Hetzer

I swear, I don't believe it!! “I haven't read the article (I don't know English)” XD XD.. Ignorant, go to school then instead of spouting judgments! This alone should make you disappear, but let's continue.. “It explains why the article in question "MUST" talk about Godzilla”.. Too bad you haven't read the article, so you have no idea what you're talking about.. “It's an article that comes out 2 days after the release date of Godzilla (could it be a coincidence?)”.. WRONG, BEAST!! The article was written more than a year before, on the occasion of the release of Pacific Rim and a review of Western kaiju movies (there's a link that explains it, but unfortunately for you, it's in English...). It was republished for the release of Godzilla, not “coming out 2 days after the release date of Godzilla.” Good for him, the ignorant doesn't know English, but sees the date and thinks “now I'm going to trick that fool.” How pathetic are you? “It MUST promote Godzilla”.. What the hell are you talking about?? You can post anything, but what arguments can there be from someone who hasn’t even read the article?? You're pathetic and ridiculous, you're spewing nonsense about something you ignore; like: “I haven't read the article, but I know for sure it's promoting Godzilla..” Idiot, ignorant, arrogant, learn English and then we'll talk again.. Now you'll say: Godzilla and Pacific Rim are from Warner, do 2+2!” And who cares about that? According to what logic would a comment on Monsters promote a Legendary/Warner film? And indeed there isn't, nothing, NOTHING in that article that promotes Godzilla or Pacific Rim, but you wouldn't know, because you don't know English, you can't read the article, and so you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.. “It's not that if you post someone else's opinion that agrees with you, you're right” and then "instead of posting an article to get yourself justified".. Oh yes, of course, because the point is to be right, like children.. But grow up, damn it! Clearly, you haven't read what I wrote, or rather, you've twisted it to your liking, but this is the usual way, nothing new..

More than anything, all this means you haven't read the article; and if you have read it, you didn't understand it; and if you read it and understood it, you are simply a poor desperate soul. I’ll let you debate in your pitiful arguments (“it promotes Godzilla,” for God’s sake, you must either be completely out of gas or understand less than nothing to spew something like that..), in your desperate and ridiculous conspiracy theories, in the illusory belief that you always know more than others.. “It promotes Godzilla”.. For crying out loud, it's insulting just to think of something like that.. You’re pathetic, brother, pathetic and small. “Either you’re dishonest (maybe because you’re promoting something else by Edwards) or you haven’t seen it or you’re an idiot”.. That’s all you can say, that’s your last, desperate argument. Poor miserable; congratulations, heartfelt congratulations.. Absolute master of disgrace, of pissing in one’s face, of mystification, of intellectual dishonesty, go ahead and revel in your smirks and your childish verbal acrobatics, that’s not my business..

For those who are interested, here Gareth Edwards' 'Monsters' and the Refreshing Take It Brings to the Kaiju Table | Movie News | Movies.com you will find a nice review of Monsters. In the article, the film is also considered as a kaiju-movie (for those who don't know, kaiju are giant monsters, and guess what, Godzilla is also a kaiju..); there are several references to the classic Godzilla series and previews of Edwards' Godzilla.. There are comparisons with Cloverfield which, needless to say, is also a film with a monster and devastation.. It highlights the kind of interpretation Edwards gave to the classic ingredients of monster movies (the very presence of kaiju, the devastation they cause, the social upheaval they generate, etc..) and explains the merit of the director's choice to overturn the typical schemes of the “monster” genre to present them in a completely original way.. Now the doubt arises spontaneously: either it’s normal for someone other than me to think that Godzilla and Monsters are connected, as films with monsters, devastation, and so on, or the author of the article in question read the comments on nes, saw red and understood nothing, hasn't seen the film, is telling lies, and is an idiot.. It’s up to you to decide, although it seems very obvious to me. If someone insists on saying that Monsters and Godzilla have nothing to do with each other and that anyone who claims so is an idiot, illiterate, hasn’t seen the film, and so on, feel free to do so; after all, intellectual honesty, humility, and tolerance for others' opinions are not for everyone..
PS: March, if you pass by here and haven't seen the film, be careful reading the article, there are a few spoilers.. Bye!

I have considered the issue from a purely logical point of view, citing the similarities that exist between the synopses of the two films, typical elements of a kind of script that the director can exploit, emphasize, or shape in a creatively different way in order to propose different readings or messages: However, "it's not that I'm citing the director's will to talk about something else besides the theme at hand, it's not that I'm citing the relationships between man and nature and how, in the end, man is the main cause of his problems..." "leaving aside who knows why, the jungle as the ultimate expression of nature that retaliates against man (the bomb scene in Godzilla vs. the RUINS of Monsters infested with flora)... Well, what can I say: thank you for confirming that the two films are somehow connected to each other! After saying all sorts of things to me, after childishly accusing me of not having seen the film, after trying in every way to deny it, after calling me illiterate, in the end, you got there too. It was about time, even if your path was as miserable, discouraging, and pathetic as one can imagine... I don't expect you to also understand that the ruins, as effects of devastation, are devastations themselves (the dictionary says so...), but come on, you've already taken a step forward, and I would say that's enough...

You know what? I messed up five or six subjunctives. It can happen, considering that all the ones I got right (which, needless to say, are the vast majority)... But can we talk about some topics that are a bit less fluffy? Granted that I might be illiterate (and it’s obvious that I’m not, despite all the possible and imaginable jabs; after all, would you really waste all this time talking to a true illiterate? Seriously, that would be far too ridiculous even for you...), anyway, let’s suppose someone doesn’t know how to use the subjunctive; they could always consult a grammar book. But for certain lexical/syntactic gaps (devastazione, can you even grasp what that means? Not to mention the issue of “centrare”/“essere simile,” etc.), things get complicated. Because against intellectual dishonesty, foolish arrogance, and the childish tendency to want to be right at all costs, there’s no book that can help. I’ve already talked enough about the movie; it seems pointless to reiterate concepts that, all in all, are simple but which apparently you aren't even able to grasp before understanding. "I put you on a leash and brought you where I wanted," yes, it’s evident; you’ve reached the point of nervously and chaotically repeating jabs, jokes, random insults, pompous attitudes, and catchphrases that wouldn’t impress even an elementary school child. It’s true, this is indeed the ground you’re most comfortable on; I honestly can’t lower myself to these levels of childishness.

What can I say... You tried to play the adult and dig yourself out of a mess, but here you are still throwing pathetic tantrums like a child. You completely discredited yourself by shamelessly denying that there are monsters and devastation in Monsters, only to later shamefully retract your words. You have no clear understanding of what a populated place is, and you can’t admit that “having something to do with” and “being similar” are actually two concepts that have nothing to do with each other. You accused me of not having seen a movie just because I didn’t agree with a comment I made about it. You distorted my words and put an absurd and stupid concept in my mouth that I never expressed. After having ridiculously “threatened” to take yourself away, now you come to tell me “now respond,” making yourself as credible as Forza Italia's renewal program... And the only thing you can do is, again, focus on my typos without being even slightly capable of arguing... “'st (I assume this is “sti”) comments, why did you throw them at me?” I wonder that too...

"I would like to spare you 93 minutes of boredom and déjà vu." A truly noble intent... I am frankly sorry that you had to endure 93 minutes of this... thing... The trailer had already taken care of saving us from boredom, déjà vu, and especially persistent intestinal cramps! ;)

"‘I showed you the exact opposite,’ not by claiming that they have a lot to do with each other, you proved the contrary.” I renew my doubt: do you even READ the posts? I clearly wrote how and where to find the proof that I had seen the movie BEFORE this discussion started. Do I need to draw you a little picture, or can you manage on your own?
“To make a long story short: either you respond, or you continue on your own.” It’s truly cowardly to ignore others’ questions and answers only to say, “if you don’t respond, I’m leaving, that’s it!” Poor pinela! (that’s dialect, I don’t think you’ll find it in the dictionary.).. Start answering now..
Let me summarize: I said that both in Monsters and in Godzilla there are monsters, and (after trying miserably to deny it) you conceded; I said that there is devastation in both, and you practically agreed; I also mentioned fleeing from inhabited places, and here I'm still waiting for an answer.. I repeat the question: Is a village of twenty houses or a metropolis of ten million inhabitants an inhabited place or not?.. A tip: the vocabulary of the Italian language can help you..

You wrote to me: “there is rubble, not the devastation that it has caused.” Grab a dictionary and use it: it says “2. [the effect of a devastation: the d. of war] ≈ ruin, wreckage.” You used the term "rubble": rubble and ruin are synonyms (the dictionary tells you this) Sinonimi e contrari di macerie (sost.) - Pagina n. 023585 so you basically agreed with me. Learn to use the dictionary seriously, instead of trying to interpret it however you like. And then tell me what part of the definition I posted is unclear to you, particularly THE EFFECT OF A DEVASTATION. There is always time to learn Italian, you know? Any other doubts? devastazione: significato e definizione - Dizionari - La Repubblica
I’ll quote it for you in case you don’t want to bother opening the link: devastazione [de-va-sta-zió-ne] s.f. (pl. -ni) Action AND RESULT of devastating; pillaging; extermination ‖ SYN. destruction, ruin.
If you still don’t get that rubble is among the RESULTS (the EFFECTS, they are synonyms you know?) of devastation, I’ll explain it to you again, don’t worry. Otherwise, if your Italian differs from that of the dictionary, admit it right away, as it will clear up a lot of things.
“C'entrare and essere simili are not synonyms," and I ask you: where did I say they are?” Who is having problems with the Italian language, excuse me? You asked me what Monsters and Godzilla have in common; I answered you, and you concluded, “you claim they are similar films.” I have been asking you for two days (without getting a response, that’s obvious) “So do 'c'entrare' and 'essere simili' mean the same thing?” And consequently: if one thing relates to another, does it mean they are similar? Don’t mess with me, just answer. I repeat: if one thing relates to another, does it mean the two things are similar?
“here repeat it because going to fish it out is hard.” I also told you exactly where. Move your little finger to scroll the mouse.

Damn, it really seems to me that with Gdozilla they tried to create something that isn’t childlike.. The tone, the lengthy scenes, the claims of seriousness.. Maybe that’s exactly why they brought in Gareth Edwards, who isn’t a money-making machine like Michael Bay; he’s practically on his second film and he’s good.. And here lies the problem: either you make a different, new film, or you try to have your cake and eat it too, not making a toy but also aiming to reach the largest audience possible; this way you weigh the film down, and it just doesn’t take off.. I'm not that interested in figuring out where the 160 million went (even though I share my thoughts in the review regarding the use of CGI, and the interiors, which in some cases are almost, and seriously, from an Asylum production).. The point is that in 2010, with a crap budget, Edwards made a film of the highest quality, and in Hollywood it turned into a piece of rubbish.. And sure, it’s not all his fault; he didn’t work on it alone, he didn’t write it, nor did he do the effects, of course it’s a multimillion-dollar production.. That’s why I say (write) that IT'S POSSIBLE that an increase in budget leads to a decrease in quality.. I couldn’t care less about equations, even if you look at the list of the top ten most expensive films, they’re practically all insane crap, including the latest Batman and Avatar, stuff that I found utterly ridiculous..