I'm also here to complain about a review of yours...

...but it's the review of "Sweeney Todd," where the letters page is closed.

I would not have seen "Sweeney Todd" because of your review except that a close friend of mine assured me that you were "insane".

He was right.

It wasn't just a good movie musical, it was a fantastic one, and I find so many musicals annoy me half to death. I was very positively surprised by Depp's vocal performance (he's a fine actor and now we find out he's a decent singer too, who knew?) From your review, I had not expected the fantastic and intricate musical score at all. I know nothing of Sondheim, now I want to go and find out what else he's done.

Re-reading your review, I wonder why Salon allows you to keep writing about such things. You clearly hate the source and aren't particularly fond of musicals in general -- as so many other people commented, why get people to review genres that they hate? You clearly don't know much about music (so why not get someone who does to write about musicals?)

I don't want a reviewer who isn't critical -- but I do want one who likes their material -- I want them to have positive expectations as they are waiting for the film to start, even if they are forced later to revise those expectations downwards.

I've written reviews myself, and it's always much easier to write a bad review than a good one... particularly if you are trying to avoid spoilers (which isn't really an issue in musicals).

But good reviews are more helpful for the readers -- for me -- I'd rather read a positive review that gave me new insight onto a movie or got me out to see something I might not have seen than a bad review that at best lets me avoid something that I probably wouldn't have seen anyway (statistically, I see about 5% of the movies whose reviews I read) and at worst diminishes a positive experience I had with that movie.

There are lots of possibilities to be written about. Consider that Depp became a Goth icon with Edward Scissorhands and now he's more or less reprising the same role almost 20 years later with razors instead of scissors -- except now as a full-blown, adult musical (bravo, Mr Depp!) There's clearly something very attractive to the Goths about Depp's physicality (monochromaticism and rigid central body core) and cultural role (the tragic loner) in these two roles -- why? I'm sure you could trace this back to Göthe's "Werther" or Baudelaire or who-knows-what with some work. I'd learn something about the significance of this role if you did so.

OR you could have looked at the musical history that leads to this musical: if you think the Sondheim isn't very musical, you should try listening to Berg's opera "Lulu", an obvious progenitor for Sweeney's score. The chief value in an operatic score is in its ability to excite emotion in an audience rather than its hummability.

Sorry to put this long screed here -- but where else to put it?

To the editors: if you see this, consider making the closing date for reviews much later than other articles -- because you can't really make an effective rebuttal until you've actually see the movie, read the book, etc.

Yes, sometimes you have to hurt people you love a little bit in order to deal with your social obligations. That's what grown-ups do!

It's the usual argument: "vote for our horrible candidate because theirs is even worse."

Despicable. We have a year to go. There are plenty of chances to select a candidate we might actually like. Even John Edwards looks a heck of a lot more "grown-up" than "more money for the military" Clinton.

...I for one am willing to trust his integrity and even-handedness.

It's also slightly baffling to me that you'd expect Patrick to trash other airlines he doesn't work. I don't expect Patrick to be deeply critical of the company he works for -- that'd be totally ridiculous -- but it'd be strange if he suddenly become fanatically partisan...

Since the agencies in question have gone out of their way to assert strongly that they have every right to perform the despicable activities described in this article, you'd have to be pretty naïve to believe that they don't in fact do what they've said they do.

I'm curious. Got any *evidence* for your claims? Or are you just "making shit up" as the Republicans do?

We have plenty of evidence that the US has *tortured innocent men to death*. We have this on the authority of the US military itself. Let me know if you are at all dubious, I'd be happy to provide you all sorts of documentation.

Now, your information comes from...?

Grow up. American agencies have a fifty-year history of brutalizing innocents. We saw the first CIA torture video almost 20 years ago. We've read the manuals describing all the ways the agencies are allowed to brutalize their victims. And we absolutely know, *because the agencies have told us themselves*, that guilt or innocence is more or less unimportant to them.

Grow up. America's the weapons king -- it spends more than half the money spent on weapons in the world. It's the landmine king, making three-quarters of the world's landmines. It's the war king -- American soldiers have been fighting in some foreign country somewhere for well over 60 continuous years.

So it's absolutely true. American agencies really are unable to find a better thing to do than brutalize innocents. You can point to their history of failure in things like 9/11, the Beirut barracks, all the way back to the Bay of Pigs.

This is what happens when you hire psychopaths to do your dirty work.

I loved this comic! Also see this brilliant earlier reference, R.A.Lafferty's "Slow Tuesday Night" (http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/lafferty5/lafferty51.html)