Its attacks on 90s pop culture—from Details Magazine to Donna Tartt to Henry Rollins to Quentin Tarantino to Wired Magazine to alternative rock (geez, how the hell did they set up Q101 just six months after Nirvana "suddenly shocked the world"?)—are still pretty thrilling, at least perhaps to me, someone who lived through it all as an impressionable teen, some of it I ate up, some of it not. The attacks on everything else are kind of boring, as if the pop culture stuff were the things the writers were most familiar with. Some of it seems dated, some of it seems hyperbolic, but mostly a lot of it just seems like precursors to issues we still deal with (there is an advertising executive here who preaches "disruption".) Most strikingly, they call out how we spend money on things that feel liberating or purposeful or rebellious or even meaningful to our identities when, all along, we're doing exactly what a bunch of people in a board room had planned and budgeted for. It may sound a little simplistic, but are our movie theaters filled with comic book blockbusters because that's what we as an audience demanded? Or did a corporation steer us towards a product that was highly addictive and, thus, easier to predict and reproduce? Three stars.