I have four words for you (many times)

Wednesday, August 2, 2006

If brevity is the soul of wit, Polonius would have loved this site. The Four Word Film Review currently includes over 200,000 one-liners for some 15,000 movies. Anyone can author a review, with the caveat that they be no more than four words long.
Here’s some samples from some of the newer films:

Superman Returns
Kal-El Be Back!
Spacey [...]

by Kevin Makice

A Ph.D student in informatics at Indiana University, Kevin is rich in spirit. He wrestles and reads with his kids, does a hilarious Christian Slater imitation and lights up his wife's days. He thinks deeply about many things, including but not limited to basketball, politics, microblogging, parenting, online communities, complex systems and design theory. He didn't, however, think up this profile.

If brevity is the soul of wit, Polonius would have loved this site. The Four Word Film Review currently includes over 200,000 one-liners for some 15,000 movies. Anyone can author a review, with the caveat that they be no more than four words long.

Here’s some samples from some of the newer films:

Superman Returns

Kal-El Be Back!
Spacey has Lex appeal.
Superman III version 2.0.

The Da Vinci Code

Hanks: You’ve Got Grail.
Something about Mary Magdalene.
The Immaculate Deception.

Snakes On a Plane

Boeing constrictors.
Anaconcorde.
Snakes on a plane.

For more guffaws, this page really is a must read.


2 Comments

  1. Kevin Makice added these pithy words on August 9, 2006 | Permalink

    I’m having second thoughts (and sour grapes) about this site. I registered shortly after this post and started interacting with it. Fearing massive time-suckage, I set down some ground rules:

    1. No more than 1 review per calendar day
    2. No more than 1 entry (accepted or not) per movie

    Turns out there is some inner circle (or maybe just the owner of the site) who screens the pending submissions. I don’t know the history of the site, so it’s a bit difficult to judge … but that seems to defeat the purpose of having a site gets its content from its members. It also produces a bottleneck and makes the decisions appear a bit arbitrary (as in, this got in, but mine didn’t???)

    I got my first one in — “J Cruella fashion show.” to describe 101 Dalmations — but scuffled since:

    • “J Cruella fashion show.” (101 Dalmations) - Accepted
    • “Doesn’t go to eleven” (10 Things I Hate About You) - Declined twice, as Factually incorrect
    • “Jo’s way? no pay” (The Wages of Fear) - Pending
    • “Couldn’t be my dad” (The 40 Year-Old Virgin) - Declined, not resubmitted
    • “News blurb promotes Ford” (All The Presiden’ts Men) - Pending
    • “Bewitched at birth” (Matilda) - Declined as too generic, resubmitted
    • “Doom buggies” (The Swarm) - Pending
    • “I see Red people” (The Manchurian Candidate) - Pending

    While none of those are “reviews” in the strictest sense, even the FAQ on the site says that that is a requirement in name-of-site only. It quickly became apparent that plot descriptions and witty puns were more common. Whether or not my submissions fall into any of those categories, they definitely aren’t out of line with the range of reviews already up on the site.

  2. Kevin Makice added these pithy words on August 20, 2006 | Permalink

    It’s amazing. I did a google search for my last name today, to see if anything different came up from the U.S. version (I’m in Denmark at the moment). #4 on the list - already - is my minimal contribution to FWFR.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

Meta

Click

Heard the Word of Blog?

Tag Cloud

Photos

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos and videos from kmakice.