Terribly paced movie. It doesn't deserve any of the recognition it is receiving.

Why is this movie so difficult for people to comprehend? Do people not understand metaphor? I guess this is why Avatar: The Way of Water is the #3 all-time movie and Banshees has made $10 million.

This is the answer. I don't believe I've ever watched a movie more quickly a second time, the day after I believe.

I like them, have been to over 100 in the theater and own a few 3D Blu-rays as well. If a movie is in 3D, I go to that version exclusively, and only twice that I can recall have I not (Miss Peregrine's where I waited too long and the theater yanked the 3D version, and Billy Lynn's where the 3D didn't come to my town). I even went to No Time to Die in 3D, and I'm not sure a lot of people even knew it was released in 3D (I didn't know it was going to be). The only issue I've ever found is the slight dimming that happens with the specs, though that varies between theater and auditorium. Sometimes the bright levels have been excellent, as good as any 2D movie.

Some conversions are very good, though. Most of them are effects heavy, so while the live action often doesn't look great with the 3D conversion, the animation effects are easily retrofitted for 3D. I've been to over 100 3D flicks.

I was just a bit too young when those '80s movies came out but would have loved to have gone to them. I have a 3D TV, though, and bought Metalstorm as one of the BDs. I also own two versions of F13 3D; have watched the anaglyph version but not the active 3D.

Same as Brad Pitt, I don't view him as a really "skilled" actor. He is not on the level of Day-Lewis, Phoenix, Hoffman, De Niro, or anybody of that class (as far as the modern age). He often looks like he's "trying" to put on the role but is never totally convincing. His baby face and higher register voice don't help him with playing adult, mature characters.

No, the movie isn't about banshees or mysticism or anything outside real world human problems. It's all what happens on screen, as is.

Just sticking to recent movies, The Banshees of Inisherin. It's certainly the only movie from last year, and one of the only ones of the last few years, that I'd call "objectively good".

Hell no!! His movies from 2003 on are mostly negligible crap. Cosmopolis is one of the worst movies I've been to in a theater. These movies have none of the personality or originality he showed earlier in his career. Videodrome, Dead Ringers, The Brood, The Fly, and even the later eXistenZ are his best by far.

Just a tentative list.

The Banshees of Inisherin

The Whale

Halloween Ends

Fall

EO

Emily the Criminal

Resurrection

Pearl

Holy Spider

Terrifier 2

He does. It's Black Man Talking Loudly(TM). Sam Jackson also uses that trademark.

He was great in The Killing of a Sacred Deer. He has a pretty specific screen presence, though.

Right back at you, shithead.

Tough shit. The U.S. is allowed to have a border and a culture, and cannot support this. They are being encouraged to come by not being stopped. They should be immediately turned around and those currently squatting should be removed. If they truly need to leave their country, they can go to another country that fits their culture more; the U.S. should not be the default.

At least you acknowledge the agenda of the first film (except illegal aliens should be deported, not welcomed as they currently are; it is the country that is in a plight). Maybe it'll take time for folks to recognize and call out the agenda of this latest even though it is plain as day.

Incorrect. The racial aspect is indelible to what Johnson is doing with these movies. The idea of creative geniuses being charlatans doesn't even have a real-world reference. What super rich White techno dude is a charlatan? People jump on stupid bandwagon hate for Musk, but he's not a charlatan.

With the first one, he wanted to show White people being replaced in their home/standing by a hispanic alien, a metaphor for the larger immigration issue.

Then you truly don't pay attention. The purpose of both movies is to show rich White people in a bad light. Do you honestly think that making Idris Elba the Miles character and, say, Matt Damon the Andi/Helen character who is portrayed as smarter than Idris would be what Johnson wants to convey?

Do you think that this type of predictable "woke" racial formula is a quality base upon which to make movies?

Do you understand what optics in film are? The purpose of the film is to show a rich White man shutting out from his company and eventually killing a black woman who is depicted as more intelligent. Those are the racial optics that Johnson wishes to convey. Same thing with the first movie - a rich White family is dismissive of the poor hispanic nurse who is shown to be superior/cartoonishly honest. She ends up being gifted their house and fortune.

Did you even pay attention to these movies?

No, it has a crystal clear racial/social agenda, as did the first movie and most movies today, for that matter. This is just shouting it at you with the glass onion metaphor. The obvious thing, the center of the onion, was Bron being the bad guy. Johnson is saying "Of course he is the killer" and dumping in tired racial victimhood tropes as well. It is not clever. It's a dreadful movie just like the first. I wonder what Johnson could do with the third movie. Now that he has followed the exact same pattern, it would be easy to figure out his plots.

The current stranglehold that racial politics have on movies means that murder mysteries or any movie with a surprise villain almost can't be done. Movies of the past few years have "diverse" cast quotas by mandate (i.e., putting Whites in the minority in ensemble casts), and anybody with sense knows that the makers will not make a minority truly evil. So in Scream 2022 for instance, they had I believe four White people in the new cast. Two were killed early and the other two were the killers.

It's not a mystery movie and has no "hidden" messages. Its agenda is shouted at you. What Johnson lays out plain for you to view in the first movie and this one is his Hollywood-style loathing for rich White people. So it was easy to know just from looking at the cast list that Norton, the only White man in the new cast, and playing a rich man to boot, would be the killer (same thing with this year's Scream and the alpha White male villain in Eternals to name two other examples). Anybody who thought that he would make a female or a minority a murderer was deluded. The film devolves into nothing more than characters yelling and smashing. It's neither interesting nor clever.

The film exists only in the realm of racial politics and class hatred, not quality mysteries. It follows the exact pattern of the first movie - Blanc mentoring a female minority in a quest against a rich White force. Is this now considered quality moviemaking, where the base of most movies rests on race and class hatred?

I thought it got exhausting in the last half hour, felt a lot like the coda to A.I.. Guillermo is terrible at pacing.

This would be from a 3D Blu-ray, yes?

The Banshees of Inisherin was the best movie because I didn't have any expectations.

As far as the theater experience, the most unique was going to the Creepshow 40th anniversary last week which was followed by a Q&A moderated by Lori Cardille with Tom Savini, composer John Harrison (also a director, including of the "Dune" TV movie), and actor Marty Schiff (with other Romero-universe people, including his widow, in the audience).

He's so good in Knightriders.