Stillwater (spoilers, I guess)

Tools    





Which places are these?
The New York Times + The New Yorker. Anthony Lane, the movie reviewer at The New Yorker is British with a most amusing droll sense of humor.

If either of these publications pans a movie, I will not see it no matter what. Having said this,The New York Times frequently praises movies that I think are awful (The New Yorker not so much) so there’s that. In any event, it’s a way for me to get movies into my Q with the hope that I’m not missing any gems.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



The New York Times + The New Yorker. Anthony Lane, the movie reviewer at The New Yorker is British with a most amusing droll sense of humor.

If either of these publications pans a movie, I will not see it no matter what. Having said this,The New York Times frequently praises movies that I think are awful (The New Yorker not so much) so there’s that. In any event, it’s a way for me to get movies into my Q with the hope that I’m not missing any gems.
I, too, find these two mostly reliable.



OOOh hhaha. You typing that original first line of yours was a warning to us readers that YOUR post may contain spoilers? Too? Sorta??

lol. I misread it too then

AAAAAHhhh.... we are all coming together. *inhales (as long as none of y'all gots the covids*
Yeah, my fault obviously for not being clearer.

But also LOL at the idea that I'd come into a thread and be like "UM, SPOILERS MUCH!!!!!!" in angry all caps. (More an LOL for me because that's so the opposite of how I approach any kind of confrontation).



Yeah, my fault obviously for not being clearer.

But also LOL at the idea that I'd come into a thread and be like "UM, SPOILERS MUCH!!!!!!" in angry all caps. (More an LOL for me because that's so the opposite of how I approach any kind of confrontation).
We thought you were trying a new posting style.*



We thought you were trying a new posting style.*
DO YOU LIKE IT?

IS IT WORKING?

DOES THIS FEEL LIKE A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH A NUANCED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND THE IMPACT ON REAL PEOPLE?



(I am also going all in on emojis)

(I mean: I AM ALSO GOING ALL IN ON EMOJIS)




DO YOU LIKE IT?

IS IT WORKING?

DOES THIS FEEL LIKE A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH A NUANCED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND THE IMPACT ON REAL PEOPLE?



(I am also going all in on emojis)

(I mean: I AM ALSO GOING ALL IN ON EMOJIS)

If this is your way of winning arguments... it's working


*throws up hands*



If this is your way of winning arguments... it's working


*throws up hands*
Honestly, even typing that post and then having to look at it gave me a small headache.

I'm just not cut out for that ALL CAPS LYFE.



Honestly, even typing that post and then having to look at it gave me a small headache.

I'm just not cut out for that ALL CAPS LYFE.



I was trying to find a gif from Suspiria of the butler holding his head and screaming, but got a whole bunch of Dakota Johnson gifs instead. It ain't right.



What about Stu's all run-on sentence life or Wooley's all f-bomb life?
Are you proposing we combine them like Voltron?



DO YOU LIKE IT?

IS IT WORKING?

DOES THIS FEEL LIKE A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH A NUANCED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION AND THE IMPACT ON REAL PEOPLE?



(I am also going all in on emojis)

(I mean: I AM ALSO GOING ALL IN ON EMOJIS)

The new Takoma is exhausting
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



Having now seen it, I firmly stand by my view that the film is about her father and that she, in a sense, is a minor, or at least secondary character that mainly serves as his motivating factor. Nor did I feel she was portrayed as “nefarious”/“guilty”, that one line of dialogue really doesn’t pack a punch. If anything, watching it again brought to mind Heavenly Creatures, because of course they felt the need to add a sexual relationship between “Knox” and “Kercher”, exactly as with Parker and Hulme. It’s a good film, but sexualising all manner of same sex relationships is just plain tired by now.



If anything, watching it again brought to mind Heavenly Creatures, because of course they felt the need to add a sexual relationship between “Knox” and “Kercher”, exactly as with Parker and Hulme. It’s a good film, but sexualising all manner of same sex relationships is just plain tired by now.
But they didn't just "add it," right? Because the idea that Knox and the victim were having a lesbian affair was something that was quite happily "reported" during her trial and given as a possible motive.

If anything, this supports the complaints Knox is making that the film is taking the seedy, demeaning rumors about her and making them the "truth" for the character based on her.