Poor things was... something. I feel like the film had INCREDIBLE potential. It was obvious made with passion considering the creativity and "experimental" nature of it (the camerawork, design of literally everything, music, and surrealist elements were amazing), but I feel like it was lackin

It wasn't a bad watch. In fact, I felt incredibly entertained during the entire movie. It was a good movie in the sense that it is unique, well-made, and ACTUALLY entertaining to watch. What rubs me the wrong way is that it seemed to present itself as a super radical, feminist film but lacked anything of actual substance.

I can understand, like others, how some people will hate it and some people will love it. It's a really middle-way type of movie. Like I said, there were incredibly aspects to it, but I don't feel moved as a person that has already seen the movie. It didn't have a lasting affect on me.

There were so many missed opportunities throughout the plot, and it felt quite shallow; it even felt pretentious. It's like the movie was trying to protray itself as dramatic and revolutionary but only touched the tip of the iceburg for everything it tried to accomplish.

I know this review is incredibly vague, but this review is just about as moving as the movie itself. It's just nothing that will help you grow or realize anything about... anything. It had appealing elements, but that is all. It felt like no research was done, no point was being made, and no true thought was put into it.

Stranger Things wasn't a bad show. In fact, it was a great show to watch in the moment. The problem is that it was incredibly redundant.

It started off amazing. In fact, all of the seasons had aspects that were amazing and creative and absolutely thrilling. I fear, however, that there were so many parts of the show that just didn't need to be there. So many loose ends were left loose: I feel like 1/3 of the knots that needed to be tied were actually tied.

It was also repetitive. It was scared to do anything remotely risky. Every season after the first felt useless because you know the what's going to happen. They're going to find out that the world is going to end, decide that they have to do something about it, almost die but never actually die because you might lose money by killing off popular characters, return to their lives as normal, and then repeat the exact same thing next season. That's all. Over and over again. I understand that conflict and solution are vital parts of a plot, but they just kept reusing the exact same idea with one or two more characters over and over again.

Everything just got bigger and bigger and it just felt like those stupid "OH MY GOD IT WAS HIM ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!!!!" shows that use that idea several times in a row. Nothing is special anymore; there's no mystery. The suspensful atmosphere that was there in the first season is nothing but a light dew atop the grass by the fourth. The one time they actually killed off an important character, he was brought back less than an episode later. (And no, Billy does NOT count in my eyes as an important character.)

All in all, there were awesome parts of the show (like Robin's character? Her lesbian rep was the first in FOREVER that felt like it wasn't just there so the company making the show could look "woke." It actually developed Steve's character and was really beautiful to watch such a friendship form). The problem is that so much of the show felt boring and repetitive. I think the only ACTUAL excitment I felt in the fourth season was watching Hopper survive in the gulag.

Helter Skelter was genuinely a really good film. The only reason it didn't make it to my super-awesome-cool list up above is because I was stupid and missed out on all the important points.

I watched it while I was super tired and COMPLETELY FORGOT or misunderstood most of the key points (forgot about the full-body surgery AND didnt realize that the clinic purposefully made the bodies rot).

If not for my stupidity, this film would've been a spectacular watch. In fact, REGARDLESS of my stupidity, it was still a great watch. I definetly reccommend it. While it's not as obvious with some of its points, the comments it makes on sexism and basically all that crazy shit about being a female(-celeberity) in this world; kind of like how The Substance does.

Anyway, watch it. It was amazing. And maybe read the manga, I haven't read it but I heard it's really good (I was blown away when I found out that the movie was a mere live action version to a manga).

Isle of Dogs mastered atmosphere in a way I've never seen before. The animation was stellar and completely over the top, and the way the human characters only said exactly what they needed to vs. the dogs being full of personality and sarcasm complimented each other amazingly. The story was comedic yet emotional and I absolutely loved it. However, I do have some complaints. Maybe I'm just not educated enough on this movie, but I felt like some of it's incredibly well crafted metaphors were either just pointless or too esoteric for me to grasp. The movie seemed chalked-full with metaphors, yet I couldn't put my finger on a single one. Not to mention, why Japan? If the film seemed to be mocking a problem so prevolent in American, made by Americans, why was it set in Japan? There are some little things that also seemed so silly. Why did that girl dog (I can't remember her name) have perfectly groomed and brushed fur at all times when the dogs all looked terrible to eccentuate the desolate nature of the island? One of the characters even pointed it ouot. For a movie that seemed to be one giant critique, I felt like it wasn't self aware at all. It'd say so clearly, "This is bad!" but next thing you know, the movie would seem to mindlessly do the exact same thing it was mocking. I don't know. It was a great movie, but I can't say it's on my top 10 list or anything. It's too bad; like I said: the animation and design was otherworldly and the plot itself was incredibly original and creative. I have a feeling I'm just dumb and not realizing something really, really important, but my feelings remain regardless.

The book definitely has its flaws. Its worldbuilding was flat at times, and the whole Racheal Rosen femme fatale was ridiculously sexist. It's hard for me to resonate with and enjoy a book that claims to be depicting what it means to be human or "alive", and then be horrible at depicting humanity. PKD did well at times with the parallels of androids, Rick, and Isadore, but Rachel Rosen as a character was another example of Man Tries to Write Seductress But Only Shows That He Can't Write Women Because He's Too Blinded By His Misogyny. Her character made it hard for me to enjoy a hefty part of the book (not to mention the fact that Rick's enlightenment at his ability to empathize with androids was ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS ATTRACTED TO THEM???). It reminded me a lot of when I read 1984 and couldn't really get past the sexist writing of Julia. These books are GOOD, but everytime their sex drive gets in the way of their writing, it ruins a LOT for me.

The story also felt oddly ambitious. It's a good book, yes, but PKD was trying to convey one idea with a million different examples, even though he didn't seem to pay too much attention to any of them in particular. However, I admit that that feeling might just be my own ignorance.

Those are my main critiques.

However, as I already said, the book WAS good. The line between alive and "not counting as life" is repeatedly shown to be unclear and indeterminable. Isadore mistakes the cat for an electric one, Rick is incredibly apathetic, Resch is mistaken for an android because he's sociopathic, etc. And as everyone else reviewing this book says, the androids are some of the most human and alive characters at all. They may not feel empathy, per se, but they have ambitions, they connect with other androids, they feel angst and pain, and they dream. They dream. The title of the book vividly summarizes the concept that the book is trying to convey (the title might just be my favorite part of the entire book): Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Do they rest with the same childish sleepiness and count sheep, as the old-fashioned gag suggests? Do they participate in this concept that only organic beings are so prone to? But that's not quite the question that the title is asking. In the book, Rick asks if androids dream in the same way that humans idealize things. That is something truly human. If androids really are so similar to humans, do they dream of their future the same way we do? THAT is something so human and so critical that the androids, too, find themselves capable of. They escape because they dream; they read books because they dream. They dream and they fantasize and they cry tears over their dreams, but they don't empathize as people do. I really do like this detail that PKD pointed out; what makes humans truly unique is their ability to empathize. (even though I think what makes us human is the ability to create art). However, if we CAN empathize, why don't we? The "specials" (people whose IQ has deteriorated due to the radioactive dust) and the electrics are seen as inferior, and humans have the ability to empathize with them, but they never do. They are never shown mercy. It's an ironic play on humanity and our priorities. We pride ourselves on something that we don't even use. The fact that people continue to pursue an electric life with dials, destruction, and escape shows that we don't utilize our ability to empathize.

I've seen other people discuss how the story also talks about the line between fiction and reality, and the constant substitutes that humanity is making for itself in the book. The very existence of androids is a substitute with and of itself: the empathy boxes, the dials, Buster Friendly, Mercer, the new planets... it's all a substitute for something that was already there. People could've been happy with nature, but they decided to continue making substitutes. This leans onto the "fiction vs reality" idea: what counts as a substitute and what counts as real? What is genuine? What makes a substitute count? And all back into the android vs human thingy: what makes an android "human-enough" to be "human"? Then back again, do they dream? Do they dream at night, or dream of status and power and social acceptance? They do. Time and time again, they wish to be either human, equal to humans, or accepted by humans. They desire social acceptance. This makes the electric sheep symbol special because owning an animal is a status symbol. Owning a real animal makes people want to accept you. Do androids dream of electric sheep—something, even if it's fake, to make them equal to humans? Or would they dream of electric sheep as a counterpart of themselves? Would an android sheep be more special than a real sheep to them because they can resonate with their artificual make-up, and possibly get them even closer to the ability to empathize? The constant strain on everyone due to this desire to reach something "greater"—something "ideal" only ruins you the closer you get to reaching it. Even after Rick's religious "enlightenment" (using a lot of air quotes right now!!!), he's disappointed that the toad is artificial. We are an insatiable species, as are our copies. Even the androids have the same pretentious nature as we people do in the book. The androids flee to escape slavery, but as soon as the group of androids we see meets a kind man, they immidiently use him without a single thought. This could be an example their "pure lack of empathy", but I think the feeling of superiority they (and by they, I mean Pris) display was on purpose. Isadore, the most inferior of them all, truly is the kindest, most human one of them all.

Some parts of the story have no build-up while others have so many little, insignificant details that I don't feel compelled to look into them. But it WAS a good book, and it's a sci-fi classic for a reason. I actually only read the book because Imai kept writing Buck-Tick songs about it!!!

Before you leave, I want to highlight that I left out a LOT of information. This isn't an analysis, just a review.