Despicable Movie

[Mr. Spazza]

You're trying way too hard to be like Yahtzee.

The very poor writing doesn't help you either, it looks like you wrote this in about five minutes.

 

[RJ Dalton]

This is out already?

Well, I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I saw the trailer on the Funny People DVD, although recently Megamind has taken over as my animated supervillain movie to watch.

As for your review, I'm not personally a fan of rants. They can be ok when they're funny (which I must say this was not) but I prefer to give every movie, good or bad, a fair chance.

Your primary mistake is assuming that I'm trying to be funny. What I'm trying to do is find ways of expressing just how bad it was, because just saying "it's bad" doesn't come anywhere close. Elaborate metaphors are the only way to accurately reflect my assessment of the movie.

And, out of curiosity, what's the difference between a rant and a negative review in your mind? Would it have been better if I dissected the film from a technical perspective, showcasing my brilliance by using words much larger and more technical than my condescending and ego-driven mind thinks you're able to follow in the hopes that I will wow you with my vastly superior intellect (massive irony finger-quotes)? Or would you prefer I throw out a bunch of teaspoon shallow bullshit that doesn't hold the film to any standards and betrays the fact that I wasn't really paying the slightest bit of attention to what I was reviewing to anyone who actually sees the film in a manner similar to the New York Times? If you want a number between 1 and 10, then .00001 about sums it up. If you're asking me to be unbiased and fair, then 1) there's no such thing as unbiased and 2) to be fair, I *did* state what was the one funny joke in movie.
If you're asking me to say nice things, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere, because I don't have nice things to say about it. A film that fucks up when the creators made a few mistakes, either because they didn't know what they were doing, or because they were trying something new and it just didn't work, that I will be fair to. What makes this film so bad is that there was no effort put into this film to make it good; there's not a single original element in it. I'll give a star to a kid who draws a pony, even if that pony looks a little like a green blob, because he at least tried. A kid who traces something may produce a picture that looks better, but I'm not going to give him any stars because he traced it. You don't get an A for effort without some actual effort and cheating is an automatic failure.

 

[s0denone]

Your primary mistake is assuming that I'm trying to be funny. What I'm trying to do is find ways of expressing just how bad it was, because just saying "it's bad" doesn't come anywhere close. Elaborate metaphors are the only way to accurately reflect my assessment of the movie.

And, out of curiosity, what's the difference between a rant and a negative review in your mind? Would it have been better if I dissected the film from a technical perspective, showcasing my brilliance by using words much larger and more technical than my condescending and ego-driven mind thinks you're able to follow in the hopes that I will wow you with my vastly superior intellect (massive irony finger-quotes)? Or would you prefer I throw out a bunch of teaspoon shallow bullshit that doesn't hold the film to any standards and betrays the fact that I wasn't really paying the slightest bit of attention to what I was reviewing to anyone who actually sees the film in a manner similar to the New York Times? If you want a number between 1 and 10, then .00001 about sums it up. If you're asking me to be unbiased and fair, then 1) there's no such thing as unbiased and 2) to be fair, I *did* state what was the one funny joke in movie.
If you're asking me to say nice things, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere, because I don't have nice things to say about it. A film that fucks up when the creators made a few mistakes, either because they didn't know what they were doing, or because they were trying something new and it just didn't work, that I will be fair to. What makes this film so bad is that there was no effort put into this film to make it good; there's not a single original element in it. I'll give a star to a kid who draws a pony, even if that pony looks a little like a green blob, because he at least tried. A kid who traces something may produce a picture that looks better, but I'm not going to give him any stars because he traced it. You don't get an A for effort without some actual effort and cheating is an automatic failure.

I can respect your review here.

There is a lot of pissing and moaning in almost every negative one.
"OMG IT'S JUST YOUR OPINON LOL"
And
"Stop ranting so much. It's barely intelligible, you fool."

While I hadn't seen the movie(Much less even heard of it), I looked it up and I think your view reflects my own quite good. I wouldn't guess that I'd like it, and as such your review has made me pass on a movie that, in other circumstances, I would maybe have watched.

In all honesty though, I hate animated movies, from Pixar or from anywhere, so I wouldn't watch it either way.

...

People here just do not understand that a review is basically your own opinion. Even the technically-speaking-superior-intelligent-awesome reviewers most likely haven't had an actual education on the subject, and in the end it always comes out like "I like it better because it is better than x" or "I don't like it because it's worse than x".

A "Review" is the comparison of a product against other products of it genre or type. You did that. You said it stole from a lot of other movies, and ended up being a dull mis-mash of shit. You did a review, as I'm sure you know, and not an idiotic rant.

While you may indeed be ranting, and dragging the metaphor on too long(I didn't think so), it's still a review in every way one could want. Yes, you could go into more detail, yes you can have structured your post differently-- But you point was to convey the message that the movie is garbage. You succeeded.

In other words, just ignore these whiners

 

[RJ Dalton]

I was interested so see something different in character style than a super hero or an average Joe.

Well, you'll be disappointed, because he more or less turns into a hero at the end of the movie. There's another character that serves as the "real villain" in the story, but he's even less interesting than the little yellow pill-thingies. On the whole, this is a film that proves that the saddest words are "it might have been."

 

[enzilewulf]

Ahh this is a rant... Also it wouldn't be such a moral kill for the reader if you didn't have such a wall of text.. even though my reviews have generally sucked, I can tell you this: Add some pictures and break it up into segments. Its not as demoralizing to the reader. Try to stay at neutral stand point. You won't get as much criticism. Yet this was a first for you I think so I have to give you kudos for trying.

 

[RJ Dalton]

In other words, just ignore these whiners

I try.
I'm not actually trying to please somebody here, I'm making a point. After some observation, it seemed my point was unclear, so I added some clarification.
On the whole, though, I'm truly disturbed by the replies. I'm not taking refuge in "it's just my opinion," as if that meant something. When people said I was just making big metaphors in an attempt to sound mean, I thought "well, I was fairly certain my metaphors fully explained what was wrong with the film, but I guess that just wasn't clear enough," and clarified my point. I'm not demanding that people hate this movie and I'm not going to get on someone's case for liking it. Taste is taste and there's no accounting for it.
What disturbs me is not that people like this movie (well, at least not too much). What disturbs me is the fucking hostility and the hypocrisy. "You didn't actually say anything about it that was bad," they scream at me with the same tone of voice you'd use to shout at the person pissing on your car. "I like this movie," they then say, making no attempt to say even one thing that was good and why they thought it was good, thereby committing the same atrocity they accuse me of. I *did* say what was bad about it and why it was bad. If you don't agree, fine, but don't argue unless you actually have a genuine counter-argument (or can phrase your opinion with an elaborate metaphor, preferably involving robots and/or sex).
It is truly disturbing that articulate communication and meaningful debate have been reduced to people going "ya-huh" and "nu-uh."

 

[Anarchemitis]

While I respect your views on this particular movie, I'm reserving my take on it until after I see it because I have an interest in it.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Ahh this is a rant... Also it wouldn't be such a moral kill for the reader if you didn't have such a wall of text.. even though my reviews have generally sucked, I can tell you this: Add some pictures and break it up into segments. Its not as demoralizing to the reader. Try to stay at neutral stand point. You won't get as much criticism. Yet this was a first for you I think so I have to give you kudos for trying.

I give you ten points for being the first person to dislike my review without trying to bite my balls off and actually stating what you think might have improved the work.
This actually is not my first review. I've done two others - one of which was actually pretty good - but I haven't posted them here. This was, however, the first review where I attempted brevity (yes, this is brief compared to the other two, which were six and a half pages long).
On the whole, though, this has been a good learning experience.

 

[conflictofinterests]

This is out already?

Well, I've been looking forward to this movie ever since I saw the trailer on the Funny People DVD, although recently Megamind has taken over as my animated supervillain movie to watch.

As for your review, I'm not personally a fan of rants. They can be ok when they're funny (which I must say this was not) but I prefer to give every movie, good or bad, a fair chance.

Your primary mistake is assuming that I'm trying to be funny. What I'm trying to do is find ways of expressing just how bad it was, because just saying "it's bad" doesn't come anywhere close. Elaborate metaphors are the only way to accurately reflect my assessment of the movie.

And, out of curiosity, what's the difference between a rant and a negative review in your mind? Would it have been better if I dissected the film from a technical perspective, showcasing my brilliance by using words much larger and more technical than my condescending and ego-driven mind thinks you're able to follow in the hopes that I will wow you with my vastly superior intellect (massive irony finger-quotes)? Or would you prefer I throw out a bunch of teaspoon shallow bullshit that doesn't hold the film to any standards and betrays the fact that I wasn't really paying the slightest bit of attention to what I was reviewing to anyone who actually sees the film in a manner similar to the New York Times? If you want a number between 1 and 10, then .00001 about sums it up. If you're asking me to be unbiased and fair, then 1) there's no such thing as unbiased and 2) to be fair, I *did* state what was the one funny joke in movie.
If you're asking me to say nice things, then I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere, because I don't have nice things to say about it. A film that fucks up when the creators made a few mistakes, either because they didn't know what they were doing, or because they were trying something new and it just didn't work, that I will be fair to. What makes this film so bad is that there was no effort put into this film to make it good; there's not a single original element in it. I'll give a star to a kid who draws a pony, even if that pony looks a little like a green blob, because he at least tried. A kid who traces something may produce a picture that looks better, but I'm not going to give him any stars because he traced it. You don't get an A for effort without some actual effort and cheating is an automatic failure.

Not being original is not a movie sin. It's not a sin at all. Homer didn't come up with the Illiad and the Odyssey on his own. He just told some old stories the most skillfully. If you can name any "original" character type, plot, or twist to come out in the past 50 or so years, I bet I can show you a medieval analogue.

Now, not being able to patch old ideas together well, that's a complaint I can get behind, and if that's what you mean by a "lack of originality," then I don't have so much of a problem with your review. Otherwise, you're a) delusional and b)determined to find fault with this movie.

 

[Zeema]

it seems all animated movies are going down the drown.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Not being original is not a movie sin. It's not a sin at all. Homer didn't come up with the Illiad and the Odyssey on his own. He was just told some old stories the most skillfully. If you can name any "original" character type, plot, or twist to come out in the past 50 or so years, I bet I can show you a medieval analogue.

Now, not being able to patch old ideas together well, that's a complaint I can get behind, and if that's what you mean by a "lack of originality," then I don't have so much of a problem with your review. Otherwise, you're a) delusional and b)determined to find fault with this movie.

Okay, I suppose I should clarify. When I say "original" I don't mean never been done before. In that sense, you are correct, there isn't really anything you can do that hasn't been done before. As a writer, I borrow ideas now and again myself, so I understand inspiration. I might, for example, have been inspired by Randal Flagg and the way he recurs in various Stephen King books under different names. I might, therefore, have created my own character who shows up in multiple stories of my own. I might also change him so that he has a running theme of being trapped by his own fear of facing punishment for his actions and thus he never turns away from his dark path no matter how much it makes him suffer instead of just having him be a stand in for Satan. I might even use the initials RF as a nod to the work that inspired me. But he wouldn't just be a copy of the character, because that wouldn't be "original." You know, hypothetically speaking (and obviously not trying to drop hints about the novel I'm trying to publish in the hopes of getting people interested *hint* *wink* *nudge* *cough* *vomit* *panic because I don't remember ever eating that*).
There's a difference between inspiration and copying and that's where the film fails. What this film does is copy what a bunch of other movies have done without any thought to presentation. It has a formulaic plot that makes no attempt to be unique, it makes the same jokes that other recent movies have made a dozen times (most notably ripping off Shrek in its terrible final dance scene, but it has many more). It is only trying to make the same success as previous animated films by imitating them. Therefor, this film is not original.
And yes, it also doesn't stitch together the elements it's stolen very well. The aforementioned Shrek imitating dance-off is particularly jarring.

 

[RJ Dalton]

it seems all animated movies are going down the drown.

Well, not all of them. Toy Story 3 actually turned out to be a pretty good movie (better than the first two, I thought) and I went into that movie not merely expecting, but wanting to hate it. Of course, a large part of the reason why I liked it was it had a tragic villain and I'm biased in favor of tragic villains, but I can still argue it was a mostly good movie from a logical standpoint.
But really, the movie industry as a whole is going downhill. Not that the hill was ever very high to begin with, mind you, but quality has been dropping over the last decade or so.

 

[C0RV4L0U5]

I haven't even heard of the movie, but after seeing this rant i went and looked it up, that movie looks awesome and it seems like RJ Dalton is the only one who doesn't like it. Of to the movie i goooooooo.

 

[Folio]

I was interested so see something different in character style than a super hero or an average Joe.

Well, you'll be disappointed, because he more or less turns into a hero at the end of the movie. There's another character that serves as the "real villain" in the story, but he's even less interesting than the little yellow pill-thingies. On the whole, this is a film that proves that the saddest words are "it might have been."

I just saw Aliens Vs. Monsters and I'm starting to see a pattern here. Dreamworks is making movies out of parodies and quotes. They are just huge parodies!

Shrek was obvious and we liked it because it made fun of fairy tales. A Vs. M makes fun of all the old movies from the 50's to the now PLUS adds some quotes of Leeroy Jenkins or random stuff. So This makes fun of the Evil Genius? Dag nabbit!