HBO Documentary on Frazier-Ali Fight
 

The following is a review of a documentary appearing on HBO about the boxing match between Frazier and Ali in Manilla.

Mr. Forsmark seems so eager to grind his axe that he neglected to remember that Ali and Frazier patched up their relationship several years ago.

Source is here.

So, setting the record straight on how Frazier was unfairly characterized by Ali and the media is axe-grinding? The fact that Frazier 'reconciled' with Ali is a testament to Frazier's character.

SF-TX--

With respect, Mr. Forsmark's decision not to review the HBO special with anything resembling disinterest deprives his readers the opportunity to know if the documentary offers any new insights on the Ali-Frazier rivalry, the fight itself, or America in the 1970s.

Moreover, the review suggests that Mr. Forsmark believes that race is debated within the African-American community the same as its is in American society in general. Or is that his summary of how the special presents this issue?

Ultimately, the piece answers the questions: What does Mr. Forsmark think of Mr. Frazier, Mr. Ali, the news media, the American Left, and Bryant Gumbel. The piece does not answer the question: should viewers watch the HBO special on the Thrilla in Manilla?

Damn! I was hoping that a man (David Forsmark) I was previously unaware of would tell me whether or not I should watch the documentary Thrilla in Manilla. I suppose I will have to wait for a ‘disinterested’ reviewer to let me know.

The following reviews have not been analyzed to determine the reviewers level of disinterest in Thrilla in Manilla:

http://www.fangsbites.com/2009/04/re...in-manila.html

http://festival.sundance.org/2009/fi...ller_in_manila

One more review, from an admitted Ali fan:

With respect, I understand that you're being sarcastic. My point simply is that I don't think Mr. Forsmark is a very good reviewer. I think his grasp of American mass popular culture needs strengthening. I think he uses his reviews as part of a broader plan of self-promotion common among new media journalists of all stripes. A few examples follow.

Earlier this year, Mr. Forsmark wrote:
The show in question? Fox's King of the Hill (link). (IIRC, there was a show called Seventh Heaven.)

While Mr. Forsmark is attempting to make a name for himself as a cultural critic and scourge of the American left, his list of favorite films includes.
While I'm especially fond of Lone Star, Three Kings, and Spartacus, that trio of films and especially Spartacus--the script was ghost written by Dalton Trumbo--hardly have much good to say about the American right. The other two are outright hostile.

As a film reviewer, Mr. Forsmark frequently offers odd observations. In 2001, while reviewing Traffic, he compared Steven Soderbergh to Howard Hawks and Hitchcock while discounting the importance of artistry in story telling. (This dismissal of artistry, by the way, is in accord with contemporary cultural criticism that is broadly--and, arguably, inelegantly--described as Leftist.) For Mr. Forsmark to suggest that Soderbergh's treatment of America's war on drugs does not have an overtly hostile political message makes me wonder if he actually watched the movie or if he fell asleep (as many theater goers did the two times I saw it). <<LINK>>

Then there's Mr. Forsmark's review of Michael Mann's The Insider (1999) <<LINK>>. In this review, Forsmark falls over his grindstone to go after the MSM at the expense of developing a fuller understanding of the issues he's attempting to discuss. In this case, he over looks the fact that Lowell Bergman is the embodiment of the Leftist values that Forsmark believes undermine America. It was Mr. Bergman who, in an article for Rolling Stone, argued that Ronald Reagan was nothing more than a pawn for monied interests in his home state of California.

Finally, take his review of Bowfinger (1999) <<LINK>>. Arguably, his efforts to present himself as a person who knows how Hollywood works and someone who "gets" all the jokes would have worked better had he showed any awareness that the character of Daisy (Heather Graham) was Steve Martin's revenge on an ex-girlfriend (the lovely :rolleyes: Anne Heche).

Sigaba,

You are obviously more familiar with Mr. Forsmark's work than I. Personally, I don't give much credence to any movie reviews and their critics. In fact, I have noticed an inverse relationship between the amount of praise a film receives and how much I like the film.

The last film I saw solely based on the rave reviews it received was About Schmidt, with Jack Nicholson. Horrible movie, though you would have never known it by the reviews. It was even nominated for two Oscars. The entire movie was spent denigrating middle-America. The underlying message of the movie is that if you work hard and plan on enjoying your retirement you are a sucker. I was the sucker for wasting 3 hours of my life and the price of admission.

Maybe "About Schmidt" was prescient, in that a lot of us are probably going to soon discover that the imminent retirement we worked hard to attain and planned to enjoy will actually result in us being a "sucker"!:mad:

SF-TX--

My About Schmidt moment occurred when I went to see Chaplin (1992). With all the critics buzzing about the film receiving mulitple Oscar nominations, no one took the time to point out that John Barry did the score. :rolleyes: Worse, no one did the courtesy of pointing out that the film had a tell tale kiss of big time suckery: the writing credit had three different groups of names separated by both the word "and" as well as an ampersand.:eek:

To his credit, Anthony Lane hit it out of the park in 2005 with his review of Episode III, here.

FWIW, "review the reviewer" is a tool I stumbled upon at the University of Texas. In my experience, reading multiple reviews by the same person can help one quickly figure out what that reviewer is bringing to the table. (Unfortunately, "photocopy books / articles / and reviews starting from the last page" was a tool that had to be pointed out to me.:o)

I saw the documentary and thought it was incredibly good. I couldn't care less about the review.

Guerrilla in Manila
 

I clicked on this thread because I am a huge Joe Frazier fan. I laughed out loud when some dufus know it all "academic" tried to discredit this excellent review by saying Joe and Ali had made up years ago. I nearly busted a gut when the guy who made this statement any boxing fan would know is hilarious tried to say the reviewer couldn't be trusted because he doesn't know tabloid trivia about Steve Martin and Anne Heche!

It seems Mr. Forsmark has a stalker, though he probably hasn't noticed. Going back to Bowfinger, The Insider, and asserting a minority opinion about Traffic is bizarre. :eek:

Guerrilla says the reviewer must be "disinterested," though all the reviews I saw are from OPINON magazines or sites. Then he illogically turns around and says Forsmark should not include any movies Guerrilla considers liberal or have liberal roots. Wouldn't it be bad if he didn't like them? I'm more rightwing than that guy, and I love the movies you highlight. As for the Hawks and Hitchcock references, they seem to be more specific than you imply out of context. Soderburg did display an amazing versatility in his early career, and if he'd made a western would have almost spanned Hawks's range. The fact that he has spend the last several years sucking isn't relelvant. That was reviewing not fortune telling. Besides, G, you must have LOVED Che.

King of the Hill (the Fox show) is one of my favorites, and it skewers PC regularly, and 7th Heaven was harmless pap, moral, I guess, but not political. Why is it weird to say the show is "meaningfully conservative?" 7th Heaven was neither influencial or as long-running. Thanks for directing me to that column, btw, at least you made me aware of a new writer for me to watch for.:D

How long have you been stalking this guy? This is a strange rant, but I have to go back to the basics, as I was taught in Basic. You started with the premise that Joe and Ali are buds. So, look in the mirror for "odd observations.":p

Dan:

Please review the board rules and stickies for where your first post should be and fill in your profile before posting again.

TR

Agreed, Sgt Dan has to get his act together regarding our rules and regs, but he makes a few good points which I'm in total agreement with..................;) Not all, but most...........:)

GB TFS :munchin