Gen. Andronicus

After much hesitation, I purchased Mission of Burma's "classic" cd VS. I'm trying to give them another chance, but it seems to again present to me the problem I've had with them before. I like a few aspects of their music and a few songs, however I'm struggling with seeing the big picture of their supposed great albums.

Probably not as well known as those listed and definately not a "great" ,however, Thomas Erak of The Fall of Troy is quite an impressive guitarist and he is only 21. In fact he would be my pick for best live and recorded guitarists of today's crop of rock musicians, however, I do feel Jack White should be mentioned as well.

Emo bands are millionaires in the making.

[quote name='Leofski']The odd thing about this film is that post 9/11, films that just contained images of the twin towers had warnings labelling them as possibly disturbing and no film touched the subject for a number of years. On the other hand, 8 months after the London tube bombings, a film actually has a train full of explosives blowing up a major national landmark. On the other hand its true to the comic, so I'd personally blow up the director and editing team if they'd taken it out.[/quote] WOW! I bet you're really good at dodgeball! [QUOTE=sungravy]Your argument would be a lot more valid if the source material for this movie wasn’t originally produced in the mid-80s, long before Dubya’s reign. It could be read as an “FU” to Bush, but if you want to read it that way, then it was more of an “FU to all of Government in general. But really, it’s just a comment on all of fascism., I mean, the dystopian setting, the Guy Fawkes mask, it all fits together working for more of a "theme" rather than just snubbing Bush. But anyway, movie was pretty damn good. Probably the best movie of 06 so far. Hopefully it'll set the standard for Moore adaptions and **** like From Hell and LXG will never be produced again.[/QUOTE] ... I think you missed the part in my post saying that I felt the [i]movie[/i] was [b]over-ambitious[/b]. The [i]movie[/i], not the movie's source material is what we are discussing here, correct? Just because it's based a comic written 20 years ago doesn't mean that the screenplay is not in fact, a misrepresentation. However, it would be silly of me not to realize that the movie was trying to recreate the same message of that of it's source material. I felt that that was what the movie aspired to be, but fell flat. Now, I have never read nor have I been familiarized with the comic, but many people seem to think it's great and that it has a profound message about government, similar to that of Orwell's 1984. So, forgive me if I'm wrong in assuming that the movie attempted to make a profound message about (all) government in it's recreation of the mid-1980s comic. That is my claim of what one of the movie's ambitions were. I [i]felt[/i] that even with all the movie's "themes" and stylistic differences in it's message, it still fell flat of it's ambitions because it was as if the writers still wanted to wag their middle finger at current world leaders. For me, this dates the [b]film[/b] and gives me less hope that it will have the same intergenerational connections that the comic seemed to have had. Now, about the invalidity of my arguement... All I stated was the "I" felt the movie was over-ambitious. I don't see how my own thoughts on a movie, can be invalid because the movie is based on an idea 20 years old. I could have said that I was dissappointed that the movie didn't have more rubber duckies in it. You could have replied that the original comic did not have any rubber duckies at all and you would have not invalidated my arguement deductively. Yes, your statement did have implied inductive reasoning to it but it was not enough to measure the validity of mine. P.S. I liked From Hell.

I felt that it was a tad over-ambitious. Don't get me wrong, I don't care for the current administration in the US and feel that there criticisms are well-deserved, however, the movies political message seemed a bit to localized (kind of like a big FU to George W Bush) for it's own good. It's basically the same message that you could read on the editorial page of your local newspaper, nothing profound. This affected my enjoyment of the film, and I believe will affect its future level of greatness.

I will be seeing them at a nearby city on Mar. 11th. They will be opening for the band Project 86. Based on their record label, and the fact that people are likening them to Underoath, I probably will not enjoy their music too much. However, I'm very excited to see Project 86 for it will be my first time, though I've passed up many.

[QUOTE=king_monkey]I am offended, mostly at them depicting Muhammad in such a racist manner. Rascism should not be tolerated, even if it is free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can tell [B]complete lies[/B]. Some of those cartoons are hate crimes, that' all there is to it. [/QUOTE] How is it racist? Just because a person is middle-eastern doesn't mean that they follow the religion of Islam. The cartoons don't seem to be assuming that either. There is no Islamic race, it's a religion. Also, please explain how these cartoons can ONLY be taken as insults to followers of Islam who practice it peacfully? It is still my opinion that they were instead intended only towards the extremists, as well as towards legalisms that the certain cartoonists felt were worthy of being made fun of. For instance, the one with the artist looking over his shoulder is an example of legalistic satire. One thing that you, king_monkey seem to understand is that if people are making fun of something you believe with all your heart, than there should be no problem just brushing it off and letting what you know to be true come true. However, your attitude contridicts this idea. If you didn't read my other post please read that before replying to this one. Oh well, I know I'm not going to change any peoples minds (as if it were possible to do so on OB), but I'm okay with that.

Supposedly some Asian director was recently arrested for offering to have sex with a police officer for money. First foot fetishes, now prostitution! Man, these directors are seriously breaking down the moral backbone of the US. Someone should stop them...

"In reaction to the articles, several death threats have been made, resulting in the cartoonists reportedly going into hiding and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions. " --Wikipedia I just wanted to point out how funny that was. Anyway, has anyone noticed how ambiguos these cartoons actually are? I mean , I'm not going to try and explain all of them, however, the two that I have been hearing the most about could be taken multiple ways. Here I go: The one depicting Muhammed with a bomb under his turban could possibly be saying that "Islam is based in terroism," but it's not beyond me to also think that they meant it as a joke on the people who actually believe that statement to be true. It would be similar to a cartoon of Jesus saying "Love your neighbor, unless they're gay." Most of the world seems to think that the drawings are pretty ridiculous, so it would seem that the cartoon actually WORKS best when considered that way. The one where Muhammed is "receiving" terrorists in to heaven works in a similar fashion. And actually, I find it hard to think that this one was meant any other way. It's making fun of Islamic extemists who are considered terrorists, is it not? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but there are known cases of Islamic zealots thinking that they will be rewarded for giving up there lives in the process of being terrorists. If this is true, then this cartoon is simply stating that these extremists have worked there way all the way up to being disappointed. Hmm...

DNACRISIS is talking about a band. Scary Kids Scaring Kids is a band that said threadstarter is wondering if anyone likes. However, I think the conversation thus far goes to show that the band has a terrible name.

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']I recommend taking a look at the IGN review. It acknowledges the controversy but thankfully doesn't get caught up on such superficial issues and focuses on the film itself. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who have already dismissed the movie simply due to the subject matter.[/font][/quote] Eh, I've had problems with IGN's reviews in the past, though that's with their music reviews. I prefer FIlmThreat.com (though come to think of it, I haven't been over there to check out their opinions on this film). Most reviews I've read have said the acting was one of the films strengths.

I've actually heard some mixed reviews on this movie. True, most of the well known critics seem to be in favor of giving this movie high scores. However, multiple lesser knowns that I frequent have said that the movie starts off strong but then dwindleds off in it's last half, becoming boring and slightly cliched. Of course I haven't seen the movie so this is all hearsay, but I'm not Ang Lee's biggest fan either. Although I never saw The Hulk, I did not like The Ice Storm, and thought Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was good but it didn't spark magic in me. Despite this, I probably will end up seeing this movie sometime, then I can form my own opinion.

"'Interpretations of Tolkien,' by the Weird Al Yankovich players."

Oh yes, if anyone likes the bands Bloc Party or The Rapture, I recomend the band History (Invades). In my opinion, History (Invades)' album [i]The Structure of Precise Fashion[/i] was the best dancey art-rock album last year, beating out Bloc Party's [i]Silent Alarm[/i] by a long shot.

[quote name='Shi no Tenshi'] Portishead (everything you can get your hands on - try the album Dummy).[/quote] Supposedly there is a new Portishead album to be expected this year. Although they have been defunct for almost a decade that would be good news. I back this recomendation up as well.