Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • theroot
    mrfallon
    Non
    mrfallon

    To put it in even simpler terms, I wouldn’t think most people expect a mortally invincible Superman.

    Jesus, calm down my dude. I was saying that as someone who isn’t a Superman fan, has no long-standing interest in the character, and who was offering their general-audience understanding of what makes the character, and what the overall theme of the story is. Indeed I actually find Superman (and comic book movies in

    It’s not that hard to tell a good Superman story. He’s a good guy who stands up to bullies. That’s the gratification the audience gets. The stakes come from the way sometimes the bad guys’ schemes are so villainous that Superman may not be able to overcome them. The dramatic growth comes from the fact that Superman

    Question: do AV Club writers have industry connections or do they do any other kind of independent research when putting articles like this together? It seems like it’s just (poor quality) speculation layered over the top of another outlet’s report. And yes, I know: welcome to the internet.

    Aw dudes, I hate to pull the rug out, but I think I have been misinterpreted slightly. I was making that comment about it being a “normal” joke in reference to the fact that I found it baffling that reviewer didn’t detect the comedy. I actually think that The Rehearsal *is* a brilliant show with a lot of depth, and I

    Most cinephiles are blissfully, if not proudly, unaware of what's going on in the world of Hollywood blockbusters and most audiences for those kinds of films are ambivalent to the behaviour of cineaste types.  And for the most part everyone is okay with each other.

    The mighty Richard Herring had Iannucci on his podcast recently (not for the first time mind) and he briefly touched on his proximity to franchise filmmaking and what he makes of it.  If anyone's interested.

    Just the idea of a premise expanding to the point of unwieldiness or outrageousness is a pretty classic comedy structure. It’s just the standard joke of “something is placed under continuously increasedpressure until it risks breaking”. It’s the cabin scene in Night At The Opera, it's Yosemite Sam becoming ever more

    That’s beautiful and human and I love it (speaking as a non-Catholic Catholic)

    I can’t help wondering if the reviewer is unaware that Nathan Fielder himself is deploying a persona? These reviews make a lot more sense if taken from the perspective that “Nathan Fielder is reacting authentically and is not involved in constructing the storylines and that this is just a show about the rehearsals”.

    I’ve heard quite a few people tell me that the show has additional resonance for Jewish people, but it's one of those things where not a lot of Jews can fully articulate it.  The Jewishness is just "there" in a pronounced way for Jews.  Interesting.

    But that entire experiment, wherein he tried to become Thomas to better understand himself and his own class, struck me as taking this entire premise too far. It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of this nesting doll of a proposition”

    The sex is definitely a plot point in that one, but it’s still filmed with a view to audience gratification. Representing it in that way on screen was still a gratuitous representation. It’s clearly filmed to evoke a particular set of reactions, sentiments and feelings.

    There was a moment before I fully read the article where, as someone more interested in Sonny Chiba films than blockbusters (isn't everyone?), I incorrectly inferred that this new Bullet Train film was a remake of the 1970s Japanese disaster film of the same name.  Go watch that instead.

    I can count the number of truly non-gratuitous sex scenes in films on...

    So glad I'm not the only one who was confused by this.  The editorial standards are basically at Blogspot level around here now.

    I read that it basically came down to: they felt they had a better chance of recouping costs through tax and insurance than through sales.

    More to the point, it's fairly widely known that he and Stallone are friends and when your friend is upset you are kind of "expected" to make peace, no?  There's nothing unexpected about a man clarifying his friend's understanding of a situation.

    What exactly is "unexpected" about this?

    Dolph Lundgren responded claiming that he has now contacted Stallone, and he has advised that the spinoff film was falsely represented to him as having Stallone’s involvement. Just for the record.