It will be interesting to see how Brokeback Mountain does with the Academy since the religious right has started a campaign against it and many talking heads, from David Letterman to creepy Chris Matthews to the host of CNN's nightly entertainment show have belittled it and sworn they won't see it. They fail to understand that because they won't see a movie, and I'd like to know how many they actually do see, reflects on them and not the quality of the movie. It also sends a signal to the fence sitters that there is a reason they shouldn't go, because well, they won't like it because Dave said so and they might turn gay. Forget Harold Bloom's old theories, this is an example of attempts to homogenize and dumb down the culture. Country music is wildly popular in this country but would anyone say it is better than Mozart because of it?

I also wonder if "Brokeback Mountain" is fading, but I think there will be a double backlash. It's only the beginning of February and already the gay panic jokes are boring and beyond hacky. Those who speak "for the Heartland" (why am I capitalizing that?) say that Hollywood will stop at nothing to insult their values, promote an agenda, ad nauseum. Hollywood, with nothing on its mind but money, might begin to resent all the hectoring and stick with "Brokeback Mountain." I'm pulling for that or "Crash." I also hope that George Clooney gets something for his relentless good cheer, common sense, and palpable enjoyment of being a movie star.

I live in the middle of the Illinois cornfields. And guess what? "Brokeback Mountain" is alive and well in the Heartland. It opened in 3 theaters in Champaign (a university town), in 2 theaters in Decatur (a working-class town), as well as in Bloomington (2), Peoria (3), and even in Pekin and Mattoon (East-coast snobs [is that a redundancy?] might want to check a map). From what I hear, the film is doing well, and I haven't heard of any complaints or reports of people running from the theater in shock.

I also note that Andrew O'Hehir manages to stay off the "Brokeback" bandwagon without ever saying how he feels. He faults the stodgy, pseudo-liberals of the Academy, but doesn't say it's too bad because the film is really good and deserves to win. Of course, Salon was never been on the "Brokeback" bandwagon to begin with. O'Hehir says Academy voters are "terrified of being described as a pack of pansy-lovers"--a motivation that he and Stephanie Airhead know quite well, I'd say.

First of all, you said Darwin's Nightmare was widely criticized. Talk about your Colbert inspired 'truthiness'..here's the rotten tomatoes page for it.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/darwins_nightmare/

Overall was a superb 93% fresh, and the cream of the crop was 87%. I wouldn't exactly call that widely criticized. Not to mention all its year end list making.

Second of all, Brokeback is going to win the best picture. I don't say this because it is my personal choice (i think it was good, but a little overrated), but because it's taking all these other awards and is simply the clear favorite. The whole phenomenon behind the film is that it wins over people who tend to fall on the more conservative side of things. Also, since when is the Academy conservative? Last time I checked, it had a heavy liberal bias.

Also, Munich is the worst film of the best pictures, and has no shot at winning. It was only nominated because of Spielberg. If Saving Private Ryan can't beat Shakespeare in love, Munich has about a snowballs chance in hell of taking the top prize.

Lastly, I agree it's ridiculous that Grizzly Man was left out..that was my favorite movie last year..not just favorite documentary. That category has always been lame.

Do you actually like movies? Do you actually see movies? You have written more words about films you have not seen but feel free to criticize than you do about films you've actually seen. I do not understand that.

As year after year the number of films released in the US dwindles I would think your job of reviewing films would become easier. If one admits that being a reviewer you have even greater access to the films being marketed to the public than those of us who actually have to wait for release dates, buy a ticket and stand in line, you're really no excuse for not seeing films in release.

I found it particularly unsettling that in your mention of documentary films not included in this year's Academy nominations, you choose to take a swipe at a film you have not seen. Of "Darwin's Nightmare" you wrote, In place of those, we have a widely criticized environmental documentary about Tanzania's Lake Victoria, "Darwin's Nightmare,” Besides being poor journalism, your statement that "Darwin's Nightmare" is widely criticized is misleading. As a work of filmmaking "Darwin's Nightmare" has some of the best reviews of any film out this year. What criticism the film has garnered as had much to do the person's feelings about Africa and depictions of poverty on screen. To imply that the film is somehow unworthy for inclusion in the nominations is unjustified both by the overall critical support it has received and by the fact that you haven’t seen it. (See the film. It is a beautiful, sad, disturbing work.)

I don't think that you particularly like films and should probably embark on a career that inspires you to remember the work you do, or should be doing.

I have to wonder if any of the letter writers complaining about Mr. O'Hehir's supposed lack of movie-love actually read this column with any regularity. It's very clear, when his columns are taken as a whole, that he does indeed love movies, quite passionately. He apparently just hasn't seen any *individual* movies the past couple of weeks that he loved.

The thing that people who don't see multiple films in a week often don't grasp is that there's a lot of dross out there (yes, even Beyond the Multiplex), and that when one is seeing so many films, one's standards tend to get very precise, if not demanding. The tendency to dissect what one sees does come to the fore when seeing a large volume of films. But that's why it's called criticism (or critique)--it's not about being loving everything, it's about observing and describing what one sees as the strengths and failings of any film. To lavish praise on everything one sees, or even a majority of it, would be dishonest for a reviewer. Ultimately, nobody stays in film criticism unless they passionately love movies. That's no guarantee they'll love *every* movie.

All of that said, to our fair critic: Why on earth are you going on about mainstream Hollywood films in a column titled "Beyond the Multiplex"? I have a thousand places to turn if I want breakdowns of the big-studio releases that always snag the marquee nominations at Oscar time. From you I want to hear about the stuff the studios don't have time for.