Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Death Race 2000
Death Race 2000[edit source]
-Maniac1075Complain Here 08:01, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6 | This article is decent but overall still feels like a bit of a scruffy first draft. For the most part the into is ok (there are a few issues with grammar but I'll get to those later) it sets up the concept and gets a couple of jokes in there too.
With the next section, Movie Synopsis, there isn't much to laugh at really. You do sum up the movie quite effectively though. The problem is, the movie itself is rather crass and doesn't exactly lend itself to good jokes. I like dark humour as much as the next person but just describing a film where people run over starving African children isn't enough. What is actually funny about it? Perhaps some jokes at the expense of the sick minds who made it and thought it was a good piece of filmmaking? The points system is also ridiculous, perhaps there is some humour in how illogical it all is? Why would a child get more points, for instance? The Characters section doesn't have a whole lot of laughs either. The main problem is I feel you're making a lot of it up. I haven't seen Death Race or any of it's sequels (and hopefully I never will), but I can still tell that you're not really satirising Death Race here. Most of the time you're not even talking about Death Race, you're jumbling together other barely related film/TV like Rocky Horror Picture Show and Wacky Races. With references to Tim Curry's Blockbuster card and Mutley's skid marks this is all just way to silly and inconsistent to make me laugh. It's really hard to make random made-up stuff like this funny, you'd be better off trying to think of something that's actually funny about Death Race - something you could believe was a real film. It's the whole "truth is funnier than fiction" mantra again, which isn't always true but is definitely something to think about. I'm not sure the Reception section even makes that much sense - how can it be the best sequel of all time if it's utter shit? Even if it's better than the original, I don't think it can compete with the likes of The Godfather Part II, Bride of Frankenstein, Empire Strikes Back, etc. Also, I don't see why people would flock to see it just because there's breasts in it. Don't 50% of films these days have breasts in? Plus if that's all you're interested in there is always pornography. This all makes it seem a bit unconvincing to me. Then finally we have the Video Game section. There's use of the old USERNAME joke, which I've never really found that funny to be honest, but I suppose newer users might appreciate it. This one in particular is a bit of a cheap joke though, as all it's really doing is baldly insulting the reader. Generally this section seems a little bit of an unnecessary detour from the rest of the article, which is especially strange considering it's one of the longest parts in there. Again it's just pointlessly crude and therefore not particularly funny. There isn't really any inherent funniness in crudity, you still have to construct jokes using the material. For example, I could say "fucking kids is fun", which isn't particularly funny, but if I said "you know what the best thing about having sex with twenty seven year olds is? There's twenty of them". That could be potentially amusing because there's a twist and a punchline, it goes against the reader's expectations. Try doing something more like this. |
| Concept: | 6 | I suppose what we have here is a neutral approach, i.e. just including any joke you can think of on the subject. There's no problem with that, it works quite well in fact. The only thing it needs, as I suggest above, is more jokes; humorous twists and turns in the sentences. Because obviously just listing crude things about a film isn't funny. It would be nice to hear more about the people involved too; the producers et al. You know, the kind of thing you normally have in articles about films? If you can expand the production details a little more I think it would help greatly. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | There are a couple of things here; a few problems with grammar etc. First of all there's the title, shouldn't the word "part" also be capitalised?
There are other things but I'm sure you can find these yourself, or perhaps get someone else to check it for you. Then in regards to tone, it seems to veer between encyclopaedic (where you're just describing things neutrally) and juvenile (where you use words like "faggotorion" for instance), I would try to stick to one to ease confusion. |
| Images: | 4 | Well, the first one isn't great but it's not bad either. I guess for a fictional film there's probably little else you can do really (than 'chop a fake cover, I mean). The one of the big-boobed lady is ok but as previously mentioned I don't really like the bits about the characters. The car one at the end doesn't seem very relevant. I guess that it's difficult to illustrate an article like this, but it'd be nice to see some scenes (you could always just use shots from the original movie, perhaps?) The only other idea I have would be to check out our featured film articles and see how they use images. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | My score in the last Death Race I engaged in. |
| Final Score: | 28 | So like I said, this is a decent piece, it just needs a little more work. The main thing I would think about are ways to increase the joke ratio. But I would also take some time to go over the prose and the grammar too. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, or even if you're just lonely, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. Keep up the good work and I hope the review is ok. |
| Reviewer: | --Black Flamingo 19:57, May 21, 2011 (UTC) | |