Here's something you might be interested in.
Dear Reader Editor and Editors,
After seeing and enjoying "The Last Song", as we did Nicolas Sparks' "The Notebook", it is very irritating and offensive to read Shepherd's so called "review." He calls it an "insipid summer romance." As far as I'm concerned, Shepherd's "review" is what is insipid. Apparently never having the pen success of Nicholas Sparks, your wretched reviewer belittles Sparks by saying his pen is "sparkless." We thought Miley did an excellent job of capturing the spirit, mentality, attitudes and reactions of an intelligent and artistic teenager. He implies that the movie is "a piece of dreck" whereas to me his reviews are pieces of dreck. I don't know what this apparently wretched excuse of a movie reviewer looks like, but I'm sure that Miley looks better at 3 in the morning or after a hard work out than he does at his best in a tux. Why can't you get a movie reviewer with heart, human emotions and family values who knows and believes in real, kind, patient, unselfish, heroic, self-sacrificing, enduring and committed Love to review G and PG movies, and let the so called movie reviewer Duncan Shepherd review R and X rated movies. Real, kind, patient, unselfish, heroic, self-sacificing, enduring and committed Love appear to be completely out of Shepherd's understanding and experience. He should get a job at the morgue to right reviews of funerals.
A Killjoy movie reviewer like this Duncan Shepherd discourages decent people from seeing decent movies. If I had been stupid enough to accept his misleading movie review, we would not have gone to see "The Last Song." His attack on "The Last Song" is an attack on me and my tastes and preferences. When he describes as insipid, sparkless and dreck the movies I like and prefer, he is implying that my tastes and preferences are insipid, sparkless and dreck, when in reality it appears that this Duncan guy is the one who is insipid, sparkless and dreck. He appears to do a far better job in discouraging people from seeing decent moves than promoting and encouraging them to see such.
I am both a gentleman and a retired professional so even though I am sorely tempted to stoop to the street vocabulary level of four letter words, and anatomical names to tell you what I think of Duncan Shepherd and his consistently #$%& reviews of movies my wife and I have enjoyed, I will settle with asking why a decent magazine like the Reader has such an apparently cynical, pretentious, emotionally callous, egotistical, arrogant, pompous, bigoted and heartless movie reviewer? His consistently obnoxious and biased reviews of movies that we have enjoyed immensely are enough to discourage me from reading the movie reviews in the Reader, and to read reviews online instead. It's to the place that I don't trust the Reader's movie reviews. The guy apparently has the jaded personality and mentality of Scrooge, Killjoy, Simon Legree, Hugo's Javert and Dicken's Fagin in order to write reviews as he does. The readers of the Reader deserve better.
Dear Reader Editor and Editors,
After seeing and enjoying "The Last Song", as we did Nicolas Sparks' "The Notebook", it is very irritating and offensive to read Shepherd's so called "review." He calls it an "insipid summer romance." As far as I'm concerned, Shepherd's "review" is what is insipid. Apparently never having the pen success of Nicholas Sparks, your wretched reviewer belittles Sparks by saying his pen is "sparkless." We thought Miley did an excellent job of capturing the spirit, mentality, attitudes and reactions of an intelligent and artistic teenager. He implies that the movie is "a piece of dreck" whereas to me his reviews are pieces of dreck. I don't know what this apparently wretched excuse of a movie reviewer looks like, but I'm sure that Miley looks better at 3 in the morning or after a hard work out than he does at his best in a tux. Why can't you get a movie reviewer with heart, human emotions and family values who knows and believes in real, kind, patient, unselfish, heroic, self-sacrificing, enduring and committed Love to review G and PG movies, and let the so called movie reviewer Duncan Shepherd review R and X rated movies. Real, kind, patient, unselfish, heroic, self-sacificing, enduring and committed Love appear to be completely out of Shepherd's understanding and experience. He should get a job at the morgue to right reviews of funerals.
A Killjoy movie reviewer like this Duncan Shepherd discourages decent people from seeing decent movies. If I had been stupid enough to accept his misleading movie review, we would not have gone to see "The Last Song." His attack on "The Last Song" is an attack on me and my tastes and preferences. When he describes as insipid, sparkless and dreck the movies I like and prefer, he is implying that my tastes and preferences are insipid, sparkless and dreck, when in reality it appears that this Duncan guy is the one who is insipid, sparkless and dreck. He appears to do a far better job in discouraging people from seeing decent moves than promoting and encouraging them to see such.
I am both a gentleman and a retired professional so even though I am sorely tempted to stoop to the street vocabulary level of four letter words, and anatomical names to tell you what I think of Duncan Shepherd and his consistently #$%& reviews of movies my wife and I have enjoyed, I will settle with asking why a decent magazine like the Reader has such an apparently cynical, pretentious, emotionally callous, egotistical, arrogant, pompous, bigoted and heartless movie reviewer? His consistently obnoxious and biased reviews of movies that we have enjoyed immensely are enough to discourage me from reading the movie reviews in the Reader, and to read reviews online instead. It's to the place that I don't trust the Reader's movie reviews. The guy apparently has the jaded personality and mentality of Scrooge, Killjoy, Simon Legree, Hugo's Javert and Dicken's Fagin in order to write reviews as he does. The readers of the Reader deserve better.