Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Favorite Few
Actually, "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" received a 97% on RT (2 rotten). Furthermore, where did the delusion arrive from that RT compiles every critic in the US? Nevermind the fact that you're commenting on the review of an American critic who isn't tallied there (one vastly superior to the tally), but even "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" was only reviewed by 69 critics on RT. Are we to accept that there are only 69 working film critics in America? That seems odd considering that even RT generally promotes films with over 100 tabulated articles. With a trying respect, why do you make these comments? They're so blatantly ignorant. They're so foolish. If you're unable to follow Mr Shepherd's line of reasoning and judgment, then why do you return here? If you're only searching for a pat on your own opinion's back, there are a plethora of websites available for that as well. What argument do you actually believe you're winning? Shepherd will continue to hold to his wisdom. His wisdom will continue to transcend the majority of the public. Is there really that much satisfaction in vilifying an opinion just because it's so astutely contrary to your own? Your comments make it clear that you have trouble understanding Mr. Shepherd, but I simply can't understand what you think you're offering with such mistaken crudity.— January 5, 2009 5:50 p.m.
Seasons Go
I believe what "joeb" was illustrating (rather astutely) is that Ledger's death was not the point of Mr. Shepherd's article. Whether or not an actor's death is a relevant topic when discussing a film's status was merely an introductory derivative. The notion of the "event" movie versus the motion picture as a form of storytelling was the core issue being addressed. Ledger's death and his last film are merely starting points from which the more pertinent questions were asked: why does the public now flock to the movie houses as if in pursuit of some divine significance? Why is this mission so insatiable that the masses become the mob when presented with any opinion counter to compliment? When did art and entertainment become drug and scripture? Mr. Shepherd goes on to raise some productive suggestions--is this the given evolution of advertising and media? Is it the current state of technology in films and the self-importance they tout with grandiose themes? Is it simply our willingness (or perhaps desire) to transfer dramatic performance into holy tenders--or are we simply so lacking in our lives that we turn our desperation to any grand phenomenon? Are our celebrities now substitutes for the sacred because our actual leaders of faith, government, etc. behave like posturing caricatures? I don't believe Mr. Shepherd is any more concerned with Ledger's death than the next movie critic. But unlike most of them, he is able to comment on a greater human profundity rather than remain an awestruck devotee of spectacle.— September 5, 2008 8:55 a.m.
The Dark Knight clocks in
Ahh, an echo comes calling after weeks to contribute. Ironic that "greytiger" so fervently attacks Mr. Shepherd for having the audacity to criticize a profession in which he has never participated--ironic given the fact that greytiger is not a professional critic himself and yet reserves the right to judge Mr. Shepherd's work. I guess freedom of thought and expression is only permitted if you're angry and grammatically crippled. Some of my favorites though: -"I want throw Duncan off a bridge." Why does ignorance and violence always seem to go hand-in-hand? -"th(a)n write for a paper out in San Francisco or New York." If I'm reading this correctly, THEN what are you saying--that San Francisco and New York are only populated by elitists, or that everyone in San Diego is intellectually stunted? It's tough to interpret with comments that are so flagrantly stereotypical and xenophobic, but maybe I can find a racist somewhere to explain it to me. -"he gave a movie called . . . " So I guess we should only judge movies based on their titles. That seems a bit counter-intuitive to me given that the point of a motion picture is that it be seen; seems a bit "book judged by cover"; seems a bit prejudiced. But who am I to say--I'm not a movie maker. -"Being a critics", "You opinions are" (to name a few other gems) Oh, and by the way, "Curse of the Cat People" ranked mysteriously high on IMDB--what were those jokers thinking?— September 1, 2008 2:50 p.m.
An End
Well put Derzu. I wholehearted agree. And my gratitude to you Mr. Shepherd for the eloquent reminder of the extent of our roots and the eventuality of all our blossoms. It is an honor to even be an audience to the reverence you offer here. Thank you for sharing, and my condolences.— August 27, 2008 4:05 p.m.
The Dark Knight clocks in
Shep(h)erd is spelled with an "h".— August 1, 2008 11:40 a.m.
The Dark Knight clocks in
PART 3 I left “The Dark Knight” with a waver in my gut. I thought perhaps, in my own frenzy to validate the significance of a movie I was so anticipating in a franchise I so enjoy, that I simply needed time (perhaps multiple viewings) to fully ingratiate myself to a bold picture that broached new emotional territory for a comic book superhero movie. Perhaps I was just being selfish, wanting my superhero to be restrained by the conventions of good and evil. After much consideration, I realized that I was not restricting any genre borders; the film simply could not buoy the weight needed to float the transition it was boasting. “The Dark Knight” is a torture exercise that earns no prize for profundity simply because it is unexpected in its approach. However, given the rising tide of the “dark” in comic books and films based on them, even expectation was not so gravely stretched. The film is a cruel experience, manipulatively sanitized by the youthful dream of Batman lore. Downfall is not the only necessity of the tragic; redemption is also a key component. For a film so fraught with hubris, it runs rather short on catharsis. And while I can appreciate the attempt, I cannot reward the completion—a sad, unrelenting film with more ambition than evocation. All of this is only compounded by the knowledge of Ledger’s passing when witnessing his slugger swing at the demented. To add even more to the list of unfortunates though (as Mr. Shepherd points out), his performance, while perhaps superlative of histrionics, exceeds the commonalities of drama only by reducing to the commonalities of tirade.— July 25, 2008 12:11 p.m.
The Dark Knight clocks in
PART 2 Mr. Shepherd is a writer of fluid skill and insight. Unlike most film reviewers (and nearly all who habituate the “Tomato” board), Shepherd approaches his reviews as a writer as well as a critic. His opinion is not the final point of his message. The intricacy of constructing a sentence is presented with as much talent and nuance as is the knowledge of the subject. Shepherd is not only a moviegoer brilliantly versed in the history and craft of cinema, he is a writer who so well hones his own craft that he elevates the pop-flash dugout of “film critic” to the heights of philosophic literature. This in turn maintains the expectation that keeps motion pictures a relevant art form and not simply an image spun on the corner of a corporate logo. Duncan Shepherd approaches movies with a mind to analyze and deconstruct. He is insistent with film that it be arresting to our emotions, that it be challenging unto itself, that it win its aesthetic pull without resorting to bombast or sentiment. Furthermore, he does this with eloquence and a continual accent of wit and social consciousness. This is the marking of a marvel reviewer. Despite the high volume of negative reviews, Mr. Shepherd is showing with such commentary that he respects film so much that he will not praise what misses a certain cinematic standard. Likewise, this respect is offered to his readers who come to be treated with a deserving trust in their own intellects. Unfortunately, when the vapid come too, the expectation is altered. Fools do not want to be challenged. They do not want delving exploration or scholarship. In essence, they want nothing alternative to the interest their block of brain has partitioned for them. They love Batman. They want others to love Batman. They will not tolerate (no matter what the actual production of the character, or the sound reasoning of the review) any deviation from the dogmatic opinion they have purported. Batman is good (“inarguably good”), end of story. The poor dwindle-minded tots—you should not come to a review to be told what you want to hear. You read a review to have your opinion rivaled, to be intrigued or deterred by the movie in question—to learn. Even if the reviewer shares your appreciation for a film, a good reader will still look for points of contention so he or she can discover something new about the film. Thought should be the goal of every reviewer and every reader. Unfortunately, thought is a common rejection online. Every shepherd must tend to foolish sheep. MORE— July 25, 2008 12:10 p.m.
The Dark Knight clocks in
PART 1 Alas, In some well rooted pit in my senses I knew the day would come when the Reader’s allowance of comments on its website would stir the attention of the dull-minded masses who frequent these pages searching for no more than their own edification of blind fandom. Sites more slickly greased by marketing and ads that drop like a guillotine from your cursor are more prone to such individuals (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and of course the anything goes comment anarchy of YouTube)—a chance for the fearful to appear temporarily uninhibited by their obvious insecurities; a chance for security against intellectual forces far superior to the mill-run mindsets of most; a chance for the grammatically allergic to wipe their misspelled sinuses and fling a wad of hurtful comments at the wiser medicine man. In some way, I suppose these forays into the flippant are as harmless as they are inevitable. We wouldn’t lash out defensively at an infant who inconveniences our day with incessant crying; so then why be too overtly bothered by the remarks of individuals with similar developmental scopes? I suppose I had just come to find some greater solace in the intellectual prowess of the Reader, specifically in Mr. Shepherd’s reviews, and more so in the respect granted him in the comment section. Even disagreements until today (unless I have missed some nasty retorts in the past) were handled with courtesy and thoughtfulness that not only recognized Shepherd’s wisdom, but also illustrated that the commentator had some of his or her own. The bar was not only lowered today, but the zoo has been opened and we’ve welcomed in the primates to swing from it. And in pours the predictable frenzy of clichéd rebuttals: “find a new profession”, “nobody in their right mind would pay to read . . .”, “worst film reviewer ever”. The fascinating notion concerning such remarks is the fact that these people always belie a long-standing relationship with the publication and more so with the reviewer they so belligerently harangue. If one is so frequently offended by the material one reads, why does he or she continue to read it? I would speculate that some literary masochism exists within the creed of foul-spouting comment jockeys—the need to continually return to that point of insult where intellect is a pre-requisite and the faults of the ignorant are more abundantly illuminated. In grade school, a slower class could by found for such people. But now in the free enterprise of the thinking world, what can they do with their frustration when the smart book is simply left in front of them? If you can’t understand it, or find the sense to put it away, I guess we better start tearing at the pages. MORE— July 25, 2008 12:08 p.m.
Look! Up in the Sky!
Ironically, Charlize Theron played Britt Eckland in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" (2004).— July 16, 2008 9:02 a.m.