Oh, I don’t think he gave a dishonest review at all. I’m just generally wondering if this is a film where the flaws would be less noticeable if it was from a different filmmaker. I can except a level of stupid from some filmmakers, but it’s harder from others, as unfair as that is. I was really looking forward to the…

I’m kind of amused by the “it’s a metaphor!!” reviews coming out especially the ones that further clarify “that doesn’t really work!” I do think that the idea of being terrorized by yourself is enough of a metaphor that he could have just let it sit there, without further explanation, and it would have been fine.…

Same here. There was a lot of speculation leading up to the release as to what the dopplegangers represented, so I watched a lot of the film trying to see the sub-text. And there were points when I said, “Oh, I get it, they represent X”, only to have that undercut by something later in the film.

I think the answer is…

Saw this last night at an early screening and…I don’t know. I feel like amidst all of the (nearly universal) critical praise, I keep seeing variations of “it works best if you don’t analyze it too much” alongside “this movie gives you so much to unpack,” often in the same review. And it’s like, which is it? I agree…

Eyes Peeled.

Fine, here’s your answer: if you can live on $35,000 a year, you’re “rich” in some relative sense (more on which in a second). But you know I’m talking about millionaires and billionaires, and you know millionaires and billionaires occupy a different moral space than someone making $35k a year since they can easily…

Oh I get it. You think it’s possible to get rich ethically, then continue being a rich person ethically. I hate to tell you this, but the act of getting rich is a bloodsoaked, exploitative endeavor no matter how it happens.

I think the word “accumulate” might be more apt.

The thing is that in spite of being mostly right, the word “earn” is still used in this piece to describe graft and collection of rents, aka, how rich people get money; they don’t “earn” anything in any meaningful sense.

No, but we can see how antagonistic the flight attendant is afterwards. If he’d been nice and apologetic regardless of whose fault it was, she probably would’ve calmed down faster and the other passengers wouldn’t have been horrified.

The one encouraging thing here is the fact that other passengers stood up to actively defend this woman and her child. Perhaps the most distressing thing about the United incident is that no one came to that guy’s aid. I know it’s probably a losing battle, with the possibility of arrest (or worse), but the line must…

Eh, you could almost maim my kids and he’s not notice, especially if he had food in his hand. I’m gonna be pretty pissed about it, though.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first president of MACUSA, fresh from his success at inventing the light bulb. The year was 1492.

The issue is more semantic than historical. The only reason the United States came to be called “The United States of America” (originally “The 13 United States of America”) was specifically as a message to England that they were, well, united. It was specifically a wartime, revolutionary decision to use that phrase.…

Well that doesn’t need to be pointed out. Obviously it predates the actual U.S. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the phrase “United States of America” did not actually have any reason to exist prior to the Revolution.

Don’t forget the movie. I’m sure she’s seen it. Although, British schools do tend to scrimp a bit on the American Revolution. Understandable, considering they lost.

Well that’s not what these are for, these are basically her world notes made into quippy little essays. I understand people’s frustration (especially individuals from the native community) but us nerding out and picking it apart just feels like we’re building a mountain out of a mole hill. Now the complaints regarding…

I’ll hop on your bandwagon - a lot of the different vocabulary for British v American English are for concepts developed after colonization. Like words related to cars, the movies, etc. People with no magic presumably existed before the Europeans came over.

“Also... I mean seriously internet? Haven’t you better things to be offended over? Why are we trying to hold Harry Potter lore to some semblance of historical accuracy? It’s a damned fantasy novel set in a fantasy Earth where magic is real...”

It felt very George Lucas-y to me, as well. And I love Harry Potter, but scaling this up to cover all of American history in a few hundred words doesn’t work.