Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!dave
From: dave@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Scidmore)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: REVIEW: The Color Purple - Are you kidding?
Message-ID: <148@heurikon.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 18:35:23 EST
Article-I.D.: heurikon.148
Posted: Mon Feb 17 18:35:23 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Feb-86 01:52:08 EST
References: <456@houem.UUCP> <1672@mtgzz.UUCP>
Organization: Heurikon Corp., Madison WI
Lines: 28

> 
> >
> >I hated this film.  I can't believe that it was nominated
> >for an Academy Award.
> 
> WITNESS seems a favorite of some.  COLOR PURPLE is much better than
> WITNESS.  I know you didn't like TCP, but I think you go a little
> overboard in flaming Moriarty.  Just about any film will have a
> divergence of reactions, but from my experience you are way off to one
> end of the spectrum of opinion I have seen (not that that implies you
> are wrong, just alone).  
> 

This brings up an interesting subject. From my experience in talking with
other people who have seen this movie, watching movie polls, and listening
to the critics TCP is largely considered a great (not just good) movie. This
implies that any person who "hated" the film is not only in disagreement
with the majority of the public but, in general, with the average movie
critic as well. My opinion is that in order for any review of any type to
be useful to the readers of that review it must help to inform them of whether
they would like the movie or not. If a reviewers opinions consistently disagree
with the average movie viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by
reviewing movies? This has often been my quarrel with reviewers of other media
who frequently dislike what almost everyone else likes. I am not trying to
imply that the above review is a case of this. I am only trying to spark some
conversation on the subject of reviews and reviewers.

						Dave Scidmore