I read Daniel W. Kelly's DVD review of More at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=15097 and...


After reading your "review" the only thing I could say is...reviewing films is definitely not your forte. I won't even bother discussing what you have written...as I might end up with more than a page (of rebuttals), something you obviously failed to do.

Regards,
Pro-B

Hey Pro-B,

I haven't read the review in question, but I think it would help Daniel and other reveiwers here if you stated what you disliked about the review. It is too easy for a reviewer to just disregard a post like yours out of hand. I think people who have written reviews for any length of time have all received hate mail from people who just disagree with a rating. That's just going to happen from time to time because not everyone has the same feeling about all films, and some readers seem to take offense if a review doesn't ape their opinions.

I've read your posts for years, and I'm sure that you weren't trashing the review because you didn't like the outcome, but that's the way your post comes across. (To me at least.) You don't have to write at length, but if you'd at least point out some of the reasons you dislike the reveiw, it could at least start a discussion.

This isn't meant as an attack or flame, just me sticking my nose in.

-John

Dear Videophile:



My post above was anything but a “hate mail” as you suggest. It was rather a post filled with disappointment due to the fact that such a controversial film as MORE was explained in less than a page and tagged simply a “drug movie”. More importantly Barbet Schroeder and his early works often require a meticulous analysis as they frequently explore rather difficult subjects. If MORE was simply a “drug movie” as the reviewer suggests then Our Lady of the Assassins was a homosexual film and Maîtresse was an S/M attempt in exploitation filmmaking, etc. Clearly these films are anything but that (for more on the subject it might be a good idea to see the Criterion interview with Schroeder on the Maitresse disc).


Now back to the current review of MORE. What I found so disappointing is the absolute lack of supporting information regarding this film; what was the history behind it; why would a band like Pink Floyd agree to contribute to a simple “drug movie”, etc. Obviously, at least to me, if someone is to claim that certain film is a “long, drawn out pit of nothingness” I would like to know why. I am not a snob and realize that films, especially those that deal with certain historic, political, or social phenomenon, tend to spur controversial reactions. So, the reviewer should have presented the film in a manner that would at least point the reader in a direction that provides some answers-why was this film so bad (reasoning?), why was it so controversial (facts?), what was the message the director failed to deliver, etc. So, naturally when this film was explained to me in five sentences I was to say the least staggered.

I hope this will give you a tiny idea why I made the above post. I don’t know the reviewer and do not intend to convert his opinion on the Barbet Schroeder’s film. However I do know most of Schroeder’s works and I want(ed) to raise some eyebrows that this official “review” was more than a bit off.


I welcome and encourage criticism as criticism is what often drives my curiosity. However, let it be a constructive, well-substantiated criticism that will arouse the reader’s curiosity not crush it. A populist criticism that will drive away even the few brave enough to experiment with (un)conventional film works truly goes against the mission of this site.

Regards,
Pro-B

Thanks for your explination Pro-B. It was a well thought out and written response. I can understand, and agree, with your position now.