Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched

[Agema]

The French Dispatch (2021)

It feels odd watching No Time to Die one weekend, Dune next weekend, and bridging it with a movie that gives prominent roles to stars of the other two (Lea Seydoux and Timothy Chalamet). This is of course by Wes Anderson, that most easily satirisable of directors, full of his whimsical charm and very idiosyncratic style. The French city it is set in is called "Ennui-sur-blase": ho ho ho. Yes, we get it. And there's plenty more where that came from.

I suppose it's a homage to a form of print journalism - not newspapers so much as magazines like the New Yorker. It's set in the mid-20th C., about a French offshoot of a Kansas newspaper (hence "The French Dispatch") designed to inform Kansans of the world but that has a sort of life of its own licensed out much more widely, and takes the form of going through a few short stories based on articles by its contributors. And like many of Anderson's movies, it's entertaining, interesting, sometimes moving, and potentially jolly frustrating if you just don't like his style. It's a massive host of cameos and some bridging whimsy, but the three main stories are from the arts section about a psychotic murderer-cum-modern artist, the politics section about the writer getting too involved in a student revolt against authority, and the food critic caught up in a crime caper.

Well, I enjoyed it, anyway.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Watched Halloween Kills a couple of nights ago. It was pretty good for the most part. It was neat seeing characters from the older movies return, including some real surprises like Lonnie (the bully from the original movie. He was mentioned in the 2018 version, but actually makes an appearance in this film) and Sheriff Leigh Brackett (still played by the same actor from the original), and the violence was surprisingly graphic in this one. If you intend to see it, be warned, Michael is PISSED in this one.

There ware also some plot elements I thought were done pretty well. The B-Plot of the movie is essentially survivors of the original movies like Lonnie and Tommy Doyle (played very well by Anthony Michael Hall) gathering up a mob upon hearing that Michael Myers has returned to take him down. It goes about as well as you'd expect, but what I really liked about the subplot is how it demonstrates the dangers of mob mentality. I won't spoil how it does so, but it's actually pretty sad what ends up happening due to the actions of a blindly angry mob.

Once again, the main trio have some great chemistry, as you'd expect from actors portraying a grandmother, mother, and daughter, all of whom have differences of opinions on how to handle the Myers situation. Laurie thinks that she needs to take him down, because she's convinced that she and Mikey are tied together by fate. Allyson, the granddaughter, feels like it's her job to step up and take down Myers, because Laurie's in a hospital, messed up after the events of Halloween, and Karen, the middle generation, wants the police to handle it, because

Spoiler

she just lost her husband, and doesn't want to see any more family members die

.

There are some other pretty neat little moments throughout the film. I particularly dug one quick little scene where the mother of one of the victims of the last movie sees his body in the morgue and freaks out. It gave me real vibes of the opening of Scream, when Casey Becker's parents return home and realize something's wrong. It really gives off the feeling that these are actually people, not just faceless victims for Myers to butcher.

Now...the biggest issue I have with the movie: the ending. I really dislike this ending, almost as much as the original Mass Effect 3 ending. To not go too much into spoiler territory, it basically establishes that Myers is, in fact, evil incarnate, and in the process (at least for me) makes him significantly less scary. The ending also managed to upset me by

Spoiler

killing off Sheriff Brackett, Tommy Doyle, and Karen in the last 10 minutes of film. It really felt like a slap in the face to bring back Tommy Doyle again just to kill him off, and killing off Karen just felt so abrupt that it left the movie on a sour note for me.

Will I still see Halloween Ends when it comes out? Definitely, need to finish this trilogy off. Will I see Halloween Kills again? That's a bit more questionable. If I do, I'll almost certainly turn it off before the real ending.

Overall, out of the Halloween films, this would be 4th or 5th best for me. Not as good as 2018, the original, or Season of the Witch (yes, shut it), and about on par with H20, but there are definitely worse Halloween films out there.

There was also an interesting Easter egg thrown in pertaining to your username -

Halloween Kills: How Bob Odenkirk Ended Up With A Very Weird 'Cameo' In The Sequel

The Better Call Saul star makes a special non-spoiler appearance in the new Halloween sequel.

www.cinemablend.com

How ironic that the stand-in even shares the same name with the original character.


Also I never noticed before but Rotten Tomatoes has a pretty detailed feedback section for new movies -

Halloween Kills First Reviews: Bloodier and More Relentless Than the First

Critics say the middle chapter of the new trilogy is more reminiscent of the original classic and boasts an impressive body count, even if it sacrifices some nuance in the process.

editorial.rottentomatoes.com

 

[Bartholen]

Dune (again), still 8/10

I just had to go see it again, because this is one of those movies you have to see on the biggest screen possible, and any IMAX screenings I'd been able to catch were taken up by Venom: Let There be Garbage... I mean Carnage.

It's definitely easier to follow on the second go when you already know what everything means and don't feel like you're being swamped with exposition. There's not necessarily any new nuances or details you'll pick up on a second watch (it's still just half of a story), but neither does its shine fade. The exposition is actually a lot more natural when you know it's coming, since nearly every time it's delivered it's also doing nonverbal worldbuilding. In some respects it still goes overboard: did we really need to know that the poison needle is called Gom Jabbar, or that the eyes of the fremen are called whatsitcalledagain? Again, maybe that bears relevance in the second part of the story, but right now it feels like overkill.

One issue that you definitely see more on the second watch is just how empty a lot of the environments are. I know we're seeing the story from the perspective of the highest strata of society, but there's just huge amounts of empty space in every significant environment, especially indoors. On Arrakis it makes sense, it is a desert after all, but once you notice it you can't really ignore how distractingly large even the breakfast room is. This partly gives the film its immense sense of scale, but also makes the world feel more like a series of sets rather than a place people live in. Some of it you can write off: The Atreides have just arrived on Arrakis and haven't settled in yet, so it makes sense that there wouldn't be a lot of stuff or furnishings around, but then there are things like the nearly infinitely continuing landing strip that's just flat land with nothing in the background. It doesn't really detract from the movie, but it does give it a sort of detached, inhuman feeling. The facade of the world is immense and gorgeous, but it doesn't really get across that much is going on behind it.

An aspect I already appreciated the first time and even more so on the second time is how the story plays around with the idea of a messiah figure. I don't know how exactly it follows the book, but it feels weird in hindsight how many stories have just defaulted to the boring version of the Chosen One trope, when this film proves you can go in so much more interesting and darker directions with it. The Kwisatz Haderach may be a Chosen One, but that doesn't mean that his life or choices are preordained, or that he's the only one, or that a Chosen figure would even be a good thing for the world. The film conveys excellently how Paul's future may hold horrifying things for the galaxy, and how he has no choice in any of it.

Anyway, I'm happy to have given Villeneuve more of my money, because this is a movie and a director that deserves to have it.

 

[SilentPony]

It's definitely easier to follow on the second go when you already know what everything means and don't feel like you're being swamped with exposition. There's not necessarily any new nuances or details you'll pick up on a second watch (it's still just half of a story), but neither does its shine fade. The exposition is actually a lot more natural when you know it's coming, since nearly every time it's delivered it's also doing nonverbal worldbuilding. In some respects it still goes overboard: did we really need to know that the poison needle is called Gom Jabbar, or that the eyes of the fremen are called whatsitcalledagain? Again, maybe that bears relevance in the second part of the story, but right now it feels like overkill.

See my problem with the movie is it only makes sense if you read the book and know all the shit they left out. No joke they could have made an entire second movie just off the stuff they leave out from the first half.
Like all the cryptic lines "So its done?" "Its done."
"Promise me you'll protect Paul"
"I thought we'd have more time"

They only make sense if you know in the book that House Atrades knows about the upcoming attack, knows the Emperor has betrayed them, and knows Arakis will be their doom. They don't establish that in the movie, but they kept some of the more famous lines in, completely removed from context.
Also they completely change the narrative of the story. The story isn't Paul's; he's not the central character. Princess Irulan, who isn't even in the movie, is the narrator and we see events play out from her perspective.

Like its a deeply flawed interpretation of the book, but that may be the only way to tell the story because Dune was written before movie blockbusters and before authors wrote movie friendly narratives. The reason Dune movies are so hard to do is because its such a dense book with so many characters and moments, like its some sort of cosmic epic opera, that budgets would be off the charts. So a lot of the book was cut from the movie, and that means its all but incomprehensible to people who haven't read the book multiple times and know what's being left out.

 

[Bartholen]

See my problem with the movie is it only makes sense if you read the book and know all the shit they left out. No joke they could have made an entire second movie just off the stuff they leave out from the first half.
Like all the cryptic lines "So its done?" "Its done."
"Promise me you'll protect Paul"
"I thought we'd have more time"

They only make sense if you know in the book that House Atrades knows about the upcoming attack, knows the Emperor has betrayed them, and knows Arakis will be their doom. They don't establish that in the movie, but they kept some of the more famous lines in, completely removed from context.
Also they completely change the narrative of the story. The story isn't Paul's; he's not the central character. Princess Irulan, who isn't even in the movie, is the narrator and we see events play out from her perspective.

Like its a deeply flawed interpretation of the book, but that may be the only way to tell the story because Dune was written before movie blockbusters and before authors wrote movie friendly narratives. The reason Dune movies are so hard to do is because its such a dense book with so many characters and moments, like its some sort of cosmic epic opera, that budgets would be off the charts. So a lot of the book was cut from the movie, and that means its all but incomprehensible to people who haven't read the book multiple times and know what's being left out.

Maybe it comes across like that to those who've read the book, but the movie is definitely not incomprehensible. Dense, yes, and maybe a bit hard to follow, but the lines you mentioned do actually make sense within the context the movie sets up.

• "Promise me you'll protect Paul" = "We've been sent here on orders we couldn't really refuse, we'll be facing political schemes against us and I won't have the time to always look after Paul. You'll have to do it when I can't"
• "I thought we'd have more time" = "I thought we'd have more time to get things up and running. I was expecting political scheming right out of the gate, not a full blown attack, at least so soon"

I can't remember who said the third line. And they definitely do establish that house Atreides have been duped and are fucked, but more in an economic and political sense than a physical one. It's more "we've been painted into a corner and will never have the resources to get this place running properly. Our future as a powerful house will die on this planet" than "We will literally all die here". That's at least how it came across to me in the movie.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The French Dispatch (2021)

It feels odd watching No Time to Die one weekend, Dune next weekend, and bridging it with a movie that gives prominent roles to stars of the other two (Lea Seydoux and Timothy Chalamet). This is of course by Wes Anderson, that most easily satirisable of directors, full of his whimsical charm and very idiosyncratic style. The French city it is set in is called "Ennui-sur-blase": ho ho ho. Yes, we get it. And there's plenty more where that came from.

I suppose it's a homage to a form of print journalism - not newspapers so much as magazines like the New Yorker. It's set in the mid-20th C., about a French offshoot of a Kansas newspaper (hence "The French Dispatch") designed to inform Kansans of the world but that has a sort of life of its own licensed out much more widely, and takes the form of going through a few short stories based on articles by its contributors. And like many of Anderson's movies, it's entertaining, interesting, sometimes moving, and potentially jolly frustrating if you just don't like his style. It's a massive host of cameos and some bridging whimsy, but the three main stories are from the arts section about a psychotic murderer-cum-modern artist, the politics section about the writer getting too involved in a student revolt against authority, and the food critic caught up in a crime caper.

Well, I enjoyed it, anyway.

How many characters silently pivot their head in response to a punchline, preferably at a 90 degree angle? I'm assuming all of them. As soon as I started noticing this in his recent movies it just stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[gorfias]

How many characters silently pivot their head in response to a punchline, preferably at a 90 degree angle? I'm assuming all of them. As soon as I started noticing this in his recent movies it just stuck out like a sore thumb.

You mean like this?

 

[SilentPony]

Maybe it comes across like that to those who've read the book, but the movie is definitely not incomprehensible. Dense, yes, and maybe a bit hard to follow, but the lines you mentioned do actually make sense within the context the movie sets up.

• "Promise me you'll protect Paul" = "We've been sent here on orders we couldn't really refuse, we'll be facing political schemes against us and I won't have the time to always look after Paul. You'll have to do it when I can't"
• "I thought we'd have more time" = "I thought we'd have more time to get things up and running. I was expecting political scheming right out of the gate, not a full blown attack, at least so soon"

I can't remember who said the third line. And they definitely do establish that house Atreides have been duped and are fucked, but more in an economic and political sense than a physical one. It's more "we've been painted into a corner and will never have the resources to get this place running properly. Our future as a powerful house will die on this planet" than "We will literally all die here". That's at least how it came across to me in the movie.

But that's my point. Those lines are directly referencing that Leto and the rest know exactly what's happening. They know of House Harkonnen's attack plans, they know of the 10 legions being sent, hell they know the exact day it takes place.

"I thought we'd have more time" - the attack date has been moved up and its happening tonight.

"Promise me you'll protect Paul" - direct knowledge that Harkonnen has sent elite assassins to kill Paul, and that members of the Bene Gesserit are moving against Paul because he might be a chosen one.

"Its done?" "Its done." - Leto with the ambassador from the Emperor in the beginning after he signs the order with his ring. 100% in the novel Leto is confirming he just killed himself, his entire family and House and even the ambassador knows what's going on and is sympathetic that Leto just signed his suicide note.

What I mean is they removed so much political intrigue and plot, its going to be really difficult to do the later stories because some of it relies heavily on what they leave out. And that's assuming they even make a Part 2 which is not guaranteed.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Blind Justice

Armand Assante as a blind gunman (looking like a cross between El Topo and León the Professional) protecting a town from bandidos after some soldiers hide there with a bunch of silver. Not as fun as it could've been, though it gets the nasty Spaghetti Western mood right.

 

[Bartholen]

What I mean is they removed so much political intrigue and plot, its going to be really difficult to do the later stories because some of it relies heavily on what they leave out.

That's not the same as not making any sense to people who haven't read the book. The first movie, incomplete as it is, adds up logically within the plot it sets up for the average Dune viewer who hasn't read the books. Maybe the story will completely collapse when the second part comes out and those plot threads they left out suddenly become essential, but I have a feeling there may be significant adaptational changes coming in that regard. I feel we're just talking semantics here, but to say that the movie only makes sense if you've read the books is just patently wrong.

 

[SilentPony]

That's not the same as not making any sense to people who haven't read the book. The first movie, incomplete as it is, adds up logically within the plot it sets up for the average Dune viewer who hasn't read the books. Maybe the story will completely collapse when the second story comes out and those plot threads they left out suddenly become essential, but I have a feeling there may be significant adaptational changes coming in that regard. I feel we're just talking semantics here, but to say that the movie only makes sense if you've read the books is just patently wrong.

I think the semantic is interpretation. The lines I've quoted make sense to you given what the story tells you. But that interpretation is wrong. You've taken the wrong context of the lines and come to the wrong conclusion.
The lines mean a lot in the novel, and Paul's Jihad against the Emperor relies heavily on the foreknowledge of the attack. The story doesn't make sense if you know the novels because if you do you know how critical some of the stuff the leave out is.
It'd be like in Fellowship of the Ring if they dropped Sam's character. In the first movie, sure, he's just kinda there and you can watch the first movie and not know how important he is later on. and then to add onto that, they leave in some of the lines between Frodo and Sam, because they're famous. Frodo is in his boat and just says "You can't swim Sam!" but there's no-one there. And you can interpret that line to mean anything and make it make sense, unless you know the books and what follows, and what's been left out.

So too with Dune. It only seems to make sense because they didn't explain all the context and politics of this political story, and you don't know how much they left out matters in the end, and how little these random cryptic lines make sense removed for the context of their conversations.
And yes, the movie only makes sense if you've read the book, because if/when they do the second half of the book and the rest of Paul's story, shit is going to get very weird and very confusing very fast when they start referencing events that didn't take place in the first movie, but do take place in the first half of the book. It only seems to make sense because the movie didn't make it clear how little it makes sense, unless they're doing an interpretation so far removed from the source material it might as well not be called Dune.

 

[Bartholen]

snip

Well, I don't tend to rate movies based on things I haven't seen yet, so all I can say for now is I'll wait and see what comes of it. If the second movie indeed proves completely nonsensical (which considering Villeneuve's pedigree I doubt will happen) because of these plot omissions, then the first film will drop to something like a 4/10 and be remembered as an ambitious failure that was denied the ending it deserved.

I didn't really appreciate the spoiler about where Paul's story is going, btw.

The story doesn't make sense if you know the novels because if you do you know how critical some of the stuff the leave out is.
...
And yes, the movie only makes sense if you've read the book...

Wait what? The movie doesn't make sense if you haven't read the book, but it also doesn't make sense if you have read the book? I'm confused.

 

[SilentPony]

Wait what? The movie doesn't make sense if you haven't read the book, but it also doesn't make sense if you have read the book? I'm confused.

The story used in the movie doesn't make sense as a narrative if you've read the book, because you know it doesn't make sense. Here's a reference to this plot in the book that's not in the movie, but they did leave a few cryptic lines in. Entire characters, like the main character, as simply absent.
And also the movie can only make sense if you've read the book and know what is missing. Here's a randomly cryptic line that in the movie doesn't make sense. But if you know the novel, it does make sense because its not a random line but part of a plot important conversation.

Also Paul fighting back against the bad guys isn't so much a spoiler as much as it is...basic story telling. "There is conflict" is a pretty generic story.

Edit: I should probably clarify that the movie as a stand alone narrative, devoid of the book, doesn't make sense.
However it does make sense if you know the novel and what story elements are being dropped, because then the random lines and scenes that just end have more context. They're not random lines but part of a dialogue, and not scenes that just end because you know the scene keeps going.

 

[Bartholen]

The story used in the movie doesn't make sense as a narrative if you've read the book, because you know it doesn't make sense. Here's a reference to this plot in the book that's not in the movie, but they did leave a few cryptic lines in. Entire characters, like the main character, as simply absent.
And also the movie can only make sense if you've read the book and know what is missing. Here's a randomly cryptic line that in the movie doesn't make sense. But if you know the novel, it does make sense because its not a random line but part of a plot important conversation.

Also Paul fighting back against the bad guys isn't so much a spoiler as much as it is...basic story telling. "There is conflict" is a pretty generic story.

You seem to call the lines you mentioned "cryptic" and that they don't make sense on the basis that you've read the book, and therefore know they have a deeper or secondary meaning. But I directly explained how those lines made sense to me in the context they were given. They weren't cryptic or "WTF was that?" at all, they all made perfect sense. Maybe missing deeper meaning due to adaptation sickness, but they definitely weren't senseless cryptic statements whose meaning I was left wondering about. You can say I've drawn the wrong conclusion all you want, but I can only draw those conclusions based on what the movie gives me, not what's in the book.

 

[SilentPony]

You seem to call the lines you mentioned "cryptic" and that they don't make sense on the basis that you've read the book, and therefore know they have a deeper or secondary meaning. But I directly explained how those lines made sense to me in the context they were given. They weren't cryptic or "WTF was that?" at all, they all made perfect sense. Maybe missing deeper meaning due to adaptation sickness, but they definitely weren't senseless cryptic statements whose meaning I was left wondering about. You can say I've drawn the wrong conclusion all you want, but I can only draw those conclusions based on what the movie gives me, not what's in the book.

Yes that's my point. You've drawn the wrong conclusion for what these lines mean to the story, because the movie isn't doing a good job telling the story. Any line out of context can mean anything because the context doesn't matter. Its only when you add the context that the lines start to matter, and either make sense or don't.
The line "You're a wizard, Harry" can make perfect sense outside of the context of Harry Potter. But its kinda' an odd line within the context of Harry Potter if they've changed the character's name to Frank, or removed all mention of wizards in the rest of the book.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The Eternals

Marvel jumped the shark and into the depths of shlocky morning cartoon science fiction some time ago but I don't recall a movie this silly and stupid in a while. I remember back when superheroes at least had a pretend relationship to the real world. Iron Man was peddling guns in the Middle East. Captain America was a relic from another time, already ridiculous in WW2. Fucking Thor felt plausible just from how out of place he behaved and reacted in the world. Cut to I don't know how many years later and now we have space Power Rangers/Planeteers dropping in out of the blue, rewriting thousands of years of history in absurd color-coded spandex. Thanos gets a mention like "oh yeah that guy" - death of half the sentient universe, remember that? Big fucking whatever.

PS, don't stick around after the credits. Most pointless scene since the ant playing the drums in Ant Man 2.

 

[SilentPony]

The Eternals

Marvel jumped the shark and into the depths of shlocky morning cartoon science fiction some time ago but I don't recall a movie this silly and stupid in a while. I remember back when superheroes at least had a pretend relationship to the real world. Iron Man was peddling guns in the Middle East. Captain America was a relic from another time, already ridiculous in WW2. Fucking Thor felt plausible just from how out of place he behaved and reacted in the world. Cut to I don't know how many years later and now we have space Power Rangers/Planeteers dropping in out of the blue, rewriting thousands of years of history in absurd color-coded spandex. Thanos gets a mention like "oh yeah that guy" - death of half the sentient universe, remember that? Big fucking whatever.

PS, don't stick around after the credits. Most pointless scene since the ant playing the drums in Ant Man 2.

Grrr...I was worried about the tone in the trailers. It seemed too flippant. After the events of Endgame, Iron Man and Black Widow's deaths, the deaths of half the universe, Captain American finally being so tired and traumatized he returns to the 40s to retire, it seems to be in incredibly poor tastes to have the magical power rangers joking about who should be the next Avengers leader.
Seems very corporate studio driven. Let the new blood know they won't be getting RDJ or ScarJo's paychecks, they can always add the next level up super sayan.
Same logic behind the multiverse and all the different versions of characters. Just an excuse to cut everyone's pay because they can always recast with the Earth-88 version of your character.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The Green Knight

(On Prime)

Did anyone order indie movie the indie movie? Cause honestly if I were to say about the style of certain film makers you could probably nail down slow motion shots and Zack Snyder; Explosion and Michael Bay and maybe lens flare and J.J. Abrams. Indie films though seemingly as a sort of genre of their own seem to be an area where regardless of director many of them share common traits now. Outside of the low budget horror films and the odd hard to categorise film, indie films these days can be categorised with two things: An esoteric story looking at deeper ideas and gratuitous use of long lavish shots lingering on the environment or sweeping over it some vista because the film maker saw them do it a few times in Lord of the Rings.

Clocking in at 2 hours 9 minutes The Green Knight is a film that I can only really describe as self indulgent film making which could be seen to embody some of the worst of indie film making's indulgences. The film is 2 hours 9 minutes but it doesn't have time to make sure the audience is up on who is who among the characters besides the very core characters of Sir Gawain and The Green Knight. So if you aren't up on your Arthurian Legends then the film doesn't have time for you because the time explaining that it's characters include King Arthur, Queen Guinevere, Merlin and Morgan Le Fay is time it doesn't have because that's time it would rather spend on the aforementioned lingering landscape shots and sweeping vistas. Similarly the film will be unsatisfying to anyone not somewhat familiar with the tale of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight with the film actually cutting short the story leaving the ending ambiguous and up to the viewer to decide.

The basic story being a mysterious Green Knight turns up on Christmas day in court and throws down a challenge to the knights of the round table, a simple game, a duel where if any-one can land a blow on him they will win his axe but it is done on the understanding that 1 year from now they will journey to the green chapel with the axe to allow the Green Knight to return and equal blow. Sir Gawain who is not yet a knight but eager to prove himself takes up the challenge and decapitates the Knight only for the Knights body to stand back up, pick up his head and laugh saying 1 year hence and laughing. To prove his honour after accepting the duel Sir Gawain must travel to the green chapel and face his fate. The story mostly following his exploits and misadventures that test his knightly virtues (or in Gawain's case lack of them) along the way culminating in Gawain meeting with the Knight again in the Green Chapel.

With a film like this it's hard to really recommend it because how much you enjoy it relies on your ability to let go and let it wash over you enjoying the rather beautiful sets and likely mix of real world CGI vista. You have to just be and invest yourself in the quest for it to work but without an actual conclusion just an open ending you might still feel let down with the film. Also it's basically a film that require you to do advanced homework before watching to be able to let it wash over you and not constantly have to try and think parts of it through. Also for a film that goes with a fairly dark grim tone I have to say it's pretty out of place to have quite so many sex scenes with quite so little actual nudity. I'm not even joking there's probably 3 implied sex scenes plus a morning after sex in a brothel plus a seduction scene and all of them only ever show some out of focus breasts in the background so it feels like it doesn't even want to commit to the idea of the implied depravity or less than Knightly conduct that makes up part of the films theme.

In the end this is a film I'd say is very unique but I can only think the true audience for this film is one who are both very much aware of the tale of Sir Gawain and The Green Knight but also in an altered state of consciousness. So probably Students studying ancient legends and text as part of some Ancient Literature degree.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

The Eternals

Marvel jumped the shark and into the depths of shlocky morning cartoon science fiction some time ago but I don't recall a movie this silly and stupid in a while. I remember back when superheroes at least had a pretend relationship to the real world. Iron Man was peddling guns in the Middle East. Captain America was a relic from another time, already ridiculous in WW2. Fucking Thor felt plausible just from how out of place he behaved and reacted in the world. Cut to I don't know how many years later and now we have space Power Rangers/Planeteers dropping in out of the blue, rewriting thousands of years of history in absurd color-coded spandex. Thanos gets a mention like "oh yeah that guy" - death of half the sentient universe, remember that? Big fucking whatever.

PS, don't stick around after the credits. Most pointless scene since the ant playing the drums in Ant Man 2.

Yeah, but was it like a "Wim Wenders chaser in a Fassbinder shaped glass"?

 

[Bartholen]

Yeah, but was it like a "Wim Wenders chaser in a Fassbinder shaped glass"?

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

I was initially about to say that after reading those tweets I felt like wishing a Thanos snap on our world, just so there could be a chance of people like that fading out of existence.

Then I realized who it actually was. And now my wish has changed from Thanos snap to the end of Cabin in the Woods.

Fuck everything.