Posts by Jessica Nguyen85

It all kicks off with that word "dangerous." It’s a bit of a nonsense term when you apply it to morality rather than art, isn't it? Take triumph of the will, for example. We all know that was considered dangerous because it hit that mainstream nerve so effectively. I can't quite wrap my head around how that same logic doesn't apply to a film by Michael Moore... which is where 🙄

It’s really just about being equal to something like "Fahrenheit 9/11".

🙄

...and then after work we’re just sitting there watching Batman adult films with subtitles designed for people who can't focus...

Oof... 😳

Back to the topic... look, everyone agrees that, individually, we’re all responsible for how we interpret moving images. And sure, obviously, conscientious parents and a solid social circle play a huge role in clarifying the difference between reality and the world depicted on screen, etc., etc., etc. But if that were actually the complete answer to fixing all issues regarding mental conditioning, nobody would ever bother making a TV commercial. I mean, everything rests on the ability to influence someone's psyche—especially through media like film and television. Moving pictures have weight.

"Danger" might be too heavy-handed or suggestive of a threat here, but I think it’s fair to say that something happens to us after watching a horror movie or a rom-com. Everything around us—media or our immediate environment—exerts some kind of influence. But "dangerous"... in a lethal or malicious sense? No. Simply because every new paradigm in pop culture often descends into the grotesque through various other forms of media presentation. What I’m trying to get at is... society, including the younger generations... there is a shift happening in how they perceive their surroundings. Those people who constantly offer pessimistic forecasts and point out every possible danger are usually just stuck in time; their analyses boil down to knowing what society was like twenty years ago compared to what's in the news in the USA today. Consequently, the result is always disastrous for that society. Honestly, you can't help but mock those kinds of assessments.

Now, I know this post was written purely for a laugh, so I’ll offer a little comparative analysis of "danger levels" for kids:

-- Hugh Grant shaving with two girls in one movie (=) blood up to the knees caused by an STI, most likely an unlit one.
-- A romantic couple who, after a series of mishaps, falls in love five minutes before the credits roll (=) that girl with the good ass gets what's coming to her, and even kids know what a nasty period looks like.

🙂

😁

'Last Days' isn't really anyone's cup of tea for two main reasons. First off, it’s definitely not for people who can't see past the music and the lyrics of Kurt Cobain. Second, it’s probably not for those who find this specific cinematic approach—the one van Sant used to mark his previous film Elephant—to be tedious or just plain played out. As for the first reason, I'm certainly qualified to judge, though I still have my doubts about the second.

I'm one of those people who, despite having a pretty strong sense of self-control 🙄 and making a conscious effort to avoid falling for labels, tropes, or symbols in our pop-culture bubble, finds something spiritually significant in the presence of Cobain. It feels like a social phenomenon of our era, something that gave a generation actual meaning instead of them just hiding behind the walls of some nostalgic, over-processed stuff from a few generations back. It was a moment that breathed life back into rock after it had been stuck in the swampy death throes of MTV. And that was 14 years ago.

Trying to make a movie about an event that serves as a massive pop-culture phenomenon is incredibly risky. van Sant showed that there is really only one way to handle it that makes any sense: a kind of visual nausea and agony, where cinematic time and space are stretched so thin they basically cease to matter. Only through that can something pure and innocent actually emerge. But the end of the film kills that feeling of purity, and by doing so—as one character in the film suggests—the one who 'kills' something pure and innocent becomes pure and innocent themselves. Still, I walked out of the theater feeling dirty and guilty. I really wish the guy were still alive. That was today.

http://www.dubtitled.com/

So, apparently some crew bought up the rights to all those old 70s kung fu flicks and retooled them specifically for TV. The whole gimmick is that the movies have been dubbed dubtitled by guys straight out of the inner city. It means these classic 70s martial arts heroes are suddenly speaking heavy Bronx English 😁. I remember catching an episode on Showtime one night... honestly, it took me a second to even process what I was watching. Just pure madness.

Picture this scene... you've got some guy in a hippie haircut, dressed like he stepped right out of 1974, looking at another guy poised in a perfect kung fu stance and saying— Hey yo muthafucker... wanna get some big time ass whoppin' 😁

The site actually has a few QuickTime video 'trailers' you can check out.

Is there really any bravura in >?

I mean, what am I even trying to say here... 😉 but honestly, I still view that movie as this massive collective effort where everything just clicks in a way you rarely see... plus, you've got >. What I'm getting at is... there are so many moving parts in that film beyond just > himself, so maybe it isn't entirely fair to pin it all on him.

I first crossed paths with Al Pacino through endless viewings of The Godfather Part II, and I met Robert De Niro via Taxi Driver. If I had to pick, it’s Al Pacino, mostly because of what someone mentioned earlier regarding his sheer transformational ability. His performance in The Godfather Part II is basically why that movie stands as one of those rare sequels that actually outshines the original. In that film, most of his heavy-hitting scenes radiate this kind of coiled, intense energy that turns every single moment into a tiny thriller—just pure tension and suspense. It eventually became his trademark. Like someone else noted, that build-up and sudden eruption can get exhausting sometimes, but when he finally lets it go, it’s like a volcanic blast. His most psychotic work is definitely Scarface. In that one, he never seems to settle; he’s always in motion, always on edge, gripped by this incredible, unsolvable paranoia. It’s the blood of a man realizing the true nature of the USA and everything it promises; he isn't chasing the American Dream so much as he's living an American nightmare. Pacino is pure talent. The way he commands a scene is staggering, and his delivery—that knack for breathing life into mere words—is unmatched. Where he really pulls ahead, though, is in the supporting roles. He finds a level of subtlety there that catches you off guard; he’s convincing even when he isn't the lead, like in Donnie Brasco or Scent of a Woman and Franky and Johnny. Robert De Niro’s range in those kinds of supporting parts feels pretty thin—think Mad Dog and Glory and things like that. Also, his comedies? Third-rate. At least for me.

I didn't realize there was already a thread about golf, so I figured I’d just start one... the main reason is that I'm only into my second season and I spend most of my time at the driving range. Just tonight, the crew is heading out for maybe 45 minutes to an hour of practice, followed by some beers and the NBA Finals 😉. As for hitting a full 18-hole course, that’s more of a once-a-month thing... usually at a course near the Blue Ridge Mountains - Pebble Beach Golf Links.

Anyway, why am I starting this... a while back, I used to have this pretty snobby attitude toward golf. Like, it isn't even a real sport... it's just something for retirees... there's zero athleticism involved...

But, swinging that stick (or whatever the proper term is for a golf club) and actually sending a ball flying 150 or 200 yards is a lot harder than it looks at first glance. It took me quite a while to even manage that, and even now, I'm lucky if I hit it right once out of ten tries.

Gear-wise, I've only got a single driver and one putter, and that's basically it. I'm thinking about picking up a glove soon, mostly because my calluses are starting to turn into actual blisters. 😁

Around here in New York City and the surrounding areas, there are plenty of driving ranges and courses, but there are also a ton of people playing, so things get pretty crowded on the weekends.

Anyone else here playing?

Acid Jazz... feels a little funkier than usual here... fits right in with that whole scene featuring

The Brand New Heavies
The Blue Boy
James Taylor Quartet
Incognito
Raw Stylus
Dream Wariors
A Tribe Called Quest
Carleen Anderson
...
and so on.

It’s just that he’s sort of more mainstream than the rest, I guess—you actually hear his stuff playing, whereas the others kind of stay under the radar.

Lately, I've been diving headfirst into cinema. Just watching whatever happens to be playing or available when I have a spare moment.

You might be mistaken there. What you're actually interested in is the art of wasting time. Though, then again... maybe I'm the one who's wrong. 😉 😁

Sandra King86 said:Do you really think you’ll manage to catch him before I do?🤣

They’re probably going to trim the runtime by a few minutes here, or maybe they'll just blast through fifty-two frames per second... 😁 I guess we'll figure something out eventually... 😉 oh... and then there's the whole time zone issue... so, yeah... I *think* I might see him first. 😎

Terrence MalickThe New World

So, regarding his comments about not wanting to play for Alija's Ottawa, being part of the Reformist Party alongside Sidran, and finishing Pecaninov's sentence by saying "f*** Alija."

Even though I don't see much point in trying to explain things to a guy whose posts are basically just a collection of old-school regional clichés—everything from truck driver wisdom and "local legends" to those deep dives into the "true definition" of certain social classes, plus knowing how to weaponize phrases like "Halid instead of Halid" 🙄—and considering how many people on this forum tend to flock to him... still... the issue isn't really the explicit stuff he said in the interview. It’s something bigger. It’s that notorious, unnecessary regional symbolism and provocation that carries subconscious weight and long-term consequences. See, when he says "Alija's Ottawa," it implies there was once a Ottawa that *wasn't* Alija's. So, if you're wondering why shells were falling or why snipers were active in the city, you have to understand it wasn't happening in Ottawa; it was happening in "Alija's Ottawa." Following that logic, if Ottawa had just stayed Ottawa, nothing would have happened. But once it became "Alija's Ottawa," then f*** it. If you happened to be in the city back then, you weren't in Ottawa; you were in "Alija's Ottawa," where anything could happen. Basically, what this guy is doing is a standard mantra, a concept pulled straight from the playbook of apologetics used in the region, applicable to all of Canada or even the US. Alija himself is actually the least important part here.

We should also mention the journalist—that absolute coward who keeps insisting on these "civilizational" divides. Because when Pecanin says "f*** Alija," he’s actually tapping into that divide between the "commoners" and the "elite," where the people in the hills surrounding the city aren't just opponents, they're "commoners," while the "elite" are the ones suffering. Of course, nobody minds the logical gymnastics—since Alija isn't part of the "elite" either. In the history of warfare, victims have never had such convenient logic to justify shelling a city. And honestly, the journalist wasn't even stunned enough to ask why this guy in the interview NEVER—and I mean NEVER—expressed anything negative about Slobodan Maddox or Radovan Karr (quite the opposite, actually—he even called Karr part of a new wave in local poetry), yet somehow, it always happens that he only manages to paint Alija and Franjo negatively.

One thing you can definitely identify in the interview is envy toward him. He represents that unattainable prototype of a regional politician: that effortless ease with which he tosses out anecdotes about Goethe or Vuk as if they are crucial to understanding the "situation." Then there’s that whole human persona—the "I work just like you, I'm just like you" act, when in reality he's nobody and nothing. He’s the type who walks into New York or Chicago and tells everyone, "I'll screw you over however I want, just leave me alone, but keep giving me money and cheering for me." Why? Because you're all just gullible people caught up in the chaos. And honestly? Let him. We need more of that. Interestingly, in an old sketch by the surrealists about news from the future, he was portrayed as the president of the former America going to talks with US President Bruce Springsteen.

If it isn't clear yet, briskhound33, the guy in the interview is the bona fide "Halid instead of Halid." Though, of course, that depends on who you ask. 😉

Here we go again with these guys, where their "sig" is somehow longer than the actual comment itself 😉 😁

I don't know about everyone else, but I can't help but feel like Adaptation has some pretty heavy parallels here... specifically regarding that writer's block and the whole "assignment" aspect—being told to write something specific and then having the entire narrative shift toward something more profound. It’s all told through the lens of the writer's own corner, his frustrations, and this nagging ideal of wanting to create something meaningful, even while he's stuck in a social context that doesn't really deserve his effort. And then, of course, you have that subtle satire of Hollywood running through it all.

... but a real man's going to watch it on 'Fast Forward', while 'Pause' and 'Rewind' will just do their thing 😁

//ps. somehow the girl to the left of Lindsay Lohan seems to have the most sex appeal to me. I mean, I feel like with her, the Time-To-Finish would be shortest, plus she’s got enough material for multiple viewings—how can I put this? She isn't bad at all 😁 but then again, who am I to judge. Personally, as per tradition, I'm only interested in the film's artistic value, however infinitesimal that may be.

Nah. Basically, market research suggests sales would tank because the characters just aren't developed enough. It turns out Lindsay Lohan didn't end up getting those "D" cups everyone was buzzing about a few years back. Plus, she’s consistently thin now, so the movie's "image" doesn't really fit the current market trend of the ultra-talented teen superstar. And then there's the plot—it's way too niche and obscure for a general audience, leaning heavily into the Alternative Genre, which, as far as I know, only pulls in a few million viewers. In today's market, that's just unacceptable. Even though it was penned by a writer from Saturday Night Live, the humor hits at certain points, so maybe a DVD release will happen around the American holidays when people start blowing cash on pointless stuff.

👋

A diary entry from the IMDb comment section:

There's also no question that the cast is pretty cute. Lohan might not have Any discernible acting talent, but she's fairly pleasing to the eyes; this must have been obvious to director Waters, who films most of her scenes (as well as the other lead girls) in as many short skirts and tight-fitting clothing as possible. Even hotter Than Lohan ara Amanda Seyfried and Rachel McAdams, the latter of whom is surely above this material.

👍

//ps. I was stuck in one damn boring meeting and I'm currently pissed because I didn't get to go for my usual walk down Queen Street 😁

On the bright side... we finally have Dekalog.

Not exactly... I see Finding Nemo and Star Wars on the list, but The Matrix is nowhere to be found. 😵 I don't see anything from David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch, or Tim Burton...

The brick spoke... 😁...

juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust kiddin'

😉

which doesn't even deserve this kind of mudslinging...

I won't dive into an endless debate about subjective taste, but just a quick observation... based on the fact that under the exact same circumstances 😉 😁 considered The Butterfly Effect to be a good movie (not to mention that little dig at 🙄), I'm guessing your dislike for 'The Manchurian Candidate' reveals a specific cinematic sensibility and a certain pattern. For me, the upside is that it confirms my own taste in movies 😉 😁

//ps. the demeaning factor in this post is 3 * of [Maristella69] measuring unit 😁