The point being, I've come to think of you as a reviewer I can trust. When you wrote this review of this piece of shite, though Henry, you broke that trust. You broke it hard. You gave me the impression that the movie could conceivably be enjoyed on some level. You made me think it was possible to get to the end of it without wanting to beat to death every last person who was involved in the making of the movie. You lied, man. You robbed me of 90 minutes of my life. You even have the balls to open as follows:
I'm not sure it was necessary to edit down the Bollywood original (which, at 130 minutes, was already remarkably short by Bollywood standards) by 40 minutes.You aren't? You weren't possibly swayed by the remaining 90 minutes still actually feeling like about, oh, 3 long hours being taken to tell some puerile story you could have done justice to in 5 minutes, after which the story-teller would probably be forced to apologise for injecting that kind of stupid into your head? Only you wouldn't accept that apology. I mean, you would say you had for form's sake, but over the years it would knaw at you and, one morning when you wake up dreaming once again of this stupid tale and convincing yourself that it was the only way to drive it out of your head, you'd track the storyteller down and torture them to death. You'd then offer the story in your own defense at trial (which would see you released on humanitarian grounds), only to end up infecting others with its banal odiousness, thus starting the same vicious cycle again and possibly bringing about the end of civilization as we know it!
Am I exaggerating? Well, yes. But I hope I have, at least, prevented anyone reading this from actually thinking for even a second that seeing Kites, the Remix is an idea they should actually entertain. This is to say, Henry, that I just did what should have been your job for you.
I swear what they must have actually done with this movie is take their initial stupid idea for a movie then defaulted to a six year old to actually flesh the story out. We'll call this six year old 'Chuckie'.
Producer: O.K. so, how are our two lovers re-united?
Chuckie: Um, so Jay is, like scuba diving in this awesome coral reef, when he sees her swim right past him without recognizing him .... and, and, she looks kind of like a mermaid and stuff. Then, when they drive back to the house of the family they're both marrying into they, like meet up again.
Producer: Hmm... O.K. I guess that might work..... yeah, they both make independent trips to the same coral reef on day-trips from LAS VEGAS, NEVADA!?!?!?!
Chuckie: Yeah. And then after they go out on a date the night before her wedding to the brother of his fiance, she gets found out.... and, and, there's a fight and stuff. And we finish the scene with her fiance, who is like the brother of his fiance, like firing a gun right at Jay! Jay's the name of our hero, by the way. Awesome, right?
Producer: Ummm... O.K.
Chuckie: And then we get some flash-backs and shit, and we replay the scene, only this time it's like 'hey, I changed my mind, there are no gunshots at all, Natasha hits her fiance over the head with a bottle instead!'
Producer: Right..... I mean, it seems like they're going on the run rather early here, Chucky. How do we pad-out the remaining 75 minutes?
Chuckie: With, like awesome chase scenes and stuff! Like, they'll be running away from all these police cars, and it'll be like 'Oh no, they're caught!' ... but, but then they'll see these .... HOT AIR BALOONS! And, like, they'll jump onto a rope from their car and climb up it and get away!
Producer: O.K.... so I guess that'll work. I mean, a brightly coloured, slow-moving hot air balloon would be a really difficult thing for the police to follow......
Chuckie: Yeah. And they'll get into these other cool chases and then get to Mexico and get married. And it'll be really funny, cause earlier when he asks how to say 'I love you' in Spanish, she'll teach him to say 'I'm shitting my pants' instead ... which will be a really funny thing for him to say instead most of the time, cause it has the word 'shit' in it, lol, but it'll be extra special funny when he says it at the wedding.
Producer: And then her evil ex-fiance will catch up with them?
Chuckie: Yeah, and there'll be this big awesome chase scene and he'll get shot..... and, and she'll put him in a train and we won't see what happens to her. And, and we won't find out until he goes back to Las Vegas after getting all better 'cause this poor Mexican family performs surgery on him.
Producer: I see. What does happen to her?
Chuckie: Oh, it's really sad! They chase her to a remote cliff , and she drives off of it.
Producer: Wow.
Chuckie: Yeah, and then he like finds out after running away from a gunfight after being saved by Jamal, who is like the family's servant who becomes their friend because they're awesome, only Jamal's been shot and he whispers it to Jay before he dies. Sad, hey?
Producer: in Las Vegas?
Chuckie: Yeah. And things get even sadder, too, 'cause, then Jay's ex-fiance appears behind him, cause she was following him all along or something and, like shoots him in the back, crying. We feel a little sorry for her, too, 'cause she's been used like a doormat. So Jay doesn't shoot her back, and she doesn't shoot him again, she just, like, cries as he staggers off.
Producer: Wow, so what happens, then?
Chuckie: Um, so he drives to the cliff where Natasha died and he jumps off it.
Producer: O.K.... so he drives back to Mexico with a bullet in his back and...wait, how did he even know where the cliff was? Did Jamal whisper the GPS co-ordinates to him when he was dying or something?
Chuckie: Maybe... Umm, it's like a really sad ending, though, hey?
Producer: I guess.... assuming the audience doesn't feel like they would have gladly pushed Jay off the cliff themselves 5 minutes into the movie... Look, Chuckie, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Here's a suitcase full of money. You make that movie.
Chuckie: Awesome.
Posts
29 comments:
Fitz, the reason I haven't commented is because what the fuck is this even about?
second post!
Also, what if it was a requirement of all ballot initiatives that any increase in spending had to be accompanied by an increase in taxes?
I find your position ridiculous. Can I "unlike" it? Abstinence? Really, is this East Texas? I have an idea, how about women can do whatever the hell they like with their body, no matter what the hell you think? It is a perfectly adult decision to have sex with someone, use birth control, and then have an early term abortion if things don't go the way you planned. This is not irresponsible, an early abortion is a morally neutral act. If anything, adopting the child out is the thing to be avoided. This actually causes some harm.
You're probably some crackpot christian thug so I'm sure I won't convince you of this; instead I'll just take comfort in how much you're on the wrong side of history on this one. Every year that passes, as the older conservative generations die off, more people agree with me, and less with you. Society progresses one funeral at a time.
Why do people see the only choices as "abortion or raise the child"? I know someone who didn't take her baby home from the hospital. Adoption IS an option. I've had three children, so I'm abundantly aware of the impact a pregnancy... has on your life, but it's not 20 years! Besides, she made the decision to chance a pregnancy when she started having sex with her boyfriend. The other choice is "don't have sex". I discussed it with my boyfriend, now husband, before we ever did anything along that line. We worked out what would happen with child support before we ever risked it, even though I was on birth control. It's called taking responsibility, otherwise known as being an adult. There's plenty of things you can do that don't involve penetrative intercourse.
@Sam - okay, two things. First, calling me a "crackpot christian thug" just because I have a different position to you is rude, to put it nicely. Secondly, I said in an earlier comment that I support legalising early abortion even though I wouldn't choose to use it because I accept that women should be able to "do whatever the hell they like with their body".
I know people who were adopted and are fine with it, so to say that it "causes some harm" without a document saying that all adopted children are harmed is about as unscientific as you clearly find Christianity.
Regarding your final paragraph, I fail to see how throwing school-yard insults at me advances your argument in any fashion. If anything, it makes your stance appear immature and self-centred. Unlike you, I happen to BE a woman, and have had a pregnancy that came along unexpectedly. I know plenty of people, many women, aged 15-30 who feel the same way I do. You're welcome to wrap yourself up in your feeling of self-righteousness if it makes you feel better, but far from being a logical debate yours is the emotional argument of someone who appears to want the freedom to fool around without taking responsibility.
I'm not really sure you have a grasp of all the people you probably offended when you wrote "We worked out what would happen with child support before we ever risked it, even though I was on birth control. It's called taking respons...ibility, otherwise known as being an adult". But it was certainly more than just Sam.
Your snide comments questioning the maturity of people who choose to engage in sex outside of a committed, monogamous long term relationship is an obvious attempt to shame sexually active people into conducting themselves in a more Christian manner. It's a sad indictment on society that statements like yours go largely unchallenged, and I'm glad someone in this thread corrected you.
Isn't the problem in California that because of an old referendum result, it's extremely hard for the government to raise any taxes? That's the sort of thing that would be avoided by only allowing referenda on issues that would be subject to a conscience vote in Parliament.
I'm coming at this from an Australian perspective, where party discipline is strict, and conscience votes are rare - you might get them on abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc. You certainly wouldn't get them on matters of taxation or the health system or the like.
I don't think I'd want this procedure formalised - just a convention where if such a bill comes before parliament, they could often agree to put it to referendum. I don't know how we'd engineer that sort of convention, but the basic principle (conscience vote --> referendum) seems a reasonable one to me, so maybe Adam Bandt could give it an airing or something.
Though (sorry for all this thinking out loud) we might not get a conscience vote any time soon - the euthanasia debate may be cast in terms of territory rights, and gay marriage will go on party lines. Anyway....
@Sam - okay, two things. First, calling me a "crackpot christian thug" just because I have a different position to you is rude, to put it nicely. Secondly, I said in an earlier comment that I support legalising early abortion even though I wouldn't choose to use it because I accept that women should be able to "do whatever the hell they like with their body".
I know people who were adopted and are fine with it, so to say that it "causes some harm" without a document saying that all adopted children are harmed is about as unscientific as you clearly find Christianity.
Regarding your final paragraph, I fail to see how throwing school-yard insults at me advances your argument in any fashion. If anything, it makes your stance appear immature and self-centred. Unlike you, I happen to BE a woman, and have had a pregnancy that came along unexpectedly. I know plenty of people, many women, aged 15-30 who feel the same way I do. You're welcome to wrap yourself up in your feeling of self-righteousness if it makes you feel better, but far from being a logical debate yours is the emotional argument of someone who appears to want the freedom to fool around without taking responsibility.
Whilst I am generally anti-abortion, I do think the law should be tweaked so you can legally abort at least up until 8 weeks (which is when it changes from "embryo" to "foetus" - period should be 4 weeks late by then so it's long enough).
Ho...wever, the fact remains that it WAS illegal at the time. You can't go ignoring the law just because you think it is stupid. I hope they get a minimum sentence only, preferably a suspended one.
@Christopher - okay, I see your point. I wasn't intending to imply that sex should be only in a monogamous relationship, and we weren't at that point ourselves when we started. I should have worded things differently. I do believe that having sex outside of some kind of relationship is harmful - not because of Christian values, so much as because there is documented scientific evidence that women release hormones that enhance emotional attachments. As a species, we're not really designed to mate with whichever male happens to walk through the door. Also, my personal experience within my social circle is that the people who are more casual with sex tend to have less happy relationships and be less happy overall. So yeah, I think that sex should be within a monogamous relationship. Long-term? That's up to the couple in question to decide. And yes, my "it's called taking responsibility" comment was harsh, and I'm sorry. I acknowledge that sometimes birth control fails. I just get frustrated when people dismiss adoption as an option out of hand, which is why I was annoyed enough to make that comment.
Whilst I am generally anti-abortion, I do think the law should be tweaked so you can legally abort at least up until 8 weeks (which is when it changes from "embryo" to "foetus" - period should be 4 weeks late by then so it's long enough).
Ho...wever, the fact remains that it WAS illegal at the time. You can't go ignoring the law just because you think it is stupid. I hope they get a minimum sentence only, preferably a suspended one.
Hey, I'm with you. I support abortion. My sister has had some awful issues after an unplanned first child when she was 18 that she probably *should* have aborted, that left her infertile though; years later when she *wanted* kids she had some treatment and IVF and had beautiful but very premature twins. After they were born she constantly fell pregnant, most of which miscarried early, one was an ectopic pregnancy that got to almost 5 months. She NEEDED an abortion, and thankfully *would* have been able to have one, but I know that pregnancy can go wrong even without the foetus being in the wrong place. Eventually she had another baby boy safely (well, with C-section and induction, but otherwise okay).
That said, adoption IS an option, and it's more or less what happened to my sister's first child (his dad got him, and then had guardians when his dad died), and also to my best friend's much-older-sister (his mum couldn't cope with having a kid so young either when the time came).
BUT, because I didn't want to end up in that situation, I dated my first boyfriend for about 3.5 years and we never "slept with" each other. He was cool with that too. And he was pretty violently non-Christian, for the record.
I don't support this slanging match people are having here, but yeah, just wanted to say I DO think that abstinence is just as legitimate an option as any other, as is adoption. I strongly believe in abortion for teenagers and people who are not in good circumstances to raise a child. If I myself were to become pregnant now though I would carry the child, because I know that I would be able to provide for it and care for it, and it would be brought up in a first world country, and if I aborted I'd never know. But that's ME, not anyone else, not even my husband necessarily.
I agree with your other comments too, but am not interested in getting into the argument, just wanted to say you're not alone.
I did this, didn't I?
Yes, it is rude. People should be rude to you, because you're a hateful person. I detest you and everything you stand for. I wanted to push that point across, and so I chose rudeness as the most direct route. I sincerely hope I made mys...elf clear in that regard. The one thing that makes me happy is that you and your appalling ideas are losing. If you think that's a schoolyard taunt, fine.
It is true that I feel self-righteous. I feel that I myself am right, and you are wrong. It's not true to say however, that I don't want to take responsibility, having an abortion IS taking responsibility.
RE adoption, I feel like I shouldn't have to explain myself here but apparently I do. I don't say adoption always causes harm, just that it does sometimes. I don't need a scientific paper to tell me that there exist some adopted children who have some negative feelings of abandonment. Abortion, by contrast, harms no one.
Now, I do admit to the high crime of not being a woman (score one for the ad hominem). To make up for this deficit in my character, I try not to support laws that would, oh I don't know, horribly oppress them? I think it's great that you know women who feel the same way you do, and when they get pregnant, I hope there is no law to stop them carrying the pregnancy to term.
see Fitz now you know what it's like to have a popular blog, one where people understand what the fuck you're saying.
See, what happens is a lot of old loons post off topic bullshit and everything falls into chaos.
So i guess the moral of this story is, stay classy you wonderful weirdo! Never change man. And never let a woman...
I'm good at Twitter.
I declare you john quiggin for the day!
Now i'll be Rationalist and you be Alice.
me: global warming isn't real. Discuss
Hmm... I had thought that the problem with this post was that if it did its job, no-one would ever know how accurate it was regarding Kites: the Remix.
I guess I was wrong.....
P.S. Chris: you are a christian thug, and it's nothing to be ashamed of, Pal.
Sam: I'm with you, buddy. Environmentalism is just another word for 'continuing Hitler's work'
Shut up Fitz, can't you see we're being trolls? The blogger can't laugh jovially with dumb fucks that are ruining his blog. It ruins our reputation.
I confess that when I wrote my review of the film my recollection of it was a little hazy.
Well, okay, non-existent. I never saw the damned movie. There: are you happy?
I did, however, see the poster and read the title, and I'm pretty sure I also read other people's reviews. If you'd posted your above comments sooner I might have read those, too; so in a way you share some responsibility for my not being better informed.
Oh, Christ. Was it that bad, then? Worse than that musical with the organ transplants?
Well, I don't know if I'd say it was worse than Repo.....
It was bad, though, man. It was bad.
I mean, let's assume that everything you said about liking Bollywood (at least sort of) was true.
This was not really a Bollywood movie, exactly. No cheesy dance numbers or anything. They were kind of trying to cater to a western audience, and to an Indian audience, simultaneously I think. Also it was just plain shite regardless.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white.
We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness - not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there's room for everyone and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone.
The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate - has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in man - cries for universal brotherhood - for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world - millions of despairing men, women, and little children - victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say: 'Do not despair.' The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes - men who despise you and enslave you - who regiment your lives - tell you what to do - what to think and what to feel! Who drill you - diet you - treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men - machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate, only the unloved hate - the unloved and the unnatural!
Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of St Luke, it is written the kingdom of God is within man not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power - the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful - to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy - let us use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world - a decent world that will give men a chance to work - that will give youth a future and old age a security.
By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfil that promise. They never will! Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise! Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason - a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us unite!
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Good posts, Sam.
Can we take Sam's post as a confirmation of Godwin's law in an obscure way?
I say yes.
Also, thanks guys. You made this the most enlightening discussion I've ever hosted.
Post a Comment