Letters to the Editor
-
If Ms. Zacharek is interested in countering the prevailing opinion of one of this year's more lauded films, why doesn't she turn her sights on MICHAEL CLAYTON, a film the stellar reputation of which is most undeserved?
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.
-
?
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:)
-
also,
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;)
-
Let me get this straight, Fed
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 agree...
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!
-
double ?
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?