NotASpeckOfCereal's Replies

Heh. Shortly after posting the above, I ran into this (I should have googled first): It would be a complete and utter waste of time for him to validate any side of your insane hate tirade. Once you realize this, you'll know how much energy you're squandering and perhaps will get on with your life. "Discuss" As soon as you move out of your grandma's basement. I found aNOTHER glaring error: Robin Hood is a FICTIONAL character -- how dare he appear on the supreme map of all time?! And don't EVEN get me started on the giant -- LAZY writing. Winston is real though. But the back is the least of his worries. Signed, Speck PS: the supreme asking for a signature? Wot an insult to the theater viewer's intelligence -- they never did explain what rights Kevin had signed away! Has anybody seen Kevin lately? Hey Jimmy, When you get your drivers license and don't need your retinoids anymore, you might find that adults have to endure hardships much larger than a film they don't like. You'll get over it. I mean, if you grew up into your 20s or 30s and still felt this way, that would be a sad thing indeed. Meanwhile, Rain aside, you never did mention how you liked this film (Knives Out). Ever seen The Brother's Bloom? It's really a great film. Ciao! Cheers! Chris "In the end, I think it was just another red herring and a comedic element." Yes. No, I will not discuss a comparison to a crappy film that is <b>nothing like</b> Knives Out. You mean the central character? I was replying to Foebane72's words who said "It's only if you find humour in everything that dwarfs and/or midgets do". The results are in though. I went to another movie board with people I trust a lot more and the consensus is that the humor in that scene was almost certainly <b>as the filmmakers intended</b>. It's okay if others did not find it to be funny, but to denigrate someone who did (apply bigoted characteristics that were not actually evident) is out of line. Chris Furthermore, I wonder if you get other kinds of dark humor. If only you could take off your bigot-radar. I have no problem with people of different stature, for whatever reasons / affliction. I also don't laugh at people with disabilities, in wheel chairs, with facial disfigurements, or different skin color. Please put your judgements away and get back to talking about the story here. It's called a "situation" that involves people interacting, beyond the brutality of the murder that Arthur just committed, with the attributes written into their character. After all, they could have done that scene with Gary just getting away. The filmmakers purposefully locked that door, so that Gary needed help. There could have been more than one thing they were wishing to portray here. I believe one of those things was dark humor. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to see that (and further replies below show that). Yeah, I think the filmmakers probably predicted there would be viewers such as yourself, expecting a Batman offshoot (and fitting in with the rest of the Gotham Universe as we know it from our current collection of Batman and DC/Gotham-related materials). I think they did their best to inform us of all'a that in the trailers. I got it, so when I viewed the film, I was not expecting that. And guess what: I was rewarded with something that was NOT that (as expected) AND it was not just different, but great. I loved it. So don't be surprised if you're sitting there in a small group, because I think you'll notice -- from both word of mouth, the IMDb ratings, and the awards it will win -- that most of us agree that it is indeed a great film. Chris I don't agree with you that only the stairs scene was "good". I think the entire film was fantastic, acted well, shot very well, edited great (pacing was excellent) and was all together one of my favorite films of the year. I rated it 8/10 on IMDb. That said, I see no reason to rush out and own it. And while I would like to watch it again some day, it will probably be a long time. Most films that I love this much are ones that I want to see often and it's not unusual for me to own a copy. There are only a small number of films that are in this area: loved, but won't own. Well... maybe if I can get the 4K for $10 or less. Passengers wasn't that great for me because it was just a mediocre drama in space, not really a sci-fi film. BUT THEN, it really wasn't trying to be a sci-fi film. That they were in space on a colonization mission was just an situation for the drama / romance. It was okay for a single viewing, but not really a failure. Ad Astra was clearly trying to be a sci-fi film (even if Hollywood is now scared of using the sci-fi genre tag in marketing), but failed on SO MANY points. There are so many little scenes where they did a good in respect to the sci-fi (put a lot of effort into and it works well), but it's all glued together with these sad, eye-rolling sci-failure connecting points. There's nothing wrong with drama in sci-fi films. In fact, it still needs to be a good film story wise (with drama, humor, action, or whatever other kinds of human story-telling elements are making the story). The story-spine about Roy and his dad were really just fine. Too bad about the really poor sci-fi parts though. It just removes this from the list of films to remember. -- space monkeys -- why the monkey ship had to be that far out for the kind of research it was doing -- I saw no evidence of any crew members on that ship (no body parts or anything -- did I miss it?) -- I didn't mind the lunar pirates so much -- They allowed a gun on a ship? What the hell gas was in that tank that was hit that killed everyone? -- Forget about the Neptune asteroids: how did Roy calculate his trajectory by launching off of that spinning antenna? -- Use the nuclear explosion as propulsion? Did it just happen to be pointing EXACTLY towards earth? -- Was there no fuel left for a return trip? Was the computer fried by a surge? That part just wasn't covered well, why Roy thought he needed to ride a nuclear blast home (I was okay with the blast needing to be nuclear, because of the anti-matter thing). -- They HAD to stop by Mars on the way out, but he went straight back to Earth? Why? Why put "SPOILER" in the title, then put the spoiler subject IN THE FEKKING title itself? Another single point not wrapped up: Joe killing Juliana in the cave with the whispered "trust me". I'm sure they would explain it as "that happened in a different world", but I would still like to know what the "trust me" part means. It seemed like a story detail of Joe knowing something that would bring them back together or something, but only after death.... or something like that, but we'll never know. If it had to that in another world so they could be together in *this* world, I guess he didn't know that <spoiler>she was going to cut his throat early on</spoiler>. This was, to me, the best EP of the season. Which is saying something, because they've all been pretty great. You're getting weird answers from people that didn't understand that the film was not supposed to satisfy reality or give anybody closure. It was basically a film filled with the allegories of stupid things society does with relationships: a) you need to be married b) if you fail that, you're a loner that's put on trail and have a certain amount of time to resolve that to stay in good standing c) you need to always find someone like you (right down to the eyesight) d) any new relationships are on trail, which you can fail at e) in real life, a lot of people have kids because they mistakenly believe it will "fix" their relationship (hence the child that the nose-bleeders were assigned) f) to find people who accept you as a loner, you need to join a lonely out-cast clan. Get yourself off all you want, but no real flirting or sex with someone else, because then you wouldn't belong with the loners anymore. g) pretend happy relationships with the parents back in the city h) so many couples are shams, the headkeeper that would rather shoot his wife, the man who pretends to be a nosebleeder. i) might as well dig your grave now, because if you're part of the loner clan, we get busy dying soon etc. etc., I think you see where I'm going with this. I still have yet to reconcile certain scenes in my mind, but I'm relatively certain they fit in this framework As for your questions, here's my take: 1) I think he abandoned her, couldn't go through with it. His devotion / commitment wasn't enough. But then, it's a farce that he needed to be blind to continue a relationship with her anyway. 2) Good question on the horse/donkey. Probably someone she knew -- just an animal now (and people turning into animals is yet just another allegory of the sorry existence some of us have). 3) too literal, it doesn't matter. See point e) above. More questions: 4) what's the significance of the yachts? 5) why are the shooting each other with tranqs? Eh? This was a boring subject titled the first time you posted it.