Caramel Frappe said:
That's how I see it so hopefully Marter will get the feedback he deserves from more people.
Part of the problem is this is the feedback he deserves, regardless of how critical it may seem on the outset.
To begin with, everything
DeadpanLunatic said is on-point for various styles of writing. That's not to say his statements are the only way to structure a piece of writing, but they're all very solid ideas that provide the argumentative basis for nearly all pieces of writing pertaining to persuasion.
Secondly, the very nature of a review is that it's a piece of writing for the reader. Even if you disagree with
DeadpanLunatic's points, the fact that he is capable of those opinions proves that as a for-the-reader medium, the reviews fail the basic premise of reviewing the material to the satisfaction of the reader. That's not to say that it's a common criticism, or one that
has to be corrected, but it is there none the less, and is no more or less deserving of attention than any other opinions. Including yours.
Finally, on the topic...
FargoDog said:
So wait, are you saying someone is immune to criticism because what they review or talk about isn't current?
There are grounds to be more critical of a given review for failing to be relevant. By the very nature of a review, its meant to be for the consumer to be able to make an informed decision about a particular object. If it isn't current, that removes a large viewership for a particular piece. However, if a review fails to be relevant, then the review itself fails its basic premise for the reader.
Admittedly, I wouldn't say that
Marter's reviews aren't relevant, because all of the films are simultaneously accessible (through rental or purchase), but often wide enough so that any given viewer may not have seen the films in question. But there is something to be said for writing not just to a writer's whimsy, but instead, to a reader's.