Printable View
Didya see that twitter thread about whole theater getting booked ahead of time online for this movie, but noone actually showing up for movie?
"Astroturfing"
Apparently churches have loose cash (no taxes) so use their $$'s to wage war on truth and reality.
Sent from my SM-G950U1 using TGR Forums mobile app
I’ll wait for dookie’s review.
The whole buy-it-fwd purchasing of as many tickets as you want to for other people to attend activates my BS meter on how much of a “hit” this movie really is so far
Redhatter Qtard fear porn.
Maybe. But isn’t Taken basically same schtick? Im curious how the content plays vs who is backing it
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by mcski
I am probably not gonna see it in the theater, if at all.
And I will admit that I have been biased by all the media in regards to the subject matter and the stuff I’ve read about those involved with the production.
That said, a rather liberal minded buddy of mine, who is married and has a teenage daughter, saw it with his family and raved about it.
He is so passionate about it that he sent out a FB blast that said:
"Please make time to experience this film in the theater. You need to feel this and be immersed in the visuals and sounds in a way other than watching it at home. This is NOT entertainment, this is a wake up call to look out for those who cannot look out for themselves. We have an obligation to make this world a better place for all living creatures.
Take your neighbor or sponsor tickets so others can see as well."
He's not a huge movie goer and never posts about films on FB, so this is saying something...
"wake up call"?!?!?! Does DeSantis know about this???
Is he a churchy type guy? Because I can’t think of anyone else calling it a wake up call. Do you think he actually wrote that endorsement himself? It sounds very much like boilerplate “share this” writing…Quote:
Originally Posted by dookeyXXX
In the absence of a dookreview:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...n-jim-caviezel
Not a super church going guy in the sense you are inferring; he’s a converted/quasi Jew.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
I’ve known him for 37 years and he’s not a bandwagon type of guy or one who buys into herd hysteria or propaganda.
I haven’t talked to him about the film yet.
I did send him the Slate review and his reply was ”Heavy duty that was”…though I am unclear if he meant the review or the film.
Well, kinda like Schindler's List, it ain't exactly the "feel good movie of the year" or anything so I couldn't blame one for not being too stoked on it. That said, I still found it to be a beautifully shot, riveting film regardless of who made it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzworthy
Imagine Taken but on a way, WAY larger scale as to the amount of children rescued. Here's an 8 year old CBS piece on the real life island sting operation:Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WB93KEgVcI
EDIT: WTF?! Been on YT for over 8 years and NOW it gets taken down? What's going on over at CBS?!
That's the odd thing I'm finding about the reviews. Seems that so many of the biased reviews are critiques of the actors, the directors, the audiences, and what not, and NOT of the quality of the film itself. If we were to judge films based on their creators alone, better not ever watch anything done by Roman Polanski, Alfred Hitchcock, et al. How about the plethora of fantastic films produced why one Harvey Weinstein?Quote:
Originally Posted by dookeyXXX
I understand people's disagreements with some of the production team's ideologies, however, sometimes its worth separating the art from the artist. Particularly in this case. It's a story worth telling, and a REAL, ongoing one at that. Again, can't blame people for not wanting to see it given the subject matter. Totally understandable.
I don't need to be told that child trafficking is heinous and should be unconditionally condemned and eliminated. And separating the art from the artist deserves discussion, but that's not the real issue - it's how the art is being used to untruthfully advance an agenda that in reality has nothing to do with child trafficking.
Reviews I’ve read detailing aspects of the actual film reveal it as not remotely real. Not that trafficking doesn’t exist but the movie and it’s “scenarios” are bs. Rewatching Taken sounds like a much better use of time and a better movieQuote:
Originally Posted by MontuckyFried
I automatically distrust any review that includes the words "wake up call."
Anybody that gets woken up by some movie was probably a bit of a moron to start with. Regardless of how good or bad that movie actually may be.
Well, have you seen Barbie yet? Might want to wait... it could be a wake up call type of cinematic event.Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
I wouldn't be so sure that's accurate. There's been a HEAVY smear campaign against the film, with much of the critiques having very little to do with the picture itself. I will refrain from getting PoliAss for the sake of this great thread, so I might kick off a new one to more fully discuss it over in THAT dark area of our woods where we can all get into the subject with some more depth. At least when it comes to the "Music, Movies, Books" section of TGR, I usually choose to keep things a bit more limited to the technical aspects. Like how I have a deep appreciation for Stanley Kubrick or Francis Ford Coppola films despite those guys having pretty bad reputations in Hollywood for their treatment of others. I think this might be an opposite case though. Either way, at least here, I'll simply allow the film to speak for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
Can you say 1st hand that one movie is better than the other? Unless you've watched both films, it's a baseless position, is it not? They are quite different from one another, so tough to compare directly aside from the subject matter. Again, let's feel free to take it on over to PoliAss to discuss more fully. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
The movie and online stan "reviews"/accounts are playing directly to the Qtard adrenochrome conspiracy clowns, while simultaneously downplaying any connection.
Thousands of chatboards and forums are getting the exact same posts as the "review" above, and it's not a coincidence.
On a lighter note, this goes off Thursday (I will be partaking a week from today on the 24th…)
Attachment 465109
Barbie and Oppenheimer are the perfect cinema yin and yang.
The light and fun aspect of our world countered by the dark doom which we have created for ourselves.
We’re doing “OPPENHARBIE,” seeing Oppenheimer in IMAX first, followed by a Barbie chaser…
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain
That actually sounds like one heckuva fun day. That is indeed the way to go. Something unapologetically silly following something so profoundly heavy. Looking forward to the reviews, dookey!Quote:
Originally Posted by dookeyXXX
I'm going to try and do this next week and I was debating the order to do it inQuote:
Originally Posted by dookeyXXX
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
Apparently this—which order to watch them in—is a “big” debate on the webz.
My thought was to go serious first and have the comedy as an aperitif.
I felt if we saw Barbie first it might put us in too aloof of a mood for the more serious Nolan effort.
Also, I’m a bit leery of Greta Gerwig as a director; I was not a fan of Ladybird, so I figured going with the more established Nolan first was a better call.
Finally, the length factored in, too; I feel seeing the 3 hour drama first is smart.
The crew I’m going with initially thought we’d do the comedy first and then Nolan’s epic until I swayed them otherwise…:cool:
Yeah. Barbie first seemed obvious in a way, but you make a good point!
Rowdy Roddy Piper’s second greatest film (the first being Hell Comes to Frogtown) is returning to theaters for 2 nights only in September.
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/...th-Anniversary