I watched this review and like others, I've noticed a trend in Bob's content. I'd address the points in a longer post, but frankly, I don't want to. My personal belief is that the best course of action for Bob is to watch movies from an objective standpoint primarily and detach from the agendas or political motives he may hold. If he's not the target audience for a film, if they don't push his buttons, don't view it. Few of us come here to view videos from Bob where he makes a 5 minute rant about his white male guilt, we come here for film reviews. What irked me with this review is how slapped together it was.
A 4 minute review. 28 seconds of rambling at the start. A long clip from Taken 1 that wasn't a driving point for the review. Until 1:27, the review hasn't even started. At 2:00, he starts reviewing parts of Taken 1 which may affect your viewing experience of Taken 3*. By 2:20 he's made sweeping claims about the entire franchise. By 2:42, he's stopped having his little political rant and begins to address Taken 3. By 4:25, he's done.
That's a whopping 1m 43s devoted to criticism leveled at Taken 3 and even then, it's a phoned in "this fits my agenda/political views, I need views, I'll just rant about this".
The film might be bad, I don't doubt that, but I want to hear why it's bad. You've got 4+ minutes of airtime, let's hear it. Tell us why it's good, what works and what doesn't and why it doesn't. Taken 3 mildly interests me because I enjoyed the first one. I came into this review wanting to hear more about it and left sorely disappointed. I'm transitioning over to other reviewers because I'm getting VERY tired of Bob's inability to review even partially objectively. I know that opinions and subjectivity come as part of the film reviewer package, but few come as preachy and condescending as Moviebob.
*That is if your politics and white male guilt are so fiercely ingrained in you that you can't enjoy a generic action film without thinking "huh, wouldn't this franchise be better if Neeson was served humble pie rather than being a badass".
A 4 minute review. 28 seconds of rambling at the start. A long clip from Taken 1 that wasn't a driving point for the review. Until 1:27, the review hasn't even started. At 2:00, he starts reviewing parts of Taken 1 which may affect your viewing experience of Taken 3*. By 2:20 he's made sweeping claims about the entire franchise. By 2:42, he's stopped having his little political rant and begins to address Taken 3. By 4:25, he's done.
That's a whopping 1m 43s devoted to criticism leveled at Taken 3 and even then, it's a phoned in "this fits my agenda/political views, I need views, I'll just rant about this".
The film might be bad, I don't doubt that, but I want to hear why it's bad. You've got 4+ minutes of airtime, let's hear it. Tell us why it's good, what works and what doesn't and why it doesn't. Taken 3 mildly interests me because I enjoyed the first one. I came into this review wanting to hear more about it and left sorely disappointed. I'm transitioning over to other reviewers because I'm getting VERY tired of Bob's inability to review even partially objectively. I know that opinions and subjectivity come as part of the film reviewer package, but few come as preachy and condescending as Moviebob.
*That is if your politics and white male guilt are so fiercely ingrained in you that you can't enjoy a generic action film without thinking "huh, wouldn't this franchise be better if Neeson was served humble pie rather than being a badass".