"Having read the film review, I keep coming back to one specific point: Weaver is criticized for attempting a role that isn't standard character for her."

No. She's criticized for attempting a role that negates all of her virtues, and for which she is unsuited. That's not the same thing as playing against type.

"Perhaps she isn't terribly convincing in this new role, but that's beside the point, to me.

As the mother of an autistic child,"

All best wishes to you and your child. But whether Weaver is or is not convincing in the role is the only thing for a critic to judge her by, and for most of the moviegoing public to judger her performance by, as well.

"It's a fact that most American's know practically nothing about the world of autism and the individuals and families that inhabit that world. It's a fact that this condition requires massive attention and that those of us who suffer the consequences of life with autism need exposure."

This has nothing to do with whether or not the movie or Weaver is any good.

"I, for one, appreciate her efforts, and the efforts of everyone involved in producing the film, lame or fabulous though it may be."

Fine, but critics don't applaud something whether it's lame or fabulous. And the public doesn't pay ten dollars to see good intentions. Whether it's lame or fabulous is what it should be judged by. And judging it the former has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with sensitivity to autism.

Why is it no critic can give a negative review to a movie about the mentally handicapped, or the physically handicapped, without some clod flouting their "sensitivity" by claiming that the critic is really against the mentally ill; the physically ill; the mentally and physically ill; heartbreak of psoriasis; hangnail; et al.?

It happened with A Beautiful Mind, I Am Sam, every single goddamn movie about a mental handicap. If you can't tell the difference between criticizing a portrayal and criticizing the real thing then you don't have the sufficient intellectual capability to call into question someone else's judgement.

for the readers ready to assume what a movie is without having seen it, and then making claims flatly contradicted by the review. How exactly does a movie qualify as "man-bashing" when, according the the review, it contains at least three -- count 'em -- synpathetic male characters -- those played by Nathan Fillion, Andy Griffith, and Eddie Jemison. Oh, yeah, that one abusive husband. Right. If you try to make that type stand for men in general, Poco, then who's doing the man bashing here? Or does your name refer to the amount you comprehend?

is why isn't Erechtheides working as a casting agent?

That's a brilliant piece of casting.

Can't you just see her hosting a segment on choosing a vibrator with that right-wing elf Hasselback?

and the fact that most of Britain apparently believes it suggests an utter inability to make distinctions. Has Tony Blair said, "There is no society"? Did Thatcher establish a minimum wage, legalize gay unions? Has George Bush put his religion aside -- as Blair consistently has --when it comes to making policy?

Jesus! It's this kind of idiocy that makes me think most of fellow liberals have rocks in their heads.

Britons better pray Gordon Brown has staying power. Because if he doesn't the UK is going to be looking back on Blair the Americans under Nixon looked back on LBJ.

For Xrandadu.

Another Friday, another passel of morons having the unmitigated gall to call into question a critic's opinion on a movie they haven't even seen.

We start with the twerp who thinks Zacharek doesn't know the difference between someone's real-life persona and acting. Not the case at all. She meant there are some roles actors are unsuited for. And it has nothing to do with Fonda's real-life persona. Who wants to see the woman who played Bree Daniel and Gloria in "They Shoot Horses" turned into a cuddly, crotchety old coot.

Then we have the Lindsay Lohan is an untalented bimbo strain. Which has nothing to do with her acting (anyone who thinks she was a black hole of energy in APHC has no idea what they were seeing). Really, she could be giving the greatest performances anyone has ever seen. But she's young, in the gossips, and therefore a must to piss on so people can prove how superior they are they don't pay attention to her. All they prove is they're too goddamn lazy to separate someone's performances from her publicity. If you're too lazy to do that, don't blame writers who aren't.

Seriously -- how do you people live with yourself? What did you do before the internet? Hang around multiplexes and bug others with your opinion? Organize writing campaigns to get your local critic fired. I read you all every week and think, Where's Dr. Kervorkian when you need him?

The writer obviously used a familiar locution. It was a mistake. Not a slight on the Czechs or Slovaks. Don't wet yourself.

And horse doody isn't the only thing that smells...

"And Stephanie, you need to get over your vendetta against computer animation,"

Uh, since when is an expressed taste a "vendetta"? Do you mean critics have to like *every* device they come across or else they are prejudiced.

"or just admit that you've lost your inner child and give the reviews to someone else."

I don't know about you, honey, but I wouldn't trust the opinion of any adult who *hadn't* lost their inner child.