Cameron H.

I tried. The problem was, because we didn’t necessarily end things on bad terms, nostalgic memories would make each of us do stupid things. There was a constant need to pull apart and also be together. I created drama, then she created drama. And on and on. One of our final in-person conversations was her telling me that no matter how hard she tried, she couldn’t stop loving me. That conversation ended with me telling her that I no longer felt that way anymore and her going to meet up with her then boyfriend (now husband). It’s just better for everyone just to make a clean break. I wish I had been smarter.

I agree she's not necessarily a "bad" guy, but she's certainly the antagonist. You can understand her rationale, even if you don't agree with it. However, you can't excuse her that easily. She might be "complex," but she's not *that* complex. It's not that she doesn't want her daughter with Guy because he's off at war or because Gen gets pregnant. Before either of those things happen, she makes it abundantly clear that she doesn't want Gen to be with Guy. So it's not that she's reluctant to "wait for Guy." War and the baby just gives her that fuel to stoke Gen's paranoia fire so she can get her daughter to do what she wants her to do.

No. It took me a long time to get over my first love, but our lives went in completely different directions. It was for the best.

So the solution to "teenage love doesn't last long" is "force that relationship to a premature end and saddle your daughter with the first rich guy that shows mild interest?"

Wil do

And if Guy were dead, I might agree with you. But he’s not. She knows he’s not. She was pushing her into Roland’s arms before Guy got conscripted. No, Guy was never going to be rich, but he could have supported them. I think it’s time to consider what the “Umbrellas of Cherbourg” actually are. Umbrellas - as she sells them - are a frivolous solution to a minor misfortune. Not to mention, rain isn’t even a “bad” thing. At worst, at least as far as the movie is concerned, rain is an inconvenience. In this movie, Roland is an “umbrella.” Gen’s mother is trying to convince her - "sell her" on the idea, if you will - that she needs him to shelter against the “rain,” but in actuality, he’s nothing more than an accessory. Guy, like the rain, is nurturing. No, being with him won’t always be sunshine and lollipops, but neither is being with Roland. Umbrellas might protect you from the rain, provide you some measure of comfort, but they don’t stop it from raining.

Taylor, I just wanted to confirm you were still good to host tomorrow. Also, I’m sorry to say, I might not make it - or if I do - I’m not sure I’ll make it through the whole thing. I volunteered at my son’s Valentines Day party yesterday and I think I over did it. I am currently curled up the couch writing poems about death. We’ll see how it goes, but I’m eager to see this illness end.

It’s not that I didn’t like her, but I was pretty apathetic toward pretty much everyone. I feel like the movie was cast with archetypes. If I feel anything toward them, it’s because of the way I’ve been conditioned to feel about them. Outside of loving each other, like, lots and lots, I don’t really know anything about either Geneviève or Guy. As such, they feel like ciphers. I don’t feel like anyone ever actually earned my sympathy.

It wasn’t even that rainy!

Apropos nothing, you’ve got to love marketing... Theatrical release promotional material: Home Video Release promotional material:

Are you talking in popular culture or within the metal counterculture? If the former, I’d say Grunge/Alternative/Whatever had more to do with hair metal’s demise. I have no idea about what was going on within that group at the time so I’d have to take your word on thrash metal. Me: I love Def Leppard. They’re metal as fuck, right? ;)/> Wyld Stallyns were pretty great, too.

Here we go! What have you got for us?

If you don’t think her mother was withholding/destroying some letters, you’re kidding yourself.

Thanks for the well wishes, Taylor. I am extraordinarily sore, but I’m making an effort to be out of bed. Honestly, yours is a tough question. Ultimately, though, I think it’s the responsibility of the parent to give context to the child. A movie is meant to entertain, not necessarily teach life lessons. And even if there is a “moral,” it’s important that the child is taking the right thing away - especially when the moral doesn’t necessarily jib with your own world view (I’m looking at you Angry Birds and your xenophobic message). The idea that bad guys are usually “ugly” is more an issue for me. I can’t remember which movie it was, but when my son saw an “ugly” character, he automatically assumed that character was “bad.” It took awhile to explain that this thing was the main character’s friend. Another odd one - that I was just talking about yesterday, as a matter of fact - is that my son has almost zero concept of “death.” We we’re watching a kids movie yesterday, where one of the characters “died,” but of course, by the end, she gets better. It started me thinking about how death in most children’s media is pretty transitory. The effect is, “There’s no reason to be upset by this because I know this character will come back eventually.” It’s pretty disturbing, actually - especially when you extrapolate that idea further. And while I don’t advocate bloodbaths in children’s entertainment, there should be more emphasis on deaths permanence. If there are no consequences than death becomes almost meaningless. Most violence is bloodless against faceless hordes. Their lives mean nothing (not saying that they should necessarily) Even something like Mario can be problematic. He can jump of this cliff a million times and never die. You just start over or walk away or do it again. And, of course, explaining the realities of death to a kindergartner is not exactly a fun. I don’t want to scare him, but I also don’t want him to trivialize it either. I’m not sure if that answered your question - lol. Exploiting an allergy,I’m cool with; Characters running through movies like the used the Konami Code, I do. There’s also an aspect that I read a month ago or so on Marc Bernardin’s Twitter feed, which was: just because a movie from your past might seem benign - and, of course you want to share it with your kids - doesn’t mean it’s not still important that you watch them with your kin to provide context. You sometimes forget the fact that the movies you loved growing up are problematic. For instance, in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure where Bill thinks Ted died. A little while later they are reunited, they embrace, pull apart, and call each other a “f*g.” In the grand scheme of things, B&T is mostly harmless, but it is still a product of its time. It’s important, as a parent, to tell your kid, “I know you’re enjoying this, but that’s not really cool.” I guess what I’m saying is: be mindful. But it might be more beneficial to walk your kids through older movies rather than newer ones. (But still, totally fuck Angry Birds) ETA: lots of typos in that. Please give me a break today

WIllkommen, bienvenue, welcome, whaaaaaaaaaaazup? We watched: 0

Honestly, I don’t think the double entendre escaped him. He’s not that naive, and knowing what I what I’ve read about him and his humor (he does have one Beetle fucking another on the back of Ram after all), I’m sure it’s just something he thought was funny. When I Googled it there were also a lot of “Huh?” type articles when it was announced - but before it was released. That tells me that if it was something that really escaped him, he’d have had plenty of time to change it. According to the man himself, because of course people asked, it was taken from a lyric from a Fats Waller song “I’m Going to Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter” - the lead song on the album: I'm gonna write words oh so sweet They're gonna knock me off my feet A lotta kisses on the bottom I'll be glad I've got 'em My guess is, Paul decided to do an album of jazz standards just because it was something he wanted to do. But because he knew people would be on his ass about doing something like that, he called it “Kisses on the Bottom.” In other words, Paul McCartney, in the most Paul McCartney way possible, is telling critics to “kiss my ass.”

Honestly, I think it's pretty interesting. He wasn't the sole reason I got back into comics, but after dipping my toes in the water, he was a big factor in what made me take the plunge. For that, I owe him big time. I guess I can see why his stuff can be divisive, but he's always been nothing but fun for me. Personally, as a person who hasn't touched a DC comic in years, this is the very move that might make me interested in checking out what's going on over there. All solid picks. Bowie (and Tom Petty) would have both made my list. I've always been a fan of Depeche Mode, but it's only been in the past few months where I've sought stuff outside of just their Greatest Hits or whatever. So, yeah, going forward, I'm with you on them, too I also agree with you on Waititi

Press to Play is his worst album. Kisses on the Bottom is the worst title for an album. I'm cool with Back to the Egg. I feel like his albums are always a bit uneven. There are moments of brilliance mixed with a lot of crap - especially (as you said) post Flaming Pie. Still, I'll buy it every time because the good is always going to outweigh the bad. And even if he were to release Press to Play 2, I know he's got it in him to bounce back.

I agree with all your comic picks.

I thought NEW was his best album in years.

I thought that maybe I should answer my own question :)/> Off the top of my head, anything by Paul McCartney, Brian Wilson, Oasis/Noel Gallagher (not Liam), and The Mr T Experience. Thanks to UTU2TM, U2 is getting there. Weezer used to be one, but it's no longer a "right away" thing. More like, "I'll get it eventually..."

Lol - Wow! Now *that’s* pessimism! So, like, every time a band you like releases a new album they have to prove themselves to you all over again?

In honor of Rockstar, I was just curious, are there any bands out there on your “must buy” list? By which I mean, without hearing a note of music, if so-and-so is releasing new material, you’re buying the album. I’ll extend this question to include any artists work (i.e. actors/directors/authors etc)

I wonder if there’s any actual benefit to “stunning” a Freejack. I understand the need to bring him in alive and unharmed, but when your entire world is a rusty and jagged, disease-ridden dystopian nightmare, stunning a person, and sending them sprawling into one of the omnipresent heaps of ragged scrap metal surrounding you, just seems like a surefire way to give them a one way ticket to Cholera County on the Hepatitis Highway.

(Man, that movie was great...)