Reporting this sort of thing doesn’t really help, but we all clicked on it so I guess it worked.

If we must circulate conspiracy theories about shootings, let’s at least come up with some interesting new ones. How about: all mass shootings are actually orchestrated by gun manufacturers in a bid to drive up demand for…

My favourite take on this is a British restaurant called ‘Halal: is it meat you’re looking for?’

Surely ‘Pearl Harbour’ is overdue a critical reappraisal...

That’s true, but on the other hand: how many films these days have any ‘long-term impact’? Modern Hollywood specialises in making blockbusters that are spectacular, reasonably entertaining in an inoffensive way, and forgettable. Usually the only time people keep talking about a film after its release is when the…

I blame this show for giving me a deep-rooted distrust of black people.

The New Yorker article linked here links to the Slate article, which links to various other articles and tumblr posts. Nothing here is new. We have always been mocking Thomas and Friends.

As some guy on a TV show once said, “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.”

I’m putting an early bet on ‘Women in Black’. That seems about the extent of originality Hollywood can reach these days. (Although, possibility for brand confusion with a Daniel Radcliffe film...)

He might stay the main character, but I find it hard to believe any adaptation wouldn’t change his name. Some things are just too tongue-in-cheek to work onscreen. (Although maybe any adaptation should just go for it, stupid humour and all...)

I think he’s finally found a role that fits his natural liveliness and energy.

I have to say I feel the same way. The original film has memorable visuals and music, and deserves its place in history; but is almost soporific in its slow pace and lack of emotion or drama (outside of a few scenes). I realise the general coldness of it is part of the point, but it makes it a difficult film to love,…

A better question would be why the AV club, or indeed anyone, is watching Piers Morgan’s show.

For a minute, this almost tempted me to join Twitter. Then I thought better of it.

There is still the issue of what topic you choose to make your series about. I mean, I assume no one forced David Simon to make a series about prostitution in 1970s New York; that was his choice, and he can be criticised for it. But obviously there are still different ways of handling that premise, some more sexist…

Well, I am very very glad in that case I don’t know what that is.

This Londoner is totally happy about it, can’t speak for others. But I work in the same building as Uber is based here, and they’re shitting themselves.

Wikipedia suggests it may have had more to do with the suicide of his daughter Cheyenne shortly before filming began.

I believe in the book it was Monte Carlo rather than Montenegro, which makes a hell of a lot more sense (but is much more expensive to film in).

As for ‘what the implication was’ with Pussy Galore: it was pretty much that even a lesbian isn’t immune to the power of the 007 cock, even if she has to be, um, forced into it. Yeah, it has not aged well.

Much as I mostly enjoyed the first movie, I found that scene utterly indefensible, and one of the most unpleasant things I’ve seen on screen in a long time. I’m not against ultraviolence in movies - hell, many of my favourites include people dying in gory ways. But presenting a crowd of victims as far-right racists in…