Best reviewer on the site?

Reviews are very subjective. What appeals to me may not appeal to others. The classic example is a Sci-Fi movie, which I thought was superb, my friend thought it was terrible because it didn't have space battles and fights! That is why it pays to look at reviewers favourites - it can tell you a lot about the persons tastes. With regards size, it really doesn't matter - a one line review that warns 'do not watch' is enough sometimes. To answer the original question I checked out 'Samira' based on the forum comments, and I'd vote for her review (long but accurate).

Try being concise & succinct

I think you hit the nail on the head there with the 'succinct'. Although his reviews do show a genuinely impressive insight into the media, they dabble in semiotics and discourse analysis, they mention character profiles, roles and a dizzying array of media terminology. This may be worth a vote in itself, but for me its a little too much like a media studies essay than a review.

Nonfiction is right that reviews are subjective, so you and I, Escafeld are perfectly in the right to say that some types of review appeal to us more than others. I personally look for a little heart and feeling in reviews, an explanation of what the experience of the film/album was like rather than an plot analysis. I will reward genuine effort, which I know Caboose puts into his reviews, but my favourite types of reviews have a little more feeling in them.

I can't stand 4 line reviews that just say nothing, also I know that a bit of condensing can do a world of good. My dissertation lecturer used to tell me all the time, don't spend 100 lines saying what you could in 10*. I mean look at the top voted review on the site, a good length, to the point and full of passion.


*I realise the irony of this statement, in that my reply on this thread is too long winded!

I'M gonna revive this thread because I think the OP, PvtCaboose91, is taking the p|ss completely. It's a fish for points if I've ever seen one & an attempt to game points based on an entirely self-subjective opinion that the sh|t he writes is worthy of a vote. Of course he mentions his great friend Claudia in an attempt to deflect attention from this but really he doesn't fool anyone. Which is probably the reason why he makes the "I am disgusted at how this thread has gone" comment. ie. It hasn't turned out out how he wanted it to, everyone wasn't fawning over his reviews which at the end of the day are full of overly verbose pretentious bollox.

I'm going to say this again: I don't care if people vote for my reviews or not. If they want to, they can. If they don't want to, I don't care!
And fer cryin' out loud, I said in my earlier post I was disgusted by the way the thread has gone because not many posts actually related to the topic!
Hehe...you describe my reviews as being full of "overly verbose pretentious bollox." Hmm...you've used some pretty big words there. Why not try being succinct and say my reviews are just full of big words? Huh? Is it coz you want to sound sophisticated? Twat.

I read one of PvtCaboose91's reviews & makes me feel sick, sick with the way the English language has been perverted, twisted & distorted beyond meaning. Why use one word when you can use ten eh? Sort it out, you want to say something say it simply & direct, don't go round the houses speak your mind. Stop talking bollox.

It's called analysing. I use adjectives to describe different facets of a movie. That's what you do in reviews - you analyse a movie!
Haha...you're sick coz of the way I pervert, twist and distort the English language? More big words there. More big adjectives. You should say it simple a direct. Why use one word when you can use ten, eh? Stop talking bollox.

Another thing, this PvtCaboose91 is continually fishing for votes, even goes to the extent of telling everyone that "it takes me 5 hours to write a review, please vote". When was the last time you voted for anyone eh? Why should anyone vote for you when you can't take the time to vote for anyone else?

Hmm...let's see, the top-voted review on the site I've voted for. Look at other top-voted reviews...like some of Prelude's (Zohan and Michael Clayton, among others). Yup...voted for those too. MovieMan's reviews I also vote for. Look at those. And I've also voted for some of GemLil's reviews (Forrest Gump, The Holiday). T-Pulla's reviews have prompted me to do some voting as well. There's also Charis' reviews. I've even voted for some of Kryptic Centurion's reviews. Did you even research this comment before making it?

And sometimes it does take me many hours to write a review. So I therefore tell people about it.... shouldn't I be recognised for my efforts?
And I love the incredible irony of this scenario. Looking at the Top Listmakers thread you talk about how much time and effort you put into a few of your lists. You say that you must draw attention to these lists because they took you "feckin ages to do". Guess what? My reviews take me feckin ages to do...every single one of em!
You also talk up you lists, saying "Actually I must say these three lists are probably the best Tartan resources on the web. It's unlikely you'll find any list as complete as these three anywhere else on t'interweb." WOW! Now that's tonnes of bragging and blatantly promoting your efforts. And then of course you say "Votes to recognise this would of course be greatly appreciated. Thanks". You say I'm begging for votes, which I'm not, and you're BLATANTLY begging for votes!
You say you want your lists to be comprehensive...I want my reviews to be comprehensive. You want your lists to be complete, I want my reviews to be complete. Thus I pepper my reviews with interesting trivia facts, etc. Your arguments and general insults and criticisms have lost all credibility now. Hypocrite!

I've made a point of following PvtCaboose91 for the last month or so just to see how he contributes to this site. You know what, other than his reviews & the time spent begging for votes for his reviews his contribution is zero. He rarely casts a vote to recognise anyone else's contribution, odd vote for a review done by Alexander or Claudia, but nothing for anyone else, no votes for lists or images. So it makes me SICK when he's on these forums begging votes for his own contributions when he can't even take a few minutes to recognise anyone else's contributions by casting a few votes. ;-)

Hmm...like I've shown above I vote for plenty of reviews. I've also voted for lists (www.listal.com/list/the-criterion-collection, www.listal.com/list/actors-find-sexy-because-they), I've made lists (look at my Rambo list, for instance, and my Worst of 2008 list. Lots of time, effort and detail went into that), I do A LOT of tagging, I've posted a lot of pictures, etc. I'm ranked at number 13 based on my tonnes of contributions, and you sit at 28. Moron.
My God, for someone who's been "following" me, you did a piss poor job of it.
Look at your contributions...you've only done a few reviews and a lot of lists. You focus on lists, my focus is on reviews. I could go ahead and say your lists are sh*t and your reviews are sh*t, couldn't I? It's a two-way street, jerk-off. And I'm not the one plugging Listal at the end of every review I post. What are you, Listal's b*tch or something?
I made this thread 7 months ago, you twat! I barely come on the forums anymore anyway. The last time I made any comment about my reviews on here was ageeeessss ago. These days I only come on Listal to post my reviews, because now I rather dislike this site. Why? Because of a majority of the members. It's why Listal has yet to reach its zenith, and may never do so. All your plugging of Listal won't make any difference. It will continue to struggle until a majority of the members lighten up.

GemLil...

Although his reviews do show a genuinely impressive insight into the media, they dabble in semiotics and discourse analysis, they mention character profiles, roles and a dizzying array of media terminology. This may be worth a vote in itself, but for me its a little too much like a media studies essay than a review.

That's sort of the point...I write essays about the movie in question. Could be beneficial in later years.
For instance: at school I presented one of my reviews to a teacher who sent it to the head teacher of the English department, and copies of it are now put away to use in later years. I gave a bundle of reviews to my English teacher and she found them incredible for someone my age. My vocabulary and ability to analyse movies also generated very positive essay results in English and Drama. If my reviews aren't suitable for the site, then fine - I don't care. Honestly, I don't. Why should I care about votes, anyway? The points? I don't give a crap about this site anymore.

Oh, and escafeld. It's incredibly ironic what you say about my reviews in this thread after voting for and commenting on my The Great Escape review. I believe your comment said something along the lines of "A review worthy of the film. Excellent stuff."

PWWWWWNNNNNNEEEEED!!!

Let's examine my latest review to ascertain what's necessary and what isn't:

As we learn during the final showdown, the title Kiss of the Dragon is derived from a method of killing - it essentially involves the insertion of an acupuncture needle into a "very forbidden" point on the body, trapping the body's blood supply in the head which consequently triggers bleeding from the head's orifices and a very painful death via a brain aneurysm. Guess who's going to implement the Kiss of the Dragon?

Okay, that's a simple introduction addressing the origins of the title.

Kiss of the Dragon was reportedly rushed into production due to Jet Li's fans requesting more realistic fight sequences. In the post-Matrix days of filmmaking, traditional martial arts movies are usually permeated with Matrix-style trickery to spice up action scenes. Thankfully, Kiss of the Dragon avoids falling victim to this unfortunate plague. This is old-fashioned butt-kicking martial arts material, using digital effects rarely and featuring wire-work only once. Unlike Jackie Chan who combines martial arts skills with comedic flair, Jet Li provides straight-up action minus any comedy - he's far more interested in generating an adrenaline rush. There is no deeper meaning to this particular movie; it's just professional, well-staged action filmed with a certain stylistic elegance.

History behind the film - why it was rushed into production. I also include the filmmakers' aim, I state a few pros, and make a few general comments about the film. Of a necessary length...

Predictably, Kiss of the Dragon lacks a truly intricate story. This is a straightforward action affair, produced purely with the intention of showcasing Jet Li's talents as a martial artist. It admittedly lacks motivation and logic, but never mind. In a motion picture featuring physical action bordering on impossible, why should the plot be reasonable and credible?
Top Beijing government agent Liu Jian (Li) is sent on an assignment in Paris to assist in a drug-smuggling bust (or something of that nature...the whole plot is frustratingly vague). Not long after his arrival in France, Jian becomes the patsy when he's framed for a double murder by the ruthless French investigator Jean-Pierre Richard (Karyo), who has a limitless supply of henchmen at his disposal. Unsurprisingly, Jian escapes the clutches of Richard and goes on the run in a desperate attempt to prove his innocence. For the rest of the picture, Jian attempts to extricate himself from the (dodgy) frame-up, eventually developing a reluctant partnership with hooker Jessica (Fonda).

I state the plot and the fact that it's a simple action film lacking an intricate plot. Simple analysis here.

Kiss of the Dragon tantalisingly opens without a single drop of exposition in an energetic, sustained set-piece following Jian's initial arrival in Paris. As the plot arrives, the film grows moronic when the script refuses to explain itself. What is Richard's connection to the Chinese? Why has he bothered to abduct the child of an immigrant hooker as collateral when he kills everyone else? Furthermore, why doesn't anyone bother to dispose of incriminating evidence instead of locking it in a drawer?
Tchéky Karyo as Richard (a fundamental doppelganger of Sean Bean in GoldenEye) barely reaches the first dimension. During all his villainous acts of killing and barking strict orders, he forgets to have a motivation. What is the point of framing Jian? Why did he murder those involved in this drug ring of sorts?

Now I start getting into the criticisms, stating the lack of brains. Usually talking about lack of brains requires examples, so I provide them.

As the thrilling action-packed ride unspools, the film appears to focus exclusively on the action scenes. The hero is a one-dimensional single-man army, taking on multiple brainless enemies simultaneously and always coming out on top. Horribly lazy plotting emerges when Jian and Jessica meet. We're not only expected to believe a top government agent has been framed, but also that this prostitute just happens to work the streets where Jian is temporarily residing. This is a coincidence of monumental proportions, and it's simply too ridiculous to be believed. Character development doesn't exist beyond a few cheesy emotional exchanges between the protagonists, and therefore it's impossible to get involved with the characters. Also, as Jet Li works his way through a buffed brigade of baddies with more and more elaborate martial jousting, it begs the question: why doesn't someone just shoot the trouble-maker?

Further criticisms, expounding upon things previously said and making new observations.

Kiss of the Dragon was co-written and co-produced by Luc Besson, known for a number of past hits including Leon (The Professional), The Fifth Element, and La Femme Nikita (just to name a few). But despite the efforts of the usually reliable Besson, Kiss of the Dragon is a cookie-cutter of a script for a well-trodden genre. Clichés abound, and the whole thing is predictable from the word go. All action movies are predictable, granted, thus it's all about the execution. In this case the characters are flat, the dialogue is banal, and the gaps between action sequences continually bog.

I discuss Luc Besson's involvement, and simply observe that his reputation didn't do the movie any favours. I repeat a few things to make this point valid.

First-time director Chris Nahon has managed to imbue the visuals with a satisfyingly dark and gritty tone; successfully utilising the Parisian locations to great effect. Veteran action coordinator Cory Yuen is responsible for the creation of a handful of beautifully choreographed and superbly performed action sequences. These fight scenes are genuine masterpieces, helped in no small part by the athletic Jet Li. The final result when stringed together, however, is watchable and exhilarating but ultimately somewhat forgettable.

I analyse the direction, as well as the action sequences.

Luc Besson is one of a group of French directors who believe that in order for a French movie to succeed on the international stage, it must be successful in the United States. Consequently, even though this flick was filmed in and takes place in Paris, virtually everyone speaks English. Mainstream movie-goers will therefore be none the wiser, thinking it's just another Hollywood production...which is precisely Besson's intention. It is absurd watching Frenchman and Chinese speaking English to each other, though.

History behind the film, and ending it with a further criticism.

Jet Li's performance is top-notch. Kiss of the Dragon seems keen to establish Li as the next big martial arts star. He oozes charisma and coolness, and he actually has acting ability (instead of someone like Steven Seagal, who's generally sluggish and might easily be mistaken for a wooden post). Not only is Li unbelievably athletic and able to perform kicks and thrusts with blazing speed, but his screen presence is likable.
Bridget Fonda makes an endearing companion who brings out Jian's humanity and becomes unintentionally involved in the proceedings. To the credit of the screenwriting community, there is no love interest developed between Fonda and Li. Also, predictably, Ms. Fonda isn't granted much in the heroics department... In fact, she's just there - a fundamental add-on with little genuine involvement with the story-line. Her screen presence is sufficiently amiable, but she more or less comes off as just a plot device to provide Li with an excuse to exercise his fighting skills for a reason other than exonerating his own name.
Meanwhile, Tchéky Karyo plays the role of the bad guy with aplomb; creating a type of bastard we'll have no difficulty despising. Burt Kwouk (of the Pink Panther fame) makes a brief appearance, and makes the most of his screen-time. Cyril Raffaelli is also given the opportunity to demonstrate his skills as a martial artist. In fact, on only one occasion were wires used for fight scenes - when Raffaelli and Li verse one another. Wires were utilised to slow down their movements as the two performers were too fast for the camera to track them!

I analyse the actors and the characters, making comments on the level of skill shown by each as well as the characters they play.

Instead of being endowed with any real plausibility or any serious motivation for the events, Kiss of the Dragon merely offers a state of affairs whereby Li can showcase his skills as a martial artist...and he does a splendid job at it! The film's first ten minutes ran my hopes high. Had it developed a solid story, exhibited an ounce of credibility, or even delivered a quick dash of tongue-in-cheek humour, Kiss of the Dragon could have completely fulfilled its potential. Its auspicious premise instead quickly transforms into yet another action spectacle featuring comic-book heroes and sinister villains. If that's all you expected, you'll probably get a kick out of it. If you expected something more (Luc Besson did co-write the story!), you'll find Kiss of the Dragon a simple, mindless, enjoyable guilty pleasure (like I did). It gets the adrenaline rushing during the action sequences, but it's short on plot, credibility and characterisation. This is exclusively for dedicated Li fans and/or martial arts film fans.

I sum up all the main points and conclude the review.

There. I go into detail and provide adequate reasoning as to why I only gave it average marks, and why it isn't a total disaster. Also used some interesting history behind the production to provide more complete reading.

Let's all spent hours typing about how great me and my reviews are