| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 11:01:06
Just another quick Merci Beaucoup! to beneficent benj and those hardworking MERPS. I've recently had a kind of epiphany which makes me feel as though we're in partnership for FWFR approval -- that is, instead of fuming at a rejection, I try to figure out how that review could be bettered. With persistance and revision - and the help of benj/MERPS - several rejectees have recently been welcomed into the approved fold.
Happy happy BaftaBabe   
|
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Willy Weasel |
Posted - 05/13/2006 : 13:47:07
Thanks Turrel & Morkeleb. Have submitted 'Four Leds, Four Tales.' after submitting to higher powers.
|
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 21:55:13
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
Thanks for feedback, but it appears that a crucial element has been overlooked in each review.
'Horror In The Bathroom' is a twist on 'Mirror In The Bathroom' the song by The Beat. I thought that the two first words were similar enough for the link to be made and make it more specific to film. This narrows it to just the horrors which feature bathroom mirrors. It was the bathroom mirror which Donnie shot the wabbit in. I'm going to drop this one as it was never a frontrunner.
Good choice. First, trying to refer to a song will probably only work if it has a clear link to the film or is really famous (I learned this the hard way whil trying to write a review for Closer that referenced the Nine Inch Nails song 'Closer' by way of Clive Owen's character allegedly having a nine-inch member). Second, even narrowing it down to horrors which feature bathroom mirrors isn't enough - how many times have we seen a person at a medicine cabinet in an empty bathroom open the cabinet, then close it, revealing in the reflection that someone is suddenly there!
As for the other one, I still think the connection to potheads is a little tenuous. If it doesn't work, I'd still recommend changing heads to Leds, which makes it much more specific. Best of luck with that.
|
| turrell |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 21:48:51
It's more than having a rock-solid explanation of why a review fits the movie - you have to go the other way and say if I read this review does it singularly or at least obviously indicate a single film (or best fit that film).
Well Worth Checking Out is clever within the context of Million Dollar Hotel, but I hazard to guess no one without having seen this thread would read that review cold and be able to associate it back to the movie - it has to be pretty solid in each direction - a solid way to get past this is to add the director, writer or star of the film to the review - then you can be clever and perhaps generic because it limits it to the movies associated with an individual. |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 18:58:05
I still have rejected reviews from when I first joined. Boy do i have alot. One day they i will be inspired. |
| Willy Weasel |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 18:48:02
Thanks for feedback, but it appears that a crucial element has been overlooked in each review.
'Horror In The Bathroom' is a twist on 'Mirror In The Bathroom' the song by The Beat. I thought that the two first words were similar enough for the link to be made and make it more specific to film. This narrows it to just the horrors which feature bathroom mirrors. It was the bathroom mirror which Donnie shot the wabbit in. I'm going to drop this one as it was never a frontrunner.
'Four Leds, four tales.' it may have to be, but the twist of the coin was a double-header. Obviously 'tales' substituted for 'tails' but 'Four heads' meaning four potheads, aka 'heads'. Will try: Four 'heads, Four Tales. It's just given me an idea for another review - going in before someone else spots it. 
|
| Stalean |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 17:15:40
Off the top of my head...
Psycho would be my first choice if I were guessing "Horror in the bathroom." Not to mention,
Poltergeist
The Shining
The Exorcist
Final Destination
Willard
Slither
The Changeling
Ghost Story
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets or Goblet of Fire
depending on what horror means to one:
Single White Female
Trainspotting
The Marathon Man
For "Four heads, four tales" here are a few:
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
Tales of Erotica
Steel Magnolias
Sorry, WW, but they sound generic to me.
|
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 16:27:02
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Weasel
Generic or Genius?
I am learning how to resubmit worthwhile reviews to satisfy current requirements, but sometimes as in the case of Whippersnapper's 'Well worth checking out.' premium wheat is thrown out with the chaff. I argue that as long as a 'chaffalike' review is covered with an explanation, it should not be rejected for cleverly masquerading as a generic review. I would certainly vote this one higher than others on the same film.
Many rejected reviews I will let lie in order to keep my standard and the general standard high. These two reviews though have been rejected twice despite justification. The first I like but would not defend to the death. The second I consider one of my best ever; yes that's right, in my entire 18 days here at fwfr! I mention them in this particular thread because they require a little more thought than some reviews accepted, but are both legitimate and apt synopses of their respective films.
Donnie Darko - 'Horror In The Bathroom'
Song Remains the Same, The - Four heads, four tales.
Why does the first not apply to 'Psycho' and how can the second review possibly reefer to any other film? Jury decide.
I don't know about other people, but neither of these reviews make much sense to me. Unless I'm missing something, the Donnie Darko review not only applies (as far as I can tell) to Psycho, but also both versions of Diabolique, What Lies Beneath, Dreamcatcher, and assumedly Monsturd. And that's just off the top of my head (no pun intended). As a matter of fact, it seems to fit these films strictly better than Donnie Darko, since the scenes in Donnie Darko that occurred in the bathroom are relatively unimportant. If this one does in fact work for Donnie Darko better than others, it needs some explanation.
As for the other one, it makes a bit more sense, but as far as I can see, the only thing that I can see that links this to The Song Remains the Same as opposed to any other film that tells the tale of four people (say, Timecode) is that head rhymes with Led (unless there are coins involved in The Song Remains the Same?). And I'm not sure that's enough. It should, however, work as 'Four Leds, four tales,' which more or less preserves the heads/tails idea.
Sometimes you can get yourself into trouble by flirting with generic-sounding reviews. I recently submitted 'Lawyer defeats movie piracy' for Hook, and it was smacked down as being too generic. I didn't push it since my other submission for Hook was accepted (and pretty clever, I think), but I was a little non-plussed about the generic comment. Sure, it sounds generic, but for the life of me, I couldn't think of any other film in which a lawyer defeats piracy of any kind. But eventually, I remembered that A High Wind in Jamaica ends with pirates on trial (I think), so maybe it was generic.
The point of the story is that if it sounds generic, it probably is generic, simply because there have been so many movies made. Chances are, there's some movie other than the one you were thinking of that fits the description. |
| Willy Weasel |
Posted - 05/12/2006 : 13:45:14
Generic or Genius?
I am learning how to resubmit worthwhile reviews to satisfy current requirements, but sometimes as in the case of Whippersnapper's 'Well worth checking out.' premium wheat is thrown out with the chaff. I argue that as long as a 'chaffalike' review is covered with an explanation, it should not be rejected for cleverly masquerading as a generic review. I would certainly vote this one higher than others on the same film.
Many rejected reviews I will let lie in order to keep my standard and the general standard high. These two reviews though have been rejected twice despite justification. The first I like but would not defend to the death. The second I consider one of my best ever; yes that's right, in my entire 18 days here at fwfr! I mention them in this particular thread because they require a little more thought than some reviews accepted, but are both legitimate and apt synopses of their respective films.
Donnie Darko - 'Horror In The Bathroom'
Song Remains the Same, The - Four heads, four tales.
Why does the first not apply to 'Psycho' and how can the second review possibly reefer to any other film? Jury decide.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 13:56:33
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Benj and those little MERPs are to be congratulated and thanked on their recent super-human efforts. Pending down to 57...
Agreed!
quote:
The rejection of reviews is a necessary evil. We really don't want the site full of "bad" reviews and most of us don't want our own published reviews to include too many poor quality ones either. Survival of the fittest. Having said that, and accepting that often rejections encourage better review writing, it is also generally acknowledged that most of the top 20 reviews of all time could easily be rejected today. I had a review rejected the other day, quite rightly by current standards, for Million Dollar Hotel - "Well worth checking out." If you've seen the film you'll understand why that hotel is well worth checking out of! I think the rejection of this kind of review as generic is a shame but there we are. 
Perhaps they didn't understand the double meanings - Million dollars - that's 'well worth' a whole lot. Checking out, as in check-out but also as in taking a look at. Sorry it got rejected.
quote:
Chocky, I believe the acceptance of new films is done personally by Benj - not a MERPy kind of thing - so that's probably why they are still pending for you -no doubt another Benj binge will be coming along some time soon! New films seem to get a reasonably high priority, although it must be a lot of work entering the cast details too.
Ah... yes. No problem. Most of them are just to make my newest accolade even better. I'm on a one-woman crusade to have reviews of every Katharine Hepburn movie ever made (I even have reviewed Travels With My Aunt, which she didn't appear in and only was a writer for, but since she was kicked off the film during production, I decided not to include that in the accolade).
quote:
Now go vote for my Jerusalem review, as advertised in FYC, bevakasha.
[insult mode] As if I haven't already done so! [/insult mode]
(Tale of Jews' City - very clever!)
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 12:50:54
Benj and those little MERPs are to be congratulated and thanked on their recent super-human efforts. Pending down to 57...
The rejection of reviews is a necessary evil. We really don't want the site full of "bad" reviews and most of us don't want our own published reviews to include too many poor quality ones either. Survival of the fittest. Having said that, and accepting that often rejections encourage better review writing, it is also generally acknowledged that most of the top 20 reviews of all time could easily be rejected today. I had a review rejected the other day, quite rightly by current standards, for Million Dollar Hotel - "Well worth checking out." If you've seen the film you'll understand why that hotel is well worth checking out of! I think the rejection of this kind of review as generic is a shame but there we are.
Chocky, I believe the acceptance of new films is done personally by Benj - not a MERPy kind of thing - so that's probably why they are still pending for you -no doubt another Benj binge will be coming along some time soon! New films seem to get a reasonably high priority, although it must be a lot of work entering the cast details too. Now go vote for my Jerusalem review, as advertised in FYC, bevakasha.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 05/11/2006 : 12:11:33
Yes, that does seem to work most of the time. Sometimes one realizes that we have to take a totally different approach.
And there have been times when I've submitted reviews knowing fully well that the MERPs won't add it, since I'm probably the only one who would ever get it - with or without an explination. The last one I did like that, I said in the explination that I knew it was a long shot, and they could reject it.
Hm... I just noticed. My pending pile now has almost only films that are unadded as yet.
Interesting...
|
|
|
