MovieChat Forums > BeaSouth

BeaSouth (2832)

MovieChat Contributor


Happy Mother’s Day to All The Gals of MovieChat Cringeworthy Message Even for 1987 Surprised this is the First Comment on this Great Movie Pros and Cons & Strange Use of Alec Baldwin Justin Salinger and Ta-Nehisi Coates So Much Missed Potential Bridge Collapse in Baltimore - Mass Casualty Event A Story that Needed to Be Told Accused of Plagiarism Quirky But Watchable Heist Movie View all posts >


I thought weed smokers were supposed to be chill and agreeable but I’m reading a lot of rage and cussing in this thread The movie tells us it’s an invasion of 275 spacecraft across the globe. We see images of the endless hovering ships said to be staging over all the major cities worldwide. We learn the crop circles are a sophisticated visual mapping system installed by the aliens as coordinates for the invasion. At the denouement, we witness an alien screaming and writhing in pain when water connects with its skin during Joaquin Phoenix’s assault with the bat. We see a cup of water fall from atop the T.V. and spill onto the alien’s exposed face and listen as it screams in reaction and then suddenly turns into a powdery white as it dies. You’re stubbornly re-writing the movie with wildly inapplicable hypotheticals just to explain the glaring story weakness. We’ll never find any common ground as long as you argue a non-existing fantasy movie that changes with every post and I stick with the actual movie portrayed onscreen. (1) You’re the one who keeps giving examples of risky human activities to explain the aliens’ illogical carelessness. And it’s not an exclusively human motivation to protect oneself. We saw an alien demonstrate the instinct when it recoiled from having a finger amputated. (2) I saw it on screen. (3) We’re not talking about some foolish person eating an exotic fish. The movie is about a life form so intelligent, they had mastered interstellar (if not intergalactic) travel in a spaceship capable of delivering them safely to another planet. Humans are at best capable of landing on a close planet in our own solar system. Even we have figured out the obvious need to cover our astronauts with a life supporting protective suit for the deadly conditions upon arrival. See how a more accurate analogy works? (4) We know from the movie they could safely travel in sophisticated spacecraft between solar systems (if not galaxies) with calculated objectives for exploiting the resident intelligent life form who reacted with violent resistance. We know the aliens felt pain and engaged in self preservation. It makes no sense they did not prepare for the mortal risk of a simple and abundant chemical compound of one oxygen and two hydrogen molecules. I see them on movies I watch on Amazon Prime. When the trend began I thought it would really annoy me. But it’s pretty low key on Prime and like the terms and conditions before an online purchase, they become so ubiquitous that you stop even seeing them. I heard a comedian talking about knowing he was in for a good movie based on the number of trigger warnings announced before it started. I’ve tried this with him. Many others have as well. He once deleted his Allaby account when he was heavily condemned. Then he found that several well intended legacy posters like sslssg and Kowalski would come to his defense with the “it’s all relative” and “he’s never really crossed a red line” arguments. This has only emboldened him. Now he provokes by raising the child nudity issue whenever he gets the chance. He gets excited discussing it, making people angry, and then basking in the support of a handful of high-count posters willing to take up for him. It’s really sad. I got fed up when I saw people on FilmBoards talking about how Allaby had secured a comfortable spot on MovieChat to express his child lover sentiments. A few days ago he was posting about how much he loves “LGs” (his euphemism for little girls) and how hard it is for him not to post about them. It was obscure movie called Sexuele voorlichting. I only know about it because a poster named Saskia alerted me about it before quitting MovieChat in disgust with the incessant child lover musings of BrandNewPoster (then known as Allaby before deleting his account): <blockquote><b>Sexuele voorlichting (movie):</b> “This sex education film provides the expected information for youth entering puberty (see keywords), but does so in an explicit manner. There are no innocuous line drawings but rather abundant nudity.” <b>Allaby:</b> 2 years ago “[To OP]: it sounds interesting. How is it?” <b>[Saskia]:</b> a year ago “Of course it sounds interesting to you. I'd almost swear [OP] was an alternative account of yours given the similar interests but then I remember how many Allaby's are in this world. Yuck!” <b>Allaby:</b> a year ago “To be clear, it sounds interesting in a weird way, not in a sexual or perverse way. I like some weird movies and I'm mildly curious how this film would be done. I have a variety of interests and I post about a lot of different topics, unlike [OP] who only posts about underage nudity/sexuality.”</blockquote> I absolutely accept your point in that regard Breeze. I’m not objecting to it at all. But again, we don’t explore dangerous jungles or the deepest oceans unprepared or send astronauts to Mars in swimsuits. But that’s essentially what we saw of the aliens in Signs. They had made no apparent preparations for the Earth environment. That’s the part I still felt was silly about the movie. There are no assumptions. My condemnation is based on his specific and explicit words in his posts (with which you and many others have likewise taken issue at times in the past). I don’t know what he said to get you to invest your name as his now unwavering defender but his posts below reinforce that he has problems and he enjoys the attention and the willingness of several credible high-count posters to take up his case. I have turned a blind eye to him many times but he relentlessly provokes by posting on this issue. I personally had enough when he enthusiastically publicized his interest in the European child puberty movie, and its Imdb description of explicit child nudity. Just like the posters you criticize who incessantly talk about naked women in movies, he deserves to be confronted and rejected for his endless focus on naked kids. Yes and he never stops talking about it. People reference him on other movie sites as a child lover. He gets titillated by starting threads and posts about it, getting people riled up, and then seeing Kowalski and other legacy posters parachute in and defend him. It makes him feel popular and reinforced. I asked him one time if he ever talked about his love of movies with child nudity to his buddies at the pub or around work like he does here. No response View all replies >