LGC Pominator said:Oh god here we go again with the Halo BS (and I honestly can't be arsed going over the plot points again (especially FoR and Contact harvest), because hey, it is becoming increasingly evident that he doesnt give to f(BEEP)s (is that mandatory now?) and why should I bother?) I am getting rather bored of the random dropping of Halo's plot in particular as being indicative of a bad story/poor material for adaptation etc, especially in the knowledge that we are soon to be treated with an *oh hoo bloody ray* World of Warcraft movie, honestly, please find something original to ***** about moviebob, preferably based in fact.
this.Hot Madness said:I know I'm late to this thread by A LOT, but I can't but agree. If there is one things that gets old fast, it's internet backlash rage; especially directed at something that is worthwhile, simply because it got popular. I could get into this more if someone really wants to start another flame war over Halo, but I respect MovieBob's opinion most of the time, and it's really disheartening to hear him make unfounded, idiotic attacks against something with out qualifying statements
Yes, and that movie would be great. As shown with The 300, if you were a Spartan at home concerned with how well your King was doing to preserve your freedom/reputation. The politics behind the scenes are more dangerous than the frontlines. Ask Julius Caesar/Napoleon/Pontius Pilot/insert historical figure.qbanknight said:oh by the way, I was curious about what Neil Blomkamp would have done had they made a halo movie and he claimed that the film wouldn't really be about Master Chief. The focus of the film would be around the people surrounding wondering about him. It's an interesting approach, but is this the "ripping its f@#king guts out" that you were looking for?
I'm sorry for quoting an old post. I'm just stating my agreement.Evil_scintist said:This is the video that has completely reversed my opinion on this guy as any sort of serious movie critic or even anyone who has any right to a published opinion on anything related to art or cinema.
Before his obvious lack of knowledge in his field was limited to small little pin-prick sized statements of monumental stupidity that you could forgive because the overall message of the review seemed to be valid but here... No fucking way.
I could see claiming that it was boring or slow or even that the subject matter was uninteresting for him but to claim that this is a movie where nothing happens is so blatantly and provably wrong that it's embarrassing that I once considered his opinion as one that at least understood the medium that he is so opinionated about.
As much as he talks about getting the point and that he understands the intention (which he may), he seems to miss the point of cinema entirely. He is reviewing this movie the in the same way and using the same criteria that he would reviewing some shit like transformers despite having completely opposite intentions.
Why the fuck would you review a movie that was clearly not meant to entertain you based on how entertaining it was?
Also How The fuck is this a lone wolf and cub rip off? I get that there is a cart and a kid but the themes, messages, plot, story, characters, setting, and intention are completely different. So what every movie about a father and son in a survival setting is a lone wolf rip-off? HINT: just cause it's on wikipedia doesn't make it valid.
Also the shoehorned nerd references are soo fucking irritating. Not to mention they aren't obscure, aren't clever, and half the time aren't even relevant.
I've wasted enough time on this bullshit.