I guess I was expanding on it more in response to AnswerB!tch than you. And I didn't make that clear. Sorry.

I think thought provoking classics-in-the-making are good things. And sometimes, one turns out to be entertaining as well (I loved The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming). The point I tried to make, and I think you've made it before, is that I don't think we should have to choose one or the other.

Entertainment and escapism for entertainment's sake has its place (and, let's face it, foots the bills for many of the more esoteric offerings), but I'm glad there are efforts to make things with meaning and depth out there.

Admittedly, some of those movies had tremendous impact on me, even if I never have the urge to watch them again. I want them to exist. But I might just want to kick back with WALL-E one night or The Gods Must Be Crazy.

When it comes to making popular movies, the awards are more substantial and people vote with their wallets. That's their reward and it's the right one. When it comes to critic's awards, the definition of “great” can involve more intangibles and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm qualified to make the distinctions. But I'm glad there are people who still evaluate those and reward those efforts.

I appreciate your reviews not because you give me a rating, but because you tell me why. If what I said came across as an attack, that was not how it was intended.

Thanks for the comment, and my only comment on your comment is that you seem to be suggesting that our opinions differ somewhat, and I don't think they do (well, except insofar as The Great Gatsby is concerned).

You said,

“But, I maintain the general audience is just as entitled to like movies for what they like, that there's something to be said for a movie that brings out an emotional response, even if the audience is poised to feel that way already. If Transformers 2 left me cold, my husband loved it. There's something to be said for making a world compelling enough to envelope the audience, even if you're cherry-picking an audience that're already fans, that are predisposed to accept.”

I maintain the same thing.

I certainly understand liking things that are not even meant to be among the picks of best of the year, and I even actually picked Equilibrium as the best of the year, and no one else did.

Actually, I don't even find it frustrating. I wouldn't want movies like Dumb and Dumber or Transformers 2 (neither of which did I really hate) to disappear, just because I don't think they should be seriously suggested for awards.

I even gave Twilight and Transformers 2 fairly positive reviews (New Moon was bad though).

I only propose that there is something very different about saying, “Hey. I really liked The Matrix, and will probably watch it several times,” (something true of me in fact), and suggesting that there is something about it that really deserves to be called the best movie of the year.

While some critics may have differing views, I don't want to watch The Last Station, The Hurt Locker, or A Single Man every time I watch a movie. A few times a year is about enough really. An Education might be a different ball game, but as a general rule…

A Man and A Woman, for a historical example, was simply awesome, but I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me.

The idea is not that The Last Station, or something of its ilk should be what you pick every single time you watch a movie. Most of us are, most of the time, going to be in the mood for Star Trek, Mamma Mia!, or whatever the hell.

Not only do I not begrudge people liking such things, and enjoying them, I fully endorse it. I only hope they aspire to other appreciations.

But, although I have several great works on my “reread shelf” like Poe and Sake and Dumas and Austen, if I really want to read something to make me happy, I'm more likely to pick up Sharon Lee/Steve Miller, Nora Roberts, Georgette Heyer or Heinlein. Perhaps even Twilight though they don't reread well at all.

A “great” movie, as the critics see it, might be very effective to me. It might have great visuals or clever dialog or brilliant subtlety. I might appreciate much of that when I watch it, but, even if I do, only a few of them end up on my “I have to own a copy” list and fewer of them will be watchable over and over. In my experience, the vast majority will be so unpleasant (despite the inspired moody lighting or intense undercurrents or brilliant portrayals) I won't be able to stomach them, even if they are doing something so brilliant it just about knocks the socks off of the critics. There's a reason there are so many awards for the subtle pieces of filmmaking that make a whole and, if not for the critics, that fantastic work would be ignored.

But, I maintain the general audience is just as entitled to like movies for what they like, that there's something to be said for a movie that brings out an emotional response, even if the audience is poised to feel that way already. If Transformers 2 left me cold, my husband loved it. There's something to be said for making a world compelling enough to envelope the audience, even if you're cherry-picking an audience that're already fans, that are predisposed to accept.

Sometimes, I know, that's frustrating. I think Deep Impact was 100X the movie Armageddon was (which I can't sit through without wanting to throw up) because I'm a scientist and one speaks of a potential reality I can imagine and what is stupid, despite the NASA meatballs. I can appreciate the frustration of knowing Dumb and Dumber might make twice as much (if not more) than a worthy movie that has something to say.

I guess I think you all should keep having awards and working to perfect a craft, working to develop movies that will be remembered as classics in 50 years. Every once in a while, a movie is managed that both entertains and has staying power.

If it makes you feel better, the list is just as short in literature. And they've been doing it longer.

I guess I was expanding on it more in response to AnswerB!tch than you. And I didn't make that clear. Sorry.

I think thought provoking classics-in-the-making are good things. And sometimes, one turns out to be entertaining as well (I loved The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming). The point I tried to make, and I think you've made it before, is that I don't think we should have to choose one or the other.

Entertainment and escapism for entertainment's sake has its place (and, let's face it, foots the bills for many of the more esoteric offerings), but I'm glad there are efforts to make things with meaning and depth out there.

Admittedly, some of those movies had tremendous impact on me, even if I never have the urge to watch them again. I want them to exist. But I might just want to kick back with WALL-E one night or The Gods Must Be Crazy.

When it comes to making popular movies, the awards are more substantial and people vote with their wallets. That's their reward and it's the right one. When it comes to critic's awards, the definition of “great” can involve more intangibles and, frankly, I'm not sure I'm qualified to make the distinctions. But I'm glad there are people who still evaluate those and reward those efforts.

I appreciate your reviews not because you give me a rating, but because you tell me why. If what I said came across as an attack, that was not how it was intended.

Thanks for the comment, and my only comment on your comment is that you seem to be suggesting that our opinions differ somewhat, and I don't think they do (well, except insofar as The Great Gatsby is concerned).

You said,

“But, I maintain the general audience is just as entitled to like movies for what they like, that there's something to be said for a movie that brings out an emotional response, even if the audience is poised to feel that way already. If Transformers 2 left me cold, my husband loved it. There's something to be said for making a world compelling enough to envelope the audience, even if you're cherry-picking an audience that're already fans, that are predisposed to accept.”

I maintain the same thing.

I certainly understand liking things that are not even meant to be among the picks of best of the year, and I even actually picked Equilibrium as the best of the year, and no one else did.

Actually, I don't even find it frustrating. I wouldn't want movies like Dumb and Dumber or Transformers 2 (neither of which did I really hate) to disappear, just because I don't think they should be seriously suggested for awards.

I even gave Twilight and Transformers 2 fairly positive reviews (New Moon was bad though).

I only propose that there is something very different about saying, “Hey. I really liked The Matrix, and will probably watch it several times,” (something true of me in fact), and suggesting that there is something about it that really deserves to be called the best movie of the year.

While some critics may have differing views, I don't want to watch The Last Station, The Hurt Locker, or A Single Man every time I watch a movie. A few times a year is about enough really. An Education might be a different ball game, but as a general rule…

A Man and A Woman, for a historical example, was simply awesome, but I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me.

The idea is not that The Last Station, or something of its ilk should be what you pick every single time you watch a movie. Most of us are, most of the time, going to be in the mood for Star Trek, Mamma Mia!, or whatever the hell.

Not only do I not begrudge people liking such things, and enjoying them, I fully endorse it. I only hope they aspire to other appreciations.

But, although I have several great works on my “reread shelf” like Poe and Sake and Dumas and Austen, if I really want to read something to make me happy, I'm more likely to pick up Sharon Lee/Steve Miller, Nora Roberts, Georgette Heyer or Heinlein. Perhaps even Twilight though they don't reread well at all.

A “great” movie, as the critics see it, might be very effective to me. It might have great visuals or clever dialog or brilliant subtlety. I might appreciate much of that when I watch it, but, even if I do, only a few of them end up on my “I have to own a copy” list and fewer of them will be watchable over and over. In my experience, the vast majority will be so unpleasant (despite the inspired moody lighting or intense undercurrents or brilliant portrayals) I won't be able to stomach them, even if they are doing something so brilliant it just about knocks the socks off of the critics. There's a reason there are so many awards for the subtle pieces of filmmaking that make a whole and, if not for the critics, that fantastic work would be ignored.

But, I maintain the general audience is just as entitled to like movies for what they like, that there's something to be said for a movie that brings out an emotional response, even if the audience is poised to feel that way already. If Transformers 2 left me cold, my husband loved it. There's something to be said for making a world compelling enough to envelope the audience, even if you're cherry-picking an audience that're already fans, that are predisposed to accept.

Sometimes, I know, that's frustrating. I think Deep Impact was 100X the movie Armageddon was (which I can't sit through without wanting to throw up) because I'm a scientist and one speaks of a potential reality I can imagine and what is stupid, despite the NASA meatballs. I can appreciate the frustration of knowing Dumb and Dumber might make twice as much (if not more) than a worthy movie that has something to say.

I guess I think you all should keep having awards and working to perfect a craft, working to develop movies that will be remembered as classics in 50 years. Every once in a while, a movie is managed that both entertains and has staying power.

If it makes you feel better, the list is just as short in literature. And they've been doing it longer.