Has anyone else noticed Andrew's been getting really, really in-depth with the reviews for a while? The Characters, Thing I Learned and Things To Watch for are the same, but the plot "Synopsis" are epic in length, giving away everything. Most of the early reviews had short and to the point rundowns. I'm not being critical, I just think reading's for losers.
Check out
Jabootu or
Teleport City if you want long reviews. Andrew is the model of succinctness
I think the rest of us B-Masters are rubbing off on him.
("Reading's for losers"? Six thousand years of literate civilization down the drain...)
Nathan
Andrew does the Short storys, Ken Begg does Tolstoy. Simple, realy. I've seen much less impressive reviews in major newspapers.
I wouldn't say "us", Nathan, your reviews tend to resemble Andrews more then Ken's :)
Although I loved your review of "Nemesis", very little about the movie, more about your personal reaction to it :) I thought you were a bit harsh on "Beowulf", though.
I must disagree with the "reading sucks" bit, but I do agree my reviews are longer than they used to be. This is probably from finally finding the point I'm comfortable with. I did not do very much writing before the website, so at first it was quite a chore. Now writing comes as second nature. The length probably will not grow from its present general length though.
Now, for the question (for anyone). Are the reviews too long? Would you rather read shorter plot sections?
Andrew
I'm quite comfortable with the current length. I find when I'm looking through your reviews to read something about a movie I'm thinking of seeing and I happen on an older review, they are a bit too short to tell me enough that I want to know.
Of course, I thought "Wing Commander" was as long as it was because you singled out just how bad the writing was.
>I just think reading's for losers.
It gets easier once you have an edukashun...
U awl like reeding so mutch? Reeding am 4 loozers.
Hey, I still come in about 1500 words per review -- not nearly Beggian in length, granted, but still longer than what you'll find in your Daily Sphincter. When we were discussing any solid criteria for inclusion in the Cabal a while back, the word "exhaustive" came up several times. ("Bludgeoning," by contrast, only came up once.)
You're in for a treat this weekend, BTW, when Ken unleashes his Superman 4 review. You thought you knew what length was...
Nathan
Well, until the Internet starts reading itself aloud to me...
Nathan
Ah, but Nathan,Then you'd have to decide who's going to do the reading. What, we'd want the voice of the Weather channel doing it? That robot voice reminds me of early video games. ( ha ha ha. Nize tri, spaze ko-det.) And the good voice actors are makeing a bundle with books on tape........hummm.....who would you guys like to read your works, anyway? Charlton Heston? James Earl Jones? Paul Rubens? Hire Rich Little, and you can have any celeb voice ya want. Humm...
OH YIKES!!!!!
Actually, whether I read a particular reviewers work depends mostly on the content.
I particularly enjoy Nathan's review because he write about movies I'm likely to want to see. Sci-fi, post-apoc, sword and sandels. I don't read the Teleport City reviews as much because, while I think they are well written and the length doesn't bother me, they usually are about movies I'll probably never see or care to see. I'm not a big horror/gore buff, either.
I like Andrews reviews because they are written humoursly and are worth reading even if I don't plan on seeing the movie
I like the reviews. The length is fine.
Suck-up mode on:
Andrew is the best writer of all. His reviews encourage with humor and seriousness the hearts of young movie goers into the epic world of movies. There can be no one better.
Suck-up mode off
If you don't like to read, I don't know what you are doing here. And what do you mean reading is for losers? To hell with with you, you ignorant scumbag!! Do yourself a favour and read yourself a book, if possible something that is not the TV Guide.
About the reviews, I think their lenght is perfectly adequate. Actually, I don't mind reading even Jabootu's longest articles. Lenght is never a problem if you are interested on the topic and writing is good, and if anybody feels there's too much to read, they can always jump to the pictures or the "Things I learned..." section.
I'm joking about reading being for losers. I just don't think movie reviews should be so long, since the purpose for such an article is to give a vague overview of the plot and whether or not the particular reviewer likes or dislikes the film in question.
I just don't think movie reviews should be so long, since the purpose for such an article is to give a vague overview of the plot and whether or not the particular reviewer likes or dislikes the film in question.
But obviously that's NOT the purpose of longer reviews. Again, look at Ken Begg; his purpose is definitely NOT a vague overview of the plot. We've all got purposes in what we write, and it may not line up with what you think reviews "should" be.
Me, I try to get my reviews up to around 1500 words -- longer, if it works. If that's longer than the movie reviews you see in your local paper, so be it; I'm not writing in your local paper.
Nathan