Author Topic: RedLetterMedia Reviews Star Wars and more (Read 19,286 times)

mouser · « **on:** January 02, 2011, 12:48 AM »

I thought this might have been posted on the forum before, but this is pure genius stuff.

It's super long, very funny, quite NSFW with lots of cursing, and as deep a movie review and take down as you'll find.

I'm rewatching the hour+ review of "Revenge of the Sith" right now, and I can't get enough. Old but brilliant.

http://www.redlettermedia.com/

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2011, 12:57 AM »

If the term EPIC was ever appropriate, this is it.

Renegade · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:02 AM »

Well, I watched about 20 min, but didn't particularly enjoy it. I didn't find the humor particularly clever. He seems to go very far out of his way to miss the point on everything and then criticize it because it has no point. There's no flow to anything and no progression. It's just random stuff.

I suppose that the humor will be good for some people. I'm just not one of them. The again, I don't like medical dramas like "House" and never liked "Friends" either. Just personal taste.

Then again, I enjoyed all 3 prequels. To me it was clear that they show the rise and fall of Anakin. Episodes IV, V, and VI continue the story of Darth Vader with Ep. VI being the redemption. It's very much a fairy tale and shares many common elements you find in different mythologies.

He of course rants about Jarjar Binx, but he's the prequel's equivalent of C-3PO, i.e. Comic relief. You can trash Shakespeare for using comic relief the same way. Jarjar and C-3PO are blatant and obvious. There's no hiding their purpose. But that's good for kids as it makes things more accessible for them.

For anyone else, do watch it. I'm sure many people will find it very entertaining.

mouser · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2011, 01:58 PM »

i can definitely understand why some people don't like it.. the humour is very strange, and it's definitely going to be more enjoyable to those who were not happy with the movies.

but what i find most surprising is how serious and genuinely insightful many of his points can get, even while being presented in the most crude way. if you hop around the review you're bound to run into a couple that really make you think and are actually very well thought out high brow commentaries on effective movie making.

Renegade · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:08 PM »

Quote from: mouser on January 02, 2011, 01:58 PM

i can definitely understand why some people don't like it.. the humour is very strange, and it's definitely going to be more enjoyable to those who were not happy with the movies.

but what i find most surprising is how serious and genuinely insightful many of his points can get, even while being presented in the most crude way. if you hop around the review you're bound to run into a couple that really make you think and are actually very well thought out high brow commentaries on effective movie making.

Normally I'd love that kind of stuff. Profanity and fart jokes are always funny~!

(Go Terrence and Philip~!)

It's really long though. I'd only watch the beginning, so I must have missed the good parts.

I think you're right about people that didn't like the movies or people that were disappointed in them being more entertained by it.

mouser · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2011, 02:13 PM »

There are reviews of the reviews on this page where you can see how skeptical but then impressed some other movie review sites are with the site:
http://www.redlettermedia.com/links.html

Deozaan · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:13 PM »

I was bored and not really enjoying it much for about the first 20-25 minutes, but then he starts to pick the movie apart and point out real reasons (with examples) why the movie was bad and that's when it started to get more enjoyable.

Still not sure why he sounds drunk and has slurred speech. Probably just part of the humor.

On to part 2.

JavaJones · « **Reply #7 on:** January 03, 2011, 12:22 AM »

I've watched all his reviews (even the ones of Star Trek and other films) and they're all somewhat entertaining to me, occasionally totally hilarious, and also occasionally quite insightful. I don't really need the weird voice and strange "back story" kidnapper/rapist stuff, which is played out more in some of the other reviews. But overall I think they're pretty enjoyable and, as mouser said, surprisingly insightful at times.

It's easy to dismiss Jarjar as "just comic relief, like so many other movies", as if the mere existence of comedic relief is justification for *any flaws in execution*. Certainly you're right that C3PO and R2D2 were both comic relief in the original movies. That being the case I don't think many would really argue Star Wars is or should be without humor. So simply saying "Jarjar is comic relief" doesn't answer critics of his character at all. It's a classic straw man, you're making the assumption that the argument was based on people feeling that *type* of character shouldn't exist, when in fact I think most people just thought it was done poorly. The difference with R2D2 and C3PO is they were a lot more subtle and, well, funny. Jarjar simply was *poorly executed* comic relief. He is unfunny, unnecessarily juvenile, and downright offensive at times. And I think it's interesting to note actually that even though C3PO and R2D2 are *in* the prequels, they are in fact notably less funny, charming, and generally lovable than in the 2nd trilogy. I can only blame the writing. When even R2D2 has multiple "fart jokes" you know there's a problem.

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #8 on:** January 03, 2011, 01:40 AM »

One recurring theme through his reviews of all 3 star wars prequels is how serously he treats the original star wars movies in terms of the art of storytelling and moviemaking -- and how he explains precisely where the prequels contradict the core essence of what made the originals so good. There is even a detailed shot-by-shot comparison to citizen kane at one point. Time and time again he ponders the possibility that Lucas himself does not understand exactly why the original Star Wars movies worked so well, and explains why they did. Again some of the insights are surprisingly deep.

Renegade · « **Reply #9 on:** January 03, 2011, 02:57 AM »

Quote from: Deozaan on January 02, 2011, 07:13 PM

I was bored and not really enjoying it much for about the first 20-25 minutes, but then he starts to pick the movie apart and point out real reasons (with examples) why the movie was bad and that's when it started to get more enjoyable.

I should go back and have a look at some of the later vids. I'd only made it up to about 20 minutes.

@Oshyan - The thing I found with his criticism of Jarjar was that it amounted to little more than "Jarjar sux". He didn't put anything forward about why he did, which made it unenjoyable to watch.

I'm looking forward to getting to some of the good stuff though. Sounds like some of those movies where they're just SLOOOWWW to get to things, which I didn't expect in a review. I expected it to be pretty much similar all the way through.

I take a different approach to watching movies/shows than most people. I try to suspend all disbelief and just roll with it. I don't watch trailers either. I find that it lets me enjoy things for what they are more.

I remember watching the first Batman movie and HATING it. It was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen. But then again, it was so hyped and pumped that my expectations for it were sky-high. I don't let that sort of thing happen anymore.

One other thing though -- When we all watched Star Wars, we were different people. Applying the same standards isn't really possible because our perceptions are different now. But I never see anyone point that kind of stuff out. Everyone seems to think that they're the same person that they were in 1977.

JavaJones · « **Reply #10 on:** January 03, 2011, 03:24 AM »

I wasn't even born yet in 1977 so this isn't my Vaseline coated memory talking here.

I originally saw episodes IV-VI some in the mid-to-late 80s I would guess, around 8-10 years old. But I've rewatched them many times since, initially with more or less with fresh eyes since my childhood memories were only vague. And I personally feel the original films hold up pretty well, with a good mix of action, adventure, drama, and humor. Seldom does the humor fall terribly flat. The newer changes Lucas made to the originals in the "special editions" stand out so much, I think it's clear that he has taken a different direction, and this is of course reflected much more so in the newer prequel films. So I really don't think that it's just some romancing of the past that is to blame for the general appreciation of the older films over the newer ones; I think they are actually better.

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #11 on:** January 03, 2011, 04:24 AM »

One more thing to add:

Make no mistake, this guy sees details and makes connections that i guarantee you missed. He will find inconsistencies in the story and lore and SHOW YOU with clips where a previous scene in a previous movie contradicts something in a latter one. His reviews of the star trek movies are much less epic and interesting, but it's incredibly impressive to see him pluck out really esoteric scenes from the long running tv series that contradict details in the movies. Despite the tone and presentation, this guy has the attention to detail of a super fan/nerd, while at the same time ripping these things apart -- that's part of what makes sticking with the long review so rewarding.

Deozaan · « **Reply #12 on:** January 03, 2011, 05:51 PM »

Quote from: mouser on January 03, 2011, 04:24 AM

Despite the tone and presentation, this guy has the attention to detail of a super fan/nerd, while at the same time ripping these things apart -- that's part of what makes sticking with the long review so rewarding.

Yeah, he actually seems really smart, educated, and intelligent. Especially about cinema (and Star Trek). But the vulgar, drunk, pizza roll loving, serial cat-rapist, hooker kidnapper, wife-murderer skit kind of throws you off.

mouser · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2011, 05:54 PM »

Yeah i could definitely do completely without all the back story fake stuff and just have the review -- though i like the cursing and stuff in the review.

Deozaan · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2011, 05:55 PM »

I started watching some of his Star Trek reviews, and when I got a few minutes into First Contact, I realized I hadn't seen the movie yet. So I went to Netflix to watch it but it wasn't on Instant Watch. But the New (2009) Star Trek was available, so I watched that one instead. The funny thing about it was that he made a huge complaint about how in First Contact the Borg created a time warp bubble just outside of Earth in the opening scene so they could attack Earth from the past or something. But that's almost exactly how the new Star Trek movie starts, but he absolutely loved it.

I'll let him explain to you why.

superboyac · « **Reply #15 on:** January 03, 2011, 09:04 PM »

I'm going to attempt to defend this guy:
Yes, his reviews are very negative and critical. BUT...it doesn't mean he's wrong. He's actually very knowledgeable as far as story structure goes. He knows what he is talking about. I think he's pretty right on with most everything.

However, with so much negativity, I can see why a lot of people would be turned off. It would be nice if he also did as in-depth interviews of what he considered to be very good movies. I know this better than anyone, it's easy to be critical and negative. It's hard to say something is great, it almost takes more courage. At least for me. I always find my knee-jerk reaction is to be critical, and now I'm working on balancing it out by also acknowledging things that are good.

Still, he's pretty good, I'm learning a lot through his reviews.

nudone · « **Reply #16 on:** January 04, 2011, 09:10 AM »

seemed a lot like shooting fish in a barrel to me. so there are lots of plot holes and pointless story events in the Star Wars films. really? so they aren't comparable to the classic works of Shakespeare. who ever would have thought that.

the reviews are funny but shoot at easy targets. i'd be interested to see in depth reviews of the more accepted movie "classics". using Star Wars/Trek is obviously the best way of bringing in a large crowd - reviewing Citizen Kane won't give you so many hits - i assume.

if you didn't sit through all three Star Wars prequels thinking "this plot is total nonsense" then you must have left your brain at home. that didn't stop me enjoy the films though.

complaining about all the greenscreen cgi is a bit b*llocks too. you've always had to suspend your disbelief when watching a movie. we didn't have trouble watching the old Ray Harryhausen stop-animation films, the monsters were obviously not in the live scene - same applies to today's effects. use your imagination and blend the real and fake together, believe me, it will help you enjoy the film a lot more.

i do agree with his comments about direction though. Lucas has lost it. or maybe he's the complete master at it - the prequels are there to keep the franchise going; films that will look pretty on your 50 inch plasma for years to come - just very expensive adverts with similar direction, plot and editing to any other clever advert.

i actually thought "Attack of the Clones" was the best out of the prequels. yeah, even the crappy love story element. the battle scenes were fantastic; i can't remember now what else i liked - oh, that bit when Yoda started fighting with his Light Saber, intellectually it was embarrassing to see, but my heart was pounding and i nearly had tears in my eyes because i allowed it to move me. that's what you have to do sometimes - like experiencing any kind of "art", you have to make a few allowances and try and get into the mind of the artist that created the work.

40hz · « **Reply #17 on:** January 04, 2011, 11:54 AM »

Picked one at random and ended up watching the Nemesis recap.

Sounded pretty spot on to me. And not particularly over the top. I guess he's either toned down the insanity and bathroom 'humor'; or I just happened to catch the one review where there wasn't much. Guess I'll reserve judgment on that part until I watch a few more.

Confession: I was never much of a Star Trek fan. And I've never been overly impressed by the films.

Which is a problem.

Because I watch each installment I get dragged to as a movie. I don't ever experience that ritual bonding 'thing' the Trek diehards seem to get out if it. So having somebody eviscerate a Trek feature film for being a bad movie - and a bad story - is a welcome relief AFAIC. Especially since most reviewers focus on everything BUT how poorly written the storylines are.

I know there is the need to willingly "suspend disbelief" in order to understand and appreciate speculative fiction. But when logical development of a plot gets thrown out the window, or when internal inconsistencies make me stop and say "What???", my paused disbelief gets re-enabled pretty quickly.

About the best thing I can say for the TNG films is that the directors finally gave the Deanna Troi character a decent hairdo.

But maybe that's just me.

[attach]

superboyac · « **Reply #18 on:** January 04, 2011, 03:24 PM »

Nice one , 40. Pajiba looks nice, I like it.

40hz · « **Reply #19 on:** January 04, 2011, 03:53 PM »

Quote from: superboyac on January 04, 2011, 03:24 PM

Nice one , 40. Pajiba looks nice, I like it.

Glad to hear!

It's also a potentially useful source site too. One business acquaintance of mine has garnered a reputation for being one "smart & sassy" conversationalist by making a habit of parroting back phrases and opinions she's obviously picked up from there.

She tends to be a bit full of herself most times...

I'm waiting for the day somebody else figures out her 'source' and calls her on it in something reminiscent of that exchange between Matt Damon and the pseudo intellectual poseur in the film Good Will Hunting.

It's gonna be a painful scene. Hope I'm NOT around to see it happen.

Renegade · « **Reply #20 on:** January 06, 2011, 02:18 AM »

Quote from: 40hz on January 04, 2011, 11:54 AM

About the best thing I can say for the TNG films is that the directors finally gave the Deanna Troi character a decent hairdo.

But maybe that's just me.
(see attachment in previous post)
Why don't you be the judge?

Yes. I'm still waiting for 80's poofy hair to become a criminal offense...

mouser · « **Reply #21 on:** February 08, 2011, 10:56 AM »

To combat the anti-starwars flavor of the above video, here is a nice 13 part fan-mad documentary on star wars: http://www.youtube.com/user/jambedavdar#p/u/15/5iBJYWZkhTg