Its kind of a fallacy to say that because he has acknowledged political biases that he shouldn't review movies that have an opposing or even not complimentary political message (in this case the film refusing to take an overt political stance is in opposition to Bobs strong anti war/propaganda stance). As he said he felt that it didn't work as a narrative film but could very well have worked as a documentary which I think is a perfectly valid criticism (I haven't seen it to agree or disagree but its a valid point to make). I think there was probably messages that could have been taken from the original text (again I haven't read it I'm just speculating) that would have allowed it to work as a more coherent narrative in Bobs eyes even if he would have strongly disagreed with those messages. Its important for critics to be able to criticize any art, it is there job to give their opinions in order to help you make up your mind on a piece of work. Whether that is making up your mind to go see it based on finding critics with a similar taste as you or by digging deeper into that piece or coming at it from a different angle in order to help you decide what you think the messages of the piece are.ecoho said:Bob going to level with you, I think you should stop reviewing this type of movie (if there is another option of course) you come off a bit strong in your feelings one way or the other. Was really hoping to see a review of unbroken due to there being a less political feeling of it for you and others, but hey what do I know.
Sorry this is kind of ranty and I wasn't really intending it to be, this is more my thoughts on critique that got splurged on the page rather than an attack on you.