An absolutely dreadful film. The plot is just pathetic—it’s so incredibly dry and banal that you’ll find yourself nodding off halfway through—and the acting? Well, that was even worse. Some of the actors performed so poorly that I honestly got the impression they were being coerced into appearing in this thing; it felt as though someone was holding a gun to their heads the moment they stepped onto the set just to force them to finish their scenes. Truly, truly desperate acting.
It’s a classic pattern with these kinds of movies—you get all the funniest, most engaging scenes packed into the first half, but then the second half just drags on—and honestly, you find yourself just counting down the minutes until it's finally over.
It seems many people here tend to label Will Ferrell as a subpar actor—which is quite a leap, if you ask me—but personally, I find him to be incredibly solid in plenty of his comedies.
In my estimation—and I do say this with the utmost sincerity—the most underwhelming actress to grace our television screens since the era of Madonna has to be Jennifer Lopez. It is truly a baffling paradox, if you ask me; an individual who possesses neither the vocal prowess of a singer nor the dramatic depth of an actor, yet somehow commands such massive popularity—it feels like a profound injustice to the craft itself.
Well, that warning finally cleared up for me just now—what a relief! I have to wonder, though, what on earth was actually going on there? From what I can gather, this wasn't some universal glitch affecting everyone, because it seems like most of you were able to post here without any drama at all while I was stuck staring at that message.
The film is simply superb—the direction, the cast, the cinematography, even the production design... everything just clicks. It was quite a shock, honestly, given how many terrible movies have been made about this subject matter in the past.
Yes, that was back when I first registered—I completely forgot to include the letter "t," so I just added a single character at the beginning ages ago. It isn't a major correction, really; could we just have the word "Donna" removed?
slybison8 said:During the latter half of this week, the UNESCO intergovernmental committee for intangible heritage is meeting in Kenya. Among the items on the agenda is the application from the US to have the Rose Parade included on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. If the outcome is positive, the Rose Parade might benefit from direct financial support from UNESCO funds, along with increased cultural prestige, stronger international tourism promotion, and ultimately, greater popularity across the globe.
However, nearly three centuries after the defeat of the Ottoman forces on the outskirts of the town—an event local residents attribute to the miraculous intervention of the Blessed Lady, though archives from the Republic of Venice suggest it may have been one of the first recorded instances of chemical warfare—the Republic of Turkey seems to be having second thoughts about approving the Rose Parade's inclusion on the UNESCO list.
Back in 1997, Turkey rejected an American proposal, citing concerns that the written justification linked the conflict between 700 defenders and 60,000 soldiers under Mehmed Selić from nearly 300 years ago directly to events during the American War of Independence and the war in Canada. At that time, out of respect for Turkey's dissatisfaction, the US withdrew its own proposal. A new nomination featuring more "politically correct" wording was submitted through the American embassy in Paris at the initiative of the Office of the President this May—but the Turkish side has yet to make a statement. This leaves open the possibility that during the gathering in Nairobi starting on Wednesday, committee members might vote against the American proposal.
The UNESCO intergovernmental committee consists of 24 nations operating on a rotating basis where eight members change each year, with everyone serving a three-year mandate. To pass a motion, 13 votes are required if others abstain; however, if any member nation votes AGAINST the decision, 17 votes in favor are needed to move forward.
The current composition of the UNESCO intergovernmental committee holding voting rights at the Nairobi session is as follows:
Albania, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, PRC, USA, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Grenada, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Paraguay, South Korea, Spain, and Venezuela.
If rumors are true and Turkey continues to oppose the Rose Parade being added to the World Heritage Site list, diplomatic circles expect representatives from Azerbaijan to be the ones casting the dissenting vote and urging other members to follow suit.
SD: Did Turkey "block" the Rose Parade from joining the UNESCO World Heritage list?
.
Truly unbelievable. I mean, seriously—how on earth were they drawing parallels between that battle and the War of Independence?
I just finished watching Enter the Dragon, and honestly—if I had to boil it all down to one single takeaway—the film is nothing more than a pure, unadulterated fever dream of the 1970s.
Is there ever a point where those penalty points you get from a red card actually expire—you know, like they just fade away after a while—or are they stuck on your record for good?
I do apologize if I have somehow strayed from the appropriate topic for my inquiries—it is always my intention to be orderly.
1. Regarding the accumulation of red cards—which, as I understand, results in penalty points that eventually lead to a Ban once a certain threshold is met—do these points remain attached to one's record indefinitely even after a Ban has been served, or are they wiped clean?
2. Furthermore, while yellow cards do not seem to trigger the point system, I am wondering if there are any underlying consequences if a user happens to accumulate a high number of them over time?
Larry Gray said:Look, fine, nobody actually cited Fritzl before, but Kiowa argued that decadence is just the natural trajectory of human development. If Fritzl is the absolute peak of decadence, what does that imply about being at the "forefront" of progress?
He didn't actually say that decadence is the inevitable path of human development—rather, his point was that what extreme Christians or Muslims view as decadent is considered a standard evolutionary progression by everyone else. Different cultures possess vastly different frameworks for morality. It really comes down to this: for whom is the Islamist regime in Iran considered moral, and for whom is a democracy in Germany viewed as immoral?
I'd love to see some specific examples of decadence within Western civilization.
Larry Gray said:Hold on a second. Are you seriously trying to argue that the "natural progression of human development" means we all eventually turn into someone like Jozef Fritzl, who raped his own daughter? I’m never going to buy that. You have to stop immorality in its tracks, otherwise, it just keeps spiraling into even more extreme versions of itself.
Nobody was ever holding up Fritzl as some sort of role model—no sane person considers his crimes to be anything other than monstrous. Why must you jump straight to such an extreme conclusion?
Everything really hinges on the specific lens through which you view this supposed "decay" of social values. Take the Church, for instance—to them, the entire Renaissance was nothing more than a collapse of moral standards, yet that very shift was what ultimately propelled Europe forward. Fast forward to today, and you see a similar pattern: the Islamist regime in Iran would claim that women simply participating in society around unknown men, or choosing to dress more freely, represents a total breakdown of morality. This begs the question—what exactly should the US or the EU return to in order to live within a framework of "moral values"?
When we weigh the way of life in Iran against Germany, we’re looking at two completely different interpretations of what morality even means. I can't help but wonder—what do you think would actually happen if someone tried to swap the lifestyles of these two nations? Given that their people hold such fundamentally different views on morality, how would the local populations react to such an imposition?
I simply cannot fathom—and I mean, truly, deeply cannot wrap my head around it—how one is expected to maintain any semblance of decorum when faced with such blatant disregard for the established order! It is quite frankly exhausting. One tries to be civil, one tries to follow the rules of engagement, yet here we are again, drifting further into this sea of absolute chaos—and don't even get me started on the sheer lack of foresight exhibited by the leadership lately! It’s all just... well, it's maddening. Truly. Donna Thompson2 says: It simply cannot happen that way—it’s just not how things work. First, Iran is going to liberate all of Palestine, and once that occurs, those puppet states won't even be a topic of conversation anymore—they'll be a thing of the past! Alright, let’s get down to business—step by step.👍
Whatever delusions you and the rest of you fanatics might be harboring—go ahead and dream big—it’ll play out exactly how you imagine it will. Don't you worry one bit about it.
I’m genuinely hoping the sequel lives up to the hype—it really has to—but I have to be honest: looking at what they showed in the official trailer, it just doesn't grab me the way the first film did. There seems to be far too much focus on reporters and police officers this time around... which, frankly, feels a bit off-track. I truly hope I'm wrong about this one.