lol, I love Wesley but he's a pretty good case in point for my original post.

Kanye seems like a pretty great candidate for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder and/or manic depression.

People with schizophrenia are generally far too disorganized to have a successful, decades-long musical career, and if he was in a manic phase this would also pretty clearly come through in interviews and in his ability to work with the band. If there is a mental health issue at works it's probably something like…

My girlfriend read that on a holiday and she couldn't put the thing down. I was walking around the Duomo by myself while she sat at a cafe reading the damn thing. Which is really weird because she's actually the cultured one.

Don't forget the two other times the reviewer uses it to describe the book.

If you can't be bothered to watch the whole thing just jump right to 1:20

While I don't disagree with the sentiments you are making, I'm not sure why a public park system is considered a left wing idea. Also, racial conflict in the USA is as close to observable and objective fact as you can get, and so I also don't think pointing that out qualifies one as left of centre. Sometimes…

I totally don't understand this feature. What was the point of any of this? What the sweet fuck has happened to the AVClub? Teti has basically turned it into Buzzfeed or something - nothing is too asinine for this site now.

I agree the existence of the movie itself is a contrivance of sorts but I have trouble finding the fact that it stars four women as a contrivance - my mind keeps going back to a seeming unfairness in having movies with a female cast considered special or different. As an aside, the good people of YouTube and Reddit…

But the fact that they're women, why is that a 'contrivance'? Why can't a movie star four women without it constituting a marketing gimmick?

But why is it any stupider than a reboot starring Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogan, and Ken Jeong? I'm not sure how that would be any less contrived. It seems the consistent issue is 'because it's a bunch of women'.

Your username is strikingly similar to my unpublished manuscript about the Son of God's trip to Mars.

I thought I was conveying sarcasm with the first part of my comment, but I guess the second part was a bit too earnest. We definitely can and should criticize crappy films regardless of whether sexist idiots will co-opt the criticisms. And yes, the tenuous branding connections are stupid, and they could probably have…

I find it interesting when people use the word 'pandering' to descibe it, like 50% of the population represents some sort of special interest group. I've never heard someone criticize all those generic Bruce Willis movies as 'pandering' to men.

While I agree, we also need to avoid giving people a seemingly legitimate pretext to hate the movie that disguises their real, misogynist one. This is exactly what happened with Ghostbusters, wherein people were simply reacting emotionally because Ghostbusters was, incomprehensibly, one of the most important…

Were you recently unfrozen and the mad scientist who did it to you is now making you catch up on 20 years of awful pop culture?

I don't have kids so I'm not sure if watching the same movie five times in a row is normal or if it means they're 'special'.

Superman, like Jesus, is an American, and I won't stand for a dandy like Jude Law in the role.

See here's the fucking problem that happens to me at least weekly around here. This comment is quite obviously a joke. And a funny one as well. So I laugh, and I move on. But then there's this brief moment where I go, 'huh, was that actually a joke?' So then I have to go and google "Meghan Fox unborn fetus" and fuck me…

In what jurisdiction can you be denied a license or given scrutiny because you have had a divorce?