not to be rude or anything but i really dont value their opinions.
both of them are over 60 and arent typical movie goers.
i suggest this show gets some young blood who will appeal to younger people
www.myspace.com/justanotherwishfulthinker
I am in my early 20's and value their opinions. Often I agree, but there are times when I will go out and see a movie they have rated poorly - and enjoy it. I just like the way they critique films, I think they are very professional and also they have a fantastic chemistry, leading to wonderful, lively debates. The majority of my friends also watch this show and they are all young as well. I would say we were typical movie goers for people in their 20's.
SBS tried the 'young blood' thing when David and Margaret left, and frankly I just couldn't get into it. Apparently no one else could either, as I am pretty certain that the young ones were axed after a couple of years.
I think that it would be good if there were younger presenters on a good Movie Review show for a bit of a mix-up, but I will always love David and Margaret and I think they are virtually impossible to replace.
Margaret and david are alot better at reviewing films for there age than Roger ebert ever was. I mean even look at some of eberts old reviews (pulp fiction) and he still just comes across as a grumpy old man. Margaret and David continually stun me with their open mindedness. I mean they even see films like saw and hostel and can still understand why audiences flock to see them. Very underrated critics.
shareYep, i'm 18 and they are my favourite film critics. I love their open mindedness towards films, and after reading Davids autobiography, he has a true love for film. Even if i disagree with their opinion on a film, i still often can see their side clearly.
"My dear, all my films are comedies." Alfred Hitchcock
Yeah, Stratton's autobiography makes for very interesting reading, although he does come across as an obsessive 'list-maker' type (not a rare thing amongst film fanatics, of course). On the program he is sometimes dismissive of certain types of films (typically those more subtle films that owe least to Hollywood formulae) for reasons that I sometimes find bewildering.
When they disagree I almost invariably side with Pomeranz. However, it's likely I'd not be a fan of either of them if they did the program alone. As a pair, they seem able to counter-balance one another's prejudices, such that most films get decent treatment.
I also have to agree that the 'youthful' reviewers we got on SBS (and also on Triple J) definitely don't constitute much of a case in favour of recruiting younger reviewers for their youthfulness alone. *shudder*
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.
Ebert a grumpy old man? What are a *beep* retard? Actually, don't bother answering that. He was one of the most elevated and youthful film critics in the world right up to the end. He gave Pulp Fiction a 4 in what was an rave review so you are talking garbage.
Marg and Dave are hardly "underrated critics" and their taste and opinion tends towards what I would consider to be "relatively" open minded upper-middle class and untrained intellectualism. The fact that David disregards the work of Von Trier almost solely for his use of hand held camera slightly undermines the idea that he holds true "open mindedness" or any sense of rational film analysis though.
Decent critics, open minded enough but without any real intellectual rigour involved. Certainly not underrated.