Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/James Bond (character)
James Bond (character)[edit source]
The negative response to the (actually rather good) new Bond theme, made me realise just how much Bond fans like complaining. Nothing has truly lived up to their standards since Connery. Hence, this article.
-- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 13:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
|
A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article is being reviewed by: UU - natter  (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). |
So I realised the other day that I haven't reviewed a decent article in a while. On a quick glance, this seems to fit the bill, so here we go. --UU - natter 09:49, Dec 7
| Humour: | 009 | This review will be a proper British affair. Therefore: Oh I say, superb sir! Six runs with a textbook pull over midwicket!
I really do like this. As a tad of a film buff myself, and one capable of indulging in many of the arguments touched on in here (although I find it fun to take whichever side is opposed in the debate I'm in, which once meant I had to argue for Lazenby as Best Bond Ever), not only do I recognise the arguments, but I admire the way you've skewered so many of them by subtly pointing out the hypocrisies. Contradicting arguments from section to section is well handled, although I did think you were setting up for a nice contradiction between Dalton's grittier, more humourless Bond and Craig's grittier, more humourless Bond in the same manner, and then blinked a couple of times when it didn't happen. I particularly liked the contrast of the casting of the unknown Connery with the unknown Lazenby - nicely done. The little politically correct "hitperson" bit was right up my street as well, the Medvedev line was nice, the nerdy superfluous detail line... In fact, I could list all the bits I liked about this article, but it would take a while, and involve copying large sections of the article into this review, which is pointless. So here's what I was less fond of: The Books section. It's a trifle short, and while the Jesus/God reference and the Nick Nack line are nice, the rest feels like you were stretching a little for something to add to your comparisons of the Bonds, to add a little variety to the article. I do think you need something like that, and this is probably the way to go, but this section lacks the spark of the rest of the article, and I'd like to see it tweaked a little. Maybe a slight repointing to contrast a little more between the Bond fantasy and the reality of Fleming's more prosaic desk job? |
| Concept: | 009 | Excellent idea - film snobs are a lot of fun. My own little take on that was probably the easiest article I've ever written. I don't have much to say here beyond "wish I'd had this idea", so we'll move on. |
| Prose and formatting: | 007 | A few uncharacteristic bloopers here. Let's see: there's a missing 't' in "Scottish" in the Connery section; "preponderance" should have an 'a' in it; the list of Connery's attributes should really start with a colon and be punctuated by semicolons as this one is; "Caribbean" has one 'r' and a double 'b'; there's a missing 'r' in "interpretation" under Dalton; "He would have slapped Cleese across the mouth and then go have sex with someone's granddaughter" - change of tense mid-sentence; and a rogue 'k' in "scantily". Sorry to be so picky, but that's just me. |
| Images: | 009 | Nicely done, and well captioned too. Particularly like the caption on Rog, and the guitar on Dalton. The right number, and appropriately used. The only issue is that the Craig prose refers to the image on the right, and there he is on the left. |
| Miscellaneous: | 008.5 | Averaged. |
| Final Score: | 42.5 | It's quite clear that I really like this article. A couple of typos to clear up, but nothing major. Normally I would do that myself and then wander off and nom this post haste, but I'm holding off in the hope that you'll tweak the books section a little first. If you do, give me a shout and I'll nom with alacrity. If not, feel free to self-nom - I don't think that will harm its chances any, and it'll still get my vote. Plus, it's apt to the season (in the UK anyway) with the whole "Bank Holiday Bond" thing. Plus, I always like articles that link to at least one of mine. |
| Reviewer: | --UU - natter 10:28, Dec 7
| |