some thoughts after having seen the film - Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) Discussion

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

Thanks for the heads-up, sir.

I had already planned not to see it after watching the trailer, but you seem to have solidified my thoughts in having made the right choice.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The movie is entertaining

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

Your voice is needed in this thread:

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/60b1536db9b97568bd14b9cc/New-predator-film-to-star-female-lead

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

People are starting to use the term "woke" too loosely. There is nothing woke about Taylor Sheridan or anything he produces. This is not a woke film.

You say he should "choose his scripts better," but he is first and foremost a screenwriter and he writes all his own scripts.

Anyway, I liked the movie for the most part.

I'll say that the first 2/3 of the film is really good, like a 7.5. I was pretty well into it, definitely engaged and feeling like it was feeding my soul in an age where we really aren't getting many good action thrillers. The last 1\3 of the film though is where it starts to wobble and I'd say it doesn't finish super-strong. Overall, I enjoyed it and think I NEEDED a movie like this, much as I needed such a film when Netflix released that movie Extraction with Chris Hemsworth mid-pandemic.

I think the cast is good. After what I know has been a difficult personal time, I'm happy to see Angelina again and I think this was a good role for her. She's aging well too. Aidan Gillen was also a solid casting choice and I think he elevated the film.

Likewise the kid did a good job and I was glad to see a young man get some work because it seems like these days any time you see someone his age in a role like this, they cast a girl. That's been the trend of late.

The smoke jumper angle I thought was cool and there's a lot of nice scenery, although there are also clearly a lot of effects shots and too much of the film feels artificial.

I'll give it a 7/10. While not a perfect film I still enjoyed it and thought it felt unique in some respects.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It was woke. But even if you excuse the woke shit the movie was a joke. Lots of plot holes and contrived twists put in simply to move the story where the writer wanted it to end rather than telling a story that moved organically where it would have if it were real.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

Calling this movie woke is like calling everything racist. Eventually the term loses its power.

If a woman being the lead makes a movie woke or a black guy as a fire chief makes a movie woke, the term has come to mean nothing at all.

I'd be interested in seeing a list of those plot holes.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Here's a few plot holes for ya.

1. Accountant knows the only way for his son to be safe is or him to give the information to the media... Okay... then why didn't the accountant take the list to the media in the first place instead of trying to go hide in the woods?

2. Lightning strikes near Jolie but it doesn't kill as it would in real life. At best it would have stopped her heart and she would have needed emergency medical attention to survive.

3. The fire forces them to dive into water, okay... but they would have still needed to breath and they couldn't have surfaced without being burned by the fire, sucking in hot air that would have burned their lungs, and/or had no no oxygen left because the fire around them had used it all up.... Take your pick of any and all of those that would apply to their situation.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

You could argue that #1 is a plot hole, as it potentially violates the movie's own internal logic, but I would not regard 2 or 3 as plot holes. Do you consider John McClane's or Rambo's entire careers to be one big plot hole? It's not like either series is exactly realistic.

In any case, you have gripes with the film.

Again, I'll agree with you on #1. You have a point with that one.

On #2, there are people who actually get struck directly with lightning that survive. It's happened several times. What are the effects exactly of lighting merely striking close to you? I really can't claim to know.

As for #3, clearly the technique demonstrated in the movie is that go under water and then surface just enough to breathe in. Is this realistic? Again, I have no idea. Are you really so certain that it's not or are you just speculating?

In any case, the film is an action thriller. Unrealistic shit is a staple of the genre. If you can't get down with that, then perhaps the genre is just not for you. If that's the case, I'm not surprised you didn't like the movie.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

#2... I've seen numerous people that have survived being struck by lightning and they all ended up in the hospital with severe burns if they survived. If they were simply near the strike as in under a tree they ended up in the hospital. I grew up living in a house next to a golf course and in an area where thunderstorms were pretty common and over the years there numerous dead or fucked up golfers... not once did anyone in the neighborhood ever witness a golfer that was struck get up and walk it off like Jolie did.

#3 The technique could only work if you had a very fast moving fire like a grass fire that would burn off all the fuel very quickly and have moved on past where you were in the water. This was a forest fire so assuming you were able to stay in the water and avoid simply being burned outright you would have suffered the same fate as the 20 hotshot fire fighters that died in Arizona back in 2013. Most of them were able to deploy their little silver fire blankets and hide underthem... but unfortunately the fire lingered as it would have in the movie due to the number of trees involved. The autopsies on the fire fighters show that most died not from being burned but from lack of oxygen and carbon monoxide. That would have been the fate of Jolie and the boy... although they would have also suffered from breathing in very hot air. The air temps near ground level of a forest fire would have been well over a thousand degrees fahrenheit so they would have suffered the same type of lung damage Niki Lauda suffered from his F1 crash where he was trapped in a burning car and his lung were severely damaged from breathing in hot air. It has also caused the deaths of many other drivers like Swede Savage that was kept from being burned by a fire resistant suit but suffered from severe burns to his lungs from the hot air he was forced to breath.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I suspect they created the scene because they had watched True Lies where Arnold dives under water as the fire from an explosion passes overhead... so they appeared to have been trying to repeat that type of thing. Only problem is that an explosion doesn't last as long as a forest fire so unless you had a air tank and could stay submerged until the fire passed it wouldn't save you like it did in the movie.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

Good info - thanks.

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20309) 3 years ago

1) At first he wasn't trying to get to the media. He was trying to get someplace safe and plan his next move. The info given to his son was his backup plan in case he didn't survive and he would be avenged.
2) There are cases of people getting struck by lightning and surviving and yes even getting up and walking away from it. In this case she wasn't struck directly. The lightning hit the ground and she was caught by an arc. It burned her badly but most of the charge was grounded.
3) While I agree the air probably would have been too hot to breath, would all the oxygen have been used up. There's an entire atmosphere to refill it. Isn't that how a fire travels? as it burns fuel it follows the air rushing in.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

1) he clearly knew that his backup plan was to dump everything to the media. Why in the hell would he think he should go figure out some other plan instead of just doing the media dump. It made no sense. It was a bit like I have this plan that will keep you safe but don't do it unless I die, what the fuck kind of logic is that? It isn't it made no sense.

2) Yes there are cases of people that get hit and keep walking, but those are rare instances like the guy in South Carolina that gets hit while walking in the rain, and keeps walking... in that instance he was soaking wet and the bolt in the video is very small. The movie has her hit by a much larger bolt and not wet as hell to give the lightning a nicer path around her body as it did with the guy in the video. It is highly unlikely that she would have come out as well as she did in real life.

3) If you look at hot shot jumpers that have died in their little silver blankets they rarely burn to death, they generally suffocate or die from carbon monoxide. In the movie they are under water for a long time because the fire is burning trees. It would be lingering heating up the air and given it was a nice sized forest fire it would have been a bit like a firestorm in that it would be sucking up the air from the ground pulling it up and burning it. If you were on the edge of that type of fire then yes you would have oxygen to breath, but if you were inside it the oxygen would be used up by the fire as it was helping the wood burn as it was sucked inward. This was just a ridiculous scene that was done because someone thought it would look cool to have shots of fire from underwater, no other explanation for it.

reply

[–] Tyler1986 (235) 3 years ago

Spot on, movie definitely wasn't woke.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

The film is woke - white evil, or feeble men. Smart, strong women that save the day. To be fair, we've seen these type of films before and they were never an issue. However, these days, nearly every big production film follows this trend. There is a reason for this trend - and it's most certainly not about gender equality.

As far as acting is concerned, I think it was decent, but I'm starting to realize that director plays the biggest role in how well actors perform. I've seen awesome actors play like utter shit in some films and amazingly well in others - all due to director's ability. This director does really well in getting the best out of actors in this and his previous film - but he needs to start picking better scripts.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

No more woke than Terminator 2.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

Very true. If there were other 10 films released that year with a similar theme, then T2 wouldn't be given a pass.

Cameron has been releasing films featuring strong females since the beginning of time. It was cool, because it deviated from the norm. Now, films featuring feeble/evil men vs. smart/strong females ARE the norm.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

There were a lot of important characters in this film.

Jon Berthal's character was white, not weak, and not evil. He was a hero.

The father was white and not evil. In fact he risked everything to do the right thing and paid the ultimate price for having strong moral character in a dark world.

The kid was white and not evil, and while he couldn't take on a crew of trained hitmen all by himself, he was presented about as strong as a kid of that age could be presented.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

Jon Berthal's character was feeble and needed to be saved by a woman. Hell, even despite her best attempts and her managing to take out the evil white dude, the feeble husband didn't make it ;)

The kid.... is a future evil/feeble man. Generally, woke films don't give kids the same treatment - for the moment, they are neutral parties.

You need to understand that '/' means 'or' - In woke films, men (particularly white) are either evil OR feeble. Women are good and/or strong.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I'll say this shit, I have done a bit of screenwriting of my own and have come up with action stories with female leads, and I'm a pretty hard-right kind of guy, politically speaking. So if I push back against the idea that "female lead in action movie = woke" then that's why. Because it's not true.

Do you know who Taylor Sheridan is? This guy wrote Sicario and Hell or High Water, and is the writer/director of Wind River. He also is the creator of the show Yellowstone.

We are not talking about a woke kind of dude here.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

I hear you. You do not have to be woke to make films that match the woke definition.

If this film was released, let's say 15-20 years ago, it wouldn't be labeled as being woke (the term woke is fairly new, isn't it?). It wouldn't be labeled as being woke not because of the plot/characters, but because films featuring strong/smart/good females vs. evil/dumb/feeble males weren't commonplace. It wasn't the norm. In fact, a film featuring all of the above might have been a novel take on what we've seen so many times before featuring male leads. Even if films featuring strong female leads are a tad more unrealistic, (because in most real-life encounters, dudes usually destroy females - in woke films, it's the opposite) there is nothing wrong with a few films featuring scenarios where females have the upper hand.

It's a problem, however, when these films become the norm, while strong/good male lead films become a minority. For example, T2 released now would be rightfully labeled as being a woke film - it would be a part of the current trend. Same goes for Aliens.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I guess we'll just settle on you having a different definition of "woke." I think yours is too broad, but carry on.

When I think woke then I think films that are clearly trying to push a Leftist racial, sexual or gender-based agenda. I don't think Taylor Sheridan was trying to push any such agenda with this film except, perhaps, that interracial relationships are okay, which I'm whatever about. I think mostly he just wanted to make a fun movie with an attractive, charismatic star.

He's not preaching to us about how transgender people should get to play girls' sports or how the black man needs to get out from under the oppressive thumb of Whitey. Nor do I even think there's much of a girl-power vibe to the movie. Ultimately it's about a few members of a community coming together to save a kid from the corrupted power structure that runs whatever town his dad worked in.

(By the way, don't forget that the assassins' boss was a black guy, so it wasn't just white folk who were evil.)

I could understand if you called, say, Captain Marvel woke, and I'd probably agree with you. Or that shitty Charlies' Angels reboot that came out several months ago. But I don't see it with this movie.

As for female-lead films now dominating the action landscape, I've actually given some thought to this. There are definitely a lot more of these kinds of films than there used to be. But at the same time, I think it may be something of an illusion that they are actually taking over the genre. There are still plenty of films like the John Wick series, Gerard Butler's Fallen series, that movie Extraction that came out last year with Chris Hemsworth, Boss Level that just came out on Hulu, all of Liam Neeson's old man thrillers, all the shitty DTV movies that Bruce Willis keeps showing up in, Tenet, that film Triple Frontier that came out a bit ago, war films like 1917 and Midway, that movie American Assassin from a few years ago, the Mission: Impossible series, and so on that prove that the traditional male-fronted action movie is still alive and well.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

"I could understand if you called, say, Captain Marvel woke, and I'd probably agree with you. Or that shitty Charlies' Angels reboot that came out several months ago. But I don't see it with this movie."

Some films are more subtle than others. There is a gender-based agenda in these films. Hell, even Cameron films had an agenda, but I was all about female empowerment and equality back in the day. Am I against female empowerment and equality now? Not at all, but the society of today appears to be quite different from what it was back then. I am seeing men being demonized by massive corporations (check Gillette's toxic masculinity campaign - or hell, just today there was a story about Antonio García Martínez being fired by Apple for making some unwoke comments about women in the past). The metoo movement - I was fully on board at first, until they started going after men who didn't assault/rape, but just looked at the women wrong or said something negative. There is a very unhealthy trend and it's changing the whole society to a point where men and women are starting to despise each other.

These woke films are quite subtle, but they do further promote this social change and the number of woke films coming each year from big studios is pretty massive.

PS. By the way, I was also not seeing wokeism until fairly recently. When people were saying that Mad Max 4 was woke, I couldn't understand what they were all about. Same goes for the new Star Wars trilogy - but then, as more and more films featuring similar trend and depicting men/women in a certain way that fit the woke trend of evil/dumb/feeble men vs good/smart/strong women, the more I began to realize that there was in fact something to what the people have been talking about. You never know - perhaps you might begin to see it one day as well.

I do wish for all people of different gender/race to get along, but I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the media (news and entertainment), or our society is good for mutual understanding and togetherness.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

I love everything you wrote because it's so true.

I do wish for all people of different gender/race to get along, but I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the media (news and entertainment), or our society is good for mutual understanding and togetherness.

I had the unfortunate (dis)pleasure of seeing a lot of this unfold from the inside out within the media industry and how the agenda was being promoted and enforced by the people who curate and feed us news.

It's a concentrated and collaborative effort, even AMONG competitors!

In fact, there is no media competition. Even Fox News is controlled opp. (For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, look up the JournoList scandals that have emerged over the years using a search engine like DuckDuckGo or Yandex. If you use Google they will try to pass it off as some kind of Right-wing conspiracy theory... with Left-wing outlets associated with the JournoList(s) calling it a conspiracy, no less).

In any case, it's all a concentrated effort by Big Tech to create division and dissolve the unification of people, because a unified people can dethrone the current tyrants (illegally) occupying office. If everyone stays at each other's throats and if heterosexual households can't be stabilized to properly raise kids then you have an entire generation of people being raised on propaganda to be brainwashed to believe nonsense like Critical Race Theory and to dissolve the institutional infrastructure of marriage between men and women.

Basically, the ruling class is using agitprop and divisive politics to keep the lower classes in disarray, making it easier to control them.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I am with you in spirit. I have a lot of the same complaints.

But at the same time, what I don't like is this idea that if a filmmaker casts a female lead or casts white men as villains then a film is automatically "woke." Should women be totally frozen out of lead roles, except for traditional feminine stories? Should white men be excluded from villain roles, allowing all that work (i.e. paychecks) to go exclusively to blacks, hispanics and Asians?

I think we have to consider the source of the film as well. I have mentioned a few times that this movie is written and directed by Taylor Sheridan. He's making some of the masculine movies and shows we have to today (Sicario, Hell or High Water, Wind River, Yellowstone). He's one of the good guys in this fight.

Would you call Million Dollar Baby a woke movie? Is Clint Eastwood a woke film director?

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I think you'll be a good fit for this thread:

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/60b1536db9b97568bd14b9cc/New-predator-film-to-star-female-lead

Please chime in.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

:)
To what end though?
Even you have noticed the fairly recent trend.

By the way, there's no harm in women being the lead stars in action flicks. How do you make a film led by a female and yet keep it unwoke? Have the main antagonist be a female and not a male. Have the main antagonist be a monster/creature while keeping men remain strong allies, rather than feeble/weak/evil. You know, diversity shit - stay away from the trend, which leads to all sort of conspiracy theories, especially given that corporations are starting to demonize men as well - in real life, not in the movies.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I've definitely noticed the trend. I just don't think that a female lead automatically makes a film woke.

My issue with saying men can't be villains is two-fold: First, that cuts out a lot of jobs for male actors and "men need not apply" is not really a good look either. Second, that really hampers the creativity of the writers.

To me, these all fall under the woke category: Captain Marvel, Charlie's Angels reboot (but not the early 00s films), new Star Wars trilogy, Atomic Blonde, Birds of Prey, maybe Mad Max: Fury Road but not sure about that one. However, these I throw in the Not Woke folder: Kill Bill, Underworld, Wonder Woman, Haywire, Hanna, Tomb Raider, The Fifth Element, Resident Evil.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

Males can be antagonists if the lead is male as well. I'd refrain from making the two of different races though - this shit is real sensitive right now. If the lead is white and the villain is black - we might get blm protests - lol. Vice versa and we are back in the woke trend, minus the gender.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I think it's a shame that we've found our way into so many creative restrictions. Don't write this scene, don't cast that person, don't say this line because . . . political reasons.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 3 years ago

It seems to me like what often begins as a movement for justice and fairness, often ventures off into extremism and that causes all sort of problems down the road. Basically, extremism is the problem. How do you move from 'we demand equal rights as our male counterparts' into 'all men are evil (unless they become feminine) and deserve to be lynched' lol. Similarly, a move from 'we need justice for the victim and we need to reform the police' to 'defund the police'.

I find it fascinating that Hollywood is playing a fiddle to the extremism, while most people are actually moderates (doesn't seem like a great financial decision). But that only tells me that there's an actual agenda at play.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I think in the case of BLM, and a lot of other organizations like them that pop up, is that there are often ulterior motives. In BLM's case specifically it's to push Marxist propaganda and, ironically, also to make money. This isn't just speculation on my part; it's easy to prove by their own published words and the actions of their leaders.

One thing we have to remember about the progressive agenda is that it's exactly that - progressive. The very approach is in the word itself. Those who espouse that philosophy try to take a little bit, and then if they get that, they try to take a little more, constantly pushing society more and more to the left. The goal is total transformation of society until they've created what they think is going to be this utopian Leftist paradise.

To give a concrete example, in the days of MLK the goal was equality. Okay, great. Sure. Everyone should be equal. But today equality isn't good enough and now all the talk is about equity. (Go look up the difference between equality and equity if you're not already aware.)

It's insane how different society has changed just in the last 10 years. Last night I found out I get Peacock for free as a Comcast subscriber. I went to sign up and it asked me to choose my gender. The options were: Male, Female and Non-Binary. You didn't see any shit like that a decade ago. It would've been laughable.

reply

[–] kukuxu (5409) 3 years ago

When I think woke then I think films that are clearly trying to push a Leftist racial, sexual or gender-based agenda.

The problem is how you decide the producers are trying to push an agenda.

For example: in a movie, a Jew character is portrayed as a evil villain. Is that movie anti-semite? Does it has an agenda?

You could say "no, c'mon, there's nothing wrong is creating a character which is evil and is Jew". But... what if in all the movies created in that country, in that period... what if in almost all of them Jews are systematically displayed as evil or stingy? Would you say it has an agenda then?

It's not only the movie itself. It's the context. In modern Hollywood (and European movies), white males are portrayed as evil, stupid or feeble. In some movies, they're displayed as fully despicable. In other ones, they're displayed as just worse or weaker than other races/genders. There's degrees of wokeness. But it's the trend nowadays, and almost every movie or show goes woke in a greater or lesser extent.

reply

[–] cyguration (3841) 3 years ago

There's degrees of wokeness. But it's the trend nowadays, and almost every movie or show goes woke in a greater or lesser extent.

Yep, and the trend is made more obvious when measured against films made in other countries. For instance, if you watch Russian films there's a complete dichotomy in how white men are portrayed in those films, and how women are depicted.

If you watch Bollywood movies the men are almost NEVER undermined by the women. Their action films are the equivalent of what Hollywood's action films used to be like in the 1980s. It's sad but I have to watch a lot of foreign films to find entertaining action flicks these days because Hollywood has gone way too woke.

Some people who only watch Hollywood films may not notice because the indoctrination has already taken effect, but when you measure Hollywood's films against those made by the Chinese, the Koreans, the Indians, the Russians, the Swedish, the Danish and the Indonesians, you can see a VAST difference in how certain themes and characters (especially related to gender) are depicted.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

I think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

Star Wars, for instance, has gone woke. But that doesn't mean that any film that stars a woman is automatically woke. Or any film that casts a white man in the villain role is automatically woke.

You have to look at the film carefully and you also have to look at who the filmmaker is. Taylor Sheridan is making some of the manliest movies and shows we're being given right now--projects like Sicario, Hell or High Water and Yellowstone--so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One thing you have to consider when it comes to not casting white men in villain roles is that that's a hell of a lot of work that would dry up if Hollywood suddenly said, "Okay, only people of color for these roles." It would, ironically, be prejudiced to NOT consider any white actors, who obviously need the work.

So I'm not arguing that wokeness is not a problem or that some films and shows aren't obviously woke. But at the same time, we can't just say, "What?! Woman in the lead! WOKE!" or "What?! A white man is the villain! WOKE!"

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

The casting was a bit woke-ish. But that's all. Generally speaking, the film wasn't woke at all. In fact, it reminded me of that hostage film - what was it called? Something like 'Run, Fight, Kill' (I'm too lazy to look it up).

Verdict - not woke in the least, unless you count casting.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

Run, Hide, Fight.

I saw it and liked it.

reply

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2645) 3 years ago

Did anyone else see it as pretty good advert for keeping an AR15 as a home defence weapon? Especially out there in the middle of nowhere. These people run a survival school/are survivalists and all they have is a shitty bolt action hunting rifle. Sure, it may hit hard but personally, if I was a sheriff and knew my wife was going to be on her own a lot of the time, I would absolutely want her to be as effective as possible at taking out a threat and without question, that would be an AR15 with a decent weapon light, red dot/holo sight and standard capacity 30 round mags. Why be at a disadvantage when that's what the bad guys had?

reply

[–] MavKilledGoose (778) 3 years ago

Good point. You never know when assassins might show up.

Freaking gun people. Weapons-grade stupid.

reply

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2645) 3 years ago

Are you seriously telling me that it's not a good idea for the wife of a LEO not to have an AR15 at hand considering, well all the people that hate police? If my mum/sister/wife spent time alone in the house, that's absolutely what I would want them to have. Doesn't have to assassins smarty parts. Hell, a knife wielding home invader. I'd want that fight to be as unfair for the criminal as possible.

I guess you don't have any loved ones you feel responsible for.

Funny how so many anti gun people turned pro gun last year... I guess they're stupid too now according to you eh?

reply

[–] MavKilledGoose (778) 3 years ago

All of the people who hate the police in rural Montana??

"Funny how so many anti gun people turned pro gun last year... I guess they're stupid too now according to you eh?"

The gun politics in this country are absolutely ridiculous. Sheeple incapable of rational risk assessment. You know who is most likely to kill law enforcement? The officers themselves. And I'm not surprised the type of survivalist in this movie would shun AR-15s. Yeah, yeah, yeah, knife-wielding home invaders, regular home invaders. Strangers out to get you.

I do have people I care about, and in the vast majority of cases, a firearm in the home would only increase the chances of something terrible occurring. Toddlers in America kill more people than terrorists, let alone assassins.

reply

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2645) 3 years ago

OK man. You do you. Good luck.

reply

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

Other than the casting/type-casting, I didn't think it was woke at all. Refreshingly not.

But yes, it needed a better script. The main plot-point (the evidence, the investigation, etc) was treated like a throwaway.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The fire effects looked fake to me.

reply

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 3 years ago

Oh yeah, for sure. Some of it looked okay, but much of the first was CGI city, especially that shot when Littlefinger starts the first in the first place.

reply