Any point that might have been made by this article is hoplessly obscured by some truly cretinous personal criticism of some of these artists. I'd catalogue them and respond to them, but there'd be no point. These artists aren't in any way above criticism but what's being offered here is as "past it" as any balding Brit with a telecaster.

Dare To Be Stupid!

John Malkovich would make the Vulture scary, probably for the first time. It's a great choice.

Kravan The Hunter was, IMO, the most ridiculous villian ever conceived and I doubt that anyone could make the character work.

I really didn't see the 3rd Spiderman movie as being such a big wash-out. I agree that there was at least one too many villains but I think they pulled it off. The scene where Peter begs for Harry's help in defeating Venom validates the whole thing. The only part about the movie that I didn't appreciate was them shoehorning Gwen Stacy into the story. They basically conflated Gwen and MJ into the Kirsten Dunst MJ, so trying to inject Gwen into the 3rd movie seemed rather forced and unnecessary. They'll not be able to recreate the famous Goblin-kills-Gwen story, mainly since two Gobbys have been offed as of the third movie.

Reboot the franchise? Naw. I don't care what anybody says, they're never going to get a better Peter Parker than Toby Macguire. He's a complete and utter geek, and so was Spiderman, as originally conceived.

Wow! What an interesting, penetrating analysis!

Are you sure you're an actor?

(Just kidding - you're a good actor AND a good pundit!)

Certainly he loved him - (and I'll actually use the character names to avoid confusion) Phil Davis saved Bob Wallace's life, and as a result Bob introduced Phil to a high-flying successful career that he would never have known otherwise. And Phil wanted Bob to be happy and to live a full life, and he was willing to go out of his way to make that happen. Phil clearly loved Bob and none of this has anything to do with being "gay." I think this is something that is lost in our society today - the reality that two men can have a strong, close, intimate, and affectionate friendship and it have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with sexual desire. People in our society today look at men who have close friendships and laugh and call them "bromosexual", and imply that one or the other of the two must certainly have repressed homosexual tendencies. Such attitudes (and I'm not saying you have expressed them) can do nothing but actually discourage people from having healthy relationships. It certainly can't help.

I know what a "subtext" is. It just doesn't seem "clear" to me that Kaye's character is hot for Crosby, seeing as he spends the entire movie trying to hook Crosby up with Clooney. Kaye's (the actor) personal preferences are irrelevent as far as I'm concerned. And I find the tendency of some to try and read "gay" into nearly every relationship between two people of the same sex in cinema to be somewhat immature.

Two guys who are friends and career partners. Yeah, they must be gay. There's no other possible explanation.

How about arguing with the actual points that Doug is making, and leave his heart to God, who alone can judge it?

You have a point but I think that at the very least there is some thick irony here, especially as regards the typical Hollywood reflexive support for government-run health care.

I would not be surprised to soon read an editorial by some Hollywood celebrity actually citing Sutton's experience as a stark example of why we need government run health care, and totally miss the irony of Hollywood people making millions on the story of her life and then cutting her out of the profits.

The law tried to take care of it, and Polanski fled the law. One doesn't have to be emotionally invested in this to understand that that's seriously wrong. If we want our laws to mean anything, we can't just let a guy yell, "Olly Olly Ox'n'Free" after 32 years because WE don't want to care anymore.