"It is the only movie ever made in which the title character does not appear."

Rebecca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032976/), just off the top of my head. And although it doesn't improve the quality of the movie, the title character does appear in Godzilla.

"When Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction became this country’s most talked about crisis, I thought we were being punked…until I realized that people were seriously offended. And that’s their right… but really?"

If you really think what happened was a "wardrobe malfunction," you're very naive or you're lying to yourself. That was a planned event. What offended me about it was not the nudity, but rather the blatant disregard for well-known legal and cultural boundaries. Speaking only for myself, I'm not outraged about it, but very displeased because the importance of it was that a line was blatantly crossed and demanded a legal response. Not doing so would encourage others to try different tacks, and not just involving nudity or sexuality; religion, political philosophy, race, economics -- anything people argue about, really -- could be injected into what's supposed to be just a concert! Just think about any awards show.

In general, I found this whole article to be very judgmental. It started with a lecture and continued with denigrations of everyone whose opinion differs from the author's.

For example, referring to the female starlets, "society girls," etc.:

"But I’m less offended by their sluttiness and blatant sexuality; I’m offended because they are just straight out dumb."

Even if you think someone's dumb, is that really something to be offended about? Also, referring to the TV producer of reality shows:

"Sure he was a scumbag..."

He was explaining why the show that the author would like to see wouldn't make money -- and the author agreed! -- but that still makes him a scumbag. Right.

Finally, there's this:

"...but I think a hot woman should be able to wear a mini skirt without having her professionalism or accomplishments questioned. If I had the legs, I’d wear one every day. "

Some places are not appropriate for displays of hotness: a company board meeting, testifying in court, a funeral; all these places would be totally inappropriate for that. Reading the article, I'm not sure the author gets that. Behavior that's inappropriate for the venue is an excellent reason to question a person's professionalism or accomplishments, because they bring into question that person's judgment.

What I got from this article was that if you don't have the same values and beliefs as the author, the only explanation she can think of is that there's something wrong with you.

You're right about most, especially Tarantino and Scorsese, but you're way off on Aronofsky. I was glad to see that John Huston was not on your list, and shocked that John Hughes was not!