[Click here to skip directly to the review.]
From reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Mon Jul 8 15:49:41 1985
Subject: my increasingly lengthy reviews
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Along with the rest of you, I've been noticing that my reviews have been
gradually creeping upwards in size. The last one I posted was over 140
lines, 7 screenfuls for most of us. I'd like to hear from people about
whether my reviews are getting too long, and if I should work harder on
cutting them down to size. Please respond by mail. Thanks.
--
Peter Reiher
From jcc@uvaee.UUCP (Jay Colognori) Mon Jul 15 14:58:25 1985
Subject: Re: Three Summer Movies
Organization: EE Dept., U of Virginia, Charlottesville
In article <344@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) writes:
>I liked these three reviews in that they were one paragraph each and
>that they used the star system so that I knew right away where they
>were coming from. This is the way to write reviews that will get
>read, folks. No matter what the movie, I can't get interested in
>anything that goes over a screenful. I suspect there just might be some
>others out there like me as well...
>--
> --rick heli
> (... ucbvax!ucdavis!groucho!ccrrick)
Yes there are. I am new to the net and really enjoy net.movies,
but I could do without 80+ line reviews. One paragraph (maybe two)
will suffice nicely, thank you.
- Jay C.
From dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA Mon Jul 15 15:34:00 1985 Subject: Re: my increasingly lengthy reviews I find some of the reviews rather long. It really depends, however, whether I'm interested in the movie to begin with. Perhaps reviewers should use the newspaper style (pyramid structure) more, with description-general opinion- recommendation first (in 1 short paraphraph) and short paragraphs about the other stuff after, where the reader can skip over them.
From brett@ucla-cs.UUCP Mon Jul 15 23:44:16 1985 Subject: Re: BACK TO THE FUTURE- short and sweet Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department > "BACK TO THE FUTURE" a condensed review. > > I saw it. > I enjoyed it. > I recommend it. > > Lots of good gags. > A few flaws. (nobodys perfect) > Generally a well made motion picture. > -- > MONGO of VOLUMUS MAXIMUS Kudos. Applause. There is something to be said for a short, to-the-point review like this one. Which brings up a point. How many of you in netland would like to have a "sub-category" say "net.movies.tally" that explicitly shows how reviewers on the net "voted" on the movie. For example doesnt the following appeal to you: MOVIE YES NO MAYBE Rambo 3 112 5 Back to the Future 100 4 8 Goonies 666 33 4 etc.... I know it may not tell you much, but sometimes dont you just want to know by looking at some statistics? Those long reviews filled with flames about that one little bug that reviewer found can certainly get you unexcited. Of course, probably the only way to do the tally is with a moderator so that no one stuffs the ballot box. Maybe we could ask people to write in parenthesis (YES), (NO), or (MAYBE) on the Subject: line voluntarily, of course. These three indicatros would tell you whether you should see the movies. Of course, I can see some reviewers saying "well I need to write (YES) for those under 12 years of age and (NO) otherwise". Quite frankly I dont know how to handle this. Maybe a scale of 1-10 would be an alternative. But let me spin this around the world and see what you think. Thus, to summarize, I propose either a separate tally group to keep us up to date with the basic popularity of the movies we see. This would encourage more participation for those of us who dont want to write professional quality reviews. As an alternative, if such a group is not favored, I propose the subject line contain an indication of whether the movie is good. YES, NO, MAYBE or maybe a scale of 1-10. This would be voluntary for those willing to participate in the consensed net.movie readers fan group (CNMRFG). -- Brett Fleisch University of California Los Angeles
451F : bad. By dead French actor F. Truffaut (CEot3K, DfN).
Synopsis: Man paid good money to remove excess verbiage from world; suddenly decides to quit. Confused by society's subsequent disapproval. Finally moves to ghetto of similar deviates.
Summary: T.F.T. (Just Too Talky). Superunfast in making vaporous, indecipherable point.
(NO)
Go to reader responses to this review: from 1985 | from 1997 and later
Copyright © 1985,1996 by Kelvin Thompson
All Rights Reserved
(Updated September 20, 1998)