MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
My point is that there are so many good stories out there, so many interesting, well-crafted movies, TV shows and even comics, that there is absolutely no need to watch something like this.
If you read the old comics 'The Secret Wars' and then its sequel, then watch 'The Matrix', 'Back to the Future' and 'Primer', then move on to 'The One', some old Jackie Chan movies and some Cynthia Khan movies, do you REALLY need this movie for anything?
I mean, seriously, do you?
You are brave!
I was able to watch the beginning until I almost threw up from the nonsensical language-swapping (have to switch between listening to what someone says and reading what they say constantly back and forth, like WHAT? WHY?), the close-ups of old, ugly people's horrible, wrinkled faces, the 'you are not supposed to throw up when you see this although your body can't help it if you are not a rare deviant group' and other stuff like that.
The overall ugliness and annoyance of this movie was turned to 100 almost immediately, and the beginning is the worst kind you can have. Yeah, doing taxes is exactly as interesting in a movie opening as stocks are in a Superman NES game. What were they thinking?
I don't see why people praise trash like this - could it be, because they 'have to', because THE MESSAGE - when a movie hates white men as punching bags as much as this movie does, and celebrates a RARE DEVIANCY from a norm (not that anyone should openly show these things in a movie in my opinion anyway, a sudden slobber attack is disgusting - if you have hard time understanding why I almost vomited at the bad haircut laundry-scene near the beginning, just imagine an old, white, heterosexual Linux-nerd of a pervert man starting to slobber over some young asian beauty celebrity, and maybe you get the idea)...?
But my point is, does this movie really do anything that original or creative? Does it give you anything you did not have before? Does it provoke, make you actually think of the nature of reality or anything? Are you yet not tired of 'THE MESSAGE'..?
I used to think Jet Li's blatant The Matrix rip-off, 'The One' sucks, but when compared to this, wow.. how brilliant does it look!
A movie does not have to be a chaotic, convoluted mess to be good, you know. You can tell a story in a coherent, more linear, understandable way, even if that story is complicated. 'The One' does this actually well, it's WAY more interesting to watch - but so does 'The Matrix'.
Cynthia Khan, who has an amazing screen presence and 'female charisma', so much that I would dub her 'the coolest woman in cinema' after seeing a few of her movies.
So take it for what you will, no one watches Michelle Yeoh for her acting ability, BUT you can watch Cynthia Khan's Hong Kong movies, if you want to see a 'cool female hero' or 'cool kung-fu woman'!
Her best stuff has been pretty good, but when you start analyzing it, you realize - it's not because of her acting.
It's because she has been paired with better actors, and even then, it comes down to her doing kung-fu and stunts pretty well.
She's like a mediocre shadow of Jackie Chan, who can actually act and sing much better than Michelle, and do kung-fu and stunts on higher leve, as well. Compared to Jackie Chan, Michelle Yeoh is... well... female? That's about it.
Jackie is better at everything else, especially including acting.
Having said that, Jackie Chan isn't the best of actors, his kung-fu is mostly theatrical wushu instead of anything street-applicable or impressive in that way, and the main reason he is fun to watch, is his creative way of fighting and amazing stunts, of course.
No one would watch a Jackie Chan or Michelle Yeoh-movie if you stripped away the kung-fu and stunts. I mean, honestly, who would watch Jackie Chan for his acting ability or the humor in those movies?
Oddly enough, the more 'american' movies have better humor, as the typical Hong Kong kung-fu movie humor is pretty childish, flat and slapsticky. The Rush Hour movies are better humorwise, but lackluster stuntwise, because hollyweird would not let easily big stars do something actually dangerous, and even then it's diluted.
So for the best mix, watch older hollywood movies for acting, older Jackie Chan-movies (made in Hong Kong) for amazing stunts and entertaining, creative fight scenes, Bruce Lee-movies for actual fighting ability and superb moves and learning something, more modern movies, like the Rush Hour series for better humor (though for actual comedy, there are much better movies, like Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery and Top Secret!, just to name a couple).
Michelle Yeoh-movies? Well, she has been in some Jackie Chan-stuff, and she starred in an old Hong Kong movie franchise called 'In the Line of Duty', which then also starred Cynthia Khan..
Really? What a COINCIDENCE that here we have yet another MASONIC number.
Anything could be 32, 34 or 40 or 27, but they ALWAYS 'round it' to 33, to please their masonic masters and to show whose side they are on.
Also, not so bad?
Watch Mauler's almost six-hour analysis of this movie and then tell me it wasn't bad.
What WASN'T bad about it? The crappy effects, the ridiculous, nonsensical non-story? The moronic characters? THE MEMORY STORE?!
COME ON!
HOW can anyone, ANYONE AT ALL, honestly think this was either good or not bad? There can't be many brain cells in such an entity's whole skull... are you on life support and letting AI write your board posts for you or does hollyweird interfere even here? Judging by the push for masonic numbers, maybe they do..
..in mundaneville, California, and you have to somehow keep your interest as the show tries to make you care about some ridiculous wealthy farm owner's thug problem, it's not exactly QUITE what a kid with a wild imagination would be inspired to imagine when watching the intro.
This was the problem of many shows, of course, but Knight Rider is salvaged due to K.I.T.T. eventually delivering all kinds of 'magical moments', being such an 'omnipotent friend' instead of just a mundane tool, and goes beyond the mundane and boring in so many ways.
K.I.T.T. is interesting, whereas this plastic moped is boring. So what if it has a few glowy buttons, when all it can do is drive and shoot?
A motorbike jumping over something is never going to be as interesting as a friggin' CAR doing the same. That's why the car succeeds, where a bike fails.
There is a big difference between something that encompasses you, takes care of you, protects you, AND can operate independently and talk with you, and something you simply... sit on.
A motorbike is basically just a moving chair. A car is a slightly reduced room with mobility, it's like a mini-lair, almost. It's a portable base of operations you can do all kinds of amazing things with.
So the core problem is, they underestimated how important it is to have a big PRESENCE, a big personality, and a myriad of faculties, options, features and capabilities. The bike fails to do anything that made those cars so interesting.
With Knight Rider, a kid can wade through the boring romance storyline, because he knows the amazing wizard friend in the shape of a car is waiting, and going to do something cool and amazing sooner or later.
With Street Hawk... not so much. You know the bike is boring, so there's NOTHING to help you wade through the mundane boredom, so as a kid, you can't really enjoy this show or be excited about it, especially after seeing those more interesting shows.
The intro uses oscillator sync way too much, by the way..
Everything a kid would love about K.I.T.T., every reason to watch a show like this, is missing from this show and this bike.
The bike is just a boring thing. There is no massive, almost endless 'computer panel' with million glowing buttons, switches, gauges, displays, screens and so on. There is nothing visually interesting to look at - a slightly modified motorbike? Okay, so when can we watch more Knight Rider?
I don't know if the makers of the show aimed it to be any kind of replacement for K.I.T.T., but even Airwolf does better job at 'magical vehicle', except I don't think even that helicopter has 'sentience' you can have conversations with.
It's like the makers of these shows failed to realize how to engage a kid's imagination. Knight Rider was the only show that did it right after the robotic fights in space in Battlestar Galactica.
It looks like they just thought, 'well, a slightly-modified, 'cool' version of a vehicle is enough to make a good show', and they failed to consider how much kids love 'otherworldly' and 'magical' stuff, even if it doesn't make that much sense.
Airwolf was an 'OK' show, but it failed where Knight Rider succeeded - it did not create a 'magical' feel for the helicopter the same way K.I.T.T. almost felt 'omnipotent' at times. It did not elevate (no pun intended) a helicopter enough to make it more interesting, more 'unreal' and 'fantasy-fulfilling'. I mean, Street Hawk's motorcycle and Airwolf's helicopter - both are just 'somewhat, but not enough' enhanced versions of REGULAR helicopter and motorcycle.
K.I.T.T. is not even a car, it's more like a 'robotic entity that happens to exist in a shape of a car' - heck, it might just as well have been of Extra-Terrestrial origin!
'Slightly modified' is just NOT enough - it does NOT deliver. The intro promises more than it delivers, but then, so does Knight Rider's mystical purple desert intro. When you go from that intro to Michael just talking to some farmer on a sunny day..
It's a good movie.
What?
I mean, it's a good movie as a sort of test.
My own test to separate wheat from the riff-raff.. sorry, meant, CHAFF... is 'The Terminator (1984)' and the so-called sequel to it. ANYONE that even remotely thinks the sequel is even near as good, let alone better, is IMMEDIATELY red-flagged and kicked out of my life and any consideration of anyone that has any kind of ability to think for themselves or understand anything whatsoever. I would not trust them to be able to take my trash out and throw it into the garbage bin. I would not respect them enough to give them the time of day (not that you can really give TIME to someone.. you can't possess something so ethereal and yet illusory).
This movie is a test on two separate fronts:
01) Women 'test' their boyfriends and men with it - if a man either hasn't seen it or hates it or doesn't like it, the woman leaves that man or doesn't 'date' that man, or whatever.
02) Men can test women so easily with this, and if a woman likes this movie, thinks it's good, or wants him to watch it or has seen and doesn't hate it, the woman is a MASSIVE red flag and should be avoided at ALL COST, which means, men can dodge horrible bullets easily.
So it's a good movie for THIS purpose.
It's always interesting when two bad movies have such different receptions.
This movie ties in with 'women's empowerment' and 'women are victims' and 'women are stronger than men' messages.
The typical pandering that hollyweird and the corporations have been doing for decades for all kinds of nefarious purposes has paid off by preparing herds of women to have a man-hating mindset, so of course a movie with THIS particular message is going to be a success. Women have always been more susceptible (?) to marketing than men, and these days, control most of the money (generally speaking), and how families SPEND their money, so corporations learned very early on to manipulate men by affecting women.
In any relationship, women basically own men. Every married man has a defeated look in his eyes, because of the thousand battles he has lost in arguments, where he was sure he was right, and the thousand more the man knows he's going to lose in the future.
Cats has no particular message, so it's meaningless to people.
Also, Cats is..
..do I have to say it? ..
_REPULSIVE_!!!
To the max!
So of course people are not going to see it. There is no REASON to see it (no big star, performance, cool scene, great story, etc.).. and there is no MESSAGE that would pull the movie into the 'MUST SEE OR GF WILL LEAVE YOU'-kind of category.
This means, Cats is irrelevant and repulsive (visually, yes, but in so, so, SO many other ways as well), Barbie is visually appealing to the typical childlike mind of a woman (women are allowed ot be kids, as Bill Burr once said, men aren't), and the 'patriarchy' lie creates tingles in females, so of course the movie is a success.
Neither of them are good movies, but then again, I haven't seen either of them (and I am planning to keep it that way), so maybe I am wrong.. but they have very different EFFECT on the audience, so that's why.
My point is, there is ALWAYS a correct way to tell something or answer something, but you have to TAILOR the answer correctly, taking into account how the kid is going to receive the information. Not just blurting out details.
Death is even easier - there IS no death. Simple.
We all live in temporary bodies we inhabit when the newly-manufactured body comes out of the parent body. The first breath locks us in the body, so then we are in a baby body, until the body grows up. Then the body dies, and we are set free to live in a better world, which is a lot like our most beautiful dreams.
Telling the truth this way is actually a relief to a kid, who might fear someone else's or even his own death. If his grandma dies, he can know the grandma still lives, just somewhere he can't yet access, but will, when the time comes.
What could be more comforting way to know about death than that?
Also, why would ANYONE think death is bad, unless some bad things are done to cause it..? If someone dies after a lot of pain, the pain is now gone. And so on.
Kids ask about all kinds of things, it's their job.
It's the parents' job to answer the questions ACCORDING to the kids' mental and psychological level of understanding, AND in a way that does not traumatize or scare the kids.
Parents are so stupid in this world they almost never know how to do that correctly, or even think to do that.
The wrong way would be to teach some four-, or five-year old about human reproduction in a very intimate and detailed way. They don't need to know about vaginas, sperm, fertilization, eggs, fetuses, abortions, and so on and so forth. There was a mom that taught his way-too-young son this in a very 'scientific' way, and the son was SO confused, grossed-out and repulsed, plus VERY very uncomfortable about all this.
But what was worse, she then ego-radiated and basically INTERROGATED the kid about all she had taught him, so he could not even escape into forgetfulness, and had to RECITE all this grotesque (in his young mind) and weird stuff he CAN'T POSSIBLY FULLY COMPREHEND in way too much detail to the uncomfortable adults at every single gathering.
Just so she could prove she is a good parent and he is a bigboy.
I was this kid's friend, but he became a really disturbed individual later on, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out he has already died of some kind of drug overdose or something.
The CORRECT way to do this, the way she SHOULD have done it, is something like this:
'Dad puts his seed in mom's belly, and then the belly becomes big and the kid pops out. That's how kids are born'.
This is PERFECTLY satisfactory answer to a very young child, they do NOT need any more details. It's still very factual, but it's tailored to the kid's level of understanding. He doesn't need to hear about hardened penis pushing deep into some scary cavern and exploding some sticky goo into the walls of a pulsating, slimy egg that then starts mutating and dividing cells and STOP IT ALREADY!!
Parents are just so friggin' stupid...
I wouldn't mind a shapeshifter Barbie. You could make it any size, shape or fatness or thinness you want, and it could change any second if you want it to.
Not sure how that could be achieved technically, but maybe in a video game type environment, it could.
Are there 'sandbox' Barbie games, where you could just play and customize things and just let it live? Ah yeah, The Sims..
Why is this, and HOW can it be, if gender is just a social construction?
Why do women get BBLs and think men want those, when in every survey, men say they prefer the natural look?
It's like.. REALITY completely contradicts all these feminist cliché claims, but yet we still have them, and men are STILL NOT LIBERATED AT ALL?
Where is men's liberation? Women were liberated in the 1960s and 1970s, when is men's turn? Why are men still the workhorses and slaves of this world, while women can just be an NPC in tiktok and gain millions of dollars by saying 'woof woof' all day long?
Where is the equality, why can't BOTH be liberated?
Why? Honestly, why?
It's really weird.
There was a time in recent history, when forces were rising up. Black people were treated badly and racistically, so they rose up and Martin Luther King preached very truthful words: it doesn't matter what someone's skin color is, people should only be judged by their character.
Justice is supposed to be BLIND for a reason.
Now Justice is ALL-seeing, ALL-noticing, and ALL-judging based on things you can't change about your temporary body.
Race didn't, and shouldn't matter, but now it's the BIGGEST thing that matters, besides gender, of course.
They flipped the script completely!
As far as gender goes.. in the 1960s, there was hope, that people would finally be FREE and EQUAL.
However, only WOMEN got to be free and equal, men are _STILL_ stuck.
Men still pay the alimonies, men still go to wars to murder other young men mercilessly. Men still take care of the infrastructure, men are still the ones constantly being told to MAN UP and men are the ones NOT ALLOWED to like bright colors or wear dresses, unless they are gay.
Women are allowed to be big children and have temper tantrums even when arrested by cops, men aren't.
Women get away with literal murder by SHEDDING ENOUGH TEARS so the judges can't punish them - men can't do that.
Women can do Onlyfans and earn millions by laying on their back in front of the camera, men DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION in any real way (sure, men could do that for GAY MEN, but that's it.. women don't pay to see a dik).
How can they STILL claim genders are just a social construct and think you can change it just by deciding something or by mutilating your genitals with a knife? How can people be this ignorant?
When men's and women's psychology REMAINS completely different! When men's and women's biological body structure, including 'gravity point' or whatever it's called, CANNOT BE CHANGED BY SURGERIES and remains completely different.
Men are still taller than women, and women WANT taller men...
There are always hideous posters of some idiot celebrities, often 'teen boys' or 'teen boy band' members on the walls, and it's almost like entering some secret world of partially repulsive, partially mystiquing, intriguing and fascinating stuff. You feel like Mr. Spock when his emotions were opened up to him and he felt.. 'happy' for the first time on that weird planet.
A myriad of wonders surround you, and only the enemy wizards of Leonus the Capricornicus or Braddius Pittus the Third stare you down from all of the walls, while some junk pop is filling the ear canals with some kind of battle hymns clearly designed to disrupt any mental processes that might be able to resist the odd, eerie charm of the previously unseen lair.
So if Barbie the movie had been a very 'girly' movie with all the glitter and pink that go with it, but it would have been a GOOD movie, it's possible that many men's experience would have mirrored what I just described about the typical girls' room. There would have been strange, stomach-churning odors and surprises, but at the same time, the slow pull of the glittery charm might have destroyed the audience's resistance for long enough that the goodness of the movie's story and dialogue would've kicked in, or something.
But alas, it's just 'visually slightly interesting fema-fascist claptrap', where actual men's liberation is still far in the horizon.
Isn't it strange that there was all this talk about liberation, emancipation, equality and birth control - but after decades of that, MEN were still not liberated?
Men still have NO reproductive rights, women can steal men's sperm from condoms and inject it in their cavernous body and get pregnant and the man, who DID WEAR A CONDOM still has to pay for everything, and has NO SAY about whether to become a father or not. (This is almost like a trend nowadays, and women are PROUDLY posting videos of committing this fraud)
Men still can't wear dresses, while women can wear whatevertheywant..
Just a clarification.. I would not love a womanhate-movie, either.
I don't think it's wise to hate people based on physical qualities. Hate them based on their stupidity!
I kid, but seriously - if this same Barbie movie had been made in reverse, where men were hating on women and whining how hard it is to be a man (EVEN THOUGH it would be WAY, way way way way WAY more true!), I still couldn't stomach it and I still wouldn't want to watch it, and I still couldn't love it.
Just make a good movie that does NOT disparage or insult any group of people based on their physical qualities, and I'll watch it, and if it's done as well as the gems I mentioned earlier, I would probably love them.
I could have loved this movie, I seriously would have watched it gladly and happily and loved it. I already love some of its visuals and fashions and things like that. I have no problem with 'Barbie'-style visuals, pink stuff, beautiful dresses, hairstyles and the 'glitzy valley girl bimbo glitter world', it's fun to visit that stuff from time to time. It reminds me of every time I have seen a 'girl's room', so to say. As a teenager or even a child, when you enter some young teenage girl's room, it's SUCH a different experience from any 'boy's room' you have ever experienced, whether that girl is your sister, step-sister or your own-age romantic potential partner or whatever.
It's always interesting how they have a very different vibe - there's a lot more useless, superficial, gilded junk, there is some weird fragnance lingering in the air, there are more bright, pink, fluffy things, plushies, and other decorative items, plus many bottles of weird, mystical potions and magical liquids you never quite understand the purpose of - it's almost like entering some secret sorcerer's lair that apprentice is not supposed to experience.. and seeing all this mystical stuff.
I only call it reverse wall, because it happens so early in life, but it's really a similar thing.
You are basically allowed to be a toddler or a woman, or a human, whatever you want to call it, and applauded for it - as a child, you have the same power women have, the power of cuteness and all that. People pat you on the back and always invite you everywhere and love your company. You are allowed to be childish and have weird likes and be as nerdy and quirky or even feminine as you want.
Then suddenly, you are EXPECTED TO BE A MAN. It is very jarring, because no one told anything is gonna change, it just suddenly changes. Only a child form of a man is allowed to be as childish as women are always allowed to be, until they hit the wall, maybe.
Even then, women still have leeway, they have feminism, they have groups, ribbons, institutions, foundations, you name it. They have socities, shelters and 'believe all women' stuff on their side.
Men have...
...
...nothing.
So when they say it's impossible to be a woman, I don't even understand how they have the gall to say this kind of stuff when men suffer so much worse from so much earlier on.
Men can wear ponchos and all kinds of feminine clothing and no one cares, if the man is still in child or toddler form. A toddler man can perform a cute dance and everyone applaus. An adult man can't, but an adult woman can.
Is this equality?
In any case.. I don't think I could stomach the full movie, if just a small clip made me almost faint with rage and boiling stomach.. it was EXTREMELY nauseous, and I felt nauseated to the max.
.. but somehow, it's the WOMEN that have the hardest time.
This is why the meme 'women affected the most' is so infuriating but funny, because of how well it describes the blindness to the plight that is men's lives. Men's pain is invisible. If a man ever tries to talk about being oppressed, being abused by their female partner, etc.. they are never taken seriously, or are attacked and belittled even more.
If anyone even assumes you are a man, you get attacked instantly.
Women are SO protected and worshipped, they live in SUCH an ivory tower, they don't even realize it. All the thousands of simps in social media, ready to defend a woman's honor with violence.. men can never even imagine such a luxury.
Women get ridiculously small sentences for the same and worse crimes, and when women finally ARE jailed (what a weirdly tough judge that must've been!), women's prisons are like luxury resorts compared to the absolute pure violent hell that is men's prison system.
Women only see the non-existent glass ceiling, but they never see the glass floor that doesn't let them fall as deep as men do.
The reason why hitting the wall is so jarring and shocking to women, is that they are SUDDENLY experiencing a similar (but not as severe or all life-encompassing) invisibility and non-caring or even hostility that most men had to deal with all their lives.
No one ever talks about this, but men experience a 'reverse wall', which is almost as shocking, but it happens so early that men kinda forget about it, I assume. As a child, you are allowed to like bright colors, be girly, be funny, be childish just the way women always are.
You are told you are cute, you are 'loved' just for who you are, your laughter makes everyone in the room adore you and tell everyone what a special wonder you are.
Then suddenly you become a teenager or something, and it all SUDDENLY stops.
Now people get angry at you for the same behaviours that got you applause and ice dream, as a child.
I haven't seen it, but I have seen some clips, and they were enough to make my stomach rumble so thunderously, I could not get through all of it.
The whole 'it's impossible to be a woman' segment would be very funny, if it wasn't so nauseous and infuriating. And yes, it is 'nauseous', not 'nauseating', because something that causes nausea, is nauseous. You never feel nauseous, you feel nauseated.
I don't get why people choose to use this wrong so much, but it's easy to remember from noxous gas. The gas itself is something that causes bad things (noxia?). Another example is 'inspired vs. inspirational'. You don't FEEL inspirational, you feel INSPIRED.
To say you feel nauseous is to say you feel inspirational - it makes no god damn sense, get with the program and learn actual english already, please.
Anyway, I guess I have to go on a tangent as a psychological defence mechanism - I just don't want to remember seeing that clip from this movie, where women bitch how difficult it is to be a woman, and completely forget the homeless men, the men that are always insulted for their height or small dik (how much do women love to make small-dik-jokes? Probably more than chocolate and the combo of boxed wine and cats!).. the men that are always shown to be bumbling fools in TV and ads, the men that are always arrested for domestic violence when it's the woman that beat them up.
Men are laughed at if a woman beats them up - how can you let a woman beat you up, ha ha! You are not a REAL man!
However, if a man tries to EVEN defend himself, it's suddenly 'there is NO excuse to hit a woman!' and how dare you be violent against WOMEN, the most sacret group in all existence!1
Women are stronger than men, but only when they can boast about it and belittle men - if a man actually hits a woman, then woman is suddenly weaker than man and ALWAYS THE REAL VICTIM. Man is never afforded victim status.
It's men that go murder other men in wars, it's men that the drones kill the most
If I could arrange all my questions into a list, a really thick book would not even be enough to print it with a tiny font. It would be basically an encyclopedia set, volumes I to MCMLXXXV (ok, slight exaggeration)...
Why is Connor 100% blanked, unequipped, unprepared, while the villain is completely cognisant, fully prepared and almost ganks connor immediately when they first meet? This is like not preparing someone for a battle and sending them anyway, while the other one knows exactly what's up and what to do. Makes no sense to make it this unfair!
Then the villain is EASILY whisked away by a couple of 'dudes', when the villain could just easily kill them and then kill Connor. Why doesn't he? SERIOUSLY, WHY??
He could SO EASILY kill them - - - AND - - - this is supposed to be a BATTLE! It's WAR!
It would not even be suspicious or anything, what the heck?
FURTHERMORE!
Why does the villain NOT ARRANGE it so that he is protected and Connor is not, for the the short moment he needs to kill Connor? He makes ALL these preparations, probably waited eagerly for this moment for a long time, and then just gives up because of a VERY SLIGHT obstacle (from his point of view), so.. again..
WHY?
He does not prepare for THIS eventuality?? WHAT?! How is that even possible?
I have just SO, so very many questions my mind would explode if I tried to get them all down at once. I just can't endure this stupid, childish non-movie any longer.
Take away lightning, the pseudo-'magical' aspect, Sean Connery and Queen, and what do you have left? A really crappy story about a bear-sounding cartoon villain and some douche who no one cares about, in a 'non-story' with the stupidest ending ever devised. End to all wars? NAH!
Food for the hungry? No, thanks. Children rescued from the third-world corporate slavery hell? Of course not.
GETTING OLD, that's the ticket!
What the.. how.. aaggh! I am SO glad I am not 'immortal' so THIS hell will end some day..