Mail film critic slates film he hasn’t seen
Without a trace of irony or self-awareness, Hart says:
Now the anonymous moral guardians of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in their infinite wisdom, have passed this foul film for general consumption
What exactly is Hart promoting if not his own moral-guardianship? The BBFC have decided that only adults may see this film, but Hart apparently thinks that the average adult in the UK needs to be protected by his moral superiors. He would do well to heed the words of John Beyer, the soon-to-retire anti-smut warrior of Mediawatch-UK:
The BBFC no longer ‘cuts bits out of films’ but provides information about films so that members of the public can make up their own minds about what films they want to see or avoid.
Well said, Mr Beyer.
Here is what Hart says about the film he’s never seen:
A film which plumbs new depths of sexual explicitness, excruciating violence and degradation
Antichrist is presumably intended to shock. In fact, it doesn’t shock, it merely nauseates.
sick, pretentious trash, fully confirming our jihadist enemies’ view of us as a society in the last stages of corruption and decay.
The world of Antichrist, by contrast, is blatantly amoral, without any sense of justice or retribution whatever.
In artistic terms, it is the equivalent of food poisoning
Where does he get this almost supernatural ability to discern an unseen film’s quality? Maybe God talks to him. He did write a breathless review of The Genesis Enigma – a preposterous book which claims the Book of Genesis fortold the theory of evolution 3,000 years before Darwin. So he is obviously a cretin.
(Tip: Nobody’s Business)
UPDATE (16:40) Michael Nimmo in the comments points out that the top six comments on Hart’s review are highly critical – another example a growing phenomenon, when the Mail’s internet readers show themselves to be considerably saner than its contributors:
How could anyone possibly judge a film that they had not seen?!
This is beyond ridiculous!
People can make thier own choice as to weather they want to watch it or not.
– Rebecca, Surrey, UK, 20/7/2009 11:30
You pride yourself on being broad-minded? I think perhaps you need to be slightly less proud of yourself today. That was a classic piece of closed minded criticism, of a film you haven’t seen, giving it a context you don’t fully understand, and claiming a lack of morality which you couldn’t possibly know – because you haven’t watched the film!
It was a hysterical read – and I mean that in the least complimentary way possible.
– Duncan, Edinburgh, Scotland, 20/7/2009 11:30
With free sensational advertising like this article, the film will be a guaranteed success …
– B. Colley, Betws-y-Coed, 20/7/2009 11:34
“I haven’t seen it myself…” I stopped reading there.
– Laura, London, 20/7/2009 10:58
How can any person speaking in a public forum, especially a film critic possibly make judgement over any film that they have not seen. Your job is to give us the detail rather than spew your moralistic, religious based ideals. Religious ideals that have no more right to a truth save for the fact we are told it as truth, than the plot of this movie.
Do your job and be professional and don’t bore us with your own personal afflictions.
– John Potter, Newbury, England, 20/7/2009 10:58
If you haven’t seen the film What gives you the right to comment on it??? You’re as bad as those hypocrits that banned The Life of Brian all those years ago!
I’d have been prepared for your side of the story if you’d watched it but as you haven’t I’ll watch it myself and make up my own mind!!
– Trevor, Perth, 19/7/2009 21:51