DVD Talk review of 'Date Movie - Unrated'
05-20-06, 08:44 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
DVD Talk review of 'Date Movie - Unrated'
I read Francis Rizzo III's DVD review of Date Movie - Unrated at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=21793 and...
OMG YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ANYTHING ABOUT THE UNRATED FOOTAGE! THIS REVIEW IS WORTHLESS!
Actually, your review was quite excellent, and considerably better than the flick deserves.
Having said that, I will now be adding the DVD to my NetQ. That critics' commentary sounds pretty cool.
OMG YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ANYTHING ABOUT THE UNRATED FOOTAGE! THIS REVIEW IS WORTHLESS!
Actually, your review was quite excellent, and considerably better than the flick deserves.
Having said that, I will now be adding the DVD to my NetQ. That critics' commentary sounds pretty cool.
05-21-06, 07:56 AM
#2
Emeritus Reviewer
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Scott, don't make me start acting like a spoiled little debutante by writing hateful messages in red threatening you with a report to moderator message... (Yeah, the content providers of the website are terrifyied of THAT idea, right?)
The review was almost certainly better than the movie and makes me want to check it out too. Yay Francis!
PS: Francis, where's the frame by frame breakdown of the scene that the anal retentive types claim are in great demand by "95% of the readers"?
The review was almost certainly better than the movie and makes me want to check it out too. Yay Francis!
PS: Francis, where's the frame by frame breakdown of the scene that the anal retentive types claim are in great demand by "95% of the readers"?
05-21-06, 08:47 AM
#3
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know...I had intended to make mention of the unrated scenes, but when THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE MOVIE couldn't remember what they were (as per the commentaries), I didn't feel the need anymore.
05-22-06, 03:45 AM
#4
Emeritus Reviewer
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Francis: "You know...I had intended to make mention of the unrated scenes, but when THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE MOVIE couldn't remember what they were (as per the commentaries), I didn't feel the need anymore."
I agree but I didn't want you to chance offending the handful of haters that think either "95%", a "sizable portion", or whatever their made up net statistics were in any given post to hammer you over with regard to the additional footage. It looks like a fun flick.
I agree but I didn't want you to chance offending the handful of haters that think either "95%", a "sizable portion", or whatever their made up net statistics were in any given post to hammer you over with regard to the additional footage. It looks like a fun flick.
05-22-06, 06:45 PM
#5
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: ...wait a minute, where the hell am I?
Posts: 2,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Houstondon
PS: Francis, where's the frame by frame breakdown of the scene that the anal retentive types claim are in great demand by "95% of the readers"?
You call yourselves professional reviwers? I play basketball in my alley. I guess I can call myself a professional basketball player, and that line over there is out of bounds.
05-22-06, 06:50 PM
#6
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,824
Received 1,882 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Originally Posted by purplechoe
You call yourselves professional reviwers?
05-22-06, 11:39 PM
#7
Emeritus Reviewer
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purple: "On a movie like this I could care less. For movies that have been out on dvd for years and a new edition comes out and if a reviewer doesn't mention the differences, that review IS useless to me and most of other film buffs. If you guys want to cater to joe-6-packs go right a head.
You call yourselves professional reviwers?"
Purple, none of us are paid to write reviews here and I don't recall any of us suggesting we were "professionals" either. There's a guy writing for the local newspaper that finds something great in every movie he sees, making him one of the most quoted "professional" reviewers around but it doesn't mean you can rely on what he writes as a result.
The point being made is that a very vocal minority start huffing and puffing when their specific needs aren't catered to. In the "Enemy" thread, the main character doing so would come up with all sorts of made up statistics to support his conclusion and this served to marginalize the dedicated movie lovers who want to see if a double dip is worth buying. By extension, it could be claimed that someone watching the theatrical version of the movie might want to know if the added footage was enough to make a purchase out of the DVD release, which was why Scott and I were kidding Francis about the matter (in good fun too).
He rightfully pointed out that even the makers of the movie in the commentary track were unsure about what extra footage was in the movie (keep in mind that most double dip, added in footage isn't sanctioned by the director, the true source for "film buffs" to go by). Marginal added in footage used without a director's consent should not be the make it or break it factor for buying a double dip and out of all the reviews here I've read, every review discussed or mentioned the "added in footage" to some extent, including the one that so irritated a certain grumpy individual.
I'm not presumptuous enough to suggest I know what "most of other film buffs" find useless but having read numerous reviews on double dips elsewhere, I can state that the ones here have been well above average by comparison (and seem to serve the "joe-6-packs" you appear to hold in such contempt pretty well too). We appreciate constructive criticism and tend to act on it as a means of addressing the issues raised but there are ways to encourage reviewers that don't involve petty swipes, nonsensical net statistics, and the kind of "I'm more important than the rest of the world" attitude some have displayed in the recent past.
Catering to any single crowd seems to be a mistake, be it the joe-6-packs or the "I want a doctoral thesis" types, with most reviewers seeking a solid middle ground of consumers to find movies they might appreciate.
You call yourselves professional reviwers?"
Purple, none of us are paid to write reviews here and I don't recall any of us suggesting we were "professionals" either. There's a guy writing for the local newspaper that finds something great in every movie he sees, making him one of the most quoted "professional" reviewers around but it doesn't mean you can rely on what he writes as a result.
The point being made is that a very vocal minority start huffing and puffing when their specific needs aren't catered to. In the "Enemy" thread, the main character doing so would come up with all sorts of made up statistics to support his conclusion and this served to marginalize the dedicated movie lovers who want to see if a double dip is worth buying. By extension, it could be claimed that someone watching the theatrical version of the movie might want to know if the added footage was enough to make a purchase out of the DVD release, which was why Scott and I were kidding Francis about the matter (in good fun too).
He rightfully pointed out that even the makers of the movie in the commentary track were unsure about what extra footage was in the movie (keep in mind that most double dip, added in footage isn't sanctioned by the director, the true source for "film buffs" to go by). Marginal added in footage used without a director's consent should not be the make it or break it factor for buying a double dip and out of all the reviews here I've read, every review discussed or mentioned the "added in footage" to some extent, including the one that so irritated a certain grumpy individual.
I'm not presumptuous enough to suggest I know what "most of other film buffs" find useless but having read numerous reviews on double dips elsewhere, I can state that the ones here have been well above average by comparison (and seem to serve the "joe-6-packs" you appear to hold in such contempt pretty well too). We appreciate constructive criticism and tend to act on it as a means of addressing the issues raised but there are ways to encourage reviewers that don't involve petty swipes, nonsensical net statistics, and the kind of "I'm more important than the rest of the world" attitude some have displayed in the recent past.
Catering to any single crowd seems to be a mistake, be it the joe-6-packs or the "I want a doctoral thesis" types, with most reviewers seeking a solid middle ground of consumers to find movies they might appreciate.
