Are you kidding?

You're also in luck!

But this wasn't a particularly illuminating analysis, nor did you really convince me that this film deserves such a close reading.

Did the director murder your family or something?

You're in luck! I've written about both of your nerdier notes already:

What elements of film do you use to determine whether a film is "good" or "bad"?

It seems I didn't make it clear enough in the first paragraph, as a number of people have made similar comments, so let me try again without the sarcasm. By "perfect" I meant "predictable," i.e. the one a textbook would recommend be used in Situation X. I thought I demonstrated that briefly with my breakdown of that…

I keep meaning to ask this and always forget, so…

Most of the people I know who hate Kubrick/Anderson — and that's a common pairing in dislikes — objects more to the OCD levels of symmetry than the perfectly conventional shot selection, but I can see what you're getting at. It all just seems too contrived. (I don't actually share your opinion as love both Anderson…

Just because you don't particularly enjoy a film doesn't make it "the worst film."

You'll love/hate this link.

This is Kaufman's stock in trade…

You haven't make a single coherent critique of the article — if you had, I'd have engaged you as I have others who have taken issue with it. You've just defended the film's actress, its use of symbols and motifs, and its direction in the broadest of term, because you love the film but want to pretend to be objective…

You've written a series of unproductive, borderline hateful comments that do nothing to further the conversation but are broadly supportive of this shit film — and you've done so because you love it and the shit-series it's based on. So please, I've asked nicely already, but it's time for you to leave.

I was worried about people drawing the conclusion that his ham-handedness rose to the level of something resembling competence, which is why I tried to emphasize how brutally he beat that dead horse — and how the brutality with which he did so was indicative of a corporate ideal of what a "motif" or a "symbol" is. I…

The author was barely not a stupid teenager herself when she wrote the first book over the winter break when she was a senior at Northwestern, as some of the series earnest-to-a-fault fans are constantly reminding me on Twitter.

The author has repeatedly proven himself to be. To quote Dead Man, "My name is William Blake — have you read my poetry?"

All of your comments — especially the numerous ones in which you strongly profess to be a fan of neither the books nor the film — indicate that you're trying to create a fake appearance of objectivity in order to defend the shit-series you so dearly love.

I have a feeling we're in the presence of a die-hard Divergent fan. Tread lightly, good people!

It's why I'm not a big fan of David Fincher or Zach Snyder…