In the parlance of our times.

The sellouts at A24 are always taking a movie like Hereditary and insisting on the addition of a crowd-pleasing child decapitation scene.

The movie seems more The Big Lebowski than Chinatown — a mystery story where the detective is a bedraggled, amiable loser in LA.  And The Big Lebowski is also a meandering movie that tends to elicit a “WTF am I watching” reaction on first viewing. But it grows on you in a way that The Poolman seems unlikely to do. 

Based on the lack of comments for this episode (two so far, one of which says they stopped watching mid-season) and for the preceding ones (five for the last episode, eight for the one before that), it seems like basically no one but the author is watching.

“Setting better boundaries” also seems like a way of describing your personality problems as if the problem was everyone else.

Came here to say exactly this.

True, but it’s also the case that bad people hating a show does not make the show good or worth defending.  MAGA dipshits hate stubbing their toes -- that does not means you should smash your toes into walls.

“That’s why they call him Superlion.”

There was a weird resistance among some AV Club authors and commenters to the idea that whether a movie was a success depended on both its box office returns and its budget.  So for weeks, we got a lot of grumpiness about a smaller movie might be considered a hit, because it did not lose its studio a fuckton of money.

Look, I’m just saying, if they wanted to do Young Sheldon Loves Chachi, I imagine they could get Scott Baio to reprise the role.

Yeah, a Pauly Shore biopic of Richard Simmons sounds horrible, and it makes perfect sense that Simmons would not want it. But the AV Club’s authors and commenters often come close to backing the idea that the person being depicted should get to sign off on biopics.

I think what your examples tell you is that it’s lunch time.

My sense is that Rosemary’s Baby is one of those movies that is widely loved by people who have seen it, but not necessarily widely seen, particularly by today’s audience. It’s over half a century old, and seems not to have been one of a handful of movies roughly that age to have remained popular (think, The Godfather …

So female authors should only write about male protagonists?  Insisting on such rigid gender roles seems like a . . . strange way to support trans rights and oppose Rowling, but OK.

If you look around an article and you can’t find the Oldboy, the Oldboy is you.

I don’t think the existence of two movies last year that had a big cultural impact really disproves Seinfeld’s point. In the past, it really did seem like there were a lot of movies in any given year that had real cultural resonance.

Secretary of State of Ennui

I feel like the things Seinfeld is saying in the interview are pretty perceptive. Schimkowitz even seems to largely agree with much of it. So why be so pissy about it all?

You should read some of the early reviews here, which try so, so hard to like to the show.

Zenday-meh