I think The World is Not Enough is an okay movie with, as you say, Denise Richards really dragging things down.  Renard and Elektra King were both fantastic, and the story was okay, but it suffered from Denise Richards and a complete lack of memorable set-pieces.

The biggest problem with Moore's films wasn't even Moore - it was everyone around Moore.  It was Sheriff J.W. Pepper.  It was the little cartoon sound effects they added during stunts.  It was the pacing, which started getting VERY slack during Moore's run.

Lazenby was the worst part about one of the best early Bond movies, but he still wasn't bad.  Dalton, on the otherhand, is one of the best Bonds of all time, and without his two films, Daniel Craig's version couldn't exist.

Let's see, Dial H was cancelled, I Vampire was cancelled, Frankenstein, Demon Knights, Batman Inc, all coming to an end.

Oh, definitely. It's his best movie I've seen, but it's still too inhuman and pedantic - in my eyes - to be truly great.  It's technically well made, but it doesn't have quite enough heart, and he does his best to stifle all the heart the actors might bring to things.  How much shines through is a testament to their…

The only Haneke film that actually spoke to me was his most recent, Amour, which was anchored by strong performances and had actual human beings in it.  It's still dour as hell, still a focus on misery, but it's an exceedingly well-acted one that never tries to get cute.

That moment just drained what little tension and atmosphere remained in the film.  It's like, "Yeah, Haneke, I get it, you don't like me. I don't like you either, but I haven't tried to trick you into reading a diatribe about the subject, so I guess I'm a better person than you."

The point of the movie was, if you like violent movies, you're a bad person.  It was basically a feature-length scolding.

@avclub-a93a879594c13c12a83fd45ab289a022:disqus I'm pretty sure they're too busy being oppressed by women to do any sleuthing right now.

Not all his films are banned.  His first 5-6 were all totally legit, studio-financed pictures, and the rest are just indie films that he never sought distribution for.  The book never discusses how the films got 'out there', but none of his work is actually BANNED, he's just persona-non-grata with distributors and…

This is a fantastic IDEA for a book that periodically manages to meet its potential, but is too often content to be a wordy, slightly weirder version of a standard TV crime procedural.

I reviewed the book a few weeks back, and I didn't mention the italics at all - I thought that was just part of the review copy!  I had no idea her editor let that slide.

Ben's cousin? Yeah.

Or, y'know, if they're good movies.

The novel "A Once Crowded Sky" might be up your alley, then.  And while it isn't about a sidekick coping with the death of a hero, Mark Waid's current, free Insufferable at Thrillbent might also be something you find interesting.

Lee Pace is going to be Ronan the Accuser in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. He's mine - all mine!

The sequel was worse in almost every way it could be worse, and there weren't very many of those.

Fair enough - the way you phrased it, essentially saying "It's funny that he claims movies shouldn't do this, since he…" made me think you didn't understand his fundamental point, as that structure doesn't really make much sense if the 'since he' is followed by 'does something completely different wrong.'

Might suck for you, but I'm an educated white liberal male, so I'd really be doing very well in Sorkin's show about my career.

… you do realize that 'needless obfuscation' and 'attention to detail' aren't the same thing, right?  Don't get me wrong, I think many of Hulk's articles are just a little too long, but the length is because of detail - because he's reiterating and supporting his central thesis, not because he's trying to hide it.