Suela, I found Spidey 1 enjoyable enough, but Spidey 2 wrecked me in a very, very good way. If you decide to see it, it may possibly ping you in all your Farscape-loving dark, sad, cathartic, watching-deeply-loveable-characters-suffer-horribly places. At least, that's where it pinged me

I liked 'em both, and I liked Spider-Man 2 (which we saw on Sunday) better than the first, which would have been better if we'd only been able to see more of Willem Defoe's own goblin-like face. I can't remember if it was said here or at PF, but someone said that the first one had too many shots of the unmoving Spider-Man mask talking with the unmoving Goblin mask, and it played like some sort of new kubuki theater.

watching-deeply-loveable-characters-suffer-horribly places

See, if you don't find Spidey deeply lovable, this won't help you.

Last week I had a friend go off (and on, and on) about MJ. What a horrible person! he kept exclaiming, but he has this long drawl, so it kept sounding like he was calling her a whore. His points were sound, I felt -- her character was flawed enough to take her into Marissa territory and beyond -- I could not care about the men that want her.

I've not seen Touch Of Evil, but I'd like to. I love Citizen Kane on such a immediate visual level that it's hard for me to expound on it past how freakin' gorgeous it is to me. It almost looks like a painting, it's so damn beautiful. I don't mean in a Moulin Rouge visual crack way, I mean the interplay of the shadow and the film and the... Oh. So pretty.

Speaking of the pretty - of the list of pretty men, my boys are, in order: Matt Damon, Johnny Depp, Colin Firth, Orlando Bloom, and Hugh Jackman. Most of the younger James Franco-type actors I've not seen enough to make a judgement, and the other ones I'm rather meh on.

I thought the first Spidey was sloppy and foolish; I thought the second Spidey was sloppy and goofy. There is a fine distinction between the two, and I vastly prefer goofy given the choices.

Okay, there are people who enjoy Touch of Evil on a gut level, but they are in the tiny minority. When I think about trying to introduce my flatmate (who avowedly never watches B&W films) to old movies, I never, ever think of TOE. I mean, this is the woman who has no desire to see Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon, not even for the cultural competence factor, so it's an uphill battle no matter how you slice it, but yeah. NSM with the obvious appeal, at least not to most of its audience. I think its trashiness wasn't fun enough for me. When I feel complicit in the trashy, I can get hooked, but I found TOE's trashiness mostly just off-putting and annoying.

Love TOE and not in a film geeky way. Just in a pure WOW way. I also liked Gump--not enough to want to see it again, but I didn't feel like it was the simplistic polemic the right wing made it out to be. I loved the music and the little cultural references throughout and Sinise's performance, so that was enough to equal mild like.

Okay, there are people who enjoy Touch of Evil on a gut level, but they are in the tiny minority.

Well, except here, where we appear to be in the overwhelming majority.

I've never seen Casablanca, as I've been holding out for a big-screen showing to have my first experience of the movie. Actually, the Orpheum is holding one August 20th, so since I'm going to be tapped as a chauffer to my cousin's graduation the next day, I may see if I can line up a date for a nostalgic night at the theatre.

Except for all the lurkers who suport me in email.

Also the fact it's nowhere near the AFI top 100 -- if the vast majority of its viewers adored it viscerally, it would be a lot more in the cultural consciousness, don't you think? Whereas, I don't know many people outside of film devotees who have seen it, and of those, I don't know many who have loved it, except those who have spoken up here.

Yeah, but it plays at revival houses all the time, which implies that there is some kind of audience for it.