|
Post by Head Mutant on Apr 29, 2004 19:31:16 GMT -5
www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3563525&thesection=technology&thesubsection=web-column&thesecondsubsection=MRFH was mentioned in a New Zealand Herald article. The quote and link is as follows: ===================== It's here that the credibility of internet film criticism begins to disappear, but also the pretension of highbrow movie reviewing. If the movie sucks because there isn't enough bedroom action, these reviewers will tell you. There's Mutant Reviewers, formed in the late nineties by "bored college students with a lack of proper grammar fundamentals"."In short, we were sick of the stainless, emotionless corporate skyscrapers of most movie critics," the mutants claim. Their slant is towards tacky old cult movies, which have a strong following mainly because of their tackiness.
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Apr 29, 2004 20:26:19 GMT -5
I think they're calling the movies tacky? Funny that that came up during 80s week though....
|
|
|
Post by Al on Apr 29, 2004 21:12:58 GMT -5
He doesn't seem to have a favorable opinion of internet reviewers, does he? Despite his mention of 'disappearing pretentiousness', he fails to provide any example of what he considers a good review website (unless it's headed by someone who wrote a book).
To be fair, though, he doesn't call the site tacky- just the movies you watch. Not terribly flattering, though.
Al
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Apr 30, 2004 6:51:09 GMT -5
I say, be tacky and wear it proudly!
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Apr 30, 2004 8:19:08 GMT -5
He may not call the site tacky, but he does say the site has little to no credibility. I think that's a bigger insult than "tacky" which, if it isn't a reference to the site design, is just plain confusing. Is this some usage of the word I havn't run across before?
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Apr 30, 2004 9:32:41 GMT -5
I also find it ironic he's railing against pretensiousness and being quite pretensious himself And regardless, publicity is publicity! (Notice CAPs didn't get any such mention )
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Apr 30, 2004 10:57:18 GMT -5
He may not call the site tacky, but he does say the site has little to no credibility. Funny you say that... I was thinking about that the other day. Nothing DOES grant us any credibility. Not in any formally recognized way, anyways. The only real cred we have is what you guys give us. And dammit, that's good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Apr 30, 2004 11:54:38 GMT -5
You've been around a while, and all your reviews are there for anyone to read. For a movie review site, what more do you really need?
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Apr 30, 2004 12:30:15 GMT -5
Well, I WAS saving up for our Lil' Ebert's Certificate of Authenticity badge, but you're probably right.
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Apr 30, 2004 15:08:35 GMT -5
Something connected with Ebert? Rrrrright.
|
|