Steph J

It'll die for now but be resurrected every four years, I'm sure.

Literally none of the players for the US 2018 team were members of the Olympic team when that allegedly happened so I'm not sure it's fair to hold it against the current iteration of the US team as some sort of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" type thing. As a Canadian who stayed up all night to watch the game and was gutted to see Canada lose, I understand the inclination to defend Larocque. They're hurting. Those of us who were rooting for them are hurting for them. None of us want to see an internet shaming pile-on on one of the players on top of it. At the same time, however, that was bad form on her part. It would be as bad as if she had refused to shake hands with the winners afterwards and as one of the team's veterans, she should be expected to display good sportsmanship and set a good example for the younger players. I'm sure that no one feels worse about it than her because right now, when she probably just wants to lick her wounds in private, she's front and center in the media over what she did. I'm sure she regrets it and I'm sure that in the heat of the moment she didn't pause to think about how it would be perceived, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be called out for doing it in the first place.

While I agree that the story isn't historically accurate, I disagree that that makes it meaningless, I think it does have a lot of meaningful things to say about the ways in which women have had to negotiate all-male spaces, spaces in which they tend to be talked down to, dismissed, patronized, or just ignored. To me, the Pentagon papers wasn't the story the film was trying to tell but really just a point of entry or a framework for what it's actually about, which is a woman gaining a sense of agency and learning how to use her voice and create space for herself in a professional setting that would otherwise shut her out. That might not make the film meaningful in terms of the actual history of the Vietnam War, but I would argue that it speaks pretty deeply to a lot of what's being talked about right now. As for Sarah Paulson's character, you make a good point about her making sandwiches being its own form of sexism, but I'm not sure you're giving enough credit to the scene in which she spells things out for her husband. He's standing there, lamenting that Katherine Graham won't let him publish the story even though he's willing to take the risk, stating that he has just as much to lose as she does, and his wife basically tells him that he's full of shit. He wants to be threatened with jail. If he goes to jail, his reputation will soar because he'll be a man who stood up for something. The paper might go down, but he'll ultimately be fine because other papers would be fighting each other to hire him after he's released. Katherine Graham, meanwhile, could have gone to jail and her legacy would have been that of the woman who lost the family paper and people would tsk and say that it never would have happened if her husband was still there to be in charge. Paulson's character might be spelling things out, but she's also saying to her husband, "I see you, I see what you're doing, and I'm going to call this what it is."

Hahaha, I love Camille. But, seriously, what the hell Dorit? Teddi says, "Whatever, I don't give a fuck" and somehow that translates to her being mad?

Congratulations to Kevin Lee, who managed the incredible feat of issuing an apology that makes a Jax apology seem sincere in comparison.

Fair point. I guess I just mean that the miraculous nature of the ending makes it seem ambiguous to me.

Given this article it seems unlikely that she's learned a damn thing from any of this (and I don't even mean saying that she would've voted for Trump; she's a conservative so she's going to vote Republican. I mean claiming that she "chooses not to vote" when in fact she's not allowed to vote, which means that she's still cherry picking facts to suit the narrative that she wants rather than the truth as it is).

I get the feeling he won't have to try that hard. Or maybe she's just a really good salesperson.

I don't know, I kinda disagree. My reason is I guess I just find it odd that a movie this dark would have a happy-ish ending where the protagonist gets everything she wants.

I thought Aubrey Plaza was amazing and to me this movie had one of the single funniest gags of the year, when Wyatt Russell and Elizabeth Olsen's characters take Ingrid character to see his "art" and it's just a painting of horses across which he's written #Squad Goals. Curious what others think of the ending:

I think you're absolutely right. All the scenes of the Nev family at home smack of a back door pilot.

This season needs 100% less of Mrs. Nev. She adds nothing.

They're probably scared that if they started punching they'd never stop. I would be.

I'm sure Ariana would have something to say about that.

God I hate Scheana. And I laughed when LVP described Peter as the sweetest person who works for her. He seems really nice, to be sure, but it's not like there's any competition for being the nicest person at SUR.

I so agree with this. That moment when she turns to Bradley Whitford's character and snaps, "I'm talking to Mr. Bradlee" made me want to clap.

Magnus isn't actually Ragnar's son, though. When Ragnar came back to England and Ecbert introduced him to Magnus, Ragnar told them that he'd never had sex with Kwenthrith and that she'd only peed on him (and Magnus was promptly sent out into the wild because Ecbert no longer had any reason to keep him as a ward).

Ever since the Seer told her that she'd be killed by a son of Ragnar, I've always assumed that she'd go out after being accidentally killed by Bjorn (because irony). After this episode I'm thinking Bjorn might end up mercy killing her because she won't be in any shape to flee and he's not going to risk her falling into Ivar's clutches without her wits about her.

Saw it yesterday and liked it a lot, which is saying something since it's a movie about a man who behaves like an entitled baby, which should make it insufferable (though I suppose it helps that the movie acknowledges that he's acting like an entitled baby). The costumes, production design, and score are all excellent and so are the performances. I knew going into it that there was some "twist," but was unspoiled and genuinely surprised by what the twist was because I never would have guessed that that was the direction the story would head in. Afterwards I had a discussion with a friend about why Would love to hear other interpretations, though.

No and no. I've never played a game of poker in my life and found the movie greatly entertaining. It's not really about poker, it's more about power.

Does it really count as an apology if, upon identifying the problem (his drinking), he basically laughs in Katie's face at the suggestion that he should stop doing the very thing that acts as a gateway to doing the thing that she's mad about? Seriously, Jax is a dick but Schwartz is the only one that I actually want to punch in his stupid face.

Ah, that makes sense.

Overall really enjoyed this show, in particular each and every scene featuring Merritt Wever, and would definitely come back for more if they made another series (I assume that the reason that none of the La Belle residents who had speaking lines, with the exception of Whitey, were actually killed in the shoot out is so that they can be brought back for a second series if Netflix puts in the order). That said, I did find it pretty unbelievable that the town full of Buffalo soldiers were slaughtered while the town full of women who, with few exceptions, had never fired a gun prevailed. If the Buffalo soldiers had an underground tunnel system, why not use it to surround Griffin's gang? For that matter, why were the La Belle residents all firing from only one side of the street, instead of surrounding the town center and giving themselves a better chance to pick off the members of the gang?

Agreed. I found The Lobster to be quite funny, but I didn't think the humor in this one worked, even in a dark way. I only saw it a few hours ago so I haven't completely settled on how I feel about it overall, but I definitely wouldn't described it as a "comedy."

Anyone else seen this? I thought it was pretty good right up until the ending, which I hated (though it did prompt someone in the theater to loudly exclaim, "What?" which made me laugh). Willem Dafoe is excellent, wouldn't surprise me at all if he gets an Oscar nomination, as many people seem to be predicting. Alexis Zabe's cinematography is also fantastic; the movie is full of really striking images.