Tenet and interstellar but no inception??

The tail lights are at the bottom, meaning the car/zipper is facing and moving upwards, so that they are closing the zipper and uniting blacks and whites. It's correct.

Yeah I never understood all the JLC hate in this sub. Personally I thought she was the highlight of EEAAO, and was quite surprised when I came to this sub and saw that everyone thought Hsu was better. I guess I just liked seeing a famous celebrity play the cranky secretary type role that is normally played by some unknown actress? Dunno it was definitely a super fun performance, and she nailed the scowl/cranky face.

But that's in the movie. In the book he catches it as it's about to hit the ground and immediately as the dive ends McGonagall is already there, shouting Harry's name and running towards them.

. . .a foot from the ground he caught it, just in time to pull his broom straight, and he toppled gently onto the grass with the Remembrall clutched safely in his fist. “HARRY POTTER!” His heart sank faster than he’d just dived. Professor McGonagall was running toward them. He got to his feet, trembling. “Never — in all my time at Hogwarts —” Professor McGonagall was almost speechless with shock, and her glasses flashed furiously, “— how dare you — might have broken your neck —” “It wasn’t his fault, Professor —” “Be quiet, Miss Patil —” “But Malfoy —” “That’s enough, Mr. Weasley. Potter, follow me, now.”

So that seems to suggest she was passing by and indeed only saw Harry doing the dive at the very end, it's difficult to believe she might have seen the whole encounter and done nothing to stop it/not tell off-punish Malfoy in some way. Plus the fact she comes running at them. Now it's worth adding she's initially incensed saying he might have broken his neck and then both Parvati and Ron try to defend Harry, and then she seems to soften afterwards - while she doesn't stop to hear the whole story, it kind of seems like she has a clue that Harry wasn't completely at fault/flying recklessly cause he felt like it. I'd like to add this bit from the book:

Harry and Ron jumped to their feet. They were half hoping for a reason to fight Malfoy, but Professor McGonagall, who could spot trouble quicker than any teacher in the school, was there in a flash. “What’s going on?” “Malfoy’s got my Remembrall, Professor.” Scowling, Malfoy quickly dropped the Remembrall back on the table. “Just looking,” he said, and he sloped away with Crabbe and Goyle behind him.

It was McGonagall herself who saw the remembrall with Malfoy earlier, and heard Neville say it was his. This plus "it wasn't Harry's fault" "but malfoy" and she probably pieced it all together. That plus her quidditch team being in dire need of a good seeker plus Snape taunting her every time with quidditch, and we get harry "being rewarded instead of punished". Which I don't think contradicts the idea of her being strict as we see throughout the rest of the books.

My non cannon answer I just came up with as I read your comment is that doing magic must spend a fair amount of calories. It makes sense too for there to be SOME kind of energy tradeoff when conjuring matter or transforming objects or levitating/summoning them etc.

A similar alternative answer is that wizards have faster metabolisms/higher energy expenditure which would also make sense, as again it reinforces the idea that nothing is free, and there is some kind of associated cost to magical energy.

I always felt like the whole elder wand and how wand works was a bit of a retconn that came out of nowhere (well I still haven't reread book 6/7, I'm on my first reread, on book 5). All throughout the first couple of books when they are learning spells there's a clear emphasis on particular wand movement and pronunciation of the incantation to get spells to work.

“Now, don’t forget that nice wrist movement we’ve been practicing!” squeaked Professor Flitwick, perched on top of his pile of books as usual. “Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. And saying the magic words properly is very important, too — never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said ‘s’ instead of ‘f’ and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest.” “You’re saying it wrong,” Harry heard Hermione snap. “It’s Wing-gar-dium Levi-o-sa, make the ‘gar’ nice and long.”

Harry, quickly forcing his thoughts back to that first broom ride. “Expecto patrono — no, patronum — sorry — expecto patronum

SILENCIO!” The raven cawed more loudly. “It’s the way you’re moving your wand,” said Hermione, watching Ron critically. “You don’t want to wave it, it’s more a sharp jab.”

“Oh no,” said Cho rather wildly as he approached. “Expelliarmious! I mean, Expellimellius! I — oh, sorry, Marietta!” Her curly-haired friend’s sleeve had caught fire;

Dumbledore had drawn back his wand and waved it as though brandishing a whip. A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all.

7ubuuuvuvvv7bhbbvvb7h BB uh uuu7 con cc cycyguuuuffffffffff TT yay cv ttyl fy

It's insane to me that movie Dumbledore was portrayed the way he was, I absolutely hated Gambon's Dumbledore, from his looks to his attitude. Book Dumbledore has to be whimsical, "a good pair of socks" "tuck in!" "Although their beards were not quite as magnificent" "when the seeker has a full bladder" "lemon sherbert" etc.

A bit more attention to physical appearance descriptions that would require extra makeup or prosthetics or CG. Give Hermione her buck teeth and keep her bushy hair all the way up into the Yule ball.

Sirius and Umbridge, while they were good portrayals/well acted, book Sirius in book 3 is described as a "vampire" "corpse" "A mass of filthy, matted hair hung to his elbows" "The waxy skin was stretched so tightly over the bones of his face, it looked like a skull. His yellow teeth were bared in a grin.".

Umbridge is described as a "large pale toad" "broad" "squat with a broad, flabby face, as little neck as Uncle Vernon, and a very wide, slack mouth", based on that description I was imagining something like the witch from Spirited Away/Chihiro.

I just finished reading book 4 and to add to point A, the twins were extremely hesitant.

“What?” said Fred, looking flabbergasted. “Take it,” Harry repeated firmly. “I don’t want it.” “You’re mental,” said George, trying to push it back at Harry. “No, I’m not,” said Harry. “You take it, and get inventing. It’s for the joke shop.” “He is mental,” Fred said in an almost awed voice. “Listen,” said Harry firmly. “If you don’t take it, I’m throwing it down the drain. I don’t want it and I don’t need it. But I could do with a few laughs. We could all do with a few laughs. I’ve got a feeling we’re going to need them more than usual before long.” “Harry,” said George weakly, weighing the money bag in his hands, “there’s got to be a thousand Galleons in here.” “Yeah,” said Harry, grinning. “Think how many Canary Creams that is.” The twins stared at him. “Just don’t tell your mum where you got it . . . although she might not be so keen for you to join the Ministry anymore, come to think of it. . . .” “Harry,” Fred began, but Harry pulled out his wand. “Look,” he said flatly, “take it, or I’ll hex you. I know some good ones now. Just do me one favor, okay? Buy Ron some different dress robes and say they’re from you.”

And yeah this was right after Harry learns Ludo stole all the twins' lifetime savings.

Well in the books this interaction occurs in the train, without any teachers present.

So yes in the movie this change is deliberate and an interesting touch to include McGonagall, I'd say yeah.

Plus its another scenario wherere Harry might be an underage wizard and not super knowledgeable/powerful but he thinks/acts fast even compared to fully trained adult wizards and that's what has allowed him to get by so many scenarios and why Dumbledore and other adults who know his feats find him impressive.

It's what makes him good at DADA and one of the reasons we love him as a main character.

The Lockhart and Pettigrew arguments feel like playing devil's advocate. I think we can all agree that they are pretty rotten at the very least; a lot of the arguments here are going to differ based on people's varying definitions of evil.

I mean Lockhart is stealing people's achievements and wiping their memories, and Pettigrew let his friend rot in jail for a crime that he committed - a crime that don't forget had people labeling Sirius as one of the most dangerous/evil criminals in Azkaban.

I think this is exactly it. Initially he was the good looking cool guy from the hangover and then all of a sudden oh damn he can do drama in silver linings playing an eccentric flawed character.

How so? Ive only seen Saw 1 and it was years ago so I'm interested in what you mean.

Limitless is pretty cool. Some neat effects and a fun premise. I have no idea what your tastes are but I would recommend it in general.

I understood it as if you were to see a spoof/parody of it, would it be immediately recognizable where it's from? And in this regard I do think the Get Out chair Daniel kaluyas facial expression has become sufficiently iconic enough to fill that criteria, on par with ET finger touch etc. Guitar flamethrower. . . . eh maybe not so much although it's also a great visual.

Macaulay is nowhere near the level of the rest of your list, sorry to say.

Been ages since I watch Social Network. I remember I enjoyed it a lot but what is it about the screenplay exactly that makes you say that? Maybe it's time I rewatch it?

Is the Chiaotzu one correct? Is it not char siu, the glazed roasted pork?

It's somewhat interesting sure, but totally the wrong sub. Which is a super common occurrence lately. Just people reposting stuff to the "satisfying" sub without really understanding what is something that the majority of the userbase will actually find really satisfying. I report them all for breaking the rules and block the OP.

You're being too polite. It's not just "not designporn", it's pretty meh.

I hate it on AGT etc. but I think those shows are fundamentally different from Fool Us. For one we don't vote on Fool Us so the sob stories don't influence the final outcome of them winning or not. Another is we don't have multiple rounds so it's not the person rubbing the same sob story over and over in our faces. Sob stories become the focus on AGT over the actual talent and feels very producer-intervention/manipulative which is not the case in Fool Us where good magic is still the focus.

The intros give us a peek at the life of the magician that might not necessarily make for good patter or that might not necessarily make for a good routine.

In this case I was more empathetic with the guy after hearing his background. Him being so emotional after the win makes a lot more sense after you understand that he's had a lot of ups and downs in life.

The King's Speech. I'm not a huge fan of historical drama, but got dragged by my brother and his wife who wanted to see it. Was absolutely hooked after the second scene, after their first interaction. But seriously, try convincing someone who doesn't like non-fiction that it's actually an amazing film, it's impossible unless you force them to watch it.

Bandersnatch