movies are, or used to be, a glamorous industry, and fat faced freaks like hoffman should have no part in such an industry. much of watching a film is contemplating the psysical attributes of the the performers. if i want to see faces like hoffmans, ill watch the evening news. mr benedril pobably accepts the words of the experts on other subjects such as the iraq war as well. personally, im glad there are writers like npt ut there who still trust the evidence of their own eyes and the reasoning of their own brains..whether or not i am in agreement.

 

There have been bad movie reviewers at WW over the years, but none as truly awful as NP THOMPSON, an ignorant man (sorry: person) who seems driven as much by his nonexistent self-esteem as by a desperate longing to sound cool (as in "...an ode to these dudes' gnarly pursuit of good times"... Please! go waterboard yourself, dude). Someone who manages to slam Alexander Payne and Steve Buscemi in a single review should not write. WW management team, please, show NP THOMPSON the door. Hopefully the publication of David Benedetti's letter is a diplomatic prelude to that.

 

So, a week or thereabouts has gone by, during which time I have been sequestered under the mistletoe, whilst remaining comfortably seated at the cool kids

 

Dear NP,

Thank you for responding, I think I owe a clarification. I, like most people I think, do not look for talent, originality, wit or insight in a movie review. I (we) look for DEPENDABILITY. We look for a data point that indicates whether a movie is worth seeing. For this to work, one needs to establish a sort of putative relationship with the reviewer. Take David Walker, for instance; look beyond his scatological outbursts, which offended many people (fuck them), and the dude is as reliable as a Toyota pickup truck. You can read his reviews, in and between the lines, and know with 90% certainty whether you will appreciate the movie he is talking about (with the caveat that some stuff just sends him off the deep end; Requiem for a dream, for example, you're on your own).

A person who merely sees cynicism in the work of Alexander Payne (and idiotically characterizes him as a "snickering twit"), and who thinks the Coen Brothers / Buscemi skit is "hateful" and "degrading" is so out of touch with reality that he is completely and utterly UNDEPENDABLE. When I read that kind of nonsense, my only thought is, I don't have the time to analyse that reviewer's particular brand of dementia to understand what makes him tick so I can get what I want out of the fucking review, which is: SHOULD I SEE THIS MOVIE? We don't give a holler what YOU think. This is not your own personal soapbox. You are providing a service. We have no interest whatsoever in watching you watch yourself scratch your balls in a mirror.

The Coen's skit was not only excellent but it also showed a keen (and unexpected) insight in the psyche of our best friends from France. Buscemi's misadventure is the kind that could happen to an American in Paris (and does, a lot, if metaphorically).

Bragging about whatever connection you may have with the awful LA WEEKLY is sort of like listing your elementary school on your resume. Or telling your date about wetting your pants after that awesome all-night herbal tea-fueled bender.

Are you making fun of Charles Mudede? You dissin a brother? I can't tell, cause maybe you're being sarcastic or ironic in some way or another. But still.

Cheers

NAZ DEF

 

Naz,

Since I'm the guy who brought N. P. into the WW fold, and have no intention of tossing him back out again, I'll offer my two cents. Dependability is a crucial quality in a critic, but I suspect you're defining the term differently than I would. In my understanding, "dependability" means honesty, careful evaluation, and a concerted effort at consistency. I'm having a hard time grasping your definition, but it looks a lot like, "Someone with the same opinions as me."

Answering the question of whether someone should see a movie is a huge part of what critics do. (I'd contend that it's only our second most important task, though: Our primary duty is to convey as accurately as possible what the movie feels like -- what it's trying to do and what it actually does.) But the only way we can tell you whether you should see a movie is by telling you what we think. We need to defend that opinion, but we have to offer our own honest evaluations. By offering different views, we create a conversation, which readers can judge against their own tastes and opinions.

I'm sure you know all this, and you've said as much in your praise of David Walker. But he was just saying what he thought too, and you developed that relationship with his writing. You don't have it with N. P.'s writing -- but if you don't see how you could develop it, I'd like to know why, beyond really, REALLY disagreeing with him.

And for what it's worth, if you don't care about "talent, originality, wit or insight in a movie review," I don't think this is the Screen section for you. These are virtues I dearly value, and I hope we live up to them, at least once in a while.

Sorry if this comes across as snide or condescending; I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler online person (for the moment, anyway) and have civil disagreements. And damn, do I ever disagree with you.