Cam Bert

I will slightly defend the autotune one just because A) it was the only different sounding song and B ) was the only one to really match the time. That said, yes she's a great singer and it does ruin it.

And you can't bring up fun educational songs without me thinking of...

And you can't bring up singing Star Fleet captains without me thinking...

And you cannot bring up The Hobbit without my mind immediately going here...

vignettes remember everybody gets two because... that's what Cloud Atlas did?

To those watching it I would say the last bit is a lot better. Once you actually spend time with them and not just focus on the sex. I just watched this yesterday and the only songs I vaguely remember are Cher's Believe, a kinda silly one about getting a blow job in a boat and the one with the guys getting married. My lack of ability to recall any words I think says it all. So aside from autotuning the one song they're all the same sounding and the fact that they talk sing everything sometimes it's hard to tell when they were singing a song versus just talking.

Unrelated to the movie, but a thought I kept having during the movie was "Did anybody from Glee go on to do anything?" Like Cheyenne Jackson got aboard to the Ryan Murphy train, so he's been steadily working. Lea Michael was thrown a Ryan Murphy shaped bone with Scream Queens, but outside of that what has she done? What have any of them really done? Maybe they're more busy in the theater, I don't know. Also, how badly screwed Jenna Ushkowitz on Glee? They just didn't know what to do with her after season one. In fairness after that it became the Lea Michael and Chris Colfer show and there was no room for any other characters that weren't in those direct stories. But Tina, once the stuttering was over just faded into the background. I don't know what show I hate watched more, Glee or True Blood.

Like from the trailer and the name I thought this would be something a long the lines of "these two souls keep finding each other in different generations" but it was literally "Oh, you'll be used in 1902 and 2002!" I think that's a big part why I couldn't get behind this because while the details varied it was that message which just shows you "Oh you think this might turn out different, nope! Sucks here too!" Like I get that maybe the idea is that they wanted to play with different social classes and be like "see we're all the same" but I don't think that came through as much as "don't have sex, you'll just end up being used"

To me the biggest problem with this movie is that they have all these things but don't ever really use them to say anything interesting at all. First, the time jumps are entirely pointless. They really wanted to do solider going to war, Titanic and Cher's Believe but couldn't do them all at once so they came up with this time hoping as an excuse I'm pretty sure. The time jumps go forward and backwards but really tell us nothing. Titanic aside, is there anything gained from putting any of the stories in that time period and not the present? Would the music producer/singer be any different in 2017 than in 2002? In 2017 couldn't you pick up a guy in a bar by saying you're writing a screenplay for Brad Pitt? Nothing is gained or no extra insight is given by having these things set in the different time periods, so why not put them all now? Also by having the actors play the same "role" I got confused because they time jumps were not extreme enough. I literally thought the nurse was the same nurse, and Rummer Willis was the same wife. It's only because her hair was different that I eventually clued in (though her story was somewhat similar which didn't help) but make the jumps a bit bigger or clearer if you are going to do it. And it's not if it's saying "being a nurse in the 60s is sure different than being one in the 40s" The actors playing the same role in different times doesn't change anything because it's who they are interacting with that changes (or doesn't change) their treatment not the time.

It's the kind of thing I have theories on but don't want to say at risk of spoiling the movie. Besides kinda like the version of Memento that puts it in linear order it's only really interesting if you've seen the movie. Watch the firs time that way would take a lot away.

I thought you liked thrillers...

Is Ryan Murphy somehow involved with this?

Wow! I'm actually a big fan of this guy and it was really neat seeing where he started! He writes and directs his stuff but didn't know he acts and sings as well. If you're interested he did a more entertaining version of Primer called Timecrimes which if you love time travel, thrillers, and slobby Spanish men is the movie for you. He also made a movie called Open Windows years before Unfriended and Searching which takes place entirely through computer windows. It's between those two movies in terms of quality but is definitely interesting. He also a few years back did the Anne Hathaway movie Colossal which again very unique. If you're a horror junkie he did some of the best stuff for the V/H/S and ABCs of Death movies. He's a guy to keep your eyes on because even when his movies are so-so they are unique and trying things.

So Vinny D's ex has a kid now. The kid let's say is three. The implication is that he left her because he couldn't settle down. So he has to leave her, not come back, she has to find another man, fall in love, get pregnant and then have a kid and watch it grow a few years before Vin comes back for a visit. What's the timeline on this? Say roughly what, 4 or 5 years? Because Vin still thinks they were married. Now, I get it that this was a memory they created for him, but how far back did the memories go? He surely would remember leaving his wife so do they just start with the last time he saw her and start building from there? If he died on that last mission so they only have to create a little bit of false memories, how long ago did he die? Have they been doing this for 4 or 5 years? Clearly Bloodshot is the peak of their robo-solider program so if they made him that long ago have legs, CT, and Eye Boy just been repeating the same stuff for 4 or 5 years? If you can make a dead guy Bloodshot surely you can do better than robo-eyes, throat and legs. If it hasn't been that long did they create years of fake memories for him? I want to know.

I get most of the teams abilities but what is KT's deal though? She basically has robot lungs that she can turn on and off. On paper this seems cool, but when you think about it all it's about as useful as wheels on a fish. All she has is basically a device to allows her to hold her breath. What good is that going to do? Well simply not much. Sure she can go underwater for possibly longer. She is a trained navy diver but even then they are trained to hold their breath from 2 to 3 and half minutes or so. That's it. This doesn't help her because it was something she was already trained in! Maybe she can go a bit longer with robolungs but let me take you back to basic biology. We need our lungs so we can get oxygen into the blood. Why do we need oxygen in the blood? Well that's how our cells create energy. That fuels the cells which allows them to work which you know, keeps us alive. So she's got robot lungs, but she still needs to get oxygen into her blood or else she'll die so she still has to breath. What about gas I hear you say? She uses it on those guards and her electro-throat helped her. Well that's a specific kind of gas, what about other kinds of gas? Have you ever seen a gas mask? Notice how it also covers the eyes and nose? That's because gas can burn your eyes, get into your airways and burn and cause damage that way. Sure she's not "breathing in" the gas but the thing about gas is that it's gas and gas can enter any open orifice like her eyes or nose even if she's not breathing. She basically got a winning lottery ticket but the prize money was the cost of the ticket.

... Sodomy?

For me I got the read that Claude didn't want to die in war but at the same time he had to go. I imagine his father was in Korea or the second World War or something so there was a sense of obligation and duty he had to enlist when drafted. He was still young and naive and despite everything he was determined to go fight. Granted I don't know if any of us were around at the time (I don't think so) but I imagine his attitude was pretty prevalent. I know my father was in the navy at the time and didn't want to go but he knew if he got the orders to go he'd have to. I think the ending is the movies judgement on Vietnam. Like you said it was objectively horrible and even at the time the people knew it. The ending of having this young life snuffed up and showing the many graves of presumably similar people is a reflection on the cost of the war. Then we cut to the crowd of people outside the White House basically protesting. The characters now dressed more 'square' have been matured by the cost of war. It's brief but it's there. Not to mention when Berger is yelling at the rich party guest that Claude was going to die to protect them and their way of life to their disinterest and care. I think this is the express the general meaningless of the war as well. What is he fighting to protect? How is this actually affecting their lives? I think part of the problem is you have a play written during the war and the movie many years after the war. You have two different mindsets at both times. However, do you rewrite the play to reflect that? Completely change the ending? I think the decision to have Claude be a reluctant outsider makes more sense and says more about war than having a leader of a group of hippies decide to listen to his draft orders like in the play. One you have the conflicted everyman who is hearing both sides that realizes he can't fight the man, the other you have a committed antiwar person who gives in. I haven't seen the play but the story may justify that more in the real version. In a post war version in seems a bit odd. In the end, I'll have to find the quote, but when looking up about the differences between the play and the movie there was a quote from Milos Forman who found hippies and to a degree the war to be boring. He wanted to focus more on the lives it affected.

Is that like walking around instead of driving? Depends on the roles they got. Obviously in this version of the story it would be Berger and Shelia right? Madonna as Shelia? I buy it. Springsteen as Berger... not so sure.

For sure. If the movie ended any other way I wouldn't have liked it as much for sure. The only thing that disappoints me is Hud's former fiancee(?) and child basically joining them but at least at the end he's with his kid and I guess it's a win.

I think that's a lot of it. I think John Savage played Claude very well. Clearly joining the army meant something to him, even if that reason is never fully verbalized to us. Then comes in Berger that's like "No, we think it's bad so you should too." The things he does under the guise of "having a good time" are all ways to prevent him going off to war. He is essentially forcing his beliefs on him, and Claude never fully gives in. Maybe I'm reading too much into it because I disliked him, but I'm sure the trip out to Nevada wasn't about giving him one last day of fun either. Berger fully wanted him to run away and join them. Berger is a character that thinks he knows what he's doing but his plan to get money fails, his plan to get Claude back (the original at least) fails. I think that's it when he was cut off from his followers and forced to be on his own he doesn't have the tools or the means. He also truly doesn't believe in his ideologies because yes they may throw you in jail but I'm sure there are plenty of things he could have done to not fight and lead to a court martial and not fighting.

Maybe it's just my dislike of hippies but I really liked it. First you have the just on a thematic level that for the first time in his life he has to follow orders and it kills him. Second, because I never thought he was a great guy to begin with. He pretend to do things throughout the movie that he claims is for the best of everyone or Claude but are really about his wants. Claude has the money to get out and go to the army which is what he wants to do but Berger talks Claude into freeing himself instead. His plan for money nearly fails and while doing it he's putting the moves on the girl he's suppose to be helping Claude get with. I know the hippies are all about free love and that, but he keeps doing things so Claude can be with her, yet keeps throwing wrenches in the works whenever he can. He constantly thinks he's smarter and better than those around him and in the end truly does a selfless act.

I kinda loved this film for just how bonkers it was songs included but all the songs I thought were a lot of fun. I looked up after the difference between this film and the musical and there are lots of differences. For example Claude is the leader and Berger is just a free spirit in the group. Halfway through the first act Claude is drafted. The ending of course follows with this idea and minus the flip flop plays out the same. However, one of the biggest differences is that the musical is all about the hippies and their way of life and beliefs and thoughts. In 1968 those things are maybe progressive and new but like what was said in 1978 those ideas are kinda just the now. So I think smartly so Milos Forman reconfigured the story to just have the core group floating about and we see character go in and out of them. Again smart because we're a bit past hippies but also because hippies suck.

Having just watched this and knowing nothing about The Cowsills it seems very... church groupy. Like a bunch of uncool people trying to make fun of or re-appropriate something that is cool at the moment. This also reminds me of Tesla's cover of another hippie anthem of Signs. A former glam rock band doing hippie songs just seems odd.

Speaking of technology that was invented for a very specific purpose that couldn't have been know, what about John Goodman's gun that splits apart? Perfect if you have two people that are sitting the exact space apart that your gun opens up to. If someone were to move a chair or just lean to the side the whole gun is rendered useless. Also, how often are exactly two people coming in? Does he find it's normally just solo individuals or groups of two? What if three people came in? Does he have a special three way gun? Like you said all the tech in this movie is very specifically designed for these specific purposes that nobody would have seen coming.

I have a big question about the inter-dimension market. So I get that the whole market exists on in another dimension or plane or whatever. In order to see it and interact with it you have to have the googles and gloves and that. Fair enough. This all makes sense. So the market is actually over top this giant stretch of sand that is one big flat plain with a fence and guard towers. I'm with all of this. Not a problem. However, the market also has multiple levels. It's not just a flat surface, it has levels and layers. How does that work? As the customers are perusing the market looking for some knickknacks to take home they are physically walking around in on the flat desert. If they want to go down an alley in the market they just walk down it because there is nothing in their way in the desert. What if they want to go up and down the floors? How does that work? There are no pits or stairs or holes in the desert. Just flat nothingness. Does it turn into a mime act? When Valerian falls through all the floors he only does that because he's on a manhole which takes him into the sewers of the desert planet. In the market world he's crashing through floors. Then he's swinging on ropes and climbing his way out. Yet we see none of this on the desert planet. What's going on? Is he just flying around the desert sewers? Magically the sewer system matches their stairways and elevators. It just makes no sense.