Bobby Roberts
Banned
I've never liked that guy's shit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mad Max: Fury Road |OT| What a Lovely Day | RT: 98% | Metacritic: 89
- Thread starter Simo
- Start date
The one thats a third of a good movie? Oh Lord, help me please.
Spieler Eins
Member
These guys make a living off making fun of bad movies, yet always deliver embarrassing skits with some of the most trite humour thinkable (and are clearly up their own asses about it).
This is why i stopped watching him, he's at his best when he drops the character.
ultracal31
You don't get to bring friends.
I think he's the best when it's just him and just talking about the movie. When there are other characters introduced with unfunny skits though...
Monocle
Member
I used Richard Roeper's review to convince a couple of people to go see Fury Road. It's not super heavy on analysis, but it sure does capture the movie's insane hype factor and sheer quality. The last half is basically a synopsis, so maybe it's better for her to read only the first part.
Lumination
'enry 'ollins
How did he completely miss the point?
Well that was cringe worthy.
He liked the movie though, although I don't know if the road runner comparison is apt.
Discotheque
Banned
i didn't watch more than 30 seconds because the dude's whole shtick is corny as hell. but i think road runner comparisons could hold groundt. not stylistically really, but i'm not gonna lie tom hardy did echo wile e coyote's facial expressions at times. that scene when furiosa pulls the trigger on his face is classic looney toons.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That WB synergy!
i could not watch all of that. too painful.
I haven't watched it yet, but I'm just going to make a guess that a lot of his humor is based in misunderstanding many of the film's basic plot points.
It's his greatest fault as a critic, to the point of audacity. He could see a film and then misremember basic plotpoints a half hour later while recording. The last review I saw was Jurassic World, where he acted like the T-rex had thrashed the I-rex, when in the movie
It's hard to mount any sort of analysis when you get the most basic parts wrong. So, without further ado, lets see what he fucked up this time.'
I couldn't take the poorly done skits, so I just skipped to the part where he seemed to be making actual criticism.
Edit: First mistake is actually not a movie mistake, but a mistake about how Rotten Tomato's works. He thinks the percentage rating is a rating of the movie itself, when in actuality it just means that more critics happened to like it. This is a subtle, but significant difference, and makes something purely a popularity contest. For example, say people saw a movie and nearly everyone agreed it was above average. That way, it could have an above 90%, even if nearly everyone agreed it was just a cut above mediocre. It's a popularity contest in it's truest sense, not a quality indicator.
Second mistake is not an actual inconsistency, but a very lousy and lazy criticism that I wish people would drop. "You remember it more because it was more engaging." No, you don't remember it because you have a shit memory. Generally speaking, you have a higher chance of remembering something if it's more unusual, with the quality having no bearing on it. That's why everyone loves to recite likes from the Dark Knight Saga that obviously weren't well acted, but unusual enough to be remembered. "No more dead cops!" and so on. Not to mention that engagement relies on the audience, rather than the movie. So if he's not engaging it, he only has himself to blame.
Okay, now when he starts asking about the film, it's becomes clear how the confusion only remains because he stopped at the things that confused him and didn't engage further. The Doof-warrior is just a metal version of a military drummer, whose job it is to play different tunes to relay orders, something easily noticed when you consider how he plays along with what the war party is doing and that Immortan Joe is a military man. He has a fucked up face from radiation and cruelty of the world that everyone in the movie suffers from. The people in what used to be the green place are the ones that drove out the old Mothers, as stated in the backstory they told. The basis of the crazy cult religion is by far the most obvious. Hmmm, they have a sacred holding place of steering wheels, they use cars as their weapons, terminology that's a mix of old world mythology and car related affectations....WHAT COULD IT MEAN? Same with Max's hallucinations and talks how hard it is to lose people. The only real confusion I've seen is about people wondering if the girl is Max's daughter, retconned into being from Max's son.
That's about 8 minutes into the half hour review. I think that's enough to make my point. Dude is just a really shit critic, unfortunately. Really nice guy from what I hear about, and I feel he used to be funnier than he is now. Especially when he deliberately basically just has the other people playing the roles of his own critics as a way to ineptly try to establish his own validity. For example, he tries to say that no one can remember lines from the first two mad max movies, since he can't. Night Riders whole speech in the first one was hilariously awesome, same with Lord Humungus' speech to the city in 2. The whole "Can you remember lines" way of criticism is bullshit, but even if it wasn't, how is it supposed to be valid if he's the only one who is tested on whether he remembers them or not? It relies on the assumption that he has a memory that is representational of everyone, which is obviously wrong. It just makes for a very frustrating review style when any audience that disagrees with him is deliberately caricaaturized into the show to show how right he is.
It's his greatest fault as a critic, to the point of audacity. He could see a film and then misremember basic plotpoints a half hour later while recording. The last review I saw was Jurassic World, where he acted like the T-rex had thrashed the I-rex, when in the movie
it was actually the literal opposite.
It's hard to mount any sort of analysis when you get the most basic parts wrong. So, without further ado, lets see what he fucked up this time.'
I couldn't take the poorly done skits, so I just skipped to the part where he seemed to be making actual criticism.
Edit: First mistake is actually not a movie mistake, but a mistake about how Rotten Tomato's works. He thinks the percentage rating is a rating of the movie itself, when in actuality it just means that more critics happened to like it. This is a subtle, but significant difference, and makes something purely a popularity contest. For example, say people saw a movie and nearly everyone agreed it was above average. That way, it could have an above 90%, even if nearly everyone agreed it was just a cut above mediocre. It's a popularity contest in it's truest sense, not a quality indicator.
Second mistake is not an actual inconsistency, but a very lousy and lazy criticism that I wish people would drop. "You remember it more because it was more engaging." No, you don't remember it because you have a shit memory. Generally speaking, you have a higher chance of remembering something if it's more unusual, with the quality having no bearing on it. That's why everyone loves to recite likes from the Dark Knight Saga that obviously weren't well acted, but unusual enough to be remembered. "No more dead cops!" and so on. Not to mention that engagement relies on the audience, rather than the movie. So if he's not engaging it, he only has himself to blame.
Okay, now when he starts asking about the film, it's becomes clear how the confusion only remains because he stopped at the things that confused him and didn't engage further. The Doof-warrior is just a metal version of a military drummer, whose job it is to play different tunes to relay orders, something easily noticed when you consider how he plays along with what the war party is doing and that Immortan Joe is a military man. He has a fucked up face from radiation and cruelty of the world that everyone in the movie suffers from. The people in what used to be the green place are the ones that drove out the old Mothers, as stated in the backstory they told. The basis of the crazy cult religion is by far the most obvious. Hmmm, they have a sacred holding place of steering wheels, they use cars as their weapons, terminology that's a mix of old world mythology and car related affectations....WHAT COULD IT MEAN? Same with Max's hallucinations and talks how hard it is to lose people. The only real confusion I've seen is about people wondering if the girl is Max's daughter, retconned into being from Max's son.
That's about 8 minutes into the half hour review. I think that's enough to make my point. Dude is just a really shit critic, unfortunately. Really nice guy from what I hear about, and I feel he used to be funnier than he is now. Especially when he deliberately basically just has the other people playing the roles of his own critics as a way to ineptly try to establish his own validity. For example, he tries to say that no one can remember lines from the first two mad max movies, since he can't. Night Riders whole speech in the first one was hilariously awesome, same with Lord Humungus' speech to the city in 2. The whole "Can you remember lines" way of criticism is bullshit, but even if it wasn't, how is it supposed to be valid if he's the only one who is tested on whether he remembers them or not? It relies on the assumption that he has a memory that is representational of everyone, which is obviously wrong. It just makes for a very frustrating review style when any audience that disagrees with him is deliberately caricaaturized into the show to show how right he is.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Argh.
The thing is, he has some decent points like comparing the appeal of Fury Road to the appeal of Wile E Coyote cartoons... But they're buried under an obnoxious skit with terrible humor, and so I can't really appreciate them. Sometimes just talking to the camera is better than trying to make everything a show.
Finally got the Blu-Ray: great extras! Something is odd, though: In some low-contrast scenes there's very noticable grain, especially in the first part of the movie. There was even a case of color banding at some point. I never noticed this when watching all those times on the big screen. Do I perhaps have bad equipment? I'm watching on a PS3 using a not too high priced HDMI cable.
Edit: Seems to be the original material after all. I sat pretty close to the screen for that cinematic feeling. Probably too close. PS3 games look OK (aside the lower resolution)
Edit: Seems to be the original material after all. I sat pretty close to the screen for that cinematic feeling. Probably too close. PS3 games look OK (aside the lower resolution)
Spectral Glider
Member
Basically, "Get off my lawn, my old favorite movie is still better than the new one!"
Fancy Clown
Member
Yeah that part is fuckin awesome. And then Rictus unleashes with his big ass machine gun.
Pretty much.
NealMcCauley
Member
If you look closely
his teeth are covered in blood
What I like about Immortan Joe is that while he is unambiguously an evil man, the movie still manages to give him nuance. He genuinely does care about the wives. He gives them a lot of luxuries in their prison. Books and good food and such. He is in legitimate despair over Splendid's death, and seems to be
in a mourning ritual when he sees the war rig on its way back to the citadel
This is the first time in my life I've watched Nostalgia Critic after hearing about him on GAF and I've cringed less on Cringe Channel. I'm still shuddering.
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
End spoilers
How did yanking Joe's mask off take his jaw off with it? We saw him put it over his face at the beginning it's not like it was bolted onto his jaw
Yep.
And there are other things too. I love how right before the final chase starts, we see him sitting down and chanting before he is alerted to the War Rig returning. You don't normally see those sorts of "casual" moments for villains. Was he praying? Mourning for his lost wives and sons? I don't know, but it's the sort of thing that humanizes him while not removing his edge.
Nostalgia Critic videos took a nosedive in quality after Doug Walker started adding more skits. His reviews could be quite funny before that point though; he still had some very silly humor and skits, but they usually contributed to the flow of the review. The reviews weren't good analysis, but analysis wasn't the point usually, humor was. Problem is that Doug got bored of doing the same thing, so he tried to end the Nostalgia Critic videos and start up a new show called Demo Reel. Demo Reel was a disaster, and when he relaunched the Nostalgia Critic series after its failure he didn't want to keep doing the same thing and couldn't just lay off the people he hired for Demo Reel, so he added skits to all his reviews featuring himself and those actors. And now he's started doing reviews with no original movie footage because Blip died and he had to move to YouTube with its copyright idiocy, so he replaces that with even more shitty skits based on much better material.
The Mad Max video is certainly the worst I've seen from him. Cringe doesn't even begin to describe it.
I can't stand Nostalgica Critic
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I think my favorite humanizing bit for the bad guys was from Rictus after his brother was born prematurely. "I HAD A BABY BROTHER! AND HE WAS PERFECT! PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!" It didn't come across to me as a boast, but a celebration of the life of a family member, with some cheers from the Warboys audibly heard. Its pulls the focus away from the baby's death, and puts the onus on the fact that he lived(however briefly) at all.
Straight Edge
Member
I imagine the hook on the grapple helped. It was torn off with alot of force.
And since it reaches all around, you can probably only take it off safely if you remove it moving it straight away from the face, and not pull it sideways.
Edited post to include Part 3.
Freewheelin'
Member
Turned it off after the first one.
Frankenstrat
Member
How dare you almost trick me into giving cinemanitpicks more views.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Nothing. The end.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Instead of giving Cinemasins views, why don't you watch A 20 minute George Miller interview run by the 5 second films guys.
They pretty much say exactly this. They kind of bend over backwards to say that Fury Road is as good as it gets.
They nitpick just for fun.
It's also fucking hilarious. Rictus is such an awesome character, because he's so staggeringly stupid and yet so earnest at the same time. He has no filter that tells him to stop repeating himself constantly.
Monocle
Member
I won't dignify this nonsense with a click. The modern trend of masturbatory negativity really puts me off.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I haven't watched it, but I wouldn't say it's so much the negativity that I find generally wrong, but the focus on things that aren't really very important. Many of this type of videos focus on things (plot inconsistencies, pointless nitpicks) that just don't really affect the quality of a film, and that some people online use as validation and/or reuse.
True Savior
Member
People don't like this type of videos when they address movies they like
People like this type of videos (some even create threads about it) when they validate their opinions on movies.
It's a strange phenomenon.
They're no Honest Trailers.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
If they reviewed movies, or had actual thoughts about movies, it would be one thing. But they don't. They just point at shit and pretend like the act of noticing something is worthy of attention. But it isnt. Its a synapse firing. Congratulations.
Nitpicking is already a pretty limited, mostly pointless endeavor anyway. So it has to at the least service a larger point, not be the point in and of itself.
Honest Trailers is a) providing some sort of commentary and b) trying to be legitimately entertaining. Its a creative endeavor. This shit is, and has always been, reductive/destructive. And that's all its ever offered
Nitpicking is already a pretty limited, mostly pointless endeavor anyway. So it has to at the least service a larger point, not be the point in and of itself.
Honest Trailers is a) providing some sort of commentary and b) trying to be legitimately entertaining. Its a creative endeavor. This shit is, and has always been, reductive/destructive. And that's all its ever offered
It's not high level cinema by any means, but I felt there was a little more under the hood than your average summer blockbuster film. Or maybe it's that there was just less bloat.
I felt like you had a lot of people and critics who normally dismiss blockbusters get something out of this movie that they didn't get out of other blockbusters. There's definitely something there, it's just not super overt. I guess for me, it felt like a movie that was made for me, not at me. Character relationships felt genuine, plotlines didn't feel weak, and everyone acted fairly rationally. At no point did I feel like I didn't get what the writing/directing team was going for. Is it "deep"? No, but it also didn't feel "dumb".
I have a weird relationship with it. It's a relatively simple movie, but like with movies like The Raid and even John Wick, it's simple and effective. Sometimes that's all I need to enjoy a movie.
I will say though, this thread tends to shut any negativity completely out. There's no such thing as a perfect movie, and Fury Road is certainly no exception.
RustyNails
Member
Fury Road and Avengers are polar opposites when it comes to action movies...I mean, you might as well compare power rangers movie with Interstellar. Shit makes no sense.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not so much negativity as it is poorly explained negativity, typically in the form of simple sentences with no support. If you're lucky you'll get a repetition of the initial point as support, but usually no actual thought expressed beyond the initial one.
For example:
"I enjoyed it but it's like a lot of movies; no substance to it.
Nothing beneath the surface to keep me coming back to watch. It's a summer blockbuster on the level with Avengers, for example."
Net_Wrecker
Member
Yeah but well thought out negative posts don't get the people going. A few posters will agree like "Yah I thought the same", "Agreed", "Thought it was just me", etc., and you'll get that one guy who types a long response addressing each point individually as 2 people go back and forth for 20 posts before it dissolves into slap fighting. But poorly explained ones liners though?
Oh poorly explained one liners make people mad.
Oh poorly explained one liners make people mad.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I know, but movie threads don't seem to be the most well thought-out place to practice being a WWE heel.
Or maybe it's the best place.
Or maybe that place is EVERYWHERE.