Schneider recurrently unleashes blunt mockery of Hollywood techniques; he labels Latin-American films as 'overt preaching'; and he accuses Insdorf of 'masturbating over filmic minutia'.

Whether you like Hollywood or Latin-American writers or (filmic) masturbation is a different issue. But this kind of anger makes the review far less enjoyable to read because it sounds defensive and hypocritical.

The problem with so many insults directed at Hollywood is that the insults debase the film. 'Blue' becomes not deep and subtle in its own right, but deep and subtle only because Hollywood films are shallow and coarse. By juxtaposing the two types of film, Schneider succumbs to the same criticism that he levelled at Insdorf- too much comparative analysis and not enough detail on the film itself.

The bluntness of the insults only exacerbates this problem, because Schneider begins to overtly preach to the readers on his cinematic purity.

Overall, the review has one or two pieces of insight, but Schneider directs inordinate force at levelling parties not relevant to the film. This commitment to razing others deflects his and our energy from his overall opinion of the film. That said, I applaud Schneider's overall opinion- I think Blue is a masterpiece too, and a film well worth watching and keeping.

I just wish this review spent more time on telling us why it's a masterpiece.