especially to your dorky site...

b. Harry is a film critic, he critiques film, and those that make them. this is a film site, run by Harry. on his site, Harry gives his opinions on films and those who make them. welcome to life.

c. if you're actually arguing that Brett Ratner, the guy who directed Money Talks, is a better choice than Joe Johnston, who was a key component of STAR WARS, I can't really help you. (you seem to like ALL CAPS, so I figured I'd give it a shot)

d. anytime someone substitutes reasoned argument with the word "smelly", it's hard to take them seriously at all. and so I don't.

Harry thinks Brett Ratner is a bad director, Harry runs this site. stop whining...

As far as Joe Johnston is concerned, I think he gets movies that could be great but he needs something to push him over the top in order to get him there. I think he has a lot of talent as a director and hopefully this will be a good showcase for his skills.

Harry thinks Ratner would be a bad choice, he's said so in an inelegant and petulant way.

if the only substantive difference is that Harry has a popular website and you don't...well...where does that leave your argument?

I made a legitimate point, and you were the one to ignore it and address something else.

enough with the bill o'reilly stuff, yeah? that's just ridiculous.

your opinion is fine to express. but you were making the argument that Harry's opinions were not valid, and he was in the wrong to express them.

if you disagree with his assertions, you should certainly have the right to say so, but if you disagree with his right to do so, that's where it goes a little south.

you said that all opinions count, and that's true. but I think you're just a little burned that in this scenario, for better or worse, Harry's counts a little more than yours.

and that's because (wait for it) he has a popular website. see how I tied it back to my original argument there?

I just don't see how this is unwarranted and out of line for Harry to do this. this website exists because of him, he owns it, why shouldn't he have the right to say what he thinks? he was legitimately angry that a movie he was very excited for was possibly being handed to a director who's work he really dislikes. so he wrote a post about it. I just don't see how that's out of line.

if I have an ice cream appreciation site, and I hate pistachio ice cream, and the national board of ice cream is rumored to be considering pistachio as their flavor of the year, well then goodie for me that I have an ice cream appreciation site so I can voice my opinion.

and not for nothing, but you committed another logical fallacy when you said mentioning harry's website weakens my point. know what that one is called? ;o)

I really don't get this...you're saying that your opinion that brett ratner ISN'T that bad invalidates harry's assertion that brett ratner IS that bad?

if it's all opinion, why are you so upset about harry voicing his? this simple question never seems to get answers, we just end up in this circular discussion.

harry is wrong about brett ratner, he's not that bad.
but that's your opinion, harry's is just different.
but he's irationally taking on brett ratner, he obviously hates him.
yes, that's his opinion, and yours is different.
right but harry posting things about brett ratner is unfair.
why?
because harry hates brett ratner and he's not that bad.
but that is your opinion!

you see, it is never ending. in my opinion, it's as simple as the first thing I wrote about this: it's harry's site, it's a free country, harry doesn't like Ratner, tough noogie. the man's a millionaire, I'm sure he's doing just fine with it. probably doing some coke off a hooker with a big smile on his face as we type. you guys seem to be the only ones losing sleep and tears over this.

harry reviews daredevil, you don't agree with his assessment, therefore you can logically assume that you may not agree with his assessment of other films.

but if you say, "Harry thought daredevil was good, therefore he's an idiot" or something of the sort (I forget exactly what you said, but the basic implication was that his opinions didn't matter because of it) then that's a logical fallacy.

someone's opinion being different from your own is not a very good basis for illegitamizing their general knowledge, or worse, their rights.

put it this way. if someone you knew in real life, who was passionate about this new werewolf movie, got angered about the Ratner rumor and wrote a letter to the studio, would you respond with such vitrol? I doubt it. so the only difference between that, and Harry's open letter is that because of Harry having a successful website, he has more influence, right?

so if you're upset with Harry, but you wouldn't be upset with your friend expressing his or her opinion, what is the difference?

but when I say that, you simply respond, "why shouldn't I say what I think?" you should, and you did, and I took issue not with your opinion, but your assertion that it was somehow...i don't know, INVALID of Harry to post that open letter.

I am NOT attacking your opinions or your right to express them. I simply take issue with your assertion that the open letter was out of line. if you had said, "Harry, I disagree, here are some points about Ratner, etc. etc." but that wasn't done, was it? you called harry a smelly idiot and implied that it was unethical of him to post the letter. and instead of justifying THAT opinion, we just get an argument spiraling into circular oblivion about what? the nature of opinion manifest in an AICN talkback?

but honestly, I am done at this point. I'm sorry to be so condescending, but every time I make a point, you simply respond to a made up assertion I am not making. and it's a bit tiring.

so best of luck, I'm off to bed.

Please let this one be an exception!!!

Gotta love The Rocketeer. Jurassic Park III, not so much. I might have liked JP3 more if they actually killed off Leoni. I loathe her presence so much that she basically destroys every movie she's in. Also, what the fuck was up with that lame ending? Talk about a deus ex machina! Stinko!

And I totally agree about MJY. That's a great movie, very entertaining and had a nice happy ending. But for a white chick who grew up in Africa, Charlize sure is freaking pale ...

ratnet, johnston, whatever... how many werewolf movies does the world need anyway? it's been done to death both as a drama and action. hype something more interesting, please.

Awful, awful shite.

And when you say "more violent" I trust that you are referring to the "unappreciated-gymnastics- girl- uses- her- special- bars- powers- to- boot fully- grown- dinosaur- through- window" moment.

This site is retarded.

I typically don't check email at home. Not that I don't want to, just with a couple kids and shit to do, there's no time. So this morning I logged on, and of course all the TBs were new. But this just means it's more new stuff for us to make fun of. Like Luke Skywalker's poncho. Someone mentioned it I think in the Indy TB. To me it seemed like a perfect sundry item to add to our list of 'random but not random' things like bears, 2true and Warwick.

As far as JP3 goes, it was absolutely mediocre, but a whole hell of a lot better than the atrocity that was JP2. JP2 is easily Spielberg's worst film and one of the worst movies I've seen in the theaters. Absolutely awful. Here's hoping Johnston reaches his full potential.

Jesus, that ending wrote itself.

WOLFIE Van Halen will be on the cover of Guitar World magazine with his dad this month (onsale Feb. 12).