I would love to have the last word, but you keep coming back. And now you're trying to school me on grammar, which is much more misguided than you realize. I particularly enjoy your repeated entreaties for me to consult my editors—every one of whom, if you were to consult them, would inform you that I am renowned in…

Since you decided to be snide one last time, let me note for the record that there's actually nothing wrong with the phrase "pretty much 100%," which is just a more colloquial variation of "almost always."

I could not care less what Rotten Tomatoes does. Sorry. And, frankly, I have no problem with the excerpt they chose to use.

I did not select the blurb that Rotten Tomatoes used. Have no interaction with that site at all (nor with Metacritic).

You wrote the ending was "unexpected" Mike. At the very least, take that as a word to not include in the review.

Simply put, don't write spoilers in reviews

I can only repeat: If you are sensitive to the point of not wanting to know anything that could conceivably be considered unexpected—which does not describe the vast majority of people—you should not read movie reviews to decide if you want to see a movie. Because you will frequently learn things that could…

"If you don't like rollercoasters, don't go on Space Mountain."
"Don't go on Space Mountain? To most, that is the point of being at Disneyland/World, Mike."

It wasn't the first sentence (or even the second), but I take your point. Perhaps my mistake was including the word "unexpectedly" at all. It's not as if the finale of Taxi Driver got tacked onto the end of Love, Actually or anything. I just wasn't expecting the film to go quite as horrific as it does in one…

True. But the larger point stands: If you don't want to know even super vague quasi-spoilers like "the ending is upsetting," don't read reviews of movies you haven't seen. You'll always be taking a chance.

There's no "twist" per se. I, too, prefer not to know even pretty general stuff like this, but you can't blame critics for just vaguely mentioning something that significant. (Spoiler Space doesn't help, as the mere existence of that section is a spoiler in the sense you mean.) That's why I rarely read reviews of…

There's a secret involving how he's resuscitated that wasn't worth getting into (and is pretty offensive, frankly, though I assume the filmmakers are proud of that). But it's also not clear that anyone apart from a few L.A.P.D. officers knows he regularly gets killed in these operations. He has no family,…

As always, people are frantic to know what the twist is, so here you go. Plug into rot13.com.

I am mostly anti-Spoiler Space. If it's impossible to talk about why the movie does or doesn't work whether getting into the details of a twist, I'll write one. But just to satisfy people's curiosity? Nah. It'll be on Wikipedia eventually.

That's an interesting definition of punk, but not exactly the standard one. Still, I see where you're coming from.

Since the musicians he's worked with range from punk to avant-garde jazz to R&B to straight rock to hip-hop to however one wants to try to categorize Tom Waits, it's not at clear to me what "straight line" you're talking about. In any case, my observation referred primarily to Jarmusch's sensibility as a…

"He convinced me. Gimme my dollar back."

I originally wrote that section with a lot of hemming and hawing, because I was well aware that many people would strenuously disagree. (Indeed, A.A. Dowd strenuously disagrees.) But it didn't read well, so I cut all the equivocation and just said what I think.

His look is much more New Wave than punk. Which makes sense since that's what was happening at the time he became known.

It's been slated for 28 December (probably NY/LA only at first) for months now.