Review Detail
7.6 6 10
(Updated: March 08, 2013)
Overall rating
9.2
Audio/Video Quality
8.0
Audio Editing
10.0
Visual Editing
9.0
Narrative
10.0
Enjoyment
9.0
Neglify’s critique:
(Disclaimer. I have watched this fanedit.)
I’ve wanted to see this edit for a while, ever since stumbling into the thread for this, which has become one of my all time favorites. The fact that the cut list for the edit caused so much debate made me need to see it. But it was offline! So I bided my time, quietly waiting for it come back. Much to my surprise, Adabisi recently started re-uploading his fanedits to Usenet. Praise Jeebus.
Allow me to quickly weigh on the BIG ISSUE at hand. I love Caddyshack and I never had a problem with Dangerfield. He wasn’t a comic genius nor was he the anti-Christ. I find him funny in this movie (and Back To School) but I never saw much more of him than those. Now onto the edit.
Technical – I watched the avi version. The picture was fine for an xvid avi. All editing cuts worked well.
Story Telling – Is Cvervik vital to the plot? Yes. Adabisi wisely didn’t try to cut every frame of the character as that would have made the plot a mess. What’s left is exactly how much of the character that is needed to keep the story coherent.
Entertainment – Listen people. Even though 1 of the 4 main characters was cut down this movie is still hysterical. Sure the line “Hey everyone we’re all gonna get laid!” isn’t in it. And yeah I love “What’s with the pictures? It’s a parking lot!” But you know what other parts of Caddyshack I love? Even more than them? The Dalai Lama monologue. Gopher poontang. The Bob Marley joint. The Baby Ruth bar. “You take drugs, Danny?” “Every day.” “Good. Then what’s your problem?”
This is still a comedy classic. And the original Caddyshack still exists! Comedy has not been destroyed.
FANEDIT RATINGS
Audio/Video Quality – 8
Visual Editing – 9
Audio Editing – 10
Degree of Editing – 7
(NOTE: “Degree of Editing” is a 100% arbitrary rating that I keep in mind when reviewing edits. This is not meant to insinuate that a faneditor is lazy or not. Some fanedits require a lot more work than others and I take this into account.)
MOVIE RATINGS
Narrative – 10
Enjoyment – 9
OVERALL RATING – 9
(Disclaimer. I have watched this fanedit.)
I’ve wanted to see this edit for a while, ever since stumbling into the thread for this, which has become one of my all time favorites. The fact that the cut list for the edit caused so much debate made me need to see it. But it was offline! So I bided my time, quietly waiting for it come back. Much to my surprise, Adabisi recently started re-uploading his fanedits to Usenet. Praise Jeebus.
Allow me to quickly weigh on the BIG ISSUE at hand. I love Caddyshack and I never had a problem with Dangerfield. He wasn’t a comic genius nor was he the anti-Christ. I find him funny in this movie (and Back To School) but I never saw much more of him than those. Now onto the edit.
Technical – I watched the avi version. The picture was fine for an xvid avi. All editing cuts worked well.
Story Telling – Is Cvervik vital to the plot? Yes. Adabisi wisely didn’t try to cut every frame of the character as that would have made the plot a mess. What’s left is exactly how much of the character that is needed to keep the story coherent.
Entertainment – Listen people. Even though 1 of the 4 main characters was cut down this movie is still hysterical. Sure the line “Hey everyone we’re all gonna get laid!” isn’t in it. And yeah I love “What’s with the pictures? It’s a parking lot!” But you know what other parts of Caddyshack I love? Even more than them? The Dalai Lama monologue. Gopher poontang. The Bob Marley joint. The Baby Ruth bar. “You take drugs, Danny?” “Every day.” “Good. Then what’s your problem?”
This is still a comedy classic. And the original Caddyshack still exists! Comedy has not been destroyed.
FANEDIT RATINGS
Audio/Video Quality – 8
Visual Editing – 9
Audio Editing – 10
Degree of Editing – 7
(NOTE: “Degree of Editing” is a 100% arbitrary rating that I keep in mind when reviewing edits. This is not meant to insinuate that a faneditor is lazy or not. Some fanedits require a lot more work than others and I take this into account.)
MOVIE RATINGS
Narrative – 10
Enjoyment – 9
OVERALL RATING – 9
User Review
Do you recommend this edit?
Yes
Format Watched?
Digital
N
Comments
2 results - showing 1 - 2
Ordering
2 results - showing 1 - 2
For example, "disclaimer I have NOT watched this fan edit yet" makes a lot more sense. Maybe someone read the idea behind the edit and disagrees with it so strongly he felt compelled to share his opinion as soon as possible, yet fully understands that watching it could change his mind. So he qualifies his comment with a disclaimer so that if someone thinks this guy has a terrible opinion, at least he admitted he hasn't watched it yet.
But I'm not sure how disclosing that you HAVE watched it helps anything. I think most people would assume anyone writing a review has watched the edit, so why do you need to tell people that up front??
Ok here is my review...
DISCLAIMER: I have NOT watched this edit yet.
However I felt the commentary about the edit was interesting and wanted to share some generic ideas.
First of all, I agree that Dangerfeld hurts the movie more than helps it. He's not my favorite comic of all time, but he really doesn't fit in the style of Caddyshack. All he does is recite monologues for most of it. Everyone else has normal dialog and plays a character in an ensemble cast, but when Dangerfield is on the screen it's like "ok everyone, stop what you're doing and let Rodney do his regular stand up act. When he's finished you can return to the film." So yeah, in a way he does pull you out of it and drags the movie down by making his scenes stock out like a sore thumb.
On the other hand, he does play the foil for the judge and the conclusion of the film relies on him, so you can't do completely cut him out of the movie. But it sounds like the editor understands all this so I have a feeling that I'll enjoy his "less DANGER-ous" version!