The Hot Blog

I'm sorry you really hated the film, Dave.

"The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is brilliant!

Below an educated and respected film critic's review.
Variety's TODD MCCARTHY

"A ravishing, magisterial, poetic epic that moves its characters toward their tragic destinies with all the implacability of a Greek drama, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" is one of the best Westerns of the 1970s, which represents the highest possible praise. It's a magnificent throwback to a time when filmmakers found all sorts of ways to refashion Hollywood's oldest and most durable genre. Given the narrower current notion of what constitutes an acceptable commercial feature, Andrew Dominik's daring high-wire act will trod a very hard road to find secure theatrical footing, which suggests Warner Bros. might do best to nurture it in a small number of theaters in the hope that critical support and word of mouth will snowball into long runs and a slow rollout."

For more go to Variety.com

P.S. film critics DON'T vote.

The fact that this movie is actually dividing critics into people that love it or hate it actually has me even more excited to see this movie. Most masterpieces aren't universally loved, they just incite passion in people one way or the other and that's what this one seems to do.

What the hell is wrong with you?

I'm going to plagiarize a joke from another message board. "If only it were a musical..."

It certainly sounds boring as hell.

Good thing you kept it simple.

EDouglas -- You mean like this?

http://redclayramblers.com/foolmoon/diamondstuds.htm

BTW -- I actually saw this show in NY years ago, and it was a hoot.

You have many gifts as a writer, Dave, but I'm afraid film criticism is not one of them.

This is a serious question. Dave be honest now, did you have a couple of drinks before the film or not?

ps --when is the review coming?

It's unfortunate, Dave, that you sometimes have to resort to your "I'm so much smarter than everyone else" method of film review. I appreciate your opinion and views on a film, but why the callow need to convince everyone that you're so much more perspicacious than those other silly reviewers who just aren't up to your level? It would be funny if you weren't the one who wrote that "art sometimes just affects us in that place that's impossible to rationalize." You've also raved about some utter shit yourself too.

So tell me what you think, I'm always eager to listen because I know that the value in criticism is not found in agreeing with everything someone writes. But please get down off your high horse and stop with the self-importance. It's a long way down from up there.

But why should David get down off his high horse while he is talking about a western?

Hey guys, all he's saying is that it's no Phantom of the Opera....

Ah, I'm sorry Dave -- that gets brought up far too often. You may be right, but your tone is just a touch too patronizing (but, hey, that's what we love about you, right?)

Its no Phantom, no Dremagirls, no 2nd Matrix, etc.

So if you genuinely enjoyed this film and were moved by it, you have "drunken" the Kool-Aid?

Nice way to reduce anyone who feels differently than you do to the level of "stupid douchebag who doesn't know art," David, and bonus points for your conjugation of "drunken."

This film doesn't need 10 years to age into a masterpiece. It's a masterpiece now. There's been a lot of talk about the film evoking '70s anti-Westerns and Terrence Malick-- all of it true-- but it reminded me most of Walter Hill's underrated WILD BILL, another story about a gunslinger who had the misfortune of being looked up as a legend *before* he died. Dominick would have excelled at making a film about James in his prime (the opening train robbery sequence, which constitutes pretty much the lone bit of action in the film, is beautifully orchestrate), but the interplay between James and Ford is rich and mysterious, even if it doesn't satisfy Hollywood conventions. I can see how some might view the film as a commercially perverse enterprise, but it's very rare to see something this artistically ambitious with studio movie behind. Please, please don't listen to David on this one. It's a must for anyone who's serious about movies, and no way deserving of this kind of scorn.

That was short?

I'm happy you're an island on this one...

Good grief, so many typos:

"beautifully orchestrate" should be "beautifully orchestrated;" "studio movie behind" should be "studio money behind it;" and "no way deserving of this kind of scorn" should be "in no way deserving of this kind of scorn."

Perhaps I should have tried to "Preview" function.

Also, why are you taking this film so personally. Dominik's "abuse of the priviledge?" Since when is self-expression a "priviledge?"

And I swear I know how to spell privilege.

"WHAT IS A PROFESSIONAL FILM CRITIC?"
With all due respect to the "Film Critics" profession most of the so called "film critics" are not qualified neither have the maturity to understand the nuances and multiple factors that comprise the filmmaking process. They simple "bash" a film due to their prejudices, personal anger, and because in today's new media world "they can." The "film critic HACKS" don't take the time to "critique" a film as any "PROFESSIONAL" reviewer will do. Basically, they just lash out with their sophomoric diatribe fuelled by their own personal disappointements.

Yes, nowadays any "village idiot" can call himself/herself a "film critic. Therefore, the proliferation of "sort of entertainment reporters," wannabe "film critics", pseudo intellectuals, and other bottom feeders of society, can create their websites and/or blogs and fancy themselves as "FILM CRITICS."

Disclaimer: This posting is not directed at any specific individual. It is simply an observation about the state of affairs of the "film critics" universe.

P.S. FILM CRITICS DO NOT VOTE.

Kris, DP's response to the 'privilege' article is going to be that making an expensive studio movie is a privilege. It's the same argument he made for Zodiac, that Fincher was wasting the studio's money for no good reason. I think he used 'masturbatory' back then, too.

Abraham, what do you mean 'vote'? They certainly vote for their own groups' awards. And in elections, unless they happen to be felons.

I will point out that I'm pleased by one part of Poland's pan of this one. I bet several people that he would invoke THE PROPOSITION in panning this film, and sure enough... five paragraphs in... you won me some cash, Dave. Way to go!

"FILM CRITICS DO NOT VOTE ON AWARDS"

what it means is that "film critics" are not members of the Academy of Motion Pictures, Screen Actors Guild, craft guilds etc., so they are not a determining factor of which "great films" will be nominated and ultimately honored by the vote of the established industry (i.e. Oscars, SAG awards, etc.).

That's correct, but often the critics' award-winners are better films than the Oscar-winners.

jeff...with all respect to the "critics' awards" (how many of their members see all the films for consideration? Secondly, how many of them are really "professional film critics" or just "entertainment reporters"?) they are not the Oscars.

So, "abraham," I was "wondering" if you could use a "few" more of these "quotation marks" around things to mysteriously "emphasize" words that "appear" to need no extra "emphasis."

I would guess that more 'critics' see more movies than most Oscar voters.

Anyway, I don't know what your underlying point is, because Jesse James is almost certainly not going to be an Oscar contender.

The thing about film critics is that you will not agree with them one hundred percent of the time. Based on personal preference and a host of other reasons, films don't always hit every person in the same way. What is helpful about film critics is that they can be used as a barometer for how much you might like a movie. If you read Poland often enough, then you know his taste and you know your taste and you can gauge how you excited you should be for a movie based on how that certain critic responds to it.

For myself, I loved Zodiac so much it hurt but Poland detested it. I understood his reasons and disagreed with them. He didn't like Children of Men, which I loved as well. We both loved Little Children. What all this means? I'm not really sure. But I do know that based on the reasons given by Poland here, I am just as excited to see this film. There was nothing in his review that persuaded me not to see it, rather I want to see it more. Film critics are important, but you can't gauge them unless you are familiar with their preferences, especially as they relate to your own. It doesn't make him stupid and it doesn't mean he "missed the point", it just means this review is perfectly in line with his preferences.

the point is to continue the dialog regarding the value of "film critics" reviews overall and their correlation with the final goal of any quality film...that being to get as many awards as possible and culminating with the Oscar. The intent is not to debate whether Jesse James will get any awards or the Oscar.

Furthermore, the discussion should address the fact that if a person is a "film critic" should he/she have the obligation to "critique" the film (regardless of his/her like or dislike of said film) with a filmistic point of view (professional opinion) or just use his/her false sense of importance and simply write two or three sentences and dismiss said film with derrogatory remarks?

Also, many film critics write whatever comes to their mind without fact checking. Therefore, a lot of misinformation goes out and "hurts" projects abusively and unfairly.

NOTE: PROS MAY CRITICIZE BUT DO NOT INSULT OTHERS' WORK.

Was the title pretentious when it was a book? And does this mean Peter Brooks's THE PERSECUTION AND ASSASSINATION OF JEAN-PAUL MARAT AS PERFORMED BY THE INMATES OF THE ASYLUM AT CHARENTON UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE MARQUIS DE SADE is the most pretentious movie ever made? If so, guess I done drunken the Kool-Aid on that one, too.

P.S. FILM CRITICS DO NOT BOAT

Abraham, I think I understand your point. Riddle me this: What if Dave Poland is not, in fact, a critic at all, but more of a 'reviewer'? Does that change things any?

Yeah, I was gonna say that there's a huge difference between a reviewer and a critic. Either way, this review seems harsh. It's as if it were written by a guy at a film festival where there's no schmoozing of celebs to be done and he actually had to watch a movie that belongs in a film festival first before finding an audience in the real world. But then I thought better and didn't want to pile on. Oh...wait...

FILM CRITICS DO NOT FLOAT
NOT IN A MOAT
NOT IN A BOAT
NOT WEARING A COAT
WHICH THEY KEEP IN A TOTE

FILM CRITICS DO NOT EMOTE

astute post Devin.

though, what does one expect from a guy who ran the Ben Stiller/Owen Wilson JLA story, admitting in the body of the text that it's a gigantic lie, yet running the story anyway.

that's the kind of online integrity i expect from a site like CHUD.

I wish ALL rabid film fan sites would run fake rumors...I keep trying to get Film Threat to do that. It would seriously damage the internet gossip mill and *certain* sites that have no real reason for existing other than to start unfounded rumors.

Damn. I'm sure not feeling the love here tonight.

Uh, that was a bit of satire, Anghus. I was poking fun at sites that run any bit of bullshit news. I remain amazed at how some people seem incapable of getting jokes.

I got the joke and found it hi-larious Devin.

it would have been a better joke if you guys hadn't been posting unfounded rumors for a decade.

i got the point, and only laughed at the story because of how you attempted to distance yourself at 'sites that run any bit of bullshit', or do you not read the stories on your own site?

hi-larious.

I've been told, anghus.

Let's get back to how wrong Poland is about this movie.

he's hardly an island. didn't HR give it a 'meh' review as well.

Anghus... (shakes head, thinks better of it)

Devin, are you and Dave on similar ground that the method in which this movie was directed makes it immune to cutting down?

This is not about David Poland, it is about some film critics.

Yes anghus the "Hollywood Reporter" entertainment news reporter Kirk Honneycutt turned "film critic" aka the HACK who enjoys going to screenings more for free food and free drinks than anything else and believes that by wearing a felt fedora it transforms him into an intellectual, did not enjoy Jesse James.

However, it is not a surprise. His personal inner anger has been reflected for a longtime in his writings.

You know, before the internet you would only overhear snatches of the thoughts of people like abraham as they muttered to themselves on street corners. Technology has really been a boon for the nutters.

Devin you are funny. However, I saw Jesse James and I know Kirk Honneycutt, as well as a lot of the so called "film critics" personally.
It is about time that someone uncovers the false prophets.

Well, then tell who you are.

A guy who calls himself Abraham... railing against false prophets... Think I'll uncork a bottle of Merlot, sit back and enjoy the show. I like Biblical epics.

Guess I better get started on that ark...especially since we all know that film critics don't float.

Joe you are funnier than Devin and you have panache.
Enjoy your Merlot and make sure to have a few cases.
It is going to be brutal!

Noah stop it...do not reveal the plot.

I've now talked to 9 people who have seen it. Not one bad word among them thus far.

the consensus is:

"Poland is nuts".

That's a direct quote from two of them.

Maybe he is an island. We'll have to wait and see.

There are few moments on the net as funny as David Poland tearing a film a new asshole. His ability to do this -- with seemingly a rather steady hand -- while producing such bile about a film, remains remarkably entertaining all these years later. KNOCK'EM OUT THE BOX, HEAT! KNOCK'EM OUT! PS: Few things are also not as funny as Heat reviewing Fall films in a similar fashion to my father using a blackjack on somebody.

Abraham: One thing to be said in defense of film critics.. well, OK, in defense of some critics... well, OK, in defense of me. The idea of writing a review in which I state, or even hint, that anyone who disagrees with my take on a film is somehow stupid, or listening too much to other people, or inebriated as a result of quaffing too much beverage... well, I can't lie, I guess I have done that once or twice or a dozen times in my career. But I shouldn't. As I tell my students as the beginning of every semester: My job is to make you think. My job is not to make you think like me. I try to adhere to that outside of the classroom as well.

BTW: All of you do know that it wasn't Kool-Aid that they actually drank at Jonestown, right? That is really was Flavor Aid, right? And that people who persist in using the "drinking the Kool-Aid" line are not only lazy purveyors of cliches, but also inaccurate, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid

Dave's review is abusive, but it reads like a guy who hated all close to three hours of it and felt the need to give some back. Probably not very professional, but understandable if you've ever been trapped in a movie that you hated and would not end. Frankly, I wish I could have done the same to DeathProof.

"BTW: All of you do know that it wasn't Kool-Aid that they actually drank at Jonestown, right? That is really was Flavor Aid, right? And that people who persist in using the "drinking the Kool-Aid" line are not only lazy purveyors of cliches, but also inaccurate, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid"

Well, thank goodness the truth is revealed and a great, Nebraska-invented product's innocence is proved.

Anyway, Joe, if we're getting Biblical here, shouldn't your wife be getting kocked up by God soon? I'm off the hook since I'm not married.

Wait a minute, there's a topic here, isn't there? On these movies, I'm always a mixed bag. Maybe it's even my mood. I didn't care for The Thin Red Line that much and found a lot of lovely moments in The New World, especially in the ways the beauty of the old and the new world are portrayed. However, as far as Westerns, I don't like many of them. It's one of those genres I just have to throw up my hands and give up on sometimes. I couldn't get through Open Season, so I have the feeling I'm going to have a rougher time with an even slower, more atmospheric Western.

As for David's criticisms, this isn't anything new from him, and all this chatter hasn't changed his behavior before, and it's probably not going to now, so I've taken it as one of those "things" certain people do when talking about movies. I know I occasionally have a problem with cutting VERY close to not calling people idiots for having certain opinions. When you find Scary Movie 2 reasonably humerous and think Blade Runner's one of the worst movies ever made, I don't know how to respond positively to that. And my best friend loves..... LOVES Bad Boys 2 (Saw it 4 times in the theaters) while the horrendousness of it made me physically ill. We know that and we live with that. Of course, Dave's in a much bigger position than I am and has a lot more responsibility in what he says, but movie hatred is movie hatred, and sometimes, bad movies feel like someone kicked your dog, and disagreeing opinions on what is bad sometimes feels the same way, especially when the movie in question is considered a masterpiece by one side. I don't take it personally that Dave thinks Zodiac is masturbation when I think it's the best movie I've seen this year and what I want is an even MORE self-indulgent director's cut with the 2+ minute, insanely detailed, multi-year transition sequence intact.

Speaking of self-indulgent, after keeping my rental copy of Inland Empire for over a week, I finally have time to sit back and let it roll. Here..... we.... go.....

Getting back to the movie, anyone that doesn't love it cannot be trusted. I'm not saying they're dishonest or stupid, I'm just saying they don't know anything about movie quality and should be ignored until the end of days. Period.

So all this time, I've been drinking the "Kool-Aid" Flavor-Aid?

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again: sites like CHUD and AICN are run by worthlessly juvenile little arses who have no apparent talent (double for Drew, even though he tries, bless his li'l waterhead heart), feel some strange sense of entitlement, and have ridiculously overblown egos because they're so divorced from reality they haven't come to realization they don't matter ... period. In any context.

Really, the best place to deal with those folks is via flamethrower.

And INTO THE WILD is a huge piece of shit.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is the best movie title of the year. I wish more movies were a bit imaginative in their titles than something like Jesse James.

I prefer Orange Kool-Aid with a reasonable amount of sugar. It's a mighty tasty beverage. Nevertheless; Heat remains rather adept at taking films out at the knees like a rather punkass martial artist. It's his thing. If it makes him nuts, then it makes him nuts. Whateverthecase; he has been this way for years. Why this review should cause such a response is rather shocking but it has been known to happen from time to time. What I am waiting for... the film this year that leads to Heat endlessly promoting it -- with reckless abandon -- for months because of his deep love and admiration for it. Love and admiration that gets spun out in blogs, columns, and Hot Buttons until the nominations are annouced. Thus leaving Heat rather perklempt about this film -- he has loved deeply for months -- not being weighed down with Oscar gold. I am waiting for the moment he announces this years DREAMGIRLS!

DAMN.....You certainly do ramble.

"Thus leaving Heat rather perklempt about this film "

Dude, never use the word 'perklempt' unless you're Mike Myers channeling Barbara Streisand on SNL.

I have to admit though, the whole 'Miami Heat' thing is classic.

I share as hell ramble when I am half-asleep. What am I supposed to do? Not posting anything at 4 in the morning? Get the hell out of here.

I sure as hell ramble when I am half-asleep. What am I supposed to do? Not posting anything at 4 in the morning? Get the hell out of here.

I am now going to go for the tri-fecta. Yeah!

IOIOIOI: For heaven's sake, man, read the side of the damn can: You are NOT supposed to have more than three Monster energy drinks per day.

FILM CRITICS DO NOT FLOAT
NOT IN A MOAT
NOT IN A BOAT
NOT WEARING A COAT
WHICH THEY KEEP IN A TOTE

Heh heh heh.

Joe, yeah man, ugh, yeah.

simmer down Dave. sounds like a post-Colt 45 outrage.

I'd wait on that prediction Jeffmcm...Jesse James could be an Oscar contender. Doesn't mean it's 'good' of course.

Yeah, it could be, and if it does, DP's head will explode.

im not going to jump on kicking dirt on Dave over this, but i keep looking back to last year.

Dreamgirls will win Best Picture.

And when you realize that it's just far too early to be talking about award potential.

I'm still interested in the discussion, but were still 60 days out from even starting to consider award potential.

anghus; INDEED!

You guys are funny.

The only thing that I think is a little sticky in all of this is that anyone who knows how the world o' criticism works suggesting that there are not sheep moments in criticism is either intentionally blind or a liar.

If you want to go back into any year, you will find movies that were way overpraised or way overdemonized that in time look far less problematic. There are always movies that get a pass when critics, as a group, are feeling under siege for being "disconnected" from public tastes. Etc.

Of course, people only whine about this notion when they disagree or want to disagree with a hard position that I've taken.

This is what I believe about my critical faculties... I find that I tend to represent one side of the spectrum pretty well. Whether that ends up being a majority or minority is not easily predicted or really at all relevant to my work.

Finally, I am amused that somehow this conversation has turned for some into an attack on my Oscar prognostication. (When you find a single person who didn't think Dreamgirls was getting nominated last year, feel free to have a loud mouthed opinion about it.) Did I mention Oscar in my review? Or are some of you so threatened by the review that you have to attack what you perceive to be a weakness? Lame.

But make sure to get those tuxes ready for this film and Zodiac. The biggest difference between the two films at year end will be that Jesse James will be even more challenged to get to $33 million at the domestic box office. (And for the record, Children of Men doesn't deserve to be dragged into this group of films. I am not a fan, but it is a much more effectively realized film than either this or Zodiac.)

What's up with all the hate for D-Po? Thanks for the review Dave. My suspicion of this film is confirmed and I definitely won't see it. It looks like one of these bloated movies that thinks it's too cool and probably talks too much. Also, Brad Pitt can't act.

Not to beat a dead horse but you did say "will win best picture" for DG. Most people thought it would be nominated, though, you're right about that.

What cracks me up are the people on here and on Hollywood-Elsewhere (will you two ever not be conjoined?) keep mentioning Zodiac for Oscar attention. And Knocked Up keeps getting mentioned. It hardly caused the stir 40 Year Old Virgin did.

I think the reason people are still talking about Zodiac, Sasha, is because nine months into the year, it's the only movie released so far that really stuck with people. I happen to think the movie is a masterpiece that will not garner a single nomination (I hope I'm wrong, but I'm trying to be a realist), but I think it speaks more to the lack of quality in most films released so far this year than it does to the achievment of Zodiac. There's no Seabiscuit this year.

Should we take that to mean that you really liked Seabiscuit?
For me, every movie this year that I've really loved was released before May, with the exception of Ratatouille.

No, Jeff. I thought Seabiscuit was okay, but I was just talking about Oscar chances, not how much I cared for it. I think when Seabiscuit came out, people started throwing the title around as a legitimate Best Picture candidate. This year there has been a lack of quality movies that have a real shot at being nominated; as much as I love Zodiac, it has no shot of being honored. Ratatouille is a shoo-in for Best Animated Feature, though, that's for sure.

see, it's not hate D-Po.

(i'm liking 'd-po'. that might stick)

what i'm saying is that award season mania takes hold earlier this year, and that the discussion turns to award prospects rather quickly.

I, for one, didn't think Dreamgirls would get a best picture nom. in fact, when they started doing the 25 bucks a ticket thing in NY, i said 'wait for the inevitable backlash of that'.

im not bashing you for your prognostication skills (or lack thereof). i'm just saying that a lot of times the push for awards ends up making films released this time of year have to be fit into a mold, to be a piece of a bigger struggle, rather than just serve as it's own film.

Your review didn't go there, but the discussion did. People will say 'i didn't care for it' and others will declare it's brilliance, and in the ensuing craziness people who love it will start using 'award contender' as a way to liken it to something of quality.

At some point we will begin to weigh and measure these films against one another. And it happens earlier every year, just like the beginning of the Summer movie season.

I got a kick out of the review - it was so D-Po - it sorta had an On the Road with Kerouac and Bonnie & Clyde vibe. And c'mon, who didn't see that trailer of the hand brushing over the wheat and think Malick! and then... Ridley Scott! (Gladiator). I didn't think Auteur! - but then, I missed Chopper, and maybe I will think that after 2 hours & 40 minutes of his A&F wet dr - er, masterpiece.

D-Po could end up on the movie poster - he complimented the cast (excellent!), prod design (first class!), cinematography (stunning!) and even the director's past chops ('irresistible'! - cue Robert Palmer). Seems his beef was basically that it was 'empty' - so my question is, does that boil down to the script? That it wasn't deep enough or tight enough to support the surrounding scenery? Dominik has sole credit on the screenplay adaption - and the novelist Ron Hansen comes across as no slouch. The book reviews on Amazon seem to reflect the comments above - most say the book is amazing, while one says it's long, drawn-out, boring, etc. Was Dominik being true to the source material? Or too true?

I have re-titled D-Po's review:

The Assassination of The Film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford by the Rebel David Poland

Or:

The Assassination of The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford by the Rebel David Poland

Yes, Bi-Ped... and I would still argue that had Dreamgirls been nominated, it would likely have won... same for Walk The Line... but that is a different conversation.

And no, I will never be rid of Wells while people like you read him blathering about me and then think there is some issue between US. There is no US. It is only HIM trying to keep YOU making this association that has been a non-issue for well over a year now. I haven't read his site once in over 8 months... and if it weren't for people being sucked into thinking there is still some connection, I would be happy as a clam about the removal of bile from my daily diet.

All that whining stated... I would love for some of those who chose to attack me mostly, I think, because they disagree with me on the film (not you, Jeremy... very civil and funny) to tell us WHY they think the film is a masterpiece... or even just good.

DP, no way would DG have won. No way, no how. Walk the Line, no chance. ZERO. The film has to appeal across the board. The Departed was the only one last year with enough heat in every pocket. There wasn't even a split vote - Marty all the way. The thing everybody seemed to miss last year was the fact that they wanted to give Scorsese an Oscar. I kept saying this and no one would listen. It wasn't going to take much - it's like the guy who hasn't sex in a year and all it takes is...well, I'll leave it at that.

You and Wells are like the mommy and daddy of we commenters -- we go here to bitch about him, there to bitch about you, lol. I'm just wondering if there will ever be a day when you won't be considered two sides of the same coin. I think there will be.

I can't help but feel that this review does have the vibe of being written under some kind of inebriated state...

Not that I myself haven't been guilty of impulsively posting things on the web written while not sober.

Or posting things here while not sober....

(runs away)

Bipedalist: Well, I have seen the two of them in the same theater lobby at the same time, so it's not like there's a Fight Club thing going on here.

Yes, Bi-Ped... as you have been saying for years... every Scorsese movie is the one that has to win. The joke is that love to insist that I think I am 100% right when it is you who likes to hand out absolutes like Tic Tacs. And I know how much you hate it when I start listing the times I was right when you and others were wrong... and sooooo sure you were right... so I won't. But geez... at least be fair about it. Just because a movie wins doesn't mean that all the other movies were out of the race. Just because a movie gets or doesn't get nominated doesn't mean it was a lock or was never in the race. Did they leave the gray out of your Crayola box?

I know that I have to live with people who obsess on one movie or one comment I make and never bother to consider context. But you know me and my thoughts all too well to play that game. Really.

And do me a favor... don't come here to bitch about him. I have no interest, positive or negative. It is YOU who are keeping the connection alive - you and others who seem to revel in the notion of supergluing that monkey to my back any time you get the chance. When will it stop? When you stop getting off on it.

AND - Nice projection, THX.

I really don't get off on it, nor do I care particularly - I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Well, you see them through someone's eyes than my own and then hold me to it... which sucks for anyone ever put in that position.

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