James Rocchi's review

"A cavalcade of classic songs, unforgettable moments, gorgeous handcrafted animation and, unfortunately, some racial stereotypes."

He gave his negative review for Peter Pan (1953) in 2004. Is anyone else bothered by it? How is it okay to criticize an aspect of a film from 1953 for having something in it that, even though it wouldn't be considered appropriate in 2004, is more socially acceptable in 1953? And to give a negative rating because of it? I don't know how old James Rocchi is, but he looks like he might be in his mid to late 30's. Maybe even early 40's. So he wasn't even around in the 50's. (Not that his age matters.) But to grow up in a society that was more tolerant than before and then judge a film from those earlier times so harshly is pretty irresponsible, especially for a film critic who has a decent sized internet following (meaning he is a successful film critic.) What's next? Is he going to give The Wizard of Oz a bad review because it's special effects aren't up to par with movies that came out this last decade? Or is he going to give the original 12 Angry Men a bad review for not having any color? In my opinion, it should be an unwritten rule that professional film/TV critics should only get to review movies or TV shows within the first 10 years of their release. A society's perception can change a lot in 51 years (the amount of time from Peter Pan's release to when James gave his review.) There might be something that we find perfectly acceptable right now that won't be considered acceptable 50 years from now.

"Hello, Dexter Morgan." - Arthur Mitchell