only like two of those incidents resulted in serious injuries, but all of those actors ALMOST DIED

http://www.avclub.com/artic…

Jesus, that's insane. Do they really think she has the pulse of the nation or something? It's just lady porn, people, it ain't brain science

I just don't understand why they would decide to be faithful to the source material on this. We're talking about porny Twilight fan fiction…nobody's going to care if you completely change it and just make a kinky romance that works.

This was also the plot of The Grinder

Ironically, Nordstrom would have standing to sue if they could show that Trump's tweet harmed their business. If it instead helps, then there's not much anyone can do…

whoa, where'd you get this inside info while the rest of us peasants have to wait until late April?!

I don't even know how to process this thought or what it means, so cut me some slack here, but you know how when they adapt a movie to a TV series, and they have to get the cheap, unknown TV-actor equivalent of the movie's big stars? But in this case the movie stars were all basically recognizable from TV shows.…

It was the standard The Fugitive formula. Rotating guest cast, main character is both in pursuit (of a cure) and on the run (from Jack McGee) but is generally a very likable person who just wants to help. It just adds the requisite Hulk-outs at the 15 and 45 minute mark (with commercials).

I wanted to like it, because I love Ed Norton, and at the time we were all abuzz about the whole shared universe thing. But I think it spends way too much effort on trying to hype up sequels / deliver fan service, and not enough on telling its own good story. Iron Man had established a good ratio: you get one quick…

"But it could very easily be mistaken for either of the Hulk movies made in the 2000s by a well-meaning but clueless grandma" — I read that to mean that both Hulk movies were made in the 2000s by a clueless grandma, and I thought that was a hilarious zinger

I don't even necessarily disagree with you about that! But what I'm saying is that what you originally stated — that Lee "took credit for having an equal role to the artist" and that this is why AVClub was snarking on him — was disingenuous. It leaves out a ton of detail and puts the emphasis in the wrong place.

She's never had her own book though! After more than 50 years, during most of which she was regularly appearing in Avengers on a monthly basis. I don't think she even got a mini! Everybody was getting minis in the 80s! C'mon!

Definitely one of my favorite things about her, especially in the Romero years

I'm not convinced that's the direction they'll want to go. They definitely left themselves a lot of openings, especially by never showing her face. But first of all, presumably she'd have to rescue herself, unless Hank figures out a way to find a specific subatomic particle somewhere in the universe; and anyway, I…

No, the review complains that Lee thinks he deserves some kind of credit for just acknowledging the artist's contribution in the credits, even after decades of basically presenting himself as the sole creator of Marvel's core heroes and cutting those co-creators out of everything. Here's the quote: "[E]ven after all…

This new Wasp is yet another way for Marvel to infuriate me. Janet van Dyne is one of Marvel's most enduring characters, a founding Avenger and probably that team's best leader, and the very rare comic book character who matured over the decades and had something resembling a recognizable emotional arc…but she wasn't…

Saying Stan Lee "took credit for having an equal role to the artist" is entirely disingenuous.

Under the Cherry Moon is Casablanca compared to Graffiti Bridge

My favorite part is the bus bridge jump scene. I remember going to see that movie ironically when it came out, and at the end I thought it was actually not bad at all.