james_a_burgin's profile

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

Saturday, March 25th, 2023 11:14 PM

Closed

Solved

Here We Go Again

Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with my review [#230325-134807-090304] and why it is being held up? I mean, if you don't want people to review these films then why not just come out and say so? 

8.6K Messages

 • 

176.8K Points

2 years ago

@james_a_burgin 😀

Only you and the Staff can see this

review [#230325-134807-090304] 

You want to post the Title and text here for all to read ??

.

(edited)

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

Yakuza Ladies 2 (1987)

This film essentially begins with a woman by the name of “Yuki Shigemune” (Yukiyo Toake) being told that her husband “Takaaki Shigemune” (Takuya Fujioka) has just been shot. Naturally, Yuki drops everything she is doing and rushes to the hospital right away. Once she gets there she is informed by the doctors that his condition isn’t serious and she is allowed to speak with him not long afterward. It is then revealed that Takaaki is the head of a small Yakuza organization and that its territory is being violated by a much larger one. It’s also at this time that the news breaks out that, rather than being targeted by a rival Yakuza clan, Takaaki was shot by a woman named “Etsuko Tsumara” (Natsuko Fuki) with whom he was having an affair. Needless to say, this revelation not only embarrasses Yuki, but it also brings shame upon the Shigemune clan as well. Not only that, but it is also revealed that Takaaki has been a very weak leader of his clan and has incurred substantial gambling debts which Yuki is having a difficult time paying off. Likewise, his character flaws have seriously impacted this small Yakuza organization and as a result, Yuki has had to step in and assume a leadership role--which she finds extremely difficult at times. To that effect, after accidentally drinking too much one night, she wakes up at a friend’s house and meets a young man named “Ryoji Kimoto” (Hiroaki Murakami) who has recently been released from prison for the assassination of a Yakuza leader--and he might be just the person Yuki needs to solve her problems. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that, even though this film is designated as the second in a series, it has a very small relationship to it. So, a person doesn’t have to watch the first movie in order to understand what is happening in this one. Personally, being quite impressed with the first film, I honestly wasn’t expecting this one to be as good. Fortunately, I was wrong, as it was just as entertaining as its predecessor due in large part to an excellent plot and good performances by Yukiyo Toake, Hiroaki Murakami and Rino Katase (as Ryoji’ Kimoto’s former girlfriend “Asami Enoki”). All things being said, I enjoyed this film and I have rated it accordingly. Above average

8.6K Messages

 • 

176.8K Points

@james_a_burgin​ 😀

Yakuza Ladies 2 (1987)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0225882/reference/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0225882/reviews - 0 Reviews

- - -

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0225882/reviews - 1 Review

A Yakuza Wife Trying to Keep Everything Together
Uriah43
25 March 2023
https://www.imdb.com/review/rw8949907/

This film essentially begins with 
a woman by the name of "Yuki Shigemune" (Yukiyo Toake) 
being told that her husband "Takaaki Shigemune" (Takuya Fujioka) has just been shot...

james_a_burgin

Tue Mar 28 2023
... So, while it may have the 25th as the day of the review,

it actually didn't get put on the website until the following evening....

.

(edited)

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

Yes, that is the one that I wrote a review for. As you can see, nobody has written one for 36 years. And apparently, IMDb has to think long and hard about whether to post mine or not. Hopefully, it won't take them another 36 years as well. But they're a private company and they can do what they want.

10.7K Messages

 • 

225.4K Points

So, nothing in the review is likely to spoil the viewing experience? I wouldn't know. The spoiler tag should only really be used if the review mentions things that would usually be perceived as surprises in the storyline, but maybe it is fine to add the tag as a precaution in some contexts.

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

2 years ago

I'm honestly not sure if it's an algorithm or "key words" in their filter, but something is wrong with IMDb these days. Quite frankly, I sometimes wonder if there isn't a secret meeting these guys have where they gather around and discuss which reviewer they're going to hassle that particular week. It's really getting ridiculous. For example, I wrote a review about an old war movie (produced in the late 40's) which was about a spy that infiltrated the German government. Unfortunately, I used a word associated with the political party in question which offended the IMDb censors. Since, I don't want to offend anybody here, I will describe the word in question so that everybody knows what I'm talking about: The first letter begins with an "N". The letters after that contain the first in the English alphabet, followed by the last in the English alphabet and concluding with the vowel that looks like an "i". So, that's the offending word which got my review denied. When I argued that it was difficult not to use the 4-letter word used to describe the political party in Germany at the time, the censors relented (after several days) and posted the review. I've had other reviews declined or "pending review" since then for equally silly reasons. Want another example? I once wrote a review for the 1973 film "Little Cigars" and I used a word to describe Angel Tompkins' assistants that was apparently verbotten in today's English. So, being the conciliatory person that I am, I changed my review by substituting the word "m**g*ts" and used the phrase "a small group of thieves" instead. As George Thorogood might say, "They were so happy. They were lovey-dovey." ["One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer"]. Be that as it may, these are politically charged times with one faction on the extreme right trying to ban books and movies like "Harry Potter" while another faction on the extreme left is trying to ban "Huckleberry Finn." Regardless of how you slice it, censorship is censorship. And I'm sick of it. Now, I could understand it if I used derogatory epithets and slurs toward certain ethnic groups.  I could also understand it if I used profanity. But I don't. As a matter of fact, I often give negative reviews to films that I believe are too vulgar or use too much profanity when it really isn't necessary. I could even mention a few comedies that come to mind, but I digress. My point is that IMDb has become too heavy-handed and bureaucratic lately and they are really beginning to upset the one element that keeps them in business--the prolific reviewers. Think about it, without them there wouldn't even be an IMDb!  But again, I digress. Now, I only have 3300 movie reviews to my credit. But just this week one person with 10,000 reviews complained about one of his that was declined as well. Apparently, somebody thought his summary was too lengthy. [Note: It was eventually posted.] Likewise, I remember reading another prolific reviewer's comment not too long ago where she had become so frustrated with the censors that her last words were "I'm done." From what I understand, she now posts on Rotton Tomatoes or some other movie database. Then there are a couple of other prolific reviewers who have just recently quit posting entirely. In short, IMDb is a private company, and they can do whatever they want. But, as I said before, censorship is censorship, and if they want to engage in it then they have that right. But they can do it without me. I'm done.

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

I dunno. It sounded better than saying the "National Socialist Party of Germany." But I guess censors gotta' censor... 

10.7K Messages

 • 

225.4K Points

I don't believe the IMDb data editors who screen movie reviews for deviating too far from the mission of movie reviews consciously take issue with any particular reviewer who has never been known to violate IMDb policy before. More likely somebody is submitting false of frivolous abuse reports against some reviews.

Employee

 • 

5.6K Messages

 • 

58.9K Points

2 years ago

Hi @james_a_burgin -

Your review was actually approved and can be seen here.

Cheers!

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

@Bethanny​ And yet, it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Oh well...

Employee

 • 

17.6K Messages

 • 

314.2K Points

Hi @james_a_burgin​ -

I also reviewed your User Review submission and can confirm that it was submitted and approved y our editors on the same day (March 25th).  Anytime you feel your submissions are taking longer than usual to process, I encourage you to review our current Data Processing Times page to get an idea of where your submission is in the queue and when it will be handled.

Cheers!

39 Messages

 • 

1.5K Points

@Michelle​ Actually, although I submitted my review on 25 March 2023 (which is what is listed as the date for my review), it didn't actually get posted on the website until 26 March 2023--36 hours later. Now, that is not to say that you (or one of your colleagues) didn't approve it on the 25th of March. I'm not saying that at all. All I know is that it didn't actually get posted on the website until the evening of the 26th. I know this for a fact. But that's neither here nor there as my comments weren't just about this one review. Instead, it was about the problems "prolific reviewers" were having with our reviews either being declined or delayed (i.e., "pending review"). And I used 3 specific examples to illustrate this point. If you like, I can throw in several other as well. For example, there was one time when I accidentally used "brackets" on a review, and I wondered why it was taking so long. It wasn't until a couple of days later that I found out my review was declined--but no reason was given. Now, I was sure I hadn't written anything that could have been perceived as "offensive." Anyway, after some research I learned that "brackets" are apparently the worse thing a person can ever write. At least, as far as IMDb is concerned. Personally, I thought it was rather silly but...okay...from now on I won't use "brackets." I mean, there is probably some reason for such an obscure rule...but...whatever. Be that as it may, I am not going to argue with you. I tried to write a review for a film that nobody had bothered to review in 36 years. It was held up for some odd reason. And it isn't the first time either. Since you obviously don't want to address the actual issue at hand, then I see no reason to continue this discussion any further. I'm done.

Cheers!

(edited)