ruby24

THIS. I'm starting to get angry about the continued snubbing of Rhea Seehorn. Are they actually watching Saul or are these other actors still coasting off their Breaking Bad reputations? Because if they're watching it, they should have noticed by now how good she is and also how crucial to the show her character has become.

Oh wait, I forgot a couple: The War of the Worlds- really good sci-fi, although the characters were barely memorable. Another Thin Man- I'm trying to make my way the whole series. I loved the first and second one, but this one was weaker, imo. Nick and Nora still had some good scenes and lines together though.

Movies I've watched on TCM over the last week: All This and Heaven Too- Too long, but I mostly liked it. Bette Davis and Charles Boyer were really good and so was the actress who played the wife. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon- Pretty good, but not as good as I was expecting, considering how well regarded it is. Cinematography was great though. I wonder if that accounts for a lot of its reputation, to be honest. Dodge City- Lots of fun! Hadn't seen Errol Flynn in a western yet. Enjoyed it quite a bit. This is more my kind of western than She Wore a Yellow Ribbon I think. Broadway Melody of 1940- loved this! It took me a long time to get around to it, because I've seen most of Fred Astaire's movies, but I think this one might actually be one of his best. Diary of a Lost Girl- Loved it. That Louise Brooks, man. She has such a fierce look in her eye, she seems so modern! It's obvious how different she is onscreen compared to other stars of the silent era. It's quite striking. This movie moved swiftly too, where as for me a lot of silents feel a bit slower paced. Not this one. Very entertaining.

I think this is a bit misleading. First of all, this is Craig's last Bond movie, right? So it sounds to me like they're basically going to have him pass the mantle to this person by the end of the movie in some way, as a nod to the people who wanted a black or female Bond. And then they will reboot Bond in 5 years with a new guy anyway.

Yeah, I noticed that too. He was a big presence in the first half, so I wonder if it's intentional. Make him the main character in the first half, switch to Artemis in the second? Build her up before Wally comes back, I'm guessing. I don't know, I still think the show has way too many characters. I don't know about anyone else, but I got into it in the first season because of the core group of characters that I grew to love- Dick, Wally, Conner, Mgann, Kalder and Artemis. Them individually and as a team. As soon as Season 2 started bringing in all these other people who kept coming in and out it was just really hard to care about any of them. I wish the focus could be on the same characters from the first season they spent so much time establishing.

I could see them doing another movie in high school and then one in college. The next one could be Spider-Man: Graduation or something. First year of college is still a teenager, and the college years are important to Spider-Man's history too. Not that these movies care much (or at all) about Spider-Man lore, it's all Tony Stark/Avengers shit. Did Uncle Ben even exist in this universe? Because neither Peter nor May seem to have any lingering grief or feelings about his violent death.

By the way, what is El's schooling situation? How is she being educated?

I don't understand why Joyce gets custody of El and she has to move away with them. She's not close to Joyce or Will. Mike's family wouldn't take her in?

Actually, I liked that Mike brought up brain damage, because I've been thinking the same thing. These constant nosebleeds can't be good for someone's health.

I think this Artemis/Will thing is only there to cause drama for Wally's inevitable (and obviously getting closer) return. The minute she decides to date Will is when Wally comes back, I guarantee it.

Interesting.

Do Peter and MJ actually get to kiss in this? I've noticed Marvel does not like to have their couples kiss and romance is minimal.

Official Secrets, starring Keira Knightley:

Well, it's true. The book itself (I've read it twice) is deeply, inherently racist. The movie is less plainspoken about that in terms of its white characters but the depictions of the slaves are incredibly racist. And the whole movie is about glorifying the "Old South" and the Confederacy. I think the thing that saves it (if it does, and there may come a day when this isn't enough anymore) is the inherent selfishness of the characters of Rhett and Scarlett, who end up turning the story into a melodramatic soap opera about themselves and their relationship rather than any sort of wider depiction of southern life and commitment to slavery. Especially in the second half. You can appreciate the incredible acting, production values of Old Hollywood and the entertaining nature of it aside from the abhorrent values of the society it's trying to endorse. You can't escape that in the book.

"My" version is the 90's one forever, but I will see any remake of it. I didn't like the BBC one last year. I hope this one's good, although it kinda bugs me that not a single one of the March girls is an American actress.