Genuinely the main value of this website for me at this point is that it still attracts a reasonably high standard of commenter.  I glance over the articles on my way to the comments quite honestly.

It’s quite likely he’s there for promotional purposes yeah. Even if they don’t ask him about the film, there can be a perceived return on investment in having him maintain a profile.

Is it just me (don’t answer that) or is the AV Club really tactically reframing it’s coverage of, for want of a better word, “celebrities” in a way that feels insidious and like, pro-gossip rag?

Lineker, MOTD and the Beeb’s sports coverage more generally is not and never has been subject to the same impartiality rules as (say) their political journalism is.

My interest in Linklater more or less began and ended with Before Sunrise (which is also not a very feminist film but I was able to forgive it at least insofar as you might expect a “romance” film to draw on ideas rooted in heteronormative myth - not that it wasn’t problematic in other ways besides), so my context may…

I love the patronising expectation that anyone believe they  got a child molester on as a means of helping, rather than as a seamy spectacle.

Not clever enough.  I want there to be a band covering "The Darkest Side Of The Night" and I want there to be a bit where Ghostface looks up at a big Ghostface billboard (do they still do the "Stab" franchise in these movies?  I stopped at part 3).  I want the killer to be transformed into a child after being flooded…

...but which then arrives in Toronto.

If there isn’t a reference to Jason Takes Manhattan somewhere in this film, then they have failed to be all a self-referential Ny slasher movie should be.

Swayze is the kind of brilliant actor who could pitch his performance with surgical precision. His read on the material itself, as well as his read on the directorial vision, meant that whether he was making something dumb or something challenging, he used his acting skills in exactly the right way to add value. …

See, I think that Gallo specifically engaged Gazzara because Gallo fancies himself as a Cassavetes type, and fancied that film as a maverick work of iconoclasm like this films Cassavetes made with Gazzara. I thought he was inserting himself into that tradition, which is not so much folly as idiocy.

Ah yes, that classic form of resisting authority: writing books about wizards.

Look, for what it’s worth, I think that overall, I’m more aligned to your perspective on all of this than the tedious clickbait published on this site, your assessment of which I largely agree with.

I suppose the one thing I’m struggling with here is the pipeline you’re describing. I think there are some unchecked…

Road House is very clearly a set of rudimentary genre parts that have been souped-up in surprising and often confounding ways, and it’s through this souping-up process that the film becomes memorable.

I quite like seeing these brilliantly deep, experienced actors like Ben Gazzara lending their powers to these kinds of films in equal measure to their more ambitious work. The folly of bringing your entire Cassavetes film energy to Road House delights me.

“Lack of necessity” is much tidier than "unnecessariness".

I can't tell who this article is written for.

Pretty bold that they've rebooted Game Of Thrones in the present day 

Well, we aren’t in a context vacuum though.

I’m not disputing that Kurosawa took ideas from outside of Japan, I’m disputing the suggestion that Kurosawa took a lot, narratively, from Ford, which was your original suggestion.