kiddo82

I have never, not once, in the last near quarter of a century, lost a wink of sleep wondering if both Jack and Rose could have fit on the door in Titanic. It seems like it's a thing that cycles around the internet every so often and I think we are in a current uptick because I've seen multiple posts about it. For me it's a fun thing to joke about but not something that is still worth seriously debating. Some seem to really care.

I've never seen a John Wick movie so I can't really comment on that. And it's not that I don't like revenge fantasies in general. There are plenty of things that happen on television and movies that are real world wrong that I can compartmentalize and still enjoy. But Kevin kind of is a budding sociopath. Marv and Harry are criminals that I don't have much sympathy for. It is just a silly movie. All these things are allowed to be true.

Yes, Marv and Harry are straight up criminals and yes, they do deserve to be brought to justice, but if this was real life I think we'd be a little bothered by this kid's reactions. Kevin is not the villain of Home Alone, and I admittedly scoffed when I first heard the Jigsaw parallels, but you know what? I kind of see it even if I think that's an extreme take. I initially heard that as a joke and was like "That's ridiculous." But the more I thought about it the more I was like "Waaaaaait a minute." It's not unfair to say that joke has truth to it. The best jokes do. I actually had a similar thought when I was watching the Disney animated Peter Pan over the summer. When you watch it back, Peter is kind of a sadistic creep. (definitely not the only part of that movie that hasn't aged well, believe you me.) Given the light that's been shown on police brutality and vigilantism over the past decade or so I think this is understandable. It may seem silly to compare the real world to freaking Home Alone but real world issues are how we view and critique media, and movies aimed towards kids shouldn't be immune. Don't get me wrong, I am not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a 30 year old ultimately harmless movie that people still adore. I still enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is fair to say that certain aspects don't hold up with perspective even if that doesn't dampen one's overall enjoyment of the film. Both things can be true. Not to mention the fact that Marv and Harry would have suffered life altering injuries from those initial falls on the icy steps that there is no way they would have even made it into the murder house in the first place. And no, I'm not fun at parties. I seldom get invited for some reason. Why do you ask?

Here's my pitch: Restless night? Watch the Irishman. It's just as effective as Ambien without the hangover.

I had rented Prom Night years ago because Randy kept mentioning it in Scream and I wanted to be able to fully embrace the reference. Man. That movie wasn't even cheesy fun bad. It was just bad bad. I don't remember a ton other than that painfully long disco dance at the prom and wondering how that killer could physically overpower anyone. Seriously, that was not a hefty person behind that mask It was only a matter of time before someone put up a good enough fight to turn the tables. I know it's just a movie but I didn't buy into it.

I saw this the day after Thanksgiving. I almost never say this about a film but I thought it was a waste of time. It's well produced but beyond that I didn't care about any of it. I feel like if you don't already know it's Spielberg's semi autobiopic you really wouldn't care about this kid becoming a filmmaker. Hell, at one point he had even quit for a chunk of the movie and I didn't remember until it was brought up again. Thats how low the stakes felt. And same for the family drama. I felt bad on a surface level but it didn't move me. And I'm sure Michelle Williams did as she was directed but I found her performance very grating. Dano, on the other hand, was the stand out for me. And good God, why did it have to be 2 and half hours long? I kept checking my phone the last hour or so. If this wasn't by Spielberg about Spielberg no way it gets the same critical reception let alone becomes a best picturefront runner. I'm still mad at myself for choosing this over Glass Onion.

I felt similarly about Padraic. It would truly suck to be in his position in real life but he called Colm's bluff once, saw the consequences, and yet he still wouldn't let it go. It's not that I don't feel badly for him but I can also empathize with Colm. Colm told Padraic exactly what he wanted and Padriac refused to honor that. But at the same time, it's hard for me to completely blame Padriac because he does seem socially impaired. It's hard to say how much emotional intelligence he could bring to the situation.

I kind of hate the argument that Oscar votes should be prescient. Landscapes change over time and it's so easy to have hindsight as to what has and hasn't held up over the years. Even with the best of faith voting it's a snapshot of a moment, not necessarily what people are going to look back on 5, 10, 30 plus years down the line. That said, and this shouldn't be the be all and end all but it is a factor, no one remembers those other performances and everyone to this day remembers Mona Lisa Vito. Every inch of that statue is deserved.

Unless a movie released in December really takes a stranglehold as the best picture favorite, I would bet on this to win. I think a lot of pundits back in the spring had this on top of their lists and I don't know if there is anything that has been released yet that really displaces it. We saw the same blueprint just last year with CODA. For what it's worth, it certainly checks the most boxes for me from all the other serious contenders I've seen so far.

I feel like it's a very Netflix friendly movie. Lots of stars and breezy, fun plot. Something easy to just throw on and not a bad movie to tide you over until Glass Onion. I hope that gives it a second life because I really, really enjoyed it.

Yeah, I don't even know what my own criteria is but I know it when I see it. Sometimes I get it right away and sometimes I need multiple viewings. But like you said it's usually a performance where I can't help but take notice of someone or a performance that I can't get out of my head for a substantial length of time. And degree of difficulty weighs in also. Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada for example. Not only is she incredibly good in her own right but she is as equally good in her role as Ms Streep is in hers. I think she should have easily gotten nominated for that performance. (I also would have nominated her for Mary Poppins. She was that good but the movie itself was a bit of a let down so I get it.)

And I think reboots are a completely different discussion than recasting. The former is typically refreshing a story from the beginning while the latter is continuing it indefinitely. No one takes the Nolan Batman trilogy as a continuation of the Burton/Schumacher ones. Nicholson's Joker and Ledger's Joker aren't the same guy played by a different actor. These are completely different entities that happen to be derived from the same source material. And look, if Disney did recast Thor tomorrow I do agree that the fans wouldn't revolt overnight. But I think eventually you do have to turn that page on these stories as a whole or the fans won't keep coming back.

The difference between a Bond movie and an MCU movie to me is that a Bond movie isn't so much a story about James as it is about whatever the threat of the moment is. Plus, with the exception of the Craig ones, most of them are all very self contained. You don't really need to know what happened before and aren't concerned about what happens next. You can plug and play different actors and different takes on Bond because it's never really about him. (again, with the exception the Craig Bonds.) But MCU movies are much more character driven, IMO, and we want the characters to succeed and we feel bad when they fail because we like them. And because we become so invested in the characters themselves I think the audience does crave a sense of finality when all is said and done. Yes, you could just cast Tom Cruise as our main timeline Tony Stark and continue with the story but to what end? We've gone through the ride with Tony and it's done (for now.) Leave well enough alone. If you go on that ride too many times you're going to get sick. I think End Game was so satisfying for so many because it was a conclusion, and a damn good one at that. And it had stakes. And consequences. If you wanted to bring Tony Stark back could you bring in a Tony from another timeline and go from there? Sure. And down the line could you reboot the entire Iron Man franchise? Sure again. But I don't know how many times an audience will just accept a new Tony showing up in the main timeline without diminishing returns. Or lets say Thor, for the sake of argument, to use a character who is still alive. The MCU has so much fodder it literally might never end, but certain arcs have to or you'll lose your audience.

"Ross married Rachel in Vegas and got divorced! AGAIN!"

I could be totally misremembering so grain of salt but I vaguely remember Idina Menzel saying she was happy to take a non-singing role in the first one because it meant they wanted her just for her acting. That said, after Let It Go, no way they don't give her a big song for the sequel.

Both Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson in Her. She does everything with only her voice and he does so much with just his facial expressions. It's really a remarkable contrast. And they have so much effing chemistry that it's unfathomable to me that not only were they never together playing off each while shooting, she recorded her lines after the movie was finished. Both of these performances deserved nominations and I never tire of them. Speaking of performances I never tire of: Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny. Comedy doesn't always age well but this performance still hits every single time. Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina. The way she uses her body in that role never ceases to impress me. Her Oscar may say "The Danish Girl", but for me, it's 100% for this performance. Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction. That dialogue just drips from his mouth like he was born saying it and he is effortlessly cool. Andy Serkis in the LoTR trilogy: Gollum is such a presence in the films that I think it's easy to forget there is an actual person giving the performance. Then I realize the physicality and the voice work and the tippy top level of emotions that Serkis brings, sometimes flipping in an instant, and I'm just in awe of him. Too soon to say definitivly because I've only seen Everything Everything All At Once one time but I still find myself thinking about Stephanie Hsu in that movie and all the emotional gymnastics she had to deliver. I really hope she keeps getting roles worthy of her talent.

I wouldn't consider myself the biggest Potter Head even though I have seen all the movies. However, whenever someone brings up the latest season of the Crown (which I don't watch but I know the cast) my initial reaction is always "I'm scared of Imedla Staunton." I think that says a lot about the impression her Umbridge left on me.

My take on SNL is as follows: No past era is as great as everyone says it is and no current era is as bad as everyone says it is.

Accents in general don't bother me. One person's "bad" accent is another person's "spent 12 months with a dliaect coach to work on this super regional accent that covers like 3 counties in PA." Thing is, I'm from Northern New Jersey and even my own accent can be wonky. I will say "cawfee" and "mawll", especially if I'm leaning into it, but I have friends who grew up not far from where I did who might not accentuate those words but do it to differnt ones. And some days it's a "rah-diator" and sometimes it's a "radiator." Just depends on whatever spills out of my mouth that day. I don't get too hung up on it. One of my favorite takes on our regional elocution (and hair, and clothes, and driving, and general us-ness) is in Don Jon. It's all very mildly over the top, I swear the swiffer scene is only there so the characters could say "Swiffa" over and over again, but it's also not wrong. I watch it and I'm like, "I know awll these people." Amadeus did this thing where it's in English but any character whose native language would have been German spoke in their normal "American' accent. Any character who wouldn't have natively spoken German (Salieri, for example) spoke English but in the accent from which he was from. That's a way of doing it too, but like I said, either way doesn't bother me.

I read that really fast as "Evan Rachel Wood trying to kill Spike" and I was like "Wait. Whaaaa?" But yes, I should have included Buffy's depression in my original post as another reason why Spuffy sex at least makes sense. But not them being in love. And the soul stuff was most definitely a bad idea.

Old UO unearthed: I don't blame the Buffy the Vampire Slayers for having Buffy and Spike knock boots. Gellar and Marsters had chemistry for daaayyyss and it's easy to see the two of them in an episode like This Year's Girl and not at least wonder "what if?" And also, admittedly, the episode where they actually did it (Smashed?) made my TV melt. Now, the problem was that they fell in love and the fallout from that. But as a love/hate relationship with the occasional grinding? I dig that.

I agree. I like the movie but for one with a very short run time it overstays its welcome relatively quickly. I rewatched Heathers yesterday. (It's free on Prime). It never quite sticks the landing for me but the first 3/4 or so flirts with perfection. And it's just as relevant today. What really got me was everyone from the kids to the hippie dippie teacher using the "suicides" to further their own agendas. So perverse but also such a harbinger of all the clout chasing that goes on on social media today. I don't know what I would necessarily change about the ending but I just wish it was stronger. Although, admittedly, Veronica standing there unflinching like she's John McClean is pretty badass.

This movie is a perfect example of why phrases such as "low stakes" should be more of an observation than a critique. In the grand scheme of things, this conflict between two friends isn't all that important, yet, I couldn't take my eyes off it the entire time. I had no idea which way things would go and McDonagh's screenplay is witty AF. Farrell and Gleeson were great but Kerry Condon kind of stole every scene she was in for me. Is it implied that Barry Keoghan killed himself? I thought it was pretty pointed when someone said he must have slipped and fell in the river.

Honestly surprised RDJ isn't on that list. But yes, please, to all of them.

People will still be assholes no matter how much better awareness is supposed to be these days. Plus, those scenes in Forest Gump take place in the 50s and 60s so they are very of their time, if not sadly, still plausible today. Also, as has already been pointed out, the bullying was never glorified or funny so I don't really see how present sensibilities would affect how those particular scenes are viewed now. Had the bullies somehow been portrayed as the heroes then you are probably right about it not flying today. But that was never the case. I feel like we are in era where the current movement is for audiences to have to face our own ugliness, past and present, whether it's palatable or not. If anything, things are being called out for not being harsh enough. (Which sometimes I agree with and sometimes I don't.) There is a fair amount about the movie Forest Gump that can be criticized, especially with almost 30 years of perspective, but I don't think the bullying scenes are one of them.