From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|I hate you. Seriously, you're horrible; like I said before, this is bloody lovely. Which means you're horrible. As a person, I mean. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But all those names, it's so many. It could be funny, but how does one even remember that many names? Even reading them is wearisome. That's more names than I have computers, and I can't remember what all those are called, and a few of them have the same names, too. Too much, I suppose. Needs balance. Emphasising her meaninglessness is all very well and fine, but if you lose folks along the way, what; s the point? It lost me, all those names. At least, I think it did. I haven't found myself yet so as to verify.
The bit about her teenage years, though, why is that in the acting section? Is that acting? It kind of bemused me just what it was - did she do anything kids do? Folks that age put stuff in the column? Again, it just stretched credibility for me. Luckily, the next line kind of makes up for it... empty, sexy despair. Who knows why, though... nothing, perhaps. Nothing's a good reason. Nothing suits her. Although diaries are good; why does it only show up here? It could be something more. Although if it was, then it wouldn't be nothing, now would it... eh...
The filmmaking section is funny. Normally I'd just skip over it and say nothing, but it's the main chunk of the article and where I guess the other complaints lie. So I'll just take a moment to reread through it and try to remember what said complaints were... something about tone, judging by what I wrote in the prose/formatting section.
Haven't found anything tone-related yet, but what does 'their life of solitary privilege' mean? Or is that line just trying to use a bunch of big terms and sound smart and I shouldn't worry about it? I suppose while I'm not worrying about things, I could also mention how I'm not worried in the slightest about the lukewarm reception her previous film received, and how funny that bit was... yes. No worrying there.
Heee, pensive. Why doesn't the beginning have anything like this? I mean, the first six paragraphs. Those ones that seem to contain 1-3 sentences. No turnabout like this, just... some basic setup, mostly. Not that setting it up is bad; needs that too...
The pop songs do that too.
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|I'll just say this again: it's good. What confuses me is how people sometimes manage to write even less than that for sections on reviews... hells, and there's usually something they could say, too. Yellow scores, even. Reds... but then they still write less.
But here there really doesn't seem to be anything else to say. It's just good. Great. Nice. Shiny. Excellent. Etc. Choose an adjective. I have nothing to add. I just don't like putting tens for some reason. I could strain for it and – nnnrg – nope, sorry. You'll have to settle for a nine. I know, these scores matter so terribly.
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|Remind me to proofread it when I'm not using a bogged down web browser too out of it to redraw the screen in real time as I type. That's not the one I'm typing with right now, though, just the one with which I'm looking at the article. It'd just make too much sense to open the article with this one and do it here, or something. Or maybe I will indeed do that after all.
Yeah, no, that didn't work. It tried to blank the page.
It's mostly just commas, though, bugging me. The usual. I'm a stickler for the things, but they're not generally apt to bring down a score, either. I think that's for the tone in this case; it gets a little odd at times. Hopefully I mentioned that in the humour section, though, since it seems to affect that as much as anything. I say 'hopefully' because I haven't actually written the humour section yet; I'm just sort of rambling this review out in no particular order, not even one section and then another, or anything. Just... rambling. I hope you don't mind.
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|You know, I've had some rather interesting conversations with butterflies... mostly while I was killing them. They get very intriguing when dying; it's like when realising they've nothing left, they abandon the flitteriness and daintiness and vagueness and suddenly get very, very distinct. So I'm wondering, if this Coppola is corpselike in life, how could she be in death, actually dying?
Testing this would be wrong, however. Very, very wrong. I know this, or so I tell my psychiatrist. He smiles vaguely, nods, and is altogether much more expressive than this gall seems to be, although in the butterfly one, she does have a sort of smile as well. That's not good, is it? Even a sort of smile, against all this pensiveness, could break everythi– oh, wait, that's not a smile; it just looks like one compared to her expressions in the other images. Right, that's okay. And the caption on that one is just lovely as well. And the corpse one, too. Obvious, but why not. Obvious works. First image, well... it's her. Definitely her, pensive and monochrome and everything. A period at the end might be good just for the sake of consistency, and it ain't all that funny, but it's so definitely her that I doubt it matters. Or does it? I don't think it does.
But I also think she doesn't actually look that good naked... or I would, if I could move onto that from the fact that I can't even get past that thing she's leaning on. What is that thing? Seriously, what? I can't sort it out.
If I could get past that, however, I might also be inclined to point out that other aspects of this image are likewise a little confusing. Stuck directly under the Marie Antoinette header, it should follow that it has to do with Marie Antoinette, right? But it says it's the latest film. Which is that? Somewhere? That's a few lines down. Put it with the section, perhaps. There. That... interesting; preview doesn't seem to work without memory in the computer. Now that's odd. I probably shouldn't try editing it lest it blank the page; it'd be a right shame.
Now what was I talking about? Oh, yes... that image. If I could look past the bemusion of whatever that thing is, that one she's leaning on in that picture. Yes If I could. It's also just rather different from the others. They're so clear and bold and not relaxed, and pretty. This one's not. She's small and it's fuzzy and it's just not as good of an image as the others, visually. Well, the relaxedness isn't an image quality issue; it's just different. But I guess that's my point: maybe something less different would work better.
Caption's rather different from the others, too, style-wise. 'So 1970s' is just... different. It doesn't feel right. Tone, or something.
But all of that, of course, could only be brought up if I could get past the whole monumental question of what in tarnation is that thing she's leaning on?
Anything else... or not...
|This is not the coefficient of friction of a pendulum that won't stop swinging. I wish it would, though. Stop, I mean. I hid it, but it's still swinging. I know it is. It doesn't even help that I can't see it anymore. My psychiatrist calls this 'a fixation'. I call it 'annoying'.|
|Final score |
10:20, 20 May 2011
|I believe this is the point at which I apologise profusely and then make a hasty exit. Yes. Doing that, now.