Yeah, I was wondering why you guys hadn't released the original Strange Days commentary yet. I thought it was pretty good.

And V For Vendetta, oh boy. I'm so torn on that film it's not even funny. I like a lot of things about it, but when you look at what it could have been, the film becomes more disappointing.

Ya'll be trippin'. Riddick is a classic example of a bad movie. The plot is totally overstuffed, and completely nonsensical.

On a similar note, when I told a friend of mine recently that I had the same complaint about At World's End, he told me that he actually liked it better than Dead Man's Chest (because there were less random story tangents and fewer running gags), and that he never understood how people found it confusing. Apparently, he always understood it perfectly. Is that what's going on with the Riddick fans in the room?

*does the clever thing*

WHAT IS THIS DEMON MAGIC?

Alright, we've only got a few hours, wanna start taking bets on what the new episode is gonna be?

My money's on UHF. Why? I have my reasons.

Oh, and I've been resurrected, by the way. Remember me, Zarban's old friend from the first page? I'm back with no explanation.

This is the pinnacle of evolution. The multiverse came to be so that, eventually, through an incredibly complex and indescribably unpredictable series of events, this could be created.

Well, he was of no use to us.

Congrats on making the world's most obscure Raiders reference, Teague.

Not to be a jerk, because this was a great commentary, but something about it bothered me. Near the end, you claim that it's okay that Pirates doesn't have complex character arcs or in-depth themes because it's a fun ride. Why is that okay for this film, but not for others you've commentated on? Is it just because this one is more fun than those? Is it that the story is constructed better?

I think this is a question that anyone who loves film has to answer eventually. "Is it okay for me to love a movie that is technically bad (by the rules that I usually judge by, if I still found it enjoyable?"

I'd put my money on Pirates getting released this week.

I like the character of Jack enough to see this in the theaters, but if the story is as muddled and confusing as At World's End, I might actually demand my money back.

Okay, here's the only thing that really jumped out at me (although I agree with all the other problems previously raised). Why the he'll does Thor suddenly care so much about the lives of the Frost Giants? I think Dorkman already brought this up, but it's a point that bears repeating. Here's what he should have done. He should have allowed Loki to destroy the Frost Giants. Imagine the thematic resonance when Thor realizes that the villain of the movie is right, and that the morally right thing to do is to help him. You guys talk all the time on Down in Front about how the villain is better if he/she actually has a decent point. But that doesn't work if the hero originally shared that point, and if the hero's arc involves him changing his views on that issue. If SERENITY had started out with Mal as an Alliance officer, we wouldn't have seen that the Operative was making a good point, because the entire point of the movie would have been dissuading us from that opinion.

And as for why this movie has Earth in the first place, that's just so that they don't have to do all of that "Thor on Earth" crap in The Avengers.

WEEEEEEEE! תודה טיג!

Sorry, when I get excited I start speaking Hebrew. I think it has something to do with the mysterious circumstances surrounding my Bar Mitzvah...

Zarban, I expect that to be in my character outline.