Posts by Thomas Stewart69

restlessfox34 said:Go see a gynecologist for an exam and an ultrasound. It could be a cyst, endometriosis, or it might be nothing at all. We’re just guessing based on our own experiences here. My periods were always incredibly painful and got heavier over time, plus I started dealing with ovulation pain and PMS symptoms that I ignored until I finally got a diagnosis. Honestly, I hope it’s something temporary that clears up on its own, but if I were you, I'd definitely get checked out. good luck !

Alright, thanks. 🙂

Has anyone dealt with something similar lately?

Up until recently, my period was basically a walk in the park—heavy cramps on day one, lasting about four days, and a manageable flow. But over the last year, things shifted. Around day two, the pain started feeling almost negligible. However, for the past three or four months, my uterus has decided to go rogue. It’s dumping massive amounts of blood during those first couple of days; I’m having to swap out a tampon every hour and a half on average. During my last cycle, the whole thing stretched out to seven or eight days of constant intensity, and those heavy cramps from day one decided to make a comeback at the very end.
It hit me again today, and honestly, it feels like every dam in the Midwest just burst at once. :/

Does anyone have any theories on what could cause such a drastic shift? Nothing major has changed in my life that I can pinpoint, and I'm not on any hormonal birth control.

The entrance to the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival isn't by the bridge; it's further down, so you can tie up there.

goldenhound32 said:By that logic, a horror novel would be more intense than a horror movie.

It isn't just about horror; it applies to anything unsettling. Instead of showing everything explicitly, you provide subtle hints. This forces the reader or viewer to fill in those blanks with their own specific anxieties. Essentially, you’re letting them scare themselves using their own worst fears.

To be honest, I think that's an excellent principle.

He’s got it, but there’s no obligation 😬

Is it because he’s, how should I put it, a total mess? He’s dragging ghosts from his past behind him because he admits himself he was a "cunt"—someone who destroyed and despised the very things he loved. Maybe he’s finally hitting a point of self-destructive repentance for it all.

Generally speaking, people can be absolute trash to those who treat them well. They try to dismantle or at least shake someone else's kindness. It's likely an attempt to feel better once they see they've managed to wreck the parts of a person's life they dismiss as childish, or parts they view with condescension, just to force that person to see the world through their cynical eyes. It’s that toxic logic of: "If I feel like garbage, then I’ll make sure you feel like garbage, too."
A man can't live with himself, so he certainly can't let her back into his life. But you can start to see some actual progress—like him visiting his wife's grave every week and cutting back on the booze.

Damn, I’m actually sitting here contemplating selling my festival pass... somehow I've become completely indifferent, even with some decent bands on the lineup.

neonsurfer6 said:Between Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, and even Ace in the Hole, you really can't go wrong.🙂

I'm with you on this one.🙂

Michelle Diaz14 said:The lineup is going to be absolutely stacked.🙄

I don't know how closely you follow the scene, but even Terrano has some solid names in its roster...

^ easy as pie 🙂

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

Susan Hernandez said:

True, but you can present that more or less convincingly.

I don't follow. Are you saying the movie isn't convincing because it's set in the Victorian era? The sets and costumes from that period probably ate up half the budget, and it shows. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are great... the rest are decent enough..

To me, the movie felt like it was shot in the 60s.

Old-fashioned? 🙂

And those aren't terms I'd want to associate with Dracula.

Whether you want to or not, Stoker's (or Coppola's) Dracula is the original; everything else is just stylization.

It felt a bit too campy for something that's supposed to be terrifying.

I think we have different definitions of what makes a film "camp." 🙂
The truly campy Dracula movies came out of Hammer studios back in the day (which doesn't make them bad), whereas anything made after 2000 is just teen horror (which actually does make them bad).

No, their take on the Victorian era was just mediocre. The costumes were decent enough, the staging held up, and the special effects were alright—nothing special. The lighting felt middle-of-the-road, too. Ultimately, the whole package feels average, bordering on bad, because they combined elements that could have been executed much more effectively.

Susan Hernandez said:

True, but you can present that more or less convincingly.

I don't follow. Are you saying the movie isn't convincing because it's set in the Victorian era? The sets and costumes from that period probably ate up half the budget, and it shows. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are great... the rest are decent enough..

To me, the movie felt like it was shot in the 60s.

Old-fashioned? 🙂

And those aren't terms I'd want to associate with Dracula.

Whether you want to or not, Stoker's (or Coppola's) Dracula is the original; everything else is just stylization.

It felt a bit too campy for something that's supposed to be terrifying.

I think we have different definitions of what makes a film "camp." 🙂
The truly campy Dracula movies came out of Hammer studios back in the day (which doesn't make them bad), whereas anything made after 2000 is just teen horror (which actually does make them bad).

It’s possible. If this were an older film from twenty or thirty years ago, I probably wouldn't have minded. But because it’s trying to be a modern take on a period piece, that old-fashioned vibe feels forced—almost naive in its execution. Personally, I prefer a more subtle kind of psychological dread.

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

Susan Hernandez said:

True, but you can present that more or less convincingly.

I don't follow. Are you saying the movie isn't convincing because it's set in the Victorian era? The sets and costumes from that period probably ate up half the budget, and it shows. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are great... the rest are decent enough..

To me, the movie felt like it was shot in the 60s.

Old-fashioned? 🙂

And those aren't terms I'd want to associate with Dracula.

Whether you want to or not, Stoker's (or Coppola's) Dracula is the original; everything else is just stylization.

It felt a bit too campy for something that's supposed to be terrifying.

I think we have different definitions of what makes a film "camp." 🙂
The truly campy Dracula movies came out of Hammer studios back in the day (which doesn't make them bad), whereas anything made after 2000 is just teen horror (which actually does make them bad).

Sure, Stoker's version is the gold standard. I still hold a bit of a grudge against Coppola; he had the chance to take a few minor tweaks to the premise and turn this into a brilliant, cerebral masterpiece. Instead, what we got felt pretty benign.

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

Susan Hernandez said:

True, but you can present that more or less convincingly.

I don't follow. Are you saying the movie isn't convincing because it's set in the Victorian era? The sets and costumes from that period probably ate up half the budget, and it shows. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are great... the rest are decent enough..

To me, the movie felt like it was shot in the 60s.

Old-fashioned? 🙂

And those aren't terms I'd want to associate with Dracula.

Whether you want to or not, Stoker's (or Coppola's) Dracula is the original; everything else is just stylization.

It felt a bit too campy for something that's supposed to be terrifying.

I think we have different definitions of what makes a film "camp." 🙂
The truly campy Dracula movies came out of Hammer studios back in the day (which doesn't make them bad), whereas anything made after 2000 is just teen horror (which actually does make them bad).

So many movies, yet so little explanation. Camp is inherently difficult to pin down; it’s one of those things where you either get it or you don't, regardless of how many variations they throw at you. As for Hammer horror, I think they're brilliant. I grew up watching them, and even though my definition of "quality cinema" has evolved over the years, I can never quite walk away from them—no matter what anyone says.

Good grief, everything produced after 2000 is just enough to make you weep..

Susan Hernandez said:Everything is acted with restraint, staying true to Stoker's book.

Everything is so heavily "Gothic" and "Victorian."

Well, the story takes place in the Victorian era. 🙂

The vampire ball is more intense than that movie.

I especially love the vampire ball; it’s as intense as it is comical. Coppola's Dracula is as intense as it is a love story. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation of a book written at a time when the concept of "intense" was far less intense than today's horror movies.

I’ve read Stoker both before and after seeing the film, and honestly, it never quite clicked for me. I much prefer more natural, fluid performances than what was delivered here. But hey, to each their own. 🙂

Quote : for those familiar with Bram Stoker's

Susan Hernandez said:Everything is acted with restraint, staying true to Stoker's book.

Everything is so heavily "Gothic" and "Victorian."

Well, the story takes place in the Victorian era. 🙂

The vampire ball is more intense than that movie.

I especially love the vampire ball; it’s as intense as it is comical. Coppola's Dracula is as intense as it is a love story. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation of a book written at a time when the concept of "intense" was far less intense than today's horror movies.

True, though you can spin that argument with varying degrees of conviction. To me, the movie felt like a relic from the 1960s—it tries way too hard to be eerie, but ends up feeling campy and sugary instead. Those aren't exactly the vibes I want to associate with Dracula.

Susan Hernandez said:Everything is acted with restraint, staying true to Stoker's book.

Everything is so heavily "Gothic" and "Victorian."

Well, the story takes place in the Victorian era. 🙂

The vampire ball is more intense than that movie.

I especially love the vampire ball; it’s as intense as it is comical. Coppola's Dracula is as intense as it is a love story. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation of a book written at a time when the concept of "intense" was far less intense than today's horror movies.

When it comes to the adaptation, it really does stick to the book. I realize he was aiming for that visceral, unsettling tone found in the novel—which, looking back from today's perspective, feels about as eerie as one of Grimm's fairy tales, if not less. Like I mentioned before, it all feels a bit too campy for something that’s supposed to be genuinely chilling. It immediately brings to mind... Brooks's Versions. 🙂

Am I the only one who thinks the '92 version is a mess? The acting is way too over-the-top, and everything is so aggressively "Gothic" and "Victorian" that it becomes ridiculous and campy through and through. The vampire ball in 🙂
is far more intense than anything in that movie.

The reality is they’ve scattered themselves too thin with an excessive number of characters just to manufacture endless spin-off opportunities, leaving me completely indifferent to any of them. There isn't a coherent story here, let alone anything clever.
An empty box...

The only highlight for me was Stark's holographic touchscreen interface.

As for the villains, perhaps the intention was to suggest that Stark is actually his own worst enemy.

Great movie with an incredible cast. I wasn't expecting much, but I ended up being genuinely impressed.

That would be nice...

They were looking for both of them...

^Ugh, if only 😁

Not my problem, but who actually cares? 🙂

Oh, please... I wouldn't touch those killers with a ten-foot pole...

I've made it out to Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival twice now, and honestly, I wouldn't mind going back for another round...