MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Why do you write so little, make it so nonsensical and not even succeed at a proper grammar structure whatsoever?
What you probably meant to say, as far as I can tell, is: "This movie was funny when I was in a teenager body, but it isn't anymore."
Even this is a problematic statement, as the movie DID NOT CHANGE, so it couldn't have been funnier or less funny then than it is 'now', as you mention.
Movies don't change. Therefore, even with your minuscule understanding of english language, you should still have been able to write something more truthful and comprehensible.
How about: "I thought this movie was funny, when I watched it during the time the body I am temporarily inhabiting was in its teenage phase, but now that the body has grown to a more adult state, I realized I had been wrong, and I do not find this movie funny anymore"?
Of course it's a bit long-winded, but that's the price you have to pay for wanting to say something so profoundly superficial. Perhaps it could be shortened to a more opinionated version, like "This movie might be funny to teenagers, but it doesn't make adults laugh".
Furthermore, even IF you had said something like 'I found this movie funny when I was young, but not anymore", which is compact and basically sums up your predictable, robotic point, there is STILL not enough context for an actual post.
So what if you found it funny and now you don't, what's your POINT about it? What are you trying to SAY? Your two separate, different reactions to this one movie mean WHAT, exactly? You could - and perhaps SHOULD - have used that observation of your ever-fluctuating sense of humor as a STARTING point to create a more elaborate and interesting post that has something meaningful and maybe even poignant to say. Simply stating you had two reactions isn't interesting to anyone. It's like posting a pic of your food without context.
Posting a photo of your dinner CAN be interesting, if there's a story behind it, as in 'I bought this expensive sushi meal at this tiny place I found in the backstreets of Nara, and this made me interested in japanese cuisine, so I started learning the history and..', but just posting a photo of your tuna salad has no context and isn't interesting.
In any case, I suggest you learn how to write an ACTUAL SENTENCE before attempting to make more posts in any discussion forums. Learn punctuation, proper title creation, what a sentence is actually supposed to have and so on. Then we can perhaps have an actual discussion. Now you are just wasting space, memory, hard disk storage and server facilities' time, energy, electricity and computing power.
So instead of reading and researching, you come to a board and expect people to work and slave for you and give you a nice, tidy summary on a silver platter, doing all the work FOR you for free?
Pay me enough, and I'll give you a summary. But you shouldn't expect it for free, especially about something as complicated and multi-layered as the Vietnam murder mystery.
Now, having said that, OF COURSE he was 'annoying' sometimes - you can't really say to have done ANYTHING worthwhile if you have never annoyed anyone, enraged anyone, made anyone fume with anger and so on.
OF COURSE he was annoying sometimes, to some people more than others, if he hadn't, he would've been the 'safe comedy' of let's say 'Family Ties'. Boring, predictable, and dull as hell.
I'd rather take 'annoying and quirky' over 'dull and predictable' ANY microcosmic second.
He was praised for a reason, he was very talented and quick-witted, and his true expression of his comedic ideas were genuine, not forced. I mean, later, he became a depressed, unfunny guy that just doesn't have it anymore (just watch that awful 'Runaway Vacation' for proof), but in his prime, he was always exciting to watch, because you never knew WHAT he was going to say or do.
Who doesn't love a man that can drink with his finger and have philosophical conversations with clothes?
Not everything is funny, but I love that he at least TRIED to make mundane, everyday, dull things as fun and exciting as they could be. It doesn't have to be funny to be fun. Talking to his food wasn't comedy masterpiece material, but it was fun to watch and listen to anyway. Anyone that thinks he's merely 'annoying' has lost something important, forgotten how to have childlike wonder in life, and as the Oiled One said, to the childlike belong the heavens - or something like that.
(The meaning, of course, is that children are full of energy, positive attitude, childlike wonder and innovation, invention and excitement, because they come from the astral world, where everyone IS like that (mostly), and only in this world, people become the dull robots we know and hate)
"Annoying" is an opinion, not a fact.
You can be annoyed by your houseplants if you so choose, it means aboslutely nothing. It's just an opinion. You should learn to base your opinions on something.
I think Robin Williams was a unique genius, a sort of poor man's Jim Carrey, but very good at outdoing himself sometimes, very wacky, a bit crazy, and very witty as well. You have to be witty to be able to pull off what he has done.
However, I think he sometimes tries too hard, and other times, it doesn't seem very organic. The crux of the matter is, BEYOND 'annoyance', is he funny or not.
I think he's a VERY mixed bag. Because he is able to rapidly fire so many jokes, antics, imitations, and ideas in a succession, chances are, at least some of those are funny and land, even if others aren't. He was never AFRAID to try some joke out, whether people laughed or not. Just the fact that he's DOING an unfunny joke can be funny in itself.
I never found him annoying in Mork & Mindy, he's PERFECT for the role of an Extra-Terrestrial outsider, and his intonations and compassion for comedic expression shine through very well. He's not always funny about things, but he shows what is humanly POSSIBLE, if people would lighten up a little. He makes other people look stiff and boring by comparison, and I for one always wanted to be like him in the show, because he dares to be completely original, he dares to be himself, and he is not afraid to be quirky and 'weird', even when it's not funny.
Also, you can see the other actors trying to not laugh (and failing) many times, so it's a bit of an exaggeration to simply slander him as 'annoying', when he was CLEARLY funny to even the people he worked with, let alone the audiences, and to condense his MASSIVE body of work even with just that show to just one insult is neither rational nor fair.
You try being funny in every single episode for an extended period of time with hot studio lights trained at you and a dull script in hand!
Robin Williams is an actor in this movie, and this movie is basically a vehicle for him and his antics, so both Robin Williams and his annoyance factor are 100% relevant here.
How do you discuss a movie with THAT kind of limitations - I mean, if you have a movie with an actor in it, you are somehow LIMITED to only discussing the movie, but not the actor?
Be reasonable here.. I have often said similar things, but I have limited MY limitations to discussing the actual movie instead of some OTHER movies. It's a different thing to DERAIL one movie's discussion board by constantly bombarding it with IRRELEVANT CRAP FROM OTHER MOVIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH the one we're supposed to be discussing, than to simply discuss the actor in the very movie we are discussing.
My 'limitation request' was reasonable, yours is not.
If you go to another planet, and find out everyone actually wears Roman Togalike, but very colorful clothing, do you just ASSUME (and think it matters) that the whole planetful of people are GAY?!
Also, the word 'gay' used to mean happy, we don't have to associate it with anything else.
In any case, in my opinion, NO, it does not matter, NO, we shouldn't know about it, and HOW DARE YOU rob heterosexuals of their flamboyance, love of color and jackets and so on?
What if he had worn dresses, would you accuse him of being a woman or something?
Why are there so many restrictions, limitations and so much immediate judgment and labeling just because someone wears something, or smiles a lot, acts a certain way or is flamboyant? I can understand it based on stereotypes, that if someone 'acts very gay', they MIGHT be gay, but I don't understand why it would matter, whether they are or not, and I don't understand why heterosexuals, asexuals or friggin herbisexuals aren't ALLOWED to do that stuff, but someone MUST immediately be labeled 'GAY' for people to understand their personality?
It sickenes me that human beings are NEVER thought of as just human beings expressing their fun personality, but these LABEL STAMPS are always at the ready and trained at ANYTHING 'different', and you MUST BE GAY if you wear this or like that or act this or that way.
Sickening. We are HUMAN BEINGS, _THAT_ is what matters - what you do in your bedroom at night does _NOT_ matter and should _NOT_ matter to anyone but you and your possibly partner(s).
You are just showing your own prejudice and agenda, by accusing an INNOCENT poster of having an agenda although they didn't do ANYTHING different than the more accusational and judgmental "LABELS MATTER"-individual you seem to support wholeheartedly with your agenda.
"Since someone wants to know, then yes. It obviously does matter to the person asking the question. So put your agenda away."
You seem to have the one having an agenda, as you are making unreasonable assumptions just because someone asks a question.
First of all, DOES it matter? Why would some fictional character's SEXUALITY be a point of interest? Why can't sexuality be a PRIVATE thing? Why would it matter, because someone asked a QUESTION? So why doesn't THIS poster's question get the same treatment, that it MATTERS to think whether something matters - instead, you are slamming an AGENDA-accusation to him because you didn't like his COMPLETELY NEUTRAL question!
Someone asks if someone is gay = it matters whether they are gay or not (why would it?)
Someone asks if it matters = THEY HAVE AN AGENDA!! AAAGG, BURN THIS HERETIC!!
See what I am saying? See your own hypocrisy and absolute unreasonableness of what you did here?
Look, I don't mind WHATEVER anyone's sexuality is, but I also DO NOT THINK IT MATTERS compared to how good a human being someone is, what their personality is like, what kind of sense of humor they have, what kind of friend he/she is and so on and so forth.
We are always told skin color doesn't matter, gender doesn't matter, and so on - why do you SUDDENLY become a racist and think these superficial, temporary things that DO NOT DEFINE anyone's identity matter - - - because someone asked a question?!
I was about to ask the same thing, honestly. Heterosexual men are somehow not allowed to like bright colors or be 'flamboyant', even if that's their true personality. They MUST be gay if they do any of that. Do you NOT see how close-minded you and anyone that thinks it matters ARE here?
In any rational viewpoint, ANY human being should be allowed to love, like, wear ANY kind of colors, clothing, dresses, jackets, or whatever around their physical body. Wearing something does NOT change what you are inside those garments.
..casually leaning into cannons and showing off their murder weapons in a relaxed and cool manner, to make the audience think, "I want to be cool like that, maybe I should also become a murderer so I can be sent to foreign countries to end people's lives by using my guns, maybe I will become as famous and respected as that sniper psycho that did the 'world record' of murdering someone from three miles away with one shot!"
Yeah..the USA military will never stop putting military stuff into movies, and making war and military movies, to justify its existence, to control the narrative, to make people constantly think standing armies are not only normal, but they're necessary and cool to have, and to keep the 'military presence' thing in people's minds constantly, although we're SUPPOSED to be living a time of peace...
Heck, even the USA flag is a MILITARY jurisdiction flag, the 'Old Glory' is a damn military flag, not a peacetime one! USA _HAS_ a 'peacetime flag' (and it's beautiful), but it was only used a little bit in some post offices and places like that, and the 'Old Glory' still dominates everywhere. So, technically, all of USA operates under military jurisdiction... USA is always at war, it's never at peace.
(The golden fringes around a flag goes even deeper into this territory, but that's a bit too complex a thing to explain here, and goes way beyond the scope of these posts)
So what is the point of this movie? Something for Robin to do, and pushing MILITARY imagery, war imagery and propaganda into people's brains as hard as the military could in 1987 (of course, things have gotten a lot deeper and stronger since then - tell me five popular movies that have ABSOLUTELY no military stuff in them, especially from the last ten years)
I mean, sure, they CENSOR Robin, although they're supposed to be USAians, who are supposed to have this much applauded but little respected thing called FREEDOM OF SPEECH - freedom to say and express ANYTHING without limitations (can you IMAGINE what that would be like? Sure, you'd see some 'awful' things, but you would also see EVERY single perspective and thought about anything, and be able to make and form truly informed decisions and opinions, understand viewpoints of all groups and people(s) involved, and so on.. but no such thing, because corporations want to control information, so you can't say this or that in youtube, and so on)..
So that's the big theme, I guess - censorship, and how awful it is. Of course, in a murder-situation, you are not supposed to reveal plans, troop locations and other 'classified' things, because otherwise the murder plans might be spoiled and foiled, and wouldn't THAt be against everything Jesus the Christ told us about loving and understanding our fellow man and turning the other cheek. I mean, didn't he tell us we must go to other countries to murder people and bomb their villages with polluting helicopters and airplanes, and then invent things like napalm to ruin people's lives forever?
This movie isn't really much of a movie, and the reason it was made SEEMS to be two-fold;
1) Vehicle for Robin Williams to be a poor man's Jim Carrey (sorry, but it's true when it comes to this movie - watch Liar, Liar and see which movie makes you laugh more)
2) Military that controls hollyweird, wants to keep pumping war and military movies, even if makes some of the mlitary look bad - at least a lot of the murderers are shown as 'good people' and sending teenagers into foreign jungles to murder is seen as something to support, encourage and celebrate. No one takes a stance against THAT in this movie.
No one tells the 'troops' that it's all madness and they shouldn't go to murder people - instead, we're showing 'G.I.s' being cool..
So, people that have statues made out of them are all products of bestiality? Also, since they probably look humanoid, wouldn't that AT LEAST imply that they're only HALF sons of female dogs and other half sons of bipedal entities?
How was this study conducted, by the way, where's the evidence, and who started this kind of massive operation? Can you please elaborate and reveal a bit more, because it's a bit difficult to believe.
Looking at Tutankhamun, Nefertiti and Vercingetorix statues, it's difficult to imagine their mother was an actual, literal dog. Also, Jesus the Christ's body is difficult to imagine having been the product of something like that - are you saying Virgin Mary was not a bipedal entity at all, but a canine?
I mean, that high-level seed from higher, more 'godlike' entity (that was required for a body to be strong enough to hold an elevated energy like the Oiled One) was shot into an ANIMAL? That makes no sense, even with virginal birth. Why would they mix animal genes into that plan and potentially ruin everything?
Also, I don't think dogs CAN give birth to actual bipedal people, and those are mainly what statues are made of, so your statement has MORE holes than one, and thus doesn't, and can't hold water without SERIOUS evidence and detailed elaboration.
How could you not know that, when even in 1987, everyone knew that? Yes, before the internet. YOU have no excuse..
Irak Lion?
What a weird thing to scream in Vietnam. It might make sense in Irak, but that just sounds so wrong for Vietnam.
The weird thing about this movie is that he's basically doing his 'normal schtick' and different voices, imitations and such (which he was amazingly good at), and doing that, he can be hilariously funny, just making you laugh uncontrollably.
However, his interviews, his stand-up, and his 'Mork' character in the old TV show, 'Mork & Mindy' are all about eight hundred thousand times funnier than anything he does in this movie.
OK, there is that ONE scene that makes probably everyone at least giggle a little bit, with the VP, VIP, MIA, and so on, but in the end, even that's not THAT funny, it's just using acronym terminology in a superficial way in one sentence, instead of making a proper comedy routine out of it, like Benny Hill did A LONG TIME before this movie came out. Benny's version is funnier, and it goes on for a very long time, and is ACTUALLY clever and multi-layered.
In short, Benny's version is brilliant, Robin's version is "OK".
Still, that's the only funny thing in this movie, the rest is an uneven hodge-podge of explosions, 'dramatic events', 'betrayal' and other crappy plot that tries to forcibly make you feel sad. What's the point of a comedy if it's just trying to make you feel exactly like EVERY OTHER VIETNAM movie ever tries to make you feel?
I can never understand murdering (systemic or not, institutionalized or not, it's ALWAYS unlawful, no matter what garments you are wearing and how much you say you were just following orders. I can order you to murder, but if you murder, you are doing something unlawful regardless of what I said to you - I would never do that, of course, because I value life, even non-human life) or Vietnam, or why there had to be SO many movies made out of that hellish insanity, but this movie doesn't do anything other movies don't do better.
Other movies do better comedy, better drama, better Vietnam depictions, make you cry more, make you laugh more, make you more invested in the STORY this movie doesn't have..
I am glad to see someone having a more human perspective on this kind of things, where usually it's just flag-waving patriotic nationalism (= psychopathy), 'support the troops' and complete normalization and understanding of standing armies that go around the planet murdering people in other countries, where they have no business even being.
I am looking at things from, for the lack of better term, 'planetary perspective', as I don't consider one slice of this planet to be more important or more valuable or 'better' than any other. Sure, better in some ways, worse in others, and so on, but not 'the best place that needs people to murder other people so these murderers can live there'-kind of 'better'.
We should think globally, planetarily, see this planet as s common whole that we share, not a slice we happened to be temporarily incarnate into as the 'best country in the world', no matter WHAT that slice is or where it's located (ironically, pretty much EVERY country's natioanlism has this kind of thinking implemented, and they can't ALL be the bests, can they?).
People shouldn't go murder people, no matter what, period. I'd rather BE choked by communistic tyranny than go murder even one innocent vietnamese teenager. We must learn to respect and value LIFE over capitalistic and communistic iceals, materialistic things like oil, and especially money, power and wealth.
I don't mind that kind of suspension of disbelief, if everything else is good - sometimes moviemakers have to compromise for the sake of getting some scene(s) done. I think 'that child' (and I think you are actually talking about the second movie's kid, not this movie's - they're both supposedly four, neither look or behave like it) does a fine job displaying what she's supposed to display, but I agree that the age number should've been raised a bit higher for believability's sake.
Then again, these movies are such stupid cartoons anyway with so many implausibilities and coincidences, what age someone is supposed to be versus how they look and behave is the LEAST of this movie's stupidities.
Also, YakuzaS is so wrong, as we all know, Japanese language has no plural like that, or more accurately, japanese words are both singular AND plural simultaneously. That's why the Cruise movie is called 'The Last Samurai' and not 'The Last Samurais', ALTHOUGH it points to the BUNCH of people, not just one samurai. This also seems to fly high above USAians heads, because they're so used to putting an 'S' to even foreign words, if they think they are plural. So even if her _ATROCIOUS_ pronunciation (together with her AMERICAN intonation of japanese sentences) didn't reveal her absolute lack of understanding of japanese language and words, intonation, culture and all that, adding that stupid "S" surely would.
I mean, she just MURDERED her mother, too, so the kid probably couldn't hear anything ANYWAY just due to the shock and horror alone - when something LIFE-SHATTERING happens, people don't usually listen or hear ANYTHING anyone says for awhile, do they?
LET ALONE A 4-YEAR OLD GOD DAMN KID!
The daughter makes NO sense, that school bus thing is only one part of it. I made a separate post, it's that stupid.
In any case, you are right - americans (USAians?) are nervous and paranoid enough that they would JAIL someone if they let their kids run free, MANY people have gotten into trouble with 'authorities' because of this, and there are lawsuits going on about it all. 'Notjustbikes' and some others have made youtube videos about the cultural differencers between the USAian-type 'urban sprawl' and 'suburbian hell' and car-centricism versus the European, more human-scaled, relaxed and livable and walkable stuff, where people are not as concerned and can leave their kids outside in a stroller while they go buy stuff from a store. No big deal.
Americans would NEVER let that happen, so why would they let 4-year olds go to school by themselves?
Also, isn't the whole controversial 'busing' stuff for parents that are busy, working, etc.? This woman is AT HOME, doing nothing important that would stop her from bringing and picking up her friggin' 4-year old to and from the kindergarten/daycare/whatever.
It's pretty weird to use a SCHOOL bus to bus kindergarteners anyway, but I am not an USAian, so what do I know. Logically, shouldn't it be a 'Kindergarten bus'?
In Europe, kids can sometimes go to school at a very early age, but I was under the impression that seven is USUALLY the age when kids start going to a proper, actual school.
Still, as I said and pointed out in my post, that daughter MAKES NO SENSE whatsoever, and Beatrice trying to talk to the daughter after the stupidly loud gunshot makes even less sense (guns are SO loud most people wouldn't believe, but movies always make them these peashooters that make a tiny 'bang' and that's it).
Beatrice's and the daugther's ears would be, if not BLEEDING, at least RINGING VERY LOUD FOR A LONG TIME, so there's no way Beatrice should be trying to speak tot he kid WHATSOEVER, the kid wouldn't hear it.
There are so many things in this and some other movies, that when you think about them, the whole movie falls part like a sundried cracker under a terminator's foot.
Back to the Future also makes no sense, and the sequels even less. I mean, if Marty disappears, then there's no one to stop George from being hit by a car, and thus no Calvin Klein to make Lorraine fall in love with him, thus nothing stopping Marty from being born.
So all Marty has to do is hang around and wait to disappear, then he can live again. No need for the convoluted plot.
How about Doc realizing how dangerous it is to even invent a time machine, as it could mean disappearance of someone and altering history drastically (Doc is ADAMANT about not changing history.. sort of), and decides NOT to invent one. Problem solved, Marty can never travel back in time, Doc is never shot by the Lbyans, and everyone lives happily ever after.
If the terminator succeeds, it will only make sure it can't succeed - it's the same thing, really.
Let's look at it logically.
1) The terminator terminates Sarah, mission successful. It goes to do .. err.. well, maybe let's not think about that, or we might come up with a fate too dark to want to imagine.
2) Now Skynet wins the war easily, because John Connor is not born.
3) Because John Connor is not born, there's barely any resistance, and thus NO NEED to send any terminator back in time.
4) Terminator is thus NOT sent back in time, so Sarah is not terminated.
5) Sarah is not terminated means John Connor is born and Skynet has to wipe out his entire existence, so it sends a terminator back in time.
6) Go back to part 1)
It's an impossible loop, but these time travel stories can usually go only one way.
It's one of those hollyweird tropes that they never want to let go of, just like an enormous, red "ACCESS DENIED" accompanied by a monotone female hag voice, or a huge, green "ACCESS GRANTED" when someone is 'hacking' something. It's so facepalm+groan-inducing, I can't stand it.
It would be interesting to see realistic bombs in movies, without all the colorful wires they can cut.
It would also be interesting to see REALLY STUPIDLY LOUD GUNS (guns are _RIDICULOUSLY_ loud, even with a 'silencer', which isn't even called a 'silencer' in actual reality, the real world is probably something like 'suppressor') that cause side effects, like making car alarms go off, or make someone not hear anything for a long time, except loud ringing in their ears, experience PAIN from the loudness and so on.
But nope, we always see people firing guns as if it's not a big deal, not even much recoil, and definitely no thought into any sound problem whatsoever. The guns sound really weird anyway, there's always some 'PHEW' sound, like every single gun is partly 'sci-fi-movie 'ray gun' hybrid'. Even in The Matrix, when Smith is shooting Neo, we get the 'phew phew phew'-sound in the 'faraway shot', and only get a better sound when we cut to a closer view of Smith.
In a movie, ANY gun can be silenced easily, and it ALWAYS sounds like a tiny 'phew'-sound. Again, why a 'phew' sound anyway? Why not just a silent version of a muffled crack-sound? WHY IS THERE SO MUCH PHEWING?!
In any case, these stupid movie tropes are something hollyweird seems to LOVE, so we will probably never get rid of them. The ONLY movie I can think of where a (fake) gunshot causes ANY kind of 'stupidly loud audio' problem, is 'National Lampoon's Vacation', where Audrie loses her hearing for awhile when the bartender shoots Clark with a fake shotgun.
Can anyone think any other situations?
I mean, wouldn't it be funny if people reacted realistically to (THE LOUD) gun sounds every time a gun is shot in a movie?