I was cheering the cougar.

run, Kim, run...

Mmmmmmmmm......

Not going anywhere, distracting from The Clash blew up the Twin Towers on 9 November discussion. No-one really cares but it'll hang around for a bit to provide a space for a minor but recurring member of the Massive (such as myself) to feel they have a significant role.

It was one of the largest building blocks that the show was made upon. Remove it and half the show disappears. It's not a sub-plot, it is the main plot. It just happens to usually hang around in the background most of the time instead of taking centre stage.

The least interesting character in the programme.

It's the style. They pick a subject up, turn it upside and have a sniff at it then put it back where they found it like no one had touched it. Half the point of the programme is to suggest great drama under the bland surface, when in "fact" there is nothing underneath. The hollowness of the programme is half the point, and echoes Don Draper to perfection.

See also There Will Be Blood for a similar superficial engagement with seemingly weighty subject matter. My review of that film, which can in some ways be applied to Mad Men:

"Brilliant mock epic with deceptively slow pacing about big, half digested subjects
The film fakes the epic look and style. In my opinion it's more of a pose than the real thing. The feel and sense of epic, big, slow storytelling on a large canvas is more important than the actual story, which is rather prosaic and not overly eventful. I assume the book is a 900 page monster that is as good as unreadable nowadays, and that this is a very loose adaptation. The choice of book is more for the subject matter than for the actual quality of the story itself.

I think the stately pace isn't half as slow as most people think it is. I found the film to be briskly, if unhurried, in it's pacing. Also there is almost zero meandering. It might feel like it's meandering all over the place but I think almost every shot, every moment in the film earns its place. The last section, in the mansion, is 25 minutes long and only has two substantial scenes. To me it doesn't feel like 25 minutes.

It tackles big subjects in an esoteric way but I don't think the film really gets its teeth around any of it and leaves most of it vague and half digested on purpose. It's suggestive of big conflicts but leaves everything unsaid and obscure. For example the fight when Plainview pushes the priest into the puddle of oil. It feels deep and seems to be saying something profound. It's a great moment but really, is it more than a great visual or is it actually saying something? I think it's a great visual full of suggestive power, but I really don't think the makers have any well worked out ideas about what the scene truly means. I don't care as I'm happy to go with the suggestion of depths.

The film is pretentious, but it's the best kind of pretentious. It's not up itself for the inflated glory of its own makers. It's up itself for the entertainment of its viewers. Yes, I consider the film to be authentically entertaining. Sure, it's difficult, maybe even challenging, in some ways, but in other ways its a pseudo-intellectual rollercoaster ride. It makes you feel smart just for being able to sit through it.

I've seen it twice and it stands up every bit as much on second viewing than it did on the first. A brilliant film. And perhaps all the more enjoyable for not being the real thing with real depths of meaning. The pretentious emperor's new clothes are perhaps more beguiling, more entertaining and more thought provoking than the real thing. I like a little plastic in my soul.

The DVD extras are rubbish and you're just as well buying the single disc version if it's cheaper. The only interesting extra was a deleted scene called "Go Fishing". It has a moment were Plainview tells the head of the family he bought the land from that he has contempt for him and that he thinks his priest son is crazy. It's one of the very few moments in the whole film where he explicitly articulates what he thinks. I can see why it was deleted as it gave too much away for a film which goes out its way to say as little as possible."

My favourite season of Lost was season 4, but how pointless was the Jack-having-his-appendix-out subplot?!

me included, but she was key (pun intended) to the plot of series 5. While Riley (I assume you refer to him as the dull boyfiend, although your typo could make it refer to Angel or Spike) had a pretty important role in series 4.

However, I would say that the new Principal/son of previous Slayer killed by Spike in Series 7 was a classic redundant sub-plot

and her story arcs developed through Seasons 5-6, culminating (SPOILER ALERT) in her murder (BUGGER! YOU'VE READ IT NOW!) was a central plot development in the lead-up to Bad Willow?

Oh, that's very cool!

Why are the writers so interested in the boring marital problems of the boss and her seond in command? I've watched every series and I still can't remember their names.

... in the sense that if it hadn't been there I wouldn't be saying "I can't BELIEVE they never gave Vito the hour-long coming party that he so richly deserved", but not redundant in the sense that I really enjoyed it.

David Lynch was showing how, underneath the veneer of respectable small town America, the place was crawling with corruption, vice etc. No-one was wholly innocent. Plus, it was just a three week look at life in the town so inevitably some issues wouldn't get resolved. It wasn't a conventional murder-mystery in that sense.

IIRC, the smart-arse FBI agent (Albert) did explain his change in character - he had converted to Zen Buddhism!

as a slight aside, one of the joys of The Walking Dead (go track it down) was that they explained nothing. There's a zombie infestation, and the characters are just dealing with it.

LOM USA is the worst ending of anything ever