searching, but not very hard

art history will be like "this is the most revolutionary painting of its time!" and you will look at it and is just a normal painting of a lady sitting under a tree and then an art historian will explain "this is the first time a painting ever used this specific shade of blue which challenged all understood conventions of how to depict light and launched a movement known as auzureism, and also the lady is looking at a sparrow which in its time it was a sign of fierce sexual liberation and it was considered scandalous" and then you find out the painter was expelled from the academy of art of stockholm because of the painting and that the king of sweeden paid three thousand marcs (equivallent to ten million dollars now a days) to have the painting in his room and the painting still looks like a generic painting of a lady under a tree

They dumped plastic skeletons in environmentally protected areas, against the literal contracts they had to sign to get the permits to film in environmentally protected areas. Like they not only did a bad ecological thing that freaked out some divers, they literally broke environmental protection laws and their contract with the Italian government

Wednesday the 15th. What an excellent day. Middle of the week, middle of the month. Truly, we are in the middle of things.

kenneth branagh's poirot movies are visually pleasant but they piss me off. why does the start of 'death on the nile' look like black and white dunkirk for the belgian army. is poirot a farmer with a devoted nurse fiancé. who is katherine. why is she dead. why make up a frankly interesting woman for the role of love interest only to fridge her before the events of the story even start. and then! the death of the captain whose mustache he copies for ambiguous masculinity doubling reasons is great and then they do nothing with it too. pisses me off! why come up with a perfectly good dead captain who trusts our presumably underdog protagonist in his flashback only not to bring him up again. that's a perfectly good queer story right there. and why isn't poirot bald. or fat. let him have a photograph of the captain whose death he couldn't stop for split seconds next to katherine's photo at least. bisexual grief is all i'm asking. that's all i'm asking! and also for poirot to be far and bald. kenneth branagh shave that head challenge.

also why is everyone's makeup so contemporary...get that mac foundation and sweetly pink eyeshadow outta my sight.

and the cane too....that guy's disabled and he's always been disabled and that's a perfectly interesting character note if the goal is to make a charismatic bigger-than-life character movie. you (kenneth branagh the directr) could have poirot (kanneth branagh the actor) stumble and hold his leg and look pained while clutching the rail of a nile cruise ship. they could have him lean against a plinth and look up to a great half-statue of a chipped and shattered ancient warrior king and tip his head at him in rueful kinship before putting his 'painless and genial and peculiar' face on when someone gets closer. if they care so much about his war backstory then make it have permanent consequences as it plainly does in the books. don't be picky about it! they could give him flashbacks. if they care so much about making him an underdog at battle then make it clear he was cannon fodder!they could have his kinship towards misfits, quiet kindness and hatred for meanness and cruelty, and make it deeper by giving space for his disability. where's the cane kenneth. where is it.

kenneth branagh's poirot movies are visually pleasant but they piss me off. why does the start of 'death on the nile' look like black and white dunkirk for the belgian army. is poirot a farmer with a devoted nurse fiancé. who is katherine. why is she dead. why make up a frankly interesting woman for the role of love interest only to fridge her before the events of the story even start. and then! the death of the captain whose mustache he copies for ambiguous masculinity doubling reasons is great and then they do nothing with it too. pisses me off! why come up with a perfectly good dead captain who trusts our presumably underdog protagonist in his flashback only not to bring him up again. that's a perfectly good queer story right there. and why isn't poirot bald. or fat. let him have a photograph of the captain whose death he couldn't stop for split seconds next to katherine's photo at least. bisexual grief is all i'm asking. that's all i'm asking! and also for poirot to be far and bald. kenneth branagh shave that head challenge.

also why is everyone's makeup so contemporary...get that mac foundation and sweetly pink eyeshadow outta my sight.

oh look at me, I'm eva stratt, I'm earth's elected benevolent dictator and I speak every language and I committed every piracy crime and I love kidnapping mouthy hothead scientists to make them bend to my will and I sing like an angel and I pinned down a whining writhing ryan gosling and I went to prison for life for the crime of saving the world then decades later I broke out of prison to dive back in for round two of saving the world. girl fuck you.

One detail from the book that didn't make it into the movie that I think is neat is that Eva Stratt did not just stumble across Ryland Grace. He was not the 'potentially disposable' option. She went to the top microbiologists in some of the best research labs in the world and was told multiple times "you know what? I think Dr. Grace might be your guy." When discussing the Petrova Problem. And this several years after his ejection from academia.