Brutally Blunt Blog Blustering #58: In the Mood

by Rachel · October 10, 2011 · Blog Blustering · 5 Comments

It’s Blusterin’ Time!

If you’re new to this feature or need a refresher, click the label at the bottom of this post and see the previous posts. Otherwise, here are the basics:

What I do is list a site; you critique it. But here’s the catch: to induce the most honest reactions, don’t leave the comment using your normal alias/login – instead, go anonymous, and be as brutally honest (or complimentary) as you wish to be. Also, be specific, and naturally, don’t be rude. If I deem anything inappropriate, I’ll have no problem deleting the comment.

So, go to the site listed below, familiarize yourself with it for a few minutes, then come back and leave some constructive criticism and/or comments that you have.

And remember: Blustering should be a two-way street; if you’ve asked to be blustered, you better be a blusterer.

Site: In the Mood
LAMB#: 1134

If you would like to have your blog blustered by fellow LAMBs, please send me an email containing your site’s info and “Bluster Me!” in the subject line.


5 Responses to Brutally Blunt Blog Blustering #58: In the Mood

  1. Anonymous says:

    First, Welcome to the Lamb!

    I really like that your blog has a specific focus on older movies. It gives it a tone and a specific niche (a good thing), that sometimes get lost when we bloggers try to cover too much.

    I also think the images that you have on your blog really complements that tone… Both the pictures in your posts as well as on the sides and in the margins. It really makes it feel like we are in for the classics, and then when we get to the labels by year, you prove us correct. I like that you’ve given us the ability to search by year, and think this will be even more powerful as you add more and more reviews.

    Unfortunately, I don’t know much about older films, so I’m not able to give much of a critique in terms of content. At first I was going to say that I didn’t like the font, but in a way it works, because it gives it a bit of a type-written feel.

    Sorry that this didn’t have as much “blustering”–I just liked what I saw!

  2. Anonymous says:


    As with the previous commenter I don’t really have many negative comments to make other than the colourful posters down the side kind of clash with the mainly black and white content in the middle and top. Maybe consider redesigning your title header to even it out. Also, I prefer my homepage to not include full posts, just headers and descriptions linking to the full articles – I find having everything slung on there looks a bit messy and makes browsing a little more difficult.

    These are minor quibbles though, your writing is very personal and likeable. I enjoyed reading your thoughts and reviews, your passion is infectious. As mentioned previously, the fact that you have a precise focus on ‘oldies’ is great. OK so the site might not be for everyone, but why should it? Personally I love old movies, so I was sold.

    Keep up the good work!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Nicely done.

    The blog is mostly clean and contains true love of film.

    The background, at least for me, is disturbing my interest. It’s a bit too much – movie posters typically don’t make for good backgrounds.

    Also, I’d attempt to condense your homepage – so much going on in your sidebars. Tabs are always more simplistic.

    Otherwise, interesting site. Keep up the good work and welcome the LAMB.

  4. Anonymous says:

    One of the mistakes I see new film bloggers make most often is writing exhaustive plot summaries. While I don’t think you are going entirely overboard with the summations, they are definitely too long, and the length is exaggerated even more considering that you tend to write them in long, rambling, single paragraphs. Try shortening them to as few sentences as possible. Keep in mind as well that most thirties and forties era comedies tend to have formulaic plots, so it’s not all that important to summarize them in the first place.

    I think the youth-oriented texting characters: <3 :-) are OK, especially considering how open you are about your age, but don't go crazy with them.

    I hate the Courier body text. Courier is a monospaced typeface and it is really difficult (and tiring) to read over the course of a whole post. There’s simply too much space between individual letters — your narrow column makes it even harder, because the rag on the right is so extreme — there’s a reason why book designers always use justified text in their columns. I’m not suggesting that you hit the justify button, but if you switch to Times or Georgia, you’ll immediately get a smoother, prettier, easier-to-read column.

    The movie posters are distracting. If you want to keep them, just tone them down. Open your file in Photoshop and screen them back: Image > Adjustments > Levels, then move the “Output Levels” slider from 0 to 150 or so, whatever looks good, and save.

  5. StanwyckFan says:

    Thank you so much! So far, you’ve all brought up things that I’ve thought about changing before and am now certainly going to work on. The font and background will definitely be fixed. I will also be doing away with my <3's and :)'S as well as my long plot summaries. Thanks again for your suggestions and complements!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.