Sorry!! I know you meant nothing by it and that it was just an innocent comment and that this is gonna sound really bitchy, but... maybe you should think before writing stuff like "Finally seeing "Infamous" after, like, everyone else has seen the thing."

It's great that you get to see all these movies once, twice, thrice or seventeen times, but most people can't and it's sort of insulting when you bemoan your inability to see a movie that isn't even released to the public yet. And as a non-American it's even more frustrating considering we won't be getting any of these movies until December and through 2007.

I had a similar annoyance with Dave Poland last year when it seemed that every week he was telling us he had seen "Walk the Line" again and that it just KEEPS GETTING BETTER! Yet, people in the real world have enough trouble seeing a movie one time, let alone six.

**this was a rant about a subject that really gets me pissed, so yeah... nothing personal :P**

If you know I meant no offense, why take any?

My task is to offer commentary on a given film schedule and that sometimes means indicating the critical assessment upon mulitple viewings. That also means that my own personal thoughts will be injected into the proceedings, hence notions like the fact that I only last week hunted down the Warner Independent publicist in order to catch an "Infamous" screening due to a busy schedule on my end.

And it is my JOB to see films, and so therefore, I see them multiple times. The film-going habits of others really aren't my concern so I'm not going to feel "bad" (that seems to be your intention given the syntax) that I see films multiple times while people in what you call the "real world" (is my world any less real?) aren't capable for various reasons, not the least of which being they are not called to the task via responsibility of attending multiple screenings, etc., etc.

Anyway, the practice certainly isn't going to stop, on my end or anyone elses. It's the nature of film commentary. And it certainly isn't anything to get "pissed off" about, so I hope you can manage.

Well, I'll prob be the last one to switch, but I'm keeping Jack in supporting till the end... because, well, his role was a supporting role.

But I'm already getting tired of saying this... people are too eager to boost him up to Best Actor for a performance that wasn't anything beyond Jack's previous repertoire.

I still don't consider him a lead either, but I certainly see the case to be made as far as marketing and Oscar campaigns go.

You mean to tell me Kris, that you have never been pissed off at something somebody said without their even realising they said anything bad?

I was trying to not sound like a bitch because I like reading your stuff, but you don't care so I don't know why I bothered.

I'm sorry it's taken you so long to see 'Infamous', Kris. I'm sure watching 'The Departed' again makes up for it.

"You mean to tell me Kris, that you have never been pissed off at something somebody said without their even realising they said anything bad?"

And yes, seeing The Departed a second time more than made up for not having caught Infamous yet. Thanks.

;)

For some reason the other part of my reply under the quote didn't post, but it basically said I was struggling to understand on what planet saying "Finally seeing "Infamous" after, like, everyone else has seen the thing." qualifies as "bad."