EDGE OF DARKNESS (DVD; Warner Bros.)

Mike LoManaco

Studio Name: Warner Bros. (GK Films/BBC Films/Icon Productions)
MPAA Rating: R
Disc/Transfer Information: Letterbox Widescreen; Region 1 (U.S.) Release Tested
Tested Audio Track: English Dolby Digital 5.1
Director: Martin Campbell
Starring Cast: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone

SYNOPSIS:

The first thing that came to mind, for me, when getting to the first scene involving Mel Gibson is "wow…did this guy get old…" From the man who brought us the rebooted James Bond franchise in the form of Casino Royale, Martin Campbell, comes this at-times-odd hybrid of political thriller and industrial espionage satire. In many ways, Edge of Darkness reminded me of Michael Clayton in its insistency to showcase dangerous industrial inner workings and the lengths giant corporations will go to cover their tracks, secrets and targets – elements which have their roots in much truth, unfortunately. Still, the most difficult issue I had with this film was the way in which Gibson spewed out his Boston-esque drawl as a Massachusetts police officer; the entire effect was way too forced and exhibited excessive waves of unnecessary thickness.

Let’s concentrate on Gibson, though, for a minute – this project was announced as the actor’s “first screen lead in eight years,” and whether that is the subject of debate or not, watching him try to emulate the Boston brogue brought to life through, say, performances by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins in Mystic River was painful. The plot meanders its way through a running time of 117 minutes and at many ventures loses its way, becoming a bit too confusing for its own good. What should have most likely remained a revenge fantasy thriller in the fashion of Gibson’s own performance in The Patriot or Liam Neeson’s in Taken, revolving around a parent’s thirst for vengeance after the murder of a child, Edge of Darkness veered off into a political direction and introduced too many characters involved, high and low. After an opening sequence involving two bodies that float to the top of a river, Campbell introduces us to Gibson’s Boston cop character, spending time with his daughter at his house. When the daughter is about to divulge some important news to him after breaking into a frenzied nosebleed and breakdown of some sort, the two of them are ambushed at Gibson’s front door by shotgun-wielding masked figures…one in particular that calls out Gibson’s character’s last name: Craven. His daughter is viciously blasted before his eyes, and dies in his arms from the horrendous gunshot wound.

Upon further investigation, Gibson is lead to believe that the shot was meant for him, not his daughter – but clue after clue leads him to a cover-up involving her boyfriend and the mysterious company she worked for. If it weren’t for his odd dialogue delivery and aforementioned Boston accent attempts, Gibson would have played the bent-on-blood-revenge father character perfectly, as he angrily makes mincemeat out of just about anyone who crosses him – including those trying to kill him that are associated with his daughter’s job.

Gibson’s Craven character is eventually confronted by a mysterious English-accented individual outside his home who has something to do with the corporate security of the company the daughter was working for; this is where the narrative of Campbell’s Edge of Darkness began to get a bit hazy. As this mysterious hitman-esque character drops subtle hints about the daughter’s involvement in the company, Gibson continues following clues which eventually lead him to the doorstep of the daughter’s boss himself – a cutthroat corporate type that definitely has something to hide regarding all this and something up the sleeve. Through it all, Gibson continuously “hears” the daughter’s voice in his mind, as if she is still right next to him in all of this, alive and well. The plot then begins to involve a senator and a role his office played in covering up the “sins” of this corporation – which had something to do, directly, with Gibson’s daughter’s sickness in the beginning – and it was at this point the flow went a bit off the rails.

I can recall viewing trailers for Edge of Darkness which suggested to me an intriguing piece of cinema – but the final product wasn’t what was expected. It’s one of those surprising takes on this aforementioned “hybrid” of genres touching on intrigue, mystery, revenge/action and industrial espionage/cover-ups.

I just wish something could have been done to reduce the amount of torture one must endure attempting to sit through Gibson cranking out a grumbled, force-induced Massachusetts accent.

VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?

While clean for most of the running time, this one wasn’t a stunner from Warner. Much of the picture is bathed in a cold, blue hue in the Boston sequences which switches to an amber/yellow-coated look, but the premium issue was the moderate-to-heavy noise in certain darker sequences and the tendency for some detail to be masked from time to time.

But, in the plus column, Gibson’s wrinkled, aged facial lines were in all their glory on the transfer’s resolution delivery – whether that can be labeled as being “glorious” is up for long-winded debate.


AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?

In conjunction with BBC Films, Warner let the cat out of the bag in terms of budget constraints on this project with one listen of the audio track – this one required a great push in master volume to get adequate listening levels, and the British accents combined with Gibson’s Boston tongue had a difficult time vying for attention through the center channel; much of the dialogue was downright difficult to make out. Further, the entire mix came off as being “chesty” and “closed,” without much dynamic width or girth until explosions, car wrecks or gunfights erupted onscreen. When they did, the effects were jarring – a sequence involving Gibson as he’s firing his handgun at an oncoming Chrysler attempting to run him down was accompanied by tactile and attention-grabbing punch, as was the subsequent scene of the car flipping over and smashing into a body of water.

Still, because of the necessity to raise the master volume to compensate for the dialogue intelligibility issues, we had the typical home theater quandary: With levels that high for dialogue, the action sequences smashed through the silence and nearly blow you through your theater room’s back wall.

EXTRAS:

Disappointingly, nothing on the disc – which was shocking, given the nature of the film’s basis on a series and the involvement by BBC Films.

SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:

I don’t feel this is necessarily worth a purchase (unless you go ga-ga over it), but it’s an entertaining rental; as I said, what could have been a slick parent revenge fantasy (albeit clichéd) simply became too busy for its own good, and that’s what dropped Edge of Darkness down from a “Must Watch!”

kuntasensei

I actually kinda' enjoyed this. Mel may be crazy as hell in real life, but his performances are typically rock solid.

When I posted about this movie on my Facebook page, a friend said, "So is it time to forgive him?" Y'know, I don't care what actors do in their spare time as long as they do their job well. It's like... for all I know, my dentist is a pedophile klansman when he's off the clock... but so long as he does good dental work, it doesn't affect my opinion of the quality of his work. And that's why I think most people missed out on Mission Impossible 3 because of Tom Cruise's couch-jumping crazy talk, and why a lot of people will avoid Mel Gibson because of his off-screen misadventures. I mean, Roman Polanski may have done exactly what he's accused of... but The Pianist is still one of my favorite movies.

And for the record, I agree with Mike's assessment of the audio and video on this DVD. It's very much a mixed bag, and I wish I had seen it on Blu-ray instead.

Mike LoManaco

xcapri79 wrote: »

I generally like Mel Gibson movies, so I'll have to add it to the list.
I suggest giving your center a +3db bump and see if it improves the dialogue.

Hey Capri,

My center is already 2dB above the soundstage floor established via calibration (for the remaining channels) for specifically handling dialogue intelligibility improvement; I have found select titles having this "low center" phenomenon leading me to conclude that it's in the source. Most of the time, the issues aren't there, so I don't believe I require another bump in center dB values.

Thanks for the review Mike. Interesting and well done as usual.

Thanks bro -- appreciate it. Give it a rental spin and let me know what you thought of Gibson in it.

Takin' care of those other issues via PM, one of which is yours which I'll respond to now...

[Deleted User]

Forum members,
Let's everyone take a deep breath and try and regain some sanity here. What we have is a member who likes to post his reviews of various movies he views. Fine, this may or may not be something you, as an individual may care about. That's fine, as well. If you want to make a reply, agree or disagree that's fine also. I don't exactly know how to defuse the level of back-and-forth arguments that happen over something so simple. Maybe people read reviews, in newspapers or on-line, and they think the reviewer's wrong and yell at the newspaper. But, on a forum, you can say what's on your mind almost instantly. Good, in some ways, but it requires understanding on both the person who writes the review and the people who respond.
Mike, relax a little bit about replies that seem to criticize the movies you review or the way you review them. I don't believe anybody was trying to say you or your equipment was at fault, just making a comment. Instead of calling someone a name (which we don't tolerate) and firing back with a retaliation that will only raise the ire, either ignore the statement or ask, in a calm way, what the person means. Tempers rise too quickly in a heated back and forth exchange.
There are going to be people, who post on the Forum, that are incompatible with other people. If you find a person who you believe you can't possibly agree with, place them on your ignore list. It will be the same as if they weren't there, right?
Thanks for your help, Ken

Conradicles

Great review Mike. Good job. You are the man!

polkfarmboy

Mike I totaly disagree with your comments on the audio in the review

If you wish to professionaly review or test video and audio in future please list all audio and video components in the OP . Its can help forum members take your comments seriously

Even list the speaker cables and video cords like hdmi as every professional review needs this information . If you cant list this information because your embarrassed or whatever then please try keeping the review to a personal opinion of the story as you may discourage some one from renting a movie based on false information

Mike LoManaco

Kenneth Swauger wrote: »

Mike, relax a little bit about replies that seem to criticize the movies you review or the way you review them. I don't believe anybody was trying to say you or your equipment was at fault, just making a comment. Instead of calling someone a name (which we don't tolerate) and firing back with a retaliation that will only raise the ire, either ignore the statement or ask, in a calm way, what the person means. Tempers rise too quickly in a heated back and forth exchange.
There are going to be people, who post on the Forum, that are incompatible with other people. If you find a person who you believe you can't possibly agree with, place them on your ignore list. It will be the same as if they weren't there, right?
Thanks for your help, Ken

Ken,

I am going to respond only to you right now in the public sector of this forum and then reply to your private messages.

I don't quite understand why you are stating that I need to "relax" with regard to the fashion in which I reply to people's "opinions" about the review -- that's NOT what the problem is here, and I have referred to this several times already (with moderators in private and in the threads themselves, as well as with aggressively stanced members). The problem is the nasty, sarcastic and sometimes downright cruel comments that follow the first few posts in these threads -- members who have ADMITTED to me in private that they're doing this purposely for reasons accompanied by VERY vulgar statements about my character and personality which I cannot divulge here. Case in point: The harassing suggestions that I am a homosexual and that Capri and I are "lovebirds" and need to find a "room" with one another -- that's been suggested and posted several times already, in several threads. You wouldn't call this harassing and uncalled for? When did I EVER suggest that a certain member in here is **** or needs to sleep with another member to "get it over with" as I am hearing CONSTANTLY from members in private?

Furthermore, the ignore suggestion is what I have been going through with -- I have placed everyone that has given me problems on this forum on the ignore list, but the problem is, they come back into the threads and begin harassment in the thread itself, so what am I supposed to do? When I ignore these people, they come in and begin to "bait" me with comments like "What about it, Mike? Don't you have an answer for me and Curt? Don't you have the skill to provide a professional opinion of this film?" when all that's doing is baiting me into breaking the IGNORE function in the first place. Then, when I place people like Curt on ignore, he comes into the thread, like a child, and immediately begins making fun of my speakers and their setup -- after we had it out in public, and I told him he's officially on my ignore list. I don't know what it is; he either can't deal with that or HAD to have the last word, but I am TELLING YOU that I DID place these members on IGNORE, and yet it STILL continues. What do you do about THAT?

I do not like the fact that I am constantly being confronted about being in a homosexual relationship with Capri -- is this not something that should be stopped in terms of rules here? What about that?

I am going to answer your private messages now, and discontinue my subscription to the thread so we can deal with administrative issues now privately and with other mods; before I do, I want to point out one more thing:

The comments made by the two members above me and above your post are the EXACT example of what I am talking about with attempting to "bait" me -- those comments regarding "Mike, you're the man!" is heavily laid-on sarcasm to once again feed this problem in here and keep it going, because he knows damn well he doesn't feel that way about me -- I don't understand why you do not erase these messages as well, because they are not adding to the positive reflow of commentary we talked about. Secondly, the comments from polkfarmboy, or whatever his screen name is, is merely attempting to hurt me in response to what you outline in your message to everyone -- instead of throwing nasty comments about my gear and my ability to review media, he instead comes up with "Mike I totally disagree about the audio of the review..." What that was, was simply a prelude to saying what he states AFTER that: That if I want to review media I need to indicate what I am running (which I have done in my gear list) and he even suggests that what I am posting IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE, when that's NOT TRUE -- why is he "given the leash" to say that what I am experiencing is "inaccurate" on these discs, yet I cannot say that I experienced the opposite?

The fact of the matter is that he is absolutely allowed to disagree about how he felt about the audio on this disc (or is he talking about the Blu-ray? I already corrected people in this thread to the fact that this WASN'T a Blu-ray review, but a DVD review -- and THAT makes a difference) but why is he allowed to say that what I am claiming is UNTRUE and attempt to discredit me that way with such comments? THAT is what I am talking about here, Ken. The ONLY reason he reworded those comments to post them in the manner he did was to indicate that indeed my gear isn't "up to snuff" to do these reviews, and I have been over this COUNTLESS times with moderators.

I don't understand why you state that you don't believe what he said was a "slap" against my equipment -- the first comment about that was nothing less than that...why is that not clear? He clearly says "if you are going to do Blu-ray reviews you need to..." or something to that effect -- THAT doesn't suggest that what I am using IS NOT "good enough"? I wasn't allowed to defend myself against that?

I am taking all further discussions about this privately now and will be contacting administrators and management separately about the homosexual implications I have had to endure here with NO recourse.

Conradicles

What are you talking about Mike? I thought it was a great review. Really. I was trying to be positive and not be rude. No sarcasm. Peace.

DMara

I have never joined any thread you started or any discussion involving you, well, until now.

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I don't quite understand why you are stating that I need to "relax" with regard to the fashion in which I reply to people's "opinions" about the review -- that's NOT what the problem is here, and I have referred to this several times already (with moderators in private and in the threads themselves, as well as with aggressively stanced members).

Your words proves the problems are that you're quite immature, you don't understand the meaning of "relax", you don't know how to deal with the vast majority, you don't have a sense of humor, and most importantly of all, you seem to completely segregate yourself from other regular members by climbing the "corporate" ladder, aligning you with higher powers such as in the below statement:

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I am going to answer your private messages now, and discontinue my subscription to the thread so we can deal with administrative issues now privately and with other mods;

In short, you don't want to know that you have problems.

At first, I felt for you; I thought others were too harsh on you. However, reading more and more, I now understand why you have been banned at numerous sites and could not get along with more and more people. So please go ahead and add me to your heckler list so that you won't have to worry about one more person who could not agree with you

Ricardo

Give him his meds please!!!!

hearingimpared

........

cstmar01

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Ken,

I am going to respond only to you right now in the public sector of this forum and then reply to your private messages.

I don't quite understand why you are stating that I need to "relax" with regard to the fashion in which I reply to people's "opinions" about the review -- that's NOT what the problem is here, and I have referred to this several times already (with moderators in private and in the threads themselves, as well as with aggressively stanced members). The problem is the nasty, sarcastic and sometimes downright cruel comments that follow the first few posts in these threads -- members who have ADMITTED to me in private that they're doing this purposely for reasons accompanied by VERY vulgar statements about my character and personality which I cannot divulge here. Case in point: The harassing suggestions that I am a homosexual and that Capri and I are "lovebirds" and need to find a "room" with one another -- that's been suggested and posted several times already, in several threads. You wouldn't call this harassing and uncalled for? When did I EVER suggest that a certain member in here is **** or needs to sleep with another member to "get it over with" as I am hearing CONSTANTLY from members in private?

Furthermore, the ignore suggestion is what I have been going through with -- I have placed everyone that has given me problems on this forum on the ignore list, but the problem is, they come back into the threads and begin harassment in the thread itself, so what am I supposed to do? When I ignore these people, they come in and begin to "bait" me with comments like "What about it, Mike? Don't you have an answer for me and Curt? Don't you have the skill to provide a professional opinion of this film?" when all that's doing is baiting me into breaking the IGNORE function in the first place. Then, when I place people like Curt on ignore, he comes into the thread, like a child, and immediately begins making fun of my speakers and their setup -- after we had it out in public, and I told him he's officially on my ignore list. I don't know what it is; he either can't deal with that or HAD to have the last word, but I am TELLING YOU that I DID place these members on IGNORE, and yet it STILL continues. What do you do about THAT?

I do not like the fact that I am constantly being confronted about being in a homosexual relationship with Capri -- is this not something that should be stopped in terms of rules here? What about that?

I am going to answer your private messages now, and discontinue my subscription to the thread so we can deal with administrative issues now privately and with other mods; before I do, I want to point out one more thing:

The comments made by the two members above me and above your post are the EXACT example of what I am talking about with attempting to "bait" me -- those comments regarding "Mike, you're the man!" is heavily laid-on sarcasm to once again feed this problem in here and keep it going, because he knows damn well he doesn't feel that way about me -- I don't understand why you do not erase these messages as well, because they are not adding to the positive reflow of commentary we talked about. Secondly, the comments from polkfarmboy, or whatever his screen name is, is merely attempting to hurt me in response to what you outline in your message to everyone -- instead of throwing nasty comments about my gear and my ability to review media, he instead comes up with "Mike I totally disagree about the audio of the review..." What that was, was simply a prelude to saying what he states AFTER that: That if I want to review media I need to indicate what I am running (which I have done in my gear list) and he even suggests that what I am posting IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE, when that's NOT TRUE -- why is he "given the leash" to say that what I am experiencing is "inaccurate" on these discs, yet I cannot say that I experienced the opposite?

The fact of the matter is that he is absolutely allowed to disagree about how he felt about the audio on this disc (or is he talking about the Blu-ray? I already corrected people in this thread to the fact that this WASN'T a Blu-ray review, but a DVD review -- and THAT makes a difference) but why is he allowed to say that what I am claiming is UNTRUE and attempt to discredit me that way with such comments? THAT is what I am talking about here, Ken. The ONLY reason he reworded those comments to post them in the manner he did was to indicate that indeed my gear isn't "up to snuff" to do these reviews, and I have been over this COUNTLESS times with moderators.

I don't understand why you state that you don't believe what he said was a "slap" against my equipment -- the first comment about that was nothing less than that...why is that not clear? He clearly says "if you are going to do Blu-ray reviews you need to..." or something to that effect -- THAT doesn't suggest that what I am using IS NOT "good enough"? I wasn't allowed to defend myself against that?

I am taking all further discussions about this privately now and will be contacting administrators and management separately about the homosexual implications I have had to endure here with NO recourse.

reported for being argumentative and not trying to understand the situation but continuing to fight it.

bobman1235

A moderator told you to shut up, LoCaprio, take it like a man will you?

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Ken,

I am going to respond only to you right now in the public sector of this forum and then reply to your private messages.

I don't quite understand why you are stating that I need to "relax" with regard to the fashion in which I reply to people's "opinions" about the review -- that's NOT what the problem is here, and I have referred to this several times already (with moderators in private and in the threads themselves, as well as with aggressively stanced members). The problem is the nasty, sarcastic and sometimes downright cruel comments that follow the first few posts in these threads -- members who have ADMITTED to me in private that they're doing this purposely for reasons accompanied by VERY vulgar statements about my character and personality which I cannot divulge here. Case in point: The harassing suggestions that I am a homosexual and that Capri and I are "lovebirds" and need to find a "room" with one another -- that's been suggested and posted several times already, in several threads. You wouldn't call this harassing and uncalled for? When did I EVER suggest that a certain member in here is **** or needs to sleep with another member to "get it over with" as I am hearing CONSTANTLY from members in private?

Furthermore, the ignore suggestion is what I have been going through with -- I have placed everyone that has given me problems on this forum on the ignore list, but the problem is, they come back into the threads and begin harassment in the thread itself, so what am I supposed to do? When I ignore these people, they come in and begin to "bait" me with comments like "What about it, Mike? Don't you have an answer for me and Curt? Don't you have the skill to provide a professional opinion of this film?" when all that's doing is baiting me into breaking the IGNORE function in the first place. Then, when I place people like Curt on ignore, he comes into the thread, like a child, and immediately begins making fun of my speakers and their setup -- after we had it out in public, and I told him he's officially on my ignore list. I don't know what it is; he either can't deal with that or HAD to have the last word, but I am TELLING YOU that I DID place these members on IGNORE, and yet it STILL continues. What do you do about THAT?

I do not like the fact that I am constantly being confronted about being in a homosexual relationship with Capri -- is this not something that should be stopped in terms of rules here? What about that?

I am going to answer your private messages now, and discontinue my subscription to the thread so we can deal with administrative issues now privately and with other mods; before I do, I want to point out one more thing:

The comments made by the two members above me and above your post are the EXACT example of what I am talking about with attempting to "bait" me -- those comments regarding "Mike, you're the man!" is heavily laid-on sarcasm to once again feed this problem in here and keep it going, because he knows damn well he doesn't feel that way about me -- I don't understand why you do not erase these messages as well, because they are not adding to the positive reflow of commentary we talked about. Secondly, the comments from polkfarmboy, or whatever his screen name is, is merely attempting to hurt me in response to what you outline in your message to everyone -- instead of throwing nasty comments about my gear and my ability to review media, he instead comes up with "Mike I totally disagree about the audio of the review..." What that was, was simply a prelude to saying what he states AFTER that: That if I want to review media I need to indicate what I am running (which I have done in my gear list) and he even suggests that what I am posting IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE, when that's NOT TRUE -- why is he "given the leash" to say that what I am experiencing is "inaccurate" on these discs, yet I cannot say that I experienced the opposite?

The fact of the matter is that he is absolutely allowed to disagree about how he felt about the audio on this disc (or is he talking about the Blu-ray? I already corrected people in this thread to the fact that this WASN'T a Blu-ray review, but a DVD review -- and THAT makes a difference) but why is he allowed to say that what I am claiming is UNTRUE and attempt to discredit me that way with such comments? THAT is what I am talking about here, Ken. The ONLY reason he reworded those comments to post them in the manner he did was to indicate that indeed my gear isn't "up to snuff" to do these reviews, and I have been over this COUNTLESS times with moderators.

I don't understand why you state that you don't believe what he said was a "slap" against my equipment -- the first comment about that was nothing less than that...why is that not clear? He clearly says "if you are going to do Blu-ray reviews you need to..." or something to that effect -- THAT doesn't suggest that what I am using IS NOT "good enough"? I wasn't allowed to defend myself against that?

I am taking all further discussions about this privately now and will be contacting administrators and management separately about the homosexual implications I have had to endure here with NO recourse.

If that response doesn't illustrate the problem, nothing will.

And for the record, your equipment isn't the problem, Mike, because you have decent enough Polk and Onkyo gear. It's your unwillingness to listen to experienced people at this forum who have tried to tell you that your equipment isn't properly set up or calibrated. It's the same reason you were deleted from AVS over your Oppo BDP-83 questions - you ignored people's answers, asked the same questions repeatedly, argued that you knew better than them, and then attacked people who grew tired of unsuccessfully trying to help you. Why Ken deleted my very informative post on ways you could improve the sound of your center channel, I have no clue. But thanks to you, that's what this forum has turned into - a place where you can't even give someone advice or disagree with them without it being an "attack".

Other forums have solved the problem by removing you. In my opinion, Polk's moderators have given you way more leeway than they ever should have, and it has effectively ruined this area of the forum.

rhulett

As a lurker here more than a poster, I'm not going to post my opinion of LoMonaco's reviews. But, I do need to ask, WHY? Why continue on with the reviews if it stirs up this much controversy? Are the studios sending him free movies to review, and if he loses his ability to post his reviews does he lose the free movies?
Rob

Ricardo

Ken, I feel for you. You should be enjoying your weekend. Sorry you have to deal with this. Really.

Toolfan66

He don't have to deal with it, and can enjoy his weekend. Hit the Ban button and fogetaboutit.

kuntasensei

rhulett wrote: »

As a lurker here more than a poster, I'm not going to post my opinion of LoMonaco's reviews. But, I do need to ask, WHY? Why continue on with the reviews if it stirs up this much controversy? Are the studios sending him free movies to review, and if he loses his ability to post his reviews does he lose the free movies?
Rob

Mike claims to be a "professional reviewer" for several print publications. But he can't name them to verify this, searching for his reviews online reveals only that he cuts-and-pastes them to several AV forums (where he often claims they are "exclusive"), he never gets the movies in advance of their sale date the way every other print reviewer does, and when called out on this, he hides behind a need for anonymity. That's the thing about the internet - you can pretend to be whoever you want to be, even if you aren't doing it on a conscious level. I think it's pretty safe to say that no one here believes he is a professional reviewer, especially considering that the content of most of his reviews are unsuitable to print and often contain spoilers that no print outlet would ever allow lest the studios stop sending them review copies. The truth is more likely this: He is just a guy who started posting his reviews over at highdefforum.com, where they have a forum dedicated to budding movie reviewers, and he eventually came here since he has Polk speakers. If you look there, he has actually posted this exact review as "A Marlowe High Def Forum Review: EDGE OF DARKNESS (Warner Bros.)"

But all of that is irrelevant, because his reviews themselves are almost never the issue, despite how disingenuous his claims of being a professional reviewer are. The issue is the way he reacts to anyone who responds that doesn't completely agree with him and validate him as a writer. If you have a differing opinion, you're attacking him. If you post a link to another review you found interesting, you're attacking him. If you question the setup of his gear and offer suggestions to help solve them, you're attacking him. In short, unless you're all sunshine and roses and tell him how great his reviews are (which is why people kid around about xcapri's overly congratulatory responses), you are attacking him.

So we're clear, none of the above is an attack against him either - just a statement of the facts. If you look back at his early reviews and the way he responded to some of us back then, it's not hard to figure out why he draws such ire here. If you look at his responses in this thread now, it's obvious that nothing has changed. The saddest part of all of this is that the moderators are likely going to act against everyone BUT him... and probably against me for posting this. So be it.

cstmar01

never mind

Systems

Man, you guys just cannot leave it alone can you...Jesus Christ, let the guy do his review, and leave it alone. If you don't like his review stay the F out of the thread....

Man, I swear some of you people need a 2x4 upside your head....

kuntasensei

Lorthos wrote: »

Man, you guys just cannot leave it alone can you...Jesus Christ, let the guy do his review, and leave it alone. If you don't like his review stay the F out of the thread....

Man, I swear some of you people need a 2x4 upside your head....

The issue isn't that someone didn't like his review. It's that Mike blew up at someone who responded to his review... again. Let's not lose focus.

bobman1235

The fact that everyone walks on eggshells with "this isn't meant to be a critique!" and "please don't take this the wrong way" tells you all you need to know.

And Lorthos, you spend more time telling people to let it go than they spend complaining in the first place. "If you don't like all the arguments just stay the F out of the threads" hypocrite.

kuntasensei

bobman1235 wrote: »

the fact that everyone walks on eggshells with "this isn't meant to be a critique!" and "please don't take this the wrong way" tells you all you need to know.

+1,000,000

Systems

bobman1235 wrote: »

The fact that everyone walks on eggshells with "this isn't meant to be a critique!" and "please don't take this the wrong way" tells you all you need to know.

And Lorthos, you spend more time telling people to let it go than they spend complaining in the first place. "If you don't like all the arguments just stay the F out of the threads" hypocrite.

Right back at you.....

Ricardo

Lorthos wrote: »

Man, I swear some of you people need a 2x4 upside your head....

I might be offended by that. I will go up up up up up the administration and deal with this, off line, but first on line, and then with PM's.

ESavinon

I wonder what would happen if only xcapri reads his "Movie Reviews".
I wonder what would happen if he's the only one that responds to his threads :rolleyes:.

kuntasensei

I wonder what would happen if water was gelatinous and cured cancer.
I wonder if I've lost my mind.

Toolfan66

This is better then the movie I watched last night.

[grabs popcorn and pulls up a chair]

shack

The reviews are pedantic and verbose...so I never read them...

The rest of the stuff...now that's entertainment!

mrbigbluelight

Whenever I get pedantic and verbose, I take a little Pepto-Bismol, and it all gets better !

Mr. Mike LoManaco, go ahead and post your reviews, it's all good.
If you enjoy posting them and some folks like 'em, ...... it's good.
If you enjoy posting them and some folks hate 'em, .... it's good.

Either way, you get paid the same: Nada.
So post away, and enjoy the experience.

Ken Swauger gets 4 STARS for the excellent, even-handed way he's keeping the game pretty much in the ballpark. It's kind of hard herding cats ....... really ....... a lot of howling and scratchig and ...... just try it sometime !

shack

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Whenever I get pedantic and verbose, I take a little Pepto-Bismol, and it all gets better !

Metamucil would probably be the better choice....