When is a "review" a flame?

In another thread (Worst Movie Comedy Ever) we’ve been trashing a lot of real products and real people, go figure. Of couse, most of them are far too self-absorbed to ever come across this stuff.

Where is the line between there (Cafe Society) and the PIT? Is it okay to trash industries/industrialists or professions/professionals for their work product, as opposed to cultures and members of that culture for whatever within the culture offends us?

Personally I’m glad it’s stayed there so far. How can you debate without pointing at negative examples? Don’t get me started on lawyers.

For example… how many of these, if any, are flames?

  1. The Yugo was a piece of crap developed by a 10th rate industry.
  2. The Yugoslavian political/industrial system was so inept that it produced a deathtrap like the Yugo.
  3. What were those Yugoslavians in charge at the time thinking when they built the Yugo?
  4. Based on the Yugo, Yugoslavians haven’t shown any ability to compete in the world industrial marketplace. (Actually I don’t know whether this is true or not, but I include it here as an example of terminology, not as a slur to Yugoslavians).

In the last case (if you think it’s a flame), would it not be if I changed it to “…,Yugoslavia hasn’t…”

And what about, “Lorne Michaels has produced many of the worst comedy movies of all time”.

When is a “review” a flame?

When it’s written by Mr. Cranky, of course.

I tend to believe that 1 and 4 are putdown flames, in that the statements were way out of proportion to what happened. The two are filled with wildly unsupported implications. Not even the most cynical of critics would get away with these statements without lots and lots of evidence to back them up.

Number 2 comes off as an editorial essay thesis on the Yugoslavian complex. It needs more backup, but it is not a flame.

Number 3 are a more proper fit for a review, since it relates to the moment itself, and nothing more. Also, it gives the best possibility for feedback. In, fact, the subject of the statement would most likely agree with the statement if it were phrased like that.

The best ‘flamer’ critic of all time was Dorothy Parker.

Mr. Cranky, I don’t think is a flamer as much as a highly demanding critic from what I can tell. The reviews do tend to back what he says.

When is a review a flame?

When I don’t know what else to do. :smiley:

Just one nitpick about that review, Cervaise:

The psychlo guns had a “stun” setting in addition to the usual “kill” setting. They clearly showed one of the Psychlo guards flipping the setting-switch in one of the early “human processing center” scenes. This was how Girly Man could be shot in the back and still survive to be captured.

Other than that, bravo.