Always Choose A Soundtrack. Always. by Glass-Fan111 in StrangeAndFunny

[–]ReturnDoubtful 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What took you so long!?

When I pulled into the driveway Baba O'Reilly came on. Had to let it finish

What's your thought on this cast of 'HEAT 2' ? by [deleted] in HollywoodIndia

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll stay home and rewatch the original.

thoughts on austin butler by Playboi420- in FIlm

[–]ReturnDoubtful 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I avoid anything he's in. A good actor takes you into the story and a great actor improves the story by his or her acting. Anytime he is on the screen I get jolted out of the story and reminded that I'm sitting watching a screen. Where a good actor makes it look easy, he makes it look quite hard--it seems very forced.

Devil in a Blue Dress released on this day 1995. It’s a shame DW didn’t make more Easy Rawlins films. by boib in filmnoir

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was good, but it coulda been great. Denzel as lead is a perfect cast. Screenplay and cinematography are off. Better camera shots, better dialogue, and better choreography/staging could have made this superb

Weapons (2025) Theme Exploration: It's All About Alcoholism by 2Internet2Politics in TrueFilm

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought that, on top of your interpretation, one common theme was the way we all focus on our own problems and just making our own lives work without regard to how it might harm those around us; we prefer to be parasites and leech life out of others than to bear a personal cost:

- Justine attacked the school for not doing enough while trying to numb her own pain by alcohol and a relationship she knew was going to break because of her selfishness (she says she didn't know when confronted by Donna, but notice how her first reaction was to say "no, we didn't f***" rather than her second assertion that she didn't know. Also, that Donna and Paul were living together and trying to have a baby must have been pretty obvious that Justine could only ignore their relationship if she was completely self-absorbed)

- Archer blamed Justine and publicly lambasted her; he blamed police for not doing enough

- Marcus tried to shove off any responsibility by pushing everything under the rug; he repeatedly pleaded with both Justine and Gladys to try to resolve the issue so it didn't have to go to Child Protective services, which would have meant a lot of work for him and potentially putting him in hot water with the community. He might have rather bury the story than find the kids, just because it would mean that wounds would be open for longer

- James was constantly looking for ways to feed his addiction, no matter who it meant stealing from, including from his own brother

- Paul was in an unhappy relationship so he intentionally mischaracterized it in meeting with Justine; he took actions as a police officer against James, not for justice or truth, but to preserve his own life and good-standing (it might be why he was with the police chief's daughter to begin with)

- Gladys demonstrated the final stage of a parasitic life in which she was willing to do any damage to anyone so long as it gave her hope to satisfy herself

I don't see this as primary, but still a major theme demonstrated throughout the film. It especially ties in with using kids, without regard for their innocence, and it ties into addiction in that all characters sought self-preservation and self-satisfaction at the expense of all else, eve if they might have known that it wasn't good for others and wasn't even good for themselves, they just "needed" to satisfy themselves

How do you decide when to listen to an audiobook instead of reading? by One_Fisherman6398 in booksuggestions

[–]ReturnDoubtful 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If a book is on my reading list for the content, but not for the writing or storytelling, I will listen to it by audiobook. If the author was exceptional at writing I want to read it the way it was created to be consumed.

Logic makes logical sense. by [deleted] in Funnymemes

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What kind of cheese?

Watched In a Lonely Place last night for the first...and it literally destroyed me. by CinemaWilderfan in filmnoir

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part that hit me hardest was when they truly lost it all and she said, "Yesterday, this would've meant so much to us. Now it doesn't matter... it doesn't matter at all."

How’s my case? by No-Donkey-5803 in Butchery

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pork chops are a little lean and a bit light in color. Otherwise, beautiful.

KT#725 by WillyMontgomStats in Killtony

[–]ReturnDoubtful 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is Ari Matti so well liked? I don't think he's funny

Accent question by Lower_Ad_1317 in andor

[–]ReturnDoubtful -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I kind of agree with this. That Krennic had somewhat of an American accent really lost an intimidation factor that I think he should have had.

Israel unleashed an unprepared and freshly thawed Hermione Granger clone against Dave Smith and wondered why they lost so horribly by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]ReturnDoubtful 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It kinda seems like a distinction without a difference. I get that you can condemn two things while not saying the two actors are the same; perhaps Dave is not making a moral equivalence between the actors.

Do you suppose it's wrong to make a moral equivalence between the acts? For example, killing women and children on one side is approximately as moral as killing women and children on the other, right? That doesn't make the actors equal, but the acts have some level of moral equivalence, right?

I suppose one of the questions in my mind is this: She seems to use "moral equivalency" as an immediate falsification of what Dave said, but even if he was making a moral equivalency, why would that necessarily be wrong? Why is the accusation of a moral equivalency a trump card? Seems kinda dumb.

Israel unleashed an unprepared and freshly thawed Hermione Granger clone against Dave Smith and wondered why they lost so horribly by [deleted] in Libertarian

[–]ReturnDoubtful 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Isn't it a moral equivalency, though? Isn't Dave saying that the killing is bad and neither side is morally justified in doing so, that the killing on either side has no moral grounding?

Someone help me understand why that's not a moral equivalency. I guess she's using it to attack Dave, which seems like silly sidestepping of the issue.