#Out of touch with moviegoers

[powerupcomicstonight]

#Powerup Comics #Barbie #Academy Awards #Oscars #Mortal Kombat 2021 #Out of touch with moviegoers #Unfeminist

[blueberrypancakesworld]

Michael Gavey - In a relationship - SFW/NSFW

warning : fluff, Michael being well Michael, drinking wine, degradation, oral (f reciving), lingerie, teasing

Info : Yeah what can I say besided Michael is the cute, clingy slightly obsessive sweet Nerd and I love it. Have fun reading ;)

—————————

SFW

°Affectionate, emotional and arrogant

°Michael loves you no question he loves you from the moment you brought him an extra sugar free candy bar when you bumped into each other alone one night. ,,Here, you never know when you're hungry...not like you can calculate it with a formula" you told him - a simple joke, no more, no less. But for him, for the involuntary genius, it was the beginning of something he thought he would never experience.

°The relationship with a woman

°But it was exactly that evening that he saw your kindness, friendliness and outstanding taste in men. It was bound to happen at some point that a girl like you recognized him after his "friend" Oliver left him and betrayed him. He had to have everything you wanted in a man, at least someone like him.

°Even in the first few days, even if he tries not to make it look like it, he clings to you, won't leave you and couldn't hide that big grin at lunch and during the break when his arm was around your side. He may have been the loser but with you he was above everyone.

°Every day he brought you a Crunchy and you brought him all of yours. He loved it when you gave him a math problem, he knew he was helping you with your homework when you took out your pencil and your smile made him giggle. ,,I deserve a kiss, don't I darling?" he loved to ask knowing she couldn't refuse her cute kahki pants and shirt wearing boyfriend.

°Who needs student parties, lonely beer times or anything else when they have you? You lead him into a well, slightly different world. Gone are the alone times in front of the computer, books and early bedtimes. He had you. You, on the other hand, took him to the drive-in movie theater where his hand kept running over yours while he had a crunchy bar in another one. He can't help but tell you fun facts about the movie and you roll your eyes in amusement as his mood suddenly changes when some of the moviegoers criticize the film. You can hear his screaming and he only calms down again with a surprised expression when your lips touch his. ,,My emotional mathematician tiger," you told him and saw his lips curl into a grin and a blush rise on his cheeks.

°You went out together in the evening and he insisted on going to a restaurant with you. He, the classic romantic, is of course always with a Crunchy bar with him. The two of you after the dinner date on which he had perhaps drunk a little too much wine he was nervous it was always a little true around you and it led to a relaxed sweet side of the blond. ,,You-you...youuuuu are soooo beautiful...soo prettyyyy," he slurred as he nestled his head lightly on your chest and began to count your heartbeat. It at least calmed him down and helped him come down from the alcohol.

°You maneuvered you too onto the bed, you couldn't get him off you but he loved it and you liked the way he mumbled praise the more tired he got. ,,You're so pretty...your heart beats in a symmetrical beat my darling" he murmured and his hand stroked through your hair as you smiled and took off his glasses and kissed him goodnight.

°However, he cannot separate himself from his darling even at night. No matter how much you twist and turn he stays snuggled up to you and you find out that he talks about math formulas in his sleep. Too cute. But he's a real blanket stealer and holds onto them with a strength you didn't expect from the math nerd.

°The morning starts with a hug, tea and pancakes. Pancakes he made himself while listening to a science lecture and telling you the latest gossip. The gossip he thinks is important and has picked up that he knows you'd like to have a laugh about in the morning.

°,,Does my lady have a math problem for me? A fact or...a crunchy bar?" he asked as he sat down next to you with a smile, sipping his tea and hugging his turquoise shirt to his body while his nightcap was still on his head. ,,I even have a kiss for you, my lord," she smiled and gave the already calculating man another kiss. From now on, every morning would be like this for the two of them.

———————————

NSFW

°Something you didn't know he had in him like his attachment would be his devotion to degradation. ,,My good girl will get full marks next time… isn't that right?" he asked his favorite as his long, shapely fingers snuck under his school skirt.

°He seemed to be a changed man when it came to revealing his inner self for every tease, look or misbehavior he takes out on you in one way or another. Not like the jocks who hit their girlfriends or the rich guys who played with everyone. No he was more sophisticated he played with her like a genius he enjoyed it.

°Which always starts with a simple hand on the thigh a hint. ,,You know what you have to do," he reminded her, leaning over as he saw that she was doing her homework all wrong. It was just homework and something like a game of cat and mouse developed between the two of them. For every wrong homework assignment, he pushed his fingers on her body, pulled her in his room and made her read the Math books while he fucked her into the mattress.

°For every math tiger attack from a boyfriend who was always watching her behind his sweet innocent gaze, the hug that lasted too long, him sucking in her scent, his lips whispering lewd words to her and leaving her with hot cheeks. she hit him back in her own way.

°She knew he adored her in every possible way, he was a pathetic desparet nerd after all.

°He was always watching her, his eyes were always on her. But above all, she always saw him licking his lips, adjusting his glasses and dropping his pencil when he saw her lingerie. Whether it was black, white, pink or purple, he loved to see his imagination run wild and before you got together he jerked off to every picture of you in that pretty lingerie. Tried to secretly take pictures to keep and not ruin them completely with his lust.

°But now it seemed like a callback to the time before you knew exactly how needy he was getting, forgetting to study and eating right out of your hand. An off-the-shoulder sweater with the straps of your bra showing, a short skirt that practically begged you to bend over and look underneath? There were scenarios for him to take advantage of all of them until it came to "studying" in the library. ,,Michael sweetie, tell me, what do you think of these?" he heard her quiet but sweet voice and looked up from his notebook in amazement.

°He saw how she had pulled up her skirt slightly and he had a perfect view of the dark red pantei, the tip of which nestled against her skin and she saw how he swallowed and looked around. But no one was there but them. ,,You want Mommy to do well on her exam, don't you?" she murmured, her hand sneaking onto his cheek, slowly taking his glasses off his nose, seeing him blink, but the pink on his cheeks let her know that the cute butterfly had been caught by the spider. ,,Yeah-anything for you, of course," he mumbled, his fantasy of having her for himself and giving her everything she wanted from him coming true thanks to his girlfriend.

°No sooner had he spoken than a pen suddenly fell to the floor and Michael disappeared under the large table and obediently, excitedly and aroused, went between her legs, kissing every inch of her. His fingers stroked the warm soft skin, kissing the birthmarks on the way to her center. He almost made a whimpering sound as her one hand placed itself on his head, playing a little with the strands of his hair while her shoe went down on his center. He was desperate just to please her, to give her everything so that she would continue to treat him like this, he didn't want to lose her, so he almost like a starving man didn't let go of her and took everything he got while his darling leaned back in the chair and praised him while he slowly began grinding against her leg like a lapdog. ,,Such a good boy-fuck for mommy".

°It didn't stop at just one time for each back and forth between the two of them, the other one made a point of making it stronger. Michael to fuck her harder, to moan the right answers straight to him. While she in return can just practically force him on his knees and use him like a toy and he would do anything for her just to get her sweet attention.

#saltburn #michael gavey #ewan mitchell #michael gavey x reader #saltburn movie #saltburn 2023

[gothicprep]

analysts spend a lot of time thinking about disney and what it & bob iger are up to, given that the company has its fingers in so many pies. there's the theatrical business, which just had a soft summer after indiana jones, the little mermaid, and elemental all underperformed. there's the streaming business, which is stagnating in the us and shedding users in low-revenue markets like india, so it's hard to say how that's going. there's the theme parks and the cruises, which are making more money but attracting less visitors, which is troubling for them (as well as the disney adult types who have loved the parks for decades and are eating the expense). then there's linear tv – sports and gambling deals specifically – which is a weird asset. everyone agrees that it's in near-terminal decline, but everyone also agrees that it generates tons of cash and you can't really offload it without upsetting up your balance sheets.

all of this gets to a broader problem underlying the disney products right now, and it's a problem that's shared with a lot of the industry right now. let's be blunt – there's a real problem on the creative side. the two biggest properties disney owns are star wars and marvel, which are both in a very clear rut. interest is declining and audiences are tuning out. the live action remakes are doing okay, but where does the next generation of remakes come from when they aren't making new animated classics? this is where the company has a real problem. it's lack of originality. encanto was probably the only thing to really move the needle for them since frozen came out a decade ago. one original hit every ten years is not a sustainable model.

pete docter has taken over at pixar and the movies they're currently making sort of reflect his cerebral, abstract interests. this doesn't necessarily make for bad movies, but not ones that are positioned to be total, world-conquering hits in the same way toy story or the incredibles were. kathleen kennedy's tenure at lucasfilm clearly has not worked, at least on the feature film side. the mandalorian has been a hit, but they're really overdone it with the "you have to watch this show to see this important thing happen". we watched andor and we liked it a lot, but i'm about as hardcore a star wars fan as you can get, and i haven't touched the book of boba fett and i probably won't with ahsoka either. i think kevin feige's reign at marvel was considered to be a guarantee of quality for a while, but the homogeneity has really hurt them there, especially with the decline of the visual effects.

i think it's hard to look at the disney creative and say that there's any part of it that's working great and that's kind of depressing! most of us were kids of the disney golden age, to an extent. we were kid moviegoers at the time when pixar kept knocking it out of the park! so to be alive at a time where disney just seems to be befuddled by making mass entertainment is very strange.

#i love watching movies with my friends #new tag for my movie biz rambles

[guillotineman]

How Steven Spielberg Dominated Culture and the 1994 Oscars With ‘Jurassic Park’ and ‘Schindler’s List’

By Brent Lang

Steven Spielberg kissed his wife and embraced his mother before his left hand floated to his temple in disbelief. Then he grew visibly emotional as he made his way to the stage of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. The 46-year-old Spielberg had just won his first Oscar — as best director for “Schindler’s List,” an unflinching look at the Holocaust and its horrors. “This is a big surprise,” presenter Clint Eastwood said somewhat sarcastically.

As Eastwood’s joke suggests, Spielberg’s victory at the 1994 Academy Awards was preordained — an unavoidable coronation after he had dominated popular culture so completely over the past year. Not only had he subverted his image as a boy genius, spinning escapist fantasies out of celluloid, by tackling a project as grown up as “Schindler’s List,” but he had also reestablished himself as the most successful director in Hollywood with another 1993 release, “Jurassic Park.” The adventure film, essentially “Jaws” with dinosaurs, topped box office records to become the highest-grossing movie ever, until “Titanic” surpassed it. Between “Schindler’s List” and “Jurassic Park,” Spielberg films would win 10 Oscars during the ceremony, an extraordinary feat that has rarely been replicated and one that bears reexamination on the 30th anniversary of that accomplishment.

“This is the first time I’ve ever had one of these in my hands,” Spielberg said as he clasped his Oscar, surprised by both the weight of the statuette and the moment. When “Schindler’s List” was named best picture and Spielberg stood behind the podium for a second time that night, he acknowledged his long road to awards glory, one that had seen Oscar voters largely overlook masterpieces like “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” Winning, he told the crowd, was like “the best drink of water after the longest drought of my life.” 

During his meteoric rise in the movie business, Spielberg was admired, envied and dismissed in equal measure. His complicated relationship to the industry became more apparent in the years leading up to the dual triumphs of “Jurassic Park” and “Schindler’s List.” At that time, Spielberg’s magic touch, his innate sense of what an audience desired and how to deliver it, had faltered. “Hook,” a budget-busting fable that reimagined Peter Pan as a jaded adult, made money when it was released in 1991, but endured blistering reviews — Roger Ebert panned it as “a lugubrious retread of a once-magical idea.” Other late-’80s Spielberg fare like “Always” and “Empire of the Sun” failed to exert a hold on moviegoers. Only “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” the third installment in his globe-trotting-archaeologist saga, scored commercially, though it hardly seemed fresh.

And many of his contemporaries were privately rooting for Spielberg to fail. He had been too successful, too beloved, and was overdue for his comeuppance. Plus, his guileless public persona didn’t square with his shrewd business sense and competitiveness, something that rubbed studio executives and power brokers the wrong way. “This man is not the same as the soft and cuddly characters he creates,” a top agent told Variety in a 1991 article. In that same piece, an unnamed studio chief knocked Spielberg’s monarchical tendencies: “It’s the rule of kings: ‘I am the king and I make the rules.’”

During the lead-up to the release of “Schindler’s List,” Spielberg bristled when asked by The New York Times about the resentment that he inspired in colleagues. “I don’t feel the jealousy, I don’t feel the envy, only when I hear about it. I have a feeling that the people who say these things about me are the ones who see me socially and drink my Evian water with me and call themselves my friends. But that’s Hollywood.”

That two-facedness has been a staple of a business that has run on backstabbing and hollow compliments since the silent era, and it remains a fixture of the industry today. But in other important ways, 1993 represented a transitional moment in moviemaking, politics and society.

Bill Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993, ending 12 years of Republican dominance of the executive branch, while ushering a brand of centrism that married social progressivism with economic boosterism. The president was a film fan too, one who urged all Americans to see “Schindler’s List,” an unprecedented White House endorsement of a movie.

There was also a growing tabloid-ification of politics and media. This was an era when coverage of the new administration collided with headlines about Tonya Harding, Joey Buttafuoco and the Menendez brothers, a convergence that Oscar host Whoopi Goldberg alluded to in her opening monologue, joking that she wanted Lorena Bobbitt, notorious for separating her abusive husband from his penis, to “please meet Bob Dole.”

And in April of 1993, the source code for the World Wide Web was released into the public domain, allowing people to more easily access the internet. This new digital age would loosen the cultural grip that Hollywood held on consumers, setting the stage for YouTube, TikTok, streaming and other forms of entertainment that would challenge the movie business’s preeminence.

At the same time, the CGI that enabled velociraptors and T. rexes to convincingly share the screen with human actors in “Jurassic Park” was a technological breakthrough that fundamentally altered blockbuster entertainment. It allowed filmmakers to conjure up mythical worlds, spectacular explosions and superheroes who defied the laws of gravity. Without these pixelated wonders, there would be no “Titanic,” no “Gladiator,” no “Forrest Gump,” nor any of the other special effects-heavy movies that came to define the ensuing decade of moviegoing.

But that lay in the future. In 1993, there were more immediate concerns. Al Pacino, Leonardo DiCaprio and other A-listers in the audience at the Oscar ceremony sported red ribbons, a symbol of the AIDS crisis, which snuffed out a generation of entertainers as it became the leading cause of death for Americans between 25 and 44 years old. The epidemic was the subject of “Philadelphia,” the first major studio movie to tackle AIDS, and an unlikely box office hit that scored its star Tom Hanks his first Oscar that night. “The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels,” Hanks said, choking up as he accepted his prize. “We know their names. They number 1,000 for each one of the red ribbons that we wear.”

The other big winner was Jane Campion’s “The Piano,” a drama about a mute woman’s dangerous bond with her musical instrument, which captured best original screenplay, as well as best supporting actress and best actress for 11-year-old Anna Paquin and Holly Hunter. Tommy Lee Jones rounded out the major acting categories, winning supporting actor for his role as a driven marshal in “The Fugitive.”

“The Piano” kicked off the awards dominance of Miramax, the studio that released the movie, and its volatile co-founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein. Before Harvey Weinstein became synonymous with the #MeToo era for his legacy of sexual abuse and assault, he created a business model around critically acclaimed art-house fare aimed at discerning moviegoers, which made it possible for films like “Pulp Fiction,” “The Crying Game” and “Shakespeare in Love” to reach a wider audience. Awards were always a critical element of this strategy, raising the profile of idiosyncratic movies.That resulted in more aggressive Oscar campaigning, with armies of bare-knuckled Miramax awards strategists boosting their own movies by privately slamming rival films as culturally insensitive or historically inaccurate. For a while, it worked. As Harvey Weinstein’s sway over the Oscars grew, winners thanked him in their acceptance speeches more often than they thanked God.

But on that March night, it was all about Steven Spielberg. “Schindler’s List,” with its refusal to sanitize Nazi barbarity, signaled a new maturity in his filmmaking and a shift in his artistic interests. He retained his flair for crowd-pleasers, directing a sequel to “Jurassic Park” and hits like “War of the Worlds,” but he grew more interested in historical epics like “Lincoln” and “Saving Private Ryan,” which used his cinematic gifts to bring the distant past to vibrant life.

As he accepted the best picture statuette for “Schindler’s List,” Spielberg spoke directly to the telecast’s 46 million viewers. “Do not allow the Holocaust to remain a footnote in history,” he said. “Please teach this in your schools. … Listen to the words and the echoes and the ghosts.”

Spielberg was joined onstage by a living reminder of those atrocities. His fellow producer and winner, Branko Lustig, had been imprisoned as a child for two years in Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. “My number was 83317,” Lustig said. And then, “People died in front of me in the camps. Their last words were ‘Be a witness of my murder. Tell the world how I died.’ … By helping Steven to make this movie, I hope I fulfill my obligation to the innocent victims of the Holocaust.”

#1993 #66th Academy Awards #66th #1994 #Oscar #Oscars #academy awards #Schindler's List #Jurassic Park #Steven Spielberg #Spielberg #master #The Piano #Jane Campion #The Fugitive #winner #Holocaust #Bill Clinton #Clint Eastwood #1994 Academy Awards #Tom Hanks #Philadelphia #movie #movies #cinema

[denimbex1986]

'Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer is a visual and audio masterpiece that follows the actual (to an extent) twists and turns of J. Robert Oppenheimer's (Cillian Murphy) tragic life as he headed the Manhattan Project, created the atom bomb and battled against a bitter Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.). The film not only takes moviegoers on a three-hour-long political thrill ride that any fan of historical non-fiction will appreciate, but it's also an ode to the times. For instance, aside from conveying the details of Oppenheimer's personal history, it also reflects the ideas, concerns and sentimentality of those who lived before and after World War II.

Incidentally, Wes Anderson's new film, Asteroid City, gives the era a similar treatment, despite taking a more humorous undertone. As a result, both films should be watched in tandem. Doing so gives viewers a sense of the zeitgeist of the '40s to '60s and illustrates the differences between the larger-than-life figures that dominated the period and everyday regular people.

How Oppenheimer Depicts the Influential People of the Period

Granted, Oppenheimer's testimony of events might be more truthful than Asteroid City's, mainly because the latter isn't a biopic and makes a point to let its audience know they've set the film to mimic the 19th-century novel Vanity Fair. As a result, the picture is all a fictional tale presented through actors on a stage hosted by the unnamed narrator (Bryan Cranston) of an anthology television series that's not dissimilar to the shows of the 1950s or '60s. Additionally, it enters the absurd by including aliens, so Asteroid City's illustration of the era is far from accurate. Nonetheless, both paint an exciting mosaic of the people living through the times. The only difference is that Oppenheimer goes about it as if it were a Greek tragedy: the characters are herculean figures due to their clout and prestige. Because of this, Oppenheimer meets all the criteria for Aristotle's definition of a tragic character.

For example, Aristotle asserted that a tragic figure should possess four distinct attributes: nobility, hamartia, peripeteia and anagnorisis. In a nutshell, this means that to be considered the main protagonist in a Grecian drama, a character must have a high social status and intelligence or greater understanding. Secondly, they need a critical shortcoming that causes them to stumble and changes their destiny, and lastly, they have to learn from it, and Oppenheimer certainly fits the bill. As one of the world's leading physics experts, he is not only tasked with creating a weapon that could potentially end all war, but as moviegoers watch the intimate particulars of his life, it's pretty evident that the man's not perfect. Nevertheless, his struggles during and after succeeding with the project convey Oppenheimer's changing viewpoint, so he does grow from the experience. This is even more apparent due to his conflicts with Strauss and the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which resulted in the board revoking his security clearance.

How Asteroid City Focuses on the Era's Regular People

On the other hand, Asteroid City's focus is on the mundane and insignificant. It conveys ordinary people and their interests through Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman) and Midge Campbell (Scarlett Johansson) -- two down-and-out middle age single parents just trying to get by. Hence, despite being set in the fictional titular desert town that's incidentally right next to an atomic test site and having a scene with an atomic bomb going off, the film's plot doesn't touch on the matter any further. Instead, the movie shows what transpires at a children's astronomy convention, which places everyone present in quarantine after aliens travel to the far-off town not once but twice. However, this specific storyline isn't the only one featured in Asteroid City -- between the fictional scenes that comprise the play, viewers are also introduced to the life of the theatrical piece's playwright, Conrad Earp (Edward Norton).

Interspersed between the fictitious events that happen in Asteroid City, observers are given a "behind-the-scenes" look at Earp's time managing the actors' troupe (all played by the same real-life performers that are cast as the people trapped within the town) as they begin to record the production. Yet, as Conrad slowly brings his vision to fruition, he's introduced to Jones Hall (Schwartzman), who not only lands the role of Augie but becomes his lover. While the movie's presentation of both plots weaves a complex narrative, it's compelling. Still, because of how the film constructs its dual narratives, it heightens the lives of people who might have gone unnoticed otherwise in the annals of history. So, although Asteroid City covers the same period as Oppenheimer, its emphasis is on a less noteworthy topic, but that doesn't mean it's not as enjoyable. Nevertheless, the odd coincidence makes both films perfect for a double feature.

Oppenheimer is currently playing in theaters.'

#Oppenheimer #Asteroid City #Cillian Murphy #Christopher Nolan #Lewis Strauss #Robert Downey Jr. #Edward Norton #Wes Anderson #Bryan Cranston

[twh-news]

Marvel Studios Set to Release an Official, Detailed MCU Timeline | CBR

A new encyclopaedic book titled Marvel Studios The Marvel Cinematic Universe An Official Timeline is set to straighten out the events of the franchise

As the Marvel Cinematic Universe has expanded, all of its separate events and their impact on each other have become more and more complicated. Marvel Studios' new encyclopaedic book promises to clear all of it up.

Available for preorder on Penguin Random House now, Marvel Studios The Marvel Cinematic Universe An Official Timeline is described is written by Anthony Breznican, Amy Ratcliffe and Rebecca Theodore-Vachon, and is described as "the definitive, filmmaker-endorsed guide" to the MCU and its timeline. But the book will contain more details than just the chronological order of things.

The summary of the book reads assures readers can "follow the entire story of the MCU from before the Big Bang to the Blip and beyond. Along the way, learn more about the evolution of the Iron Man armors, the hunt for the Infinity Stones, and the formation of the Multiverse."

The MCU So Far

Since 2008's Iron Man, the shared universe has expanded with every film, building both the distant past and even touching on the near future, since Avengers: Endgame introduced a five-year jump. As if the main Marvel Cinematic Universe wasn't complicated enough, the season finale of Disney+'s Loki, along with the events of What If…?, introduced the concept of the multiverse of the franchise, meaning it may get a whole lot more difficult to keep track.

Phase 4 of the MCU has touched on the concept and is launching what is currently being called the "Multiverse Saga." Following the Disney+ shows, Spider-Man: No Way Home was able to use that concept to bring in the different iterations of Spider-Man moviegoers are familiar with. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness similarly explored entirely different worlds and iterations of the titular superhero. But Marvel Studios has an even larger story building, involving Kang the Conqueror and an event inspired by the comic book crossover Secret Wars.

Avengers: The Kang Dynasty was announced in July at this year's San Diego Comic-Con, along with its follow-up, Avengers: Secret Wars. While the title of The Kang Dynasty suggests heavy involvement of at least one variant of Kang, details concerning the ensemble film have not yet been revealed. The same can be said of Secret Wars, which shares its title with the comic book storyline from 1984 and 1985. The comic book crossover saw the being known as the Beyonder transport unwilling superheroes to Battleworld, where they were tasked with fighting a small army of supervillains.

'Marvel Studios The Marvel Cinematic Universe An Official Timeline' is available on all major platforms. See details on Piguin Randomhouse's website >>

#MCU #marvel cinematic universe #Marvel Studios The Marvel Cinematic Universe An Official Timeline #marvel

[stereax]

The NJ Devils and Barbenheimer, by me:

(written in the order I thought about them, more or less - yes there are some former Devils shush)

vvv under the cut! vvv

Dougie Hamilton: Double-features it, watching Oppenheimer first. You know those memes of the guy walking out of the Oppenheimer theater in depressing '40s period wear and quickly changing into bright pink Barbie wear? That's Dougie. This man studies for Oppenheimer too. Like, he starts complaining that Kyoto wasn't spared because of Stimson's honeymoon because there's no certain primary record that Stimson honeymooned there and the entire idea was historians' conjecture.

Jack Hughes: When presented with the choice between Barbie or Oppenheimer, Jack initially chooses Oppenheimer, believing it to be a type of German beer. He falls asleep within fifteen minutes. Definitely goes back to the movies three days later to watch Barbie, though. The bright colors give our iPad kid the necessary stimulation he needs to be entertained.

Vitek Vanecek: Shows up to the movie theater in an all-pink outfit for Barbie, complete with a feather boa. Things only get better from there. He watches it at least three times.

Ryan Graves - Agrees to do the double-feature with Dougie. When they leave the theater after Oppenheimer, Ryan is stuck fielding questions from moviegoers about his personal experience with the atom bomb and thus misses Barbie, having to come back the next day to watch it.

Luke Hughes: Goes with Jack to Oppenheimer, actually watches it. Says Barbie is a "post-capitalist nightmare of a movie" but goes with Jack to watch it too because "someone has to keep an eye on him". Spends most of Barbie texting his UMich friends, who are all watching it at the same time in their local theaters.

Erik Haula: Takes his son to Barbie. They make beaded bracelets for their fellow movie-goers beforehand and distribute them at the exits. Half of them say "Canes Suck" just like Uncle Haula's iconic look. The other half? "Fuck the Rags".

Curtis Lazar: Similarly to Haula, takes the family to Barbie. He doesn't expect it to be one of the only things that calms their newborn down to a sound sleep, so the Lazars end up reserving seats for the whole day. Curtis brings pillows for his exhausted wife. She sleeps on his shoulder instead.

Dawson Mercer: Drags the Superbuddies to the Barbie premiere. Gets the biggest possible popcorn bucket because "it's only a few cents more and we can all share it" and then drenches it in so much faux butter syrup that he effectively claims the whole thing for himself because neither of the others will touch it.

Nate Bastian: Shows up to the Barbie premiere in a baby pink shirt, normal jeans, and white shoes - just casual enough to not scream that he's there to watch the Barbie movie. Ends up footing the bill for enough snacks to feed an army. Gets mistaken for Dawson's dad more than once.

Mikey McLeod: Spends the first ten minutes of the Barbie movie grumbling about how he'd much rather be watching Oppenheimer. When Nate tells him the door's open if he wants to go, Mikey refuses to leave. Strangely enough, he never does watch Oppenheimer.

Yegor Sharangovich: Gets tickets to Barbie but ends up in the theater for Oppenheimer by mistake. By the end of the movie he's blue-screen-of-deathing. Doesn't get why everyone is saying Barbie is so silly and fun.

Nico Hischier: Accompanies Jack to Barbie because it's a "team bonding" exercise. Or something. Calls the Swisses the next day and invites them to Oppenheimer. As, you know, more "team bonding". Or something.

Timo Meier: Slick black suit for Oppenheimer with the Swisses. Slutty pink flannel for Barbie the next day. The purpose of these movies aren't to watch the movies, you see, but to serve absolute cunt in public. If he's lucky, he'll reel in a milf.

Jonas Siegenthaler: Questions why the Swiss, as citizens of a famously neutral country, are going as a group to a World War II movie. Nevertheless, thoroughly enjoys Oppenheimer and discusses his thoughts about it with Nico on the way home. Timo and Akira play hangman in the backseat.

Akira Schmid: Luckily, he could make it to Oppenheimer with the Swisses because he wasn't sent down to Utica. He doesn't mention that he went with VV to Barbie a week before. Just goalie things, you know?

John Marino: Decides to double-feature it, starting with Barbie. Unfortunately, he gets kicked out of the theater after fifteen minutes of riffing on the film MST3K-style. He has to drive for half an hour before he reaches a theater that's going to let him buy tickets to Oppenheimer. Doesn't get kicked out of that one though.

Jesper Bratt: He's got better things to do than watch movies, okay? But he does read the iMDB and Wikipedia synopses so he fits in with the rest of the team. And then he quotes the movies to make sure everyone knows he "watched" them, to the point where the rest of the team is starting to get concerned.

Miles Wood: Gets persuaded to watch Oppenheimer because of the bombs. Gets so bored of it he walks out of the theater only several minutes in and buys tickets to Barbie instead. Still complains that there was a lack of explosions.

Ondrej Palat: Goes to Oppenheimer. Makes plans to pirate Barbie when he can find a site that won't destroy his computer with viruses.

Damon Severson: He and his wife smuggle several bottles of beer into the theater and plan an elaborate drinking game to first Barbie, then Oppenheimer. This ends up with them Ubering home and then drowning their sorrows in vodka that Goose left them before going back to the KHL. Look, the chilling reality of being signed for eight years in Ohio is terrifying in a way that Oppenheimer just isn't.

Kevin Bahl: He'd love to go watch a movie, but, you see, he's waiting on an important phone call about his contract. When that clears up, well, movie tickets are expensive, you know? So he's just going to wait until they come to streaming. He's definitely going to watch Barbie first, though. Not that he said that or anything. He definitely didn't say that.

#sterechats :) #nj devils #new jersey devils

[seasonallydefective]

Last night I watched the critically panned horror flick “Come Play” and I feel like everyone really missed what a GOOD portrayal it was of a character with nonverbal autism.

It doesn’t shy away from the struggles — the parents are still trying to figure out how best to communicate with their kid and their kid is still trying to figure out how to effectively communicate things to them — but it shows positive soothing techniques and doesn’t fall into stereotypes or make the parents into martyrs. I saw a lot of my own stims on screen for the first time, and it was refreshing to see a kid who welcomed hugs and positive touch (another thing I can relate to).

The mom shouting, “why can’t you just be NORMAL??” in a moment of stress hit too close to home, but it’s treated as the major betrayal that it is, and it isn’t excused. She doesn’t push for forgiveness; she tries to do better on her son’s terms because she realizes she fucked up.

I think a lot of critics and casual moviegoers alike kind of brushed this off as being a commentary on the evils of technology, instead of being an exploration of loneliness and isolation.

#horror movies #horror #come play #actually autistic #social commentary

[rookie-critic]

A Man Called Otto (2022, dir. Marc Forster) - review by Rookie-Critic

TW: suicide

A Man Called Otto had its moments, but tended to be a little too sickly sweet for its own good (when it wasn't being way darker than advertised). I'll admit that I was on the side saying that I wasn't sure I could believe Tom Hanks as a grumpy old man, but for all of the film's faults, the believability of Hanks' Otto Anderson is not one of them. As much as we as an internet collective have corralled Hanks into the role of "America's Dad," and as much as Hollywood has begun to cast Hanks for roles that genuinely don't suit him (excuse me while I glare at Baz Luhrmann), we tend to forget that Hanks is a phenomenal actor that got as famous as he is now for being consistently great, not just in his more typecast-aligning roles like Big and Sleepless in Seattle, but also for movies like Road to Perdition and Philadelphia. Also, let's be honest, we all love him as Woody in Toy Story, and he's basically playing a giant buzzkill (pun absolutely intended) for a majority of the first film in that franchise. I actually found most of the film's cast to be quite endearing, especially Mariana Treviño, who practically steals the film from Hanks, which in and of itself is an impressive feat. As I've said in previous reviews, I love when we get to see fairly unknown actors play big roles in movies alongside the legacy names. The big name draws in the crowd and then they get to see this new (or new to the average moviegoer, anyway) face thrive. I hope to see Treviño in bigger and better things in the future because she was a delight in this.

The biggest detriment to the film is that it really tends to get caught up in itself a lot. I'm actually quite a sucker for sentiment in a film and get swept up very easily in a movie's emotional manipulation if I'm even remotely enjoying it, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I did shed some tears while watching A Man Called Otto, but there were moments that, had they been dialed back about 75%, would have been so much more effective. There are multiple montages set to the most over-the-top, Josh Groban-esque music (which I'm seeing now was mostly written by Hanks' wife, singer and fellow actor Rita Wilson) that absolutely kill the emotional momentum of the film. It is so unbelievably heavy-handed and saccharine that I think I was audibly groaning by the third time it happened. I really can't stress how hilariously atrocious these sequences are. There's also quite a few scenes of these incredibly out of touch depictions of the younger generation that seem to be plaguing a decent handful of films in the recent months, including one sequence involving a train station that is laughably obtuse, and the way the young people in that scene behave ends up being beneficial to Otto later in the film anyway, so I'm not really sure what the commentary is supposed to be, and I don't think the film does either. I find it odd that these sequences are even in the movie for how amazingly progressive a lot of the film seems to be.

Lastly, I'd like to talk about something I mentioned at the beginning of this review about the film being way darker than advertised. I would also like to take this moment to issue a trigger warning (TW: suicide) for those that might have PTSD or anxiety about this topic. This film presents itself in its advertising as a wholesome family drama where a young, friendly family melts the heart of the neighborhood grump. What this movie is really about is a suicidal man learning to find his reason for living again. I won't divulge the details of why for people who don't want those plot spoilers, but I feel it is heavily important to know going into this film that suicide is a heavily felt presence throughout the entirety of the film, and I think I counted five suicide attempts that are shown on screen (it could be six, but I remember at least five). I'm not against the depiction of suicide or suicidal thoughts in film, I think it's an incredibly important topic to discuss openly and without shame or judgment, but I also think that it is paramount for a piece of media to clearly state when it is going to depict something as potentially traumatizing (or re-traumatizing) as that on screen. When the first attempt happens, the film is barely 15 minutes into its runtime, and I was so jarred by it that I almost thought I had somehow walked into the wrong theater, that this had to be some other grumpy Tom Hanks movie and not the fun-loving, cheery looking one whose trailer got "The End of the Line" by The Traveling Wilburys stuck in my head for weeks. I don't know if I can hold a fault of the trailer against the film itself, but I was quite angry with the film's marketing for not giving some kind of indication of what the film and its tone actually were.

I'm having a hard time thinking of what score to give A Man Called Otto, because for all of the things that were objectively bad about the film, I did find myself getting emotional on more than one occasion. The film's sentimentality gets in its own way a lot, but when it's able to find a good balance between heart and drama it really sings, so I'd say there's a little more to like about it on the whole.

Score: 6/10.

Currently only in theaters.

#A Man Called Otto #Marc Forster #Tom Hanks #Mariana Treviño #Manuel Garcia-Rulfo #Rachel Keller #Truman Hanks #Alessandra Perez #Cameron Britton #Christiana Montoya #Juanita Jennings #Emonie Ellison #Peter Lawson Jones #Lavel Schley #Mack Bayda #Kelly Lamor Wilson #Mike Birbiglia #Kailey Hyman #film review #movie review #2022 films #tw: suicide

[moorheadthanyoucanhandle]

PROJECT RUNWAY

Opening today:

Top Gun: Maverick--When the original Top Gun was released in 1986, I quickly came to regard it as an embodiment of everything that was wrong with American pop culture, and maybe of American culture in general. Setting aside whatever annoyance we can assign to it for turning Tom Cruise into a superstar, Top Gun's mindless, swaggering triumphalism and fetishizing of empty recklessness struck me as a symptom, maybe even a partial cause, of a generational toxicity from which we're still suffering.

Three and a half decades later, on the occasion of this very belated sequel, I'm not sure I see any rational basis for revising the opinion of my pompous 24-year-old self, or of attributing a healthier mentality to the new film. But I will say this: Top Gun: Maverick is much more enjoyable than the original.

The '86 film has become one of the seminal movie texts of our time, but in case there are a few fortunate souls who remain benighted: It's the story of Navy fighter pilot Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Cruise) and his time at the Fighter Weapons School at Miramar near San Diego, known as TOPGUN. Maverick--all the pilots have cute nicknames--is a brilliant flyer but is given to ignoring authority and making his own rules.

In the new film, Maverick is still a Captain after all these years because he's just too darn rebellious to advance. He's still ruffling the feathers of authority figures (huffily played by the likes of Ed Harris and Jon Hamm). He gets called back to the TOPGUN school at the insistence of its commander, his old rival Ice (Val Kilmer, who has one touching scene).

Maverick's job this time is to instruct a batch of young officers with cute nicknames--except for one simply called Bob (the endearing Lewis Pullman)--in preparation for a secret bombing run against a uranium-enrichment facility in a judiciously unidentified hostile country. Among his pupils is Rooster (Miles Teller), son of Maverick's beloved co-pilot Goose (Anthony Edwards), killed during the first film. Rooster bears Maverick a longstanding grudge. There's a bit of love interest, too; Maverick re-meets barkeep Penny (Jennifer Connelly); his previous leading lady Kelly McGillis, though briefly glimpsed in a flashback, goes unmentioned.

Now, let me be clear: Top Gun: Maverick is every bit as insipid and predictable as Top Gun the first, and Tom Cruise seems like just as much of pipsqueak. Cruise can be good, even very good, when he's playing manic and out-of-his-depth, as in Rain Man, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire and Magnolia, but when he's in hypercompetent man-of-action mode I've never been able to take him seriously. Even at nearly 60, he still comes across like a boy dressed up in his dad's clothes.

But that doesn't much matter here. Two factors combined to pull the stick out of my butt and allow me to enjoy this movie. One is that technical filmmaking has advanced exponentially since 1986, and the flight scenes have greater clarity and flamboyance than the original's. It's useless to try to claim that the last 30 or 40 minutes of this movie isn't exciting. It's propulsive and spellbinding, even as you see every plot point coming at you as plainly as if it was on a radar screen.

The other factor, especially for those of us who were regular moviegoers when the original came out, is simple nostalgia. The director, Joseph Kosinski, really captures the '80s-movie montage-to-montage vibe, starting right at the beginning with brooding synthesizer tones leading into the most irksome (albeit catchy) song of the estimable Kenny Loggins, “Danger Zone,” all of it backing up a full opening credit sequence, not just a quick flash of the title. In this way, Top Gun: Maverick can be like that odd and common phenomenon of encountering somebody you disliked back in the day, and feeling an unaccountable surge of affection.

The Bob's Burgers Movie--Bravely facing off against Tom Cruise's fighter squadron this weekend is the story of a family struggling to keep their burger joint going when a huge sinkhole opens in the sidewalk and completely blocks access to their storefront. It's the feature version of an animated Fox TV series.

Bob is Bob Belcher (voiced by H. Jon Benjamin), the depressive dad; his wife Linda (John Roberts) is more upbeat. They live in the apartment above the restaurant with their kids, boy-crazy oldest daughter Tina (Dan Mintz); nebbishy, well-intentioned rock star wannabe middle son Gene (Eugene Mirman) and rabbit-ear-wearing, aspirational youngest Louise (Kristen Schaal). Louise is deeply offended when a girl at school calls her a "baby"; to prove this untrue she descends into the sinkhole.

This leads to a mystery involving everyone from the burger joint's rich landlords to carnies from the nearby amusement park. Other characters enter the story, some performed by name actors: Kevin Kline and Zach Galifianakis as the landlords; Gary Cole as a police detective with an inferiority complex. There are some very peculiar musical numbers, and it all culminates in a suspenseful and action-packed finale.

This movie is funny even if you've never seen the show. I can attest to this, because I've never seen the show, and I thought this movie was funny. The comedy derives from the Belcher family's flat, affectless manner, contrasted with the convoluted gothic plot and wild action. But there's also a humane warmth to the Belchers that keeps the joke from going sour. If I lived in that town, I'd eat at that place.

#top gun maverick #the bob's burgers movie #tom cruise #top gun

[blackcarlivery]

The Role of Airport Limousines in Film and Television Productions

Lights, camera, limo! In the glitzy world of film and television, every detail counts, including the choice of transportation for characters. Enter the airport limousine, a glamorous and versatile vehicle that has played a pivotal role in countless productions. From conveying elegance and sophistication to adding drama and tension, these sleek rides have become iconic symbols on both the big and small screens.

The Allure of Airport Limos: A Cinematic Marvel

Airport limos are not merely vehicles; they are symbols of luxury, status, and style. When characters step out of these sleek rides, they exude an aura of sophistication and refinement, instantly capturing the audience's attention. Directors often utilize these limos to establish a character's personality or social standing, setting the tone for the entire narrative.

A Touch of Class: Elevating Characters and Scenes

In film and television, every scene is meticulously crafted to evoke specific emotions and reactions from the audience. Airport limousines play a crucial role in enhancing the ambiance and atmosphere of various scenes. Whether it's a glamorous arrival at a red carpet-event or a clandestine rendezvous in the dead of night, these luxurious vehicles add an element of intrigue and allure to the story.

Driving the Plot Forward: Plot Twists and Dramatic Moments

The presence of a airport limousine often signifies a pivotal moment in the plot. From clandestine meetings to daring getaways, these vehicles are central to some of the most memorable scenes in cinematic history. Directors leverage the sleek exterior and tinted windows of the limo to create suspense and anticipation, keeping audiences on the edge of their seats.

Iconic Moments: Stouffville Airport Limos in Classic Films

Throughout cinematic history, Stouffville airport limos have left an indelible mark on audiences worldwide. From classic Hollywood films to contemporary blockbusters, these iconic vehicles have been featured in some of the most unforgettable scenes. Who can forget the sleek black limo in "Pretty Woman" or the tense chase sequence in "The Bourne Identity"? These moments have become ingrained in the collective memory of moviegoers, forever associating airport limos with glamour and excitement.

Versatility on Screen: From Romance to Thriller

One of the remarkable qualities of airport limousines is their versatility on screen. These vehicles seamlessly transition between genres, appearing in romantic comedies, action thrillers, and everything in between. Whether it's a romantic tryst between star-crossed lovers or a high-stakes chase through city streets, the airport limo adds an element of luxury and intrigue to any storyline.

Behind the Scenes: The Logistics of Filming with Limousines

While airport limousines exude elegance on screen, the logistics of filming with these vehicles can be challenging. Production crews must coordinate transportation, permits, and logistics to ensure smooth filming on location. Additionally, stunt coordinators and drivers work together to execute high-speed chases and daring maneuvers safely. Despite the complexities, the result is always worth the effort, as audiences are treated to visually stunning scenes featuring these iconic vehicles.

The Enduring Legacy of Airport Limousines:

From their glamorous arrivals on the red carpet to their heart-pounding chase sequences, airport limousines have become synonymous with cinematic excellence. These sleek rides not only transport characters from point A to point B but also elevate the overall storytelling experience. As long as films and television shows are being made, the allure of airport limousines will continue to captivate audiences and leave a lasting impression on the silver screen.

Visit here for more details about limousines!

#toronto limousine service #stouffville airport limo

[drewandareview]

Minions (2015)

Originally published January 28th, 2016

Uh... People fucking hate the minions.  And I’m not sure their hate stems from their movie making more money than Inside Out did, like mine does.  From what I’ve gathered, these characters are super annoying.  The annoying things they do include: Being loud, talking too quickly, talking too much, talking in gibberish, cackling, being nonsensical.  I can’t really argue with that.  That is annoying.

But I watched Minions, and I liked Minions.  Apparently this is an immensely controversial statement.  Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t find their behavior annoying.  I think I would find it annoying if I was bombarded with it--I’m talking ninety minutes of nonstop talking, flailing, and slipping on banana peel.  Just every single second, and a soundtrack entirely filled with bicycle horns.  But I really didn’t feel bombarded by their qualities.  Not only did the movie smartly leave some breathing room, but--the things the minions are known for aren’t the only thing they do.  Often times they’re quiet.  Subtle, even.

And when they’re not, I find it funny.  These are very different characters from the average, well-mannered person.  They don’t just behave in a silly manner, but they have an entirely unique culture.  They look bizarrely different and this informs a lot of their physicality.  They also sound bizarrely different.  Nobody understands their language, and the fact that you’re interpreting what they mean based not off their words but their inflection is really interesting to me as a moviegoer.  Shaun the Sheep Movie employed the same thing and it’s up for Best Animated Feature.  A lot of what the minions do is over-the-top, ridiculous situational humor.  It’s considerably removed from reality, and the amusement I get from that contrast makes me laugh sometimes.

It’s always tricky to explain why you find something funny, but it might be trickier to decipher why people find this so unfunny.  Culture today must be very removed from the past, because this movie reminds me a lot of Charlie Chaplin’s work.  It also reminds me a lot of the Looney Tunes and many other classic cartoons made in that same era.  It even reminds me of the early Disney cartoons--you know, that company that brought you your beloved Frozen or whatever.  If Minions were made in the sixties as a cartoon show, I sincerely think it would fit right in.  And having their movie take place in the sixties may have been a subtextual way to prove this very point.

People here in 2016 land are different, though.  If they hate the style of the minions, then they must have no room for silly stuff.  Everything has to be clever and meaningful.  But you know--I don’t want to burst any bubbles here, but--silly humor has proven to be clever and meaningful many times.  The idea of something subverting an established norm is an actual idea that inspires actual thought.  Its existence is based on contrast to our conventions and just because it doesn’t teach us a lesson about bisexuals or banking doesn’t mean that it doesn’t offer some sort of commentary.

But maybe you want there to be a very specific synthesis of ideas and morals in your entertainment.  I get that.  That’s also complete bullshit because social media exists.  I’ve seen what the kids are sharing.  I’ve seen their memes, their vines, their YouTube videos.  And if there was ever a time where culture as a whole should be willing to embrace silly humor, it should be right the fuck now.  We are teeming with it, and people love it.  If you can’t think of any relevant examples of this, you’re either incredibly out of touch in 2016 or a complete fucking idiot.

So why are the people who embrace the Harlem Shake and Nyan cat so adamantly opposed to Minions?  The minions, contrary to what their name implies, are not your enemies.  They are showcasing the same kind of humor you clearly want to see.  You could try making a case that the people who like stuff like the Harlem Shake do like the minions, and the minions-haters are the people who also hate all this weird stuff online.  But uh... No.  I’m not even going to present my evidence, but as a professional surveyor of the Internet, this is not true.  I can easily see somebody who embraces the absurdity of the iconic horsehead mask going on a diatribe about how minions are ruining cinema.  (And if a video showing this does not yet exist, I am very tempted to make it.)

So why do people hate this?  I have a theory.  A pattern I’ve noticed in a lot of the popular silly stuff people embrace is that it seems like it was an accident.  A creation by somebody that didn’t know any better.  I mean, look at Gangnam Style!  Those fucking foreigners just don’t get it, and it’s hilarious!  And as long as this humor seems to be unintentional, people can enjoy it without really supporting it.  They liked it because it failed, not because it succeeded.  They have higher standards for the things they want to succeed.

But when something like Minions comes along that completely embraces how silly it is, this is unacceptable.  Minions was made by people in Hollywood with a ton of money.  They wanted this movie to be full of ridiculous antics.  Fuck them!  Yeah, I see what this is.  You want to shroud yourself in a layer or irony or something, because you don’t want to admit that you like something that’s silly.  Oh no, your tastes are far too refined for that kind of stuff--you could only enjoy it if it were a failure.  But let’s consider that maybe you’re elaborately lying to yourself.  You would watch that awful campy movie even if it’s made that way on purpose.  You like bad stuff.  You like weird stuff.  You like silly stuff.  And maybe Minions is better than you because it doesn’t feel insecure enough to hide from that.

And honestly, this theory doesn’t even apply to a lot of the social media people are absorbing.  A lot of it is made by entertainers who are absolutely putting on an intentional act.  They’re acting silly, on purpose, to entertain people.  But hey, maybe people register this as an impression of people that are actually “accidentally silly”.  There’s no way these entertainers are just, you know, being fucking silly!

I could be wrong here.  Maybe people really do dislike the minions and also happen to be into a six second video of somebody squeezing a bunch of rubber ducks (among the most popular vines as of the time this was written). But if I’m right, I can’t blame people.  Here in 2016 land, there’s a lot of sensitivity, and it’s had us set the bar very high.  As beneficial as this can be, it can also make people very insecure about what belongs at that bar.

[celtalks]

February 2024’s Most Anticipated Hollywood Films: A Preview of Cinematic Delights

As January draws to a close, the anticipation for captivating stories on the silver screen intensifies. Hollywood aficionados are gearing up for a month brimming with diverse cinematic experiences. From spellbinding thrillers to heartwarming dramas, February 2024 promises an array of blockbusters that are bound to enthrall audiences worldwide. Let's dive into the lineup of February 2024’s most anticipated Hollywood films, each offering a unique journey into the realms of imagination and emotion.

Argylle: Unraveling a Twisted Spy Thriller

Matthew Vaughn's latest creation takes audiences on a rollercoaster ride through the intricate world of espionage. In "Argylle," the lines between fiction and reality blur as author Elly Conway finds herself entangled in a web of real-life espionage. With a star-studded cast including Bryce Dallas Howard, Henry Cavill, and John Cena, this peculiar spy thriller is set to hit theaters on February 2, 2024, promising an adrenaline-fueled adventure like no other.

Lisa Frankenstein: A Wicked Tale of Love and Horror

Prepare to be spellbound by a wicked love story like never before in "Lisa Frankenstein." Directed by Zelda Williams and penned by Diablo Cody, this horror comedy transports audiences to 1989, where a teenage girl's unconventional crush takes a terrifying turn when her beloved Victorian-era corpse comes to life. Starring Kathryn Newton and Cole Sprouse, this twisted tale of romance and horror is slated for release on February 9, 2024, promising thrills and chills in equal measure.

Madame Web: Marvel's Psychic Superhero Takes Center Stage

Marvel Comics' iconic character Cassandra Webb, aka Madame Web, leaps from the pages to the big screen in this highly anticipated superhero film. Directed by SJ Clarkson and starring Dakota Johnson, "Madame Web" follows Webb as she navigates her psychic powers to protect three young women with extraordinary futures while confronting a cryptic enemy from her past. Set for release on February 14, 2024, this action-packed adventure is a must-watch for comic book enthusiasts and moviegoers alike.

Bob Marley: One Love - A Tribute to a Musical Legend

Reinaldo Marcus Green's heartfelt tribute to the legendary Bob Marley chronicles the inspiring journey of the Jamaican singer and songwriter. With Kingsley Ben-Adir portraying the iconic musician, "Bob Marley: One Love" promises to celebrate Marley's enduring legacy and musical genius. Set for release on February 14, 2024, this biographical drama is a testament to Marley's impact on music and culture worldwide.

Land of Bad: An Action-Packed Thriller Set in the Philippines

Director William Eubank's pulse-pounding action thriller takes audiences on a high-stakes mission in the "Land of Bad." Starring Russell Crowe and Liam Hemsworth, this adrenaline-fueled adventure follows a USAF drone pilot tasked with supporting a US Army Delta team in the Philippines, only to encounter an unexpected threat that sends the mission spiraling out of control. Set for release on February 16, 2024, "Land of Bad" promises edge-of-your-seat excitement and suspense.

Drive-Away Dolls: A Comedy Road Thriller with Unexpected Twists

Director Ethan Coen delivers a wild ride with "Drive-Away Dolls," a comedy road thriller packed with unexpected twists and turns. Starring Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Viswanathan as two girls embarking on an impromptu road trip, this uproarious adventure takes a dramatic turn when a car exchange gone wrong entangles them with a group of criminals. With a star-studded ensemble cast including Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon, "Drive-Away Dolls" is set to keep audiences on the edge of their seats when it debuts on February 23, 2024.

Ordinary Angels: A Heartwarming Tale of Compassion and Community

Jon Gunn's touching drama "Ordinary Angels" brings to life a true story of compassion and community in 1994 Louisville, Kentucky. Starring Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson, this uplifting narrative follows a hairdresser named Sharon Stevens as she extends a helping hand to a widower and his daughters in their time of need. Set for release on February 23, 2024, "Ordinary Angels" promises to inspire and uplift audiences with its message of kindness and resilience. As February approaches, cinephiles eagerly await the release of these diverse and captivating films, each offering a unique cinematic experience that promises to entertain, inspire, and resonate with audiences around the world. From heart-pounding thrillers to heartwarming dramas, February 2024 is poised to deliver an unforgettable lineup of Hollywood blockbusters that are not to be missed. Read the full article

#February2024 #MostAnticipatedHollywoodFilms

[webseriesviral]

Stephen King Blasts Oscar Selection Process, Questions Barbie Director's Snub Legendary author Stephen King believes... #movie quote #movies #movie line #movie line #movie scenes #cinema #movie stills #film quotes #film edit #vintage #movie scenes #love quotes #life quotes #positive quotes #vintage #retro #quote #quotes #sayings #cinematography

[billconrad]

Cleopatra

    On April 12, 2023, Netflix released the movie Queen Cleopatra and received harsh criticism. The problems stemmed from altered facts to make the story more entertaining. Online posts from the actress who played Cleopatra amplified the situation. The heart of the problem is that Netflix released the movie in the documentary category. There are lawsuits by the Egyptian government because they poorly represented their beloved former leader.

    We have all seen movies or read books that spun the original story into something unrecognizable. I recall the 2009 film Inglourious Basterds raised several eyebrows with its wildly different ending to WWII. It was a fun, goofy film that I got a laugh out of. Why? It’s a parody film. However, other moviegoers were not impressed with the radical departure.

    I do not have any opinions about Queen Cleopatra because I did not watch it or research the controversy. I’m not too fond of it when people form opinions and publicly comment on something they have not directly experienced. If I were to guess, I do not think Netflix intended their film to attack Egyptian culture, but the result upset many people. Sometimes in my life, I did something stupid, even though people around me recommended a different course of action. I think this may have occurred during the production.

    Instead of discussing the conflict surrounding the Netflix film, I have another topic in mind. My Immortality book series also has the character Cleopatra. I set my story in the preset, and my concept is that she used a life-extending procedure to survive. Given the present controversy, I thought it would be interesting to discuss my choices.

    I picked Cleopatra because she is powerful, beautiful, historically significant, and a celebrated figure that readers would recognize. I also picked her because the plot required a known ruler of the ancient world. In that area, Cleopatra is at the top of the pyramid. Ha, I made a pun.

    Yet, I knew there might be pitfalls because there will always be. Going into the process, I knew that the records of this period were poor, and additional facts are discovered. Plus, the popular view of Cleopatra (highlighted by the 1963 Elizabeth Taylor film) differs wildly from boring facts. Yet, I did not think people would care too much about my character choice because Cleopatra has been dead for a long time, and people use historical figures for many projects without issue. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? No problems there.

    The real problem with the Netflix film is that it hit a specific sore spot because they released it as a documentary. The great people of Egypt have pride in their historical figures and do not appreciate when they are “accurately” tarnished. This pushback made me reconsider how readers would react to my book.

    I treated the character Cleopatra as beautiful, intelligent, and strong. Yet she was in vain and out of touch with present society. When the facts fit, I used them, but when my plot demanded something different, I wrote, “History recorded X, but Y actually occurred.”

    How did I get around the fact that she passed away a long time ago? I explained that there was a revolt in Rome. She substituted a dead body for herself and escaped. Cleopatra invented a life-extending procedure and has continued using it to the present day.

    Writers have used historical figures many times, and it is my experience that readers accept tasteful transformations. This positive reaction is what I am hoping for, but what if this is not the case? The Netflix film reaction gave me a lot to think about, and I certainly would understand a harsh response to my book if I trashed Cleopatra.

    What is my high-level view? I do not think my work tarnished Cleopatra’s reputation because I ensured the historical facts were accurate. What about being out of touch? All leaders are out of touch. Want proof? Click on the latest news and see what the politicians are up to. Today, when I wrote this, they are enacting a law in California to tax residents leaving the state. Umm? Come live in California. We will not screw you. Honest.

    What about vanity? All characters must have flaws, or readers will get bored, but I did not entirely make up that flaw. Some historical records show Cleopatra was vain; the popular 1963 Elizabeth Taylor film highlighted this trait. I applied this flaw sparingly, and the result rounded out the character.

    What do I feel the total result of my book means to readers? To answer such a question, I can pretend to be Cleopatra, reading my book in Heaven. She would probably get a kick out of my portrayal. Cleopatra’s power over people would remain intact, and her sharp mind would inspire readers. If she read other books in Heaven, she would understand how characters develop and appreciate that I had tastefully applied negative traits.

    What would an Egyptian citizen think of my book? I think they would feel the same way. I treated their historical figure with dignity and positively contributed to her legacy. In the best case, my book’s minor Wikipedia footnote will be in the Cleopatra entry.

    What if I am incorrect, and the people of Egypt hate my portrayal? Some might argue that any publicity is good publicity. I would not, and an adverse reaction would certainly hurt my feelings. The weak excuse of “I tried my best to portray Cleopatra positively” would not help the situation, even if it is true.

    Would I understand an adverse reaction? Until the Netflix film came out, absolutely not. As proof, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter did not result in a lawsuit or public uprising. Also, nobody would be foolish enough to release such a wildly inaccurate film as a documentary.

    Yet, now I think differently. If I were to write a book today, I would not pick Cleopatra as a character because of the controversy. I am too small of a fish to take that risk. How about an immortal Abraham Lincoln? Umm, actually… He is a character in my next book. He is not immortal, but I changed a bit of history. Did you know Abraham Lincoln went into outer space? Yeah, just a bit.

    You’re the best -Bill

    January 17, 2024

    Hey book lovers, I published four. Please check them out:

    Interviewing Immortality. A dramatic first-person psychological thriller that weaves a tale of intrigue, suspense, and self-confrontation.

    Pushed to the Edge of Survival. A drama, romance, and science fiction story about two unlikely people surviving a shipwreck and living with the consequences.

    Cable Ties. A slow-burn political thriller that reflects the realities of modern intelligence, law enforcement, department cooperation, and international politics.

    Saving Immortality. Continuing in the first-person psychological thriller genre, James Kimble searches for his former captor to answer his life’s questions.

    These books are available in soft-cover on Amazon and eBook format everywhere.

#writing #character development #cleopatra #netflix