you better be 18 because there's no excuse not have watched that filmAiddon said:ouch, not one of Mann's best. Whatever, I can take a blemish or two. Still need to watch Mohicans
Count me in. That movie gives me chills. The final mountainside scene is what movie making should strive to be.V4Viewtiful said:you better be 18 because there's no excuse not have watched that filmAiddon said:ouch, not one of Mann's best. Whatever, I can take a blemish or two. Still need to watch Mohicans
He never once mentioned Gamergate.ngl42398 said:Oh boy, more GG and 8chan jabs.
As someone who's professionally working with computer and network security for over a decade now, I'd say: Yes.Gildedtongue said:Soooo... Sneakers still remains the best film about hacking?
True, but that's not what people are discussing.tyriless said:Bob, glad to see call the harassment of female developers and critics of Gamergate exactly what it is. It's terrorism. It's a loaded word, but as the definition of an act that inspires fear and intimidation to achieve a goal, it fits it to tee. Just because there are worse acts of terror, doesn't negate that is exactly what cowards hiding behind anonymity are doing every day in the name of their socio-political agenda. To say otherwise, is disingenuous at best, and at worst, belongs to someone who lacks the conscious or the personal ethics to realize that threatening someone to behave in a manner you wish to see is not just wrong, it's malicious.
How many of the featured boards can you find who don't have OPs mentioning SJW in the catalog? It does kinda permeate the whole chan.ngl42398 said:Oh boy, more GG and 8chan jabs. Honestly, my guess is that (a) Bob knows jackshit about GG and (b) Bob has never been on 8chan. If he had, he'd know that 8chan's climate varies radically board by board, and making a generalization like "8chan, eugh" is immature and stupid.
Yes. As engaging as playing tag in a phone booth.Twinmill5000 said:God, these comments. [...]
I think you have identified the solution, but not the problem. Bob's "positive" reviews are very cogent, well-presented and insightful. When talking about things he likes, Bob will wax introspective, identify nostalgia and sentimentality for what they are, and call attention to the objective and subjective merits of a work. And it's reasonable to want more of that.Twinmill5000 said:On the subject of the review, Bob, I don't intend on watching this movie, but having enjoyed other movies that you have painted in a very negative light, can I suggest that you offer more positive and constructive conclusions to your reviews? [...]
I would direct you to a different "life lesson". People change, and not everything is for everyone all the time. When you don't like something and have a negative reaction -- particularly while many other people have a positive one -- it's probably not for you. Either you've out-lived it, or you have yet to be in a mindset where you'll appreciate it. And this isn't a matter of linear-maturity; it's about contexts and perspectives. Some people will never understand what it's like to escape from a totalitarian government; some people won't understand Brakhage; some won't understand The Stunt Man; and some won't know the horror and sorrow of having their beloved child put into a coma.Twinmill5000 said:[...] I used to hate the Initial D movie. [...] I realized two things. One, man, I was a stupid dumb hoe for not being able to appreciate the movie for its own merits [...]. Two? Focusing on the negative significantly more than the positive sort of makes you a stupid dumb hoe, so don't do it.
Why do you interpret comments made by Bob in his video series of his reviews of films based on his viewing of them as attempts of objective analysis? Reviews of entertainment media are inherently subjective. The only people I've seen with expectations the reviews ought to be objective are critics of critics, who are doing so based on their own subjective evaluation.JustMakingAComment said:That Bob is jaded and bored by such a scene is not a problem with the film. This is simply Bob wanting subjective novelty, and blaming the film for not providing it as if that were an objective issue.