Thanks for sharing, James! Glad to know we've got a couple movie critics in the area. I will check out your pieces as well. Thanks for sharing on Patch!

Mr Hoffa... I'm read your reviews... I have a bit of a problem with them because there are REALLY long and VERY detailed. If you give the reader too much to read they may not bother, and if you make it too detailed, why bother seeing it themselves.

I intend no disrespect in that (especially to a mobster such as yourself) but I'm trying to give a short "unbiased" opinion on what I watched and leave it up to the person seeing the movie to make their own judgement.

Best of luck with your blog sir...

@Thomas Edwards -- I take it you're not familiar with the movie reviews in some magazines, notably The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, whose movie reviews sometimes go on for four or five pages, critiquing the movie without giving the entire plot away. My interest is often piqued, and I will see the movie if possible.

@Randy1949 -

Thanks for realizing this Randy, as that's exactly what I was going for - a deeper insight and discussion of the film being reviewed, relating the undertones and purpose of the plot into current events, and educating the reader on the background and connections of the filmmakers/stars to encourage further self exploration beyond just the film being reviewed.

Not to mention that the whole point of my blog is to try and introduce people to films that aren't currently being promoted and are considered to be outside mainstream Hollywood. Ergo, I won't actually be 'rating' the films because I'm only going to cover films that I'd personally recommend viewing.

I also try to encourage viewership of the films I cover by offering short preview clips that are representative of the films, official studio trailers, and poster art.

Maybe with the format I've chosen, I'm just not resonating with the 'average' Patch reader? But I'm still tweaking and trying to find my 'groove.'

BTW Randy, thanks for your support and readership - I really appreciate it :-)

Hi,

I saw this and just thought I'd introduce myself, as I'm also a movie reviewer!!!! I'm more on the Port Washington-Saukville Patch. It's still in the primitive stages though...I'll be working on it more as time goes on. http://portwashington-wi.patch.com/users/andrea-thompson-2/blog_posts

I don't know about Hoffa, but I'm old. And we older folks have wicked long attention spans.

Or maybe an audience thing? Who knows for sure!

BTW - I'm only 33 years young myself :-)

Not necessarily, as it's all about subjective perception, right :-)

I actually think that your cinematic taste is more 'mainstream' consensus, while I'm more counter-culture, cult, underground, and just plain 'non-Hollywood.'

IMHO, Griffith's is vastly overrated, and the only reason he's studied today is because he was a pioneer, not to mention very controversial. He's only of any real interest to film historians and pre-modern film fans, otherwise he's just a waste of time. Lang, on the other hand, is one of the masters of purely visual storytelling, and his 'Metropolis' (1927) is arguably one of the first films that truly emphasized the effective use of special effects in telling a story, as opposed to being the focus of the story, as is so often the case in many films today!

Most modern filming techniques follow the methods and examples of Kenosha, Wisconsin native Orson Welles, as exemplified in his 'Citizen Kane' (1941).

My particular area of expertise is with films made between 1960-2000 and my blog focuses on exposing readers to 'non-Hollywood,' or out of the mainstream, hidden gems.

Bren, I'd love to have you following and commenting on my blog and look forward to the discussions that we could have, as just like our respective political affiliation, I prefer small budget 'independent' films ;-)

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/users/james-r-hoffa/blog_posts