What constitutes a good mini-review?

[dardan]

For me the most critical elements of a good mini-review are an analysis of 1) what a film tried to do and 2) how well it was able to do so. I strongly prefer for 1 to be an analysis of the overal structure or a meta-analysis that attributes function to the constituent parts rather than just mentioning them and saying how awesome/terrible they are. I sometimes read mini-reviews prior to watching a film and too often I learn nothing from them. This user on /r/Truefilm worded it better than I would:

The reviews that receive the most credence are oftentimes sensationalist, over-diluted scatter-shots. You can recognize these reviews because they so often prioritize obscurity over accuracy, and hyperbole over precision. They describe things as "dazzling," "transcendent," "one of the great [insert genre film here] films," or, my favorite, "a movie that so shook me to my core I can't describe it." Variations are abundant.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comme ... tionalism/

Take this review from djross:

"The greatest American film of the 1960s, and probably the pinnacle of cinematic expression thus far achieved. A unique film, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is a reflection on the correspondence of anthropogenesis and technogenesis, and on the fate of this common origin. Note to first-time viewers: the first viewing of this film must be nowhere else than in a well-equipped large-screen cinema with high-quality sound. A singular achievement."

The reason why I consider this review to be great is because of the sentence in bold that shows insight without spoiling anything, but the likely reason for it getting praise (28 stars) is for the repeatedly stating how fantastic it is. Many state just how fantastic a film is, but this is something we can easily infer if you have given it a 100/100 rating--that's the point of the rating.

Example of a film where I learned nothing from the mini-reviews because of the analysis as described above being pretty much non-existant:

http://www.criticker.com/film/Three_Colors_Blue/

1.7335 IDYmilkshake IDYmilkshake 92T10 star
Magnificent cinematography. Kieslowski's camerawork is stunning. His angles and his POVs are amazing, and his use of colors are perfect.

1.7759 TonythePony TonythePony 83T9 star
Binoche is stunning throughout, her grief and disconnection captured beautifully, a mesmerising performance. Sadly, all the other characters feel hollow and vacant in contrast, especially the boring Olivier. The music, frustratingly, rarely moved me, often jolting me out of the story rather than deeper in. Still, Binoche performance and Kieslowski visual touches combine so beautifully my attention was fixed, the colours haunting and beautiful rather than gimmicky as I feared.

This is one of many examples that mentiones the constituent parts and gives highly subjective or personal (and thus largely non-informative) reactions those parts, without giving them meaning as part of something larger

1.7887 djross djross 50T5 star
Dull and over-praised. The series improves with WHITE and RED.

1.8000 Gnalkthere Gnalkthere 95T9 star
When I listened to the music, I was all like "I need this!" The ending is very 2001

1.8023 Valenzetti Valenzetti 95T10 star
Beautifully subtle.

1.8069 eveelun eveelun 80T8 star
Technically magnificent, with a fantastic soundtrack, nice impressionistic visuals, and a great performance from Binoche. But to be honest it felt kind of forced and never really resonated with me on a personal level, hence it's my least favorite of the trilogy (which is to say it's only great, not totally amazing).

1.8175 W00DY W00DY 89T10 star
An imaginative and original movie, laced with visual and aural treats. Kieslowski's clever use of lighting, filters and camera angles makes for some truly remarkable cinematography and the score is hauntingly beautiful, marrying with the emotion on screen. Binoche's performance has the perfect amount of intensity and vulnerability to get her character just right.

1.8287 mandy mandy 8T10 star
Beautifully crafted to create a real sense of the emotions of isolation and grief and the slow complex process of reconnecting with life again.

1.8541 Magb Magb 95T10 star
A great, great, great film. I love the use of color, and the marriage of music and image -- especially in the fantastic ending sequence. Juliette Binoche's performance is way up there among the greatest I've seen, as well.

1.8593 Vdecraim Vdecraim 90T10 star
Kieslowski truly is a great artist. Creating scenes with great emotional tension by using deceptively simple imagery. Everything adds up in perfect harmony: the music, the characters, the symbolism,... The slow pacing is reminiscent of a smart card player. Bluffing, fooling around, holding back. But the last scene shows the true Kieslowski: an artist at the top of his craft, showing us the inner workings of mankind and society.

1.8680 Noblet Noblet 82T8 star
For a film that heavily incorporates music into it's narrative, I didn't really find that aspect too interesting. But the visuals, the acting, and story are all excellent.

1.8739 ee e_e 95T10 star
Kieslowski is a genius.

1.8746 qwershady qwershady 74T6 star
we can see a lot of diffrent vision technics. because of that i call it 'respectable movie'

1.8818 Cowman Cowman 79T9 star
Although it's packed with symbolism and deeper meanings, it never turns into the hardcore philosophical european arthouse movie it really is (thank God for that) by reason of an excellent, clear plot, colourful cinematography and interesting characters.

1.9052 fredericg54 frederic_g54 90T10 star
"The Double Life of Veronique" was reason enough for me to delve into Kieslowski's masterful oeuvre even further. The use of color is strikingly bewitching and Binoche carries the film with ease and humbleness. The music is extraordinary, not since Kubrick have I had the chance to see a director marry visuals and music so marvelously, the latter encompassing a vast array of emotional qualities. Highly recommended !!!

1.9436 Jurispathic Judge Holden 5T7 star
Completely pointless and empty outside of the cinematography.

1.9441 bown bown 86T9 star
It's very difficult to unlock this movie unless you know it's official title of an "anti-tragedy". Binoche is excellent - scheming, and we never truly get inside her head - and the colour scheme is gorgeous. I'll admit I felt a little cheated by the ending, but maybe I'll like it more on reflection. Still a very good piece of work that makes me excited to watch the rest.

1.9522 LunaticC NBD Rab 85T8 star
Beautiful and captivating. I have to admit, I expected to be bored by this, but it managed to work its spell on me.

1.9698 JooJoo JooJoo 5T5 star
I am completely unimpressed; with the characters, story, and any technical merits that people hail Kieslowski for. Past an OK lead, you have only a handful of other parts, all of which are about as poor in their delivery as the script that brings them together.

1.9781 billkerwin billkerwin 84T7 star
Binoche is very fine.

1.9929 BigEvil Nathan S 5T10 star
A sad and devastating film which reconciles traumatic grief with newfound perspective. Its essential simplicity is shaded with detailed audiovisual texture, a remarkable lead performance, and profound feeling.

2.0065 Farzan Farzan 92T10 star
Blue is a magnificent piece of film, mainly because of Kieslowski's beautiful camerawork and imagery, and the fantastic performance by Juliette Binoche. Blue is a depressing film that never really slows down. It has excellent pacing, and there never is a scene that wasn't necessary. Great use of music, and the intertwining feelings that follow her are displayed so naturally. The depth of Binoche's character is one of the best I have seen.

2.0089 Dumptruk4Lif Dumptruk4Lif 80T6 star
Some nice situations and editing surprises, but a little mundane and obscure in how it's saying what it's saying (which I don't know what that is). Maybe I need to watch the other two to fully appreciate this.

2.0147 LouisMazzini LouisMazzini 79T8 star
A great film, but it does get a little tiring to watch someone drown in self-pity for 90 minutes.

2.0286 febraro febraro 95T10 star
The best image-music combination I've ever seen, and a reason to love Juliette Binoche. People say Rouge is the best film in the trilogy, but Bleu is definitely the best one to me, and one of my all-time favorites.

2.0427 OMGFridge OMGFridge 90T10 star
Marathon'd the trilogy though that is only around 270 minutes. Blue was my favorite part. The use of music and colour is utilized beyond what I could ever expect. Wonderful.

2.0488 bolivar bolivar 77T9 star
fantastically filmed; beautiful shots follow beautiful shots. im not sure of what this movie wants. the ending with the whole love beats everything deal just doesnt quite cut it for me. the pacing is also really off in the first half. nice scenes that really need to sink in to set the mood are over way too quickly. also, the idea of a composer whos supposedly so big and still writes this type of music in this day and age? uh, no thats not quite how it works in this century with classical music.

na stevekimes stevekimes 96T10 star
Probably the greatest mood film of all time.

/Rant

[karamazov.]

Nah, I pretty much agree, and have similar criteria. Hyperbole is fine, but at least be interesting about it.

Some examples that I find to be simple and concise, but insightful:

Is Salò simply another film which tries to shock the viewer into accepting its creator's claims of deep meaning? The Fascists/libertines of Salo are drawn from [de] Sade rather than history, and any shadowy, scary group (freemasons, satanic cults, "international banking", etc.) could be substituted. But using Italian Fascists is a clever distraction. The target of Salo's critique is not Fascist wartime Italy, but capitalist postwar Italy, and more generally, the "anarchism of power" in all its forms. ["Salò, or The 120 Days Of Sodom" [1975] /// user snallygaster {emph. mine}].

Arguably the finest Coen brothers film. To choose that setting, that accent, those characters, evoke that homely atmosphere and create a bumbling, sorry murder mystery out of all involved is pristine film making. The seemingly out of place vignette with Marge and a newly single, old classmate isn't as benign as made out. He represents the inner turmoil and indecision Jerry is suffering. Marge, homicide in mind, watches the squirming, uncomfortable man in front of her and the connection is made. ["Fargo" [1996] /// user redacted {emph. mine}].

Ok, first off the worst-movie-ever-made reputation is stupid and most of the fanbase just isn't 'getting it'. Anyone who has had years of sifting through bargain basement DVDs and watching hours of pure dreck knows that Troll 2 is something special. Well-paced, lovingly filmed trash completely lost in its own warped little world with dialogue and performances you wouldn't find in ANY other movie. Don't confuse its surreal Italian flavour with simple 'badness'. This is next level. ["Troll 2" [1990] /// user Matt Burgess].

Best writers on criticker, imo: [spoiler]theficionado, lisa, Matt Burgess, aflickering, paulofilmo, ???, Dean Franz, Barthalen, djross, lumpnboy, sidehacker, snallygaster.[/spoiler]

[ShogunRua]

I've highlighted a lot of the specific authors and reviews I like in the other topic, but in terms of what I look for, it's either

1. Insight, with cogent reasons for why the writer liked or disliked the movie.
or
2. Humor.

Using vague, flowery language or buzzwords doesn't impress me. Interpreting a movie in the context of buzzwords or some socialist/post-modernist critique doesn't impress me. I got enough of all that shit in high school, and could cleverly regurgitate it myself.

Here is an example of the first;

"There is probably no other actor of Viggo Mortensen's caliber who speaks both Danish and Spanish, so Jauja is a nice opportunity for him to sound those languages. Other than that, it's like Bela Tarr on downers - absurdly stretched out, and self-important despite the fact that so little happens. I wouldn't be spoilering much if I let slip that it turns out to be a fantasy, signifying the girl's emotional plight, but there is not a lot of depth or resonance to that layer either."

Here is an example of the first mixed with the second;

""Seth Meyers' fame is bizarre to me. He's not funny, not witty, not clever, not quick, and not attractive enough to where that all could be forgiven. Watching his talk show, you get the sense that he doesn't really want to be there and that this is almost a stepping stone to something else. But what? He's awful. At least the other late night guys try in some capacity. The guy must have either some crazy amount of dirt on people or he gives incredible blowjobs, I lean to the latter."

[lisa-]

i like the mini-review format because forces you to condense analysis into a very succinct form. i generally don't have the energy to write good mini-reviews, but i do try sometimes because it gives an opportunity to think about things in a precise way.

i think a bit of passion in a review can go a long way though, and can even compliment an incisive comment. i like many of the reviewers karamazov does.

[Suture Self]

A review that makes me want to see a movie.

[Pickpocket]

I think if you can explain succinctly why you liked or didn't like something in a new and interesting way people will gravitate towards it. My most popular review is Juno which was basically universally loved when it first came out and I was like nope, this blew and was able to explain why using humor and a different perspective. Diablo Cody's (really edgy name, btw) subsequent failures have proved that she was just a flash in the pan.

Example of a film where I learned nothing from the mini-reviews because of the analysis as described above being pretty much non-existant:

I can forgive this sometimes. Sometimes I'll watch a classic movie and it turns out to be the masterpiece people describe it as and I'll think, "what can I possibly add to this discussion that hasn't already been said?" An example would be Schindler's List where I just quoted Seinfeld and moved on with my life. I find that people who do this typically consistently do it and it doesn't really bug me. Plus, it's a lot easier to say why you hated something rather than why you liked it.

Here's my biggest pet peeves:

1. Judging a movie before you've even seen it. You can tell sometimes that people go in just to trash a movie. A recent example is A Walk Among the Tombstones where someone panned it and then said "it's a Liam Neeson movie." It's like, why is that bad exactly? I can understand if you don't like Neeson but you need to back it up. Certain actors just evoke hatred either because they are crazy or wildly successful. I see this on goodreads a lot where the person finds this "hilarious meme" and posts it whether or not they have even read the book or not.
2. Condescension. I'm probably guilty of doing this occasionally but when you read it and clearly the person thinks they are better than whoever has made the movie. I make an exception if you take the moral high ground against Polanski or Allen or any other scumbag but if it's just like you clearly hate Taylor Lautner/Megan Fox or whoever the young good looking flavor of the week dude/chick is, maybe avoid their movies cause your opinion is tarnished by your jealousy. BTW, Lautner is a manlet, don't be too jealous: https://i.imgur.com/DxJ0VmR.jpg
3. Summarizing the plot. You see this more with professional reviewers but it's like dude we can watch the trailer, this is a waste.
4. Using a thesaurus to write a review. You'll see some pretentious dude say like that was really odious instead of saying that was really awful. Settle down, Malcolm Gladwell.
5. Wild inaccuracies. The 5th most starred review on this site is doctor7's review of T2 where he claims that this is the true reason for Arnold's fame. It's why I wish I could comment on reviews because that is just so clearly wrong. He was not only the most famous bodybuilder of all time but he was in Terminator, Conan, Commando, Predator and tons of other box office hits before that.

Best writers on criticker, imo: [spoiler]theficionado, lisa, Matt Burgess, aflickering, paulofilmo, ???, Dean Franz, Barthalen, djross, lumpnboy, sidehacker, snallygaster.[/spoiler]

A lot of these people write one word or one sentence reviews consistently or do not review on a regular enough basis to form an adequate opinion. the user ??? literally contradicts everything you said before.

Here is an example of the first mixed with the second;

""Seth Meyers' fame is bizarre to me. He's not funny, not witty, not clever, not quick, and not attractive enough to where that all could be forgiven. Watching his talk show, you get the sense that he doesn't really want to be there and that this is almost a stepping stone to something else. But what? He's awful. At least the other late night guys try in some capacity. The guy must have either some crazy amount of dirt on people or he gives incredible blowjobs, I lean to the latter."

I try to do this consistently and I guess people like it since I'm the second most starred user on the site. The lesson is, just copy me everybody

[dardan]

Sometimes I'll watch a classic movie and it turns out to be the masterpiece people describe it as and I'll think, "what can I possibly add to this discussion that hasn't already been said?"

I think you are on to something here, because what bothers me sometimes is all the mini-reviews repeating the same thing.

An example of this is 2001, with jmarkthespot mocking it:

Criticker drinking game: Go through the reviews for 2001 and take 1 drink every time you read the word "visual", "beautiful", "cinematic", or "experience"; take a shot for every "masterpiece"; and chug your beer for every score of 100. You'll be hammered in ten minutes and have a hell of a lot more fun than watching this trash.

Besides witty reviews, considering the criterion of adding a new perspective or insight, those providing background information or good links are also exempt from having to be analytical in the way I described.

Also, http://www.criticker.com/profile/afx237vi is someone who I consider to have often written good reviews.

Examples:

90 T10 The Hustler (1961) - 3 stars
"A wonderfully crafted tale about lonely, flawed people operating in a world where even if you win, you're still a loser. Ostensibly a film about pool, this is given extra depth by the interplay between the characters, each of which is working their own angles, not entirely sure of whether they are the hustler or the hustled. Much bleaker than I expected it to be, but that's fine by me."

60 T6 Straw Dogs (1971) - 3 stars
"A film about masculinity; those who lack it and those who don't know how to control it. The central scene with Hoffman flailing his weapon around in an empty field while his wife gets raped at home is satire of the darkest variety. Everything from that point on is pretty hard to watch - nihilistic and nightmarish, but grimly compelling at the same time."

[MmzHrrdb]

I tend to give stars to mini-reviews that are either funny (whether I agree with the actual review/score or not) or if they touch on a point that I entirely agree with. Too lazy to go hunt for examples right now.

[Kojiless]

An interesting question that has as many answers as there are users on Criticker. For me, personally, it's all about whether or not that review can get a reaction out of me (whether it be a laugh or a shock or whatever). I don't need to read a rehash of what a thousand other reviewers have already said.

As one of those reviewers who often goes off on random tangents while tossing about sarcasm and like a caged monkey hurls feces at its keeper, I understand that many will find little enjoyment in the erratic blurbs I write. And at the end of the day, that's okay. I'm probably just subconsciously writing them for myself anyway, so I can go back and grin at how clever I was while sitting alone in a dark room drinking hot cocoa from a Hang In There cat mug.

[CMonster]

And at the end of the day, that's okay. I'm probably just subconsciously writing them for myself anyway, so I can go back and grin at how clever I was while sitting alone in a dark room drinking hot cocoa from a Hang In There cat mug.

This is probably closer to the truth for most people than they are willing to admit.

Minus the cat mug.