Escape to the Movies: Centurion

[TheGnomeHerder]

Nanny McPhee Returns, is making more than Scott Pilgrim.

 

[Axolotl]

Nanny McPhee Returns, is making more than Scott Pilgrim.

And?

That's becuase it targets a larger auidience than Scott Pilgrim.

 

[El pup]

People didn't complain because you criticized the Expendables.

They complained because you insulted people who went to see it.

You see the difference between those 2 things?

Nice to know Centurion is good though I'll have to pick up the DVD sometime.

100% agreed and couldn't be said better

 

[El pup]

I'm willing to let this whole expendables nonsense go.

It's rediculous that it is bleeding over in to your next review (seeing as the point was missed in your explination)... But Bob, its not about your opinion of if a movie sucks or not (well for the most part anyways, I'm sure there are some people on here that will fight you to the death over it). It's about us wanting a movie critic like you to be taken more seriously and you pissing it away on nerd rage with stereotyping and oversimplification.

Does it ever piss you off when a say a film critic says videogames can never be art and everyone who has tried to defend them as such has done a poor job? At least Ebert admitted his fault while maintaining his stance.

Hate the movie all you want. Better yet, use the moment to explain how enraged you are at how people didn't support a movie (Scott Pilgim) that was masterfully made but don't damn the people who enjoyed it, name call, or lump them as overly simplified stereotypes.

Ps. Please review Machete next week.

 

[nk19]

Okay, now let's see what has been covered in this thread already:

1. Pointing out that Moviebob skirted around the REAL reason people were upset by his review last week? Check.

2. Comments made by Escapist's who actually think people are mad at the review because they liked the movie, instead of the fact that Moviebob insulted people's intelligence? Check.

3. Escapist's defending Moviebob's right to insult people and calling them whiners for telling someone they will not accept that someone who wants to be called a professional should act like the everyday dumpster scrapings on Youtube or every forum on the Web.

4. The double standard of Piranha 3-D being good because it "tries" to be a B-Movie, has gallons of blood, lesbianism, and nudity; while the Expendables is a mindless action movie that does what the people want? Check.

5. Centurion looks decent, but that small review was overshadowed by more hurled insults? Check.

6. Boobs are awesome? Check.

7. Geniuses pointing out the obvious of people "whining?" Check.

Well, I think that just about covers the general comments here. Now it's time for my two cents. Christopher Lloyd I love you man, but I can't see this film. It goes against every functioning brain cell I have.

Bob, I appreciate the caricature voices you give to represent the people who, God forbid, disagree with you, ranging from the Paul Walker-like jock voice to describe the general public or the Boston accent you occasionally use as well. However, now it's being used as a defense mechanism similar to that of a child mocking his authority figures. Even though in all your apparent intelligence you mentioned how people said not every film has to be high art, but you opt for showing your signature picture of Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds and repeating that argument in your Paul Walker surfer voice once more belittling people like a child. Grow Up.

Yahtzee insults people, but the very least he stresses that it's his own opinion. Call us "butt hurt" whiners if it makes you feel better, but that still doesn't change the fact that you've drastically fallen down in both professionalism and quality in your recent reviews.

Tits+lesbians+blood=Great bad film.

Mindless stupid action+mediocre plot=A living testament to how cinema's quality has gone down hill and all who see it are brainless douchebags or "Ogres."

Every critic is subject to their own opinion and how they review movies, but Roger Ebert doesn't give 'thumbs down' to a movie and say that people, who liked it must have their own thumbs up their asses. But your not Roger Ebert, your Bob Chipman, the critic who attacks a certain religion and insults their intelligence in his movie reviews. Bob Chipman, the critic who recommended "The Last Airbender." Bob Chipman, the critic whose older reviews focused on the intelligence or lack there of in a film, brief histories about genres, referencing literature, historic events, witty one-liners and re-watchable reviews. Bob Chipman, who never condemned the audience and sunk so low to act like an internet troll in his reviews. What happened to that MovieBob, we miss the old MovieBob, whose this hypocritical troglodyte that's replaced the real Moviebob we know and love? Y'know how he can come back? If you start being a professional once again and stop acting like an infant in your rants.

Tits, lesbians, and how much red corn syrup can fill the silver screen are poor reasons for liking a movie unless your a hormone-enraged teenager! This is not professional, Bob, this what one of those stereotypical frat boy douchebags, whom you compare the general public to, would say his reasons for liking a movie like Piranha 3-D.

Bob, you don't care and you don't mind how many people are starting to see that your reviews are nothing more than poor Youtube movie rants, and you sure as hell will stick by your opinions. You have a hardcore fanbase that will continue this show and a few people who already despise you.

In your GameOverthinker videos you always stress how you can't stand the people who insult people over XBOX Live because they disagree with that person or do something that pisses them off. Guess what? Your that person, an angry ranting voice that insults people they have never met, but continues to insult them b/c the people do something you disagree with.

"If fish looked like that, I'd fuck fish." Piranha 3-D

If anyone needs me I'll be at thatguywiththeglasses.com

*clap, clap, clap, clap, clap*

You pretty much hit the nail on the head... And summed up my own feeligns better than I ever could!

"He who fights monsters" as they say on TV Tropes. Oh for shame, how MovieBob has fallen from grace. I'll still watch his stuff, particularly his Game Overthinker episodes, but if he continues like this with his Escape to the Movies shtick...

I might as well just go watch Bum Reviews, with Chester A. Bum.

Changeeeee you got changeeeeee. Come on, help a guy out.

 

[Whispering Death]

So I watched that "Doomsday" movie that Bob recommended in this review. WOW THAT WAS TERRIBLE!

Doomsday is a seriously bad movie. It's just like they thought up as many B-movie cliches as possible and strung them together with the most thin plot possible. The plot was just a vehicle to move you from cliche to cliche.

It's aparently supposed to be a "self-aware homage". A post-modern movie that looks at itself.

But it's like a satire without the jokes. It's not funny, you don't laugh. And it's not interesting, there's nothing going on. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing exciting. It's like a bad Sci-Fi Channel movie that just admits it's a bad Sci-Fi Channel movie. That's all well and good, but at the end of the day it still sucks.

What a waste of 2 hours.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Yes, god yes, a monkey, also Yay boobs in 3d

 

[Starke]

There's actually not that much of a difference. I pointed out much, much earlier that film critics do this all the time. Don't believe me? Go on Rotten Tomatoes, and look up any random movie, and you will find at least a dozen or so reviews, all from professional newspapers or magazines, that make far more harsh comments about not only films and filmmakers they don't like, but also the very people who go to watch these movies. Hell, Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, and Armond White (especially Armond White) have made long and storied careers out of spewing far more vitriolic rhetoric than what Bob has used in his Expendables review, and they all have far more clout than he does. The reason for this is because criticism, unlike journalism, deals entirely in the subjective, and even with editors moderating comments, you're going to get lots of mud-slinging and incendiary jabs at the 'common folk' who flock to brain-dead films and ignore whatever film they happen to love at the moment (it's very rare, like in the case of Ebert's digs at gamers, and most of White's rants lately, for people to get up in arms about them, since most of the time no one cares).

Okay, let's step back a minute, and see if this makes sense. You can read Roger Ebert's review of The Doom Generation [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19951110/REVIEWS/511100301/1023] or Caligula [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800922/REVIEWS/9220301/1023], go ahead, I'll wait...





Okay, now, watch Bob's review of The Expendables. Now, what specifically was bad about The Expendables? What did it do well? See, what Bob does is spend five minutes and 13 seconds throwing a tantrum. You learn nothing about the film except who's in it, and that it pissed Bob off. But, what we don't have is a "why". There's no explanation to what is actually wrong with the film, except that it beat out Scott Pilgrim at the box office. Now, let's look at Roger Ebert's Bill Roeper's review of The Expendables.[footnote]Ebert didn't do this one, so I picked off the reviewer from the Chicago Sun Times who did.[/footnote]

What you may notice is that with The Expendables review from the Chicago Sun Times is, there's a bit about the plot, a bit about why it should have worked, why it didn't. There's a slight tone of disappointment in the reviewer, so yeah, you're right, he's human, but it's not an outright failure of an attempt at a review. Seriously, read it. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/2592500,expendables-movie-roeper-081210.article]

Now, look at Bob's review. What's wrong with the film? According to Bob "the worst kind of people like it". What does that even mean? Fuck if I know, because Bob's not saying. This isn't a review. Its a man in his mid-twenties throwing a tantrum. That's not "being human" that's just fuckin' sad. Oh, right, and there isn't enough blood in it, because blood makes a movie better. Right, now, you read the Caligula review a minute ago, right? Right.

See, there's a reason I picked that one in particular. Because Roger Ebert does spend the first two paragraphs talking about his own nausea and disgust at the film. And then he does something else, he analyzes the film. You remember that? We've seen it from Bob before, just not recently. If anything, his Caligula review is pretty close to what Bob's review of The Expendables could have been like, if he actually behaved in a professional manor. Do you see and understand the distinction?

Like I said, he's not doing anything that is outside the bounds of any other form of film criticism, professional or otherwise, though I'm going to go out and agree that the quality of his reviews is on the decline.

I'd argue the entire site is in something of a slide. (Hell, maybe it's me, but even Yahtzee sounds tired to me these days.) Bob's gotten complacent, and just isn't trying to do professional writing anymore, he's degenerated to shit he'd write on his blog. His movie list looked like a collection of films he liked rather than any kind of cohesive list, and now, two weeks in a row, we have him devoting huge chunks of his reviews to inciting flame wars. That's not journalism, that's just tacky. Before that we've had reviews that boiled down to him masturbating over an actress. Anyway.

But, that's not what people are raging about in this thread. They're under the impression that Bob has personally insult them, because for once they're in that massive blob that is the mainstream moviegoing public going to see a shit film.

Here's actually a funny thing. Not a dig at you per-say, but you may want to stop and think about this for a minute.

Yes, there are people who are pissed at being called "the worst kind of person", they called early and often to voice their annoyance in the previous thread, but that was a week ago. Rather than doing the smart PR thing and letting it drop, Bob specifically weighed back in this week and accused them all of being (something to the effect of) "douchebag jocks". There is a term for this, it is called "flaming".

Now, I remember a lot of very solid constructive criticism in that thread which really runs contrary to his own comments, and at that, a lot of constructive criticism. I love Skullcap's analysis of Bob's behavior, and I've the sinking suspicion that he's dead on the money.

Bob, I appreciate the caricature voices you give to represent the people who, God forbid, disagree with you, ranging from the Paul Walker-like jock voice to describe the general public or the Boston accent you occasionally use as well. However, now it's being used as a defense mechanism similar to that of a child mocking his authority figures. Even though in all your apparent intelligence you mentioned how people said not every film has to be high art, but you opt for showing your signature picture of Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds and repeating that argument in your Paul Walker surfer voice once more belittling people like a child. Grow Up.

So, I asked you to stop for a minute and think. Are you expressing your own opinion here, or are you simply expressing Bob's?

If The Expendables had failed at the box office, and we were just left with him saying it was awful, virtually nobody would be as up in arms about it as they are now.

As a general disclamer, I haven't actually watched The Expendables or Scott Pilgrim or even Piranhas 3d. And I really don't give a shit how well they do anywhere, really. The films are made, they'll be on DVD in six months when I've got time to kill, and that'll be the extent of it.

And he's before taken shots at movies he thought were shit (and the people who see them) but still did well, but usually they fell into what the people on this site would have found acceptable to hate (i.e. Transformers, Blind Side, etc.), so not only did they not care, but they actively encouraged it.

Yeah, generally speaking going off on the people who watch them is an asinine move on Bob's part. It's kinda relevant to his argument about the Michael Bey Transformers films, but, beyond that? So what? People have never been particularly good at filtering out the good films. The ur-example is Blade Runner which completely died in the box office. So what? That doesn't mean you can't find it on DVD today, in a remastered edition from three years ago, with new edits and loads of special features. Throwing a fit over who does and doesn't watch films is, in general, completely puerile, especially when it comes to who those individuals are.

So, yes, it is hypocrical to fly into angry rants about it now.

I can't speak for everyone here. Personally I was more disgusted by his review of Salt, and as someone who has actually had to write movie reviews, what Bob's doing here is insulting to me, not because he is insulting me personally but because this is such an abomination of a review, it's insulting to the entire profession, especially given he gets paid for this. So, yeah, I'm not flying into an angry rant because he labeled me a "douchebag jock" which as a label fits me about as well as, oh, say, "lesbian queen of the desert". I'm irked because I haven't gotten a review, for three weeks now. Because as a professional, I'm offended that any editor would look at this tripe and sign off on it, and as a writer because when he's receiving actual genuine constructive feedback he'd rather childishly stick his fingers in his ears and call people names.

EDIT: Yay! Typo patrol :|

 

[omegawyrm]

I can't believe that Yahtzee gets away with all of his bullshit week after week, he personally insults pretty much everyone at some point or another. But when MovieBob does it, being pissed off that an uninteresting failed attempt at a nostalgia film did far better than an excellent film by the same guy who did Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz that had better action scenes anyway, everyone acts scandalized.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Can we please stop comparing Moviebob to Yahtzee. Yahtzee is a character played for comedy not an actual reviewer!

 

[Kizna]

Damn it Bob! Stop thinking that hot female nudity makes a movie better! (it dosen't it just arouses the people who don't look at porn) you don't need to keep reinforcing that you like hot women! you're going to start offending your female viewers by making yourself look like a guy who thinks that women in movies are just there to stand around and look sexy!

There is some merit in this statement. As a female viewer and huge movie fan (and Movie Bob fan, though, like some other viewers, I have been starting to get a bit disillusioned), the reviews that go on and on about boobs and more boobs as the reason why I should watch a certain movie just completely turn me off. :\ I want to know that a movie has a bit more substance than just a boob jiggle and a rump shake. Neither of those things make a movie better, nor do they make it more worth seeing. Breasts are nothing new for me as there is not a day that goes by where I don't see a pair getting dressed in the morning. Boobs are not a way to sell a movie (to me at least), especially a movie that has nothing else going for it.

I saw Piranha 3D before I saw this critique, review, [insert other word meaning almost the same thing here]. It's not a good bad movie; it's just a bad movie. I have been trying to forget that I watched it to no avail. I went to watch this movie with a friend of mine who loves these horrible, cheesy horror films and he even agreed that this movie was an utter crapfest. A couple of cool shots (Ving with the blade of fishy death and the part with Eli Roth to name a few) and minor insignificant laughs (Mostly from Christopher Lloyd's character) cannot save this poor excuse for a film. Forgettable characters (most of which you are glad to see die), a bad story, way too much pointless breast and butt shots, and too much general stupidity ruin this film completely. The only really good thing that came out of my watching this is that it helped me reaffirm how glad I am that I never became one of those "Spring Break Stupidity" type people.

Most of the time I agree with Movie Bob (The Last Airbender being a complete and total outlier) and I know that his opinions are his opinions and I respect that (fighting on the internet is pointless). However, everyone is entitled to theirs and this is mine. I understand that you like the female form MB, but tone it down a tinge please? I agree with Canadian Briton in that if you keep it up there is a strong possibility that you're going to start looking like the guy who only wants his leading movie ladies silent, naked and making out with each other. And in that case, my eye rolls will continue.

Centurion, on the other hand, I might give a shot if it opens anywhere near me.

 

[Pipotchi]

What Bob actually said:
* Bad attempt at a B-movie with all-star cast, big bidget and no gore = bad plain movie.

Big Bidget is in the movie? I love that guy!

 

[mojomonky]

This:
(sadly enough, people get way too mad over just about anything - or they're trolling)

Last time I'm going to read the comments. People get way too mad over movie reviews.

This:

What Bob actually said:
* Bought into the hype and paid for The Expendables as soon as it came out = sheep.
* Longing for action movies to undo over 20 years of improvements = probably the worst kind of person, and would probably like The Expendables.
* B-movie with tits and gore = good B-movie.
* Bad attempt at a B-movie with all-star cast, big bidget and no gore = bad plain movie.

What angry commenters heard:
* Liked The Expendables = sheep.
* Liked The Expendables = definitely the worst kind of person.
* Good movies = tits and gore.
* Bad movies = no tits or gore.
You know, people hear what they want to hear, and if the hat fits...

And finally this:

I can't believe that Yahtzee gets away with all of his bullshit week after week, he personally insults pretty much everyone at some point or another. But when MovieBob does it, being pissed off that an uninteresting failed attempt at a nostalgia film did far better than an excellent film by the same guy who did Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz that had better action scenes anyway, everyone acts scandalized.

I honestly had to re-watch the previous video to see what had offended people...and I'm astounded at how sensitive people are in response to an online film review. I'm even more astounded by how they retaliate by (instead of letting the "flaming" die in the review) translating it onto the forums to continue it.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

Well of course we're going to bring up Expendables again, since that's exactly what Bob did for over half his review, and still failed to give any reasons as to why it was bad, instead choosing to tell us to see other films instead. Again. As many have said, the problem wasn't that you bashed Expendables, it was that your 'review' was nothing of the sort, and it didn't give any kind of argument as to why the film sucked. Instead, you chose to cry over Scott Pilgrim doing badly at the box office (which saddens me too, might I add) and personally insult everyone who went to see it. If you're going to dish out personal insults, you can't cry in your next review about how much criticism you got in return.

As for this review, it was alright (at least, the Centurion bit was, I suppose), but it still has the whole Expendables farce hanging over it that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Hopefully next week there'll be no mention of it and things can get back to normal.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

There's actually not that much of a difference. I pointed out much, much earlier that film critics do this all the time. Don't believe me? Go on Rotten Tomatoes, and look up any random movie, and you will find at least a dozen or so reviews, all from professional newspapers or magazines, that make far more harsh comments about not only films and filmmakers they don't like, but also the very people who go to watch these movies. Hell, Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, and Armond White (especially Armond White) have made long and storied careers out of spewing far more vitriolic rhetoric than what Bob has used in his Expendables review, and they all have far more clout than he does. The reason for this is because criticism, unlike journalism, deals entirely in the subjective, and even with editors moderating comments, you're going to get lots of mud-slinging and incendiary jabs at the 'common folk' who flock to brain-dead films and ignore whatever film they happen to love at the moment (it's very rare, like in the case of Ebert's digs at gamers, and most of White's rants lately, for people to get up in arms about them, since most of the time no one cares).

Okay, let's step back a minute, and see if this makes sense. You can read Roger Ebert's review of The Doom Generation [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19951110/REVIEWS/511100301/1023] or Caligula [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800922/REVIEWS/9220301/1023], go ahead, I'll wait...


Okay, now, watch Bob's review of The Expendables. Now, what specifically was bad about The Expendables? What did it do well? See, what Bob does is spend five minutes and 13 seconds throwing a tantrum. You learn nothing about the film except who's in it, and that it pissed Bob off. But, what we don't have is a "why". There's no explanation to what is actually wrong with the film, except that it beat out Scott Pilgrim at the box office. Now, let's look at Roger Ebert's Bill Roeper's review of The Expendables.[footnote]Ebert didn't do this one, so I picked off the reviewer from the Chicago Sun Times who did.[/footnote]

What you may notice is that with The Expendables review from the Chicago Sun Times is, there's a bit about the plot, a bit about why it should have worked, why it didn't. There's a slight tone of disappointment in the reviewer, so yeah, you're right, he's human, but it's not an outright failure of an attempt at a review. Seriously, read it. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/2592500,expendables-movie-roeper-081210.article]

Now, look at Bob's review. What's wrong with the film? According to Bob "the worst kind of people like it". What does that even mean? Fuck if I know, because Bob's not saying. This isn't a review. Its a man in his mid-twenties throwing a tantrum. That's not "being human" that's just fuckin' sad. Oh, right, and there isn't enough blood in it, because blood makes a movie better. Right, now, you read the Caligula review a minute ago, right? Right.

See, there's a reason I picked that one in particular. Because Roger Ebert does spend the first two paragraphs talking about his own nausea and disgust at the film. And then he does something else, he analyzes the film. You remember that? We've seen it from Bob before, just not recently. If anything, his Caligula review is pretty close to what Bob's review of The Expendables could have been like, if he actually behaved in a professional manor. Do you see and understand the distinction?

Like I said, he's not doing anything that is outside the bounds of any other form of film criticism, professional or otherwise, though I'm going to go out and agree that the quality of his reviews is on the decline.

I'd argue the entire site is in something of a slide. (Hell, maybe it's me, but even Yahtzee sounds tired to me these days.) Bob's gotten complacent, and just isn't trying to do professional writing anymore, he's degenerated to shit he'd write on his blog. His movie list looked like a collection of films he liked rather than any kind of cohesive list, and now, two weeks in a row, we have him devoting huge chunks of his reviews to inciting flame wars. That's not journalism, that's just tacky. Before that we've had reviews that boiled down to him masturbating over an actress. Anyway.

But, that's not what people are raging about in this thread. They're under the impression that Bob has personally insult them, because for once they're in that massive blob that is the mainstream moviegoing public going to see a shit film.

Here's actually a funny thing. Not a dig at you per-say, but you may want to stop and think about this for a minute.
snip
So, I asked you to stop for a minute and think. Are you expressing your own opinion here, or are you simply expressing Bob's?

If The Expendables had failed at the box office, and we were just left with him saying it was awful, virtually nobody would be as up in arms about it as they are now.

As a general disclamer, I haven't actually watched The Expendables or Scott Pilgrim or even Piranhas 3d. And I really don't give a shit how well they do anywhere, really. The films are made, they'll be on DVD in six months when I've got time to kill, and that'll be the extent of it.

And he's before taken shots at movies he thought were shit (and the people who see them) but still did well, but usually they fell into what the people on this site would have found acceptable to hate (i.e. Transformers, Blind Side, etc.), so not only did they not care, but they actively encouraged it.

Yeah, generally speaking going off on the people who watch them is an asinine move on Bob's part. It's kinda relevant to his argument about the Michael Bey Transformers films, but, beyond that? So what? People have never been particularly good at filtering out the good films. The ur-example is Blade Runner which completely died in the box office. So what? That doesn't mean you can't find it on DVD today, in a remastered edition from three years ago, with new edits and loads of special features. Throwing a fit over who does and doesn't watch films is, in general, completely puerile, especially when it comes to who those individuals are.

So, yes, it is hypocrical to fly into angry rants about it now.

I can't speak for everyone here. Personally I was more disgusted by his review of Salt, and as someone who has actually had to write movie reviews, what Bob's doing here is insulting to me, not because he is insulting me personally but because this is such an abomination of a review, it's insulting to the entire profession, especially given he gets paid for this. So, yeah, I'm not flying into an angry rant because he labeled me a "douchebag jock" which as a label fits me about as well as, oh, say, "lesbian queen of the desert". I'm irked because I haven't gotten a review, for three weeks now. Because as a professional, I'm offended that any editor would look at this tripe and sign off on it, and as a writer because when he's receiving actual genuine constructive feedback he'd rather childishly stick his fingers in his ears and call people names.

EDIT: Yay! Typo patrol :|

Again, I agree about the quality of his reviews being on the decline, but citing two reviews doesn't negate my point that film critics, as a whole, tend to lob (far worse) insults at films and the people who watch them. Not every critic every time, but there's always some critics that do this (think Musical Chairs: Flaming Edition). Even the most straight-up professional critic will do this often, usually set off by a movie of a genre they personally dislike (case in point: any of A.O. Scott's superhero film reviews, with their muddied non-logic and snide side remarks). And what I saw last week, and what I'm seeing this week, is largely (largely, mind you) people getting mad at him for doing what critics tend to do. Which brings me to this comment:

I'm not flying into an angry rant because he labeled me a "douchebag jock"...

I never said you specifically were. I'm referring generally to the posts on this thread, and I actually applaud you for having legitimate gripes against Bob's style (I posted my own gripes about his Salt review when that came out. Good lord, two minutes talking about how hot Angelina Jolie is?), but the general trend on here is that people are getting all in a twist, and taking a general stab at mainstream audiences way too personally (and that they would cheer, and add more bile themselves, if they weren't in that group). And yes, this is my opinion , since I don't think Bob has expressed this thought at all, ever. Thanks for asking, and forcing me to have to answer with a variant of that most stupid of phrases: "In my opinion."

All that being said, I wish more of the Escapists offered up the kind of meta-criticism you showed. What's going on at the moment (again, generally) isn't going to make Bob have some epiphany and start improving his craftsmanship, it's just going to make him still think "Well, I was right. These people are a bunch of douchebag jocks! I think next week, I'll Photoshop a picture of Stallone having sex with Schwarzeneger," or some other bullshit. There might have been a lot of constructive criticism in last week's thread, but it got lost in wave upon wave of flamewar nonsense (I stopped reading the comments on that review fairly early on, since at that point I had seen the same comment repeated something like twenty times, and had better things to do). If the scales were tipped more in the favor of Bob's desperately needed intervention, then I wouldn't have even posted my initial comment.

P.S.: Since I'm just waking up right now, I kind of realized halfway through typing this that my repeated mentioning of film critics doing the same thing comes across like an implicit endorsement of this behavior. It's not. More of an acceptance that it's going to happen, and I hope Mr. Chipman gets it out of his system sooner rather than later.

 

[Meemaimoh]

God. More gratuitous boobs-make-man-happy neanderthalism. I would have hoped that you'd be listening, but it seems like you don't care about how much you come across as a disgusting creep. Way to alienate all your audience members - male and female - whose minds have managed to emerge from puberty.

I officially no longer care what you have to say about anything, Bob. I'm no longer on either your MovieBob feed here on the Escapist, or following GameOverThinker over at ScrewAttack.

 

[squid5580]

Man, I am so angry that Bob called me an idiot sheep last week for going to see Eat Pray Love! RAGE! Wait, what movie is everyone up in arms about, again?

The one question I have for everyone so butthurt over Bob ripping on 'them' (i.e., they happened to be part of the general population that went to see The Expendables for a change, so now it's personal) is this: how many times on this very site have you either started, or participated in a thread decrying some popular piece of entertainment you thought sucked, and how many times have you insulted whole groups of people who liked said piece? This includes phrases like "emo fags" or "screaming tween girls" (for Twilight). No one seems to have a problem with flinging out the insults to whole groups of people just because of what entertains them, but the minute it's dished back out, they start bawling like they were beaten up and had their lunch money stolen.

And even if you go "but Bob is a critic!", guess what? Critics do this all the time! Whether they're Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, or Armond White, they'll hurl out insults to those they deem fit quite regularly (and while sometimes it crosses the line, I don't think anything Bob said was even close to that case). I happened to like Star Trek last year, yet didn't mind that he got all in a tizzy about it (mostly because I agreed that the script was aneurysm-inducingly stupid, and had to have the actors and director salvage it). And that was when there wasn't a movie that he was passionate about coming out the same week and getting overlooked.

Which reminds me: Damn it, I'm a huge Neill Marshall fan, but won't get to see Centurion because my town blows, and won't show anything in the theater unless it's had 800 million commercials!

P.S.: Bob, while the boob-mentioning for Piranha 3-D is a lot more appropriate this week, is it possible to give it a rest for awhile?

i think real reason ppl r pissed (well at least me when i first saw the expendables vid)is that as a critic BOB seemed the most "human" if im making any sense. as a critic he would praise originality and artistic vision, but wasn't afraid to show his "normal" side and say HEY ITS GOT TITS (for lack of a better term). case and point this review about priranas 3d thats pretty much what he said.

now with this in mind he is A LOT more relatable as a critic and therefore his opinions hold a little bit more with people watching his reviews. (at least to me) . so when he simply insults everyone who watched the movie it seems like a betrayal of sorts.

now this review ticked me off too, mainly because he said pirhanas 3d was "good" simply because it had gore and boobs, and really giving no other reason as to why its "better" than expendables.

now dont get me wrong i didnt like the expendables and i though scot pilgrim was WAY WAY better, but i think it was quite petty to insult everyone for seeing it.

No you don't get it. It isn't just about the tits that made Piranha good (for a B rated horror flick). I don't know when it happened but it isn't hard to guess why but these types of movies hitting the theatres have been watered down. They get slapped with a 14A rating and everything gets nerfed. To compensate they try to throw in a "good story" which ends up being just as terrible as any other of these types of movies. Piranha goes back to the roots. Forget things like story or character development. It is all about the gore and the boobs. Just like Friday the 13th (old ones) and a slew of movies like it back then. We want to see Jason sticking people with a sword. We don't want to know about how her father dressed up as Santa and died in the chimney cuz we don't care. Jason (or in this case the piranha) are the stars. And most movies of this genre forget that and focus on the heroes.

well bob seemd to berate expendables for simply being an action romp, isnt somewhat hipocritical to praise a movie that simply does the the same thing. i mean expendables had explosions and gun, while pirahanas had over the top gore (or so im told). they both simply put what everyone wanted to see a ramped it up to 11. i still didnt like expendables though

He didn't bash it just because it was an action flick. One of his biggest complaints was the lack of blood. That was after the insult though so I am not sure how many people got that far. Another was the cameos to make the trailers look good. Piranha did have over the top gore. That is what it needed to be a good movie.

Because as we all know The Doom Generation and John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars were the finest movies of our time, while Hellboy was without merit. Wait, what? Are you even thinking this through for yourself? Blood never makes a movie.

It's absence can undermine one, such as Die Hard 4, where the continual deterioration of the main character was a theme in the previous films. But in and of itself it does not make a film good, and rarely improves it.

Off hand The Fifth Element is an example of a film that uses blood carefully. You cannot simply improve a film with more blood. So, yeah, more gore >< better movie.

Oh don't get me wrong I am not saying that a movie needs buckets of blood to be good. A movie like Piranha does. It has nothing else to offer

 

[Delusibeta]

*golf clap*

Well done, this comments thread ensures that The Expendables will get mentioned for a third week in a row.

 

[Mikester1290]

In this thread: People continue their discussion of the expendables from last week because no one knows how to let anything go.

Ha, your definitely right on that one.

People continue their discussion of the poor review of the expendables from last week because THEYRE PISSED OFF. Actually.

 

[Aran]

The more you trashtalk The Expendables to more you come off as the sort of guy who wouldn't appreciate movies like Crank 1 and 2, and I'm not sure if I can take that sort of person seriously. I've liked most of your other reviews though so you're getting the benifit of the doubt.

Regardless, I'm going to quote my vulgar friend who announced the following to the entire room when the credits started rolling: "Did you see that gun!? The gun that shot rockets!? If you didn't get an erection watching that then you aren't a man!" To which we all found ourselves forced to state that we found it sexually arousing watching a gun blow up guard towers.

Edit: \/ \/ Okay, I'm reassured