Entertainment Forum General Chat Thread [ARCHIVED] • Page 790

It seems to explicitly be tied to Modi and his current far-right regime. The ending showing Indian heroes specifically leaves out people like Ghandi who preached non-violence.

 

After all the talk I had to check out King of New York myself. I’m halfway through and must say that this is fucking awesome.

 

In that very article you linked to, the director himself explicitly stated that “I hate extremism, whether it is the B.J.P., Muslim League, or whatever,” so claiming it “seems to explicitly be tied to Modi” when the director directly disses Modi’s own party and complains about a BJP member getting up in arms about him simply depicting a Muslim character a certain way - feels like a huge stretch.

And I don’t exactly view Gandhi as a particularly progressive figure, nor one that right-wing nationalists necessarily oppose or disown to my knowledge, same as MLK’s image is co-opted here, so I really don’t see that as some huge tell. This is a larger issue around anti-colonialist movements — both violence and non-violence are tactics that could be/are validly claimed by anyone along the political spectrum. And again in that interview, the director is like “I could only show 8, so if I showed Gandhi instead of whoever else, I’m sure I’d get complaints about nothing showing that person”

 

That tweet referring to Mel Gibson as his influence is such bait also lol. Literally all he says is that the torture scene is a clear reference to the end of Braveheart

 

https://www.thejfa.com/read/rrr-new-idiom-hindu-nationalism

 

I also watched king of new york last night and it rules. To say it has no plot is very weird. Loved the lighting throughout.

 

Sandler in Taxi Driver

 

Happy Gilmore in Goodfellas

 

That’s probably the best answer. Goodfellas could be fun too.

 

who would he be replacing? one good answer someone else said is jonah hill in TWOWS

 

Joe Pesci

 

EO is out there today. I drove two hours to see it and then fell asleep through the whole thing. It is definitely something I am looking forward to finally seeing post-Mardi Gras.

 

rude to call them mediocre

 

It's a very weird take. I think it's more to do with them being aimed at an older audience with less interest in cinematic universes and also that they are relatively straightforward in plot and are easy to market. To its credit, the article touches on that, but equating straightforward with mediocre comes off as click-baity.

It doesn't touch on the fact that those movies all got wide releases too. Of the prestige movies the article mentions, The Fableman's had the widest release at just over 1,900 theaters. The three "mediocre" movies used as evidence all peaked at over 3,900 theaters.

It seems to be more of an issue of marketing than film quality. Sure, films like Tar or Banshees of Inisherin are going to be hard to market to wider audiences, but The Fableman is an odd one. Made by possibly the most well-known living director and has a relatively easy-to-explain plot/genre. It feels like the studio just didn't want to put effort into promoting it.

Ticket to Paradise was pretty mediocre though

 

Nah that won’t save the theaters. 15 MCU movies a year will!

 

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia

 

Survivor

 

I actually just started 30 Rock this week. I received my third copyright infringement warning for my troubles.

 

The Simpsons easily