I'm a big Wong Kar Wai fan so I'll see Blueberry Nights sooner or later. Leatherheads looks like a good old fashioned throwback to comedies of the forties. I do agree that Hudson Hawk has some moments of pure insane genius. I think that's a good thing.

This article for example, is doing something great..something I agree with completely. But then he goes and makes a broad statement: "I think if you don’t like LEATHERHEADS, there’s a pretty good chance that you don’t really like George Clooney". While I'm glad he qualified it with the "pretty good chance," I still flat-out disagree with thsi conclusion and can only guess that most others will also.

I've liked the vast majority of George Clooney's work as an actor, director, and even Producer (Syriana). I'll give Leatherheads a chance, but the contention that not liking it means I "might not like Clooney" strikes me as needlesly divisive. If I don't like it, I'll still be lining up for whatever he directs and/or stars in next, and I'll still think as highly of him as I ever have.

I know this looks like pointless hair-splitting, and to an extent, it is. It's only one sentence after all, and I pretty much agree with everything else in the review.

But here's the thing, and here's why I had to post soemthing about this: I recently read your review of The Cell...and man, did I ever find it appalling. I know it was written quite a long time ago, and your recent positive notice about Tarsem's new project really gave me hope that you found the review as badly thought-out as I did. But then I read this statement, and I fear this kind of thing will continue.

Basically, the review concludes with you saying something to the effect of "if you liked this movie, you're someone I wouldn't consider a friend".

I understand you objected to the film's moral perspective, and to an extent you were right...but this is a sight that salivates all over the films of Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino...and countless other filmmakers who don't merely dabble, but WALLOW in "objectionable" content. I'm thinking of the stabbing/shoot-out in the skating rink in Switchblade Sisters, or the countless running-down of pedestrians on Death Race 2000, or the dragging to death of a black man (an event recreated in real life) in Coffey.

These films are CELEBRATED on this site (though perhaps not by you), and when I read something like your review of The Cell, my "hypocrisy-alert" buzzer started ringing pretty dam loudly.

Yes the film exhibited "bad psychology", yes some of what was depicted was deplorable, yes you had a right to "campaign aggressively" against it. But in your review you didn't so much aggressively attack the film, as you aggressively attacked the people who liked it.

Personally, I feel absolutely no shame in publicly admitting that I did like it, whatever cost that may have on your opinion of my character. It was flawed and sometimes irresponsibly so, like MANY, MANY other movies of much less visual inventiveness. It also had sequences that have stayed with me since I saw it nearly 10 years ago, and I think that deserves...if not praise...at least the concession that people with the audacity to " like The Cell" might not be sick bastards, morons, or some combination of the two.

The road to an assessment of cinematic "morality" is a slippery slope, one worth taking, but also one to tread carefully. In that effort, I feel your review of The Cell failed miserably, and your similar "with us or against us" stance on Leatherheads is a bit troubling.

As is the fact that any sort of "forgiveness" of Tarsem for what he created in The Cell would, by the chains of your earlier review, require that you renounce your friendship with yourself.

I think it's safe to say you went a little far in that review, and I hope you're willing to see that. Noone deserves having their character disparaged for liking a single film, unless it's a snuff film or something like that...certainly not a psychologically misguided but visually ambitious (and frequently successful) serial-killer thriller.

Be fair. We all love movies, we all have much more in common than we have differences. Blanket judgements of character, consisting entirely of conjecture, has no place here...this is the place we come to be HONEST about our tastes. Not a place to hide or be "cautious" about our opinions. Please remember that.

I think I probably read too deeply into this recent comment. It was pretty harmless. I was just really surprised to see you take the position you did on The Cell. It seemed really uncharacteristic...like the sort of thing Roger Ebert (still one of my favorite critics by the way) did with regards to Blue Velvet when that film came out. Of course, Blue Velvet is a FAR better film than The Cell...but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that several sequences from The Cellhave an almost visionary quality that is (unfortunately) betrayed by the film's bullshit Freudian psychology.

Interestingly, Roger Ebert came to almost the EXACT same conclusion you did (about The Cell) when he reviewed Wolf Creek...so you're in good company.

From his review: "The theaters are crowded right now with wonderful, thrilling, funny, warm-hearted, dramatic, artistic, inspiring, entertaining movies. If anyone you know says this is the one they want to see, my advice is: Don't know that person no more."

Yes, I "wanted" to see Wolf Creek...but not to see people tortured. I checked it out for John Jarrat's peformance, and I was STILL pretty revolted by the film itself (unlike Hostel, which I thought transcended its "torture porn" trappings as much as the LOATHSOME Hostel II mindlessly adhered to them), but not enough to "not know no more" those who liked the film.

This raises an interesting question for film buffs: when is it acceptable to appreciate a film for its technical proficiency while still abhorring its human perspective? I've long felt that ANYTHING, however morally reprehensible, can be done in a movie...as long as it's done in a way that transcends the basest implications of its content. For me, it was worth sitting through the poorly-conceived, poorly-executed "real world" sequences of The Cell in order to experience the baroque "nightmare-eden" of the killer's inner consciousness. It's really a shame that Tarsem did such a half-assed job of "justifying" the killer's behavior, because if he had spent as much time on the psychological aspects of the film as he did on the visuals...we might be debating whether the film is a masterpiece or not, instead of whether it's flat-out morally reprehensible or simply the somewhat disappointing end product of an inspired director working with a bad screenplay.

One thing we CAN both agree on...that poster for the new Tarsem film looks pretty amazing. I can only hope he's corrected the flaws of his previous work and perfected his unique visual approach.

Now, McG...THERE'S a director to end friendships over!! :)