Dana Stevens asks if she's a bad person for hating "Precious".

No . .. not a bad person, just a bad movie reviewer. You dismiss Precious tritely as "Poverty Porn"

Dana - remember 2008? How you hated "Slumdog Millionaire", and dissed it, calling it "Hokum" (right in the title of your review)? It went on to win best picture

Let's be unkind and rewind, to 2007. You couldn't say enough bad stuff about "No country for old men". And IT went on to win best picture too. Javier Bardem gave a performance for the ages.

So far this year you're on track to make a fool of yourself again, having pronounced the Coen brothers "Extract" some sort of masterpiece. Oh, and the cartoon "UP", too. You have a soft spot for cartoons, even when they're mediocre.

How do other sites feel about "Precious"? The consensus at Rotten Tomatoes is 87%. They're not infallible, but over the years they have been waaaaaaaay less fallible than you, Dana.

Dana - you're not a bad person. Just an awful reviewer, with the inability to recognize great acting or writing.

They probably have film appreciation classes at your local commuity college, if you want to up your game a little . . . just a thought.

+1

Disagree. Dana, (as per usual) hit the nail on the head and flush to the wood. Her misgivings about not liking the film are grounded in a very frightening reality, ergo : "I care not for this film, therefore I am a white, thin, priveleged scion (scioness?) of wealth and good taste." She knew the backlash was imminent but went with her heart and gave the flick a bad review anyway. It's nice to see a mainstream critic put it out there the way that she did. That took GUTS.

yeah, and I'd like to add whether or not I agree with her on every movie, she's not a 'bad reviewer.' Bad meaning 'uninteresting'. B.A. had no trouble reading and apparently re-reading the reviews, did she?

I liked "Slumdog Millionaire." "No Country for Old Men," I hated.

I'm able to watch a film on my own terms.

BA, the fact that you need to mention there is a "consensus" of 87% "how other sites feel" at Rotten Tomatoes leads me to suspect that a reviewer must agree with how you see things, in order for them to have a valid world view.

Like, those who see Precious and don't see what you do, are wrong.

Frankly, you can go to hell.

Monster Ballads Suq:

yeah, and I'd like to add whether or not I agree with her on every movie, she's not a 'bad reviewer.' Bad meaning 'uninteresting'...

She's not uninteresting. But BA's laundry list of top films she didn't like is noteworthy; if you're consistently out-of-whack with what the majority think, then you're not much good as a critic.

For me, she's got three problems which are all interconnected (not really in evidence with this review, but they come up frequently): 1) She tends to fault the movie for absolutely anything that isn't clear to her. 2) She's not very good at following plots in the first place, and 3) She compounds things by frequently failing to do any homework like reviewing the original films before seeing sequels or double-checking things before writing her review.

For a laugh, check out her review of the second Pirates of the Caribbean film where she brags about never having seen the first film...right before complaining how the plot of the sequel was hard to follow. (Surely, one of her goofiest reviews ever).

Travelall:

Frankly, you can go to hell.

Wow. Overreact much? People argue religion and poltics on this site without outbursts like that...but fault the movie critic and the gloves come off!

Dear Sundown:

BA on Dana Stevens:

No . .. not a bad person, just a bad movie reviewer.

So far this year you're on track to make a fool of yourself again,

Dana - you're not a bad person. Just an awful reviewer, with the inability to recognize great acting or writing.

Sundown's comments:

... but fault the movie critic and the gloves come off.

Go to hell yourself, Sundown.

And to both BA and Sundown -- I'm not saying you're bad people and I'm not really even terribly serious about having you both go to hell, but really, what entices you to not only trash somebody for not having the same tastes as you, but to KEEP COMING BACK to read more, and then keep trashing?

Okay, sure, maybe it's fun if you're some isolated angry loner, unable to interact with any other people on a human level, but jeez, it *is* just a movie! Lighten up!

I got no beef with nobody for not agreeing with any reviewers if you don't want, but the comments aimed at Dana -- whom I must admit I sorta skim read her reviews -- are kinda catty, don'tcha think?

I'm guessing it wasn't fun when I told you to go to hell and I can sure as hell tell you it ain't fun to keep reading this constant litany of anti-Dana commentary, So let's try to be more civil to each other. Fair enough? I'll start! :-)

Dana - remember 2008? How you hated "Slumdog Millionaire", and dissed it, calling it "Hokum" (right in the title of your review)? It went on to win best picture

Hate to break the news to you, BA, but the Oscar awards have exactly zero relevance to the subject of serious film study and appreciation.

The fact that Alfred Hitchcock never won a Best Director Oscar says just about all you need to know on this subject.

such virulent profanity . . .

simply because i had the temerity to point out that dana panned the last 2 "best picture" winners in a row?

is it the wrong time of the month for you, honey?

the academy awards, which are based on the votes of the entire academy of motion picture members (actors, directors, musicians, special effects people, etc) are possibly more releveant and accurate than those of a single semi-incoherent online reviewer . . .

just a theory, but i'm sticking with it

baltimore aureole:

the academy awards, which are based on the votes of the entire academy of motion picture members (actors, directors, musicians, special effects people, etc) are possibly more releveant and accurate than those of a single semi-incoherent online reviewer . . .

just a theory, but i'm sticking with it

good idea - you wouldn't want to be considering contrary evidence and possibly revising your opinion, now. Who knows what that could lead to.

so far all you have is a BS theory that dana stevens is right and the rest of the universe is wrong

. . . that quality's an objectively measurable component in a film that a critic is responsible for recognizing. I can see why you'd get that impression, but not so much why you'd keep it.

I really enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire, but I didn't really expect much more than a confection going in, and a confection is precisely what I got--a dazzling confection, to be sure, but a confection nonetheless. No Country for Old Men is, I agree, a masterpiece (Bardem's performance is an heir to Mitchum's not dissimilar turn in Night of the Hunter), but it was a Coen Brothers film, with all the attendant distancing devices. Dana doesn't like those distancing devices; I do. Apparently, you don't necessarily object.

So far this year you're on track to make a fool of yourself again, having pronounced the Coen brothers "Extract" some sort of masterpiece.

Extract was a Mike Judge film; the Coens gave us A Serious Man this year.

I'm a trained actor who thinks that Bill Murray and Toshiro Mifune have given many "performance[s] for the ages," a stance for which you roundly criticized me . . . despite, so far as I can tell, your having no formal training in performance. Which, you know, whatever; as filmgoers, we're welcome to disagree, in good faith, as to the quality of any given work. Why oughtn't we extend that courtesy to Dana? Not only is your assertion that she requires a film appreciation class catty; it also assumes that such a class would inevitably lead her to reach preferable (to you) conclusions.

I quite loved Up, though I think I responded more strongly to the first 30 minutes than to the remainder of the film.