Irish, for someone that doesn't care, you're rather touchy.

You should follow my example. Anyone basically gives a love tap against your argument, you counter-argue it in a very stern tone. Fight Irishman, you're Irish! Fight! Don't let someone attack you all the time and simply be a push-over. Take a gun to the next knife fight.

Anyway Irish, you envoked the "You don't need to read!" argument is fine and all, but tell me this. Why should someone read your review in the first place? Hell, why should I bother with you or DV or Capo's reviews? Why should they bother with me?

Take a classmate of mine. I was surprised when he outright challeneged my rather well-positive review of THE FOUNTAIN. He argued that I was jumping into a band-wagon in order to appear to be "hip," for you must remember, THE FOUNTAIN mostly either got negative or supportive mixed reviews from the media.

I replied that being "hip" for a movie that bombed in theatres and with critics is a rather bad plan. Besides, the sci-fi critic darling of 2006 is CHILDREN OF MEN by a Reagan-Mondale landslide. People trying to "hip" always latch onto something thtas very popular and supported by the general media, and the public.

Thing is, despite him attacking my controversial stance on THE FOUNTAIN as being possibly the best movie of 2006(remember, I declared it the BEST movie fo 2006 before I finally caught CHILDREN OF MEN in theatres), I liked the guy's fighting spirit. Fights are good for you, believe it or not Irish. Thats why I would rather have him instead some of my more sheepish colleagues on the other end of a film debate.

Fights forces one to confront his core beliefs and values, and decide what matters, whats worth pissing someone off over. Too many people try to be civil or diplomatic, not because they are courteous, but they want to avoid being embarrased or outright avoiding an argument of a fight.

Take BB.Net's very friggin cool Fame. He took it to the max when he tried to defend the much (rightly) maligned TROY. After his massive argument, where he did try to point out why TROY is better than say BATMAN BEGINS or KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, I still thought TROY was a very mediocre film.

Yet he actually made me concede on some points, especially about the obvious foreshadowing First Act moments in BEGINS and HEAVEN. He even made me re-evaluate my earlier mediocre grade on TROY.

Irish, a good critic is one that dictates the reader to their knees, argument-wise. A good critic is one that while they might lose, they would give a very good fight against you. Even in losing, honor can be acheived.

You are improving with your reviews Irish, but you lack...what's the word...you lack punch.

You gotta make people get hooked on your review. That fact is why I've been on a sabbatical from major movie reviewing for the AndersonVision website. Why?

Because I feel that for the last few weeks, all those reviews I posted here were very banal and worse, seemingly typified. I needed to be inspired, both in love and hate, to give my own tribute(or gunshot) against a movie.

The best compliment I ever got was from the late great Plawrence, a man that TWICE wrote that I made him realize that I was right in regards to analysis I conducted of Scorsese's CASINO and Cimino's YEAR OF THE DRAGON. I miss him.