For my two cents, Kubrick never made a good movie after 2001. And even that is marred by the shaggy dog ending

I think a century from now he's going to be read and remembered as one of the greatest short story writers who ever lived - his mature product, that is.

Since 'Dome' is supposed to be a metaphor of the Bush Presidency - accurate except for the trivial fact that exactly none of that actually happened - I don't know how he could approve it.

I have to disagree with that. Johnny was her one true love (and she, his), taken unjustly from both of them. Consummation, despite the marital vow, is sweet and necessary.

Yes, to the title. Kubrick's version is just plain f——ing ridiculous, beginning with the miscasting of Nicholson.

I sorts miss Mr. Fusion, though.

That type, anyway. But not Bourne on Mars.

You haven't been listening. It was a self-published, word-of-mouth success.

Matt Damon is horribly miscast in this movie. Simon Helberg would have been perfect.

Please sober up. That is not at all what I wrote, anywhere.

My explanations are all over this site. Read one of them. Stop moralizing. Do some thinking.

You should understand that in both cases - this happened twice - I believe the women were victims of sexual assault. Both incidents occurred after the relationships had ended, both were perpetrated by angry, frustrated ex-boyfriends, and there were other indicia. But neither victim suffered physical harm (other than…

You have obviously not had the experience of dealing with a case of charged forcible rape, in the absence of any physical injury or weapon, after a long established sexual relationship, and having the defendant - heretofore with a clean record - bring in several dozen candid photographs of the victim, which she gave…

Oh, THANK you for the one more chance.

I doubt very much you were assaulted by someone running around with a sweatshirt that advertised himself as a rapist. And that makes a difference.

Becaused - moron - that guy who is proven very often gets the benefit of a jury verdict of acquittal, because the jury doesn't want to see him imprisoned. Read what I wrote above. The idea is to OBTAIN justice, not thwart it.

Do be serious. The probability of being sexually assaulted by someone who boasts of committing sexual assaults is much higher than someone who doesn't.

Talk about not getting it. You're like that young feminist lawyer I described that I trained long ago. The point is that not all sexual assaults are alike; that in case experience you run into cases that (while provable) do not justify the lengthy prison sentence of more aggravated cases; that juries often believe…

Find twelve of those ignorant and bigoted people. It's like that old John Bircher joke, where you showed a blank sheet of paper - how many Communists do you see? (He sees 12). A little more critical thinking would be helpful.

I said victims in an established sexual relationship. So they've been sleeping together for a couple of years, and have had consensual sex on innumerable occasions. But having broken up, they're in a place of privacy (sex would be impossible if not) and what happened before, happens again, but this time without…