Stories do not just happen by accident. People write them. Every person has some social and political biases and ideals. They often come through in the stories they write, sometimes without them actually realizing it, and sometimes very intentionally. Just becuase you choose to ignore them in a movie, does not mean I have to.

The meaning of movies comes from the viewer not the maker.

So as "a viewer" it would be okay if I thought the meaning of Leap Year was a manifesto on the inequality of African Americans in Mississippi circa 1929?

I doubt you could justify that interpretation of Leap Year, but it might be fun to hear you try.

Let me try to give you an example of what I mean. Picture a scene of a happy, innocent, young blond, Aryan looking boy in Lederhosen striding across a field. The music of Wagner is playing. Suddenly a flag is unfurled behind him and emblazoned upon it is a swastika. A caption appears that says, "Support the fatherland"

What do you get out of that scene? What does someone who survived a concentration camp? What does someone who knows nothing of WWII? What does a White Supremacist get out of it? The meaning of it all depends upon your point of view.

What I got was that the Aryan boy represents the dreams of a master race much as a black child in Mississippi circa 1929 represents dreams of equality. The unfurling flag represents the manifesto? I get it! It is brilliant, but thats just my point of view.

Proved your point? You contradicti yourself. "I doubt you could justify that interpretation of Leap Year" Is a contradiction to when you wrote, "The meaning of movies comes from the viewer not the maker." If the meaning of a movie comes fromt the viewer, then their is not a wrong interpretation and we as critics are wasting our time.

We do not all have to like the same movies bacause we all have different tastes and knowledge. I may not find a comedy funny, but I understand that it was the makers intention for it to be so. His taste in comedy is just not the same as mine, but it is his responsibitly as the creator to decide what the film means, not me.

We have had this arguement before, but art does have inherent meaning. The Sistine Chapel shows God creating man, it is not a bearded guy chastising his son. It is not an old guy making fun of the younger guys small penis. It is not one guy asking the other what nail polish he uses. It is God creating man, even if you were never told that. Ignorance is not an arguement. You have the choice to like or not like the painting but it is what it is either way.

Yes.

In your review for Cop Out, you wrote, "What passes for humor throughout the entire film is groan inducing." You are acknowledging that the film maker intended it to be funny but you did not find it so. Just as I agree that Knight and Day was intended to be a comedy, but I saw it as an action film. If you wanted to be consistant with your argument you would not have corrected my opinion on that film.

Of course it is still a comedy. It is just not a good one. Thus, there are critics.

Okay, here is a definition from that site, "comedy is any humorous discourse generally intended to amuse." INTENDED!!!!!! A comedy does not have to be funny, just as long as the makers intention was for it to be. Whether they succeed or not is irelavant.

That was a very nice point made. I think some of the best movie experiences are when I see a film without any preconceived ideas about it. Radio Days for example. As with most of our arguments I think we come to understand that our opinions are not that far off. We just approach it from different perspectives. BTW, Casablanca could not be a western just because the director says it is because his intentions in making the movie did not follow that statement.