Page 1 of Is black_chuck....

The greatest reviewer ever to grace this fine site. Quite possibly NOT...
Now I always thought that Zvi Josepf was a bad reviewer, but then I realised, that although a little on the negative side about many films, and with a tendancy to knock a few marks off for this, he is quite good. black_chuck however, doesn`t seem to form any valid opinions on the movie. How anyone can grasp how good a movie is in one line of review, judging if it is boaring (it`s spelt boring btw b_c) good action, good stunts etc, I mean it might even be a step down from Paul Ross. The fact that he considers Reservoir Dogs, The Thing, Fellowship of the Ring etc as boaring, yet Gone in 60 seconds, Star Wars Ep. 2 and Armageddon, plus M:I2 to be of the top quality variety of filmmaking is beyond me. I`m all for other peoples opinion, but the problem is chuck has an incredibly shallow one. Why not watch a few films that don`t completely revolve around action, wooden dialogue, CGI and sexy stars, like Donnie Darko, The Royal Tennenbaums or even Sleepy Hollow or the Usual Suspects. Of course, Reservoir Dogs is a bad film as it is told out of order isn`t it BC, so The Usual Suspects may be dodgy. Don`t even go near Memento. Right, urge to be sarcastic and smug fading. I don`t actually mean to be nasty chuck, it`s just you`re hardly showing yourself to be a person interested in films above what I said, and I think you should explore more films. You might like them.

I thought that his reviews were supposed to ironic.

isn`t ironic also meant to be funny?

I chuckled!

Yeah well mumble mumble mumble

Who`s black_chuck?

"Who`s black_chuck?"

Take a look at the Visitors Reviews. It seems they`re about seven years old with a lenient set of parents who lavish money at their childs demands. Ironic? Moronic morelike! I prefer to be entertained with someones subtle nuances. Whether they like the film or not is irrelevent. But reviews like:

" so boaring 3 hours and nothing happens im not bothering with lord of the rings2"

and

"the begining copys predater and this film is so boaring 10 men are stuck in the snow with a monster but theres no action "

Doesn`t really offer much. But then again each to their own.

I don`t think Zvi is particularly negative in his reviews. He has written 400 to date (the most by visitors or site staff), so yes, a lot would be negative, but then a lot would also be good. Try reading more of his.

As for black_chuck - oh dear...

"Clint Eastwood`s "Unforgiven" takes place at that moment when the old West was becoming new. Professional gunfighters have become such an endangered species that journalists follow them for stories. Men who slept under the stars are now building themselves houses. William Munny, "a known thief and a murderer," supports himself with hog farming. The violent West of legend lives on in the memories of men who are by 1880 joining the middle class. Within a few decades, Wyatt Earp would be hanging around Hollywood studios, offering advice."

"clint plays a man who used to kil people as a job became a farmer for a while and then had to kil people again after a man hurts his wife. this is a boaring film and the extras are to"

Okay then, which one of the above quotes regarding Unforgiven was written by Roger Ebert and which one was written by black_chuck? I think you`ll all agree that it`s a damn tough call, isn`t it?

This item was edited on Tuesday, 4th March 2003, 23:24

Take a look at yourself`s

The site invites people to submit a review,and that is what He as done, any rules broken, is he stopping anybody else submiting a review..No!

Seems to me that you lot think because you can use fancy arsed word`s you are some how have more right to express an opinion.

You are mostly a bunch of middle class left wing xxxx holes!

I suppose the vote should be taken of him as well.

Snobs the lot of you.

Bear........freedom for all.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 5th March 2003, 00:03