Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • quartz
  • theroot
  • theinventory
    disqusfiwqwu15za--disqus
    dn
    disqusfiwqwu15za--disqus

    Is it really fair to review/judge a show based on outside resources/references? With so many movies we have to suffer though "it's better/worse/different than the book" but with MAOS we get "♥♥♥they MENTIONED something from the comics!!!♥♥♥". Can we get a review from someone more like the majority of the audience (ie:

    It reminded me of The Spanish Prisoner, so I'll assume it was meant as a Carter Burwell riff.

    So, AppleCare is a good idea, or simply something Amy thought Sheldon would consider a good idea?

    I saw this when I was 14. Messed me up for days! This was in 1974, and I'd barely even seen an R-rated movie before, certainly not one rated R for violence. I went for the 3D, expecting some sex to explain the rating. I had no idea what I was in for.

    I feel like I think I know what this means, and that I should know what this means, but honestly I don't. But I'm curious enough to ask: huh?

    Remember that AV Club writers get paid per page view. So it is in their best interests to condemn the popular and praise the unpopular to generate controversy and therefore more comments and therefore more page views. Granted, they do it in a thoughtful, articulate manner, which is why I come here. But it is still

    So basically you're saying it's not as entertaining as Sherlock, but there's a lot more of it.

    I thought the point was that Moffat's Sherlock IS a dick. Or at least that's his default mode. You can't show heartwarming improvement without reminding everyone (or stating outright for first-timers) where he's starting from. Complain that you don't like your iconic character being written as such, but don't complain

    Am I the only one that confuses Keith David with David Keith? Just in movie descriptions, I have no problem telling them apart if I can see them. I've been fooled enough times I've even tried unsuccessfully to come up with a mnemonic.

    How many closets does a plane have? And did we skip the step where Reese does something to guarantee the 30 or 40 people he knocks out and stows won't wake up? Do you think Uzi paid for product placement of their Tactical Pen? I was surprised the recommendation of giving the child a finger of booze in his sippy cup

    Let's see…a dude that gets his power from sex…at first he screws a few women to death, but then learns to control it but still frequently still has to hypnotize women into sex so he can feed enough to heal…like I said, horrifying.

    I stopped watching this show due to the wooden performance of the lead (who, BTW, is the least attractive woman on the show yet "irresistible"). I only watched the first couple of seasons for Kenzi, so Bo-less episodes with more Kenzi have me curious.

    Nope. It was a tedious slog. Unlikable characters in a predictable plot with absolutely no dramatic range. The only surprise was that the CDC doctor had to go because it was his brother involved, and I thought it was going to be his son.

    I'm glad Justified is back on, but tonight was mostly just revving the engine.

    This is the first time I ever noticed Adam and Jamie cheating. Sophia "Leah" was obviously harnessed to Jamie "Luke". He wasn't even pretending to hold her weight, yet they explicitly said he did.

    I DVR this primarily because there's nothing else on, but it does have its moments. It does make me a little sad that it so frequently grabs at the same few low-hanging fruits (which I attribute to its TBS location). There aren't quite enough episodes yet to generate a full Ground Floor Bingo card, but it's getting

    I need a version with subtitles. Everyone talked even faster than usual, and I missed some of the dialog, even though I rewatched it immediately. Smith's "old man" speak didn't help.
    Some of the "truths" and most of the assides and retorts were lost on me.
    But I'm not knocking a brilliant episode and a wonderful finale

    Ok, I don't have kids. Never have, never will. So I'll admit upfront I have no point of reference.

    I suspect his popularity justifies the vague explanations rather than vice-versa. I can understand a singer being popular for his looks or reputation. And I can understand a singer being popular for special vocal qualities. I just can't hear the latter with Sinatra. I've tried many times, but he just sounds like any

    Perhaps I am hindered in some specific way, but as far as I can tell your a and b points would apply to dozens of his contemporaries (Lawrence, Goulet, Darrin, Como, Martin, Tormé, etc.). Granted, many would not have had careers without Sinatra leading the way, but I can't hear "first" 60 years after the fact.
    I'm not