Much better than 2, but not nearly as good as 1. Although the last episode was quite good and brought all the pieces together nicely.
- When it started out, it was a US Office clone. Now it's more like a sweeter Newsradio with character development.
- Superstore has always had a political undertone beneath the wacky workplace comedy. They ramp that up this year, with some episodes occasionally dropping five years of character development to make a particular point or a particular joke. It doesn't happen often but it bugs me when it does.
- Most of it is excellent, but there are more filler episodes than normal. So far, even-numbered seasons have been the best, so I'm holding out hope for Season 6, in spite of the lead character's departure.
A return to form after a slightly weaker season 3. I'm starting to think superstore seasons are like old Star Trek movies: the even-numbered ones are best.
That being said, skip the quinceañera episode. It makes Scott's Tots feel like a day at the spa.
This felt toned down compared to season two, except for a few standouts. Still good, though.
I recently binged all of Superstore and it is a very good show, but one that's had a lot of ups and downs. Season 2 is definitely one of the high points and about as good as a sitcom gets. There's frantic humour, not too self-serious but not too frivolous, great characters (this is where Sandra more-or-less becomes a regular) and, most importantly, a complex network of running jokes and story arcs that all end up paying off. The last episode was risky and excellent. This season alone is enough to make Superstore one of the great sitcoms of all time.
It's nice to see a good new series find its footing. It starts off as a bit of a US Office clone (by someone who was involved in the US Office, somehow), but the Pam is the main character, the Michael is a Kid in the Hall, the Dwight is funnier and less of a cartoon. Most importantly, the show is more consistently comfortable with how lame the Jim is.
By the end of the season, it had almost completely shed its roots and found its own voice. I know I'm going to end up binging it, because there's at least two or three belly laughs and episode, and its pretty charming. It's five years old, why have I not heard of it till now?
The peak of the series. Balanced enough that you can't find easy cheats (unlike Civ2), but not so balanced that every game ends up being identical (unlike Civ5). Leonard Nemoy. Great music. Great look without things being indistinct or blurry. Interesting tech tree, good timing. Easy to jump into and enjoy, but subtle and difficult to master. This is about as good as a board game can be.
Pretty bad! The weirdest thing was all the 'Steptoe and Son' references. I can't believe any of the swooning girls who were watching this wacky movie would have also been into one of the saddest, most bleak sitcoms of all time.
I spent an obscene amount of time playing this game. This one was a major life-destroyer for me. Sometimes I would think I was over it for a year or two and get dragged back in. If you've never played a Civ game before, start here. It's one of the only times they managed to find the right balance between gameplay and bells and whistles.
One of those movies I can watch again and again. An extremely good introduction to Chia-Liang Liu and to Shaw Brothers.
A loose adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest, staring a very young Leslie Nielsen. In spite of being from the golden age of cheesy sci-fi, it is extremely polished and well-done. The aesthetics are incredible. Here's an example. Imagine a computer game from the Hidden Planet universe.
This is nearly 300 pages of descriptions of people being cruel to animals (unsettling), and better techniques for raising horses (boring). I appreciate what this book is, and what it was trying to do, but the unsettling/boring roller-coaster ride was too much for me, and I didn't make it through.
The author looks for every shred of evidence he can find about contact with other cultures in the Greek dark ages. While he defends his theories pretty well, they still seem pretty speculative. Sometimes his conclusions are interesting and his enthusiasm is infectious. More often, it's very dry. Once every few dozen pages he sneaks in a truly awful/excellent joke. I don't regret reading it, but I couldn't recommend it.
For the actual story of the Western Canon, try Great Books Of The Western World, a list of books (almost all public domain) that give a pretty good sampling of the development of Western thinking (including non-fiction like Euclid, for example, not just the fiction American English professors like). Better to go straight to the source.
Bloom presents his central thesis in a very convoluted, muddled, disorganized way, with a lot of statements meant to get quick emotional reactions, because the only way anyone could take his ideas seriously is with a lot of distractions.
Bloom has an obnoxious habit of assuming western civilization is only a product of the United States of America, and that any work in the western cannon is fundamentally a reflection of the political and social issues that were in vogue in the late twentieth century. It's such an anachronistic history that long sections about authors that died before the United States even existed come across like quaint meditations on Clinton's America vs. Reagan's America. What does Dante think about Iran-Contra? Does Shakespeare approve of the Stealth Bomber budget overruns? Aristotle stares at a bust of Homer and contemplates Magic Johnson's AIDS.
He accuses visible minorities and women of being only capable of resentment, but he was quite possibly the most resentful person who has ever lived, and had a weird and bitter obsession with successful black people. And, frankly, his female students were quite right to be resentful, as he bragged to his friends about sexually assaulting them.
Late in the book he has a chapter called "Borges, Neruda, and Pessoa: Hispanic-Portuguese Whitmen". There are literally no words to describe how self-deludedly patriotic and naively parochial he is.
He's like an over-the-top parody of a cartoon of an Ivy League professor. It wouldn't surprise me if it were revealed that Harold Bloom never existed, and his entire life was just some elaborate joke.
I would give this a perfect score if they re-released it with the stoner philosophy edited out.
The two most important things to know about movie critics are:
- They are extremely intellectual.
- The only form of comedy they don't consider disgustingly vulgar is when men cross-dress in order to run a scam.
Take a look at any best movie list by professional critics, and the standard cross-dressing scam movies are bound to be there. Drag queen movies don't generally make it because the men have to be cross-dressing due to some situational necessity, not just because they personally like it.
As far as critical-darling cross-dressing movies go, this is the least stupid one, although by Billy Wilder or Jack Lemon standards it's pretty weak.