http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=27832

I clicked on this DVDTalk review to find out how the picture, sound & extras were on the new DVD. I was more than a little surprized to find out that An Officer & a Gentleman is little more than an "After School Special" at least according to the reviewer - Paul Mavis. Also found out from Paul that Louis Gosset Jr. didn't really deserve his Oscar. Obviously Gossett Jr. should have played it just like R. Lee Ermey did years later in Full metal Jacket. Except R. Lee Ermey got blown away...didn't he Paul? Wouldn't that have interfered just a bit with Gere & Winger's "Romantic element"?

What did I find out about the picture? It's 16:9 enhanced. Thanks Paul! It was 16:9 enhanced back in 2000 as well, but at least you pointed out it was a "Dreary-looking film when it first came out."

Extras- "(I guess they didn't want to put "25 Year Anniversary" on it for fear of alienating the kids out there, and making the original fans feel old)." Good call there Paul, just can't trust those wacky teens from the 80's.

Final Thoughts: "An Officer and a Gentleman tricked a lot of kids who never saw an old movie, into thinking they were seeing something new and different." Tricked? I don't know about that one Paul, the theme song by Joe Cocker (Instantly recognizable 25 years later..) came out before the movie...I doubt those wacky teens of the 80's were expecting to see "The Longest Day".

Sarcasm aside, this is the worst DVD/Film reviews I have ever read on DVDtalk. It's quite obvious Paul Mavis hated this film, and wrote a very mean spirited review & uninformative review.

I enjoyed it, so I guess I was tricked as well.

From a quick look, it tricked Roger Ebert, and 94% of the critics at Rotton Tomatoes too. Of course, who cares what they think either, it's all just opinions, but the review mentions other (nameless) critics who agree with him, I guess trying to make it sound like everyone who knows anything about movies would agree with him.

Are you sure? Paul didn't like Donnie Brasco much either.

He did, however, rave about The Dukes Of Hazzard: The Beginning and The Best Of Donnie & Marie - so obviously, he's one of those "high brow" reviewers.

Seriously though - while I think Paul is vastly underrating the movie (Lou Gossett Jr.'s performance alone makes it a must-have), reviews are just opinions...everyone's got one.

Just like how I posted in the "comic strip" thread in Other:





My favorite part of this latest review is where Paul says:

When that's just a flat out lie. The film was released to rave reviews in 1982, Variety loved it saying:

Roger Ebert gave it four stars:

It did $130 million at the box office, #3 overall in 1982, and the #1 R rated film of that year.

If you don't like the movie, that's fine, just say so. There are plenty of movies out there that did great at the box office, or critics loved that I hate, and that will continue to be the case as the years go by. But don't kid yourself and say something like "and nobody who knew good movies liked it then, either", because that's not just your opinion, and facts reveal it to be nothing more than a flat out lie.

Why does the fact that Paul hated the film make it "the worst DVD/Film reviews" you've ever read? Is he not allowed to have an opinion that may be different than your own?

Paul is allowed to post his opinions on movies in his reviews just as much as we are allowed to post our opinions on what we think of those very reviews here in this folder.

If he wants to write mean spirited, condescending reviews that's fine, but we have every right to call those reviews "the worst DVD/Film reviews" as well.

Why is he even reviewing it? It's completely obvious that he loathed the film in 1982, and appears to have 25 years of rage built up over it.

But suddenly, 2007 rolls around and it's "Oooh, and Officer and a Gentleman, I'll review that!"

That's the problem I have with some DVDTALK reviews and dvd reviews in general--films are given to critics who decide beforehand how they are going to (not) enjoy a film. It's one thing to not like a film, but it's another thing when the review is basically written because the reviewer has already made up his/her mind about a film. If a film isn't your cup of tea, why not review something else?

To be fair here, didn't Paul give a 2 and half star review to the "extended version" of Donnie Brasco and not the original cut?

Also, while I don't agree with his Casino Royal review, I totally 100% agree with his review of Officer and a Gentleman. In fact, when I read the review I actually came to this forum right now to see if there was a thread about the review and if not to start one so I can thank him for giving an honest review instead of going with the pack.

It's quite refreshing really since the majority of internet reviews just go with whatever the popular opinion is on something (cough Ian Jane cough cough DVD Savant cough) instead of being totally honest and coming to an opinion because they thought so and popular opinion be dammed.

People also miss the point of reviews. I love it when someone says, "you didn't like such and such film but you like that movie?!" as if it's some sort of proof of their worthlessness. Films and opinions (note that word) on them are relative, not absolute. One should be judging one film and that film only. It has nothing to do if he/she didn't like other films because that has nothing to do with the other.

I rather read a review for a film that I don't agree with but that is honest from someone that has no influence from what he/she "should" be saying but what he/she really think instead of a review I do agree with but it's just some dude repeating whatever else is because they allow themselves to be swept by the popular opinion or what it seems they are bullied into thinking.

That's of the main reason I rarely read a review on an anime or a foreign film that has a dub track on there because every review becomes another mindless drone chanting the same crap about dubs sucking over and over again.

Well, dubs do suck, dammit!

No.

Some do, some don't.

Too bad there aren't enough to realize the good ones instead of running around spouting the same garbage because the rabid fanboys make a rule saying you shouldn't ever like one or else.

But thanks for proving my point there Randy.

You might hate our anime reviews for dozens of other reasons but had you read more than a handful, you'll notice that some of the dubs are getting praised (which draws a lot of anger from the slavering fanboys that like to compare reviews to ones telling them what they want to hear elsewhere).

I was half-joking, don't worry. I'll always listen to a dub before openly criticizing it, but let's not kid ourselves here...good ones are few and far-between.

I'm just impressed that Paul's review proved so infuriating to someone that he ranked a "Tom Tomorrow"-styled cartoon. Now, THAT'S impressive.

I think enough people have weighed in here so there's not really much of a need to belabor the point that reviews and criticism are subjective and, hey, if a reviewer can spark disagreement or discussion, so much the better. Speaking as a native Oklahoman, I can say "Officer and a Gentleman" always rubbed the wrong way 'cause of Louis Gossett's "two things come from Oklahoma" line (a line co-opted, incidentally, by Kubrick in "Full Metal Jacket").

When did I ever write anything about hating your anime reviews?

While I may have overstated the case, you did write: "That's of the main reason I rarely read a review on an anime or a foreign film that has a dub track on there because every review becomes another mindless drone chanting the same crap about dubs sucking over and over again." (rarely reading them tends to seem as though you don't like them, and I was speaking of them in general since there are three primary anime reviewers here)

Still, I appreciate the sentiment though since my opinion of dubs differs from Randy's, at least in regard to anime. By all means, email any of us with suggestions for improvement since most of what I get on such reviews is either asking for me to provide a virtual outline of everything that happens (spoiling it for everyone else) or taking me to task for speaking favorably in regards to the dubs (usually asking me how much Japanese I speak to be able to compare it to the original language track).

Hey, everybody -- somebody just let me know about this thread; I guess it wasn't started through the review, so I didn't catch it.

All I can say is that I'm flattered beyond all belief that someone would actually take the time to slam me with a freaking cartoon! Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic -- I think that's hilarious! You honor me! It's already printed up, and pinned to my office wall (alongside my hit list of other wildly popular films that you liked, and which I'm going to cream in print).

Just a couple of quick points for clarity:

First of all, I didn't pick this film to review -- it was assigned to me, as are about 70 to 80 percent of the films I review here for DVDTalk. So there goes the conspiracy theory that I've been laying in wait for 25 years to slam An Officer and a Gentleman (seriously, don't you think that idea is a little silly?). As I said in the review, some films get better, some get worse over the years -- it all depends on the viewer. This movie didn't get better for me. It's hardly a 25 year grudge I've been holding.

Second, believe it or not, I don't make up my mind about a film before I watch it. Just because my opinions are strong -- and perhaps contrary to yours -- I give everything I watch a fair shake.

And third, I would still watch The Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning any day over Gandhi or Casino Royale. Remember: Trishelle Cannatella is not nude in Gandhi. As far as I'm concerned, that seals the deal. Seriously, those three titles seem to form the troika of dissent for some members out there that don't like me. It's as if liking Dukes, and not liking Gandhi, somehow invalidates all the other crap I liked, and all the other "art" I didn't -- and vice versa.

You can go anywhere on the internet to get your feelings parroted back to you. There are all kinds of An Officer and a Gentleman forums out there (with the rather disturbing central criticism of, "It was good!"). I welcome criticism, especially if it's funny. Trust me -- I've been beaten up by the best (Roger Ebert said, "You're an asshole" once to me -- while devouring a huge bucket of popcorn! Hilarious!)

Thanks again, and get ready for my pre-determined positive reviews of Mission -- Magic! and Cagney and Lacey!

Rarely can also mean that there are very few reviewers out there that I'll spend some time to read what they have to say. Or simply that I'll make exceptions because I just want to get a feeling for the air that is around a title.

In other words, I was speaking in general of the reviews out there on the net, not specifically towards this site.

I need to know the whole story on that one!

This is the kind of hard-hitting, in-depth, scholarly film criticism you only get from DVDTalk.

Well, we can all hope for a glowing review from good old Paul for Trishelle's next breakthrough film:





(it might not matter, but that's her on the right)

Dvd reviews should be about the picture & sound and the extras and some comparaism to other releases of the same movie. Don't need to know if the reviewer liked the movie, because if he's a 20 something he's more than likely going to give bad movie reviews to films that are romantic or b/w.

That's an impressive generalization.

So it impossible to want constructive film criticism from a DVD review, just because you're more concerned with tech specs? You're perfectly OK with "OK, I'm not going to tell you anything about Night at the Museum other than the Dolby soundtrack is nice"?

I find a movie review to be quite valid in a DVD review - after all, you're buying the disc for the content itself, and don't you want to know if it's worth it?

Also, the day I turned 30, I instantly began liking romantic black-and-white movies. Go figure.

Because critics don't always get to pick and choose their reviews. Sure, we will ask to write up a favorite, but others come assigned. It's part of the job. Would you prefer a review site where every single movie was given a positive review? (Besides Ain't It Cool News, that is.)

And what makes you think Paul's mind was made up long in advance? (This is a common argument - he didn't like My Favorite Movie because he went in wanting to hate it! Tip: Critics love movies way too much to want to hate anything. They may go in expecting badness, but they will never reject quality out of spite.) Perhaps he wanted to revisit the film to see if he still felt the same way. Perhaps he was assigned it and felt required to write his honest feelings. Perhaps he did it all to make Clockwork cry. Who knows?

So why didn't you review the DVD? People at DVDtalk read the DVD reviews for the most part, to find out about the Picture Quality, Sound Quality & the quality of the Extras, especially on mainstream titles. You failed miserably in each of these catagories. An Officer & A Gentleman was nominated for 6 Academy Awards & took home 2 of them. I point this out because generally people know the story of this film. I don't care if you, Paul Mavis, liked the film or not. A brief synopsis of the story should have been sufficient, not a rant against the film. Did you even know this was the second release of An Officer & A Gentleman on DVD? If you did, why didn't you tell us how the Picture & Sound quality compared to the 2000 release? It's interesting that other DVD reviewers of this new release found the Dolby 5.1 sound active & of excellent quality. Here is your review: "Not much speaker action". Your picture quality "Review" was again void of any help to anyone considering a "Double dip" of this film. "16x9 TVs video image is clear and focused". Good non-specific description. As for the Extras, well at least you listed them. However, you failed to give any details, other than thier run times. No mention of thier quality or depth. Here is a review of the new An Officer & A Gentleman DVD, forget that they liked it, scroll down to the Picture, Sound & Extras, then go read your review again. Other than the typo on the year of the film, it is a top notch review of a DVD in my opinion.


http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...=6023&Itemid=3

Well, I appreciate the feedback, but your comments about why people visit DVDTalk is pretty generalized. The reviewers on DVDTalk are some of the best on the internet, and the last time I checked, all of them have individual opinions about why a certain film is good or bad -- outside of the technical issues you seem to want to limit us to (as you said, you don't care if I, Paul Mavis, likes a film or not).

Does that apply to all reviewers at DVDTalk? You don't care what they personally think about a film's worth, either? They should just talk about the tech specs? Because you'll find other reviews on the site by other writers who have given as much info on the tech specs as I did on this particular review (I vary, as we all do, with the amount of info depending on if there are issues with the transfer -- there were none here). Since you see fit to generalize about why the majority of people visit DVDTalk, I assume that means you've read quite a few reviews from here. Did you write to those authors, complaining about it?

I've heard this kind of thing before; it's a limiting, controlling determination on the part of some readers out there that personal opinions, in the technical age of DVD, somehow are not important anymore. Tech specs are God, and that's all anyone should concern themselves with -- and woebetide any writer who ventures forth with a (gasp!) personal opinion. Particularly if that opinion differs with the reader, such as mine obviously did with yours.

If you're not referring to all of us, then you just have a problem with me, which is cool. It won't change what I write or think, though, Clockwork. I think you're being a little disingenuous when you site another review that spends quite a bit of time lauding the movie -- and then you tell me to ignore that fact. It's okay for him to have a personal opinion, but not me? After all, you indicated in your second post that you don't care what reviewers personally think about a film -- or at least me, Paul Mavis. And I'll bet if I had a "typo" with the wrong date, you would have used that in your slam against me. Your original post clearly had as much trouble with my personal opinions, as with any perceived problems with my tech spec details. If you like An Officer and A Gentleman, that's fine with me. I like crappy movies, too. But seriously, I doubt we would be having this conversation if I wrote the exact same comments on the tech specs -- but I said I loved the movie.

But as I said, I appreciate your feedback, Clockwork. I'm cool with it. No hard feelings on my part.