Escape to the Movies: In Time

Recommended Videos

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Hardcore_gamer said:
JMeganSnow said:
In fact, it's generally the children of the well-to-do who become unproductive socialist leeches.
Why would the children of rich people want to avocate socialism?
Because they've never been poor and have no clue where wealth actually comes from. They may even be terrified of the kind of work involved. It's very easy to say "all those greedy bastards who work hard to get rich should give their money away" when you've never had to dig yourself out of the gutter. When you've been broke and homeless and worked your ass off to get out of it, NOBODY is going to tell you how to spend YOUR money. Granted, most people who work their way up like this are also very generous--if they think you deserve it. People who *know* they can make more money generally aren't too concerned with grasping at it. Which is another reason why they're generally opposed to socialist programs--they prevent the hardworking sort from making more money.

Most of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, for instance, are *college students* at schools like Harvard and Yale, where a year's tuition costs more than most people get in wages. The children of poor people don't pay their own way through those schools. You either get grants/loans/scholarships (in which case you're already the beneficiary of wealth redistribution, and who bites the hand that feeds them), or you already have substantial amounts of wealth.
 

blindthrall

New member
Oct 14, 2009
1,151
0
0
bladester1 said:
I really hope that the Beaves and Butthead welcome back was sarcasm.... Hoping I like this movie.
I bet Beavis can spell his name right though. Fuck Justin Timberlake.
 

blindthrall

New member
Oct 14, 2009
1,151
0
0
JMeganSnow said:
Hardcore_gamer said:
JMeganSnow said:
In fact, it's generally the children of the well-to-do who become unproductive socialist leeches.
Why would the children of rich people want to avocate socialism?
Because they've never been poor and have no clue where wealth actually comes from. They may even be terrified of the kind of work involved. It's very easy to say "all those greedy bastards who work hard to get rich should give their money away" when you've never had to dig yourself out of the gutter. When you've been broke and homeless and worked your ass off to get out of it, NOBODY is going to tell you how to spend YOUR money. Granted, most people who work their way up like this are also very generous--if they think you deserve it. People who *know* they can make more money generally aren't too concerned with grasping at it. Which is another reason why they're generally opposed to socialist programs--they prevent the hardworking sort from making more money.

Most of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, for instance, are *college students* at schools like Harvard and Yale, where a year's tuition costs more than most people get in wages. The children of poor people don't pay their own way through those schools. You either get grants/loans/scholarships (in which case you're already the beneficiary of wealth redistribution, and who bites the hand that feeds them), or you already have substantial amounts of wealth.
Short answer: As a way to say "Fuck you dad!"

She's right though. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, Trotsky, Ho Chi Minh- all highly educated and/or came from money. Most of the people who communism would supposedly benefit don't understand the concept well enough to implement it-or at least that's what the Soviets and Chinese said as they "re-educated" millions of peasants. The only communist leader that was a legitimate peasant was Stalin. Hmm, maybe it's a good thing communist leaders have always been elitist hypocrites...
 

JohnSmith8976

New member
Sep 14, 2010
10
0
0
Why does every movie (or at least every movie reviewed by Bob) have to be a Metaphor for something? Why does it have to mean something else or make us think about someone else's agenda etc? Why can't critics just accept that MOST people make movies to entertain the public and MOST of the public WATCH movies to BE entertained?

I think about 20 seconds of that whole review actually REVIEWED the movie - the rest was just what we're all supposed to be thinking about while we're watching it. Those of us who aren't too busy actually enjoying it, that is.

Oh, and by the way, Bob - given the average hollywood blockbuster takes a good year (minimum) to be made, it's a bit disingenuous to rag on about the timing of the release & the financial & social issues it raises, seeing as how those very issues DIDN'T EXIST (at least not to the current extent) at the time of inception.

Peace out Man
 

Uncompetative

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,746
0
0
Scrustle said:
The premise of this movie sounds really stupid to me. Maybe it's because David Firth got there way before Hollywood:


At least it looks like it's got cool cars in it.
Great. That was so good I needn't bother with the film now.

My time is at a premium, anyway...
 

legendp

New member
Jul 9, 2010
311
0
0
personally I thought it was a brilliant movie, it was the little things that brought it together. like for example

(Spoiler alert: how the mother gives Timberlake 15minutes and if she had had that time she would have made it).

my only 2 complaints were that it sometimes felt like there was a lack of ambient soundtrack and I felt they could have done more with the ending (not saying I was disappointed with it, just saying there was more potential there however I can not think how to improve on at this moment so I guess that makes me a Hippocrit)
 

Mike Laserbeam

New member
Dec 10, 2010
447
0
0
Just saw this today.
I remember Bob being pretty positive about the film in this review...
I thought I shared similar opinions as Bob. Apparently not!

This film could have been really interesting, but sadly was just pretty awful.
Oh and it was Cillian Murphy's worst role yet! Thanks for slightly tarnishing my opinion of one of my favourite actors In Time!