WHAT?
"Speaking of the latter—one of the more notable additions to this year’s festival is Brian Wilson performing Pet Sounds in its entirety, an artist no one thought they would ever see live again performing an album no one thought would ever get finished. "
Um, he's been touring incessantly for more than a decade and…

That's only the internet consensus. In real life every movie geek I know loves Tarantino.

My vote for best King book with a female lead (and among the best over all) is Lisey's Story. But I hated Dolores Claiborne so our taste may be very different.

I love the Shining and wasn't talking about it or Misery. Im not sure why everybody seized on the one sentence about books ICP hadn't read yet, but I was referring to the three they had.

It should have been a short story, and it would still not have been one of his better short stories.

The Tommyknockers is much better than Gerald's Game or Dolores Claiborne, the two I was referring to. In my opinion, Gerald's Game may actually be his worst (and I've read them all).

No Gerald's Game, Dolores Claiborne, and Salem's Lot are three of his worst (the first two more than SL, but that's the worst of the early stuff). Misery and the Shining are both solid, but not, in my humble super-fan opinion, among his best.

Oof. That's like a list of King's worst books. How are you picking which one's to read?

I think your repeated adamant insistence that change is worth than death is a little weird. I'll put my vote in with the majority that would rather have my life changed than ended.

Remind me how that's not a defense of fast food: That's the it's bad part.
Documentaries exaggerate things all the time: Not the good ones. That's what bad documentaries, like Super Size Me, do.
It's point was to make a strong message; No, it's point was to make Morgan Spurlock famous, which it succeeded at, by…

People aren't defending Fast Food, they are criticizing a documentary that deserves criticizing. No one is lying about Super Size Me. The movie plays loose with reality in favor of an exaggerated message. Fast Food is bad for you. It is not nearly as bad for you as the movie pretends. The fact that his results…

You have such a weirdly combative attitude about all this. Were you molested by Ronald Mcdonald? Moderation is the way to go with food as with everything.

He literally throws up after his first Mcdonald's meal. It's hilarious to me that people cite that as proof of how bad the food is, and not proof of how silly the stunt is, even though they themselves have probably eaten numerous Mcdonald's meals in their life without throwing up.

Nothing is universally anything, but the reaction was overwhelmingly negative at the time and has been ever since. Pretending otherwise, would be editing history.

Were those stoned people also drinking? I've never seen someone who is only stoned do any of those things, and I have spent my life around potheads. I see drunk people do all three of those things anytime I go to a bar or party.

THAT'S what you find depressing? Are you watching this series?

Keep in mind the book is Humbert's story to his jury. We are not supposed to accept that things happened the way he says they did. He is maybe the most unreliable narrator ever. He is casting a story of a pedophile grooming and raping a child as a love story. In his telling of the story she initiates the sex! Just…

Oh I think we're definitely supposed to be sympathetic. I don't think the book is about Stockholm syndrome at all, but about the way all people are essentially alike underneath, and when events strip away the social strata boundaries, people connect with each other. Then the outside world comes in and destroys…

What did you think of Bel Canto? That one really knocked me out.

I think it's because he is a terrible actor that he gave what is, to me, an Oscar worthy performance here. It's his smarmy fake acting that makes him perfect to play a smarmy character who is always lying, and the director and casting agent deserve all kinds of kudos for realizing that.