Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Withnail & I (resubmit)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 06:52, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Withnail & I

PyramidHead88 David 09:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).

Right, let's see, been a while since I've done one of these... Mug o' tea? Check. Time to kill for a change? Check. London Calling playing soothingly in the background? Check. Right, let's get on with it then. --UU - natter UU Manhole 19:46, Mar 20

Thanks, and I appreciate the positive feedback as well as the constructive criticism. I'll take a look at it in a few days and see if I can bring it up to speed a bit. Thanks for taking the time to do this :) --PyramidHead88 David 07:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 5 Hum. As I commented on the last review, and on the VFH vote, I really like the idea, and some of the execution lives up to it. Problem is, not all of it does, and as such it's infuriatingly inconsistent. I really want this to be an article to love, so let's see what we can do about that.

OK, the first problem is the article title - if it's a page about a sequel, it needs to have its own title. Having a page about the movie be about a fictional sequel is confusing. How about Withnail & II? Or, as you mention somewhere, Withnail & Me? Something different, anyway. (The recursion joke of linking to the same page doesn't really work anyway, so you may as well lose it).

Also, in the first few paragraphs, there are several needless lines about sex. I'm not averse to sex where it's needed, but this just doesn't have any context in the article, and so feels wrong. It will make some readers think "oh, right, another article about a film that's basically just the author's deranged fantasies about shagging the cast", and possibly stop reading. This would be a shame, because what follows is better. So lose the sex bits. Instead, have the intro set up as a kind of foreword to the main article, explaining that it's a journal of Bruce Robinson's struggle to make a piece of art. A few lines should do it, and then you launch into your journal. (As arseheaded as it is to link to your own articles in a review, the first example I can think of is UnMysteries:A Tissue Of Lies).

Anyway, on to the meat - and the meat here is the studio not understanding the film, messing with it, and trying to turn it into another bland US romcom with Diaz and Stifler. I love that idea, and it could neatly carry your article. Seriously, be more vague about the plot, just mention that it picks up where the last film leaves off, and tries to stay true to the spirit of the original - although that said, I really like the "before the credits roll" section of the synopsis, "include farmer character somewhere" kind of works. I also like the idea of a montage of scenes from the first movie - perhaps this can be suggested later, when they're running out of ideas?

We then enter the best part of the article, the main part of the diary. I like much of this, and it's easily the best bit (Although I don't like that random dates, feels distracting and a bit pointless). Stick with it, and expand it more - Cameron Diaz insisting on a panty-clad-ass wiggling scene per the Charlie's Angels movie, producers not thinking the Lake District will work for American audiences and insisting on relocating it to Monument Valley or somewhere identifiably American, that kind of thing. It may play well if you have him desperate to resist and not compromise his vision, but unable to due to severe lack of funds.

And then we hit another inconsistency - at the start, you suggest this may be Robinson's work, now you're suggesting it's a teenage girl? Maybe you're suggesting he's gone insane? Not sure, feels a bit inconclusive, for a conclusion.

The trivia section, while not as listy as most trivia sections, feels a bit irrelevant, even if I like most of the lines. I'd move most of it to the "critical reception" section, where it could fit with only small tweaks.

And there we go - combine the last 3 sections into 2, don't do too much else to 'em because they're not bad at all, and you should end up with a nice little article!

Concept: 8 To sum up the previous section a little: opening weak, gets better as the journal hits its stride, finishes quite well, although the end still needs a few tweaks. But the idea, when it's finally allowed to flourish, is a good one, hence this nice, high score. I suspect a few people will get put off by the weak opening. And you do need a line or two to explain to US readers what Withnail & I is, so they don't get a glazed expression and wander off ;-) Perhaps the {{Wikipediapar|Withnal and I}} template may help.

Yeah, just trim back the intro, shift the focus to your strongest idea, flesh it out a little, and Monty's your uncle.

Prose and formatting: 5 Not bad, in the main (a 5 from me means "average", incidentally, radical as that sounds). Formatting's picked up since I first saw it, using the lower level headings for the journal helped. There are a few bits of prose here and there that drop a point or so, largely through the following: some bits feel random because they don't relate to the rest of the article and aren't explained, like the Orang-Utan, the Aztec Temple, the sex bits, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and good old Bat Fuck Insane (which is just over-used around here, although that may just be my opinion.

There are also a couple of typos - "ressurection" (resurrection), "idolatory" (idolatry).

Needs a few more links, I think - I like to see plenty of links in a wiki article. The Lake District for starters, and a cursory search should give you plenty more.

Images: 7 OK, they're all relevant, and the captions are not bad, although the second one only really works for those of us lucky enough to have seen the film. I'd say you need at least one more, and I repeat my suggestion of asking at UN:PIC for a movie poster for the sequel, crossing the original poster with Diaz and Seann William Scott in a Romcom style. Could be a winner, if you get one. If not, have a hunt - an article this length needs at least one more pic.
Miscellaneous: 6.3 Averaged.
Final Score: 31.3 OK, I think I've already given you plenty of feedback there, but my final comment is this: don't give up. Don't let a VFH fail knock you back - I've had a few, and some of our best writers have too. This has plenty of potential, you just need to focus on your good idea a bit more, ditch the bits that don't work, and really give it the beans. Hopefully, if you take at least some of the advice above, it'll get there.

Of course, you do have to remember that this is only my opinion, and others are available, but I hope you find it helpful. And good luck!

Reviewer: --UU - natter UU Manhole 20:41, Mar 20
Personal tools
projects