#film: once upon a crime

[jdramasource]

HASHIMOTO KANNA as LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD in ONCE UPON A CRIME ずきん、旅の途中で死体と出会う。(2023)

[tygerland]

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

[mellozelle]

Once Upon A Crime, (2023 Netflix)

Appreciated the costume design, cinematography of this film. But the script wasn't as gripping as I hope it to be, and the motive for the murder wasn't much convincing.

I guess this could've been better as a series as Red Riding Hood's adventure. (Kanna Hashimoto as Red Riding Hood is sooo niice!!)

[b-oovies]

Once Upon a Crime, 2023.

aqui apenas legendado.

[lady-asteria]

Watching Once upon a crime and Idgaf but Cinder and Red are girlfriends -yes, I have watched less than an hour so far

[schlock-luster-video]

On May 21, 2019, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.

[365days365movies]

31 (Films) to Life: End of Year Round-Up II

Before I wrap up last year and begin anew, here's the rest of the round up of the crime films I saw in 2022! Here's the first part of this post if you want a catch-up. These post is gonna cover these films:

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); directed by Martin Scorcese

Thelma and Louise (1991); directed by Ridley Scott

Reservoir Dogs (1992); directed by Quentin Tarantino

Casino (1995); directed by Martin Scorcese

Heat (1995); directed by Michael Mann

The Usual Suspects (1995); directed by Bryan Singer

L.A. Confidential (1997); directed by Curtis Hanson

American Psycho (2000); directed by Mary Harron

Catch Me if You Can (2002); directed by Stephen Spielberg

Monster (2003); directed by Patty Jenkins

The Departed (2006); directed by Martin Scorcese

Zodiac (2007); directed by David Fincher

OK, let's jump back into this recap!

Goncharov (1973); dir. Martin Scorsese - 82%

Look, I realize that this, as a recently recovered film, this has gotten a sort of cult-following, as it were. But after finally getting ahold of a copy of it and watching it, I dunno...seems somewhat overrated to me? Sure, Scorsese's choice to focus on Italy during the end of the Cold War is an interesting premise, and the cast is genuinely excellent, but...again, I thought it was only OK compared to some of the other movies on this list. Although, I will say, John Cazale was a stand-out character for me, in sort of a spiritual successor to his role in Dog Day Afternoon, playing the unhinged assassin with a very complex backstory. I read somewhere that there was a planned spin-off for Ice Pick Joe at some point, and I would love to know more about that. Plus, Scorsese's choice to follow up on Midnight Cowboy and Dog Day Afternoon by injecting homoerotic tones, especially in a film from this time period, was...

...Yeah, I'm WAY too late to hop on this meme. I'll stop now. It's a very funny meme, though. Love the fact that Scorsese himself admitted to making it; that's shit's hilarious. Anyway, on to the actual list.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

This is a complicated movie to describe and to recap, and I actually never posted the last part of my review for this one, but...man. This is an excellent movie. Granted, exactly what you'd expect when I say it's a Martin Scorsese-directed period piece set in NYC and starring Robert de Niro...but, it still manages to surprise here and there. A couple of these surprises are, in my opinion, a tiny piece contrived, and it also manages to make its main character thoroughly unlikable in many ways, but it's still a great story with a lot of character packed in a...3 hour and 50 minute runtime, JESUS CHRIST. OK, yeah, this is a really long movie, but it's also hard to see a good place to trim it without harming the story and character work as a whole.

In terms of my normal breakdown, acting is nearly perfect all around; plot is convoluted and takes place in multiple time periods, but is still very good; directing and cinematography is beautiful; production and art design is perfectly immersive throughout all time periods represented; and if I hear pan-pipe music one more time I'M GONNA FUCKING LOSE IT. But the editing is still solid, despite an insane runtime. Look, if you're the kind of person who doesn't like uncomfortable moments in film or unlikely characters, or if you'd rather not strap in for a lot of atmosphere and silent character moments over the course of a nearly four-hour movie...maybe skip this. But otherwise, this movie is entirely worth it, and a genuine masterpiece. A must-watch for crime movie and Scorsese fans.

Thelma and Louise (1991); dir. Ridley Scott - 84%

A good Ridley Scott movie (and one that I only published half of my review for, whoops)! So, Thelma and Louise has a pretty good plot and acting, and does everything else pretty well. Plus, its titular relationship is compelling for a lot of reasons, whether or not you take it as romantic (which there are arguments for and against). As well as being a good source for an essay on justice within a patriarchal culture that has issues with female self-autonomy and sexual consent (yes, really, I'm not even reading into that super hard), it's an interesting movie. But if I'm gonna be honest, while I thought this was a good movie...it's not necessarily one I'd go out of my way to watch again, and I may turn away from it when it comes on TV. Y'know what I mean? Like, I'd tell people it's a good movie, but I wouldn't recommend it, necessarily. It's a good movie to watch at least once, though.

Reservoir Dogs (1992); dir. Quentin Tarantino - 89%

Reservoir Dogs, on the other hand, is a movie that I absolutely recommend. Now, is this a movie that, like Scarface, every college fuckboi in the world has seen, recommended, and quoted. I mean, yeah, absolutely. Is it gratuitously gory and violent? Again, yeah, absolutely it is. But it has a banger of a cast (Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, to name a few), fantastic plot and good writing, good direction and cinematography, good production and art design (simple as it is), great editing, and memorable music (for what little there is in this movie). There's a lot packed into this one, and there are narrative twists and turns you wouldn't necessarily expect, leading to one of the tensest endings I saw in a movie last year. And as much I would love to go into more details about this crime thriller...I won't. Go watch this one, trust me.

Casino (1995); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

So, this year, I made a huge mistake. I was in a hotel room for a conference, alone (much less sad than it sounds, believe me), and I decided to watch a movie that night. So, I sit down, look at my list of films, and realize the next one is the Scorsese classic film Casino. Now, I have a copy of this movie at home on DVD, but I find it on streaming, so I figure I may as well go for it. Here's the problem: it was on AMC. Now, at first blush, this doesn't seem like a problem. But it actually is a massive problem for Casino, more than any other movie I've ever seen, because the censoring for TV really distracts from the movie itself. Like...really badly, too. It was an issue.

Now, is this a good movie? Very much so. As Scorsese loves to do, it follows a gangster played by De Niro, during the time period where the Mafia was at its strongest influence in Las Vegas. His enforcer and best friend, played by Joe Pesci, joins him in the business. What follows is a multi-year story of death, lies, betrayal, talk shows, domestic abuse, and a LOT of crazy shit that you follow the entire time with baited breath. This is a 3 hour plus movie, and I remember more of it that I rightfully should. And yes, there are a LOT of F-bombs, all of which were covered by Joe Pesci's less-than-stellar dubbing over his own lines. When "fuck" comprises 40% of a character's dialogue, censoring tends to really hamper with immersion, just saying. But yes, this film has stellar acting from the leads and support, an interesting and engaging plot with curse-heavy writing, great direction and cinematography throughout, fantastic production design, and a good score with great editing. Definitely watch this one...uncensored. Trust me on that one.

Heat (1995); dir. Michael Mann - 90%

Well, shit, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in a crime movie? And Pacino's playing a cop? Hell yes. It's also Pacino's last movie before he goes into overacting hell, and even then, he has a lot of scenery in his teeth and he is loving it. But even despite that, solid performances from our two leads, one of whom is playing to type, and the other against it, but both very well. It manages to mix multiple compelling stories, while maintaining the tension of a cat-and-mouse game, during which you're somehow always rooting for both sides to win. Direction is great, production design is simple but good, and the music is...fine. I actually don't remember it much, to tell the truth. But either way, a must-watch for any crime film fan. It's fantastic.

The Usual Suspects (1995); dir. Bryan Singer - 92%

As some of you may know by now, I'm a firm believer in divorcing the art from the artist. So, yes, even though this is a Kevin Spacey vehicle directed by Bryan Singer, I still really wanted to watch this one. And it's great. Absolutely fantastic, don't get me wrong...but I was kinda fucked from the start here. Without going into any details, this movie is about cops investigating a crime committed by the mysterious Keyser Soze, and uncovering who the culprits are. And that's it. That's all you're getting. Because there's a famous twist in this film, and I knew it from the jump, unfortunately for me. Definitely didn't ruin the movie, but not knowing the twist would've made it OH so much sweeter. So, that my word that it's a good movie, do not attempt to look it up anywhere for more info, and go check this one out.

L.A. Confidential (1997) - dir. Curtis Hanson - 90%

Another Spacey vehicle! And hot damn, is it a great one. I like the previous movie more for the plot, but L.A. Confidential is certainly no slouch when it comes to twists. Not the least predictable twist in the world, but still a notable twist. Again, excellent cast here (Crow, Pearce, Spacey, Basinger, DeVito, Cameron, etc.), great plot and writing as well, great direction and good cinematography, excellent production design, and great music, and this is another must-watch action movie, on par with Chinatown in tone, and Heat in quality. Also, a seminal buddy-cop movie...kinda.

American Psycho (2000); dir. Mary Harron - 82%

Fun fact about me: I'm a serial killer true crime junkie. Which, yes, makes me either a typical millennial or a middle-aged white mom with nothing to do all day, but sue me, I think it's an interesting topic. Anyway, because of that, I've always been interested in watching this movie, which not only pictures a very '80s sense of psychopathy that's still identifiable today ("sigma males", anyone), but actually inspired a real-life serial killer duo, Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, AKA Canada's most notorious murderers. Their favorite book was the original American Psycho, which was later adapted into this film. But that said, outside of the true-crime connection, I also liked this film as a character dissection of a man quickly going insane, as well as the exploration of a business shark capitalist drive and misogynist culture surrounding it as major causes and drivers of that mindset. And I'd say that was reading too much into it, but...it really isn't.

But that said, this movie is interesting to watch, but definitely not perfect. Acting, with Bale as an exception, is good but not great throughout. Plot and writing are good, if ham-fisted at times, and with an unexpected ending (and not in a great way). Direction is great, cinematography is pretty good, too. Production and art design is extremely solid, and maybe the strongest part of the movie. Music gives that a run for its money, though, since it's also a narrative device to better understand our lead. This is a good movie, and weirdly relevant with certain elements of our internet culture, so check this one out if you have the time. And if you're in the mood for a film whose bread and butter is toxic masculinity, but was also directed and written by women. Which is hilarious.

Catch Me if You Can (2002); dir. S. Spielberg - 88%

The concept of an auteur in terms of film directing is varied and storied, but is usually used to refer to an individual whose artistic vision is clear on the screen, making their films quite distinctive to the discerning viewer. And Jesus Christ, is this film an example of that for Stephen Spielberg, because I don't know if a crime film could Spielberg harder than this! What I mean by that is that Spielberg's style, while not often applied to the crime genre, is very apparent in his films. You usually know one when you see one, is what I'm saying.

That's to say nothing about quality, which is very good in the base of this film. The only real weak spot, for me, was the music of the film, which wasn't very distinctive outside of the opening credits theme. Everything else, though, is pretty great. DiCaprio and Hanks kill it, even though Hanks was admittedly still definitely Tom Hanks through the film. Plot and writing was a Spielberg plot, but a really good set of character dissections and interactions. Direction and cinematography are fantastic, Production and Art Design are TOP fucking notch, until we sort of fall off towards the end of the movie. And editing is great, even if music wasn't my favorite. Great movie, very much recommended if you want to see Spielberg do a crime film. And you should want that, ideally!

Monster (2003); dir. Patty Jenkins - 86%

Remember that thing I said earlier about being a fan of serial killers? Well, Monster and its focus on real-life murderer Aileen Wuornos was high on my list of must-sees at the very beginning of this project. Charlize Theron's performance as the character is pretty legendary, and for good reason, because she does an AMAZING job as Aileen. And Ricci's no slouch as her girlfriend Selby, either. Was it the most accurate movie in the world? No, but it was unexpectedly accurate in some ways as well. Wuornos is one of those figures who's kind of controversial, as some of her murders could have been self-defense, and the film's writer and director, Patty Jenkins (yes, that one) does realize that. And I started to be worried in the beginning of the film, but she turned me completely around by the end. It's great!

Direction, though, is...fine? It's not particularly distinctive, but it isn't bad. Same goes for the Cinematography. Production design is excellent, mostly because Charlize Theron BECOMES Aileen Wuornos, partially due to acting, but also absolutely due to appearance and wardrobe. It's genuinely very impressive the whole movie. And finally, music was there, and kinda weirdly clashing with tone in some instances, but it's not too bad. Check this one out if you're into serial killer stuff, too.

The Departed (2006); dir. Martin Scorsese - 94%

Another fun fact about me: I grew up in New England, as well as currently living there. And I live in an area of the region where Boston is a major feature, as is the culture that revolves around the city. And yes, this film is well-known for being a somewhat stereotyped view of Boston...but JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, is it wicked accurate, kid! It also helps that, as a Scorsese film, it's very well-made and absolutely star-studded. Some of those stars, namely Damon and Wahlberg, are actually from the area, and they flex some intense Boston accents throughout this movie. DiCaprio and Nicholson are also fantastic in this film, as are Sheen, Baldwin, Farmiga, Winstone, and Anderson, even though some of them don't quite pull off the accent as smoothly as others. Baldwin, in particular, is still Alec Baldwin, no matter how you try and change that voice.

Directing and cinematography is stellar, unsurprisingly, while production and art design is definitely very iconically mid-2000s Boston. The score of this film literally changed the musical tastes OF BOSTONIANS, according to my fiancée who's more from the area than I, and the editing is also top-goddamn notch. And the plot and writing? Holy SHIT, the plot and writing! Look, you need to now two things. One, this is a cop-mafia drama in a vein similar to Heat, and it is VERY good at that job. A little bloated, story-wise, but it doesn't show too much. And two, watch this movie, do not look up the plot or film beforehand. Suffice to say, this is an in-depth morality play all over the spectrum of morality, and the twists are EVERYWHERE. Please check this one out, it's fantastic. Go Sox.

Zodiac (2007); dir. David Fincher - 90%

And last but not least, another serial killer film with an unclear ending, and one that focuses on the investigation and the figures involved instead. Zodiac is a fantastic movie, based on a book about the case by Robert Graysmith, who's played in the movie by Jake Gyllenhaal. Graysmith is, in fact, arguably the main character of the film, with Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo playing other key figures in the investigation from both a press and police side, respectively. You watch how this unnerving case affects these people's lives, while knowing that the case won't ever actually be solved. They present a case for the killer, but no actual answers. And in playing with that, Fincher is able to build some real goddamn tension in some moments.

Again, though, not perfect, but it's pretty damn close. Acting is stellar all over, even though some people don't quite disappear into the role. Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal are amazing on that particular front, but it's hard to see RDJ as anyone but RDJ, as an example. Plot and writing is great, directing and cinematography is great, production design is pretty good (I dunno, I wasn't as sold on that one, but that might be a me thing), and the music is great as well! Editing makes the film a little overlong in my opinion, but I don't think it affects the movie much. Check this one out, again, if you're in a serial killer movie mood.

And that's it!

Next film I was set to watch was Captain Phillips, and I'll try and check that out this year regardless, but I only got that fair this year. That said, though, the next movie I'm set to watch in 2023 is technically a crime film, from what I understand. But I'm leaving the life of crime behind for a while otherwise. I've done my time, so it's time to say farewell to the old life for now. But that said...I do have plans. Oh, I always have plans.

In 2023, I'll be going off of a list of challenges, as curated by the book Everyone's a Critic: 52 Week Movie Challenge. These challenges each require I watch films of specific categories, like award-winners, animal films, etc. And the first one in the 52 Films challenge is Best Picture winner. And for the first of those...I gotta watch this movie. And I've been wanting to watch it since 2020. So, what better time like the present? Plus...been a while since I've watched a foreign language film, honestly. So, strap in for the next one! It's gonna be a ride in 2023.

Next: ...We'll see.

[jeandejard3n]

Once Upon a Time in America: Noodles

[bob-the-movie-man-film-reviews]

"Flickering Dreams" Ep. 30: Reviews of Past Lives, Haunting in Venice, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3, Nun II & Once Upon a Crime.

Episode 30 of the Flickering Dreams podcast and the team review Past Lives, A Haunting in Venice, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3, The Nun II and Once Upon a Crime,

In Episode 30 of Flickering Dreams I’m joined by Andy Godfrey of Sorted Magazine and Konnect Radio, Scott Forbes of The Forbes Film and TV Review and Emma Sewell of Emma@TheMovies on Twitter. In this episode Bob, Scott, Emma and Andy review the following films: Past Lives: The stunning directorial debut of Celine Song; Haunting in Venice: Kenneth Branagh’s latest outing as Hercule Poirot; My…

[genkinahito]

Once Upon a Crime, Don’t Call it Mystery, ABYSS, Alice to Therese no Maboroshi Koujou, Eiga Precure All Stars F, Japanese Film Trailers

Happy Weekend A lot of films have been watched again and most of them American and now it is time to play Project X Zone to completion as far as games go. I’ve had it in its plastic wrapping since purchasing it a decade ago so I’m looking forward to watching it. What are the first batch of films released this weekend? Continue reading Untitled

[thenerdsofcolor]

'Hot Blooded: Once upon a Time' is Intriguing But Disjointed

‘Hot Blooded: Once upon a Time’ is Intriguing But Disjointed

How much are you willing to pay to become king? Is the price of having wealth, power, or respect worth the pain or death it brings? Hot Blooded: Once Upon A TIme In Korea succeeds in tackling these themes, as well as the perpetual cycle of violence, with a poetic focus that left me intrigued with what it was trying to say, even though I’m not sure if it was clear enough. (more…)

[jdramasource]

HASHIMOTO KANNA as LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD in ONCE UPON A CRIME ずきん、旅の途中で死体と出会う。(2023)

[david-talks-sw]

When a Star Wars writer engages with the material but not the narrative.

I'm writing a long post about the Jedi and the clone troopers and there's a whole section that I had to remove because it was too long:

Karen Traviss' take on the Jedi and the clones.

I already wrote about why Karen Traviss' take on the Jedi and Yoda doesn't track with what George Lucas had established in his narrative of the Prequels. Since then, I've been able to do more research.

It's no secret that one of the reasons Traviss listed for criticizing the Jedi in the Expanded Universe books she wrote is their treatment of the clones (or at least what she understood it to be).

In 2008, she wrote a now-deleted blog post about it (it was really long, so I'm only including the part relevant to my point, if you want the full context you can look it up, this is old stuff).

So if you ask me, in the above quote, Traviss is essentially doing the equivalent of saying:

"Batman is a psycho elitist who beats up the mentally ill and indoctrinates kids, turning them into child soldiers for his unending crazy vigilante war on crime, and if you can't recognize that then you scare the living crap out of me."

Like... you can argue that, and a couple of comics have argued that.

But by and large, the general consensus is that Batman is a superhero, the Robins are his sons and daughter, and the "mentally ill" are in fact the Joker and Two-Face aka mass murderers.

So if you make that argument, that's you applying your real-life values and conclusions to a narrative that deliberately doesn't acknowledge those points, in-universe, in order to tell the story it wants to tell.

It's counting on your suspension of disbelief, defined as "the avoidance—often described as willing—of critical thinking and logic in understanding something that is unreal or impossible in reality, such as something in a work of speculative fiction, in order to believe it for the sake of enjoying its narrative."

The Jedi accepting the clones and the clones being slaves isn't a "delicate point". It's barely a point at all!

It's never addressed in the film (because of course it isn't, the Prequels are about Anakin and the Republic, not the clones).

It's only addressed once by Slick, an unreliable narrator, in The Clone Wars.

That's it. Hell, in 2008, when The Clone Wars writer Henry Gilroy was asked to comment on the relationship between clones and Jedi, he explicitly said he'd "rather not get into" that particular point.

I recently got Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of 'Attack of the Clones' and nowhere is that detail touched on by Lucas at any point.

Nobody wants to touch on that point with a 10ft pole, because it's not relevant to the story.

So while Traviss acknowledges the Jedi are fictional characters, she doesn't follow that thread through to the end by acknowledging that fictional characters don't have free will, they must abide by the story and the whim of the writer.

She's engaging with the material, but refusing to engage with the narrative. She's having her cake and eating it too.

My reason for saying all this is that in the book Star Wars on Trial, she elaborates on her thought process upon discovering this detail.

Shortly before to this, she acknowledges twice that she knew nothing about Star Wars, beside seeing the original films in her youth.

Another writer who saw the new films and saw Mace Windu argue against there being a war...

... the worry on his face at the prospect of the Jedi being thrown at the Separatists...

... and the sheer melancholy on Yoda's face upon announcing the Clone War had begun...

... might have instead wondered how the Jedi, so opposed to war, could've ended up being generals.

Because while we don't see the Jedi openly protest the use of the clones in the film... they're not exactly giddy about it, either. All they can do is watch powerlessly as it gets voted by the Senate.

"The Jedi are there. But the Jedi aren't really allowed to be involved in the political process. They're there, but they can't suddenly step up and say, "No, no. You can't do that." They have to let the political process go." - George Lucas, Attack of the Clones, Commentary #2, 2002

We also don't see them take on the role of generals, either.

We only see them begrudgingly lead troops on Geonosis, specifically.

But they're not referred to as "generals" yet.

Another writer might have imagined a scene where after Geonosis, Mace Windu talks to Palpatine thinking the Jedi will go back to their roles as diplomats, and that what we saw in Attack of the Clones was a one-time thing to save Obi-Wan, but Palpatine politely goes:

"Ha! No. Didn't you hear? The Senate was so impressed by your performance on Geonosis that they voted to make you all generals in the GAR. Now, get back to the front."

Another writer might've elected to write them having that "big moral debate" she mentions.

Instead, Traviss immediately jumps on the "Jedi are elitists" train.

Because her personal experience with the military makes her sympathize with the clones and her personal belief is that - while the story may frame the Jedi as "the good guys" - nobody is that good a guy, real life people aren't that pure and selfless. There's gotta be something off about them and aHA! That's what it is!

That's her choosing to take that line of thought instead of one more in-line with the story, because she perceives it as unrealistic. But like... Star Wars isn't real life, it's a fairy tale.

That's like saying:

"The hunter in Little Red Riding Hood commits animal cruelty by cutting the Wolf open. He should've let nature take its course, the wolf earned that meal fair and square. If you think the hunter should've saved Red Riding Hood and her Grandma, then clearly you're the kind of monster who thinks one life is worth more than others."

... no?

The story's narrative clearly portrays the wolf as the villain of the tale and frames the Hunter saving Red Riding Hood as a good thing.

Disagreeing with that narrative is absolutely fine, but anybody who acknowledges the wolf is the bad guy in the story isn't automatically an animal hater and/or a bad person. Just because you say "the wolf is the villain" doesn't mean that you think that, in real life, killing wolves for shits and giggles is good.

Conversely, the narrative of the Prequels asks you to suspend your disbelief and not consider the implications that having a clone army entails. Because the use of clones doesn't have a direct impact on either Anakin or the Senate's stories.

Edit: I finished the post this one here originally spun out of!

You can find it here:

[strawberrysnoopy]

ACT ONE: The Photoshoot, Part Three of Four

prologue, part one, part two. warnings: tobacco, smoking, alcohol use, briefest mention of using alcohol as a coping mechanism, mentions of infidelity (as always), ada slander at times (sorry), texting for a while, leon's a bit of a perv,

author's note: btw I left the husband without a name so there's no overlap on you and your husband having the same name and you live in new york due to the modeling thing. I also try my hardest to keep the reader ambiguous because I realize that skinny, quirky, white girls aren't the only ones that read this series: if there's anything you'd like to recommend or change in the writing to be more reader-friendly, drop in my inbox and let me know! :) thank you guys so much for all the reblogs and 100 FOLLOWERS AHHH!! thank you thank you thank you!

The warmth of your fingers working against his cool and paled skin had him melting like a runny ice cream cone in your hands. His hand was on your hip, rubbing loving circles like he was trying to commit the warm feel of your flesh into his memory. This was the type of life he envisioned when he was younger: married to someone he loved deeply with every crevice of his being. He thought Ada was the person for him, but that was such a costly and emotionally unbalanced guess. "Thank you, honey." You nod in response, applying the rest of the stitching to his busted lip. His hands dare to move a little higher on your hips, squeezing your waist and getting some sick pleasure out of the way your breath stopped in embarrassment. The scene was perfect, just a good ol’ friend taking care of her busted up pal. Leon hated that he couldn’t find you earlier, sooner, before he could even lay eyes on Ada Wong. She had her charms, sure, but there was something about the soft lull of your presence, how gentle you were, how caring you could be with others that had his heart fluttering in his chest. He still can't believe out of all the places he could've met you, it was at a store while you were buying a bottle of wine for yourself and your husband. "Met" would have to be an overrated word in his dictionary. The truth was that Leon had first laid eyes upon you in a magazine. They had released their February shoot that show-cased entrepreneurial photographers on the rise, climbing their way to the top without a care in the world who they scratched on their way there. You happened to be the diamond in the rough, making everyone else's cliche photographs of "lust" or "revenge" or "innocence" themes seem drab. Your theme? Limerence. Beautiful, simmering, and chilling limerence. Your hair was pieced together lazily but curled neatly, wearing simple yet cryptic tops and little boy shorts that lovingly cradled your ass. The rookie photographer that snapped your photos had done a stellar job at making it seem like you were one of those once in a lifetime girls you met in college. He still had the magazine of course, stashed away in the depths of his closet: kept in pristine condition like a filthy little secret he loved to indulge in. "So..." He muses. He feels the little pause in your work, his eyes crinkling with amusement. "How long have you known? About your husband's infidelity?" You've always known. The first? A college girl in the first year of your "official" relationship Bubbly and vibrant and a fucking joy to be around. The kind of girl you see on ABC's 20/20 or some other type of true crime prime-time film. Your husband claimed it was a drunk hook-up. And the first time, you believed him. The second? A school teacher that looked, acted, and talked exactly like you. Maybe she was your long lost twin or some weird rip in the fabric of time and she happened to pop out. He claimed he was mad at you for the way you did laundry. You forgave him a second time, but you'd surely have a knife to his throat the third time.

"A while. It's just like some weird fact I live with, I guess. Like you have some chronic disease and it's something you deal with from time to time." He nodded, bringing your hand up to his mouth and pressing a soft kiss to your palm. He knows you don't deserve that. Nobody deserves that. Yet, he always wondered why you stayed. Your husband was an asshole, although that shouldn't be a term that leaves his lips due to the fact he's supposedly your husband's best bud, but for the sake of doing the holy honor of defending you: he was a cheating dick that didn't deserve to be maritally bound to a woman such as yourself. "Wouldn't you get a divorce? I don't mean to be like...rude or anything but I would've thought that you're the type of woman to leave his ass once he cheats." And you were. Headstrong, confident, and self-assured—he's never seen an insecure model before, or maybe that's some weird stereotype he's made in his head unconsciously. "It's a tough situation." And that's all you have to say about your marriage. He nodded, understanding your reluctance to speak on the subject. He can't say he's any different from you either considering his marriage to Ada, the very reason he can't be with you. Especially so intimately. It’s hard. The safety of it all. Having someone next to you at all times despite the shitty relationship. He knew.

Now the bathroom is silent. You’re still doctoring up his wounds while he sits up on the marble counter-top. He really wants to say something until you step in for him.

“I can’t believe you fucked my husband up like that.” You say, pulling your hands away from his face to find some more antibiotic cream. He hates that he feels his head moving forward to get your hands back on him. Pathetic. He feels pathetic, especially considering he beat the dog shit out of your husband when you graciously invited him into your home.

“I’m sorry—“ He begins, you stop him once more.

“No. Don’t apologize. I was thanking you.” He nods again, finding the motion of moving his head back and forth too repetitive. “So, thank you.”

He boldly takes your hand in his own, squeezing it and kissing the palm—feeling like he’s turning into a crazy man when your fingertips brush against his lower eyelids and cheeks.

“You’re welcome.” He releases your hand from his own, feeling guilty for not saying more to you. He feels as if you deserve more than silence, and to be honest, with everything you've gone through this week, you definitely do. "I know I said it already but I'm sorry for saying that I wanted to—" He pauses, not wanting to be so crude with his wording but throwing caution to the wind as he had already fucked everything up so far. "Said that I wanted to fuck you, that's not fair to you nor your husband."

"It's okay if you do." His heart pulses in his chest at those words. He had expected you to ignore it, maybe slap him if you were really pissed. But you agreed? What the fuck, it's like he's living in a fucking alternate universe. "It's not a crime to find someone else attractive. The only thing wrong is if you act on it." That was true, but it never took from how much he dreamed about you. The times he's jerked himself off while thinking of your gorgeous body on his mind had grown to a disgusting amount. Hell, it's gotten to a point where he doesn't even fight it anymore and Ada being in the house used to stop him, but not anymore. He'll just go up to the bathroom and rub one out with your magazine in hand. "Then I guess I'm attracted to you." Your cheeks flush red at the admission, flaring a brighter color when his hand grips your hip once more. And tighter, too. Jesus Christ, the way this whole situation had been playing out like a steamy porno. First, your husband was gone in the hospital. Second, Leon was brought into your home. Alone. Third, he admitted he wants to fuck you. No, he has to resist. You were right. It's not wrong to be attracted to someone other than your spouse but you had him wanting to act. Wanting to drag you down to the marital bed you share with your husband and fuck you senseless. "So, do you want to stay the night tonight? Considering your car is broken down and everything." You ask, your tone beautiful and raspy like it always is.

Oh, God. He's gonna fuck you.

tags:@heylesamis, @sweetserial, @iloveyousomuch1989, @galactict3a, @m1sery-busin3ss, @ssulfurr, @julia13123, @nic-stars, @stillhavingdaddyissues, @greywardensaywhat, @ressespearlz, @xqlenkdy, @g0rep1ty, @nomorekerkanymor,

[khruschevshoe]

How Behind-the Scenes Issues Affected the Writing of Doctor Who (Both Good and Bad)

Doctor Who is such a fascinating show to look at from a Watsonian v. Doylist perspective. Like, entirely just from an episode writing point of view:

Twice Upon A Time feels so slow and meandering and even boring in places because Chris Chibnall didn't want to start his run as showrunner and Steven Moffat didn't want the show to lose the coveted Christmas timeslot (ironic, I know) so he bumped the Twelfth Doctor's regeneration from the end of The Doctor Falls (where it makes sense) to the end of the Christmas special

Boom Town (my beloved) only exists because originally there was going to be an episode in its spot explaining that Rose had been molded to be the Doctor's perfect companion (by the Doctor, gross) and the writer didn't have the time to commit to the show

The ending of Last Christmas feels like one inside-a-dream too many because originally Jenna Coleman was questioning whether she was going to leave the show or not and the ending was rewritten after the first readthrough when she decided she wanted to stay for another season

The first five episodes of Season 7 feel like each one takes place in a different genre because that's literally how Steven Moffat pitched it to the writers; for example, A Town Called Mercy was literally pitched as "Doctor Who does a Western"

Not so much a weird one but one I find cool: Eleven's first words and Thirteen's first words were literally written by Moffat and Chibnall respectively, as they were brought in to write the first words of the first Doctors of their runs so as to make it cohesive

The reason why Fourteen isn't wearing Thirteen's clothes when he regenerates is because Jodie Whittaker is much shorter than David Tennant and Russell T. Davies didn't want it to look like he was making fun of the genderfluidity of the Doctor (still think he made the wrong decision, but eh)

Wilfred Mott isn't in the Runaway Bride and Donna's father isn't in Partners in Crime because the actor who played Donna's father, Howard Attfield, died after filming several scenes for Partners In Crime, leading to the character of "Stan Mott" from Voyage of the Damned being written into Partners In Crime as Donna's grandfather

Astrid Peth doesn't die in the original drafts of Voyage of the Damned, but Russell T. Davies wrote what is generally considered one of the most emotional deaths in Doctor Who just because he wanted Kylie Minogue to be able to focus on her music career

Originally Oxygen was written as a prequel to Mummy on the Orient Express, where a corporate representative appeared on a monitor. Said representative was fired for his fumbling of the station and would later live on as the company computer, Gus

During Season 11, Chris Chibnall had to do some major rewrites for many of the one-off episodes, therefore The Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos ended up being a first draft that made it to screen. He later admitted it was his least favorite episode of the series

And this is only a fraction of what I found in terms of major behind-the-scenes writing reasons. Though I am still totally willing to critique the product that made it to our screens, finding out the reasons behind some of the more badly written episodes of the show really made me feel sympathy for every showrunner of the show as well as appreciate a lot of the good episodes that ended up here despite the short production schedule/unexpected problems (once again, Boom Town my beloved AND everyone's favorite companion Wilfred Mott only exist because of unforseen problems). Absolutely bonkers, isn't it?

[schlock-luster-video]

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD is starting in half an hour on FX (July 12, 2022: 11:30 AM EST / 8:30 PT) in case anybody's interested!