Ilandar

Prior to 2019, any film where the actor committed the cardinal sin of not speaking English.

To be fair to you, there was a Bourne reference in there I missed initially.

Also was annoyed with Pattinson’s voice.

I have the complete opposite take, I thought the voice he created for the character was great.

Are we gonna ignore the entire series of films where he repeatedly saves himself?

Well there you go, mystery solved! Very interesting piece of trivia, thanks for sharing.

It's way less egregious than the Brave co-founder making donations in support anti-gay marriage amendments, and even that has been massively overblown (the real reasons to avoid Brave are a) Chromium, b) shady crypto stuff and c) its financial incentives as a for-profit company with investor backing to compromise on its claimed ethical principles). I'm getting so sick of these purity tests on completely irrelevant and unrelated issues standing in the way of genuine alternatives to big tech. People are so eager to let perfect be the enemy of good.

In 2008, a former member of the Goto-gumi yakuza group told reporter Jake Adelstein: "We set it up to stage his murder as a suicide. We dragged him up to the rooftop and put a gun in his face. We gave him a choice: jump and you might live or stay and we'll blow your face off. He jumped. He didn't live."

In the first season of Tokyo Vice, which is loosely based on the life of Jake Adelstein, there's a scene where this choice is offered to a yakuza member. I wonder if the writers took inspiration from your piece of trivia or whether it's just a common way of covering up murders over there.

In Australia Paramount+ has the A-League broadcast rights, so I subscribe purely for that. It is very cheap by streaming standards here ($7 for the base tier with ads) and has a pretty good collection of films too. TV series are really where it struggles.

One of the more recent examples from last year was Mozilla's announcement of PPA (Privacy-Preserving Attribution). Essentially the organisation is trying to create a new system for click-based advertising where an advertiser can be notified that you clicked on their ad, helping them and the websites which host their ads, without compromising your personal privacy. The way it has historically worked is you click on an ad and give away a ton of your personal data, or you straight up block all these ads and their trackers which makes a lot of the web unsustainable (because it is funded by advertising). Anyway, like with this latest controversy a lot of people didn't bother to read any of Mozilla's statements and instead based their entire opinion off clickbait headlines like 'Firefox's New 'Privacy' Feature Actually Gives Your Data to Advertisers' which made PPA sound like a reduction of consumer privacy, which it isn't. And again, like this current controversy, you also had a lot of privacy activists who do not live in reality claiming that anything other than a 100$ rejection of all advertising online equaled 100% complicity and that Mozilla had sold out on one of its core principles.

It's a film that you can enjoy on so many levels. You can appreciate the way they keep a story shot essentially in a single room so visually stimulating the entire way through, or the performances from the cast whose characters grow into the film as more is revealed about their lives, or the way the film makes you think at the end about the morality, the legal system, peer pressure and the human desire to conform, etc. If you're honest with yourself it's a film that can really challenge some previously automatic beliefs you had about yourself as a person. Like the first time I watched it in my early 20s, admitting to myself that I probably would have been one of the jurors to cave to the majority opinion purely out of peer pressure was a reality I didn't really want to face.

12 Angry Men (1957)