| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
 Posted - 04/02/2006 : 21:31:08
|
| Just as noncentz has been dethrowned, another Goliath has been beaten (or at least tied). MguyX's Kramer Vs. Kramer review is now officially listed as the Number 1 review in the top 100 toppling the immortal "Icy dead people." |
Edited by - GHcool on 04/02/2006 22:03:09 |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 21:36:15
|
| All the more impressive since neither reviewer is a vote-grubber. These votes were earned the hard way. |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 07:13:22
|
Funny thing, I find I have rated most of the top 100 reviews - and not by visiting the list, either.
So a hearty BRAVO to MguyX and his #1 review.
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 07:48:51
|
'bout time.
Am I the only fwfrer not to have voted on 'Icy dead people'?
The Titanic is dead, long live the Kramer |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 09:29:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
Am I the only fwfrer not to have voted on 'Icy dead people'?
No, you are not.
But I did vote for the Kramer vs Kramer #1 review. |
|
|
|
mampers11 
"Lazy Lebowski Loses Rug"
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 09:49:09
|
Giddy Up Kramer Giddy Up Kramer.
Mampers wanting to watch some Seinfeld.
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 16:26:56
|
MguyX triumphs over genericism! 
And I heartily agree with Randall's post. He knows whereof he speaks.    |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 16:34:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
MguyX triumphs over genericism!
And I heartily agree with Randall's post. He knows whereof he speaks.
Sorry guys, I knew MguyX's review is very funny but it is not, IMHO, a proper review of the film ie it tells me nothing at all about the film which the title doesn't.
I don't think this review would be accepted today.
No offence meant. As I say, it's very witty.
|
|
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 21:28:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
MguyX triumphs over genericism!
And I heartily agree with Randall's post. He knows whereof he speaks.
Sorry guys, I knew MguyX's review is very funny but it is not, IMHO, a proper review of the film ie it tells me nothing at all about the film which the title doesn't.
I don't think this review would be accepted today.
No offence meant. As I say, it's very witty.
Personally I don't mind either review but the "icy dead people" is generic and I doubt it would be passed today, whereas "I bet Kramer wins" is at least easily identifiable as a Kramer v's Kramer review.
Whether a person likes a review is not important, my understanding is that a review should just be able to be tied to one film or very few films! Icy Dead People can be put to quite a few films I should imagine, i.e. any films where people die in the Arctic, antartic, the plains or siberia, norway, denmark, iceland, greenland, and the list goes on.
If Benj is to uphold the integrity of the site there is an argument that such high profile reviews should be removed to avoid people thinking that generic reviews are not acceptable.
Just my arguable opinion, sorry.
Josh the cat |
|
|
|
duh
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 22:34:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the dad
Personally I don't mind either review but the "icy dead people" is generic and I doubt it would be passed today, whereas "I bet Kramer wins" is at least easily identifiable as a Kramer v's Kramer review.
I haven't voted for "icy dead people" either. I don't know why; I like it okay. However, I don't feel compelled to make up for my omission either.
"I bet Kramer wins" has been one of my favorite FWFRs all along. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 04:51:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Josh the dad
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
MguyX triumphs over genericism!
And I heartily agree with Randall's post. He knows whereof he speaks.
Sorry guys, I knew MguyX's review is very funny but it is not, IMHO, a proper review of the film ie it tells me nothing at all about the film which the title doesn't.
I don't think this review would be accepted today.
No offence meant. As I say, it's very witty.
Personally I don't mind either review but the "icy dead people" is generic and I doubt it would be passed today, whereas "I bet Kramer wins" is at least easily identifiable as a Kramer v's Kramer review.
Whether a person likes a review is not important, my understanding is that a review should just be able to be tied to one film or very few films! Icy Dead People can be put to quite a few films I should imagine, i.e. any films where people die in the Arctic, antartic, the plains or siberia, norway, denmark, iceland, greenland, and the list goes on.
If Benj is to uphold the integrity of the site there is an argument that such high profile reviews should be removed to avoid people thinking that generic reviews are not acceptable.
Just my arguable opinion, sorry.
Josh the cat
I laughed really hard the first time I read "Icy dead people" and (at the time) thought Titanic was the perfect movie for it. I don't think deleting it would be wise since it is such a classic and so many other reviews are based on the popularity of that one. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 05:33:41
|
Ditto to GHcool.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 13:49:28
|
I'm afraid that, as much as I like MguyX, the Kramer review does nothing for me.
I had not even previously thought about its relying on the form and content of the title, something that is at least as against benj's rules as 'generic' reviews are. While one can claim that it is referring to the content of the film, we all know that it is not really. "I bet Brockovich wins" would never be allowed, for example, and that is even a very distinctive and eponymous name. "I bet Finch loses" would certainly not be passed for To Kill a Mockingbird.
I eventually voted on this review and some others in the top 100 when I thought about the fact that I would have voted for them had they had 0 votes; in other words I had been compensating for how many votes they had. Now I realise that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, and so I have returned to my gut-instinct policy. There are still quite a few votes in the top 100 that I would never vote on, therefore, such as the tents one.
"Icy dead people" would indeed be a little borderline now, but reviews as 'generic' as that still get passed; it is often just a case of whether a film seems to be clearly the best fit (even if only in terms of how well known it is). Also, any film where people die in the cold would not be as good; to be as apt as Titanic (rather than just plausible), it would have to have dead people who were icy, i.e. trapped in blocks of ice or similarly iced up. That would reduce the number of films quite a bit, though admittedly certainly not down to one. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 14:38:11
|
You could say the following reviews are also generic:
"Tense. In tents. Intense." Could be any horror film that takes place on a camping trip or even an Native American porno.
"The Great S Cape" could be any of at least 7 films with Superman films listed in FWFR.
"Pretty s**tty gang bang." I don't even want to speculate.
"Brother gets own room." Something never even referenced in the original film. It would be like "Media hounds former showgirl" as a review of King Kong. Likely to happen, based on the events in the movie, but hardly a review.
"Fin" Puh-leease.
Commonality: These reviews are all in the all-time FWFR top 10. And all but one of them deservedly so, IMHO. They are a perfect combination of review and film. And maybe MERPs should keep that in mind when looking at new reviews. (I'm not complaining - I've had a really good run of approved reviews as of late.)
I remember a story about an A&R guy at a record company who kept a sign on his desk reading "If The Beatles came in today, would you sign them?"
These reviews are FWFR's Beatles. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 14:58:30
|
| I agree completely, except that there is more than one I wouldn't have in the top 10. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 16:11:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I'm afraid that, as much as I like MguyX, the Kramer review does nothing for me.
I had not even previously thought about its relying on the form and content of the title, something that is at least as against benj's rules as 'generic' reviews are. While one can claim that it is referring to the content of the film, we all know that it is not really. "I bet Brockovich wins" would never be allowed, for example, and that is even a very distinctive and eponymous name. "I bet Finch loses" would certainly not be passed for To Kill a Mockingbird.
What makes the review illegitimate for me is the "I bet" bit, as it can only be said by someone who hasn't seen the film. "I havent seen this film but I bet X happens" cannot be a review. If the writer has seen the film then there's no sense in "I bet...".
"Kramer wins" would be OK, because Kramer does win - although Kramer also loses!
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Kramer wins!
