@inko8:disqus Even years after the technology in Italy caught up for live audio, Fellini insisted on dubbing simply because he's liked the surreal quality.

As far as I'm concerned, the Archers are the gold standard of collaborative filmmaking. Well defined roles, tremendous mutual respect - in particular a director who didn't regard the script as being subservient to his vision - just an utterly perfect pairing and The Red Shoes is their crowning achievement. They got it…

Maybe the problem is you haven't gone far enough.

I imagine he'd find that comparatively tolerable to a traditional bachelor party, excluding the strip club breakfast buffet, of course.

I imagine he'd find that comparatively tolerable to a traditional bachelor party, excluding the strip club breakfast buffet, of course.

Yes, this. Please notice this Parks and Rec writing staff.

Yes, this. Please notice this Parks and Rec writing staff.

Not to be a quote corrector, but that's four Lagavulin in liquid form and I'll never miss an opportunity to name check the world's greatest scotch.

Not to be a quote corrector, but that's four Lagavulin in liquid form and I'll never miss an opportunity to name check the world's greatest scotch.

Josie.

@avclub-8b59528c5bbf7073061271c79ba0e1e0:disqus "But his second point (or issue) is contigent on seeing the film. How can you claim what the film asserts without having seen it yourself?"

Fucking people and their Godwin complex. It's such bullshit the namesake himself checked it:

@avclub-609cea48021426221f352b14511dda72:disqus Jesus, get some critical reading skills. He states based on what the aforementioned reviewers wrote, their own logic and descriptions would indicate a glorification. He's saying let's assume their perception of the film is correct, here's why they shouldn't be…

I didn't say answers, I said a coherent vision. And even a verite, documentary style "just the facts" film (which I frankly don't think this is, but that's another argument) ought to have a reason (and probably a unique reason) for why this story is worth telling, that's a vision. And choosing which facts to provide…

He didn't, he critiqued political arguments in early reviews of the film:

Yes, and that's wholly inaccurate. If anything, torture techniques provided information, especially in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that delayed the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden because it downplayed crucial names.

"On the positive side, the movie has certainly provoked a lot of discussion on the topic, which is probably the most anyone can hope for."
Why? Why do filmmakers/authors always say this? It reeks of utter bullshit and completely washes any responsibility from the artist to have a coherent vision. Generating discussion…

One of my favorite 10-to-1 sketch is Jason Sudekis' Strip Club Announcer Fairwell. It's basically just list jokes attempting to one up each other in their bleakness. My favorite line: "She wrote the movie Cocoon!"

I'm not sure even getting it is the question. I don't understand how anyone can "write-up" Jam .

Will Forte gets deeper into his characters than anyone else in the history of that show. He's just so clearly gone in Potato Chip and Fart Face. My favorite part of the former is Forte just locked in on Sudekis before you know what. I have no idea how they don't break.