i couldn’t even make it 20 seconds into this clip before closing the screen.

I liked this movie, therefore i tended to disagree with your opinions on the movie ( though i generally appreciate your “voice,” which is why i keep reading this blog, even when it criticizes the things i like). My point of contention however, is not with your criticism of this movie, but the fact that you reviewed this movie for WMOAT at all. If you can openly state that this movie is not the WMOAT in the very first sentence, then why did you review it at all? I suppose one might rebut that statement with the question “how can one know if a movie is the WMOAT until they have actually seen it?” to which I would reply, “Point taken.” The thing is, I have this sneaking suspicion that you knew even before watching it that this movie wasn’t the WMOAT. After seeing just the trailer of this movie I think you’d be able to tell that this movie at least has artistic merit—even if it ultimately doesn’t have new/interesting thoughts on love/relationships/joseph gordon-levitt–artistic merit which puts it out of WMOAT territory, because the true WMOAT will have no artistic merit at all.

I guess I could sum up my point best with this analogy: the academy of arts and sciences isn’t going to consider a movie that is by all accounts “pretty good” for an oscar, so why should the academy of gabe consider a movie that is only “marginally bad” for the WMOAT? It would serve your purpose too–truly bad movies create truly good WMOAT articles (exhibit a: the dan akroyd mess of a few weeks ago. Very bad movie, very fun read).

But maybe this was all an elaborate ruse to protect the indie darlings I hold so dear to my heart. Who knows.