Профиль

how many times did you watch the green knight

1. what

and amusingly as far as this critique is concerned, not in this adaption

the vast majority of people who have tattoos have tattoos with deep significance on them, as well as tattoos that mostly signify “I felt like getting a tattoo and this was neat”

Homer couldn’t write it down though because he was famously mute

She had some very good points overall but there’s a lot of what she wrote that appears to be Armond White-style contrarianism and misreadings purely for the sake of writing sick burns.

according to the review, he was not killed for his cruelty but for "failing to be an American family man"

Also describing the non-white castings as "versions of the Black best friend" was, uh, hrm

The critique of the banging part kind of baffles me, because the story that Nolan wanted to tell would not have been enhanced in any way by additional sex. Yes, movies are often sexless to their detriment, and Nolan is bad at writing sex in movies, but this is not a case where sex would help.

Nick Swardson and Sarah Silverman have jokes built around this premise

you miss 100% of the shots you don't take

"if you don't want me swimming with diarrhea, you're gonna need to hang up a sign. otherwise there's just no possible way i would know better. so until then..."

For real? Signs like these are pretty common, Tig Notaro has a great bit on them www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGG...

I think that's absolutely the strongest critique in her whole review, but like most academic papers, there was a substantial need of editing that did not get done before presentation. Didn't belong alongside "the non-white actors are versions of the Black best friend and there's no sex scenes"

It is an underlying theme of the critique (the movie does not do what I think the poem I love does well). It is critique mostly from a point of view of fandom. There's also a bunch of unconnected critiques in there, some of which are very valid, and a lot are just Armond White level misreads.

She is one of, if not the, most informed authorities when it comes to accurately translating the text and preserving its details and original meanings. The thing that's obnoxious about the review is that she at least in part seems to presuppose that this was Nolan's both goal and obligation.

The premise also seems to be "Nolan was attempting to make an adaption of the Odyssey that was as faithful as possible to the original text" which, uh, certainly needs proving! That should be the aim for a translator like Wilson but not for a director like Nolan!

He’s actually kinda hot and not just politician hot.

I’m sorry that you feel the need to perform masculinity like this.

Is it worth seeing in 70mm? Yes Is it worth seeing not in 70mm? Also yes.