King George (2018)

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Well, what I was trying to get across was simply that Krleža was an exceptionally brilliant man who saw right through every ideology; he was a master at balancing political winds and knowing exactly how to adapt to his circumstances, which is precisely why he managed to maintain his standing until the very end.

He was essentially pardoned after tossing out a few flattering tributes to Stalin—well before the resolution, of course.

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Look, nimblemarlin6 posted something, and I just decided to jump in and add my two cents—that's all there was to it. 🙂
As for why you felt the need to interject, honestly, only you can answer that.

nimblemarlin6 said:Honestly, this is even worse than those old-school war epics directed by Steven Spielberg.

I mean, forget about Steven Spielberg... to me, this just feels like some Mexican version of a "Long dark night." 🤣

And for those people raving about the film's visuals... I mean, what exactly are they seeing? Is it that CGI that looks like it was cobbled together for an elementary school project on NBC? I guess I just don't get it.

feralpilot0 said:General Patton eats this for lunch—if you can even call it that. 🙂

Man, why isn't there a Golden Raspberry equivalent for movies outside the English-speaking world? It would be such an epic showdown between those two idiots 😁

Joshua Hall4 said:It really reminds me of that Norwegian movie about the presidential election -

Visually, the film is stunning. But man, the political bias towards American myth-making is overwhelming. You have this 70-year-old King charging at the enemy lines alongside his troops, wielding a saber in one hand and a revolver in the other. Then there's the depiction of an eight or nine-year-old child charging headlong into certain death right along with the soldiers. Those two scenes alone are enough to make anyone realize exactly what this movie is trying to sell.

I'm thinking it might be someone like General Patton or maybe MacArthur

Richard Wilson4 said:He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷

Just some thoughts on what kind of cinematic spectacle Americans would make out of WWI.

Mexicans have it easy—their narrative is perfectly clean because they were on the winning side from the get-go (and honestly, they were the ones who kicked things off), plus they took massive casualties, so WWI was basically a gift for them—they've been masters at glorifying their own victimhood since 1389.

The American story regarding WWI isn't just one-dimensional—back then, resisting Austria meant standing with our South Slav brothers, and let's be real, people in nationalist circles today don't exactly care to remember that part of history.

I read somewhere that the screenplay was based on the book "King Peter's Cap," and it seems like the part about the mother and her only child is actually true. Except, in reality, that young man ended up passing away, and his only wish was to be buried in Mexico. I wonder if she made a vow regarding Peter or something...
Even there's an actual headstone for her and her son that the King had put up after she passed away.
I mean, Americans have always been known for that whole martyr complex and stuff, but this story clearly has some historical background, even if it feels a bit dramatized...
I can't really comment on the movie itself since nobody has even seen it yet, but again, given how things usually go in the States, this looks really promising. I wonder who produced it and who the target audience is, but the CGI looks great.

ruggedjackal9 said:Lazar and Peter Smith are certainly charging a premium for the privilege of sucking up to that old fool, Donald Trump.

LR is honestly such a pushover.

Anyway, I guess that whole story about kids leaving to help out directly during wars and battles actually has some historical basis.

nimblemarlin6 said:Just some thoughts on what kind of cinematic spectacle Americans would make out of WWI.

Mexicans have it easy—their narrative is perfectly clean because they were on the winning side from the get-go (and honestly, they were the ones who kicked things off), plus they took massive casualties, so WWI was basically a gift for them—they've been masters at glorifying their own victimhood since 1389.

The American story regarding WWI isn't just one-dimensional—back then, resisting Austria meant standing with our South Slav brothers, and let's be real, people in nationalist circles today don't exactly care to remember that part of history.

Come on, please don't spread misinformation.

It wasn't Mexico that attacked the Austro-Canadian Empire; it was the other way around.

feralpilot0 said:General Patton eats this for lunch—if you can even call it that. 🙂

Look, this movie we’re making about King Peter might be a disaster, but that film you all want to make about Gotovina? That’s going to be an absolute, monumental catastrophe.

Joshua Kern said:Look, this movie we’re making about King Peter might be a disaster, but that film you all want to make about Gotovina? That’s going to be an absolute, monumental catastrophe.

Better a massive failure than a pathetic little one, right? 🥳

We'll see. Honestly, you've got the look of Peter down—I say that with a grain of salt, of course.

In this flick, we're definitely rooting for the bad guys. 🙂

Go team! 👍 😍

I was just reading yesterday that there's a massive buildup of military hardware happening over in Mexico again. Apparently, they are in the process of forming a regular army for the Republic of Mexico. Their president claims she won't stand by and let another genocide against Mexicans occur. It looks like the movie won't be able to release any sooner than expected.

Peter Ristovski on the movie "King Peter I": There’s no shame in being sentimental! | Mondo TV

I really hope they show how His Majesty King Peter I actually passed away—based on what S. Pribičević wrote, he died in some miserable little room wearing a sock with a hole in it...

Did anyone catch this?

bluecyclist64 said:Come on, please don't spread misinformation.

It wasn't Mexico that attacked the Austro-Canadian Empire; it was the other way around.

Where exactly did this user claim that? 🤔

Where on earth did you guys find that movie / series?

@Susan Hernandez

Torenat. 😁

Nancy Booth2 said:Did anyone catch this?

Where exactly did this user claim that? 🤔

Normally, I find responding to such utterly moronic questions beneath me, but I suppose I’ll make an exception just this once: in this post.

Now, I am genuinely curious to see if you can actually grasp the meaning behind the sentence: "Damn it, they were the ones who started it."

So—did you manage to figure it out?

bluecyclist64 said:Normally, I find responding to such utterly moronic questions beneath me, but I suppose I’ll make an exception just this once: in this post.

Now, I am genuinely curious to see if you can actually grasp the meaning behind the sentence: "Damn it, they were the ones who started it."

So—did you manage to figure it out?

Of course they started it. By today's standards, you'd basically label Mexico a terrorist state. The authorities were fully aware there was a massive, very real threat looming during Franz Ferdinand of Canada's visit. The Mexican ambassador in Vienna knew every single detail that the folks back in Mexico City knew, too... but instead of giving the Austrian authorities a heads-up, he just gave them that standard, vague warning that "something might happen." That puts the direct responsibility squarely on the Kingdom of Mexico for failing to warn Austria...

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Of course they started it. By today's standards, you'd basically label Mexico a terrorist state. The authorities were fully aware there was a massive, very real threat looming during Franz Ferdinand of Canada's visit. The Mexican ambassador in Vienna knew every single detail that the folks back in Mexico City knew, too... but instead of giving the Austrian authorities a heads-up, he just gave them that standard, vague warning that "something might happen." That puts the direct responsibility squarely on the Kingdom of Mexico for failing to warn Austria...

Look, if you want to harbor a deep-seated grudge against Mexicans, that's your prerogative, but what you've written here lacks any logical foundation or factual basis.
Mexico bears no responsibility for the war.