kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) (09/12/85)
That's all, Folks
by Kelvin Thompson
(yes, that's really my name)
Well, I guess that last anti-review is pretty good evidence that I'm
starting to pull some muscles, so I'm throwing in the towel before I lose
any more friends. For those who are interested, I will give below some of
the reasons I posted the anti-reviews in the first place and some
observations about the net's responses to them.
First, though, I'd like to apologize for the first few paragraphs of my
_Purple_ anti-review. Too late, I realized that ludicrousness, if taken
too far, becomes obscenity. Sorry.
And now, some long, ego-feeding ramblings which many will no doubt wish
to skip.
WHY I POSTED THE ANTI-REVIEWS (in order of increasing importance):
[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 ... and yet some
people -- sometimes one's friends and sometimes pseudo-oracles called
Critics -- presume to predict how others will respond. 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? And other artsy-
fartsy bullshit.
[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." It felt good to really cut loose on a movie without any
namby-pamby qualifications.
[3] To try to get legitmate points across (a few of times) and stir up
discussion on real issues. For example: in _Brewster's_ I attempted to
issue a trivia-ish challenge to the net; in _451F_ I tried to voice my
disapproval for review-shortening suggestions that were being made.
[4] To engender the pleasurable (to me at least) "Aha!" experience in
people when they caught on, and amusement after they caught on. I did
*not* post the anti-reviews to chuckle snidely at those who did not see
the anti-reviews for what they were.
[5] To gain fame and notoriety.
[6] To see what the hell would happen.
OBSERVATIONS:
[1] How fast people caught on: I guess that all in all it turned out
about as I expected, but in the heat of things I was amazed at some of
the responses. I originally planned to start out with somewhat
believable reviews, then gradually get more and more ludicrous and see
how fast people caught on. I started out pretty well to plan:
_Futurekill_ was an entirely honest review, and I though that
_Return_of_the_Soldier_ was beleiveable. But when I wrote _1984_ I just
couldn't hold myself back, and I figured that the game would be up. Much
to my suprise, however, only a couple of people caught on to _1984_, and
some were apparently still in the dark as late as _Perfect_. Looking
back, it doesn't seem so surprising -- some people did not read the
anti-reviews as a sequence, and, read individually, a few might be
marginally believeable.
[2] Some reactions to (assumed) real reviews: I was interested to note
that people responded much more vehemently to _Start_Wars_ than to
earlier anti-reviews. A couple of Britishers merely "disagreed" with a
patently prejudiced _Soldier_ review; many people helpfully pointed me
toward Orwell after _1984_; I "overestimated" the role of the French
government in _Partner_. But after _Star_Wars_ I got some extremely
vicious responses, some of them containing outright personal attacks.
Admittedly, the anti-review was pretty blunt at face value, but does any
attack on a fictional, third-party entity, i.e. a *movie*, ever warrant
such a response? Did I get these extreme responses because more people
had seen the movie and hence made a bigger sample, or because some
netters have a near-religious attachment to Star Wars?
[3] Some reactions to anti-reviews: When I started out I figured that
some would appreciate my anti-reviews and that some would find them not
to their liking, but I thought that those in the latter category would
simply skip over the articles. I was rather dismayed when several people
told me to get off the net, and one person even threatened to get me
kicked off. I *greatly* appreciated the favorable responses I received.
[4] I've come to the conclusion that there are three basic ways one can
view a movie incorrectly: (1) One is unwilling to accept what the
filmmaker is trying to do (e.g. Ted Kennedy watches _Second_Blood_); (2)
One does not see important aspects of the film; (3) One sees aspects of
the film which are not there. I leave it as an exercise for the reader
to determine which of my reviews emphasized which of these categories.
[5] A couple of times, as I read a response to an anti-review that
somebody had taken seriously, I would think to myself, "My God, some
people will beleive *anything*." But then a little voice in my head
would retort on the responder's behalf, "Yeah, but I can beleive
*anything* about some people." Later, as I was going through a film
review index doing research for some anti-reviews, I had an opportunity
to read a lot of reviews, and I came across some real dogs. In case
y'all haven't heard: there are some *stupid* reviews out there. And they
are for real.
THE FUTURE
I don't think I'll be posting any more anti-reviews, nor do I plan to
post any real reviews. However, I do expect to join in discussions on
general movie topics, and next week I will post a very short Movie Fun
Quiz.
As himself,
Kelvin Thompson
kelvin@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
{ihnp4,siesmo,ctvax}!sally!kelvin
Oh yeah, some stuff I left out of previous postings:
:-) ;-) (-: (-8 :-> <-; <ironic grin>evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (09/15/85)
<No need to quote what Kelvin already said...you should have read it>
Good bye cynical anti-reviews. I for one will miss them. But even more
than Kelvin's reviews, I will miss the brouhaha aroused by each of them.
"kelvin is an asshole", "kelvin should be shot", "Kelvin is an AI project
that failed", "get kelvin off the net!"
I loved it! Attempted censorship, personal attacks, and inability to see
clear and solid satire. I agree with Kelvin that the quality of them has
diminished with the last few, so I suppose he ought to stop, but if it's
because of the attacks, I disagree completely.
Thanks for being entertaining, Kelvin, and I (for one...just one?) will
look forward to other clever Kelvin-isms in the future...
:-)ly yours...
Evan Marcus
--
{ucbvax|decvax}!vax135!petsd!petfe!evan
...!pedsgd!pedsga!evan
There was a major earthquake today in the tiny African country of Togo...moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/17/85)
Well, I for one am sorry to see it end, Kelvin, tho' I'm glad you'll still be on the net; I found your reviews to be clever and funny in a net which is slowly losing humor potential. Also, I don't see quite what you're apologizing for. However, a bit of justification for reviews: >[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 ... and yet some >people -- sometimes one's friends and sometimes pseudo-oracles called >Critics -- presume to predict how others will respond. 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? And other artsy- >fartsy bullshit. Right, right, no argument with individual preference und point-of-view. However, once one has gotten familiar with a critic's point-of-view from previous reviews (and from matching these reviews with the viewer's own impressions), the viewer can often use the critic's reviews as a weathervane for detecting whether (oops, pun) the viewer will like it or not. Given four or five reviews from different critics, one gets an even better idea of the film's potential. And I'm afraid, old sport, that some of us aren't loaded with the megabucks and/or free time to see every film on the market; thus, critics (and many of those on net.movies, reiher in particular) do serve a function. But, hey, that's not the *main* reason I post movie reviews. It's all due to my inherent facination with films! I enjoy reading why other people liked/disliked a film I saw; I enjoy talking about why I liked a film. It's a hobby, see, and we're all here because we've got an interest in said hobby; and reviews give us a chance to talk about what's happened lately in our area of interest. Anyway, sorry to hear about the hate mail; there's some screwed-up individuals on the net. Glad to see you're still around, if for no other reason than you're the only net individual who has been accused of being an AI project more often than I have... "Can you hammer a 6-inch spike into a wooden plank with your penis?" "Uh, not right now." "Tsk. A girl has to have some standards." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
jims@tekig4.UUCP (Jim Sells) (09/18/85)
> > That's all, Folks > > by Kelvin Thompson > (yes, that's really my name) > ... > As himself, > Kelvin Thompson > kelvin@sally.UTEXAS.EDU > {ihnp4,siesmo,ctvax}!sally!kelvin > > Oh yeah, some stuff I left out of previous postings: > :-) ;-) (-: (-8 :-> <-; <ironic grin> How sad. Me, I'm just a troublemaker at heart. I was sort of hoping Kelvin might review a Kate Bush album. Maybe if we all ask real nice... Jim (-; Sells ...tektronix!tekig4!jims
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (09/26/85)
>[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