|
Post by queenzod on Dec 25, 2022 2:20:48 GMT
Dried beans, lol.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 26, 2022 1:55:49 GMT
Finally, a great new film! Actually, a short film and, surprisingly, on Disney+! Please everyone watch Alice Rohrwacher‘s Le Pupille!
I think her Happy as Lazaro (a Netflix original) is a masterpiece and I don’t think she has received the attention she deserves.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Dec 26, 2022 7:32:02 GMT
I loved Knives Out and really looked forward to Glass Onion. It was okay, I preferred the first one. I did enjoy it, though.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 26, 2022 7:37:27 GMT
I just finished watching Matilda the Musical and I liked it very much. Emma Thompson as the most over the top, out of control villain ever. Tim Minchin wrote the songs so they were very clever and good, and it was a bit wacky but very fun. Great sets, too.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 27, 2022 12:36:13 GMT
About Glass Onion, it’s becoming a little like that other popular genre movie from this year that it’s treated like big art, EEAO (Amy Taubin said it was a “terrible movie” and I trust on her!) with awful fans attacking anyone who doubt it on social media! Worst, a right wing guy criticized Onion so now you are a fascist if you don’t love it! I actually enjoyed it but I think it’s a silly cartoonishly kinda forgettable flick. But I also saw a tweet on BC’s hashtag saying that people whose only mystery knowledge is BBC’s Sherlock doesn’t have the right to criticize it! Lol I don’t know who that person is referring to but in my case, I’m not a Sherlock fan so I can criticize it, right? 😉 For starters, both productions are fantasies and have 0 to do with real mystery! Actually, Glass Onion is a comedy not even a mystery film! But yeah, you can’t take serious any of them as a real mystery. Sherlock is kinda a riddle but it’s a very elaborated and over the top riddle that, of course, it just can’t be taken seriously as a real mystery to resolve. And again, Glass is, apart of also elaborated and over the top, about jokes not mystery! C’mon! Also Daniel Craig character would be an extremely bad detective! As he says at the end, the culprit was the obvious one but because he thought that guy was smart he imagined it would be someone else with a more elaborated plan! That part actually made me to think on a real crime: the Wanninkhof case. There are two recent documentaries: one on Netflix and the other one on HBO. One girl is killed in Spain but her body is found in very bad condition below the hot summer sun and after a long time so it’s difficult to determine what happened to her but the position of the body suggests she was sexually assaulted. Well, the “brilliant” Spanish police is much more smart than that so they conclude that no, she wasn’t raped! It’s just that the killer wanted to make it look like a rape! So it was probably a woman and not a man who did it! Sometime later they found her. The perfect criminal: a butch angry looking lesbian who was the mother’s lover in the past! A great tabloid story! She becomes public enemy No.1 except that, well, she was actually innocent and victim of homophobic hate. The real culprit is sadly discovered because HE (not she) killed and raped again another girl. He was a British man who was hidden in Spain after committed numerous sexual crimes against women in the UK! So yes, the girl was sexually assaulted and the police wasn’t being smart but incredibly stupid! The obvious is more frequently than not, the solution! The rest are prejudices, manipulation and stupidity! The Onion detective would be a extremely bad in the real world. The same with Sherlock but Craig’s character is actually exposed by his own film! By the way, the second Pink Panther movie made fun of that! A detective stubbornly not wanting to see the obvious because his own feelings toward the most obvious culprit (she was really hot!). At the end, he is right and the girls is innocent but no one would think that movie is a real mystery or that Clouseau Is a great detective! It’s a comedy!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 27, 2022 13:32:43 GMT
More about that movie and the very over the top ending: why he didn’t help her? Sure, the others were bought by the bad guy but he was a respected famous detective. He surely could testify that he saw him destroying the napkin and tell what his investigation discovered. Or was he also afraid of the man? He wasn’t that heroic! Lol.
More, why the bad guy didn’t kill her? He was a murderer! He killed other two persons and tried to kill her before! Why he just let her destroy everything!
Then there is the Mona Lisa! This is fiction and no comparable with reality. In its own narrative and logic, it was good that the Mona Lisa was destroyed but how many of the movie’s fans posted on Twitter that they hated those activists that not destroyed but pretended to destroy art! (I am not defending them! Those performances are very bad idea!) But it’s interesting how being “cancelled” on social media (for discovering a new clean but dangerous combustible that destroyed the Mona Lisa) is seen as something potentially worse than being accused of murder. This without mentioning that it was her who used the new element to destroy the Mona Lisa! It wasn’t an accident. She intentionally destroyed the house and the painting! I guess she was a little like Edison blaming Westinghouse for the electrocution of animals! Lol I’m sure that if she used gasoline to destroy art, no one would ask for gasoline to be banned! No for affecting art! The woman would be the one who goes to jail! So yeah, I don’t think logic or reality was a strong element of the movie and it’s cool, that wasn’t it’s point! It’s just a silly comedic movie! EDITED: I searched on Twitter for “Mona Lisa” and “Glass Onion” just to see social media reactions and people on Twitter are so dumb! Lol Some people think the Mona Lisa is actually a bad painting and others are happy with a strong black woman destroying such a “white” “Western” symbol! Lol Also a lot of people interpreting the Mona Lisa as Twitter itself because it was “bought” by the Elon Munsk character. C’mon! Twitter is’t that important! Also the comparison is obvious: a “genius” using a new clean energy who isn’t actually a very nice chap (he betraying and involving in a legal battle with his business partner was more Zuckerberg or even Steve Jobs, tho.) but concluding he was actually very dumb because he couldn’t made an over complex crime and then discovering all his ideas are others says more about the writers than the character. Or is there a proof that Munsk’s achievement aren’t his own?
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 27, 2022 15:25:39 GMT
Musk is well known for buying other people’s ideas and then passing them off as his own. Tesla is a perfect example. Also, people act like electric cars are a completely new thing, never been done before. They had electric cars in the 1920s. Folks have memories like goldfish. Here’s what I don’t understand. When was this movie filmed? It had to have been before Musk bought Twitter a few months ago so while I can see the association, it can’t have been purposeful. I had so many questions about plot points in this movie, lol. If Norton’s character had the real napkin the whole time and it was the key to proving the murder, why didn’t he destroy it? Why hang onto it? Makes no sense. In some ways this movie reminded me of Tarantino. All style, no substance.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 27, 2022 17:36:08 GMT
TBF you could say it’s based on any Silicon Valley “genius”. Again, Zuckerberg legal case is even mentioned in the film in comparison to what Norton’s character does to his ex-partner. And well, in 1999 already HBO did a really good movie called The Pirates of Silicon Valley about how everyone from Steve Jones and Bill Gates frequently stole ideas from others. They didn’t dared to call them “dumb”, tho.! That film and The Social Network were about amorality not stupidity. I still remember how, I’m not sure if Slate or Village Voice published an article in early 2000s about how the biggest flaw of liberals was to think they are very smart and their political rivals are dumb. They underestimated them and that’s why they lost. I think the movie is based on Musk but also others. The character buying the Mona Lisa isn’t probably a reference to Twitter, tho.! He didn’t destroyed the napkin apparently because he was dumb! That’s the explanation to everything! Lol But I still think a detective or police officer wanting a more complex illogical resolution of a crime instead of the obvious one is dumber! I mean why any of the other characters who hated him would want to kill for him? Just to gain his respect! That’s a ridiculous explanation! They would still implicated him by killing his rival! The only explanation was that whoever committed the crime was dumb but Norton was seen as a genius so he couldn’t be so dumb. Still, it didn’t matter if it was him because he was rich and powerful so he could get away with murder (then he wasn’t dumb, right? He just knew how powerful he was!) with just burning the napkin in front of everyone! Not even the brilliant hero would dare to publicly accuse him because he was sooo powerful! And apparently without the napkin there isn’t any proof against him. But wait, an angry young Black woman could destroy him with… the destruction of the Mona Lisa! Why? Because he was dumb! That’s the only explanation! He could just kill her after all he was a murderer and was evil and already tried to kill her before but hey! he was dumb! He could blame her of destroying the Mona Lisa after all it was her who did it and, remember, no one would dare to accuse him of murdering mutual friends and lovers but hey, he was dumb and his rich friend, too so he suddenly is finished after a fake accusation!
EDITED I’m not criticizing the logic of the movie. Movies have their own logic and there are great illogical films (Vertigo!) but it’s silly to say it’s a good example of “mystery” genre. It’s more a silly comedy with a few simplistic probably even naive satirical elements about rich people.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Dec 27, 2022 19:21:24 GMT
Hahaha! You slay me, sgev. You’re very insightful.
I know I’ve said this before, but all those people on the left who think Trump is dumb fall into this camp, too. I’ve always thought he was very smart but he’s so outlandish, and insulated by his money so he can act the fool, people underestimate him, and he gets away with just about anything. But I’ve always thought people are smarter than they are. I often have to remind myself that I’m no slouch in the smarts department and that makes it hard to figure out how stupid stupid people really are. But then sometimes on Twitter I run across someone who is monumentally dumb and I get it, like those folks on “Bad Medical Takes.” OMG. It’s not just the ignorance, because you can always learn, but there’s certainly an upper limit to stupid. Maybe I’m being smug. Smart-ist, perhaps?
It’s like John Cleese said - you have to be smart to realize you’re dumb, and if you’re stupid you aren’t, so you can never really understand how dumb you are.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Dec 27, 2022 20:11:23 GMT
I have to confess that I’m guilty of underestimating Trump intelligence! Lol I still kinda think he isn’t very smart and in part why he is dangerous but he also had a lot of intelligent people around him. Some of them also very dangerous like at the beginning of his mandate, Steve Bannon. I think the Republicans utilized his charisma and popularity and they are also very smart. We will see what they do with the major problem of a now toxic Trump and his followers fighting in the primary against a more viable candidate!
That comment was made about George Bush Jr. who frequently received flak for his awkward way of expressing himself. I don’t think he is dumb but it was kinda funny! The problem was that people really thought he was dumb. John Stewart made his career making fun of his apparently stupidity!
I think it doesn’t matter if they are fools or not but the smart thing to do is confronting them thinking they are smart people. If you think you are superior you are already losing. Apparently, the detective in Glass Onion thought the opposite at the end of the movie, tho! But it’s ok because I think he was dumb! 😉 Also the whole movie was about rich people being dumb including those who made their own fortunes with new technologies.
|
|