Magic Mike: A- (hilarious, surprisingly well acted)
Killer Joe: A (dark, twisted)
The Man From Nowhere: B- (tries a bit too hard, but pretty entertaining)
Norwegian Wood: C+ (not as good as the book, still sufficiently atmospheric)
The Imposter: A-
Premium Rush: B+ (hilariously goofy; never seen anybody chew up as much scenery as Michael Shannon does in this)
Seven Psychopaths: B
Oslo, 31. August: A
Because that's been the case in the majority of first-world gun control movements since then, right? Can't roll my eyes any harder.
America in 2013 does not equal America in 1774. The world in 2013 does not equal the world in 1774. Laws should change to reflect the times (social changes, environmental changes, etc).
Ah, the glorious return of your persecution complex. No one is arguing that all gun owners are crazed killers, or that all guns should be banned. Not even the media, for all their faults, are pushing that idea. Most people (according to recent polls, anyway) merely suggest that there should be more stringent restrictions on which guns can be purchased and who can purchase them (some of the existing state laws to this effect are already perfectly adequate in my opinion, though).
How are reviews any more reliable than ratings? They're more informative, certainly, though it's obvious that reactions on either extreme of the spectrum are far more likely to prompt a viewer to write a review than indifference. That's why you always discount a certain percentage of Amazon.com reviews and so on (people love to bitch, especially on the internet). In fact, I'd argue that ratings are more reliable on the whole, since they don't require such an extreme reaction and they're dead easy to do.
But even in the case of music, there are compositions that have very little to do with the traditional rules of the art that still have plenty of value (to some listeners).