Sorry, but I maintain that the content of the speech, while recognizable to a contemporary audience, is not particularly important. Knowing the details surely does add another layer, but it's not a necessary layer. What matters is what's happening formally, which is the subject of this piece. And what's happening…

First of all, I'm older than you apparently assume I am. That said, I'm not quite old enough to remember the Eagleton affair (I was four), and while it's possible that one could glean enough keywords on the soundtrack to facilitate a Google search, I frankly didn't bother because it seems perfectly clear to me that it …

Don't disagree with that. My point was that it's not showy acting. Redford keeps it pitched at a realistic level that flirts with tedium (in a good way).

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but that quote is from the Reddit post, not from the film. I was saying the film could have used stuff like that.

Given that Netflix releases the entire season at once, what's the point/purpose of this finale technically being in two parts, as if it were two 45-minute episodes? There must be some financial reason, but I can't imagine what it would be. Do they have to pay people more if the episode exceeds an hour or something?

And it is really dull.

Hence a good Armond impression.

Because at least there's no pretense of subtlety. Dominik is very in-your-face about it, which I admire.

They did indeed.

Not as the female lead. As her roommate/best friend. (I think. Haven't read the book.)

As far as the alleged critical acclaim is concerned, I'm not seeing it (and I also remember how it was received upon its original release). Looking at the "top critics" on RT, for example, most of the genuinely big names in the field—Turan, Rosenbaum, Rafferty, Ebert, McCarthy, Kehr—are either negative or very mildly…

Regular people with their regular tastes are perfectly fine and shouldn't be shot, but I don't feel the need to base my viewing choices on their opinions. Just as a gourmand would probably not feel the need to give McDonald's another chance because of statistics showing how many Americans eat there. (Note: I am…

If it were critics or other cinephiles raving about it, yes. But that's not the case. It's "civilians," for lack of a better word. So I file it alongside, say, IMDb voters thinking The Shawshank Redemption is the greatest movie ever made. (Though I did take a second look at Shawshank a few years ago—it was just as…

Oh, I totally recommend it. Gave it a B+ at the time. Not sure where I gave the opposite impression in these comments.

Yes. The writer of the article virtually never writes the headline.

Actually, I completely agree with you about T2, and only cited that film because it was the most recent Cameron film at the time Jurassic Park was made. It was your blunt "X is just wrong" that I found amusing. As if there's anything objective about opinions of different movies.

"Thinking T2 is awesome (it's overrated despite being some kind of ur-achievement in effects tech and pure action overload) and Jurassic Park is crap is just wrong."

Just for the record:

Sorry, you're losing this battle. Language evolves.

I was referring to ArchieLeech's lengthy, astute comment below, which engaged what I'd written rather than merely mocking it.