Rambo review issue

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 weeks ago
  • Answered
This review of Rambo was rejected for not meeting "contributor guidelines."  I would like to know specifics.

"In a pantheon of message movies, Rambo may be among the more unique. It is a headlong foray into the reality that sometimes, it is moral to kill. Sometimes, it is more than merely necessary.

In the end, we see various people with combat backgrounds engage in an operation to rescue, if possible. We see them engage a savage group of armed thugs, masquerading as a national military unit.

At the core, the unflinching reality of societal evil is revealed in stark terms, in a script co-written by star Sylvester Stallone. There is no question what Stallone wanted to achieve, and he succeeded.

One doctor is taken from a pious and self-assured belief that "killing is never justified," to a supreme moment where he must decide to defend lives he knows are good, and make the choice that nearly all know is inevitable.

All of this story would be powerful on its own. Based very strongly on the actual political developments in former Burma, renamed Myanmar, the story becomes something profound. This movie courageously focused on the great evils that the so-called State Peace and Development Council perpetrated from 1988 until they were dissolved in 2011.

This movie realistically showed the forced impressment of children into the SPDC military, as well as their reprisals, and senseless brutality, in their military offensive against ethnic minority populations.

It's a rare thing for an action movie to send a profound message, but this is one of those rare examples."
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 27 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes

Posted 1 month ago

  • 2
Photo of Grayson

Grayson, Employee

  • 187 Posts
  • 336 Reply Likes
Hey Ken - in our review guide we make the following point: Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based. I expect this is why our data editors declined this.

Here's the guidelines: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLDNFLPRRH

I liked your review and I think it's good, so I would recommend you rewrite it following the above guide and resubmit.
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 27 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
Fair enough, will do.  Thanks!
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 27 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
OK, so I then wrote a review of Rambo: Last Blood, and it was also rejected for the same reason, and in this one (posted below), there is no opinion stated on real events.  In fact, it is merely my opinion of the movie, and isn't that what reviews are supposed to be!

"Stallone wrote a story that was designed to be the coda, and yet, perhaps it will not. After watching this movie, one is left with an empty impression. The movie has intense action, and starts off with a worthy subject. But, if simple revenge is a message, then it was delivered as empty and shallow as such a purpose ultimately always is.

Perhaps that's precisely what Stallone was after. To show the void created by senseless death and misery. To show how utterly unsatisfying revenge really is, even when supremely achieved.

People have been wanting to write off the Rambo character, and to an extent, Stallone himself. But, what keeps the audience coming is that underneath all the violence and visual impact, there is a psychological analysis at work. There are deeper meanings underlying the obvious plot.

There are no uplifting messages here, no social redemption, and certainly nothing to feel good about. What was good and hopeful in character development in this movie is destroyed. All that lasts is the void, and the presentation ends with the character all alone, amid great desolation, no family, no personal connections left alive, and no one left to go home to.

As sad as that sounds, it seems this is the message Stallone wanted to deliver, and if so, he achieved it resoundingly. It might well be among the finest movies ever that cared not to provide a meaningful end."

I still think someone on the IMBd staff is making questionable decisions here.  I think it should be reviewed.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
My view on your review is that you went overboard on interjecting your personal views as if you were a shrink and Rambo was your patient and they are your case history notes.

I know you have read the guidelines. You said you would. But you have again ignored those guidelines.

While your review is stellar and well written, it really makes more commentary about the social issues of the title character and it's writer. You mention absolutely nothing about the directing, the editing, the locations, the cinematography, the sound editing, or absolutely anything that went into making this movie. You wrote 5 paragraphs focusing on a single aspect. What was in the head of the writer. Stallone! Well you gave absolutely no mention of the other 2 writers. Yes. I know that Stallone's influence and his input makes the script his. He always wants final approval. He is a control freak! But to focus your whole review on Stallone was what got this rejected.

You left out how good Ted Kotcheff directing was.
You left out how good or bad the other characters were written and their performances.
Etc Etc Etc.

Please don't shoot the messenger (me), I'm just pointing out the obvious!
I have never gotten a review rejected. I stick to the rules. I can say exactly the same thing you said above in two sentences. Then add another 3 paragraphs reviewing the rest of what happened.
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 27 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
Stallone is a "control freak," -- wow -- no personal opinion in that remark!

My reviews are my reviews.  You can write the ones you wish to write.  If I choose to focus on the aspects of the movie that I find the most important, that does not render the review any more or less my personal opinion than is any other review, which is always one's personal views of a movie.

You leapt to an excuse, which you have done before.  I infer you do not work for the IMBd staff, which means this was not written for your reply.  So, you provided your opinion.  My guess is that such snap decisions are being used to justify all sorts of rejections, and perhaps people should wonder the value of those reviews constantly rejected by people on the staff who seem overzealous in doing so.

No doubt they have your support.  You've made that most clear, even as you avail yourself of far more personal opinion (and insults) than the reviews you seem to criticize.

And really?  Over 23,000 postings to this site?  For someone who isn't paid for your contributions here, you sure do seem to freely offer your two cents, even when one clearly is asking for the staff making the decision to explain that decision.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 3721 Posts
  • 5157 Reply Likes
Ken Stallings, just a note there: most of titles and information on IMDb, while going through the staff editors, are added by enthusiasts such as Ed and me. There are people with amounts of both posts here and updates added to IMDb which might seem unbelieavable, but that's actually very normal for this very website. 

Just saying that because you try to bring that into a mostly unrelated argument as something to be unsure of and to use as an additional backing in continue seeing enthuasiastic person is a suspicious way. That, and it's replies, not posts/threads. 
 
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones(XLIX)

Ed Jones(XLIX)

  • 23311 Posts
  • 27775 Reply Likes
Ken.
Stallone is a "control freak," -- wow -- no personal opinion in that remark!
Yep!
My personal opinion. Based on trivia read right here on IMDb. He was fired from a movie for trying to influence the producers after being hired as an actor to rewrite his character. Asta la vista baby! He was canned.
It's my opinion all right. But is a personal opinion about the man himself.

It has no place however in a review. While Stallone is what he is, that does not negate the fact that I like what he does. He is great when not mis-casted.
So if this is the basis for your rebuttal, it is faulty. It kinda reminds me of your review. Blinders on full steam ahead. Singly minded. Not diverse.

You leapt to an excuse
A reason why your review was rejected is no excuse.

I infer you do not work for the IMDb staff, which means this was not written for your reply.
IMDb staff will only comment that your review does not meet guidelines and that you read them. Do you want the experienced critique of your review, or another "canned" reply by staff?

And really?  Over 23,000 postings to this site?
I make Polls here. Over 200 are published. I have close to a thousand poll suggestions that are not published. So my 23,000 posts are not dealing with issues here on "data issues and policy discussions". Only a fraction of are.


you sure do seem to freely offer your two cents,
From the IMDb Get Satisfaction Home Page.


I like to help others.
If you do not wish to get help from the community at large.
Next time go here.
https://help.imdb.com/contact.

They will only reply in the manner described above as they have time and time again before.
Do you want the truth or the same useless replies by staff?
Just trying to help you.
And yes your gonna reply you don't want it.
Fine by me.
Do not take good advice.
I care, but I don't too.
:):)
Good luck.

Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 27 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
I wanted to make a final follow up to this thread.  This issue was satisfactorily resolved. 

Communication from the staff indicated that the sole concern over my review of Rambo: Last Blood was that the concluding comments strayed too far into giving away plot lines of the movie and therefore needed a spoiler alert.  

Once I reposted the entire review without edits, and simply clicked the spoiler warning to the affirmative, the review was posted.  That was valuable staff feedback, and helps me better consider the line between revealing plot lines and overall movie commentary.

I hope there is a lesson to be learned.  It is one thing to hold a personal opinion.  We are all equally empowered there.  But, when someone asks for the intervention of the staff, it means just that.  It should not serve as an open invitation for non-staff members to engage in their own opinions about what is wrong.  Ultimately, regardless of merit in one's opinion about my review, the reason it was first rejected had nothing whatsoever to do with said review being overboard with psycho-analysis.

The conclusion being that if my original post was soliciting personal feedback on the quality of the review, then any such feedback would have been welcome and requested.  But, that really was not the stated goal.

Cheers!