I have just deleted one of my pending reviews that was waiting several months for a second approval. It was for Grosse Point Blank Television caught in crossfire!
A couple of reviews for the film refer to the end scene where Ackroyd gets killed by the television. The first time this was submitted it came back with 'don't understand' so I resubbed with the explanation. It seems that it is still not clear.
The form of the review was intended to be like a newspaper front page headline.
My first thought is second approvals often take many months to get seen - the fact it was waiting for a while doesn't mean it wasn't a review that could have been approved eventually. You resubbed with an explanation and that could have been enough. All that is required after that is patience!
Second thought though is the review doesn't say much to me about the film, or the scene. Phrasing it like a newspaper headline doesn't seem to help as it doesn't reflect the film's content, so I wonder why you chose to present it in that way. I also wouldn't have known that "headline" was your intent if you hadn't said so.
On that line of thinking how about making it more specifically about TV news, and then you can get in a good pun about what happens to the television in the scene - "Breaking news! TV kills" or similar?
Yes, it does. Thanks It's one of those reviews I have been holding on to because I like it, but I do think I have a bit of a blind spot with it in terms of its value as a fwfr. To me, the fact that the TV kills after being caught in the crossfire of the shootout seems pretty obvious - but, as you say, it doesn't seem to come across like that for some reason.
Opinion on a review (spoiler of sorts)
Posted - 05/26/2007 : 00:39:50
