The Movie (and TV show) Watching Thread

[Progressive Pessimist]

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

16. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - 5/10
18. Citizen Kane (1941) - 3/10

4. Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022) - 8/10

Literally lmao'd at this, thank you.

Lakii, no!

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

Wiki says 3 hours and 1 minute.

I’m really looking forward to seeing it. I’ve been reading American Prometheus in the mean time. Some friends and I are planning to do the Barbenheimer double feature. Maybe not on opening weekend, depends on people’s availability.

[John Dule]

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

Nolan's head is firmly planted in his own rectum, but I still plan to see this just for the sake of seeing how they dressed up UC Berkeley to make it look like the 1940s. I also have a Cinemark pass that I use to sneak into theaters even though it's supposed to only be for one use, so it'll be free.

[Benjamin Frank]

Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of my favorite films and I don't like Citizen Kane either.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

Nolan's head is firmly planted in his own rectum

But is it more up there than Wes Anderson’s is?

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I really liked Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel, so I think I should check out Asteroid City.

I liked a couple of Nolan movies too, like The Dark Knight, a little less Interstellar, but I hate Inception and that's why I'm wary of Oppenheimer.

Perhaps they are just unstable directors, meaning only some of their films are masterpieces, which is generally typical of talented people.

[Ferguson97]

Little Miss Sunshine was a delight. Paul Dano and Steve Carrell both gave outstanding performances.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

It has its flaws, but I am ride-or-dyin' with MGM's FROM.  At least it's an original frickin' idea.

I'm in the middle of the fifth episode of the first season. The idea is really quite original, it could be used instead of the banal zombies in Train to Busan or The Walking Dead. It's also original that the cliffhanger is the secret of lore. The secret of lore is so damn lacking in RPGs, especially TRPGs with their huge encyclopedias. But in fact, this mystery is the only thing that motivates me to watch the season in full, because unlike the action-packed drama The Walking Dead, here is a rather boring family melodrama, just in a great wrapper. It also annoys me that the characters get electricity and food just because. The vibe of the series is about survival, and it could have been a vivid storyline like Francis Carsac's Les Robinsons du Cosmos, where the characters could quickly show who is who. Instead, the authors chose to focus entirely on melodrama. Well, the main intrigue still keeps my interest.

I watched the first season to the end and I'm disappointed. Instead of answering at least a third of the questions asked and giving me a catharsis when I, it seems to me, is already close to the answer (Victor boy's nightmare world?), they just dumped a bus from the sky with another fifty characters. As if about a hundred undisclosed characters are not enough, these doodles in the background, from time to time shouting "hurrah" and nothing more.

What if the second season ended the same way? Is there any point in wasting time on it?

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Meanwhile, this idea, whatever it may be in sum (I still do not understand what exactly it is), has great potential. For example, the authors could introduce mad street gangsters into this society of caramel cuties from I Love Lucy. Or each group of people would come from different places and eras. It would be fun to watch the French knights in armatura bianca meet the fighters of MS-13.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

Also, the authors could unlock the potential of the idea of monsters masquerading as people. Dopplers don't work well in The Witcher 3 because the witcher detects them at a glance, but there are no witchers here. I remember well the extreme suspense that The Light Brigade episode of The Outer Limits caused me.

Although in general, the authors of From make fine horror elements. I like their subtle presentation.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I am surprised to see Randall (A.J. Simmons) quickly kicked out by the community. I'm used to living in a society where people like Victor or Jade become social outcasts, and people like Randall, on the contrary, become people person. Randall will quickly gather similar scum around him and subjugate the commune, and Boyd with his son and Donna, if they tried too hard to maintain their power, will instantly be in the Box, and within a few weeks the commune will forget them. After that, the life of the commune will become such a nightmare that polite monsters outside the window will seem like a pretty decor, but everyone will try to serve Randall and express their respect to him in every possible way.

Maybe it's just the difference between typical post-Soviet and typical American society, I don't know.

[T'Chenka]

Little Miss Sunshine was a delight. Paul Dano and Steve Carrell both gave outstanding performances.

Based.

[Progressive Pessimist]

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

Wiki says 3 hours and 1 minute.

I’m really looking forward to seeing it. I’ve been reading American Prometheus in the mean time. Some friends and I are planning to do the Barbenheimer double feature. Maybe not on opening weekend, depends on people’s availability.

Three hours! I am become dread!

If I'm going to have to see it in theaters though, I am going to hope that it exceeds my expectations. I don't want to sit there for three hours and force myself to be grumpy. My problem going in, beyond Nolan, is just that I tend not to like biopics, especially when they are about a figure I am already familiar with and whose conflict I already know is going to predictably play out on screen as I expect. My favorite biopics typically involve more underhanded borderline villainous types of people, and I am certain that Oppenheimer is not going to be portrayed that way.

[RFK Jr.’s Brain Worm]

I watched Red Notice tonight. It’s not gonna won any awards, but it kept my attention after a long work day and it was funny. I don’t always feel like watching Shawshank Redemption after all.

To be honest though, I think the greatest con pulled with that movie was the fact that it had a $200 million budget. I’d bet that The Rock (and to a lesser extent Reynolds and Gadot) made bank on it.

*Sigh* another one of my friend's is seizing upon a favor I owe him and is going to make me see 'Oppenheimer' with him. I've made it known that I find Christopher Nolan a somewhat overrated director, and that's probably mostly a reaction to his cultlike fanbase that almost rival Snyder fans in obnoxiousness, but my real apprehension towards seeing 'Oppenheimer' in particular is because I feel like I already know how the whole movie is going to play out and that Nolan's style won't elevate it past being a typical biopic. It's probably going to be over two hours long too...

Wiki says 3 hours and 1 minute.

I’m really looking forward to seeing it. I’ve been reading American Prometheus in the mean time. Some friends and I are planning to do the Barbenheimer double feature. Maybe not on opening weekend, depends on people’s availability.

Three hours! I am become dread!

If I'm going to have to see it in theaters though, I am going to hope that it exceeds my expectations. I don't want to sit there for three hours and force myself to be grumpy. My problem going in, beyond Nolan, is just that I tend not to like biopics, especially when they are about a figure I am already familiar with and whose conflict I already know is going to predictably play out on screen as I expect. My favorite biopics typically involve more underhanded borderline villainous types of people, and I am certain that Oppenheimer is not going to be portrayed that way.

I’m hoping that I haven’t spoiled myself by reading American Prometheus haha. Granted, I knew what happened at the Battle of Dunkirk, but the movie “Dunkirk” was still enthralling. Also, I don’t think I’ll finish the book by the time I see it. I’m about halfway through according to my ebook app. I also had a general idea about Oppenheimer in the sense that I knew he led the effort to make The Bomb and that he had issues afterwards.

[John Dule]

As Ridley Scott tries to revive the historical epic once again with this year's Napoleon, it's worth revisiting one of the films that led to the genre's premature demise: 1970's Waterloo, shot in an enormous multinational production with a budget approaching $300 million (adjusted for inflation). A critical and commercial flop, the movie's poor performance led to the cancellation of a Kubrick-helmed Napoleon film and signaled the high-water mark for epic film productions (even today, Waterloo's 15,000 authentically costumed extras remains the highest number of any film in history).

It's not hard to see why Waterloo's enormity wasn't a slam-dunk for audiences in the 1970s. Looking back from 2023, the movie is astonishing on a purely logistical level. Its production involved getting filming permits in the Soviet Union, as well as bulldozing half a dozen hills in eastern Ukraine to accurately depict the geography of the battlefield. Such an effort in practical filmmaking would never be attempted in the age of CGI, to the point that it's inconceivable an audience would find this movie unimpressive. But it's important to remember that audiences in 1970 had also seen Lawrence of Arabia, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Spartacus, Doctor Zhivago, Zulu, and The Great Escape-- a litany of similarly epic productions that also possessed what Waterloo lacks: a human touch.

In all the aforementioned films, the action spectacle was in service of dramatic tension. Granted, this is not easy to pull off in a film about a well-known historical event-- but at no point does Waterloo even attempt to create narrative stakes for its colossal battle, which eats up well over half the film. The movie avoids moralizing about Napoleon's reign, portraying him as an ardent patriot and a brilliant commander. What does Europe expect to see from the return of this megalomaniac? What is at stake if Wellington fails? The movie ignores these crucial elements of the story, instead delivering a watered-down message about "bravery on both sides of the battle." Such themes have been explored by every mediocre war movie since the early days of filmmaking, and they are no more impactful now than they were fifty years ago. The result is a movie that would not be out-of-place in a high school history class, but which is somewhat inert when it comes to drama and characterization.

Waterloo is a valuable film-- both as an extremely accurate documentation of Napoleon's final battle and as an essential piece of film history. It will not be making its way to any of my favorite films lists anytime soon, but it will certainly be interesting to see how its technical prowess and storytelling compare to this year's forthcoming Napoleon biopic. We can expect Scott's version to reflect modern tastes in telling ways. The movie is being billed as a story about Napoleon and his wife Josephine, a decision that could either give the material some much-needed character-driven scenes or simply distract from the accomplishments of its subject (not unlike The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything, and Bohemian Rhapsody, all of which devoted ungodly amounts of time to their subjects' personal lives). It will also be interesting to see how Hollywood approaches a film about an egomaniacal populist leader in 2023-- hopefully Scott will employ a little more subtlety than he did in Alien: Covenant.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I watched the first season to the end and I'm disappointed. Instead of answering at least a third of the questions asked and giving me a catharsis when I, it seems to me, is already close to the answer (Victor boy's nightmare world?), they just dumped a bus from the sky with another fifty characters. As if about a hundred undisclosed characters are not enough, these doodles in the background, from time to time shouting "hurrah" and nothing more.

What if the second season ended the same way? Is there any point in wasting time on it?

Yes, the second season did indeed end the same way. Only one answer was received: how to kill these monsters, but this season did not show whether this method works, and in general it has ceased to be relevant, because now people are killed not by polite monsters, but by Freddy Krueger with cicadas. And instead of answering the questions of the first season, the authors dumped a truckload of new questions. Instead of the idea of gradually exploring the world, which I was excited about, here was the idea of the sake of riddles for the sake of riddles.

I'm also disappointed with how the writers dealt with Randall, especially at the end of the season. He gave the series something that the authors completely missed in the first season — the conflict within the commune. Dale and the girl who killed her brother are too small and weak for a real dramatic conflict with the leaders of the commune. It seemed that by the second season, the authors realized their mistake, but it seems that not completely.

I definitely won't watch the third season. Although this series is very exciting, despite the lack of answers and extremely annoying sagging with melodramatic jelly, which the authors wedged right in the middle of plot points of tension. Despite the poor development of the potential, the series had really big potential. I would warmly welcome fantasy that would go this way: an absolutely incomprehensible, completely unexplored world in which you become a pioneer just by leaving your home. And what is important, the viewer also does not know anything about this world and cannot even read about it on fandom.com.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

火垂るの墓 (Hotaru no Haka/Grave of the Fireflies). Very sad film, cried multiple times. It lives up to its sad reputation. Rating 10 of 10, I'm a sucker for family stuff and this really knocked it out of the ballpark.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

It really is something of a great tear-jerker, with things just getting worse and worse over time and sad moments spread about.

Take the moment where Seita sings Warship March. What's going on there, in his mind? The delirium of empire really speaks for itself through Seita's character. His father features strongly in his mind, to the point it's providing copium.

As for Setsuko...everything she relies on slowly falls away. Father died at sea, mother died in a bombing raid, brother has massive problems of his own...by the end she's reduced to eating marbles thinking they are food...

Comes to show the stress war can bring to a society and country, as it is taken to the limit.

As for the aunt...I saw this comment on Reddit that allegorizes her role in the plot.

Aunt is the old Japanese system/heirarchy, harsh and often unfair to the people but the rigid structure is necessary for maintaining the people/culture on Japan (which does have limited space/resources).
Seita is the Japanese Empire, desperately trying to maintain its face in a series of bad decisions.
Setsuko is the old way of life, which Seita thought he was saving through his actions, but ultimately led to its final death.

And this reply:

I think this is a beautiful interpretation.

I definitely thought the film had allegorical elements. I agree with your interpretation of the Aunt.

I thought that Seita might represent the Japanese people themselves, desperately trying to make things work and hoping for the best despite the inevitability of defeat... the way he kept believing his father might be alive when it was beyond obvious that he must be dead.

For me Setsuko represented the future.

Which is interesting to think about. But in regards to the aunt, more broadly...the first thing that comes to mind for me is, what do you do if you have limited food and resources? Who do you share it with? What steps do you take to preserve what you care about the most? What if we had 1940s Japan-level food shortages, how do we deal with it? How does one deal with the chaos more generally?

All in all, needless to say, it's a sad film. And there are so many things to think about. Food for thought...

And oh yeah. I still cry when I see the ending scenes. "Setsuko never woke up" gets me every time.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

火垂るの墓 (Hotaru no Haka/Grave of the Fireflies). Very sad film, cried multiple times. It lives up to its sad reputation. Rating 10 of 10, I'm a sucker for family stuff and this really knocked it out of the ballpark.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

It really is something of a great tear-jerker, with things just getting worse and worse over time and sad moments spread about.

Take the moment where Seita sings Warship March. What's going on there, in his mind? The delirium of empire really speaks for itself through Seita's character. His father features strongly in his mind, to the point it's providing copium.

As for Setsuko...everything she relies on slowly falls away. Father died at sea, mother died in a bombing raid, brother has massive problems of his own...by the end she's reduced to eating marbles thinking they are food...

Comes to show the stress war can bring to a society and country, as it is taken to the limit.

As for the aunt...I saw this comment on Reddit that allegorizes her role in the plot.

Aunt is the old Japanese system/heirarchy, harsh and often unfair to the people but the rigid structure is necessary for maintaining the people/culture on Japan (which does have limited space/resources).
Seita is the Japanese Empire, desperately trying to maintain its face in a series of bad decisions.
Setsuko is the old way of life, which Seita thought he was saving through his actions, but ultimately led to its final death.

And this reply:

I think this is a beautiful interpretation.

I definitely thought the film had allegorical elements. I agree with your interpretation of the Aunt.

I thought that Seita might represent the Japanese people themselves, desperately trying to make things work and hoping for the best despite the inevitability of defeat... the way he kept believing his father might be alive when it was beyond obvious that he must be dead.

For me Setsuko represented the future.

Which is interesting to think about. But in regards to the aunt, more broadly...the first thing that comes to mind for me is, what do you do if you have limited food and resources? Who do you share it with? What steps do you take to preserve what you care about the most? What if we had 1940s Japan-level food shortages, how do we deal with it? How does one deal with the chaos more generally?

All in all, needless to say, it's a sad film. And there are so many things to think about. Food for thought...

I watched the animated film about ten years ago. Yes, it makes a depressing impression. It was especially shocking how their mother died.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

火垂るの墓 (Hotaru no Haka/Grave of the Fireflies). Very sad film, cried multiple times. It lives up to its sad reputation. Rating 10 of 10, I'm a sucker for family stuff and this really knocked it out of the ballpark.

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

It really is something of a great tear-jerker, with things just getting worse and worse over time and sad moments spread about.

Take the moment where Seita sings Warship March. What's going on there, in his mind? The delirium of empire really speaks for itself through Seita's character. His father features strongly in his mind, to the point it's providing copium.

As for Setsuko...everything she relies on slowly falls away. Father died at sea, mother died in a bombing raid, brother has massive problems of his own...by the end she's reduced to eating marbles thinking they are food...

Comes to show the stress war can bring to a society and country, as it is taken to the limit.

As for the aunt...I saw this comment on Reddit that allegorizes her role in the plot.

Aunt is the old Japanese system/heirarchy, harsh and often unfair to the people but the rigid structure is necessary for maintaining the people/culture on Japan (which does have limited space/resources).
Seita is the Japanese Empire, desperately trying to maintain its face in a series of bad decisions.
Setsuko is the old way of life, which Seita thought he was saving through his actions, but ultimately led to its final death.

And this reply:

I think this is a beautiful interpretation.

I definitely thought the film had allegorical elements. I agree with your interpretation of the Aunt.

I thought that Seita might represent the Japanese people themselves, desperately trying to make things work and hoping for the best despite the inevitability of defeat... the way he kept believing his father might be alive when it was beyond obvious that he must be dead.

For me Setsuko represented the future.

Which is interesting to think about. But in regards to the aunt, more broadly...the first thing that comes to mind for me is, what do you do if you have limited food and resources? Who do you share it with? What steps do you take to preserve what you care about the most? What if we had 1940s Japan-level food shortages, how do we deal with it? How does one deal with the chaos more generally?

All in all, needless to say, it's a sad film. And there are so many things to think about. Food for thought...

I watched the animated film about ten years ago. Yes, it makes a depressing impression. It was especially shocking how their mother died.

Seeing that box being carried around, combined with everything else, it hits you like a rock.
There was only one prior occasion on which I had seen a box of that type...Shinzo Abe's funeral.
Doubtless that scene alone made an impression on quite a few people in the theaters.
It's such a well-made film.

[Ferguson97]

Barbenheimer did not disappoint.

Barbie was a delight. It's exactly what you expect, and a little bit more. It's a fun movie with an earnest and simple message. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling gave great performances, particularly in the latter half of the film. There's several laugh-out-loud moments. My only major complaint is that I actually wish the "fish out of water" scenes when Barbie and Ken first arrive in the real world went on for a little bit longer. Solid 8/10 comedy flick.

Oppenheimer was a near-perfect movie. Cillian Murphy gave an absolutely flawless performance. Flawless. The movie does a good job addressing the moral qualms behind dropping the bombs without making Oppenheimer himself seem overly sympathetic. The cinematography was amazing. My only major complaint is that the first ~20 minutes were a little unfocused. 9.5/10, will definitely see again.

[Alben Barkley]

Oppenheimer is probably Nolan's best film. I need to rewatch Dunkirk to be sure, but this felt like more of a complete masterwork while that as far as I remember was more of a technical showcase.

I HATED Tenet, thought it was a pretentious mess; so rarely have I seen a director bounce back to such a high from such a low. I could even understand all the dialog this time!

I actually think this might be Nolan's Schindler's List in the sense that it may be the movie that will finally elevate him to a status where he is taken seriously by the arthouse and awards show crowds, and renowned as more than just a technically competent director of blockbusters. The reviews so far certainly seem to indicate that. I would not be surprised if Nolan, Murphy, and Downey Jr. all win Oscars and they definitely will at least be nominated along with the film for Best Picture.

It's also awesome that a movie like this -- long, thought-provoking, historical, intelligent, serious biopic/court drama -- looks to be a hit at the box office as well. Coincidentally, like Schindler's List, it's making far more money than most movies of its kind despite its bleak subject matter. It's just great to see something other than a superhero blockbuster or some other franchise film/reboot/sequel do well, even if it is ironically directed by one of the men who started the superhero movie boom circa 2008.

I don't have much more to say other than it was excellent, surpassed my expectations. It didn't feel 3 hours long. I was glued to the screen the entire time. Every performance was good. There wasn't really any wasted screentime. Editing was solid. The score and sound design as a whole was fantastic. The script was well-done, interweaving multiple timelines in a way that was easy to follow and made thematic sense. Just an all-around excellent movie I would recommend to almost anyone. I look forward to Napoleon and Killers of the Flower Moon, but I have a hard time seeing this topped as my favorite of the year.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm not surprised to hear good things about 'Oppenheimer' that actually make me more interested in it, but I am still dreading that three hour run-time.

And kudos to those of you attempting the 'Barbenheimer' challenge. That's like 5.5 hours of your life.

[Benjamin Frank]

Taking Off (1971)
Spoiler heavy
One of director Milos Forman's first films. An entertaining but curious satire/musical into the then very common issue of teenage runaways (this was the era of the generation gap.)

When the parents of a shy female teenager is not with whom she said she was, they worry that she has run away. In actuality she has gone to some musical audition but was clearly too shy to tell her parents.

The mother tells her husband (played by Buck Henry) to go look for their daughter. He and a friend go the police office which tells them of places teenagers go, one of which is apparently a bar (though no teenagers are there) and Buck Henry and his friend proceed to go there and get drunk.

Meanwhile, the daughter is too shy to actually audition and another young person there tells her 'my voice is flat but when I take Mighty Quinn (acid) I have the most wonderful singing voice.' The daughter tries the acid, maybe auditions and then goes home.

Concerned that her daughter has taken some kind of drug, her mother calls their doctor who asks her to find out what specifically she has taken, but she is unresponsive. At the same time, a very drunk Buck Henry returns home to find his daughter there. However, upon hearing that she is unresponsive, he responds sternly and physically and she decides to really take off.

Buck Henry then meets a mother with another missing child played by Audra Lindley (later one of the Ropers on Three's Company) (Georgia Engel who similarly later became well known for being on The Mary Tyler Moore Show also is in the film) who tells him 'I regard life as a series of circumstances, and my role is to take out of them as much as I can, so that's how I take my daughter's disappearance.' She also tells him she is a member of the SPFC - the Society of Parents of Fugitive Children.

Buck Henry's wife meanwhile has received a phone call from the police saying that their daughter is in upstate New York having been arrested for shoplifting, which is 300 miles from where they are. However, upon driving up, they discover that the young person arrested is actually a friend of their daughter's. Buck Henry, not happy having to drive 600 miles in one day and clearly impressed with Audra Lindley's attitude tells his wife 'our daughter is out with her friends having fun, and we're going to stop and have fun too.'

The rest of the film then sees Buck Henry and his wife unwind and loosen up.

The film is intercut between this action and various young performers at the audition, some very good, and some not very good. The most interesting are Carly Simon one year before her breakthrough album singing "Long Term Physical Effects" and Bilbo Bates (AKA Kathy Bates) singing "And Even the Horses Have Wings", which I thought was bad hippy poetry. My favorite was Mary Mitchell singing "Ode to a Screw.'

In addition,Buck Henry, his wife and her friend (Georgia Engel) also sing a song each as does Tina Turner.

The highlight of the film for me, although it did drag on a little, was the scene with Vincent Schiavelli playing a marijuana addict taking the opportunity with relish to not only teach the adults at an SPFC meeting, but to teach them about marijuana and how to use it and the proper behavior 'not passing the marijuana to the person beside you after you've taken a puff is calling Bogarting and it's very bad marijuana etiquette.'  Not surprisingly, about a decade later, Schiavelli played a teacher in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

The film gently satires teenage runaways suggesting that the parents would be as loose as their children if only they didn't have to be responsible for their children and the view of Audra Lindley, seemingly embraced by the entire SPFC, presages the 1970s 'me generation' even if parents of older children in the 1970s weren't necessarily the leading people of that generation.    

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Oppenheimer was good, though I think I'll like Barbie better. I do not yet have plans to watch Barbie in theaters, but maybe I will.

[Oleg 🇰🇿🤝🇺🇦]

I finishing the last season of Paradise PD and getting ready to start Farzar. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I love this kind of animated series. Brickleberry, Superjail!, Mr. Pickles, King Star King, Metalocalypse and similar bloody chewing gum fascinates me a lot. Maybe because, despite William Burroughs-like chaos, these things most accurately reflect reality, with its madness, sadism and gallows humor.