The Hot Blog

What do they have to say about her and her reviewing skills?

I read her review. She made some sense. Didn't seem like she had any axe to grind.

Then again I don't put too much stock in reviews.

I still can't get over that Variety gave positive reviews to "Charlies 2" and "Gigli". Should we even be paying attention to their reviews?

I think, once again, you shot off your mouth without knowing everything you should know if you're the informed insider you claim to be. Offering a "grain of salt" after the fact doesn't cut it, Big Guy. Not if you're going to rant and rave the way you did. You often criticize Big Media for rushing stories into print before facts are confirmed. Maybe you ought to look in the mirror and do some serious self-appraisal.

Was wondering when Mr Variety would show up with his 45s drawn and ready to blow dastardly dave away for those rushed and scurrilous comments about varietys cred. [humming the theme to Man who Shot Liberty Valance]

Actually, Jeffrey, you can whistle "High Noon" or, better still, "A Fistful of Dollars." Yes, I am proud to say I am a correspondent/critic for Variety. And I have been for more than 15 years. And you know what? I have never -- repeat, never -- been told to write or rewrite a review based on anyone's poitical agenda. I have to wonder: Did Dave even try to contact Leslie for a comment before he wrote his diatribe? Or did he simply engage in the sort of B.S. grandstanding that he accuses other people of doing?

Well, Joe... now you are being overly generous to your employer.

I must say that DP's inflamed attack on a critic's politics for panning a movie he liked is deliciously similar to the posts made here by the BBMer brigade against DP's perceived politics.

It could be satire if it were more knowing.

David, I repeat: Did you contact Leslie for a comment, as a professional journalist would do? Or did you just shoot from the hip like some on-line amateur?

And are you calling me a liar when I say I have never been told how to write a review for Variety? Because if you are, I have an ass for you to kiss.

this aint the Paralax View - its Dave getting snotty cos his and Harry Knowle's favourite filum of 06 got a mediocre Variety review. He starts off screaming like Kevin McCarthy at the end of Bodysnatchers at the beginning of that piece and then it becomes sadly apparent that its simply about a pet cause getting some sand kicked in its face and the fijian wrestler standing up to the bully.

apologies for the shocking grammar.

Er, Jeffrey: Are you calling me a "Fijian wrestler"? If so, I should tell you that, thanks to my falling in love with the most intelligent and witty and amazing woman in the world, I have been inspired to lose more than 80 pounds during the past year. So I'm not quite THAT husky anymore.

no Variety is the bully in the scenario and Dave is the heroic fijian wrestler - which is a leftover from another column referencing Luke Ford's description of the swarthy and bronzed Poland. (calm down waterbucket)

Does someone have the film rights to this Fijian wrestler story?

Now watch: We're gonna get angry complaints from Fijians very soon!

Well, I liked Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (was that what it was called?) more than the first one. I thought it was a lot of fun and sure, it was stupid, but in an Austin Powers/MIchael Bay sort of way. Not sure what others were expecting but I thought it delivered.

it wasn't even in the same league as an austin powers movie. it was just a collection of music videos without good music.

Oh, you don't like The Prodigy? McG does... obviously. :)

One of the things I have always liked about the Variety style reviews is that they seemed more empirical than most others.

They look at what a film strived to achieve and did it achieve it.

Does it hit its demo?Does it make its point?
How does it reflect on the studio? The filmmakers?

Will people see it?

Most Variety reviews are refreshingly free of bias. In a few weeks we'll see but I personally will be much more suspicious of the sure to come '4 star genius' reviews of V and the sure to be '1 star crap' reviews of Apocalyto than I will be of stuff that comes out of Variety, re a political agenda on the part of the reviewer.

I don't think Dave was in a fit over the Felperin piece. I see it more as he was expecting one of the name players at Variety to review it. When it didn't happen, and the review was a non-positive, he was looking for an answer. I certainly don't think it was for some undying love for V.

The best V review yet is from Drew McWeeney. He nailed it.

Nicol D, the problem with Variety's approach is that film reviewing isn't empirical. You don't find it a little bit off-putting that some of their critics seem to essentially "take points off" for a movie that is unlikely to appeal to a large segment of the audience? I know they're a trade paper so they feel obligated to throw in a line or two of vague box-office predictions, but too often it seems like they're saying that one reflects the other -- that it won't make money because this critic didn't like it, or that because it's unlikely to make money, it's hard to recommend it wholeheartedly.

But this whole business that always comes up about how no one should listen to a critic who didn't pan such-and-such... that's such crap. "Why are we even talking about Variety when they printed a positive review of something everyone else said was bad?" Um, I don't know... haven't any of you ever liked a movie everyone else said was bad? I'm not defending Gigli (although it's nowhere near as bad as most people say), or even Charlie's Angels 2 (which I kinda enjoyed... I hate McG's music videos but for some reason I like his Charlie's Angels movies)... it's just a ridiculous, ignorant idea, that there are certain movies critics "can't" like. I mean, sure, if you're noticing that you've *never* liked a movie that a particular critic or publication has recommended, by all means, stop reading them, or consider them not particularly enlightening or interesting. But there's no single automatic red flag for criticism. You have to look at the body of work.

But critics are different. They're held to a higher standard. For better or worse. They lose credibility when they give raves to subpar movies like Charlies Angels 2 and Gigli and the ones like that. They can't look at a movie like an audience member would. An audience member could watch CA 2 and like certain scenes, action, the girls and walk away thinking it was ok. But a critic has to look at the whole movie. The complete work. A critic would be short changing himself if he gave passes to movies that he enjoyed even if the work was below par.

Terence D, due respect, but that's BS. A critic who enjoys a movie, but only gives it two stars because he "knows" that the "fact" is, it's not good... is being dishonest. Yes, it would be troubling to see a reviewer with the tastes of a fourteen-year-old boy, calling DOOM the best movie he's seen that year and ignoring foreign movies 'cause he hates reading subtitles.

But I don't think that's what we're really talking about; we're talking about thist weird perception that critics are OBLIGATED to hate certain movies because they should know better. The business of saying that certain movies are just plain sub-par and that all critics have to know better... no.

I mean, is Transamerica (to pick a recent well-intentioned movie that I hated) better than Charlie's Angels 2 just because of what it goes for? Or just because Felicity Huffman's performance *is* very convincing? Feh to that. I just wrote a very positive review of Con Air for filmcritic.com. Can you say I wasn't looking at the "whole movie" just because I liked it?

If you trust a critic -- and I'm not saying that the critic(s) in Variety should or should not be trusted, particularly -- but if you trust a critic, then you accept that it's going to come back to their tastes, not an objective standard. You don't have to always agree, and you certainly don't have to trust them immediately or outright. But to hold every critic to some kind of standard where they're not "allowed" to like something trashy... that's as foolish as comparing that trash to Schindler's List and saying, here's why it's so bad, because it's not Schindler's List. The trash movie could still be awful for any number of reasons, but why does it have to be automatic?

This is why it annoys me that Roger Ebert gets so much crap for liking "too many" movies lately. I mean, has he given thumbs up to some stuff I hated, and more than I would, were I in his position? Sure. But do I doubt his facilities as a reviewer? Not really.

Talk of a reviewer's "credibility" is suspect. Credibility with who? Other, snobbier film critics? People who "know" better?

As with films themselves, the important stuff will not necessarily be what the reviewer says but *how* he or she says it.

It's not about whether you like the movie or not. I don't even really think that is a reviewer's primary job. It's the argument...it's how they are deciding to process the film from their perspective. The more powerful the argument, the better the review.

My favorite critic: Anthony Lane. And one of his best reviews was a positive one for Speed, which doesn't sound like something a "dignified" reviewer should like but through his descriptive argument, he makes the case.

Yeah Joe, Dave should've called Leslie over at Variety and said something to the effect of..."hey, I noticed you hardly ever write reviews and then you did a pissy one on 'V for Vendetta.' Now...which one of your bosses put you up to it." I'm sure she would've come right out and said it.

I'm a fairly conspiracy minded person as it is, but that aside, it does seem weird to have people who rarely write criticism's do one for big movies. It does kind of smack of some higher up wanting to take out a critical hit on "V for Vendetta" and having a lesser known writer do it. I won't get to see "V" until SXSW so Leslie could be totally correct....but it still seems fishy to me.

Furthermore....all us people who write reviews and criticisms know you can't just do one every now and again. It takes a constant repitition. Maybe that's why the "V" review is so poorly written.

Why should David go out of his way to contact a reviewer when he had a problem with a review? Why can't he call someone out if he thinks the review isn't on the up and up?

It's not like he wrote anything personal about her. It was more about her publication than her review.

jesse,
If what I said was BS than next week at the Oscars the 5 nominees for Best picture would be Harry Potter, Star Wars, Narnia, War of the Worlds and King Kong.

Critics have a job to do. It is to critique films. Not to say "oh, its worth seeing because I found it semi enjoyable". The good critics don't use that type of cop out.

When a critic gives a rave review to Gigli it hurts their credibility. Ebert giving three stars to every movie now is hurting his credibility. Not every movie is created equal. I love a lot of bad movies. I find them enjoyable. But I would find it disturbing if critics found them all good too.

Terence, this has nothing to do with the Oscars.

I never for a second said that critics should consider audience-friendliness or popularity when making a critique. In fact, I was arguing *against* Variety's tendency to do that -- what Nicol called an "empirical" approach.

But critics don't vote on the Oscars so I don't really understand where that comparison came from anyway.

(Also, I'm not entirely sure what your point is about that "popular hit" five, because all of those films got overall-positive reviews, too. And, for that matter, Sith, Kong, and War of the Worlds are better movies than some of the actual picture nominees. What are you saying? That they *can't* be better because they're expensive hits?)

Then you say:

"Critics have a job to do. It is to critique films. Not to say 'oh, its worth seeing because I found it semi enjoyable'."

But if that review then goes on to give the *reasons* the critic found it semi-enjoyable... how is that *not* a critique? Of course the critique should be more detailed and thoughtful when that one sentence, but can't an intelligent critique add up to "it's worth seeing because I found it enjoyable"? Does enjoyment of a movie really not enter into it?

Personally, I wouldn't tell someone a movie is worth seeing because I found it "semi-enjoyable"... but I also wouldn't eviscerate it, because "semi-enjoyable" to me sounds like a mixed review. You're basically asking that critics have knee-jerk reactions more often! That they rip into Charlie's Angels 2 just by reflex or habit, or for "credibility." And yes, I think that's BS.

Of course critics are expected to be more discerning than "regular" moviegoers. But to me, being more discerning doesn't mean learning to deny your instincts and review by what you're "supposed" to like and try to be completely objective. It means applying your knowledge of film to your personal experiences as a movie-watcher, and producing better-reasoned opinions.

This is why I mentioned trust; once I do trust a critic (like Ebert, or Jonathan Rosenbaum, or whoever), I'm not going to say "oh, no, he liked such-and-such, that is JUST NOT RIGHT, he's losing credibility!"

You also say:

"Not every movie is created equal. I love a lot of bad movies. I find them enjoyable. But I would find it disturbing if critics found them all good too."

If they're bad, why do you love them? I mean, sure, there are a handful of movies that are bad but I find enjoyable as camp or so-bad-it's-funny or what have you. But for the most part, if I truly *enjoy* a movie, and I'm reviewing it, I'm going to give it a positive review. Maybe not a four-star rave (which I'm pretty sure the Gigli review in Variety was *not* -- merely a positive one), but I'm not going to say "sure, I liked it, but it's not GOOD." That's just a perverse denial of your own taste.

"Credibility" is an incredibly dicey issue to get into. If critics give opinions based on trying to maintain cred, then they're cheating their readers.

Even if you do require a personal litmust test for a critic where they're not "allowed" to like certain movies and still be considered serious, why are you using the most boilerplate conventional wisdom around to determine what those movies are? Let me ask you: have you even *seen* Gigli? It didn't work for me as a film, but I could name ten movies from 2003 that I thought were a lot worse. If I had reviewed it, I would've given it two stars. Not one star, not zero stars... so am I unfit, Terence? Was it enough that it would've been a negative review, or does it need to be an all-out pan? Do I have to turn in my film critic badge?

For that matter, would you like to list any more movies that serious critics simply shouldn't be allowed to like?

Oh, and I want to add (as if that above post wasn't long enough): I agree that not all movies are created equal, and I *don't* buy the quasi-populist argument that "well, I liked it, so it must be good!" ... but it's the logic and methodology of that statement that I don't agree with, not the sentiment. As I said before, if a critic can write about his or her *reasons* for liking a movie with clarity and skill, it doesn't matter what movie it is. "I liked it, so it must be good" is fine if you can back it up, and lousy if you can't.

Rosenbaum's a great example: he put in Cable Guy for his top ten of that year, but he made an interesting argument for it that made you think again. It's on the Chicago Reader.

palmtree, I actually find a lot of Anthony Lane's newer stuff so smug and condescending, so much more about his erudite quips than the actual movie, that I find him somewhat difficult to take seriously. He just doesn't seem to like movies all that much sometimes.

But I know the Speed review you're talking about... during his earlier years at the New Yorker, he wrote some really great pieces, including that one, where you can really feel his love of movies (in both positive and negative reviews).

Yeah, he's been off lately..almost like he's trying too hard to be funny.

But he can still be brilliant. Of all the Star Wars reviews to do Yoda-speak, Lane's line was by far the best: "Break me a fucking give."

jesse,
Don't get me wrong here. I am totally with you on liking movies. I like those 5 high grossers more than any of the 5 nominated movies up for Oscar.

But I'm not a critic. And I can see why those movies aren't perceived as "good". I expect critics to be higher minded than myself is what I'm getting at.

I know what's really good and what's enjoyable. Sometimes those two don't match up.

But a critic has to be above the fray so to speak. They have to judge a movie on other things. Can a critic think that Gigli is good? Sure. But they're going to have to really explain their point. Same as with any other film. The ones that can, will be great critics. They're going to have to really explain why they gave a film like that a good review.

I hate snob critics too. The ones who can't see Batman Begins for one of the years best or 40 Year Old Virgin as one of the best. But I have to draw a line at the ones who give passes to movies and give raves out to films that everyone knows are subpar.

"Speed" was a great, great movie.

Petaluma and Blu: Dave implicitly accused Leslie of being part of some "political" conspiracy (that, for all we know, exists only in Dave's mind, in the same place he dreamed up the conpiracy of film critics who set out to "destroy" his fave "Phanton of the Opera" last year). If you do something like that, journalistic ethics dictate that you give the accused a chance to respond. (After all, wasn't Dave himself complaining just a couple weeks back that he wasn't questioned for a Variety story about blogs?) Of course, if Dave isn't really a journalist, but simply a gossip-monger, then none of that applies, does it?

Put it another way: If I write a story that accuses Petaluma of giving a good review to a movie only because Peta was sexually serviced by the star -- well, Peta, wouldn't you appreciate my at least TRYING to conact you to get your side of the story?

Terence, I just take issue with the qualification of "films that everyone knows are subpar." That makes it sound like it's worse to give a pass to "Gigli" than to (say) "Transamerica," just because "Gigli" has more of a notorious reputation. Because more people "know" that "Gigli" is supposed to be bad. But I don't think it's worse.

If you want to accuse some critics of giving movies a pass because other people are doing it, or not wanting to seem unhip, OK. But if you're talking about movies where "everyone know are subpar," then the go-alonger thing to do would be to trash them, like everyone else. So I don't think it's particularly hacky -- not *inherently*, anyway -- to give a positive review to something "everyone knows" is subpar. If anything, that seems like a credibility enhancer, because anyone writing a positive review of "Gigli" around the time of its release would realize that they're going against the vast majority of their colleagues.

There are certainly movies that I wouldn't call enjoyable that I'd nonetheless give a positive review, for being interesting or unique. But more often than not, "enjoyable" and "good" do have to match up on some level. "Good Night, and Good Luck" doesn't have the spectacle of "Narnia," but I enjoy it more. Not because of the subject matter, but because of both films' strengths and weaknesses.

To say otherwise -- that there's a big gulf between "good" and "enjoyable" -- can contribute to the idea that smart/provocative movies are good for you, but boring, and that critics only like them out of high-minded obligation.

And I think critics *trying* to be more high-minded than "the public" -- *looking* for reasons to prefer "Capote" to "Batman Begins" -- are a major source of bad criticism. Being higher minded and knowing more about film is fine, as long as it's not such a self-conscious decision ;)

Sanctimonious critiques are usually terrible. I think much of the reason for Ebert and his ilk liking Crash is that it "makes you a better person." Even though I don't agree with that, I have a hunch they see it as their way of making the world better. Similarly many critics are hard on movies like Sin City and Kill Bill because they see it as promoting violence or badness, allowing them to ignore the filmmaking itself and the irony of such projects. Lord knows if they profess to like any such film, their rabid readers will write in and complain.

These full of hot air critics are stuck in their Ivory Towers. They wouldn't know an entertaining or good film if it hit them over the head.

Ebert with "Crash" is a case in point. He's almost like a vigilante now sprouting how great it is and how it can change your life.

I don't know if you can call Roger an elitist. Remember: He also liked "Daredevil."

I have to agree with Jesse on this criticism issue. The best film critics are the ones who are simultaneously the most honest and who have the sharpest minds, and who can discern high-minded gunk from smaller movies that are intelligently crafted and unpretentious. Armond White, for all his flaws, is one of the latter. He praised Torque when it came out, which blew a lot of peoples' minds, but if you actually watch it you can see what he's talking about. Is it a masterpiece? No, but it is something more worth seeing than a movie with noble intentions but poor execution, like say North Country, or Crash, or any number of awards-wannabees.
If a critic enjoys a movie, but then decides to give it a weak review, he's not being 'high-minded', he's being dishonest about his own tastes and fearful of public perception. This is the kind of thinking that leads to blind follow-the-leader behavior.
To say that critics should be

Sorry, I don't know where that last half-sentence came from.

I certainly wouldn't call Ebert an elitist. I meant sanctimonious in terms of believing that they know if a movie can elevate or denigrate society. Kenneth Turan is a better example I think. I'm fine with elitism by the way as long as it's backed up with a specific argument and not just adjectival drivel.

How can Ebert be an elitist?

He gave 3 stars to "The Ringer"!

Every critic, deep in his or her heart, is an elitist. Some have the good fortune not to get caught up in it and have some fun with it. Others take it very serious and will never have a comedy in their top Ten list or give more than 2 stars to any comedy. They'd rather preach about French films with mood than ANIMAL HOUSE.

But the real thing is everyone is a critic nowadays. Everytime you buy a ticket you are making a critical choice. And your choice as an audience member means way more than any newspaper or internet critic.

I can't take any critic or anyone for that amtter seriously if they praised TORQUE.

We were obviously not watching the same crappy film. Maybe it was a foreign film or something that I missed. Anyone praising that movie had to be doing it for a laugh.

I've been around the block long enough now to know what critics are all about. They're going to hate every movie I love. They don't respect Geeks.

So Richard Nash, is it fair to say that you don't like critics in general?

Fades to Black, regarding Torque, I didn't say it was a great movie. Just that Armond White pointed out that it was better than any other critic was admitting, mainly due to its visuals. Read his review on nypress.com.

[Hey James Leer: chalk up a new identity marker for #13 up above^^^]

Yeah, Yodas Nut Sac and Charly Baltimore are the new ones.

So now we know that YNS is a 'geek'. In case you missed it months ago, by the way, Bruce has worked on numerous film shoots in the past and is a member of a union, implying that he was a grip or electric or something similar.

I hope he calls the next one "bitey."

Never thought I'd get made fun of for being a film geek on a movie blog website.

Don't worry. If you don't agree on a daily basis with Jeff Leer you will be called a lot worse.

Joy.

Buggers.

Joe L-

It depends on which female movie star serviced me.
But seriously....
I guess I'm just from the mindframe of why ask if you're not going to get a straight or true answer. Too much watching the Bush Administration in court I guess.

I have to wonder though....
If Leslie didnt work for the same rag (Variety) as you, would you care that Dave called her out? I didn't think so.

Nice move, Peta. You ask a question, then try to shut me up before I answer. You are worse than a smug cretin. You are an rank amateur.

The answer you would have gotten, had you not tried to pre-empt me with your pathetically cheap trick: Yes, I would care. And believe it or not, I would care as much for Dave as I would for the writer being accused. You see, there's a concept in libel law (something they teach you about in journalism school) called reckless disregard. In other words, if you print a false and libelous statement or accusation, you can be held accountable, or at the very least slapped with a lawsuit, if you demonstated a reckless disregard for the truth. That is, if you didn't even bother to check on whether the statement was true. (And here's a newsflash: Your best defense always -- always -- is at least attempting to contact the person you're writing about, and giving him/her a chance to respond.) If Dave wants to be known as a journalist, and not a Defamer wanna-be, he might do well to remember that.

Miss Felperin is taking a lot of shots and not just here. Other writers who have posted good reviews have taken a few shots. This is going to be a film that either people love or hate. Not much in between. But she wrote a coherent review that said what she wanted. She doesn't seem to be a hack or an amatuer. I want to see if Variety will give her more bigger type films to review.

But Joe Leydon, you always come on this blog (from what feels like some self proclaimed high horse) to point Dave out in the error of his ways anytime you have a differing view.

So while your argument may (and I stress "may")be right here, it's hard to take you seriously when you are always going out of your way to prove how Dave is wrong on whatever.

Joe posts here on all manner of things and only occasionally points out something wrong that he thinks DP has done, and never rashly or irrationally.

There are other people who post here from much higher horses.

Dave Poland can take the heat. That's why he is the big man in the kitchen.

THX: Being critical is one thing. Accusing someone of unethical behavior -- of taking part in a "conspiracy" -- is quite another. (If you'll note what Dave wrote at the top here -- even he is backing off his original insinuation.) Someone as smart as you obviously are --no irony intended -- should recognize the difference.

And BTW: You accusing me of "always" dissing Dave is especially ludicrous, today of all days, after I paid tribute to his perceptiveness on a posting on another thread more than an hour before your posting here. Dave knows full well that I respect him sufficiently (most of the time) to encourage my students to read his column -- and Movie City News in general. Indeed, that's why I may be critical from time to time: I want him to set a good example for impressionable young minds.

Also BTW: For the record, I have never been on a horse in my life. I have it on good authority, however, that I had my picture on a donkey at a church fair when I was 3 years old.

Actually, I have great regard for Dave's comments (again, most of the time). Which, when I think about it, makes all the more stupid that I bet him that "Far From Heaven" would not get any Oscar nominations a couple years back. He took the wager because he said.... Ooops. I forgot: I never did settle that bet. My bad. Dave, when you're in Austin for SXSW: The steak dinner is on me.

...and for running a great blog (Dave) and keeping it on it's toes (Joe)...Lonestar Light Tallboys are on me at SXSW.

Hey, maybe we should go to the Iron Horse Barbeque place right near the convention center. Beer, potatoes (I'm Irish, remember) and meat. All the major food groups.

This is my 3rd trip to Austin and my regimine is:
Land in the plane
Get my stuff into the hotl
GO TO IRONWORKS!

I ate there 4 days in a row last year at SXSW....it's simply the best. So, in other words, works for me!
Petalumafilms@gmail.com for anyone interested. I'll be there March 10-20.

Is it not great that great barbeque can bring folks togteher?

BBQ's are all about bringin peeps together.

As long as the meats well cooked and the beer is flowin.

The Iron Works. You can't get better beef anywhere. My mouth is watering for their ribs. And a little chilli before hand.

You know what is so great about Iron Works, in addition to the great food? It's inexpensive.

Ah yes....good BBQ brings the people together and the bowels apart.

Joe- you should bring Leslie as well...we can podcast the showdown ;-)

thats a podcast that should be on movie city news.

If you want a decent Irish bar in Austin. Try Fado's. Pretty decent.

Well, I might do that -- except for the fact that Leslie is based in Europe, not the US. Which, by the way, is why I have never had the pleasure of meeting her. And one of the main reasons why she reviewed "V for Vendetta" at the Berlin Film Festival.

Ah, now it finally makes sense. So that was the key piece of missing information that started all of this.

Point taken Joe. My bad.

Might be one of the reasons she doesn't review the higher profile films either.

Sanchez: Depends on what you define as "higher profile films." Consider this: Leslie has also reviewed "Tristan Shandy," "Nanny McPhee," "The Libertine," "Elizabethtown," "Wallace and Gromitt: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit," "Imagine Me and You," "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" -- and the Oscar-nominated "Tsotoi."

Leslie Felperin should not be given bigger films to review, her style and opinions are mediocre at best and she does seem to have a mostly negative outlook on films and film makers. She's taking out her personal frustrations on artists because she herself is probably art-less, she seems like she's got constant PMS and she doesn't even realize that the best film reviewers are film lovers, not haters like her. Read all her reviews and you'll get what I mean, she should find another job.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)