I want to throw up.

"There are several off-beat British telly comedies available on video to U.S. audiences that are infinitely better, including THE VICAR OF DIBLEY and THE DARLING BUDS OF MAY."

No comment needed.

Reminds me of that list of one star amazon reviews a little bit.

Err, that was intended to be a link to http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/reviews/lone_star_statements.php, not just underlined.

Actually it's:

http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/reviews/lone_star_statements.php

But thanks. The "Naked Lunch" one was worth it alone.

From the Lord of the Flies review:

>“I am obsessed with Survivor, so I thought it would be fun. WRONG!!!"

I lol'd at this and at the review for The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

Although, um, I personally never did like The Catcher in the Rye.

“I guess if you were interested in crazy people this is the book for you.” - on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

I think we've just found The New York Times Book Review's next primary contributor.

I posted a link to a point-missing amazon review here about an hour ago but it's been deleted. It was a good example I thought but clearly someone here disagrees. Oh well.

Thank you for rectifying my overwhelming incompetence, Zagrebo.

Though I absolutely adore Catcher in the Rye, I must admit that's a pretty good burn on Salinger there.

>I must admit that's a pretty good burn on Salinger there.

I...guess...

Anyway, as hilarious as some of those are (my favorites are, predictably, Lolita and Gravity's Rainbow) I actually agree with two of them. Though I perhaps shouldn't be admitting to that.

>"I must admit first off that I only watched the beginning episode on this six-episode DVD before cutting my losses and packing it in. My wife viewed perhaps the first ten minutes before deciding that washing the dishes was a better time investment."

Clearly the thought did not occur to him, that the first episode may have just been a crappy episode in an otherwise good series? That is why I never judge something on the first episode I see, I keep watching to see if it either gets better or worse as it goes along. This guy has embarrassed himself in my honest opinion by flat out admiting that he can't even be bothered to propperly study what it is he's [b]supposed[/b] to be reviewing, but it wouldn't be an internet without morons who think they know what they're doing, missing the point, would it?

Judging Ted from the first episode alone is a really bad idea. It's almost like a different show.

> That is why I never judge something on the first episode I see, I keep watching to see if it either gets better or worse as it goes along.

This is fine if you have the time and will to do so, though there will be many programmes that I'll often judge fairly quickly whether I'll persevere with, especially if it's going to end up being a MASSIVE investment of effort. I gave up on Lost, for example, despite the hype, during the first episode, because I was annoyed with all sorts of elements, for example the patronising chess sequence "these are the black pieces - I am black, you'll notice. In a way this game is a metaphor, do you see?" I thereby saved myself the problem of having to rush home and tape it every week, and could never let it enter my consciousness again. However, I did not then go around reviewing the programme - I had opted myself out of the loop on that one.

There's the matter, though, that this guy actually BOUGHT A BOXSET of something he's never heard of. He didn't just give up on something that was on the telly and review it on amazon. He actually bought it and then didn't persevere, having wasted his money. Which I find unfathomable.

>"There's the matter, though, that this guy actually BOUGHT A BOXSET of something he's never heard of. He didn't just give up on something that was on the telly and review it on amazon. He actually bought it and then didn't persevere, having wasted his money. Which I find unfathomable."

Yes, I'm still trying to get my head 'round that one myself...