Monty Python fans certainly know how to parody. It isn't always the case, but I suppose a good portion of their sketches are direct parodies—the Sam Peckinpah sketch being the most obvious example, though there are plenty of others. I mean, the entirety of Life of Brian is essentially a parody of the story of Jesus, just as the whole of Holy Grail serves as a parody of the tale of King Arthur.
And that is saying nothing of something like Galaxy Quest, or Shaun of the Dead, or Hot Fuzz.
Of course, one must actually possess the skill to parody effectively. If a film simply boils down to a repetitive sequence of scenes relying on cheap toilet humor, then I guess it is inevitably garbage.
While I find myself quite willing to sit through a well-crafted parody, I must confess that I have absolutely no patience for a poorly executed one.
However, I suspect that sentiment applies to just about every cinematic genre imaginable. The mere fact that a motion picture is categorized as a parody doesn't inherently guarantee that it will be anything other than mediocre, for better or for worse.
Perhaps this is the finest film Uwe Boll has managed to produce thus far. However, I suppose making that claim is somewhat akin to suggesting this is merely the least offensive pile of garbage I've encountered lately; at its core, it remains absolute rubbish.
This isn't some charming piece of cult trash; it is quite simply just bad filmmaking.
I suppose you could say I have a certain affinity for loving Star Wars; I've always been drawn to just about anything within that universe. I am fully aware that it is a work of fiction designed to appeal to the widest possible demographic, spanning from children to adults alike. In my estimation, the original trilogy was nothing short of brilliant, and while the prequels were merely acceptable, I even managed to tolerate Jar Jar Binks.
But this...
This is sheer madness. It has been quite some time since I have witnessed such a concentrated mountain of idiocy on screen. It seems that everything which once provided substance or quality to Star Wars has been either completely omitted or utterly butchered, whereas every single element that was previously nonsensical has been amplified to a degree that feels insulting to one's intelligence. If you thought you disliked Jar Jar (and frankly, I doubt anyone didn't), then I suggest you brace yourselves for two characters that are significantly worse: Rotta the Hutt is a baby Hutt that does little more than drool, fart, and stink—essentially acting as a non-stop fountain of cheap toilet humor—while Ziro the Hutt is presented as a feminized gay Hutt, which feels terribly stereotypical and gratingly irritating. There is simply nothing of merit to be found in the Clone Wars, not even for the most die-hard Star Wars enthusiasts.
George Lucas, I implore you, please stop! Perhaps you might consider watching Wall-E or perhaps something else from Pixar just to learn how one actually crafts a high-quality animated film!
There is one particular detail that I find somewhat perplexing. At the actual moment of the sale, was there any kind of lien or encumbrance recorded against the property in the county land records? If the title was clear, then I suppose Zachary Miller6 acted in good faith and really had no reason to be concerned. However, if there was an existing claim, then she perhaps made a rather unfortunate error by failing to properly vet the status of the title. Regardless of the specifics, I am just relieved that everything eventually reached a resolution, despite all the unnecessary stress, the constant badgering, and the legal disputes. One can only hope for the best, as buying real estate is never a trivial matter; these kinds of complications can arise unexpectedly, and most people simply aren't prepared to navigate the legal fallout that follows.
Brian Carter13 said:The fine dust itself isn't even the main issue; it's the asbestos mixed in with it. If you had actually sat down and watched the documentaries I recommended, you would have known that fact, but clearly, you haven't.
Your argument is essentially on par with denying the fundamental laws of physics. But hey, that's your claim, and it's your prerogative.
Let's stop the bullying and start talking to each other like adults.
You wanted to bring up Building 7? Fine. Tell me then: how does a building just collapse like that without being hit by a plane? Let's have a real discussion and see where we land. (I hope you aren't too intimidated to keep talking.)
Thanks
It doesn't really occur to me why one would want to debate this on a film forum, much less dive into technical expertise concerning asbestos or asbestosis and how that supposedly points toward a conspiracy...
I am merely suggesting that none of those documentaries have actually convinced me. I suppose I view them strictly as mere theory, whereas you seem to regard them as absolute truth. There isn't much more to be said about it, I guess.
Brian Carter13 said:The official version? ...Are you even aware that over 66% of Americans are calling for a new investigation??
...Do you realize that 3,000 people died that day, and 50,000 others are currently facing life-threatening health issues? Many have already passed away from inhaling toxic dust and debris—air that the government claimed was perfectly safe to breathe that day. They still haven't admitted to that mistake, which essentially led those people to their deaths. To make matters worse, the first responders and recovery workers who risked everything to pull survivors from the rubble haven't received a single cent in compensation for their illnesses. Some of these folks are forced to take upwards of 20 pills a day just to function. This has been going on since the time of September 11.
..All those families suffering the loss of their loved ones aren't satisfied. Why? Because 70% of the questions they’ve asked remain unanswered—questions posed to the government and the paid experts who penned that little report the administration released.
We aren't talking about some wild conspiracy theory here... we are talking about evidence. Please, don't be so lazy that you refuse to watch movies where evidence is presented point by point regarding physics, mathematics, engineering, controlled demolition, and logic. All of this evidence is rooted in the fundamental laws of physics. Don't you believe in the laws of physics??
Take some time. Actually study the case. Google
I am certainly not disputing the loss of life or the health issues caused by the dust. It is a well-established fact that fine particulate matter is devastating to lung health. And, given how fundamentally broken the American healthcare system is, I suppose it isn't particularly surprising to me that all those people were simply left to fend for themselves.
As for the rest of it—this notion you hold that Americans destroyed the towers themselves and somehow managed to get away with it... well, I guess it’s all just a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap. I have watched several documentaries on the subject, and frankly, none of them were remotely convincing.
Ugh, I’ve found myself spiraling down a rabbit hole of documentaries about conspiracy theories lately, and frankly, most of them are absolute garbage. Of course, one shouldn't take anything at face value—especially when politics is involved—but I suppose there's also this growing trend where people blindly swallow every single thing they see in a film just because it doesn't align with the official narrative.
If you’re asking me, I tend to lean toward what I call the theory of human incompetence. To my mind, it is significantly more plausible that Americans were simply too disorganized to prevent a small group of terrorists from slipping through the cracks, hijacking three planes, and crashing two skyscrapers, than it is to believe they were somehow efficient enough to pull off an incredibly complex operation involving countless participants, killing their own citizens, and actually getting away with it.
I suppose I am somewhat undecided on how to feel about this. To be perfectly honest, the trailers haven't exactly left me breathless; they seem a bit overly stylized for my specific tastes, perhaps even leaning toward a certain plastic quality. While I have a profound appreciation for the aesthetic of Sin City and 300, I find myself wondering if Miller might have perhaps overindulged in his stylistic flourishes this time around.
That being said, seeing Samuel L. Jackson portraying a samurai who is also a Nazi does certainly sound intriguing, I guess. We shall just have to wait and see how it unfolds.
The reason? I suppose it's rather obvious, isn't it? 🙂
But in all seriousness, what I truly find myself longing to witness is perhaps just one more Alien, provided it were under the direction of either Ridley Scott or James Cameron.
I suppose one could argue that Uwe Boll is either a complete moron or perhaps he's actually quite brilliant and simply understands that any amount of publicity is good publicity.
It will likely end up being his finest cinematic achievement to date, though I suppose that doesn't really say all that much given his track record.
It’s really no trouble at all. I haven't actually sat through Passion either, mostly because I find that entire subgenre of torture porn to be rather grating, if I'm being honest.🙂
Amanda Nguyen5 said:Man, I wish we could stop this, but you just keep pulling me back in. You're saying everyone who knows where the coffee is in Congress—by your logic—is a politician. But clearly, everyone hanging out on this forum isn't some hardcore cinephile.
Ha! See that? That's a +3 analogy right there.
It might actually hold water. It is true that not everyone posting here qualifies as a film scholar. For instance, there is that crowd that shows up just to drop a review consisting of a single smiley face. Yet, even those individuals have almost certainly watched Sixth Butt more often than they have seen anything by Tarkovsky or Fassbinder (whom I would never dream of spoiling). I genuinely believe that spoiling Sixth Butt is about as redundant as stating that water is wet. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I really don't see any reason why I should be labeled either an idiot or intellectually stunted for it. Besides, as you can see, I have improved my behavior and refrained from spoiling Passion. 🙂
Amanda Nguyen5 said:Well, that much is obvious. And our politicians? They’re all political science experts who care deeply about the prosperity of the United States.
I'm actually using the word way less than I should be, but whatever.
😁😁😁
Total mess from start to finish.
Just one thing: please, no spoilers.
I don't think your analogy quite lands. Sarcasm might pass, but only if you're at a negative three.😉 I suspect all our ruling politicians at least know where they can grab a coffee over at the Capitol. It’s roughly the same level of expertise one might expect from a film buff who has at least seen Sixth Butt.
Amanda Nguyen5 said:Then you could have just wiped the insult and kept the rest of the post.
I'll be real. I'm wrong all the time, just like everyone else. But it's a pretty dangerous assumption to claim that "EVERYONE" doesn't know how the sixth sense ends. I honestly have no idea where you're getting that from. Even if EVERYONE actually knew how a movie ended, knowing the ending is still a spoiler. That's what the "No Spoilers" thread is for. Where posts containing spoilers get deleted.
Really sorry, but that's just pure stupidity.
Fine. My grandmother doesn't know how Sixth Butt ends. But then again, my grandmother doesn't spend her time lurking on film forums. The people who frequent these boards are supposed to be somewhat cinematically literate, and among such individuals, certain things are simply common knowledge. For instance, whether they have actually seen Passion or not, people generally know that SPOILER: the protagonist gets killed at the end... what a shocker... 🙂
In any case, I have shared my side of the story (at least in a post that was subsequently deleted), unlike some other people here. I was mistaken, so I suppose I shall go pray to ten different saints and offer ten Hail Marys so that I won't 😉 anymore.
northerncrane4 said:Then there are those obvious spoilers that even an idiot wouldn't miss—yet somehow, people still write them down. Honestly, you have to be pretty dense not to realize that a massive plot twist in the final third of a movie is a spoiler. Or the fact that the lead dies at the end? That's a spoiler too. Let's stop pretending everything is subjective.
To quote my own previous thought: In certain films, the resolution is absolutely vital to the overall experience and the quality of the work itself.
However, that isn't true for every single movie. For most films, the ending isn't particularly crucial, nor is it even remotely unpredictable. Because it lacks significance in many cases, I guess I don't really mind if someone happens to mention how a film concludes. On the other hand, I would honestly love to see everyone involved in this thread punished if someone were to spoil the endings of certain other movies. I am referring to those specific films where the entire impact relies solely on an unexpected twist at the very end. But even then, sometimes simply knowing that a twist exists is enough to ruin the tension, leaving you feeling somewhat underwhelmed.
Writing a review is a relatively simple task. You basically just state whether a movie was good or bad, and you're done. But this forum is different; we actually debate them. I might claim a film is absolute garbage while someone else insists it's a masterpiece, and then the back-and-forth begins. Often, these discussions inevitably drift into specific plot points. The problem is that the line between a helpful observation and a devastating spoiler seems to vary wildly from person to person. I suppose some people prefer to go into a theater knowing absolutely nothing about the plot before the lights go down.
Furthermore, I would argue that spoilers don't carry the same weight for every single film. For certain movies, the ending is the entire point—it's what defines the whole experience. I actually have a friend who decided to end his relationship, and in a particularly spiteful move, he took his girlfriend to see Sesto cuti. Right in the middle of the movie, he leaned over and whispered, "he's a ghost"... honestly, it was quite malicious. On the other hand, I mean, who really cares if the protagonist dies at the end of I Am Legend?
It seems to me that an awful lot of movies get slapped with the "boring" label by people who don't really let cinema impact their lives, treating every film as nothing more than lightweight popcorn entertainment. You only have to listen to the chatter of the crowd as you're walking out of a theater to realize this. I don't think I've ever once exited a cinema without hearing some immature kid or a complete fool complaining about how the movie was a total snooze-fest... honestly, I can't recall a single time that didn't happen, regardless of what the actual film was about.
For many folks, if a movie doesn't feature massive explosions, non-stop action, a mountain of bodies, nudity, or low-brow toilet humor, they decide absolutely nothing is happening and conclude it's dull. And even if it does have those things, if the runtime stretches past two hours, they claim it's far too long. I suppose there isn't much I can say to people whose attention spans don't last longer than thirty minutes. They can just stick to Transformers, I guess, and enjoy themselves.
Furthermore, I suspect that expectations and one's general mood while watching play a massive role. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the people who branded Lost in Translation as the most tedious film possible were actually expecting a classic comedy. It doesn't surprise me at all that they found it dull afterward. I experienced something quite similar with The Thin Red Line when I saw it in theaters. Just a week prior, I had watched Saving Private Ryan on the big screen, so I showed up to The Thin Red Line all revved up, expecting another experience just like that. I nearly died of boredom and almost walked right out of the theater. However, after giving it another chance and watching it quietly at home, I realized it was actually magnificent and not boring at all.
Ultimately, why should movies even be required to be "fun"? Film is an artistic medium, and I believe it ought to pursue artistry just as much as it pursues entertainment. It's much like literature: Is Fyodor Dostoevsky "funny," for instance? Not particularly. But is he a world-class writer with world-class works? Absolutely.
A truly magnificent piece of cinema. I was fully aware that the pacing would be deliberate and slow, so I made sure to clear my schedule in advance to give it the attention it required. Those who go in expecting a standard, fast-paced Western are likely to be quite surprised.
The acting is nothing short of superb. Brad Pitt delivers a compelling performance as Jesse James—he manages to be quite vicious, yet simultaneously appears profoundly unlucky and deeply isolated. That said, I suppose Casey Affleck actually steals the entire show; his portrayal of a complete and utter creep is so convincing that his Oscar nomination feels entirely earned. I am perhaps not entirely certain if he outshines Bardem, but I certainly wouldn't complain if he were to take home the prize.
Kudos to Nick Cave; the score is an absolute triumph. However, I found myself plagued by this nagging sensation throughout the runtime that the music sounded hauntingly familiar, though I couldn't quite place it. It wasn't until later that I realized the melodies were reminiscent of The Fountain.
Ultimately, it is a genuine shame that the film passed by almost unnoticed by American audiences—though, in my estimation, that is largely due to the studio's failings, as the movie deserved much more aggressive promotion.