline—sometimes it feels like we’re being overly precious, sometimes it feels religious, and in this case, it’s just pure melodrama. And man, I love a good melodrama. I might add "touristocracy" to that list too, because let's be honest—aside from tourism, I don't see any other way this country survives.
It feels like the director basically took "fellowship" and friendship as the entire roadmap for interpreting Tolkien and his work—that’s pretty much the whole movie right there. Tolkien comes across as this absolute saint; he isn't complaining about anything or playing games with Catholic guilt—just a genuinely good man. Everything is polished up nicely, and honestly, aside from the fact that they skipped over his actual biography, I don't have much to complain about. 😁
I honestly can't believe they managed to butcher such a goldmine of a concept as colonization and resistance. Throw in aliens? Seriously? It’s got every single ingredient for a masterpiece, yet they still managed to fail miserably. What kind of low-budget production studio put this together? Someone needs to colonize them already—it won't be a tragedy if they do.
Richard Wilson4 said:Lately, I’m seeing a ton of articles where everyone is just weeping about how much they miss old-school movie theaters.
Look, I remember back in the late 90s, theaters were basically going bankrupt while video rental stores were absolutely killing it.
AMC Theatres is basically a spaceship compared to those old places. It’s better, cleaner, and way more organized. I used to drive from Cleveland to Indianapolis to hit up those crusty old theaters, and honestly, AMC Theatres eats them all for breakfast. And if you can't stand kids making noise, just go on a Monday or whenever the place is empty. Or just stay away from animated comedies and superhero movies.😁
As for movie quality, that’s a totally different conversation that has nothing to do with the theaters or AMC Theatres. You get great stuff on cable TV now; honestly, modern series are better than most movies anyway. Pay for it or play pirate—if you don't know how, some nephew or the neighbor's kid definitely does.
No offense intended, but people are getting exhausting with this nostalgia trip. Yeah, I loved VHS too, I have a mountain of them, but today everything fits on a single thumb drive. I loved old gaming consoles, I loved those printed magazines we used to get. So what? What's the point?
Sorry, but this whole thing feels bizarre and kind of petty to me.
What, is a movie experience supposed to be so intense that ladies need to wear evening gowns and men need to be in suits?
If someone's annoyed by people chewing, they should just watch the movie at home.
👍
The funniest part was when I brought a bag of chips to an indie screening at an AMC Theatres in Chicago—this entire crowd in their fancy velvet coats started whispering about me like I was some kind of criminal. 😁
Apparently, I’m one of those "uncultured" people who goes to the theater. I’m always commenting on things—actually, other people's comments don't bother me at all; sometimes you can pick up some good info from them. By the way, I read recently that ticket sales in the USA actually went up last year, while they dropped in Europe. No clue why. You'd think they'd be tanking everywhere because of all the streaming services out there.
Just like how I missed out on Murakami's charm, this didn't really do it for me either.
I actually dug the North Korean propaganda and the whole pantomime vibe, but once that was gone—and once all that stuff disappears in Murakami 😁—I just completely checked out.
Though, mentioning Poetry caught my eye; I think I might actually give that a watch.
stormyridge2 said:Who's talking about African American feminists now? If they’re the ones calling the shots, I get it—after all, their white counterparts were pretty vocal about saying "hell no" to that whole Roman remake of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where they wanted to turn Buffy into an African American woman.
stormyridge2 said:You’re paying way too much attention to the details—it's like you're analyzing Ghostbusters (2016) like it's some high-brow masterpiece. Seriously? How can you claim they weren't progressive enough back then when the lineup was basically three white women with college degrees and one Black woman who's just "street smart"? It's ridiculous.
Why wouldn't the main villain be Latino?
Either that, or some white mouse dies in a lab. 🙄 Who could even survive that? Imagine some hungry little Latin American mouse eating a white one. Seriously—who’s going to be left to wipe away the tears of the white mice? 😢
The real question remains—will this whole "triggering the fans" thing actually be as fun as the movie itself? I mean, let's be honest, pandering to outrage is getting old—it's honestly exhausting. God forbid they cast someone who doesn't fit some specific demographic checkbox from a project 🙄🙄🙄 Let the precious little snowflakes go ahead and lose their minds then 🙂
Chris Myers said:I'd much rather not have even had to support Trump, because honestly, that feels unnatural to me. That’s why I called it a paradox; the fallout was obvious in 2016. He wouldn't have won if he just had the Republican base. It happened because so many people were fed up with Obama and his circle, while HRC was promising the same old stuff—or worse.
When Obama won in 2008, there was this sense of hope that things might finally change from what previous administrations did. But Obama let people down, and his "Hope" and "Change" became synonymous with lies. Even I was disappointed, along with plenty of voters in my swing state, Florida. The 2016 results could only have shocked hardcore Demse and HRC loyalists.
And look, as an American who lives through these daily real-world struggles with other Floridians and Americans, I know the situation better than someone getting everything through a news feed. Whether you like it or not, I hate to say it, but in 2016, America needed a completely different kind of leader. Someone vastly different from your favorite candidate.
cosmicgull52 - open your mind.
---
Anyway, let's not turn this into another Trump thread (since that isn't the point here)...
If I had been born earlier and caught in World War II here in the States, I don't doubt for a second which side I would have picked: the resistance, obviously. I come from a working-class family; my ancestors were farmers. My place is with the workers and the laborers... I wouldn't be a communist, I have no interest in that, but back then, the resistance was the best choice for the common man, the worker, the farmer.
There is no left wing today that compares to the resistance back then. Today's "quasi"-left would have sold out the working class to Hitler in a heartbeat just to protect their own interests.
It isn't lost. The right wing in the EU gained a lot of ground regarding these refugee waves and other issues, but when you look closer, that extreme right has no answers to many questions. They will fail there in the long run.
Europe needs a total reset. Though I hope that reset doesn't involve another massive war.
I am not a bot, and I am certainly not a carbon copy of one specific political circle; I have my own views and I don't just parrot whatever a single political party tells me. I would much rather be an individual than a partisan clone.
For the most part, I lean left—probably closer to a libertarian leftist. But there are certain things where I actually agree with the right.
I am no fan of people like those hypocrites on the far-right religious circuit. However, I do understand that the family is a vital pillar of society. I have absolutely no issue with gay families; I believe they should have the same civil rights as any other family. I support LGBTQ individuals and their rights, and I want them to have equality alongside all other citizens.
But... it is also not okay when LGBTQ individuals break the rules and then play the victim once they get arrested and charged. Have you ever been to a Pride parade? I have (in San Francisco and Miami). I’m glad they’re celebrating and having a good time, but I don't necessarily need to watch guys performing sexual acts in public, especially where children under 12 are present, only to whine about their rights being violated when they get busted... What if I started having sex with my wife in the middle of the street in front of kids?
And some gay people actually condemn these parades, because they've started to lose their purpose now that many gay people have achieved the same rights as straight people. They used to make sense back when people were fighting for basic rights. Personally, it's their choice—if they want a parade, go for it, and I'll show up and support them! Most of those parades are fun.
But... the nucleus of society is the family. And when I say quasi-liberalism destroys families, I don't mean what you think I mean. They destroy the family by eroding labor rights, failing to protect the little guy from the banking lobby, massive taxation, the pharmaceutical lobby, and so on. Those elites aren't destroying the family through Pride parades; they're doing it through much more serious actions that undermine basic human needs for both the individual and the family.
The law needs to be equal for everyone. If you think this perspective makes me narrow-minded—then I guess I'm proud of being narrow-minded.
Solid post, though that bit about libertarianism really caught my eye. But hey, I guess that's what this forum is all about, right? 😁 The stuff about parades reminded me of "The Hunger Games"—you know, that part where the poor kid gets to the Capitol and sees all those flashy, pampered people parading around. While the left was busy celebrating their little antics, the middle class was drowning in student loans, medical bills, and everything else.