#for a character with such unique abilities Eve could’ve used some more thought | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

angeltriestoblog · 4 years

Text

I watched a couple of movies! (Part 1)

Back when I regularly had the luxury of long breaks, I spent my days binge-watching films, as you can see from my extensive knowledge of 80s chick flicks and all the cheesy tropes and disgustingly adorable, predominantly white leading men that come with them. Sadly, a side effect of growing older in the digital age seemed to be the diminishment of my attention span: the only things I could focus on were academic requirements, simply because I had to. But, thanks to several factors—the suspension of online classes, the sudden annoyance I developed towards Barney Stinson that prompted me to discontinue How I Met Your Mother, etc.—I decided it was high time to rekindle this lost love. So, here is an unsolicited review of the 17 films I managed to finish in a little over a week! Rest assured, I tried my best to venture out of familiar territory and brush up on some of the more cultured picks, according to Letterboxd, at least.

Bar Boys (2017, dir. Kip Oebanda) ★★★

The film that kickstarted everything, which I never would have seen if the director had not uploaded the full version on YouTube. This well-meaning tale of four best friends (Carlo Aquino, Rocco Nacino, Enzo Pineda, and Kean Cipriano) and the challenges they face in law school—terror professors, fraternities, and financial difficulties included—does have a lot of heart, and is sensitive enough to show how the effect of this experience differs depending on a student's background. But, what it lacked for me was a certain degree of specificity: I think the same premise would have been applicable in med school, or any other post-graduate degree for that matter. So, why did the characters choose law? I also would have appreciated some commentary on the shortcomings of the country’s justice system, and further fleshing out of the characters so the audience could have seen why we could count on them to fill in the gaps.

Legally Blonde (2001, dir. Robert Luketic) ★★★½

The rating might be surprising, considering that the courtroom scene was responsible for the short law school phase I had in Grade 5. As if I could ever make use of the rules of haircare in an actual cross-examination. Of course, I am compelled to admire Elle (Reese Witherspoon) and how her motivations for going to Harvard shift from winning back a boy to discovering what she never knew she had and using these gifts to help those around her (especially the manicurist, who I feel was given way more exposure than what was due to her). Ultimately, though it was inspirational at some points, it felt too good to be true and impossible to relate to. (But then again, shouldn’t there be a willing suspension of disbelief when consuming forms of media such as this?)

Lady Bird (2017, dir. Greta Gerwig) ★★★★★

I’ll probably end up making a separate post dedicated to this movie and how it singlehandedly called me out, as a sensitive, occasionally self-important product of an all-girls Catholic high school. For now, I am forced to condense my overflowing feelings into a couple of sentences. Lady Bird takes place over the course of the titular character's senior year, a pivotal moment in the lives of all teenagers. But, instead of focusing solely on the formulaic firsts like the normal coming-of-age film would, it shines a light on her dwindling relationship with her equally strong-willed mother. Saoirse Ronan’s colorful performance as the human embodiment of my pre-teen self's conscience, and Greta Gerwig’s tremendous ability to make even oddly specific scenes speak to any viewer shine through and speak to me the most, and easily make this gem something I will be recommending this to anyone who bothers to ask for as long as I live.

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018, dir. Bryan Singer) ★★★

There’s a lot of controversy surrounding Bo Rhap, particularly its failure to portray Freddie Mercury in a manner that does him justice. While I understand that it is a valid concern for fans of the band, I admit I don’t know enough about who he was as a person to criticize the film in this aspect. Regardless of its factuality, this still was just average for me, the typical rise-and-fall type of biopic that is indicative of a rockstar’s legacy, but with laughably faulty editing. The redeeming factors were Rami Malek’s brilliant portrayal of the legend himself—his Live Aid performance gave me chills that lasted the entire 20 minutes, how alarming—and, obviously, the soundtrack that I kept on loop for several days.

About Time (2013, dir. Richard Curtis) ★

Apparently, this movie focuses on Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who discovers at age 21 that the men in his family have the power to time-travel and thus revise and repair certain parts of their lives. He uses this to address the fact that he’s never had a girlfriend, and effectively so as he ends up bagging Mary (Rachel McAdams), a charming American who is the settler in this relationship by default. But, of course, this gift is not without its dire consequences—or at least, that’s what it says on Wikipedia. It’s hard to trash on this and admit that I bailed halfway because so many of my friends swear by this. But, I just couldn’t stomach the lack of chemistry between the two leads; the surprisingly boring dialogue for a screenplay crafted by Richard Curtis of Notting Hill fame; and the story that, although bore enough of a resemblance to “The Time Traveler’s Wife” to be interesting, was still not powerful enough to sustain my attention.

Your Name (2016, dir. Makoto Shinkai) ★★★★★

I’m a huge fan of plots that are sure to make my eyes swell and heart hurt—I can’t explain the psychology behind this either. So when this was recommended to me and I had made it through an hour without shedding a single tear, I was prepared to be disappointed. But, the events leading up to the conclusion proceeded to rip me into shreds, as if to taunt me and say, “You asked for it.” Mitsuha (Mone Kamishiraishi) and Taki (Ryunosuke Kamiki), teenagers living on opposite sides of the country, suddenly start switching bodies following the appearance of a comet. This unexplainable phenomenon causes them to forge an unbreakable bond that transcends the very limits of time and space. I know the description is not much, but it’s best to experience this unique plot for yourself. Besides its storyline, its charm lies in its excruciating attention to detail in depicting life in urban and rural Japan, both in the realistic animation of one picturesque scene after another, and the use of cultural elements to arrive at a twist viewers will not see coming.

Booksmart (2019, dir. Olivia Wilde) ★★★★½

I can't summarize what I imagine Booksmart to be for teenagers in the future, so here's an entire scenario: It's the year 2070. Two young girls of around 16 are sprawled on their bedroom floor, watching this on whatever device they use for streaming. (Maybe it's from an LCD projector embedded in their foreheads, who knows.) The credits roll, and they instantly think to themselves, "Man, we were born in the wrong generation!" (They simultaneously think of doing a high-five, and without raising their hands themselves, it happens because that's technology.) Anyway, Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein) are best friends who played by the rules all throughout high school and realized too late that they could’ve afforded to have a little more fun. On the eve of their graduation, they decide to cram four years’ worth of adventure in a single unpredictable and outrageous night, getting to grips with everything that comes their way in an exceedingly comedic yet refreshing fashion. Also, the protagonists have such a genuine and wholesome relationship: the way they hyped up their most ridiculous looking outfits, or overshared borderline uncomfortable stories is honestly my personal definition of an ideal friendship.

When Harry Met Sally (1989, dir. Rob Reiner) ★★★★½

Despite this film’s constant presence in every “chick flicks you must watch” list I’ve bothered searching up, I spent a huge chunk of my teen years in constant protest against the decision to cast Billy Crystal as the male lead instead of, I don’t know, literally any other actor on the planet. But, once I finished it, I realized that he’s a much better fit than I thought. The laidback Harry to Meg Ryan’s finicky Sally, both of them spare no effort exploring and debunking truths and misconceptions about modern relationships: examples of which are the idea of being high maintenance, and the quintessential question of whether a guy and girl can ever be just friends. Although their dynamic is the definition of slow burn, audiences can’t help but earnestly root for the pair—the frustration brought by the several almosts pay off in the end, as they lead to one of, if not, the most romantic love confession scene.

Hintayan ng Langit (2018, dir. Dan Villegas) ★★★★½

This tale adapted from a play by no less than Juan Miguel Severo is set in purgatory—a grandiose art museum-four star hotel hybrid of sorts—where souls can stop and rest while their papers for entry to heaven are being processed. It is here we meet Manolo (Eddie Garcia) and Lisang (Gina Pareno), ex-lovers with unfinished business. Things admittedly start off a bit slow, but it's understandable since there needs to be ample provision of context regarding the standard operating procedures of this unique waiting area. Once that’s done, the focus stays on the main actors, who drive audiences to tears with their powerful performances, and thought-provoking questions on matters of betrayal, forgiveness, and the afterlife. The ending had me rocking back and forth like a baby, my shirt soaked with tears, so do take heed and stock up on tissues!

The Social Network (2010, dir. David Fincher) ★★★★★

Within its packed first 15 minutes alone, you can easily see what makes The Social Network an example of cinema at its finest: an intoxicated Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) hacks into the websites of all Harvard dorms to create Facebook’s oldest ancestor from scratch, in an attempt to get back at his ex-girlfriend. The atmosphere is tense, the dialogue is loaded with witty one-liners and powerful insight, and the actors are so in touch with their characters they practically fuse into a single person. This remains consistent for the next two hours or so, making for an enjoyable and fast-paced, yet still informative glimpse into the human side of what is arguable the most powerful company of this era. I also heard that it’s much more fun if seen with the cast commentary on, so I’m gonna have to find a copy of that for myself!

Pretty in Pink (1986, dir. Howard Deutch) ★★★★★

I’m cheating here, I know: this has been a long-time favorite, but I guess I can still give a review if I was still 15 when I last saw this. Andie (Molly Ringwald) and Blane (Andrew McCarthy)’s classic “poor girl + rich boy = happily ever after” story is masterfully tackled by John Hughes, who manages to inject equal amounts of swoon-worthy romance and biting criticism of the inherent class divide in society. Others would argue that Duckie (Jon Cryer), Andie’s devoted best friend, is the true star of the show, and while I do agree that he has his shining moments (if you listen closely, you can hear Try A Little Tenderness playing softly in the background), I sadly inherited my mother’s adoration for Andrew, which I will pass on to my child and so on—truly the defining characteristic of our lineage.

St. Elmo’s Fire (1985, dir. Joel Schumacher) ½

I understand that being an adult in the Real World is bound to come with some grave mistakes and lapses in judgment. But, not a single character in this friend group redeems themselves by the end. While Ally Sheedy’s Leslie and Mare Winningham’s Wendy were just borderline forgettable (why did the latter even end up here with the Brat Pack?), Judd Nelson’s Alec cheats on his girlfriend and believes that marriage is what will make him change his ways; Rob Lowe’s Billy neglects the family he didn’t plan on having by fooling around with other women and making a home out of his favorite bar; Demi Moore’s Jules relies on cocaine and extramarital affairs to hide trauma she refuses to process, and Andrew McCarthy’s pretentiously cynical Kevin suddenly claims he knows what love is when Leslie pays attention to him for 10 minutes. But, none of them compare to Emilio Estevez’ Kirby, the sociopath obsessed with a girl he barely knows. It honestly resembles some sick contest of how many problems this gang can cause before they end up behind bars, with the last scene being a lazy and rushed attempt to wrap everything up, in the name of this surface-level “friendship”.

Before Sunrise, Sunset, and Midnight (1995, 2004, 2013; dir. Richard Linklater) ★★★★★

Guess it’s better to admit it now, but I made this post as an excuse to rave about how beautiful this trilogy is, the most authentic depiction of love in its purest form. Sunrise has been recommended to me by both friends and the Netflix algorithm, but I put off watching it again and again and again. I mean, what could I possibly get out of looking at two strangers roam around Vienna? Well, to answer that question: quite a lot. Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy)’s relationship spans an entire trilogy, and throughout that period, they manage to define then destroy the idea of having a soulmate to call your own in approximately six hours. But certain constancies are present in each movie: the emotion intense even in the smallest of gestures (you don't understand the anguish I feel when the scene at the listening booth randomly pops in my head), the dialogue truly thought-provoking and natural, the settings so picturesque, and the chemistry of the actors so electric I have trouble believing that the director didn’t actually invade the personal space of a real couple and eventually get issued a restraining order.

High Fidelity (2000, dir. Stephen Frears) ★★

I’d like to think of this as an essay: I'm confident that the introduction is the protagonist Rob's soliloquy on his five biggest breakups to understand why he’s so flawed that everyone always leaves him, and the conclusion his attempt to win his ex Laura (Iben Hjejle) back. But as for the body, I’m not entirely sure. Interspersed between these moments are thoughtful top five lists of anything that can be enumerated, and occasional banter with the employees at his record store that may be charming, but do not enhance the film in any way, shape, or form for me. Also, I normally enjoy seeing John Cusack onscreen, but more often than not, he was nagging in front of the camera instead of talking to the people around him; no wonder his relationships failed!

Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010, dir. Edgar Wright) ★★★

I wanted to enjoy this so bad, I swear! Sadly, the one thing I gained after seeing this is knowledge of where the “I’m So Sad, So Very Very Sad” meme came from. I get that it’s supposed to resemble a comic book or video game, and maybe the reason why I failed to appreciate this as much is because I was never a fan of either. I found the prolonged action scenes surprisingly boring, the storyline too fantastic, and the whole quest of having to defeat seven monstrous exes for the hand of a manic pixie dream girl not worth it in the end. Although I can’t give it less than three stars given its impressive visual effects, and appeal to the entire Tumblr community (gamers on one end, millennial film connoisseurs on the other), it’s definitely not something I would watch a second time.

There will surely be more where that came from! (I mean it. Since completing this post, I’ve finished another five films.) If you wanna keep tabs on what I’m watching without having to wait on another post, you can give my Letterboxd a follow. Wishing you love and light always, and don’t forget to wash your hands and pray for our frontliners!

#recs #angeltriestoblog #life dump #movies #movies to watch during quarantine #or at least movies I'VE watched over quarantine #so far #17 films are u CRAZY!!!!#i have carpal tunnel #quarantingz

0 notes

jvpielago024-blog · 7 years

Text

My Review of My “Review”

Sorry in advance, this is going to be a decent amount of writing, but it's only because I feel like my evaluation was completely subjective by the reader. Almost every case they bring up seems to be backwards, at least to me. Not here to argue that it's perfect, of course not. But I'll dissect it and show examples of how I feel it was vastly overlooked. Overall it feels as if it was read very much at the surface level and only literal, when I intentionally wrote it was mostly allegorical and meant to have depth with most sentences. Even so that most lines change on a second reading, when you know she's fucking with him. I get there can be too much dialogue, but to pretty much say most the dialogue isn't good/needed is tough to say when it's a dialogue driven film based on MANIPULATION and COMMUNICATION. Feels very much like a "judging a fish by it's ability to climb a tree". Obviously a poor claim to make, but you slap the name Sorkin on something, people will want to devour and honor every word to an extent. Just feels like I paid for a "professional" evaluation and they immediately viewed my script as "Amateur". I feel if I'm giving you money, it should be viewed as if a professional sent it in, and professionals try to add depth and layer to their work, so to have it pretty much dismissed is very frustrating. I am more than fine with someone "not getting it" or the ideas aren't conveyed as well as I think, all for criticism. But it seems much more like this evaluator had a personal agenda to address the things they personally did not like, which then overshadows everything else. Hopefully you can see that when you view their evaluation.

"The screenplay opens with an extremely long conversation featuring Jeff's immediate family, but aside from his mom popping up a couple times, they aren't featured heavily in the screenplay."

That's called a choice. If you're parents aren't around a lot when you grow up or they are passive, it is 100% going to affect who you are. Which is what it was supposed to be doing.

"Can come across as sexist and odd. Jeff takes to hitting Eve too easily, even getting some weird rush from it that she knew he'd get somehow. It's mentioned this is due to her spiking his wine with Ecstasy, but Ecstasy is known to have the opposite effect of inciting violence."

So then this person has never actually done drugs. Ecstasy doesn't just equal happy fun time. It's a feeling and if you didn't know you were being GIVEN that feeling, you would correlate it to the things happening around you, say THE WOMAN SEDUCING YOU. And he doesn't take to hitting easily, he's actually appalled and it happens from impulse and accident. But then he likes it. So completely different. It's called empowerment. If you've never felt that power, but then you are encouraged to and it feels good because you're also drugged AND with a dream woman? You're so right, any person would be able to just say no to all that great feeling, walk away easy. That's the whole point, it's a character study. It just feels insane I have to literally argue every point my script. And she knew because SHE'S SMART. Literally watch any slight thing about Manson and how he worked. Manipulation is easy as shit. It's about making a monster and then saying "But what did I do, YOU acted on it". She knows offering this opportunity to hit someone is a chance, either they take it and love it or they don't and SHE MOVES ON. It's a movie, Jesus, not trying to treat the audience like idiots. That's the point, this boy who's extreme sheltered/lost/whatever adjective you want to use happens to run into this. His character being given this "awakening" in his eyes, something he feels everyone should get, like in the movies he even says. That's the anglerfish part. It's a forced awakening and he doesn't realize because he's just never felt good in his life. That's why there's so much character background, you have to see how cyclical and absurdly mundane he feels the world is until he gets his own little fantasy. Case in point:

"her first couple of meetings with Jeff come across as implausible and almost read like the writer is exercising a fantasy in overpowering and abusing women, which is off putting to say the least. "

So here is where it really makes me upset. It is fantasy. But at no point has the CHARACTER Jeff expressed any of this has what he dreams about for desire, if only he could just grab that woman neck. He's actually kind of afraid of basic intimacy, theres a whole scene showing it. It's a case of it all happens so fast and what's dumped in his lap he runs with. Of course he ends up loving it personally, but it comes from her being calculated. She is pulling the strings from the get go. SHE IS MAKING IT SEEM LIKE THIS FILM FANTASY. That's literally the point. To him it really is. And that's a big theme of the whole thing. That the world lies. Everything is too good to be true. Your fantasy, all the chance and destiny all that- nope bullshit. There are manipulative ass people on this planet and other people are their play toys. The actions of few dictates the lives of many. To someone who's never felt loved, HE WANTS THIS. He's naive and stupid in thinking the world owes him something and this is finally it.

I think it's massively unfair that the evaluator seemed to take the fact my actual name is the same name I used for the character, so therefore I must be using this to get this vicarious movie made for myself to satisfy my sickness. It was mostly a nod to my one of my favorite films Blue Velvet, also about AGGRESSIVE SEXUAL AWAKENING. It has nothing to do with overpowering and abusing women. It has to due with power in manipulation. She's the aggressor the whole time. She has the real power, she is literally MENTALLY overpowering and abusing him. It feels insane I have to point out this straight up opposite. SHE'S A LITERAL ANGLERFISH. HIS FANTASY IS HER LIGHT and she fully knows that. And then you get to see the real monster, it's an allegory for becoming an adult. Realizing how scary it all is when you thought it'd be so grand. How everyone lies to make your growing up seem in line with "what it should be". This is about stepping off that conveyor belt society builds for us. How can every person grow up to be a good person? Most people believe they will but everyday a new monster pops up. I could go on with the questions raised about character and humanity, yet this person seems to think its about my woman beating and sex fantasies. A true read would show actually the exact opposite. She's not a victim. And the beginning has to be a fantasy in order to achieve the twist:

"It has a unique tone that shifts through an almost teenage sex romp into some seriously dark places, which is hard to pull off."

Seems remarkably contradicting, literally just nailing me for the whole fantasy teenage sex romp thing. The bigger the shift you want to pull off, the more you're going to have to front load it. So yeah, A Graduate-esque fantasy and self discovery seems like a pretty valid, genuine lead in from Jeff's perspective, "his view" of how this movie is going. And then LIKE MANY GREAT CRIME THRILLERS BEFORE, he's in far too deep before he can realize and it all happens so quick. HER MOVIE SWALLOWS HIS MOVIE. She know's exactly what she did. Blind him with enough love to transform him and distract him from thinking so before he knows it, he's already"changed", her little monster. Just not what he was expecting because he's never given the option to run this path before in life. Seems unfair for them to pretty much say we liked the end a lot but the beginning sucks, but the whole point of the beginning is to load it up for the end... And the beginning and end are supposed to feel like two separate movies in a sense. Respect that the first part was trying to do its own thing, the point was it didn't matter, fuck your discovery boy, we're on my train now.

"The entire screenplay is too wordy, from the descriptions, to scenes that aren't needed, to scenes going on for too long, to the dialogue itself"

An entirely valid point and criticism, but to be so blunt in pretty much saying look how much shouldn't be here or should be different you idiot, and then following it up with zero suggestions... pretty bold. Especially when, as I've stated, all the dialogue is meant to be important, lend to the bigger picture. It's not some action flick, it's about people. So it is easy to widdle and shape dialogue, but just making a claim like that shows not even an attempt to look at the actual depth of the dialogue. Pretty much a different movie on a second read.

"It's a simple story that takes forever to get going."

Okay, it's literally not. It's a character study. I even put that. That's the reason why most the other characters are ancillary, they serve a purpose to Jeff's journey. If it was a simple story, I would't have spent all the time making two complex characters, because well you know, it's a character study as i've had to repeat. It's barely about the "story", its about human nature and who you become in this life and the lies of the world. Again all very allegorical.

"Uses '/' frequently in the dialogue for some reason."

I'll be honest I've mostly read and written theater and the '/' is pretty common for cutting off the sentence of the person to start yours. I guess maybe just more a theater thing, but to encounter it like it's an alien seems odd. Could've been nicer in suggesting that change. And the reason there are a lot is because if people are always talking over each other, never letting anyone finish, then lines get blurred, communication suffers- oh my god another theme. She can overpower him easily, already knowing what she wants to say. He views it as communication, where as we eventually see for her it's all manipulation.

"It's also too long, displays unsettling violence towards woman, and is unrealistic"

Length is a valid thing to comment on, sure. Unsettling violence. He hits her a few times, her pretty much FORCING him too. She makes him choke him. Not to be a dick or cocky, but if you're a handsome guy, some girls are actually very into the dominance like that, "rape-fantasy" esque by someone they trust and find attractive. That's not the push my agenda. That is reality. I've experienced it and it is well documented. So to say this really stretches the bounds of violence against women and reality seems pretty harsh. Especially when its some women who ask for it. And when once again, the whole point isn't the violence or sex. It's the power and manipulation. I even made it clear we pretty much never see them have sex, all implied, because ITS A TOOL. NOT MY FANTASY TO JUST PUT ON PAPER. The line of love, power, manipulation, a tool- literally just more themes. And unrealistic... just seems like an added little slap to put in there. Oh are all your movies either 100% realistic to the bone or just zany no rules fantasy? Has to be one? Oh ok...

"However, with a LOT of tightening up and some better focus on what actually matters in this story, it could have some chance at commercial appeal."

On what actually matters in this story?? You mean the part where it's supposed to make you think? And how it's about dark human nature and the myriad of themes I've recounted throughout this and literally not about beating woman? The label you put on it? Truly feels any depth or attempt to look at "what actually matters" was swiped aside to stick it to me and my misogynistic ways. So then what actually matters? Again, how can you make such a bold claim and follow up with not an ounce of suggestion or what you could mean, especially with this feeling of "oh I know but I won't tell you". It really feels like I got a case of the wrong person reading my script. This very much feels like the polar bottom that could've been hit with this script, and because it's my first review, no one is going to see a 4. That's fact, how the website works. I would like another evaluation without cost, I feel extremely duped. I've read countless reviews that are professional as can be, but I've never seen one seem so personal until I read mine. Look at the log line I give versus the one your evaluator gave:

Me- "A young man who's never felt anything but "lost", finds himself in an unorthodox isolation. As he faces the pressures of growing up in a modern world, one woman takes it upon herself to make sure he feels everything..."

You guys- "A depressed late teen boy starts a romance with a rich older woman who encourages him to do violent and criminal acts."

Ok so mine, implies vagueness so that you can have this seemingly fantasy awakening movie, not be fully aware of where this could develop or end up, and that makes the dark turns from nowhere really work. Your person's logline pretty much ruins most of work I did in my script. If that longline was shown off for others to read, that's a solid chunk of my hard work down the shitter. And it just shows how literal and surface level they took it in as. That's why I would like another evaluation, as it seems I got unlucky and got the wrong eyes. If a second evaluation just reinforces the first one, then I'll gladly lie down taking it. Just unfair I put so much work in the cerebral and emotional feelings of confused youth and the way words seem to work these days, but then all we're shown about being young in the "media" is you should party and be consumers because, Hey you're young right? YOU SHOULD BE! You like cool shit and external validation, we got all sorts of stuff for you, vapid and airless but it's shiny so you'll buy it.

This is how some young people feel, you grew up into a world of lies, Life is one giant too good to be true, just live love. Maybe love isn't special, it's a cycle based on people's wants and people wanting to feel empowered. A woman could say she loves you one day and the next be gone in a cloud of dust. It's a messed up world and I was trying to show that through a unique Lense. Also a bit insulting saying how much wouldn't work or appeal but all I did was pull from the classics and greats. Badlands, Blue Velvet, Fargo Season 1, The Graduate, Spirited Away, Blood Simple, I mean I could go on.

Just overall feels like a massively disrespectful evaluation that tried to tell me what I wrote, when the reality is the reader didn't seem to take any time to think or approach with a thought that maybe there's more depth than meets the eye. Insulting when I write in the inspirations, I specifically say allegory and anglerfish and basically how its a movie about feelings and themes around a complex young man coming up into the world in an unorthodox way, not just some "simple story". This is a massive age and highly misrepresented. People are hit with bipolar and other things at this age. This shift and this time is crucial, especially in this world that's giving less of a shit day by day. Everything was a choice to lend to these feelings. While I agree I can cut dialogue, I have a hard time seeing what scenes need to be cut. I had everything for a reason, each incident inciting the next so its all tight and connected. Please let me know the steps I can take, I apologize for the rambling. Just very frustrating and hopefully you can see that when you go over my complaint. I'm not going to be told I have bad character and want to harm women when the reality is I was trying to be smart. And she's the smartest, most control person in the whole thing. I think women are infinitely smarter than men and she knew she was smarter than him. She saw exactly who he was when she first played eyes, that's why she went for him. Seriously read or watch some Manson stuff, it's true fascinating. So the claims are a bit hard to take, really seems like the opposite was taken for most things. A second eye would be appreciative and frankly necessary. It seems ridiculous these views would seem universal, as many other evaluations and reads have proved quite the opposite and fruitful with discussion, so I really feel I got a bad apple.

Please let me know if you'll be giving me one, I would like to put a revised PDF in for the new evaluation if all these "/"'s are really gonna be a sticking point. I really don't see how this situation can't be the reader was mostly offended by a woman being hit and then letting that be the only thing that matters

Hopefully you read this all and understand, not just some bot response.

Thank you for your time reading, apologies on length. But a lot needed to be said.

email back [email protected]

0 notes