Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Withnail & I

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archived

Guidelines

FAQ

Pee Week

Committee

RotM

Withnail & I

PyramidHead88 David 07:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Projectmayhem666-has stamped this article for review. Consider your article UNDER REVIEW bwahahaha!!

I'll review this, I've skimmed through so why not. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 10:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A little harsher than what I was expecting, but thanks for taking the time out to review this.

You raise some good points, but I feel there is one slight flaw in the review - as you are obviously not familiar with the film (which is a bit of a cult favourite in the UK and even here in Australia, not sure how well-known it is in the states) I understand that a lot of the quotes and references probably didn't make much sense to someone who hadn't seen it - which is a catch 22, seeing as it's one of those films that is probably quoted more than it is watched (not dissimilar to Life of Brian, for example). And I think you'll find that 'Bob Geldoff' is actually Richard E. Grant. I know that perhaps this article should aim to be funny to those who haven't seen the film as well as those who have, but I suppose realistically not many people will be searching for this article if they've never heard of the title.

Nevertheless, there is plenty to consider. I know it should have been longer; but I'm not sure how I could really do this without diluting the humour - more diary entries, for example, would be excessive. I'll also take on your point about formatting, as I'm very much a n00b when it comes to such issues (another user actually did most of the formatting for this page). It probably could do with some work.

Anyhow, thanks once again for reviewing this. I might chuck it back in for a second opinion, but I'll try to take your advice under my wing. Cheers :) --PyramidHead88 David 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)PyramidHead88 David

Quick drive-by from someone who has seen the film at least 50 times: Hi David, Withnail & I is one of my favourite films ever, which might qualify me to take a quick squint. Does so. Hmm. OK, point one - who is talking here? Is this a Richard E Grant style diary? (In which case the language is a mile off). Or is it someone else? (In which case - who? It's never made clear). Point two - it is pretty random and name-droppy. I do actually like the idea of a sequel to Withnail getting totally fucked up by studio interference, terrible casting etc - Seann William Scott and the Stifler line is a good idea, as is the shift to a romantic comedy; the vaginas are illegal line less so. The formatting is not great - perhaps experiment with different levels of header, drop down to level 3 (three equals signs on each side) for the diary entries, and PM666 is right, it needs more pics. Ask here if anyone can scare you up a 'chop of the Withnail cover jazzed up with Seann in place of Withnail.

So yeah, I may have been a tad more generous, but it does need a ton of work - make it look more appealing with formatting and pics, and you've done half the work, then spend more time with your concept, and rely less on random tangents (HTBFANJS is a great place to look, it's a collection of useful comedy tips our best writers often refer to). Hope this helps, and good luck! Now, I'm off for a drink. There must be antifreeze here somewhere... --UU - natter 19:52, Mar 7

I'm not American, I'm British, I've seen the film once, a while ago. It was probably a little harsh but certain parts were unclear and confusing so its hard to relate them back to it. Sorry if it seemed like I gave a purposefully bad review. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave that impression - I asked for a review, and as harsh as I initially thought it was, your review was far more useful than unmitigated praise would have been. I also apologise for assuming you were a yank (nobody deserves that! hehe). In hindsight, you raised (at least) a few very good points - the intro was pretty average, and has since been changed; the Seann William Scott picture also quite deservedly bit the dust in favour of *ahem* Cameron Diaz. Watch the movie again if you get the chance - I have to say, I only loved it the second time around, as I missed a lot of the dialogue and nuances the first time. It's a great film. --PyramidHead88 David 07:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)PyramidHead88 David

I am an actor, reduced to the state of a bum! ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 10:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice all. I've fixed a lot of stuff and chucked it back in for another review. Let's hope it does a little better this time :) --PyramidHead88 David 09:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)PyramidHead88 David

Humour:	2	The opening quote is ok, its a little long for a quote and its avergage, maybe add another funnier quote to top this up. Your opening note makes very little sense, you've linked it to the article I'm currently reading, this maybe something funny I've missed, but I do not get it. Your intro should be a witty introduction to the article, first impressions are important in an article if you want people to actually read the whole thing. So if I were you I'd improve the quote and intro to get people hooked to the article. The title of this page - I suggest you read HTBFANJS. This isn't really funny, its just silly, I'd remove this section if I were you as adding things like this just make the page seem cluttered and give a bad format. Superfluous Heading - Same as above, remove this. Production Diary - This should be the first section, I do suggest that if you're not going to write anything before you add a heading for the dates, the dates shouldn't be given seperate headings as it looks messy. You could add another introduction into the diary so it does not look as cluttered however. 6/6/2009 - One sentence in this sums it all up really. "Fuck. Not even vaguely funny.". I don't get what you're going for here it really is just all random. I get the running joke that the film is appalling but it is being a little overused with no new jokes propping up. There is however one funny point at the end where it says "Note: Add the farmer character somewhere", I like that, keep it in. 1/4/2009 - Quite funny but short, its a good one liner but its a stubby sub-section and relates back to my analysis of the first two sections. 11/12/2021 - I lolled, but as before, lack of content, far too many one liners being used here that are not worthy of their own section. 16/5/1975 - Nice Dr. Who reference, however the rest of the section a little secretious, I was not amused, can we not add some satire into the rest of the diary to fit in with the first date? I know I didn't find the first funny but it would be good to keep the theme flowing. 10,000BC - Actually quite funny, this section does work quite well with the current theme and flows ok. 15/17/2010 - Got to admit the article is redeeming itself here, very funny the date doesn't exist though, I think the diary dates should be kept realistic, unless we're going for the drunkard diary writing he probably does right in real life. 15/12/2009 - Another funny one liner, however could do with expansion. 16/4/2012 - HAHA! Excellent, unexpected and funny, Keep that in. Brilliant. For this whole section, to avoid each entry looking like a snub, boldening the text rather than having a subsection is probably the best way to go, it will make this look like one whole section so it will solve the content issue, also it will make it much neater. Post Script - Lack of content, not really as much of a reason for this as its a completely new section. needs expanding as content is very limited. Where are they now - Also a snub, name dropping, not very funny could do with a longer bio of each character if you're going to add a section like this. On a whole this is an article of little humour, little content, awful format. It has potential to be a good article however I believe it needs complete over-haul, sorry for the low score, if I'd come across this randomely I'd have stopped reading after the intro. I do, however, have confidence that you'll use this review and salvage something out of this.
Concept:	4	Not an original idea, have seen this done for books and films alot. Its an ok idea however implemented very badly, potential is there and I have faith you'll fix this up.
Prose and formatting:	3	I've mentioned the format in the humour section, too many sections for the little content, makes it look horrible, the dates should be boldened not sub sectioned to make the article alot neater. Pictures are far too large for the small amount of text, try increasing the text to fit. Grammar is fine, not really any spelling problems, try to make the text flow more though.
Images:	3	pretty random, the first one works but I can't see why you have Bob Geldoff (who isn't mentioned) and the one of sean william scott could be better. Also too big for the small amount of content. Captions are not that funny and could be made better.
Miscellaneous:	3	Thank God for the average eh?
Final Score:	15	Needs a lot of work does this article, it can be alot better. Hope I've not been too harsh, I was just being honest and giving you advice.
Reviewer:	--—The preceding signed comment was added by Projectmayhem666 (talk • contribs). 15:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)