>>69185532
Where can I watch this? It was the last movie my friend saw before he died. Not playing near me anywhere and haven't been able to find it online so far. Feels bad man.

>>69185986

It bombed pretty spectacularly at the box office and fell out of theaters pretty quickly. Google showtimes around you and it will scan your area for any possible showing times. I'm sorry about your friend. What happened?

>>69186051
He was dying of cancer and I had to move for a once in a lifetime job opportunity. Got to speak my peace and say goodbye to him. And we talked very day up until he left. But we had known each other since middle school and it still didn't feel right, this was about three weeks ago.

I tried. My only hope is torrents at this point but none seem to be up. Probably gonna end up waiting for an official release.

>>69185532
Here's a tip. /tv/ doesn't actually watch movies. They shitpost based on trailers and mindlessly parrot youtube """""" celebrities"""' a.k.a. parasites. At best, they pirate yify or whoever is the """" scene"""" du jour months after the actual release.

>>69186116

I'm sorry to hear. For what it's worth, the movie's fun to watch for its little moments, and moves along pretty briskly. It has a good, caustic, unexpected sense of humor. Critics mostly shit on it for being an example of style over substance, which it mostly is, but that style is worth appreciating for style's sake. Definitely check it out when you get the chance. Gyllenhaal brings his A game.

>>69186191

I was going to see Civil War tomorrow and write something following it. Hopefully that gets more response. Working on a review of 'Midnight Special' right now.

Any feedback on the one I posted?

>>69185532
You write like a 15 year old.

I LOVE JAKE

Not a bad review. Better than Ebert, but not as good as Armond White. 7/10

>>69186384

I'll take it. How so? I want to get better at this so tear it apart in detail, if you're capable of more than monosyllables.

>>69186469

Thanks, anon.

>>69186490
Right in the first sentence the placement of the parenthesis is unnecessary. As are words like "multitudinous" or "immaculate". In fact that whole sentence doesn't add to anything apart from demonstrating your writing formula of tacking on adjectives in front of nouns and using unneeded synonyms. And don't get me started on all the run-on sentences and convoluted clause construction.
Also "15" is more than one syllable but again, you seem to prefer flowery language over good writing.

>>69186811

>Also 15 is more than a...

I just needed to make sure you'd respond. It worked.

Thank you for the feedback. I thought I'd removed 'multitudinous' from that paste. Somehow I uploaded the uncorrected opening paragraph. The parenthesis were still there, though, and I agree they're a mistake. Thanks, anon.

>>69186896
>I was only pretending

>>69186933

>I've angrily responded twice over after being noted for a typical /tv/ response.

Jeez. Offer a guy a thank-you and he's still writhing and frothing. I don't mind the writing being insulted. I know it needs work. I just wanted to hear the criticism, and provoking you got it.

Thanks again. Peaceful thoughts.

>>69187241
>maybe if I keep repeating that it was a trap I can convince myself I wasn't stupid
Whatever benefits your multitudinous, immaculate neurons enter REM cycles during the period when our rocky planet rotates and spins to face away from Sol (the stellar giant in our system).