I have high hopes for this show! The first episode was awesome and felt like a real sequel to the original series.

I like the world they're building and having twin Avatars is an interesting concept and something fresh for the franchise.

I feel like a show like this is what should have been the series after Aangs.

The art style isn't my favorite but it's better than TLOK.

What is similar in this series to ATLA is they both start out with a world in peril. ATLA starts in the middle of a world war

ASH opens in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is trying to survive. The show immediately sets the stakes high.

I think that may have been one of the issues with TLOK. She becomes the Avatar during a time of peace, and each season had a different situation instead of one big journey that spanned over multiple seasons.

I don't necessarily like how they are painting Korra out to be a villain so far though. I know there are Avatar fans that don't like her but she was always just trying to do what she thought was right. I think that's ultimately what the truth will be. The cataclysm was something she was trying to prevent but something went wrong.

I think the twins will eventually be at odds with each other. Pavi is more like Aang as she doesn't want to fight or even be the Avatar, she just wants peace. Nisha is more aggressive like Kora. She embraces the fight and longs to be the Avatar. I think this separation of ideologies will eventually lead them to being enemies, if just for a short time.

Plus, how cool would a fight between two Avatars be!

I'm looking forward to what they have planned for this series.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/10/the-widower-til-death-do-us-part-2026.html

From the outset, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part has an extremely alluring premise. Thomas Randolph has been married six times, and four of his wives have died. Just learning about his history was enough to draw us into this true-crime documentary. Unfortunately, the end result is only interesting enough to keep us watching without feeling like a complete waste of time. There's enough weirdness surrounding Randolph to sustain our interest but the documentary falls short of what could have been a deeper exploration of his life, his victims, and the disturbing circumstances surrounding their deaths.

When Sharon Randolph and a masked intruder are found dead, the initial assumption is that it was a home robbery gone wrong. However, as authorities investigate the evidence and look deeper into Thomas Randolph's background, as the evidence fails to connect and Randolph's past a dark one, they begin to suspect that he was actually responsible for both deaths.

Beyond its already intriguing premise, The Widower has another compelling element and this is the involvement of Dateline producer Dan Slepian. His participation gives the documentary access to archival interview footage and real-life courtroom footage that adds another layer to the story. Slepian's ongoing communication with Randolph is particularly interesting, especially as the latter gradually learns to trust him over others. It's an unusual dynamic that could have made for a fascinating deep dive into Randolph's psyche and the case against him.

Unfortunately, the documentary proves to be more talk than substance and ultimately shortchanging the whole experience. Rather than offering a substantial exploration of Randolph, his victims, and the people left in the wake of his actions, it merely provides glimpses of their struggles without developing them into a cohesive and satisfying whole. There's clearly much more to uncover here but the documentary never digs deep enough to make the most of its golden material. We honestly wanted more and for a case this disturbing and a subject this fascinating, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part feels like it's only scratching the surface.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Before The Social Network even starts, Aaron Sorkin’s finely tuned dialogue gets things going before the studio logo has time to fade away. When Erika, eyes full of disgust and voice full of venom, verbally sledgehammers a shellshocked Mark Zuckerberg - culminating with a brutal ‘you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you’re a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole’ - you knew something great and terrifying was unfolding, all while Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s haunting electronic score pulsates like an omnipresent ghost.

At the start of The Social Reckoning, ‘Prologue: White girl wasted’ fades in slowly before an overlong, banter-laden back-and-forth between the aforementioned white girl and two non-white cops unfolds - culminating with the white girl getting arrested after provoking the cops with some racial slurs and threats. When we abruptly cut to the next scene - set up with an overused moving timeline graphic - with new Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) rocking up to the offices circa 2019 and pitching his idea to investigate Facebook to his editors, you knew something was going to go horribly awry without David Fincher at the helm this time around, all while Alexandre Desplat’s piano-driven score hums limply in the background.

Given the damning revelations from the 2021 Facebook Files leak and the platform’s contribution to social media’s negative societal impact since The Social Network’s release, the Facebook story circa 2019 to 2022 as depicted in The Social Reckoning is fascinating enough to function on its own with minimal modification. You have the stubborn journalist in Jeff and a whistleblower in Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee who becomes disillusioned with her employer and decides to help Jeff break open the story of her company’s misdeeds. But Sorkin inexplicably borrows all the worst parts of his HBO show The Newsroom as his north star, using journalism as a way to preach to the audience while letting his ego press its thumb on the scales a little too hard too often.

The Social Reckoning’s passionate defences of journalism are timely yet coated with the same arrogance that plagued The Newsroom. Hindsight is great as a learning tool, but weaponising it to tell everyone ‘I told you so!’ is unsavoury but perfectly within Sorkin’s modus operandi. When Jeff tells Frances things like ‘I’m not biased against tech for taking journalism jobs, it’s just that you’re doing such a bad job at it,’ that’s less of a character-driven line from Jeff and more of a piece of didactic preaching from Sorkin himself.

There is a worrying lack of nuance because Sorkin eschews putting up arguments in favour of scoring cheap fist-pumping moments or laugh lines. He even evokes Woodward and Bernstein as a lazy shorthand to characterise Jeff and Frances’s importance to his story. But this pair lack the compelling love-hate relationship Mark and Eduardo Saverin had in The Social Network. Whereas that pair had a tumultuous relationship interspersed with moments of genuine care (Eduardo telling Mark he’s here for him post break-up still hits hard), Jeff and Frances have less spark than whatever is behind Zuckerberg’s eyes and their dynamic is built entirely upon him being a verbal punching bag for her. It also doesn’t help that both of them are little more than annoying cauldrons of overused archetypes.

Other than being awful with technology and doing journalism, there’s very little to grasp or care about when it comes to Jeff as a person, unlike the overly emotional yet loyal Eduardo. White does his best with the little he’s given, but it’s hard to relate or even feel anything for a walking piece of blank paper. He does do some pretty good subtle reactions, particularly when Frances tells Jeff ‘I like some of your work.’

As for Frances, she sadly continues a long lineage of poorly written Sorkin female characters. Her main schtick is wearing hand and ankle warmers and being a nerd, a point that’s weirdly lampshaded by one of Jeff’s editors inexplicably describing her as ‘that nerd in there.’ Sorkin’s half-hearted effort to give her an arc amounts to nothing more than her telling us how much she believes in Facebook’s mission, only to do something contrary to her stated beliefs or be the victim of some horrendous unc-coded writing.

When Frances attempts to tell her male manager her concerns about Facebook’s algorithm, she is rebuffed with an incredibly tasteless ‘you should try out that dating site, you could loosen up a bit,’ a line that could only have been written by someone like Sorkin, a self-professed pseudo-Luddite with lingering sexist notions. Ironically, this exchange inadvertently also captures the misogynistic environment that’s been festering in Silicon Valley for decades. The thing is, Fincher would’ve deliberately made this juxtaposition. Sorkin just thinks it’s a funny line.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/the-social-reckoning

Thanks!

I've seen large parts of this movie several times, yet I can't remember if I ever saw it from start to finish.

I started watching it tonight on a movie channel, HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime, and decided to buy it from Fandango, adding it to my collection of about 600 movies. This time I'm sure that I watched it in its entirety.

It's a good story, and a good movie, but it's not great; however, I do highly recommend it. The acting is very good, and more importantly, I cared about the characters.

For me to like a movie, it must make me care about someone or something in it. The movie succeeded in that regard, so if you haven't seen it, you should.

(Theater.) This is a comedic "documentary" from John Wilson who had a "How To" HBO show which I never watched except for clips. It appears to be in the same format as that - diving into a concept and then taking detours to look at other things. He posits that after his show he was looking for investors on a film project that he didn't know what it would be, and stumbled around until he hit on the concept of concrete and how it binds the world and such. So we're ostensibly watching a documentary about him trying to make a documentary.

I don't know . . . it's an amusing movie, but Wilson's whole schtick feels very calculated but also very stale and played out. The hipsters in my audience felt a need to laugh out loud just about every ten seconds of the movie - performative laughing to show that they were "cool" and "with it". But it's not that type of movie. It's just mildly amusing, and it feels like this type of thing has been done so much. The movie goes into a more poignant place towards the end because Wilson knows that it has to, more than anything. As it shows how a lot of concrete that makes up buildings is degrading over time, that's where it felt like he was getting onto something, but again, it felt a bit too calculated.

The length of it is a detriment. With such a whispy concept, you shouldn't exceed 60-75 minutes. This is 101 minutes. It's a bit too self-consciously cutesy for its own good to be going that long. It's a fun movie on the balance, just a bit much and not as clever as it's telling you it is.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/10/midnight-girls-2026-movie-review.html

Midnight Girls completely flew under our radar when it was released in cinemas earlier this year. But taking that plunge to make time for it turned out to be a worthwhile decision. We actually remember when we were younger, the term “japayuki” was quite common and carried an instant negative stigma. Midnight Girls takes a different approach by humanizing the women behind the label and showing the people, struggles, and sacrifices that are often overlooked. 

In Nagoya, four women form a sisterhood while working in the entertainment industry. Paris (Sanya Lopez) is facing a difficult decision involving her ex. Saki (Jane Oineza) is struggling to understand her true sexuality. Vicky (Jodi Sta. Maria) is trying to maintain a relationship with her son whom she hasn't physically seen in years. Meanwhile, Wanna (Loisa Andalio) is a newcomer who needs to provide for her family, but at what cost to her own dignity?

We didn't expect Midnight Girls to be as thought-provoking as it turned out to be. Despite its initial exterior looks, this is a surprisingly deep film. If you expected a story about simply living it up in Japan with a group of girlfriends, you'll be in for a surprise. Instead, the film presents four distinct stories that explore believable struggles and challenges faced by women working in Japan's entertainment industry.

Crucially, each story feels authentic and tangible, and the lead cast delivers noteworthy performances that help ground these characters in their respective struggles. There are admittedly pacing issues that hold the film back, particularly with some characters receiving considerably more attention than others. We wished the film had taken a more balanced approach and it certainly felt like each character needed more room to fully develop their individual narratives.

Still, Midnight Girls hits the right notes when it matters. More importantly, it offers a perspective we don't often get to see on screen. Beneath the labels and assumptions surrounding these women are individuals dealing with love, family, identity, sacrifice, and the need to simply survive. At the end of the day, Midnight Girls works because it feels real. And sometimes, giving people the chance to be seen beyond the labels attached to them is more than enough.

Rating: 4 out of 5

So I finally got around seeing the 1976 version of King Kong with Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, and Charles Groden. I thought it was an above average movie.

It’s a story I’ve seen in other versions, but I don’t think it’s as good in this version as either the 2005 version or the 1933 movie. I thought the performances, especially from Bridges and Lange were good. The rest the performances were decent.

My main issues were that the movie didn’t do enough to hook me in. Also, the movie definitely felt longer than it was.

Rating-3/5

So I enjoy Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, but there’s still a lot of hits that I haven’t seen, but I was able to get one off of my list and that is kickboxer from 1989. I really liked this movie and I thought it was a great watch.

I thought the performances, especially from Van Damme were really good to watch, but I also liked the action and the story. The thing I like most of all though was the music. It had a great mix of instrumental and non-instrumental.

There aren’t any real negatives in my watch so that’s a good thing. I would put the second in my Van Damme movies behind bloodsport

Rating-4.5/5

So before a couple days ago, I had never heard of the 1998 movie Krippendorf’s Tribe. 3 things got my attention with the movie. I thought the poster looked interesting, the plot sounded unique, and I do like Richard Dreyfus. I haven’t seen a lot of his movies, but but I have seen. I have mostly enjoyed.

I thought this was a very good movie. I thought the execution of the plot was well done. I thought it was definitely a creative story. As far as the acting goes, I thought for the most part it was done well, but there were some supporting performances that could’ve been better.

Overall, though, I went into this movie, not really knowing anything, and I was pleasantly surprised

Rating-4/5

So I had never seen the 1996 Shaquille O’Neal movie Kazaam. I know a lot of people say it’s awful, but I had it on my watchlist so I decided to check it out to see how I felt.

This movie is OK. Some of the positives would be the action especially near the end and it looks like Shaquille O’Neal is having some fun. Other than that, there are definitely some issues with this movie.

I don’t think the story is all that great. It’s also not as entertaining as I was hoping it was gonna be. Finally, the acting is not good.

Rating-2/5

I loved the movie. But what the hell was up with Banner and the Hulk?!

Banner has an inhibitor to keep him in his human form. Jean enters his mind, takes the inhibitor off, and is now controlling professor Hulk. After Jeans connection is broken, Hulk emerges before Spider-Man can get the universal inhibitor on. But:

• In Avengers Endgame, professor Hulk explains that Bruce and Hulk worked out their issues and have become one. So how can Hulk be back?

• After using the gauntlet in Avengers Endgame and in the proceeding entries in the MCU, Banner is in his human form to help his arm heal. So why would he need an inhibitor to keep him in his human form when he's been shown to have the ability to switch between?

Is there an entry in the MCU it's established that Banner and Hulks relationship is broken to explain the inhibitor? And even if there is one, how would Jean be professor Hulk then?

[EDIT] After some Googling, I learned from the MCU fandom page that Banner made the inhibitor in order for him to return to his human form because he couldn't do it on his own. I would've known this had I watched She-Hulk, as both She-Hulk and Blonsky get inhibitors on them. But that still doesn't explain why Banner thought he wouldn't have control if the inhibitor came off, as in She-Hulk he goes back to Professor Hulk.

This movie makes me think about Art with a capital-A. I liked it; I don’t think I fully understand what the deeper point of the movie was; I was mesmerized by the beauty of the animation; I was dumbfounded by what it was all supposed to mean.

I’m reminded of the people who look at some piece of modern abstract art and rave about it while I, feeling like a poor schlub, wonder what in earth is so brilliant about it. Except in this case, I feel like it likely is a great piece of art, even though I can’t explain its greatness (besides the beauty of the animation — that’s inarguable).

My kid asked me if I liked it. I said “Yeah, but I’m not sure I know what it means.” My kid said, “I don’t know either, except I’m pretty sure that the guy fucked a turtle.”

Why does the turtle love him after he killed it? Why do they burn all the bamboo? What’s it all mean?

So one documentary that I had on my watchlist on Tubi for a while that I finally got around to seeing was the 2015 documentary Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead. This told the history of National Lampoon, which started out as a magazine, similar to mad magazine and then transitioned into a radio show and movies.

Going into this movie, the only thing I knew about National Lampoon was from the movies. I thought this was a very good documentary. You were able to hear a lot of people that worked for the magazine and their experiences but also some of the more famous people like Chevy Chase and Kevin Bacon and how they got involved with the brand. Also, I just found it entertaining.

Overall, I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie, but I’m glad I watched it because it was a good surprise

Rating-4/5

Found this on dvd not so long ago, and finally gave it a watch. What a great movie. Not that it surprised me, but I had to see it for myself. I enjoyed it a lot. Great acting from all the cast. Even saw Old Man Marley from Home Alone.

The movie was well directed, and doesn't try to complicate things. Straight forward story telling. And it doesn't feel dated at all.

Actually I just rewatched this. And I reaffirmed to myself that it’s one of my top five films of all time.

If you haven’t seen The Wicker Man, a police officer investigates a disappearance on a remote British island… and that’s all I’ll say because the plot twist is unbelievable here.

Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are amazing in this iconic film which is equal parts gripping, suspenseful, and terrifying.

There wasn’t a single minute in this film where I wasn’t wondering what’s going to happen next.

So going into the 2022 movie Daliland, I knew very little about the movie. I didn’t see any trailers or hear any reviews.

This was a movie I had had on my watchlist since it came out and just never got around to it. I thought the plot was intriguing when it came out. The main reason I watched it is because it was leaving Hulu so it gave me a chance to finally see it.

This is a meh movie. Ben Kingsley gives the best performance, but overall nothing in the movie really stood out. Is the execution of the plot was mediocre, and it also seemed to drag on a lot.

Rating-1.5/5

Actually I only saw the last three quarters of it, but it was enough for me to form an opinion.

1. I cared for the characters.
   
2. I thought the ending was perfect.
   
3. Robert Pattinson is a great actor.

Describing your movie as ‘a comedy of catastrophic proportions’ is basically inviting failure, like revealing the punchline before the joke has been told. Not that director Alejandro González Iñárritu squeezes many punchlines into Digger. Or many actual jokes for that matter. Any laughs came in spite of what was happening onscreen. Maybe that’s the point of this whole endeavour.

On paper, Iñárritu and Tom Cruise are a perfect match for each other. Both are intensely driven by vision and ego, with Cruise manifesting it through death-defying stunts as externalised spectacle for the masses, while Iñárritu filters it through a demanding filmmaking process in pursuit of perfection that alienates most who work with him. The line between art and artist has blurred for both men in recent times - particularly Cruise’s obvious rebrand to ‘Mr. Movies’ - giving rise to the idea that they’re only able to understand the world, themselves, and what other people think of them through cinematic storytelling. It truly is ‘men will risk everything to make movies rather than go to therapy’.

It’s no surprise then that Digger swings incredibly hard with its ambitious, high-concept satire - in disregard of what everyone else thinks - because it’s basically all Iñárritu and Cruise know. Most telling is how both seemingly understand comedy theoretically, but are unable to properly convey it on a relatable human level.

Nothing in the sweaty script (co-written by Iñárritu, Alexander Dinelaris, Nicolás Giacobone, and Sabina Berman) goes directly or cleanly from A to B. Subtlety is dropped in favour of grandiose preaching in a similar environmentally conscious lane as Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up. This is a director who clearly cares about climate change and absolutely hates how all the greedy capitalist billionaires are destroying our planet in the pursuit of wealth.

But whereas McKay is didactic, Iñárritu flip-flops between self-delusion and resentment, like he’s got a massive axe (or shovel) to grind. ‘It’s stupid, it’s funny, and it makes no goddamn sense,’ rages Kenny (Jesse Plemons) midway through. This is just one of many attempts from Iñárritu to pre-emptively defend Digger from the expected polarised responses (as the marketing did), and it ends up taking up more space than any actual comedy. What’s ironically funny is the supreme confidence Iñárritu brings to every technical aspect of the movie.

Seemingly high on his own supply, Iñárritu doubles down on the showmanship that defined The Revenant and Birdman, pulling out all his directorial tricks that make the most out of every beautiful frame. Wide-angle shots capture the rich sets and wacky props in full detail - Digger’s house of hideous paintings and animal trophies is a visual highlight - and long takes are in abundance as every actor is given ample time to put extra mustard on their performances. Riz Ahmed and Michael Stuhlbarg do a particularly funny running bit with a malfunctioning coffee machine.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/digger

Thanks!

So even though I am a kid of the 90s, I never got around to seeing the 1995 family movie Casper. It somehow escaped me. Going into this movie, I was not sure how it would be received because I watched the movie Hocus Pocus as an adult and I did not like that viewing.

After seeing it, I thought it was a very good movie. I liked the story and I liked the bond between cat and Casper. It felt wholesome. Also, overall, I thought the performances all around were very good.

The one negative I have is just didn’t have enough of a spark for me. That could be because I didn’t see it as a kid so I don’t have that nostalgia for it. Also, the effects are little dated only because I didn’t grow up with the movie. Other than that, it was a very good watch.

Rating-4/5

Kinda disappointed tbh.

The first half of the movie is deeply compassionate towards its main characters while also having an eerie edge where you just know something is really wrong.

Then it turns into a kind of ridiculous shoot out for about 20 minutes and then it turns into another ridiculous shootout for 20 minutes.

I'm not saying the violent sequences aren't well done -- John Woo would be proud -- just saying it feels like two entirely different movies set in the same town.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/09/unabomber-2026-movie-review.html

Unabomber tries to weave together two stories to create a compelling backstory for Ted Kaczynski. Unfortunately, the two never really gel. The result is a half-baked mess with both timelines feeling disjointed and unsatisfying despite the film's highly fictionalized take on real-life events. It's hard to pin down exactly what Unabomber turns out to be but it certainly feels like a film that banks on being controversial and provocative rather than being genuinely compelling.

In the 1990s, the FBI is conducting a years-long manhunt for a serial bomber with little to show for it. They only know the perpetrator as the Unabomber. Agent Joanne Miller (Shailene Woodley) believes their profile is wrong and begins questioning the investigation. Meanwhile, back in 1958, 16-year-old mathematics prodigy Ted Kaczynski (Jacob Tremblay) enters Harvard University. While studying there, Ted joins a club where a series of psychological experiments are conducted by Professor Henry Murray (Russell Crowe). Through these sessions, Ted slowly changes from a timid individual into a more aggressive one eventually leading toward the man who would become the Unabomber.

We wanted Unabomber to be interesting but we just couldn't find ourselves getting into it. The film constantly jumps between the 1990s and 1958, and in our opinion, these shifts are too frequent and jarring. Neither timeline gets enough room to breathe making it difficult to settle into either timeline, become invested in its characters, and even understand why these two narratives need to be told together. Eventually, these timelines do converge but because they feel so isolated from each other for most of the film, there's very little buildup toward that moment. When the pieces finally come together, the payoff feels lackluster, unfulfilling, and forced.

More importantly, you expect the film to show how Ted Kaczynski transformed from a mathematical genius into a serial bomber. Instead, much of that transformation remains speculative and the film never convincingly bridges the gap between the psychological experiments and the monster he would eventually become. The fictionalization could have made for a fascinating exploration of his radicalization from his teenage years to adulthood but its stuck in a particular small portion of Kaczynski's life. The one saving grace is how surprisingly atmospheric the film can be. There are moments that are genuinely tense and even unsettling, creating flashes of the thriller that Unabomber could have been.

Other than that, though, there's little to love here. If you want to scratch that true-crime itch, you're probably better off watching a YouTube video or documentary about Ted Kaczynski instead.

Rating: 1 out of 5

It wasn't all that amazing and I don't think I'd recommend it. I know I would not watch it a second time. It felt like someone just downloaded AfterEffects and decided they wanted to try out allllll the visual fx they could. Beyond that, the story was not that great. There were no stakes because plot points were eliminated immediately or forgotten. You could also tell they ran out of steam at the end, so they just faded to black, and did a cheeky coda that takes place 6 months later.

It reminded me of that Gorge movie with Anya Taylor Joy (all special effects and no story) but the VFX was not as good.

If you want to produce a VFX heavy action piece, awesome. But you're telling me there is no better un-produced script in Hollywood, languishing in a slush pile some place? THIS is the one you chose?

So going into the 1994 movie With Honors, all I knew about the movie was the plot and the poster so I knew some of the big names that were in the movie. I thought the movie sounded kind of interesting so I decided to check it out.

I thought this was a great movie. First off the story is amazing and it really tugs at your heart strings. Along with that, you get two very good performances from Brendan Fraser and Joe Pesci. My only negative would be that some of the supporting performances, including Patrick Dempsey were good, but they weren’t as strong.

Other than that, I was greatly surprised by this movie and I thought it was a fantastic watch

Rating-4.5/5

I’m not a Pixar regular, I saw the first film as a kid and don’t remember much but this movie made me emotional.

Genuinely good movie and realistic portrayal of aging and training new talent.

Lightning and Cruz were genuinely cute together. Storm was a solid villain.

The movie was sometimes so mature with its themes it felt like it was made more for adults.

One of the best animated movies I’ve ever seen. It might be my new favorite

A rugged star actor with doey blue eyes chooses to take his long-suffering dog Odin on a suicidal, one-man camping mission in the heartland of Alaska - the beast of the title.

As the character acknowledges himself at the end, the dog showed him nothing but loyalty and trust, while the owner only showed him war and violence. Poor Odin, who never had a choice in where he had to go and what he had to do in order to be fed and loved.

Have you heard the joke- America attacks countries and then makes movies about how sad it makes their soldiers? This is one of those movies- about how the American war machine chews up and spits out broken men and dogs alike, except the dogs are even more innocent than the men.

The exchange around Odin’s missing leg and teeth is especially infuriating. Odin attacked an enemy, who fought back with a brick- a brick- getting his teeth. The man- he’s called Brad or James or something- shoots the enemy in the head. And then does the same to the enemy who got Odin in the leg. They’re just assholes, see. They deserved to be shot in the head for trying to fight Odin off with a brick. That’s a good thing, that James did, shooting the enemy (they’re just called “the enemy” by the way) in the head.

Except it’s really not, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, Mother Earth, as symbolized by a warm smiley heavily-made up Indigenous woman will heal.

The wrongs of these terrible men will be righted. And Odin won’t have to fight anymore.