This is the last time I'm going to engage you, because I'm not into wasting my time (believe it or not): I called you a cynic in the way Antisthenes might have considered you one: a person who has an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. In my opinion, this movie set out to be an easy, pleasurable experience. It doesn't purport or attempt to be as revealing of the human condition as say, There Will Be Blood, or Wages of Fear. It is what it is, and I reviewed it on its own terms, in a subjective manner (which apparently was not "good" enough for you).

Have you written a review, or do you simply go around erroneously deconstructing the reviews of others? If you have thoughts on the film, then fucking lay them out as opposed to trying to fault someone else for not laying their own thoughts out as you would or you would have them. Oh — you're a critic of critics! I get it. How meta. Maybe you can monetize that schtick and make it more worthwhile. Otherwise... what the hell are you trying to accomplish?

I say "erroneously" because there are two types of feedback: emotional and constructive. Your feedback is emotional (and pointles) in that it is not a judgement of how well the creator (in this case, myself, since you chose to focus on my review of the film and how I present my thoughts, as opposed to the film itself and your thoughts on it) accomplished what he or she set out to do, but how you would have done it or had them do it.

Do you see and understand the difference? You nitpick to the point that you say I must use the word "edit," as opposed to mentioning editing techniques and allowing the reader to understand that mentioning usage of wipes and split screen is in effect mentioning the editing of the film. No, in your strange worldview, it's a failure to not use the word "edit." Um.. okay, bro. Ever heard of context and inference? Perhaps it was a failure on your part as a reader to not recognize I was talking about editing when I mention these techniques and how they play into the pacing of the film.

I have to pick a scene and explain why or how it was heightened by these editing devices? Really? It's a failure if I don't? Again... okaaaaay.

You didn't notice my use of the ticking clock "theme" (a ticking clock in itself is not a theme but a pacing device, though yes, thematic parallels can be drawn) — is that my fault, or again, the fault of the reader?

Again: inference. If I mention an actor is perfectly cast, does that not infer that they did a good job in regards to "how was his acting?" How could I possibly mean his acting was poor by stating he was "expertly cast?"

Lastly... what the fuck does this even mean: "...all of those points you mentioned above didn't do anything in the original review, they simply were stated." What should they have "done" besides be mentioned? Should I feel some obligation to write multiple paragraphs backing up each statement? Is this a laborious PhD thesis, or simply a guy stating his opinions on the film and why he liked it? That is all I set out to do, and you could have judged my review on what I set out to do and whether or not I accomplished it (constructive feedback), not what you would have said, because NEWSFLASH: feel free to just talk about the film and what you thought about it as opposed to slinging arrows at someone else's thoughts or presentation of said thoughts on the film.

In the future, if you choose to engage me or one of my reviews again, I'd appreciate it if your comments were focused more on your own thoughts of the film, not on how I present my thoughts on the film. I posted my thoughts in order to possibly discuss the movie — not myself. Or, I know this is probably hard for you to swallow... you.