| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
boydegg 
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
 Posted - 04/11/2008 : 08:58:33
|
My resubmitted 'Bear's Jaw Hits Floor' review for 'The Golden Compass' has now been accepted.
I guess sometimes it pays to have a moan on the forum - although I don't want to make that a regular habit.
Cheers
Boydegg
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 01:55:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
My resubmitted 'Bear's Jaw Hits Floor' review for 'The Golden Compass' has now been accepted.
I guess sometimes it pays to have a moan on the forum - although I don't want to make that a regular habit.
Cheers
Boydegg
For the film Guys and Dolls (2002) I submitted "Barbie does lonely men." It was rejected -- by our new, over-zealous MERP I presume -- on the basis of 'factually inaccurate.' HUH???????????? I guess this person is unfamiliar with the concepts of humor and poetic license. |
 |
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 03:13:20
|
Actually, I think we are still witnessing the instance of diversity in opinion among the MERPs, and even among we reviewers.
For example, I would have declined boydegg's review because, IMHO, it only describes an event in the movie. If it appeared in the "What Film?" bubble, I might guess the film, because it's like a riddle in that context ("Can you name the film in which this event occurs?"). But is it a "review"?
duh's proposed review is also a type of movie-event descriptor (though more by implication, since most of the guys in the film refer to having sex with the dolls only in passing), but it encapsulates a theme that permeates the film. It also makes a sort of dry pun and, in its own way, offers an alternate title for the film. As film reviews go, I have often seen mainstream reviewers frame their critical observation by creating an alternate title for the film, achieving any number of critical effects in employing the device. Accordingly, I believe duh's review should have been approved.
Now, I am not saying that boydegg's review should not have been approved by those-persons-upon-whom-PKMN-apparently-was-unable-to-visit-the-actualization-of-his-vision (a title so much prettier than "MERP"). A case can be made for scene descriptions as legitimate reviews. For example, were I a sci-fi philistine who detested "The Empire Strikes Back," I might view the film as being worth only what I consider its biggest moneyshots: "Vader is Luke's Father," or "Luke's hand's cut off." Those might be my way of saying "big f**king deal: that whiney mop-top gets some kicks in the ass. Whoop dee do! Who doesn't? Try finding out your mother's a whore! Now THAT'S a kick in the pants, you candy ass."
My mother's not a whore. But if she were, and had I brought that personal agenda to the film, that might be my reason for submitting reviews such as "Vader is Luke's Father," or "Luke's hand's cut off." But what is interesting is that I probably needed the additional 35 words to really convey why those reviews are "reviews." And, much to my chagrin, the Thity-Five Word Film Review web site charges a subscription fee, so I don't post reviews over there.
"Soylent Green is PEOPLE!" Heston's declaration is the most memorable scene in the movie. It is the denouement, the surprise, the sum and substance, the sine qua non, and the funnest thing to yell when you're getting hauled away to an ambulance. If you think to do it if you ever need an ambulance, try it: I guarantee you'll get some special treatment.  But years ago, when that "review" got approved, I went public with my outrage. I went on a full-tilt rant about the matter because it's just a quote from the movie. I railed against the practice and decried what I considered the admittance of something patently obvious into our fraternity of the ingenious. benj let me go on, but he did not delete the review. So I quietly resigned myself to acceptance, vowing to inflict my own artistic sagacity upon the site in mute protesting revenge. THAT, my friends, is the impetus of such splendor as "Knotty boy" for Pinocchio. Apparently, it's also the impetus that brought you "Two chicks take flight" for Thelma and Louise -- both a scene description and a thematic description. And, by extension, it also has to be the impetus that brought you "Extended Pink Floyd video?" for The Wizard of Oz -- an obscure reference to Pink Floyd lore that has nothing to do with the movie -- "Goddard: the perfect dog" for Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius -- ummmmmmm ... --and "Lost hand combats man" for Evil Dead II. (Crickets? Do you hear crickets?)
Yeah: I see the problem too.
Then one day, as I was probably not doing anything in particular, or maybe I was being particular about something, it occurred to me that Soylent Green IS people. That's what the whole film is about. If you stop and think about it, everything you need to know about the film's commentary on society rests in those four words. And they don't even need the capitalized "IS." Which is all to say that I made peace with that little review (and I believe I have waxed cathartic on this issue somewhere before, so to those who have heard this recording previously, yeah, I know). Sometimes the "review" in a review is there, regardless of whether a given person sees it.
Is there a moral to this story? I don't know. Maybe I'm just saying MERPs are people too, or maybe I'm saying MERPs are idiots too, or maybe I'm saying MERPs are those-persons-upon-whom-PKMN-apparently-was-unable-to-visit-the-actualization-of-his-vision (yes, I'm definitely saying that). In the end, however, I guess reviews is just reviews. |
Edited by - MguyXXV on 04/12/2008 03:46:58 |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 05:16:58
|
Hi Myguyx
I only got as far as the first few paragraphs of that last post, since you kind of started rambling like a madman and I couldn't follow your point (was there a point?).
Anyway - yep ... my bear review isn't really a review (as in 'great movie', 'shit movie') but then ... less than 3% of 'reviews' on FWFR could be considered actual reviews. The site should more accruately be called Four Word Film Descriptions - or something to that tune.
Cheers
Boydegg
(and cheers to the person who gave my bear review a vote)
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 07:36:17
|
Of course there's no point! I AM a madman!!!!! Why would you question that?????? "Like a madman ..." ... indeed. And I would recommend reading only the first few whatevers too.
"It's at madhouse! A MADHOUSE!"
- C. Heston, Planet of the Apes - |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 20:04:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by boydegg
cheers to the person who gave my bear review a vote
That was me.
That's all right: no need to thank me for posting the link.
The issue of whether (and if so, what kind of) specific scenes are valid as reviews has never really been resolved. Like MguyX, I'm not so keen on this, but I'm not a purist in this regard and do sometimes submit such reviews. I also vote for some of them, such as this one (which boydegg may not have intended to have a double meaning, in that the bad king is very surprised to be beaten; that said, Pullman may have intended it himself). However, the Soylent Green review is indeed definitely not of that type: I didn't realise anyone ever thought it was.
But it leads me onto the quotation issue, which I find much more objectionable. Occasionally, a single quotation sums up a whole film in a way that is funny or clever to point out. However, it is only valid to do this when one is highlighting something that the film-makers did not intend as a summary of the whole film themselves. Otherwise, the cleverness is all theirs and the reviewer deserves no credit.
Another thing I hate is when films' taglines (or critics' headlines) are used as reviews (in cases where the review definitely came later). So what if you didn't know when you wrote it? It doesn't mean you should keep it! Equivalent to that is when people write duplicate reviews for different films (without a different sense). They shouldn't keep them (and they shouldn't be kept on the site: they do not magically stop being a duplicate if Alan Smithee has them). People do not seem to be able to tell the difference between the ethical obligation to avoid duplication and there being any blame, i.e. in accidental infringements of the former that should still get deleted, there is none of the latter. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 04/12/2008 20:05:51 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 20:16:43
|
Bravo, Sal, bravo.  |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 23:21:58
|
Yep, I agree with all that too. I kind of don't see the point in using exactly the same joke twice, I find it lessens my pride in my collection of puns. I mean, reviews.  |
|
|
|
boydegg
"Creator of Grammarman comic."
|
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 06:04:48
|
Guilty!
I think I got away with 'Big tits kicking ass' for Tomb Raider AND Barbed Wire.
oh - the shame! (hee hee ... like I give a monkey's!)
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
jaw justice
