MovieChat Forums > AmeriGirl26 > Replies
AmeriGirl26's Replies
That was me, victim fighting back. Apparently society in the 90s and early 2000s had issues with girls fighting back physically (not that I really made an impression), but when you get sick and tired of fellow classmates picking on you, and the teachers "talking to them" doesn't work, and you don't have a lot of friends, there aren't many options besides avoidance. It seems odd how people thought girls shouldn't fight physically, when they would show hero kids doing it all the time on tv; (though usually they were boys).
It unfortunately came back to bite me many times. Black boys LOVED to tease and pick on me because [mom claims] I was a cute girl and they liked me. I've called BS with her on that many times, because people who pick on those they "like," don't do it because they like you. They do it because they want you to feel bad, feel uneasy, and to feel small. People called me racist for trying to shut up the black boys picking on me by fighting back. I got sick of it. To make matters worse, one of the more troublesome ones was a special pet of the liberal [closet slut] school principal at one of my schools.
I also got tired of the boys bothering me in jr. high because they picked on me too, and I finally had enough and beat the snot out of several of them. People then accused me of being a lesbian because of that, although I am straight as an arrow. So unfair.....
I didn't even know this movie existed until 4th grade, when our teachers played it for my class and the one next door to watch.
Sad, but true.
Pardon me, but Braveheart had not come out yet when Costner's film was being made, so they did not have the inspiration available.
She actually isn't fat. She was wearing a fat suit under her costumes so she would resemble Queen Victoria in her twilight years. It is Queen Victoria who was obese during that time of her life.
Are you for better grammar?
First off, that scene was part of an insult contest he was having with Peter, something people in many cultures in the past would do to see who shed a tear first.
Second, Rufio knew that his time for being popular was up, now that Peter was back. He knew he could never add up to what Peter had meant to the Lost Boys, and felt inferior. So he was trying to maintain the void he had poorly filled, and failed.
Her name is Altaira.
So what? It was made in the 1950s, what do you expect?
They already did. It was called "The Martian," with Matt Damon starring in it.
First off, Mr. Barry would have been confused by the 1990s scenes. Next, he would have not appreciated the crude humor and adult jokes buried in the film (if he could pick up on them at all). Thirdly, he wouldn't have liked seeing Smee kissing Hook in private. Finally, I don't think he really would have liked all the changes to the story, particularly the concept that Peter Pan came back to our world, grew up, somehow forgot everything, and then had to go rescue his kids when Hook kidnaps them. He would have seen it as ridiculous.
I would have to agree, and wrote about it on another thread. I'll cut and paste my assessment of this book/tv show here:
[quote]This entire book is an illustration of Margaret Atwood's beliefs and fears as an atheist, feminazi liberal in Canada. She originally wrote the book in response to President Reagan's actions in the 80s, and used a lot of symbolism in her book.
The book basically shows that she hates Christians, she hates men, and shows what she wishes would happen to Christians everywhere in America, as punishment for all their "slights" towards her and others like herself, real or imagined. The book is basically a giant turd she wishes had fallen on Americans years ago, but nobody really paid attention to until the tv show came out.
I can tell you right now that such a coup could NEVER happen, under any circumstances, and no Christian in his or her right mind would EVER support the wicked things the Sons of Jacob did to society in the eastern US. Plus, our government has backup plans in place to prevent such a coup from ever happening.
It should be noted that the book indicated that Gilead did not last forever, and the entire story is derived from tapes Offred used to record her experiences, which were discovered 200 years later and studied at a university somewhere in North America. So apparently the Sons of Jacob got what they deserved eventually.[/quote]
It's one reason I chose not to read the book or watch the show, but I did read ABOUT it from other sources.
This entire book is an illustration of Margaret Atwood's beliefs and fears as an atheist, feminazi liberal in Canada. She originally wrote the book in response to President Reagan's actions in the 80s, and used a lot of symbolism in her book.
The book basically shows that she hates Christians, she hates men, and shows what she wishes would happen to Christians everywhere in America, as punishment for all their "slights" towards her and others like herself, real or imagined. The book is basically a giant turd she wishes had fallen on Americans years ago, but nobody really paid attention to until the tv show came out.
I can tell you right now that such a coup could NEVER happen, under any circumstances, and no Christian in his or her right mind would EVER support the wicked things the Sons of Jacob did to society in the eastern US. Plus, our government has backup plans in place to prevent such a coup from ever happening.
It should be noted that the book indicated that Gilead did not last forever, and the entire story is derived from tapes Offred used to record her experiences, which were discovered 200 years later and studied at a university somewhere in North America. So apparently the Sons of Jacob got what they deserved eventually.
They are worse off than slaves were in the past. I read that Offred (or the author) even said that Handmaids were just seen as a uterus with legs (which is actually how many sand rats view women in the Middle East). Even in ancient times, slaves (even female ones) could have their own names and be allowed to do things these Handmaids are not.
I heard Harrison Ford was not happy as to the actor they chose to look like the younger Solo. From what I can tell, he looks nothing like Harrison Ford.
I refused to see it for three reasons:
1.) There was some perfectly good source material in the form of the "Han Solo Trilogy" books, which told extensively about his background in a way that was canon for the rest of the Star Wars universe. But of course, since it was Disney being run by that feminazi Kathleen Kennedy, they threw those books out the window just like they did the rest of the EU.
2.) I had ZERO interest after hearing that Lando was a pansexual or that there was a bitchy feminist droid in the film.
3.) Like I mentioned in another thread, after the disaster of "The Last Jedi," I had very low expectations for this film, and have chosen not to watch any more Disney-made Star Wars films.
It's not necessarily that the Solo movie was good or bad; the problem is, people were still upset over how shitty "The Last Jedi" was, so they assumed "Solo" wouldn't be any better, and went in with the same low expectations.
It's sort of the downer version of how people reacted to "The Phantom Menace" when it first came out. Everyone was so excited because it had been 17 years since "Return of the Jedi," and they were ecstatic at seeing something new, in addition to assuming it would be as good as the previous three movies. For a time, people were very delighted and loved that movie, but later, people started noticing its flaws and complaining, and it only continued into the next two films.
Basically, I'm trying to say that (for the majority of movie-goers) however good a Star Wars film has done post-original trilogy will be judged on how good the last SW film did.
You'll recall how excited everyone was when "The Force Awakens" came out in theaters, or when we first HEARD of "The Last Jedi," and were eager to see what would happen between Rey and Luke on that island. True to form, TLJ sucked worse than the vacuum of space, and so when "Solo" came out, people were not as eager to see it, and the few who did assumed it would suck just as bad as TLJ.
I was gonna say that! Bravo!
If the sequels are anything to go on, yeah, he will, sort of. But it wouldn't be obvious unless he lost his powers and became Scott again, and that doesn't happen very often. I thought this over, and chances are, Scott's human persona would probably age to an old man that looks similar to Santa, and stay that way until he could no longer do his duties (like an accident). But we'll never know because the outward Santa appearance hides that.
That's not an "O," that was a wreath that was etched into the velvet. I've seen velvet like that, where a special technique is done to lightly burn a design into the fabric, and it leaves behind an interesting design, though fabric like that is extremely expensive, especially if it's a custom job. Of course, since he's Santa, he doesn't have to pay for that ;).