#by best I mean best written - an actual film review

[duelbraids]

Death Rattle Dazzle Plot EXPLAINED (not clickbait)

Other title ideas: So None of the Picwick Triplets Did It?, Theatre Professional Unravels the Plot of In-Universe Musical for No Reason.

This is a list of my thoughts about the plot of the in universe musical Death Rattle Dazzle from Hulu's Only Murders in the Building. This will contain no spoilers for the plot of the show proper, or the mystery, but will spoil all the songs written and theorize about their placement in an actual, two act musical. It'll also reference a few of the gags from the final episode, and this metafiction article by Playbill, which was done in collaboration with OMITB. Maxine's in universe review is bloody funny, and it contains a Playbill, which reveals some plot details about the original play. This practically is fan fiction, I will admit, but its fun, damn it, and I did my research!

Death Rattle Dazzle has the distinction of being the adaption of what is called a "classic play" by Oliver (who, despite his kookiness, is clearly well versed in theatre.) Maxine's review says that "Anyone with more culture than a vanilla yogurt has probably encountered the play in some form—if not by starring in it at the local elementary school, then in the form of a spoof on television, in film, or by Cate Blanchett opening the Tonys in 2012." This is hilarious, basically making the play a straight play version of Little Shop of Horrors. Everyone's done it, especially regional or amateur companies.*

*By amateur, I do not mean bad or unpolished. Many local, amateur companies put on fantastic plays. I simply mean the definition of amateur used in theatre: unpaid.

To me, that means Death Rattle must be old enough to be in the public domain, or was willed to be public domain after the playwright's death, et cetera. We also meet the original director of the play in 3.10, though all we know is that his version was "Weirder." This adaptation element mostly comes up in the aesthetic changes from straight play to musical, because we do not see much of the original play. However it's clear to me that Oliver knows his chops, and knows how to reference original material (keeping 'Creature of the Night' as Act One's opener to replace the opening monologue, for instance.)

Now, I want to write a mock up of the plot, and then justify my decisions. I also had the idea to name random songs to fill out a 12 song tracklist - pretty short for a 2 Act Play, but I'm just doing this part for fun. Maybe they're the songs on the cast album. Made up songs are going to marked in Red.

Players The Detective The Nanny The Constable The Godmother The Father The Boatman The Pickwick Triplets Chorus

Act One

The Detective introduces the audience to the situation at hand - a murder that is driving him to madness. (Creature of the Night) The plot follows the Detective as he and the Constable begin to try and unravel the crime. The Constable admits he has had trouble keeping law and order, thus calling in the Detective. (Private Dick) The Chorus has a song about their own suspicions, including wondering about the parentage of the children (Is It You?) The investigative duo, along with the Chorus, lay out the details of the crime, woman murdered, only her triplets in the room, found tossed from the cliff with a rattle down her throat. (Death Rattle, DAZZLE!) We see more into the mental state of the Detective, who clearly is manic about this case. They go to interview The Godmother, who tells them about her final day with her best friend, casting blame on the "Children's Father," then the Nanny (Last Light / Only Duty) This leads into the Nanny at the top of the lighthouse, closing out the act as she expresses her devotion to the triplets. (Look for the Light)

Act Two

The Chorus brings us back in, summarizing the events of Act One using crab mating as a metaphor (Entr'acte / Nova Scotia Nightfall) The Father is questioned by the Detective, who reveals he knows the children are not his own, because he had been sleeping with the Godmother, not his own wife. However, he could not have killed her, as he was at his post all night, and his wife was inside. (Private Dick Reprise) The Boatman, who had been lurking since the beginning, is finally cornered by the Constable, and reveals that he not only ferried someone over the night of the murder, but couldn't see their face. (Deadest Night) Then, the Boatman tells the Constable that he saw no one enter or leave the lighthouse, which is where the Mother was killed. This leads to the Constable realizing he may have to charge one of the Pickwick Triplets to restore order to his island. He locks himself in the lighthouse, and tries to solve the crime. (Which of the Pickwick Triplets Did It?) As the Detective enters with a copied key, the Constable realizes it must be he who murdered the Mother. The Detective admits this, though doesn't reveal why. (Confrontation, Dear Constable) The Nanny finds the Constable dead against the rocks, and challenges the Detective. He reveals that he is the father of the children, as well as confessing his guilt. The Nanny pushes him to his death, in order to protect herself. (For The Sake of a Child)

Okay, Justification Time.

The original play is described as "Agatha Christie" like, so casting suspicion on every character is basically a must. The actual placement of songs is based on how they were shown in the show, along with my own knowledge of theatre. Creature of the Night is a quintessential opening number: we start with our main character, before introducing every major character as they enter the stage. Look for the Light is a clear reference to Memory. A lullaby-like song to end the first act, the emotional core of the musical. Thus, similar to Cats, I structured the show to be mostly ensemble, framed by the two investigators. Which of the Pickwick Triplets Did It? made me immediately think of plot twist patter songs ( ala Your Fault ) that come in at the 11th hour. And, of course, ending on that spoken For the Sake of a Child is the right level of dramatic.

While some of the plot in between the lines is inferred from the show, a lot of it comes from that metafiction article I mentioned - there's a Playbill with descriptions of the characters, and dear god, did it give me a goldmine of ideas. Seriously, I highly recommend that article. Marketing that's actually fun and engages the viewer in the show? Wow, who could've thunk it.

My original mock up included more people dying, but decided to cut that, since we have no evidence for that aside from the Nanny referring to the Detective "Serial Killing" which could have been about him killing the Constable, since we know he dies. If you want to know, they would've been: The Godmother murdered at the end of Act One, then the Father murdered in Private Dick Reprise, though not revealed until Confrontation, Dear Constable. BTW, that song is basically the only one with any basis in the show's script, as we hear a confrontation between the Detective and the Constable as cross talk near the end of 3.10.

Some scattered thoughts:

Both Private Dick and Only Duty are songs that I expect would have Ironic Echoes later in the show. Private Dick originally introducing the charming Detective in a mostly positive light, and then in the second act, used to insinuate that the Father knows the Detective used his, uh, private dick elsewhere. Only Duty, meanwhile, would be used by the Godmother to say that a Nanny's love is only because it's her paid duty, as opposed to the Mother or Godmother, and of course, later we have A nanny's only duty is to the children.

Finally, I had to include a reference that crab people breeding bit they couldn't drop in the show, lol. In my head it's a dream ballet during the entr'acte, each of the crabs wearing the character's they represent headpiece, and of course, three eggs.

EDIT: I can't believe I didn't mention this, but I believe the motive of the Detective to be a simple matter of custody; he wants the triplets, and got into a fight with the Mother when he tried to take them, leading to him murdering her. Then, he returns to the island when called by the Constable, and plans to either kill everyone in his way of getting the triplets, or to accuse someone other than him, to get out of trouble.

[newlabournewromantics]

okay so i'm not british (i'm just a teenage girl hungry for knowledge 😔✊) but i watched one video and as a result i've been consuming an insane amount of new labour media for the past week even though i've never been interested in uk politics besides keeping up with global news LMAO i genuinely wanna know more so where do you think i should start with books films etc 😭

hiii!! excellent question id be more than happy to help! this will be sort of an overview with general recs for newlab beginners (why am I treating this like its a profession omg) so just lmk if you want more specific recs + I've highlighted my favs

books (from the outside)

(by from the outside I mean written by people not directly involved in newlab, so historians/journalists etc)

the two classic newlab texts are servants of the people and the end of the party, both by andrew rawnsley from the observer. provide nice, extensive but not overly fussy histories of newlab from opposition to 2010. good balance of gossip and actual information!

my personal favourite is rivals by james naughtie (bbc reporter), I find the prose in it far more compelling than any other book on this list.

brown's britain (robert peston) is also very good!

you've mentioned that you're not from the UK, so I really really really would recommend reading a book/a few articles on the broader history of the British Labour Party, just so you can understand why newlab was so revolutionary. I quite like keeping the red flag flying

autobiographies/diaries/books from ppl directly involved:

(these will inevitably be more biased)

the new machiavelli by jonathan powell is my absolute favourite self-written newlab book - and you might learn some stuff ant machiavelli whilst ur at it so this is an essential imo

my life our times by gordon brown is another one I really enjoyed, although it's less gossipy than some of the other books on this list. admittedly I do agree with basically everything gordon brown has ever said so this is a very biased review, but I would give it a go!

obviously alastair campbell wrote a load of diaries. I would be careful with which volumes you choose to get - go for the ones published 2010 and onwards bc he made the choice to omit stuff from the first few volumes he published so that it wouldn't' hurt gordon's premiership. also, they're really long and really extensive, so pick which volumes you want to read based on which specific period of newlab you find yourself drawn to!

as a comms/polling fan (boo) I really liked unfinished revolution by philip gould, but this might not be the best book to start with.

damian mcbride's power trip (more diaries) is also interesting

big fan of point of departure by robin cook asw!

I found tony's books excruciating to read but that's bc im crazy and think I know the inside of his mind like its my own so they might be good for you. his new book is FASCINATING but only in the sense of it exposing how big his messiah complex is. don't read any of his books if you're not down to hear about sex and/or technology.

oh a note: mandelson has written books but I don't like him so im not going to recommend them <3

tv/film

tony and gordon aren't really all that into big heartfelt chats about newlab, esp not together, but a few good docs have been made

blair and brown: the new labour revolution (bbc, 2021) - this is a classic, it's where I got my newlab start as a tender sixteen year old politics student u can't beat it! watch this one first

the blair years (bbc 2007)

out of the shadows and we are the treasury (here and here)

blair's thousand days (1 2)

if you're into tbgb, please please please watch the deal. I don't like much of the michael sheen as blair content, but the deal (2003) is so good.

if you want me to rec bits of tv from the newlab years that I think r cool and worth watching then send another ask and ill tell u! but obv theyre not much use if you're just getting into newlab :)

alastair did interviews with tony and ed miliband 6/7 years ago. not all about newlab, but very interesting to watch and observe the dynamics!

podcasts

matt forde of the political party has done interviews with a lot of newlab figures, from tony all the way to the more junior spads. I especially like the joint one he did with ed balls and alastair campbell, and the first tony one. these r less good for actually learning facts about newlab but really like listening to them as a way to sort of get into these ppls heads and observe them in a more casual setting. also a gordon interview asw !

if you can bear listening to george osborne talk (I can but others r more sensible) then political currency is also a good place to get lil tidbits of newlab gossip, bc ed balls is one of the hosts and he's super messy he loves chatting abt gordon.

ideology/boring stuff etc!

ok u can ignore this section if you want but these r some books about the ideology that underpinned newlab - I think it's fascinating!

the third way by giddens (literally the newlab bible and I think the only theory that blair took seriously)

crosland’s the future of socialism!! influenced gb and caused so much internal labour drama so evidently its excellent

if you want a really interesting essay on Iraq I recommend this

podcast on centrism that touches a lot on clinton/newlab/blair etc

oh and just for fun!!!!! here's a playlist of all the songs written canonically actually irl about tony blair.

lmk if you want any other recs!!!!!

[shiny-jr]

Hi Shiny! I’m not new to your blog but I have been reading up on the works I’ve missed since I haven’t been the most active on tumblr for like, a solid year, (possibly more?) and I forgot just how amazing your writing is; you are definitely one of my favorite writers, and I greatly enjoy every one of your works.

That’s why- as a reader who really wants to get into writing- I would love to hear what stands to be your biggest inspirations, and especially what media (whether it books, songs, films, etc.) has influenced your writing. I’ve been looking to develop my writing style by taking in the works of others, so any recommendations are appreciated!

Welcome back, anon! Let me see what I can think of off the top of my head.

As I sit here, the first thing I thought of is vocabulary. I think having a good VOCABULARY is key to making a good story, especially when it comes to the flow. I grew up reading a lot, and recently, I began reading more again just books and articles. Through that process, it's easy to learn words, see a new one, and look it up. You might remember said words and use them later.

I've actually been told that I speak kinda eloquently at certain times, like in a professional-business like way, which I totally don't mean to. But yeah, I digress, vocabulary is very important. I'll give you an example.

I started writing this chapter for a new series, and it was late at night, and my heart wasn't really in it. When I reviewed it, I immediately hated it. Why? Because of the vocabulary. It was all simple words, repetitive, and without any variety. I'm not saying your vocabulary has to be great or anything, but when I write, I always have a site called wordhippo open. Just for when I can't remember a specific word or I'm looking for a synonym to change things up and prevent that annoying repetitiveness.

CHARACTERIZATION is also a huge deal. Writing for characters that are not yours is not easy. It's difficult. One thing I do is if I'm not sure about a character's decisions, actions, dialogue, is I look for reference points from what they're from. Voicelines, art, anything helps. If its lacking, I try to think of another character they're similar to and ask myself what would this other character do? Would it be the same as the first character? That usually helps.

Of course, this includes character development and conflicts and relationships and such. I think some of the best characters I've ever seen in media, are from the animated Avatar: The Last Airbender. That series has such solid personalities, variety within the cast, good interesting conflicts, and one of the best character development arcs in modern day animated media.

As for songs, I usually just listen to instrumental songs when writing. I found that lyrics tended to distract me, which is why I try to avoid it when writing. No series or novels come to mind immediately, although I do write personal reviews for those I read. Most of which is either praise or criticizing (mostly criticizing) the writing style of the author, the characters, or the plot. I'm glad to share some of those, but I've written a good number of them and they're lengthy, just me yapping.

Anyways, that's a lot. I'm not sure if I answered your question as you wanted? I hope I did. Let me know if there's anything else.

[crascet]

Honest Thoughts: The Penguin

So, I absolutely love Reeves' The Batman. First movie where I repeatedly watched it a total of three times within the same year. It is absolutely fantastic and is probably up there with The Dark Knight as my favorite Batman film (I haven't seen Mask of the Phantasm, and I heard that's the best Batman film, but I promise I'll watch it as soon as I get it). Now as it is the beginning of a new cinematic universe for the Reeve's Batverse or just the Reevesverse, there would be some spin-offs and of course the eventual sequel with Part II coming out in 2026. As for spin-offs, there has been two of them, or at least one of them being canon. Th first being the DC Black Label series, "The Riddler: Year One" that follows the origins of Paul Dano's Edward Nashton from his childhood in one of Gotham's rundown orphanages to his adulthood and him discovering the corruption of Gotham and his terroristic ways as the Riddler. It's a pretty good series that is also written by Dano himself to give a more authentic feel for the character, although I have heard that this series might be non-canon, but I did enjoy this series as I really loved Dano's performance in the movie, especially in that Arkham interrogation scene. And now, there was the release of the Penguin series on Max that started last month just had its finale last Sunday.

Spoilers for the series itself, so if you haven't seen it yourself. Also, this isn't really much a review but rather just showing my thoughts on the show, hence "Honest Thoughts."

I should probably start by saying this: there is absolutely NO good guy in this show. There is a protagonist and an antagonist in here, but they're not heroes at all. Starting with Oz Cobb, which sidenote: yes, I know that there are some people that are mad that his last name isn't Cobblepot, but I always headcanon that as Cobblepot being an ancestral name that was then shortened down to Cobb when Oz's ancestors immigrated to the U.S. so there. Now with the name debacle aside, Oz is a scumbag. He is the worst character in this show with what he does to get more power, but when you watch the show, there will be times where you may sympathize or even cheer for him, but that's the sort of thing with him. He's a massive manipulative, megalomaniac that wants what he wants while pretending to be selfless to those around him. he would say how joining his gang would be beneficial to you and will help the lower class in how "Gotham belongs to us!"... before shooting you and tossing your body under the bus, just so he can make a quick escape. Now at first glance, there could be some merit to why he does this as he could've done it just to have his mother live a better life while making her be safe, especially since she's suffering from dementia. So maybe there is a noble cause to this, right? And then in episode 7, it revealed that Oz killed his two brothers as a kid, just so he can stay much closer to his mom and that his loving relationship with his mom is way creepier and disturbing than it seemed. It also doesn't help that his mom actually figured out that Oz killed her two sons and never said anything about and even thought about having someone kill him. AND TO TOP THAT OFF, that excuse may be false as he still denies that he killed them, even after knowing his mom found out the whole time. Meaning that this whole journey is just him being the most delusional and selfish guy who just wants more power to himself. There's also just the fact where he just gets lucky at times that just gets lucky out of confrontations, he's a cunning guy which why there's times where his metaphorical dominoes he sets up falls down as part of his plan, and then there's that time he gets out of a fight because his opponent gets a heart attack. There is just so many ways he seems to get caught and possibly get killed, but those moments never come to him. Colin Ferrell did a great job being oz again, he was already great in The Batman and seeing him come back is fantastic.

So, can Cristin Milioti get an Emmy for Best Lead Actress or at least a nomination, because holy crap, she is fantastic as Sofia! Starting as a simple revenge story against her family as they did nothing for her when she was sent to Arkham because of her father framing her for the multiple murders of female workers in the Iceberg Lounge that he actually committed as well of the death of her mother. There was her brother, Alberto, who actually shows up during visiting hours and telling her that he would get her out of there, although I do have a theory that he may be in on it too and was just saying that, so he won't end up like Sofia or worse. But I guess I won't know if that's true since Oz killed him in the beginning of the series. Sofia then kills her whole family, only sparing her cousin's daughter so she could live a better life away from the Falcone family, while Sofia becomes the new head of the crime family. HOWEVER, Sofia then realizes how when she was trying to make her young cousin stay in one of those rundown children's home with her not revealing that Sofia killed the Falcones (which is a "better" option than letting someone else go there and kill her) that Sofia is not that different than her father at that point. So, she ultimately decides to say screw it all and just leave Gotham after she kills Oz, only it to end with Oz and the rest of the gangs that work for him to kill Sofia's men and Oz frames her for all the gang wars in Gotham, which then ends with Sofia going back to Arkham, essentially full circle for her. Sofia is by far the most tragic character here in how she just wants to break free from the corruption in Gotham and how she won't change anything even if she tries hard enough, only for her to just stay in this living hell. She was also the main focus of my favorite episode in the whole series with episode 4, C'est Anni (if that's how it's spelled), that is about her first time in Arkham as well as her mass murder of the Falcone's. Also, shoutouts to the make-up and costume designers in the show for Sofia's transitioning in looks from a cleaner look during the flashback to how she ends up looking as in the show, with her frazzled hair and scars, just a dirtier and more weathered look. I also just liked her dresses and coats as well.

And then there's Vic. Poor, poor Vic. The heart of the whole show and the audience surrogate in viewing this big dark world of Gotham. The one person who can see some good in Oz and is still loyal to him, helping out with whatever he wants in the name of finally being remembered from this city. The one who can call Oz family after the death of his family from the citywide flood in the beginning of the third act in the Batman and would sacrifice everything for him, including breaking up with his girlfriend. All for it to end up with Vic to get killed by Oz himself. A pretty sad yet completely expected way for him to end up since again, Oz doesn't care about anyone, even those close to him. In the end, Vic was just another victim in this whole thing.

One final shoutout to Clancy Brown as Sal Maroni here. Clancy Brown is one of my favorite character actors, he is just great in everything. I mean c'mon, he was the best portrayal of Lex Luthor in Superman: TAS and the Justice League cartoons in the DCAU, of course he's great!

Great show, 9/10. Give Milioti her Emmy, she freakin deserves it. And can't wait for The Batman Part II in 2026 and whatever other series is being set in this universe as well.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

“MaXXXine” movie review

Short review:

As a love letter to horror and B-movies, I can’t hate it. But still, I can’t deny that the script felt very uneven.

6.5/10 (okay, I’ll be nice and round it up to 7/10)

Long review:

I have a feeling that Ti West is a huge fucking horror/B-movie/grindhouse nerd. Because as someone who loves shitty horror movies (I say that affectionately), this felt like a love letter to the genre. It’s weird, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie about Hollywood that is centered around horror movies. Usually, if a movie is about glamorizing Hollywood, it’s about the more “refined” genres like musicals or dramas (La La Land comes to mind). So I really appreciate the movie’s focus into this side of Tinseltown.

While I’m on the topic, this whole movie feels nostalgic. Of course, it’s obviously trying to replicate the 1980s aesthetic. But as someone who grew up on horror, you can feel the love that the creators have for the genre. I mean, there’s literally a character who’s a horror nerd in the movie. So I can’t hate this film on principle. For all its shortcomings, I can’t hate it because of the passion behind it.

Now, I’m not saying this was a bad movie. It’s definitely entertaining and manages to hold your attention from beginning to end. It may not be a scary film, but it’s oddly mesmerizing to watch. The movie is so slick and stylish that it hooks you in, and the mystery behind the killer is enough to keep you engaged.

If I had to make a comparison…forgive me if this is too obscure, but it feels like the Phantasmagoria games. Those games may be cheap, cheesy, and not very well written, but they’re oddly engrossing because of the style. Same with MaXXXine, the style/direction is truly the highlight of the movie.

All that being said, I can’t lie. The movie does fall apart on one major aspect; the story. Even though the movie keeps you hooked in with its campiness and style, the story doesn’t really hold up. If I had to pinpoint what the main issue with the story was, it’d probably be the unevenness of the plot.

The movie has one theme that they repeat over and over; do whatever it takes to become a star. Maxine is a pornstar who wants to be an A-lister, so most of the movie is about her struggle to be taken seriously. And that’s completely fine as a premise! The problem is that when we get to the final act, the story abruptly shifts into a different theme. When we figure out who the villain is, the theme is suddenly about the evils of pornography, horror, and Hollywood. That Maxine is a corrupt soul who has turned her back on God, yadda yadda yadda.

Again, the morality angle is not a bad premise. In fact, I liked how the movie deconstructed this trope by setting up the villain as a Satanic serial killer, only to be revealed as a Christian fundamentalist cult. It’s a nice reversal of the evil cult trope. The problem is that it doesn’t work with the rest of the movie.

Let me explain it like this. When the movie revealed who the killer was, my reaction was, “Wait, did the story just change? We’re doing THIS now?” Before the villain reveal, I legitimately thought the killer was going to be some failed actress or the #1 actress trying to protect her spot. Yes, I know that’s too close to the previous movies, but still, that’s what it felt like the story was building up to. So the final act ends up being both the best and worst part of the movie. It’s the best since it’s the most exciting section of the story. It’s the worst since it highlights just how disconnected the climax is from the rest of the movie.

But even with the climax not being justified by the story, the rest of the movie still feels uneven. There’s not enough focus on the actual serial killer. There’s too much focus on the private investigator. The flashbacks to Pearl don’t really go anywhere, especially since the climax has nothing to do with Pearl. Maxine is sorta just reacting to the events that are happening around her, not really knowing what to prioritize. The Christian fundamentalist stuff, which was just background noise for most of the movie, is then suddenly the focus of the climax.

So yeah, the story needed a lot of editing. It’s too meandering and listless that by the time you get to the climax, it feels unearned. Which is a shame since the movie is well made. Anyways, I’d recommend at least seeing the movie once, especially if you’re a horror movie buff.

[marybeatriceofmodena]

What was that crazy music video type thing you included on that post about ALW being an ass to Patti Lupone? I have never seen that before and I am both intrigued and horrified. I only recently got into Phantom, and all this craziness is just delighting me. 😂

For context, this is the video referred to in this ask:

This was a promo video done in 1985 (I think), to promote Phantom. Those are the original lyrics by Richard Stilgoe, which he wrote before Charles Hart was involved. You'll recognize a few here and there, but a lot of them are... weird, to say the least (weird enough for Cameron "Satan" Mackintosh to tell ALW to either find someone to help out Stilgoe, either outright fire him, or else he wouldn't produce Phantom anymore. And given it was proving to be a VERY costly show to make, even ALW knew losing CamMack was a no-no).

The staging is also different, because Trevor Nunn was the director at this point. And that's another funny (HA) story: ALW and Cameron Mackintosh had initially got Hal Prince to direct. And for those of you who don't know, Hal Prince is basically to musicals what Steven Spielberg is to cinema. He directed some of the most successful musicals of the latter half of the 20th century: Evita, Sweeney Todd, Fiddler on the Roof, West Side Story, Cabaret, Company... and that's the list of musicals I know even the uninitiated will recognize. So one day, on a whim, ALW decided to fire Hal Prince, which went about as well as you might expect: ALW chickened out of the dinner where he and CamMack were supposed to break the news to him, which led to CamMack having to sheepishly break the news to Hal Prince, who stormed out furious (AS HE SHOULD). Again, imagine yourself firing Steven Spielberg from making Saving Private Ryan and replacing him with, I dunno, the Russo brothers because The Avengers made a shit ton of money.

Why? My guess is that Hal Prince had the balls to tell ALW to stick it whenever he'd bring bad ideas on the table, so ALW basically decided to replace Hal Prince with the director for one of his previous musicals, Trevor Nunn (who is a decent director, mind you, making the comparison to the Russo brothers a little harsh).

Which musical was it, mind you? CATS.

IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO CATS.

And Steve Harley? He was a rock singer who got picked up along the way because they urgently needed someone to play the Phantom in the music video, and full offense but he's a worse singer than Gerald Butler in my opinion, and at least the latter could actually act. ALW realized that they needed someone else, and he basically smuggled the score to a comedic actor called Michael Crawford, who had some prior experience singing in musicals (he's in the film adaptations of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Hello Dolly, if you're interested), but he wasn't exactly the guy you'd think of for the Phantom? Thankfully, he proved everyone who might have doubted him wrong, and amazingly at that, but he was a gamble at the time nonetheless.

And as you may guess, the music video was kind of poorly received, and Trevor Nunn worked on a little musical called Les Misérables, which got piss poor reviews and ALW was at the head of them (CLASS ACT, THAT FELLOW). But the uneducated, unwashed plebs loved it so I guess that's the reason why it's still playing today, and not because it's one of the most beautiful scores ever written for musical theatre, summing up a 1,000 book perfectly and conveying emotions that could make angels cry, nah. /s Anyway, that led to ALW firing Trevor Nunn, and begging Hal Prince to come back, and he agreed - which really goes to show how gracious he is because I would have laughed in ALW's face.

And what happened to Steve Harley, you may ask? He found out with a call from CamMack that he was fired, with no explanation whatsoever, and it was only later that he found out Michael Crawford had replaced him. I mean, was it for the best? Yeah. Do I still feel kind of bad for Steve Harley? Yeah.

So yeah, thank your lucky stars Hal Prince, Charles Hart and Michael Crawford agreed to be in this. I'd also add Maria Bjornson, but I really wonder now how she got involved in the first place because if that came from ALW, that might be the single best decision he ever made in his entire life. But I don't have any trust in him whatsoever to pull that off lmao

[kathleenkatmary]

Screwball September: Ratings, Reviews, and Rankings

I wanted to watch so much more this year than I did. I was really hoping to fit in at least a few more that I've never seen or hadn't seen in awhile. But that just didn't happen.

View the list on letterboxd

01. My Man Godfrey (Gregory LaCava, 1936) - 5/5

In my opinion, the greatest screwball comedy of all time, and with Carole Lombard's greatest performance. She remains perhaps the greatest comedic actress of all time, and all of the reasons why are perfectly apparent in My Man Godfrey. Her timing was impeccable, she wasn't afraid to look silly or ridiculous, and she had an innate understanding of when to go big and when to keep things a bit more subtle.

She and William Powell were also such a great pairing. They actually made a few films together, and we briefly married in the early 1930s. It's a bummer the movies they made together during the pre-code era aren't better known, but it's an even bigger bummer that this was the only screwball comedy they made together. Both are absolute legends when it comes to screwball comedy, so it really is just such a shame that they didn't make more together. Powell's more lowkey demeanor was such a perfect fit for the archetypical screwball leading lady that was Carole Lombard. That contrast lends itself to fantastic comedy.

The rest of the cast is amazing, too. I love Alice Brady as the flighty mother type, and she's probably at her best here. It's also one of the best Gail Patrick performances. She's such an awful person, and she really captures that sort of high class, unrepentant shittiness. Eugene Pallette played a lot of befuddled, frustrated father types, and this is one of the best roles of that type. He gets to be a sort of straight man played against his family, but since Powell is the movie's real straight man, he still has plenty of screwball moments to shine. Jean Dixon is pitch perfect as the seen-it-all maid, hitting a note that fits perfectly between the batty insanity of the Bullock family and Godfrey's more reserved world weariness. And of course there's Mischa Auer as Mrs. Bullock's 'protege', a ridiculous man who's made all the more hilarious by the way that Auer plays it kind of straight.

The script is perfect. It's just so packed full of jokes that you really need to watch it more than once to catch them all. And the characters really are so well written. I know some people struggle a bit with a lot of screwball comedies (and I admit, I do to), because for all the commentary on the wealth gap and how completely out of touch the rich are, the almost always end with the rich people finding better meaning for their lives, or understanding the plight of the poor, or the important of their family, whatever, without any suggestion ever being made that they maybe shouldn't have all that wealth when so many people were starving, and the poor main character usually ends up achieving wealth. That issue is still present in My Man Godfrey, but the writing for all of the characters does a really good job at making the ones that are meant to be likeable likeable, and giving the ones that really deserve it a very real comeuppance that humbles them. So I think it at least makes the ending feel consistent with the character writing at the very least. And it's an issue I never want to specifically hold against any individual movie, as it's a genre-wide problem, unless the writing really falls down at justifying it in any way.

02. The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941) - 5/5

Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda are one of the most underrated screwball pairings, and really just screen pairings, ever. It's a shame they only made three films together (and that one of them is the pretty lackluster You Belong to Me). Both The Lady Eve and The Mad Miss Manton are screwball classics, and so much of what makes both movies work is the insane chemistry between Stanwyck and Fonda, as well as how good they both are at screwball comedy.

The Lady Eve has one of the sexiest film scenes to be made during this era, when the Production Code was probably being the most strictly enforced. The scene with Stanwyck and Fonda in her room, when she's on the bed and he's on the floor next to her and she's just kind of got her arms wrapped around his neck. Compared to what we get today this set up probably seems wildly tame, but Preston Sturges, along with Fonda and particularly Stanwyck, create such an amazing atmosphere for the scene. So much of that does come from the chemistry between the actors, but Stanwyck's performance in this scene is essential to just how sexy it manages to be. Add to that the way Sturges lit and framed the scenes, and it all comes across as being so intimate and sensual. But thanks to Fonda's performance, it's still perfectly screwball.

While The Lady Eve does dig into topics with some depth to them, particularly ideas of perception and how our pre-conceived notions of what's 'good' or 'respectable' can lead us to treat people in ways they don't deserve, the way it does that is so much fun. Stanwyck just feels like she was having such a good time. She and Fonda make such a good pair in this movie because they each bring something to the comedy. Stanwyck brings her incredible line delivery, her ability to make the character very much the cunning criminal she is while also having an unmistakable classiness to her, even when she's not posing as a member of the British aristocracy. Really, it's the fact that you can feel that class coming from her even in the beginning that makes her imitation of a British lady being so convincing so, well, convincing. The whip smart, clever wit of the screwball comedy comes from her, while Fonda brings a really impressive skill for physical comedy. And it's not just the bigger bits of physical comedy, like the pratfalls. It's his entire physicality. So much of Fonda's performance here IS physical. You can feel every bit of his nervousness, his anxiety, in the way he holds his body. It adds so much to the comedy of the movie.

It really is interesting to look at the things they each bring to this movie as a pairing, because when you look at their other stellar screwball comedy The Mad Miss Manton, their dynamic is extremely different and they bring very different things to those roles than they do here. It just makes it even more of a bummer that they made so few films together because clearly their chemistry was ridiculously versatile and adaptable.

This is simply one of the best romantic comedies and screwball comedies of all time. If you haven't see in it, you must.

03. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Alfred Hitchcock, 1941) - 5/5

Hitchcock's only straight-up comedy is vastly, painfully underrated. The whole thing feels like an exploration on subverting the Production Code. The Code prohibited all kinds of things from the America screen. Anything that might have been too sexual was an automatic no go. Subjects like adultery and premarital or extramarital sex were off the table for years. A lot of writers and filmmakers started to get creative in trying to find ways to slip prohibited topics past the censors, and I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of the funniest and most elegant attempts of subverting the code.

Basically, Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are married. But kind of not really because they find out that thanks to some bureaucratic, clerical messiness involving the place where they were married, their marriage isn't valid. Though only sort of because it's really just a clerical thing. But when Lombard finds out and learns that her husband has already been informed, she's expecting the excitement of their younger years and something like a romantic re-proposal. Montgomery, on the other hand, who doesn't know that his wife has been informed, is hoping to recapture some of the excitement of his unmarried years by taking Lombard to bed without remarrying her. She takes exception, leaves him, starts up a thing with his best friend, while he wallows in misery, has bad dating experiences, and tries to win his wife back.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is quite audacious in the way it approaches its subversions of the Code. It definitely seems to take an Air Bud approach to the whole thing, getting around certain rules and restrictions based on the idea that if there isn't a rule specifically saying they can't do it, it's fair game. The script is very blatant in the way it not only has Montgomery and Lombard locked together in their bedroom in the morning, but also shows them in bed together. And Hitchcock's shooting of the scene takes great care to show the physical connection between them as they lay in bed together in each other's arms. That physical aspect of their relationship is shown again in the next scene, as Lombard slides her feet up the bottom of Montgomery's pant legs, until he says something to upset her.

That physicality is extremely important. That physical/sexual aspect of the relationship has to be clear, because that physical closeness has to be in your mind when you find out that they're kind of not really married. Following up the scenes that demonstrate that aspect of their relationship with the scenes where they find out they're not married highlights the first subversion of the code: This is essentially a story about a couple that had been engaging in premarital sex for years. This is only underlined by the fact that Montgomery is so excited by the idea of having sex with her before fixing the error and that Lombard is so horrified.

But they have to still mostly technically be married in order for this to get a pass from the Code office. So then they use that fact, too, to further subvert the code. After Montgomery's attempt, Lombard leave him, and quickly takes up with his best friend and partner. Which means, since their marriage issue is really just a technicality, we've got one of the main characters of the movie committing adultery.

And those really are just the most prevalent ways in which the movie lays with the Code in order to subvert it.

The movie, both in the ways it subverts the code and more specific aspects of it, really is about exploring gender roles, the way those roles might lead to certain behaviors being assigned within a marriage, the way certain attitudes that might be common with on gender or the other can impact a marriage, and how those kinds of things can impact the way a man and a woman might see each other. But rather than adhere to those more traditional ideas about what a husband is and what a wife is, both the husband and the wife turn out to be pretty awful people, and perfect for each other in that awfulness. This isn't an uncommon ending in remarriage comedies, but I think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is easily one of the best at really highlighting and even reveling in that awfulness, and really developing it in an interesting way.

This movie gets dismissed as a Hitchcock piece because the general idea seems to be that there's not much Hitchcock in it, that it's 100% about the script and that there's none of Hitch's touch, that his voice was not an important part of making the movie what it is. I don't think that's true. Sure, Hitchcock is mostly associated with suspense, but his films were more than that. There were some major themes that Hitch explores in most of his movies. Relationships between men and woman, the ways in which they're compatible and the many, many ways in which they're incompatible, as well as all the reasons they're drawn together. That is Mr. and Mrs. Smith all over.

When it's needed, their relationship, particularly their physical connection, is filmed with a similar softness and sensuality as some of his other films from this era. He might not be building suspense, but this movie is a series of situations where things like tension and awkwardness are made to build, and build, and build. And just as Hitch is a master at building suspense, he's able to build the tension and the awkwardness, sometimes to almost unbearable levels.

Lombard and Montgomery deserve so much praise. Montgomery is so funny. He just slides into the role so well, becoming more and more funny the more his character unravels. Lombard is, of course, masterful. She's one of the funniest women that's ever lived, and she's able to make her character likeable even as she's behaving in endlessly frustrating ways. They have great chemistry, and are and excellent comic pair, bouncing off of each other so well. Sadly, they'd never get a chance to make another movie together as Lombard died the next year.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is one of Hitchcock's masterworks, and it deserves to be far better loved than it is.

04. The Mad Miss Manton (Leigh Jason, 1938) - 5/5

I love this movie so much. It might be my favorite screwball mystery. These screwball mysteries almost always have a love story happening along side the mystery, but how well that love story is developed and integrated into the story can vary wildly. I think The Mad Miss Manton manages the perfect formula for that.

A big part of that does come from the fact that Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda re the leads. They're one of the best screen pairings of all time who, sadly, did not make as many movies as they should have together. They had crazy chemistry, and it was pretty adaptable. Their best remembered pairing is probably The Lady Eve, and they are AMAZING there. But I think the fact that their characters - and their relationship - in The Mad Miss Manton are so different from those in The Lady Eve really does show how incredibly and malleable their chemistry was.

But it's not just Stanwyck and Fonda that make it work. The script is really good. The trajectory of the relationship makes sense, and the way their feelings are developed and revealed thanks to specific points of the plot is what makes it all work together so well.

The mystery itself is also pretty good, which is something that can sometimes be an issue with screwball mysteries. It's intriguing enough to keep the viewer's attention on it, but it's not so overwhelming that scene that veer away from the mystery break up the momentum. And the resolution makes sense and it's easy to put the pieces together to understand how and why things went down.

There's so much else I could say about The Mad Miss Manton. In addition to its leads, it has a ridiculously good ensemble, all of whom get a chance to shine. There are some romantic scenes between Fonda and Stanwyck that have such an warm and intimate atmosphere. There are so many funny jokes. This is just such a gem of a movie, and it deserves to be as loved and revered as something like The Thin Man.

05. Carefree (Mark Sandrich, 1938) - 5/5

I LOVE Carefree. It's one of my very favorite Astaire/Rogers movies, and I think one of their most underrated. It has a sort of unique feel to it - not so much that it feels wildly different to the rest of their movies, just enough that it feels a bit refreshing - because, I think, Fred doesn't play a dancer in this one. He plays a psychiatrist, and that alone really does kind of shift the dynamic between his and Ginger's characters. It makes the plot have a little more going on than a lot their movies.

In my opinion, most of Fred and Ginger's movies do have distinct /feel/ to them thanks to their simplicity, which I think is a good thing most of the time. (and this is referring to the movies where they're the leads. Stuff like Follow the Fleet and Roberta, while similar, are kind of a different matter.) Even as there are often cases of mistaken identity leading to confusion, or Fred and Ginger being sort of forced together reluctantly (at least on her part), the stories usually end up being pretty simple and streamlined, and their relationship dynamics tend to be pretty similar in these situations.

Carefree, on the other hand, actually feels more like a romantic comedy of the era. Yes, there are some great songs and dances (I think Change Partners is one of the best songs from any of their movies, and The Yam is one of their most fun dances), but the movie is a lot less dependent on the musical numbers than their other movies. There's just more to this story, where Fred is a psychiatrist who agrees to treat his friend's fiancee, who seems to be struggling with the relationship and committing, and they fall in love. It allows for more to happen with the relationships in the movie outside of Fred and Ginger (Tony and Amanda, in the film), as they both have strong emotional ties to Stephen (Ralph Bellamy) and their relationship has an impact on that, and all of this in a way that you don't really see in other Fred and Ginger movie. It also ends up making Fred and Ginger's relationship so much more complex and interesting. It all makes for something that feels quite unique among all of Fred and Ginger's movies together.

I also think it deserve praise specifically for Ginger Rogers. This is easily her best performance out of any of their movies. I think at least some of that has to do with how much she's actually given to do, and I think that's also at least somewhat another thing that sets the movie apart. Not to say that Ginger has nothing to do in the other movies, but there's a lot more to her character and story here. I do think this is true of Fred as well, but I feel like, generally speaking, the way the characters, stories, and relationships are usually written in their films Fred just has more to do and is often centered a bit more. Carefree really takes Ginger's skills as both a comedic AND dramatic actress and leans into them. I think it's probably one of her top 5 best performances.

Of course, none of this is to say that all of the other movies that do have more simple storylines aren't good movies. Carefree isn't even my #1 Fred and Ginger movie. I still rank Swing Time and Roberta ahead of it, and I'd say it's tied with Top Hat for my #3. But it is refreshing to have something so different in their collection of movies.

06. Ruggles of Red Gap (Leo McCarey, 1935) - 5/5

One of Charles Laughton's best performances, if not his very best. He plays everything so understated, which ends up working brilliantly both comedically and emotionally. The cast around him helps to bolster his performance with their wonderfully over the top and boisterous performances. Taken all together they provide such a perfect balance to Laughton's more subdued presence, and that makes for great comedy on both sides.

Ultimately, Ruggles of Red Gap is about a changing world and how a person can find their place among those changes. This movie came out smack dab in the middle of the Great Depression, and even though it takes place around the turn of the 20th century, the influence of the Depression can be felt all over it. Ruggles moving from the world of the upper class in Europe to the American West mirrors, in a way, the way the economic crash had upended so many people's place in the social structure. Ruggles is the product of a world of tradition. His family had been in service to the family of his original master (played by Roland Young, who himself gives a really lovely performance that's kind of muted and even naturalistic in a way that's quite effective) and his devotion is born of that tradition and expectation. It's not until he travels to the new world with a new master whose behavior and manners are completely foreign to him that he starts to learn who he might actually be when allowed and even encouraged to follow his own path rather than serving someone else's. And like so many screwball comedies of the era, it's also a pretty scathing takedown of the pretentious arrogance that can come with wealth. Ruggles of Red Gap really is a movie made for Depression times, examining the freedom that could exist in breaking free from the traditional social structure and the idea that wealth is not by any means the thing that determines a person's value.

It's also funny as hell, so it's pretty much just firing on all cylinders.

07. Four's a Crowd (Michael Curtiz, 1938) - 5/5

I am so deeply fond of Four's a Crowd. So often with classic romantic comedies, even screwballs, the story would present a love triangle, or sometimes love square, but there would never be any question of who was going to end up with whom. Even if it's not blatantly clear from the writing, the fact that there are two megastars as the leads, with the other sides of the triangle or square played by much lesser known stars usually serves as a good enough hint of how things are going to play out.

That is not the case with Four's a Crowd. Right down to the very ending where we get a double wedding, it really does feel like a toss up when it comes to who's going to marry who. And while a good chunk of that is because Rosalind Russell, Olivia DeHavilland, and Errol Flynn were at roughly similar levels of fame, the biggest reasons it really works is (1) the script does such a good job of making the connections between the characters and the reasons they might be attracted to each other or see each other as viable options solid and easy to grasp, (2) there amazing chemistry going on between literally every possible pairing of these four people, and (3) the whole story and so much of what happens is just chaotic and frantic in the best way. It really does make it so that any combination of the characters feels viable in the end.

I really do think this is one of the most flat out fun screwball romances. It never once takes itself too seriously, the stakes established are relatively low, so the chaotic nature of the story and pacing feels fun and silly rather than stressful and nail-biting.

08. Wise Girl (Leigh Jason, 1937) - 5/5

Wise Girl is a seriously underrated screwball romance. Miriam Hopkins actually made a number of screwball comedies, but unfortunately she isn't really remembered much for them. And that's a shame, because she was ridiculously good in comedies. She could pull off a sort of natural sophisticated high society type, and then make that type perfect for screwball comedy by making her just a /bit/ ridiculous. I think that's best on display in Wise Girl.

I remember being surprised the first time I watched this by how good she and Ray Milland are together. I knew that Milland could handle comedy from movies like The Major and the Minor, but I wasn't expecting him to have so much chemistry with Hopkins. It's a typical opposites clash and then attract screwball romance, with Hopkins as the judgmental rich girl, looking down on the community of bohemians Milland lives in, and Milland as the judgmental artist, looking down on the conspicuous wealth and out of touchness of the the wealthy class of which Hopkins is a part. They both fill those roles really well, and it makes their chemistry work beautifully.

One of the things that I think is really special about Wise Girl is how much it creates this really great world with the bohemian community Milland lives in, and that Hopkins comes to live in, undercover as a poor artist. Most of the movie takes place in the Greenwich Village community, and it's imbued with such a sense of place that it really does feel like becoming a part of that community when you watch it. The set design is really great and goes a long way toward how successful this is, but it's also the supporting characters, the inhabitants of this world, that really make sit feel real. They're all so specifically and clearly drawn, and it doesn't take long to really understand who most of them are, and what their relationships to each other are. Which goes such a long way in making this community feel like a living, breathing thing.

This is such a good, underseen movie. If you get the chance to see it, you must.

09. By Candlelight (James Whale, 1933) - 4/5

James Whale is really not remembered for comedy at all, but he actually made a few really great comedies in the 1930s, By Candlelight being one of them. It's an extremely light and frothy romantic screwball comedy starring Paul Lukas and Elissa Landi. Lukas himself isn't particularly remembered for comedy, either, and while I do think his dramatic performances are the ones from his filmography that really stand out, he's quite good here. He seemed to understand just how light and fun the material was and matched his performance to it. Landi is also a lot of fun. I think her performance probably ends up being the most comedic in the movie, and she was really willing to do things that were pretty unflattering, but very funny.

Nils Asther is, IMO, the real treat here. He'd been a pretty big leading man in the late 1920s and early 1930s, particularly in roles where the character was "exotic" or otherwise foreign, by the time the pre-code era was starting to wind down in 1933-1934 his star was already dimming. So he's in a supporting role here, but it's a great role. He's Lukas's boss, who is a prince and a womanizer, but probably also the most likeable character in the movie. There's a clear affection between Asther and Lukas's characters, and it's kind of sweet to see the lengths Asther's character will go to in order to help Lukas's out. The character is really charming, but there's obviously a big heart there, and Asther really captures that.

But what makes the movie really work so well is the chemistry between Lukas and Landi. Because of the premise, both characters could easily end up feeling unlikeable, and the relationship between them would then be a pretty hard sell. But thanks to their performances and how much chemistry there is between them, it just works.

By Candlelight is a real treat of the late-pre code era, and one of the most underappreciated screwball comedies.

10. Make a Million (Lewis D. Collins, 1935) - 2.5/5

Okay, I just have to start by saying that if the headline 'Radical Professor Named in Charges by Girl Student" was in a paper today it would almost certainly be a very different type of story.

Make a Million is actually really interesting, especially for something from the 1930s. It as pretty common for screwball comedies to take the wealthy class down a notch or two by poking fun at the ridiculousness of wealth and how out of touch it makes people, but they're usually still quite light on their politics. Make a Million is pretty different in the way that it blatantly discusses political ideas surrounding wealth that were common at the time (and that are still sadly quite relevant). Most people think about the 'Red Scare' and the behavior and ideas of McCarthyism as being pretty firmly set in the 1940s and 1950s, but paranoia surrounding communism, particularly from those in charge and in particularly privileged positions, started way further back than that. And it was pretty prevalent in the 1930s, as the Depression had led to a lot of people wondering if socialism wouldn't be a better way.

Make a Million, for all its faults (and there are plenty), does a really good job of capturing that conflict and the downright ridiculous response those in power had to socialist ideas, and how quickly people in power would jump to and push absurd conclusions to bolster their position, even if it meant spreading around shit that wasn't true. Early on in the movie we see a group of those with power talking about the main character's, a professor, ideas and the 'radical' politics he espoused during a speech that was put on by a group called the World Improvement League. One character insists that the group is quite dangerous, as if he's already heard of them, only for us to find out just a minute or two later that The World Improvement League isn't really a group, and certainly not one with any influence or that could pose any 'danger', as it's something the professor made up to boost the profile of his speech. Which makes the other character look even more ridiculous when he later arrives at the professor's house and sees the address, declares it to be the headquarters for the 'dangerous' group. It's such a succinct but completely accurate piece of satire about the way those in power will rely on half truths, or even flat out lies, and reactionary behavior to shut down dissent. It's a sign that, again, for all its flaws, Make a Million had someone quite clever at least somewhere behind the wheel.

At the very same time it's blatantly pointing out that because the professor is poor he has no recourse if those in power want to go after him for his politics. By putting himself in their crosshairs simply by talking about politics that threaten his power he put himself at risk of not being able to afford to feed himself. The movie does a really great job of setting up the wild power imbalance between the haves and the have nots. It also highlights the way those in need are often demonized by those in power, who wield the press like a weapon, as a way to distract from how much the status quo hurts the common man.

Of course, even with how well so much of its politics is handled at points, there are some issues on that end. There's a bit where a panhandler decides to fake disabilities in order to get money in a way that feels like it was probably offensive even for. Considering what a good job this movie does at demonstrating the issue of the haves vs. the have nots and how capitalism is built to keep those without wealth down, it's disappointed that the poorest characters in the movie are presented in that way. Especially because it remains a thing through the whole movie.

The humor is hit or miss, with a lot more misses than hits. While I think most of the satire is really sharp and work incredibly well, the more general "screwball" bits tends to fall pretty flat. There's the aforementioned scene where the panhandler is faking disabilities that's pretty horrible. But there's also a pair of scene that I think are pretty solidly funny where those panhandlers are learning to behave like a wealthy board of the directors, and then their attempts in action. The panhandlers trying to mimic rich people is a lot funnier than them trying to mimic disabled people. There's one moment that I laughed out loud at where they're all talking with the bank about ways to invest the money, and at one point one of the bankers asks how they feel about copper, and one of the panhandlers responds by saying "I don't want anything to do with coppers! I'd rather not take a change with them!" In general, the movie seems pretty anti-cop. It's a very funny series of set ups and punchlines that works really well. Which just makes it all the more disappointing that there's so much humor here that just does not work.

There's also absolutely nothing about the romance that works. Initially it seems like there might be a fun rivals to lovers thing, and their mutual hatred for each other did allow for a fun chemistry early on. But the female lead character is just so unlikeable. She's a wealthy little capitalist whose ideas and behavior are downright hateful. And then all of a sudden she just magically disagrees with her father and is on the professor's side now with pretty much no reason. The thing she ends up objecting to isn't anything different than things she'd said herself. It also just feels entirely shoehorned in, as romances were kind of mandatory when it came to movies from this era for the most part.

The ending is... pretty disappointing, but unsurprising. For all their criticism of the wealthy, screwball comedies usually still end with a pretty soft touch. The wealthy people might have learned to appreciate things other than money or something like that, but in the end you never really see any wealthy character deciding to redistribute their wealth, and usually the poor characters end up earning wealth. So the ultimate message still ends up being that being a part of the wealthy class is the ideal, and sadly Make a Million follows the same path. In the end, the professor finds that he can create wealth for himself by turning his charitable fund into a business, which just feels like an ending that smacks every single bit of political satire in this movie in the face. It feels like an ending that had to have been mandated by the studio because it's so out of pace with everything preceding it.

This is a tough one to rate. I think I'm going to settle on 2.5/5. When it's really digging into the satire it's one of the most sharp and clever movies from the 1930s I've seen, and one of the most unflinching in its liberal politics. But almost everything outside of that satire falls pretty flat, and the ending almost feels like a betrayal of everything that came before it. I am going to go ahead and give it a 'like' though, because its satire is so damn good.

[affiliateinz]

5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

ChatGPT has ignited a wave of AI fever across the world. While it amazes many with its human-like conversational abilities, few know the money-making potential of this advanced chatbot. You can actually generate a steady passive income stream without much effort using GPT-3. Intrigued to learn how? Here are 5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

Table of Contents

License AI-Written Books

Get ChatGPT to write complete books on trending or evergreen topics. Fiction, non-fiction, poetry, guides – it can create them all. Self-publish these books online. The upfront effort is minimal after you prompt the AI. Let the passive royalties come in while you relax!

Generate SEO Optimized Blogs

Come up with a blog theme. Get ChatGPT to craft multiple optimized posts around related keywords. Put up the blog and earn advertising revenue through programs like Google AdSense as visitors pour in. The AI handles the hard work of researching topics and crafting content.

The Ultimate AI Commission Hack Revealed! Watch FREE Video for Instant Wealth!

Create Online Courses

Online courses are a lucrative passive income stream. Rather than spending weeks filming or preparing materials, have ChatGPT generate detailed course outlines and pre-written scripts. Convert these quickly into online lessons and sell to students.

Trade AI-Generated Stock Insights

ChatGPT can analyze data and return accurate stock forecasts. Develop a system of identifying trading signals based on the AI’s insights. Turn this into a monthly stock picking newsletter or alert service that subscribers pay for.

Build Niche Websites

Passive income favorites like niche sites take ages to build traditionally. With ChatGPT, get the AI to research winning niches, create articles, product reviews and on-page SEO optimization. Then drive organic search traffic and earnings on autopilot.

The Ultimate AI Commission Hack Revealed! Watch FREE Video for Instant Wealth!

The beauty of ChatGPT is that it can automate and expedite most manual, tedious tasks. With some strategic prompts, you can easily leverage this AI for passive income without burning yourself out. Give these lazy money-making methods a try!

Thank you for taking the time to read my rest of the article, 5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

5 Laziest Ways to Make Money Online With ChatGPT

Affiliate Disclaimer :

Some of the links in this article may be affiliate links, which means I receive a small commission at NO ADDITIONAL cost to you if you decide to purchase something. While we receive affiliate compensation for reviews / promotions on this article, we always offer honest opinions, users experiences and real views related to the product or service itself. Our goal is to help readers make the best purchasing decisions, however, the testimonies and opinions expressed are ours only. As always you should do your own thoughts to verify any claims, results and stats before making any kind of purchase. Clicking links or purchasing products recommended in this article may generate income for this product from affiliate commissions and you should assume we are compensated for any purchases you make. We review products and services you might find interesting. If you purchase them, we might get a share of the commission from the sale from our partners. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended.

[albertonykus]

"Which Doraemon Movie Should I Watch First If I've Never Seen/Read Doraemon?"

In reviewing the Doraemon movies, I've gone over which ones are my favorites, but ranking a movie highly doesn't necessarily mean I'd recommend it to someone who has never seen Doraemon before. Of course, the obvious way to experience the Doraemon movies would be to watch them all in the order they were originally released in, but seeing more than 40 movies from an unfamiliar franchise is understandably a daunting commitment. One of the nice things about the Doraemon films (at least from a newcomer's perspective), however, is that they generally don't contain any plot-relevant references to the events of the other movies, so for the most part they can be viewed in any order without missing much context (with a few exceptions that I will cover shortly).

After giving it some thought, I have narrowed down my suggestions for "someone's first Doraemon film" to the following three:

Nobita and the Birth of Japan (2016): Doraemon helps Nobita and his friends run away from home to… 70,000 years ago, before humans lived in Japan. (@killdeercheer can attest to the effectiveness of this one as an intro to Doraemon!)

New Nobita's Great Demon (2014): Doraemon and friends explore Central Africa and discover a secret civilization.

Nobita's Little Star Wars 2021 (2022): Doraemon and friends help tiny aliens overthrow a dictatorship.

As it happens, all of these are recent remakes of classic Doraemon movies, so they're based directly on stories written by the original manga author, but have a more "modern" art style and often flesh out certain aspects of the plot. That wasn't something I had in mind while coming up with this list, but in a way, it makes sense: I think these movies combine the strengths of both the current and classic Doraemon series.

My main reasons for recommending these three:

I expect their storylines to be of relatively broad appeal without requiring much prior knowledge.

They're a good showcase of the main characters and their dynamics.

They offer a good sense of what to expect from most Doraemon movies (i.e., they don't deviate much from the usual formula).

I personally find them enjoyable (obviously).

I think any of the three would also be solid choices for one's second (or third) Doraemon movie, but some other candidates I'd pick for those roles include:

Nobita and the Legend of the Sun King (2000): Doraemon helps Nobita switch lives with a prince from a Maya-esque civilization.

Nobita and the Windmasters (2003): Nobita keeps a small typhoon as a pet, leading Doraemon and friends to discover its connection to a hidden village.

Nobita's Chronicle of the Moon Exploration (2019): Doraemon helps Nobita make an alternate reality where rabbits live on the moon.

For those who have gained some familiarity with the franchise, my top recommendations would be:

Nobita's Great Adventure into the Underworld (1984): Doraemon helps Nobita create a world where magic exists, which results in them having to fight literal demons.

Nobita and the Steel Troops (1986): Doraemon and friends defend humanity from an army of alien robots.

Nobita and the Kingdom of Clouds (1992): Doraemon and friends build a kingdom in the clouds, only to find an actual civilization hidden in the clouds. (This is an unusual one in that it references events from the regular Doraemon series, but I think enough context is provided that one can still appreciate it without having read the relevant manga or TV episodes.)

There are a few movies that I suggest a first-time viewer avoid. As previously mentioned, some movies do contain explicit continuity references to older films:

It's best to watch Nobita and the Galaxy Super-express (1996) before Nobita and the Spiral City (1997).

It's best to watch Nobita's Dinosaur (either the 1980 or 2006 version is fine) before Nobita's New Dinosaur (2020).

It's best to watch Stand by Me Doraemon (2014) before Stand by Me Doraemon 2 (2020). (I suppose that one's obvious.)

A couple of movies I don't recommend because I honestly think they're terrible and not worth anyone's time. I'd only suggest watching these two if one either is a completionist who wants to see all the Doraemon films or really enjoys riffing on bad movies:

Nobita's Great Battle of the Mermaid King (2010)

Nobita and the Island of Miracles (2012)

Last but not least, though I've seen other fans suggest otherwise, I very much do not recommend Stand by Me Doraemon (2014) as an entry point into the franchise. Regardless of my personal opinions on its quality, I maintain that its primary target audience is viewers who are nostalgic for Doraemon and the specific manga chapters it adapts. It certainly does not provide one with a good idea of what the other movies are like.

If anyone does end up taking these suggestions, I'd be interested in hearing whether or not they hit the mark! I'd also be interested in hearing from other fans which movies they'd recommend to someone unfamiliar with Doraemon.

[awordwasthebeginning]

Beautiful Disaster

It was, it truly was.

Still processing, decompressing, perchance decomposing, because this film may have ended us. St Brigid have mercy on @ofboredomandbohemia and me.

Review under the cut is salty, so proceed with caution. There's glass all over the floor.

Where do we even begin??

The Characters

Abby: that's short for Absolute Mess. Her other nickname is Pigeon because...eh? She says she doesn't need more crazy in her life and tbh I agree. She's crazy enough on her own, despite looking like a perfect Tessa clone in the beginning. Overreaction is her middle name, and she loves jumping to conclusions (must be all that game theory stuff, I suppose). Also, she is Not Like Other Girls and either an absolute poker crack or a klutz, depending on what the plot needs at the moment.

Trevor Travis: Honestly, apart from the one moment of monkey madness which could be written down to a post-fight adrenaline/endorphine rush, and the fact that he doesn't break Hardin's record of 3 seconds of cunnilingus in a YA erotica film adaptation, this guy is actually OK. He's a bit flirty, he adopts a stray cat instead of cracking the drywall when he thinks Abby "cheated" on him, he doesn't try anything untoward while she sleeps in his bed, and he comes to her rescue multiple times without trying to take advantage of it. Dylan Sprouse is honestly the best actor here, and his character the most likeable, which is an impressive feat for the "bad boy" in a film like this.

America: America? Really? What is this, The Selection?

Shepley: Does not have a character, is just there for hijinks and the initial connection between Abby and Travis.

Parker: 37yo man posing as a college student, really into "Shakespeare but what if they were cage boxers".

Thomas: = Percy Weasley. Oldest Maddox brother.

Trenton: Says he's the most attractive Maddox brother but tbh he's giving Wilson Gonzalez Ochsenknecht, so...I beg to differ.

Tyler and Taylor: = Fred and George, Maddox version.

Mick: Abby's shitbag father. She alternates between calling him "Dad" and "Mick" to make for some miscommunication-based plot points.

Benny, Vince, Dane, and Jesse from Glee: the Vegas gang, men with criminal energy who take advantage of Abby and her poker talent.

The Plot

Take After, but make it extreme, and put twice as much plot development as those 5 films combined into 90 minutes, and you have this film. They go to college for like 5minutes and one lecture before the cage matches and Abby losing a bet and having to stay with Travis (including sleeping in his bed) completely take over. The last 15mins are a different film altogether, bringing to the table illegal underage (<21. Americans) poker hustling, blackmail, betrayal, Even More Illegal Boxing ft. a guy called Chernobyl which is honestly a bit offensive, a fire, and a sex scene so chaotic they spend more time completely demolishing the room than actually fucking. (Told you there was glass all over the floor. Also ceramic shards, and wood splinters, and probably feathers, too.)

The Relationship

The Crossovers

...basically goes like this:

Travis: You're cute.

Abby: I can't believe you're trying to fuck me.

Travis: ...I'm...not? I mean, yeah, would be nice, but let me take you to dinner first?

Abby, already taking off her clothes, rummaging through his drawer of sex toys, and writhing on his bed: I CANNOT believe YOU are MAKING me SLEEP WITH YOU

Travis: ...

Oh, we were prepared for this film. Not only does Travis call the stray cat "Rumpleteazer", no, they take the piss out of After a few times (Abby's look and studiousness, joking about their neighbours not having piercings, fork resemblance or no) and at some point After Passion, the actual film After Passion, is on TV. When I tell you we screamed -

The Aftermath

After-math. Heh. ...gimme a second, that needs a second post.

[rottenfleshnbones]

saw vi review on letterboxd i actually forgot 2post (written on august 9)

alright, this one was really good. i mean, really! probably the best so far if you don't consider the fact that peter isn't alive (such a shame!). anyway, it's always about the ending — the ending is always very nice. i suppose hoffman will live, i mean, a bit scarred but alive. didn't like it that they brought perez back only to kill her for real this time 🤨🤨🤨 but that's alright. curious bout the next film!

[dmitri-smerdyakov]

It's 23:58 on Sunday 10th September as I begin writing this (though it's being posted a few minutes after midnight on Monday 11th) and I have, after seven months of writing, 195 minutes of film, 40 minutes of deleted scenes, countless hours of research, 174 pages of fanfic writing, over 100k words and 182 pages of a script written by James Cameron... finished the first draft of the final chapter of the Newtina/Titanic fic.

It needs a major editing session still and I'm still debating over certain things I've added, but this is it. I started doing this for fun in late-February of this year, published the first chapter in April, and we're now approaching mid-September - this is by far the biggest fanfiction project I've ever undertaken. I'm feeling pretty emotional about it to be honest, and I don't even mind if it gets read or review bombed or whatever because I actually did it and I'm proud of myself for it.

Life has not been great for me recently but my special interest has kept me going, and this fic is a product of that love I feel for the special interest that is Titanic. Even though I'm sure it's probably not my best work, it's one that means a lot to me and for that it's my favourite thing I've ever written.

[agentnico]

The Vourdalak (2024) review

Bet A24 are kicking their shins for missing this one.

Plot: Lost in a hostile forest, the Marquis d'Urfé, a noble emissary of the King of France, finds refuge in the home of a strange family.

In my childhood my dad would always read to me various stories at bedtime, and the one that really stuck out was the little novella “The Family of the Vourdalak” by Aleksey Tolstoy (that’s the other Tolstoy, not the madman who spent however long writing the over thousand pages of War & Peace), and the reason this one really left an impression on my little brain was how it held this immersive element of dread and terror that didn’t let go until the end. For this is a vampire tale, yet interestingly enough this was actually written near half a century prior to Bram Stoker publishing his famous Dracula novel. So this is very much an early folkloric interpretation of what vampires were, that came from myths and tales spun around villages, so look, all I’m saying is these old school villagers had a wild imagination and Tolstoy utilised that well. Anyway, if you’ve never read the original 1839 novella, do yourself a favour and seek it out, as it’s truly spectacular.

With that in mind when I heard there was a new French movie adaptation being released of Tolstoy’s story I knew I had to seek it out as I always thought that material had so much cinematic potential. Truly I was expecting some gruesome dark visually striking in-yer-face shocker of the level of Hereditary or Evil Dead Rise, because honestly I could totally see that working. But to my surprise director Adrien Beau has gone a completely different direction.

The Vourdalak is a film that does not belong in the 21st century. Seeing this in 2024 is really odd, and I mean that in the best way. Reminiscent of a time gone by, The Vourdalak was shot on film, truly embracing the vintage look with real grain and harsh shadows, envoking the feel of a period piece from the 70s/80s. As such I can see many viewers be put off by this thinking the movie looks cheap or dull, but I truly think this stylistic choice was a nice change of pace for a modern day horror, and a nice way to get by its low-budget. The setting of the sparsely populated European forest also allows for the threat to feel more effective due to how confinding and inescapable the situation is.

In terms of negatives I didn’t give two craps about any of the characters. The main French aristocrat we follow who refers to himself as the emissary of the King of France is a pompous face-covered-in-white-make-up narcissistic dandelion who can only think about the next woman who’s pants he can get into. The family in the forest he comes across are all varied introverts who have their eccentricities, but none of them were likeable as such. You know who was great though? The main vampire!

So the titular Vourdalak (a vampire-like being with Slavic origins that prefers to feast on blood of relatives rather than strangers)…… he’s a puppet. No joke, this is a 2024 horror movie where the vampire is portrayed by a puppet. It’s actually done really well too, with the life-sized marionette moving in uncanny strange ways, eyes bulging out, rictus grinning and with a disembodied voice, it all comes to a pretty immersive effect. It makes for a good reminder how solid and effective practical effect instead of CGI can be. But also the vampire itself, though creepy, was actually kind of a stand up fella? Like yes he wanted to suck everyone’s blood and kill and so on, but when he spoke he was always super polite, had a nice level of sass to him too. Honestly I’d hang out with the guy. I’d grab a pint with him for sure.

Overall the movie is an interesting nostalgic view of horror from a bygone era, with old school visuals and a fantastic vampire puppet performance, and though I would say there were times the film did drag a bit, as a whole this was a delightful peace of Gothic fairytale. This may just be the bite in the neck the genre needed.

Overall score: 6/10

[mediawhorefics]

Do you have any hot tales about tsn?

tsn hot takes ??? gosh, idk if they're hot takes but i have opinions?

i'm sorry to rpf on main but 'andrew garfield was in love with jesse eisenberg' is a hilll i'm going to die on.

similarly, andrew garfield played eduado as in love with mark and watching the movie through that lens enriches the whole experience. fight me.

tsn deserved to win best picture in 2011. out of all the nominees that year, it's the one that has only gained relevance as time passes and had something to say about our culture, both back then and right now. i think it's almost more relevant now than back then. its social commentary on the way we live our lives on the internet is pretty spot on. i mean 'the internet is written in ink'. give me one line better from another movie that year. we lived on farms then we lived in cities and now we're gonna live on the internet?? damn.

this isnt an opinion, more like an observation? back in 2010, people complained about the harsh depiction of zuck but he's worked so hard to prove the movie not only right but also now it almost reads as mild compared to who that guy actually is. it's fascinating in terms of tsn's cultural legacy. where's that one quote from that article about tsn turning 10 yo? the movie couldn't predict what facebook would turn into (in terms of misinformation and manipulation of information) but it understood that the desire to tear down the establishment is not the same as the wish to build something better in its place? anyways, that.

it has one of the greatest soundtracks ever. i don't think any movie has topped it since. that opening sequence with hand covers bruise? holy shit.

i always wonder if it does enough to condemn the elitist misogynistic culture of those rich harvard guys/those rich tech guys. like... i always joke that it's one of my 'ooops the filmmakers forgot women were people' favourite films (i have a few of those) but at the same time, it feels very pointed and purposeful in its depiction. and we know that fincher has a history of exploring toxic masculinity as a theme without explicitly condemning it and trusting his audience to get the message. which, honey, men are not smart. i mean, we get the iconic erica moment telling us from the start 'it'll be because you're an asshole' and then the movie proceeds to prove that to us. but is that enough? is the movie sexist or is the character? or both? i don't know i kinda go back and forth on this. again not a take, just thoughts.

i read this one letterboxd review like a year ago that said something along the line of: best movie of all time they have him tell us ' i don't want friends' in the first eight minutes and it blew my fucking mind. they literally tell us in the first eight minutes, aaron sorkin i just want to talk.

i love him and would kill for him, but eduardo telling mark 'i was your only friend you had one friend' was not only untrue but kinda manipulative. not that mark didn't deserve it.

high key this is one of the most quotable movies of all time. did you know i sent forty-seven texts???

there are whole worlds of unsaid things in the 'you have no idea what that's going to mean to my father' 'sure i do' i am OBSESSED with their relationship.

eduardo's bitchy 'is he?' when sean says he's wired in before the laptop smash is just as, if not more, iconic than the rest of the speech.

andrew was robbed of both a nomination and an oscar for this performance. i stand by it.

2011 golden globes jesse eisenberg dragging andrew gafield out of his chair top awards moment of all time. you had to be there.

people will bitch about tsn rpf and people writing fic about mark zuckerberg but where would we (tumblr) be as a society without jesse and andrew's 'you didn't know me at 13' 'i really wish i had'. where would your pining web-weaving fandom posts be without mr garfield's embarrassingly public crush on his facebook movie co star? check and mate.

genuinely think it would have solved a lot of their problems if mark and eduardo had fucked. or it would have created other different problems. either way, a win.

we all know it should have ended with mark sending eduardo a friend request. literally the only flaw in this film.

i honestly think the tsn press tour is on like... lotr bts footage level in terms of ~as enjoyable if not more than the original film. and i don't say this lightly. it's one of the highest praise i've got.

i'm a basic bitch but every single scene of mark defending eduardo post-betrayal is like.... [SCREAM]

it IS the greatest divorce movie of our time. marriage story fucking wishes mate.

tsn is 100% a girl movie. like red flag for men green flag for women (& gnc people) kind of stuff.

it's on par with all of shakespeare's best tragedies. for me.

lmao when i read this ask i thought damn i won't have much to say and now i have to stop myself because my food is ready and i'm starting. anyways this is barely scratching the surface. i might come back for a part two?

[scereplop]

portrait of a lady of fire (yay movies)

The reason why I decided to watch ‘The Portrait of a Lady on Fire’, or even found out about it in the first place, is because of a citation in the footnote of a fanfic. The movie had been rotting away in my ‘to watch’ tab group for months, and when I’d finally gotten around to actually give it a go, I wasn’t as interested in that particular fanfic as I was at first. I feel that a huge reason for this is that I actually quite dislike the very ship it is about, however I liked it a lot back then, and with every morsel I got I was bursting at the seams. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still fairly well written, but upon rereading it, the spark in me failed to burst into flames. I blame the characters, not the writer nor the idea. The important thing, however, was for me to be as impartial as possible when watching the movie (I can never be fully unbiased but I can try my best to. I’m also far from a trained film critic of any sort, so feel free to take any of this with a pinch of salt. But I’ll really try my best.) and so I didn’t read any reviews of any sort before watching the movie or writing this, and I had no clue what I was in for. I also had completely forgotten which scene from the movie that part of the fanfic had been based off of, so I really was going in helpless. And honestly, I was and am glad of it. It’s always best that way. (Warning: spoilers ahead)

Of course- the cinematography. I don’t think I have to say much because the gorgeous shots throughout the entire movie speak for themselves. I’m sure that there’s some deeper meaning to the placement of the characters in each frame and an art to the delicacy of the lighting that I am sorrowfully unfamiliar with, but to me it was simple, it was plain and there for me to see. And there was a charm to that simplicity. It felt like I was watching it through the eyes of the very characters in the movie. I was never bored, each pause was purposeful. It felt like life. It felt real. When I wake up on holiday, I have no backing track as I brush my teeth or walk along the seashore. I have no special effects or superhuman powers as I play in the sea. I have the the sounds and things I and the people around me make. The movie never really was silent, just like life never is. There was the sound of the sea cushioning sparse dialogue, and with the sparsity of dialogue I treasured every word, I mulled on them and I understood them like they were spoken to me. There’s always the risk of me getting incredibly bored when I watch these kinds of movies, but I am so glad that I wasn’t with this one. Not once.

Then there was the fire. There was the portrait itself on fire, there was her dress on fire, the very image of Héloïse that Marianne had remembered, and not just remembered but held so dear to hear that she had to see it again, had to paint out and stow away, there was the bonfire that boomed with song and the art done by candlelight. It felt like an ever pressing, omnipotent presence throughout the film, but despite its destructive nature, never once did it feel threatening. Just like fire, I don’t think it ever stood for a specific, concrete definition, never bloomed for specific purpose but served one nonetheless. A means of communication, of warning, of foreshadowing. To share a pipe, it must be lit first before two pairs of lips can touch the same mouthpiece. To see faces (or the lack of one) in the dark passion of night, we must play with fire to keep those impassioned stares held no matter the destruction it may bring. Because fire is bright and burns with a hope that demands attention, it was a perfect constant because it never felt constant- it grew, like their love with time, and longing too.

Even though I’m not a huge fan of the horror genre in films (mostly because most of the time all it composes of are jump scares and no substance that disconcerts me at my core), when included in subtle amounts in films that you’d think have no reason to have it really is the cherry on top. I don’t know if these scenes would even be considered horror per se, but it really did give me fucking chills because of how unexpected it was, even though I wasn’t scared out of my skin. The white garbed vision of Héloïse that appeared before Marianne twice in the film before the actual scene from which it was from (before she left for good), felt like some sort of warning. It always appeared right before a key moment between the two of them like some ghost of futures past and was genius. Whatever it was meant to do, I think it did perfectly.

______________________________________________________________

from here on out i kind of went a little mad and and completely ditched paragraphing and sentence structure and grammar laws and any sense at all. i don't know what happened because i wrote this like ages ago and left it to wither and die for some reason that has now escaped me, and i'm way too lazy to figure out what on earth i was trying to say. hopefully it makes sense for someone out there!

______________________________________________________________

their relationship. the secrets. the fights. the PIANO i mean harpsichord scene. the OTHER FIGHT. the whole dynamic in relation to the rest of the film. ever moving never stationary

THE STORY. the looks back. that was so genius and the new take on it n stuff DAWG

(i suspect i was talking about the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. i do remember that there were so many overlapping themes in the film itself, and every time i managed to pick the likeness of one of them out, it was so satisfying. and especially for this theme in particular. i had only vaguely heard of the myth before but after watching it i think that story has been seared into my mind for good. and i agree with past me- it was such a genius move to have the story be a reflection of their life. the shots of their last goodbye were STRAIGHT OUT OF THAT STORY. fight me. and the uncertainty of it all. LITERAL GOOSEBUMPS.)

the ending and teh conceert! is it a sad ending it s not happy but typica l sad ending - someone dies boo hoo but no theyre alive and they seem well but the thought of what couldnve been if if if

it just lies dormant and with these kinds of things you cant really forget (LIKE THE MOVIE NUOVO OLIMPO - where no one dies and theres no tragedy but instead this slow descent into, not madness, but like sadness and stuff and like you can do somethig but you cant at the same time and like UGUGUGUGUH)

[looosey]

Film Review: Summer Movie Rec Masterlist

Getting this out early for @notesoncrocs, sorry I'll add more descriptors later!

There has not been a more apt time to post a list of recommendations, as a lot of us actual ihouse are apart from each other, away from home. I watched these in the past month, so best believe these are certified fresh.

Movies.

Asteroid City: artsy Wes Anderson film about science fairs and plays, and alien visitations with a star-studded cast.

Past Lives: a slow-burn angsty A24 film about 인연 (in-youn), a Korean American girl and her childhood crush reignite sparks as they live their separate lives throughout the years and reminisce on what could've been. I thought some parts were funny, but movie overall just made me think that ordinary love is unspectacular but still moving/spectacular.

Pride and Prejudice: the classic enemies-to-lover story. I don't know if Mr. Darcy wooed me as a watcher, but I will say the movie captures the feeling of "yearning" really really well, much better than Past Lives.

The Roundup: No Way Out: stellar action movie from Korea. I am a sucker for these.

Barbie: Hilarious and fun for my eyes. Some scenes really hit for me, a deep fear of the world as it is today. Made me think of Virginia Woolf's writing:

"The most transient visitor to this planet, I thought, who picked up this paper could not fail to be aware, even from this scattered testimony, that England is under the rule of a patriarchy. Nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance..." - Virginia Woolf's, A Room of One's Own

Nothing Serious: a nerdy columnist is tasked with writing a sex column, so he dives into hook up apps and meets a girl, a low-key sex addict. I liked the blend of fun in the movie, casual sex, and the more moral questions, ethics of surveillance.

Argo: Action movie about the CIA operation in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis that put together a whole fake Hollywood alien movie script/company in order to extract 6 Americans who escaped the embassy and were hiding in Tehran for months.

TV Shows.

Atlanta: College dropout (Donald Glover) sees his cousins rise as a rapper as a way to change their lives. The humor, the colors in the shots, the range of the fundamental human experiences covered, and the crazy crazy episodes that leap out of the story line, make this show like no other I've ever seen.

My Mister: Written by my favorite kdrama TV-writer, a girl in her early 20s lives a miserable, lonely, guilt-ridden life, chased by loansharks, burdened her ailing grandmother, and with no hope for any better. She enters a 9-5 company as a temp, and meets an older married guy who is as miserable as she is. She likes him a lot and the drama teeters around her morals and their ill-adjustment to society.

My Liberation Notes: Same writer, this time a depiction of what it's like to be in the outskirts of Seoul life, but quite literally/geographically. A girl in her late 20s finds little meaning in what every one in her Seoul office find meaningful, nor her family in the country side. This ones as equally about familial love as it is about romance, about hatred.

Beef: Y'all have all already watched it already. I'm watching it again with Hanu and Diego.