>The piece's big central two points are:
>1: most people misuse the term plot hole in a big way.
>2: no film would likely ever satisfy the purely logical mind,
>so if you're focusing your response to a film on perceived
>logic problems, either (a) you didn't like the film but you
>can't express what you didn't like adequately, so you settle
>for decrying these mislabeled "plot holes," or (b) for smug
>wannabe-intellectuals who use this to feel above a film and
>its alleged stupidity, you have a fundamental misunderstanding
>of how cinema works.

It's possible to like a film and still be bothered by plot holes. People do it all the time. And it has nothing to do with smug superiority. There are sometimes that no matter how much you may actually like the film, there are portions of the plot that make no sense whatsoever (Brian De Palma fans are well acquainted with this particular phenomenon) and this clown is saying that you're an asshole if you acknowledge that?