A Morton's fork is a type of false dilemma in which contradictory observations lead to the same conclusion. It is said to have originated with the collecting of taxes by John Morton.
Archbishop of Canterbury John Morton in the late fifteenth century held that someone living modestly must be saving money and, therefore, could afford taxes, whereas someone living extravagantly obviously was rich and, therefore, could afford taxes.
Bit disappointing that the poor, queer addict turned out to be the villain all along ... especially with the line "you shouldn't have shown me all of this, Adele" kind of implying some icky things about poor people, even if not intentional
Slick style and a cast brimming with charisma aren't enough to save this film from the hollowness at its core. It doesn't purport to be a true story, but it does say these characters were real people. Why, then, have Lakeith Stanfield play an Afro-Native? Why slim down and lighten up Stagecoach Mary? Why do nothing to actually represent these people? Is it true to Cherokee Bill's story to have a non-Native speak of the Great Spirit and drop some Cherokee as a token? Is it honoring Stagecoach Mary's story if to be the badass love interest of this story she must be rendered unrecognizable? This only exposes further questions. Why use these people at all instead of original characters?
Perhaps it's how thinly these characters are drawn. Buck goes from a plan to keep his town intact to it being just a revenge plot all along. Trudy Smith believes in what he's doing, but it's hardly explained. Reeves is just a super sheriff. And Cuffee is the source of transphobic gay panic jokes. Samuel said in an interview he wanted this to be the Avengers, and like the MCU, this film hopes to coast on the charm of its stars and the past and lore of the characters. You should care about Bill Pickett cause he broke down boundaries in rodeo. You should care about Beckweourth because of his work with the Crow. None of that will be here. You should care about them by their name alone. It lends a certain crassness to the proceedings, the director and cast using real people like action figures.
It's a shadow the film can't escape from. It wants to be daring and bold, to tell black stories so often neglected or ignored. But it misrepresents them in the process, resulting in something that is less tribute and more exploitation. The hardest fall is the film's own.
I can't understand what Joan sees in Mycroft. He looks like a hobo who hasn't brushed his hair in thirty years.
This is what pushing the limits of television looks like. Concept, execution and aesthetics, 10 out of 10.
Fishback should be crowned Queen B herself for the acting master class she's pulled off. Legendary.
I Love this show!
Good show. Strong recommend. Watch it.
My Ratings
10 - I love it, regardless of quality
9 - Very good, might not love but very well done or might love, forgiving some issues
8 - Very enjoyable or Just OK for me but well done
7 - Good
6 - Watchable despite not liking the film/show
5 - Mid
3-4 - Not great, but got through it
1-2 - Very bad/You might be a communist if you like this garbage
A personal classic! :-)
While the description of this show says "comedy", make no mistake, this is social commentary on racial injustice, homo- and bi-phobia, heterosexism, misogyny, chauvinism... And done absolutely brilliantly. The visuals are excellently edited with a mix of live action, stop-action, abstractionism, animation, VR and video game action sequences... It's at times dreamy and nightmarish. I've watched every episode twice (so far) just to take in all the levels. One of the most refreshing and original productions I've ever seen.
I knew who did it in the first episode... but I was completely wrong!
I don't understand the people trashing this show.. it's actually quite good and you don't see the end coming.
There are times that it has a low-budget feel to it and the dialogue is dodgy, but then it sorts itself out. Worth watching.
10/10
joan was serving the freshest of looks while they were arresting the culprit like go the fuck off lucy
They should have made more ep. of this show!
First time watching the infamous Children of the Corn and I did not expect for it to be this bad, wow! And Peter Horton’s Burt was a a$$ hole the whole movie. I really was hoping they hacked his ass up lol
One of my favourite shows, watched it a lot growing up :barber::trumpet:
It is nice to see a curvaceous female lead for once!
I love the music in this film. It's short (90 minutes or so) but a fun watch.
Man, I forgot how much I love this show! :rofl:
these episodes just feel like bad cartoonish skits based off the back of real issues and it's kind of offensive, to be honest, because they're done so poorly.
Well, I didn't have anything to watch, so I was browsing through the movies and then- DA-DOO.
ELEMENTARY - SEASON 3 - Is Kitty Here to Stay?
I am somehow baffled by the recent addition of Ophelia Lovibond as Katheryn "Kitty" Winter: Sherlock's newest protégée whom he brought with him from London after leaving MI6 in Season 3.
For some reason I dislike her and feel that she did not add anything to the show, on the contrary she took away one of the key elements which I used to enjoy which is Holmes and Watson's partnership in everything.
In spite the fact that the character comes with a heartfelt background that makes you feel for her being a victim of a vilont crime and all.
But, I failed miserably to like her, striking me most of the time as emotionless, cocky and abtuse.
I am afraid her presence might put me off the entire show especially with the fact that Liu's presence is somehow less this season..
Anyhow that is my take on Season 3, Let's just wait and see..
Predictable and basic ending. Fell a long way from the first 3 seasons.
There are many different interpretations of the Sherlock Holmes stories. This particular one works best with only Captain Gregson, Det. Bell, Watson and Sherlock. Tolerable sidecharacters are some irregulars, "everyone" and the sister of Watson and some I probably forgot. Kitty was pretty cool, though and you can never go wrong with screentime of Natalie Dormer. Everyone else feels like interrupting the great dynamics of the aformentioned main characters.
That's why I hated Shinwell and I am glad he's out, although sad that the actor actually died. Or that he had to die for the character to be removed from the show in the first place. He didn't add anything interesting to the show whatsoever.
Alfredo was a necessity as a sponsor and later on as a friend but he vanished for an extended period of time and so his relevance to the show and Sherlock vanished as well. Yet the writers do find a trivial and contrived reason to let him re-appear: to tell Sherlock holding grudges is stupid and then let him be out again. Greaat.
Just enable last episode's plot of Sherlock trying to reconcile with his brother who - oh surprise - is (supposedly really) dead and enable this episode's plot of Sherlock trying to reconcile with his father as well.
I understand the writers thought the show would end after 12/13 episodes until they got a backorder.
However, I don't find last episode's or this episode's story compelling, intriguing or even good.
Poorest episodes this season so far. While holding grudges is definitely pointless, keeping toxic people out of your live is not.
If this includes certain family members, so be it. The family of Sherlock is incredibly toxic and they all lie whenever they open their mouth and are otherwise plotting against each other. Everyone who was involved with them knows that, yet they get chance after chance after chance for no other reason than family?
That is incredibly annoying and just as pointless as holding grudges.
This ruins these episodes for me.
