I read the whole Mike Martinez controversy in the Letters page. While I am not disputing anything Andrew said in his reponse, I could not help but notice Mike gave at least one valid argument - bringing up "I might not enjoy the film, I might not like the film, I might even harbor resentment against you and the writer, but it will be reviewed." - that Andrew did not respond to.
So?
If Martinez wrote--in the middle of all that crap--"the sky is blue," or "I like pie," and Andrew did not respond, does that also constitute a "valid argument," and does Andrew's lack of response have some Earth-shattering significance?
Or is someone just farting for the sake of making a little noise?
Crimes were committed in making the film. In one of my first responses to Mr. Martinez, I let him know it was a show-stopper.
If someone sent me a tape of them killing a cat, I would not review the film either.
As oppposed to much of the stuff you review where the resuling film is a crime :)
Even if you overlook the moral implications (which you shouldn't), in this day and age, I could honsetly see legal action being bought against the webmaster of a site that reviewed movies containing crimes (and thereby "encouraged" or "incited" the crimes). Sounds like an early-season "Law & Order." Would you do it if it meant you could meet Angie Harmon?