Shay

VIP

3

Fantastic characters, fantastic acting, beautiful cinematography and writing. This show is good. More than good.

At first I was hesitant about a vikings spinoff. The original was a great show and I couldn't see anyone doing it justice, but although this show is set in the same time period (100 years post) it's vastly different in terms of what is going on in the world. With increased travel and trade comes the challenge of religion and Christianity spreading through the north, existing tension with England require a delicate balance of political wit and acuity in battle, all of which make this an entirely different show from the original vikings.

This is of course not 100% factually accurate and they've taken some creative liberties with some of the content of the show but it's pure action-packed, thrilling entertainment. And I'm especially taken by Freydis being played by a Swedish actress. Hearing the accent in her voice lends an authenticity to her character that I didn't realize I missed in some of the other characters, especially when they're speaking Old Norse. Love to see someone who speaks a Scandinavian/North Germanic language in that role.

And anytime I get to see badass women kicking ass on screen you know I'm going to like it.

There seem to be a lot of trolls continuing to leave nasty comments throughout these episodes about the writers, the lgbt+ representation, choice of pronouns for some characters, or general comments of how much the show sucks... yet they've still continued watching the show for several seasons despite how much they claim to hate it. Personally I don't have time to waste watching four seasons of a show I don't enjoy.. just something to take into consideration when reading such overwhelmingly negative comments.

As for my own opinions, this was a great episode. Burnham seems to still be coming into her station and struggling with her past but with each challenge she faces she's becoming stronger in her conviction and that seems to be reminding her of who she was. And who she still is despite everything she's lost.

This episode was a good mirror for that, with rescuing unfairly punished criminals and standing up for the rights of other people who might have also forgotten who they were. Felix was a great comparison and reminder of who Burnham used to be. He knew who he was and was ready to accept the punishment that he thought that he deserved, just like Burnham at the beginning of season 1. It was a good reminder. And though their stories ended up very different it's clear that Burnham understood him and related to him in a very personal way.

Still really looking forward to the rest of the season and how things play out between Stammets and Tarka.

iconic pilot episode. so many spn fandom reference from just 43 minutes.

as supernatural is one of my all-time favorite tv series, i've re-watched season one upwards of 6 times now (most before i joined trakt) and there's just so much about this episode that helps set the stage for the rest of the series and also characterization of sam and dean. sam is pulled back into the hunting life by his brother after yet another tragedy. the 'short-term' conflict (finding their father) is set and the 'long-term' conflict (figuring out who/what is responsibile for their mother's murder) is also set. there's immediate engagement from the audience in trying to pre-emptively answer these two questions.

it's clear the brothers have a lot of conflict even beyond what is going on with their father. dean has followed in his dad's footsteps and sam took his own path. a lot of this first episode seems to be them working through some of this conflict and learning to work together again. this is really important for the rest of the season (and the rest of the series.)

coming back and re-watching the earlier seasons is also a reminder that this is supposed to be a horror show. it doesn't really feel so much like horror later in the series but these earlier episodes definitely have an ominous mystery feeling to it that's reminiscent of ghost/exorcism movies like 'the conjuring.'

The first time I watched The Martian was in theaters and I remember absolutely loving it. Coming at it for a rewatch was a little bit depressing, particularly after reading the book. I should have known better.

The movie itself is not bad, not at all. Ridley Scott did a great job with this movie and adapting it to the screen. There were a lot of great elements to the original story that got cut, but it was for a reason. Sometimes it's not easy to adapt the little details to the big screen. It's just not possible without making a 12 hour film.

The movie captured the most hilarious of the funny moments and the worst punchlines of the dad jokes, all while doing justice to the story itself. Matt Damon really brought Mark Watney alive. He did such a great job in this role. Some of the Earth supporting cast were great as well, like Chiwetel Ejiofor as Venkat (Vincent) Kapoor and Donald Glover as Rich Purnell.

I'm keeping my rating of this show from when I first watched it, because my impression of the film has been muddied since reading the original story. All in all this is a pretty good show with some great music, a great cast, and a lot of impressionable moments. It's cheeky and action-packed, while still retaining the gravity of the situation for the serious, emotional moments.

Loved it.

This show is starting to get so many negative reviews and they all seem to be from book purists, ie. people expecting the show to be exactly as the books were.

Realistically that is impossible. Any series or movie that has ever tried to follow a book exactly has failed. It is an impossible feat to replicate a written masterpiece exactly as it is and turn it into a cinematic masterpiece. The mediums are far too different and the method through which the audience experiences events is vastly different.

All I can say is that if you've read the books, be prepared for the series to be very different. If you're a fan of the books, there are liberties that have been taken with the series you are not going to like, but that does not make the series bad purely based on those differences. Try to approach the series from a new perspective.

Ok, moving on to specific thoughts on this episode, I'm starting to get confused again. Last episode it felt like things were starting to clear up. Details on Gaals backstory were helping stitch all of the time skips together into a more complete tapestry, but this episode was like an asteroid blowing it all apart again.

I'm still really intrigued by Gaal's plotline and where that's going to go. Didn't see the whole 'I can feel the future' thing coming but I guess they have to explain it somehow and with the rest of the history of this world as a backdrop, it doesn't seem as far-fetched as you might think.

I'm also getting a bit more invested into the Terminus story. I really like Salvor and I'm starting to like Phara. She's a little sharp but there's a lot of potential for character development if the screenplay is written well enough.

There's something about this show that has me feeling a bit off. It doesn't feel cohesive enough. It's almost like taking three separate shows that are mildly related, mixing the episodes up in a bag, and randomly playing them back to back. The plot isn't linear AND we have time jumps AND inconsistent narration which is making it confusing for me to understand what's going on and stay invested in the show enough to keep coming back week after week.

I will probably finish out the season and decide from there. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that all of these storylines will intersect soon and in a grand enough way to excuse all of this confusion at the beginning, but at this point it doesn't feel like that's going to happen.

Cinematically this is a great show, but I'm not sold on the plot just yet.

oppenheimer's life and involvement with the manhattan project are too interesting for this movie to be so boring.

cillian murphy and robert downey jr. have both shown amazing performances in this movie, no surprise there. the videography is great and edited to mute any bright colors. it helps carry the undercurrent of despondency through the film in a visual way and that added a lot of impact to the dialogue and acting in general.

i admire nolan's attempts to tackle a movie written in first person. his choice to show the subjective in color and objective in greyscale was genius and i think this is probably one of his better movies.

however, the complete lack of continuity is very frustrating. i like how one of the reviewers put it: "it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry." i couldn't have said it better. this movie feels messy and all over the place. it's incredibly slow-paced while also being choppy and inconsistent. it's hard to pin down oppenheimer's emotions and convictions when the film feels like a mashed up series of webisodes.

my largest complaint about this movie, though, is that it's boring as heck. there's no action, there's no drama, and there's very little emotion. cillian murphy did a standup job of trying to inject as much emotion as he could, but this is really christopher nolan's failure as a screenwriter. if he wanted to write a documentary, he should have just written a documentary.

a large part of this movie deals with oppenheimer's conflicting feelings around the project and use of the bomb, but it's shown in a very subtle way. there are so many moments where he's questioned about his opinions and concerns on the bomb. he's displayed as weak, a traitor, and someone attempting to prevent the progression of building a hydrogen bomb for selfish reasons. through all of this, not once did slotin come up. he's not even in the movie and i can't figure out why.

slotin was a physicist who worked with oppenheimer on the manhattan project. he was the person who built the trinity device for the test explosion (the big tower with the bomb on top of it.) his contributions to the project were crucial to its success, so he was by no means a minor or unimportant person. he died just months before the testing of the bomb from radiation sickness after an experiment went wrong and he was exposed to lethal doses of radiation. it took nearly a month for him to die in a hospital at los alamos.

maybe this is a bit ranty of me, but i don't understand why nolan would choose not to include the gruesome death of a colleague in this movie. i'm sure this strongly influenced oppenheimer's opinions on the project, and it certainly impacted the entire town. seeing the effects of radiation poisoning and how awful of a death it can be is an important factor when deciding if you wanna inflict that suffering on hundreds of thousands of people.

the film is from oppenheimer's pov, and he wasn't present at the accident, but a funeral was held in los alamos and oppenheimer gave speeches about slotin after the fact. there were many times oppenheimer's hesitation about the bomb was interpreted as disloyalty. he was accused of being a soviet spy and of being sympathetic to the japanese during the war. slotin's death was a pivotal moment in the quest to build the bomb and it's dumbfounding to me that this was excluded from the movie despite the emphasis on how oppenheimer's opinions evolved while working on the project.

there were so many other ways to display how and why his opinions changed, but all that's shown is 2-3 seconds of cillian's face while viewing photos from the aftermath. nolan was attempting to be subjective with this film but instead he made oppenheimer seem stale and emotionless.

all that being said, i did still enjoy the film. it was worth going to see, it was worth buying, and i'll probably watch it again. it was good, but it wasn't as great as i had hoped it would be.

i just had high expectations and nolan let me down.

Blade and Blade II are some of the best vampire movies ever made. Blade: Trinity isn't quite as good, and I think that can be chocked up to pulling Blade to the background of his own movie, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be.

Wesley Snipes, of course, makes this movie what it is. IMO, it's worth watching for that alone. The loss of Whistler is perhaps the first mistake this movie makes. They try to make up for it by bringing in Whistler's surprise daughter, but it just doesn't work.

Abby (Jessica Biel) tries too hard to fill the role. She's basically a watered down Blade. There are many scenes throughout this movie where she's mirroring Blade, almost like they're setting it up for her to take over the franchise, but her character just doesn't have the same presence Wesley Snipes brings to Blade. Purposeful or not, that makes the movie feel disappointing. I don't think that would've been the case if she'd been brought in as her own character.

Hannibal King (Ryan Reynolds) kicks ass. I've always loved his particular brand of deadpan humor. At this point he's been typecast to hell, but he brings something different to the movie and that at least makes it entertaining.

And I loved seeing all the flared jeans and old apple tech. It's hard to believe this movie is almost 20 years old.

At first I wasn't sure how I felt about this documentary. It was informative and intriguing, and it had me asking questions I'd never thought about before. And I love that.

At the same time, it was very limited in scope and had a general negativity toward stimulants as a treatment for ADHD, which I think can contribute to adding to the stigma that's already there. It's important to remember that there is a lot more to this issue and discussion than what can be fit into a 1.5 hr film and that stimulant medication helps a lot of people with ADHD.

This documentary tries very hard not to mention benefits and dismisses any benefit using information from a single study that found students had no measurable improvement in academic performance while using stimulants, despite many other studies showing data that proves the opposite. This documentary is biased, which is very obvious from the beginning, but I don't think that means it doesn't have value.

I had a sour taste in my mouth right after watching it and I'm glad I waited to write this comment because my own bias was impacting how willing I was to accept new and conflicting information. It's been a week since I've seen this film and I keep thinking about it.

When I was first diagnosed with ADHD I didn't want stimulant medication. I struggled on Concerta and Ritalin and Adderall. They all made me feel awful and the negative side effects were too much for the benefits to be worth it. But I was finally put on a low dose of Vyvanse and it's made a big difference in my ability to function within my family, be responsible for and complete my work on time, and finish tasks that are crucial for me to be more independent.

And as much as this medication has helped me, I also wholeheartedly agree that it has created a lot of problems for a lot of people. Between addiction, dealing drugs, side effects, social pressure, and irresponsible prescribing, stimulants have potential to cause a lot of harm. I can't ignore that.

Learning more about the history of stimulant use in the United States (and elsewhere) was eye-opening. Positive and negative experiences can exist at the same time. This can be a life-changing class of medication in the best and worst ways at the same time.

As regulation gets more strict I do worry about losing access to a medication that has made such a big impact in my life. Despite being disabled, stimulants have helped me get by and contribute in a society that I might not have without it.

But the one thing that keeps haunting my thoughts is the question of why it's necessary in the first place. Why we push our workforce so hard they feel there is no option but to take stimulants. Why we demand that people with ADHD perform the same way as those without ADHD. Why it's impossible to truly compete without being on a drug. Why universities are so difficult and tough on students that stimulants are the only way for some people to make it.

Beyond application for ADHD, this medication is being abused as an escape and a performance enhancer to help people meet unrealistic expectations. This documentary asks the question "why do we need these unrealistic expectations to begin with?" and for that reason I highly value the time I spent watching and learning from this film.

it's really interesting watching the quality of episodes change with the writers. this was by far the best episode of the series yet. a lot of the parts that aren't making much sense are coming to a close (it seems it was all a cover up for something else anyway, still struggling to understand why it took them 'weeks' to figure it out.)

as far as characters go, i'm still finding nick to be the most well-rounded and also most interesting. he has flaws and doesn't tout some 'mightier than thou' crap like i'm seeing from some of the others. cough*travis*cough i really do not like him, but hopefully that will change as he's now realized he was wrong and treated his son like he was crazy and making things up.

the way these adults talk to these kids like they're lesser than is really irritating. the adults don't take any of their advice, opinions, or information to be valuable and instead tell them 'be strong' when they're clearly struggling in the middle of an apocalyptic situation. yet again, a travis quote, and yet again, another reason i don't like him. also is anyone going to mention madison literally beating nick? her son? regardless of what he did that's never an ok response - and it doesn't exactly make her a likeable character.

looking forward to how they handle all of the new developments in the next episode. seems like things might finally be picking up for this series.

this has a very different vibe to 'the walking dead' but i think i like that. it's interesting to have the series starting off before the start of the plague/virus zombie apocalypse.

there are a lot of potential strong characters in this one. i can see the writers are trying to make madison (blonde teacher lady) seem relatable and likeable for being sympathetic towards her son and the other student at the school. i'm not sure about her yet.

i do really like nick. he has humor on his side and was instantly relatable and likeable. i followed alicia over from 'the 100' so i can't wait to see what she does in this new role and the character she builds here.

the show seems to (still) be getting a lot of criticism. i think people are coming over from season 5/6/7+ of 'the walking dead' and expecting 'fear' to measure up to characters we've had several years with in getting to know. there was no possible way that 'fear' could hope to replicate 'the walking dead' so they had no choice but to try something different.

it's a bit strange to be watching this six years later but i'm going back and re-watching some of my favorites and leaving commentary so i don't forget things later, and i'm excited to be finally sitting down to watch 'fear the walking dead.'

this show has a lot of potential.

This was okay - a typical action flick, but there were some poor choices made by everyone involved with this movie.

Namely, the ending. Now wtf was that?

Anyone interested in watching a movie about finding treasure wants them to find treasure and make it big time at the end - whoever decided it was a good idea to go with this nonsensical ending should be fired.

If they just waited until Jo left the island before going to the actual hiding place she never would have seen them and they never would have given the actual location away. They could have gotten away with all of their treasure instead of CRASHING THE BOATS AND SINKING IT INTO THE OCEAN. It made no sense at all - especially since both characters wanted to find the treasure and Sully had been looking for it for a long time.

I just can't wrap my head around the decision to take that route. This could have been a great show.

This was the first film I saw in theaters since like.. 2019 so the excitement of the big screen still made the movie enjoyable, but if I watched this at home I probably would have turned it off.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the big complaint about this episode is that a computer is experiencing emotions or thinks it is experiencing emotions and that's just too far for some people lol.

We live in a world where advanced AI is not outside of our reach. We have the beginnings of humanoid robots expressing emotion and AI programs trained to express themselves using human emotions. The idea that 1,000 years from now computers wouldn't be far better at this is absolutely absurd. It's no more 'impossible' than invisible shields or the magical walls in the brig that somehow maintain atmosphere and are near indestructible (or warp speed or a mycelium network lol this is all fiction.)

I think all in all this was decent for a filler episode. We checked in with how Book is doing after, well, the anomaly destroyed everything a few episodes ago. We touched bases with Gray (who, after not having a physical body for a long time) is now making friends with the computer. Those interactions seemed a little odd/forced to me.

The interactions between Stammets and Book were wholesome. After Stammets has been struggling with Tarka the past few episodes (and also with working well in a team) it seems he's trying to make extra efforts. Seeing some of this between Stammets and Book added another layer to the show and even though Book gave some skeptical expressions in response, this seems like the set up to what could potentially be a great friendship (collaboratively for Stammets and socially/emotionally for Book.) Especially after everything that he's lost, finding a home and a family on Discovery seems possible and I hope the show goes that way.

I was more than a little surprised that the other members of the crew didn't fight to stay with Michael when they were all facing imminent doom as the ship dissolved. This felt very out of character for some of the major supporting characters of the show (like Saru, Rhys, Owo, and Keyla.) AND ESPECIALLY BOOK?!?! What? They all refused to allow her to fly the Discovery into the future because they didn't want her to be alone so they went with her, knowing it could mean death, but a dissolving ship going through a plasma barrier (generating massive heat and basically turning the ship into an Easy Bake) is too much?

My only complaint is that it seems that whoever wrote this episode didn't know the characters they were writing about. It's very unlikely there was only one EVA suit but if that were the case then it should have been mentioned in the show at least.

We're starting to get into 'The 100' strange new world territory. It feels like the script writers exhausted their initial ideas and now it's just basically anything goes.

Not saying I hate it. Obviously I'm still watching it - but season 3 is very very different from seasons 1 and 2 so far.

Sonequa is amazing, as usual, but this episode was lackluster in comparison to the rest of the season so far. Partially because we have very little to no context on why Adira is so important. Taking a foray at the very beginning of a season to explore an emotional story with a character we literally just met, while we're still trying to come to terms with the end of the previous season and what that means for our characters this season, was a poor move. Despite the episode being emotional I still struggled to connect with Adira's character because I didn't know her. There was little character development before this point so the story didn't hit as hard as it probably could have.

Looking forward to the rest of the season but I hope that the plot starts to make more sense/become more tied into the rest of the series.

Informative in some ways, but pure propaganda in others. With the rise of boutique pet food brands and the raw feeding craze a lot of pet owners have been fooled into believing that kibble cannot be the best option for their pets. I've seen people full on harass pet owners who dare to feed Pro Plan, both online and in person at stores. Some of these untested pet food brands push themselves as a superior option because 'you can understand the label' but conflate nutritional literacy with the idea that it's healthier and better. Not understanding the nutritional name for something on a label or why it's called that doesn't make it a bad ingredient. Whole ingredients do not equate to higher quality or better nutritional value if it isn't a nutritionally complete diet.

In the same way food companies will sneakily use certain terms to manipulate people into believing an item is good (such as legal requirements for using 'natural' or 'organic,') companies can do the exact same thing to pet foods. Before judging a food as 'good' or 'bad,' make sure you understand the label and what tricks a company may be pulling to skew your opinion.

The informative part of this documentary comes in some of the information about the history of kibble and the pet food industry. But a lot of this information is skewed toward the negative - it's biased. Which I expected. They're making an argument for raw feeding and boutique (often grain-free) kibble so I expected them to pick information that would support their argument. I just didn't think it would be so obvious.

The WAVSA Global Nutrition Committee created guidelines for nutritionally complete foods and has strict requirements for a food to meet those guidelines. WAVSA foods are good foods. And that doesn't mean foods that don't meet WAVSA guidelines are bad, but it does mean you're taking a risk in not feeding your dog a nutritionally complete diet and you need to put in some extra work to make sure you're doing what is best for your pet.

I'm not anti-raw or anti-boutique food brands and I do think it's possible to feed those foods safely and in a way that is beneficial to the pet. Full disclosure, I feed one of these 'boutique' brands to my own dogs. But I don't agree with skewing facts or cherry-picking information to support a point of view without also discussing the negatives of that point of view.

Feeding raw or boutique foods can be dangerous. You risk malnutrition, higher chances of bacterial infections, and a host of other conditions (including a potential increased risk of DCM*) by feeding untested brands of pet food. If you are unsure, consult a veterinary nutritionist. They will help you make sure that what you're feeding is nutritionally complete, whether you decide to feed grain containing kibble, grain free, or raw.

And lastly, to the people this applies to, feed the dog in front of you. Piling on people or shaming them for not adhering to your way of doing things is despicable. You are not a better pet owner just because you have a superiority complex.

*To further elaborate, many pet foods have been associated with a higher risk of DCM (enlarged heart and disease of heart muscle, which can cause death) and that is for both grain-free and grain containing pet foods. The FDA published a FAQ in 2021 stating that this risk is associated with foods that have pulses (peas, lentils, etc.) higher on the ingredient list. Although many foods have reformulated since then, it was previously more common to see pulses high on ingredient lists for grain-free foods because they used it as a filler instead of using grain. This came to the attention of the FDA because of an increased number of reports, likely due to the increased popularity of boutique pet foods.

-contains spoilers for season one and for the walking dead-

am i the only one who thinks it's strange that in this series right off the bat they realized that it doesn't matter how you die, everyone turns. and in the walking dead, it took SEASONS before it was even brought up as a possibility... i mean i know it's unlikely that rick would have known that, but the others should have, right?

tiny little things like that make this whole universe of series seem a little disconnected and inconsistent.

also coming off the end of season one, idk i get it that it might have seemed like a good idea to flee land and get on a boat with some strange guy that literally none of them know, but i do not trust strand. not even a little bit. it also doesn't make much sense to me that they started just bombing LA? probably likely to happen in a situation like this, to be fair, but for all of those zombies to appear out of nowhere when the bombs are hitting in-land and that's where the noise would likely be? it just seems like they did everything they could to dramatize the first episode of season two, and it wasn't even necessary. i would actually say it was probably a bad idea to start off the first episode with so much action and drama when the rest of the episode was so boring.

this may just be a hint of inexperienced writing, but putting all of the exciting parts at the beginning isn't great for holding the audiences' attention.

fingers crossed the season gets better from here.

Ah, homophobia, victim blaming, tossing around slurs - the title of 'Triggered' must have multiple meanings.

This movie started off not too bad, I was excited about the premise and how it was going to play out - and then they threw out a very distasteful Johnny Depp/Amber Heard reference quite early in the movie and I nearly gave up right then.

"Well if he is (cheating,) you need to be Amber Heard to his Johnny Depp and leave his ass."

Nevermind the fact that Amber abused Johnny. But yes, lets continue spreading false information and demonizing Johnny Depp.

The whole friend group in this movie really just seems to be made up of dude bros who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves. I suppose that's the entire premise and why they would be willing to kill each other to save themselves, but it doesn't exactly make the viewers care about any of the characters. It just makes it more satisfying when you no longer have to listen to them spout crap about each other.

Another early scene that nearly made me quit watching was when one of the characters came out as gay. He said he was 'gay sometimes' and then said he was 'bisexual' - comments soon followed from the 'friends' about being 'part-time gay.' Many of them seemed to be grossed out about the entire discussion. It was all very unnecessary and homophobic, definitely biphobic.

Not really sure what the point was in writing all of the characters to be assholes and then blowing them up. Seemed more like an action/thriller than a horror movie. I would argue that the point of horror is that you make the characters likable and relatable so that their deaths or the possibility of their deaths is terrifying. Characters drive the story, but these characters sucked.

The ending 'twist' was also very predictable. I knew from the minute they started 'investigating' exactly how it was going to end.

I would be wary to watch another movie by these writers.

This entire show is such BS. After watching this documentary I started looking more into the case since the film was woefully one-sided. It was alarming to me that Brooke's family were not included in the documentary if this were the truth of what happened. And as it turns out, this documentary leaves out a lot of evidence against Herman that contradicts his claim of what happened. The family refused to be part of the documentary because the claim in the film is a lie and they did not want their words twisted to benefit him. Brooke's sister is petitioning to have the film removed from Hulu for supporting her sister's killer and making a mockery of her death.

This is not a shockingly sad story about the possible dangers of violent parasomnia. This is a PR stunt intended to frame Randy Herman as the poor kid who killed his best friend in his sleep and didn't know what he was doing so that he can make noise, get enough people on his side, and hopefully succeed in his push to have his conviction overturned (which he is currently fighting.)

Don't believe everything this documentary says because this is essentially Herman's defense argument in video form with dramatic pauses, bad acting, and sad music all intended to evoke emotion and make you feel sad for him. It is missing a plethora of evidence and information contradicting Herman's testimony and does not acknowledge the state's arguments against him or the Preston family's protest of the making of the documentary.

This was such a welcomed episode. It was great getting back to Gaal after so much of the empire stuff. This is a personal opinion, for sure, but I really don't care so much for how much detail and depth is being put into the empire's story and that'll probably remain my opinion unless something extremely significant changes.

Learning more about Gaal brought a lot of understanding to the show. In the first episode I was quite curious how she was able to study and learn this level of mathematics (and view a problem from an extremely unique perspective using one specific book) while nobody else could, and she was somehow able to do this on her home planet that doesn't really have books and has outlawed the seeking of knowledge.

I really love Gaal's plotline in this story. It's what got me interested in watching the show and it's the reason I've continued to watch the show through the episodes that are a bit of a yawnfest for me. It was refreshing to get this backstory that brings so much more depth and context to the overarching plot.

It was also great to be able to spend some time on Terminus and learn more about Salvor and how the situation there has evolved since they landed. The show started with a lot of time skipping and that was a bit confusing but these past few episodes (and especially this one) seem to be knitting those bubbles of time we're skipping between together so we can understand the bigger picture. Nicely done.

It's rare that I feel so much anger and devastation after watching a documentary, but Pray Away broke me.

I feel so sad for what these people went through, believing that they need to be saved or cured so much that they became leaders in the same movement that hurt them. And I'm so angry for all of the people that they went on to hurt with their messaging.

I'm happy that many of them were able to get out of this toxic cult and are now coming forward to talk about it, but at the same time I feel so much rage and sadness that this ever happened in the first place.

I hope people realize that this kind of conversion church therapy is still happening. I went through the same lectures and yuppity "support group" crap in 2016-17 in the LDS church. It was a support group for people with same sex attraction and the ideology of "it's not the thoughts or feelings that are the sin, it's the action that's the sin" was pushed down my throat so. damn. hard.

So much of this documentary feels intimately familiar in the worst possible way. It's so hard not to be angry at people who continue to push the idea that there is something wrong with you if you're queer.

I really hope that everyone who watches this will realize that it's okay to be who you are. It's okay to be gay or lesbian or queer. There is nothing about a group pushing a hate message that is holy or just and the idea that God condones that hatred is absolutely absurd.

More than anything, I hope that this documentary will reach the hearts of the people who believe that being gay is a sin and that homosexuality is something needing to be cured. I hope that they will realize how much harm they're causing by pushing their twisted idea of morality on other people. Maybe seeing into the lives of the people who bought into this message the most will give them the compassion they need to understand.

This documentary is gutting.

Wow! I'm very impressed with the graphics and quality, especially since this aired in 2001. Compared to a lot of other series at that time (or even into the mid-2000's) this is top notch. You can really tell this is a higher budget series and that makes it stand up really well, even 20+ years later.

Admittedly I'm a little put off by Clark's human parents who found him in a field and just decided to keep him lol. Rather than... idk contacting the police, making sure there are no missing children? They just kept him? Haha I love how uninterested they were in making this series super realistic.

The soundtrack choice for this episode is phenomenal. Hearing Eight Half Letters by Stereoblis when they arrived to school is like the perfect musical representation of the early 2000's pop-punk high school scene. It really helps set the scene for the show and give us a feel for who these characters are.

The character development in this is really good, if not a little dramatic in the typical teenage drama series kind of way. A primary example is the way Clark's father treated Lex after the accident... the accident that wasn't his fault. But they've gotta ramp up the drama somehow.

Regardless, this was a great pilot. Looking forward to watching the show. Shame I didn't watch it sooner.

I was born in 1996. So, pretty much since I was able to sit up and watch TV I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And 25 years later this is still a phenomenal TV Series worth every bit of the praise it gets.

This first episode not only sets up the background for who Buffy is, why she's at a new school, and what she's destined for in the future of the series, but it also gives an authentic and hilarious introduction to all of the characters.

It does heavily portray the characters based on typical high school stereotypes - the 'popular girl' acts entitled and rude to anyone 'below her,' the 'nerdy smart kid' gets picked on constantly, etc. - and Buffy is stuck in the middle of it, trying to figure out who everyone is while also trying to keep her life on track (and away from the undead.) And that makes her relatable.

I'm really looking forward to this rewatch of the series. The last time I watched Buffy I was in middle school, so it's been many many years since then. All of the nostalgia has already come rushing in, but in many ways I'm also watching with new eyes and a completely different perspective and I'm looking forward to what that will bring me.

i remember the first time I watched this episode - the night it aired. and i still remember sitting curled up on the couch watching every detail of the plot unfold while wishing to god it didn't. this episode is the perfect blend of psychological horror and blood/guts/gorey horror and it's precisely what makes TWD such a fantastic show.

i was so damn excited to have JDM joining the team. as a supernatural fan i was all for the decision to cast JDM as negan and I knew that was going to be a match made in heaven, but alas it was bittersweet to also say goodbye to my favorite character in the entire show. I had literal tears streaming down my face after this episode.

this episode makes me think that the previous episode where glenn nearly died was a test run to see how the audience would react to such a major death, and for the life of me i don't understand how so many people talking about it wasn't a hint that maybe you shouldn't kill off one of the best characters of the show. from this point on, although negan adds a lot of flavor to the upcoming seasons (and he's one of my favorite villains ever) i think this show started to take a deep dive off the side of a cliff.

in any show, there's a fundamental core group of characters that you cannot kill off. TWD has historically said 'fuck it' and ignored that completely, and that's part of what made it such an intriguing show in the beginning (and why i was continually excited for each new episode coming out - 'who's dying tonight?') but there's also a crucial balance to that. in these high stakes, high emotion type of shows, the audience builds strong attachments to the characters they really like. glenn, maggie, carol, daryl - they're so fundamental to the cast that getting rid of any of them would be a major mistake. and getting rid of glenn after six solid seasons was a mistake i don't think this show ever really came back from.

that being said, of course i continued watching it then and i'll continue with my re-watch, but the show isn't the same after this episode and i still have a bitter taste in my mouth that they gave him such a poor death.