The tags say "Rouge One".

Best movie of 2007.

This is The Elder Scrolls V, for you guys out there. And you are guys.

Once in a while I "binge-watch" all the Clueless Gamers on YouTube.

His quest to get laid in The Witcher was somewhere between umconfortable and pretty funny.

I miss Wikibear.

"It looks like Daredevil is blind!"
"He won't be able to see very well, Cotton."

Bridge of Spies is reading a paper (because Tom Hanks reads a paper in the movie? I haven't seen it), The Big Short has a pile of money and Spotlight is shining a light on its own face. I think.

And that's another reason this interpretation is silly. It's a non-issue.

There is a crucial distinction between "tangible evil" and "satan", and yes it matters. It matters if you're going to say the movie is problematic because it can be seen as some kind of Salem-denial revisionist bullshit or something. Which is silly because this is a horror film, not some christian movie.

That's my take too. Remember the father got out of the village because he didn't like the church there for some reason. He risked EVERYTHING because of it. If if weren't for such an obsession with was right or wrong according to some god, everthing would've been okay.

To this day, the only thing I've seen from The Illusionist is the poster, so no. Everybody whose tastes I trust said it was kinda lame at the time, so I never felt like watching it, and usually I watch EVERYTHING, just to be sure.

I think I'm having trouble expressing myself, maybe because english is not my first language. Anyway, I don't get the analogy. What I'm saying is that the movie has fantastical elements that shouldn't be taken literally, not that it lacks subtext. I thought that was pretty clear, but apparently not.

But what Dowd is saying is that it's NOT meaningless; his whole premise is that the movie can be seen as revisionist, which doesn't make sense if the whole "witches are real" thing is just part of the diegesis and not meant to be interpreted literally.

I'm not saying the movie shouldn't be interpreted in a contemporary context. What I'm saying is, the conclusion of said interpretation shouldn't be "maybe the witch hunters had a point, you know?"

Right, like Star Wars is totally saying Chewbacca is real. Got it.

This one is pretty fun. There are even creepy twins and a goat.

You're reaching, Dowd. It's a "cautionary tale" in the sense that it works like a fairytale from those days, but that's it. It's a portrait of the fears of the time: people believed this stuff could happen, and that led to bad things. The movie isn't remotely saying the devil is real and the witch burners were right.…

Are you talking about The Witch? Because that's totally not the point. I'll try not to spoil anything:

It would be hilarious if he was actually TALLER than his hologram.