Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread

[benjipwns]

While I'm not sure I would consider Eternals to be the worst MCU film (aside from those mentioned, Age of Ultron perhaps?) I also felt "stupid and boring" to be a pretty good description.

Setting the entire thing sometime before the MCU would have perhaps been a more interesting route to take. And while many people seem to have enjoyed the diverse cast I thought there were too many boring characters to care about any of them, especially for everything that happened at the end. Lots of comparisons have been made to Justice League (either version) but one of the advantages Zack Snyder's Justice League had was that half the team had already been introduced and one of the new characters already had a movie in the pipeline (and had since been released by the time Snyder was able to recut) so he smartly took the route of focusing on that characters personality briefly which effectively left only two characters that had to get the weight of any introductions and the films story arc let both become prominent in the ending despite being the "newbies" to the cast.

On a personal comic fan note, I would have liked to see it hem much more closely to Neil Gaiman's miniseries as that was much more clever with the "they've been around forever" and awakening a Celestial seed aspects and neither would have upset the mandatory MCU tie-ins. Although I can also see why (and don't begrudge them since it is after all a MCU film) they did not adapt it straight considering there weren't any extended fight scenes, especially not in the first 5/6ths of it.

Lastly, to respond to some of the "esoteric and philosophical" components that some people thought the movie was deeply steeped in: lmao

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Lastly, to respond to some of the "esoteric and philosophical" components that some people thought the movie was deeply steeped in: lmao

nailed it

[Potato]

They painted themselves into a corner with the timing thing because if they introduced it as being prior to iron man, then

spoiler (click to show/hide)

they would have been free to join in against Thanos because if I remember correctly they were no longer bound to not interfere after they defeated tiamut.

[close]

I could be wrong though because by that stage I was playing with my phone instead of listening intently.

[Bebpo]

I don't think Eternals is anything like Justice League. I went in expecting that and instead of dark and serious boring cast full of flashy action, I got the usual marvel fun cast and jokes and colorful stuff and more plot-focused than slow-mo stylish action. Eternals doesn't feel self-indulgent at all.

It's very much a Marvel movie, just a different kind of Marvel movie, which for me makes it one of the better MCU films (top 10 maybe? Probably not top5), but it doesn't click with a lot of people.

I'd love an Eternals 2 by Zhao again, but I feel like that isn't going to happen because the movie bombed financially and critically and audience score-wise. I'd be shocked if they ever do an Eternals 2 or follow up on these characters.

[Bebpo]

I also don't understand why people give such a shit about why didn't they fight Thanos.

Because these are characters introduced after that movie

Like it's just that simple. Why the fuck do you need an explanation for "MCU lore" that satisfies you? Are they not allowed to ever introduce any more heroes into the MCU because it will always come down to why weren't they in Endgame? That just seems utterly ridiculous to me. It really doesn't fucking matter.

[Bebpo]

Tragedy of Macbeth

It's Macbeth remastered for a modern audience. They've upgraded the visuals and used new character models but otherwise it's still the same thing at its core. Like a lot of PS3/X360 remasters, the content is a bit dated, but the new visuals are great and add nice flavor to the existing script. Worth a watch, especially for fans of the original, but may not win over new audiences. Might've worked a bit better if they took more artistic license and fleshed out the story with some original content.

[Potato]

If their stated purpose wasn't specifically to protect humanity, then sure. But, you know, it was...

[Bebpo]

If their stated purpose wasn't specifically to protect humanity, then sure. But, you know, it was...

You can tell when Marvel made Eternals they thought no one would care about this so they just gave that one line excuse that they're not allowed to fight non-deviants.

If they thought audiences would get so pissy about this I'm sure they would've written some dumb ass subplot like they were powered down into a cold sleep after X event happened and they just woke up after the Endgame or something. They could have written a subplot around answering that questions but they obviously didn't think it was particularly important.

There will be other MCU characters added in the future that will have been around at the time of Thanos and to have to keep trying to come up with explanations each time is a really silly restriction.

[Potato]

Being honest, it's really just about nitpicking problems because this was a shit movie that felt like it was created to exploit the fan base.
 

Yes, I am petty like that

[benjipwns]

They painted themselves into a corner with the timing thing because if they introduced it as being prior to iron man, then

spoiler (click to show/hide)

they would have been free to join in against Thanos because if I remember correctly they were no longer bound to not interfere after they defeated tiamut.

[close]

I could be wrong though because by that stage I was playing with my phone instead of listening intently.

I think this would have been avoided if the ending was the same though. The Eternals of Earth left in a position to actively do something could have simply been snapped away.

Arguably a bigger problem is the notion that there's a universe worth of Eternals out there. All with the same task.

The film should have probably focused on the Deviants, and done them better, with the Celestials introduced but the ramifications and "subversion" left to a sequel.

[Bebpo]

.

[Bebpo]

See, that's fine if people hate the movie so they are nitpicking that. I don't mind if people hate the movie other than killing the sequel chances which I've made my peace with.

It's just a feel like the fanbase is hating the movie because they didn't show up and fight Thanos. Which is where I think it's stupid.

They painted themselves into a corner with the timing thing because if they introduced it as being prior to iron man, then

spoiler (click to show/hide)

they would have been free to join in against Thanos because if I remember correctly they were no longer bound to not interfere after they defeated tiamut.

[close]

I could be wrong though because by that stage I was playing with my phone instead of listening intently.

I think this would have been avoided if the ending was the same though. The Eternals of Earth left in a position to actively do something could have simply been snapped away.

Arguably a bigger problem is the notion that there's a universe worth of Eternals out there. All with the same task.

Actually you're right that if they just set the movie before Infinity War and had them all leave, that would probably have worked better.

[benjipwns]

See, that's fine if people hate the movie so they are nitpicking that. I don't mind if people hate the movie other than killing the sequel chances which I've made my peace with.

It probably depends on what Marvel's expectations for it were. There was probably some hope that they might back into another surprise like Guardians was and even to an extent Avengers was which is likely why they kept delaying it rather than release it closer to the depths of COVID. Except critically, it did as well as Black Widow and Shang-Chi neither of which have sequels rejected yet although one is obviously more sequel friendly. This is still the first "failure" of the MCU, Thor 2 is retrospectively considered one but it still made tons of money and the first Thor was critically received and did worse at the time it released. They don't necessarily have to abandon it as much as just evaluate why it failed critically. (I think a lot of that can be chalked up to its length, its lack of focus, and the large cast. Every other MCU introductory film generally avoided all of these even if they weren't great and Eternals could have even if Elaine Chao Chloe Zhao (they all look alike to me ) couldn't.)

A lot of this film was devoted to other things that really didn't matter to much of it until it was arc welded in there, namely the Celestials. Marvel sketched out Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet far far in advance of when they finally got to him. Unless they go deep into the Celestials themselves (which I would doubt) the one place you go with them is Galactus, for the Fantastic Four, whose film is announced but not yet placed and none of the elements but the Celestials has appeared in the MCU. And they setup a place for the Eternals to go down that route in the MCU even if they don't get their own sequel out of it.

The Eternals might get punted down to Disney+ tier, but more than most anyone in popular media Feige can maintain pet projects for larger arc and world building because he's sitting on $25+ billion worth of box offices. I wouldn't write them off to the extent I would say a Tony Stark Iron Man. I think they might have done better there rather than have everything shoved into a single movie anyway though.

[Snoopycat_]

Wrath Of Man. The Stath is back, being The Stath doing The Stath things while growling in his Stath voice. Apart from that it's an uneventful heist movie. It has some alright moments, but you really have to like The Stath to get much out of it

[Madrun Badrun]

If their stated purpose wasn't specifically to protect humanity, then sure. But, you know, it was...

It wasn't.  The whole Thanos argument doesn't work.  The Avengers saving the galaxy from Thanos is what motivates them to go against their mission statement which is to protect humanity -- but only from the Deviants.  Honestly, thought one of the better parts of the movie was how this was explained and how it caused the Eternals to change after so long.     

[Raist]

Eternals shouldn't have been set on earth.

Sure, that works. But then you have to get the audience to feel empathy for an alien planet at risk.

I guess. It was hard enough feeling any empathy for Earth in that film.

which earth, the empty london city, or the empty random beach, or was it the empty field with a house on it

I live in London, can confirm, not a soul in about a 10 miles radius.

[Don Rumata]

If their stated purpose wasn't specifically to protect humanity, then sure. But, you know, it was...

It wasn't.  The whole Thanos argument doesn't work.  The Avengers saving the galaxy from Thanos is what motivates them to go against their mission statement which is to protect humanity -- but only from the Deviants.  Honestly, thought one of the better parts of the movie was how this was explained and how it caused the Eternals to change after so long.   

One day they'll realize that having one massive uni(multi)verse, with a thousand super secret societies, a thousand god-like baddies and a thousand different super hero groups, is a dumb fucking idea and ends up impoverishing each product, instead of strengthening it.
What can you even hope to achieve when you start from the premise that your super hero story, has to exist in the reality that already has The Avengers, Spiderman, Xmen, Fantastic 4, Guardians of the Galaxy, Shang Chi, and whatever else i forgot.

It's an absurd premise.

[Potato]

It's all starting to unravel now and is collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity.

They need to do a massive timeskip and let go of some of the legacy characters. They also need to stop it with power creep that is happening with every new character being more powerful than the last. Captain Marvel was the source of this shit.

It was ironic they compared Ikarus to Superman because they are two sides of the same problem. Overpowered immortal beings who could and should be able to end any threat in an instant. However, that leaves all other non-Superman level heroes looking like the lame ducks they are, so they just invent more and more absurd reasons why those characters couldn't be there to help end the existential threat to the universe.

[Madrun Badrun]

TBH the main reason I watch MCU movies is for their logical consistencies.   But then, I have to ask myself, do I prefer logic or do I prefer that the guy with metal blades that come out of his hands is able to team up with a kid that swings around new York on giant jizz strands?  It's the latter.  It's a strange place to hang suspension of disbelief on.  Also, this has always been a problem, like X-Men being discriminated against one day and then dicking around with the avengers the next day was weird from the get-go.  If Eternals was a more entertaining movie, I doubt anyone would care about the Thanos issue. 

[Cauliflower Of Love]

some of the movies have dealt with thanos properly

this?

lol thanos, now suit up rangers.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

I also just rewatched Atonement.

God damn does James Macavoy act the shit out of everything.

[Potato]

TBH the main reason I watch MCU movies is for their logical consistencies.   But then, I have to ask myself, do I prefer logic or do I prefer that the guy with metal blades that come out of his hands is able to team up with a kid that swings around new York on giant jizz strands?  It's the latter.  It's a strange place to hang suspension of disbelief on.  Also, this has always been a problem, like X-Men being discriminated against one day and then dicking around with the avengers the next day was weird from the get-go. If Eternals was a more entertaining movie, I doubt anyone would care about the Thanos issue. 

Basically. It's a shit movie and it's fun to shit on popular things. We're all guilty of it and we're all guilty of watching popular shit things because they're fun for a few hours. It's when there's obsession and fanboy defending of shit that it gets concerning.

[Bebpo]

some of the movies have dealt with thanos properly

this?

lol thanos, now suit up rangers.

There have been like 3 movies that have come out since Endgame lol, and the first one Black Widow was before Thanos!

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Black widow was written before endgame in 2015

[bork]

I'd be shocked if they ever do an Eternals 2 or follow up on these characters.

I think we'll see some of them again, but not necessarily in a sequel.  If they follow the comics, Sersi will end up in the Avengers along with her boyfriend, who I assume we'll see get "introduced" properly in Blade.

The first post-credits scene also gave me a Guardians Of The Galaxy vibe.  Them being in Volume 3 might be too much, though.

I also don't understand why people give such a shit about why didn't they fight Thanos.

Because these are characters introduced after that movie

Like it's just that simple. Why the fuck do you need an explanation for "MCU lore" that satisfies you? Are they not allowed to ever introduce any more heroes into the MCU because it will always come down to why weren't they in Endgame? That just seems utterly ridiculous to me. It really doesn't fucking matter.

It's just a feel like the fanbase is hating the movie because they didn't show up and fight Thanos. Which is where I think it's stupid.

I don't think people are going full nerd-rage over this because of the latter.  It's because Thanos is an Eternal and they even

spoiler (click to show/hide)

introduced his brother

[close]

in the post-credits scene.  I can understand if say, Daredevil wasn't involved in the Thanos battles, but these characters definitely  seem like they should have been connected and something more than "we aren't supposed to interfere with humans" (even though they did stuff anyway) would have been better. 

It's all starting to unravel now and is collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity.

They need to do a massive timeskip and let go of some of the legacy characters. They also need to stop it with power creep that is happening with every new character being more powerful than the last. Captain Marvel was the source of this shit.

My guess is that they use the whole multiverse thing as a way to re-introduce newer/younger versions of some of these characters, like Iron Man.  Why they don't just get new actors to take over roles is beyond me, but at the same time, coming up with storylines to explain all this shit would be very comic book like, lol.

I get that pre-production is a thing and stuff gets rolling at least a few years in advance, but when Disney got back their movie rights to the characters Fox had, they should have just scrapped Shang-Chi and Eternals and got right into X-Men, Fantastic Four, and the like. 

Eternals in particular was an odd choice for a movie.  They were never particularly-popular and there haven't even been that many comics made with them as the leads.  IIRC, Eternals was Jack Kirby basically wanting to keep doing New Gods after he left DC, right?  Well, in that case, 1987's Masters Of The Universe was a much better "New Gods"/"Eternals" movie than this one was.

[bork]

On a personal comic fan note, I would have liked to see it hem much more closely to Neil Gaiman's miniseries as that was much more clever with the "they've been around forever" and awakening a Celestial seed aspects and neither would have upset the mandatory MCU tie-ins. Although I can also see why (and don't begrudge them since it is after all a MCU film) they did not adapt it straight considering there weren't any extended fight scenes, especially not in the first 5/6ths of it.

Going to read this- almost did last night, but I saw "Eternal" from Chuck Austen and read that instead.  This was done on Marvel's Max imprint and you can immediately see why- this like if The Eternals was fused with Battleifield Earth and Caligula or something.     Lots and lots of nudity, sex, and violence.  But a much more interesting story (than the movie) that takes place far in the past and does a better job of establishing the characters as essentially slaves doing the gods' bidding and their eventual revolt.

[Bebpo]

Eternals in particular was an odd choice for a movie.  They were never particularly-popular and there haven't even been that many comics made with them as the leads.  IIRC, Eternals was Jack Kirby basically wanting to keep doing New Gods after he left DC, right?  Well, in that case, 1987's Masters Of The Universe was a much better "New Gods"/"Eternals" movie than this one was.

They did Eternals because Chloe Zhao told the scenario/script concept of the film to Feige and he was super impressed with it and with her directorial work with The Rider that he gave the greenlight.

I don't think it was ever really "fit in" to the MCU master plan which is why it feels like such a standalone film. But that also worked out for the better for Marvel because it gave them an out if they didn't want to do any more stuff with this cast in the MCU.

[ShutUp]

TBH the main reason I watch MCU movies is for their logical consistencies.   But then, I have to ask myself, do I prefer logic or do I prefer that the guy with metal blades that come out of his hands is able to team up with a kid that swings around new York on giant jizz strands?  It's the latter.  It's a strange place to hang suspension of disbelief on.  Also, this has always been a problem, like X-Men being discriminated against one day and then dicking around with the avengers the next day was weird from the get-go.  If Eternals was a more entertaining movie, I doubt anyone would care about the Thanos issue.

There is no Thanos issue. The movie stated why they didn’t fight. The real world reason is because they didn’t exist in the MCU yet. We’ll do this song and dance again when the Fantastic 4 and X-Men are finally brought into the MCU. Hopefully people keep the same anger for them.

Eternals was a breath of fresh air. Gorgeous movie to look at too. I just hope the sequel isn’t turned into yet another quip fest with some assembly line director and no visual identity of its own like this one did have and Chloe gets to return to direct it.

Movies likely Ant Man 1 and 2 get rave reviews while this didn’t get at least decent reviews. Criminal.

[Bebpo]

There was an ant-man 2? I thought the new one is the 2nd.

[chronovore]

Haven't watched Eternals yet.  Probably will today- I hope they do a decent job of explaining why these characters weren't there to fight Thanos. 

They don't, not really.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

"We are only allowed with fighting the Deviants. Otherwise humans wouldn't have grown as they have." Um, newsflash, Gemma: Half the fucking galaxy was snapped into sawdust. There's no way that's a less cosmic event than fighting your fucking skinless lions.

[close]

There was an ant-man 2? I thought the new one is the 2nd.

Ant-Man and Wasp was pretty coo', I thought.

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Eternals in particular was an odd choice for a movie.  They were never particularly-popular and there haven't even been that many comics made with them as the leads.  IIRC, Eternals was Jack Kirby basically wanting to keep doing New Gods after he left DC, right?  Well, in that case, 1987's Masters Of The Universe was a much better "New Gods"/"Eternals" movie than this one was.

yeah, I think we talked about this in the comics thread, but if it wasn't Because King Kirby the Eternals are definitely in territory.

[bork]

There is no Thanos issue. The movie stated why they didn’t fight. The real world reason is because they didn’t exist in the MCU yet. We’ll do this song and dance again when the Fantastic 4 and X-Men are finally brought into the MCU. Hopefully people keep the same anger for them.

Why would they?  Those characters aren't related to Thanos or part of the whole cosmic Marvel thing like the Eternals are.

There was an ant-man 2? I thought the new one is the 2nd.

LOL, yeah- it was released after Avengers: Infinity War and before Captain Marvel.  It's mostly a standalone movie, but introduced the quantum realm stuff that they would use in Endgame for time travel, plus Hank Pym, Janet Van Dyne, and Bill Foster, showing that there was some superhero stuff going on in the MCU, in the 80s, that they have yet to expand on.

[Madrun Badrun]

TBH the main reason I watch MCU movies is for their logical consistencies.   But then, I have to ask myself, do I prefer logic or do I prefer that the guy with metal blades that come out of his hands is able to team up with a kid that swings around new York on giant jizz strands?  It's the latter.  It's a strange place to hang suspension of disbelief on.  Also, this has always been a problem, like X-Men being discriminated against one day and then dicking around with the avengers the next day was weird from the get-go.  If Eternals was a more entertaining movie, I doubt anyone would care about the Thanos issue.

There is no Thanos issue.

I agree.

If their stated purpose wasn't specifically to protect humanity, then sure. But, you know, it was...

It wasn't.  The whole Thanos argument doesn't work.  The Avengers saving the galaxy from Thanos is what motivates them to go against their mission statement which is to protect humanity -- but only from the Deviants.  Honestly, thought one of the better parts of the movie was how this was explained and how it caused the Eternals to change after so long.     

[Don Rumata]

TBH the main reason I watch MCU movies is for their logical consistencies.   But then, I have to ask myself, do I prefer logic or do I prefer that the guy with metal blades that come out of his hands is able to team up with a kid that swings around new York on giant jizz strands?  It's the latter.  It's a strange place to hang suspension of disbelief on.  Also, this has always been a problem, like X-Men being discriminated against one day and then dicking around with the avengers the next day was weird from the get-go.  If Eternals was a more entertaining movie, I doubt anyone would care about the Thanos issue.

The problem i have, beyond the paradoxical nature of the unification (trying to deepen the product's universe, by cheapening it and breaking its logic), is that it doesn't really add anything of value BEYOND the cameo and nostalgia bait for established fans.
Seeing Wolverine and Spiderman together has, in itself, near 0 value, beyond the joy it brings a fan to see their recognizable childhood brands together on screen.
Wolverine free from those shackles can commit to a tone and storyline that Spiderman couldn't inhabit (Logan-2017), Spiderman alone can commit to a tone and storyline that wouldn't work with Thor flying around; challenges need to be proportional for the hero's struggle to make sense, and Spiderman's appeal is one of relatability, which comes undone in the larger cosmic context of the Avengers, a large reason why the Tom Holland movies don't work as well as the Raimi ones.

The pairing of incompatible elements brings to the forefront the strident aesthetic, this inevitably pulls out the viewer from the story's world and, not by chance, is constantly addressed in Marvel (and some DC) movies with meta humor, aimed at pointing out that tonal absurdity, making it part of the whole.
Deadpool, of course, made that the whole point of the character, which is why in itself works; it's a problem when you need to apply that to a whole massive roster of brands (like the whole of the MCU).

tl;dr: Pairing Spiderman and Wolverine doesn't bring much of value, while creating deep stylistic constraints.

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1483447682819624960

“When my last movie UHF came out in 1989, I made a solemn vow to my fans that I would release a major motion picture every 33 years, like clockwork. I’m very happy to say we’re on schedule,” said Yankovic in a statement. “And I am absolutely thrilled that Daniel Radcliffe will be portraying me in the film. I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the role future generations will remember him for.”

[Madrun Badrun]

Al should play every other character

[Joe Molotov]

I don't know if Daniel Radcliffe has the abs for it.

[Bebpo]

Watching A Hard Day's Night. What is this movie even    it's like a mostly unfunny skit comedy with The Beatles.

Still interesting as a historical glance at the time period, but couldn't make it through the whole thing in one sitting. Will finish it up tomorrow. It's not terrible, but it sure doesn't seem like a great movie so far...

The film was a financial and critical success and was nominated for two Academy Awards including Best Original Screenplay. Forty years after its release, Time magazine rated it as one of the 100 all-time great films.[3] In 1997, British critic Leslie Halliwell described it as a "comic fantasia with music; an enormous commercial success with the director trying every cinematic gag in the book" and awarded it a full four stars.[4] The film is credited as being one of the most influential of all musical films, inspiring numerous spy films, the Monkees' television show and pop music videos, and various other low-budget musical film vehicles starring British pop groups, such as the Gerry and the Pacemakers film Ferry Cross the Mersey and John Boorman's vehicle for The Dave Clark Five, Catch Us If You Can.

In 1999, the British Film Institute ranked it the 88th greatest British film of the 20th century.[5]

Yeah, I'm not seeing how it's one of the best top films of all time. Like compared to mel brooks or monty python this is nowhere near as clever and funny.

[bork]

I don't know if Daniel Radcliffe has the abs for it.

Daniel has a lot of working out to do!

[Nintex]

[Snoopycat_]

The tragedy of MacBeth. I don't know what the fuck they were saying

[Bebpo]

The tragedy of MacBeth. I don't know what the fuck they were saying

It was recommended to put on subs.

Definitely helped.

[Don Rumata]

Shitty pointless cgi. [✓]
Mediocre looking action/editing. [✓]
Fucking unwatchable piss filter color grading. [✓]
Cast of annoying, charisma-void characters. [✓]
Netflix's stamp of mediocrity. [✓]

Sorry for Iko Uwais because he's a great action performer, but he honestly just doesn't have the screen presence of a Jackie Chan or a Donnie Yen, to carry a mediocre film on his own.
He's similar to Tony Jaa in this sense.

[Bebpo]

Finished A Hard Day's Night. I looked up how old they were when they filmed this and between 21-23. If I had to guess when watching I would've said 16-18. They seem like little kids in the film.

Anyhow, movie was ok. Not bad, but didn't find it compelling. Was just watchable. Also repeated the same 4-6 songs over and over and over. Will watch some of the extras and read the essays on the movie to see why it's so revered.

Some nice B&W cinematography though.

[Snoopycat_]

It was recommended to put on subs.

Definitely helped.

I'll try that. We had to read Shakespeare in school and I definitely remember it clicking in at some point. I might go read the book then come back to it

[benjipwns]

https://twitter.com/LeCinephiles/status/1484147379993743366

the mad replies

spoiler (click to show/hide)

https://twitter.com/LeCinephiles/status/1484149157430722560

[close]

[Nintex]

Watched the new Munich: Edge of War on Netflix.

Jeremy Irons as Neville Chamberlain was certainly the highlight of the cast. Late 1930's Germany was portrayed pretty well, it has a stellar soundtrack and although it starts a bit slow the tension builds throughout the film.
Yet, the main event the actual Munich conference and the negotiations with Hitler mostly happen off screen. It's weird because according to actual history the Allies actually had not wanted to sign away the Sudetenland but Hitler kept increasing his demands so eventually they gave in.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

The ending is sort of weird, the English guy is pretty high up the ranks working for the Prime Minister. But somehow decides he should go and join in the RAF instead in case war happens. You'd think that after everything he had seen, he would try to keep in touch with the German resistance and/or keep working for the highest levels of government

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also the film goes with the narrative that Chamberlain delayed Hitler's moves with his diplomacy so the allies would be ready for war if it came thus 'saving' the UK. The Munich agreement was merely a ploy by Chamberlain to make the Allies see Hitler for the tyrant he was should he break it. Most historians dispute this account of history. Germany needed Czechoslovakia because of the additional production capacity that would allow them to speed up the construction of vehicles needed for other conquests. The English were mostly worried about being dragged into a costly war in Europe because of a French treaty and didn't much care for Czechoslovakia. The French had not recovered from WW1 as Germany and England had and they wanted to avoid another war at all costs.

It is true that Chamberlain wanted to preserve the peace to avoid the horrors of war, having lived through WW1. But he certainly didn't plan on having the United States join a war against Hitler as early as 1938 as this film shows.

[close]

Overall though, an enjoyable and well acted work of fiction with the backdrop of real historical events but just that same Netflix-movie feel to it that keeps it from being great.

[Snoopycat_]

The extended version of Doctor Sleep is much better than the original. It adds more to the characters and a few extra scenes. I know there were people who couldn't get over the thought of a sequel to The Shining but it's a decent film, not the bestest ever and obviously nowhere near The Shining, but it's entertaining enough

[chronovore]

The extended version of Doctor Sleep is much better than the original. It adds more to the characters and a few extra scenes. I know there were people who couldn't get over the thought of a sequel to The Shining but it's a decent film, not the bestest ever and obviously nowhere near The Shining, but it's entertaining enough

I didn't have a problem with a sequel to THE SHINING, and wasn't even hoping for something in Kubrick's tone. Unfortunately Doctor Sleep is just a long, slow slog. Extending it further doesn't intuitively seem like it would do it any favors.

[Bebpo]

The book is mediocre as hell.

The movie is a bit better. It's still an unnecessary sequel with lame antagonists at the end of the day. But McGregor does a really good job.

[Snoopycat_]

If you thought it was a slog then the extended version isn't for you. I thought the original was a bit shallow and rushed, so I liked it cos it fleshed out the characters. Also more Rebecca Ferguson

[benjipwns]

Chinese censors have apparently added this to the end of Fight Club:


 

edit: apparently Lord of War too:

The American crime film Lord of War ends with its protagonist, an arms dealer played by Nicolas Cage, evading jail time and returning to arms trafficking. It also states that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S. and China, are the biggest arms suppliers.

But the Tencent Video version, which is about 30 minutes shorter than the original, replaces the ending with a new caption, saying the arms dealer “confessed all the crimes officially charged against him in court, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the end.”

[team filler]

czar of fanfic 

[chronovore]

Chinese censors have apparently added this to the end of Fight Club:
(Image removed from quote.)

 

edit: apparently Lord of War too:

The American crime film Lord of War ends with its protagonist, an arms dealer played by Nicolas Cage, evading jail time and returning to arms trafficking. It also states that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S. and China, are the biggest arms suppliers.

But the Tencent Video version, which is about 30 minutes shorter than the original, replaces the ending with a new caption, saying the arms dealer “confessed all the crimes officially charged against him in court, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the end.”

In fairness, in the original novel of FIGHT CLUB, the protagonist is locked up in an asylum. Society marches on. The fact that the protagonist/Tyler is not a role model is substantially easier to understand, even for juvenile minds.

[Quaker]

Chinese censors have apparently added this to the end of Fight Club:
(Image removed from quote.)

 

edit: apparently Lord of War too:

The American crime film Lord of War ends with its protagonist, an arms dealer played by Nicolas Cage, evading jail time and returning to arms trafficking. It also states that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S. and China, are the biggest arms suppliers.

But the Tencent Video version, which is about 30 minutes shorter than the original, replaces the ending with a new caption, saying the arms dealer “confessed all the crimes officially charged against him in court, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the end.”

It’s been a minute but that sounds a lot like the end of the book.

This reminds me that in like 20 years I’ve pretty much never heard anyone bring up how fucked up and authoritarian the end to Hero(the Jet Li wuxia) is.

[Tasty]

https://deadline.com/2022/01/spider-man-no-way-home-script-chris-mckenna-erik-sommers-marvel-read-the-screenplay-1234919630/

[Snoopycat_]

Watched The Joker. I liked it more than I did the first time I watched it. The bit where he kills his co-worker is brutal. It's the kind of stark horror that used to be in video nasties. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a reference to something. Apparently there's a sequel coming

[Tasty]

Joker 2: Joker Baby

[Tasty]

https://variety.com/2022/film/actors/lady-gaga-house-of-gucci-jake-gyllenhaal-guilty-actors-on-actors-1235162939/

[Bebpo]

After watching all the documentaries on the Criterion release of A Hard Day's Night, the movie has grown on me a lot. I think if I re-watch it at some point I'd enjoy it more now.

Also had no idea Richard Lester directed Superman II & III.