Veltigar

Oh yeah, I more meant that even in my negative appraisal of the film on that front, I wouldn't use the word offensive. Yeah, Oppenheimer was great. It definitely deserves awards for its actors. I think Cillian Murphy is probably the most likely winner amongst them. For supporting actor, I do hope they go for someone else than RDJ. I think Ryan Gosling's Ken totally stole the Barbie movie, so I'd like to have that performance rewarded. Best movie is trickier though. Oppenheimer certainly was an achievement, but I wouldn't rule out Killers of the Flower Moon. Ah well, lots of speculation at this point, especially since I hope Napoleon will blow us all away and amend the scores a bit. It feels like it hasn't been the best year for cinema really.

Thanks for clearing that up I give him somewhat of a pass on the culture front, because I think he never really goes into "New Asian" culture that deeply. Perhaps its wrong for him not to care, but I think he mostly wanted to pilfer his travel memories for visuals. Everything for him is subservient to that, which makes sense, since the cinematography and visuals is what he does best. There is some iconography borrowed from existing places in Asia (particular in the latter scenes in the monastery), but it's more Blade Runner than trying to emulate an existing place in Asia imo and it never grinds to a halt to explain why the cultures of "New Asia" were more gently predisposed to AI (which would probably be an orientalist mine field). It's definitely an undercooked setting, but I think he would have been just as uninterested in exploring the underlying cultures if this was set in South Dakota or Edenborough. 100% agreed with the spoiler comment. Like I said in my review, the political implications in this film are so wild, I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards was studying Xi Jingping Thought as a hobby

I found this bit particularly on point: As a great admirer of Sir Ridley Scott, I always thought he operated under the idea of "Never letting the truth come in the way of a good story", so his pettiness on this front is somewhat of a disappointment.

The Economist is quite scathing, but indeed, most other outlets I follow seem to be big fans. Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” cuts the emperor down to size (economist.com)

Finally got to see Killers of the Flower Moon. Despite the fact that the circumstances (i.e. the audience at the theatre) were less than ideal, I was floored by the film. It's definitely arduously long and I won't say that I never felt the runtime of the film, but all in all I thought it was quite devastating. It also felt strangely unlike any other Scorsese film I can remember. This despite the fact that it's basically about a mob, has both DiCaprio and De Niro in it, and sports a butt-numbingly long runtime. I read that he was inspired by the work of Ari Aster to slow this film down and I think that really shows here. It's also a consequence of the fact that this film lacks the larger-than-life characters that characterise most of Scorsese's most memorable work. The actors all do a great job of course, but there is no Bill the Butcher, Travis Bickle or Jordan Belfort in this film to anchor the story around. I think it was a good decision not to create such a character for this film, as this story shouldn't be sensationalized any more than it already has been done (which is my major point of criticism for the film) I also thought the ending was very courageous There are two things I am conflicted about and for which I really should read the book: As to your criticism in the spoiler section: Offensive is perhaps a strong word, but I do feel like the quantity of derivative story beats adds up. Like, one or two blatant rip-offs would be manageable, but he does so much of them. He really should find himself a great screenwriter as you suggest, that could lead to a terrific film.

I'm not sure whether I could have lived through their version of Romans as the protagonists of the show. They were such pantomime villains, I can't imagine rooting for any of them.

So apparently this is happening: Starz Sets ‘Spartacus: House Of Ashur’ From Steven S. DeKnight; Nick Tarabay Sets Return – Deadline Not sure how I feel about this, but I guess DeKnight must have a pretty great story in mind to take such a drastic step as this.

If we're turning this into a favourite Disney thread, I'll champion Beauty and the Beast. Nothing compares to Gaston. I repeat, NOTHING. But the Lion King is also great and I do remember its direct to video sequel fondly, so I do agree with @Jace, Extat that it beats Jungle Book. Anyways, most of Disney output in the early nineties was great. The real controversial question is when Disney started messing up again. For me the last true great Disney movie of the nineties was the Hunchback of the Notre Dame, with the latter Mulan also coming close. Saying this, I know that I'm painting a target on my back for all the crazily obsessed Tarzan and Hercules fans Were you rooting for Scar to win in the end? :p

Let's also not forget that all these wunderkind generals got a shitload of people killed when they started to believe in their own hype. There is a reason we have checks-and-balances in place for the military Thanks for sharing the article, it was indeed very insightful

I watched an interesting German film called "Der vermessene Mensch" (Measures of Men is the English title). It follows a German ethnologist who gets roped into the Herero and Namaqua genocide (perpetrated by the German Empire in German South West Africa (now Namibia) between 1904 and 1908) and has some very critical things to say about how the scientific establishment cooperated with this genocide (and thus helped lay the foundations of the atrocities of WWII). It was a very effective film and ends with a plea to repatriate the remains of the victims of the genocide from German museums back to Namibia. It's quite shocking to think that these collections, which I don't think have any scientific relevance whatsoever, still haven't been given a proper reburial. I also rewatched The Little Mermaid (1989). It's one of my least favourite Disney films, but I actually liked it a lot more this time around. You can sort of see them perfecting the formula that would really bring the Disney Renaissance about, so while it isn't as effective as later films from that fruitful period, I do have to give it a lot of credit for that.

Accidentally came across The Hate U Give, a film (sort of) about the Black Lives Matter movement I completely missed out on when it was released back in 2018. This film is about as subtle as a sledge hammer to the face, but I still thought it was incredibly powerful. I admire the fact that they swung for the fences with this one, given the severity of the topic. The actors were all great, which was doubly impressive given how difficult some of these roles were. I thought the combination of the visual language (the difference between the scenes set in the high school and outside), performances and writing was tremendously moving. I was completely drawn into the film, to a point where I do hope this film will age terribly. Like, a test to see how much progress we have made as a society would be to watch this in 20 years from now with a young adult. If they find this film totally ridiculous, than we have grown as a society and should be proud of ourselves.

I watched The Killer, David Fincher's latest film with Michael Fassbender. I'm going to damn it with faint praise, as I'm going to say it was okay. I will admit that I expected much more from a film that drew Fassbender out of his acting hiatus and that had Fincher as director. I like both and I do have a soft spot for some of the predecessors of this film (It's clearly inspired by e.g., Le Samourai with Delon), but the story was kind of flat. I think the point behind the film is to show the inherent ridiculousness of these kind of super assassins, using a dry and deadpan delivery throughout. This hampers the film, as I would have preferred some more cackling insanity to break up the long stretches of nothing much. The incessant voice over, even delivered by a great actor like Fassbender, becomes monotonous quite quickly. I feel that's kind of the point (look at this super assassin, he hates his job just as much as a cubicle slave from office space) and it's a good demonstration of the banality of evil, but it's quite unnecessary. If you have time to kill and are a fan of the genre and the director-actor pairing, it's not a waste of time to see it. That being said, it's a Netflix movie and I see no reason to go to the theatre for it.

I went into the Panderverse with South Park yesterday. It's weird how South Park has become sort of a comfort blanket. It's not as dazzling as it used to be, but there are still quite a few zingers in a given episode. This special was quite scathing for Disney, but it stayed too much on the surface for the other things they were criticizing in this episode.

There are new South Park episodes? That's good news

Have been making solid progress on another stalled TV-series, namely The Great. It's a series I am very fond off, but it isn't my all time favourite despite its obvious qualities. My major gripe is that it usually takes quite some time to get going and these past months I just didn't have the energy for it. I was stalled at episode 5 for God knows how long, but I have now been able to watch it and the episodes just after that and it is surprising how quickly this show can go from kind of there to enthralling. Perhaps I wasn't in the right state of mind for it earlier, but now I'm really loving it. Such a shame that it won't be returning for a fourth season, but it will definitely be a show I will fondly look back on. A shame it flew a bit under the radar of popular acclaim. It's a bit like Barry in that way. Anyways, my favourite thing about this season is probably going to be

I'd like to challenge the bit you wrote in the spoilers bit, since that is not how I remember/interpret events in the film: I do agree that the ould probably cause quite a bit of damage, but rule of cool I guess.

I binged the second half of Harley Quinn's latest season yesterday. This was one of the three stalled tv shows, but since I watch this with a friend and the agenda's just hadn't aligned yet, I had faith that I would be able to catch up. Still love this series and think it is incredibly underrated. The MVP is clearly Bane, who steals every single scene he's in. Commissioner Gordon is a close second. I hope it returns pretty soon, since I feel like it ended on a bit of a cliff hanger and I would like to see that resolved.

I have hit a bit of a dry spell in terms of TV/Film watching. There is just not a lot that manages to keep my interest. There are like three TV-shows I have started, but which I haven't finished yet, and with the exception of The Creator it has been a while since something decent came out in the theatre. The Creator I saw this week and I really liked it. Visually it was outstanding, as I have come to expect from Edwards. He's one of the most striking film makers active today in that regard. I also though the acting was pretty solid. I'm still not entirely convinced of Denzel's son, but he showed some promise here, unlike in Tenet. What I differ from with most reviewers is in my perception of the story. It's true that you can watch this film and see it as a sort of Frankenstein's monster, cobbled together from clearly identifiable parts of other films, and it's quite fun to spot them. My friends and I saw at least the following links: But I also thought there were quite a few interesting things about the story, which I'll list in the spoilers below and for which I think this film doesn't get enough credit for: s

Amongst the three different covers that I have for his books (3 and 4 are in the same style), it's the only one I kind of like. It's still not great, but it has a sort of classic flair to it which I can appreciate. It also cracks me up, since the one thing I find hilariously awful about the books are the constant mentions of Caine's generic leather outfit (which is such a blatantly stupid fantasy trope, and the books just lean into it like crazy); and my cover of the first book depicts the outfit in all of its glorious stupidity. I hope I'll feel the same way after I'm done reading the series. I'll finish up my other book first and then hopefully I'll have time for book 3.

I put on Atomic Blonde with Charlize Theron yesterday. Had always intended to watch it, but just never got around to it since the reviews were quite damming back when it came out. I needed some mindless action, so I decided that I wouldn't be perturbed. All in all it was okay. Theron was good in it, but apart from the action, there is not much to recommend here. Better than some of the director's other work (he directed Hobbs & Shaw and the abominable Bullet Train), but it's definitely not good enough to form the basis for a 'Jane Wick' like franchise. In other words, it's okay on its own, but the missed opportunity makes me a tad sad.

The bolded makes it sound like you are watching it in prison :p I wouldn't call the Mandalorian very watchable, so I guess I'm skipping this one. Too bad. I saw one of those Charlie Hopkinson videos about Ashoka and I was mildly intrigued by the imagery of As a visual motif that was rather good, but if all the rest is mediocre I'll just not bother with it.

So, I have staved off on watching Ashoka for now, but what is the consensus so far? Good to watch or better to skip it?

That's not even the best acting performance of that year in my opinion. Mads Mikkelsen in Jagten would earn that distinction. Such a devastating performance in an utterly devastating film.

Well, Sisu rips off Wonder Woman and Tarantino's aesthetic more so than John Wick. That might soften the blow a bit, but I'd still place my money on you not liking it. Yeah, the opening is the only thing that is really enjoyable, so perhaps if it was a short film that ended with the first fight it would be better.

My paper copy of Blade of Tyshalle finallt arrived. I'm considering selling it, quitting my job, and retiring early