a gross generalization. and the review linked above is also very oldā¦
Positive reviews in the English language predominantly commence with a short paragraph detailing certain downsides of the work in question, but then proceed to the latter portion of the text which extensively delineates various upsides of the said opus in order to convey your feelings about the piece. Thatās the general formula and thatās seen as preferable. The reason why some folks may mistake your ācritiqueā for harsh criticism is because your reviews also thoroughly focus on filmsā shortcomings as opposed to their merits, leading other people to believe you find them disagreeable. Formal deliberations aside, itās kind of weird to dedicate so much of your text to outlining miscellaneous drawbacks of something you supposedly enjoyed, itās sort of confusing, misleading and kind of counterproductive. The ultimate aim of any review is to share your thoughts as well as convince other people to watch some flick or whatever. Thatās it.
While your dedication to detail and comprehensive analysis is commendable, you should specifically apply these in the field of film analysis which primarily concentrates on the overall filmic content as opposed to film criticism principally touching upon subjective evaluation of movies. Film criticism or film reviews are ultimately just opinion pieces in which you endeavor to encapsulate your rough impressions with regard to any discussed work by having recourse to some analytic tools found in film analysis, but with the specified intent of rationalizing your emotional response, ennui, excitement, abhorrence, whatever it might be. Whenever Iām reviewing a movie that I like, I want to enumerate various reasons as to why I liked the flick, rationalizing my emotional response and explaining to other people why they should give a film a try.
Writing a review is ultimately about sharing your experience with other people and trying to convey your satisfaction or the lack thereof. It is inherently subjective and only ostensively analytical and objective. There is definitely an analytical element to it, but this factor solely serves as a means of elucidating your subjective, emotional response rather than film analysis per se and you shouldnāt mix the two in order to avoid confusion. While there is invariably a set of ever-recurring drawbacks in any work of art, we tend to ignore those in favor of more successful components, thatās just the way it goes because watching films or consuming any piece of entertainment is just about that, entertainment factor, enjoyment, fun.
I hope that exhausts the subject and dispels this confusion to some extent.
6 Likes
Outstanding, Mickey. 
In a nutshell. Iād add that, if possible, a review should attempt to be as entertaining in itself as the reviewer can make it, or at least as entertaining as the reviewer feels is appropriate. Whoās going to read it if itās too dry?
Anyway, to stay on topic: 10,000 Dollars For a Massacre? I bloody love it, and I never watch it without applying a ton of the wifeās slap to my own eyeballs in deference to Mr. Camasoās fanf*ckingtastic turn here. Letās go, girls!
3 Likes
That was exactly the point. About the same generalization as Aldo and probably some others do about my mini reviews. Iād really love if someone told me where did I put a movie down in these short reviews (give specific movie please and we can discuss it there) without giving it enough credit so I can improve myself. Iām not really aware of any.
That is what I say all the time and agree with the post except this:
No it is not weird at all to explain why you didnāt like something or how you would make it better. Quite contrary. That is what makes a review review. Otherwise it is just a opinion with no reasoning. When you say just āThis sucked, I did not like it or it was awesome, I loved itā it is pointless. A monkey could do that as well. There is nothing interesting in that.
I always give positives and negatives that are evenly balanced, at least I think so, if not prove me otherwise so I can improve that. The only difference is I explain why I did not like something and that is what you should do in every review. Maybe someone else does not like the same elements. When there is a good camera, landscapes, etc. you really donāt need to explain why since it is already self-explaining, so ofc it takes less space, how could it not and I ofc wonāt describe "camera goes up and down, left and right, etc. or the shot at 51:23 looked awesome ". Maybe I should have so you can read x pointless paragraphs and feel comfortable about it? I donāt know. Imo it is not that long to forget the positive points.
It is not a full review anyway, not even as long as your describtion here so obviously you wonāt go into much details. A review does not serve the purporse to convince anyone to watch something or not. It is basically really an opinion that gives some reasoning. For instance someone writes āI thought the movie did not work in its context, because it was too violent and that does not go well with the romantic natureā. Maybe you want just that or maybe you donāt want a romantic movie or a violent movie or maybe you are not too excited about this combination.
Christ, I fucking hate this kind of discussions, so goddamn exhausting.
It is weird if it is incongruous with the prevailing form just as Iāve already described. It all boils down to proportions and the way your reviews are divided into different parts. You may not like the fact reviews in English are predominantly sectioned according to one specific rigid standard, but thatās just how it is. Any review is either formal or semi-formal in nature, which means it has to be written in accordance with a concrete set of universally agreed standards to make sense within this formal framework and be regarded as a work of this particular sort. Feel free to work out your own style partially divorced from the mainstream form of review, but donāt expect people to accept this as some novel way of thinking about or writing reviews, thatās just not the way it works.
The thing is theyāre not supposed to be evenly balanced, thatās the whole point. If you feel filmās upsides outweigh its downsides, then you usually happen to like it, which means you dedicate more of your time and text to dissecting filmās bright sides because youāre rejoicing over the fact it is so bloody great. I have no idea why you would want to pay heed to both upsides and downsides in equal measure, I assume youāre not a robot and youāre not impartial in the way you view movies; thatās simply not how art or entertainment consumption works and it doesnāt make much sense.
People like Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert were opinionated jerks for the most part, but thatās exactly the reason why they were cherished by so many people - they were confident in their views and passionate about cinema insofar as they would ignore certain drawbacks of their favorite movies on account of their prodigious appreciation for the medium. Writing about cinema is all about biases, which ought to translate into reviews, and about passionately discussing its multiple facets; film criticism is about eloquently articulating oneās impressions and not about some arbitrary, impartial academic analysis. The only thing that matters here is that chemical reaction in the brain, the juice movies give you.
Not to tangentialize more, my overarching point is that there has never been anything balanced about art or film criticism in previous decades, quite on the contrary, itās always been centered on encasing reviewerās opinion in an incisive and engaging manner. Itās supposed to be witty and fun to read as last.caress has stated above. Paying equal attention to filmsā merits and drawbacks while failing to state your opinion more conspicuously may cause some confusion and give an impression of attempting to cloak your subjective impressions in a superficial guise of fallacious objectivity, superimposing your subjective findings onto your object of observation and passing them off as objectively true. Presenting oneās opinion with a pretense of empirical significance can come across as quite disingenuous and conceited, which is why some people may take issue with the way you phrase your statements. It might not necessarily be what youāre doing here, but the ambiguous nature of your reviews may rub some people the wrong way. Youād be hard-pressed to find examples of reviews similar to yours in this somewhat ambiguous tone.
Thatās a false dichotomy, literally no one says that and nobody here advocates for what youāve just described. While the analytical ingredient touching upon filmās technical side is part and parcel of any fully-fledged review, it is primarily intended to support your opinion and doesnāt hold any particularly argumentative value of its own. For instance, erraticism in filmās narrative department cannot be proved or disproved, since itās something you usually detect in the act of watching a movie, but what works in one instance may not work in another and vice versa.
That is not to say these narrative imbalances donāt exist and you may find a lot of people agreeing with you, but various criteria of evaluation and miscellaneous aesthetic features vary from person to person and are frequently prioritized in a different manner, which is why one film may work just fine for one group of folks while proving completely disagreeable to other respectable viewers. Hence, in other words, what Iām trying to explain is that digesting art is heavily preferential and contextual.
What might have not worked a decade ago, in a certain context, in a certain place or under certain circumstances may very well work in a different place and time. Itās all very malleable and contextual. Reviewerās task is to articulate it all in such a way as to give expression to oneās preferences and expectations, contextualize them and juxtapose them with filmās approach to its subject matter as well as its execution in order to highlight what some people might find interesting or worthless based on oneās experience with the reviewed work. Itās not about analysis per se as much as it is about encasing oneās subjective impressions in an entertaining and eloquent way.
If youāre so courteous as to oblige me so readily, please break your statements into smaller paragraphs because reading such prodigious blocks of text is like drinking bleach.
1 Like
Yeah, I noticed you tend to turn them into novels. 
1 Like
If thatās what it takes to be as clear as possible, then Iād rather just do this than write several separate responses. I went a little overboard here though, I agree. I just want to write about movies instead of writing about writing about movies for Christās sake. 
You donāt happen to teach at school? The style youāve written that is just like from some book for students. Iām kinda losing it here haha.
Maybe the thing is the genre is heavily flawed and Iām just picky. :=) I just like perfect things and why not to mention things that could have been better if there are any. Sorry but there are not many perfect sw. I try to be as objective as possible so even if the movie is not very good I still mention some good points and vice versa.
Anyway which of my short-reviews is in your opinion inclined to whatever you find ā¦? Now Iām not even sure what is the issue anymore haha. Confusement? Maybe I should add ratings to the reviews. Anyway I praised Vengeance, A Pistol for Ringo, May God Forgive, Johnny Yumaā¦ This one is for me for instance 3/5 and I donāt really see being too harsh. Ok I divided it into 4 paraghraps (good idea). 3 of them are positive so where am I too negativeā¦
1 Like
Well, my bad then, I apologize for my stream-of-consciousness style. That was abstruse I guess.
I know, itās kind of hard to explain, itās a somewhat abstract topic thatās kind of exhausting for me. Itās just that I tend to focus on positives when I lean towards a positive rating and the other way round. Thatās also the way most people are inclined to write reviews.
I would venture as far as saying there are no perfect movies. Perfect is the enemy of good as they say.
Neither do I. Letās just forget the whole thing. I think an important thing to do would be to be more forgiving towards minor flaws in case of lesser-known films unless theyāre a really conspicuous impairment to the whole narrative. I just find objectivity to be merely illusory in opinion pieces, so Iād rather focus on things relating to oneās subjectivity rather than objectivity itself. I donāt know if that makes sense. While you can be able to provide a sufficiently impartial assessment in scientific or legal cases, I just find objective evaluation in the field of art criticism to be almost an oxymoron and an utter impossibility, so instead of clinging to arbitrary criteria of objectivity, a more sensible course of action would be to understand the nature of subjectivity and embrace it rather than go against it. I hope this makes sense.
That would definitely help.
1 Like
It makes perfect sense. It is an internal struggle between your own preferences and seeing something from different points of view.
Again thx for the advice to write in paragraphs. It was indeed stupid not to do that in the first place. :=)
2 Likes
I couldnāt agree more
No way this is in Top 20 or Alt Top 20
My problem with Django (in This Movie) is that heās not on a Mission of Revenge
To me Django would Never be a Bounty Hunter Especially one Only After the Highest Bounties
Also the fact that he Throws in with the Villains
Never a Fan of the Stockholm Syndrome plots used in movies
If I was Raped I would only Hate and Despise my Rapist
One thing I surely didnāt Understand was
In the Cave they Find the Gold Bars
We are lead to believe that Django Scared the Villains Horses Away leaving them Stranded
They Decide to Bury the Gold and Strike Out on Foot and go back for the Gold Later
So why is it that when Stardust (Fernando Sancho) and Manuel recapture Django, Stardust says āwe will make him talkā as if they donāt know where they buried the Gold (Thatās a Head Scratcher)
Suffice it to say, not a fan of this SW
I just watched this tonight and really enjoyed it. Gianni Garko and Claudio Camaso were excellent as Django and Manuel, respectively and I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the tone of the film shift as Django turns from escaping the bandits to exacting revenge on them. Iāll admit, the plot itself is weak and I think @JoeCool is spot on in calling out how nonsensical it can be at times. Since the main appeal for me of Spaghetti Westerns has always been characters, though, I still consider it one of the best Iāve seen.
2 Likes
Beautiful movie, I love everything of it. Plot, Locations, actors, lovely lovely lovely music. I also enjoy reading all posts of this thread. Each one so compelling!
3 Likes
This is one film Iāve been trying to track down for a while. I see it on many peoples favourite lists but am yet to see it. The DVDs are like gold dust. I hope Arrow or someone releases this one on Blu-ray soon.
1 Like
Yes unfortuantely. There is a German BluRay rumored, but not from a great label and who knows if the quality will even be fine
There is a collection out there with this one on it. It is called āMovies 4 You: MORE Spaghetti Westernsā and it is available on Amazon. It also contains
Blood for a Silver Dollar, 7 Dollars on Red, and A Bullet for a Stranger. Not the most flawless of prints but Iāve seen much worse.
There is also a collection called āThe Best of Spaghetti Westernsā that is a bit harder to find but it is on there as well.
Thank you for the info. Unfortunately they are both region 1 locked and I am in the UK.