http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2989/screenshot20110105at121.pnghttp://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lcc3ui3iSD1qewv1lo1_500.jpg
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 18:19 (thirteen years ago) link
i must watch the Star Trek review one. Star Tek 09 is an all-time classic example of taking something old and making it better, i was freaking blown away by it. Dr Who, Star Wars, Superman Returns, that recent good BBC Sherlock thing, all the endless horror remakes etc.. all of them are bloody rubbish in comparison.
― piscesx, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 18:30 (thirteen years ago) link
Well I wouldn't get that carried away about it, but it was a great reboot. Superman Returns wasn't much cop, so I'll give you that one.
― Chewshabadoo, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 19:14 (thirteen years ago) link
This Red Letter guy is brilliant, because as easy as it is to say these movies are bad, he may be the only person I've encountered to peg just why these movies suck, and not just that theysuck. And yeah, the Star Trek 09 review is pretty vital, too, because it's a movie he likes but isn't beyond dissecting as a perfectly assembled product, which again goes back to his problem with the prequels - namely that they're poorly assembled products. Star Trek turns out to be a great point of comparison (just like Citizen Kane in the Sith review, which he concedes is unfair but still smartly knows how to employ as a useful reference).
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:27 (thirteen years ago) link
tbh I really can't imagine watching these reviews based on the descriptions here
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:53 (thirteen years ago) link
u should deffo skip these vids if you hate funny things
― Princess TamTam, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:55 (thirteen years ago) link
I must admit, they do provide satisfying closure to the whole ordeal.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:56 (thirteen years ago) link
they are hilarious and insightful and surprisingly dont seem too long but they are still reviews of a movie.
― "jobs" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:56 (thirteen years ago) link
how can they not seem too long when they are JUST AS LONG AS THE MOVIE BEING REVIEWED
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:59 (thirteen years ago) link
because they're way more interesting than the actual movie (which is a piece of shit btw)?
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 22:59 (thirteen years ago) link
^^^^^^^
― "jobs" (a hoy hoy), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:00 (thirteen years ago) link
like dude i've seen other movies as long as ep3 that didn't seem too long because you know they were ~actually good~
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:00 (thirteen years ago) link
ultimately, and keep in mind I spend large chunks of my work day posting here, I think my time is too precious to spend on multiple hours of someone dissecting movies I find enjoyable and inconsequential
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:02 (thirteen years ago) link
I don't really have that many NERDS! moments but it seems like they're all triggered by ILX these days
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:03 (thirteen years ago) link
haha dude my NERDS! moments are exclusively thanks to ilx
― ullr saves (gbx), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:04 (thirteen years ago) link
i find these reviews legitimately entertaining and dont seem too long because they're smart! (minus the serial killer sub-plot...)
i think the cross-cutting between Yoda's monologue on the force and the systematic contradictions of it in the prequels is sort of a high water mark for the whole series of reviews.
― ryan, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:07 (thirteen years ago) link
What makes these so great is not just that they're entertaining but that they're perceptive. You may think you know why you don't like these movies, but man, this guy offers a very educational breakdown that details stuff you may not have even noticed. Like, not mistakes or continuity issues, but good ol' film school 101 stuff that, tbh, will likely now affect not just how I watch certain films but how I critique them. Blocking, framing, writing, editing, the whole deal. And then chase it down with the Star Trek '09 review to get an idea how two very similar Hollywood productions can diverge so wildly when it comes to results.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:21 (thirteen years ago) link
the reviews dpn't ever even mention utility data, it's tragic
― Stop Non-Erotic Cabaret (Abbbottt), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:21 (thirteen years ago) link
I dunno -- there's another series of nerd reviews by some anonymous kid that seems about as insightful, but the fact that the kid doesn't go to the effort of peppering it with serial killer jokes is what makes it fall flat.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:23 (thirteen years ago) link
also the kid sounds like the schaudenfreude kid from king of the hill + comic book guy.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:25 (thirteen years ago) link
I think the editing is the secret star of these videos. They do a good job of keeping your visual interest for TWO HOURS. Hard to do.
― I Am Kurious Assange (polyphonic), Wednesday, 5 January 2011 23:28 (thirteen years ago) link
iirc the ep 1 one is broken into ten minute chunks and the first one ends with the interviews with people describing characters from the original trilogy, then the new ones. It's a great moment and probably a good place to start if you're wary of devoting precious unrecoverable hours of your life to such a seemingly pointless and nerdy enterprise.
― nanoflymo (ledge), Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:19 (thirteen years ago) link
I kind of wish the guy would do this for global warming deniers, because he does way more entertaining and effective lawyering than say, al gore
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:21 (thirteen years ago) link
Michael Moore already does the mumbling "Then the President followed through on it... oh wait. Yeah... Nevermind" thing.
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:24 (thirteen years ago) link
willing to bet MM movies would be improved w/ a bizarre "comedy" serial killer schtick.
― nanoflymo (ledge), Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:26 (thirteen years ago) link
well, the rabbit lady was the highlight of roger & me...
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 6 January 2011 00:26 (thirteen years ago) link
― I Am Kurious Assange (polyphonic), Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:28 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark
Gets v predictable tho, after you watch his Ep.1 review and go onwards - comparable to Family Guy, like you know the exact moment in which a joke isn't going to be made. They're sort on par as well, as far as that "I'm a fat serial killer" theme goes. All screaming is cut short, and the repetition shtick was never funny. But otherwise I love this guy to hell.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:01 (thirteen years ago) link
If they had to "go there", a simple pan in the basement showing just a glimpse of his prisoner would have been more than enough.
The repeating, like trying to explain Junga Gin's bet with Watto, or even the "what's wrong with your face?!?!" killed me.
Funnier than the hustage scenes at least.
― http://tinyurl.com/MO-02011 (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:17 (thirteen years ago) link
That's just the Ep.1 review tho, right? He does the same basement hostage thing in each and every review and it gets tired fast. But, again, this is me bitching because I am bored and in this democracy of ilxor feel the need to state an opinion. I love the guy.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:30 (thirteen years ago) link
at least in this third review, the majority of off-topic stuff happened at the end of the videos, so you could skip if you didn't care. although i like nadine and her betty-boop voice.
― there is no turning back in an art game? (reddening), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:32 (thirteen years ago) link
i've threatened to make a fan-edit with the horror-comedy stuff excised before but it would feel too much like i was making greedo shoot first.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:36 (thirteen years ago) link
I never watched the new Star Warses because they looked shit, so sadly I don't get to enjoy the blissful closure provided by these rapey videos telling me they are shit
― Urban Coochie Collective (sic), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:39 (thirteen years ago) link
Not sure how to react when I hear comments like this. I myself haven't seen mega-blockbusters like Transformers 2 just out of lack of interest but Star Wars, of anything, is a cultural stape. Plus it's just like 2/24 hours of your day. It's not like you're committing to the army here.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:49 (thirteen years ago) link
6 hrs iirc
also it is universally acknowledged to have turned out to be even shitter than it looked
also there are about 20 Hitchcock films and a year of Mad Men I haven't seen, would you argue that they should get in the queue behind Attack Of The Clones?
― Urban Coochie Collective (sic), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:04 (thirteen years ago) link
There's plenty of quality stuff everywhere, I'm more saying that there are certain things in pop culture that almost bear a definition of being an obligation, no matter how bad they are. Like, as in, it's impossible to carry on conversation with most people without having seen them - and unlike flunkers of movies like Watchmen or Wolverine or whatever, the Star Wars prequels still continue to be discussed (of course, negatively) years upon years upon years upon years after they hit theaters.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:17 (thirteen years ago) link
I've still only seen 1.5 of the prequels (totally lost interest midway through Clones), and don't plan on ever "correcting" that.
― Simon H., Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:27 (thirteen years ago) link
It's like you guys are trying to make me defend the films. Your choice on not seeing them, I don't care; but you're missing out on luls.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:32 (thirteen years ago) link
Like, as in, it's impossible to carry on conversation with most people without having seen them
I guess I'm lucky in not having run into most people
― Urban Coochie Collective (sic), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:34 (thirteen years ago) link
to get the luls we have to watch 6 hours of horrible shitty movies and then another 8 hours of rapey comedy reviews of the horrible shitty movies? idk mayne there's a shitload of Wodehouse I haven't re-read since I was 14 that's guaranteed to have a massively higher lol/time invested ratio
― Urban Coochie Collective (sic), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:36 (thirteen years ago) link
this has been confirmed independently by many people: watch the movies with the english off, and it magically becomes a jodorowskian masterpiece. this alchemy will make you question if you can ever competently judge a movie with subtitles ever again.
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:36 (thirteen years ago) link
xpost
If you had done it the right way, it would be 2 hours a year with intermissions of about 2-3 years between.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:39 (thirteen years ago) link
note: the turn english off trick also works with the matrix
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 6 January 2011 02:40 (thirteen years ago) link
i don't know that the prequels have really entered the culture with any depth, other than memes like "NOOOOOOOO!" and "Jar-Jar sucks" and maybe just the generic "the prequels were shit." if you told people you hadn't seen the prequels they'd probably congratulate you tbh.
― there is no turning back in an art game? (reddening), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:27 (thirteen years ago) link
also liked the point the last review made, that the emperor is the most likable character in episode III because he's the only one displaying any sort of passion or drive.
― there is no turning back in an art game? (reddening), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:28 (thirteen years ago) link
the review is excellent and thankfully the least rapey of the three. but it made me hate myself because towards the end he complains about hayden christensen's spliced appearance at the end of jedi not making sense because the ghosts look "the way luke remembers them", and i could not keep myself from thinking that this is actually wrong, cuz the difference between vader and the others in that shot is that anakin "died" back when he looked like christensen, as in like spiritually man, and his entire existence as darth vader was a living death from which he has only now released himself, and so luke sees him as he was before he fell: the Platonic Anakin. (this is also why sebastian shaw isn't all gross and scarred and crusty in ghost-form in the un-fucked-with version.)
the reviews are very smart and accurate and cinema-literate without being myopically film-school, and they can be really educational, but mostly they're cathartic, for those of us who sat through the movies: i wouldn't really ask anyone who escaped to go back into that particular pulverized building.
― difficult listening hour, Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:37 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah that makes sense. but by that logic i'd rather platonic anakin appear as the annoying little boy version, since at least that was before he became a floppy-haired douche who whined all the time and killed sand children or w/e.
― there is no turning back in an art game? (reddening), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:48 (thirteen years ago) link
For those who haven't seen the sequels: wanna volunteer your reactions for watching just a 10min portion and seeing if it provokes any laffs/u get it? Please don't do this trying to prove me wrong, it's not an opinion I'll carry w/ me 2 tha grave.
― heh (kelpolaris), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:48 (thirteen years ago) link
I KILLED THEM ALL
― those balls look like a butt (San Te), Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:50 (thirteen years ago) link
THEY'RE LIKE AN ANIMAL
http://ragrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/animal-muppet.jpg
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 6 January 2011 03:52 (thirteen years ago) link