Well said. Thanks.--penn

From cttttt:

This is why Andrew O'Hehir's movie columns generate such dramatically less nasty responses—the people reading his commentary actually have a familiarity with movies and movie history (beyond 1990), and as such can take the opinion of an "expert" and place it accordingly.

People who don't actually care about the art of movies—people who don't watch movies by Bruce Conner, Bill Douglas, Paul Cox, Jean Vigo, Mizoguchi, etc—have a tendency to get real mad at critics who suggest there may be better things out there. And those who DO watch those movies are less likely to get mad—because they know it too.

"Can you see how it is really boring to read through the standard fifteen complaints about Stephanie that are posted to everything she writes?"

IF ONLY...

If we ignore them, Prejean, Palin, et al, they will eventually go away. Let's start doing it!

By the way, when did "all," which is an adverb/noun/adjective become a verb? Example:

She just sits there all, "What? Can't hear you!" and "LARRY, YOU'RE BEING INAPPROPRIATE!"

And no, I'm not a grammar cop. I am, however, extremely tired of "like" or "all" being used as action verbs to describe communication. "Like," among other uses and definitions means resembling or similar to. So, if you say or write, "I'm like all mad about this," what does that mean? That you're pretending at being mad about a situation or that you are approaching the emotion of being mad about something or are you genuinely, actually mad about it? Misuse of the word "like" in this manner indicates to me a lack of commitment about your intent or point. The fact that people do it all the time, especially in conversation, suggests that we hesitate to make a direct point. Are we becoming passive-aggressive in our communication? If so, why?

I am tired of the reviewers of the reviewer. Ms. Zacharek's work, as one of Salon's movie reviewers, is to review movies, which means she will be posting her subjective opinion, based upon her education, cultural experiences, her understanding of film and the techniques/conventions of the film genre, etc. If you can't stand it that reviewers may possibly disagree with your opinion, then don't read, and if you do read and must comment, is it really necessary to pull up past reviews as though her past evaluation of another film has anything at all to do with the current film being reviewed?

She is not any more opinionated or inaccurate than anyone else with a forum for spouting cinematic opinion, such as Roger Ebert or Anthony Lane or Andrew O'Hehir. Artistic works in any genre can only be viewed subjectively by anyone at any time, even by their creator. She's part of that process as a reviewer.

Try not to take it personally, OK?

I checked out the beta version last week and left comments that echo many that are seen here. The main annoying aspect of the new design is the busy jumbled look. It does seem disorganized.

Unlike some posting here, the heavy red at the top appeals to me more so than annoys me. I also like the navigation tabs at the top. However, I really do believe the old design is superior.

Now, what you can change for me is the Broadsheet fashionista cartoon icon. She's always been so elitist looking. Just as you have caricatures for many other regular Salon writers, can't we have a rotating set of caricatures of the Broadsheet staff for their blog identity? That's my $.02. Thanks.

I wrote: "Sarah has been unhappy with the religion for a long time, particularly the plural marriage part."

Sarah was unhappy that her family recognizes the Principle, which promotes plural marriage. She's not necessarily unhappy with the LDSers. I think that's why she was so close to that friend who was LDS. I don't think Sarah is completely anti-LDS, in other words--just anti-polygamy.

I was actually worried about that frog in the jar because I didn't see any air holes and was totally distracted as the scene got longer.

You read my mind. I always worry about the treatment of animals in movies or TV. I kept worrying (OK I didn't lose sleep on it) that there weren't airholes, especially since Carol Lynn said that she'd killed one before to dissect it.

I know that there are often reps from various humane societies to ensure that animals aren't mistreated. What about reptiles and insects?

Is her fiancee a Mormon btw?

Scott, Sarah's fiance was raised in the LDS church but turned his back on it. They met through a support group for former Mormons back in season 2. Sarah has been unhappy with the religion for a long time, particularly the plural marriage part.

Those who closely follow" Big Love" Like I do would have noticed that the season finale was merely only a dream inside of Bill's head.

Actually, I considered that it might be a Dallasesque "it was all a dream" trick. But then again, if it's not, I won't be surprised. There are inconsistencies with the show. For example, Teeny was gone for so long I thought she'd been written out. Joey and Wanda's son ought to be older than the baby they've been using.

Those who write about this show should watch it first.

This is a free forum of discussion where we are allowed to miss details or miscomprehend what we've seen. Thus we're allowed to write about this show even if we are not nearly as "erudite" on the subject as you. You have no proof that it was all a dream, for sure, inside Bill's head. Besides, if Bill didn't know about Nikki's daughter with JJ, which he apparently didn't, how would she show up in Bill's dream of how things transpired?