Internet critics seems too neatly divided between celebrity gossip and the academics writing about art films unfit for public view. There are few moderate voices in between, people in their 30s or 40s who saw a really cool movie and want to tell you all about it.

So, I value what you do here and can’t encourage you to keep up the great work.

what’s being done - blogging in recent years - so easily comes across as wanting to be seen to be capable of understanding what’s suddenly gone from more obscured to often painfully obvious in recent years… and then there are the better sites that can find the skill to give themselves space and time to show the variety and reality of how much (if not most) of what’s “cult” (well, that’s the world of more individual stuff, it seems - it’s an easy term to describe what isn’t being consumed so obviously by many outside of it’s original country or year of production) is actually being viewed out of time and place, being made obvious to an audience bigger than it’s financially in need of appealing to in order to continue to process of survival for less universal material, as most of it seems to be because of cultural influence and budgetary contraints amongst other things.

it can do a lot of damage, the idea of wanting to portray yourself as in the know, or to at least subconciously wanting to be seen as needed or able to help others, because people seem to turn to the internet for the easy solution, not because there’s a bigger picture that takes time to find but ultimately gives much more power to your own journey. blogging, for example, should be about simply sharing a record of your interest - as it is for some of the less popular sites, those with less traffic than the bigger names - but it’s often clearly taken both by writer and reader as a service of spoonfeeding that’s not necessary (or positive) for people’s own future abilities. learning to fish versus being fed fish, as the saying goes.