Raya and the Last Dragon about putting your trust in others. It's an okay lesson in a vacuum, but the film is constantly pushing the protagonist to keep giving second chances to an antagonist who, up until five minutes before the end, continues to hurt and betray her on a very personal level.
And she was a very trusting person in the beginning of the movie. It was only after the other girl betrayed her and ruined everything that she closed herself off to the world. The moral of the story shouldn't have been that she needs to trust people, it should have been for the other people to learn they need to be more trustworthy. I don't completely remember, but I don't think the assassin princess actually apologized for destroying the world, betraying the main character multiple times, and killing the dragon.
She also gets backstabbed by a baby lol
And the worse is that after being backstabbing twice, she gets told off for not being trusting and realizes and tells the audience it's all her fault for not trusting people
I don't think I've watched another movie where the moral conclusion was so ridiculously nonsense
Wonder Woman
Most of the film was about how people are actually generally terrible and selfish and you can’t simply go kill the god of war and the war just stops.
And then the god of war pops up and says it was him all along and she kills him and the war just stops.
It would have been great that if they HAD to bring in Ares, just have him appear and admit that he's done nothing and just likes to be among man to watch the destruction unfold and watch Diana realize that man is corruptible, the gods aren't controlling every aspect of humanity anymore. But no... we needed third act with big CGI fight scenes.
You could still have a big fight at the end. Set Ares up as still being a huge a-hole, and maybe threaten to kill that human that WW likes or something.
So he’s an ass and been having a grand time killing people during the war, but it wasn’t his creation. He’s just a tourist, enjoying himself.
“Good Omens” does this. Crowley is a demon who is supposed to sow discord and chaos on Earth, but he rarely has to do anything because humans are way better at coming up with awful things to do to each other.
In the book he actually gets pretty fucked up over the Spanish Inquisition. He happened to be in Spain (mostly drinking in cantinas) and he got a commendation for it just out of the blue. So, he decided to check out what it was that he had just gotten credit for and wound up getting drunk for a week to try and forget what he saw.
One book *so far*
Pratchett and gaiman had planned to do a sequel, and gaiman said he's going to do it as the third season of the show, unless Amazon doesn't renew it in which case he'll write it as a book
I'm honestly kind of torn. I want more of the show. I also *really* want a sequel to the first book.
When Sir Terry died he had all his unreleased manuscripts run over by a steamroller.
If another book does come out it would basically be a Neil Gaiman novel (no bad thing) with maybe a small Pratchett influence.
Season 3 is supposed to be based on the ideas they were kicking around which I'm looking forward to.
EDIT: Since reddit likes to make the same joke over and over, they were on a hard drive.
From what I read Gaiman and Pratchett had notes and outlines, which being something they jointly worked together on are things that Gaiman has access to.
And the "evil" Crowley gets up to is mostly just aggravating. His greatest evil accomplishment (aside from delivering the Antichrist, and he actually gets that wrong) is an unbearably inefficient ring road around London that irritates everyone on it -- and is shaped like some cosmic sign that means "hail Satan" or something like that -- not any great work of utmost despicable behaviour.
I always thought that the M5 was *hugely effective evil*, Crowley's crowning achievement of pure wickedness. The problem was that nobody else in Hell "got it".
Instead of tempting a single person or even a cult, he's subtly pushed millions of Londoners to damn themselves, entirely voluntarily, just by making them slightly more pissed off at the low-level, no-fault shittiness of the world. Otherwise wholesome people will get off that motorway feeling cranky and miserable, and from there they will go on to yell at a cashier, leave a mess on the table at lunch, or just snap at their loved ones. And those people go on to short-change the next customer, spit in someone else's food, and kick their dogs. A cascading chain of little evils that build up to a river of damnation.
But no, Downstairs they're all up Hastur's rectums because he tempted a Holy Man to sin, and within the year he will be damned. Sheesh.
Having the ring motorway form a Satanic sigil fueled by a constant churn of miserable suffering was just a sweet bonus effect.
You got it right, this is it exactly. He calls it the evil equivalent of “water over a prayer wheel”, just generating this miasma of low-grade misery over an entire city. The satanic tempting equivalent of mildly poisoning a well so the entire village is infertile in 2 generations. Long-term, forward-thinking treachery.
Crowley is kind of the perfect analogue for burnout in the corporate world. He’s a hard-working, creative, relatively low-level employee, who’s really looking to the future and trying to adapt to the changes in the world (see also—tying up the phone lines). His superiors, meanwhile, are obsessed with short-term results and stuck in their ways. His burnout is compounded: When he tries hard he’s brilliant but doesn’t get appreciated, and when he slacks off it doesn’t seem to matter. So he just said fuck it.
That also tracks with Ares mythology wise. He certainly stirred the pot plenty (as did virtually every other God) but he also was just drawn to watch and participate in carnage started by humans just because he loved the chaos and violence. So you could have him make the point that humans did this all on their own, I'm just here cause I get off on this stuff.
Could've just done the fight but have Ares trying to explain that Diana is mistaken. "Look, see I didn't do any of this, I'm just watching!" while she's convinced it's all his fault. Big fight scene and the point still works.
I was so sure that Wonder Woman was going to realize that there was no god behind the conflict after all this time. Only for "Surprise god of war" that I just lost all interest in everything that happened afterwards.
Agreed. Would have been a more powerful message and unique. I thought it could’ve made for a great moment if Aries appeared but taunted her saying something along the lines of “I’ve done nothing but watch. They did this themselves”.
It would have been better if he was just a war tourist. He could still taunt WW into a fight so they can have their stupid superhero battle at the end, like every other cape movie?
Right? Like the humans fighting wars is what draws him out because obviously humans created the God of War in the first place. They would still have to fight him because he doesn't want them to stop the war, but his presence there makes perfect sense either way.
This is exactly what I was thinking would happen, based on how the film was going, and I was pretty psyched. When it turned out to be just a typical Scooby Doo villain reveal that he was the God of War manipulating everyone and killing him solved everyone's problems, it lost me.
I was hoping you would find out he has nothing to do with the war but was making sure the treaty would set up for a Second World War. That way it was humans can be bad but also he pulled some strings for a worse conflict in the future so they could have a villain (unfortunately mandatory in a cbm)
Or at the least of Aries was like "actually, I didn't do this. They did it themselves but I'm here to help them." That AT LEAST would have given us a leg in both worlds.
I couldn't believe they kept the moustache. Either magically shave it off or magically grow it out into a full beard, but not the moustache. He looked like a high school principal. The one who ends up in cuffs because it turns out he had been sneaking into locker rooms.
I figured it he was gonna reveal himself to have been a disguise but then in the flashback hes still a regular ass british person like that makes sense.
He had literally no strategic reason to reveal himself to her, he could still have remained in the shadows and pulling all the strings, but nope he was a jackass about it. You should have had more conversations with the gods of wisdom
It sort of depends on how generous you want to be with what Wonder Woman accomplishes. Ares is pushing humans into a never ending war that will kill all humans so he and Diana can restart the world with only gods.
Basically Ares doesn't create war but he can amplify it to an extinction level event.
I mean Steve still gives her the speech about how some people are just like that. Like the movie is still going for that message, they just muddied the waters with how they handled that fight and it's terrible execution.
And he had that stupid, dumb mustache too, even in the flashback to ancient times. It makes sense as a small British man, but as the ancient Greek god of war, it looks stupid as hell.
Wouldn't a more compelling version have been Ares was not responsible, or even trying to stop it since it was supposed to be the war to end all wars, but wonder woman still kills him and then realizes it didn't stop all war?
The problem is Jamie Foxx is straight away introduced as being corrupt, by framing an (mostly) innocent accomplice for the rape-murder of Butler's wife and daughter and sends the guy to deathrow while knowingly letting the real rapist-murderer only get a few years in exchange for aiding the frame-up....all because he was uncertain he might not won the case and thus affect his perfect conviction record that he wanted to use to become DA.
So him talking about justice is inmediatly established as bullshit since he only cares about getting ahead no matter the cost, so him turning away from it at the end is completly devoid of meaning.
Thats the part i never understood- Jamie foxx is so desperate to get one of these guys (who, for all he knows, tag teamed this heinous crime 50-50), that he'll let the other just walk to be sure of the conviction? I would have lost my shit if i were clyde too haha
That's why I think the ending was supposed to be different, because the entire movie set up Nick as a pragmatist out for himself, not an idealist protecting the law. Making Nick go against a system he didn't really believe in in order to win makes no narrative sense and it makes his character arc a circle. I think Clyde was supposed to win and somebody made the decision to switch it so the "hero" (i.e. the *least bad* guy) would win.
I feel like every new Jurassic Park/World movie misses the point, or at least the irony, of forcing back to life something that should have died years ago.
The [lunch scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nz8YrCC9X8&ab_channel=JonCvack) in Jurassic Park could have been talking about the production of the Jurassic World trilogy.
"Dr. Ian Malcolm: Don't you see the peril, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Cinematic power is the most impactful force the industry has ever seen, but you handle it like a kid who's found a camera.
Donald Gennaro: It's hardly appropriate to start hurling generalizations...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the issue with the creative power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You watched what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the skills for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of filmmakers to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you copyrighted it, and marketed it, and slapped it on a movie poster, and now
[bangs on the table]
Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're promoting it, you wanna promote it. Well...
John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our filmmakers have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your filmmakers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
John Hammond: "Gladiator." "Gladiator" never got a sequel...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: [shaking his head] No...
John Hammond: If I was to create a slew of sequels for "Gladiator", you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some series that was obliterated by Russell Crowe trying to resurrect a dead main character. Jurassic Park had their franchise, and audiences selected them for extinction.
John Hammond: I simply don't understand this critical attitude, especially from a cinephile. I mean, how can we stand in the light of filmmaking, and not produce?
What would be so great about another trilogy? It's a violent, penetrative experience that scars it's audience. What you call cinema, I call the rape of the cinematic world."
I was psyched for the idea of Dominion, to the point that I went in blind without watching any trailers. I really wish they had just done the whole JW trilogy on the premise of dinosaurs getting onto the mainland, as that was the implication at the end of The Lost World novel.
There were some interesting ideas that they could've ran with more, what with cloning other species and the unintended consequences of all that. I think there's enough drama in all that without the need for evil corporations and straight up villains.
I was psyched for the idea of Dominion, too, but then I found out it was about bugs or some crap, instead of the movie that the ending of Fallen Kingdom told us Dominion would be.
Dr Malcolm: Your ~~scientists~~ movie execs were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should…
Movie execs: And we’d do it again! And again! And Again! And probably again, as soon as we get a chance!
When I watched it, I totally bought into what it was selling. Then I did the slightest bit of research and found out pretty much the whole movie is bullshit.
That's kinda how it mostly goes with the Kurt Cobain suicide/murder thing. Mainly to blame on Tom Grant who was the PI hired by Love to find Kurt and used that opportunity as his golden ticket to sell a lie and monetize it.
When I was 13-14 in the 2000s, I was obsessed with Nirvana and completely fell for the murder thing too because I refused to believe the person who I idolized and who made me pick up a guitar would kill himself. However the more I looked into it, the more I had to deal with the fact that it was a suicide.
The evidence that he was incapable of suicide due to the “lethal” amount of heroin in his system is ridiculous to anyone familiar with drug addiction. Repeated use of a substance leads to rapid tolerance, meaning more heroin needs to be consumed then before to achieve the same effects. What would kill an opiate naive patient wouldn’t even be noticed by someone in the advanced stages of addiction - which there’s plenty of evidence Kurt was heavily addicted to opiates at this stage.
My brother died of a heroin overdose. Spent 2 years in prison. The day he got out, he went straight to a dealer and shot the dose he had been used to before prison. Killed him.
Keith Richards was arrested in Toronto in 1977 with the charges including trafficking (a multi-decade sentence) because of the massive quantity he had tried to bring in. Part of his defense was to convince the judge that yes, he really did shoot up a minimum of a gram a day just to stay upright.
This is absolutely true and is at the heart of why so recovering addicts who fall off treatment is at a much higher chance of overdosing. They believe they can still use the same amount they did before they got clean without realizing that their tolerance is much lower before and unwillingly overdoses (edit: just fixed a few typos)
Having dated an addict, if Courtney wanted him dead, all she had to do was nothing. She didn't though and people blaming her is one of the biggest injustices of the 90s.
Literally there are so many stories from both Courtney and Kurt where Kurt fully overdosed in Courtney’s presence with no one else around and she went through laborious efforts to resuscitate him.
If she wanted him dead, she literally could’ve just done nothing at all.
Let’s be real here, Kurt Cobain would’ve probably been one of the easiest person to murder with out getting caught. He had been suicidal all his life and was a heavy drug user.
The way people talk about Kurt and Courtney is really gross in my opinion. Kurt is always painted as the loving, misunderstood, sensitive soul, while Courtney is just "that crazy bitch he was married to."
It seemed to me like they were both very toxic people in their day. I'm a huge fan of both of their music, but people will explain away all of Kurt's issues just because they like his music more (And some good old fashioned left over 90s style sexism.)
Courtney has certainly at times done no favors to the public's perception of her, but it's terrible the way people talk about her in relation to Kurt. Talk to someone who's loved an addict, and realize that that shit ain't easy.
The Butterfly Effect's entire premise is how drastically different everything becomes whenever he travels through time and changes shit, but at one point the movie just abandons this with the stigmata/prison scene and kind of hopes you don't notice.
The DVD extras had a director's cut with a different ending where Ashton Kutcher went back in time and strangled himself in the womb with his umbilical cord, and his parents were like oh no that's our 5th(?) lost pregnancy.
That ending felt much more true to the film's overall message.
>Ashton Kutcher went back in time and strangled himself in the womb with his umbilical cord
Okay so that wasn't a fever dream I had. I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or not...
Between this and Donnie Darko, the early 2000s had a case of "if I had a nickel for every time a film ended with a time-traveling protagonist deciding they should have died younger, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice"
Yeah that was questionable for me as well. I get what they were trying to do which was: he only had a few of the journal pages so he needed to use the bad papers to retrieve the good papers. Its also a nail biting scene when they break into the cell just as he warps out.
But yes, the fact the entire world changes every time he alters the past but then when he stabbed both his damn hands as a kid and somehow still ended up in the exact same position is very inconsistent.
This also takes away from the wild scene of his dad choking him out while visiting him in the asylum. In the beginning of the movie when you first see the scene, you automatically think his dad is just a wacko.
But the purpose of going back to that scene later was to show that his dad was actually trying to prevent him from changing stuff. The fact that his dad choked him out again, and now we know why, was very informative. And then when he snaps out of the memory, he’s back to exactly where he was, and it makes sense because he didn’t actually change the past at all.
The marks showing up on his hands in jail scene ruins the whole point of the dad scene because obviously his life should have been totally different due to sustaining injuries to his hands like that.
That's what always stuck out to me about the scene. If he injured his hands in grade school then, even assuming he still ended up in prison in the same cell with the same guy, he would've always had the scars in his hands proving nothing lol
I am Legend. The whole point is that through his hatred of the vampires, which is now everyone, for being monsters that kill you in the night, he has become the very monster he despised. He is the monster that now kills the vampires while they sleep. He is the bad guy.
The movie makes it into a typical zombie movie where he finds the cure and has to get to some sacred city.
For anyone who can't see the clip linked to in this thread, Will Smith's character realizes that the "zombies" aren't zombies at all; they have thoughts and reason and emotions, just like (other) people, and that HE is the monster who tortures and kills without thought or care. He is not the legend who sacrificed all to find a cure (since no cure is needed, man has merely evolved), but instead, he is the "legend" who slaughtered thousands.
I quite like the symbolism in it. Will Smith's character has been seeing images of butterflies throughout the movie. During the final showdown, the lead zompire used blood to smear the image of a butterfly on the glass. Will looks at the lady zompire he's been experimenting on and sees a butterfly tattoo on her neck.
I think it's less that they've been innocent all along and more that they've begun to regain their minds. He didn't see that they had begun to form a society again, but he recognizes the bond the leader has with the lady.
So he opens the door and carts the lady out through the crowd, fully exposing himself to being mobbed and killed. But they hold back and allow him to return the woman, and then they leave in peace.
Much, much more powerful ending. It feels like true sci-fi, someone overcoming their prejudices to see the humanity in the monsters.
From what I remember they don’t do a good job making you sympathize with the vampires at all. Also your comment is funny bc when that movie first came out my mom was so scared that she started making sure all of her blinds were closed every night. No sympathy at all just fear lmao
The book didnt make you feel sympathy for them either until the very end. The reader reaches the same realization at the same time as the protagonist. Its supposed to be a shock and make you horrified at the actions you thought were justified up to that point.
Read the book many uears before the movie was made. Terribly disappointing adaptation. Would have been better as just a generic zombie/vampire movie.
Hotel Transylvania 3.
The whole thing is about how you should accept your family regardless of what they are. Dracula is about to learn to love his grandson even though he doesn't have vampire powers...then the kid suddenly gets vampire powers at the very end and Drac doesn't need to learn anything at all.
Accccctually, you're thinking of Hotel Transylvania 2. But yes, you're right that the ending is rather hypocritical.
Hotel Transylvania 3 is the one where they go on a cruise and Ericka von Hellsing learns that monsters aren't evil.
I truly regret the amount of knowledge I have about that film series...
I have young kids so I'm right there with you. The third one abandoned any semblance of plot or story, even for a kids movie. It was just "bad guy had family that doesn't agree with him", deus ex machina in the form of the macarena saving the day, and plenty of Adam Sandler going his classic goobery gibberish.
The first one has one of my favorite kids movie line
Johnny - "So, would a wooden stake through the heart kill you?"
Dracula - "well yeah, who wouldn't that kill?"
Singin’ in the Rain is entirely about an actress with a great singing voice who gets trapped into doing overdubs for an actress who can’t sing. The studio, ironically, refused to release the film until most of Debbie Reynolds’ songs were themselves overdubbed. (Not the directors fault as far as I know, but deeply ironic).
Was looking for this. I had the exact same reaction when I saw it. It completely undermines the core theme of the whole movie…I couldn’t believe that they did that. Not to mention that it would have been a near-perfect way to explain how something mythological could have happened.
Yes! The miracle happened to protect them, and then the grandmother made everything about the miracle, due to her trauma and fear. Everything had to be perfect and the family were secretly miserable. Mirabel got the family to talk and brought it all into the open. They lost their powers and had to work together as a family and community to rebuild. They no longer needed the miracle! They could finally explore what else they could do!
But then there wouldn't be a sequel.
I kind of hated how the point of the movie was to cherish family even when they don't cherish you. I'm sorry, if I was ostracized from my entire family for more than a decade because the head of the family hated that I lacked a trait they all had, and I was forced to live in an actual nursery well into adulthood because of it, I would absolutely NOT cherish my family. Some people need to leave their blood families because they're toxic AF.
Look, I had to disown my own mother, my only family in the world because she wouldn't stop hoarding animals and emotionally abusing me. Maribel should've ditched those losers years ago, I don't care how well they can sing. And you know what, they would've been worse off for it AND they would've deserved it. Or maybe her leaving would've fixed Alma's impressive compassion deficit years early and the entire house breaking apart could've been avoided.
God, I don't care that Alma had a redemption moment; she ruined that girl's childhood and embedded a massive inferiority complex in her. Trash human being. Character. Whatever.
Ableism is the worst. Even if the family didn't get their powers back at the end, it doesn't change the fact that maribel was treated like trash to the point where she was intentionally left out of family events.
There's a sentiment that Zack Snyder missed the point of Watchmen, one reason being he sensationalized the action and thereby the heroes when the comic did the opposite. Personally, I like the movie, but I understand the argument.
I loved it when news articles reported on Moore calling a love of superheros a "precursor to fascism" a few months ago, like it was a new and shocking opinion of Moore's.
It's ironic that one of the guys credited with the "deconstruction" of Superheroes at large is also one of the guys who also understands the value of traditional heroism in characters such as Superman in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.
Superman was always Alan Moore's favourite hero growing up. He's admitted he still has a soft spot for him today, even though he's grown to dislike superhero stories as whole.
Really I think the issue is Moore's tastes have shifted as he's got older. He's not interested in Superhero stories anymore, to him they've already reached they pinnacle and he doesn't think their is anything left to say about them.
Also a common thing for Zach Snyder. See: Sucker Punch. He claimed it was anti-sexualization and was subverting the narrative... but if you've seen the film... it does seem highly sexualized! I still like the film and think what he was trying to do was interesting, but I don't think he really delivered the feminist film he claimed he'd done.
Or 300. Snyder said he wanted to portray the Spartans in a negative light and just from a synopsis you can see how that may be the case but it's definitely not the impression most people got from it.
If he wanted to portray the Spartans negativity, he did an absolutely horrible job at it.
If, on the other hand, he is *lying to avoid criticism and his intent was the opposite of that,* then yeah, I can see it.
"Alan Moore, you wrote my favorite issues of Radioactive Man!"
"Oh really, so you *liked* that I made your favorite superhero a heroin addicted jazz critic who's not radioactive?"
"I don't read the words. I just like when he punches people."
Watchmen babies in V is for Vacation is such a great joke.
Also gotta call out Saturday morning watchmen https://youtu.be/YDDHHrt6l4w?si=jWBIEHj0DofdJyLC
I was a little bit surprised by it in *V for Vendetta*. It even begins with the mirror imagery, but the entire theme of V himself being the dark reflection of the fascist government is lost on the movie, where instead he's presented more as a typical vengeful anti-hero. One of the core ideas by the end of that story is that V's use of their methods makes him just as monstrous as they are; he's just a necessary monster to dismantle their power.
Frankly it is hard for me to imagine a worse person to deliver Moore's work. Snyder is 1000 percent style over substance. It works for him when it works, and frankly I found Watchmen a perfectly entertaining movie, but boy oh boy did it miss the mark on message.
A major theme of the work is that there aren’t really good guys and bad guys, just people doing what they think is best. Sometimes people do really bad stuff because they like it and people applaud them (Comedian), others do stuff that people think is bad but MIGHT be good, or at least they’re trying to be (Ozymandias), and some try to do what they think is good but their view is so skewed that… is it even possible for them to do so (Rorschach)? There are no heroes, no villains, just people living out their own moral codes in a world too complicated to know what good or bad even is.
My major complaint of Zach Snyder’s adaptation is that he uses the lens of the camera to tell you who he wants you to think the heroes and villains are. Ozymandias is clearly a cold sleezeball, Rorschach is rough but ultimately given the hero cut- it just totally misses the mark in my opinion.
Terminator 3 just perplexes me. At the end of T2 it's abundantly clear that the message conveyed is that we have the ability to control our own fate as a human species and create a better future for ourselves. T3 begins and it's like: "Sorry, Judgement Day was always inevitable." For me, it makes a complete mockery of James Cameron's vision for the first two films.
Some people had a similar problem with Wolf of Wall Street, I know some former addicts criticised it for making everything seem far too much _fun_ to work as an indictment of what they were doing.
...it didn't help that it (realistically) had the criminals still making money at the end, unlike Scorsese's mobster films where people were more likely to get killed for what they were doing.
Really, that’s a criticism of all Scorsese crime films, save The Irishman.
Like most anti-wars films, it’s hard not to read the spectacle of war and crime as “fun”. There’s always that veneer of video-game-ness to it.
Humourously Goodfellas glamorises crime so much that the audience doesn't even question Henry Hill's belief that having to live like a regular citizen is a terrible punishment.
“We cannot change the past because the events which have occurred have shaped the world and ourselves into who we are today, and must accept that some things are just meant to happen…
…okay, actually we can change it a little bit”
Wonder Woman literally shoots it's own message in the foot just to have a 3rd act twist and a fight where they spam CGI that looks SO MUCH Worse than the rest of the movie
attractive party swim ad hoc society merciful governor punch illegal school
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funny. So it wasn't the plot that missed the mark, but the plot compared to how/why it was made. Like Free Willy about how bad it is to have whales in captivity. But for the movie, they kept whales in captivity and treated them badly.
The plot also completely misses the mark. The Hobbit is a small, tightly plotted adventure that happens to be placed in Middle-Earth.
It should've been an old-school adventure movie that's 2-3 hrs long, or at most 2 standard 90 minute features. There is literally not enough material in the book that allows for 6-7 hrs of story.
Yes but ALSO the plot. The plot in the books centers around Biblos hero arc from a quiet hobbit who doesn't want adventure and doesn't believe in himself to him seeing that he has value to all of these great heroes around him and he sees in himself what Gandalf sees and becomes a hero. The movies completely take away from his story at every turn and make every other character out shine him. He's barely in the movies and it's not his story, he's just there.
One of the things that pissed me off most about that movie is how they treated Bard’s black arrow. It showed they didn’t give a thought to Tolkien’s themes.
One of the most prevalent re-occurring themes in The Lord of the Rings is that there is magic in the little, day-to-day aspects of life. In a world of wizards, kings, elves, and shapeshifters, it’s a *hobbit* that saves the world.
In the movie, the black arrow is a super duper rare, enchanted, 5-foot long, black iron javelin forged by ancient dwarves using forgotten magics that are the only thing that could POSSIBLY harm a dragon, but only if it’s shot by Bard, the muscular heartthrob with chiseled features and even more chiseled abs.
In the book, Bard was a simple hunter, and his black arrow was just a normal arrow that was fletched with black goose feathers rather than white feathers. However, he treated it as his lucky arrow, and as such, he always made sure to retrieve it and reuse it. It was just the superstition of an average hunter, but there is magic in the everyday, and Bard’s belief wove a spell that was powerful enough to slay a dragon. After he killed the dragon, Bard chose not to retrieve the arrow. The magic was spent. To me, it’s incredibly profound how the mundane act of retrieving an arrow day after day was able to rival the might of a dragon. It sends tingles down my spine. It’s not showy. It’s simple and beautiful.
By trying to make it cooler, they missed the whole point. Now its just kinda lame.
It’s been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I distinctly remember the arrow being passed down through his family.
So I looked it up. It was an arrow passed down from his ancestor, the Lord of Dale. It was forged by Thror in the Lonely Mountain before Smaug took it over. It wasn’t expressly magical, but it’s origin, and the fact he is always able to retrieve it, definitely implies it.
So Bard wasn’t really a simple hunter with a simple arrow. He was a man with noble blood wielding an arrow forged by the dwarves in the place Smaug defiled by the last king of the Lonely Mountain.
This was a really insightful and beautiful comment. I actually haven't read Tolkien since 7th grade and I'm 23 now but something about the way you described the magic in the mundane makes me want to give it another try
Rise of Skywalker the moral they were trying to push is that it doesn’t matter who your family is and you can forge your own destiny with pride then at the end of the movie Rey drops the name Palpatine in favour of Skywalker just cause
Ready Player One. Little guy fights the big soulless corporation... in an extremely soulless corporate movie throwing nostalgia bait at the audience for literally no storytelling reason just to overload their brains with "look I know this im such a geek lol" impulses.
The whole adaptation felt like something thoroughly screen tested, and clinical. Even the supposedly disfigured girl looked cute with a minor defect. Nerd bait from a bunch of suits.
I definitely agree with the nerd bait assessment, but I've often joked about how the book just feels like a list made by 'member berries. It's still an enjoyable read, but it becomes downright comical how much Cline wanted to wedge nostalgic references into every page.
Let's not pretend the book wasn't also soulless nostalgia bait, but I was pretty disappointed that they didn't have the balls to cast an actress that actually looked like Artemis is described in the book (huge port wine stain birthmarks and fat, she's described as rubenesque)
Crash is supposedly an anti-racism story, but makes several points about how someone being racist is perfectly logical and the film kinda wallows in stereotypes.
*I, Robot*. The climax of the movie is that a big, superhuman AI is taking over the world to "save" the human species.
The end of the book implies that a big, superhuman AI has probably ALREADY taken over the world to save the human species. And that this is not necessarily a bad thing, because by very broadly following the Three Laws of Robotics, it's doing a much better job subtly controlling us than we can do on our own.
The movie's point is that technology might one day usurp us, just like a dozen other sci-fi blockbusters. The book's point is that humans might one day make tools that are even better than we are, in terms of pure capability, in terms of logical decision-making, and even by some measures in terms of empathy and altruism.
This one's a bit of a cheat, because *I, Robot* the movie is not based on *I, Robot* the book. It's "inspired by" Asimov's book. And by "inspired" they mean it's a completely unrelated sci-fi screenplay that just happened to involve robots, and the producers slapped the *I, Robot* license on it, changed a few names, and called it a day.
I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
And that’s an awful lot girl
And now, now you’ve gone away
And all I’m trying to say is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school
He was terrible in that film
I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part
He’s way better than Ben Affleck
And now all I can think about is your smile
and that sh\*tty movie too
Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you
Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies?
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked
Just a little bit more than I miss you
“‘Pearl Harbor’ is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.”
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pearl-harbor-2001
I like Jarhead for the same reason. So many people griping that it's boring and nothing interesting happens while guys slowly go insane. Like yes, that's the entire point.
Jarhead did a decent job of relaying the utter foot-dragging cadence of war for many. And a realistic snapshot of life after service.
Although there's a thread of recruiting in there which reasons: "join the Marines, you definitely won't get maimed or die. You can just chill in the desert and shoot your gun...Trust me bro."
Cannibal Holocaust tried to make us think about how the real savages aren’t the natives but the civilized westerners who tortured them for entertainment. They did so by literally killing and torturing animals for entertainment
Black Panther. The fact that it's one of the best Marvel movies in a lot of ways makes the political backwardness of the ending all the more jarring.
Lots of people bring up how Killmonger, aside from being brutal and violent in his methods, basically has the moral high ground in the movie. Rather than hiding in a utopian bubble, he wants Wakanda to use its wealth and technology to help oppressed communities around the world.
Less talked about is how in the end, T'Challa seems to have seen some value in Killmonger's argument, but then promises to share with the world Wakanda's "way of life." As if agrarian tribalism, hereditary monarchy, and trial by combat were responsible for his nation's success, rather than the dumb luck of sitting on an extractable resource of basically infinite value.
It's striking how much it parallels US attempts to "spread democracy" to other countries while keeping them poor, or Silicon Valley's rhetoric of Making The World a Better Place while hoarding vast amounts of wealth. Dude you aren't smart, you're just rich.
I think the point that T’Challa takes away is that wakanda has some moral obligations to the world given it’s advanced abilities however he rejects killmongers belief system because killmonger wants to wage racial war on the world. He isn’t interested in just helping oppressed communities - he wants brutal revenge against predominantly white nations who have a history of oppressing blacks. And he wants to use wakanda technology to wage that war.
Marvel movies often have that problem. Since the superheroes are essentially cops at this point, in order to make a compelling villain they go with the "you have a point, I just disagree with your methods" which is not how you make a good sympathetic villain. It just excuses the superhero of upholding the status quo, and the status quo isn't always good no matter the methods of the villain.
I've never been more angry at a film during my first watch than when I saw the Emma Watson and Tom Hanks movie The Circle (2017). Basically a young woman with the financial burden of an ailing father must secure family medical insurance, so she gets a job at Amazooglebook and lives on the company campus. The company culture is heavy on social connectivity and checking in through technology - if you miss an off-hours event, your supervisor will look at your Googazon account to see what you were doing instead. If you didn't post at all for over 12 hours, they will question what you're hiding.
Emma Watson has some philosophical disagreements with the CEO Tom Hanks, who basically dares her to make her life completely transparent - essentially, to livestream her life 24/7 with 5min timeouts for the bathroom. This eventually strains her irl relationships when those people can't interact with her without also being broadcast online to an audience of tens of thousands. An estranged friend gets in a car wreck trying to escape paparazzi.
Emma Watson eventually "wins" against Tom Hanks when she proves he's had unethical business practices. He resigns and hands Amazooglebook over to Emma Watson's control, and the film ends with her determined to run the company better.
The plot of the film is a damning indictment of social media culture. And Emma Watson, whose life has pretty much been ruined by social media monitoring, does not decide to decontruct the Panopticon -- she decides that it just needs new management.
I was LIVID.
The movie sucks. But the ending isn't why.
The point the movie was trying to make is that you can't let anyone have this power, because it's too tempting to think that "I can use this power for good, the last person just didn't do it right."
>Which just proves Gerard’s point that the system is broken, and the only way to get stuff done is to break the law. And Jamie’s point is completely abandoned.
So, then the movie didn't miss the point. It chose a side.
Sucker Punch. It tried real hard to make a subversive point criticizing its own viewers for objectifying women, but at the end of the day there were still hot girls in fetish outfits doing cool violence and that was the main attraction. Point went over the head for way too many viewers for me to call it a success, even though i respect what it was trying to do.
It was the essence of "do not enjoy this cool thing".
I watched this as a young teen girl, and I actually loved it because, to me, it was showing that sexy girls who do dances and stuff are still capable and strong. I 100% agree with people’s criticism of the movie, but I do have a soft spot for it. It reminded me that femininity and strength are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I missed the point of the movie since I was a kid! Hahaha
Black Panther. Wakanda is run by a Might=Right system. Movie comments on how people enslaved and brutalized africans for centuries using that same approach. Killmonger takes over Wakanda in trial by combat and shows all the wakandans how that system can wreck even their own country. Black Panther comes back and retakes Wakanda through... trial by combat. Legitimizing his reign and that broken system...
Wolf of Wall Street.
The script is written as a cautionary tale of the seduction of greed. But the way the movie is directed and edited absolutely fawns over Jordan Belfort. Probably due in no small part to Belfort being involved in its production. To the point the movie is an inspiration for pretty much every crypto/NFT scammer of the last 10 years.
On some level Wolf of Wall Street plays like a superhero origin story for a guy who learns being an evil sociopath is a superpower.
I thought that was the point of Law Abiding Citizen.
It was exactly the point.
It is lol they missed the real point
We're gonna need a new thread for people who missed that they missed the point
Thank god someone said it. Shit even OP said it in the beginning of the post lol
Maybe **the point the movie was trying to make is that THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN**?
I think OP just interpreted the movie wrong
OP probably also watch Ocean's Eleven thinking the plot's message was "Crime doesn't pay"
Raya and the Last Dragon about putting your trust in others. It's an okay lesson in a vacuum, but the film is constantly pushing the protagonist to keep giving second chances to an antagonist who, up until five minutes before the end, continues to hurt and betray her on a very personal level.
And she was a very trusting person in the beginning of the movie. It was only after the other girl betrayed her and ruined everything that she closed herself off to the world. The moral of the story shouldn't have been that she needs to trust people, it should have been for the other people to learn they need to be more trustworthy. I don't completely remember, but I don't think the assassin princess actually apologized for destroying the world, betraying the main character multiple times, and killing the dragon.
Big "I have done nothing wrong ever in my life" energy from that princess. I felt kinda gaslighted by that whole movie.
She also gets backstabbed by a baby lol And the worse is that after being backstabbing twice, she gets told off for not being trusting and realizes and tells the audience it's all her fault for not trusting people I don't think I've watched another movie where the moral conclusion was so ridiculously nonsense
Plus she only did the right thing when it was literally the only choice left.
Wonder Woman Most of the film was about how people are actually generally terrible and selfish and you can’t simply go kill the god of war and the war just stops. And then the god of war pops up and says it was him all along and she kills him and the war just stops.
It would have been great that if they HAD to bring in Ares, just have him appear and admit that he's done nothing and just likes to be among man to watch the destruction unfold and watch Diana realize that man is corruptible, the gods aren't controlling every aspect of humanity anymore. But no... we needed third act with big CGI fight scenes.
You could still have a big fight at the end. Set Ares up as still being a huge a-hole, and maybe threaten to kill that human that WW likes or something. So he’s an ass and been having a grand time killing people during the war, but it wasn’t his creation. He’s just a tourist, enjoying himself.
“Good Omens” does this. Crowley is a demon who is supposed to sow discord and chaos on Earth, but he rarely has to do anything because humans are way better at coming up with awful things to do to each other.
In the book he actually gets pretty fucked up over the Spanish Inquisition. He happened to be in Spain (mostly drinking in cantinas) and he got a commendation for it just out of the blue. So, he decided to check out what it was that he had just gotten credit for and wound up getting drunk for a week to try and forget what he saw.
I really need to read the books, don’t I? Edit: Y’all’ve convinced me, just grabbed the book!
Just one book, and yes it's excellent.
One book *so far* Pratchett and gaiman had planned to do a sequel, and gaiman said he's going to do it as the third season of the show, unless Amazon doesn't renew it in which case he'll write it as a book I'm honestly kind of torn. I want more of the show. I also *really* want a sequel to the first book.
When Sir Terry died he had all his unreleased manuscripts run over by a steamroller. If another book does come out it would basically be a Neil Gaiman novel (no bad thing) with maybe a small Pratchett influence. Season 3 is supposed to be based on the ideas they were kicking around which I'm looking forward to. EDIT: Since reddit likes to make the same joke over and over, they were on a hard drive.
From what I read Gaiman and Pratchett had notes and outlines, which being something they jointly worked together on are things that Gaiman has access to.
> If another book does come out it would basically be a Neil Gaiman novel (no bad thing) Yeah, don't threaten me with a good time.
Reminds me of Old Harry's Game, where the devil goes on a mission to stop humanity sinning because Hell has become too full
And the "evil" Crowley gets up to is mostly just aggravating. His greatest evil accomplishment (aside from delivering the Antichrist, and he actually gets that wrong) is an unbearably inefficient ring road around London that irritates everyone on it -- and is shaped like some cosmic sign that means "hail Satan" or something like that -- not any great work of utmost despicable behaviour.
I always thought that the M5 was *hugely effective evil*, Crowley's crowning achievement of pure wickedness. The problem was that nobody else in Hell "got it". Instead of tempting a single person or even a cult, he's subtly pushed millions of Londoners to damn themselves, entirely voluntarily, just by making them slightly more pissed off at the low-level, no-fault shittiness of the world. Otherwise wholesome people will get off that motorway feeling cranky and miserable, and from there they will go on to yell at a cashier, leave a mess on the table at lunch, or just snap at their loved ones. And those people go on to short-change the next customer, spit in someone else's food, and kick their dogs. A cascading chain of little evils that build up to a river of damnation. But no, Downstairs they're all up Hastur's rectums because he tempted a Holy Man to sin, and within the year he will be damned. Sheesh. Having the ring motorway form a Satanic sigil fueled by a constant churn of miserable suffering was just a sweet bonus effect.
You got it right, this is it exactly. He calls it the evil equivalent of “water over a prayer wheel”, just generating this miasma of low-grade misery over an entire city. The satanic tempting equivalent of mildly poisoning a well so the entire village is infertile in 2 generations. Long-term, forward-thinking treachery. Crowley is kind of the perfect analogue for burnout in the corporate world. He’s a hard-working, creative, relatively low-level employee, who’s really looking to the future and trying to adapt to the changes in the world (see also—tying up the phone lines). His superiors, meanwhile, are obsessed with short-term results and stuck in their ways. His burnout is compounded: When he tries hard he’s brilliant but doesn’t get appreciated, and when he slacks off it doesn’t seem to matter. So he just said fuck it.
I don’t know, I feel like anyone who has driven the M25 would agree that it is pure evil :)
I mean, he did create the M25.
That also tracks with Ares mythology wise. He certainly stirred the pot plenty (as did virtually every other God) but he also was just drawn to watch and participate in carnage started by humans just because he loved the chaos and violence. So you could have him make the point that humans did this all on their own, I'm just here cause I get off on this stuff.
Could've just done the fight but have Ares trying to explain that Diana is mistaken. "Look, see I didn't do any of this, I'm just watching!" while she's convinced it's all his fault. Big fight scene and the point still works.
Yeah. She doesn't believe him, they fight, she wins... but the war goes on as he fades away laughing.
Plus, it would've made her disillusionment with humanity in the other movies more convincing.
I was so sure that Wonder Woman was going to realize that there was no god behind the conflict after all this time. Only for "Surprise god of war" that I just lost all interest in everything that happened afterwards.
Agreed. Would have been a more powerful message and unique. I thought it could’ve made for a great moment if Aries appeared but taunted her saying something along the lines of “I’ve done nothing but watch. They did this themselves”.
I completely agree.
Completely agree, that's what I was hoping for as well. But a point of order: Aries = Ram (male sheep) Ares = Greek god of war
It would have been better if he was just a war tourist. He could still taunt WW into a fight so they can have their stupid superhero battle at the end, like every other cape movie?
Right? Like the humans fighting wars is what draws him out because obviously humans created the God of War in the first place. They would still have to fight him because he doesn't want them to stop the war, but his presence there makes perfect sense either way.
This is exactly what I was thinking would happen, based on how the film was going, and I was pretty psyched. When it turned out to be just a typical Scooby Doo villain reveal that he was the God of War manipulating everyone and killing him solved everyone's problems, it lost me.
I was hoping you would find out he has nothing to do with the war but was making sure the treaty would set up for a Second World War. That way it was humans can be bad but also he pulled some strings for a worse conflict in the future so they could have a villain (unfortunately mandatory in a cbm)
Or at the least of Aries was like "actually, I didn't do this. They did it themselves but I'm here to help them." That AT LEAST would have given us a leg in both worlds.
Also he looks like shit and that whole final fight is terrible. And I truly love the rest of that movie
Mustache, plus tiny head in big armor. He looked so silly.
Like, David Thewlis is a dope actor but Ares battle mode (or whatever) should have been someone else. Why wouldn't a God be able to shape shift?
I couldn't believe they kept the moustache. Either magically shave it off or magically grow it out into a full beard, but not the moustache. He looked like a high school principal. The one who ends up in cuffs because it turns out he had been sneaking into locker rooms.
I figured it he was gonna reveal himself to have been a disguise but then in the flashback hes still a regular ass british person like that makes sense.
Right? It's not even a case of " narratively this doesn't work for the money but WOW it's an awesome climax fight scene", narp. Not even that.
He had literally no strategic reason to reveal himself to her, he could still have remained in the shadows and pulling all the strings, but nope he was a jackass about it. You should have had more conversations with the gods of wisdom
And she defeats him because she is first losing to him but then she realizes she is stronger than him so she wins. The end.
I never saw a movie that seriously managed to make World War II a plothole, like if Ares is dead, how are there still wars?
It sort of depends on how generous you want to be with what Wonder Woman accomplishes. Ares is pushing humans into a never ending war that will kill all humans so he and Diana can restart the world with only gods. Basically Ares doesn't create war but he can amplify it to an extinction level event.
Obviously if men weren’t so good at starting wars, and killing each other, The Amazons would not have had to isolate themselves on Themyscira.
I mean Steve still gives her the speech about how some people are just like that. Like the movie is still going for that message, they just muddied the waters with how they handled that fight and it's terrible execution.
And he had that stupid, dumb mustache too, even in the flashback to ancient times. It makes sense as a small British man, but as the ancient Greek god of war, it looks stupid as hell.
Wouldn't a more compelling version have been Ares was not responsible, or even trying to stop it since it was supposed to be the war to end all wars, but wonder woman still kills him and then realizes it didn't stop all war?
The problem is Jamie Foxx is straight away introduced as being corrupt, by framing an (mostly) innocent accomplice for the rape-murder of Butler's wife and daughter and sends the guy to deathrow while knowingly letting the real rapist-murderer only get a few years in exchange for aiding the frame-up....all because he was uncertain he might not won the case and thus affect his perfect conviction record that he wanted to use to become DA. So him talking about justice is inmediatly established as bullshit since he only cares about getting ahead no matter the cost, so him turning away from it at the end is completly devoid of meaning.
Thats the part i never understood- Jamie foxx is so desperate to get one of these guys (who, for all he knows, tag teamed this heinous crime 50-50), that he'll let the other just walk to be sure of the conviction? I would have lost my shit if i were clyde too haha
That's why I think the ending was supposed to be different, because the entire movie set up Nick as a pragmatist out for himself, not an idealist protecting the law. Making Nick go against a system he didn't really believe in in order to win makes no narrative sense and it makes his character arc a circle. I think Clyde was supposed to win and somebody made the decision to switch it so the "hero" (i.e. the *least bad* guy) would win.
I feel like every new Jurassic Park/World movie misses the point, or at least the irony, of forcing back to life something that should have died years ago.
The [lunch scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nz8YrCC9X8&ab_channel=JonCvack) in Jurassic Park could have been talking about the production of the Jurassic World trilogy.
"Dr. Ian Malcolm: Don't you see the peril, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Cinematic power is the most impactful force the industry has ever seen, but you handle it like a kid who's found a camera. Donald Gennaro: It's hardly appropriate to start hurling generalizations... Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the issue with the creative power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You watched what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the skills for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of filmmakers to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you copyrighted it, and marketed it, and slapped it on a movie poster, and now [bangs on the table] Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're promoting it, you wanna promote it. Well... John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our filmmakers have done things which nobody's ever done before... Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your filmmakers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should. John Hammond: "Gladiator." "Gladiator" never got a sequel... Dr. Ian Malcolm: [shaking his head] No... John Hammond: If I was to create a slew of sequels for "Gladiator", you wouldn't have anything to say. Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some series that was obliterated by Russell Crowe trying to resurrect a dead main character. Jurassic Park had their franchise, and audiences selected them for extinction. John Hammond: I simply don't understand this critical attitude, especially from a cinephile. I mean, how can we stand in the light of filmmaking, and not produce? What would be so great about another trilogy? It's a violent, penetrative experience that scars it's audience. What you call cinema, I call the rape of the cinematic world."
[удалено]
I was psyched for the idea of Dominion, to the point that I went in blind without watching any trailers. I really wish they had just done the whole JW trilogy on the premise of dinosaurs getting onto the mainland, as that was the implication at the end of The Lost World novel. There were some interesting ideas that they could've ran with more, what with cloning other species and the unintended consequences of all that. I think there's enough drama in all that without the need for evil corporations and straight up villains.
I was psyched for the idea of Dominion, too, but then I found out it was about bugs or some crap, instead of the movie that the ending of Fallen Kingdom told us Dominion would be.
Dr Malcolm: Your ~~scientists~~ movie execs were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should… Movie execs: And we’d do it again! And again! And Again! And probably again, as soon as we get a chance!
Soaked in Bleach, the story that tried really hard to make me think that Kurt Cobain was murdered, wound up convincing me that it was suicide.
When I watched it, I totally bought into what it was selling. Then I did the slightest bit of research and found out pretty much the whole movie is bullshit.
That's kinda how it mostly goes with the Kurt Cobain suicide/murder thing. Mainly to blame on Tom Grant who was the PI hired by Love to find Kurt and used that opportunity as his golden ticket to sell a lie and monetize it. When I was 13-14 in the 2000s, I was obsessed with Nirvana and completely fell for the murder thing too because I refused to believe the person who I idolized and who made me pick up a guitar would kill himself. However the more I looked into it, the more I had to deal with the fact that it was a suicide.
And the more it dawned on me as an adult how absolutely fucking horrible it was for Courtney Love to have to deal with that nonsense.
The evidence that he was incapable of suicide due to the “lethal” amount of heroin in his system is ridiculous to anyone familiar with drug addiction. Repeated use of a substance leads to rapid tolerance, meaning more heroin needs to be consumed then before to achieve the same effects. What would kill an opiate naive patient wouldn’t even be noticed by someone in the advanced stages of addiction - which there’s plenty of evidence Kurt was heavily addicted to opiates at this stage.
My brother died of a heroin overdose. Spent 2 years in prison. The day he got out, he went straight to a dealer and shot the dose he had been used to before prison. Killed him.
Far too common. Sorry for your loss.
Keith Richards was arrested in Toronto in 1977 with the charges including trafficking (a multi-decade sentence) because of the massive quantity he had tried to bring in. Part of his defense was to convince the judge that yes, he really did shoot up a minimum of a gram a day just to stay upright.
His autobiography is quite the read
This is absolutely true and is at the heart of why so recovering addicts who fall off treatment is at a much higher chance of overdosing. They believe they can still use the same amount they did before they got clean without realizing that their tolerance is much lower before and unwillingly overdoses (edit: just fixed a few typos)
Having dated an addict, if Courtney wanted him dead, all she had to do was nothing. She didn't though and people blaming her is one of the biggest injustices of the 90s.
Literally there are so many stories from both Courtney and Kurt where Kurt fully overdosed in Courtney’s presence with no one else around and she went through laborious efforts to resuscitate him. If she wanted him dead, she literally could’ve just done nothing at all. Let’s be real here, Kurt Cobain would’ve probably been one of the easiest person to murder with out getting caught. He had been suicidal all his life and was a heavy drug user.
The way people talk about Kurt and Courtney is really gross in my opinion. Kurt is always painted as the loving, misunderstood, sensitive soul, while Courtney is just "that crazy bitch he was married to." It seemed to me like they were both very toxic people in their day. I'm a huge fan of both of their music, but people will explain away all of Kurt's issues just because they like his music more (And some good old fashioned left over 90s style sexism.) Courtney has certainly at times done no favors to the public's perception of her, but it's terrible the way people talk about her in relation to Kurt. Talk to someone who's loved an addict, and realize that that shit ain't easy.
[удалено]
Sometimes, I wonder if the perception of her being crazy is exagerrated becauce of the Weinstein stuff.
Man that movie sounds horrible
The Butterfly Effect's entire premise is how drastically different everything becomes whenever he travels through time and changes shit, but at one point the movie just abandons this with the stigmata/prison scene and kind of hopes you don't notice.
The DVD extras had a director's cut with a different ending where Ashton Kutcher went back in time and strangled himself in the womb with his umbilical cord, and his parents were like oh no that's our 5th(?) lost pregnancy. That ending felt much more true to the film's overall message.
>Ashton Kutcher went back in time and strangled himself in the womb with his umbilical cord Okay so that wasn't a fever dream I had. I'm not sure if that makes me feel better or not...
Between this and Donnie Darko, the early 2000s had a case of "if I had a nickel for every time a film ended with a time-traveling protagonist deciding they should have died younger, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice"
Yeah that was questionable for me as well. I get what they were trying to do which was: he only had a few of the journal pages so he needed to use the bad papers to retrieve the good papers. Its also a nail biting scene when they break into the cell just as he warps out. But yes, the fact the entire world changes every time he alters the past but then when he stabbed both his damn hands as a kid and somehow still ended up in the exact same position is very inconsistent. This also takes away from the wild scene of his dad choking him out while visiting him in the asylum. In the beginning of the movie when you first see the scene, you automatically think his dad is just a wacko. But the purpose of going back to that scene later was to show that his dad was actually trying to prevent him from changing stuff. The fact that his dad choked him out again, and now we know why, was very informative. And then when he snaps out of the memory, he’s back to exactly where he was, and it makes sense because he didn’t actually change the past at all. The marks showing up on his hands in jail scene ruins the whole point of the dad scene because obviously his life should have been totally different due to sustaining injuries to his hands like that.
Not only that, apparently people retain their memories from the previous timeline where he didn't have holes in his hands.
That's what always stuck out to me about the scene. If he injured his hands in grade school then, even assuming he still ended up in prison in the same cell with the same guy, he would've always had the scars in his hands proving nothing lol
I am Legend. The whole point is that through his hatred of the vampires, which is now everyone, for being monsters that kill you in the night, he has become the very monster he despised. He is the monster that now kills the vampires while they sleep. He is the bad guy. The movie makes it into a typical zombie movie where he finds the cure and has to get to some sacred city.
The alternate ending is far better and more true to the original.
What happens in the alternate ending? I thought the movie had a good set-up, but did not like how it ended.
For anyone who can't see the clip linked to in this thread, Will Smith's character realizes that the "zombies" aren't zombies at all; they have thoughts and reason and emotions, just like (other) people, and that HE is the monster who tortures and kills without thought or care. He is not the legend who sacrificed all to find a cure (since no cure is needed, man has merely evolved), but instead, he is the "legend" who slaughtered thousands.
I quite like the symbolism in it. Will Smith's character has been seeing images of butterflies throughout the movie. During the final showdown, the lead zompire used blood to smear the image of a butterfly on the glass. Will looks at the lady zompire he's been experimenting on and sees a butterfly tattoo on her neck. I think it's less that they've been innocent all along and more that they've begun to regain their minds. He didn't see that they had begun to form a society again, but he recognizes the bond the leader has with the lady. So he opens the door and carts the lady out through the crowd, fully exposing himself to being mobbed and killed. But they hold back and allow him to return the woman, and then they leave in peace. Much, much more powerful ending. It feels like true sci-fi, someone overcoming their prejudices to see the humanity in the monsters.
Very well said!
Wow way better
[Here's a link](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPSk30qzgFs) This ending is now canon for the sequel.
> This ending is now canon for the sequel AWESOME!
There's a sequel?
"I, 2, am Legend"
II am Legend
2 am 2 legend
It was announced last year with Will Smith returning and Michael B. Jordan starring in it as well.
The book remains the most chilling read I have ever had.
I audiobooked it a few months back and it was INTENSE. I love classic sci-fi and it hit all the marks for me.
“Come out, Neville!”
From what I remember they don’t do a good job making you sympathize with the vampires at all. Also your comment is funny bc when that movie first came out my mom was so scared that she started making sure all of her blinds were closed every night. No sympathy at all just fear lmao
The book didnt make you feel sympathy for them either until the very end. The reader reaches the same realization at the same time as the protagonist. Its supposed to be a shock and make you horrified at the actions you thought were justified up to that point. Read the book many uears before the movie was made. Terribly disappointing adaptation. Would have been better as just a generic zombie/vampire movie.
In the book, the vampires could also talk if I remember correctly. That helped a lot. The shrieky, shadow vamps in the movie just don’t get you there.
Such a good book. My favorite adaptation is Omega Man.
I thought the Vincent Price version was pretty close to the book.
Hotel Transylvania 3. The whole thing is about how you should accept your family regardless of what they are. Dracula is about to learn to love his grandson even though he doesn't have vampire powers...then the kid suddenly gets vampire powers at the very end and Drac doesn't need to learn anything at all.
Accccctually, you're thinking of Hotel Transylvania 2. But yes, you're right that the ending is rather hypocritical. Hotel Transylvania 3 is the one where they go on a cruise and Ericka von Hellsing learns that monsters aren't evil. I truly regret the amount of knowledge I have about that film series...
I have young kids so I'm right there with you. The third one abandoned any semblance of plot or story, even for a kids movie. It was just "bad guy had family that doesn't agree with him", deus ex machina in the form of the macarena saving the day, and plenty of Adam Sandler going his classic goobery gibberish. The first one has one of my favorite kids movie line Johnny - "So, would a wooden stake through the heart kill you?" Dracula - "well yeah, who wouldn't that kill?"
Singin’ in the Rain is entirely about an actress with a great singing voice who gets trapped into doing overdubs for an actress who can’t sing. The studio, ironically, refused to release the film until most of Debbie Reynolds’ songs were themselves overdubbed. (Not the directors fault as far as I know, but deeply ironic).
And I cayant stand 'em!
[удалено]
Was looking for this. I had the exact same reaction when I saw it. It completely undermines the core theme of the whole movie…I couldn’t believe that they did that. Not to mention that it would have been a near-perfect way to explain how something mythological could have happened.
Yes! The miracle happened to protect them, and then the grandmother made everything about the miracle, due to her trauma and fear. Everything had to be perfect and the family were secretly miserable. Mirabel got the family to talk and brought it all into the open. They lost their powers and had to work together as a family and community to rebuild. They no longer needed the miracle! They could finally explore what else they could do! But then there wouldn't be a sequel.
Additionally, all of the hard work everyone put into the house only to have it magically replaced.
I kind of hated how the point of the movie was to cherish family even when they don't cherish you. I'm sorry, if I was ostracized from my entire family for more than a decade because the head of the family hated that I lacked a trait they all had, and I was forced to live in an actual nursery well into adulthood because of it, I would absolutely NOT cherish my family. Some people need to leave their blood families because they're toxic AF. Look, I had to disown my own mother, my only family in the world because she wouldn't stop hoarding animals and emotionally abusing me. Maribel should've ditched those losers years ago, I don't care how well they can sing. And you know what, they would've been worse off for it AND they would've deserved it. Or maybe her leaving would've fixed Alma's impressive compassion deficit years early and the entire house breaking apart could've been avoided. God, I don't care that Alma had a redemption moment; she ruined that girl's childhood and embedded a massive inferiority complex in her. Trash human being. Character. Whatever.
Ableism is the worst. Even if the family didn't get their powers back at the end, it doesn't change the fact that maribel was treated like trash to the point where she was intentionally left out of family events.
There's a sentiment that Zack Snyder missed the point of Watchmen, one reason being he sensationalized the action and thereby the heroes when the comic did the opposite. Personally, I like the movie, but I understand the argument.
A pretty common thing to happen to Alan Moore adaptations.
I loved it when news articles reported on Moore calling a love of superheros a "precursor to fascism" a few months ago, like it was a new and shocking opinion of Moore's.
It's ironic that one of the guys credited with the "deconstruction" of Superheroes at large is also one of the guys who also understands the value of traditional heroism in characters such as Superman in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow.
Superman was always Alan Moore's favourite hero growing up. He's admitted he still has a soft spot for him today, even though he's grown to dislike superhero stories as whole. Really I think the issue is Moore's tastes have shifted as he's got older. He's not interested in Superhero stories anymore, to him they've already reached they pinnacle and he doesn't think their is anything left to say about them.
Miracleman just went in that direction.
Also a common thing for Zach Snyder. See: Sucker Punch. He claimed it was anti-sexualization and was subverting the narrative... but if you've seen the film... it does seem highly sexualized! I still like the film and think what he was trying to do was interesting, but I don't think he really delivered the feminist film he claimed he'd done.
Or 300. Snyder said he wanted to portray the Spartans in a negative light and just from a synopsis you can see how that may be the case but it's definitely not the impression most people got from it.
If he wanted to portray the Spartans negativity, he did an absolutely horrible job at it. If, on the other hand, he is *lying to avoid criticism and his intent was the opposite of that,* then yeah, I can see it.
"Alan Moore, you wrote my favorite issues of Radioactive Man!" "Oh really, so you *liked* that I made your favorite superhero a heroin addicted jazz critic who's not radioactive?" "I don't read the words. I just like when he punches people."
Watchmen babies in V is for Vacation is such a great joke. Also gotta call out Saturday morning watchmen https://youtu.be/YDDHHrt6l4w?si=jWBIEHj0DofdJyLC
I was a little bit surprised by it in *V for Vendetta*. It even begins with the mirror imagery, but the entire theme of V himself being the dark reflection of the fascist government is lost on the movie, where instead he's presented more as a typical vengeful anti-hero. One of the core ideas by the end of that story is that V's use of their methods makes him just as monstrous as they are; he's just a necessary monster to dismantle their power.
I can’t help but like the movie because Hugo weaving is just so goddamn good
Frankly it is hard for me to imagine a worse person to deliver Moore's work. Snyder is 1000 percent style over substance. It works for him when it works, and frankly I found Watchmen a perfectly entertaining movie, but boy oh boy did it miss the mark on message.
A major theme of the work is that there aren’t really good guys and bad guys, just people doing what they think is best. Sometimes people do really bad stuff because they like it and people applaud them (Comedian), others do stuff that people think is bad but MIGHT be good, or at least they’re trying to be (Ozymandias), and some try to do what they think is good but their view is so skewed that… is it even possible for them to do so (Rorschach)? There are no heroes, no villains, just people living out their own moral codes in a world too complicated to know what good or bad even is. My major complaint of Zach Snyder’s adaptation is that he uses the lens of the camera to tell you who he wants you to think the heroes and villains are. Ozymandias is clearly a cold sleezeball, Rorschach is rough but ultimately given the hero cut- it just totally misses the mark in my opinion.
Terminator 3 just perplexes me. At the end of T2 it's abundantly clear that the message conveyed is that we have the ability to control our own fate as a human species and create a better future for ourselves. T3 begins and it's like: "Sorry, Judgement Day was always inevitable." For me, it makes a complete mockery of James Cameron's vision for the first two films.
I always thought Natural Born Killers, which is ostensibly a critique on society's glamorization of violence, is itself a glamorization of violence.
Some people had a similar problem with Wolf of Wall Street, I know some former addicts criticised it for making everything seem far too much _fun_ to work as an indictment of what they were doing. ...it didn't help that it (realistically) had the criminals still making money at the end, unlike Scorsese's mobster films where people were more likely to get killed for what they were doing.
Really, that’s a criticism of all Scorsese crime films, save The Irishman. Like most anti-wars films, it’s hard not to read the spectacle of war and crime as “fun”. There’s always that veneer of video-game-ness to it.
Humourously Goodfellas glamorises crime so much that the audience doesn't even question Henry Hill's belief that having to live like a regular citizen is a terrible punishment.
No, the real punishment is the egg noodles with ketchup
[удалено]
Requiem for a Dream certainly makes a compelling argument against drug use as well.
The Flash. We can change the past! Oh no, we can't, it'll screw everything up! No wait, we can.
“We cannot change the past because the events which have occurred have shaped the world and ourselves into who we are today, and must accept that some things are just meant to happen… …okay, actually we can change it a little bit”
Can change the future a lit bit, as a treat
[удалено]
All the First Blood sequels
Wonder Woman literally shoots it's own message in the foot just to have a 3rd act twist and a fight where they spam CGI that looks SO MUCH Worse than the rest of the movie
Stinks of reshoot, add-on content thanks to studio interference.
attractive party swim ad hoc society merciful governor punch illegal school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Funny. So it wasn't the plot that missed the mark, but the plot compared to how/why it was made. Like Free Willy about how bad it is to have whales in captivity. But for the movie, they kept whales in captivity and treated them badly.
The plot also completely misses the mark. The Hobbit is a small, tightly plotted adventure that happens to be placed in Middle-Earth. It should've been an old-school adventure movie that's 2-3 hrs long, or at most 2 standard 90 minute features. There is literally not enough material in the book that allows for 6-7 hrs of story.
Yes but ALSO the plot. The plot in the books centers around Biblos hero arc from a quiet hobbit who doesn't want adventure and doesn't believe in himself to him seeing that he has value to all of these great heroes around him and he sees in himself what Gandalf sees and becomes a hero. The movies completely take away from his story at every turn and make every other character out shine him. He's barely in the movies and it's not his story, he's just there.
One of the things that pissed me off most about that movie is how they treated Bard’s black arrow. It showed they didn’t give a thought to Tolkien’s themes. One of the most prevalent re-occurring themes in The Lord of the Rings is that there is magic in the little, day-to-day aspects of life. In a world of wizards, kings, elves, and shapeshifters, it’s a *hobbit* that saves the world. In the movie, the black arrow is a super duper rare, enchanted, 5-foot long, black iron javelin forged by ancient dwarves using forgotten magics that are the only thing that could POSSIBLY harm a dragon, but only if it’s shot by Bard, the muscular heartthrob with chiseled features and even more chiseled abs. In the book, Bard was a simple hunter, and his black arrow was just a normal arrow that was fletched with black goose feathers rather than white feathers. However, he treated it as his lucky arrow, and as such, he always made sure to retrieve it and reuse it. It was just the superstition of an average hunter, but there is magic in the everyday, and Bard’s belief wove a spell that was powerful enough to slay a dragon. After he killed the dragon, Bard chose not to retrieve the arrow. The magic was spent. To me, it’s incredibly profound how the mundane act of retrieving an arrow day after day was able to rival the might of a dragon. It sends tingles down my spine. It’s not showy. It’s simple and beautiful. By trying to make it cooler, they missed the whole point. Now its just kinda lame.
It’s been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I distinctly remember the arrow being passed down through his family. So I looked it up. It was an arrow passed down from his ancestor, the Lord of Dale. It was forged by Thror in the Lonely Mountain before Smaug took it over. It wasn’t expressly magical, but it’s origin, and the fact he is always able to retrieve it, definitely implies it. So Bard wasn’t really a simple hunter with a simple arrow. He was a man with noble blood wielding an arrow forged by the dwarves in the place Smaug defiled by the last king of the Lonely Mountain.
This was a really insightful and beautiful comment. I actually haven't read Tolkien since 7th grade and I'm 23 now but something about the way you described the magic in the mundane makes me want to give it another try
Rise of Skywalker the moral they were trying to push is that it doesn’t matter who your family is and you can forge your own destiny with pride then at the end of the movie Rey drops the name Palpatine in favour of Skywalker just cause
Those last 2 movies were like watching divorced parents have a custody battle over a child and hurting the child in the process.
Ready Player One. Little guy fights the big soulless corporation... in an extremely soulless corporate movie throwing nostalgia bait at the audience for literally no storytelling reason just to overload their brains with "look I know this im such a geek lol" impulses. The whole adaptation felt like something thoroughly screen tested, and clinical. Even the supposedly disfigured girl looked cute with a minor defect. Nerd bait from a bunch of suits.
I definitely agree with the nerd bait assessment, but I've often joked about how the book just feels like a list made by 'member berries. It's still an enjoyable read, but it becomes downright comical how much Cline wanted to wedge nostalgic references into every page.
> book just feels like a list There’s literally pages of lists at the start just to hit all the things. So awful.
To be fair.... that is the book as well. It's a lot of nostalgia bait without much substance beyond that, the sequel is worse.
Let's not pretend the book wasn't also soulless nostalgia bait, but I was pretty disappointed that they didn't have the balls to cast an actress that actually looked like Artemis is described in the book (huge port wine stain birthmarks and fat, she's described as rubenesque)
It felt very distasteful using the Iron Giant - a character who is all about how he is *not* a weapon - as a weapon.
Crash is supposedly an anti-racism story, but makes several points about how someone being racist is perfectly logical and the film kinda wallows in stereotypes.
That movie was the most pretentious pat itself-on-the-back movie I've ever seen.
*I, Robot*. The climax of the movie is that a big, superhuman AI is taking over the world to "save" the human species. The end of the book implies that a big, superhuman AI has probably ALREADY taken over the world to save the human species. And that this is not necessarily a bad thing, because by very broadly following the Three Laws of Robotics, it's doing a much better job subtly controlling us than we can do on our own. The movie's point is that technology might one day usurp us, just like a dozen other sci-fi blockbusters. The book's point is that humans might one day make tools that are even better than we are, in terms of pure capability, in terms of logical decision-making, and even by some measures in terms of empathy and altruism. This one's a bit of a cheat, because *I, Robot* the movie is not based on *I, Robot* the book. It's "inspired by" Asimov's book. And by "inspired" they mean it's a completely unrelated sci-fi screenplay that just happened to involve robots, and the producers slapped the *I, Robot* license on it, changed a few names, and called it a day.
All Quiet on the Western Front doesn't end with a quiet day on the Western Front.
Or rather the new 2022 version does not, there are other adaptations. The Best Picture winning one from 1930 is great.
I miss you more then Michael Bay missed the mark When he made Pearl Harbor I miss you more than that movie missed the point And that’s an awful lot girl And now, now you’ve gone away And all I’m trying to say is Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you I need u like Ben Affleck needs acting school He was terrible in that film I need u like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part He’s way better than Ben Affleck And now all I can think about is your smile and that sh\*tty movie too Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies? I guess Pearl Harbor sucked Just a little bit more than I miss you
“‘Pearl Harbor’ is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle.” https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pearl-harbor-2001
Fkn A++ Team America reference. *That* movie didn't miss the point. But Pearl Harbor certainly did.
Meanwhile Team America hit the nail on the head
FUCK YEAH
Freedom costs a buck oh... faaaaaiiiiiiiveeeee
Fuck yeah!
American Sniper, and a lot of other movies that are seemingly trying to show how bad war is but end up glorifying it.
This is why Platoon is my favorite war movie. Someone would have to be irredeemably stupid to see that movie as glorifying war.
I like Jarhead for the same reason. So many people griping that it's boring and nothing interesting happens while guys slowly go insane. Like yes, that's the entire point.
Jarhead did a decent job of relaying the utter foot-dragging cadence of war for many. And a realistic snapshot of life after service. Although there's a thread of recruiting in there which reasons: "join the Marines, you definitely won't get maimed or die. You can just chill in the desert and shoot your gun...Trust me bro."
Cannibal Holocaust tried to make us think about how the real savages aren’t the natives but the civilized westerners who tortured them for entertainment. They did so by literally killing and torturing animals for entertainment
Black Panther. The fact that it's one of the best Marvel movies in a lot of ways makes the political backwardness of the ending all the more jarring. Lots of people bring up how Killmonger, aside from being brutal and violent in his methods, basically has the moral high ground in the movie. Rather than hiding in a utopian bubble, he wants Wakanda to use its wealth and technology to help oppressed communities around the world. Less talked about is how in the end, T'Challa seems to have seen some value in Killmonger's argument, but then promises to share with the world Wakanda's "way of life." As if agrarian tribalism, hereditary monarchy, and trial by combat were responsible for his nation's success, rather than the dumb luck of sitting on an extractable resource of basically infinite value. It's striking how much it parallels US attempts to "spread democracy" to other countries while keeping them poor, or Silicon Valley's rhetoric of Making The World a Better Place while hoarding vast amounts of wealth. Dude you aren't smart, you're just rich.
I think the point that T’Challa takes away is that wakanda has some moral obligations to the world given it’s advanced abilities however he rejects killmongers belief system because killmonger wants to wage racial war on the world. He isn’t interested in just helping oppressed communities - he wants brutal revenge against predominantly white nations who have a history of oppressing blacks. And he wants to use wakanda technology to wage that war.
At the end didn't he pledge to share the wealth, resources, and tech tho? Or am I making that up
He did.
He then built one school in Oakland and called it a day
Marvel movies often have that problem. Since the superheroes are essentially cops at this point, in order to make a compelling villain they go with the "you have a point, I just disagree with your methods" which is not how you make a good sympathetic villain. It just excuses the superhero of upholding the status quo, and the status quo isn't always good no matter the methods of the villain.
I've never been more angry at a film during my first watch than when I saw the Emma Watson and Tom Hanks movie The Circle (2017). Basically a young woman with the financial burden of an ailing father must secure family medical insurance, so she gets a job at Amazooglebook and lives on the company campus. The company culture is heavy on social connectivity and checking in through technology - if you miss an off-hours event, your supervisor will look at your Googazon account to see what you were doing instead. If you didn't post at all for over 12 hours, they will question what you're hiding. Emma Watson has some philosophical disagreements with the CEO Tom Hanks, who basically dares her to make her life completely transparent - essentially, to livestream her life 24/7 with 5min timeouts for the bathroom. This eventually strains her irl relationships when those people can't interact with her without also being broadcast online to an audience of tens of thousands. An estranged friend gets in a car wreck trying to escape paparazzi. Emma Watson eventually "wins" against Tom Hanks when she proves he's had unethical business practices. He resigns and hands Amazooglebook over to Emma Watson's control, and the film ends with her determined to run the company better. The plot of the film is a damning indictment of social media culture. And Emma Watson, whose life has pretty much been ruined by social media monitoring, does not decide to decontruct the Panopticon -- she decides that it just needs new management. I was LIVID.
The movie sucks. But the ending isn't why. The point the movie was trying to make is that you can't let anyone have this power, because it's too tempting to think that "I can use this power for good, the last person just didn't do it right."
>Which just proves Gerard’s point that the system is broken, and the only way to get stuff done is to break the law. And Jamie’s point is completely abandoned. So, then the movie didn't miss the point. It chose a side.
Sucker Punch. It tried real hard to make a subversive point criticizing its own viewers for objectifying women, but at the end of the day there were still hot girls in fetish outfits doing cool violence and that was the main attraction. Point went over the head for way too many viewers for me to call it a success, even though i respect what it was trying to do. It was the essence of "do not enjoy this cool thing".
I watched this as a young teen girl, and I actually loved it because, to me, it was showing that sexy girls who do dances and stuff are still capable and strong. I 100% agree with people’s criticism of the movie, but I do have a soft spot for it. It reminded me that femininity and strength are not mutually exclusive. Maybe I missed the point of the movie since I was a kid! Hahaha
Black Panther. Wakanda is run by a Might=Right system. Movie comments on how people enslaved and brutalized africans for centuries using that same approach. Killmonger takes over Wakanda in trial by combat and shows all the wakandans how that system can wreck even their own country. Black Panther comes back and retakes Wakanda through... trial by combat. Legitimizing his reign and that broken system...
Wolf of Wall Street. The script is written as a cautionary tale of the seduction of greed. But the way the movie is directed and edited absolutely fawns over Jordan Belfort. Probably due in no small part to Belfort being involved in its production. To the point the movie is an inspiration for pretty much every crypto/NFT scammer of the last 10 years. On some level Wolf of Wall Street plays like a superhero origin story for a guy who learns being an evil sociopath is a superpower.
[удалено]