I was reading Stephen Bond's movie reviews and discovered that I agree with much of the general tenor of it. He seems to have many of my same movie pet-peeves, such as the Jesus-Moral and solipsist-as-wise tropes. I recommend looking at it for the purposes of reviews.
http://plover.net/~bonds/index.html
But I wanted to make a sort of meta-movie criticism: Why is it that whenever academics, intellectuals or philosophers are portrayed in movies they are not at all academic, intellectual or philosophical? Typically they are solipsists or out-of-context quote machines. They don't seem particularly studious, well informed or thoughtful. There is less to what they say than the standard action-hero, who at least tends to be cynically rugged.

What is it that makes it almost impossible for any film - 'indy' or otherwise - to portray scientists, philosophers and academics in any remotely realistic way; IE as people with their own personality and a propensity for certain abstract theorizing and (hopefully) critical analysis? Instead we get a bunch of non-characters who are collections of unrelated properties ("Depressed", "Reads Nietzsche" etc.") I guess it goes even more to show that most people not only don't understand intellectuals, they don't even know what an intellectual is.

I'm thinking about Redford's character in Lions for Lambs
Pretty much every movie with philosophical pretensions I've seen - Little Miss Sunshine would be a great example.

I also feel like Nietzsche contra Kant watching these movies, in that they try to say in the most obscure way possible what the common man already believed to be true. The practice of passing off popular prejudice as sagely wisdom by making it obscure is so retarded.

Man, by the little that I read of that website, I hated it, seriously.

You know which movie I hate at a homicidal level? Crash. It is my subjective belief that if you like Crash, you are a retard.

I love Mad Max 2, but I am convinced that movie is both hobbesian and marxist, therefore bad for people's brains.

The only movies I enjoy on any reliable basis are action movies (mostly 80s) and comic book movies.

I read through a lot of his articles and like this guy's style a lot. Unfortunately he swallows hook, line and sinker the "all humans are indefinitely improvable," fallacy, which I believe to be the fundamental flaw of humanism/liberalism/leftism/the enlightenment.

His movie reviews I tend to agree with, especially the "Mary Sue" pet peeve. But it would be nice to read a single positive review to have at least some idea of what movies he actually does like.

My favorite things are his culinary opinions and thoughts on "the British empire," which are quite similar to mine, and Mencken and Nock's as well.

Like him, I've always been puzzled by people who say "chicken is sooooo good." More like "soooo bland." If that wasn't enough, these people tend to like chicken with virtually no seasoning and avoid skin and dark meat, the most flavorful parts of chicken.

I'm very interested in finding explanations for such peculiar phenomena.

The short answer is "egalitarianism," or "all men are created equal."

In his "credo," he says something to the effect of "I believe that intellectual stimulation is a valuable part of human life." Presumably he means all humans, yet you'd be deluding yourself to think that most humans value anything intellectual. It's like when I meet people obsessed with everyone going to college because "an educated populace will be able to make better decisions." I agree, but think that the vast majority of humans are simply ineducable. You can put them in a classroom but their idea of intellectual pursuits will never be more than how to pass the exam with the least possible effort.

Ah... yes. I have seen a socialist or two complain about how people don't all learn Plato and Socrates in the schools... these people have no idea that people don't just loose out on the Plato due to lack of opportunity, but mostly because they don't care. And honestly, I suspect its better that way...