I’ve been spending a lot of time lately thinking about how much of our digital existence relies on these massive, invisible pillars of infrastructure. We all use them, we all depend on them, and most of us don't even think about the sheer complexity required to keep the lights on. But lately, I’ve been feeling this growing sense of unease regarding how much "safety" is being outsourced to a handful of giants.
For years, the tech industry has been defined by these massive, impenetrable walled gardens. You pick a side, you enter their ecosystem, and you accept their rules in exchange for the convenience of everything "just working." It was a trade-off we all made. It offered a sense of stability. If you were inside the walls, you felt protected. But there’s a growing realization that when those walls are the only thing standing between us and chaos, the walls themselves become the single point of failure. If a single entity holds the keys to the kingdom, what happens when the locksmith gets compromised?
What’s interesting to me right now is this shift toward "collaborative" defense. We're seeing more and more movements where these massive players—who used to spend all their time trying to out-maneuver and out-market each other—are suddenly deciding to hold hands and build a collective shield. On one hand, it sounds like a massive win for everyone. The idea that the biggest players are willing to share intelligence, standardize protocols, and build a unified front against external threats is objectively a good thing for the stability of the internet. If we can build a common language for defense, we theoretically make the whole playground safer for the kids playing in it.
However, my skeptical side can't help but wonder about the underlying power dynamics. Is this true cooperation, or is it just a way for the titans to set the standards that everyone else *must* follow? When a small startup or an independent developer wants to build something new, they often find themselves hitting a wall because they haven't adhered to the "industry standard" established by the big guys. There’s a fine line between a "unified defense" and a "monopolized ecosystem." If the rules of security are written by the three or four biggest companies on the planet, do we lose the innovation that comes from the fringe?
I remember back in the early days of my own tech tinkering, the sheer variety of ways you could solve a problem was staggering. You could go rogue, use weird tools, and find niche solutions that worked perfectly for your specific needs. Now, it feels like everything is being funneled into these hyper-optimized, hyper-standardized pipelines. While that makes things more secure against broad, sweeping attacks, I worry we're losing the "biological diversity" of the digital world. In nature, a monoculture is incredibly fragile; if a single disease evolves to bypass the defense of one plant, it wipes out the entire field. In tech, if we all move toward the exact same defensive architecture because it’s the "standard," aren't we just making it easier for a single clever exploit to take down everything at once?
I’m also curious about the "trust" element here. We are essentially asking these corporations to trust each other with the most sensitive aspects of their infrastructure. We’ve seen enough instances of "cooperation" turning into "co-opetition" or outright corporate espionage to know that trust is a very expensive commodity. Can you really have a secure alliance when the primary motivation for every participant is still the bottom line and market dominance?
It feels like we are at a crossroads between two different philosophies of digital survival: the "Fortress Model," where every player builds their own high walls, and the "Network Model," where we all share the burden of defense to create a resilient web. One is easier to manage but creates massive targets; the other is more robust but incredibly difficult to coordinate.
I'd love to hear what you all think about this shift toward collective defense. Are we entering a new era of stability where the big players finally realize they're all in the same boat, or are we just watching the creation of a new, even more powerful standard that will eventually squeeze out anyone who doesn't play by their rules?
Jerry Martin19 said:Look, this isn't your "typical" Cronenberg flick where he leans hard into his signature style. This is supposed to be a gritty drama-thriller with grounded characters—real people, ideally—set in a real time and a real place. The fact that New York doesn't feel realistic wouldn't even be an issue if it were actually New York, but this isn't New York, and it's definitely not the actual Mafia... If he wanted pure fiction, he would've made something like Videodrome, with some imaginary underground TV station and surreal characters and events. But here, they're trying to emphasize that these characters are real people, yet they're placed in the middle of nowhere...
And why New York specifically? Why those Chelsea fans? See, the issue isn't that it's unrealistic; it's that it's a failed attempt at being real...
Honestly, the whole thing felt like reading a solid graphic novel—surreal characters dropped into some void, set in these stylized versions of New York City and London that only exist in comics. Even though they’re basically caricatures, they suffer with the kind of depth you'd expect from high literature. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter actually intended to say something meaningful, especially since he used the same formula for that mediocre "Dirty Pretty Things." But David Cronenberg just tossed all that out from the jump and turned it into a comedy. I mean, no one's actually dumb enough to think anyone would take Wigga seriously with that hair and those poses.
Jerry Martin19 said:When people talk about "mood," they’re usually talking about atmosphere. Since the word itself implies something pleasant, and Cronenberg’s vibe is anything but... it’s like he practically puts a "not" in parentheses right next to the word...
I don't follow. My point was just that this isn't realistic London or a realistic Mafia story. Everything happens in this highly stylized, comic-book, supernatural Cronenberg underworld. Complaining about the lack of realism here is as silly as complaining that Rambo takes down fifty guys and three helicopters with a single burst. It’s just nonsense.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
totally agree with this review.
Jerry Martin19 said:When and where is this setting even supposed to be? This movie fails to capture either vibe. The depiction of New York Cronenberg provides nothing, not even in that scene with the Chelsea football fans—they look like a bunch of kids who were paid to wear blue scarves just to signal they belong to a club. The director missed out on all the gritty details that make a city like New York feel real, leaving me so lost I didn't even know the setting until it was mentioned... and even then, it still didn't feel like NYC. It’s hard to believe the location has zero charm, feeling more like some empty outdoor studio set than an actual city. The characters are thinly sliced by some of the actors (well, one specifically), but mostly it's the "fault" of a cliché, weak script. Naomi Watts isn't exactly spectacular here, but her character is so incredibly trope-heavy there's no room for a rich performance anyway. Viggo Mortensen left a bad taste in my mouth in his previous Cronenberg work (A History of Violence), and while he shows he can do slightly better here, it's still not enough. His dedication to the look—shamelessly sporting those tattoos in pubs even when cameras weren't rolling, or traveling to Moscow with an interpreter to soak up the accent and learn Mafia customs...—is brave, sure, but his internal characterization is practically non-existent, about as deep as Arnold's Terminator. Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller-Stahl do a decent job playing the father, but their performances are overshadowed by a weak portrayal of the Mafia family. It follows the logic of those early star trek episodes with DeForest Kelley, Leonard Nimoy, and William Shatner, where the high-ranking officers (including Captain Kirk) always head down to the planet to handle things personally while the rest of the thousands of crew members just "hang out" on the Enterprise. Honestly, it would have been better if Cronenberg had at least aimed for that level of scale, because his Mafia "crew" doesn't even exist. There aren't any sinister henchmen opening car doors with terrifying respect or guarding the entrance to their house... instead, you just get one single Viggo Mortensen with his fake badass, nasty clichés that don't work even under pressure. Overall, it's a disappointing showing from Cronenberg, a guy I deeply admire for Videodrome, The Dead Zone, Dead Ringers, and even the underrated eXistenZa. He shouldn't try this dramatic narrative approach if it means stripping away what makes him who he is: that edgy, magical, supernatural atmosphere his films are known for...
redowl90 said:I honestly don't see how this relates to anything. Some people might dig the whole imagery of a little girl and Jesus, others won't. But we're supposed to be discussing boring movies here, and in my opinion, The Exorcist—with that scene and plenty of others like it—can hardly be called boring.
Fine, maybe that’s just me being a teenager. Guess I'm an old man now. Still, anything can be boring to someone. I find Tim Burton incredibly dull, even if he always has a few "scenes" worth watching.
redowl90 said:Man, I have to say something about this... This list couldn't possibly get any worse. Seriously. I can definitely get on board with Lolita and Mean Streets, but I haven't actually sat down to watch Ken Park or Dawn of the Dead.
However... The Crying Game?!?! 😲 One of the best thrillers from the '90s. Magnolia?!?! 😲 Honestly, you might be better off just skipping *There Will Be Blood* altogether. Traffic?!?! 😲 Best drug movie in recent memory? Honestly, I have no clue. Maybe ever. The Conversation?!?! 😲 Are you kidding me?! This has to be Coppola's best work besides The Godfather—though, if I'm being honest, the middle of that one drags a bit. But man, those first and last thirty minutes of this film? Absolutely killer. And that ending is pure genius. All the President's Men?!!? 😲 That’s easily one of my top five political movies ever made. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are absolutely perfect in those roles. Honestly, how could anyone find that boring? The Exorcist?!?! 😲 I’m running out of threads to post in. But honestly, a movie where a little girl impales a crucified Jesus through her vagina while screaming, "Let Jesus fuck you!" can't possibly be boring, no matter how much you hate it.
Phew... Okay, I needed to vent a little. Honestly, I have to disagree with your list. 😬
Mmm, a half-dead, bloody Jesus on a cross getting railed. Mmmm, in a little girl's pussy—so young she doesn't even know what it is yet, yeah! Lucky you, man. I just saw her slide the cross under her nightgown and speak in a raspy man's voice. Real thrilling stuff.
"I watched The Exorcist and all I remember is Jesus in a pussy." Those aren't exactly "Raw Passion," damn it.
Uh, I get your signature now. My bad. Forget I said anything.
nimblemarlin6 said:Why not just catch an American movie at the theater? If it’s good, great. If it sucks, it’s trash, so also great. Either way, you win. Nothing to lose, really. Except maybe the ticket money and some time.
See, that’s how simple it actually is. So, American movies are either a) good or b) bad, but it doesn't even matter because they're all wins. Is it the same for foreign films, or is it more complicated than that?
Olivia Evans8 said:That's the whole point. Did you even see the trailer? Do you even know what kind of movies these guys usually make? Like, Shaun of the Dead or Run Fatboy, Run. The whole goal is to poke fun at those kinds of movies, especially if you're looking strictly at the plot.🙄
Yeah, they definitely mocked them. By making a movie that does the exact same thing.
Olivia Evans8 said:That's the whole point. Did you even see the trailer? Do you even know what kind of movies these guys usually make? Like, Shaun of the Dead or Run Fatboy, Run. The whole goal is to poke fun at those kinds of movies, especially if you're looking strictly at the plot.🙄
Look, neonhound32, this is how male critics write. You might want to take note.
Michael Rivera63 said:You can say whatever you want, but saying the humor sucks... 😲
either you have absolutely no sense of humor at all, or you're just salty because someone insulted women as critics, so now you're intentionally trashing the film.
The movie is great—a true parody (unless maybe you think Dark Horse is the pinnacle of parody).
It isn't just cheap action; it’s a mockery of those exact types of movies.
But then again, you can't argue with taste, so....
Exactly. There's no arguing with that. If the humor sucks, it just sucks.
I'm a real man and I couldn't care less about Hot Faz.
Grace Doyle said:We watched Baywatch for those exact same reasons, yet we still called it trash. 😎
You watched Hot Faz for those same reasons and you don't think it's trash either. What am I supposed to conclude here—that men have no idea what makes a good movie? Don't do us like that, kid.
Edward Harris11 said:The real question is, how do you define "making it"... For me, I'm not even looking at the Academy. No shot I'm getting in, and even if I could, I don't have the cash... But right now, I'm working on a script, I've got actors, a camera crew, and I'm directing. Once the film is done, it goes to festivals—both here in the States and abroad. I couldn't care less about the academy; the film's gonna be good... maybe not perfect, since we're tight on budget... And yeah... If you're looking to rake in massive money like someone out of Hollywood, forget about it. Directors around here make about what a Tim Burton gets from a studio just to cover coffee and donuts during a shoot...
To the moderator who deleted my reply to Eric Jackson68: "Eric Jackson68, my brain hurts. I'm out."...
The guy just doesn't get it, even though I've pointed it out a few times now—I actually DID watch that movie. It wasn't an insult. Honestly, the constant repetition is giving me a headache, and I don't see why it's an issue.
casualtinker14 said:He wasn't talking to the girl yesterday; he actually dumped her months ago, then showed up looking for cash. Meanwhile, she's getting caught up with an inspector because she's pregnant and trying to avoid any "scandal." If you piece it together, I guess everything actually makes sense.
And about that genre jumping people are complaining about, I don't really get why a comedy (or a drama, whatever) has to stick to one thing the whole time. I mean, we're just telling a story from our own backyard, and life is both funny and tragic. So, I think the movie is fine; I see a lot of my own life in it.
Compared to what Americans are usually used to watching, this is kind of a breath of fresh air. 👍
I knew the second I typed "yesterday" that I should have just said "yesterday." 😉Alright, so about the other day. You were right—it all clicked for me, and I finally reached a conclusion: it’s the same old bullshit.
casualtinker14 said:He wasn't talking to the girl yesterday; he actually dumped her months ago, then showed up looking for cash. Meanwhile, she's getting caught up with an inspector because she's pregnant and trying to avoid any "scandal." If you piece it together, I guess everything actually makes sense.
And about that genre jumping people are complaining about, I don't really get why a comedy (or a drama, whatever) has to stick to one thing the whole time. I mean, we're just telling a story from our own backyard, and life is both funny and tragic. So, I think the movie is fine; I see a lot of my own life in it.
Compared to what Americans are usually used to watching, this is kind of a breath of fresh air. 👍
We’ve heard every excuse in the book for why an American movie sucks, but they all circle back to the same thing: "Well, this is just how we are, it's actually pretty good." Give me a break. I don't think we're a nation of idiots—not if I'm part of it—and I certainly don't find that excuse acceptable.
The whole thing about the genre shifts is just laughable... like, seriously? It’s hilarious how critics read it as some "flaw" of the movie, and now suddenly that’s the main reason it supposedly sucks. Look, as a movie, it's fine—if we expect it to stick strictly to whatever genre it starts with and never, ever wander off-track. Maybe Kulenović should've just followed a basic filmmaking manual that says "stay on plot," then maybe some big-shot critics would actually bother watching it. And who knows, if the director wasn't drinking, would he even be able to follow a plot? Hmm, so many questions, so many assumptions...
🤣
You didn't read that in the papers, kid; you watched the movie. Of course genre shifts are valid—honestly, they can be great—but pulling it off requires actual skill, not just following a Kulenović handbook on how to write a plot. Or at least picking up a decent book once in a while.
And I don't know if he drinks, but he definitely isn't smoking, because a high Damir Lončar is swaying around in this film, slurring his words like he found something special in the grass.
Still, it's an improvement over Branko Schmidt, where the characters in Queen of the Night are basically selling their own crap in the weeds. Just total garbage. At least with Schmidt, there's substance.
Eric Jackson68 said:Did you even watch the movie? I'm not trying to be provocative here. I'm genuinely asking.
Nah, I just have this nagging feeling about the movie. Seems like some genre shifts to me.
ironcyclist78 said:Unlike my colleague who barely lasted fifteen minutes, I sat through the whole thing and didn't walk away disappointed. In my view, the ending is brilliant. The movie works best when it stays focused on the central conflict: whether to sell out or hold the line on your principles. The characters are great, the dialogue hits the mark, and the pacing stays snappy without too much filler.
Where it falls apart for me are the plot holes—they're bigger than Red Lake in the Midwest. For starters, they just walk into Bobby Marotti’s apartment, and you're left wondering how they even know him or his wife. Then there's the issue with Struja; how could he be so clueless about what was happening with his girlfriend or her plans? If she hadn't told him directly, people would have been gossiping about it for months (no spoilers here). It’s just hard to swallow. Also, a few years back, I had to defend myself all over the internet, even on this forum, for not having a cell phone since everyone has one now. In this movie, it seems like nobody owns a mobile, so messages are passed through third parties to justify certain plot points, but in this day and age? It doesn't feel right. It doesn't really feel like the movie is set in the early '90s either.
The film is like Windows XP (or if you prefer, Firefox 1.0)—it's solid, but it's chronically lacking patches.
Kid's playing at a wedding for his pregnant ex—he just talked to her yesterday. Even the cop who was hassling him at the station yesterday is there, and nobody even knows who the bride and groom are. Right before they walk out, the band's just like, "Wait, who are we actually playing for?" "No clue, forgot to ask." It’s those ridiculous coincidences where Washington, D.C. looks like a ghost town with ten people living in it, all totally clueless. That’s just Kulenović's signature dramatic flair, the same stuff you see in Bitanga's work. It isn't a plot hole in the script; it's a plot hole in the writer's head.
Eric Jackson68 said:Oh, please. So you're telling me you can't even finish a movie because there was a tiny little genre shift in the second half? God forbid the film deviates from its initial premise for a moment! Apparently, a slight change in tone is enough to make it unwatchable for everyone else, right? Give me a break.
Eric Jackson68, stop it. I'm a viewer, and it bothers me when there's this constant, lazy flip-flopping between weak comedy and drama—except it isn't even drama because the characters aren't people, they're just tropes. That’s not a "genre shift." It's just amateur hour. If that doesn't bother you, then you either don't get movies or you're Kulenović (or his editor), which is basically the same thing. Please.