Rate the last movie you've seen

[Neil]

The Marvelous Mrs Maisel Set in the 50’s, this is the story of a mother and housewife that goes through a rough divorce and then decides to follow her passion of being a stand up comedian. Great comedy and drama ensues! I probably would have never watched this on my own decision, so I’m glad that multiple people kept telling me how great it is. On Amazon Prime. 9/10 Some friends of mine were raving about this!

[bassman]

Some friends of mine were raving about this! That’s exactly how I heard about it and ended up watching. I would’ve continued to pass it up if it weren’t for everyone talking about it. But I’m happy to report that they have good reason to rave about it! Highly, highly recommended!

[MinionZombie]

Rampage Just watched it this afteroon. It's a big, dumb blockbuster type of movie - but it's a lot of fun and the bromance between The Rock and George is quite enjoyable. JDM from TWD is also having a blast running around with his lopsided shoulders as a cowboy type from some "Other Government Agency". Lots of smashing shit up and clear cut straight arrow storytelling. Much more enjoyable than I had thought it would be. Crashing Somewhat related to my previous entry, this follows a fictional version of Pete Holmes as he works the stand up circuit. Normally Holmes can grate on my nerves a little bit, but this show displays an entirely new side to the comedian. He’s become quite a good dramatic actor! I’m looking forward to the new season. On HBO. 9/10 Aye, it's a good show, I rather enjoy it. The look inside the way the world of stand-up comedy works is nice to see as well, and how different types of comedians work and develop their craft within the business itself (lots of nice little details that scream with authenticity) - but at the same time there's a very personal story going on at the same time.

[bassman]

Black Mirror Presents: Bandersnatch This is Netflix and Black Mirror’s first “choose your own adventure” movie. Like the old books, you’re given options that pop up on screen, and your decisions throughout the film directly impact where the plot is going. I’ve only gone through once, so I’m not sure how many different combinations there are, but there are certainly lots of decisions to be made, so I imagine there are a large number of various results. If you’ve seen Black Mirror before, you know that it generally centers around technology gone wrong, and this entry is no different. Yet this one is more directly tied to the viewer than ever before. Can’t wait to try different decisions! 8/10 High Maintenance A drama/comedy that loosely follows a cannabis dealer in New York City. It’s really more about the individual characters that interact with the dealer when he occasionally pops in and out. With the exception of the dealer main character, the show is essentially an anthology series showing different walks of life. I really enjoyed the fact that the show is not about cannabis at all and it doesn’t attempt to suggest that it’s use defines the person. Much like real life, it’s just a normal part of certain peoples’ days and it’s not treated as some big plot point like you’d see on old tv shows. As I said, it’s really more of an anthology series that dives into different lives with each episode. Really enjoyable HBO series. 9/10

[bassman]

Aquaman This deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible. James Wan set out to make a spectacle film, and he achieved it in spades. It’s not a great movie, but it’s great entertainment. Wan took the comics and translated them extremely well for the big screen. Perhaps one of the most comic-accurate films there is. The plot is generic, at least to me, because I’ve seen the “Throne of Atlantis” story arc played out many times, plus it’s similar to some other superhero flicks. The most accurate comparison I can make is with Avatar. The story lacks, but the spectacle and world-building is top notch. Beautiful to look at and deserves to be seen in theater. 7/10 EDIT: I forgot to mention one of the most important parts: the action! Wan and crew did an astounding job with the action sequences! They’re intense and pull you in, but unlike most recent films, it’s all clearly visible and not shakey cam. It’s also VERY inventive. There were a few that made me unintentionally say “whoa!!” out loud. Probably the most inventive action since the first Matrix. Very, very cool stuff. Boardwalk Empire Great HBO series set from the 1880’s through the 1930’s in Atlantic City. Fantastic storytelling and fantastic performances all around. It’s essentially a western or gangster series. Scorsese is involved, so that pretty much let’s you know it’s good. I loved it! 9/10 White Boy Rick I wouldn’t go as far as to call it BAD, but yeesh.....something went wrong here. What should have been a great real-life story ultimately feels like it goes nowhere. It also seems to be another Oscar attempt from Matthew McConaughey. He’s trying too hard and starting to ruin his own renaissance in recent years. A few good moments sprinkled throughout and I’m sure it’d make a decent catch on weekend television, but other than that it’s soulless. 3/10

[MinionZombie]

Boardwalk Empire Great HBO series set from the 1880’s through the 1930’s in Atlantic City. Fantastic storytelling and fantastic performances all around. It’s essentially a western or gangster series. Scorsese is involved, so that pretty much let’s you know it’s good. I loved it! 9/10 I watched that when it originally aired and ultimately it was a mixed bag for me. The first two seasons were excellent ... but that shocking turn of events in the climax of the second season was something the show never quite recovered from. It lost a huge chunk of its foundation, if you will, and season 3 struggled to find a conflict that lived up to the first two seasons (which were so well written and paced just right). Then once it was seasons 4 and 5 it became more and more about 'gangsters doing gangster stuff' with fewer glimpses behind the scenes to really get to know some of these people in a non-gangster setting (a few bits seeing Capone's home life were very interesting, but were few and far between) ... plus, the show got far too serious-minded for its own good, took itself way too seriously, and then squandered the flashbacks in the truncated fifth season on a portion of Nucky's life we'd already been informed of two or three seasons earlier. Another thing that went awry was the show's lack of female characters in the last couple of seasons. Maggie Shroeder was awesome in the first three seasons - such a fascinating character going from a widow scratching by on pennies to the wife of the most powerful man in town, but then she was just sort of written out of the show as if they couldn't really be bothered to come up with anything interesting for her to do. Likewise with Darmody's mother, who had a fascinating arc until she too was pretty much swept aside. It felt like the show makers were closing doors rather than opening them, so it kinda limped to the finish line for me despite its superb production. Now, there were various parts of seasons 3, 4, and 5 that were good/great/awesome - I loved the WWI veteran character who was a crack shot, for instance, and his whole arc was very powerful and had many different shades to it ... but there were so many characters who started out great and then kinda got sidelined (like Maggie Shroeder, or even Van Alden to an extent in the last season or so) and it got too bogged down in 'bootlegging gangster stuff' and forgot about the other portions of these characters' lives. So, for me anyway, the first two seasons were certainly 9/10, then the last three seasons were very bumpy with certain portions falling as low as 2/10 while other portions were right up there at 9/10, so yeah...

[MinionZombie]

Nightmare Beach https://deadshed.blogspot.com/2019/0...ni-review.html Did a mini review of it - it's a cheapo slasher flick directed by Umberto Lenzi, starring John Saxon, Michael Parks, and Lance LeGault.

[blind2d]

Cool, so I saw three! Mother! (Yes the exclamation point is crucial. Aronofsky is fun like that): I... Wanted to like this film more than I did. The camerawork is excellent, but I felt that things got funny (to me) when they weren't meant to. And in the final act the metaphor really smacks you hard across the face, which, I felt maybe it didn't need to do? Acting seemed pretty okay... Oh numbers, right, um, 6/10? Shutter Island: Scorcese?! (Was it? I'm honestly not remembering. Someone like that) Leo does a great job as always. 'I Am The Cheese', not to spoil the ending. It... Was good? I was falling asleep when I watched it. 7/10. Basic Instinct: Yes, what's wrong with me that I'm just now seeing this film? Well maybe I don't like seeing lesbians get killed/made into murderers! > But no, it was a pretty good film, even if the twists felt a little contrived and the last scene was super silly. Okay, a lot of it was silly. Interesting how much of a cultural impact its had on America, though. Newman's in it. Giving points for lesbians, but taking them away for killing them/making them villains. You can do better, misogynist movie. 6/10.

[MinionZombie]

Shutter Island: Scorcese?! (Was it? I'm honestly not remembering. Someone like that) Leo does a great job as always. 'I Am The Cheese', not to spoil the ending. It... Was good? I was falling asleep when I watched it. 7/10. Basic Instinct: Yes, what's wrong with me that I'm just now seeing this film? Well maybe I don't like seeing lesbians get killed/made into murderers! > But no, it was a pretty good film, even if the twists felt a little contrived and the last scene was super silly. Okay, a lot of it was silly. Interesting how much of a cultural impact its had on America, though. Newman's in it. Giving points for lesbians, but taking them away for killing them/making them villains. You can do better, misogynist movie. 6/10. 1) Yep, Shutter Island is a Scorcese flick. I saw it in the cinema when it came out. Loved it. 2) It's been a few years since I saw Basic Instinct, but isn't Sharon Stone's character bi-sexual? Not that it really matters, because anyone can be a villain (or, indeed, a hero). To censor any form of art - e.g. for certain "groups" to be removed from certain traits/paths/roles for fictional characters, is not a good idea and is a very slippery slope because where does it end? Indeed, it could be argued that blocking non-heterosexual characters from being "villains" in a movie/tv show is a sexist position, much-like 'villains can only be white' would be a racist position. I'm not saying that this is what you're saying, but the last line in your take on Basic Instinct made me think of this wider train of thought. The only thing anyone should be concerned with is is the character any good? If the character is shite then that's the problem, much the same as one-dimensional female characters who are just brilliant at everything and make no mistakes is very dull (and actually offers poorer roles for women to play) - the key is complex characters. There's a fine line to walk with representation in films. Ultimately it just needs to be about not denying or blocking characters or roles to any particular group - but when writing a role the key thing is to make the character complex instead of 'inoffensive' or a simplistic power fantasy (unless that's what the genre calls for - e.g. an action romp - although characterisation can come into play to make them more memorable characters).

[blind2d]

1) Yep, Shutter Island is a Scorcese flick. I saw it in the cinema when it came out. Loved it. 2) It's been a few years since I saw Basic Instinct, but isn't Sharon Stone's character bi-sexual? Not that it really matters, because anyone can be a villain (or, indeed, a hero). To censor any form of art - e.g. for certain "groups" to be removed from certain traits/paths/roles for fictional characters, is not a good idea and is a very slippery slope because where does it end? Indeed, it could be argued that blocking non-heterosexual characters from being "villains" in a movie/tv show is a sexist position, much-like 'villains can only be white' would be a racist position. I'm not saying that this is what you're saying, but the last line in your take on Basic Instinct made me think of this wider train of thought. The only thing anyone should be concerned with is is the character any good? If the character is shite then that's the problem, much the same as one-dimensional female characters who are just brilliant at everything and make no mistakes is very dull (and actually offers poorer roles for women to play) - the key is complex characters. There's a fine line to walk with representation in films. Ultimately it just needs to be about not denying or blocking characters or roles to any particular group - but when writing a role the key thing is to make the character complex instead of 'inoffensive' or a simplistic power fantasy (unless that's what the genre calls for - e.g. an action romp - although characterisation can come into play to make them more memorable characters). I mean you're right about the not having censorship thing, but like, that's not what's happening here? So it's not relevant? Basic Instinct shows sapphic love as being related to villified activity. Roxy and the brunette are both killers, whereas the blonde (sorry I don't remember names, besides Roxy, because she's gorgeous) is a maybe killer. So like, every female character is painted as villainous or potentially villainous. And the story is told from the male perspective, which y'know, probably isn't the best when critiquing the actions of women. Whether or not it was the films intent to lampshade women as terrible and untrustworthy, that is easily how it is read. Which is why I consider it a bit misogynistic. As well as the lesbian bits, which are played mainly for the male gaze, as the relationships between the women are not really explored. And they killed Roxy in a bullshit way, so I'm pissed about that. I'm not saying not-straight folk can't be villains. I'm saying they're too often villains, and shouldn't only be relegated to those roles. Yeah, this was the 90's, but still. Is the character of Roxy good? No. She gets like three lines, one girl-on-girl kiss, no development, and after or just before she's killed off, it's revealed she murdered two people when she was younger. Because that's normal for lesbians, right? But yes, the blonde is bi, and so is the brunette, but like, ultimately that's not really explored, beyond the murder mystery stuff. So no, the female characters seem pretty one-note in this film overall. But yeah, I agree with like everything you said, this movie just pisses me off. It's a decent film, I just wish it had better representation. Sorry I forget the names.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm ... I don't think the film was saying anything akin to 'lesbian/bi = villain', as she's not villainous because of her sexuality. There's no point in holding the past to the standards of the present as you can't change the past, nor is it fair. Casablanca is chock-full of chain smoking, but that was then whereas now smoking is very rare to see on-screen (ironically, if often gets pinned as an affectation of a baddie or some kind of loser character - but that doesn't mean 'smokers = villains'). Marijuana used to be deemed on-screen as a devilish drug that'd turn you into a crazed killer (Reefer Madness and the like) ... now it's a past-time for some of the biggest stars in Hollywood (whose predecessors of decades ago were dragged through scandal rags during 'pot busts' before being dumped from their contracts for toking on a weak-ass joint). In terms of representation now the key thing is the approach to it. Cramming stuff down people's throats never works for anything as people don't like being told what to do or think or say etc etc etc, while arbitrarily applying quotas is a clumsy method, and "positive discrimination" is still discrimination. The simplest and best way is to just not deny a good script from getting made because it happens to feature non-white or non-straight or non-whatever characters in it. Similarly, it'd be wrong to force "representation" on a story for which it wouldn't make sense (e.g. if you're telling a story about 15th Century England, you're going to struggle to find a way to casually slip in a non-white character, and certainly one of any stature in life). There were some bizarre howls from the angrier reaches of Twitter regarding the film "Dunkirk" because all the soldiers featured in it were white males ... ... but that's simply the truth of those people in that part of history. To insert "representation" into that scenario, for instance, would be false and disrespectful to everyone - much like arbitrary gender-swaps for established characters, which are disrespectful to the character, the fans of the character, and - in an example of switching an established male character to female - to the people you're trying to raise up in terms of representation (in this particular example, women). It says, essentially, that they're not worth creating a new character for, and that men and women are incapable of identifying with a character of the opposite sex (which is patently bullshit - e.g. on a small scale, one of my friends has a daughter who loves to play dress-up as Iron Man, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor etc but hasn't shown any interest in dressing up as Wonder Woman or Black Widow or Scarlet Witch - the heroic deeds of the character are (and, I guess, their enjoyable movies) are the draw, not the characters' fun zones ... ... meanwhile, personally speaking, I heavily identified with the character of Annie in "Bridesmaids", and saw various pieces of my own youth in Lady Bird McPherson in "Lady Bird"). Ultimately, you want well-written characters and, in this day-and-age of clickbait churnalism and manufactured outrage, less of the swirling tide of crap that gets applied to movies (which can take subtle and well-implemented representation and turn it into the one defining trait of the film, trampling over everything else the movie has to offer, converting it from simply a movie into a preach-piece all because some tosspots wanted to get clicks to harvest ad revenue).

[blind2d]

Hmmm ... I don't think the film was saying anything akin to 'lesbian/bi = villain', as she's not villainous because of her sexuality. There's no point in holding the past to the standards of the present as you can't change the past, nor is it fair. Casablanca is chock-full of chain smoking, but that was then whereas now smoking is very rare to see on-screen (ironically, if often gets pinned as an affectation of a baddie or some kind of loser character - but that doesn't mean 'smokers = villains'). Marijuana used to be deemed on-screen as a devilish drug that'd turn you into a crazed killer (Reefer Madness and the like) ... now it's a past-time for some of the biggest stars in Hollywood (whose predecessors of decades ago were dragged through scandal rags during 'pot busts' before being dumped from their contracts for toking on a weak-ass joint). In terms of representation now the key thing is the approach to it. Cramming stuff down people's throats never works for anything as people don't like being told what to do or think or say etc etc etc, while arbitrarily applying quotas is a clumsy method, and "positive discrimination" is still discrimination. The simplest and best way is to just not deny a good script from getting made because it happens to feature non-white or non-straight or non-whatever characters in it. Similarly, it'd be wrong to force "representation" on a story for which it wouldn't make sense (e.g. if you're telling a story about 15th Century England, you're going to struggle to find a way to casually slip in a non-white character, and certainly one of any stature in life). There were some bizarre howls from the angrier reaches of Twitter regarding the film "Dunkirk" because all the soldiers featured in it were white males ... ... but that's simply the truth of those people in that part of history. To insert "representation" into that scenario, for instance, would be false and disrespectful to everyone - much like arbitrary gender-swaps for established characters, which are disrespectful to the character, the fans of the character, and - in an example of switching an established male character to female - to the people you're trying to raise up in terms of representation (in this particular example, women). It says, essentially, that they're not worth creating a new character for, and that men and women are incapable of identifying with a character of the opposite sex (which is patently bullshit - e.g. on a small scale, one of my friends has a daughter who loves to play dress-up as Iron Man, Spider-Man, Captain America, Thor etc but hasn't shown any interest in dressing up as Wonder Woman or Black Widow or Scarlet Witch - the heroic deeds of the character are (and, I guess, their enjoyable movies) are the draw, not the characters' fun zones ... ... meanwhile, personally speaking, I heavily identified with the character of Annie in "Bridesmaids", and saw various pieces of my own youth in Lady Bird McPherson in "Lady Bird"). Ultimately, you want well-written characters and, in this day-and-age of clickbait churnalism and manufactured outrage, less of the swirling tide of crap that gets applied to movies (which can take subtle and well-implemented representation and turn it into the one defining trait of the film, trampling over everything else the movie has to offer, converting it from simply a movie into a preach-piece all because some tosspots wanted to get clicks to harvest ad revenue). I mean... again though, maybe I'm not explaining well enough what happens in the film. Have you seen it? It's literally about femme fatales, which in no uncertain terms link feminine sexuality with danger/the threat of death. Also I guess I keep forgetting that we only have human decency or compassion now, and not 'X' years ago. Funny how that number keeps getting smaller. Also I don't know that I've ever seen an example of positive discrimination. Could you provide an example please? Also, pretty sure England has always had some semblance of a not-white population. I'm no historian, but I know they had slaves around the same time as the US, yeah? I could google this, but I'm lazy. So you're saying you did exhaustive research into the battle of Dunkirk and found that ALL combatants involved were white and male-presenting? Good on you. Also, what would it have mattered if they had included some non-whites in the film? Would your experience be tainted somehow? But yes, well-written characters are so so important, always. But representation does matter. To quote Skunk Anansie, "Yes it's fucking political. Everything's political."

[MinionZombie]

Representation matters, but it's important how you implement it. Sledgehammer or scalpel? I prefer the deft accuracy of the latter. We're living in a bizarre time where labels now seem to matter more than ever, and are even weaponised on a regular basis. My formative years were the 1990s when it was all about 'I recognise your 'label', but I also know that it doesn't really matter because we're all people' ... now it's all about how many labels one can attach to themselves and even brandish them against other people. Social and ideological segregation is on the rise again and it's baffling, frustrating, utterly bizarre. The focus is now more on 'how are we different' instead of 'how are we similar'. The Fast & Furious franchise has a diverse racial makeup, but it's never turned into a whole thing because skin colour ultimately doesn't matter, what does matter is people's actions. 15th Century England - while there have been black people in England since the 12th Century, their numbers were only very small until more immigration occurred in the 17th/18th Century ... so the racial makeup of England in the 15th Century would be a vast majority of white faces. Even today the UK is about 85% white, if I'm remembering my stats correctly. Point being, if you were telling a story that happened to take place in a 15th Century community (especially a rural one) that happened to be all-white, it'd be inaccurate to insert non-whites for a 21st century quota - just like it'd be inaccurate (or a downright lie) to insert white faces into a story about an all-black (or all-asian etc) community. You have to speak truthfully about history, not adjust it for current standards, while also working within the confines of a narrative structure (especially in the case of a movie).

[blind2d]

Representation matters, but it's important how you implement it. Sledgehammer or scalpel? I prefer the deft accuracy of the latter. We're living in a bizarre time where labels now seem to matter more than ever, and are even weaponised on a regular basis. My formative years were the 1990s when it was all about 'I recognise your 'label', but I also know that it doesn't really matter because we're all people' ... now it's all about how many labels one can attach to themselves and even brandish them against other people. Social and ideological segregation is on the rise again and it's baffling, frustrating, utterly bizarre. The focus is now more on 'how are we different' instead of 'how are we similar'. The Fast & Furious franchise has a diverse racial makeup, but it's never turned into a whole thing because skin colour ultimately doesn't matter, what does matter is people's actions. 15th Century England - while there have been black people in England since the 12th Century, their numbers were only very small until more immigration occurred in the 17th/18th Century ... so the racial makeup of England in the 15th Century would be a vast majority of white faces. Even today the UK is about 85% white, if I'm remembering my stats correctly. Point being, if you were telling a story that happened to take place in a 15th Century community (especially a rural one) that happened to be all-white, it'd be inaccurate to insert non-whites for a 21st century quota - just like it'd be inaccurate (or a downright lie) to insert white faces into a story about an all-black (or all-asian etc) community. You have to speak truthfully about history, not adjust it for current standards, while also working within the confines of a narrative structure (especially in the case of a movie). Sure, agreed, whereas 'Basic Instinct' (remember, the movie we're supposed to actually be discussing?) is a grenade. Now, what is the point of different labels if ultimately none of them matter? Hm? Doesn't make any sense. Also, no, recognizing how we're different isn't about division, it's about caring for individual needs to the best of our abilities. No war but class war, is the idea. Do you have an example of how labels are being weaponized? People have always looked down at others deemed 'different' by their societies. You'll have to be a bit more specific than that. I'll concede that Fast & the Furious does have decent representation of different ethnicities, yet the issue we began with was the display of sexuality, which is a different matter. So, alright, honestly I don't give a fuck about Dunkirk, but yeah, maybe they could've had one POC, just one, like in the background or something, IDK. Doesn't matter, not the issue. Yes, speaking truthfully about history is important. Like, it wouldn't make sense if half the cast of that film was Asian or something, but they're not, so... *shrug*. It seems we're agreed on some things here, which is good.

[MinionZombie]

Now, what is the point of different labels if ultimately none of them matter? Hm? Doesn't make any sense. Also, no, recognizing how we're different isn't about division, it's about caring for individual needs to the best of our abilities. Unfortunately there are people out there - a vocal minority who wield far too much power, particularly on social media platforms - who do use 'labels' and social issues to divide and conquer. A recent example would be the hard right campaign against James Gunn shortly after Roseanne was fired. It was nakedly political and learned to utilise hard left social media tactics. This kind of shit is all over the place these days, sadly. I don't really know how I can explain my previous points any better, to be honest. But perhaps I can use somewhat of an analogy from an experience I had a number of years ago in order to describe the difference I'm getting at. I was helping film the practice sessions for a student opera that was being done by a group of disabled performers. Amongst the group was a young man who happened to be a dwarf. We chatted to him throughout the day and he was a thoroughly nice chap. When we were packing up at the end of the day we paid our thanks and said our goodbyes - now - my colleague tumbled into an over-effusive litany of conspicuous compliments and comments that were all, in one way or another, related to this dude's dwarfism. When I said goodbye I just did so as I would to anyone else - because on a person-to-person level his dwarfism had no bearing. Naturally, I recognised that he had dwarfism, but I didn't treat him differently. There was another example at a Halloween party and there was a black dude dressed as Hannibal from The A-Team. Again, he was a thoroughly nice bloke and easy to talk to (a relief as I'm generally dreadful in social situations with people I've only just met) ... anyway, point is, some folks at the party simply had to talk to him about his ethnicity ... why is that at all necessary? It was like something from the party scene early on in "Get Out" (albeit about a decade before that movie was released), all that "I would have voted for Obama for a third term" type of comment where someone tries to be 'kind and aware' but has actually reduced a person to simply their 'labels'. I was rather baffled as to why someone would do that (Nerves? Obliviousness? Virtue signalling?) ... meanwhile, when I talked to him we just chatted about how awesome The A-Team was. Do you have an example of how labels are being weaponized? People have always looked down at others deemed 'different' by their societies. You'll have to be a bit more specific than that. Any time someone says "I'm (insert sex/gender/race/nationality/condition) so your argument is invalid" and the like (Twitter is particularly swamped with that kind of mentality). Any time someone attempts to shut down a debate because a 'hot button' issue is being discussed. Any time someone gets legitimately called out on something but they hurriedly rush off to guard themselves with a label (e.g. Kevin Spacey was accused of rape and he immediately attempted to divert attention by finally confirming he's homosexual ... yet his sexuality has sod all to do with allegedly committing said crime). More and more people seem to be obsessed with draping themselves with labels for curious reasons. Here's a very specific example that I experienced: On Facebook someone posted a Buzzfeed quiz called "How OCD Are You?", which turned out to be (unsurprisingly for Buzzfeed) a load of old bollocks, just a bunch of pictures of untidy things and a 1-10 scale to guage "how uncomfortable you feel". I saw friends (and friends of friends) on Facebook take this quiz and come away either wrongfully convinced they had OCD (the quiz itself had zero understanding of the condition) and some actually took a curious sense of pride, as if it was something they could use to 'set themselves apart from the pack', as if it was something to brandish to subtly say "look at me, I'm different" (the same kind of dopamine-addicted mentality that has brought about virtue signalling in recent years, no doubt). It was a bizarre thing to witness being that I do have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (in hindsight I've been able to recognise that it started for me aged 8), but I didn't feel the need to then weaponise that experience and batter people over the heads with it. Instead I wrote a comedy drama script which has since been made into a short film that's doing very well on the festival circuit where it is succeeding in its goal to improve understanding of OCD while entertaining the audience (in terms of the script and the style of the film). I was keen to make sure that the representation of OCD was accurate, but that the film itself dealt with it subtly and also in a manner that was entertaining to watch (with any humour always surrounding the character and their personality, never OCD itself). So, alright, honestly I don't give a fuck about Dunkirk, but yeah, maybe they could've had one POC, just one, like in the background or something, IDK. Doesn't matter, not the issue. Yes, speaking truthfully about history is important. Like, it wouldn't make sense if half the cast of that film was Asian or something, but they're not, so... *shrug*. Funnily enough, IIRC, there are some non-white faces in the backgrounds of some shots as there may have been a very small number of black soldiers at Dunkirk, but as footage of the soldiers coming home shows, it was pretty much row after row after row of young white males. As I said, I don't think I can really explain my points, both specific and general, any better really. So let's leave it be and get the thread back on topic again.