I'll tell you what, instead of trying to start shit with ME (for about the 10th time?), why don't you go ask my buddy Sasha why she's making the same outrageous claims. Call her a liar. Demand that she send you links to prove her claims.

http://www.oscarwatch.com/news/2006/10/ ... wrong.html

Village Voice, yet another cotc critic rave.

http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0642,f ... 58,20.html

That's a good boost. They're normally pretty tough.

So now it's back at 95 on Metacritic with the Voice's review being counted as 100.

I don't get it. Somebody told me that reviews that are online appear at RT. WHAT'S GOING ON???

How did THIS get missed?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 32,00.html

Or this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15264215/site/newsweek/

All the sources I listed were checked and they didn't exist, right? Google searches were performed, calls were made, e-mails sent, every possible avenue was explored in an attempt to call me a liar. What went wrong?

Well some dont exist yet, such as EW, it hasnt actually hit their site.

But yeah, theres a good amount of reviews out there that havnt been counted yet and have been out quite awhile.

RT is right there when blogger critics have their negative reviews ready, but nowhere to be found with the major critic reviews.

I'm NOT trying to start shit. Here's how it went:

You said that there were a bunch of reviews that RT didn't have up. I said those just might be articles hinting at acclaim, like Newsweek or the Washington Post. You listed off a bunch of publications that gave it positive reviews that weren't up yet. I asked if you had links. You said that "They're out there if you look for them" followed by a light-hearted snark at me. I said I searched for them and couldn't find them, so they most likely aren't online yet. You got all pissy at me and "asked" if I was calling you a liar or was "just trying to start arguing once again?" I said I'm not trying to, and I just don't see how RT is doing anything wrong by not posting reviews that ren't online yet. And finally, you say I should stop trying to start shit (Even though I stated mutliple times I'm not trying to agrue) and bitch to Sasha (who only stated two reviews BOTH OF WHICH I ALREADY SAID WERE ONLINE. She does NOT mention the ones I couldn't find online, but that you insist are there.).

Again, I'm not trying to start shit. I have merely been trying to figure out how RT can post reviews that aren't online. I have tried my best to avoid this turning personal, but you KEEP SAYING I AM. How the HELL do you think you're going to earn my respect if you keep saying shit like "Are you calling me a liar or just trying to start arguing once again?" I realize I'm turning into a hypocrite right now about this, but hostility can only go so freaking far.

BTW, I responded to Sasha's post with the calmness I tried with you. Hopefully she's more understanding.

You're right, Mav is overreacting, but you're wrong about the Newsweek article, thats obviously a review, thats how their reviews are handled.

RT will post a positive once another negative comes out.

Nah, there are plenty of reviews by them that aren't written by them like that. If you read the magazine (My family has a subscription), they'll have the feature article, than a sub-article that's a pure review.

Please don't even try to play the innocent card. Anybody with half a brain isn't going to be fooled.

Remember my whole you're-the-one-trying-to-start-a-fight bit in the post you just quoted? Obviously not.

BTW, I remembered that King Kong never had a review, but they did have a feature article w/praise. So I decided to check to see if Metacritic counted it, and they did (It's the lowest 90). I checked if RT had it, and they didn't.

It appears their ignoring Newsweek is not bais. Time, maybe. But not Newsweek.

Associated Press gives it a positive http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda ... 781310.htm

By the way, Jon, what makes you think that I'm trying to earn the respect of some 15 year old kid, with limited knowldge of life and Oscars, who has ADMITTED to purposely starting shit with me?

Why on Earth would I aspire to having respect from THAT?

You need to gain some perspective about why you come to this forum. I shouldn't even be in the top 10 reasons, but I obviously am, and that speaks to some serious issues that you need to deal with within yourself.

Are you getting the feeling like I am (and obviously Sasha Stone is) that there is something rotten at work at RT?

Will see how long it takes to get these new reviews up.

BTW, how do you know Newsdays review will be negative?

I think the point is that there doesn't appear to be any formal, completely written reviews up for some of the publications, and thus they are not on RT yet. Sometimes the general opinion or a quote is posted/leaked somewhere from a general publication, but the actual review is not officially published yet or not officially online. Or perhaps the review is not officially published on their official link. Or whatever it may be. RT can't put it on Flags' RT page until there is a real link to it. I find it hard to believe that RT is just sitting there choosing not to put these reviews up out of some weird spite. Sometimes updating is a little slow - but don't worry, they'll be up eventually.

This way everyone will get a big shocker when the RT percentage jumps from mid-50's to way up there (assuming they all end up being raves). I don't understand the logic behind fretting about the updating speed; they will eventually be put up, and it will be a nice big positive update.

PEACE, Mike.

But. . .conspiracy theories are much, much funner?

Seriously though, THANK YOU.

Well, what would be the point of that? Sooner or later the reviews WILL appear there. No way around that.

It creates negative buzz. Here is an e-mail that I got from my nephew's best friend.



Holding back reviews that are available is more than a little suspicious. You know the bipolar nature of the internet. There is no balance. People run around like chickens with their heads cut off, going in whatever direction the latest numbers tell them to. There is no patience. Things like this holding back of reviews plays to those mindsets, and it's not cool for "professional" websites to do.

Slant didn't like it.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_ ... sp?ID=2601

Flags just got a positive, although it's not posted from who yet.

Village Voice was the positive that was added. COTC rating is now being charted.

That's a good sign. Whenever Slant gives a film a GOOD review, I'm afraid. lol.

PEACE, Mike.

RT is even scoring the reviews a little lower: 5 COTCs have an average of 7.8, while at MC, they translate to 2 100's, a 90, and a 88 (and Roeper's will probably be 100 too). Depending on which site you go, you'll have completely different impression of the film. Fascinating.