This movie is prescription strength sob-inducing, but it actually had a lot more to say about family and love than most straight tear-jerkers.

Is Kind Arthur a strain of weed they grow in Wales?

According to Casey Jones. But I doubt that guy even graduated high school.

Crumpets?! Nobody understands crumpets! You gotta know what cricket is to understand crumpets!

He was good in Book of Mormon, but not as good as Andrew Rannells playing Elder Price.

Billy Joel's biggest problem is that he's Paul McCartney but thinks he's John Lennon. Not such a bad problem to have, really.

Funny you say that, because I find Todd to be one of the worst when it comes to prattling on for no reason. His standard article format always seems to be "Make valid criticism of a TV show; back it up with evidence; completely dismiss it with some variation of "But I like it anyway."

Shouldn't this article be titled, "Season 2 of Homeland sucked too, why is everyone just now starting to care?"

The inclusion of a laughing gnome is my only criterion for enjoying this film.

Regardless of preference for the music, I just see most of the praise for Yeezus centered around the fact that it sounds like nothing else; that it's brash and original. I've read so many people say, yeah, you're not supposed to like it at first, but Kanye's breaking new ground. Frankly, no he isn't. I like that BBC…

Thanks for the link. Hadn't heard of Saul Williams. I'm not big on the "Whoever did it first is the best" camp, but Niggy Tardust sounds way more like what Lou Reed was describing in his Yeezus review than what Kanye was doing.

If the commenters are all so great, why do they hang out at Gameological? Why spend time crafting thoughtful, constructive commentary when the writers are tossing off articles without giving their central points a second thought, or even a full first one? At least his comment was clear and took a firm stance.

"In the case of Ducks and Angels, early scenes of defeat are leavened by slapstick comedy," Like in the opening credits of Mighty Ducks when child Gordon Bombay hits the bar and loses the big game and falls to the ice in despair, having disappointed his coach and dead father? I guess that could be seen as being …

I think LA Confidential is actually a brilliant adaptation of that novel. They dump a ton of plot and characters, invent some new things to fill the gaps, and yet they lose nothing of the tone or intent of the novel. Kubrick, on the other hand, shifts the focus of the movie to subjects that interest him more.

If that's what Todd meant he probably should have mentioned it. Or when he saw that the finale ground these half-baked notions of Walt being the devil into dust, he could have killed the piece. That's probably too much to ask though.

How about this one. If we're in a religious system, then sins have consequences. Jesse committed sins as large as Walt's, Skylar too. And they aren't evil. Why? Maybe morally they're ok because they were less resigned to the choices, but a show with moral grey areas is not religious in it's nature. Religion is the…

Fuck Michael Haneke. I pay for your movie and then you try to make me feel bad for sticking around to the end? I'm not rich, asshole. Movie tickets don't grow on trees. Eat a bag of crap.

Westsider books! Awesome store. I used to shop there frequently. I got My Aim Is True and Kurosawa's autobiography there, along with many other gems.

This piece doesn't answer the question it sets out to answer but Todd acts like he does. I know titles of articles often promise things the writer didn't mean to, but this isn't one of those cases. Todd specifically says in the article he will answer "how" Breaking Bad achieves the act of breaking free from that…

I'm confused as to what about this article is good.