You addressed rifles but talked of ‘guns’. You refer to ‘guns’ on every single occasion except when you use statistics, because if you had to use accurate statistics for ‘guns’ the statistics would destroy your argument instantly. Instead you use the subcategorised ‘rifles’ versus the total number of ‘knife or cutting…

Based on your numbers, I’m going to go ahead and assume that you used the graph here: https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/

‘It’s not the gun’s fault! LEAVE THE GUNS ALONE! THEY’RE INNOCENT IN ALL THIS! THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG!’

Yep, anyone can just walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a car off the shelf for a few hundred bucks. ‘Murica!

Probably the first time the phrase ‘too clever’ has ever been used in connection with Superman Returns.

That IS fucking weird! About as weird as the complete lack of mass shootings in the UK and Australia after the laws were changed post-Dunblane and Port Arthur. FUCKING COINCIDENCE OR WHAT?

Right, that’s why when the UK and Australia consciously increased gun control in the 1990s after Dunblane and Port Arthur all the mass shootings just carried on with homemade guns.

You’re right that it’s caused by people with mental health problems. But, tell me, what’s the good of being right if people still die?

EVERYONE, I’VE FOUND THE PERSON WHO WATCHED SUPERMAN RETURNS! GET ‘EM!

Chicago’s getting worse all the time! It’s almost like removing the handgun ban in 2010 and ending the gun registry in 2013 have led to more gun crime!

And yet the overwhelmingly more negative reviews all fail to mention a particular subtext. If it was significant enough to matter to the people who enjoyed the film, its absence from those who didn’t enjoy it surely at least suggests a correlation? Which is not to say that it’s the reviewers’ fault if the film didn’t…

So negative reviews not discussing it and positive reviews discussing it doesn’t suggest anything to you? Seems pretty clear that the former aren’t seeing something the latter are. Whether that’s the former missing something or the latter seeing something where there isn’t anything is up for debate, but otherwise the…

And yet it still seems to be the difference between the positive reviews and the negative reviews. Go figure.

You’re right that subtext alone doesn’t make a good movie, but it can certainly help. It wouldn’t fix poor jokes or characterisations, but it could provide a new view on the story, theme and tones. There still doesn’t seem to be a good explanation for why all the negative reviews have omitted that element while the…

But if they’re missing a crucial bit of subtext it could make a significant difference - it certainly seems to have done when it comes to the positive reviews.

I’ve seen two positive reviews so far, and both have highlighted a supposed element which the negative reviews have all completely missed: the film as an advocate for puppetry as a serious art form. Can you weigh in on that at all? 

Bunty’s actually doing more of a Mancunian (Manchester) accent. Closest analogue for American viewers would probably be Daphne from Frasier.

She’s usually great, but I really disliked that she sounded so evil, because it totally ruined the episode’s (and the season’s) big twist.

Counterpoint: Matt Berry is always doing a Matt Berry voice, without any semblance of character. Much like Jeff Goldblum or Nicolas Cage, the gag is always that he’s Matt Berry, delivering lines in a weird way that’s meant to be funny because he’s delivering lines in a weird way. 

I wish Dagmar’s betrayal hadn’t been so painfully obvious from the start of the episode. Hell, she just plain SOUNDS evil (the wonderful Sharon Horgan doing a Joanna Lumley impression for some reason). I can give it some credit that I didn’t see it coming before this episode, but then it goes through the entire…