Reason #134,987 to hate the New York Times

BLAMMO!

Nice job, counterrevolutionary. I hate the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" response. I'm entitled to my opinon too, and I think those people are idiots.

-------
That's right... who's laughing now... who's laughing now?

Dude, if you get your jollies raking newspapers over the coals over film reviews that were written a quarter-century ago, I can only muster up pity for you. But Jeebus, I'm replying to you, so how sad is that?

At least I KNOW how pathetic this all is. Cold comfort.

My feeling from the review (which is plumb mediocre, but not "evil" or "moronic", but keep on truckin', you storied literary critic, you) is that they were summarizing the film as best they could. In 1971, see, foreign films weren't as common as they are today. Really! They didn't have DVDs. Home video wasn't even a twinkle in the average homeowner's eye.

So the number of people that COULD see the film was extremely limited. The number of people that WOULD see the film was even smaller. The fact that critics would take the time and pay the attention to TRY to draw people to these small, offbeat, little-run films was actually pretty goddamn cool.

And yeah, they gave away a plot point in the headline. But my God, who cares? Kudos to them for trying to give a great movies some well-deserved press in the nation's paper of record. God knows independent and foreign cinema didn't have many champions back then.

But you don't really care about that. You're just some poor, slavering moron so desperate to say bad things about the "libburul" media that you'll scour reviews written before most of the people reading these boards were born, trying to find something to whine about.

Pathetic. I mean, pathetic. As Mr. T said, long after 1971, "I pity the fool."

You, sir, are the fool. And as obnoxious as you are, I pity you. How sad and angry your little life must be.