One of the film reviews that I posted was declined. Can I still try to edit it in order to make it acceptable?

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Solved
One of the film reviews that I posted (For "Private Life") was declined. Can I still try to edit it in order to make it acceptable, and if so, how do I do it?  If you could tell me why it was declined, it would be helpful.  Thank you.
Photo of CalGirl1982

CalGirl1982

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 2 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Vincent Fournols

Vincent Fournols

  • 2843 Posts
  • 4732 Reply Likes
Hi,

If you do not share your review content here, it is rather difficult for us contributors to help you :)

You can also check IMDb's response on https://contribute.imdb.com/contributions/history (view details), but it is likely that it does not comply with guidelines.

Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6410 Posts
  • 7874 Reply Likes
Photo of CalGirl1982

CalGirl1982

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes

The reference number of the review that has not gone live is:

#190205-005758-372104



The text of my review is as follows.  (If you can tell me what guideline(s) I violated and how I can correct it so that it can be posted I would appreciate it.  Thank you.)


Private Life (2018)
User Review Addition
      • Text: In watching this (albeit entertaining) film I was torn and puzzled by a few major inconsistencies in the story line, which I can't really believe never occurred to the writer/director, Tamara Jenkins. One the one hand, it is a currently relevant, sensitive and empathetic account of a couple going through a common problem of an unexpected mid-life realization of discovered inadequacies in a previously taken-for-granted ability to have children - the youthful expectation that most people assume will kick in whenever they are ready. When they discover they are unable to conceive, they opt for the plan B route, IVF, and the film depicts the roller-coaster traumas and all-too-common disappointments which often accompany this path. The performances are quite disparate, ranging from an outstanding portrayal of Richard, the supportive but wrung-out husband, by Paul Giamatti (who is brilliant in this role, as in most he plays), to the convincing but less stellar portrayal of Rachel by Kathryn Hahn, the depressed and emotionally strung-out wife, dealing with mixed feelings of desperation, womanly inadequacy and guilt (further fueled by her HRT therapy) for putting her career first while putting off starting a family. The other performances range from very good by Kayli Carter to excellent by John Carroll Lynch (a great character actor who played "Mac" McDonald in "Founder", and should be seen in more films) - to an absolutely abhorrent job done by Molly Shannon - I couldn't figure out if it was the character she played, her lousy acting talent, her unpleasant demeanor, or a combination thereof - but every time she is on camera you just want to cringe and bitch-slap her (not necessarily in that order). However, aside from the actors' performances, the writer seems to omit a few glaringly obvious pathways in their quest to have a baby - one line Richard has is "we're doing everything short of kidnapping to start a family" - but actually they're not - in their frantic obsession of estrogen patches, hormone injections, egg retrieval, porn-assisted sperm donation, IV fertilization, implantation - while simultaneously resorting to both registering for legal adoption & looking for babies available from girls online - they seem to have forgotten one seemingly obvious option in their efforts - having sex. During one medical marathon it's discovered that Richard's sperm is blocked (which apparently is what prevented their up-to-that-point efforts to conceive) - but he has a treatment immediately performed which "unblocks" it - in order to fertilize the eggs Rachel has just had retrieved. But after that's done, it never seems to occur to them to start screwing again (one complaint Richard has after a failed IVF is that they haven't had sex in 11 months.) If his sperm is now accessible, why don't they just give the old-fashioned method a shot (no pun intended) - granted, depression and frustration can lead to lack of interest, but if they're desperate enough to spend tens of thousands of $ on medical methods you'd think it might occur to them that perhaps having a little wine or pot, relaxing & taking a break from trying so hard (which due to the accompanying stress can actually inhibit fertility) by giving it a try between the sheets might possibly have an effect. But while Richard is up for it (again no pun), due to her depression Rachel nixes the whole idea and doesn't even make the effort. Another glaring inconsistency in this saga is the doctor's suggestion that they try using a "doner" egg - which Richard considers but Rachel also dismisses because she would be forfeiting her "genetic contribution". Understandable, obviously, but desperate times call for desperate measures. I've never been through all of this, but it would seem a reputable doctor (granted, few of which still exist) might bring up the idea of surrogacy before the egg doner option. Apparently, after Richard's sperm is "unblocked", their failures result not from fertilization problems (they conceive successfully in vitro) but from implantation - all her hormone injections don't seem to fix the problem of her being unable to implant. But not once during the entire story is surrogacy ever mentioned - they could take their fertilized eggs (containing both their genetic contributions) & have them implanted into a younger woman with a more receptive uterine lining. Why does the screenwriter cover nearly every possibility except for that? Meanwhile, their long-term marriage and feelings for each other are imploding due to constant fights and mutual blame-game playing; they're searching for strangers' eggs to utilize (along with a visiting niece (Sadie) whom they ask if she'd be willing to donate her eggs so the doner would be someone they already had a connection with - but which carries with it some unexpected conflicting psychodynamics.) The niece (who loves them and wants to help) agrees to the proposition immediately without any forethought as to the possible implications - she's only 25 and seems to have no conscious realization of the motivations involved - that what it would really mean would be that she would be actually giving up her biological child to relatives with whom she has an emotional connection. At one point during a chat with Rachel she refers to this future baby as "hers and Rachel's" - which confuses and seems to give pause to Rachel regarding their decision to involve Sadie. The reasoning behind using anonymous doners is that it would eliminate the very possible emotional conflicts using a friend or relative might cause to surface at some point down the road. Along with all this, they're travelling to distant locations to meet up with teenage girls who may or may not be willing to give up their babies (or even have one to give up); and they're ignoring (again due to the writer's lack of reference, concern or insight) the very real health consequences these treatments will most likely have at some point down the line. It's pointed out that they've "been at this for years" - and even short-term forays into the artificially induced hormone stimulation fertility route can (and often does) result in all sorts of health implications - from breast/ovarian/other reproductive cancers to cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks, strokes, blood clots - even women in their teens and 20's who are just on the pill can experience such complications. Rachel is 41 and relentlessly bombarding her body with excessive doses of hormones. Why does the writer omit all these very salient and relevant aspects of this journey these two are on? The impetus for writing this script seems to be largely sensitivity and empathy for people going through this dilemma, but it should also contain accurate and relevant information - and give a more inclusive depiction of everything that might be involved.
      • Summary: Watch This With A Grain Of Salt

Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 11672 Posts
  • 7494 Reply Likes
Hi CalGirl1982   -

I checked your review and noted that the sentence that likely flagged the editor was:

"I couldn't figure out if it was the character she played, her lousy acting talent, her unpleasant demeanor, or a combination thereof - but every time she is on camera you just want to cringe and bitch-slap her (not necessarily in that order)."

Please re-submit and post the submission reference number here and I can take a look and approve it for you.
(Edited)
Photo of CalGirl1982

CalGirl1982

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thank you for your suggestion, Michelle - I edited it & reposted - the new reference # is - 190208-003457-659704.  Hopefully it will work this time!  

I appreciate your help. 
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 11672 Posts
  • 7494 Reply Likes
Hi CalGirl1982 -

Thanks for the information, I can confirm that your User Review has now been approved and is live on the site: https://www.imdb.com/user/ur98245537/reviews

Cheers!
(Edited)
Photo of CalGirl1982

CalGirl1982

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Thank you so much for your help - your advice was valuable.  I'll try to exclude the expletives in future reviews!