Cin:
Sure normal people would talk about evolution while high. Especially educated folks, which the main characters are cast as. Certainly Carl Sagan, an avid pot smoker, might talk about evolution, lol I can't speak for pot personally, but when drunk, "normal" people often talk about deep or complex issues. In my personal opinion, I doubt Kubrick would have included it in his movie if "normal" people wouldn't do it, since he seems to aim for emotional realism.
Well, filmmakers in general are free to do whatever they want, having women act like non-women, etc., but the argument was Kubrick specifically, and my opinion is that he aims for emotional realism for his characters.
And I completely disagree about reality shows - how can people forget that they are being followed and watched by a film crew and cameras? I myself act completely different if I know I'm being watched, and this isn't merely my subjective opinion. Many variables and designs in psych experiments are all about solving this problem. You simply cannot get a natural reaction when people know they are being watched in order to get a "natural reaction".
poke:
So what are you saying - you find Kidman hot, lol? I've been with my girlfriend for seven years, I see her naked all the time - seeing her in her undies isn't enough to make me jump her anymore, lol. Sure this may be subjective, but I think it's rather common. How long have you been with your girlfriend? Ever lived with her or any girl? We have kids, for all practical purposes we are married. She comes into the bathroom while I'm taking a shit, etc., etc. That movie was extremely realistic in how it protrayed this aspect of normal American life. Maybe weed makes you horny? I know folks who smoke it - hornyness isn't something they report about the experience - being talketive is, however, and I've seen this first-hand.
As for the orgy room, I have no idea how I would act. However, the way Tom acted seemed natural enough to me. More natural, given the tone, the lighting, the "mood", then say, if he had walked in and shouted, "hey, what a nice collection of tits!" Within the context of that bit, it seemed very natural to me and consistant with other Kubrick movies that I've seen.
As for Jar-Jar, consider this. Lucas seems to paint the idea that gravity works as expected, right? The "bugs bunny cartoon flip" that Jar-Jar made is my cue that this is a silly, non-serious character added for comic relief. The switch from serious fantasy/scifi to "Naked Gun" and back again ruined the movie for me. It was not "real" within it's own context. As cin might say, "so what - the director is free to do this" - I never argued that point. I merely argue that Kubrick does not do this and that movies which employ this kind of manuever do not work for me. See, it isn't the knowledge of Gungans that we need, it's the context of the movie. Like I said above in my Klingon example - you don't need to understand Klingon politics to understand the context that Warf often finds himself in.
As for Pullman - lol, the comparison to Bush is a valid point, I'll give you that much
However, just about everything else in that movie is completely fake and out of context, given the context which I assume the movie took place in - the real world. That pile of a movie is nothing but a sack of old scifi cliches. Not even the scifi is believable (no, that's not a typo or an oxymoron). And the acting is "fake" in almost all cases. The kids on Barney literally act more "real" Alien's attacking Earth wouldn't make people act like caricatures in kids tv shows.
As for reality tv shows - they act real in the sense that they will eat, and bathe when possible, etc. But otherwise, no, I do not believe for a second that they act real at all. If they reach a point where they are totally comfy with the cameras, then they have become "good actors", there is nothing real about those shows. Jerry Springer approaches reality more so than any reality show I know of, and even then I suspect they act in certain ways because they think it's expected of them, given the context of the show and episodes they've seen, etc.
As for subjective arguments, well, isn't that obvious? Sometimes, the sky is blue, lol. Aren't we all just voicing subjective arguments here? It's not as if any of us can actually prove any of our opinions, though Ebert is a critic that I find myself agreeing with often. His opinions about Jar-jar and ID4 are similar to my own.
I forgot to address the "crying women" bit. Yeah, I've seen that too - the screaming bit. I guess it depends on how you hear about the death and the cicumstances. Based on what I've seen in hospitals when I worked in them, and based on my own family, Robot Stories is dead on. But again, as with Tom in "Eyes...", the specific reaction isn't the issue, it's, "do I believe that that actor acted as someone actually might in that situation given the context" and the answer in both cases to me is "yes". Have you seen Robot Stories? I'd wager you'd consider the acting "real". Consider that if we always knew just how people would react it would be a really boring world.
You either no not what you speak, or are just a young padawon learner. 
good times!