Every time.

At least fucking Fast and the Furious had the drivers together for multiple movies and in-universe years before they started with the "family" nonsense. Him calling the Suicide Squad his new family would be like me saying the mouthy assholes I've been stuck on a bus with for a few hours are my new family.

Same basic plot points and structure, yes. It's just that one was executed well, backed up by strong performances and character work, and had years of buildup, and the other had Lexxe Luthenberg pissing in a jar and the whole conflict being resolved over a piece of moderately clever comics trivia.

Pointless as it was, that was pretty much the only action sequence I moderately enjoyed. And the only one I can remember other than the climax battle that felt like it was being desperately made up as I was watching it.

Well, every one of these movies is three hours long and feels like nine, so it's accurate by scale.

Cracked hasn't been "superior" since 2012.

This looks pretty decent.

I only use "multiple timelines" because that's the unofficial name the theory has taken. I'm aware of the difference, but it's a matter of ease of communication.

I hope the theory gets confirmed wholesale only because I know everyone on this site hates it for little explicable reason.

Either her memories are running together and she's seeing herself in those clothes when she's not actually wearing them, or — more likely — she keeps retrieving the same clothes when she goes to that town, to reinforce the theme that everything happens over and over again.

Explain how she keeps healing from wounds (the bullet in the second episode, and now a full-on disembowelment) while Arnold's voice says "remember" in the background.

The crumpled, aged photo we've seen dug up from the dirt was a new photo of Logan's sister, passed along to William. Plus there's the whole issue with Lawrence, and more clues by the episode. You have to either be remarkably obtuse or vehemently against any and all signs of multiple timelines not to buy into it by now.

Judge me how you will, but I enjoyed the first season of The Following (classic Poe, etc) while I was watching it. It was a fun, campy, occasionally tense pulp thriller with a few good-to-great performances, and I was suckered in by the Scream-esque discussion and defiance of tropes.

I often feel like I'm alone in wanting to see what he might be able to do with more screen time, a better script, and a more focused director. He could be great in the solo Batman film, assuming he is in it at all.

But hey, that Wonder Woman trailer looks awesome, right?

You should definitely watch it. Even now, it's among the best of the Marvel films.

Everyone talks about Die Hard revolutionizing action movies — and it is undisputedly the best in the genre — but really, what did it change?

"If it bleeds out of its wherever, we can kill it."

With all of the dramatic emotional outpouring people are apparently feeling over this trailer, and the surefire belief that it's going to be amazing, is it okay or acceptable (knowing how this site tends to respond to attitudes outside of the consensus) to say that not everything is working for me?

Maybe not, but the original Glamour article announcing this nowhere mentions him being named a "Woman of the Year". That was extrapolated by various outlets — once again — for clickbait.