wow, i can really feel the unfounded/misguided condescending attitude coming right through the screen, nice work!

i really don't even know what we're arguing about anymore and also, you got the wring guy because i wasn't even the one who brought up michael clayton (click on my name to review my past letters) i just jumped in because your comment annoyed me.

i wish you had what little courage it takes to actually post with your screen name so i'd know who i'm arguing with. are you the "Anonymous" i've been burning with since the first page or some other anonymous?

i don't even really care about whatever distraction we're on right now but it's fun arguing. i can fill in for the other guy you were arguing with if you want me to

i'd respond to your last post but it's really just an argument about and argument that i'm not even involved in so i'm not sure what my stance would be

actually, i just went back and looked....I believe you're looking for a poster named "adouglas"

what "level of perception" am I on?

I used to love DDL, but I thought he was awful in Gangs of New York- embrassingly over the top. And still not toned down enough in Blood. I was ALWAYS very aware of his "acting", as opposed to some scenes in his other earlier movies where I literally almost forgot I was watching a film, he was so real. Now he's like watching a one-man band, with all the bells and whistles!

You can't read OR write?

You said you wanted to see her diss Michael Clayton. She gave it a negative, at best mixed review.

Then you say you reread it and she praises Clooney. True. But your original comment says nothing about the performance, simply the movie.

Unless, and this is possible given the level of perception generally on display here, you think that guy on the screen is actually a real person named "Michael Clayton."

i just reread her michael clayton article and she basically says he's great, so what are you even talking about?

man, I'm STILL thinkin' about that peon comment. well played....QUITE a zing;)

it's hard to care about any of what you just said.

we're just pissed because she so casually and pretentiously dismissed a great performance so that's why we're making fun of her. it's pretty fun, actually:)

She did, you dipshit. We can take this as a measure of how well most of the trolls here read the pieces they're criticizing, or understand the issues involved.

Most of you wouldn't know naturalistic vs. stylized, method vs. representational acting if it bit you in your self-satisfied asses. Wouldn't know why an actor can't play "the ruthlessness of American capitalism" (a CHARACTER who embodies that, yes).

Far easier to trot out:

Those who can't do, criticize.

She's just being contrarian to get attention (if that's true, you've just provided it, geniuses)

And, the absolute best

Zacharek is entitled to her opinion.

Who are you kidding? Anyone who writes that doesn't believe it for a moment. Not when you're writing in to say she's so dumb she should be fired. And why? Because she doesn't agree with you.

In "Working Girl" Joan Cusack says, "Sometimes I dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will."

Just because the net provides you a chance to spew bile without going through an editor (which most of you wouldn't survive) doesn't make you critics.

Ah, look at the lonely peons.

"Would it have made a difference if Ms. Zacharek had written an article on why DDL deserved to win?"

Of course. :)

I went after this lady the first review. And I hadn't even seen the movie yet. Read it.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/12/26/blood/

Having never seen the movie, but knowing the work of this great actor, I still could speak out against this. Not know what the movie is about or having seen it, I still can rebute this bile. A hit piece. The same as we see in politics. But why.

Maybe I am a glass is half-full guy. Maybe I choose to look at the positives, in movies and in life. I'm not for mrs Zacharek to not be able to voice her opinion. Voice it by all means. But their are risks and rewards to propoganda such as this. The reward is hits( maybe if she hates the movie due to political or some other rationale, people will be turned off due to a negative review). But what is the risk of propogating for profit? There is a risk. That risk is credibility. She cannot have the reward without facing the chance of risk.

For people here to think the writers and blindly propogate and get hits (reward), but don't have to lose credibility, they are sorely mistaken.

So salon has two choices, as shown by the posts here.

1. Post their gossip and heresay and pretend it's news or a report or an article. Bring in their own propogandists to say how they think it is a good article and how everyone else in the world blogging is wrong. How their opinion is gold and reality has no place. Hope the leval of hits and money they make, makes up for all their lost credibility

Or.

2. they can write real articles. Stop the gossip. Stop trying to heard sheep. Let people make up their own mind.

If she hated the movie, great. If it's boring. If she doesn't like the actor. these are all good reasons to not like a movie and give an unfavorable review. She must face the consequnces but it is fine.

But this and the one previous are what is called HIT PIECES. It's intended to sink a film. Did you hear the whisper campaign regarding "The Golden Compass"? "It's a devil worshipping movie. Don't take you rkids to see it". What about rendition or "lions and lambs" and so on?

the gop (clinton's propogandists included) are fighting this verbal battle, and war of ideas everywhere. That is fine. That is their right as americans. But WE still have free speech. WE can still call the propogandists on their propoganda.

CREDIBILITY. REmember when a journalists life goal was credibility? And the motto was, "Do not become the story"? Good ideas. how did we get to here with liars and propogandists for profit? MONEY? LAZINESS? Fear?

Whatever the reasons, the propogandists have risks and rewards to their actions. No amount of jones effect, or bringing in freinds for balance will remove these people's need and responsiblity to face the risk. They can't blindly propogate without facing teh risk of losing credibility (ie their jobs)

I can be a newsman. If I say the sky is red I may lose credibility? I should not blame and attack others for trying to bring me to reality. that is the makings if an insane person (a crazy person who surronds themselves with other crazy people to hide the fact they are in fact crazy.)

Got me?

Write the bogus article (like walsh) but face the consequnces