Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uh oh

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Uh oh

Cajek came back for an edit, that edit got VFD'd, then me and UU decided that fuck that shit.

T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:09, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Humour:	6	It's hard to know where to begin in writing this commentary because there are some real gems of humor in this article; the problem for me as a reviewer is that it was difficult to tell what direction the article was heading in based on the title of the article and the introductory paragraph. I actually got more into the groove of the article midway through the first main section ("Plot"), but by then I had already felt off-kilter from the title and the first paragraph. I will save more of my comments on this issue for the "concept" part of the review. As for the humor, I think the pictures are very funny - men with monocles and ball-gags are in my opinion often the foundation of comic gold (others may disagree). I enjoyed the references to Pauly Shore (the guy was such an idiot, you can imagine him really complaining about his CGI hair), and the idea of a regressive movie (the characters starting out well-adjusted, and ending up in a ditch with an Orangutan) was REALLY funny to me. Also really funny is the idea of a movie having more impact on cinema BEFORE its release than AFTER. So there are some really good gags in the article. I also really enjoyed the faux critics' reviews. The one about Roger Ebert and lack of subtlety sounds like something Ebert would really say. So all and all, there is a lot of good humor, but I can't give out a higher score here because of an issue I have with the concept, which I will discuss below. Also, because of the jokes that were funny, I found myself wanting more, but because the article is not that long, the further jokes were missing, and this was disappointing because I was just getting into the article when it ended.
Concept:	5	Okay, here is where I need to lay it out. I think the concept involves the quagmire that is Hollywood film production, and is a satire on the movie-making process and the comedy genre in general (I could be wrong, but that's my read of the article). It's a great idea. But I think to be executed properly, a different, more telling title is necessary. "Uh oh" doesn't seem to reveal or relate to the concept. Also, the introductory paragraph should really lay out the concept, but it does not seem to. I know this may sound harsh (and I do not mean it to because there is so much potential here), but I think the article should be re-titled, and a new introductory paragraph should be crafted. Also, the concept involves a movie that took something like 60 years to make, and Pauly Shore didn't hit the film scene until the 90's. I know that there is some artistic license allowed in these articles, but with a somewhat lofty concept comes a need to be somewhat believable. I am not sure how to fix this without ripping the backbone out of the article. Is there a comic actor who has been around since the 40's or 50's and made it into the 90s', who was also an idiot, who could have been involved in production for decades? I'll bet there is one you could refer to. Then it could be tied in to the CGI issue, because he grew too old over the decades to play his role, so they wanted to CGI him to make him younger. You could still tie in Pauly Shore by having him join the cast late. All this would be a good way to tie in the concept of how there is so much CGI overkill in modern Hollywood.
Prose and formatting:	8	I think the prose and formatting are very good. Once into the article, it feels like an encyclopedia article. I like the references to "authorities," like the quotes to people involved in producing the movie, and by the critics. The only thing that stands out is maybe using a quote box for the director in the "Plot" section. I know I should go deep on this section like the others, but really, I think your prose and writing styles are very developed and good, and these are not areas for you to be concerned about. I would give a higher score in this section, except that I would need to see more material (a longer article) to feel like I have a full opportunity to check the consistent high quality of the prose and writing.
Images:	7	The images are funny and relevant, but there need to be more of them. For example, the image with the man with the monocle captures how the film began production in the 1940's, with its black-and-white look and the top hat and monocle; and then, the picture from the "gimp" scene in Pulp Fiction shows the modern impact. What about adding some photos for the in-between years? Some photos to show the impact of the film (or its stages of production) on cinema from the 1960's or 1970's could be really funny. Maybe something from a classic Bond film and how your movie influenced the Bond franchise (just a brainstorm). The more ridiculous on that point, the better. Also, for the first photo, I think the caption could be improved to help explain the article's concept a bit more, since it is the first photo, after all.
Miscellaneous:	6.5	Besides what I already said, the article would benefit from a few more sections and having the sections that exist fleshed out a bit. I say this because there is real humor in the article and I want to see more! I think the readers should see this article with all of its potential brought to the forefront.
Final Score:	32.5	It's a great work in progress with some solid comedy as it stands, but it has the potential to be VERY funny and I am sure you can make it so.
Reviewer:	--Sir NoNamesLeft CUN NotM 02:52, May 12, 2011 (UTC)