Is she right?
ITT: films women will never understand
inb4 people claim it's only the comment is free section
If you don't consider females to be your cultural enemies then you are reddit sensibility and are obviously incompatible with the authentic sensibilities of this board. Of course you would be able to tell that you're not welcome here just by looking in the mirror.
this women is too sheltered and probably has never done any camping or any outdoors stuff. The wilderness is a fucking dangerous place, furthermore is set in mid 19th century
>no modern first aid or medicine, you get infected and die very easily.
> no marked trails or proper maps
> people are also more dangerous as u could get away with crime and murder. None of that csi tracking u and having your file on database
Pain porn fetish? Our generation is fucking soft. Our anscentors were brutal, resilient and put up (and did) fucked up things to survive
Yeah but if you dont like Lubezki abusing stedicam and shoving it in to the face of the actors you don't really get to enjoy the film. I also really hate whispering.
I have hard time appriciating Malick's films because of these things but I admit they have many qualities. Can't say the same thing about revenant. It tried to appear simplistic but grand but it ended up just being shallow.
what are some other good mountain man movies?
Don't be silly, the Guardian are our best friends.
>understanding masculinity, survival, violence or war
>For the record, all the "villains" on Thomas and Friends are the dirty diesel engines. I'd like to think there was a good environmental message in there, but when the good engines pump out white smoke and the bad engines pump out black smoke – and they are all pumping out smoke – it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.
>You do realize those were written by different people with different opinions, right?
yeah, and the editor of salon thought they were both great articles and published them
>it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.
Don't forget their doubling down to the Cologne rapes
>Young German women thankfully enjoy historically unprecedented economic and sexual freedom, with their expensive smartphones and their right to celebrate New Year’s Eve however they want. The same isn’t always true of young male migrants exchanging life under repressive regimes, where they may at least have enjoyed superiority over women, for scraping by at the bottom of Europe’s social and economic food chain. It is not madness to ask if this has anything to do with attacks that render confident, seemingly lucky young women humiliated and powerless. But even if it does, the answer wouldn’t be to halt immigration – even if that were possible, which it isn’t regardless of whether Britain leaves the EU – just in case a few immigrants are sexually aggressive, any more than the answer to Savile is to keep all men away from children.
She is a women and thus does not understand.
She thinks people like it because they like watching someone in pain, not that its about getting through that pain to do something you know needs to be done
She's a fucking idiot who doesn't know anything. Iñárritu himself hates meaningless violence in movies (his mom had her teeth broken and his father was beat the fuck up after his success, happened in Mexico hence his moving to the U.S.), so it's evident that he saw the violence in this movie fit. The world isn't fucking sunshine and rainbows, and if a bear attacks a human, and they are lucky enough to survive it, they won't look great, they'll look like a walking cadaver.
And if you're going to kill a man and all you have is a hatchet and a knife, it won't be pretty.
Somebody please bomb the offices of the guardian.
>but when the good engines pump out white smoke and the bad engines pump out black smoke – and they are all pumping out smoke – it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.
literally better than the onion
The Revenant is destined to be a classic alongside such films as American History X, The Usual Suspects, and The Untouchables. And by classic I mean piece of trash movie that appeals primarily to young men who have little interest in film and are easily persuaded by gratuitous displays of style that serve no purpose but to remind the audience of the talents of those behind the camera.
If you can sit through The Revenant and come out thinking it's a good film and one with something to say then you're quite possibly a juvenile or someone with a frighteningly low IQ who laps up the yearly Oscar bait trash with a smile on your face. Pretty pictures do not make a movie and for people who keep saying "film is a visual medium," you're dumb as fuck. Of course film is a visual medium but that does not mean that pretty postcards of an action movie make it great. Visuals need to serve some kind of purpose, they need to communicate something like in the films of Terence Malick that use visuals to establish a complicated sense of tone and mood. The Revenant is absolutely empty trash and if you got sucked in by it then you just have shit taste in film.
>Expecting women to understand The Revenant.
I haven't read the article but I assume she spent the whole movie wondering why he didn't just get a new girlfriend and go make money for her.
Nothing you said is an actual argument about what she said.
5 minutes in Indians slaughter the hunters. 10 minutes later the bear attacks him. Then he's left for dead, then he grunts and groans and suffers a new tragedy every ten minutes for the rest of the film's before it abruptly ends. The whole films is about violence with the obligatory "revenge is bad" message tacked on the end, like every other revenge movie that is dishonest about why people make and watch revenge movies in the first place
Yeah the fucking point is they're OPINION/EDITORIALS and it's not like Salon has to maintain an ideologically consistent party line by only publishing things that mesh perfectly together. Fucking hell you guys are stupid. If you want people to take your dumb politics seriously you should at least learn how the media works.
well that's all well and good. I saw it as incredibly dull and repetitive and pretty terribly made.
My post was more in regards to people in this thread who seem to think the movie is some kind of a masterpiece.
It's pretty sad in my opinion to see a film board full of people who say that anyone that doesn't like Oscar bait is a woman or an idiot. Fuck is wrong with people here? Next you guys will all be talking about how Room and The Martian are masterpieces.
>Damnit don't you get it LOL? they're not supposed to have any consistency or ideological coherence at all! you stupid fascist rednecks!
That's not what I'm implying at all you fuckin mouth breather. They can publish whatever they want because it's a private company. The things that they publish don't all have to be logically consistent with each other because that's what a fucking editorial is. There are plenty of news sources where you can read editorials about UKIP or Trump if you want to. You're just looking for things to be offended by, probably because you have a bunch of pent up virginal rage that doesn't have a healthy outlet.
If The Revenant manages to trigger liberals this hard by getting them to contemplate the need for their own survival in a hostile and supremely violent world, then I say fair play to it.
>There are plenty of news sources where you can read editorials about UKIP or Trump if you want to
So you're confirming that although they're opinion pieces, they're still ideologically consistent with the views of the editorial board.
You're even stupider than the author of that article.
He gets attacked by a bear, is almost paralyzed and you expect everything to just be peachy after the attack? Holy fuck man get a god damn grip.
Not only this but you ignore the fact that this is not a revenge film. It utilizes revenge as a plot device but it's not about revenge and this is why you completely fail at even the most basic form of cinematic consumption - you can't even get past the marketing (which by the way, the studio had no idea what to do with in regards to this film, they should have never gone with the revenge angle) in order to look deeper into the film. To you the message is clear cut about revenge being bad, but the reality of this film is that it did not have a single message - it had multiple messages and that's what makes a good film. If a film is singular in it's approach to human emotion the it's a fucking failure/entertainment without substance. I'm not talking about just the revenant either, but you fuckers seem to think that films have to have very linear and simple messages in order to be "good" when all the greatest films in the history of cinema are multi-faceted in their messages and angles. Eat a cock retard.
>What is considered clickbait written by college students in America is on par with an actual professional newspaper in Britain
Because you read the newspaper, you look at the views of its syndicated and guest columnists, and you come to a conclusion.
Or are you saying the guardian isn't a leftist newspaper?
The fact that you even need to call a film "Oscar-bait" in order to make your argument makes the entirety of your post moot retard. You can't even think for yourself and analyze the film in terms deeper than a kiddie pool, yet you come here and call people idiots for not celebrating buzzwords and shallow criticism in the name of contrarianism.
I mean for fucks sake "the movie is terribly made" is objectively wrong. You have a highly celebrated director and DP working on this film, yet you think it bad due to your own sense of what makes a film great? How fucking stupid can you be? Do you even know the technical aspects of the film? Lmfao
You don't know shit about film. The movie had a massive message about the basic human element and desire for revenge and survival. The movie took the most primal instincts of humanity and conveyed them as brutally and as raw as possible. Also if you're stupid enough to think "DUDE THEYRE MILKING HIS PAIN LMAO" read the fucking book faggot because that shit actually happened to glass.
Don't be upset you're shit film creed didn't get nominated you cuck.
>They can publish whatever they want because it's a private company.
So they basically let their own political opinions and bias influence what they publish and tend to publish articles that line up with their world view and ignore ones that go against it.
They are hypocritical assholes and you are failing at proving they arent with "t-they were written by different people so its ok!"
I've never once read an issue of the Guardian or Salon. I'm literally just talking about the fucking defintion of what an "op-ed" is. What the fuck point are you trying to make besides that you hate the GUardian or whatever?? Nobody gives a shit about what you believe.
>they basically let their own political opinions and bias influence what they publish and tend to publish articles that line up with their world view and ignore ones that go against it.
Yeah that's exactly my fucking point idiot. That's how all media works. Welcome to being a regular adult in the real world retard.
you're defending this SJW horseshit by proxy by saying that publications are not beholden to a consistent or coherent ideological position, which is patently absurd and you need to stop it
where have I said they milked his pain?
also if you actually think a movie about the basic human desire for revenge is deep then I sincerely hope you're uneducated or never spend any time reading anything of any kind.
Also, how would I be upset about Creed not getting nominated? Sorry but I don't care if the movies I like are nominated for Oscars as they usually indicate a movie is shit rather than the opposite. That being said, Creed is a decent movie and way, way better than The Revenant.
a highly celebrated director? lolling hard mate. is he celebrated because he wins Oscars? and of course on a technical level the movie is fine but when you go to great lengths to demonstrate some kind of technical mastery of photography (which I'm sure is entirely Lubezki's doing), you need to use that technical prowess for a reason. Not to just film pretty postcard representations of nothing with nothing at all to say and imitate a far, far better director's style. Inarritu is a hack and you should just admit to yourself that you love Oscar bait. It's fine man, a lot of people do. But don't try to pretend this movie is some kind of a masterpiece. Piece of shit.
>publications are not beholden to a consistent or coherent ideological position,
They're not. You might have some peachy vision of the world where the media is fair and accurate and people have coherent political positions but once you're not 15 you'll realize the world isn't actually like that.
My point was people are showing these two op-ed's side-by-side as if to show that the liberal-leftist position is logically inconsistent (which it is, but for different reasons). But in reality, the op-ed's published by whatever magazine don't have to be logically consistent with each other because that's the very nature of opinions and editorials. The end.
>the real story is about a guy getting keked by a bear and getting abandoned in the middle of the wilderness but somehow not dying, then braving harsh conditions and with luck, determination and some help from Natives, managing to return back to civilization and finding both of the guys who did him wrong but choosing to spare both
>the movie is about MUH SURVIVAL MUH REVENGE and looks like an Assassin's Creed game
Literally why. The actual story is interesting enough to hold its own without a need for Death Wish shit.
Holy fuck I didn't know they let retards watch films longer than 30 minutes.
This movie is about a lot of things, and particularly the struggle of man vs beast and man vs nature (classic literary narrative conflicts, but you wouldn't know that because you clearly don't know shit about anything), things that are STILL relevant to humanity and will always be relevant. You can't see that because you clearly haven't left your mom's basement in quite some time.
You deny that Iñárritu is a celebrated director and that's just pathetic on your end. He's not celebrated because he wins oscars, he's been celebrated since his first film (Amores Perros) but I guess since there aren't memes about him and he's not the internet/media often you simply ignore that fact. You're fucking delusional, it's plain and simple.
Then you talk about Lubezki and what he's doing as if you even understood this film in the first place. I bet you cannot even pinpoint a single shot in this film and criticize it properly, you lack the means to understand the function of the shots in the film and even ignore the fact that with the people who worked in this film, every shot was mulled over several times in order to see if it fit in the narrative or not.
Also, here's something you clearly didn't fucking know, but Lubezki works for both Malick and Iñárritu you stupid troglodyte, of course working with the same DP will yield similar results.
Check yourself before you spout horseshit like that next time faggot
This trapfag is such a cuck it's not even funny anymore.
>But in reality, the op-ed's published by whatever magazine don't have to be logically consistent with each other because that's the very nature of opinions and editorials. The end.
And my point is that is isnt "just this one writers opinion" When all they ever do publish is the dogma of the left. You already freely admitted these guys have their own bias and let that influence what they publish.
Stop pretending like Salon doesnt endorse this shit just because it is in their opinion section, especially when they NEVER publish anything thats even a little bit conservative in their opinion section
inb4 you find one cherry picked article that says "maybe taxs should be reduced a little bit" as proof that they offer their publication for all opinions.
tl;dr-Salon is liberal dogma pushing propaganda mouth piece and hiding behind the excuse of its opinion pieces doesnt disprove how retarded and hypocritical they are
>My point was people are showing these two op-ed's side-by-side as if to show that the liberal-leftist position is logically inconsistent
because they are. You can hide behind the excuse of "its two different people though!" but you and I both know that they still both believe that, as do all the Salon readers who agree with both articles. So you cant really use that excuse when those ultra "progressives" post both of those articles on their facebook
Save for the fact that he spared them at the end (and he did spare Bridget you fucking mong), what you described is exactly what happened in the film.
Fuck, this is the worst god damn board on 4chan. It's people constantly calling each other "reddit" in some struggle to appear superior, constant cuck posting, and idiots trying to criticize things way beyond their grasp (like a fucking musically illiterate moron trying to call a symphony "derivative" without even being able to read a single note or understand what a musical motif is).
>it's a crappy magazine for ladies. Get over it. It doesn't have to cater to you. That's the free market faggot. Just read something else.
Ok, so are you just abandoning your excuses for their inconsistencies in their beliefs finally?
Are are you going to continue to stubbornly play devils advocate just to "get at those racist poltards!"
Are you serious? Of course I know Lubezki works for Malick and Inarritu you thick fuck. One thing you don't understand is that Malick is someone with intelligence who actually has ideas to express in his films that are more complex than your pathetic little "man vs beast." I mean I can't even believe you can write that shit with a straight face. Are you still in 8th grade and reading stories for the first time in your life? It is depressing to me that your standard for intellectual thought is so low that you actually think a movie about man vs. nature is somehow defending it as a great, meaningful film.
Also the fact that you said each shot was "mulled over several times." Gee whiz! Several whole times? Wow oh wow, what a genius film! You are incredibly embarrassing mate. I'm guessing you have basically no conception of film outside of the usual Oscar bait that you watch and probably have no idea of what movies exist outside of the confines of America.
The movie's shots convey absolutely nothing the majority of the time. I'm nowhere near to being alone in this thought. The Revenant is mostly being adored by mainstream crowds and critics who watch Star Wars for fun and then trash like The Revenant when they're in the mood for a "serious" movie.
Anyway, at the end of the day you're just treating Oscar movies like masterpieces which is just sad in many, many ways. Enjoy watching The Revenant and LOTR throughout your life, always being laughed at when you come into contact with anyone that has any aesthetic standards.
>The Guardian the most mentally ill news outlet out there
>not Daily "Water Gives You Cancer" Mail
>not Daily "Diana: Murdered by Morris Dancers?" Express
>not Daily "I Shove Cheese & Crackers Up Me Arse!" Sport
Sicario is fucking great, you pleb. Go back to reddit.
If you stopped sucking Malick's cock for just one second you'd realize just how much of a fucking imbecile you sound like. "actually has ideas to express" unlike whom? For fucks sake, a fucking ape has ideas to express as well you fucking dumbass, you have literary zero grounds to stand on when it comes to your argument, yet you make it sound holier-than-thou. You're fucking pathetic for even thinking that man vs beast is not a good narrative, but I had to point out to you what the film was in the first place as you clearly didn't even fucking understand it. If you think that man vs beast/nature doesn't have complexity, then you're far too sheltered to know anything about the basics of human emotion and rationale.
I love Malick but you're clearly caught up in the taste of his asshole as he has his flaws as well. What does a shot of a pelican convey in Knight of Cups you fucking twat? I fucking guarantee that whatever bullshit you come up with to explain it, it'll be just as moot and pointless as whatever explanation you use to criticize the revenant's "useless" shots i.e. You don't fucking know what you're talking about and it's laughable.
Everything you said could be used to criticize anything recently made by Malick and it would have validity. In fact, that's what most people criticize Malick for, and if you replace "The Revenant' in your post with "Knight of Cups/Tree of Life/To The Wonder" literary no one would bat an eye, nor could they tell the criticism apart.
At the end of the day you prioritize a director who explores a similar cinematic language and similar ideas of the human condition to feel superior to others on the basis of what you consume, and htat is infintely more pathetic than somebody who likes "oscar-bait."
>Unironically differentiating between the words flick, film and movie
Sounds like you know a lot about reddit. You should go back there.
>mfw it turns out he killed himself and his body has been rotting in his house for months
>complain about money-grubbing corporations doing anything for money
>be a money-grubbing corporation that writes propagandist click-bait for money
>The Hateful Eight is destined to be a classic alongside such films as American History X, The Usual Suspects, and The Untouchables. And by classic I mean piece of trash movie that appeals primarily to young men who have little interest in film and are easily persuaded by gratuitous displays of style that serve no purpose but to remind the audience of the talents of those behind the camera.
>If you can sit through The Hateful Eight and come out thinking it's a good film and one with something to say then you're quite possibly a juvenile or someone with a frighteningly low IQ who laps up the yearly Oscar bait trash with a smile on your face. Pretty pictures do not make a movie and for people who keep saying "film is a visual medium," you're dumb as fuck. Of course film is a visual medium but that does not mean that pretty postcards of an action movie make it great. Visuals need to serve some kind of purpose, they need to communicate something like in the films of Terence Malick that use visuals to establish a complicated sense of tone and mood. The Hateful Eight is absolutely empty trash and if you got sucked in by it then you just have shit taste in film.
It works! We have some fresh juicy new pasta here.
of course I noticed that, the way the French are portrayed is completely gratuitous and unsubtle as fuck, I interpreted it as a necessary liberal cushioning in order to stop liberals from freaking out about the other elements of the film, hardship, survival, war etc. the inclusion of the black member of the group at the start stuck out like a sore thumb for me, also Glass wouldn't care about his mongrel boy either. these things are introduced because without them, modern audiences would be so completely assaulted and confused that it would be completely rejected.
also the director is a spic and clearly hates whites, so he will have pushed for the inclusion.
the revenant is the definition of a redditor meme movie. a movie for plebs who think tracking shots and retarded camera movement = good cinematography. a movie for people who like action films because there's barely any dialogue and it's just physical shit like grunting and crawling. there's no higher meaning and the movie has nothing to say. it just exists. it's like someone took a vimeo short film about surviving in the woods and stretched it out over an entire film. this film is completely and utterly inferior to The Grey
>Sir! There's a dangerous murderer out fleeing into the forest who has stolen all the camps money! Shall I tell the men to saddle up?
>No, that's alright. I'll just go out all by myself with this extremely injured and mentally unstable grieving father. That oughta work. It's not like you guys have anything else to do around here. What could go wrong?
None of you seem to realise that these amendments in the plot are from a book that was written in 2002 called the Revenant. Innarutu really didn't change the plot a whole lot at all. You also clearly didn't research any actual facts about the relationship between native and pioneers.
You seem to be forgetting the parts where the native americans slaughtered ~30 people for no good reason. There were multiple tribes of Native Americans at the time. The trappers were on good terms with the Pawnee, and Hugh Glass wed a Pawnee woman in real life. That is why his son in the movie is a native American. The Arikara tribe among others were hostile towards trappers. That is why we see some hostile natives while others are friendly.
Protest group offered 5,000 dollars for someone to shout racist at Donald Trump when he hosted SNL. The group is called DeportH8. The same group that uses swearing kids to promote their views.
innaritu is like a stupid film student who thinks filming a simple back and forth conversation is 'beneath him' unless it has some over the top camera movement going on to remind you that he's a tracking shot maestro, what a fucking waste of film
No it didn't. And what it did male is by no means big money.
Please. It's just excuse after fucking excuse with you people. Every fucking film released has you /pol/tards searching for some anti-white bullshit to get upset and annoyed at.
You know they write those headlines for a reason, to trigger fags like you guys who can't tell it's obvious click bait controversial opinions designed to make $$$.
Basically if you make and post in threads like these, you're just giving them another outlet to spread they're shitty opinions on which will inevitably lead to you clicking on the website
>Every fucking film released has you /pol/tards searching for some anti-white bullshit to get upset and annoyed at.
the french are literally depicted as genocidal drunken rapists who execute innocent indians and drape their corpses with racist slogans, they're crude honorless barbarians
the indian says to the guy "you took all our land from us! you took everything!" and the french guy is laughing
the film is just bleeding with this anti-white whig revisionism. the only heroic character is the one who betrayed his race and raises a mongrel son.
>someone disagress with a liberal
>the fags come out the woodwork
why should race politics involving films implicitly about race be off limits for discussion? i've made load of other criticisms of the film in here which people have happily debated, but suddenly when the topic is about this, you think it's a problem.
well explain why
as far as i can tell you think my argument is "pathetic" simply because i have different values to you, which isn't even an argument, it's just a different value judgement.
But this film has literally nothing to do or say about race. It just happens to take place in a setting where Native Americans are present. Some are friendly, some are hostile, depending on which tribe they are from. Just like how it was in reality. Hugh Glass has a Native American son in the film because in real life he wed a Native American woman.
>this film has literally nothing to do or say about race
at the beginning Glass tells his boy to shut up because "they don't hear your words, only the colour of your face"
later on the French brutally murder an Indian and declare him to be a savage.
if you think there is no racial subtext to this film, you are simply lying to yourself.
it's so funny to me the lengths that liberals will go to in order to de-legitimate racial politics, simply because they are so deathly afraid and subconsciously terrified of this topic.
Once again, the movie is simply being true to reality.
>"they don't hear your words, only the colour of your face"
He's right. Many of the characters had a pretty obvious hatred of Native Americans. Why are you surprised when a man tells his son to tread lightly in the midst of men who would jump at the opportunity to attack him. Glass would be an idiot not to tell his son this.
>later on the French brutally murder an Indian and declare him to be a savage.
Once again, that's the movie being fairly true to life. These things happened on both sides. Did you just forget to mention the scene where Natives attacked and slaughtered ~30 men for no good reason?
>it's so funny to me the lengths that liberals will go to in order to de-legitimate racial politics, simply because they are so deathly afraid and subconsciously terrified of this topic.
Almost as hilarious as the lengths /pol/tards will go to in order to shoehorn-in race politics into every article of media because they're obsessed with the topic.
i'm not ignoring it, they murder countless people but they don't commit any sins that modern liberals would want to admonish them for like what the French do. the natives aren't "racists". they don't rape people. their murders are treated as a stoic extension of their culture, while the white people's murders are treated as a grotesque corruption of it.
why are you so pissed off that i'm talking about race? who do you care?
>their murders are treated as a stoic extension of their culture
That's nothing but retarded. The opening scene is literally a brutal and unrelenting slaughter that says absolutely nothing about their culture or customs. You are seeing things that are clearly not there because you're desperate to find some kind of hidden agenda to bitch about. This happens on /tv/ with almost every mainstream film. Sometimes it is justified, other times it is retards like you grasping at straws.
Who was the black guy? I don't remember anyone apart from Glasses son. The reason he is black is because in real life Hugh Glass wed a Pawnee woman, so it makes sense that his son would be native American.
>characters hate brown people because they are white and therefor racist
They hate the natives because they are incredibly hostile and excessively violent (scalping). You can't really blame them for have a prejudice against natives. I don't understand what you're trying to prove. Of course they were racist. Just like the real men would have been at the time. That's not pushing some agenda, that's just the way things were.
>oh my god, this guy's life was pain porn lol
>what is this glorification of pain, like get over it
>waaaa i got mauled by a bear lol whatever
>la la laa gonna go get me a caramel mocha frappe pumpkin spice latte from starbucks
Not that guy but it sort of took me out of the scene
I didn't get angry because muh historical accuracy in the film adaption of a work of fiction or whatever, but it was sort of a "oh there's their token black guy" moment, it's like when they use the Wilhelm scream or the iron gate noise
It's almost like people enjoy watching someone try and overcome incredible odds/do things they couldn't do.
>things women will never understand
This is just more depressing than anything
>Go on and on about how terrible rape is, because well, it is.
>But it's okay when brown people do it and if you disagree then you're a racist
To be fair, she get's blown the fuck out in the comments many, many times
>Finally, after several days of refusing to report the biggest story of 2016 so far because it does not fit with its highly ideological driven narrative, this paper is allowing comments on a story which has shown its contempt for victims of sexual assault. It's predictable enough that the first writer to tackle this does not ask why the Mayor of Cologne and many on the left are blaming the victims themselves for their own rapes. The writer should at least acknowledge the only solution left available to citizens, when the police cannot protect them from clear danger and politicians blame victims for the crime simply because the perpetrator was a foreign male of arabic extraction, is to arm themselves. Please never print another article on women's rights ever again, you have no credibility on this issue and owe those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who have now been proved correct a massive apology. I write this as a guardian reader and buyer of 17 years and someone who has always voted for left of centre parties (both of which I won't be doing ever again).
Wouldn't that criticism be better suited for another recently premiered blockbuster? The one in which there actually is no point to the violence and suffering? The one with
Now that one is a meaningless, soulless masturbation.
>yours for around £10-£15 this weekend at your local multiplex.
Has this person writing stories on the Internet never actually comprehended that we're on the Internet? Does this person not realize everything's free on the Internet?