Critic cops a shot in the dark

All is not sweetness and light in the world of film reviewing. Here The Bug's DAVID POMERANIAN has some harsh words for a fellow critic.

It's been a long time since I was forced to use the term guttersnipe. In fact I last recall using it in reference to a fellow critic named Myrtle Feinstein.
She used to write for a little newspaper in Idaho - The Bumfuck Suppository, I think it was called. At the time she had slammed a piece of cinematic genius starring Elizabeth Taylor.
History turned out to justify my feelings about Cleopatra and after a second viewing, Myrtle sent me very kind letter apologising for her mistake. She wholeheartedly agreed that the gorgeous Liz had made one of the truly great films of the 20th century.
Sadly, I've decided to resurrect the term and label one of the critics from The Bug's sister journal, The Independent as a guttersnipe in every sense of the word.
For Mr Tim Milfull recently admitted that he was reviewing a film that he had not, in fact, seen! What a travesty! On behalf of all of my fellow critics I apologise for Mr Milfull's actions.
It beggars belief that this man could take issue with the delightful antics of Nick Giannopoulos without even seeing them. For the record, I did see the film and gave it a score of four-and-a-half stars.
I would have given it five, but we all know that a "five" would equate to perfection and nothing since has come close to the five I gave to Cleopatra of course!
But I digress. I cannot come to terms with the fact that a fellow critic would offer an opinion on a film he had not seen. In more than half a century's film reviewing, I have never succumbed to the temptation to write without first seeing the film.
Aside from the bleeding obvious, there are a number of excellent reasons for heading off to the cinema instead of falling back on the production notes.
Now that I'm getting on a bit, I only see a few films each week (a dozen or more), and in the face of senile diabetes, cinema is one of the few opportunities I have to savour the delights of chocolate, ice cream and soft drink.
Everyone knows that all of these lose their calorific and glucose value in the course of the entertainment process - similar, in fact, to the way in which broken biscuits have no calories.
And who could resist the deeply cloying stench of fresh popcorn cooking, an aroma integral to the enjoyment of cinema. I can't believe it's not butter!
Many are the times I've been thrown into wonderfully violent sneezing fits and seen previously unrealised aspects of the film through painfully watering eyes after strolling through the thick haze of popcorn fumes.
Why sit at home, when one can share the cinematic experience with complete strangers? Why miss the joys of meeting new and interesting people in queues and the chance of overhearing vital plot developments in the coming film, listening in on barely contained conversations in the audience as the films rolls on, the opportunity to see the latest in hairstyles as you peer around the head of the tall, dark and disturbingly handsome stranger who just sat in front of you, and finally, the thrill of knowing that the $40 you just forked out for tickets, watered-down drinks and over-priced snacks will go a long way toward funding the best in Hollywood excess.
Little wonder that the selfless generosity of the cinema-going public plays an important part in the eventual funding of epics like You Can't Stop the Murders and Blurred on the home front or the erotic beauty of 40 Days and 40 Nights or Bad Boys II from Hollywood.
It's refreshing then, to realise that we, as film-lovers play such a vital role in getting such as these films made and the slothfulness and lassitude of nay-sayers, slackers and guttersnipes like Mr Milfull only strengthen the resolve of those like your humble reviewer to offer a resounding "Yes thanks" in response to the next invitation to a free screening.
Oh, and nosh-ups are welcome too.