I made a 2018 movies thread too

[Raxivace]

Hereditary - I don't really even know where to start with this one. It's really difficult to wrap my head around it. If I had watched it expecting it to actually live up to the hype of being "the scariest movie ever made", I would have been disappointed, because it most certainly is not. What it actually is is seriously sad and disturbing. What happens about half an hour in is one of the most horrific and awful things I've ever witnessed in a movie. That was... extremely tough to watch. Unfortunately for me that was the movie's emotional high point.

I can understand why critics fell so in love with it, but I can also understand why audiences seemingly disliked it. I can't really tell if I like it or not. It was well-made, but ultimately it felt like less than the sum of its parts, which is how most of the recent arthouse horror films over the past few years I've seen felt to me, and yet I'm having a hard time picking out what the actual problem was.

It's funny how completely polarized audiences and critics are with this. The latter agree that the last act is when it all finally comes together for them and becomes emotionally traumatizing, yet for the former that seems to be where they finally fully checked out. I think I'm closer to the audience's side. I was led to expect something much smarter and deeper than what the last act finally revealed the movie to be, some psychological horror/family stuff of the likes I had never seen before rather than what actually occured, some stale and conventional demonic possession stuff. I realize the demonic possession stuff is a metaphor, but that was what was actually fueling the narrative and emotional intensity, so it's the thing that matters. Furthermore, not only did the "overt" story (as opposed to the actual story of mental illness) turn out to be conventional and generic, but the way it was presented to us, the scares themselves, turned out to be as well. I wish the last act had been a bit more ambiguous and sophisticated. Most of the movie was a deeply disturbing and brutal exploration of grief and family trauma framed by the strong suggestion of mental illness, and the last act, where it was all supposed to come together, was given a lot of material based on the foundations laid for it by the last hour and a half to go somewhere truly dark and chilling... something more deeply rooted in psychology, something like hallucinations that are metaphors for how the family thinks about each other, or something, only still with a supernatural backdrop. Instead we got heavy-handed metaphor in the form of a silly demon carnival ride not dissimilar in structure to what you'll find in the Insidious movies. I think that was disappointing.

I'm not saying I can imagine a better last act or that I could write one, because I can't. I'm just saying that was what I was led to believe by the marketing and the first hour and a half of the movie.

(The movie even seemed self-aware about how conventional it was at times and half-heartedly tried to correct for it. No, the cultists can't literally worship Satan, because Satan-worshippers have been done as villains a billion times, so instead they're going to randomly worship Paimon, "one of the eight kings of Hell". That makes it different. Lol, okay, movie.)

So I guess that's my actual problem. Ultimately it felt unfulfilling to me. That really sucks, because I really wanted to like this movie. Alas, I didn't. That said, it was obviously well-made in parts and the director is very talented and the fact that it's his debut is impressive and I'm looking forward to what else he has to offer.

I just watched Hereditary myself and had similar thoughts. The family drama stuff was genuinely quite good, the stuff with lol demon cult...less so. There's probably a way to make the latter work a little better (Maybe if the existence of the cult had been played more ambiguously?) but I dunno.

I also really hated the scenes in the high school that amount to the teacher lecturing about what the themes of the film are. It just screams of a lack of confidence in the audience to me.

Maybe if I let the whole thing stew inside me a little longer I'll feel differently.

[Derived Absurdity]

Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me - okay, so is Bob real or not? Because the show presented him as a real thing but in this movie he's just an allegory for Leland's fuckedupedness? I'm confused. Other than that I thought it was a pretty good story about how a father's incestuous relationship with his daughter fucks her up a lot. It was very sad. Not at all like the show. Lynch didn't seem to care about pleasing the fans of the show at all, which I'm very okay with. It was too long which ruins its rewatchability for me but I enjoyed it.

To All the Boys I've Loved Before - it was cute.

The Good Place (season 2) - it was good. Super-entertaining. I recommend it.

[Raxivace]

I'd say all versions of Twin Peaks agree on Bob being real to at least some extent (And even then he's still a metaphor for sexual abuse and so on), though what exactly Bob being real in the "universe" of the show means kind of depends on what portion of the series you're looking at and more importantly who wrote it. Lynch's conception of Bob differs from Mark Frost's, and their individual conceptions differ a bit from when they're writing together, and of course there are people not named David Lynch or Mark Frost who wrote and directed episodes for the show that contributed as well. Some of these takes even seem mutually exclusive.

IOW people have been having fierce debates over Bob and his relationship with Leland for over 25 years at this point. Like "How culpable is Leland for the death of Laura" is not something that you can really give an easy answer to, since there are so many competing and conflicting views in the series itself.

FWIW I think Lynch views Bob as both a "real" entity but also a symbol of Leland's crimes. He seems to view Leland as responsible for Laura's death and so on- in my understanding of Lynch and his work at least.

[Derived Absurdity]

That's interesting. Still gonna watch Season 3 at some point.

The Boy (2016) - boring. Lauren Cohen looked nice, though.

Shutter (2004) - super mega boring. No one even looked hot in it so I had nothing to pay attention to. It was really really had to watch it all the way through. Nevertheless, I persisted.

Brick (2005) - it was definitely entertaining, at least up to a point. Once I got used to the premise, it became difficult for me to remain engaged. A neo-noir in a high school setting is an interesting idea, but since the characters were so obviously unreal I couldn't engage with them, and so eventually I stopped caring about the story. Maybe I would have liked it if it was shorter. That being said, paradoxically, the story itself was very tight and well-constructed. I appreciated the movie more than I actually enjoyed it. I didn't realize Rian Johnson made it. It's sort of weird, as I haven't seen the Last Jedi, but from what I can gather the biggest problems people have with that movie are its story structure and tone, and story structure and tone happen to be the two things this movie really excels at.

Guess Who (2005) - Zoe Saldana absolutely made this movie. She was so naturally charming and had such effortless chemistry with Ashton Kutcher, of all people, that she single-handedly redeemed all the other crap. I never paid much attention to her before but I guess I will now. Every time she wasn't on screen, I kept asking, "Where's Zoe Saldana?" because she was the only thing that mattered.

Anyway, as for the rest. It was okay. The humor was awkward and extremely unfunny. Ashton Kutcher outed himself to Zoe's family as a racist goober more than once, but because of a bunch of contrived sitcommy setups meant to distract everyone he was let off way too easily at the end. This movie's center is supposed to be about racial tension, but that entire angle could have been dropped and the plot wouldn't have been changed in any meaningful way, because essentially it's just about some guy trying to impress his girlfriend's dad. The movie even pretty much states this. The racial tension merely functioned as an add-on, especially since it was resolved at the end in a way that was extremely hokey. Whatever. Zoe Saldana was good, nothing else. Bernie Mac was also fine.

[Raxivace]

I haven't seen Brick, but I've been curious about it since I really liked everything else of Rian Johnson's that I've seen (Looper, Last Jedi, and two of my favorite Breaking Bad episodes ("Fly" and "Ozymandias") were both directed by him) and I'm always curious about any neo-noir that's coming out. I'll get to it eventually.

I've seen Guess Who but its been such a long time that I can't really remember too much about it. It is kind of interesting that the races from the original Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? are inverted here (I.e. in the original it was a black man meeting his white girlfriend's family) at least- though the original movie was also much more interested in being a social critique (To the point of heavy-handedness) about late 60's America than a comedy like Guess Who from what I can remember about it.

Get Out is probably the better modern riff on the Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? story IMHO (Though granted it takes it to a very different place).

[Derived Absurdity]

Guess Who (the remake) was basically a (failed) slapstick comedy with a tacked-on moral message presented with the depth and grace of an after-school special. I haven't seen the original, but a movie like that being made in 1967 must have been, if nothing else, brave, and certainly subversive for the time even if it might be seen as heavy-handed today.

On another note, I just saw Sierra Burgess is a Loser on Netflix. It feels weird to watch a movie, like this one, that gives off the impression that the scriptwriters for it have almost no moral conscience at all. The titular Sierra Burgess is almost a complete sociopath who spends the entire running time doing horrid things that are nearly irredeemable, and yet the movie presents her as a sympathetic woobie just because she's insecure. Almost everyone in this movie is a complete piece of shit, actually. There's no comeuppance for anyone, there's no sign that the movie thinks anyone even deserves comeuppance. I just spent most of the time wondering, legitimately, how it even got made. Thousands of people spend thousands of man hours to make something like this, how is it that no one thought to put the brakes on this or change it in any way? How was everyone just okay with what the movie was turning out to be? I just don't understand how things like this happen. I've seen plenty of bad movies, but I don't think I've had this reaction of sheer "how the fuck did this even get made" since The Dark Knight Rises. I recommend it for the pure WTF factor alone.

[Raxivace]

Guess Who (the remake) was basically a (failed) slapstick comedy with a tacked-on moral message presented with the depth and grace of an after-school special. I haven't seen the original, but a movie like that being made in 1967 must have been, if nothing else, brave, and certainly subversive for the time even if it might be seen as heavy-handed today.

I think its heart is in the right place, but it does bother me how to make Sidney Poitier's character palatable to middle class white audience they make such him a perfect guy (Rich, doctor, super polite etc.) that it feels a bit...toothless, even for the era.

Like for comparison's sake, Night of the Living Dead came out the next year, and while the black lead of that movie, played by Duncan Jones, is sympathetic the movie still allows moments of him being humanly flawed while still also being able to condemn the militarized white dudes that murder him at the film's end.

[Cassius Clay]

I've seen plenty of bad movies, but I don't think I've had this reaction of sheer "how the fuck did this even get made" since The Dark Knight Rises. I recommend it for the pure WTF factor alone.

This is the dumbest thing you've ever said. Don't ever disrespect Rises like that again.

[Raxivace]

I don't even hate Dark Knight Rises but its like in the bottom three Nolan movies.

[Cassius Clay]

That doesn't mean much to me because I'm kind of a Nolan fanboy (even though I hate most Nolan fanboys).

And it has the best soundtrack - and best "first-appearance" of the batman - in the trilogy.

[Gendo]

I don't even hate Dark Knight Rises but its like in the bottom three Nolan movies.

Only bottom 3? Easily bottom 1 for me. It's still ok, but such a letdown after the first 2.

[Raxivace]

I don't even hate Dark Knight Rises but its like in the bottom three Nolan movies.

Only bottom 3? Easily bottom 1 for me. It's still ok, but such a letdown after the first 2.

I'm not sure if I think DKR is worse than Insomnia and Following. I'd have to watch to watch all three again to say for sure.

If I were to rank Nolan's features it would probably be something like this:

1. Memento
2. The Prestige
3. Interstellar
4. The Dark Knight
5. Dunkirk
6. Batman Begins
7. Inception
*8. The Dark Knight Rises
*9. Following
*10. Insomnia

The *'d ones being what I might flip around, of course.

[Derived Absurdity]

I've seen plenty of bad movies, but I don't think I've had this reaction of sheer "how the fuck did this even get made" since The Dark Knight Rises. I recommend it for the pure WTF factor alone.

This is the dumbest thing you've ever said. Don't ever disrespect Rises like that again.

Were you unaware of my dislike for TDKR? I haven't been keeping it a secret.

I'm still surprised you like it so much. It has some terrible political/ideological messages, even compared to the previous movie (which was all about defending/justifying the Bush administration) and superhero movies generally.

[Raxivace]

even compared to the previous movie (which was all about defending/justifying the Bush administration)

I'd like to hear more on this.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, it's an interpretation. But the Joker is supposed to represent terrorism and Batman is supposed to mirror what Bush did after 9/11. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, extraordinary rendition (with Lau), and basically the whole theme of the movie is escalation and how much of your morals you need to sacrifice to fight absolute evil. The end of the movie states that you basically need to lie to the public for the greater good.

I don't remember it very well but there's been some analysis of it.

[Gendo]

Although I can see the analogy being valid; I feel like the movie had the exact opposite message. Perhaps it was only lip service, but it at least suggested that Batman's methods were not ok.

[Raxivace]

Well, it's an interpretation. But the Joker is supposed to represent terrorism and Batman is supposed to mirror what Bush did after 9/11. Warrantless wiretapping and surveillance, extraordinary rendition (with Lau), and basically the whole theme of the movie is escalation and how much of your morals you need to sacrifice to fight absolute evil. The end of the movie states that you basically need to lie to the public for the greater good.

I don't remember it very well but there's been some analysis of it.

It's been a long time since I've seen TDK myself but this makes at least some amount of sense.

There's always been criticism of Batman inherently being a rightwing kind of character (Maybe not the Adam West version) in that its a rich guy going around beating up poor people in acts of vigilante justice etc., but this is a bit more specific than that.

[Cassius Clay]

Laughing at the idea of a costumed rich man going around beating up poor people and calling it justice.

[Gendo]

Laughing at the idea of a costumed rich man going around beating up poor people and calling it justice.

[Cassius Clay]

i hate batman now

[maz89]

^wow this is all eye opening.

[Derived Absurdity]

lol this shit looks fucking awful.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4khm-lfHk4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/youtube]

A jump scare from a truck. lmao

[Derived Absurdity]

Oh yeah more shit. Um...

Eighth Grade: Good. Unpleasant. A better horror movie than Hereditary.

Leave No Trace: Good. I don't know, it was good. Perfect, actually, in the technical sense that it had no flaws. It could be affecting for other people but it just left me cold, even though nothing is actually wrong with it.

Bojack Horseman (season 5): It's... good. The series is getting repetitive by this point but I guess that's the point. Not super-focused story-wise but the themes are as strong and effective as ever. I like how it doesn't let its horrible protagonist off the hook and realizes that there's a middle ground between thinking there's forgiveness for any potential bad thing you can do if you just work hard enough to make amends and feel appropriately bad about it and thinking that crossing certain moral boundaries necessarily prevents you (and therefore conveniently absolves you of the personal responsibility) from/of ever getting any better. That some things are so bad that you don't have a right to seek amends or forgiveness, but they still leave you room to legitimately grow as a person. It's a very mature take. This is a pretty awesome show all around btw for anyone who hasn't seen it. If you're not watching it you're missing out.

[Derived Absurdity]

Maniac (Netflix): It was entertaining. I don't know if it was good or not, but it was entertaining. It was kind of reminiscent of Inception in that, despite being all about mindscapes and having practically unlimited potential to showcase unbounded creativity, it didn't take any advantage of that whatsoever.

Halloween (2018): Whatever. I saw it like four days ago and I barely remember anything in it.

Poltergeist: I hadn't seen it before. It was okay. It was funnier than I expected.

The Haunting of Hill House (Netflix): It was okay, for the most part, until the ending. The "scares" were incredibly hokey and tropey, but the drama was all right. As expected, it was primarily a drama with some horror elements tacked on. I read the novel a long time ago, I don't remember much from it, but I do know that the show is only an "adaptation" in the loosest sense of the word. I appreciated it for what it was, I was entertained all the way through... until the last episode, where it just did a complete 180 out of nowhere and turned the entire tone and message of the previous nine episodes upside-down. It betrayed its own setting and message hard and the tone turned from chilling and sad to mawkishly, cloyingly sentimental and sugary so suddenly and jarringly that it pretty much retroactively ruined the entire show for me. I'm not going to be able to watch it again knowing that horrible ending is what's in store for me. I can't know for sure but I'm fairly confident Shirley Jackson would not particularly care for this show. It has spurred me to read the book again, though.

[Raxivace]

I haven't seen any of those (Even Poltergeist somehow) but that same thing bothered me about Inception.

[Derived Absurdity]

The Handmaid's Tale (season 1): No one here has discussed this yet? Surprising. It was... good. Mostly, I think. It was relentlessly dark and intense and grim and heavy and foreboding and dramatic. Overwrought, actually, I thought, in certain places. It became a bit less compelling as it went on due to some questionable storytelling choices and the style remaining so consistently dour and awful. I was actually having trouble getting into it at first because I found the premise so implausible - some kind of sudden deranged fascist takeover of the entire American government a few decades hence and a sweeping subjugation of the entire populace almost immediately after with no resistance doesn't sound realistic to me, but I'm probably naive and wrong. I guess it was sparked by a fertility crisis due to pollution or something, so at there was a catalyst for it. I still have hundreds of questions about how this new society is supposed to work, and I don't get the logistics of... any of it, like, at all, but like most scifi I guess I'm not supposed to think too hard about stuff like that, and the show is clearly not interested in answering any of it anyway.

But yeah, this show is pretty fucking miserable 100% of the time. Like, hardcore depressing. Its implausibility is pretty much the only thing that relieved the emotional trauma it would have otherwise inflicted on me. The episode where the Jezebels were introduced was completely shattering and headache-inducing.

The single best thing about this show is Yvonne Strahovski's performance as Serena Joy, and nothing else comes very close. She is mesmerizing, subtle, nuanced, mature, and terrifying; she gives her character a lot of depth just by her performance, as I don't think the character itself as written is all that interesting. She's incredibly impressive in this role; this show wouldn't even be half as good without her, IMO. In fact I probably wouldn't even have finished the season without her. Ann Dowd is also good, but that's to be expected. Joseph Fiennes as "the Commander" is the single most hate- and disgust-inducing character I've seen on TV in a while; he's just a huge roiling pile of arrogance, entitlement, maliciousness, hypocrisy, sociopathy, and disgusting oily slime that I hope his death is long and incredibly painful. So, good villains. I hate them very, very much. Everyone else... is okay.

I'm skeptical about the second season. Apparently that's where they abandoned the book, and the ending of this season makes it look like it's going to turn into some YA thing, with the protagonist leading some underground rebellion or something. So it's either going to turn into, basically, Mockingjay, or devolve into misery porn (or both). Hopefully it stays good, but I don't have high hopes.

April Fool's Day: It was okay.

Bruce Almighty: Saw this a bunch when I was a kid. Not sure why I had such warm feelings for it, it kind of blows a lot. I did not remember the treacly message God gives Bruce at the end. "A miracle is a kid who says no to drugs and yes to an education." LOL. Also, God, you remembered to give Bruce all your powers, but you kind of forgot to give him OMNIPOTENCE. You know, your job is probably a lot easier when you're OMNIPOTENT. Can't blame him for failing at your job when you give him all the responsibility and none of the necessary training or knowledge. Kind of a raw deal. Fuck you, God.

Sixteen Candles: I was expecting the rape, but I was not prepared for the racism. Or John Cusack. Nor was I prepared for how goofy and wacky it was going to be. Man, this movie was just completely unhinged. People actually liked stuff like this in the 80s? That rape scene just went on and on and on, and it was treated as just another goofy-ass gag in an extremely long line of goofy-ass gags. It's amazing people actually have the nerve to wonder why Christine Blasey Ford didn't report her assault considering how much of a joke this movie shows our culture treated the rape of women back then. All of the gags were unfunny, there was nothing serious or emotionally mature at this movie's core between the gags, the characters were all empty and awful, there was nothing good about it at all. There's zero here to recommend. It was a piece of shit. The Rotten Tomatoes summary says: "Significantly more mature than the teen raunch comedies that defined the era, Sixteen Candles is shot with compassion and clear respect for his characters and their hang-ups." Man, how bad were movies back then that this was considered mature and compassionate? What a horrible movie.

The Kindergarten Teacher: It was okay. Kind of boring and predictable. It was sort of unsettling, I guess. Maggie Gyllenhaal carries the movie, and she does an okay job at it. There wasn't as much psychological depth to it as there could have been.

[Raxivace]

The only one of those I've seen is Bruce Almighty. I also remember liking it as a kid, though I don't really remember much about it. That drugs and kids line does sound pretty LOL, though I could understand 15 years ago thinking its saying something nicer than it actually is.

I haven't seen Sixteen Candles so I won't even touch the stuff about rape, though I will say I generally find Rotten Tomatoes to not be that good of a resource.

[Derived Absurdity]

I have come to the conclusion that most mainstream film and television critics are extremely stupid. That's the only explanation of their behavior I can think of.

Anyway:

Suspiria (1977) - I suppose this proved to me that visual style and atmosphere alone aren't enough to carry me through a movie, for I found this very tedious and unengaging. Aesthetically/visually it was interesting, and I dug the creepy synth lullaby soundtrack, but after the first ten minutes (which were cool, I admit), I got very bored and finally shut it off after the halfway point. Just seems like after the first ten minutes I already got everything this movie promised to offer, and I couldn't put myself through any more.

I never thought of myself as someone who fails to appreciate aesthetics and atmosphere in film (there are many other films that rely on primarily those that I love), but this did nothing for me.

[Raxivace]

I agree about TV critics, though the best people writing about film out there are still good (Your Bordwells and whatnot. If you go back historically I think there's a ton more).

In general I think a few great writers can make up for a multitude of terrible ones...whereas I don't see even see that in writing about TV.

[Gendo]

4. Lastly, I'm not sure what your problem was with the McDormand character telling her daughter that she hopes she gets raped. That isn't edgelordy shit, she was saying something in anger she didn't actually mean or want. A lot of parents do this.

This is actually the one part where I agree with DA over you. At least, I did while watching the film. Granted, this line came before I realized how purposefully exaggerated the move was (I also didn't realize until later that it was the same director as In Bruges). At the time, it simply felt very forced; like there was no good reason for that particular line to be in there other than shock value, or to try and manipulate the audience's emotions. It's already a common trope to have a loved one feel guilty because the last things they said to someone who died was said in anger; to be so specific with the thing that was said just felt unnecessary and fake. But then again, in light of all the other over-the-top events that occur; it starts to make more sense.

[Raxivace]

You've all known some much more cool headed adults in your life than I have if you think a parent saying that kind of thing is particularly hard to believe.

[Gendo]

You've all known some much more cool headed adults in your life than I have if you think a parent saying that kind of thing is particularly hard to believe.

It's not just whether or not a parent would really say that; it's also the tragic coincidence of the events that followed.

As if getting raped and killed wasn't enough of a tragedy or loss, it had to add the trope of having said something in anger right before, and as if that still wasn't enough, it had to be that specific line.

[Raxivace]

I mean yeah, it does have to be either the line they used or something equivalent since that whole scene is establishing what the entire relationship was like between the mother and daughter before the rape and murder. If it had just been cordial, if McDormand was just some kind woman, the movie would have lost some complexity.

Like that almost certainly wasn't the first time they've exchanged words like that before. Perhaps you could argue there should have been multiple flashbacks throughout the film instead of just the main one (I don't think were any others but its been a while since I've seen the movie tbh) but that would change a lot about the film.

[Derived Absurdity]

Chilling Adventures of Sabrina - there is an extremely light and jokey side to this show and an extremely dark and chilling side to this show and it keeps on switching back and forth between them. It's annoying. It needs to get consistent. I didn't know this show was going to be so overtly Satanic. Not that that's bad, but I guess we've changed from when the entire country exploded in outrage from Harry Potter promoting Satanism and witchcraft; now we can have a show marketed to teens where the protagonist is a Satan-worshiping witch and it's not a big deal? Why aren't evangelicals screaming about this? I just don't understand anymore. I don't know, this show isn't garbage or anything, but it's not great or even particularly good. It's not that well-made, it doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's not even very entertaining, yet I still watched it, and I'll probably watch the next season. I don't know why. It's like a junk food binge. You just shovel it all in even though you're not really enjoying it and you don't feel fulfilled afterward.

[Faustus5]

I didn't know this show was going to be so overtly Satanic. Not that that's bad, but I guess we've changed from when the entire country exploded in outrage from Harry Potter promoting Satanism and witchcraft; now we can have a show marketed to teens where the protagonist is a Satan-worshiping witch and it's not a big deal? Why aren't evangelicals screaming about this?

Trust me, a few of them raised a stink in some of the movie forums that sprouted up in the demise of the IMDB, both for the Satanism and the evil feminist agenda, which of course are always connected in the minds of those folks.

I agree about the conflicting tonality being annoying. Quit watching about halfway through episode one.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Suspiria (1977) - I suppose this proved to me that visual style and atmosphere alone aren't enough to carry me through a movie, for I found this very tedious and unengaging. Aesthetically/visually it was interesting, and I dug the creepy synth lullaby soundtrack, but after the first ten minutes (which were cool, I admit), I got very bored and finally shut it off after the halfway point. Just seems like after the first ten minutes I already got everything this movie promised to offer, and I couldn't put myself through any more.

I never thought of myself as someone who fails to appreciate aesthetics and atmosphere in film (there are many other films that rely on primarily those that I love), but this did nothing for me.

FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of these old Giallo horrors either (though I rather like a few of Bava's films), even though I also kinda dig what they're doing aesthetically. It could just be you haven't found the right aesthetics-driven film that will totally engage you on that level alone. Ever seen Barry Lyndon? I wouldn't say it's all about the aesthetics (it's Kubrick, after-all), but I certainly think that's its biggest appeal on an initial viewing.

Chilling Adventures of Sabrina - I didn't know this show was going to be so overtly Satanic. Not that that's bad, but I guess we've changed from when the entire country exploded in outrage from Harry Potter promoting Satanism and witchcraft; now we can have a show marketed to teens where the protagonist is a Satan-worshiping witch and it's not a big deal?

This just reminded me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_t ... TV_series) I don't remember the old-Sabrina being all that controversial either, and this was around the time of the Satanic Panic scares.

[Derived Absurdity]

And even that was based on comics that were around for years/decades.

It's not surprising that a few random idiots would get mad at this show, but that's different from Harry Potter, which was a country-wide phenomenon. There were book burnings and school bans. Many people I know say they were forbidden from reading them when they were growing up. It was in the media for like a decade. Not the same thing.

I'm looking it up and I'm also not finding any mention that the original sitcom sparked any outrage at all, even though it literally has the word "witch" in the title and its "magic" doesn't seem much different from Harry Potter's. I'm just going to assume that evangelicals were scared of the Harry Potter series because they just have a natural distrust of books.

[Raxivace]

Maybe the Evangelicals were actually mad about how British the Harry Potter books were.

[Derived Absurdity]

Bird Box - I have to say, I've seen a lot of movies in my life, and of all the movies I've seen in my life, that was definitely a movie.

[Gendo]

Why have I seen about 50 mentions of Bird Box in the last 2 days? I literally have no idea what it is. What is causing it to be the subject of so much discussion?

[Raxivace]

I haven't seen it either but its new and on Netflix so its easily accessible.

[BruceSmith78]

On the topic of witches, Bewitched was considered family friendly TV back in the 50's or 60's or some shit, and I don't think it was controversial. *shrugs*

Have you seen Bandersnatch?

[Derived Absurdity]

No, I don't like my TV shows making me work.

[BruceSmith78]

I thought it was an interesting idea, more like a video game than a movie. It's kind of like Heavy Rain or those Walking Dead games where you make choices to impact the story, except your character is trying to hold on to his sanity rather than survive the zombie apocalypse or find a missing child. It had potential, but it fell apart and just ended up being silly with a bunch of plot lines that went nowhere.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah, I'm not really sure I like it when I'm the one making choices about where the story will go. I remember I read Choose Your Own Adventure books as a kid, and I thought the novelty was sort of cool, but I don't think I was ever satisfied with them as actual immersive stories.

I think the problem I have with them is that it's kind of the job of the author or screenwriter or whatever to tell their own story, and we (the audience) get to choose how to experience and interpret it. But the actual job of storytelling, where we get to shape it through our own choices, shouldn't really fall on us (the audience). And all the endings are already written out anyway, so the illusion of free choice you have is just that, so what's even the point anyway? If you want to actively make your own stories, do it the traditional way and become a writer yourself. Not sure this whole "choose your own path" thing really works. Interesting as a novelty, maybe, but not much more than that. But I could be wrong.

[Gendo]

i hate batman now

[BruceSmith78]

Have any of you seen Joker? It feels like they read this thread (just the Batman stuff) when creating their version of Gotham. I think Castor and DA would appreciate it though, because of how anti-capitalistic it is.

[Raxivace]

I haven't seen Joker myself though I'm curious about it since it won the top prize at the Venice Film Festival (Not the kind of people to award comic book movies typically) and is apparently heavily inspired by Scorsese movies like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy (The latter of which is really underrated IMO).

[Derived Absurdity]

Woah, Bruce! You're still here!

Yeah I'll go see Joker. I'm keeping my mind open and my expectations in check.

[BruceSmith78]

I poke my head in every few days, I just never feel like I have much to contribute. I suck at reviewing movies. I think you'll like Joker though.