Reason, please, for declining my review...?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 7 months ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
Can someone (*not* "ACT_1", thanks) please enlighten me as to why my latest review has been declined for the second time???

THE RETURN OF THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1994)
#190624-184613-799404

Thank you.

Daniele Iannarelli (Mr)
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
  • Irritated, time-wasted

Posted 7 months ago

  • 2
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7344 Posts
  • 9217 Reply Likes
Daniele: What was the content of the review that was declined?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19171 Posts
  • 21729 Reply Likes
ACT_1 has been silent for a while.
Second the...........What was the content of the review that was declined?
Photo of Jaime

Jaime, Employee

  • 424 Posts
  • 503 Reply Likes
Hello

Thank you for your post.

The review was declined due to breaches of policy please review our guidelines before submitting your review for further vetting.
If you wish to discuss this further you can contact us via the Help Site.

Thank you in advance.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Well, that’s a GREAT HELP!

Obviously, the action was probably ‘excused’ as “a breach of policy”... but WHAT, exactly???

How am I supposed to reassess it and adjust if I don’t know what this alleged ‘breach’ is??? If I knew whatever I wrote was ‘in breach’ then have you ever considered that maybe I wouldn’t have composed it in such a way in the first place???
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19141 Posts
  • 21645 Reply Likes
Daniele.
Copy and paste the review here.
We'll figure it out together
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Okay, here it is Ed...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RETURN OF THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1994)

2/10

“REALLY...???”

I just cannot believe the lack of taste of some people who seem to think this rubbish should be awarded such high rating as 8, 9, 10/10...!

REALLY...???

Acting: Worse than poor

Direction: Basic and limited

Production: Basic

Script: Corny & infantile

With all the frenetic running around, they (Zellweger and the - now tranny - Leatherface) would have to have the fitness of Olympic athletes!

The original? Good.

The remake of the original? Pretty good.

This? This has absolutely nothing going for it in any way.

Absolute trash.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It would help if the moderator/s would specify EXACTLY what the problem is. After all, they're reading and assessing it anyway, so surely it can't be too much of a problem to state exactly where the problem lies. Otherwise, we have to frustratingly try and figure it out. Easier to state the problem at source... AND incurring better moderator-reviewer relations.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19141 Posts
  • 21645 Reply Likes
Take this out and try it again.

With all the frenetic running around, they (Zellweger and the - now tranny - Leatherface) would have to have the fitness of Olympic athletes!
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
Why? What's wrong with that?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19141 Posts
  • 21645 Reply Likes
Specifically I could not say. But I'd Bet a Happy Meal that that was the offending part that caused the rejection.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19141 Posts
  • 21645 Reply Likes
If I was to guess though.............."Tranny" caused it.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
The hypocrisy of them.
I’m just stating facts.
Trannies also call themselves “trannies”. If “tranny” is unacceptable, then I may just as well call them ‘weirdos’ and ‘lunatics’... after all, if ‘tranny’ gets my review rejected, Then I may as well say what I think, no?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 19141 Posts
  • 21645 Reply Likes
and the now Trans-Sexual Leatherface
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7319 Posts
  • 9586 Reply Likes
Hi, Daniele Iannarelli. It may be best not to comment on other reviewers' lack of taste, even if you are referring to them generally and not identifying them individually.
Photo of Daniele Iannarelli

Daniele Iannarelli

  • 46 Posts
  • 44 Reply Likes
I thought IMDB is supposed to be a critical forum. Surely this applies also relative comparisons.

If someone rates something as high as a generally-acclaimed classic would be, then surely that comparative rating should also be commented upon as past if the overall critique.

...and that’s all I was doing. No one reviewer was singled out by name, so I don’t see the problem.

Perhaps the powers that be should write out a list of precise things to say, and all we do is tick them off. After all, we are living through George Orwell’s “1984” right now, are we not?
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 14700 Posts
  • 15724 Reply Likes
Hi Daniele Iannarelli,

The objective of a review is to offer an opinion on the film, television program or other video media.

Although it is not explicitly prohibited, it is bad form to cast aspersions on other people or their lack of taste. The following phrase comes across as insulting to other reviewers:
I just cannot believe the lack of taste of some people who seem to think this rubbish should be awarded such high rating as 8, 9, 10/10...!
Specifically:
What not to include: ...
  • Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review.
Reference:
User review guidelines
https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-information/user-review-guidelines/GABTWSNLD...#