Dear Sunday Times,
Get rid of Camilla Long! Her smug reviews are full of unedifying self-satisfied gratuitous vitriol. For instance, in today’s review of Bridget Jones’s Baby, she writes: “But if she [Renee Zellweger] has done anything to her face, as everyone suggests, it hasn’t worked. She looks so old, it is difficult to believe she can fall pregnant.” That is just plain rude. And adds nothing worthwhile to our understanding of the film.
Moving on to Bryan Cranston’s new movie The Infiltrator, Long writes: “The film is ‘based on a true story’, which as I’ve mentioned before, is a second-rate excuse for any movie.” The implication seems to be that, once Long has declaimed on a subject, we are to take her views as gospel. A view moreover that in this case is a smartarse cheap shot. Why on earth shouldn’t a film be based on a true story? And use that as a marketing tool?
Long proceeds to first mock the undercover cop story genre saying, “As far as I can see, the story… is exactly like every other undercover drug cop’s story”. So what? Many of us enjoy undercover drug cop stories and are more than happy to see another one of the type, as long as it is a good example.
Long then directs her bile at Cranston. She says: “Beyond satisfying his late-life fantasy of appearing in a big drugs film, he clearly has no idea what he is doing here at all.” What right does Long have to ascribe this ‘late-life fantasy’ to Cranston? What right does she have to claim that Cranston ‘clearly has no idea what he is doing here at all’?
It is interesting that Long gives Bridget Jones’s Baby three stars and The Infiltrator just one whereas every other review I’ve seen gives both of them four stars. I seriously doubt that Long is the only reviewer capable of arriving at the ‘correct’ assessment of movies. Her views are rude, self-serving and unhelpful. Please sack her and replace her with someone who will provide more balanced and mature reviews.
And, while you’re at it, ditch Gill as well – they’re cut from the same offensive cloth.