When Netflix flashes little descriptive hints about what a show is about, I've never seen it more off than listing Emily in Paris as "campy."

Hahaha, talk about damage control.

Brief Encounter.

See this one I would.

Barefoot Gen covers similar ground but where GotF makes a plaything of your heart BG is that + it makes your eyes bleed and stomach turn.

Things like Schindler's List or A Clockwork Orange or Barefoot Gen that would be too traumatic.

But mostly I don't get this. I don't think I can really say I enjoyed a film if it gets a "never again" out of me, barring the stated reason.

I forget the exact wording but after a Kiki's Delivery Service rerelease a late twenties/early thirties sounding guy sounding a bit dazed was describing to his buddy how relaxing it was. I wish I was social enough to have chimed in, because I agree. Like a tonic.

Found the Eagles fan.

Hmm that'd be grand, I can get behind that one. She was my favorite and I just adore her as an actress.

> If it had focused entirely on Wiest and Allen

See it's the fact that Allen lays his ego to rest with Hannah that it's one of the only ones I can tolerate and actually enjoy. Even some of the later ones he's not in, he may as well have just starred in them anyway, the characters feel like true stand-ins. But H&HS feels like he temporarily learned what we all know, that the world is full of people who don't think like Woody Allen. And I can respect that when normally his films are some of the ones I get the acclaim of the very least.

A big one for me is I think the Coen bros would do well to focus much more on comedy than their dramas. They don't feel very signature, but I can't really think of anybody else with their sense of humor and it is a great one and desperately needed with the lack of truly side-splitting comedies we have now.

I feel how you do about real life killers, if I had my way we wouldn't even know their names or faces anymore. Fictional serial killers and fictional victims are another story, and I feel like you're blurring the line between the two here when there is a distinction.

It sounds harsh for characters that already had the worst happen to them but it just feels like outright lying to pretend the most major thing that happened to them wasn't their murder. Nothing in a victim's story is going to outweigh what their fate was, everything will then be colored by their demise, everything will seem sadder. Saving it until the end is just disingenuous and cheap really, like their entire life amounted to a gruesome twist ending.

> From a technical standpoint you can't construct a narrative around victims, because by virtue of the fact they're victims and the only time they're relevant to the overarching story of the serial killer is at the point they are killed.

This is something along the lines of how I feel about it and wanted to say. The whole reason we're talking about them at all is because their lives were taken away, yes they're complete human beings their entire lives before and should be respected as such, of course. But the killers are the reason the stories are happening and are just naturally what makes for a more interesting story.

He's doing it as a favor to his girlfriend at first (But even in the asking out scene I don't think he feels as if a gun is to his head to be there) but I wasn't super confident in his and Sue's relationship right before everything went to shit.