Negative Reviews

I've never been so struck by the quantity and quality of "points" made in negative IMDb User Reviews that seemed to miss the point of Room 237.

One example (and, if the thread takes off, maybe I'll include more): One reviewer asks, why don't we see the faces of the 5 commentators, a la Errol Morris?

This is a perfect example of a reviewer entirely missing the point. Room 237 is not about the 5 commentators, it's a movie about ideas, and the impassioned flow of words that attend them. Every second showing the face of one of the commentators would have been a precious second of film wasted on something irrelevant to the purpose of Room 237. Instead, the filmmaker does the right thing; at each/every point providing a parallel visual running commentary that illustrates that flow of ideas. Case in point: When one guy points out Jack Torrence's line "White man's burden, Lloyd, my man, white man's burden," they flash on a period gag cartoon (lovingly depth-of-focus terraced) that illustrates, with weighty caricature, the import of this (otherwise) throw-away bit of just-between-us-white-guys soft racism. Just think of how much less effective it would have been if they'd cut back to the face of the interviewee!

And I think of lot of the negative commentary on Room 237 is of this kind; reflecting a misapprehension of the flick, from the ground up.

Not to say there aren't grounds to bring this flick to task on key points, but....

What do you think?