I've looked at those reviews and some of them at least had one or two incorrect gun identifications.

I would agree that if Bunni is going to be holding auditions, we should at least be made aware of the format s/he expects to see so it'll be a fair competition.

I'm used to cataloguing firearms for games in the page format, but I can adapt to a prose-format instead, if Bunni comes clear on what s/he wants.

Right, but that's irrelevant. The question is, is their format (or something like it) what we're going for?

Also another question is a writer's style. Are all the reviewers expecting to be serious reviews of said film or can they be humorous? Also is there a range on what is acceptable humor because I've been turning into someone of a critic on bad movies and my taste in reviews is like the humor in Crack.com.

Well let's try it and see how it goes. A range test I suppose.

That's basically my attitude. I'm open to suggestions on the formatting though. A separate section seems appropriate.

I assume you mean cracked.com?

I believe that is called "fail"

But the question remains; what is it you want us to focus on? Is it how well the guns in the game/movie/TV show emulate the real-life ones? How well the actors/ingame characters (don't) handle them? Or something else? I'm sure many of us don't "thrive on vague objectives," as Scott Adams puts it.