Reverse Shot's Take One symposium (RS #17) last year inaugurated a new series focused on examining the fundamentals of film form. We gave our writers a challenge: pick a single, memorable shot and use it as a springboard for reconsidering a film, filmmaker, or even cinema itself. We didn’t in any way expect that the moratorium on entire films would prove to be a limiting factor, but we may also have underestimated the ingenuity of our writers—everyone brought their best to bear, making Take One a success that far exceeded our wildest expectations. Exciting, but maybe we went a little easy on them. This time around, we upped the ante.

Click here to read Take Two: In the Cut.

Congratulations to Reverse Shot for publishing twenty issues of exceptional film criticism. The past five issues have all been great and the symposiums seem to get better with every installment. Keep it up, dandies!

Hey, thanks! It sure is nice to hear that (as opposed to "You should die and go to hell for not liking Pan's Labyrinth, asshole!!"). Yeah, we've been plugging along for a while, and we're not quite exhausted yet, even after having to sit through, in the past year, Joshua, London, The Quiet, and the upcoming Trade. After sitting through garbage like that, it makes you wonder why you even watch these flicker shows. Thank God these symposiums always get me back to what I love about them.

And thanks for reading. It means a lot.

Well, the pithy accusations of arrogance are definitely called for here, since, you know, critics who devote 1,200 words to explain why a popularly lauded or lazily accepted film is indeed bad are just so damn snarky!

And I’ll admit that I may just have to take a peek at LONDON, because, yes, it does look insanely awful. Sorry…I won’t say I wasn’t warned.

http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2006/02/white_trash_hun.html

My thoughts on London....just to resurrect an old (turd) nugget.