Poll: Movie Bob and The Expendables. Has everyone taken it too far?
- Thread starter Aedrial
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didn't like being insulted, and I think he's pretty stupid for missing the point entirely. The Expendables CLEARLY wasn't about an incredible story, or emotionally deep and moving characters and thrilling plot twists. It was about a bunch of the toughest guys on the planet kicking ass, and it was the best action movie ever. Just because he doesn't like simply enjoying awesome fight scenes, and that they apparently need to have some philosophical meaning bullshit behind them as well.
Plus, little off-topic but I just don't like how he procrastinates reviewing films. Half of Salt's review he spent explaining how Angie got cast as Salt, which I frankly didn't give two shits about. Then he started showing hot pictures of her and going "Mm... yeah.". Yes, I agree, she is rather sexy, but I don't care, I want to watch a movie review. So review the fucking movie, Movie Blob.
EDIT: Just watched his Piranha 3D review. Ok, so amazing action and fight scenes don't make a good movie, but blood and sexy girls in bikinis/not in bikinis at all DOES? I think Movie Bob's a bit of a... what's the word.. retard.
Plus, little off-topic but I just don't like how he procrastinates reviewing films. Half of Salt's review he spent explaining how Angie got cast as Salt, which I frankly didn't give two shits about. Then he started showing hot pictures of her and going "Mm... yeah.". Yes, I agree, she is rather sexy, but I don't care, I want to watch a movie review. So review the fucking movie, Movie Blob.
EDIT: Just watched his Piranha 3D review. Ok, so amazing action and fight scenes don't make a good movie, but blood and sexy girls in bikinis/not in bikinis at all DOES? I think Movie Bob's a bit of a... what's the word.. retard.
Moviebob went into a little bit of a bitchy mode about the fact that Scott Pilgrim flopped at the box-office yet The Expendables was a succes. And then he blamed it all on everyone that went to see it instead of SP vs. The World (I haven't seen either yet myself)
This is kinda childish, but he's not the only internet reviewer who does it (Distressed Watcher, I'm looking at you). So the amount of verbal flogging he received was a bit disproportionate.
This is kinda childish, but he's not the only internet reviewer who does it (Distressed Watcher, I'm looking at you). So the amount of verbal flogging he received was a bit disproportionate.
Bob brought it on himself. The only reason the backlash continued is that he referred back to it in his Piranha/Centurion review and tried to make it seem like Piranha 3D was a better bad action movie or something. He should have just moved on but no that's too much for pretentious Bob.
movie bobs biggest problem is inconsistency, and he expects everyone to agree with him. let me give you a example.
moviebob hates the happeneing, but loves 2012, both films with good film making and truly retarded movie spoiling plots, and anyone who disagrees is a fucking retard.
moviebob hates twilight (i actually agree with that), but liked harry potter 3, both kids films aimed at target audiences hes not in, and anyone who disagrees is a brain dead cocksucker.
moviebob hates the expendables, but loves pirahanas, and anyone who disagrees... well you get the idea.
fuck him. im not watching it anymore.
moviebob hates the happeneing, but loves 2012, both films with good film making and truly retarded movie spoiling plots, and anyone who disagrees is a fucking retard.
moviebob hates twilight (i actually agree with that), but liked harry potter 3, both kids films aimed at target audiences hes not in, and anyone who disagrees is a brain dead cocksucker.
moviebob hates the expendables, but loves pirahanas, and anyone who disagrees... well you get the idea.
fuck him. im not watching it anymore.
No, of course not. Everything is absolutely normal.
In fact, I, being one of the main opposers of his in that thread, wasn't going to bring up the Expendables while commenting on his next reviews... but, alas, he did it... So I did it, too.
How is "I don't think your review was very good and I don't like being called a sheep", the statement that was repeated by most of the folk who didn't like that review, taking it too far?
In fact, I, being one of the main opposers of his in that thread, wasn't going to bring up the Expendables while commenting on his next reviews... but, alas, he did it... So I did it, too.
How is "I don't think your review was very good and I don't like being called a sheep", the statement that was repeated by most of the folk who didn't like that review, taking it too far?
Mr. Chipman isn't trolling (at least I hope so), just very, very unprofessional. The quality of a critic is measured by how well they can praise something for it good bits, when they didn't like it, or criticize something for it's flaws, even when liking the matter at hand personally.
Spending a review and a half ranting on a decent movie, because it made more money than something you liked, is just poor and unprofessional. Not trolling mind, no deliberate offense, just not good at his chosen profession.
Spending a review and a half ranting on a decent movie, because it made more money than something you liked, is just poor and unprofessional. Not trolling mind, no deliberate offense, just not good at his chosen profession.
Off-topic...but I have to disagree here. Apart from the first two movies, Harry Potter has transcended the target audience, because the films are generally good.HotFezz8 said:
the Twilight films are just badly made with poor values, this is why he hated them, not because they are targeted a kids(or more likely...teenagers).
Im too tired to think up an original post with substance and intelligent discourse so I will settle for:HotFezz8 said:
/\ THIS
I agree Drag me to Hell was brilliant.Jonny49 said:
OT: I think MovieBob is the idiot in this instance, the Expendables is stupid BUT it is entertaining which is the ENTIRE point.
Movie Bob is over-thinking it, it was never going to be clever or artsy. It is really sad that he can't enjoy a film which quite clearly isn't trying to be anything more than a dumb action movie.
Also to be so hateful and insulting to viewers is hardly professional, even if this is just an internet site.
Moviebob comes off as an arrogant, self-righteous guy and the last three weeks have been proof of that, I remember hearing bells ringing with the Salt review, and now with Piranha 3-D, as a critic, he's barely consistent, and praises some of the worst movies I've ever seen, with little argument but "buckets of blood and boobs", "awesome sci-fi effects", "boobs", "angelina jolie... miam". To add insult to injury, he fancies himself a critic, and while Yahtzee uses the word critic to define his job, I feel like Moviebob uses the same word to put himself in a status above all others.
Point in case: He's a so-so reviewer, with inconsistent opinions, biased taste towards action/sci-fi/super hero movies (This is a gaming site), and unfortunately he's also a prick that doesn't accept criticism/diverging opinion.
tl;dr: This is the guy that calls everyone stupid for watching the expendable because we didn't masturbate to the revolution and manifest that Scott Pilgrim vs The World is.
Point in case: He's a so-so reviewer, with inconsistent opinions, biased taste towards action/sci-fi/super hero movies (This is a gaming site), and unfortunately he's also a prick that doesn't accept criticism/diverging opinion.
tl;dr: This is the guy that calls everyone stupid for watching the expendable because we didn't masturbate to the revolution and manifest that Scott Pilgrim vs The World is.
He liked the A-Team which is an action, nostalgia tinted film, with no really need of a plot other than blow shit up. So he does get the point, he's just inconsistentUbermetalhed said:
Hasnt Bob said multiple times that most of the contraversial stuff he says is for attention and views, I think this is one of those times. I am going to see The Expendables and Scott Pilgrim because I want to, a critics rant shouldnt influence your decisions and if they do you are an idiot.
I really enjoy his reviews and I am not going to avoid seeing a movie I want to see because a voice on the interent tells me.
(I will how ever contemplate seeing a movie if he says it is good, I dismissed Pirahnas 3D as a crap monster movie but now I might see it).
I really enjoy his reviews and I am not going to avoid seeing a movie I want to see because a voice on the interent tells me.
(I will how ever contemplate seeing a movie if he says it is good, I dismissed Pirahnas 3D as a crap monster movie but now I might see it).
Anyway; two generalized points are rather flawed for the complete comparisons of similiar/different movies.HotFezz8 said:
The Happening was a mysterious thriller based around the catch of an inexplicable suicide-phenomonon disaster, where it's secret was revealed that mind-altering plants were the culprit of the mess. When the already slow-paced film reached it's final idiocy mark (The botanist's entrance sort of leaked the twist) with Mark Wahlberg trying to reason with a houseplant to stop the incident...Well, let's say critics were putting up their cynacism torches.
Now 2012 was an action packed destructor-epic (Or however those types of movies are described) revolved around the world's end in essentially a combination of visually-spectacular natural disasters supposedly predicted by The Mayan Calendar where John Cusack starred in the main story as a writter struggling to ensure his family are one of the survivors of the wreckage. As the type of seriously aware over-the-top silliness the character and story presents with spectacular visionary shots, Moviebob was taken along for the movie's ride.
(I haven't seen either of these movies mind, and I probably won't go through to your other examples, though what I tried to explain up there are the points that Bob has made in his reviews. While it's up to you on whether or not you choose to watch them, it seems a little...unfair to base your disapproval of his criticizing just based on your "inconsistency" points.)
Edit: Oop, you can probably disregard that first line. I should be heading to bed soon...
The Expendables is shit. I was deeply hesistant about the A-Team (A similar genre piece) but was won over by its charm and subtle (Yes even the tank was subtle) homage to its roots. The A-team won me over & demonstrated that The Expendable might possibly be good.
It wasn't, it isn't, its just an average melange of mashed up talky bollocks featuring a half dozen of the BIGGEST ACTION STARS IN THE WORLD. You'd think one of them would have raised an eyebrow & questioned the depth of the piece.
MB is also correct in stating calling something low art doesnt mean you can do a half assed job. It means you can do it cheaply & without rationale doesnt mean you can make mistakes.
It wasn't, it isn't, its just an average melange of mashed up talky bollocks featuring a half dozen of the BIGGEST ACTION STARS IN THE WORLD. You'd think one of them would have raised an eyebrow & questioned the depth of the piece.
MB is also correct in stating calling something low art doesnt mean you can do a half assed job. It means you can do it cheaply & without rationale doesnt mean you can make mistakes.
are you ****ing me?? you disagree with me on something you have no firsthand experience on???Arcanite Ripper said:
im speechless... it would be like me trying to argue... christ i don;t know, i can't even think of a adequate example...
look, if you haven;t seen them you aren't entitled to a opinion on them. you can't simply parrot back to me movie bobs thoughts. and to answer your whole reply, you are either wrong, or (more likely) i haven't expressed myself fully.
the happening and 2012 are both films made very well by directors who are good at shooting things. (you will have to take my word on this). but they are both films which viciously sour themselves in the last 20 mintutes, as the plot reveals itself.
the happening was about a lethal type of pollen controlled by intelligent plants, and 2012, well without you actually watching it it will take a while.
basically the richest 20,000 odd people in the world build half dozen boats called arks, but as the sea rises and goes over the himalyas they realise they have left it late to board, so they shut 500 or so people out and waitfor the wave to arrive, then there is a big "heartfelt" bit as tehy realise how cold this is, and open the doors to save them, then close them, the wave arrives, and everyone is fine. ignoring the fact they left 5.99999 billion people to die anyway. that (combined with at least 4 other plot events that had me spitting blood as they were there for no reason other than to drive the plot) made me angry at having spent a fiver to see the film.
don't bother replying if you want to talk about the fimls. listening to moviebobs reviews and skimming through wikipedia does not tell you all you need to know about a film. you actually need to watch it.
I just watched the review and didn't think it was that controversial. It's poor film that will probably be enjoyed by a very particular kind of audience. Pretty standard stuff.
Sorry if I got you upset. I don't mean anything by it.HotFezz8 said:
No, I haven't seen either movie (watched previews and read a few reviews; Kept semi-knowledgeable) though that wasn't exactly my main quip. I wasn't really talking about my two films specifically in my post; I was just (I guess mainly being an ass) on how it's poor to call inconsistency on him, and how you think he "expects everyone to agree" in his reviews if that's what your most prominent points to justifying that are. It seems a little....narrow...I guess, for lack of a better word. I thought reiterating what I understood from what he said would help push more of a meaning that was you supposedly got...
Even if I don't have firsthand experience, I figured from what everyone else said explaining those movies there was "more to it".
Me being wrong however completly depends on what you had seen in the movie, so I guess I shouldn't dive in too deeply. It just seemed unfair to entirely dismiss a critic's work based on that.