A lot to get wrong in one short article

[storyfan]

The following is why I don't put much stock in movie reviews:

The Daily Beast compiled a list of The New York Times' most comical errors, and the short review about "Save Me" made the list.

Here's the original review with an appended correctionOK, he disliked the movie. I'm fine with that; not everyone liked it the way I did. But I wonder if his

Comments

[nyteflyer]

I read that a bit ago. Seems like the guy could have at least made a half-assed attempt at getting his facts straight. While his impressions of the movie were similar to my own (Exception: He was impressed with Judith Light's performance and I thought she was awful -- cold, stilted, one-dimensional, and a completely unsympathetic charicature -- in the role. And he doesn't even mention Chad's performance, which I thought was very solid, though far from his best work. I blame the director for not pulling more energy and nuance out of him, because we all know Chad's brilliant!) he makes himself and his opinions less credible with all those factual errors. Furthermore, it undercuts the film itself by making it seem not worth the time it would take to churn out an accurate review. And this is the New York Times? Geez....

[storyfan]

He averaged an error per paragraph. If I'd made that many errors in story, at any paper that employed me, I'd have been put on a 90-day probation period. If I'd made any further errors during that time, I'd have been shoved out the door.

How this guy retained his job, I have no idea.

[lady529]

Yeah. I'd suggest actually watching the film and sort of paying attention (or just look it up on IMDb) before submitting a review. He'd have failed that if it was in Primary School here. That's the school that 5-13 year olds go to.

The Lady 529

[storyfan]

It's almost like the guy didn't even see the film, but looked at a trailer instead.

How careless people keep jobs at a place like the New York Times is beyond me. I've only worked for small local papers, but all those errors would grounds for a probationary period. Any mistakes occurring during that 90 days would result in a firing.

[lady529]

I wouldn't put it past someone who delivers such a badly written review..

I'm not sure what baffles me more, the fact that he's not been fired or the fact that he could bring himself to submit something so rubbish in the first place. Maybe I've just got some weird form of overactive pride in my work. Mutated gene or something. That you also just happen to have. Along with loads and loads of other people.

The Lady 529