EXP: Bad Marriage Movie Reviews - Marley & Me

[DrStrangelove]

Bad Marriage Movie Reviews - Marley & Me

John and Jessi are joined by a very special guest to review this iconic tearjerker.

Watch Video

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Please stop making these videos, or at the very least make them FUNNY.
Your "troubled marriage" stick was old the first time you did it.
Stop dubbing over the generic-rock stuff as well, it's annoying, Improve the writing so it seems more natural and less staged, stop the bad green-screening over parts of the movie and for god's sake, work on the movie-review itself.


Does the movie work?
Why does it work?
IS IT A GOOD MOVIE?

 

[Joos]

Wow, that was awkward. You guys got a lot of work to do to make this work.

Also, I typically love animals, but this movie is so bad in every conceivable way, I wasn't the least sad when the dreadful pet died of old age. The tear-jerk moments (like all emotional moments in this steam train of fail) are so obviously set up that they fall flat and pretty much have the opposite effect. Fuck this movie.

The only thing worthwhile ms Aniston's been in is the Office. Feel free to review that next time.

 

[Vzzdak]

I'd seen Marley & Me a few years ago, and though I'd been thinking about it recently, I couldn't recall the name. It's a somewhat relevant film because it paints life as the series of building blocks of challenges and setbacks (that it is). There's also a warning conveyed in the life of the Owen Wilson character's friend, played by Eric Dane, where by neglecting family in favour of investigative reporting in exotic international locations, the end result is that he never establishes a family.

There aren't many films (I think) where they're willing to follow a family through the hum drums of about 15 years of their life. I suppose there as When Harry Met Sally, though that had Crystal and Ryan futzing about until they finally marry at the end.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Please stop making these videos, or at the very least make them FUNNY.
Your "troubled marriage" stick was old the first time you did it.
Stop dubbing over the generic-rock stuff as well, it's annoying, Improve the writing so it seems more natural and less staged, stop the bad green-screening over parts of the movie and for god's sake, work on the movie-review itself.


Does the movie work?
Why does it work?
IS IT A GOOD MOVIE?

What this fine, upstanding member of the escapist forums said.
Still hurtling down the spike-and-razor-blades-filled path Game Dogs went down, and I'll remind you that was not a pretty sight.
Please bow out semi-gracefully now, while you can still salvage *some* dignity.

 

[WarpZone]

I actually thought this was kinda funny. For me, the problem was why was this filed under EXP? I wanted to watch some other epsiodes of it, to see if it holds up, but EXP contains all kinda of random crap. Why not give it its own series? Why not give all the odds and ends in EXP its own series if you made more than one episode of the same thing?

To all the haters: it's not a serious movie review. It's a goddamned bit. Either live with it, or let it die quietly on its own once they've exhausted the shtick. Sure, Redletter Media manages to do both at once, but they have a rare cast that's good at both things. Personally I thought the generic rock dubbed over it was PERFECT. You know how every word she said made you feel like you were getting dumber? How the music kept droning into your skull and you were just getting so BORED by the whole thing? How every time she said something made her happy or sad, you were just like OH MY GOD THIS BULLSHIT IS SO ANNOYING, JUST SHUT UP YOU STUPID *****!? That's the JOKE, guys! They're turning the set into a chick flick! If you find yourself getting angry and frustrated, that's because she SOLD it!

Anyway I Googled it to find the other episodes (Escapist's internal search literally doesn't work.) Here you go: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=%22Bad+Marriage+Movie+Reviews%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.escapistmagazine.com I'm curious to see how it works when they're bouncing off of each other. Could be good. Could be bad. Don't know yet.

( Captcha: crocodile tears. I don't even think it picks random words based on what people are posting in their comments anymore. I think when they post the video, they also type in 20 or so captchas for just that video. )

 

[WarpZone]

*watches Blue Jasmine review*

Huh.

You know, just as I was starting to get REALLY bored, shit suddenly got real, and they fucking SOLD it. These people may not be good critics or even SOLID movie critics, but it's clear that they're great at delivering this style of humor.

That said...

They seem to be reviewing chick flicks. Chick flicks don't have the same standards as typical movies. A review is going to be concerned less with things like script, direction and acting, and more with how the movie "feels." So, if that's what they're going for? Not just being in a bad marriage while reviewing movies, but also specifically covering chick flicks? That might be a sustainable hook, right there. It's just not a hook for US. We are not the audience for this kinda humor OR these kinda movies. If somebody somewhere out there IS, and they exist in significant numbers, and both the humor and the "informative" parts of the review are for them? Who am I to argue.

I mean, let's face it, as long as they keep doing Zero Punctuation I'm not going anywhere. Sure. Go ahead and broaden the appeal of the site to the point where it's just a rainbow-colored sludge of half-ironic, half-sincere vignettes about everything from cat pictures to live folk dancing. After all, it's not hurting me. It's just cluttering up my screen with garbage while simultaneously reminding me that The Web has changed and I don't matter anymore.

It's like the Escapist is trying to become the website equivalent of the Xbox Live start screen! That would actually be a brilliant metaphor if I thought for a second it had been intentional. It used to be your portal to all the best vidya gamez, but now it's just trying to sell you football tickets and Miley Cyrus concerts and sometimes it's just this completely baffling text and image, you have just no clue what kinda innane bullshit they could possibly be trying to sell you without clicking on it, and if you did that what would be the point?

It's like those stupid rotating images they put at the tops of webpages now-- are they for phone surfers? Who thought those images were a good idea!? XKCD REFERENCE!! I don't know how to paste the image here but you know the one I'm talking about.

Wait a minute.

I'm ranting mindlessly.

The chick in this video is ranting mindlessly!

OMFG I GET IT NOW!

 

[Roedizzal]

Wow I don't think I've ever stopped caring about an internet video so fast in my life. It has to be a new speed record for going from 'mild curiosity' to 'reviled and disinterested'. This was horrible, dated, and pointless...I...I think I need a drink.

 

[Archon]

*watches Blue Jasmine review*

You know, just as I was starting to get REALLY bored, shit suddenly got real, and they fucking SOLD it. These people may not be good critics or even SOLID movie critics, but it's clear that they're great at delivering this style of humor.

Thanks for this feedback. Your comment reiterate something I've been wondering about - how much of the criticism is leveled by people who haven't watched more than the first 5-10 seconds of it? Most of the humor is back-loaded, which could be really problematic in an internet world where if people aren't amazed in 5 seconds they tune off and let you know you are horrible.

They seem to be reviewing chick flicks. Chick flicks don't have the same standards as typical movies. A review is going to be concerned less with things like script, direction and acting, and more with how the movie "feels." So, if that's what they're going for? Not just being in a bad marriage while reviewing movies, but also specifically covering chick flicks? That might be a sustainable hook, right there. It's just not a hook for US. We are not the audience for this kinda humor OR these kinda movies. If somebody somewhere out there IS, and they exist in significant numbers, and both the humor and the "informative" parts of the review are for them? Who am I to argue.

If you scroll back through the archives, they also did Kick-Ass 2. It definitely won't be all chick flicks. Unfortunately we launched the series just as the summer blockbuster season ended.

 

[Archon]

I actually thought this was kinda funny. For me, the problem was why was this filed under EXP? I wanted to watch some other epsiodes of it, to see if it holds up, but EXP contains all kinda of random crap. Why not give it its own series? Why not give all the odds and ends in EXP its own series if you made more than one episode of the same thing?

Great question. EXP is for content that is not created exclusively for The Escapist. All of the series in EXP are syndicated or at least non-exclusive. In the case of Bad Marriage Movie Reviews, it's created for a site called EveryJoe, which is quite different than The Escapist.

In the past, we had tried to introduce some syndicated content into the "main channel" of the Escapist and our community didn't like it. So now we have EXP. It's like HBO and HBO2, or something.

 

[WarpZone]

Did you just call Blue Jasmine a chick flick and say it can't be held to the standard of a "typical movie". A movie written and directed by Woody Allen? A movie starring Alec Baldwin and Kate Blanchett? A movie critics have called "the strongest, most resonant movie Woody Allen has made in years". A movie that has a 90% rating among professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes? As A Woody Allen fanboy, I demand satisfaction sir. Shall we say pistols at dawn?

Well. To be fair, my only exposure to the film has been this review, and she made it SOUND like a chick flick. But sure, West Crater. High Noon.

*hires snipers to take you out covertly, but they fall before the might of the Hero of Canton*

"You'da done the same!" DX

 

[WarpZone]

*watches Blue Jasmine review*

You know, just as I was starting to get REALLY bored, shit suddenly got real, and they fucking SOLD it. These people may not be good critics or even SOLID movie critics, but it's clear that they're great at delivering this style of humor.

Thanks for this feedback. Your comment reiterate something I've been wondering about - how much of the criticism is leveled by people who haven't watched more than the first 5-10 seconds of it? Most of the humor is back-loaded, which could be really problematic in an internet world where if people aren't amazed in 5 seconds they tune off and let you know you are horrible.

Wellllll... I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that 90% of your audience's comments as meaningless. If people are tuning out after the first 30 seconds, that's not the audience's fault. Yes, gamers are extremely vocal and tend to judge things at extreme ends of the spectrum. But if Jim Sterling and MovieBob can make movie reviews work on this site, the question becomes what are they doing differently from you guys?

(Off the top of my head, I'd say the two main differences are: you guys don't seem as strong in the genuine-movie-criticism department, and the comedy side of your show focuses almost exclusively on marriage. Not sure if there's anything specific I'd recommend you do differently, just that your show may not be the best match for this demographic. It actually feels a lot closer to RedLetter Media than anything else I can think of, though again, with less emphasis on delivering a serious critique.)

Having said this, DO NOT shift focus too abruptly away from comedy towards serious criticism. No Right Answer did that, early on, and it broke the show for me. To this day, I still can't read an episode title without wondering whether they're being ironic or sincere this episode, and if I guess wrong I get disappointed. Tweak your formula if you must if you really want this audience, but don't break your show trying to make it fit.

They seem to be reviewing chick flicks. Chick flicks don't have the same standards as typical movies. A review is going to be concerned less with things like script, direction and acting, and more with how the movie "feels." So, if that's what they're going for? Not just being in a bad marriage while reviewing movies, but also specifically covering chick flicks? That might be a sustainable hook, right there. It's just not a hook for US. We are not the audience for this kinda humor OR these kinda movies. If somebody somewhere out there IS, and they exist in significant numbers, and both the humor and the "informative" parts of the review are for them? Who am I to argue.

If you scroll back through the archives, they also did Kick-Ass 2. It definitely won't be all chick flicks. Unfortunately we launched the series just as the summer blockbuster season ended.

Meh, that's what classics and retrospectives are for.

I actually thought this was kinda funny. For me, the problem was why was this filed under EXP? I wanted to watch some other epsiodes of it, to see if it holds up, but EXP contains all kinda of random crap. Why not give it its own series? Why not give all the odds and ends in EXP its own series if you made more than one episode of the same thing?

Great question. EXP is for content that is not created exclusively for The Escapist. All of the series in EXP are syndicated or at least non-exclusive. In the case of Bad Marriage Movie Reviews, it's created for a site called EveryJoe, which is quite different than The Escapist.

In the past, we had tried to introduce some syndicated content into the "main channel" of the Escapist and our community didn't like it. So now we have EXP. It's like HBO and HBO2, or something.

Couldn't you just do a thing like Loading Ready Run is doing where the show premiers on the Escapist and then lives on its own site after a week or so? It sounds like you're having difficulty gaining traction at The Escapist, and your homegrown diehard fans are scared that moving in here would mean "selling out." Not sure what you should do with that, it's just an observation.

Do you have a link to some other stuff you two have done? I'd like to get a feel for what your range is and where your interests lie. My gut keeps telling me there's a better show you two have the tools to make, I just don't know what it is yet.

 

[Archon]

Thanks for this feedback. Your comment reiterate something I've been wondering about - how much of the criticism is leveled by people who haven't watched more than the first 5-10 seconds of it? Most of the humor is back-loaded, which could be really problematic in an internet world where if people aren't amazed in 5 seconds they tune off and let you know you are horrible.

Wellllll... I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that 90% of your audience's comments as meaningless. If people are tuning out after the first 30 seconds, that's not the audience's fault. Yes, gamers are extremely vocal and tend to judge things at extreme ends of the spectrum. But if Jim Sterling and MovieBob can make movie reviews work on this site, the question becomes what are they doing differently from you guys?

Sorry, I don't mean to imply that their comments are meaningless. Even if their comments were solely because they didn't watch past the first 5 seconds, those would be meaningful comments. It's not the audience's job to sit through our content. It's our job to make content they want to sit through.

(Off the top of my head, I'd say the two main differences are: you guys don't seem as strong in the genuine-movie-criticism department, and the comedy side of your show focuses almost exclusively on marriage. Not sure if there's anything specific I'd recommend you do differently, just that your show may not be the best match for this demographic. It actually feels a lot closer to RedLetter Media than anything else I can think of, though again, with less emphasis on delivering a serious critique.)

Having said this, DO NOT shift focus too abruptly away from comedy towards serious criticism. No Right Answer did that, early on, and it broke the show for me. To this day, I still can't read an episode title without wondering whether they're being ironic or sincere this episode, and if I guess wrong I get disappointed. Tweak your formula if you must if you really want this audience, but don't break your show trying to make it fit.

Thanks for the feedback. The show is definitely comedy first. I don't think one would want to use the "bad marriage" format for a serious critique...

In the past, we had tried to introduce some syndicated content into the "main channel" of the Escapist and our community didn't like it. So now we have EXP. It's like HBO and HBO2, or something.

Couldn't you just do a thing like Loading Ready Run is doing where the show premiers on the Escapist and then lives on its own site after a week or so? It sounds like you're having difficulty gaining traction at The Escapist, and your homegrown diehard fans are scared that moving in here would mean "selling out." Not sure what you should do with that, it's just an observation.

Do you have a link to some other stuff you two have done? I'd like to get a feel for what your range is and where your interests lie. My gut keeps telling me there's a better show you two have the tools to make, I just don't know what it is yet.

Heh - I think you are under a misapprehension as to my position vis a vis the content. To be clear, I'm the founder, publisher, and general manager of The Escapist. I'm the person who appointed Greg Tito to be EIC. I'm also the publisher and general manager of EveryJoe. So I'm not "in" Bad Marriage Movie Reviews. The cast is Elle Vega and Schuyler Dievendorf.

When I said "we had tried to introduce some syndicated content into the main channel of The Escapist" I meant "the team that works for me, which runs The Escapist". When I said "our community didn't like it", I meant "The Escapist community didn't like it". I was referring to experiments in the past wherein we'd introduced other website's content onto The Escapist.

 

[WarpZone]

Heh - I think you are under a misapprehension as to my position vis a vis the content. To be clear, I'm the founder, publisher, and general manager of The Escapist. I'm the person who appointed Greg Tito to be EIC. I'm also the publisher and general manager of EveryJoe. So I'm not "in" Bad Marriage Movie Reviews. The cast is Elle Vega and Schuyler Dievendorf.

When I said "we had tried to introduce some syndicated content into the main channel of The Escapist" I meant "the team that works for me, which runs The Escapist". When I said "our community didn't like it", I meant "The Escapist community didn't like it". I was referring to experiments in the past wherein we'd introduced other website's content onto The Escapist.

Ohhhhhhhh. Derp! My bad. I even read your "General Manager & Publisher" tag and thought "oh, nice, they let the guy who made the video set his tag to that. I guess he also publishes his stuff." Probably would have realized my mistake if I'd stopped and thought about it, or bothered to look at the names in the credits.

Yeah, I dunno. For me The Escapist has always been a video game site. I watch MovieBob and a couple other non-video-game-related shows on this site, but in general it feels like a video game community to me. (I did really like Space Janitors, though!)

I'm curious. Are you just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, with this syndication stuff? Are you just padding out the update schedule with any random content you can scoop up? Or is there a bigger plan in motion?

 

[Archon]

Yeah, I dunno. For me The Escapist has always been a video game site. I watch MovieBob and a couple other non-video-game-related shows on this site, but in general it feels like a video game community to me. (I did really like Space Janitors, though!)

Most people do come here for the video game coverage, no doubt. That said, The Escapist has never been intended to be only about videogames; it's supposed to encompass all the things that are gamers are into. That includes things like blockbuster movies, comics, funky science, etc. That's why we named it "The Escapist" rather than Game____ like most other game sites.

I'm curious. Are you just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, with this syndication stuff? Are you just padding out the update schedule with any random content you can scoop up? Or is there a bigger plan in motion?

We noticed that Escapist users tend to treat the site a little bit like a social network. They have profiles, they lounge around on the site, and generally treat it like its a destination rather than a drive-by visit. That's great for user engagement (although it does cause some weirdness in that our social shares are less; our most avid users mostly 'talk amongst themselves'). Anyway, the idea behind EXP is that since we know our avid users are on the site, why not offer them more content. We can't produce that much more content on our own, so expanding the offering means working with partners.

 

[WarpZone]

Most people do come here for the video game coverage, no doubt. That said, The Escapist has never been intended to be only about videogames; it's supposed to encompass all the things that are gamers are into. That includes things like blockbuster movies, comics, funky science, etc. That's why we named it "The Escapist" rather than Game____ like most other game sites.

I guess I find the phrase "all the things that gamers are into" confusing. Like. How are gamers more into movies than non-gamers? Everybody watches movies. I could easily make the argument that more gamers are into anime than movies, because so much of video game culture comes from Japan, (although the crossover between the two groups has probably dropped off quite a bit since the 90s.)

We noticed that Escapist users tend to treat the site a little bit like a social network. They have profiles, they lounge around on the site, and generally treat it like its a destination rather than a drive-by visit. That's great for user engagement (although it does cause some weirdness in that our social shares are less; our most avid users mostly 'talk amongst themselves'). Anyway, the idea behind EXP is that since we know our avid users are on the site, why not offer them more content. We can't produce that much more content on our own, so expanding the offering means working with partners.

But... wait, wasn't it your guys' idea to add forums and profiles and badges and all that social stuff in the first place? Are you sure you don't mean "We *hope* that users treat us like a social media site, because that's where all the money seems to be these days?"

I just realized, this is finally my opprotunity to ask the guy at the top: What's with all those animated pictures at the top of the website that show you a link and then take it away just as you're finishing reading it and starting to click on it? Those things are so annoying! Are they for mobile users, desktop users, what? Who asked for them?

http://xkcd.com/1264/

Everyone hates those things. Just give us a map and let us decide where our eyes go next.

 

[Sahngar]

I don't really see the point in a poorly acted acted summation of old movies.

I know they're going for humor, but its not funny. It wasn't last week, and its not this week.

I'm not going to go over the top, but just stop producing this series.