the crimes of george lucas ('90s on)

yeah i mean i still love the original yub nub ending and all but... what if?

it would have been cooler no doubt!

I'm telling you, they could have fixed everything by having the Ewoks eat the Stormtroopers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

THE END

I was very distracted by the fly on dude's forehead

Yeah I always kind of suspected he made up that whole "It's supposed to be 9 movies" after they realized they could make a killing on these films.

Nice read. Kurtz's ending doesn't sound GREAT to be honest - - I mean, what's the point of rescuing Han and then having him die, beyond the general idea that the rogue's arc of redemption must end in self-sacrifice? Totally agreed about the redundant Death Star though....could they just not come up with anything else?

I'm telling you, they could have fixed everything by having the Ewoks eat the Stormtroopers

I always assumed that they did, since a) they were fully prepared to eat Han, Luke and Chewie, and b) those stormtrooper helmets being used as rototoms came from SOMEplace.

maybe a Death Cafe or a Death Water Park

That reminded me of another Kurtz interview, post-Phantom Menace. He hasn't changed his tune.

http://www.filmthreat.com/interviews/8/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoc3roT81nU

i heard George Lucas raped a koala once

No that was an E-wok

Or, whatever.

Favorite bit of the Clones review: explaining how casting Samuel L. Jackson was a 100% cynical bait-and-switch to get black people into theaters.

What about Billy Dee Williams then?

Billy Dee Williams isn't a bait-and-switch - - - what exactly was Williams's reputation at the time that he could be cynically cashed-in upon? I get the complaint with Samuel L. Jackson, basically you're expecting this ultimate Jedi badass, with some taut, just-barely-controlled anger fueling the delivery of classic lines. Instead you get a monkish, dowdy cipher. To be fair, most of the characters are ciphers, and I'm not sure I want to start singing the praises of typecasting, but certainly when I heard Samuel L. Jackson was going to be in Star Wars, it got me excited based on things that ultimately were not there in the film.

The little promo clip dude excerpts with Jackson talking about how they're some awesome action and fighting in this movie does seem a little bit calculated, I have to say.

http://i.imgur.com/REuxl.jpg

i've been thinking more about these prequels, about how it was supposedly impossible to make a movie about war that didn't fetishize it?
I think Lucas might have actually achieved the impossible. I can't imagine any kid watching these having any desire to participate in warfare, or at least not with any help from these movies.

Just want to add: Again, not putting the original version on the new Blu-ray. Not that I expected him to, but just another little thing that annoys me.

this is a huge thing that enrages me iirc

u mean pre-cgi theatrical version? he'll never do that cuz hes a delusional p.o.s.

he should be hanged for his crimes too imo

he'll die a martyr for peace!

Why would black people need Sam Jackson in a film that already has Jar Jar.

Haha he makes a joke about that in the review. Something like, "When I think of the people who would never want to see this..." (clip of Jar Jar) "...I think of black people."

I DONT 'REP'

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:20 AM

And yeah, Billy Dee was a major character, who actually did and said things that were not completely stilted and dull.

Williams responded indifferently to the criticism of his appearances in the liquor commercials. When questioned about his appearances he was quoted as saying, "I drink, you drink. Hell, if marijuana was legal, I'd appear in a commercial for that too."

well the prequels are pretty equal opportunity when it comes to stilted and dull.

xp Who's the real bad assssss?

well the prequels are pretty equal opportunity when it comes to stilted and dull.

And in terms of not being a major character. Even the major characters aren't very major.

Apart from the really weird, very sick "mass murderer" stuff thrown in there, I really do recommend this guys breakdown of the prequels. He's astute. His review of Avatar is good, too.

He especially loves to break down the monetary calculations that go into making movies huge movies like these, and how effective and/or appalling the filmmakers are toward these ends.

This is the Sam Jackson part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-isAmaVbsM

The more I think on it, the more I'm baffled by the mass murderer thing running through all these reviews. Why would someone as smart as this go that route? I imagine a late night meeting in someone's living room.

"I want to be a character of some kind. Have a persona, not just review these movies. That way we can work some of our little side projects as videocam-owning-people into the reviews."
"Well, what did you have in mind?"
"Hmm. How about, I torture and kill women?"

You'd think his friends would have shouted him down at this point.

be fair, no one would have given it a fair shake if instead of a mumbling psychopath it was kevin smith doing it.

What makes you think he has friends.

in all honesty i prefer this persona to the zero punctuation guy and um.. armond white i suppose.
really, the only people giving opinions on youtube i could stand was that elderly couple that gave film reviews.
there is no way out of the inherent narcissism of such a venture, so why not make a psycho-killer persona to deflect it?

xp There are other people in his videos, for one thing.

ya i think it is so dumb its funny, wtv

I think it's pretty squicky.

They also act as an excuse to break every once in awhile -- they're pretty long.
Also, if you've seen similarly styled videos where the dude isn't adopting a schtick, but it's just them narrating, they come off as pretty smart-alecky.

I know, but why THIS gimmick?

The crimes of Red Letter Media

maybe he's going for a "lucas is so manifestly terrible that even a deranged mumblecore killer can lucidly outline how" sort of thing?

I have to say, my sensibilities might be jaded from a lifetime of brutal, misanthropic and malevolent cinema, but I find the "serial killer" sections objectionable not because they're offensive but because they're boring, unfunny, and predictable. But the voice is 100% essential.

Agree about the voice.

ok it might take awhile but i'd be up for splicing the horror-comedy sketches out of one of these reviews and uploading them to youtube to see if they hold up as well without them. which one of these would you guys stand to watch again... for science?

would watch