From evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) Sat Sep 14 20:06:45 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, N.J. <No need to quote what Kelvin already said...you should have read it> Good bye cynical anti-reviews. I for one will miss them. But even more than Kelvin's reviews, I will miss the brouhaha aroused by each of them. "kelvin is an asshole", "kelvin should be shot", "Kelvin is an AI project that failed", "get kelvin off the net!" I loved it! Attempted censorship, personal attacks, and inability to see clear and solid satire. I agree with Kelvin that the quality of them has diminished with the last few, so I suppose he ought to stop, but if it's because of the attacks, I disagree completely. Thanks for being entertaining, Kelvin, and I (for one...just one?) will look forward to other clever Kelvin-isms in the future... :-)ly yours... Evan Marcus -- There was a major earthquake today in the tiny African country of Togo...
From moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) Tue Sep 17 00:58:00 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary.
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Well, I for one am sorry to see it end, Kelvin, tho' I'm glad you'll still
be on the net; I found your reviews to be clever and funny in a net which is
slowly losing humor potential. Also, I don't see quite what you're
apologizing for. However, a bit of justification for reviews:
>[1] 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.
Right, right, no argument with individual preference und point-of-view.
However, once one has gotten familiar with a critic's point-of-view from
previous reviews (and from matching these reviews with the viewer's own
impressions), the viewer can often use the critic's reviews as a weathervane
for detecting whether (oops, pun) the viewer will like it or not. Given
four or five reviews from different critics, one gets an even better idea of
the film's potential. And I'm afraid, old sport, that some of us aren't
loaded with the megabucks and/or free time to see every film on the market;
thus, critics (and many of those on net.movies, reiher in particular) do
serve a function.
But, hey, that's not the *main* reason I post movie reviews. It's all due
to my inherent facination with films! I enjoy reading why other people
liked/disliked a film I saw; I enjoy talking about why I liked a film. It's
a hobby, see, and we're all here because we've got an interest in said
hobby; and reviews give us a chance to talk about what's happened lately in
our area of interest.
Anyway, sorry to hear about the hate mail; there's some screwed-up
individuals on the net. Glad to see you're still around, if for no other
reason than you're the only net individual who has been accused of being an
AI project more often than I have...
"Can you hammer a 6-inch spike into a wooden
plank with your penis?"
"Uh, not right now."
"Tsk. A girl has to have some standards."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
From preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Tue Sep 17 11:10:00 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology > [1] 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. /* Written 1:02 am Sep 12, 1985 by > kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP in ccvaxa:net.movies */ ---------- I don't ask or allow critics to choose movies for me, but I consider the opinions of particular critics in deciding what I want to see, along with a lot of other factors. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time or the energy to see everything. A critic should give enough factual information, in addition to her opinions, to allow the reader to make an informed guess as to whether the movie is likely to be interesting. Too many critics do seem to think that their opinions are all that matter and that they can judge what is worth seeing, rather than just what they like. -- scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) Tue Sep 17 16:10:24 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN In article <2868@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >I don't think I'll be posting any more anti-reviews, nor do I plan to >post any real reviews. Sorry to hear that, K.T. You know, the bad thing about satire is that if it is done badly, nobody will respect it, and if it is done well (as yours was), too many will take it seriously. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby (...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave) (The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of RCA Cylix. They may not even reflect my own.)
From leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Wed Sep 25 23:51:31 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ >[1] 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 ... Perhaps they are unique, but they are usually pretty well correlated. Most people seem to agree that LION IN WINTER or STAR WARS are better than CURSE OF THE SWAMP CREATURE. >and yet some people -- >sometimes one's friends and sometimes pseudo-oracles called >Critics -- presume to predict how others will respond. That is generally not how reviews on the net work. In fact even reviews in the New York Times don't predict how the reader will respond to a review. They give a subjective view of whether the film is good or bad, and why. Actually, it more often comes down to did the writer like the film or not, and why. The why's may be useful to a reader for determining if the film has elements that the reader enjoys. >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? By seeing if it has elements that it would seem that many people would appreciate. Having two different reactions gives an even better view. There are films that have risen in my opinion on later viewings, or fallen. I feel I understand the experience of watching that film better for having seen it both ways. >[2] 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." I do not question the veracity of this statement as much as I do the profundity. I have never seen a film (or read a book) that was totally bad or totally good. I tend to weigh the bad and good elements and come up with an overall feeling about a film as to whether it was good or bad for me. >It felt good to >really cut loose on a movie without any namby-pamby >qualifications. Sure, by concentrating only on some of the more obvious bad elements and ignoring the good. It probably felt really good. Incidently, the sentence "To vent some steam." above is not a sentence, you cretinous moron. What were you doing when they taught sentence structure in school? Picking your nose? How can anyone respect the opinions of anyone who thinks "To vent some steam" is a complete sentence? Say, you're right. I like cutting loose! ;-) Incidently, the previous is just to make a point. I am not one of the people who hate what you did. In fact, I think what you did overall was pretty good. But once you made your point, you kept repeating it till I lost interest. It was a valid point that could have been validly countered. Eventually I just stopped reading your reviews. It would be nice if you could write a few reviews that express your real opinions now. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
From jims@tekig4.UUCP (Jim Sells) Wed Sep 18 13:38:08 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary.
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
>
> That's all, Folks
>
> by Kelvin Thompson
> (yes, that's really my name)
>
...
> As himself,
> Kelvin Thompson
> kelvin@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
> {ihnp4,siesmo,ctvax}!sally!kelvin
>
> Oh yeah, some stuff I left out of previous postings:
> :-) ;-) (-: (-8 :-> <-;
How sad. Me, I'm just a troublemaker at heart.
I was sort of hoping Kelvin might review a Kate Bush album.
Maybe if we all ask real nice...
Jim (-; Sells
...tektronix!tekig4!jims
From bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) Sun Sep 22 23:55:35 1985 Subject: Film Criticism Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service This subject seems to make the rounds every year or so in net.movies. Frankly, I've never understood the position of those who claim to abhor film critics. A film critic doesn't tell you, most of the time, whether or not you will enjoy a film. The film critic tells you whether the film passes a set of critical standards. These standards may be arbitrary, but for good critics they are at least clear. You can make your own mind up as to whether they apply to you or not, much as you can with the product reviews in Consumer Reports. Bad reviewers/critics (the borderline is fuzzy here) tell you whether or not they liked a film, but without either comparison or standards. I would agree with Kelvin Thompson here, such reviews are useless. Good reviewers like Frank Rich, Siskel/Ebert, Judith Crist and even Joe-Bob (or should I say especially Job-Bob, I never read a column of his that wasn't based around a truly excellent review of the film he was writing about) tell you about the film, where it fits with films of its genre, what worked and what didn't. Nobody presumes to tell you what you should and shouldn't like -- that is your inference. We are fortunate that we have two individuals, Mark Leeper and Peter Reiher, who are excellent critics and who freely contribute to the discussion here. Both are knowledgeable about film, both have a good sense of the historical continuity of films and film-making and both have a reasonably good grasp of the analytical process that needs to be undertaken in reviewing a film. There are many professional film critics who could learn from these two. I don't always agree with them, but I have always found the information they supplied to be consistantly good. As for Kelvin Thompson's reviews, I stopped reading them as there was very little film reviewing going on undeneath all the satire. For it to be funny, satire has to be based on some grain of truth. -- Byron C. Howes
From leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Sat Sep 21 12:30:02 1985 Subject: Why I am not a critic Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ There has been some discussion of late in this category as to whether there should be critics or not and what a critic's opinion means. In some postings and some electronic mail people have gone so far as to ask me what right have I to be a critic. I would like to make a statement of policy with regard to my postings in this regard. My qualifications as critic: Zilch! My qualifications as a film reviewer: 1. I have been a fan of films for many years. In a number of entertainment genres I have seen a large percentage of the films that have been made. 2. If there are people who are interested to discuss film, I am willing to say what I think of a film. 3. Because it was an easy way to get to see a lot of films I took one (1) course in the history of the cinema. Enjoyed taking the course and I learned a little bit about film doing it. Only a little bit. I have been asked what right do I have to rate a film. People seem to be intimidated by numbers and assume other people use them only for very official things. That's nonsense. When I rate a movie, it is not going to be imprinted on a metal tag and attached to every film can for that film. What does it mean when I rate a film a +1? It simply means that my impression of the film is that I liked it better than a bunch of films that I came to rate as a 0, but not as much as films I rate a +2. At some point I took a few films and stretched then over a scale and from that point on I measured films on that scale as films I liked better or worse than that scale. (One minor digression: the scale I chose was 1 to 4 with half ratings included. A college friend I liked to discuss films with used 1 to 10. When CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine started rating films on a -4 to +4 scale, we both were attracted to the symetry. I think that 0 makes sense as a film you are neutral to overall. Somebody started describing 0 as the expectation of a film. A +1 in a standard deviation of 1/2 better. A +2 is a standard deviation of 1 better, etc. In fact that seems to be a pretty good interpretation of the rating system, though it was not the original intention of the rating system unless someone at CINEFANTASTIQUE thought of it in those terms.) When I rate a film that rating is not cast in concrete. It certainly is not telling people what they should think of the film. It is merely an expression of how I feel about the film. It is one data point for people trying to decide to see the film or not. For people who have seen the film, it is a reasonable way to see quickly if we agree on how much we liked the movie. There is one exception to the above. There are occasions in which I will pass a critical opinion on a film. In the case of something like some Ingmar Bergman films or CHARIOTS OF FIRE I will note that though I did not like the film I had to admit that it was well made. I will express an opinion that a film was critically better than my feeling toward the film. I gave CHARIOTS OF FIRE a +1 and a critical rating of +3. I considered it a good film I did not happen to like very much. Another digression and a touch of egotism here: the critical rating of a film is ALWAYS as good or better than the enjoyment rating. I don't believe in guilty pleasures in films -- films that I like even though they are bad. If someone gets out of the gutter on 42nd Street, takes a videocamera, and shoots 70 minutes of naked ladies jumping on beds, and if he does it in such a way that I enjoy watching that 70 minutes, that film is a critical success as far as I am concerned. I doubt that I would enjoy watching such a film, but if I did it would mean the film has entertainment value, perhaps more entertainment value than HOUR OF THE WOLF. Entertainment value is the name of the game in filmmaking as far as I am concerned. That is my answer to the argument "You are too analytical (or critical) of films, I just go to have a good time." I, too, just go to have a good time. I have a good time by letting myself be pulled into a film. If the filmmaker shows a computer program that runs simulations of nuclear war scenarios just being plugged in to run NORAD, that calls attention to the fact that what I am watching is really very different from reality. I can no longer feel part of that film. The credibility of the film is shot and I become aware that I am sitting in a theater watching a film made by someone with less of an understanding of how things work than I have. Getting back to the subject at hand, Kelvin Thompson has asked how can anyone pass an opinion on whether a film is good or not. Whenever he sees a film he is torn with doubt. He sees good things and bad things and he goes into a sort of mass-of-indecision mode. That is really sort of sad. The poor fellow doesn't know whether he likes a film or not. I don't have that problem. Through some magical process my subconsious mind weighs what it liked and disliked about a film and tells me if I enjoyed myself. Then I just pass the information along to whomever is interested. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
From mcb@k.cs.cmu.edu Thu Sep 12 11:17:49 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Status: R Well, I guess that I can unsubscribe to net.movies now. I'm sorry that you aren't going to post any more "reviews" because I really enjoyed them. Oh well, all good things come to an end. --Mike P.S. - Are you apologizing for your reviews or for stopping them? -- UUCP: ..!seismo!cmu-cs-k!mcb ARPA: mcb@cmu-cs-k.ARPA "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 13:38:34 edt From: harvard!bu-cs!ccc@bu-cs (Cameron Carson) Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Kelvin, I'm not sure if I've written you before (I don't always save my mail), but I really enjoyed your reviews. I don't always read reviews, because I got tired of seeing various 'reviewers' (reiher (sp?) in particular and occasionally leeper[s]) get carried away by their own eloquence and in-depth knowledge of producers, directors, scores, etc., etc. As a result I didn't discover 'kelvin' until _1984_ (the movie, not the year). I myself have yet to actually read the book or see the movie, but I did think it odd that someone professed to not even having heard of the work. Lucky for me, _Star_Wars_ came soon after, and I became a cult follower. I could not believe the volume of negative responses that you provoked, however, and was mystified at the amount of indignant wrath. Through _Blond Man/Red Shoe_ and the others, people began to catch on, but you were just hitting your stride. _BTTF_ is one of the funniest articles I have read all year. I must have re-read it a dozen times. I'm sorry to hear that you're going out of the review business, but I guess part of the fun was to see the reaction of those taken in and worked up enough to get nasty. "Thanks, for the memories..." Cameron C. Carson Distributed Systems Group Boston University ACC
Posted-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 85 23:04:54 cdt From: harvard!pyuxhh!kfd Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Overall I'd like to thank you for interesting net reading. I found some of the reviews fun, and some a bit tedious. The occasionally rabid responses they enjoined were amazing and sometimes embarassing. (I was one of the "helpful" 1984 mail people, though I did ask if you were joking (salvaging pride right and left)). Your explanation/commenary was fine, and you are probably right about sequencing. I am fairly sure that I missed at least one of the first reviews. Kim Donnelly BellCore bellcore!pyuxhh!kfd
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 85 17:58:52 mdt
From: ihnp4!alberta!myrias!cmt (Chris Thomson)
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary.
Well, I'm sad to see you decide that noisy bigots are more important than
quiet appreciators. I for one have enjoyed most of your reviews, some very
much, others less so (if I hadn't seen the movie in question). I think my
favorite was Gallipoli -- the satire was well done and not self-proclaiming.
When did I notice the satire? Well, 1984 was very odd, but I hadn't noticed
your name as a pattern. I never saw Perfect, so that one went right by. By
Star Wars, I was laughing out loud. This probably makes me about average.
How determined are you to quit? I suspect that you could reduce the noise
level to an ignorable volume by making your titles say "An Anti-Review by"
instead of "A Review by". Sure some people would still flame at you, but
that's their problem. Frankly, I enjoy seeing a lampoon thrust among the
inflated egos of movie reviewers, and I do enjoy reading well-crafted
satire. Net.movies would be a poorer place indeed if everything in it,
regardless of value or accuracy, had to be taken seriously.
If you treat your anti-reviews as a sort of sporadically run column, and can
convince some of the noisier bozos that that is what it is, then I and others
could continue to get an occasional laugh out of net.movies, and naive
innocents could be protected.
I'm late in saying all this, but I guess that's normal: you hear from people
only when you do something they don't want you to. I'm no different.
Regards,
Chris Thomson
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 85 22:44:17 PDT
From: topaz!packard!ihnp4!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon (Jamie Green)
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: a fan responds
Well, I for one am sorry to see you're discontinuing posting your anti-
reviews, although I suppose after a point there isn't much new you can do,
and it begins to get repetitive (not that it's happened yet!). I personally
was taken in until your Star Wars anti-review. There was no one thing in it
that tipped me off; rather it got me thinking: this was the same person who
did the 1984 review, and --Aha! You're right; the experience was fun, and I
did enjoy, even look forward to, your later postings.
I too was surprised at how many people were angry about it, but then with
all the traffic in net.flame, there must be a lot of easily-angered (that's
a well-placed euphemism) people out there. (I also believe it's easier to
really flame someone on the net than real life; the lack of physical
proximity makes reprisals a lot less likely, and makes people bolder.)
Recommendations that some person/newsgroup (I combine them, for isn't the
end result to the individual (i.e. they don't have to read him/her/it
anymore) identical?) be removed run rampant; it seems that most people still
haven't learned the use of the `n' key.
All in all, I think it was quite successful. You did seem to get more
off-the-wall with each posting (and I found it hilarious that the only movie
you "liked" was one that hasn't even been made yet!), lending a good air to
the whole. And as to your popularity/notoriety, I think there's a lot of us
fans out there who haven't voiced our opinions; one reason I never expressed
my views when people were flaming you is that I didn't want to add yet
another inappropriate posting to the net.movies.
Carry on!
\ oo uucp:
\____|\mm Jamie Green {ihnp4,decvax}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
//_//\ \_\
/ / \/_/ The Great Green arpa:
/___/_____\ Arkleseizure gordon@uw-june.arpa
-----------
P.S. I'm curious; what movies do you really like?
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 85 11:00:17 edt From: Brad A. Myers <topaz!packard!ihnp4!utcsri!myers@utcsri> Subject: Great! I liked your reviews and was dismayed at how little sence of humor many on the net have. Brad Myers Univ of Toronto
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 85 14:09:32 pdt From: wall@decwrl.ARPA (David Wall) Subject: anti-reviews I never got around to telling you that I liked them a lot. I was suckered by the first couple, _1984_ in particular: you never quite said anything that "proved" you'd never heard of the book, and without that I could well believe you were just wrong-headed. I forget when I finally recognized satire, but I remember being delighted. The best one of all by my thinking was _Perfect_, and I also appreciated _Back To The Future_. Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that you're going out of the anti-review business; but I can understand that one can carry that sort of thing only so far. Thanks for some fun.
From tekchips!toma%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Tue Sep 17 18:33:53 1985 Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed your "anti-reviews", and am sorry to hear of your retirement. Your "Star Wars" was the best, just like it came out of a time warp! Why don't you sneak a few in in the future? Tom Almy Tektronix
From: Tom Love <rlgvax!toml@seismo.CSS.GOV> Date: 17 sept 85 kelvin - though you and i have never met, i wanted to send you a note to let you know i've really enjoyed your "anti-reviews". i read today that you are going to stop - i only wish that i had sent you some positive reinforcement earlier. i must admit i was somewhat shocked at the venomous attacks you received on the net, referring to you as an ai project and what ever else. i guess that some people, once fooled, can get pretty nasty when they see the light, especially if they have confessed their ignorance to the net before that revelation. some people don't recognize humor unless it pratfalls right into their lap. for me, it was the 1984 review. i was puzzled that someone on the net could have gone thru life without hearing of orwell - then i reread, and the (subtle) humor jumped out at me. do to the unreliability of our feeds, i have probably missed 25% of your reviews. do you still have them? could you send me a list of the movies you reviewed? i look forward to your film quiz, and would encourage you to occassionally post more reviews, anti or otherwise. best wishes. tom love computer consoles inc - office systems group reston, va
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 85 11:54:59 cdt
From: topaz!packard!ihnp4!convex!allison (Brian Allison)
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits
Kelvin - I for one loved your reviews, especially Back_to_the_Future and
Casablanca. I've had a lot of fun reading the responses as well, and I hope
you have, too. However, when you feel the urge to write a REALLY GOOD
sarcastic movie review, please do! I suspect a good posting 6 months from now
will generate a lot of nostalgia.
Are you a CS grad student, or what? I just graduated from UT in May (Elect.
Eng.).
Hook 'em Horns (maybe the football team WILL win a few this year)
Brian Allison {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!allison
Convex Computer Corp. - OR -
Richardson, TX {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!convexs!allison
From topaz!packard!ihnp4!drutx!rkp Wed Sep 18 17:13:43 1985
Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary.
As one famous person once quoted:
"Fuck em if they can't take a joke!!!"
What you did was great; don't take any shit from anybody!!
Russell Pierce AT&T 1200 W. 120th Ave. Denver, CO 80234
...!drutx!rkp (303) 538-2023
"When I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself...."
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 16:54:45 PDT From: Geri Segal <segal@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU> Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Kelvin -- I wanted to write you after I had my own account and address, but now that I've read your "farewell speech," I didn't want to wait any longer. I have *loved* your reviews! They are probably the funniest (certainly the wittiest) things I've read in three years of net-perusing. I admit that I took 1984 semi-seriously (after all, it could hardly surprise me that there was someone on the net who had never heard of Orwell -- there are an awful lot of ..er.. culturally deprived netters). BUT, I read the STAR WARS review as your way of saying, "It's a joke, folks!" and looked forward to all your reviews thereafter. BACK TO THE FUTURE and GALLIPOLI were my favorites, but CASABLANCA is my brother's favorite movie and he loved that review, too. The response was also amusing to watch unfold. No matter how extreme the review, there was always someone who took it seriously. Amazing! And the people who thought the reviews were stupid or somehow nasty ... well, maybe they just take themselves too seriously. I'm really sorry to see your "anti-reviews" go away. Maybe if you get enough letters like this one, you'll reconsider...??? Tovah Hollander who can occasionally be reached via: segal@ucla-cs.edu
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 10:57:55 EDT
From: the Shadow <jeffh@BRL.ARPA>
Subject: another friendly letter
i just thought i'd throw my $.02 into the pool.
as one of the first to accuse you of being an AI project, let
me say that that posting was intended to be as much of a joke
as your reviews. i hope no offense was taken at my remarks.
certainly none was intended.
the first of your reviews that i read was the 1984 review, and
i thought "gee, this guy has serious problems -- not reading
the book before seeing the movie." then i read your _Star_Wars_
review and laughed my head off. the following review (forget
the title) about the actress coyly teasing the audience with
glimpses of flesh was also enjoyable. if you are looking for
the "right" level of ludicrosity, that would be my vote for the
most funny and most effective. never the less, i would say that
your _The_Empire_Strikes_Back_ review was about your best all
around. does that address what you were trying to accomplish?
i hope it helps you in some way.
do you have them all archived somewhere? i would like to read
them in one lump sometime.
jeff hanes
"Star of stage, screen, and underwear commercials"
USnail: 508 Wheel Rd. UUCP: {seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!jeffh
Bel Air, MD 21014 ARPA: <jeffh@brl>
From topaz!packard!ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!msb Wed Sep 25 15:07:49 1985 Subject: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. But the worst part of all was NOT ANSWERING YOUR MAIL. By the way, I suggest that one reason you got a large response to Star Wars was that you posted it not only to net.movies but also to net.movies.sw. Probably there are lots of people who read the latter and not the former, because of volume. In my case, I started with 1984 because the other movies you did that were ones that I simply had no interest in. Did you know about the Kelvin/Thomson [sic] connection before people started wondering if your name was really your name? Mark Brader
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 85 09:37:03 est From: Dave Seaman <topaz!packard!inuxc!pur-ee!pucc-h!purdue!ags> Subject: Re: Kelvin calls it quits: brief apology, then long commentary. Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Kelvin, Thank you for the "reviews". I have enjoyed reading them. -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-h:ags
[Back to concluding remarks.]
[Home page]
[Contact Info]
(Updated July 26, 1996.)