slothian

If you get a chance, I'd recommend the Attitude Era podcast which is hosted by 3 university chums under 30. The main host is Irish and watched the entire era (defined as WM14 to WM17) contemporaneously, whereas his English colleagues have respectively watched the latter half of the era at the time, and wasn't watching wrestling at all at the time. I bring this up because the guy who didn't start watching wrestling until 2006 (the poor guy) immediately took a dislike to the New Age Outlaws and managed to ruin them for the other hosts by pointing out how formulaic they were.

See, I never get whether kids these days regards "the hot shit" as a positive or a negative. I am truly on the Toland train in that respect.

Also Halloween (1978) vs Die Hard With A Vengeance

Notwithstanding the Flickchart Forum, I'd put it at #2 between the original and H20. Does everything you could want, there's 3 final girls of sorts and tips it's hat to pretty much all the previous instalments (including Halloween 3). It isn't flawless - there are tonal issues - and it wears its sequel status on its sleeve, but it was a great cinematic experience.

Well, that was good!

I have two ideas, with at least one tentatively agreed, to do before going back to a franchise. Superman appeals more in that only the first live action film has been covered on The Show before, but then next year is the 80 year anniversary of Batman's debut, so that one makes more sense.

It's Tomlinson Award-winning!

1,003: The Moss-covered Three-handled Family Gredunza. 1,004: Armbar

Johnny Depp walks*, James Gunn gets fired. Loving the consistency of Disney's moral employment practices. *Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he's pretty damaged goods at this stage, whatever the scuttlebutt.

Somewhere in Chicago, @The Master is dancing a jig.

Yeah, without going into specifics, an extremely close family member, as well as one of my cousins, went through lymphoma and that was pretty bleak (both are in remission, thankfully). Black humour probably not appropriate on my part, but you have to be a pretty despicable wrestling mark to be glad that a wildly misbooked wrestler needs cancer treatment. Seemingly Twitter is being shockingly well-behaved on that front.

That's a pretty drastic measure of getting over as a face...

"Oscar Award winning" and "great movie" are not mutually exclusive - the easiest example being Braveheart. But if Spotlight is good, then fair play to it.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch vs Bugsy Malone

Damn! And I liked the first Suicide Squad, but a James Gunn Suicide Squad movie?!? Sign me up!

My only concern is that if Wilson Jr. doesn't postpone Cate Blanchett month, then next year is something of a sausage-fest. Miranda Otto's possible, I guess, but I'm struggling beyond Tyler/Blanchett/Otto. And whilst I'm on my inclusivity soapbox, it's a bit Oscars 2016 too, if you get my drift. That being said, that's more on the casting/studios than it is the concept itself. For the record, I am up for the Year of Tolkein if the demand's there as it is a theme that has legs, as Mike's demonstrated above.

That's very much up to your lawyer. And before you ask, I don't practice in the US.

New series has begun. Won't spoil anything, but I enjoyed it a lot. Very different to the New Who that's come before and Whittaker comes across as a hybrid of 9 & 10 in my opinion.

Not seen it, but I obviously have to ask how prominent she is in what is clearly an ensemble film (without spoilers, obviously). Yeah, take that Pandy!

That reminds me, I need to edit my post for the "NB)" bit.

Yes, you can help influence not only the film Pandy & I use as the joint review, but the homework we assign each other to plot the range of their career. As announced in Episode 57, our subject will be Cate Blanchett. Pandy & I will take an executive decision on what makes the joint review on Friday 27th October so get your ideas in before then! NB) We will not be covering The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (we've already covered that), The Peter Jackson Tolkein-verse (for reasons within the episode) and Thor: Ragnarok (because fuck that movie).

But I usually acknowledge when I'm being unfair, unless you have a specific example otherwise. Could you extrapolate? I'm not saying Boyle is a flawless director (I fucking hate The Beach, which stars your favourite guy Leonardo DiCaprio) but poo scenes played for laughs......?

I'm regularly unfair. Also, I will concede that I am basing that description of Maniac on what the director himself told the BBC website, and have not seen the actual show. But I maintain that we're missing out not having a Bond film with Danny Boyle's stamp on it.

I'm not saying that I'm *not* interested, but how do you have creative difference with the guy who directed the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony - FEATURING Daniel Craig as Bond - and replace him with Purvis & Wade (GRRR-HRR-HRRR-RRRR) and the guy who directed a Netflix show by saying "Remember, you're Jonah Hill and Emma Stone - and SCENE!" This has "missed opportunity" written all over it.

I was way more mean to Interstellar. In fairness, it's a film I need to rewatch. Thanks for the feedback!