MovieChat Forums > quartz
quartz (389)
Posts
I hope this is more interesting than what it's prequelling
this is very close to a bad shlockbuster
I might need to rewatch it
Special effects I would have done differently
a bit unfair at the end/spoiler
just done a marathon session incl the 1979 version and this one
when their watches and car stop working
I'd say this film was
why doesn't the cover poster have the egg cracking from the top?
If you block people on here
View all posts >
Replies
If anyone's wondering, no one's saying we don't all fucking h*** i**igr**ts. We have craploads of them coming over in dinghy's from France, because the French don't want them. (it's why we say nice things to France in Eurovision - in the hope they'll s***t a few of them in return). I just think (in this example) blaming faulty landing gear on employing illegal br**n people is....slightly far fetched. But no doubt true. It didn't actually blame them, it [i]implied[/i] them, which isn't better. I mean I wouldn't want an illegal b***n person conducting safety checks on the integrity of landing gear on a commercial aircraft I was flying on. or someone yelling all** fucking ***bar, I'd want some ******* ***** **** ** ****** of ****** **** ***** **** ****** ** their ass
Some of what James Woods says is reasonable. No one's arguing about people who are saying they are a female if they still have a d1ck. No one's arguing that Starbucks is being retarded by putting a poster of a woman with their t*ts cut off, saying they are now a guy. Because they want to sell cups of fucking coffee. "oh no, it's representation". yeah, it's that, and not "buy our stuff".
I mean fuck, it was a dickless ad campaign (get it yeah, because it had a fucking tr*n in it) but I still mentioned it.
One of his recent posts is of a plane that landed without it's front undercarriage, with the phrase "diversity is our strength". **** *** actual **** *** **** *** ** ** with ************* airplane *************? ******* if **'* ********** **** Boeing *** ********* ******* ********** to ******** airplanes, **** **. ***** ****. ***** **** ******** ****** protocols.
Half of the last week of his timeline just seems to ** ***** ******** *****. Which you can agree or disagree with.
It says moviechat.org. not ** ** *** * **** ********.org, or **** *** **** ***** ************** ***.com. but ******r
Basically he's a ********t and I'm agreeing with you.
(edited for clarity)
Speaking of ******* ***********. *** *** a ***** of *********** ** *** ****, **** a ******** ** of **** **** a ******* ******?
Do ****** *** ***************s ******* **** ****y **** t*** ***m ********* *** ** *****, **** ****d ********** **s***?
**** is *** **** ** *********** *** *****t fr** ****s.
Edited huh.
Whatever. I'm here to talk about things on screen, not politics or some guy who who s*i** **s *r**** ** *** ** *** ****, ** ** *** ***** ** *-*** *** *** ***** ** ******** * ** *** **** ******* **** *** *e****** ***** **** **********s *** **** ** ** ****** ** ** ****b*
alt account edited, huh.
Arguing with some people is like ******* ** * ******* *****
Was that comment something to do with me?
I was fine with the idea that the whole outback cafe location was a delusion, and that they turned out to be his personalities. (are many people called 'Paris'? the only person called Paris I know of is the s'leb). When he strangled the guy in the car at the end, was that suggesting that every time he killed a person (one of his personalities) in the movie he killed someone in real life? or during the length of the movie was he just killing off his own personalities. I figured that the final car twist was setting the way for a sequel
k.
20 minutes from the end of almost 2 hours, the truck hit it at speed "point blank", and the damage to the T-800 was a slight limp (if you watch at 1:27:05, there is no limp, the limp appears to have started at about 1:27:10). That's reasonably indestructible from a cinematic point of view. During the length of the film, the damage to the T-800 was a gashed arm and one eye taken out, during a car chase with "small arms" or whatever you want to call them. During T1, the T-800 was portrayed for the length of the film as being fairly unstoppable, although having some vulnerabilities. In T5, they got hold of some upgraded weaponry.
yeah. I'm struggling to find out what the argument is here. I'm saying T1 portrayed the robot as being near-invincible, you're saying it wasn't. I'm saying in T5, out came a gun that could easily kill it, and you're saying "it's just a gun". Ok.
View all replies >