That’s also a very fair and balanced assessment, Bill … and I would never expect that everyone is going to see the pro and cons of a particular film in a completely objective way. We all enjoy different films for a wide variety of reasons, which is of course very positive.
What I personally resist or find objectionable is being told that ‘something’ is great, (or lousy) in a manner that’s reminiscent of a media lecturer informing you what’s a classic or whatever, as though this was the definitive point of view. And that is the manner of so many critics and commentators, as far as I’m concerned.
What I would much prefer on a commentary track are (whenever possible) reminiscences from people who actually took part in these productions … even if it’s negative or rambling. Second hand theories or, as I’ve said before, conjecture presented as fact, is to me infuriating.
For instance … the number of interviews with Franco Nero, when he’s telling an anecdote about a certain film, he rounds off the story by saying something like “Franco Nero plus Corbucci = success”, or Damiani, or Baldi or Castellari, or who ever … it’s a bit repetitive, but at least he was there and even if it’s a bit of a romanticised recollection, it’s first hand and generally positive. The very idea of listening to someone’s detracting remarks on a film I personally enjoy seems crazy, and although the likes of Cox is entitled to his opinions, why agree to do a track on a film you dislike? … I’m certain that if Corbucci were still around and Cox was offered the voice over gig, his attitudes and comments would be quite different.