The essential problem is not technology, but the fact that people, generally, don't think about their actions before they react in some emotionally knee-jerk fashion. It's not new, by any means. Anyone who's been on any sort of message board has experienced an attack that comes not from intellect or an interest in debate, but a false sense of courage bolstered by the fact that the person his hiding behind their computer. Looking back on my various letters posted here at Salon, I'm kind of embarrassed to find a several instances where I responded angrily towards an article I disagreed with, simply because I was in a crappy mood and needed something to lash out at. Acting without thinking is human nature, and Facebook, by nature, exploits it. I don't think that's a bad thing, though. People are going to have to be smarter about things, but in the end the good that FB has brought our culture far outweighs the number of instances where a seemingly intelligent adult is outed as a child.

People talk about her stripping past as though she was some sort of underdog, like she was an innocent roped into the sex industry because that's the only way she could eek out an existence for herself. As I understand it, her stripping career came out of an intellectual lark, done not out necessity but just to see what it's like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, but she's been sort of shameless about exploiting the story, like it's some sort of Dickensian Fairy Tale about the underdog sex worker done good. She's not the first person to get famous by exploiting their past, but it's not really like she overcame any obstacles any other screenwriter in Hollywood had to face. She is (and has always been, I imagine) a smart and talented woman... her stripping anecdotes were just sort of the carrot she used to get our attention.

She has this know-it-all vibe that just sort of rubs people the wrong way. She reminds me of the kid in class who couldn't just answer the teacher's question and shut-up about it, they had to keep talking about as long as they possibly could, because deep down, she loves her own press too much. I love JUNO immensely, and would love it if her career could be filled with charming and insightful dramedies like that, but I don't think that's in the cards. At some point in the future, her head will disappear completely up her own ass and her career will go the way of M. Night Shymalan or Kevin Smith. We're more likely to see her resume fill with soulless Juno sequels and other films filled with nerd chiq and Diablo Codyisms. Honestly, I'm shocked Jennifer's Body looks as entertaining as it does (I don't think there's a more obnoxious sub-genre of horror than the horror-comedy), but it appears like it could be fun. Everything I read (be it her Twitter feed, EW column, or interviews where she turns up that nerd charm) suggests that she's fairly unaware that it was the quirky soul that made JUNO success, not 80's references and her stripping past.

Judd Apatow can most certainly live up to being Judd Apatow. Whether or not he can live up to your nonsensical expectations, remains to be seen. I suspect not, since it seems you wrote this article with the sole intent of finding a way to writing him off.

Anyone who'se been paying attention to the movies he's written/directed should be able to see FUNNY PEOPLE as a logical progression from the ones that came before. He's very clearly the second coming of James L Brooks, and it sounds like FUNNY PEOPLE is the next step in that evolution.

Roger Ebert, a wiser film critic than you, has written a great deal about the importance of judging each film on it's own merit - not by comparing it to the films that have come before it. I suggest you spend a few hours over at RogerEbert.com, and learn how to write a more objective/interesting review. KFANXBAI.

I hope that someday soon the critical world will rise above this obsession with simplifying our opinions into nonsensical lists. We seem to forget, with all our semi-futile attempts to define concretely the intangible concepts of "good movie" and "bad movie," that these lists have no actual authority. They are collections of opinions that seem to exist only to facilitate bullshit film geek discussions where the other party will only be satisfied if they can bully the other into submission, and frankly, I had enough of those in film school.

I'm not saying that critics shouldn't continue to try and define concretely what's good and bad, but these lists add a masturbatory sports-like competition that only raises blood pressure levels.

Yes, I agree, it's a shame that American film geeks are biased against foreign film, and that nostalgia has made the way we view some films a little fuzzy, but pissing and moaning about why people can't have better taste, just makes you seem like you should be writing for Ain't It Cool News. Taste and opinion is what it is, and whining isn't going to change a thing. Rather than making lists and complaining about lists, why don't film critics take the effort to remind us what's so great about these commonly accepted "great films?" That would at least be productive.

Assuming this isn't a sign of some upcoming apocalypse, can we look forward to Salon's indepth coverage of Lohan's lesbian experimentation or Britney's latest meltdown.

Seriously. You kids have better things to talk about.