Proclone

I just got back from seeing this. I really quite enjoyed it. I'm not a huge horror person, and I mostly went to see Melanie Scrofano and Kristian Brunn (Emilie and Fitch) on the big screen, but I was pleasantly surprised. I'm not sure how really scary I thought it was, but it did have a few legitimate creepy moments (mostly from the barn scenes). And I did find it quite funny. I also didn't find it overly gruesome (I'm guessing some people will disagree with me about the end), and most of the gore seemed to have a point and was fairly restrained. I really liked Samara Weaving as Grace. I liked that she was smart and resourceful and never was never handed the idiot ball. She didn't really make any stupid decisions, which seems fairly rare in horror movies. She was also quite funny and had really good comic timing. I also find it rather refreshing that the villains were rather hapless in a realistic, we only do this every few decades, kind of way. You get snippets of it in the trailer, but Fitch watching youtube videos about how to use a crossbow, and Emilie accidentally killing the maids because she's both a terrible shot and coked-up, tickled me to no end. Tony bitching about having a tee-time the next morning was also quite amusing. Overall I found this to be a really fun horror-comedy. Like I said I didn't really find it all that scary, but it was funny. The characters were likable (even the villains).

He's Scottish.

She fires into the air when she surfaces in the pool, iirc. That's when Rick jumps out of the pool and runs into the shed and comes out with the flamethrower. I mean it's over the top, but honestly if someone had come crashing through my patio door waving a gun wildly and firing it, and I had a flamethrower handy....

Ok, it might just be that I love Melanie Scrofano from Wynonna Earp and Kristen Brunn from Orphan Black and just want to see them on the big screen, but Ready or Not looks like it might be really fun. And I'm not usually a big horror movie person.

I think why Cliff hung around with Rick was actually addressed in the movie. Cliff tells Rick something like he doesn't mind driving him around and doing odd jobs because he gets to house sit in the Hollywood hills, and drive Rick's car around (plus he can't get a job as a stuntman, so gofer might be his only option). I also think Cliff was a little protective of Rick. We see that the real Rick is a kind of shy guy with poor self-esteem and a bit of stutter. The Cliff we're presented seems like he likes to protect the little guy. He risks his life just to make sure George Spahn was alright, and heck it's his job as a stunt man to do the dangerous stuff so other people don't get hurt. Which is why his backstory with the wife doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's wrong with my earlier post either. It won't let me edit it to fix the formatting issue either... Anyway, I'm surprised they didn't touch on the issues in Tate and Polanski's marriage...especial since they had Steve McQueen comment that Jay Seabring was hanging around in part because he knew Polanski would screw up. I'm also not sure how you don't have them in the movie and not use, "We have a good arrangement. Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him." Which apparently Tate said to a friend...I mean it is such a movie line. And I really was disappointed that they didn't reveal what really happened with Pitt's character. I thought there was going to be some sort of reveal that tied to the plot in some way...but it had very little impact on the story or even the characters. There could have been dozen of other more straight forward reasons why Cliff had problems getting work as a stunt man, that would have fit with the characters better. Hell, they showed one with his fight with Bruce Lee. Make that a recurring problem with him getting into fights with stars who have big mouths and you not only have a reason he can't get work, but you have an amusing gag that fits with the character.

Overall I enjoyed it as well, though I do agree that it needed to be edited down quite a bit. I didn't mind DiCaprio's scenes that much, I think that part of the point of their length was to show that Rick actually was a pretty good actor, despite his own self-doubt. But there were other sequences that just went on too long. Pitt driving around for example. I get that it had a certain point (he keeps running into one of the Manson girls while driving), but the individual sequences could have been trimmed down themselves. It's cool to see the LA of the 1960s, but at a certain point, you're just watching a guy drive around. Also, I really didn't need Sharon Tate to spend that much time watching herself on screen. I think the idea of that sequence was cute and fun, but at a certain point, it felt like that section was there to serve Tarantino's apparent foot fetish (she has her bare feet sitting on the back of the seat through most of it), more than anything else. I felt like a lot of the movie was like, scenes that should have been cut even just a few seconds sooner and the pacing suffers for it. In a weird way, it still felt like a ruff edit of the movie. I also didn't like that they didn't definitively answer what had happened in Pitt's character's past. He seemed to have a pretty firm moral compass even if he wasn't opposed to violence so the claims against him didn't really fit with the character. I was waiting for an explanation of whether they really were true. All we do get is a flashback (and I think it might have been a flashback within a flashback) that implies he did do it...and plays it for laughs. I get it's a Tarantino movie and most of the characters are going to be grey, but it seems like such an odd choice, especially in this day and age. This might be set in 1969, but Tarantino would have to know how that would come across to 2019 audiences. Though the audience I was with did laugh...sadly. I really would have liked to have seen more of Robbie as Tate as well. I think it would have been interesting to show her relationship with Polanski. And to show the friction between the two of them as apparently Tate wanted a more conventional marriage and life in general and Polanski didn't. Considering how part of the movie sort of puts characters like Pitt's Cliff and to a lesser extent DiCaprio's Rick in opposition to the "hippies." I think that would have worked as another example of the culture clashes that were happening. I'm not sure the actor playing Polanski even has lines, now that I think of it. I totally get why some people won't like this film...I did overall enjoy it. That being said, it's not a film that I'll probably rewatch, at least not anytime soon. I think a certain portion of the experience is simply waiting to see what Tarantino is going to with the end, and after that, it's a film about down on his luck actor and his buddy, that doesn't have much of a plot, and occasional cutaways to a pretty blonde. Which isn't to say you shouldn't see it, I just don't think it's something that lends itself to a rewatch.

So many questions... First of all, why Cats in the first place? I know, I know, it ran for eight billion years, but it's been closed for decades and it was the butt of jokes even when it was running. It's a weird musical even on stage, it has little to no plot, the music isn't great, save Memory (the Jellicle Cats Song, makes me want to take an ice pick to my eardrums). That being said, how did this abomination come into being? How high was the production team that they thought this looked good? Why do cats have boobs? Why does this look like a body horror film that should have been directed by Cronenberg? People caught halfway between human and cat... Why do I feel like Tom Hooper really liked Cat People and said, "Let's make that a musical?" Why not just either make them CGI cats or go cheap and put them in costumes... Edited to add What are the chances of seeing CGI tap-dancing cockroaches in this, do you think?

Charlie told Seth he didn't want Seth to talk to Hearst on his behalf.

Quite possible, but at least those relationships had impacts on the plot. And I do tend to think she at least kind of cared about Luke Evans. Their relationship seemed the least calculated and most organic. The relationship with Maud was just there. It didn't impact the plot. It wasn't even really for fanservice, they barely touched each other. I just don't understand the point in adding another relationship that ultimately has no impact on an already convoluted plot.

I agree overall. It was entertaining enough and I also used a rewards card to get a free ticket so perhaps my enjoyment is also colored by not having to pay for it. I thought the action was enjoyable. The characters I was meh on, especially Anna herself. I think it's fairly obvious that Sasha Luss is a model and not really an actress. She wasn't bad, but there wasn't much there, there. The only scene where I really liked her and felt we were actually seeing Anna is the scene where she gets frustrated and hits the rude photographer with the camera and then makes him pose for her. I get that to pull off a good spy thriller some of the main characters needs to be hidden from the audience. But we still need to like and root for the character for it to work. Another recent spy thriller Red Sparrow suffered from the same problem (it also suffered from other problems including excessive sexual violence) in that you never really knew the main character enough to care about her. Atomic Blonde, on the other hand, both managed to keep Lorriane's motivations hidden but also gave away enough to make you care about her, at least IMO. I'll admit to not being fond of the lesbian relationship being used as a cover and never really addressed. Did Anna feel bad she was using Maud? Did she care for her at all? The did seem to have a legit moment of flirting when the first meet. They could have used the relationship to give Anna some depth, but it's just there. I honestly would have preferred the simply cut that storyline if they weren't going to do anything with it. Anna already bouncing around between Alex and Lenny was more than enough. But as compared to Valerian (the last Luc Benson film I saw and one I honestly considered walking out on it was so bad), this is a masterpiece.

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." To be honest, I this was a far happier ending than I ever expected. And I keep waffling back and forth as to whether I am disappointed in it. On the one hand I kind of like the story coming full circle. On the other hand, nothing really changed. The Seven...excuse me Six, Kingdoms are down one ugly thrown and up one creepy king. I always kind envisioned the story as epically changing Westeros, and it didn't really do that. Forgive me this is going to be long. One of my biggest issues with this season and by extension the show as a whole is the short shrift giving to the Night King and the White Walkers. Winter might have come, but it seemed rather mild to me. When you open a show hinting at this mysterious threat from the north, call me crazy, but I think it should be the main conflict of the show. It should not take one episode mid-way through the last season to completely resolve the threat. I always kind of thought that the main point of the show was that humans were wasting time dicking around playing the game of thrones when the actual threat was slowing walking south. It seemed rather obvious to me in the first season. I kind of thought that it ultimately wouldn't matter who was on the Iron Throne. But in the end, it was more pointless squabbling over who sat on the throne. The White Walkers were just a speed bump in the story, not the main antagonist. I'm not sure if meant to show things never change, but I really do think it's poor storytelling not to make the defeat of the White Walkers the climax of the story. I know a lot of people's biggest issue is the treatment of Dany's character. I honestly don't hate what they did. I think Tyrion's speech to Jon did a really good pointing out how everyone, including the audience, was pulled into Dany's vision because she was doing the awful things to awful people...until they were only awful in Dany's mind. And I did like that until the moment she died Dany sincerely thought she was doing the right thing. People rarely think they're the villain. Dany was a victim of believing in her own hype. She was "The Breaker of Chains," she was "Mhysa." That being said, they rushed her fall...way too fast. I think this season suffered from the writers knowing where they wanted to end up and skipping over some points in order to just to get there, and nowhere was that more evident than in Dany's story. There was a huge jump from burning slavers, to burning Kings Landing, and they skipped most of the hints that she would go there. I slow descent of this righteous character into a monster, especially if her ideas were still good, would have been super compelling. What we got was a nose dive into monster-hood. Either they should have started hinting at what Dany was ultimately capable of way earlier in the story (and I agree there are some hints sprinkled from the first season on, but they aren't strong enough), or modified the story a little and had Jon kill her just as she was starting to slip down that slope. An easy fix would have been for the burning of Kings Landing not to have been intentional. The Dany we were presented up until that point, I could totally buy being reckless to take revenge on Cersei. Have Dany burn the Red Keep trying to kill Cersei and inadvertently have that set off the wildfire hidden throughout the city, burning it. Then when confronted have Dany feel sorry that innocent people died, but still, think it was worth it to crush the people standing in her way. Have her make the same speech about breaking the wheel and freeing the world. Now there is a real conflict for Jon. Is Dany going to become a monster? Should he stop her now? And instead of it being black and white that Jon needed to kill her, it's way more grey. And also Dany's story becomes even more tragic. Instead of a monster, who killed children on purpose, she's just misguided. It's a little change that would have made the story work better, fit the characters we know better, and still would have gotten to the same point in the same amount of time. I did think that the scene of Jon stabbing Dany was really well done and quite well acted. I actually really liked this last episode up past Drogon flying off with Dany's body (which seemed really fitting). I didn't care for the whole choosing a king scene, which seemed all kinds of fanfiction-y. The broken boy gets to become king...okay. It just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the tone of the rest of Game of Thrones. I don't mind Sansa winding up as Queen in North and I kind of like Jon winding back up at the Night's Watch....I'm not sure why they still exist though. If they had done a better job with the Night King storyline, I think they could have hinted that they might someday return. Then they could have had the Night's Watch be a real order again (instead of a haven for criminals) and Jon leading it would have a perfect ending. "I am the shield that guards the realms of man..." And how did they fix the wall? Overall I think the eighth season wasn't the greatest, but I am going to miss the show.

It's strange that Magicians don't really seem to care about people dying very much. There seems to be a general apathy about the death of Breakbills students in general. We know a large percentage of the third year class disappeared and one point. Alice's brother turned into a niffin. Fogg's stock phrase seems to be that magic is not unlikely to get you killed. I get that a lot of it is played for laughs, but it is interesting how little a (what is probably) small community of people care about the deaths of their young people. It probably used to highlight the ennui that comes with nigh unlimited power, that even death isn't enough to make you care. I suppose it's contrasted by Hedges who do seem very much to care when one of their own is killed (the response to Hedges being killed by the poisoned/cursed Dewies). Sometimes I do wish they would explore what it's like growing up in the magical world more. And what the culture of the magical world is like. They have the two characters they can use to explore and contrast the "classically trained" and Hedge experiences in Alice and Kady. But then again I might be the one interested in seeing that so...

I totally agree that the conversation didn't really make it clear, but I do think the kind of implied it. Plover says that Martin couldn't make the flower bloom when he came back as an adult, because his love for Filory had changed (I'm paraphrasing). The implication being that you needed to love Filory in a childlike way to get it to bloom. Like I said, Margo and Fen (despite her sort of childlike innocence some of the time) love Filory in a more adult way. Quentin is the only one of the group that loved Filory with that childlike sense of wonder and I think everyone is aware of that. I do think it would have been interesting seeing different characters express their love for Filory, but I think it would have taken too much time without adding anything particularly groundbreaking. I would have liked Margo bitching about hating the whimsy of Filory some more though, for some reason that always tickles me.

While the probably could have done a better job of making it clearer, I think the implication was it had to be someone who loved Fillory like Martin loved Filory to get the flower to bloom. Margo and Fen love Filory in a more concrete practical way. Margo is sort of mama bear about because she feels responsible for Filory despite despising the whimsy. And Fen loves it because it's her home and she wants the best for it. Quentin loves the possibility of Filory. A recurring theme that's come up with him is that he loves magic, not in what it can do for him sort of way, but he just loves that magic exists. His love for Filory is an extension of that. Quentin doesn't love the citizens of Filory or even the land, he loves the idea of Filory-a magical world. He loves the idea of it as an escape from the mundane world, just like Martin loved it as an escape from Plover.

Very late to the party, but I just started the series. It had been on my radar but I was catching up on other shows (and you know those pesky real life responsibilities), so I didn't start watching it until a friend said, "You have to watch Sabrina, so we can talk about it. It's bonkers." So, far she's right it's pretty bonkers, in a good way for the most part. That being said, as a pagan I do have some issues with how religion is being presented so far (I'm in episode 5 as of writing this). I actually don't have a problem with the whole witches are the handmaids of Satan thing per se (It's a fantasy show I can turn off my brain if it's just witches=evil). It's just that they don't seem to be very consistent in whether that is a good or a bad thing. The way witches talk about Satan in the show is very close to how actual Satanists (most of whom don't believe in an actual Satan but see him more as an archetypal figure) view him as an archetype of free will and access to knowledge. He did tempt Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, many see him as freeing humanity. But the show has their church being corrupt and evil and if there were hints that this was some perversion of the actual Dark Lord's intention, I think that would be interesting. But it doesn't seem to be, Satan seems to want to use Sabrina as some sort of tool...or something. Also, you know witches are apparently cannibals too. I can see why the Church of Satan was a tad pissed off that they used a figure very close to their representation of Satan on the show. Also not to pick nits, but the word Wicca comes from the old English word for Witch, so many Wiccans would say they simply practice Witchcraft (and generally when Witchcraft is capitalized it is referring to Wicca), especially someone who practices British Traditional Wicca. But the history of Wicca and Witchcraft is very muddy. British Traditional Wicca began with Gardner, who claimed to simply be teaching an ancient religion (if you're interested you can google Witch Cult), which is totally false, but many Wiccans still believe that narrative. To muddy the waters further different Traditional covens broke off from each other and then Neo-Wiccans or Solitary Wiccans began to pop up as people began to write books about Wicca and Witchcraft revealing aspects (but not generally all because what goes on in trad coven is typically oathbound) of the religion to the general public. What goes on in trad covens is often not nearly as warm and fuzzy as Neo-Wiccans (who generally only access through the sanitized non-oathbound stuff) would have you believe. Also, Paganism is not a religion itself, but a loose collection of non-Christian religions. They often tend to be Earth-based religions, not all of them are. There are even some really right-wing people who practice Asatru or Heathenism, which is based on the Old Norse religions (that is not to say all Heathens are right-wing or racist, but they do exist). There are dozens of other Pagan religions some bigger or smaller. Individual Pagan religions tend to be orthopractic, instead of orthodoxical. Which means, members of the religion agree to practice the same way, but that doesn't mean they believe the same things. Which makes everything even more confusing and I doubt we'll ever get a really good representation of Paganism on a mainstream TV show. That being said I'm not super thrilled about the zigzagging the show seems to be doing with Witches. Are they simply evil? Is it a mixed bag, where some are evil and some are good (but only Sabrina and her family ever seem to be even close to good)? Is it simply a question of orange and blue morality where their morals simply don't align with the "mortal" world at all? I'm not sure yet, and I don't know if I hold much faith that the show will make a definitive choice. So far it just seems to be what furthers the plot, causes the most angst for Sabrina or makes the coolest/funniest moment.

Yeah, I didn't feel like it was propping up Alice and Quentin as a couple, either. Especially since it seemed obvious that present Q's feelings about Alice haven't wildly changed. I think Q is done with the relationship, at least in the romantic sense. But I think the point their entire interaction was to let Q know how important he was to Alice and his attempts to completely cut her out of his life aren't really healthy for either one of them. I also do wonder given the timey-wimey nature of the show (especially of late) if the climax of the season won't involve Q repairing things by potentially changing the past. He needed to hear Alice tell him that she doesn't care if their relationship goes to pot, she wouldn't give up the now because for her at that moment he is the best thing to ever happen to her.

Monica says something like, "Green shapeshifting aliens don't exist," and Fury replies, "Of course they don't. Because if they did we would want to keep that to ourselves," with a pointed look at Carol. You could take that scene as evidence of him purposely keeping the existence of Skrulls on the down low. Which could also explain why Sheild seems like a new organization in Iron Man. They simply don't advertise and they don't want to advertise how long they've really been around.

I saw this for the second time last night, and I actually think I enjoyed it more the second time. There were subtle moments that I didn't pick up the first time, that I did the second that made the film all that more enjoyable (I did really like the first time around too). There were lots of little ones during the final fight as Carol get used to her new powers and alternates between being confused and pleased with herself. I don't think this movie has a feminist "agenda." Agenda makes it sound sneaky or somehow like the movie trying to trick its audience into believing something. It certainly has a feminist message and there's nothing wrong with that. Feminism is simply the view that women and men should be equal. The fact that a movie that has a message and themes supporting that could be controversial in this day in age is sad. Empowering women doesn't automatically mean disempower men (despite what incels and MGTOW idiots would have you believe). And quite frankly all the best men I know identify themselves as feminists anyway. I also think that Captain Marvel handled both blatant and more subtle sexism that women face (especially a woman in a predominately male field), quite well. I've had that scene where the guy asks Carol (or I suppose Vers at that point) to give him a smile, happen to me. I've had it happen to me multiple times, the last time being a few weeks ago when a guy pulled up alongside my car at a light and honked his horn. When I rolled down my window (thinking he was going to tell me I had a taillight out or something) he yelled, "You should smile, it's a pretty day and you'd be a pretty girl if you'd smile." Men typically don't feel the need to tell other men to "smile," but there's a whole bunch of them that feel the need to tell women to do it. There's also the more subtle issues between Carol and Yon-Rogg. Yon-Rogg often in the film accuses Carol (or Vers) of being too emotional or unable to control her emotions. That's often something women are accused of being too emotional. It's also cited as the reason a woman can't be X (the President for example) because they would let their emotions override them. The fact that Carol didn't have to become emotionless to kick Yon-Rogg's ass was awesome. I also loved her blasting him after his "knock me down without your power speech," at the end. She absolutely didn't need to prove anything to him. She was powerful, with or without the powers she gained from the explosion. Carol Danvers was powerful because she was determined (the montage of her getting up each time showed that), not because her hands glowed. I really liked Bri Larson as Carol. I thought her dry sense of humor worked really well for a fighter pilot. Also, she had great chemistry with Jackson, and I loved their relationship. She also had great chemistry with Maria and Monica. Ben Mendelsohn was really great as Talos. He was both really funny and actually really heartbreaking at times. I totally bought his grief for his friend being killed which is the first hint Skrulls aren't quite what the Kree say they are. I also thought he was excellent in the scene where he is reunited with his wife and daughter. It's very alien (the noises the forehead touching) but also very human. A couple of things I wasn't thrilled with. The first bit dragged a bit and think that was mostly due to the "as you know..." dialogue. I realize that they had to get the exposition out, but the conversation on the between Yon-Rogg and Vers about how the Supreme Intelligence appears and then again in the next scene with Vers and the Supreme intelligence was all stuff Vers would obviously know already and none of it felt like organic conversations. I feel like there must have defter way getting that information out. I also had an issue with a few of the fight scene. I felt the editing in them was a bit choppy and some of them were super dark and it was hard to tell what was going on. Also, I think the blew their entire CGI budget on Sam Jackson's face because Captain Marvel didn't look great in a couple of scenes. It was mostly when she had the helmet on, she looked a bit cartoony. But overall I really enjoyed this. I'm also super looking forward to Carol working with the rest of the Avengers in End Game.

I didn't walk out of the theater, but I can't say I found this to be a particularly good movie either. I do remember thinking while watching, "Well, this is uncomfortably rapey." I took a chance on think (despite thinking JLaw's accent didn't sound great even in the trailers), because I like Jennifer Lawerence as an actor and I dig a good spy thriller. I wound up being kind of flabbergasted that she agreed to do this movie. This wound up feeling like a movie I would have accidentally landed on, on Cinemax at 2 am in the '90s. The rape scenes too much after the first one. I suppose it could be argued that the first assault was integral to showing her character just how little her uncle cared about her well being, but after that, it was all just gratuitous. I mean I get that the "red sparrow" school stuff was supposed to be dark, but do we honestly think that Russian spy schools let one student rape another in front of the entire class? It was way too over the top and quite frankly made the assaults start to lose their impact. It's like the filmmakers said, "I know what's traumatic! Rape, let's have our main character be sexually assaulted multiple times." Basically, the filmmakers didn't know how to communicate trauma or emotion to the audience so they used sexual assault as a shorthand, which is both lazy and kind of gross. It probably could have been an interesting film. As you said the first half hour wasn't bad. It could have been interesting to watch JLaw (I haven't watched the film since it came out and can't be bothered to look up the character's name) character transform naive dancer to spy. But between the uncalled for level of sexual violence and writing the main character as a bit of a cipher (I get why to an extent, but Atomic Blonde both managed to keep the main character's true motivations hidden and make me like her) it just didn't work.

Yeah...it doesn't look good. I thought that from the first trailer I saw. I can't quite put my finger on why either. I liked the Perlman ones quite a bit, but not so much that I'm closed off to the idea of a reboot. That being said, I think part of the problem is the guy playing Hell Boy (and I have no idea who it is) is trying to channel Perlman a bit and really not succeeding.

This is beginning to get a bit circular so it will be my last post on the topic here. And for the record, the rest of my opinioning sentence did, in fact, admit that it was perhaps I that was not making my point clearly, and perhaps I have not. While it's great to say that you only judge a film on artistic merit, that's quite frankly a bit naive and short-sighted. As I said there are cultural and social implications that go along with films, especially films dealing with race. If we are only judging on artistic merit, then Birth of a Nation is an excellent film for it's time that advanced cinema. But we don't just judge a film on artistic merit, we do take into account what's it about and who made it. I could make a gorgeous, technically flawless, well acted, film on a number of really unsavory topics and I doubt I would win any awards for it. Because films are art, but they are also a reflection of our culture. When a movie about race is told through the eyes of a white man, you are reinforcing that a white perspective is more important. And as a side note, the concept of divorcing art from who makes it, is how Polanski and Allen keep getting to make films. So forgive me if I'm not super enthused about solely judging a work on artistic merit alone. Other factors need to come into play. A standstill or a step back, in either case, Green Book is only reinforcing that minority stories should be told to them instead of by them. And I find it particularly galling that the AMPAS decided to reward it when they could have chosen one the two other movies that dealt with race that didn't have a white guy as the main character if they were so hell-bent on giving the prize to a movie on that topic.

I said it in another post, and I'm not sure if it's really an UO, but I find speculating on celebrities relationships kind of unsavory in general. It really isn't anyone (but his girlfriend's) business if Cooper and Gaga are or are not banging. And I really couldn't care less. I do agree it's weird that people seem to think that they couldn't channel their characters for a couple of minute rendition of their song though. They are actors, pretty good ones. But in general, I really kind of hate celebrity gossip, especially when it pertains to relationships. I view celebrities kind of like passing acquaintances. They can tell me a funny story about their spouse or partner on a talk show, but generally speaking, I don't really want to know or speculate about their relationship drama any more than I want to know about the relationship drama of the guy I buy milk from.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if you're being purposely obtuse about this, I really haven't made my point clear, or what but, my problem and it seems the problem of most people's here, about Green Book, is that it about a specific minority experience and tells it through the eyes of a white man. There are social and cultural issues that go with movies. You can't separate them, you can't remove them. Movies are not made in a vacuum. And our culture has a really unfortunate history of making minorities play second fiddle in stories about their experiences while pushing a character from the majority to the forefront. Movies are part of the culture, they are also the lens through which we view culture, and sometimes it can be something that shifts the culture. The point being whether it is a completely accurate portrayal of Tony Vallelonga's experience or not, it's not a film about him. It's a film about racism...told by a white person, with a white protagonist. This particular was the story that was chosen to be told to appeal to white people. Instead of telling the actual story of a black person who had to use the Green Book to travel in the south (I'm sure both fictional and real stories of that exist). If you can't understand why that is problematic, then I really don't know how to better explain it. Just as with La La Land, it's not that the white guy likes jazz or plays jazz, it's that he is presented as the sole person willing to sacrifice for it and in the end, succeeds in saving it in the form of his club...an art that has strong ties to the black community. The white guy saved the day...again. Once again if don't see the really unfortunate implications that go along with that, I don't know how to explain them. I'll also add there is a double standard when it comes to minorities breaking through lines and the majority stepping over minorities. And there should be. We should celebrate POC or other minorities that are able to be successful in a traditionally white art form or other mainstream things, like opera. On the other hand, we don't really need to encourage the majority to usurp a minority art form. Yes, there is a double standard and there should be. When you are not a part of a minority group there is a concept of being a good ally. And part of that is not talking over that minority group. It is not telling their story without them. It is certainly not telling their story through your eyes. I would love it Hollywood would in general start being a better ally to not just the black community but all minority communities by allowing them to tell their own stories. And trusting audiences that they will watch a well-made thought-provoking movie regardless of what color the lead is. Granted Black Panther had a built-in market, but I think it finally started to show Hollywood that those films are viable. *Edited to Add* The same way films influence culture, the Oscars influence films. The fact that a genre of films (the Oscar Bait movie) has sprung up around it shows that. So, when the AMPAS rewards a film like Green Book, it is only reinforcing that minorities are supporting characters in stories about their issues. It is reinforcing the idea that's what the Academy wants to see and by extension the general public. Giving Green Book Best Picture is taking a step back and it has wider cultural implications. I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but as much as Best Picture doesn't really mean anything, it means something in a wider sense. It's the Academy pointing and saying, "Yes, give us more of that." And that's why I have a big issue with Green Book winning. It's less about the film itself and more of what goes along with it's win.

I meant in a wider sense that minorities need to stop being supporting characters in their own stories. If Green Book was made in isolation then it would probably be fine, but nothing is made in isolation How many movies exist that tell a specific minority experience through the lens of a non-minority? A lot. Green Book, The Help...hell, La La Land could be viewed that way (the white guy is the only one who cares about preserving Jazz...a traditionally black artform) and those are only relatively recent Oscar darlings. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to "White Savior" movies. Some of them are good films, some of them aren't, but they all have in common is that the white person is the main character. Did we need another black man's story told through the eyes of his white friend story? In my opinion, no we didn't. Go to that Wikipedia page, more than enough of those kinds of movies exist. How about we try something new and tell stories about minorities where the actual main character is the member of the minority group? How about we trust audiences to be smart and accepting enough to watch and understand a movie about a race or racism from the point of view of someone who actually experiences racism first hand and not just tangentially. And let's all admit that's why films like Green Book get made; it's because Hollywood doesn't think white people will watch a film about black people without a white protagonist. And that's also why it got Best Picture because it made the members of the academy feel like they were doing something "woke" without actually pushing anyone out of their comfort zone.