Don't Look Up : Absolute wokefest

FEMALE PhD student discovers asteroid. She has a BLACK MIDDLE EASTERN boyfriend. Her nerdy white professor and she report their findings to some BLACK expert. The three of them in turn go to see the FEMALE president. Who, and that's not woke but terrible in its own right, is played by merel effing streep, that horrible actress who should have stopped acting 2 years before the Deer Hunter. Oh, and it had jonah "can I have another biscuit" hill, to remove any possible traces of comedy. Oh, and it had ron "looney leftie" perlman in it, an absolute miscast, but that's true for all movies he is in.

This movie was a terrible wokefest without direction.

At first I thought it was going to be like the movie Contact but then came some attempts at light hearted jokes, and jonah "not funny" hill, who I guess is funny to the woke mob, but isn't funny.

Only redeeming factor of this movie are the great sci-fi scenes, the cgi was top-notch.

This movie could have been a lot better had JLaw or Blanchett shown some skin, but even that didn't happen.

3/10

What are you, nine years old?

Stop hurting my feelings! Now I am hiding in my safe space again.

You didn’t get the intent of the movie and didn’t pay much attention.

8/10 for me.

Intent? You mean all the virtue signalling?

That's what pinks the stinks relates too.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Not virtue signaling at all which you would realize if you actually got what was going on.

And before you ask, I'm not going to lay it all out for you because I am not wasting my time.

It really wasn't woke

It took me 4 sittings to get through this failed satire wokefest.

It started to get better in the latter part, but that isn't good enough. It was a mess, the editing was schizo and Streep gives the worst performance I have ever seen her give, even over Doubt.

I like Lawrence, but she was just skanky and too shrill here for me to be interested in her, and DiCaprio was a tub of lard and acts the same in all his films. As for the rest of the cast, what a waste!!!!

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I just looked at the trailer and it didn't look appealing in any way.

I disliked Streep in "Doubt" also; I think her absolute worst performance was in the godawful "Orange County in August". I don't like Julia Roberts, but she was the best thing in it. The movie was dreadful.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

I saw AOC once and didn't feel a need to revisit. Streep's character wasn't appealing but I don't recall disliking her performance, yet compared to say One True Thing which had a similar theme, Streep was both superior in this and it was a better film.

I have seen snippets of Doubt only, but she looked just terrible in this, almost like a full on caricature and her facial expressions were like a ventriloquist was controlling her.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I like "One True Thing" a lot, though the William Hurt character is pretty repulsive. But, imo, it is Streep's last really good performance. Her character is enormously appealing. Warm even.

The one with Julia Roberts is extremely inaccessible to me. I can never remember the name of the movie. It is so convoluted to me. It does NOT trip off the tongue. Streep's performance in this one is soooo mannered.

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

August: Osage County. Not an appealing or even that interesting family. Give me Terms Of Endearment any day.

I don't know what it is with Streep. Perhaps those bad performances are when the director might trust her implicitly, doesn't give her much guidance, and she goes astray. If her character can be hated so much like in AOC, then perhaps she may have done a good job, but a lot of that is in the delivery too which might leave a lot to be desired.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

"Terms of Endearment" is infinitely watchable. ****

---

"My life is over. I might as well dance with Johnny Slash!"

Thank you! At least someone else besides me who gets that this movie sucked harder than a Nilfisk.

Plus the cgi was poor too. An interesting idea completely obliterated by bullshit presentation.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

I can't remember when I started cringing HARD at everything being so over the top, but it wasn't an easy flick to watch. Eventually, I decided it may have been made to make fun of itself and even the dumb wokeness it was trying to beat us over the head with.

Does that make sense? Even a little? I think the ending scene on the new planetary home sealed it for me. Maybe there's an article online somewhere that may shed some light.

I can’t believe it’s been nominated for best picture. And it’s got an editing nomination, which appears to the Academy, if a film has obvious rapid fire editing, it’s worthy of an award. tick, tick, BOOM is the same of which I could only bear to stand 30 mins.

The best edited films are when the story and segues flow smoothly, it’s not noticeable like in West Side Story and this marvellous film missed out on an editing nom.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Let's hope this turkey doesn't make the cut.

Well it already has, as long as it wins zilch.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Even if it does win something, those of us who are blessed with a functioning brain will know it was not worthy and only achieved accolades in the eyes of the brain-damaged wokies.

Exactly!

It won't stand much of a chance, but that it has been "wokefully" honored amongst the midst of far better films, only proves how Netfilx has bought off the nominations and further evidence that the Academy is full shite.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

---

😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 😠 Let's go, Brandon! 🙂 I like cashews!

That's a shame.

I found the movie quite funny and moving at certain parts. Everyone was perfect in it. Hilarity and horror all rolled into one.

Oh, and it had ron "looney leftie" perlman in it, an absolute miscast, but that's true for all movies he is in.

Well that's just factually untrue. Perlman is perfect in everything he's cast in.

---

So many stories, so little time.

The ONLY role that would potentially fit perlman is that of Quasimodo. Or some rapist.

Incorrect. He's been perfect in every role.

Also, "only role" implies just one. Yet you mentioned two. So even the number is incorrect. That's just facts.

---

So many stories, so little time.

That's how grammar works. If I would have had the rapist suggestion in the same sentence then one would definitely use "roles". In this case however, since it is in a second separate sentence as a kind of afterthought speaking about just 1 role is fine.

It's more written like you would speak in real life.

A comedy gold example:

Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and Fear. Fear and Surprise.

Our two weapons are fear and surprise. And ruthless efficiency.

No, that's not how grammar works. Grammar and syntax do not exist in a vacuum. Adding an after thought that contradicts the previous thought shows an ill thought out or written sentence.

Written language is not the same as spoken language.

The reason that example is funny is because the speaker contradicts himself. They claim to have one chief weapon and then list two. Then they mention they have two weapons and list three. It's funny because the speaker doesn't know how to count.

---

So many stories, so little time.

So it's exactly as I already explained: it's written like spoken language. I'm not writing essays here.

You are absolutely correct, sir. And this ridiculous Caleb moron couldn't be more wrong.

Thank you for your support, I did nazi that coming.

Wait what?

Please do not create sock accounts to back yourself up. It's tacky.

---

So many stories, so little time.

I don't need that. People naturally agree with me but I understand that's an experience you are not familiar with yourself.

Please don't lie. No one's buying it.

---

So many stories, so little time.

I am not Grumpy nor a Bastard, so I hope that makes your day.

I disagree with both. I hope that makes your day.

---

So many stories, so little time.

It did! Thanks!






























You are not trying to be the next grumpy bastard are you?

You are welcome.























The role's taken; I've no interest in it.

---

So many stories, so little time.

Incorrect. I did not say essay writing. I said written language, which includes message boards.

Besides, even in spoken language, you'd still be wrong.

---

So many stories, so little time.

Nah, you are wrong. And pedantic. Wrong and pedantic.

That's not what pedantic means. So you're still wrong.

---

So many stories, so little time.

That's not what pedantic means.

Wrong again!

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Nope, I'm right.

---

So many stories, so little time.

Ok!

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Grammar and syntax do not exist in a vacuum. Adding an after thought that contradicts the previous thought shows an ill thought out or written sentence.

Written language is not the same as spoken language.

You are playing with semantics here and have distorted the point to appear as a vacuous meaning. That is pretentious.

This is a chat thread, so the typed language compensates for the spoken word of expression.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Not at all. If a poster contradicts his own point, it is not semantics to point it out. Nor does it count as pretentious considering he was the one who tried to bring up grammar and how it works. I merely countered his points.

Also, his point was nonsense. It didn't need distortion.

I believe you mean it substitutes for the spoken word, which does not excuse ignoring the typed language's rules.

---

So many stories, so little time.

He was being sarcastic, you are being a pompous ass jerk…. 😈

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

No, he wasn't. And no, I'm not. But I forgive your rudeness.

---

So many stories, so little time.

Well don’t! Because I didn’t ask for it, I meant it.

---

Norman! What did you put in my tea?