vadasz
vadasz
vadasz

If you haven't already, you might check out a live version of "A Quick One While He's Away," perhaps from Live at Leeds, or from the Rolling Stones Rock n Roll Circus. Give it a couple listens. Also, Who's Next is unstoppable. If neither of those get you there, then, yeah, they might not be the band for you.

The movie's tone shifts every time it becomes apparent that the local police, then the Seoul police, etc. are out of their depth. If I remember it begins almost slapsticky then becomes more of a city vs small town thing, then a tense police procedural, then something else entirely. But all those shifts add up over the

No anchovies, please?

All true points, but it seems within a film review of an established filmmaker, to refer to him by his previous/contemporaneous title seems a bit reductive. Again, not to nitpick, it's an interesting question. I don't think the transition happens overnight, but McQueen is now an established director of feature films -

Just out of curiosity (not to nitpick), if McQueen has now helmed three films, all of which have been at least intriguing, if not downright incredible, is it still accurate to describe him as a "video artist?" (One who, in this case, seems to happen to also direct films?)

Did the Beatles really release 23 "studio albums?" In seven years? I think a lot of those 23 (assuming Marah's going off the wikipedia list), were re-issues or re-packages for the US market. Based on time spent in the studio working on songs for a specific album, it's probably closer to 13 (which is still pretty

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I had a helluva lot of really really great nights at the Lompoc. Ahhh, youth . . .

@avclub-3e9e0f1010418374c3dd9ccf3b0ed27c:disqus , like a lot of broad genres, "punk" definitely has many discernible and particular conventions and it can be hard to pin down any precise formula that equates 'x' with PUNK. No doubt. But for the most part (and yes, there are some major exceptions), it's had at its

@avclub-d72f705337e5adcf7e33ec0381c5f5b2:disqus , one can certainly debate the origins of punk, but it's hardly laughable to claim that it pre-dates Sex or that bands like the New York Dolls, The Heartbreakers (and their tour of the UK in '75), etc. were as big an influence on British Punk as it would be on the later

Well, part of it is because "genre" means something - a specific genre (whether it be music, film, literature, etc.) carries with it previously understood codes and conventions. People gravitate to specific genres for all kinds of reasons, but generally because they tend to like what that genre has to offer. Lots of

@avclub-e53fc2424af041d07a7eef5cd8773505:disqus , The original sentence may very well have been 'bullshit,' but it was given with the understanding that all parties (including the victim) agreed to and accepted it.

That's cool to hear. This is an intriguing feature so far, and you're doing a great job with it. It seems so primed for a sort of multiple-author approach that there was just a bit of a worry that it might tread down the same old auteurist path that still dominates most film criticism. I'm looking forward to more,

Both things can matter, but a lot of criticism that ignores (or merely pays lip service to) the formal in favor of the cultural misses a lot of elements that might actually undermine its cultural reading. To each his/her own, of course, but I'd say that good criticism tends to build any cultural/political reading it

Writers at the AVClub tend to accept the auteur paradigm as pretty much a given. Even in a series like this (which I'm liking very much so far) - which is rife with opportunity to discuss cinematography, production design, sound design (the sound bridge mentioned above), and definitely editing - writers who probably

I think it's kind of . . . interesting . . . the way you hate Normal Again so much, but seem to be pretty cool with the way Angel S5 probably just couldn't have happened the way it did post-S4-finale mind-wipe, especially considering how it undermines so much of the character motivation for your darling Wes. For the

You can't catch the wind!

My favorite character per season changed: there was the original watch (when I had no clue what was going on) and a full re-watch I did last year. Knowing where characters were going definitely affects one's feelings about them. For example, having it turn out that Locke really was pretty much a loser the whole time

This is one of the best covers I've ever seen . . . like, "Watchtower" good . . . and I generally use this clip with people who think Fiona Apple is simply some weird chick who made a hypocritical awards speech once. Throw the Galifianakis vid on afterwords, conversion complete.

And, plus, that ending was fucking phenomenal.

You might be very right about the Cole piece (I haven't read it, but I too hate the "but. . . but . . . mobile phones" argument). But the problem I have with the term's use in this film review has little to do with its implications of how self-aware (white) people in late-capitalist societies are/should be about their