Great comment. I'm with you on the over-calculation of contemporary music at the expense of raw feeling. If I were a teenager today, I don't know where I could turn to musically for commiseration (I probably wouldn't be buying Bentley's or having that much sex, and I can't see Katy Perry or Beyonce ever letting go of…

HEAD DOWN POWER!!

It was weird seeing the lyrics so easily dismissed. Post-Temple of the Dog, Cornell is the best lyricist of the grunge era titans.

I was really looking forward to this roundtable, but a lot of these insights about Soundgarden are just misguided. Cornell has always been a "humble" rock star, and his lyrics ARE about his emotions, at least from this album onward. The machismo two of you are decrying on this record is… what exactly? If you think…

Sadly, that might be true.

Really? It's always been sincere, imo. It's actually uncomfortable in their movies when typical well-adjusted people show up.

Ah, it's actually the Farrellys' best movie. It (and STUCK ON YOU) was unfortunately at a right angle to comedy waves that decade, being intent on pushing things into a new humanistic direction. They chickened out and went back to trying to give people more of what they expected with the tepid THE HEARTBREAK KID.…

I say it like it's a bad thing because I think it's adhering to an easy formula, and one which continued through that album's followup recordings "Action is My Middle Name," "The Boy's a Looker," etc. There's almost nothing to them beyond the titles. I do think "Something is Squeezing My Soul" and "When Last I Spoke…

QUARRY has "How Could Anyone Possibly Know How I Feel?," possibly his worst solo album track. But it's the only complete dud on that record, which is sonically richer and lyrically deeper than YEARS OF REFUSAL. YOF is latter-day Morrissey boilerplate, suffering a dearth of ideas and feeling. Most songs feel like they…

Opinions, and everything, but NO IT IS NOT. :)

Yeah, pretty much. The "garage rocker Morrissey" of the past couple albums really seems to be misinterpreting his own appeal. Although YOUR ARSENAL made that sound work, and is a more consistent album than VAUXHALL, imo.

What's up with people who ONLY read Stephen King books, and they read all of them? It's a weird social phenomenon. I mean, I like some of his stuff a lot, but is his new work really that much better than everything else being published?

Why was it non-traditional? Has it never occurred to you that Jeff Goldblum's character is supposed to be black?!

I agree that it's second-tier Spielberg, but still a ton of fun. It's aged a lot better than most '90s blockbusters, and I hadn't expected it to hold up nearly so well. That said, I prefer Lost World.

Um. It has creepy children, huge stretches with no action, and Joe Johnston's sappy touch.

It's not as well-structured as the first, but I feel the action sequences are a lot of fun, and Spielberg's technical filmmaking (at a low starting in '89 until he struck back HARD with Schindler's List) is a lot better. Lost World is more vicious, and I like it as a go-for-broke comedic B-movie.

So, am I the only one who clicked on the title because I answered Yes?

And yet, they don't afford the same courtesy to fans of Boondock Saints. So what's the difference? I think both movies are pandering to a certain gullibility.

It's the fallacy of Refn fans to aspire only to be like other things.

Refn's films appeal to a certain type of aspiring-cinephile who hasn't seen many other movies. Everything in Drive feels affected, cribbed from somewhere else, but without an honest artistic sensibility. And if you know your Mann, Hill, and Lynch, Drive is just karaoke.