(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 now give 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, on with some long, ego-feeding ramblings which many will no doubt wish to skip.
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.
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.
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.
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.
To gain fame and notoriety.
To see what the hell would happen.
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 surprise, 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.
Some reactions to (assumed) real reviews: I was interested to note that people responded much more vehemently to Star 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?
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.
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.
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.
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@sally.UTEXAS.EDUsally!kelvin
[CODA: I never did post any more anti-reviews, and I contributed very little else to the 'net.movies' newsgroup. I kept up with the newsgroup for a few years after my reviews, but gradually stopped reading as school and work burned up more of my time. Not much has happened with the reviews since publication. I've shown them to some family and friends ... and a few times I've been flattered when a stranger recognizes my name and mentions in the reviews. --KKT July 26, 1996]
Copyright © 1985,1996 by Kelvin Thompson
All Rights Reserved
(Updated July 26, 1996.)