Flock of...

I've got a piece on the much-acclaimed, long-held-from-release Killer of Sheep in The Washington Times. I probably lose all sorts of film crit and geek cred for this, but I just wasn't all that awed. I saw it twice, and though I liked it better the second time, both viewings I kept on thinking, "Well, I suppose I could come up with all sorts of lofty-sounding pablum for why this is some sort of masterpiece -- hailing it for its realism, its resistance to narrative convention, its documentary grit, its debt to the Italian neorealists -- but that's just not what I'm actually seeing." I sort of wonder if there were other critics who saw it and made the other choice.