I was begining to think I was the only one who thought that.Stoo said:Stoo's review of this non-review:
Unfunny tripe and a waste of 4 minutes.
Typical of The Man to post something EMPTY of Indy content but HIGH on 'voyeur' content.JP Jones said:I was begining to think I was the only one who thought that.
Stoo said:Typical of The Man to post something EMPTY of Indy content but HIGH on 'voyeur' content.
Yes, it is EMPTY. Where is the Indy content in this non-review? Answer = Nowhere.Forbidden Eye said:This is not empty of Indy content.
Who gives a toss what this pimple-popping, jack-off thinks?Forbidden Eye said:This guy's reviews get huge ratings on YouTube and are often discussed quite often (both in public and by those on the internet).
"The fact he's going to review Indy 4"...Yeah, can't wait to hear from some dork who hire$ $trippers to attract viewers to a non-review.Forbidden Eye said:The fact he's going to review Indy 4 means there's going to be a LOT more discussion of this film and that alone is worth discussing (not to mention his actual review of the film when it comes out).
So you want to discuss this chump's non-dicussion?Forbidden Eye said:...a LOT more discussion of this film and that alone is worth discussing (not to mention his actual review of the film when it comes out).
Stoo said:Who gives a toss what this pimple-popping, jack-off thinks?
Forbidden Eye said:This is not empty of Indy content.
Forbidden Eye said:...you're right, this subject isn't worthy of its own thread.
Pardon me but I didn't realize that slamming a teaser trailer to an upcoming review was acting like a moderator.Forbidden Eye said:Well, the first part of his Phantom Menace review has over 3,500,000 views as well 17,208 likes(and 1302 dislikes so you aren't alone), so I think its fair to say a lot of people cares what he thinks.
But you're right, this subject isn't worthy of its own thread. Just remind us of something, what year was it TheRaider.net made you a moderator again?
Stoo said:Wish it had stayed that way.
Nothing more than an internet sensation; that speaks almost nothing to quality. He's capitalizing on the popular fanboy despising of the Star Wars prequels. *yawn*Forbidden Eye said:This is not empty of Indy content. This guy's reviews get huge ratings on YouTube and are often discussed quite often (both in public and by those on the internet). The fact he's going to review Indy 4 means there's going to be a LOT more discussion of this film and that alone is worth discussing(not to mention his actual review of the film when it comes out).
As for my opinion, I really enjoyed his Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones reviews and agreed with the bulk of his opinions. I did think some of his points on his Revenge of the Sith review(which he posted on his site rather than YouTube) were really stretching it to the point where it seemed he was trying too hard to find things wrong with the movie. That and his side-stories with his "characters" and jokes got really stale and tiring at that point.
I still enjoy ROTS, and his thoughts on it don't affect mine. I honestly doubt his thoughts will affect my enjoyment of Kingdom either(assuming he hates it as much as the Star Wars prequels). I may see it just for the heck of it.
Yes hes capitalizing, though his critisicms are not all superfluous. He makes some well considered and reasonable points.Cole said:Nothing more than an internet sensation; that speaks almost nothing to quality. He's capitalizing on the popular fanboy despising of the Star Wars prequels. *yawn*
And now that he's become an internet sensation, I have little doubt that his review of 'Crystal Skull' will be nothing more than trying to find things wrong and coming up with dumb jokes to live up to his "reputation." It's entertainment, not a serious review. I highly doubt it will generate any serious discussion......unless you consider dumb arguing on YouTube comments "serious" discussion.
Just saw on reddit, the review is up now, for those interested. At the beginning particularly, there are some... not particularly funny tangents that anyone not familiar with th other reviews will find very odd, to say the least.Rocket Surgeon said:Would have been worth its own thread if the review was already complete. This is just, stupid.
Has anyone pointed out the villains are all revealed in the first scene?WillKill4Food said:Nothing he brings up hasn't been discussed at length (and with more content) here.
Where is the discussion on the moral ambiguity of the filmakers? We should start a thread about that.WillKill4Food said:Nothing he brings up hasn't been discussed at length (and with more content) here.
kongisking said:I dreaded this day. I have also seen Plinkett's prequel reviews, and though he has good points about many of their flaws, I've rewatched the entire saga myself, and found the prequels to be much more coherent and thought-provoking than ever (it sure helps that me and AOTC Anakin both suffer from heart-aching crushes on women hopelessly out of their league...so I can sympathize much more now. Difference is, Anakin DOES get the girl, which is totally impossible in my case).
Anyways, sorry for the off-topic self-projection tangent there.
So, I definitely respect the guy, and his reviews are admittedly quite hilarious. But I knew, deep in my heart, that someday he would turn his sword toward KOTCS, and drive the blade deep through its heart. So, I shall watch the review, and see just how fatal the wound is. But I'm not looking forward to it. It's kinda like anticipating the vicious castration of a close friend that other people tend to deeply dislike, but you find to be a swell guy.
And speaking of swell guys, give The Man a break. His points are valid. I may not agree with the overall assessment, but at least he's an articulate, well-read hater. They DO exist, y'know...
Bill F-ing Murray said:"No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts"
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere...