In my artical, about how I believed movies should be rated I took an uninformed cheap shot at Love Spoon.(how was I to know he actually going to read my artical)I have removed the questionable part of that artical but the rest still stands. In the future I will only pick on reviewers who dont read the articals. Love Spoon also took the time to proof read my artical and post it on his web site I highly recommend visiting this address:
www.geocities.com/ultraflorist/corrections.jpg
Here is a copy of Love Spoons and My emails to one another:
Dear Count Rugen,
First of all, cool nickname from a cool movie.
You'll probably not recognize the e-mail address, but I'm the one you referred to in your OOFnet article as "love something." It's the article that I'm responding to.
You seem to imply in your article that I haven't seen the 1927 "Jazz Singer." Or, as you say, I "would know that it has maybe 2 spoken lines...." It was exactly that point that I thought I made when I wrote that "it was the first film to feature simultaneous sound and picture (though not throughout the whole film)." If you didn't like Jazz Singer, that's fine. I didn't really enjoy it either, but I think it's generally accepted that it's one of the groundbreaking movies of film history. In short, you should read reviews that you plan to criticize a bit more carefully.
You should also know that after I see a film (ANY film), I rate it on OOFnet. I had searched for quite a while for a website that provided a forum where I could review and archive ALL of the films I had ever seen, and OOFnet has worked out nicely. In other words, if I've seen it, it's in my archive. The converse is also true: if it's in my archive, I've most definitely seen it.
Apparently your challenge to other reviewers on the site is to not give negative reviews to films "that are not meant to be 'Fine Cinema.'" Is that to say, then, that reviewers should only give negative reviews to films that are meant to be Fine Cinema? If that was your intention, you should perhaps practice what you preach (unless "Blood Feast" is meant to be "Fine Cinema....")
If OOFnet were held to only positive reviews, it would make movies seem better than they really are, persuading readers to spend countless dollars and hours watching bad movies. If I'm trying to decide whether to spend money on a movie, I look it up and decide based on what other similar reviewers have said about it. If they liked it, I probably will. If they didn't, I probably won't spend the money on it.
You wrote an interesting thing: "Don't waste my time by saying it was the stupidist (sic) movie you ever saw." Well, I would respond that it's with negative reviews that we do exactly the opposite-- they are meant to SAVE you time. What's faster, reading a 90-word review, or watching a bad 90-minute movie, just to see for yourself?
It was also interesting to me that you titled your second paragraph "IGNORANCE - Negative Reviewers" as if all negative reviews were based on ignorance rather than a genuine dislike of the movie.
At the risk of sounding like a High School English teacher, I'd just say to put some thought and effort into your article(s). If you're tired, wait until you're not to write.
Your Movie Comrade,
Eric Brimhall
(Love_Spoon)
p.s. I do proofreading for a living, and I found more than 100 errors (verification available by visiting www.geocities.com/ultraflorist/corrections.jpg. Do I get the 50 bonus points? EB
--------------------------------------------------
Love Spoon,
I absolutly loved your email! I am suprised that someone actually read my artical and more importantly had the time to proof read it for errors. I had a look at my "graded" paper and was dissapionted that you found triple the amount of errors that I did and in the future I will make a better effort with my grammer and spelling.(but not today)
First and foremost I owe you an apology, The truth of the matter is that I never read your review for the Jazz singer and if I did I would have agreed with your assesment of the movie. I was reffering to your artical "A Treasury of Must-See films for Lovers of Cinema". I should have checked to see if you wrote a comment on that movie. Therefore I have removed That portion of that artical. Just in case someone actually reads it again.
Secondly, You have won the 50 bonus points! When I saw my graded paper on your website I was naturally dissapointed in my poor showing but I also thought that posting my artical on your site was the funniest thing I have ever seen. Well Done.
-Count Rugen
(I really enjoyed your article on movie twins, however I think you ment to put Jakob The Lair and Life is beautiful not Life is Beautiful and Saving Private Ryan.)
--------------------------------------------------
The Moral of this story is never pick on an english teacher.
-Count Rugen
Count_Rugen@hotmail.com
|
|