| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uh oh
|
| rdfs:comment | - Cajek came back for an edit, that edit got VFD'd, then me and UU decided that fuck that shit. 19:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | - Besides what I already said, the article would benefit from a few more sections and having the sections that exist fleshed out a bit. I say this because there is real humor in the article and I want to see more! I think the readers should see this article with all of its potential brought to the forefront.
|
| Pcomment | - I think the prose and formatting are very good. Once into the article, it feels like an encyclopedia article. I like the references to "authorities," like the quotes to people involved in producing the movie, and by the critics. The only thing that stands out is maybe using a quote box for the director in the "Plot" section. I know I should go deep on this section like the others, but really, I think your prose and writing styles are very developed and good, and these are not areas for you to be concerned about. I would give a higher score in this section, except that I would need to see more material to feel like I have a full opportunity to check the consistent high quality of the prose and writing.
|
| Icomment | - The images are funny and relevant, but there need to be more of them. For example, the image with the man with the monocle captures how the film began production in the 1940's, with its black-and-white look and the top hat and monocle; and then, the picture from the "gimp" scene in Pulp Fiction shows the modern impact. What about adding some photos for the in-between years? Some photos to show the impact of the film on cinema from the 1960's or 1970's could be really funny. Maybe something from a classic Bond film and how your movie influenced the Bond franchise . The more ridiculous on that point, the better. Also, for the first photo, I think the caption could be improved to help explain the article's concept a bit more, since it is the first photo, after all.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | |
| Cscore | |
| Hcomment | - It's hard to know where to begin in writing this commentary because there are some real gems of humor in this article; the problem for me as a reviewer is that it was difficult to tell what direction the article was heading in based on the title of the article and the introductory paragraph. I actually got more into the groove of the article midway through the first main section , but by then I had already felt off-kilter from the title and the first paragraph. I will save more of my comments on this issue for the "concept" part of the review. As for the humor, I think the pictures are very funny - men with monocles and ball-gags are in my opinion often the foundation of comic gold . I enjoyed the references to Pauly Shore , and the idea of a regressive movie was REALLY funny to me. Also really funny is the idea of a movie having more impact on cinema BEFORE its release than AFTER. So there are some really good gags in the article. I also really enjoyed the faux critics' reviews. The one about Roger Ebert and lack of subtlety sounds like something Ebert would really say. So all and all, there is a lot of good humor, but I can't give out a higher score here because of an issue I have with the concept, which I will discuss below. Also, because of the jokes that were funny, I found myself wanting more, but because the article is not that long, the further jokes were missing, and this was disappointing because I was just getting into the article when it ended.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - It's a great work in progress with some solid comedy as it stands, but it has the potential to be VERY funny and I am sure you can make it so.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - Cajek came back for an edit, that edit got VFD'd, then me and UU decided that fuck that shit. 19:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
|
