"You offer first something meaningful to converse around. Not just general statements with ZERO value and content."
Horseshit. You're just unwilling to respond thoughtfully to what I wrote because it offends your fundamentalist woke religion.
subtitles as "white guilt".
Yes, because a subtitled movie had goddamned better be good to win the highest award an AMERICAN awards ceremony can offer. I watch subtitled movies all the time. My intelligence level, or my capacity to appreciate foreign films, is not the issue here. It's the prosaic-assed fact that subtitles are a liability to a film's enjoyability at the end of the day, and only a really exceptional film (Like Akira Kurosawa's films, or Wild Strawberries, or Santa Sangre, or Fellini's Satyricon, or El Mariachi, or Delicatessen) can overcome that liability through its sheer quality.
Parasite does NOT overcome this liability. It's a silly, shallow, banal little film with very amateur writing and an absurd ending. Worse, it's a retarded little trend-piece that piggybacks on the "hurrr rich people bad" bandwagon, as well as the "muh diversity" bandwagon that your average idiot today finds compelling because it's a cheap and easy way for them to virtue-signal about not being racist, elitist, materialistic, or arrogant and contemptuous towards the less fortunate. Which is exactly what most people are.
"white guilt" is part of this woketard religion for a lot of reasons. If this movie had all white people and wasn't subtitled, it'd be forgotten in the bargain bin where its forgettable, mediocre ass belongs. Which begs the question why the fuck people have such a hair up their ass about shoving non-white entertainment at us as somehow necessary.
It's because they are mentally ill, have a pathological sense of inferiority, and hate anything that seems strong and powerful. Why they can't relax and accept that greatness comes from any race (not just whites) is beyond me.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
and thisll be the last here... because this is like running in the special Olympics... all i'm doing is noticing patterns which most people seem too dim or invested in delusion to see... "Parasite" is kind of shitty and doesn't deserve an Oscar. So why would they put it up there? Well, because they're a bunch of fags (and by "fag" I don't mean "homosexual," I mean like "a total fucking twat") who have an agenda. Why do I think so?
Well, when something doesn't make logical sense, you look for other likely reasons. Why else would "Parasite" win a damn Oscar?
Could it be that Hollywood, and the media in general, has become a leftist propaganda machine over the last fifty years? Shitting all over us with feminist, pro-gay, pro-atheist, forced-racial-diversity sewage? It certainly is why they have put similar movies in our faces that didn't deserve to be there. Like Ghostbusters 2016 and Captain Marvel and a Wrinkle in Time and the Gunslinger. It certainly is why the man-hating Gillette campaign exists.
This shit won an Oscar because Hollywood cares more about politics, about making some jack-off political statement, than it does about making and promoting good movies. Good day to you sir.
reply
share
asom (6509)
4 years ago
First of all: you were apriori against the movie without even seeing it.
I'm quite convinced you still haven't see it since you are like "hurrr rich people bad" - and actually the rich people in this movie are not bad, the poor families are actually painted in a much worse light. The rich are at most too gullible and naive, but NOT bad.
The poor families are painted as failures and the perps are the ones in the lower classes. Violence and murder? Lower class.
Diversity? WHAT diversity? In this movie??
Don't get me wrong, i agree with the trend of wokeness and cancel culture in hollywood and in the film industry but in case of Parasite you are wrong. Again, try to watch the movie before you judge it.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
"First of all: you were apriori against the movie without even seeing it. "
yeah... I know. But I'm confused because I think I explained that I had a good reason to be against it. And that reason was the CONTEXT in which this movie became such a phenomenon.
I'd never heard of it, the basic plot sounded stupid and boring to me, and I have read many well-written reviews saying it's mediocre. This is a pattern I notice in crappy films that become huge, like the Last Jedi and Captain Marvel: the negative reviews are typically by remarkably articulate people who say things besides vapid stuff like "it was really fun and combined genres in a groundbreaking way." So based on that context, it's likely to be similar to movies with a similar context.
Hollywood is extremely liberal and an open secret is their retarded attempts to shoe-horn women and minorities into inappropriate roles for its own sake. Idris Elba in Gunslinger, a female Doctor Who, love interests in James Bond older than 50, a black Batman. So when a mediocre AND unprecentedly all-Korean movie wins the absolute top honor that Hollywood can bestow, that rightly makes me suspicious that it's up there not for its merit, but for their race agenda which I care nothing about.
You're right, I haven't seen it, but I've read that the poor family is portrayed as shiftless losers who don't try to improve their lot in life. I don't empathize with that, and this situation once again dovetails with the Hollywood and leftist narrative of Communism, of wealth redistribution. I dislike this because Capitalism, for all its faults, has brought more wealth to more people than any other economic system.
Diversity...….. come on man. I meant "diversity" in the sense that it's an all-Korean movie... being put on a pedestal in America, by Hollywood, where most people are white. It appears to be more minorities-for-the-sake-of-there-being-minorities agitprop to me -- in AMERICA, where most people are white.
I should watch the movie though, but I think I've explained my position pretty well
reply
share
asom (6509)
4 years ago
I didn't see the problem with Idris Elba in the Gunslinger. I don't even know if the Gunslinger's race is mentioned in the books.
I agree with Captain Marvel and SW, but it's not the case here. And with Dr Who, although Dr Who started to be woke cringe before that, Capaldi had some very bleah moments.
" that the poor family is portrayed as shiftless losers who don't try to improve their lot in life. I don't empathize with that, and this situation once again dovetails with the Hollywood and leftist narrative of Communism, of wealth redistribution." - i fail to even try to comprehend whet you are on here. Yes, the poor family is portrayed like that, so the "rich are bad" doesn't fit in the same narrative. And then you jump to the leftist narrative of Communism? Actually no, in communism and generally in left narrative poor families were/are portrayed as perfect, hard working but oppressed. Not quite the case here.
The director likes to poke at social issues, corruption, incompetence and absurd society in his movies. If you've seen The Host or Memories of Murder you would understand what i mean.
I would agree that his Snowpiercer had some heavy left accents and that movie was ... mediocre indeed.
And yes, he has a style that is a bit strange for american public or critics so maybe some will find him "mediocre". I don't. And while i don't consider Parasite his best movie was still a good movie, above mediocre.
RT ratings: 99/90. Imdb: 86. Metacritic: 96/8.9.
A mediocre movie would NOT have this kind of ratings. Did it deserve Oscar? Not sure, i haven't seen all the movies that run for oscar. A good movie? Yes.
I would recommend to watch it and then come back - try to watch it with an open mind and not set on cherry picking every scene. Watch the acting, see the story unfolding, check the directing.
If you would still keep your position (mediocre woke movie) at least i would respect it because it would be an informed position.
PS: i used to laugh about Bond and how his love interests are ALWAYS 23-25 years old, smoking hot, super intelligent with at least 2 phDs, super athletic and that know kung-fu. While he is a 50-60 years old dude. Come on.
reply
share
[deleted]
4 years ago
I didn't see the problem with Idris Elba in the Gunslinger. I don't even know if the Gunslinger's race is mentioned in the books.
Yes, his race is mentioned in the books, and it matters. He's supposed to look like Clint Eastwood. He, and his world, are based on his spaghetti westerns. On Western archetypes. Gunslingers in the collective consciousness are white. Wyatt Earp, John Wayne, Billy the Kid, cowboys, etc.
i fail to even try to comprehend whet you are on here. Yes, the poor family is portrayed like that, so the "rich are bad" doesn't fit in the same narrative. And then you jump to the leftist narrative of Communism? Actually no, in communism and generally in left narrative poor families were/are portrayed as perfect, hard working but oppressed. Not quite the case here.
What's so hard about this? I don't empathize with the poor family. But them being the protagonists, and them succeeding in conning the rich, puts them above the rich, almost celebrates them. Yes, the movie IS named after them, after all.
There's no "jump" to Communism. Since both the rich and the poor here are portrayed as reprehensible, then maybe these tragedies would never happen if only the State stepped in and magically eliminated poverty, since clearly no one deserves wealth. Also, this director is known for his Marxism.
PS: i used to laugh about Bond and how his love interests are ALWAYS 23-25 years old, smoking hot, super intelligent with at least 2 phDs, super athletic and that know kung-fu. While he is a 50-60 years old dude. Come on.
Bond is a super-alpha who would absolutely have access to those women in their sexual prime, even if he was 50-60. So would any man if he was a trillion-dollar asset to one of the most powerful governments on the planet.
reply
share
asom (6509)
4 years ago
'Bond is a super-alpha who would absolutely have access to those women in their sexual prime, even if he was 50-60. So would any man if he was a trillion-dollar asset to one of the most powerful governments on the planet.'
The main point was how unbelievable are Bond's love interests.
reply
share