Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Fight Club is a cop out

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Why?:Fight Club is a cop out?

This is a partial collab with Modusoperandi, I think it could do with another pair of eyes givng it a look over, and any tips or idea will be very appricated:-)--Sycamore (Talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I might--stress the might--do this tomorrow at some point, as Fight Club was on FX a ton last weekend, so yeah. If someone else wants to do this, by all means, go ahead, although I'll indicate when I start actually reviewing it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 04:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do this now. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	5	I really can't say I found this very funny. One big problem is that the prose and formatting (see section) could be vastly improved, and another reason is that there are simply very few genuinely funny moments. I'll elaborate more in other sections, but let me just say this--this article is very awkward. The formatting, the language, everything. This is a shame, because...
Concept:	10	...I really, really like this idea. Having a "film thesis," using funny examples to prove said thesis, and all the while mocking the academic establishment, Hollywood, and the film the article's about. There are even mentions of German Expressionist Cinema. This is the sort of thing I really go for.
Prose and formatting:	4	This is where your problems are. First of all, the articles formatting is just extremely awkward. Why, for instance, is "Brad Pitt's Abs" a subsection of "Pretentious motiffs...," but "The use of female characters..." isn't? Just the idea of having a subsection called "Brad Pitt's Abs" would have been amazing, if only if it were offset by one or two "straight" sections like "...female characters...", and maybe one other one (maybe make "product placements" a subsection, or something. If I may suggest something, perhaps you should rename "Pretentious motifs..." something more inclusive, and then make "Brad Pitt's Abs," "Use of female...," and a third or even fourth subsection to cover all the other points you make (like product placement, hypocrisy of challenging authority, etc.). Furthermore, the grammar is awkward. There aren't commas where there should be, there are semicolons where there should be commas, phrases that should be two seperate sentences aren't, things like that. Give this a good proofreading session, because it needs it. Here are some specific examples: "The casting of Brad Pitt is sure sign of copping out, the fact that Pitt is in fact the archetype of the consumer man, with his earliest efforts being to advertise crisps" should read: "The casting of Brad Pitt is a sure sign of copping out: Pitt is the archetype of the consumer man..." "The film was based on the Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name and the third of the "Club" trilogy[2] however the book ends slightly differently (much like the variances between the novel and film A Clockwork Orange), and a similar feud broke out" is just incredibly awkward sounding. You make reference to something that is mentioned in parathesis outside of parathesis, so if the reader ignores the parathesis (the whole idea of parathetical statements--like this one her--is they're not needed to understand the rest of the sentence), and as a result the reader is left with "the book ends slightly differently...a similar feud broke out," which is really awkward, and makes no sense. Furthermore, "...however..." should begin a new sentence, or at least be preceded by a comma. Finally, italicize Fight Club every time you mention Fight Club, because Fight Club is the title of the movie you're talking about. Movie titles--like Fight Club--are typically italicized.
Images:	7	They're all adequate, and work well with the rest of the article. There's really nothing more to say beyond that.
Miscellaneous:	6	Average-ish.
Final Score:	32	If you can get this to read better, you'll have a pretty good article. Proofread the fuck outta this thing.
Reviewer:	—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)