MovieChat Forums > Jehosaphet > Replies
Jehosaphet's Replies
Thanks for this...I must have missed the blood scene somehow, but yeah, very well fleshed out reasoning here, perfect.
What's at least a little ironic about your statement here is the sheer volume of posts that any given person has to sort through, has to shovel through here...that have to do with pointing out "woke" plotlines in movies.
So much so that it most often feels like being able to point to something as being 'woke' is its own reward...its the means to your own end...feeling clever, maybe? No depth, no discussion, just an "aha!" moment that often seems to hinge on reading waaay too much into what often amounts to basic plotlines that we've seen many times before.
I don't know...it often seems like self-fellating behavior and after awhile its difficult to not feel a little bored sifting through it all. Wish people would use their energy for more productive stuff than literally imagining things to get worked up about.
"Tribe of grievance"...I love how simple and astute this is.
There's a subreddit called "PersecutionFetish" that's full of this kind of mentality and it can be cathartic to browse...at least the comments, anyway. If you haven't done much branching out, Reddit might be someplace you'd be interested in. You seem too smart for this crowd, anyway.
This is where I'm at with the movie...well said. Was great seeing Garfield and Tobey come back, was definitely a fun twist and I teared up at Garfield's redemption when rescuing MJ...then teared up again at the end. In fact, I don't think any other Spiderman movie has stirred up so much dust...very moving movie.
And yeah, the fight scenes had oomf...some serious violence that felt a lot less cartoonish than previous movies. It got pretty intense there in a couple scenes.
Lol this is such a weird comment!!
How are you so tuned into transgenderism that you're reading it into, not just actual women, but arguably beautiful women...whose names are known...they're famous actresses for criminy's sake.
Like you had to ignore common sense while subverting all of reality in order to try and take issue with an issue that shouldn't ever have popped up on your radar.
Not to be a dick, but I can only imagine that you have to be pretty far down the rabbit hole of hate...like, you have to constantly have this on your mind; something you're continually on the look-out for. Its an awful lot of energy for something that has virtually zero effect on your everyday life, even if it somehow WAS an issue.
Reminds me of some old SNL skit where some middle-aged man was denouncing all the sweaty little boys he kept seeing, those sweaty little boys with their sweaty little bodies glistening, glistening...they need to dress more modestly, its a real probloem!
That's too bad man, its quite a story. If her husband was killed, she'd have been burned at the stake...so had a little more at "stake" here then some PC me too whatever...
On the whole feminism note, I was just reading up about the true story a few minutes ago here...check this out:
"According to a French register, only 12 rape cases, taking place within several hamlets, were heard in court between 1314 and 1399."
So being charged with rape wasn't just rare, it was virtually unheard of. Implying that women had fewer rights than you may have even have imagined during this era, what with rape apparently being considered nothing more than a property crime against the husband. Add in the fact that they often had little to no say-so in who they married and you can imagine that life for a woman in this era was unimaginably difficult.
"medieval metoo movie"...there's so much to unpack from that that I won't even try, but pretty apparent that the movie wasn't made for you anyway.
I like that you expected an answer to this...shows that your faith in people around here hasn't already been crushed by their one-upmanship bullshit. But a damn good question!
What pie? I can't remember a pie...
But I know full damn well what you're talking about. Nothing worse than seeing an amazingly delicious looking pie just thrown in someone's face or something...
There's hungry bachelors out here...
I don't have much of anything to say to this except that it was an interesting read...very interesting perspective, thanks for it.
So 14 years old it is then.
"The problem is you have already decided why they chose a black guy.
No black guy can get a role on screen without you crying about agendas and all that shit."
There it is. The lengths that people will go to twist every narrative possible into one that has something to do with woke culture is amazing. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Meanwhile, we're talking about people who are more than likely to be the type that have every privilege, who have no idea what real victimhood even smells like, but this is as close as they can get to it. Some guy in a movie was the bad guy, and they can cry victimhood like it has anything to do with them, or has any affect on their lives whatsoever. They're the real victims in all this, you see.
How to tell people you're neither black nor female without actually saying it.
Or how to tell people you're 14 years old.
This is it to a "T".
In fact, you'll find it in virtually every comment section of almost any movie on this website. Someone will have found a way to equate the movie to "woke propaganda" and...that's really enough for them. There's no real discussion, as its the feeling of cleverness at having been able to make the correlation that's often the real goal here. No time to actually delve into whether or not the story could have even been told otherwise, no, "I made the connection", "Aren't I clever", and "Look guys, more woke propaganda to shore up our already well-established sense of victimhood!" is all that's really going on here.
Its as boring as it is silly...its the most basic ego-feeding behavior you'll see in print, and the lengths in which people will go to try and do it is often times ridiculous.
I agree that it was...different. I would like to think that it was more about, after having walked in her shoes, the young girl being sympathetic to her frame of mind...to her plight.
Because the film didn't portray the ghosts as being evil after all, they were just looking for help in...well, now that I think about it, either being released from their prison or in seeking justice for their killer. At least at the end there. Know what I mean?
If the movie was trying to justify the idea that Johns are worthy of death, I don't think they'd have allowed the viewer to view their ghosts in any kind of sympathetic light.
So it leads me to think that maybe she said "I know" as a matter of empathy...of seeing how Sandy (remembered a name!!) had been broken by all of it. Sandy didn't need to justify her actions to little whatsername because little whatsername had lived it...had first-person experience of how the unfolding of events had broken her. That's my own justification for it, anyway.
copy and pasted my reply from below here:
That's funny, I was watching this last night with my girlfriend and had the same questions..and suddenly remembered towards the beginning of the movie, her mom saying something about how she's "sensitive to things" like her mother was...or something. And something about not wanting her to have another incident because of it.
I think that's what the "phenomena" part of the movie was predicated on...her being psychically sensitive, if that helps explain much.
That's funny, I was watching this last night with my girlfriend and had the same questions..and suddenly remembered towards the beginning of the movie, her mom saying something about how she's "sensitive to things" like her mother was...or something. And something about not wanting her to have another incident because of it.
I think that's what the "phenomena" part of the movie was predicated on...her being psychically sensitive, if that helps explain much.
Nobody cares what you think Kane! But you're wrong, probably only semi-literate and more than a little bit racist, and everyone knows there's nothing worse than an illiterate racist, Kane...
"Back in the day" implies a more personal, subjective version of a time-frame that's likely within the life-span of the person who's saying it. "I had much more of a foot fetish back in the day"
While "back in the old days" conjures images of horse drawn carriages, black and white movies etc...of simpler times in society itself. "People probably never talked about their foot fetishes back in the old days".
You're welcome.
Ah, that'd have helped explain things...sucks I missed that, but thanks.
I don't think so. It showed how deafness can actually be a gift...a way of being able to find peace, a naturally meditative state of being, I'd say.
And this guy being an addict, all the drugs he'd used to drown out the "noise"...he was someone who could have used that, or may have even needed it.
And my guess is that's why Joe was crying in the end there.
Jesus, I'm going to have to watch that again...because he brings it up, right? Asking him something about whether or not he'd ever found peace in that silence...
Great observation btw.
I THINK it has to do with how much later in life you've lost your hearing. After 25 years or so of speaking normally, I think you'd be able to fall back on that...on your regular speaking voice. You'd feel the pressure of speaking too loudly, you know?