They're a legitimate part of film history, and he's, you know, as good as you're going to get from him in them (my favorite is Red River, which is absolutely brilliant) but my basic observation and complaint stands: he's really not an actor at all—he's not remotely plausible as the men he "plays" or as representing…

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The entire foundation of Fascism in both Italy and Germany from the mid-1930s onward was fueled by fomenting propagandist ideas of race- and gender- based superiority and inferiority. Goebbels got to work early using radio and exhibits to convince Germans that…

I think Steven Seagal is an attempt in this day and age to have there be the same kind of leading man as John Wayne in the 1950s.

Dawn of the Dead is very good.

Really? You have no idea what I mean. My comment baffles you.

The first one's great. The other two are such unbelievable, unwatchable crap they make The Godfather Part III look like a seamless continuation.

You know, after thinking about it for a while…this was just bad. I mean, there's some good stuff in there (meaning, the entire arc of the season) and some great scenes in the finale, but in general I'm forced to agree with the review; it's all just very sloppy and mushy thinking, presented in a self-important,…

Yeah, it's pretty bad. That's why I thought it would never happen; it was too dumb (but then I thought exactly the same thing about Trump's election).

Keith, I owe you a big apology. All your theories were right; mine were wrong. Well done.

Oh, okay! Thanks.

So William is the Man in Black (after all our sneering, etc. all those people are correct). I feel like Hillary Clinton.

I thought the hosts' vertebrae would blow up if they left the park.

Because he's Zack Handlen. His topic isn't the shows he's assigned to review — his topic is his ongoing struggle to grasp why people watch television shows in the first place, and what they can possibly get out of it (since what he considers the only purpose of narrative — making a "point" — is so often bafflingly…

On the Blu-ray (thanks to seamless branching). It's much better; it's a totally different movie (even though the actual changes are like 5-10% of the actual footage).

He directed that abomination? Oh my God.

Well, I recommend you watch it again a few more times. I admit that I had a similarly lukewarm experience the first time through, which I now chalk up to disorientation (essentially; it's more complicated than that). I love watching it now—each time, I see more in it. And I think it's a great Star Wars story,…

I still don't understand people's complaints about The Force Awakens. It was a near-impossible task pulled off brilliantly.

My only real problem with Yoda vs. Dooku is that Yoda didn't have a full-size lightsaber. I thought the idea was kind of ballsy—Lucas calling his own bluff. Like, Jedi Master = lightsaber duels, no exceptions (not even Muppets). So, we had to see it.

All this reviewer cares about (no matter which show he's watching) is finding "the point" (or "the message"). When he can't easily find it — spelled out in a speech or an easily-decode-able plot point — he concludes it's bad TV.

But all of that has been true all along, from the very beginning, and these problems are brand new.