Seeing as its the weekend i feel justified in posting this.
Theres not a lot to do where i live when im home from Uni. As such i get very bored and unfortuantly do gay things like write to the local news paper about the quality of their film reviews.
So a little background - My local newspaper is very good. It has had several awards and i believe has been voted the best local newspaper in the country several times. They have an entertainment section which is generally excellent.
However my mum remarked to me that the main movie review (which technically covers a double spread) is generally pretty awful. Its also usually written by one guy. I like to read the local news when im home and as such had a look and when i came to the movie review on Flags of our Fathers. The entire article is basically about Clint Eastwood, his history, his films, who's he's worked with etc etc. There was literally nothing about the film in there.
So, i wrote this letter:
Dear Editor,
I rarely get to read The Observer as i am at university in Leeds, and as such, it is one of my small pleasures when i return home to catch up on local news. May i first congratulate you on a great paper, that clearly relishes repoting local news in a clear and intelligent way. There was however one large and fatal flaw to this weeks paper for me.
I was wondering is you could perhaps pass on my thanks to Mr Phil Maddix for his completely useless review of Clint Eastwoods new film 'Flags of our Fathers'. Most films of this calibre clearly do merit some brown nosing of the director and sometimes of its actors. It is seemingly justified. However, to dedicate all but one of the paragraphs to Mr Eastwoods career, other films and various achievements seems a little excessive. Had i wanted this information, i too would of gone to imdb.com and gleaned the information from its pages. Mr Maddix describes the epic as only 'half of the film' Eastwood wanted to make. I would describe Mr Maddix's review as 'nothing of the film included'.
Perhaps his skills would be better used in the research department of the Biography channel, instead of the movie reviews section of your paper for which he is payed. He gets five stars from me for not doing his job correctly.
Perhaps im too harsh, perhaps im playing up magnifcently to my jumped up student stereotype. I dont know. What i do know is that a review which offers four stars at its end and yet doesn't actually offer any insight into to the film hardly inspires your readers to go and watch it.
Merry Christmas.
I guess what im curious about, is what do people do when they're home and does anyone lead as sad a life i seem to when not at uni. Is this what its like in the real world? I'll be reduced to sending letters to the local paper because i have nothing better to do?
Please God say it isn't so....
Theres not a lot to do where i live when im home from Uni. As such i get very bored and unfortuantly do gay things like write to the local news paper about the quality of their film reviews.
So a little background - My local newspaper is very good. It has had several awards and i believe has been voted the best local newspaper in the country several times. They have an entertainment section which is generally excellent.
However my mum remarked to me that the main movie review (which technically covers a double spread) is generally pretty awful. Its also usually written by one guy. I like to read the local news when im home and as such had a look and when i came to the movie review on Flags of our Fathers. The entire article is basically about Clint Eastwood, his history, his films, who's he's worked with etc etc. There was literally nothing about the film in there.
So, i wrote this letter:
Dear Editor,
I rarely get to read The Observer as i am at university in Leeds, and as such, it is one of my small pleasures when i return home to catch up on local news. May i first congratulate you on a great paper, that clearly relishes repoting local news in a clear and intelligent way. There was however one large and fatal flaw to this weeks paper for me.
I was wondering is you could perhaps pass on my thanks to Mr Phil Maddix for his completely useless review of Clint Eastwoods new film 'Flags of our Fathers'. Most films of this calibre clearly do merit some brown nosing of the director and sometimes of its actors. It is seemingly justified. However, to dedicate all but one of the paragraphs to Mr Eastwoods career, other films and various achievements seems a little excessive. Had i wanted this information, i too would of gone to imdb.com and gleaned the information from its pages. Mr Maddix describes the epic as only 'half of the film' Eastwood wanted to make. I would describe Mr Maddix's review as 'nothing of the film included'.
Perhaps his skills would be better used in the research department of the Biography channel, instead of the movie reviews section of your paper for which he is payed. He gets five stars from me for not doing his job correctly.
Perhaps im too harsh, perhaps im playing up magnifcently to my jumped up student stereotype. I dont know. What i do know is that a review which offers four stars at its end and yet doesn't actually offer any insight into to the film hardly inspires your readers to go and watch it.
Merry Christmas.
I guess what im curious about, is what do people do when they're home and does anyone lead as sad a life i seem to when not at uni. Is this what its like in the real world? I'll be reduced to sending letters to the local paper because i have nothing better to do?
Please God say it isn't so....
