cliveowensucks's 1 star "review"

Admittedly, The Rules of The Game is a film I greatly admire. I hate to write a message on a "review" (I'll explain the point of the quotation marks later on) from almost 10 years ago. I am not writing this just because cliveowensucks dislikes one of my favourite films. I am not one of those people who love everything that is acclaimed by critics as one of the greats, as I occasionally find myself a voice of dissent (though I don't like to be one).

With all that said, cliveowensucks comes off as a total *beep* in his 1 star "review". He complains about the elitism of people who love the film (which I actually agree with, it pisses me off when people tell somebody to go watch Transformers if he doesn't like a film), yet he is an even bigger elitist-he comes across as a guy totally full of himself who looks down at anyone who loves The Rules. He says we should respect his opinion, but he doesn't know how to put it respectfully-hence his opinion is totally worthless.

But my main problem-it isn't a review! More equivalent to trolling, actually. Wikipedia's article on "Film criticism" says: "Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films and the film medium." cliveowensucks spends far more time evaluating the film's fanbase than the actual film. He doesn't give a plot outline, describe the characters, or give any real criticism to the film-except for its fanbase, which he has plenty of *beep* to talk about. Most of what would usually be accepted as film criticism is written as an afterthought, usually constiting of a few words in a paragraph. When he does say something of alleged value, he never bothers to explain. He points out artificiality, poor acting(?!), silly plot (what's the problem with a little bit of quirkiness?), which is not used to criticise the film, but-you guessed it! The *beep* fanbase, of course. What I find most mind-boggling, is that 35 out of 59 people find the "review" helpful, which accounts for 59.322% of them.

Of course, the English it's written in is rather poor, but I won't be some idiot who will point it out in order to show how stupid cliveowensucks is. I think it's already quite obvious.

I said before that it's more equivalent to trolling than to criticism. Wikipedia lists a troll as: "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory...messages...". See? IMDb's terms and services explicitly says "Upload to, distribute or otherwise publish through this Web site any message, data, information, text or other material ("Content") that is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable". I think this means cliveowensucks's "review" should be deleted. At any term, these kinds of comments are not helpful to people deciding whether to watch the film or not to, are deliberately inflammatory, and are of zero critical value. I hope people will refrain from writing such rubbish in the review section, as it's barely message board material.