There are plenty of movies like this; my mind immediately jumps to Gattaca, Vanilla Sky, and Cloud Atlas... all of them are phenomenal, one-of-a-kind films that just didn't resonate with the mindless crowds at the local multiplexes.
Even when you look at more conventional stuff, Body of Lies is more than solid for its genre, yet it still managed to fly relatively under the radar.
Open Your Eyes is a seriously brilliant movie with a genius storyline, but if you ask me, Vanilla Sky is one of those rare remakes that actually beats out the original. Personally, I think it nails the atmosphere way better, and the characters have this slightly different edge that just clicks with my vibe. It’s easily one of my all-time favorites. The main reason people sleep on it is simply because it’s a remake, but honestly, the film is fantastic and totally underrated; it offers a fresh perspective on the same core story, and that’s exactly how you should approach it. Of course, your take probably depends on which version you sat through first.
As for people asking for spoilers about the ending... good grief, you never know what kind of ridiculous requests you're going to run into on this forum. 🤣 🤦
I agree, that spoiler was way too much, but honestly, the issue goes deeper than just one plot point. The whole movie—from the script to the pacing and general execution—is nowhere near the level of the first one. They aren't even in the same league; they're completely different beasts. The second installment just lacks any real intrigue or excitement. We'll just have to wait and see if the third one manages to pull it together 😁 I’m really hoping that if there's an American sequel, it'll actually be better and take itself more seriously.
Personally, I think the sequel is worth a watch, but let’s be real—it doesn't even come close to being as gripping or engaging as the first one 🤷 It doesn't matter, though; I'm still looking forward to catching the third installment next Saturday 😬
Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I have a soft spot for decent trash cinema, but this? This is just staggeringly stupid. It’s so pathetic and lacks any shred of ambition that even the most brainless, beer-soaked teen flicks or those low-budget horror dives like Night Sea couldn't touch it. Sorry, but it's just that bad.🤷
I caught a Swedish film on PBS the other day, and honestly, it was great. Sure, the ending is a bit goofy, but I didn't mind at all—I really enjoyed the ride. It didn't feel dragged out, and the atmosphere was spot on, perfectly captured. To be blunt, I couldn't stand the character Lisbeth, and I don't really get why everyone is obsessing over Rooney Mara, but even that didn't ruin my overall impression. The movie itself is solid. In a week or two, once things quiet down a bit, I'm going to hit the theater to check out Fincher's version.
Please, don't even get me started on Jerome Powell. He’s dealing with the exact same issues we see with Joe Biden; he just lacks the social intelligence required to actually handle a role like this. And honestly, Bernardić is nothing more than a pale imitation of a pale Joe Biden...
Steven Garcia6 said:Haloo Milanović was never even in power. To me, he comes off as a ruthless careerist and a total krvolok when it comes to chasing authority. If he possessed autocratic traits, there's no denying it. If we were back in the days of hardline communism, he’d basically be a second Stipe Šuvar, sporting Lacoste polos and driving a luxury Chrysler. Actually, whenever I think about the car, it just reminds me of those old dictatorial regimes that used to brag about their domestic industry while everyone knew they were actually cruising around in German limousines.
Personally, I don't even think he knows what he wants or what he’s doing—at least, he’s never demonstrated that through any actual action.🤷 Calling him a power-hungry careerist feels like a stretch because he doesn't actually *do* anything to climb the ladder. You never see a constructive vision from him, let alone a concrete move or a timely response to a crisis. Even his media presence is surprisingly low considering how much exposure the leader of the largest opposition party should theoretically get. And let's be honest, he isn't some inspiring orator or a "visionary" strategist like most of those cutthroat careerists you see in Washington.
So, when you crunch the numbers, Joe Biden is simply the wrong person for the job. As a party leader, he doesn't put in the effort—or perhaps doesn't even know how—to boost his own party's polling. As a potential contender for Prime Minister, he can't offer a genuine roadmap for national development; instead, his entire platform basically boils down to saying the Democratic Party is the only viable alternative to the Republican Party, and that's where the conversation ends.🤷
The Republican Party is going to lose the next election, and they'll deserve it—but that will be due to their own failures, not because the Democratic Party suddenly developed a brilliant vision or a coherent program...
Look, when I brought up Britney Spears, I was using her as a caricature—basically a shorthand symbol for that generic, cookie-cutter pop music. It wasn't me suggesting I’m some hardcore Britney superfan. To be honest, I don't actually follow your specific playlists, and I have no clue what you even listen to most of the time since I only ever see you popping up in random corners of other forums. That whole thing was just an ironic jab at that comment you made about wanting someone to "tell you straight to your face..." 😁
This is exactly why I talk about the "pop music syndrome." From what I’ve observed looking around, most people don't actually perceive jazz as a complete sonic experience—they aren't really processing the interplay of rhythm, melody, and instrumentation as a single unit. Instead, they just latch onto the lead instrument, and if that doesn't hit them immediately, the whole thing feels hollow. It’s like someone trying to find the catchy chorus in a standard track; most casual listeners who don't spend their lives immersed in music simply can't connect with anything that doesn't have a vocal line. To them, if there's no singer, it's automatically boring. I’m not saying that to imply you're stupid or that you "don't get" music. It's more like you're just not tuned into that specific frequency. It’s not your vibe, and that’s perfectly fine. Honestly, I wasn't a jazz fan myself back in the day either. I hadn't really sat down to listen to it properly; whatever scraps of jazz I caught drifting from a TV in the background sounded absolutely terrible to me. Then, one day, I stumbled upon a piece that actually grabbed me. It stuck in my head, so I went online to figure out what it was, tracked it down, listened to it again, and then started hunting for similar stuff. Before I knew it, I was hooked. At the end of the day, if there isn't a spark of spontaneous interest, there's no point in forcing it. You could be listening to something that technically fits your taste under the right circumstances, but if it's being shoved down your throat or forced upon you, you’re going to hate it. There shouldn't be any kind of "training" required to listen to music. The idea that you need to "exercise" your ears just to enjoy a genre makes zero sense to me. Look, I listen to pretty much everything within the entire spectrum of Black music—we’re talking soul, funk, R&B, rap, jazz, reggae, dub... even pop, rock, a bit of metal, and a massive amount of electronic stuff ranging from techno to electro-pop. Usually, I lean toward the more alternative side of those genres, but that’s not really the point here. What I’m trying to get at is that I’m not downplaying other genres when I talk about this whole "pop syndrome" thing. I listen to it all—well, okay, maybe except for Britney Spears or Gage. 🤣).
Honestly, I think this whole debate is becoming pretty pointless. We’re essentially just arguing over subjective, personal experiences with music, and trying to pick a fight over that is a complete waste of breath. Look, we get it—you aren't feeling *Kind of Blue*. To you, it sounds depressing, lifeless, and just plain obnoxious. My take is the polar opposite; I find the sound rich and engaging. It isn't depressing or boring to me, and it certainly isn't soulless—it's actually a really pleasant listen. While it might not sit at the very top of my all-time favorite jazz albums, I still think it's a solid record. So, where does that leave us? You're probably just going to double down and tell me again how dead and awful it is, and we'll just keep circling the drain like this. I truly don't see the point. 🤷
Look, I never once claimed this album was some holy grail or a flawless masterpiece that only idiots would fail to appreciate. Nor did I go on about mathematical formulas for musical perception, or suggest you need some fancy degree just to wrap your head around it—honestly, that would be completely pointless. What I’m actually talking about is the act of listening itself: that subjective impression and the raw feeling you get when the music hits you. Period. I feel like my best friend applies that exact same logic whenever I talk about an album by someone like Marvin Gaye or Erykah Badu. It’s impossible for me to just sit there and take it, because when I listen to that music, it carries me away—there is just so much actual soul in it. But to him? It’s complete garbage, totally devoid of any emotion. He basically ends up gravitating toward artists like Bob Seger, which personally drives me insane. Listening to that kind of stuff makes me feel terrible; it feels like I'm listening to some chronic loser lurking in a dark corner of a dive bar in a dead-end town, someone who has zero desire to explore anything or actually move forward in life. That’s the vibe I get from a huge chunk of that old-school classic rock era, even if it isn't all of it. Yet, you have piles of people who absolutely adore it. Honestly, there’s just no point in arguing about it.
It’s funny how people divide themselves into camps when it comes to art. You’ve got one group that thinks hyper-realism is the absolute gold standard—they want every single pore and hair rendered perfectly—while they dismiss expressionism as nothing more than messy, mindless garbage. To them, someone like Dalí is just some disturbed degenerate playing with shapes. Then you have the complete opposite side of the aisle. These folks look at hyper-realism and see nothing but soulless, mathematical precision—basically just a high-tech photocopier masquerading as "creativity." For them, expressionism is where the magic happens; it’s pure emotion, raw inspiration, and actual soul. At the end of the day, it all boils down to perception. It’s entirely subjective. You can either wrap your head around the fact that everyone sees things through a different lens, or you can keep arguing about it. It's your call.
Man, I honestly can’t remember the last time I read this much absolute garbage in one single place. Seriously, props to you! 🙏 🙏 🙏 I have to give it to you, your writing style is something, but you completely missed the mark here. 🙏 Let me just tell you straight: you clearly don't know the first thing about music. Your peak is probably listening to Britney Spears. At this point, you can look at my username and avatar with pure disgust—just make sure you grab a bucket so you don't accidentally vomit from the sheer level of revulsion you're feeling. 😁
Look, you’re suffering from a sort of "simple pop structure" syndrome. I’m not saying that to be condescending or to talk down to you, but that's just how most people are. They get used to certain types of music constantly surrounding them, they expect a specific predictable structure, and when they don't get it, they dismiss it as being "wrong." Also, "jazz" is an incredibly massive term. Personally, I totally agree with your take on the snobbery involved. It genuinely nauseates me how jazz gets marketed as this music for some pseudo-elite crowd (who usually don't know a damn thing about actual music). You've got these pretentious hacks showing up at some poolside terrace singing endless, boring, stereotypical jazz ballads 🤮 (which I am especially allergic to, because that nonsense gives most people a totally warped view of what jazz actually is) and gathering around fancy tables filled with 200 snobs in tuxedos and evening gowns who are basically spitting $167 all over those pathetic performances. It's gross!
Anyway, like I said, jazz is a huge umbrella with massive differences between subgenres. Most people perceive jazz through rhythm—it’s the backbone of everything. If you catch the rhythm first while listening, then everything else starts to click. But most people just hear a trumpet or a sax and fail to grasp the actual structure of what's happening... they don't even realize what they're hearing. People stereotypically think of jazz as "relaxing" music, but for me, it’s the exact opposite. It hits me with this intense movement that makes it hard to just sit back and listen calmly, especially the more complex stuff. 😬
As for *Kind of Blue* itself, I’d agree that it’s overrated and played out in that sense, but calling it bad, empty, or depressing? Not a chance. On the surface, the album feels light and slow, so if you're used to high-strung, fast-paced rhythms, it might seem anemic to you. But it isn't like that at all if you listen to it in a normal state of mind, without being impatient or having preconceived expectations. I don't know, maybe you need to be on something just to perceive this album properly; you’re probably too jittery and tense to actually hear the content instead of just projecting whatever you want to hear onto it. 😬 For what it's worth, I also happened to listen to it for the first time when I was in a nasty depression, but it had the complete opposite effect on me. I found it incredibly interesting and positive, and it actually helped pull me out of that bottomless pit for a bit. Or maybe I was just too numb to perceive it any other way, huh? 😁
Here, have something a little more positive so you don't have to throw up right now. 😁 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xez...hings-19_music
Honestly, this layout is miles ahead of anything else I’ve come across. Most other forums I stumble upon feel clunky or just plain off, though I guess those using the exact same 😁 template are doing alright. Most others are just an absolute eyesore.
And don't even get me started on dark mode. It’s a total disaster. I have no idea what people are thinking when they design these things; it’s like they want to punish your vision. Personally, my eyes start feeling strained after maybe ten minutes of looking at them.🤷
Does anyone know where I can pick up a standard audio cable, maybe 4 to 5 meters long, that actually has a built-in volume control? I’m looking for something similar to those cables that usually come bundled with most 2.1 or 5.1 computer speaker setups.
I feel like the moderation has been a bit heavy-handed lately. This thread is clearly US-based, so I don't see much reason for it to be nuked—maybe just merge it with the old one if you guys are really that obsessed with avoiding duplicates 🤷 Some day, I was right in the middle of typing out a response to a thread (I can’t recall the exact title, but it was something along the lines of "R for Regret") and just as I hit send, the whole thing had vanished 🤣 In my opinion, that thread shouldn't have been deleted either; merging it with a discussion about post-breakup feelings would have made more sense. It feels pretty pointless to wipe out threads that actually spark engagement, provided they stick to the forum's topic and don't just devolve into mindless small talk 🤷
Zachary Wilson30 said:Down here in Columbus, you see them out on bikes too, and honestly, that's probably the only way they'll catch you. But if they're in cars, on motorcycles, or just walking? They aren't exactly a threat to anyone. 😁
I’ve spent plenty of time in major cities, but I have to admit, this is a first for me. I haven't even seen anything like this during a typical police standoff; it actually looks pretty interesting. 😁 And considering how much your city is covered in bike lanes, it’s really no surprise you guys ended up with a specialized unit just for that. 😁
If you're trying to get from Times Square over to Brooklyn, it’s actually pretty straightforward. You just head down Broadway and once you hit Houston, take a right by the Amazon near the Apple store. There’s a clear highway sign right there—look for the green Amtrak markings—and since there's a massive overpass crossing the tracks at that exact spot, there's really no way you can miss it. It's almost impossible to screw up. 🤷 As far as I can tell, there isn't a single curb anywhere along that stretch of Broadway, but seriously—don't you dare try driving a heavy truck through there. 🙂
Here you go. Here’s the route map. You know those new buildings right by Times Square? If you’re heading toward Target, just keep going straight until you hit Broadway and cross over.
Does anyone know where I can pick up some Neocubes besides Hocuto? Honestly, everything they have listed feels way overpriced. I’ve got this nagging feeling that if I look elsewhere, I could probably find them at a much more reasonable price point somewhere else.🤷
placidjackal36 said:The Music forum is a special kind of disaster zone. Over on RiD, people might catch you off guard or shut you down like you’re some frantic chicken, but the Music section? If you’re a newcomer who doesn't immediately start acting like a pretentious scenester, you’ll feel like you’ve stepped straight into a Borg cube. Everyone is busy performing—bragging about who was where, how much they drank, and which events they attended 🤮—and if you don't join in, the isolation is absolute and incredibly efficient. It’s like walking through a graveyard; there are tons of people around, but not a single soul actually alive. But hey, if you play the part of the ultimate scenester, you’ll blend right into the crowd like a drop of oil in an oil slick. You just lose your individuality in the process.
Spot on! I almost forgot about this PDF entirely. I find myself checking back in every few months for the exact same reasons, even though I spend a massive chunk of my week listening to music. Maybe this crowd isn't "psycho" in the clinical sense, but when it comes to character, there are some truly nasty individuals in there. Their whole purpose in life seems to be tearing everything else down and pushing "ironic" jokes way past the point of being funny 🙄 There are a few more reasonable threads over in the pop, indie, and psy-trance scenes in NYC where the vibe is a bit more grounded, but overall, this is one of the most paradoxical forums out there: it covers a huge range of topics, yet the content is totally useless and low-quality 😁
When you look at pregnant women, brides, or even those into alternative lifestyles (and sometimes even pets 😁), who are all basically just big babies at heart, one thing really stands out: their politics. Looking through that PDF, it's clear there are people who aren't just a little bit unstable or acting out due to hormonal shifts; we're talking about genuine psychological cases. It’s not rare to see them. These specific brands of psychopathy, mental numbness, and pure fanaticism are hard to pin down solely to religion alone...
You could argue that Felicity and Peace are two sides of the same coin, but there’s a nuance there that people often miss. Peace implies this steady, balanced state—something almost stoic or even emotionless. Felicity, on the other hand, brings that spark of excitement and a sense of carefree ease, which is also part of being at peace, but it’s that extra layer of emotional intensity and high-octane feeling that sets them apart.
If you look at it logically, lasting Felicity would basically be Peace infused with frequent bursts of joy and higher emotional peaks. But here’s the kicker: if we define "constant Felicity" this way, it eventually just dissolves back into Peace. It becomes a flat, unchanging baseline—which is exactly what Peace is supposed to be in the first place. In my view, both Felicity and dissatisfaction are essentially deviations from Peace—one pulling you toward a positive peak and the other dragging you into a negative valley. They are vital because they provide the friction necessary to actually strive for something, to feel anything, and to truly value an experience. Without those swings, life would just be a static, vegetative existence where nothing matters. 🤷
Personally, I don't see how celibacy functions as a spiritual category or a foundation for spiritual growth, and my reasoning is pretty straightforward: it’s a conscious choice to impose restrictions, not an intuitive way of being. In other words, celibacy as a lifestyle choice is an ideological component. The reality is that sexuality, in a spiritual sense, isn't rooted in one's worldview, but rather in intuitive energy and states of consciousness. What I mean by this is that there are definitely people out there who simply don't find sexuality significant or even feel it; they are neutral toward it. Such a person might not engage in sexual relationships or express sexuality at all, but they wouldn't call themselves "celibate" because the concept doesn't even cross their mind. Someone who declares themselves celibate has made a deliberate decision to abstain in order to achieve something specific or prove a point based on their own personal beliefs.
Sexuality is both literally and figuratively creative—it’s inspiring. I don't see why it would automatically drag down a person's spiritual level; if anything, it can elevate them when approached through a constructive lens.
It’s also a bit ridiculous to constantly frame sexuality within the context of "unhealthy addiction," deviancy, or reckless behavior. 😕 Viewing sexuality through those kinds of biased lenses is actually counter-spiritual. Sexuality is an unquestionable part of human nature, carrying immense energetic and creative potential that varies wildly from person to person. Ultimately, we can't make blanket statements about what constitutes "healthy" or "unhealthy" sexuality because how that potential is experienced and utilized is entirely individual.
Furthermore, sexuality doesn't inherently imply promiscuity, especially if certain comments regarding being "trapped" or "out of control" under its influence are targeting that idea. People experience and trigger sexuality in vastly different ways: for some, it's just a basic need; for others, recreation; for some, an obsession; for some, a non-factor; and for others, a transcendental experience. Because of this, it isn't really a suitable subject for such prejudices when we are discussing sexuality generally as a facet of a spiritual person. To use a caricature as an example, intelligence can be used to research mathematical formulas, new energy sources, or life-saving medicines... blah, blah, blah... it can be used for contemplating spirituality or creative expression, but it can also be used to devise untraceable serial murder methods or develop poisons to wipe out as many people as possible through food supplies. While sexuality isn't quite as broadly defined a trait as intelligence, its perception, application, and capacity for inspiration fall deeply within the individual domain. When it comes to spirituality, I don't think there should be any room for these kinds of prejudices or dogmatic interpretations. 🤷
