How to Blow Up a Pipeline Bangs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 кві 2023
- Use code TAYLORJWILLIAMS50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3Y9bjaB
Patreon: / taylorjwilliams
Twitter: / taylorfilmguy
Instagram: / taylor_j_williams
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/taylorfilmguy/
Serializd: www.serializd.com/user/taylor...
My Beautiful Patrons:
Ali Motamed
Amber Lee
Brian Bodel
Calvin S
DJ Hamlet
Jack Noble
Jennifer Moquin
Jillian Lindsey
Joshua Gray
Julia
Julia Lagemann
Kayla Smart
Lemisse A
Pete sethanant
Ryan Van Olst
Stephen Beresford
Theodore Bouloukos
Torsten Vogler
Wesley Massey - Фільми й анімація
Use code TAYLORJWILLIAMS50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3Y9bjaB
😄
I've never been this disappointed with a comment section
Just came back from it and thought it was pretty fantastic! Big fan of Forrest Goodluck
Tip: Search for 'Dangerous Misinformation in “How to Bl*w Up a Pipeline”'
Why?
@@billbaggins1688 The UA-cam video with that title hammers home quite convincingly that and why you should not " try this at home" the way it is portayed in the film.
I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!! Theo's last scene is haunting me
The flashback placements are like leaving a tv episode with a cliff hanger. However, i loved the movie, and it is an important movie that dares ask the questions (or rather pose the answer) that society is ignoring with our commitment to non-violent protest - which does not work. A brave and well made movie.
Saw it last night at a special screening. 10/10 amazing movie. Lean is correct it had no fat and used every minute on screen to full effect for story telling purposes
in terms of whether or not the plan goes "too smoothly" i think this speaks to the inherent tension between the movie functioning as a work of propaganda and it being a tense procedural thriller. While i was quite engaged and invested in the films suspense moment to moment, on a meta level i knew because of goldhaber/malms politics the plan was going to work more or less, with little collateral damage so the activists can be vindicated as uncomplicated heroic figures, so as not to problematize their goals and worldview (with maybe the exception of the bonehead PDX trust fund anarchists who almost turn informant).
I think its interesting to contrast this film with kelly reichardts "night moves", they are almost identical in terms of plot but the diverge greatly in tone and pacing, the latter is much slower and is mired in moral ambiguity and much more sober and fatalistic about the consequences of its act of ecoterrorism (blowing up a dam in this case). Its a starker more emotionally complex film, but is also pretty miserable, and I'm not sure its a better film than goldhabers much more shallow but riveting call to arms.
I really can't wait to watch this movie! I just bought the book to read, and am very excited to read and watch it
Actually this movie is like a CIA psyops, the bombs in the movie would blow up the bomb maker in real life.
Overly simplified “thriller” with zero thrills. It’s one of those films people choose to like simply because it exists.
Zero fat yes. Also zero meat. Lots of sizzle.
Hopefully more to come. Like, "How to blow up a maga". That's the one everyone wants to see.
👏👏👏👍
A person can ALWAYS and ONLY have their cake and eat it.
One can only Eat their cake if they have it first. But I don’t think a person can eat their cake and then have it!
My point exactly. He sounds dumb when he says it that way. As do all the other people that use it incorrectly.
who actually cares
You don't know the expression? Or you taking a piss?
Fun fact, the Unabomber's hatred of that phrase is what got him caught.
@DecepsisOvermark yep I mentioned that earlier. Pretty crazy.
Also, the saying isn't "have your cake and eat it too." It's "eat your cake and have it too." The latter makes more sense and is actually the correct saying. Please stop using multiple phrases wrong while trying so hard to look smart.
@Lt. Turtle if it's wrong then tell me how the FBI knew that and it's how they caught the Unabomber when his own brother also noticed he was using it the correct way and most people don't. By your logic I could say irregardless is an actual word bc most people say it instead of regardless. The popular usage isn't how we decide correct grammar or phrases. Your argument is literally dumb.
@@Echt_ Popular usage is exactly how we decide correct grammar and vocabulary. It’s the mechanism for how language evolves.
@Lt. Turtle @Lt. Turtle I have a Masters in English and the usage of language so I'm not going to waste my day arguing with people that don't understand how words work all because they want to defend a random content creator on UA-cam.
Irregardless is not a word. Use it in any academic paper you write and you'll get counted off for it. You looked at Merriam online and thought you had a point. Just Google, since that's your only source of knowledge on the subject, "is irregardless gramatically correct?" This is the response you get: "Irregardless is not considered a real word by most dictionaries, and it should be avoided in formal or academic writing. “Irregardless” is seen as incorrect because it adds the prefix “ir-,” which usually expresses negation, but actually means the same thing as regardless, not the opposite."
As far as the phrase, all I said was it doesn't make sense saying it that way. That has no bearing on how words or phrases change over time. Even you mentioned it takes a very, very long time for that to happen, if at all.
Lastly, who decides what words are correct? Well, it's something called grammar. You know, my original argument that you seemed to miss in order to be obtuse and argumentative.
Sadly for you I don't have time to keep trying to educate you. So, go on being willfully stupid. Have fun with that and have a glorious day.
@@Gutterrat69 I mean, I wish it weren't happening here, so that we could actually discuss the film and the content of this video itself, but otherwise yeah.
Cook his ass 🥶🌚🥶