Bob, I dont even see movies that often and IM sick of the same old crap, same goes for games,to the point where there are few mainstream games I will called even close to good
Escape to the Movies: The Eagle
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
You're important too, Bob. There are thousands of movie critics on the internet. I listen to a number of them on a regular basis, but I actually take your opinions seriously. You are a deeply insightful guy, and I am thrilled that you have "The Big Picture" now. Keep up the good work bruthah!
in all honesty every time i watch another moviebob video i get more and more pissed off. the guy is your typical pseudo intellectual dickhead that goes about his videos being stuck up and smug, with a side order of being an unlikeable douche (with "The Big Picture" being just another way of ranting on in the same fashion)
Ah, quelle surprise, those who disagree with your appraisal of a film "have kind of a point", but only insofar as they are cretinous, beer-swilling, uneducated, uncultured slobs who know nothing of cinema. You know that making a very slight concession to those who hold a different opinion, only to then insult them repeatedly is even more dickish than just getting strait to the insults, right?MovieBob said:
The point that many, including myself, were trying to convey to you, Bobbo, is that a film can be formulaic to an extent, yet still be a good film, enjoyable to watch, if each part of the formula is executed to a very high standard. You seem to have decided that, instead, we're all just incapable of appreciating how much more insight you have.
I have not seen The Eagle, and I likely will not; why bother, I've seen Centurion. And that, right there, would be the difference between a film like The King's Speech, which uses tropes certainly, but tells a compelling tale of a historical character who's contribution to major events of the last century was largely forgotten, and does so with great verve, and a film like The Eagle which, apparently, uses tropes to tell the exact same story as other films.
That difference, Bobbo, is why opposition to your casual dismissal of TKS was so vehement; not because everyone who disagrees is incapable of having an informed opinion, busy as we are mucking out the hogs and swilling cheap beer, but because your opinion is coloured by your experience, to the point that you can no longer tell the difference between a film that sticks to a formula but is still an enjoyable tale well told, and a film which uses formula to disguise the complete lack of acting, writing and/or directorial talent of the creators.
Well then you must be a narcoleptic, sir, because that bit lasted all of three seconds.jackpipsam said:
[Edit] WOW. A *lot* of people are complaining about this part of the video...
...it wasn't really a major point, you guys. I'm afraid you may all have to just... let it go. Or obsess about it, I guess, if that's what you're into.
I bet I could find you a much more insulting review of Halo to be offended by, though. And longer.
Another reliable review as always Bob, but SERIOUSLY, lay off Halo. You have already dedicated an ENTIRE episode of "The BIG Picture" to showing us how little you actually know about the Halo universe, it's lore, and the games themselves, bashing it at every opportunity is really getting old, it's even becoming a little insulting.
Your criticism of it is never constructive, we understand that you don't like Halo, that's fine, you are entitled to your opinon, but why are you letting your irrational hatred for a simple videogame franchise interfere with your movie reviews?
I watch your shows, but every time you rag on Halo out of context i respect you a little less.
It's time to get down off the "Halo hatred" bandwagon, Bob.
Your criticism of it is never constructive, we understand that you don't like Halo, that's fine, you are entitled to your opinon, but why are you letting your irrational hatred for a simple videogame franchise interfere with your movie reviews?
I watch your shows, but every time you rag on Halo out of context i respect you a little less.
It's time to get down off the "Halo hatred" bandwagon, Bob.
With regards to ZP, I think if more reviewers actually were as unforgiving as him, and/or if the industry actually did take his criticisms to heart, well, there really wouldn't be a whole lot of games out there. And the only ones that would exist would be Fantasy World Dizzy, Psychonauts, Silent Hill 2, Portal, Saints Row 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum (and even that last one he liked with some reservation). Don't know if I'd want to live in a world like that.
I've since come to the conclusion that what Yahtzee expects from a game and what I expect from a game are two different things and that we both enjoy vastly different things in them. To wit, he obviously doesn't enjoy hack n' slash games like God of War or Dante's Inferno, whereas I do. He also apparently doesn't particularly care for Bioware's RPGs, which I've thoroughly enjoyed. Same with the Dead Space games, which he says didn't really scare him where in my case they nearly left me with post traumatic stress disorder. And he's made no secret about his aversion to RTS games, which I also enjoy. By the same token, I'd never even consider picking up Saints Row 2 no matter how much praise he heaps on it, because I don't see it as anything more than a derivative GTA wannabe.
So while I still like to watch ZP, at this point I watch it just for the entertainment value, as I find Yahtzee sets his bar so high that it would be nearly impossible for any game to meet them (I'm dreading his real review for Duke Nukem Forever. I know he especially won't be kind to that). So I think of him as a game reviewer in the same way I think of Glenn Beck as a political commentator; someone who pretends to be a professional but is instead an entertainer. They shouldn't be taken seriously, and those who do would do so at their peril. Just my thoughts on it.
Bob is way better than that. And while he does occasionally succumb to nerdrage and fanboy whinging (i.e., his thoughts on Bay's Transformers and his reaction to the news of Gareth Edwards directing the new Godzilla movie), I find his arguments to be cogent and well thought-out for the most part.
I've since come to the conclusion that what Yahtzee expects from a game and what I expect from a game are two different things and that we both enjoy vastly different things in them. To wit, he obviously doesn't enjoy hack n' slash games like God of War or Dante's Inferno, whereas I do. He also apparently doesn't particularly care for Bioware's RPGs, which I've thoroughly enjoyed. Same with the Dead Space games, which he says didn't really scare him where in my case they nearly left me with post traumatic stress disorder. And he's made no secret about his aversion to RTS games, which I also enjoy. By the same token, I'd never even consider picking up Saints Row 2 no matter how much praise he heaps on it, because I don't see it as anything more than a derivative GTA wannabe.
So while I still like to watch ZP, at this point I watch it just for the entertainment value, as I find Yahtzee sets his bar so high that it would be nearly impossible for any game to meet them (I'm dreading his real review for Duke Nukem Forever. I know he especially won't be kind to that). So I think of him as a game reviewer in the same way I think of Glenn Beck as a political commentator; someone who pretends to be a professional but is instead an entertainer. They shouldn't be taken seriously, and those who do would do so at their peril. Just my thoughts on it.
Bob is way better than that. And while he does occasionally succumb to nerdrage and fanboy whinging (i.e., his thoughts on Bay's Transformers and his reaction to the news of Gareth Edwards directing the new Godzilla movie), I find his arguments to be cogent and well thought-out for the most part.
On the other hand "new" is not a commendation in it's own right and becomes less common and harder and harder to do with time. We're not interested in new because we're not analysing the movie nor are we following the movie industry. You are so it's useful.
The whole idea of new causes problems because then if some new and amazing is discovered using that discovery makes subsequent films trite and boring, devaluing the discovery
The whole idea of new causes problems because then if some new and amazing is discovered using that discovery makes subsequent films trite and boring, devaluing the discovery
Alright! A movie review from Bob that I can agree 100% with, at least with critics and ordinary folks.
As an ambitious storyteller that loves me some originality, I always found it silly how so many people are afraid to try something new in favor of the tried and true. I mean, really, brain-numbing much? Hmmm...brain-numbing.....Society makes more sense now!
As an ambitious storyteller that loves me some originality, I always found it silly how so many people are afraid to try something new in favor of the tried and true. I mean, really, brain-numbing much? Hmmm...brain-numbing.....Society makes more sense now!
Just to chime in on the point I think Bob was getting at, I know the feeling of being bored stupid by the same old same old. I watch, oh, 4 to 5 movies a week. I don't watch cable at all because I get 10 free rentals a week at work. That quickly leads to wanting to carve out your own eyes with a spork when you see Katherin Heigel or Angelina Jolie. It makes you say things like "Did you see Dead snow? It was kinda cool!" or "Did you catch Black Sheep?". Heck, I am still trying to find the movie Fido to buy and kicking myself because I missed the chance when we first had it.
I don't think of myself as snobbish, just seriously over saturated.
That being said, yeah, Bob I love you but you need to stop beating the horse man. Sometimes it isn't about what you say but how you say it.
I don't think of myself as snobbish, just seriously over saturated.
That being said, yeah, Bob I love you but you need to stop beating the horse man. Sometimes it isn't about what you say but how you say it.
MovieBob provokes actual thought from me for once...how rare.
The phenomenon Bob describes with his Arbys analogy is what I like to call the "Boondock Saints Dilemma" . It's a personal definition because...well I need to tell the story in order for it to make sense.
First, rewind to approximately 1 year ago. My life had just sunk to new lows. I won't go into details, but the end result was that I became morbidly depressed and highly, nay, DANGEROUSLY cynical. It got to the point where I pretty much couldn't enjoy anything. Not my favorite food, movies, friends, anything.
So, my life was cruising along on its Dead Reckoning (nautical term, look it up) until I decided to hang out with my friends sometime around august. They decided on a whim to rent The Boondock Saints. We watched it.
Sufficed to say, it was the first thing I laughed at in months. Willem Dafoe's performance cracked me up, and the shenanigans, however unoriginal or "bullshit" they might be was surreal and strangely pleasant to watch.
And then...I find out that just about every critic (whom I respect/watch anyway) out there despises that film on principle, because they've "already seen it done before, and done better" elsewhere.
They then produce other "better alternatives". I go out and watch them.
I recognize that the movie has serious flaws and that there are better Vigilante movies out there, but my mind was already made up due to the context in which I saw the film and because I saw it BEFORE the others.
So, I'm kind of flying in the face of Bob's logic here. If I've seen the Boondock Saints, why do I not hold up other, better vigilante movies? Objectively, I try to. As a hobby, I evaluate cinematography, plot writing and logic. It's fun (though sometimes painful).
However, given the time frame, I can't pin my love for the movie strictly on "nostalgia" (and why on earth would I WANT to remember that horrible time in my life?). For a while, I couldn't really rationalize it beyond that.
But then the bleeding obvious hit me: This is subjective reasoning at its purest.
It's also why I stopped trash-talking the audience for seeing movies they thought they might like (and why Bob's review of the Expendables provoked a largely polarized reaction, at least from me). As much as I despise a number of these remakes, reboots and nostalgia-exploitation films I feel that if the movie pleases the audience; then fine.
It doesn't mean I won't give my opinion on a piece nor make comparisons, but when we start insulting the audience for not having "refined taste", I think we're missing the point of reviewing movies as a form of quality-control.
The phenomenon Bob describes with his Arbys analogy is what I like to call the "Boondock Saints Dilemma" . It's a personal definition because...well I need to tell the story in order for it to make sense.
First, rewind to approximately 1 year ago. My life had just sunk to new lows. I won't go into details, but the end result was that I became morbidly depressed and highly, nay, DANGEROUSLY cynical. It got to the point where I pretty much couldn't enjoy anything. Not my favorite food, movies, friends, anything.
So, my life was cruising along on its Dead Reckoning (nautical term, look it up) until I decided to hang out with my friends sometime around august. They decided on a whim to rent The Boondock Saints. We watched it.
Sufficed to say, it was the first thing I laughed at in months. Willem Dafoe's performance cracked me up, and the shenanigans, however unoriginal or "bullshit" they might be was surreal and strangely pleasant to watch.
And then...I find out that just about every critic (whom I respect/watch anyway) out there despises that film on principle, because they've "already seen it done before, and done better" elsewhere.
They then produce other "better alternatives". I go out and watch them.
I recognize that the movie has serious flaws and that there are better Vigilante movies out there, but my mind was already made up due to the context in which I saw the film and because I saw it BEFORE the others.
So, I'm kind of flying in the face of Bob's logic here. If I've seen the Boondock Saints, why do I not hold up other, better vigilante movies? Objectively, I try to. As a hobby, I evaluate cinematography, plot writing and logic. It's fun (though sometimes painful).
However, given the time frame, I can't pin my love for the movie strictly on "nostalgia" (and why on earth would I WANT to remember that horrible time in my life?). For a while, I couldn't really rationalize it beyond that.
But then the bleeding obvious hit me: This is subjective reasoning at its purest.
It's also why I stopped trash-talking the audience for seeing movies they thought they might like (and why Bob's review of the Expendables provoked a largely polarized reaction, at least from me). As much as I despise a number of these remakes, reboots and nostalgia-exploitation films I feel that if the movie pleases the audience; then fine.
It doesn't mean I won't give my opinion on a piece nor make comparisons, but when we start insulting the audience for not having "refined taste", I think we're missing the point of reviewing movies as a form of quality-control.
I agree I was pretty bored with this movie. I saw this and Just Go With It this weekend and they were both redundant and unoriginal for their genre. Not bad but not great either. I did like the scenery tho 
Oh P.S. I'm surprised you said the acting was good. Channing didn't even seem like he fit into this movie. It was like he wasn't even TRYING to play the part. He acted like he was in modern day America or something.
Oh P.S. I'm surprised you said the acting was good. Channing didn't even seem like he fit into this movie. It was like he wasn't even TRYING to play the part. He acted like he was in modern day America or something.I can't believe, Bob, that you (or anyone else here for that matter) don't mention that this is an adaptation of Rosemary Sutcliff's 'The Eagle of the Ninth', one of the most acclaimed and read children's novels of the last hundred years. With little to say about the film itself, you could've done worse than compare it with the original.
If any who read this are interested, Sutcliff's 'Black Ships before Troy' is, in my opinion, the best retelling of the Iliad for a modern audience. The Classical world has inspired plenty of bad films, Bob: why not send your sizeable audience towards more refined alternatives to 'The Eagle', instead of just bashing it?
If any who read this are interested, Sutcliff's 'Black Ships before Troy' is, in my opinion, the best retelling of the Iliad for a modern audience. The Classical world has inspired plenty of bad films, Bob: why not send your sizeable audience towards more refined alternatives to 'The Eagle', instead of just bashing it?
