film v movie

[gravity@nicom.com]

Never meant to imply that either "critic" ever offers much in the way 
of, shall we call it a suggestion, a faint whiff of insite? But 
Ebert's "That may be very well, but what can I say -- I enjoyed it," 
is a bit of a pander, IMHO.

On  2 Aug 96 at 10:50, LBernier at tribune.com wrote:

> From:          <LBernier at tribune.com>
> Date:          Fri, 2 Aug 1996 10:50:42 -0500
> Subject:       Re[2]: film v movie
> To:            pynchon-l at waste.org

> "gravity at nicom.com" <Henry at palancar.com> sez:
>      
>      I know its kind of late to continue this thread but heregoes: Ebert 
>      reviews Movies
>      Siskel is supposed to be the "Film" critic
>      
>      Check out the body types:
>      Ebert = pudgy family man
>      Siskel = skinny ...
> 
> Sir, I disagree heartily!  Yes, Siskel may look the intellectual, due to 
> his somewhat neurasthenic look, the kind who goes on endlessly about that 
> great undiscovered Resnais,  and Ebert is the prole - fat, chomping 
> ju-ju-bees while watching the latest "they blowed up REAL good" flick du 
> jour, but . . .
> 
> look closer . . .
> 
> and do NOT judge by appearance alone.
> 
> The truth is, Siskel wouldn't know a "FILUM" if one bit him in the ass, and 
> Roger, despite having penned "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" (or maybe 
> because of it) is the real critic, publishing his not-for-newspaper bona 
> fide criticism in the journals.
> 
> Jean
> 
> 
>