Escape to the Movies: Red Tails

[Smokej]

looks entertaining

but i have a question for those who have seen the movie:

some us war-movies go a little bit to far in overglorifying the soldiers, so how does this work in this movie?

i know this movie isn't aiming to be that "sophisticated" like the more serious ones but it gets pretty lame seeing for example "captain joe patriotic" shooting down dozens of german airplanes, when infact the whole fighter group shot down less airplanes than one of those flying aces of ww2

 

[maninahat]

Bob you're putting your personal opinions into a video again! Don't you know Real Reviewers are supposed to be 100% objective???

Seriously though, this looks super cheesy. The trailer made me cringe ("Courage has no colour? Really?), I don't think I could watch an entire movie of that.

Would be an alright review if you didn't needlessly jump in pre-emptively to attack people who (in the case where it's relevant, in other words the Star Wars franchise) take the only sensible position on the matter.

Oh noes, someone on the internet is "attacking" you. Better call the SWAT team.

No need to be a clever dick. He wasn't over-reacting, he was just stating that Bob's review should probably have focused on reviewing, instead of bitching about some irrelevant cinema goers.

 

[EgonCom]

"Red Tails" gives Tuskegee Airmen action movie which they never get back in the days...

What about The Tuskegee Airmen [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/]?
(and You call yourself a movie critic )

 

[omega 616]

I mostly watch films to turn my brain off and just look at the pretty moving pictures

If the ratio of shooty to talky is in the talky, I probably wont be interested

I resent the "for retards" bit!

You're not really helping your case here.

Not really there is a difference.

There is a horror film called UKM (ultimate killing machine) loads of action, all crap.

A lot of action films have decent to good action and I am able to turn my brain off and just enjoy the simple pleasures, doesn't mean I am retard.

Not everything has to be high class, intellectually stimulating or elaborate and not everything that is those is always good, just as much as films being none of those this are always bad.

The simple pleasure of watching Rambo take down a platoon of men is just more exciting than watching how Margret Thatcher developed as a person.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Would be an alright review if you didn't needlessly jump in pre-emptively to attack people who (in the case where it's relevant, in other words the Star Wars franchise) take the only sensible position on the matter. By forcing the issue, you only make yourself look like a massive jackass.

As much as I like to stick up for Movie Bob on most issues... Yeah I got that feeling too. Yeah, they'll be a few butthurt fans of the other movies (I'm one of them) however, I'd like to remain objective and view a movie based on its own merits and not who was behind it. Instead I've already been preemptively attacked for hating the movie because I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Star Wars prequels

No, he wasn't saying you're a dick if you disavow the prequel trilogy and will therefore automatically hate this movie, he's saying if you are automatically hating on the movie because you're the sort to disavow the prequel trilogy then you are a dick.
Hope that clears it up, though as I have mildly confused myself with that run-on sentence I doubt it

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Hey, Bob really sounds a bit like Stewie from Family Guy when he hints at using Giana Corano as Wonder Woman. Quite uncanny.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I wish Bob would just stick to reviewing the movie, instead of reviewing the audience. Once again, he insults our intelligence by panning the general public. he paints them in broad strokes, depicting a vaguely defined group of people (that may or may not include you) as a bunch of whining cry babies/jocks/elitists/brainless mob who are not doing things the way Bob would prefer. There are places for soap-boxing, and that place shouldn't be within a five minute review. At least, not when it is totally irrelevant to the film, yet takes up more space in the review than the film itself.

Bob, I don't care if you noticed that some people dismiss George Lucas out of hand. You do not get any medals for talking about them, you don't win points for admonishing them, and you won't convince anyone by jeering at them like a smart arse.

He's not panning the 'general public' he's panning people who dismiss the movie purely because it has George Lucas involved and they don't like the stuff he'd done recently. Either you weren't paying attention or you are one of those people and are hurt that someone has dared to point out the folly of your actions

 

[cricket chirps]

Bob, review underworld anyway next week? Please.

 

[jmarquiso]

Now we just need a movie about the 442nd. Wait, that was the Karate Kid.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

I totally got the point of that seven part series.

The point is Plinkett likes to f*** his cat.

And may occasionally murder prostitutes, but for all we know they were perfectly willing to be chained up in his basement (if we ignore all the stuff at the very end).

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The actual character concept could be quite interesting. It's just never been handled well, at all.

First off, she's an Amazonian warrior that just happens to dress like she's entering a miss America pageant. I mean seriously, that armour is ludicrous. It's not even the rule of skimp that bothers me. It's the fact that she's from a Greek myth but wares what is essentially a star spangled banner onesy, complete with tiara. She's also got an invisible plane and a lasso that makes people tell the truth. Also bullet deflecting bracelets.

She is just a poorly conceived character and has no relevance today. They would need to give her a complete reboot for her to even make sense.

You might be interested in the idea "Dresden Codak" creator Aaron Diaz came up with for her [http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/30/superhero-costumes-redesigns-aaron-diaz/]. Both the design and the revised characterization.

Why a review for this and not the new underworld movie...or haywire....? :c I was looking forward to one of those.

(A) He says right in the credits that the new Underworld movie wasn't screened for critics, so he hadn't gotten a chance to see it in time for the review
(B) Probably he thinks this is a more "significant" film that needs propping up and Haywire is more of a popcorn flick that'll get plenty of viewers anyway ? and/or that there's not much to say about it other than he liked it and thinks you will too.

 

[Sovvolf]

Would be an alright review if you didn't needlessly jump in pre-emptively to attack people who (in the case where it's relevant, in other words the Star Wars franchise) take the only sensible position on the matter. By forcing the issue, you only make yourself look like a massive jackass.

As much as I like to stick up for Movie Bob on most issues... Yeah I got that feeling too. Yeah, they'll be a few butthurt fans of the other movies (I'm one of them) however, I'd like to remain objective and view a movie based on its own merits and not who was behind it. Instead I've already been preemptively attacked for hating the movie because I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Star Wars prequels

No, he wasn't saying you're a dick if you disavow the prequel trilogy and will therefore automatically hate this movie, he's saying if you are automatically hating on the movie because you're the sort to disavow the prequel trilogy then you are a dick.
Hope that clears it up, though as I have mildly confused myself with that run-on sentence I doubt it

I get what your trying to say don't worry on that one. Just, the opening was more of "For you naysayers of the prequel trilogy, don't be bringing up gungans ect or the use of CGI in this movie"... Roughly.

Sort feels like, its assumed that because I don't like the prequel trilogy I'm going to jump straight down this films throat over it. Which I ain't, while who makes a film can effect my expectations of the film (If a director is on a role with making good movies, I'll expect good things, if not then I'll be a little iffy) that doesn't mean I'm going to go into the movie seeking to hate it or I'm going to drag the film down for it. Its a separate movie in a separate series, judge it by its own.

Again, I defend MovieBob a lot and he's one of the few shows I watch on this site, however that... I felt was a little uncalled for.

 

[Absimilliard]

I honestly cannot think of a more effective way to ensure tons of comments in some way relating to Star Wars.

Anyways, Red Tails seems like it's worth seeing, so I'll check it out. The social issue is important, and I like dogfights (metaphor!) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfight] in films.

By the way; I remember watching Stephen Fry talking about how several bar fights between soldiers started in the UK during the war, over the fact that the bars weren't segregated, and in which the majority of Brits present would side with the African-Americans. (It was on some episode of QI, I can probably find the exact one if I search a lot...) However, seeing as this came from a Briton, and he didn't name a source, I was wondering if anyone else had heard about this?

Also: sorry, but can anyone tell me what the seven part series thing briefly mentioned is? Seemed kinda important to that section of this video...

 

[Orks da best]

"Red Tails" gives Tuskegee Airmen action movie which they never get back in the days...

What about The Tuskegee Airmen [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/]?
(and You call yourself a movie critic )

I think he meant as in back when all the other WWII movies were made, shortly after or during WWII.

 

[geier]

Some day, i will travel to the US and test your drinking water for creativitydestroying bacteria.

Again Nazis ?
Really, it is time some country commits a warcrime with AT LEAST 100 Million innocent dead civilians, so someone else then Nazis can be the bad guys.

 

[maninahat]

I wish Bob would just stick to reviewing the movie, instead of reviewing the audience. Once again, he insults our intelligence by panning the general public. he paints them in broad strokes, depicting a vaguely defined group of people (that may or may not include you) as a bunch of whining cry babies/jocks/elitists/brainless mob who are not doing things the way Bob would prefer. There are places for soap-boxing, and that place shouldn't be within a five minute review. At least, not when it is totally irrelevant to the film, yet takes up more space in the review than the film itself.

Bob, I don't care if you noticed that some people dismiss George Lucas out of hand. You do not get any medals for talking about them, you don't win points for admonishing them, and you won't convince anyone by jeering at them like a smart arse.

He's not panning the 'general public' he's panning people who dismiss the movie purely because it has George Lucas involved and they don't like the stuff he'd done recently.

Aren't they one and the same?

Joking aside, I am well aware what he is panning. I don't think I've ever met a single person who's claimed that they won't see Red Tails because it had something to do with George lucas. Even if they are out there, who cares what they think? Besides Bob, I mean.

I say general public, because sohe has complained about so many different groups of people who get on his nerves, he has probably covered most general public by now. Today it is people who dismiss George Lucas. previously, it was stereotype Madden/COD/Halo fans. Or jocks. Or "hardcore" gamers. Or just whatever large bunch of people who have gotten on his nerves and require being talked about at great excess. My main point was that they aren't relevant, so I'd wish he'd stop wasting our time boxing strawmen and stick to the subject.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Was actually hoping for Underworld, so glad the message was put in at the end. First was great, second was pretty good, but I thought the third sucked. Doubt the new one can be as bad as that one was.

Anyway, little on topic part, this movie did look pretty good, but I doubt I'll watch it until it is out for rental...

 

[artanis_neravar]

Bob is such an idiot. Fanboyism isn't just yelling for the sake of yelling. We once liked the things we're now yelling at. It's the betrayal and the stupidity that we hate.

Look at Plinkett's review of the Prequels for proof. THAT is how a review is made.

Pretty sure reviews are made however the reviewer wants them to be made. And yes Fanboyism is just yelling for the sake of yelling. Nothing in the prequel trilogy was nearly as bad as all of the so called "fanboys" make it out to be, Gungans? Nothing wrong with them just another race in the SW universe. Jar Jar? Annoying? Yeah, but so was C3P0. Boy Anakin in 1, bad actor? Sure, but lets face it so was Mark Hamill. The complaint that is was more kid friendly? The Galaxy was under the control of a benevolent, or as benevolent as any democratic government can be, government and it wasn't nearly as dark a time as the Empires reign. I will give the "fanboys" Han shooting first though