Justin Richardson7 said:The only issue with this beautifully crafted backstory is that there wasn't any actual trauma or violence involved. Sure, there was Christmas, which you nailed perfectly. But as far as trauma goes? There isn't any to be found!!
I’m not sure which movie you were watching, but it’s pretty obvious there’s plenty of trauma here. You can see it in the way the "uncle" acts throughout the whole thing, even if you choose to ignore all the direct clues they hand you on a silver platter.
Carl Bennett78 said:I can’t quite recall if it was Luis Buñuel who said it, but he used to walk into a theater halfway through a movie and just walk out once the plot started getting too heavy. He wasn't looking for some tight narrative or the director's grand vision. He was just there for the imagery—those specific shots that trigger a feeling.
It’s like opening a book to page 70 and just sitting there, mesmerized by a few random words.
bluebison47 said:By the way, is this forum running incredibly slow for everyone else lately, or is it just my connection acting up? I guess it feels like everything is crawling at a snail's pace these days... maybe it's just me.🙏
So, it’s definitely not just my slow internet then.
People honestly believe this whole thing is rigged. 🤣
I mean, once you see that meltdown from Smith later on—and seeing how Denzel and the rest of the crew are trying to calm him down—I just don't see how anyone could claim the whole thing was staged. He’s not quite that good an actor 😬 . What would they actually gain from pulling something like that?
I stumbled upon some absolutely horrific videos on Reddit showing dead civilians lying in the streets of Kharkiv. It’s the kind of thing that just leaves you feeling sick to your stomach for the rest of your life.
It’s actually startling how many people I know seem to be backing Putin, claiming that the Americans are the ones who completely triggered this whole mess. Honestly, I don't know... what am I even supposed to say to people at this point?
I guess > was always going to be a bit of a letdown; I mean, it’s not like Pixar is churning out masterpieces every single week. You look at their track record and it’s all over the place. They had the absolute brilliance of >, but then > came out in the same year and just flopped. Then you have >, which was incredible, but it was paired with >. When you factor in stuff like >, >, and >, it feels like they actually put out more mediocre movies than great ones lately.
Honestly, > is even more of a disappointment to me. If you think about it, > and > are pretty much the heavy hitters at Pixar—they're the duo that gave us > and > (for >), plus > and > (for >). It’s not that > is a total disaster or anything, but compared to where they were with >, it feels like a massive step backward.
Plus, > really struggles with its pacing. There are parts of the movie that feel rushed, almost like the director is just trying to power through certain scenes as quickly as possible just to get to the next thing.
Larry Walker24 said:I caught it yesterday after a long break. It’s basically a prequel to Twin Peaks, picking up four years later. Even the soundtrack feels like it belongs in that world. It’s just bizarre, and honestly, Dennis Hopper is absolutely killing it here.
Some people genuinely don't understand what the word "literally" actually means.
Grace Sanchez50 said:Man, I don't even know where to start... Maybe we could just start by saying there are only five basic emotions...
Look, I know this is getting off track, and I won't dive too deep into it here, but if I really wanted to nitpick, I could probably write two whole pages on both sides of the argument.
How would you even go about depicting feelings? It makes sense for them to be abstract, sure, but how do you actually turn an emotion into something concrete and visual? Within the internal logic they’ve established, everything actually feels pretty well put together.
Grace Sanchez50 said:It’s a decent movie, nothing more, nothing less. There was a moment where I almost lost interest, but by the end, it really pulled through with its core idea and message. Then again, if you start overthinking the logistics of that whole "post-apocalyptic life" thing, very little actually makes sense—kind of like the logic in Inside Out.
Wait, what exactly doesn't make sense about the logistics in Inside Out?
Honestly, I think it makes more sense to compare them based on their overall standing right now. And when I say "current state," I don't just mean who had a better game last weekend—it’s more about who people generally agree is the superior player at this stage of their career. 🤷 For instance, look at Aubameyang. He’s clearly struggling to find his rhythm lately, while Lewandowski over at Everton is absolutely tearing it up, but I’d still argue that Aubameyang is the higher-caliber talent as it stands, and I fully expect him to bounce back.
ruggedjackal46 said:Look, Silva was arguably the standout performer at Monaco (back when they made that deep run in the LP) and then again at Manchester City (specifically during that season when de Bruyne was sidelined). He might be struggling for form lately, but he sustained that elite level for much longer than Fernandes has spent being productive at Manchester United. Plus, you have to consider versatility; Silva can slot in as a winger, a second striker, or a midfielder, while Fernandes is pretty much strictly a number ten.
I suspect Lawrence Garcia5 was talking about who's better right now, rather than looking at their entire career trajectory. It feels like Bernardo hasn't been quite itself for a season and a half now—not sure if that's just a temporary dip in form or something more—and he isn't exactly a guaranteed starter for Manchester City these days.
It’s like how Kante might have the more decorated career overall, but I still ended up voting for Fabinho because his performance over the last two or three years has felt superior. 🤷