First of all, congratulations! Your blog post has baited thousands of people, and they are now proudly paying attention to you until the next cute cat video shows up. I won't begrudge you that. With everything you had to say about Lourd De Veyra's open letter, and your apparent infatuation with Bossing Vic's comedic stylings, you've earned that much, at least.
But there's a small matter I have to address in your response to Lourd, in all honesty. It's a matter that really sticks out like a sore thumb as you went on your diatribe against him, and even his music, as if that had anything to do with his ability to critique a film.
Nothing about your response remotely fit the description of "rational." At all.
You see, the word "rational" is defined by the dictionary this way:
ra·tion·al [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.
Think about it, Sherwin: not only do you have zero blockbuster movies to your name to properly evaluate "My Little Bossings" on the kind of footing you wish to place Lourd on, you don't even have a single hit song to justify your ability to critique his music, either. Worse, neither do you own any literary credentials to affirm your right to writer an essay. See where your "logic" takes you? It leads nowhere.
You see, an argument, to be deemed as "rational," needs to be free of glaring logical fallacies, especially arguments based on tu quoque and other forms of ad hominem. To debate effectively, you need to argue against Lourd's points, instead of criticizing Lourd himself, while letting all his actual points stand. Which was exactly what you did.
The fact that this unfortunate hypocrisy leaves its mark all over the film is the height of laziness. Was it so hard to script product placement seamlessly without it feeling like it was shoved down everyone's throats? Don't we pay ridiculous amounts of money to watch movies in the theatres partially because we supposedly get to skip commercial breaks when we're in the cinema?
3. You excuse "My Little Bossings" for its flaws mainly because of two things: that there were other films that were just as bad (Thankfully, you passed over the casual homophobia by offering up Vice Ganda as this year's worst offender.), and the fact that the film donated some of its proceeds to Yolanda. I can make a movie of my cat licking himself for ten minutes and donate all of its proceeds to Yolanda. Will you and ten of your friends pay 220 each to see my movie, then? Would you consider my "movie" even remotely good, all because I'm donating the proceeds to charity?
Dear Sherwin, at no point do I call into question your attitude, your grammar, or your qualifications as a writer, and pass that off as a deconstruction of your "rational response." Instead, I took the few arguments you actually had, and proceeded to debunk them, then reiterated why I believe that "My Little Bossings" was a terrible disappointment, based on its merits, or lack thereof.
That, my friend, is a "rational" response. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.