Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.

I'd like to think the Star Wars essay is a joke, but the snippet quoted above reads to me like nothing more than a justification for invading Iraq.

I am not very film-oriented. I like to read Anthony Lane's reviews because he is so very funnily pissy about things. David Denby is a little blah. I like both of them fine. But then, I don't read film reviews to actually know about the films.

I have to ask (and I'm not just picking on you) -- why does Denby get this response where Anthony Lane is worshipped like a god?

Not by me he isn't. I'd much rather have Denby every week and put Lane on a plane back to England - preferably one that drops him somewhere about the spot Leo bought it in TITANIC (a film he praised to high heaven). I find him insufferably amused by himself, and if he was any more overtly bitchy he'd be Rex Reed.

I rather like Denby actually. He's articulate, and has a good sense of film history, but he's very hand-wringy about some things in a way that just makes me roll my eyes (the MR. AND MRS. SMITH review being a primo example).

I'd much rather have Denby every week and put Lane on a plane back to England - preferably one that drops him somewhere about the spot Leo bought it in TITANIC (a film he praised to high heaven). I find him insufferably amused by himself, and if he was any more overtly bitchy he'd be Rex Reed.

So it's not just me then!

According to the neocon mindset, Pinochet was a benevolent dictator because he was a murdering thug who allowed a free-market economy.

So it's not just me then!

High-fives Jess

I'd be hard-pressed to name a critic I dislike more that's still working and in publications I read on any regular basis. Peter Keough in the Boston Phoenix comes close, but I think that's more because I associate the massive decline in their film coverage with his tenure, than him personally. Armond White is stone crazy, but I find him an entertaining read BECAUSE of that. I never counted Rex as a real critic anyway, and John Simon retired (not that I was a regular reader of the National Review, but somehow I ended up reading a lot of his stuff over the years)

According to the neocon mindset, Pinochet was a benevolent dictator because he was a murdering thug who allowed a free-market economy.

Oh, well, as long as he allowed a free-market economy, who cares about a little torture?

People is weird, yo.

Now we know where Saddam went wrong--kill, torture, and oppress all you like, but don't screw with the economy.

Pinochet was a benevolent dictator because he was a murdering thug who allowed a free-market economy.

But, like, dead people can't buy stuff. Or work 14-hour days, for that matter. I think there is some rethinking of this theory to be done.

Anthony Lane is snarky and I often disagree with him. Denby is humdrum and mildly cranky, and I often disagree with him. Manohla Dargis is entertaining enough that I'll read a review of hers for a movie I have no intention of seeing, ever. (I think for this reason they give her the crappy movies.) A. O. Scott strikes me as a bitter person, but sometimes a discerning one. I miss Elvis Mitchell something fierce.

Not by me he isn't. I'd much rather have Denby every week and put Lane on a plane back to England - preferably one that drops him somewhere about the spot Leo bought it in TITANIC (a film he praised to high heaven). I find him insufferably amused by himself, and if he was any more overtly bitchy he'd be Rex Reed.

Totally concur.

I miss Elvis Mitchell something fierce.

Yeah. I like most of the Voice film folks. I do like J. Hoberman a lot. Chuck Stephens used to be local and he was excellent. Really knew his stuff, everything from the domestically unreleased art films from Korea and Iran to the funkiest splatter films.