MovieChat Forums > Seperatrix > Replies
Seperatrix's Replies
" (1) Why is Cooper concerned when there’s no reason to believe the cops will be able to unmask him considering that they have 3000 suspects to vet? (2) What is the nature of the tip that resulted in such a massive operation? (3) Why am I still sitting in a movie theater watching this trash?"
1) Because there is an expert profiler in attendance orchestrating the operation. Who, in fact, has bagged 10 such criminals in the past if I remember correctly.
2) Who cares? For a mediocre thriller like this film it's enough to know that there was a tip, no reason to belabor the point.
3) If you don't know why ask us? Even as a rhetorical snarky review that comes off as lame as this film.
Yes, I said this film was lame. Honestly, I watched roughly the first hour and then checked out for the most part (watching it at home so got busy with other things). I listened more than watched as the film churned on. What I heard sounded boring and idiotic.
Although . . . I did stop to watch long enough to witness the police marching the butcher off to their car. I immediately exclaimed "why isn't he in handcuffs???"
My answer came a couple of minutes later with the incredibly stupid payoff.
Quasi entertaining during the concert sequence, all downhill from there.
The message that Republicans have been putting forward is that they’re cutting waste, fraud and abuse. So they immediately go after USAID, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So what does it say that while they’re nickel and diming these programs, when as far as the CFPB is concerned, the program costs $800 million a year but has a return of $21 billion dollars to consumers who’ve been ripped off by predatory banks. Then look at USAID at one half of 1% of the budget delivers essential programs like clean water, food for refugees, HIV prevention and helps us with soft power around the world. So you have these massive benefits for a fraction of the cost. Then you look at these tax cuts that would cost $4.5 trillion dollars and the vast majority of which go to the very wealthiest.
And the CFPB is the very thing Musk wants to eliminate so that his “X money” can and will touch every part of your financial life. The CFPB is there to make sure that Elon’s project can’t scam you or steal your sensitive personal data.
What could the richest man in the world with a defense contract and a car company and a medical device company and a social media company and ties to foreign governments and large crypto holdings possibly have to gain from having direct control over the federal government?
I wonder . . .
"Nothing except the Gideon Bible, which I, of course, read religiously."
I assume that line was comedic.
Ah . . . well . . . . you know how these things are, very subjective.
For me it kinda landed with a thud.
Having said that, it was well made for what it was, though nothing spectacular, and if one was in the right mood and saw it at the right time in the right situation . . . then it could be effective.
I didn't answer your question probably. But the best I can do is hazard a guess that most people would say no.
Typing that last sentence inspired me to see what Rotten Tomatoes has for ratings: 90% for critics and 47% for audiences. This fits perfectly with my sentiments. Well made film, but probably not what most folks into horror are looking for.
I wear seatbelts and would even if it wasn't required by law.
Air bags give me the creeps however.
Having been raised a Protestant I have no idea what the Catholic bible says myself. But no matter the bible, any scholar will tell you that the earliest copies of Mark ended with verse Mark 16:8 (not that the manuscripts were divided into chapters and verses of course). Therefore excluding a resurrection narrative.
Some (not very many) have argued that the ending must have been "lost" or torn from the manuscripts. But that is rejected quite easily by the vast majority of scholars.
Now, I'm not saying that without a tagged-on ending that Mark would be devoid of a resurrection. I believe earlier in the Gospel Jesus is quoted as saying as he would die and rise again, so any reader that came upon the abrupt ending would have assumed that that was what happened. But again, what a cliffhanger!
"You need to get out more..."
Hmmm . . . always a bad sign when someone feels the need to begin a post with a snarky remark.
"The whole thing is called "single use plastic" and paper straws have been an issue with irrational liberals for decades."
When I said I don't know why steering away from plastic (in the context of my original post) has to be a liberal thing, I was referring to the idea that micro plastics may turn out to be very harmful -- as I originally said "may contribute to neurodegenerative diseases."
That we should ween ourselves away from ingesting plastic particulates should not be a part of any political divide. I know many conservatives who care about the environment, health issues such as nanoparticles, and <gasp> even receive vaccines! So because I know many such people in my private life, I recoil at the idea of this concern being categorized as "liberal." That's my context.
Per the rest of your comment, environmentalists get it wrong sometimes, they "lie," but then, there are anti-environmentalists who lie. All that means is that we all are responsible for doing our homework on each issue and not just choosing a side and vilifying the other.
"I'm a liberal type but despise the irrational variety saying we should use cars, oil, straws, eat this or that, and so on when it's all not possible in our civilization."
The "irrational variety" -- a liberal? Who says we should use cars, oil, straws, etc.? I think you misspoke.
There are real concerns in the world that we should all recognize and support efforts -- the correct effort (no matter which side comes up with the best idea) -- to rectify before greater harm is done.
This includes nanoparticles, space junk, climate change, etc.
Ignoring it. Denying it. Pretending it doesn't exist. Will never solve the problems which will eventually swallow us whole.
And to suggest "there's no other way" is thinking like an insect.
Not sure I entirely understand your post. At least entirely.
No one is trying to eliminate the use of straws.
Also not sure why wanting to steer away from plastic straws has to be a "liberal" thing.
If it was Biden steering us toward plastic it would be just as questionable.
The opening scene of the naval attack was outstanding on the big screen.
The rest of the film? Not so much.
I didn't care for the writing at all. But it wasn't a total wash. Okay to watch but doesn't come close to the first one in my opinion.
Well, that was certainly the threat.
The question is: Was it a taunt or or to be taken seriously?
There are arguments both ways, a tribute to the wonderful ambiguity of the film. I used to take the line you quoted literally (i.e., as a serious threat), now after all this time I'm leaning the other way.
I'll probably lean back-and-forth on this one always.
That may all be true but what is disheartening is when the GOP turned down $118 for Border Security last April at Trump's direction.
I never got the impression that he was in love with her. He used her as he had countless others no doubt and then used her again when he needed help with the blood.
So my answer to your question is yes, I think he just wanted as much blood as he could get. He wouldn't have killed her earlier on because he needed a lot of blood and was too weak (physically) to do it himself.
I asked you to show where I did what you accused me of.
You clearly cannot.
Rather embarrassing for you. Doing what you accuse others of.
Denial . . yeah, that's your forte. Just like the lying imbecile that you stroke yourself worshiping on this board every day.
Off to the troll bin with you . . .
Then stop ranting and defend this statement. It's a simple request.
You said " . . . all of your attempts to rail against my three clear points about how Trump threads differ from Biden’s . . "
And I did not.
Show me where I did.
Or just pack it himself before he leaves the hotel room.
I'm not the one to judge how much acclaim it merits.
But I found it a fun exercise in portraying just how different life can turn out with even the simplest adjustments (in this case time -- by only seconds at that!).
I don't claim to understand any psychological or philosophical underpinnings (if there are any) of this film. And I don't claim to understand how the fates of those other than the main protagonist are affected by those slight adjustments in her timeline, but I did find it a fun romp.
" . . . all of your attempts to rail against my three clear points about how Trump threads differ from Biden’s . . "
Nice propping up of a straw man to knock down. I never did any such thing.
You're too busy exhausting the limited vocabulary in your brain, digging up middle school level insults to hurl, to engage in proper discourse.
Yet another perfect example of the mental illness that is typical of a wide berth of Trump supporters.
Actually I'm not. But there is no purposeful conversation to be had with your kind.
So I'll be quiet anyway.
Perfect example of the mental illness that is typical of a wide berth of Trump supporters.