| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 04/12/2007 : 12:54:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Talking of strange declines, I've just had one for "The Ron Clark Story".
My review was "Story of Ron Clark".
Reason for refusal: "Do not understand". 
Haven't been able to work out if you were serious about this one or not. I.e., whether you did actually submit that? If so, then the "Don't Understand" probably meant "I don't understand why you'd write such a 'review'".
If benj allows that one, then Gold Deity is mine.  I'll start by submitting (see if anyone can guess the movies):-
"Washington: Mr Smith goes"
"The Ring's Fellowship"
"Towers: Two of them"
"Samurai: Seven of 'em"
"The List of Schindler"
"Window in the Rear"
"12 Men: Angry"
"Godfather, The"
ok, just kidding about the last one.  But I'd call all of 'em duplicates. Not duplicates of other reviews, simply duplicates of the movie title. I think I preferred Catuli's "Penguins Eat Martian Cyclops" review. 
Sure I'm serious little bro'.
Obviously post-modernist irony hasn't yet seeped down to Kiwiland.
Thus, "Towers: Two of Them" is a great review, as it may well be the most interesting thing about the film and expresses the dismissiveness the film clearly deserves (in intellectual rather than technical terms) whilst capturing the vacuous pretentiousness of the much-worked "X of Y" formula (instead of the normal form "Y's X") littering the trilogy. Sean, you are a genius!
"12Men: Angry" wouldn't do as the film deserves as there are much more interesting things to say about it.
You can call 'em duplicates if you like, and if you want to call them something else, that's fine with me too, but we all know there is no prohibition against formulaic reviews where the same type of review is written for different films. The trick is to use them appropriately. And there's no problem with duplicating the film title either as long as it makes a legit review.
And Catuli's review was "Martian Cyclops eats penguins" - just to prove I kept my eye open.  |
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 04/12/2007 13:01:38 |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 15:40:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
[quote]Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Talking of strange declines, I've just had one for "The Ron Clark Story".
Sure I'm serious little bro'.
Obviously post-modernist irony hasn't yet seeped down to Kiwiland.
Thus, "Towers: Two of Them" is a great review, as it may well be the most interesting thing about the film and expresses the dismissiveness the film clearly deserves (in intellectual rather than technical terms) whilst capturing the vacuous pretentiousness of the much-worked "X of Y" formula (instead of the normal form "Y's X") littering the trilogy. Sean, you are a genius!
"12Men: Angry" wouldn't do as the film deserves as there are much more interesting things to say about it.
You can call 'em duplicates if you like, and if you want to call them something else, that's fine with me too, but we all know there is no prohibition against formulaic reviews where the same type of review is written for different films. The trick is to use them appropriately. And there's no problem with duplicating the film title either as long as it makes a legit review.
And Catuli's review was "Martian Cyclops eats penguins" - just to prove I kept my eye open.
I have no idea whether you're being serious or not, but I feel like the argument is thought-out enough to merit a rebuttal.
Obviously, of course, the towers themselves are the least interesting part of a very long movie. I don't remember a damn thing about the towers. I remember a long siege, Gollum, walking trees, the resurrection of Gandalf, etc. 12 Angry Men, conversely, is always about twelve angry men; there's never any part of that movie that doesn't concern twelve angry men. Neither does it work as a critique of Tolkien's apparently "pretentious" language: "Towers: Two of them" is not an inversion of "X's Y."
You just wanted to slam The Two Towers for being intellectually vacant, I suppose. Well, films are not an intellectual pursuit, they're an artistic one. Further, you can intellectualize every single piece of film that ever existed, right down to the shittiest piece of direct-to-video garbage. Whenever I hear someone say that there's nothing interesting from an intellectual perspective, I just see someone who doesn't want to bother looking at it. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 04/12/2007 15:47:39 |
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 17:30:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Well, films are not an intellectual pursuit, they're an artistic one.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I'm not sure I agree. I'd like to think that some films that involve the audience and encourage them to use their brains can be an intellectual pursuit. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 18:46:12
|
| As the writer of most of the site's boring reviews I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with reviewing on basic plot points (for instance if the name of the movie WASN'T 'the story of ron clark or whatever) but since it is the name of the movie, I just don't see it happening. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 18:48:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Well, films are not an intellectual pursuit, they're an artistic one.
That's rather a sweeping statement. I'm not sure I agree. I'd like to think that some films that involve the audience and encourage them to use their brains can be an intellectual pursuit.
I mean, yeah, it CAN be, and building a house can be an artistic pursuit. But it doesn't have to be, mostly it's a way to keep the weather off your head. A house doesn't fail because it wasn't designed with art in mind, and a film doesn't fail if it doesn't hit in the brain. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 19:49:02
|
I guess I should really throw away my Home Alone review
"All Alone at Home" |
|
|
|
Chris C 
"Four words, never backwards."
|
Posted - 04/12/2007 : 23:05:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
As the writer of most of the site's boring reviews I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with reviewing on basic plot points (for instance if the name of the movie WASN'T 'the story of ron clark or whatever) but since it is the name of the movie, I just don't see it happening.
Boring?? Most certainly not!!!
For a huge selection of basic plot point reviews, check out Dicky. I overtook him recently and had a wander through his pages. IMHO, there's nothing to attract huge numbers of votes, but kudos to him for producing almost 800 reviews in a year. |
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 01:45:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
As the writer of most of the site's boring reviews I have to say that I don't see anything wrong with reviewing on basic plot points (for instance if the name of the movie WASN'T 'the story of ron clark or whatever) but since it is the name of the movie, I just don't see it happening.
Boring?? Most certainly not!!!
For a huge selection of basic plot point reviews, check out Dicky. I overtook him recently and had a wander through his pages. IMHO, there's nothing to attract huge numbers of votes, but kudos to him for producing almost 800 reviews in a year.
I'm not exactly near the top of the vote heap. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 09:57:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris C
For a huge selection of basic plot point reviews, check out Dicky. I overtook him recently and had a wander through his pages. IMHO, there's nothing to attract huge numbers of votes, but kudos to him for producing almost 800 reviews in a year.
He's a nice guy. I've been in touch with him because he was next to me during Be-kind-to-your-neighbour month. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 10:38:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Try "Ron of Clark Story"
Nah, I decided just to resubmit with the following:
"The Ron Clark Story" is the story of Ron Clark. Hope this explanation helps.
I think that should do the trick.
I think the problem was that the MERPs are used to your rapier wit and when faced a review that seems (on the surface) to be overly simple (for you) they were looking for the joke and couldn't find it. You can't blame them for not understanding that you were so bored by the film that you couldn't find anything witty to say about it.
(By the way, I'm not sure about "Towers: Two of Them" because, to tell you the truth, I don't remember seeing any towers in that damned boring movie. Perhaps they showed up during my 2 hour nap in the middle.)
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 04/13/2007 10:40:09 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 11:54:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
On the topic of penguins, Shiv, no there aren't any close to home (and roads) that are easily spottable, but I'm off fishing for a few days tomorrow and usually see a few.
Don't reverse over any then |
Edited by - Shiv on 04/13/2007 11:58:42 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 12:38:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
I guess I should really throw away my Home Alone review
"All Alone at Home"
As a matter of fact there are several reviews on site which are the same as the title of the film they review. I have "Elephants In A Tent" for example. It's a companion piece for my "Tent outside some elephants" review.
(This advertisement has been paid for by the "Whippersnapper For Dog-catcher" Committee.)
Elephants In A Tent
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 13:21:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I have no idea whether you're being serious or not, but I feel like the argument is thought-out enough to merit a rebuttal.
Great - let me know when you write one.
Obviously, of course, the towers themselves are the least interesting part of a very long movie. I don't remember a damn thing about the towers. I remember a long siege, Gollum, walking trees, the resurrection of Gandalf, etc. 12 Angry Men, conversely, is always about twelve angry men; there's never any part of that movie that doesn't concern twelve angry men. Neither does it work as a critique of Tolkien's apparently "pretentious" language: "Towers: Two of them" is not an inversion of "X's Y."
You just wanted to slam The Two Towers for being intellectually vacant, I suppose. Well, films are not an intellectual pursuit, they're an artistic one. Further, you can intellectualize every single piece of film that ever existed, right down to the shittiest piece of direct-to-video garbage. Whenever I hear someone say that there's nothing interesting from an intellectual perspective, I just see someone who doesn't want to bother looking at it.
There is nothing intellectually interesting about The Lord Of The Rings. It is pure twaddle. And I understand that "Towers: Two of Them" is not an inversion of "X's Y." but it mimics it, which is enough to reference it and make the point.
"Films are an artistic pursuit" - don't you think trying to sum up film in one short sentence is a little ambitious? And I never said that films were an intellectual pursuit, I said that Lord of the Rings is intellectually vacuous, which a) is a very strong argument I'm sticking to and b) does not rule out the film having other purposes (like entertaining children or the simple-minded) or merits (like technical wizardry (pun intended.) If you want to criticise "Towers: Two of Them" for not giving a full critique of the film in four words then, yes, you are right, thanks for pointing that one out to me. 
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 13:35:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I think the problem was that the MERPs are used to your rapier wit and when faced a review that seems (on the surface) to be overly simple (for you) they were looking for the joke and couldn't find it. You can't blame them for not understanding that you were so bored by the film that you couldn't find anything witty to say about it.
(By the way, I'm not sure about "Towers: Two of Them" because, to tell you the truth, I don't remember seeing any towers in that damned boring movie. Perhaps they showed up during my 2 hour nap in the middle.)
Oooh, you say the nicest things! I'm not blaming the MERPs, I just thought the response of "Don't understand" was funny. I'm sure the MERP was either looking for something more that wasn't there, or else was having a joke his/herself at the review's simplicity.
Incidentally, I have to admit that I haven't even seen The Two Towers, but I saw the other two episodes of The Snoozefest Trilogy and I'm assuming that there must be two towers in the film somewhere to justify the title.
|
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 04/13/2007 : 18:36:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
(By the way, I'm not sure about "Towers: Two of Them" because, to tell you the truth, I don't remember seeing any towers in that damned boring movie. Perhaps they showed up during my 2 hour nap in the middle.)
Ha ha, you too? I think I was pregnant when we went to see it and exhausted enough already but I totally conked out. Eventually after DH insisted we watch the series five million times I came to like it enough.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Forgive me, I'm new
