|
Personally I think any review the NY Times writes is not worth trusting. In particular, their reviews of the classical arts are embarrassing - many times they are little more than a summary of the program notes. I know enough about classical music that the reviews the Times posts often bother me to the point of anger. Similarly, their film reviews hardly ever tell me anything I can relate to.
I often wonder why they think they write reviews. If their opinions and reviews are not reflective of the way that most people choose or enjoy films, then why do they think I would read those reviews? It's not that I think that reviews should conform to popular opinion all the time, but I wish they would explain what the criteria are and why their opinions should matter to me.
It's all well and good for Scott to tell me that he goes to the movies for me (whatever the heck that means), but he has failed to demonstrate or tell me why I should care that he does so.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|