At The Movies vs. The Movie Show

god bless Margaret and David. i realised while watching At The Movies tonight, that i've been watching M&D regularly for twenty four years. wow. that's probably second only to Hey Hey? (speaking of, I got goosebumps when Rhonda Burchmore and Shane Bourne were on Myff Worhurst?'s team on Spicks & Specks tonight). I think one of the first reviews I ever saw (and I think I've still got on tape somewhere, is The Fly (1986)). but anyway, I thought I'd take stock of why At The Movies kicks soo much ass over new The Movie Show. I guess my main reason is that M&D have developed this rapport over the years so that even when they disagree, it's kinda like two sides on the same coin, they're simply arguing the pro's and con's of the said film in a civilised manner. rarely, do they speak out of turn (Romper Stomper and Colors are the exceptions that come to mind). On the other hand, Jamie Lavender? or whatever the hell is name is, is one of the most obnoxious know-it-alls i've ever met, and he doesn't argue, so much as yell his opinion down the television connection. it's ugly. fennela kerrnabone? fades off into the distance, her opinion counting for a rubber chicken. megan spencer, who i don't totally hate, hasn't been reviewing for a while, but she's at least professional and stands up for herself. my problem with her is that i rarely agree with her. M&D have years of experience (esp. David) (and I'm starting to sound like a Channel 9 newsreader promo now) and i'll be damned if they ever make a cockup. At The Movies on the other foot, constantly make factual errors to the point of constant embrassament. Hey guys, you want a Researcher who'll like Research? I'm your man. Oh, and I can't stand the dude who does the DVD reviews either (Mark Fennel?). He's a young upstart who makes constant factual errors (how do these people get gigs?) and constantly disses classics that quite frankly, are undissable. here endeth my rant.