Well, (1) the film clearly doesn't subscribe to any one belief system, as it makes the point that the actual beliefs aren't what matters, what matters is what you get out of it. Pi is a member of three very different religions, and he gleans different truths from all of them. Pi doesn't promise to make the journalist believe in Jesus, or Vishnu, or Lord Xenu, he says it will make him believe in god. Just god. That leads into (2), which depends on what you consider "truth." The movie doesn't give you a straight answer. You can choose to believe whatever you want. I didn't have a problem with this ambiguity. It's the whole point of the movie. And (3), that's one hell of a generalization you've got there. I feel like I'm on /r/atheism on Reddit, and that's not a good feeling.

I don't think the movie makes this point at all. The movie suggests that you can seek truth through many different channels, and that it's closed-minded to suggest that one way is inherently "better" than any other way. Is it ridiculous to practice three different religions? Sure, you could argue that. But Pi gets meaning from it. He gets his morality from it, and guess what? It worked out for him. You don't have to agree with his methods, but you can't deny that they had a positive outcome.

I think that Life of Pi deserved every Oscar it got, and no others.

Is this the thread we're submitting for Emmy consideration? I think we should consider it.

I think it's too late to fix this franchise. McClane has now fought and defeated terrorists against insurmountable odds FIVE times. You can't bring that character back to his roots. Much as I hate to say it, Die Hard 4 and 5 are the natural evolution of this franchise. The original film should never have had sequels in the first place.

Damn. For a dude making videos on the internet, I gotta give him props for how well he took criticism of him. My respect for him increased quite a bit.

Just for fun, here are 5 more albums that could have easily made that list:

Channel Orange, by Frank Ocean

Dear Science, by TV on the Radio

Tommy, by The Who

Sound of Silver, by LCD Soundsystem

The Suburbs, by Arcade Fire

WARNING: This post may come across as extremely critical and bitchy. I promise that it isn't, in any way.

As someone who regularly writes film criticism, this was an interesting episode for me. This notion of a "spectrum" is interesting, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. And even if I did, I don't necessarily believe that DiF belongs on that spectrum.

Down in Front, as it exists now, is a podcast about deconstructing films based on story theory. That's great. But that's basically the only angle that you guys attack a film from. That's not in any way a bad thing; you're great at what you do, but I'm not sure that DiF is "film criticism" in the same way that Armond White and Roger Ebert are. You don't go to DiF to hear about how a certain camera movement evokes an emotion, or how an actor's performance is influenced by Toshiro Mifune in High and Low. DiF is in a whole different ballpark, in my opinion. And you're not going to find a better podcast to talk about storytelling theory in cinema. And again, I feel I have to stress this, this doesn't mean that I think that DiF is inherently less worthwhile than a "real" film critic, not at ALL. I just think that it exists in a different conversation than this one.

As for Confused Matthew, his brand of analysis is inherently less worthwhile than either of those two camps, because he's more interested in causing riots in his comment sections than actually contributing to a dialogue about film. He's basically the Armond White of the internet. "Hey, if I make a video saying that 2001 sucks, I'll get lots of page views!" And don't get me started on the waves of obnoxious assholes, him included, who watched the Nostalgia Critic and thought, "Hey, I can yell bullshit into a webcam for 15 minutes and I'll be a real critic!" Ugh.

A brilliant band covering a brilliant Bond theme. Really good stuff.

Important detail about House of Cards: that $100 million budget is for TWO 13-episode seasons.

Just started listening to the Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith. It's good, and I love the range of guests, but his questions annoy me a little. Most of his questions seem to be fishing for IMDb trivia. His interview with the writers of Wreck-It Ralph was little more than him pressuring them for details about how early drafts were different. Now, I love that sort of stuff, but when your podcast professes to be about the art of storytelling, you should be trying a little harder. That said, it's a good listen.

I'm also getting back into Filmspotting. I took a break from them for a while. Not sure why, but I just needed some time away. I've been listening for coming up on six years now, so I dunno. Anyway, they're in top form as usual. New host Josh Larsen is no Matty Robinson, but he'll do in a pinch. Far more entertaining is their spinoff podcast, Filmspotting SVU (Streaming Video Unit), which talks exclusively about movies that are available on various VOD services like On Demand and Netflix. The hosts are Matt Singer and Allison Willmore, two of my favorite critics, and they've got great chemistry. Their banter is reminiscent of Adam and Matty of Filmspotting Prime in their glory days. Also, their show's premise frees them up a lot when it comes to movie selection, and it's easier to watch along with them.