Yeah, there's an interview with Hartley on Youtube somewhere where he basically says the North American rights to Trust are tied up and it's not worth enough money to anyone to untie them, so it'll probably never be released. I still have my VCR just for the once or twice a year I rewatch it or show it to somebody.

Really? Bill seems pretty straight-up villanous to me.

Well if you scroll down a bit, you can cast your lot with the "meta-narrative arch" folks.

So Pun, if you concede that a handful might have figured it out, why not more than a handful? Why not most? Why not all? I know which one I'd *like* it to be, but the fact is, that's pretty much impossible to know one way or the other (or so I assume). However the pop psych narrative pretends we do know, and that…

Yeah, I wish I knew how this was going to play. I'm not at all a fan of 3D, but I want to see this one as Herzog intended. It kind of sounds like a companion piece to Encounters at the End of the World, which I thought was sheer brilliance throughout.

Yeah, I'm one of the people that's extremely skeptical that the Milgram experiment is as profound as psychology students all seem to think. I mean, no matter how many times it's repeated or what the permutations are, I'd say most people have some vague awareness that American psychology departments don't routinely…

It might be for the best that they didn't bring anyone in to challenge Lomborg. Whatever his strengths or weaknesses as an author and scientist, he *is* really, really good at whipping otherwise rational people into a frothing rage and looking like the reasonable one by default.

In that case, Pinky, let me introduce you to the genre of Italian cannibal movies.

Weird. It's *almost* like the movie was saying that extreme misery and great joy can both exist in life and morality isn't a series of black-and-white choices.

I really enjoyed Pattern Recognition, but just couldn't get into Spook Country at all. Maybe I'll skip straight to this one.

Honestly, all I want from De Niro's choice of roles is for him to not make me want to punch him in the face. How the hell did we arrive in a world where I want to punch Robert De Niro in the face? How?

"Eisenjew?" You're seriously going with that?

Rolf Potts has a pretty amusing takedown of the whole premise of the book, starting with a pitch where the writer is an affluent professional man rather than a woman: http://tinyurl.com/bcvf7x (Well, it made me chuckle, at least.)

When somebody whose job description involves not getting their employer sued out of existence talks about a certain awesome movie/show/album that is, sadly, "unavailable", that's code for "bittorrent this mofo, stat!"

Hey, look, old Tom Waits! It's the musical equivalent of quoting classic Simpsons!

I hear Casey Affleck has already started following her to the break room with a video camera.

So if someone read the first two Fables trades, say, and thought the ideas were clever but the writing was kind of clunky, would you recommend they stick with it, or is it just not for them?

Good question Evel. I'm an atheist, but I'm not particularly bothered by people of faith like yourself (ie, other than the "intelligent design"-in-the-textbooks crowd, and the like). It's like… astrology, I guess. Believe it if you want, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I'm willing to just know you're wrong and…

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that this movie wasn't intended as a cutting satire on Aztec and Viking views of the afterlife.

Really? That actually seems like a pretty good way to satirize religion.