George Clooney - Spoiled Ass

[Deej]

   I, for the most part, enjoy George Clooney's work. I even liked the Batman flick. But, he seems to have a somewhat inflated sense of his own importance. When Princess Diana died, Clooney called a press conference to lash into the press, I wasn't even aware that the whole affair concerned him in any way. After 9/11, when Bill O'Reilly sked questions about where the money from all the charity concerts, and celebrity events was going, Clooney, again, began releasing statements and holding press conferences. I understand that even actors have opinions(mostly high opinions of themselves it seems), but why should they have special license to inflict their politics/religion/philosophy on everyone else. This extends to rock stars as well(where's Michael Stipe). Personally I think George is f**king loopy.
   Also, films, like the cake in the aforementioned analogy, are made by one person or group, for the consumption of another. They are a service or commodity which people purchase. Even though I cook or bake for s**t, if I pay for a product, then I have the right to critique it. Same with movies. I've never made a film, but I critique them everyday, to my friends, family, co-workers, and especially here. Aren't film critics basically a Consumer Report-type of thing. They're doing the same thing I do for pay(the bastards) Now if this knuckle head had said that Solaris was the best friggin' film since Gone With The Wind, Clooney would have praised his visionary genius, his unfaltering good taste, and would have added the quote to the films advertising. As it was, the guy just told the truth, Solaris is a s**tbomb remake of an older s**tbomb. Call 'em like you see 'em. More of this kinda crap and George will be back on ER, an I mean the one with Eliott Gould!!

[Funk, E.]

As I had stated. As far as my opinion goes I am entitled to what ever it may be, but as you pointed out as a "Consumer Affairs" report there should be some sense of reverence for the duties that you perform and the product you review. A reporter for a car magazine isn't going to simply and merely state that he thinks the Viper is ugly. He's got to justify his statements. I, as an unprofessional, can simply state that Microsoft products that I've encountered generally suck. If I were a consumer reporter I would have to articulate concerns about over simplification, instability, excessive memory use and prove it. "This is boring" is hardly a responsible statement for a defender of public consumption to make.

And that still doesn't change the fact that lacking personal experience does undermine the authority of a critic's claim. As a s**tty skier I have more rights to critique another skier than one who doesn't ski at all because I know what the difficulties are. As a cook I can give an articulate description of why a particular cake is substandard and as a former film student I have a working knowledge of what goes into making a movie. Many a film critic does not and yet their opinion can sway many. As with the examples above: someone who does not drive should not write about cars, a person who does not use a computer in fact both a Mac and a PC or Microsaft and Unix has no right to make claims about Microsoft software.

To witness any event gives you justification to have an opinion on it. It does not however give you a "Professional" opinion and a critic is a type of professional who should know something of the profession they critique. That's all I'm saying. A lot of these critics aren't even good writers and that's their job...