Most concepts are old. When old concepts are expressed in new and unique ways, that makes things interesting. And that is accomplished through specificity, which is why Lorde's so enjoyable.

Sleigh Bells' new album is <30 minutes.

Please, sir, spell more names more often.

There is no such thing as "too pop-y" (much less "way too pop-y").

The title track here and "You Can't Have Me Twice" are better than anything on the latter half of Treats, especially the horrendous "A/B Machines."

Well, again, you have an idea of what you'd like the show to be that relates directly to your own experiences. If a show relates to your own experiences, that's happy coincidence, but it can't be criticized because it doesn't. I think some of the show does actually embrace these things, though, by noting that trying…

Yeah, to be honest, I didn't love the Jessica bits in this episode much, and can agree with you that they were forecast in that regard.

AV Club,

"I found the show hilarious and relatable. I love the actors and genre. B minus."

I like your analysis, but it seems you're criticizing the show for not being enough like your own life, which seems a pretty impossible yardstick.

Imagine the opposite: that Stuart is a lovable sadsack, or a pouty self-critic. The show would be depressing to no end, brutally morose, merely showing a loser lose. Who would care? Who could?

He's living beyond his means like every single other human being.

That's not the note. The note is "guy wants to date anyone, can't." Guy flails through hopeless attractions, can't. Guy can't goddamn choose a thing. Guy's attraction has less to do with the woman than with the idea of himself being a ladykiller, which fails horrendously and hilariously. Guy's his own foil in…

Stuart's m.o. is never be who you are. That is, if you want beautiful women, be anyone but yourself. He only acts buffoonish when he's trying to hit on very attractive women, because he's aping the buffoonishness he sees working when other men do it, and also he's too gauche to know how to hit on them any other way…

So, admitting it flew over your head and getting mad at it for flying over your head. Mean old art!

That's interesting, though he might have said it so it doesn't get classified as "just" a puzzle movie, or he may have been being coy. Or he may have been being totally sincere. Damn him.

I came away with a thankfulness, first of all, that this movie and those like it (i.e. Holy Motors, are still being made. I came away impressed with the level of creativity and inventiveness, at the boldness to misdirect the audience by switching gears mid-movie (I love being proven wrong; Side Effects did this…

"What's full of heart may be bare of art," John Barth once said, and probably the opposite is also true. These are the two poles I see the movie ricocheting between: the moments where the movie is full of heart—like the scenes where the couple connects or the reading of Thoreau—that lose the quality of art, and the…

I know I'm five months late here, but what is so obvious about what's going on? I'll admit the plot was oblique to me. The first, uh, act of the movie is a deliberate red herring, although it's not inessential, and it's not the plot. What is so obvious? What's the "answer" to the "mystery"? I'm not being cheeky; I…

I think it boils down to your feelings of puzzles in general. Whether they're futile or fun. It's a movie that rewards audience effort; if you're unwilling to make (a lot of) effort, it's going to be unenjoyable. I was slightly disappointed the first time too, but then rewatched and found myself questioning my initial…