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!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: REVIEW: The Color Purple - Are you kidding? Message-ID: <1683@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 13:57:29 EST Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1683 Posted: Thu Feb 20 13:57:29 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 00:59:15 EST References: <456@houem.UUCP> <1672@mtgzz.UUCP> <148@heurikon.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 28 >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? Speaking as someone who agreed with most of the general public on TPC but who is often in stark disagreement with most people. (I really liked LIFEFORCE, for example, and I know of about half a dozen people at most who could stomach the film.) I would say (and have several times on the net) that a reviewer has two responsibilities only. They are to give his/her true opinion of the film, and if the reviewer knows of some reason that he/she would be prejudiced for or against the film, to say so up front. I think a critic has more of a responsibility to be objective, but few really are. A critic really evaluatates the film based on the critic's broad base of knowlege. A reviewer simply gives the general public one more data-point to judge a film on. Besides, before I see a film I don't want to know very much about it. That is why I rarely want to read reviews before seeing a film or I just want a capsule review. After I have seen it, I want to read why a reviewer disagreed with me about a film as much or more as why one agreed with me. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper