Really, the only misstep was Solo, whose main problem was “a Han Solo prequel that resolves every single mystery about the character” was a fundamentally unnecessary thing to have. It made the Star Wars universe smaller, not bigger.

I really liked the style of Diablo III. But I understand I might be the only person on earth who feels that way.

Good to see: a new Peter Watts (wish he would write more), a new Claire North, a new Ian McDonald, the new Quillifer novel (Williams doesn’t get enough respect), a new Tchaikovsky, a new Lychford (which I will never see, but still) and great, a new Crowley. Lots to look forward to.

Does it have Monkey Target? That is all I need to know.

Their Netflix deal must be pretty sweet. And, as a little bonus, they won’t be taking the hot potato from Rian Johnson just yet. Can you imagine dealing with angry GoT fans and angry Star Wars fans at the same time? That shit would be a great disturbance in the force.

I suppose when you’re looking at other horror movies around that same time, the Shining comes off kind of arty in comparison.

I think most would contest that we’re not even sure what are and aren’t hallucinations, which is psychological ambiguity. The camera is often used in a stalking manner, almost like a ghost following the characters. I’m not sure “matter-of-factness” is a sentiment that fits Kubrick’s take on The Shining.

The main comment I wanted to make as someone who was front row centre for Kubrick’s original was that a huge number of people didn’t know what to make of the movie on release, myself included. I find it humorous when offhand comments about the genius of the original are made, but my reaction after leaving the…

As long as it’s not as bad as the dark tower....worst stephen king movie adaptation ever.

And it’s not like director Mike Flanagan is an unknown quantity —he consistently makes solid horror films, but nothing that has ever approached the level of Kubrick.

I love the show’s bitterness. The heroes are nearly as misanthropic as the villains, and they appear to save the world out of a sense of professionalism more than hope or righteousness. Dracula and Alucard are romantic figures in a show that is otherwise full of cynics, fanatics, drunks, and dupes.

“I don’t think being referential makes it difficult to blaze forward, since if we’re being honest there’s likely no movie in existence that isn’t referential to another source to some degree.”

The MCU has expanded its own palette by borrowing from established genres. And your examples are on track Winter Soldier has elements of paranoid 70s thrillers, including Robert Redford himself. Dr. Strange borrows heavily from martial arts movies in its structure and its theme of self-mastery. These movies look…

and one of these guys made bank with a story that had a 12-yr old prostitute peddling ass ... so not sure about the art there ...

Of the auteurist complaints against Marvel, this one is easily my favorite. I hope they interview Cronenberg next. His opinions about other filmmakers tend to be gloriously unfiltered and bitchy. And, what the hell, let’s ask Eastwood. It will be fun to watch people twisting themselves around to frame him as a snob…

The art/cinema “debate” isn’t worth our time. It’s just old dudes being annoyed that the medium is expanding and they’re not a part of it.

It’s not often we’re allowed to see older women actually appear old on-screen but Dark Fate presents her with all the marks you’d expect of a woman who’s spent more than half her life in a fight against killing machines.

This is and always has been a shallow and classist way to talk about art.

Popular art is still art.

...at the same time these are the same people who don’t want to embrace alternative media (i.e., Netflix, Amazon Films, etc.) and have objected to their eligibility for awards.