I just checked my draft and it says "World War I." Somebody must have accidentally deleted the 'I' during the editorial process. I've fixed it. Thanks.

I almost exclusively write about Criterion releases, which generally look terrific. Don't really see the point in repeatedly noting that they've done the best possible job with the given elements.

Just for fun, here's a reverse-chronological (by publication date) rundown of my recent Criterion grades:

Not more jovial, just more…normal. His expressions and cadence throughout the film are such that in real life everyone he encounters would immediately ask "Hey, what's wrong? You okay?" You can see him performing "melancholy" rather than simply inhabiting it. In real life, people generally try to hide their negative…

I dug it, though I didn't like the film all that much. (There's a link to my 2002 review there—hard to see on my computer.)

We clearly have very different notions of what constitutes subtle acting. Williams might as well be wearing a ball cap here that reads MOROSELY REPRESSED. It's just as overemphatic as what he does in Patch Adams, but at the opposite end of the spectrum. Subtlety would involve some ambiguity about what Nolan is…

I think some people have trouble comprehending that one can also overact by doing very little. Williams was often guilty of that in dramatic roles. He pushes it too far in the other direction. So does Kristen Wiig sometimes (see Hateship Loveship).

I won't. And presumably you'll continue showing up to make obnoxious comments about total strangers.

Now three. Feel free to keep it going if that's what you're into.

No, just weary of seeing the same nonsense over and over. Compounded in this case by comparing the opinion of a single writer to the opinions of half a dozen.

Or, rather, every one of those films was liked by the person who reviewed it more than I like Fellini Satyricon. Jesus would you people get over this shit.

Unfortunately, the A.V. Club doesn't allow writers to use the first person when writing reviews, so I can't place my opinion within a context of my feelings toward other "experiential work" (I assume you mean "experimental"?). Hence my tortured efforts to convey the same idea via "objective" means. Believe me, I wish…

Because I have no interest in dissuading people from seeing it, which is not the case with a contemporary film that may or may not (probably not) stand the test of time. Personally, I'd prefer that we not run grades for older films at all.

Good catch. Someone apparently revised that sentence during the editorial process; I didn't write it that way.

What's interesting about this device is that the people on the receiving end aren't distracted because they're appalled, but because the golliwog makes them feel nostalgic. They say things like "it was a simpler time." This film has some tonal issues, but it's frequently pretty damn pointed.

To clarify: I think the film ends at the right place. Don't think there need to be additional scenes. I just wanted something more from that final interaction than I got.

I do that in my head all the time. "If you're in the mood for spaghetti, Angelo's on Mulberry makes a terrific plate." But if I'm not in the mood, they don't? Their chef monitors my mood?

You more or less answered your own question. I did my best to provide the historical context, and then I briefly gave my own personal assessment at this moment in time—mostly because otherwise the grade would be bewildering. As I've said before, I'd really prefer not to grade older films, and would omit the grades if…

You know how, when a new movie comes out, there's almost always a varied critical response? Even a film that's considered to have received "universal acclaim"—let's take Mad Max: Fury Road as a current example—gets some reviews that are less than completely ecstatic, written by folks who think it's just pretty good.…

I replied to one of the folks who pointed it out, but let me note more prominently that I somehow (where somehow = only revisiting the scene in question, not the whole film) misremembered Kicking and Screaming as being set in Brooklyn, when in fact it's clearly set in some dinky town where the characters attended…