Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnMovie Review:The Fighter (2010)
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Matfen 15:24, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll do it. , 18:50, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||6||I hold the belief that humor lies not in the article, but with the reader, so you should disregard everything I write in this section, which I am merely filling out for the sake of filling out this section. I didn't find your article particularly hilarious, but I chuckled a few times, mostly in the first section and when Christian Bale was talking.|
|Concept:||7||Alright, let's get down to business. I think this is a pretty decent article. However, it doesn't quite live up to its potential. I think that my main concern with it is the fact that the dialogue between the four actors is not consistently executed throughout the whole article. I'll try to explain what I mean by this.
The article starts out with Mark Wahlberg speaking about the movie. Then Christian Bale tells his point of view. There is no interaction between them yet. This gives the impression to the reader that the people in the article will speak about the movie independently from one another. The dialogue only starts in the third section, when Amy Adams begins to talk. Of course, this is not "wrong", and it's impossible to objectively say that the other characters must speak already in the first two sections. There is no rule about that. But the key is, I think, to keep in mind that the characters are always present throughout the whole conversation, and to always ask yourself if any of the characters would say something at a certain point, not only when you have it planned for whatever reason (for instance, when Christian Bale starts insulting Amy Adams), but all the time. Of course, this doesn't mean that everybody has to speak all the time (for the simple reason that it would, at least at the beginning of the conversation, be plausible for the actors to let the one who is currently talking finish), and overdoing it would be bad. But I will give you a few examples where I think it would be plausible for one of the actors to react to what is being said:
Alright, so that's probably my major criticism. Looking at it in hindsight, it doesn't even appear like there is much to do about it. In addition to that, there are some small things I would like to address:
That's about it concept-wise, at least that's what comes to my mind now.
|Prose and formatting:||7.5||Prose. Let's see. I think an area where some slight changes to the prose could make a difference is the first section. The third paragraph suggests that Wahlberg is suffering severe retardation due to his many concussions. I think the style in which he speaks could reflect that more. You possibly tried to implement that already, but if you did, I think it could sound even more retarded. As it is, it sounds a bit too natural, too good to me. Of course, the stuff he talks about is retarded enough, but that was probably already before his concussions, judging by what Christian Bale said about him. So I think the style should strongly reflect his retardation, too. I think the key to making it sound retarded is to use simple and repetitive sentence structures. I will try to give a few examples that I think sound more retarded, but before that, I will say another thing: I suggest that you remove all parts that make Wahlberg's statements sound subjective. For example, the first sentence: "I think this is the...". I think (no pun intended) that this awareness that what Wahlberg has to say is only his opinion takes away from his retardation. Rather, make him just say "This is the...". Alright, let's experiment with the language style a bit.
You could try not using any synonyms for "because". You use "as" instead in two cases, but maybe substitute even those two occurrences of "as" with "because". Another possibility would be two avoid subclauses, for instance in the first sentence: "This is the greatest boxing movie of all time. It has lots of stuff in it about boxing." On its own, it might not make much difference, but perhaps, if you change the whole section accordingly, it might. Or not, I don't know, it's just a suggestion. Although, in this particular case, it might ruin the joke, which is the connection between the quality of a boxing movie and the amount of boxing in it. OK, the second sentence. Here, a very easy opportunity presents itself to you to achieve repetitiveness. In the first clause, you have the structure "told me to do sth.", and in the next, you have "told me that I...". Rather than variation, use the same structure in both cases.
Alright, I think you got the idea, and, judging by the overall style of your article, also the skill to implement these changes, provided you agree with them.
Another thing: In the later sections, when the actors start interrupting each other, I think it would make the dialogue more credible if you let them interrupt each other in the middle of a sentence, rather than let the one who's talking finish. For instance, the beginning of the third section:
Oh my God! This movie was such a pain in the ass to make. Christian Bale hit on me like every stupid day, when he wasn't getting high, and Mark Wahlberg—
Charwene, you bes' shudda' fug' up before I pop you in da' mouf.
Amy Adams interrupting Melissa Leo at the beginning of the forth section would be another example where I would greatly suggest that you use this technique.
Apart from that, I had a bit of trouble decrypting Christian Bale's speech. I don't know if this has got to do with his dialect, or with his missing teeth. Probably both. The reason I had trouble understanding him is the following: You seem to be replacing most occurrences of the letter "r" with the letter "w". OK. But why do the same for the letter "L"? Or rather, why not consistently? You write "Lives in Lowell", yet you write "Wisten" in the image caption, and "bwack feava" and "reawy gweat". This confused me.
And finally, I think the last picture should be more separated from the rest of the article, because it apparently isn't part of the main dialogue anymore. Either make it new section, or write a text in between, maybe something like "some time later". Or not. You decide.
|Images:||7.5||So about the images. Let's tackle it one by one. About the first image (the big one at the top): The replacement of the title is kind of unnecessary, although it doesn't do the article any harm. I think it's kind of funny, so I think there's no problem with it. The second image is good, because it is about Wahlberg, it references the movie and there is a connection to the main text. The third image is also good. It doesn't directly reference the movie, but Bale was on crack the whole time, so indirectly, it does reference the movie, and it has a connection to the text, of course (Bale being high on crack). Forth image is about the actress, it references the movie, but it lacks the connection to the main text, at least a direct one. Yes, you could take the end of that section as a connection to the image, but that's a bit vague. The fifth image is disappointing, compared to the others. It's again about Bale, when structure-wise it should be about Melissa Leo, and it is redundant, because Bale again talks about beating someone up. I think you could find a better replacement for that image. Maybe an image of Melissa Leo in a rage, with a caption where she rants about Amy Adams, that would fit the main text. The last image, well, it's a reasonable conclusion. The caption also fits, especially Wahlberg's lack of reaction.|
|Miscellaneous:||7||I like popcorn. But only the oil-popped popcorn, not the buttery kind. Err... now, what score should I enter here? For the final score's integrity's sake, I'll use the average of the other scores. Ah yes. Ignore the scores. Like the humor section, I am merely filling them out for the sake of filling them out (that doesn't mean I don't try to give fair scores, but just don't rely on them).|
|Final Score:||35||Alright, seeing as I've only criticised by now, I think a compliment is in order, so as to not ignore what you have already managed to create, even though I am too lazy to list all the positive aspects of the article. So congratulations!|
|Reviewer:||, 11:18, July 13, 2011 (UTC)|
- Update: I just understood the reason for the title replacement in the top image (i.e. the change from "The Fighter" to "The Wrestler, but with boxing"). I'm really slow on the uptake. Seriously, it just came to me right now while I was thinking about it. And the Natalie Portman references, do they have anything to do with the movie "Black Swan" (I don't know this movie either)? , 05:50, July 23, 2011 (UTC)