You're just repeating yourself, not rebutting anything I've said. Suffice it to say that this thread is about current movies, IMAGINARIUM is a current movie, thus I commented on it. If you don't want to read about current movies, go away. Or if you didn't want to read about IMAGINARIUM in particular, the first word all in caps of my post about IMAGINARIUM should've clued you in about my topic, i.e., "IMAGINARIUM." Continue to flap your arms on this topic. I've wasted enough time.

SHERLOCK HOLMES probably won't please Doyle enthusiasts or Ritchie enthusiasts, but the Downey/Law team is enjoyable to watch (unless you tend to hate either). The action is kind of dull, though. Not a particularly interesting villain either. The best thing about a Downey action flick tends to be Downey talking (cf. IRON MAN). Law looks great in a bowler.

I rebutted you in my first post on the topic. You still don't seem to get it, so I have to keep repeating myself in simpler and narrower terms.

I wasn't interested in seeing it until I heard they do the Basil Rathbone bit (which I have no idea if it was in the books) where SH plays the violin to a jar full of flies.

I've seen reviews, or at least short reactions like the ones here, for movies playing at film festivals, long before they come out in general release. And my local paper prints their reviews on the Thursday or Friday when movies are coming out, presumably so people can read the review before they go to see the movie, to help them decide whether to see it.

I guess i understand the point that some people prefer to avoid reviews before they see a movie, so they might be upset when a review, or even a brief opinion blurb, shows up in a place where they weren't expecting it. But I don't think the opinion-giver is necessarily an asshole for not catering to those people, as long as there aren't major plot spoilers. The dividing line you cite above is unenforceable. There may be some kind of unwritten agreement between movie studios and professional reviewers trying to enforce it (I don't know if that's true or not), but I don't think that would, could, or should restrict what we all say here.

The point being, it was a gross slag of a pre-release movie. Like Roger Ebert's saying that the video of his colonoscopy was more exciting that Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny, after seeing [the rough cut] at Cannes. What does that blanket condemnation serve? Only to turn away potential viewers.

When I criticize something I do so very specifically, citing very specific points and reasons. I want other people to look at those things and see them as I see them, even if they don't agree with my assessments. I don't care about revealing spoilers, but a blanket "that was terrible" during the pre-release period is uncalled for.

I'm still pissed at Louis Leroy for panning Monet's Woman with a Parasol before last years' Impressionist retrospective at the Northland Centennial Mall. Thanks asshole.

Poppycock. If Roger Ebert slags something, it typically just serves to stimulate my curiosity. In fact, regarding your example, the excessively negative press on The Brown Bunny played a big role in heightening my level of interest in seeking it out. And, as I suspected, it was far better than critics like Ebert gave it credit for at the time (although I think Ebert changed his tune regarding the fresh post-Cannes edit).

You're being silly. I'd just let it die. Nobody's going to change their habits for you anyway.

K

If you have a predilection towards disagreeing with a certain reviewer, yes. I, too, have gained a disrespect for Ebert's opinions. I used to give him credit for being the only pro reviewer who's actually written a produced screenplay, but he's been a complete tool of the Disney corporation since Siskel died, and was mostly so even before that.

In most cases, the question of the film's availability will be a non-issue. That's what makes this specific example a sore spot.

"the only pro reviewer who's actually written a produced screenplay"

Some other examples: One of my favorites, Godfrey Cheshire, who used to write for NYPress, has made a doc. Michel Chion is a critic who also makes experimental music and films. There was, of course, the French New Wave, all of whom made better movies than criticism.