MovieChat Forums > Kurt > Replies
Kurt's Replies
Many men have been rejected by some woman at some point. Doesn't make them involuntarily celibate, it's just some bullshit teen angst crap. How can an Incel be involuntarily celibate if they choose to be Incel? Anyone can write anything on the internet and the stupidest thing you can do is taking it seriously - that's how you end up like that shooter, if you take it seriously just because some chick rejected you(I don't mean you, as in you personally).
What you just wrote proves my point in some way: it's just some made up internet label. The problem only exists because some people take the meme seriously. It's complete and utter bullshit. However, you use it as if it's actually something which exists, as if it's an appropriate label to use, which again shows that it has gone from sub-forum obscurity to mainstream use - on the internet and especially in Forum discussions.
Otherwise tell me how it is relevant to this movie? How is Arthur an Incel? Does he participate in internet forums and describe himself as Arthur the Incel? Or do you believe that men become violent monsters just because some woman rejected their advances, lol.
It's just yet another bullshit internet label used to insult people. Apparently some people, especially Americans, like to label each other with the purpose of insulting, especially when they discuss on the internet, where people also have started to use the term Gay as a general insult, for example. This was never so when the net was primarily used by businesses and universities, it has been downgraded by juvenilia since around the new millennium. Back in the nineties I also never saw the use of "would of", I was actually pretty confused when I first saw that, but people from non-English speaking countries now copy this just because they copy American English thinking that must be the way to communicate on the Net. That in combination with so called memic and viral spreading of often short lived terms make people use such terms.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with US America or Americans, but because the US is dominant on the net, and communication just so happens to be in English, the terminologies usually spread from there. Since the net became a place for everybody, it also allowed people of a young age to participate in discussions on the net and wild spread of stupid insults is the result, because they tend to be quick to copy new trends.
So, basically it does not matter what "Incel" means, it's just yet another tool in internet discussions. It's what you use when you have no real argument in a discussion, and as such is an ad hominem, which is a desperate attempts at a come back against a superior argument.
Basically anyone who uses these kind of words in a discussion, whether on Movie Chat or other places, have already lost the argument, similar to Godwin's law. Unfortunately as the press people also read the internet bullshit, they are influenced by this. Basically journalists in their thirties are influenced by ten-year-olds on the net.
Nobody! Some kids will be disappointed. 25 M on BO for such a famous character - nuff said. They made Teenage Tomb Raider instead of Dora.
I totally agree, unlike many people here, I think the movie is vastly superior to the book. I used to be an avid King reader (but not his biggest fan ;-) and I don't find Misery the book that good. The movie really works as a movie; if they had included all the gore, it would become like last house on the left and other slasher movies, except four hours long. Instead they made it more psychological and a lot more suspenseful. A direct adaptation would have been difficult to take seriously, to me it would've been campy, but instead the movie feels realistic, like "this could really happen in real life".
Someone mentioned Pet Sematary - it's the opposite case of this, a book with a great deal of atmosphere made into a campy slasher movie - in that case the book is extremely vastly superior. Not all books work as movies, but Misery does, not because what it kept from the book, but because of what it changed.
It's NOTHING like mystery men. It's just a completely different movie, the story is totally different. It's not even conceptually similar in any way, shape or form.
"Super Villain destroys the Super Hero and feels let down."
This is not what happens in Mystery Men at all. Did you even watch the movie?
But the again, if this is from IMDB, I guess you may never see this?
I really wonder about that too, they're just too similar conceptually, and it is a very unusual concept. When I watched Inside Out it reminded me of this movie instantly.
Well, there's already an adult version, it's called Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask. It's a Woody Allen movie.
She knew it because she saw it when she dived among the stingy jellyfish. This happens right after the shark is repulsed by the jellyfish. The camera showed that she looked at the anchor of the buoy.
On the other hand, it wasn't clear to me why it laid on its side, since the anchor is not what keeps a buoy upright.
I kind of agree with this, it seems like an unnecessary movie. The third movie wrapped it up very nicely and Pixar should have moved on to some other story.
I dunno why they always make those movies. I would say, though, that most versions suck, including this one. I can't believe how overdone it was and how much it sucked as a prequel to the actual Peter and Wendy story.
It did remind me of the way they remade The Three Musketeers, it was also overdone and ridiculous. In fact, it also kind of reminded me of the way the last Arthur movie, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, was overdone and ridiculous.
They spend so much money on those movies yet they could not come up with any good stories so they just let them overflow with stupid fluff. I saw the Pan movie, but honestly it was a complete waste of time.
Ps. they used some image of Hang En (cave opening shot) in Vietnam, but that location is not in the IMDB filming locations.
Affleck is pretty tall, I doubt Pattison is taller.
I thought it was great. In fact much better than the other movies people mention in the comments here, including you, perhaps except Toy Story. Best cartoon from Disney/Pixar since Toy Story III. But that's just my opinion. If it pleases you it's now at 8.4.
Of the ones I've seen, I'd also say Ex Machina.
Yes, nothing like storks.
I agree and the execution scene was absurd. Apparently the HP world is run by dictators who execute people for almost no reason and without trial.
The whole movie was annoying. I can't think of anything positive to say about it.
It's already a pretty insane story about an elephant using its ears to fly. It just doesn't get any weirder than that.
Watch the trailer, it looks cheap. It also features a small skinny looking woman. It looks completely absurd that she runs around with a huge gun. This movie is made of 100% fail.
I saw it on streaming as well, I also thought it was mildly disappointing. It just seemed to lack humour, and the humour there really wasn't that funny. It did have some interesting aspects, but overall it was kind of average. It had a lot of common tropes and cliche. Not completely bad, imo, but also not as great as some people claim.
People thousands of years from now would be completely unintelligible to us and they would have endless new concepts which we wouldn't even know about now.
I always had the impression, though, that Star Wars did not take place in our world, with the Earth and the Milky Way and all that. It's more like a fantasy story in a fantasy world. Therefore the use of English is just a representation of their common language and there's nothing odd about having different accents in that world.