Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Roger Ebert

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 02:16, June 25, 2010 by Saberwolf116 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Roger Ebert

Black Flamingo 09:10, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Humour: 7.5 I read Roger Ebert's reviews habitually, so I was smiling to myself as I read this. You've gotten Roger Ebert's written style nailed, right down to the amusing ancedotes about parts of the film that suck. I especially liked the "Answer Man" joke with Gene Siskel.

However, it's still a bit rough around the edges. For one, you've got some of the casting off. Roger Ebert's wife is black, so you obviously can't put Anne Hathaway in. Try changing it to an African-American actor. Same with Richard Roeper-he's white. Also, shouldn't Roger refer to himself in the first person if the film is about him? You might want to change the way he narrates the plot of the movie, as it's a little awkward at the moment. Perhaps you could include running commentary in the form of footnotes? It is about him, after all. By the way, he gave The Godfather Part II three out of four stars in his original review, and he later added it to his "Great Movies" collection, so that joke kind of falls flat. I suggest changing it to a film that he actually disliked, but that everyone else loved ("The Usual Suspects", "Blue Velvet", and "Full Metal Jacket" come to mind).

Concept: 9 Love the concept. Roger Ebert is naturally a great target for satire, since he's pretty much the world's leading expert on film criticism. I also like the way you've set up the article as one of his reviews-very clever, and very high humor potential. Like I said above, it still needs a bit of polish, but for the most part, very good template to make an article out of.
Prose and formatting: 7.5 As I said in the Humor section, Ebert's narration and critique of the film is a little awkward. Also, the images on the side of the article, while funny, seem a little disjointed and out of place where they currently are. Perhaps you should put them in between paragraphs, as Ebert does on his blog? (Look up "Roger Ebert's Journal", and you'll see what I mean). Also, consider expanding the "Latest Reviews" section- since it only has one review, it's kind of unsatisfying as a standalone part of the article ATM.
Images: 7.5 I'm kind of split on the images. For one, they're clever photoshopping jobs. On the other hand, they don't really add anything to the article, and they don't really seem like things Ebert would say (with the possible exception of the "I hate Rob Schneider" one). I suggest either removing them and replacing them with "screenshots" from the movie, or changing their position. If you're looking for photos of Ebert's early life, his latest blog might help you out. Also, the star grade was a little strange, since Ebert said he enjoyed the film at the end of the article-one star usually leads to a scathing review. Given the tone of the review, i'd recommend changing it to two and a half or three stars.
Miscellaneous: 7.5 My overall grade of the article.
Final Score: 39 You've got a solid, entertaining article here, and I enjoyed reading it. If you're willing to put a little more effort into fine-tuning it some more, it might just land on VFH. Overall, stylistic and formatting changes are the most crucial. Good luck!
Reviewer: Saberwolf116 02:16, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects