You've got some subtle stuff and some obvious stuff. The good bits are the subtle bits; the Puritan award, because you'd have to know about Puritans to understand it, Ebert giving it 3/5 stars and the quote that came after it I loved. Also the last quote, reminds me of my OCD friends. I also loved the bit where the director tells the kid to stick to the script. I gave you a 5 because while there is some good stuff, there's also a great emphasis on the sexuality of the actors, and to a lesser extend the actor changing. There's a lot that goes on in a movie, if you added more you'd have more to work with.
I like the idea, a crappy movie about a crappy holiday, but you might want to go into it more. Why did they go to a bank? What were Adumtish's demands that the actors kept quitting? You mention the sexual revolution in the begining of the article, but then drop it. Elaborate more on the background of the movie (other than the actors, you have thenm covered :)).
Prose and formatting:
You should take most of the content in the begining of the article and integrate it into the rest of the article, or else it takes away from the article. Other than that, this section is pretty good.
I like the picture of the empty theatre and the movie poster, but the others could use work in humor.
Article's almost there, a bit of work and you've got a good thing going!
I find this confusing. At times, I see a lack of inquistiveness in this review, add to the fact, that the previous review gave it 35, and in between that review and this review, I have added the bits that you liked best, but somehow, I have lost 5 points!
" What were Adumtish's demands that the actors kept quitting?" - The actors themselves had to declare a vow of chastity to Adumtish during filming
" Why did they go to a bank ?" - I thought John's obsession with all things financial would be explicit enough! It even says: The film tells the story of a family whose patriarch, John, is obsessed with banks. The guy loves banks enough that he is sad enough to take them there - a sort of fantasy, y'see?
" You mention the sexual revolution in the begining of the article, but then drop it. " - The irony here is subtle - offscreen, this director has a hard time handling these actors he has the misfortune of hiring, and yet on screen, it is very puritanical, and very family-based, and there are no sex scenes in the film, a stark contrast to the goings-on offscreen, all of which afflict a Puritan director! But perhaps I need to make this irony clearer.
On the plus side, you made some good points about a need for greater context, and more subtlety. I am grateful that you took the time to do offer your thoughts too, and I am sure it will get it towards being vaguely featurable. --Knucmo2 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Drive-by comment - Pee Review is completely a matter of opinion, so scores will differ. It does look like this review is in good faith, so I don't think it's a deliberately low score, but OEJ (who did the previous review) is one of our most experienced reviewers, so I'd say his score was more likely to be on the money. As you say, it's probably a good plan to work on it a little more, taking the comments into account, but possibly don't let the score worry you over-much. --UU - natter11:36, Jul 9