Dear FOH (Friends of Hillary):

Don't be upset that Obama is getting all the ink and the lion's share of the attention. I know you think Hillary still has a chance at the nomination, but she doesn't. Obama has won 8 straight primaries or caucuses, and he will add Wisconsin and Hawaii tomorrow and make it 10 straight.

Everyone is saying Hillary has to win Texas and Ohio on March 4th (and win 'em big) to stay viable. She won't; Obama has pulled even with her in Texas, and you know what that means.....it's only a matter of time until he moves ahead. It's that momentum thingy, y'know? He's got it, she doesn't.

Geez, Hillary may not even win Ohio on March 4th. Most people in the Democratic party have by now accepted that Barack is the strongest candidate and are backing him. Ohioans may start migrating his way. He seems to draw large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes.

Your loyalty to Hillary is duly noted and appreciated, but don't be upset because Barack is getting all the attention. He will be the Democratic nominee, and he will beat John McCain like a drum until that old man cries "Uncle."

GW in Ohio screws on his Philistine armor and puts the visor on his helmet down before posting the following billet-doux.......

I expected "The Bucket List" to be entertaining, and little more. (I only went because Mrs. GW wouldn't go to see Michael Clayton because she hates George Clooney's politics. But that's another story......)

But this film was so much more. It seems like a simplistic premise....two terminally ill cancer patients take one more lurch for all they gusto they can grab before the Grim Reaper grabs them.....

It seemed like one of those feel-good films that the Hollywood film factory will dress up in smarmy sentiments.

But noooooooooo......

It was so much more (in my provincial bourgeois opinion).

Go and see it and see if you don't agree.

Okay, all you cinematic aesthetes, you can hurl your rotten tomatoes now. I have my hauberk securely fastened........

re: Your letter.....

And you just know Anonymous 10:02's...

...idea of a "real life" is trundling his/her equally-ignorant brats around 'burb-land or gentrified city-space while training them to look down on anyone who is about more than empty grades and vacuous careers. Your friend is lucky you "left" him "behind"...

-- deering

I just want you to know that intellectual snobs like yourself are the reason I come back to Salon every day. Your self-absorbed condescension is so much more interesting than the troglodyte communications one sees on other websites.

Keep up the good work!

Specifically, one of them (There Will Be Blood) is an overlong bore, while the other (No Country for Old Men) is another in a long line of distinguished Coen Brothers films.

Who was in charge of "Blood"? Was anyone in charge? Did they decide to do without film editors and say, "What the hell, let's release the whole thing"?

After two hours of this extremely slow film I wanted someone....anyone...to put it out of its misery.

At the two and a half hour mark, I wanted someone to put me out of my misery.

I have no problem with slow films. I loved "The English Patient" while many of my friends were squirming and clamoring for more action. But "There Will Be Blood" was overlong to no purpose. It was just a nasty film and it doesn't belong with the other Best Picture nominees.

While "There Will Be Blood" was a pretentious bore, "No Country for Old Men" is a legitimate contender for Best Picture honors. It was a taut and gritty drama, and everyone in it was wonderful, including Tommy Lee Jones as the sheriff, Josh Brolin as Llewelyn Moss, and Javier Bardem as the creepily-philosophical killer Anton Chigurh.

Some members of the audience were somewhat pissed (or at least nonplussed) by the abrupt ending when I saw it. But if you read the book (which I did, after seeing the film), the ending is entirely clear.

I contend that there has never been a bad Coen Brothers film. Some have been better than others, it is true (with the Hudsucker Proxy possibly being their best so far), but every Coen Brothers film is several cuts above the standard Hollywood effort.

Hurrah for Joel and Ethan!

I went to see There Will Be Blood because it was nominated for Best Picture.

It was.....the slowest motion picture I have ever sat through. This film was so slow in its development that toward the end I was crying out for someone to put this film (and me) out of our misery. It took a considerable act of will to sit through this tedious movie.

This film was somewhere over two hours long (2 hours and 38 minutes, actually) and it should have been no more than an hour and 30 minutes, maybe an hour and 45 minutes. Who were the editors on this film, and what were they drinking? Where was the producer who allowed this to happen?

This may have been a good film at an hour and a half, but right now I just have very bad feelings toward the film and everyone connected with it.

Best Picture nominee? Not hardly.