While I don't mean to defend Ebert unduly here, most people who don't perceive film to be an active art form find Lars Von Trier to be hostile, pretentious and annoying. Actually, most people who don't perceive film to be an active art form don't have any idea who Lars Von Trier is, which is how it should be.

I haven't seen Dogville yet, but when I have 3 hours to devote to compounded misery I'll crack out the DVD, which has been sitting on the shelf muttering to itself for a while now. I'm sure I'll like it, but I won't enjoy it, if you know what I mean. A couple of weeks ago I watched Dancer in the Dark, which I also liked and didn't entirely enjoy.

As for Spider-Man 2, which I did enjoy, and immensely: Doc Ock's arms had an AI built in. They had to execute and anticipate a constant flow of complex commands and desires from their master in controlling the energy field. Once disconnected from their control chip they were clever without conscience or superego (think Karl Rove). Dr. Octavius said he would deactivate them, and so of course the self-preserving AI took exception to this. A standard sci-fi plot; just pretend they were saying "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that" as they tore apart the landscape.

And dude, everything snuffs out in the East River.

A propos of nothing, may I note what a shame it is that Zhang Yimou was not the director of Elektra. It might have been one of the unexpected greatest movies ever made. Yes, I know The Hulk didn't turn out so well. But still.

Completely understood, Linus. "Dogville" is not an enjoyable three-plus hours by any stretch. At times, in fact, it's almost unbearable. The cumulative effect, however, is both inspiring and disturbing.

I TiVo'ed "The Five Obstructions" the other night. I think it'll be tonight's palate cleanser following an afternoon of playoff football.

I loved that movie! Looking forward to your comments.

I watched "At the Movies" (or whatever it's called) for the first time in a long time this past weekend, when Ebert and Roeper were doing their ten worst movies of 2004. Ebert looks much older and seemed ill (he's lost a lot of weight).

Anyway, the words "pretentious" and "annoying" don't show up in Ebert's original review (in which he gave "Dogville" two stars out of four). Instead, he focuses on the film's execution:

"Von Trier could justifiably make a fantasy about America, even an anti-American fantasy, and produce a good film, but here he approaches the ideological subtlety of a raving prophet on a street corner."

I don't think he's inconsistent at all; rather, I think he likes well-made films and dislikes poorly-made ones. I don't think he cares whether a film is intended to be loved by kids, or by hipsters and critics, or by everyone. He gave four stars to 29 films last year, including some that were pure mainstream entertainment ("Spiderman 2," "Polar Express") and some that were fairly esoteric (Robert Bresson's "Au Hasard Balthasar," "Tarnation"). Joel Siegel and Gene Shalit he ain't.

By the way, I hated "Polar Express" and thought "Spiderman 2" was overrated (bad CGI, one-note story -- "X2" was much better), but I still respect Ebert's love of the movies. His website is great, with tons of archived reviews and his "Answer Man" column (who knew Von Trier actually had a donkey killed for his new movie?). The irony is that Ebert was always the movie buff in the Siskel & Ebert relationship, but Siskel got the artsy-fartsy film center named after him (http://www.siskelfilmcenter.org/).

Ah, Joel, you've tapped into my snobby weakness but you knew that :-) Perhaps that's why I still prefer A.O. Scott (his glowing review of that "White Castle" thing aside...). I

Oddly, though, didn't he say on the show this week that the film wasn't "Anti-American as much as it was anti-viewer?" Does two stars really rank it among his ten worst of 2004? Seems somewhat revisionist.

I didn't mean to slag him, though. His website is a fantastic resouce and he has a solid appreciation for good film. I think he also has a knack for hyperbole, but that's another entry...

"Tarnation," by the way, should also be on my list for 2004.

Oh, and the donkey thing. Yeah. I'm afraid I knew that. I'm afraid it'll have to have a randomness boycott just like Almodovar's "Talk to Her."

You're not annoying.

I sort of agree with Joel on Polar Express. I toook Alex to see it at the IMAX. From what I understand that was the only way to see it. I enjoy movies for what they are. They are an escape from reality. Sure I like documentry, but they are not the same. Movies are about walking into a theatre smelling the popcorn. Having your feet stick to the floor from someones pop. Watching the trailers to the end credits. Movies are about magic. If you felt that way about going to see Dogville then the people who made the movie did thier job. I guess I see the these things thru my kids eyes now, and it makes me remember the way I felt when I walked into the Bogart theatre in my hometown. To me that is the movies.