From jeffh@brl-sem.ARPA (the Shadow) Tue Aug 6 14:02:42 1985
Subject: Re: _Pale_Rider_ (spoiler)
Organization: only the Shadow knows
> _Pale_Rider_ is bad.
>
> Mishandled grievously ... amalgam ... Eisenstein's _Old_and_New_ or
> Renoir's _Grand_Illusion_ ... shades into a meditation on the transcience
> of not so much life as existence ... an ideologically ambivalent
> dystopia.
AHA!!! I knew it! Kelvin Thompson is not a real person. Kelvin
Thompson is just the code name used for an experimental program
at U of Texas to write critical reviews. This would explain:
1) Why Kelvin hasn't answered any of the many flames he (it)
has recieved. [it isn't programmed to]
2) Why every review starts out with "_Fill_in_the_Blank_ is a
bad movie." [an obvious bug]
3) Consistency problems: like calling _Star_Wars:_A_New_Hope_
worthwhile in one place, and trash in another. Or using
`Orwellian' after pretending not to have read _1984_
[not necessarily a bug. real reviewers are never consistent]
I must admit that it is nearly as good as most of the reviewers one
reads in the newspapers. It says a lot for the future artificial
intelligence; we can make programs as stupid as real people!
The problem with this review must have come when the developers tried
to fix the "this is a bad movie" bug and broke something else.
> Mockery is still propoganda.
You betchum, Pale Rider!
"Never argue with a fool ...
People might not know the difference!"
From martyl@ada-uts.UUCP Mon Aug 5 23:21:00 1985 Kelvin, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Please stop reviewing movies. Martyl
From masuma@drupa.UUCP (Masuma Rahman) Tue Aug 6 16:03:23 1985
Subject: Re: _Pale_Rider_ (spoiler)
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Okay 'Kelvin' ( I don't believe that's your real name . . no one
in their right mind would post the stuff you post and reveal your true identity)
. . your reviews are getting boring.
I just thought you might like to know you are letting down some
of your readers -- you see, they ( the reviews ) are getting sooooo
predictable. C'mon, you can do better than that!!!!
All your reviews seem to have the same (monotonous) tone . .
'take a passable to good movie, and give it a terrible review, just so
die-hard fans of those movies can get mad at you'. That was an interesting
and even funny (sometimes) idea -- for a while. But they are getting kind
of boring.
So, here's a suggestion, why don't you take a nice, and worthless
movie, like _Tarzan, the Ape Man_ (with the Derek in it), and tell us how
intellectually and philosophically educational you have found it!!! And
give us some profound insights into the director's, actor's, actress's (!!)
minds!!!
If nothing else (which they would be) they would be amusing to read . .
(unlike your most recent reviews on _Return_ and _Pale_).
Amusedly,
M.R.
ATT-ISL, Denver
[Back to the review]
[Home page]
[Contact Info]
(Updated July 20, 1995.)