Amazing.

Now, I'll keep it as short as possible here, but what Old Rivers has published is PROOF that not all movies need violence. Hell, I LOVE to make movies with violence, to the point where I use it in almost all of my films. Scratch that, I use it in ALL of my films. However seeing this movie, which was purposefully made without violence, gave me inspiration. I don't care about the fact that it's a little bit short, but I'm still in awe at how great this movie's comedy is. It may be a little repetitive, but the way that it keeps re-using the same scenes is GOLD. It's a wonderful movie throughout.

[Old Rivers]

Haha my first review - glad it gave you inspiration!

[PizzaLuigi]

I recently had the unfortunate experience of subjecting myself to what can only be described as an absolute cinematic disaster – a film by Old Rivers. I'll attempt to encapsulate the misery I endured during this excruciating endeavor.

Firstly, the self-congratulatory tone of the initial statement sets the stage for what can only be described as an insufferable display of cinematic mediocrity. The author begins by proclaiming their intention to keep it "short," a promise they promptly break by subjecting readers to an endless stream of drivel. It's almost as if the filmmaker's arrogance has permeated the very fabric of this text.

The claim that Old Rivers has achieved something revolutionary by creating a movie without violence is laughable at best. While some may find this departure from the norm refreshing, I, for one, see it as a feeble attempt to ride the coattails of the industry's more innovative minds. If a filmmaker cannot grasp the fundamental concept that variety is the spice of cinema, then they have no business parading their lackluster creations as groundbreaking.

The reviewer's enthusiastic endorsement of the supposed comedy in this film is puzzling, to say the least. While humor is subjective, I struggle to comprehend how anyone could find solace in the repetitive, unimaginative drudgery that masquerades as comedic genius in Old Rivers' work. It's almost as if the author has a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that reusing the same scenes ad nauseam is a stroke of creative brilliance.

Furthermore, the admission that the film is "a little repetitive" is a gross understatement. Repetition is an art form, but in this case, it's the art of mind-numbing tedium. The lack of originality in recycling scenes is not a bold choice; it's a lazy shortcut taken by a filmmaker devoid of ideas.

In conclusion, Old Rivers' cinematic offering is not only a disservice to the art of filmmaking but an insult to the intelligence of its audience. The purported inspiration derived from this cinematic catastrophe is likely to lead aspiring filmmakers down a path of creative bankruptcy. Save yourself the agony and avoid this film at all costs.

[Dr. Groper]

In an astounding display of narrow-mindedness and an utter lack of critical acumen, this review by Plopilpy epitomizes a distressing misunderstanding of cinematic appreciation. The author's fixation on violence as a fundamental aspect of filmmaking and their gleeful proclamation of injecting it into every single one of their own creations is not only a disconcerting revelation but also an alarming representation of creative bankruptcy.

The notion that a film not featuring violence is an anomaly worth celebrating is deeply troubling. It exposes an unsettling perspective that hinges on the glorification of aggression and bloodshed as an essential component of the cinematic experience. The author's expressed "inspiration" upon witnessing a movie devoid of violence is more reflective of a severe lack of artistic depth rather than a breakthrough revelation. To derive inspiration solely from a departure from their own unoriginal, violence-saturated productions indicates a distressing dearth of creative innovation.

Furthermore, the author's attempt to extol the virtues of the movie's comedy while acknowledging its repetitive nature is not only contradictory but also indicative of a severe failure to comprehend the essence of humor. Comedy, at its core, relies on ingenuity and variance, not on regurgitating the same worn-out scenes. To celebrate repetition in humor as "GOLD" is not just a lapse in judgment but a dereliction of understanding the very essence of comedic craftsmanship.

The cavalier dismissal of the film's brevity is another testament to the author's shallowness in assessing cinematic artistry. Instead of delving into the significance of the film's length and its potential impact on storytelling, the author flippantly brushes it aside, showcasing an appalling disregard for the meticulous thought and purpose that goes into narrative construction.

This review is a confounding testament to a skewed perspective on cinematic artistry and an unfortunate validation of creative mediocrity. The author's assertion that this movie serves as "proof" that not all films require violence is as misguided as it is alarmingly myopic. The brazen proclamation of an ardent affection for violence in their own films, to the extent of incorporating it ubiquitously, is a distressing revelation that paints a dismal picture of their creative ethos.

The author's contention that a film intentionally devoid of violence provided them with inspiration is an astonishing admission of a narrow creative horizon. It's disheartening that the absence of violence seems to be the most noteworthy aspect for the reviewer, rather than delving into the intricacies of storytelling, character development, or thematic depth. It underscores a startling lack of appreciation for diverse storytelling elements and an unsettling obsession with one-dimensional, aggressive content.

Furthermore, the attempt to laud the film's comedy despite acknowledging its repetitiveness is both confounding and contradictory. Comedy thrives on innovation, wit, and surprise, not on the rehashed and recycled. The endorsement of repetitive humor as "GOLD" is a testament to a deficient understanding of comedic craftsmanship, as it disregards the very essence of what makes comedy compelling—its dynamism and inventiveness.

The nonchalant dismissal of the film's brevity is yet another egregious oversight. While brevity can be a narrative strength when wielded with purpose, the reviewer's flippant disregard for its significance is symptomatic of a shallow analysis, disregarding the deliberate choices and structural nuances that contribute to a film's storytelling impact.

In conclusion, Plopilpy's review not only fails as a critique but also serves as an unfortunate embodiment of a myopic and disturbing perspective on filmmaking. The unhealthy fixation on violence as a pivotal element of cinema, the misinformed appreciation of repetitive comedy, and the casual dismissal of a film's length showcase a severe deficiency in critical thinking and an alarming lack of appreciation for the multifaceted nature of artistic expression. This review does a disservice not only to the film being discussed but to the entire realm of cinematic artistry. This review is not just a shallow assessment but a disheartening validation of a profoundly limited perspective on filmmaking. The glorification of violence, the disproportionate emphasis on the absence of it, the misinformed praise of repetitive humor, and the careless neglect of a film's length collectively paint a dire picture of a critic's understanding of cinematic depth and diversity. This review not only fails to provide meaningful insights but also perpetuates a distressing narrative that belies the multifaceted nature of artistic expression.

[Onattien]

I like the movie.