|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: "revolting" - What a splendid idea! posted by Audiophilander on March 18, 2004 at 09:58:11:
And what would be my doctrine, exactly?
Follow Ups:
.
..."picking each other's noses in public". [Sigh] That's what one calls, terminally un funny.And all because I dissed LotR, doubtless.
But let me like a coupla' Russki movies, and have a favorite critic who is neither Ebert nor Siskel, and it's "certain highfalutin Euro-mustard calibre reviewers." Un funny and just plain weird.
Let it be noted too, that you and I often disagree, and that I highly enjoyed Pirates-otC and Open Range, for instance, but to the likes of our stodgy friend I remain "doctrinaire".
Nope. Like music, movies move me or they don't. Some people can't acccept that, just as they can't let great music enter their sad little lives.
Someone recently told him about his lack of sense of humor - we had to call the slop brigade to clean floors of his tears.What he lacks in the humor arena he tries to compensate for with venom. So he stopped being fun long ago, but he just can't take the rejection.
c
Who knows, it might even expand his horizons.
;^)
And fun to read. Clark: Open Range....the movie I thought I would hate but enjoyed in spite of myself...and Costner.
x
Eggs Ackley is better suited to Mr. J's inner-moppet; besides, only Neocons wear bow-ties these days! ;^)
a
.
Got'cha! :o)
Whether Clark's sense is common, pure come-on, or the product of uncommonly good sensimelia, it doesn't elevate the level of his contributions when he decides to stir the pot and provoke controversy. By that I'm NOT saying that a little controversy is a bad thing, but doctrinaire implies an agenda of sorts (i.e., which some folks seem to be more inclined towards than others); Clark's is fairly obvious.For one thing certain highfalutin Euro-mustard calibre reviewers like Duncan Shepherd apparently have him by the intellectual short and curlies (17300, 17387, 18065, 18282, and so on); for another, he employs double standards with aplomb. Those who counter this by citing a mainstream opinion from any of a number of well respected reviewers or review websites like Rotten Tomotoes get dissed for daring to post that opinon (19604)! Note: Never mind that Clark's cited opinion may very well be of a film he hasn't even seen while the infidel who dares to differ may be providing corroboration for an informed first-hand opinion.
Another interesting albeit peculiar aspect of Clark's complex nature is that his own reviews are spotty and not particularly well written; he prefers instead to cut'n paste obscure review(s) from among those critics who reinforce his own preconceived notions about movies he may or may not have seen (19583, 20065). Of course, the examples I've provided are merely a random sampling of Clark's posts grabbed by our friendly neighborhood search engine over the past 6 months; I didn't select the ugliest or the nicest, just those which easily demonstrate the points I wanted to make.
BTW, Victor, I'm sure that you'll generate one of your "charmingly sophisticated" personal insults for my benefit which Clark and Patrick will find knee-slappingly funny, but from what I've been seeing around here recently, if I may be indulged a Broadway Production analogy by way of Mel Brooks, your posts hit or miss percentage has been more "Springtime for Hitler" than "Cats".
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: