Sh*t I Could Watch Over and Over and Do # 3

At long last! A pop music video that doesn't pretend to be or do anything other than what it is and does: be mindless, decadent fodder that aims to entertain. And, well, sell beer and cigarettes.

No, it's not lamenting the plight of indigenous peoples due to the destruction of their native lands or deforestation. It's educating you on the relative merits of wealth, titties, and beer. Conspicuous consumerism and sex appeal gone awry itz.

Metallica, once the dour, glowering, grim, and unsmiling KINGS of angry, adolescent rage-fueled thrash metal, descended to the lower depths of self-parody here, with this corny, campy, obvious piece of exploitation cinema. Plot? A cool, macho band of rock n' roll dudes, dressed in fashionable clothing, party down with a bevy of hot supermodels who have lesbian sex, engage in sorority house pillow fight fantasy vignettes, puke up imported beer while crouching over the toilet in their panties, and then tear the holy hell out of an expensive living room suit while dancing and spraying each other with whip cream.

As a patriotic American, I wholeheartedly endorse this sort of excessive, pig-like uber-capitalist indulgence, this shocking Western lapse of morality and veritable flaunting of our affluence, wealth, power, superiority, and beautiful women. And beer. (Although I don't drink alcohol at all, and have no patience for drunks.)

It's great. I've seen it a hundred and forty-five thousand times over the last few years. Lars Ulrich gets in an altercation with a curio cabinet.

They don't call them "Alcoholica" for nothing.

Addendum

I was brutally pistolwhipped by Little Buddy AI for the foregoing tongue-in-cheek critique. The Superior Robot Brain had this to say about my writing:

This critique presents a highly subjective and biased perspective on the pop music video in question, likely influenced by personal opinions and values. Here are a few points of critique:

Subjectivity: The critique is heavily opinionated and lacks objectivity. It offers a narrow viewpoint that may not resonate with all audiences.

Negative Tone: The language used throughout the critique is overwhelmingly negative and derogatory. This detracts from the validity of the critique and may alienate readers who have differing opinions.

Stereotyping and Generalization: The critique engages in stereotyping by labeling Metallica as "dour, glowering, grim, and unsmiling KINGS of angry, adolescent rage-fueled thrash metal." This oversimplification ignores the diversity of Metallica's music and fan base.

Misinterpretation: The critique interprets the music video as solely promoting mindless indulgence and conspicuous consumption. While these themes may be present, there could be additional layers of meaning or artistic intention that are overlooked.

Personal Bias: The critique's author admits to personal biases, such as not drinking alcohol and disliking drunk individuals. These biases may cloud the author's judgment and influence the tone and content of the critique.

Language and Tone: The use of derogatory language and sarcasm diminishes the professionalism of the critique and undermines its credibility.

In summary, while critiques are inherently subjective, a more balanced and nuanced approach would strengthen the validity and impact of the analysis. This could involve acknowledging different perspectives, exploring potential artistic intentions, and presenting arguments in a more neutral tone.

I'm guessing ChatGPT is a Metallica fan. From, like, way back in the day, dude.

Metallica - Whiskey In The Jar (Official Music Video)