And for the record, when I trash movie critics, it is specifically Roger Ebert that I'm thinking of (along with a few critics from Ann Arbor and Detroit papers). I will now be adding Jim Emerson to that list.

::note to self: in the future, when you feel like making a generalized slam against movie critics, remember to instead say what you actually mean -- "Roger Ebert and Jim Emerson bug the crap out of me"::

I hated Gone With the Wind, until I saw it on a giant screen. The story still doesn't do much for me, but it's positively gorgeous.

I'm kind of embarassed by how much I love GWTW.

Wow, I sat and read the whole thing, adn while the guy was really good at finding hundreds of little supporting details, he was also pretty good at overlooking details that invalidate his theory.

That sounds like every critique of my papers in British Romantic Poetry.

"Eh, whatever. That guy doesn't know what he's talking about ."

Well, given how much Kelly had to explain his plot outside of the movie to make anyone understand what he was trying to communicate, I can't really argue that he makes a lot of sense in general. But I'd take him at his word that he didn't cast the Gyllenhaals because he wanted some forbidden incestuous undercurrent in the film.

Also, Note to self: When you've seen both Ju-on: The Grudge and its American remake inside of two weeks, do not then hang an umbrella from your kitchen door so that it looks like a head of black hair peeking out from behind the door at crawling height as you open it. I think I shot my pulse rate up past 200 last night walking in from the eclipse.

Well, given how much Kelly had to explain his plot outside of the movie to make anyone understand what he was trying to communicate, I can't really argue that he makes a lot of sense in general.

Yeah. I think he made (in the 2001 cut, anyhow) a very good movie that does not say what he wants it to say. (Can a movie be good, if it doesn't communicate the director's intentions? Dunno, but it seems like this one fits the bill.)

Also, Note to self: When you've seen both Ju-on: The Grudge and its American remake inside of two weeks, do not then hang an umbrella from your kitchen door so that it looks like a head of black hair peeking out from behind the door at crawling height as you open it. I think I shot my pulse rate up past 200 last night walking in from the eclipse.

HAHAHA - That's funny! I would've jumped at the umbrella and then laughed my head off. ( Although I totally understand having my imagination run away with me like that and even more so if I'm alone. )

Well, given how much Kelly had to explain his plot outside of the movie to make anyone understand what he was trying to communicate, I can't really argue that he makes a lot of sense in general.

Having heard Kelly's commentary, I agree that the film doesn't necessarily explicitly say what he intended it to say, but to blow off the director's explanation in favor of a "repressed incest" explanation is just kind of wacky, IMO.

Can a movie be good, if it doesn't communicate the director's intentions?

I think so. In fact, the more I've heard about the director's intentions with Donny Darko, the more I'm glad I haven't seen his recut. It works better with a little mystery.

It's actually kind of amazing that the director set out to make a time travel/superhero sci-fi movie and ended up with a stylish and affecting tale of a teenager's descent into schizophrenia in that original theatrical cut. Usually when a movie gets out of the director's control, you end up with a pile of crap rather than a quality movie that's completely at odds with his intent.

Usually when a movie gets out of the director's control, you end up with a pile of crap rather than a quality movie that's completely at odds with his intent.

George Lucas almost pulled it off.