To slap a charge against anyone who writes in this 'zine that they are ignorant because of their personal likes, and then to not justify that charge with credible evidence and pointed commentary, is amateurish at best, pompous at worst.
I've read practically every review and commentary concerning films of today versus classics of the past that have been posted in PCR I can't for the life of me, remember anyone having a problem with a movie of today that actually has a good story. Sure, we blast the CGI effects on alot of films, but that's because the CGI either sucks, or more accurately, was depended on by the Director to enhance a weak screenplay, or non story.
The perfect example of this is how George Lucas ruined the Star Wars legacy with Phanton Menace and Clones. The direction sucked in both movies, the screenplay sucked in both movies, their was crappy acting in both, and the weak ass CGI was literally all over the place. It would be bad enough if "Phantom" was the weak link, but incredibly, "Clones" was so pathetically bad in all areas that "Phantom" now actually almost looks like a halfway decent film.
In contrast, the original trilogy (which came out in the 70's and 80's), did not have CGI, did have an excellent story, excellent acting, and excellent directing. The lack of computer enhancement makes the effects all the more mezmerizing and special. Mike mentions John Carpenter's The Thing and I could easily submit that as proof enough to win any argument concerning films of that era.
Interesting, it would be, to know what you consider top flight, well rounded, original endeavors in the theater realm of today. Even more interesting that you don't consider a masterpiece and cult classic like Evil Dead to be a masterpiece! It seems your main aim, in that regard, was to show how little you understand about dark pop culture and true histrionics concerning brilliant endeavors. For the most part, this film is considered a "classic" by the industry.
Then, out of nowhere, you mention that great classic, and one of my personal favorites, Citizen Kane, giving me hope for your prognosis. Yes, there is a vast difference between that great film and movies such as Nail Gun Massacre or any other film for that matter. I'll point out now that there have been some excellent films that have come out recently, with CGI, that were heralded in this 'zine.
The "Lord of the Rings" and "Two Towers" are excellent examples of how to do it the right way. "Spiderman", while it had some weak CGI, was super enjoyable because it had a great story, excellent screenplay, and most importantly terrific acting. "Deep Blue Sea" was heralded as the JAWS of today when it came out. It only took seeing it to realize that wasnt true. While it was a fun movie, it had a weak screenplay and, of course,there are the CGI issues.
Terence makes some excellent points in his letter last issue, but then again he is light years beyond where most people are in his age group. His thinking is multi-dimensional. I suggest Ashley try this approach.
I guess it all boils down to "personal preference" as to what will wash with some and not with others. To call someone ignorant because they consider films such as The Thing, ET, and Star Wars to be classics is to call someone brilliant because they feel the same way about Ghost Ship, Hulk, and Daredevil. As atrociously dumb as that is, it is what it is.
Better luck next time.
Take care and God bless