Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary.
Message-ID: <1188@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 00:51:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1188
Posted: Thu Sep 26 00:51:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 06:18:39 EDT
References: <2868@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 65


 >[1]  To make a statement about the inherent ridiculousness
 >of the movie review itself.   Each viewer has a unique
 >response to a movie, based on his or her unique set of
 >preferences, biases, and tastes ...  
 
Perhaps they are unique, but they are usually pretty well correlated.
Most people seem to agree that LION IN WINTER or STAR WARS are better
than CURSE OF THE SWAMP CREATURE.
 
 >and yet some people --
 >sometimes one's friends and sometimes pseudo-oracles called
 >Critics -- presume to predict how others will respond.  
 
That is generally not how reviews on the net work.  In fact even
reviews in the New York Times don't predict how the reader will respond
to a review.  They give a subjective view of whether the film is good
or bad, and why.  Actually, it more often comes down to did the writer
like the film or not, and why.  The why's may be useful to a reader for
determining if the film has elements that the reader enjoys.
 
 >If a
 >single person can have two different reactions to a movie on
 >two different days, how can a Critic predict how millions
 >will respond?  
 
By seeing if it has elements that it would seem that many people would
appreciate.  Having two different reactions gives an even better view.
There are films that have risen in my opinion on later viewings, or
fallen.  I feel I understand the experience of watching that film
better for having seen it both ways.
 
 >[2]  To vent some steam.  I feel a terrible ambiguity about
 >almost every movie I see, so I'm almost never willing to say
 >that it's good or bad -- I just mumble, "Well *I* liked it,"
 >or "Some parts were okay, some weren't."  
 
I do not question the veracity of this statement as much as I do the
profundity.  I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally
bad or totally good.  I tend to weigh the bad and good elements and
come up with an overall feeling about a film as to whether it was good
or bad for me.
 
 >It felt good to
 >really cut loose on a movie without any namby-pamby
 >qualifications.

Sure, by concentrating only on some of the more obvious bad elements
and ignoring the good.  It probably felt really good.  Incidently,
the sentence "To vent some steam." above is not a sentence, you
cretinous moron.  What were you doing when they taught sentence
structure in school?  Picking your nose?  How can anyone respect the
opinions of anyone who thinks "To vent some steam" is a complete
sentence?  Say, you're right.  I like cutting loose! ;-)  Incidently,
the previous is just to make a point.  I am not one of the people who
hate what you did.  In fact, I think what you did overall was
pretty good.  But once you made your point, you kept repeating it till I
lost interest.  It was a valid point that could have been validly
countered.  Eventually I just stopped reading your reviews.

It would be nice if you could write a few reviews that express your
real opinions now.

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com