Disasterpiece

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Disasterpiece

"2012" may seem like one of the typical Hollywood blockbusters, but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

Read Full Article

I'll see it for two reasons:

-The hype
-John Cusack is one of my favorite actors

MovieBob:
but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

An interesting juxtaposition given your view of Transformers.

There is such thing as taking something too seriously though. Bruce Willis is the epitome of this. In the guilty pleasure of The Colour of Night, you can see Bruce struggling to be serious in possibly the most ridiculous plot around. Even Scott Bakula gets yanked away in a blue haze before it starts to rot his career.

But then again, it works. The rest of the cast understand that its a silly film and like Police Squad, they work the silliness as serious. Some of the best comedies are built around an entirely rational, yet ludicrous idea.

Like Twilight.

Go on Bob, do Blood Moon next week, I double-dog dare ya ;)

OK, first off: spoiler warning. Now I won't be quite as stoked for Doggie Salvation... although the bit about how it worked, even with an audience that had the potential to be hyper-critical was revealing.

Second off: Bob, I kinda got what you were saying here out of your video review. Didya really feel the need to expound on it more? Or are you clarifying for the sake of those morons who actually will watch '2012' and think "that could totally happen in two years! I wonder what company has the contract for the arks?"

I know, I know... it's a minor complaint. But still, I was hoping for more elaboration on the things that Emmerlich does right.

Actually,

Otherwise, good points you've made here. 2012 was a very fun time at the movies as you predicted.

Screw this noise, I thought this was about the Slipknot song.

"After all, it's not the end of the world."

Good one.

I honestly thought this was going to be a stupid movie when I saw a preview for it in theaters. But if moviebob says it good... I guess I can give it a try.

Another fantastically written column.

Very interesting viewpoint; I rather enjoyed The Day After Tomorrow for its visuals and rousing score when it came out, but after seeing 2012's trailer in theaters, I couldn't help but feel an overwhelming sense of indifference towards it, mainly for what looked like a bloated and overdone premise. I guess I've been jaded to those sort of movies, even when I can enjoy those sort of things at the same time.

It's an interesting thing to think about, I guess, what makes a good big-budget blockbuster and what makes a bad one. I'm hoping to become a professional film critic as a starting point in my career, so I'm always weighing these sort of things. Good read, Bob.

A friend of mine wanted to go see this on opening night, but I declined. From the moment I saw the trailer, I knew I wanted nothing to do with this film. One day I might watch it on TV, but there will have to be nothing else on.

Bob, I've never felt more vindicated in all my life. A few years ago back in high school, I was expounding upon the sheer enjoyability and fun level of movies like The Patriot and Independence Day. One of my classmates, a self-described poet more comfortable looking at you through his thick framed glasses and down the bridge of his nose than straight on, gasped in amused surprise and declared, "I can't believe you're a ROLAND EMMERICH fan," as if I were an Adolf Hitler fan.

Although it wasn't a life-shattering traumatic event, I still thought "gee, what a jerk" and then whenever I'd think of Roland Emmerich I'd invariably remember that snarky comment. So THANK YOU for laying out just WHY Roland is so awesome. I don't have to be justified in being a fan, but it's nice to know I am. :)

Speaking of The Patriot, a ladyfriend of mine came to watch it with me and saw the epic shot of the two sides running against each other.

She nudged me.

"Why are they running towards each other to their deaths?"

"That's how most wars were fought."

"That's stupid."

OK, she then went into explaining how a ninja could have done it better, but the thought sunk in a lot quicker than Starship Troopers.

Dirty Apple:
A friend of mine wanted to go see this on opening night, but I declined. From the moment I saw the trailer, I knew I wanted nothing to do with this film. One day I might watch it on TV, but there will have to be nothing else on.

Don't bother then. I doubt this movie will stand up once removed from the big screen. This is the kind of movie you go to the movies to see, it isn't the type of movie you rent later to see if it was any good.

On another note, I think 2012 improved on DAT's fatal flaw - which in my opinion was that the story took over from the CG carnage. There was so much going on in 2012 that you weren't paying so close attention to the poor-but-passable story. The story was the delivery system for the carnage and it served it's purpose without dominating which was ideal.

MovieBob:
Disasterpiece

"2012" may seem like one of the typical Hollywood blockbusters, but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

Read Full Article

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

MmmFiber:
"After all, it's not the end of the world."

Good one.

I honestly thought this was going to be a stupid movie when I saw a preview for it in theaters. But if moviebob says it good... I guess I can give it a try.

I thought the same thing when I saw the preview(s), turned to my wife and stage whispered, "Ugh, stupid movie senses tingling." And was a bit surprised to notice others in the theater nodding or saying something in agreement.

Sorry, wish I could say Movie Bob has convinced me to give it a try but unless you count 'I will wait till it comes out a lot cheaper on DVD if I don't forget' as trying, I just can't bring myself to consider this worthy entertainment of getting a babysitter and plunking down $20 just to enter the building and watch ads on the big screen for 15 minutes *shudder*.

"Upon reflection, it occurs to me that I can't be sure how many of us were genuinely applauding the victory of Dog over Adversity versus how many were applauding at the sheer gall of putting such a scene in a 21st century film. Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that it doesn't really matter."

I think you nailed it on the head here. It isn't meant to be deep, it's meant to live up to our expectations for this type of film. So what if it is silly, we want to see man's best friend get to survive along with his human! It's kind of the point. I'd say that it is why Godzilla interpretations by the US go so horribly wrong. It's supposed to be about a monster somehow listens to the mosquito pleas of some little child to get up and fight the other "bad monster" in one last round like he's in a Rocky movie. It's not about presenting us with a real horror flick.

So although he failed on Godzilla, between the ads and your review, I'm sure 2012 will fill the destruction level quota and happy feel-good moments required for a good disaster flick. Oh, and yes, kudo's on your end line "After all, it's not the end of the world." Well-played, good sir!

Judging from his taste in furnishings Emmerich must be quite a character.

The_root_of_all_evil:
OK, she then went into explaining how a ninja could have done it better,

That, my friend, is what's commonly reffered to as a "keeper" ;)

That movie was god-awful. This was a preconception I had which survived actually watching the film. Pretty special effects is all that film had going for it. Oh and "C'mon baby, lift your fat ass for Sasha!"

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

Umm...?

I read the full article the first time and you sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

All I'm saying is I don't find Roland Emmerich that good of a director, nor do I find him as the type to be pulling the "Robert Colber act" of being straight face when it comes to silly content.

If Roland Emmerich is capable of more, why is it I've never seen anything other than a silly popcorn movie done by him.

If you weren't so interested in sucking Bob's dick over a pointless article, maybe you actually won't be the one to look like a moron.

And a cocksucking one at that....lol

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

And you sound like you need to wipe your mouth from all that jeez pouring from the side...>>

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

And you sound like you need to wipe your mouth from all that jeez pouring from the side...>>

Saying I suck cock? Nice one.

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

And you sound like you need to wipe your mouth from all that jeez pouring from the side...>>

Saying I suck cock? Nice one.

Well the other guy lashed out at me like a crazed fanboi over a simple comment I made, and since you seem like you're coming to his defense.

To me that constitutes you as the same....a fanboi = cocksucker...so the question is are you or do you just like talking shit for the hell of it?

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

And you sound like you need to wipe your mouth from all that jeez pouring from the side...>>

Saying I suck cock? Nice one.

Well the other guy lashed out at me like a crazed fanboi over a simple comment I made, and since you seem like you're coming to his defense.

To me that constitutes you as the same....a fanboi = cocksucker...so the question is are you or do you just like talking shit for the hell of it?

Well, seeing how you don't know how to spell "boy", I think that warrants "talking shit", or, as people in the real world like to say, correcting a mistake.

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:

UtopiaV1:
Excellents points Mr Chipman, and well stated. You truly have an eye for quality when at the silver screens.

ramik81:

What more than meets the eye? It's another dumb overly financed popcorn flick that is at least done well, which is more than I can say about some other films.

I won't deny the fact I did enjoy myself as stupid as the film was, but in the end I'd like to see less and less of these types of movies, and more and more what I've seen from film makers like Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, Neill Blomkamp, Darren Aronofsky, and even Zack Snyder.

I'm sorry to say but Roland Emmerich still fits into the category you'd find Michael Bay in, above MB talent and just below J.J. Abrams (yes, JJ Abrams > Roland Emmerich). The only difference I see in the two is Roland at least knows how to hold the camera steady and might be more befitting as a cinematographer than a director.

>>

What the fuck is wrong with you, didn't you read the full article? Why don't you go away, read it, and then come back to voice your opinion. Maybe then someone will listen to you without calling you a moron.

You sound like a fanboi, I like Bob's reviews to but not that much...0o

lol

You sound like you think spelling hurts.
OT: I don't know if I'm going to see it, it'll end up coming down to if there is something else to watch, but I will see it. Good job, Bob. I didn't like your reviews at first, but they I've watched them all now. And, to clarify, I started liking them around your Inglourious Basterds review.

And you sound like you need to wipe your mouth from all that jeez pouring from the side...>>

Saying I suck cock? Nice one.

Well the other guy lashed out at me like a crazed fanboi over a simple comment I made, and since you seem like you're coming to his defense.

To me that constitutes you as the same....a fanboi = cocksucker...so the question is are you or do you just like talking shit for the hell of it?

Well, seeing how you don't know how to spell "boy", I think that warrants "talking shit", or, as people in the real world like to say, correcting a mistake.

You really want to argue with me over how I spelled fanboi?

You know I could argue that some people spell it that way on purpose similar to how a lot of people spell "pwnd" instead of owned or "zomg" instead of omg, but then you're going to talk shit on how I'm trying to be a 1337 speaking turd.

How about we just call it off now since you seem to want to get anal with me, and in all honesty I don't feel like having butt sex right now...=/

Maybe later.../wink

ramik81:
Snip

Since you obviously don't care if you get banned or not, why don't you go create a thread that only says "fuck". Your ban/suspension would be a lot more hilarious if you got suspended from that. And, as you seem to want to use insults like that as a rebuttal, I have to ask, of what age are you?
Now, get back on topic. This is a thread about Bob's article, not your immature comebacks.

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:
Snip

Since you obviously don't care if you get banned or not, why don't you go create a thread that only says "fuck". Your ban/suspension would be a lot more hilarious if you got suspended from that. And, as you seem to want to use insults like that as a rebuttal, I have to ask, of what age are you?
Now, get back on topic. This is a thread about Bob's article, not your immature comebacks.

Umm...I haven't even said the f-word yet.

Anyways, you're dishing out insults yourself...so don't act like your shit don't stink either...0o

I know mine does so I'm getting tired of posting back here but you losers keep bringing me back.

Here's a dare I'm pretty sure you'll fail at, don't respond back to me...let's see if you're really here for Bob's article or to continue exchanging insults with me...0o

ramik81:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:
Snip

Since you obviously don't care if you get banned or not, why don't you go create a thread that only says "fuck". Your ban/suspension would be a lot more hilarious if you got suspended from that. And, as you seem to want to use insults like that as a rebuttal, I have to ask, of what age are you?
Now, get back on topic. This is a thread about Bob's article, not your immature comebacks.

Umm...I haven't even said the f-word yet.

Anyways, you're dishing out insults yourself...so don't act like your shit don't stink either...0o

I know mine does so I'm getting tired of posting back here but you losers keep bringing me back.

Here's a dare I'm pretty sure you'll fail at, don't respond back to me...let's see if you're really here for Bob's article or to continue exchanging insults with me...0o

Please you guys, stop fighting, YOU'RE TEARING OUR FAMILY APART!!! *sob* I want to live with mommy...

Look everyone, a dead thread, another sad causality to immature insults...

MovieBob:
"2012" may seem like one of the typical Hollywood blockbusters, but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

I maintain my thought from before on this on, Mr Chipman--you continue to assert that you are a hard critic to please when it comes to popular hit movies--and for all your bluster, I continue to fail to see it. Movie after movie with exuberant praise seems to make the exception the movies that end with "Don't waste your time or money", not the ones with a big yellow and black grin and a statement about how I should consider seeing this movie as opposed to something else. So, unless this is a rare example of when to be a film artist making popularly pronounced movies, I'd like to see something a bit more evidential to the repeated statement of "Even I liked it!!" It's incongruous, non sequitur, and, really, it's just not flowing for me. Apart from your adamant (and frankly, justified) view on Michael Bay, I'm just not seeing the angry film critic you claim to be. So, which is it, sir? Outraged and hard-to-please film critic who has run into a rare spell of delights despite the evidence, or a man who's not nearly as hard to please as he would have us believe?

MmmFiber:
"After all, it's not the end of the world."

Good one.

I honestly thought this was going to be a stupid movie when I saw a preview for it in theaters. But if moviebob says it good... I guess I can give it a try.

same here. Looked like another 2012 fear mongering campaign that the history channel seems to be obsessed with right now, but it actually seemed way more like a comedy. I did feel like this one was silly in a self aware kind of way, didn't see the other Emerich movies that way but I did enjoy them (yes even Godzilla, [he did that one right?] even though it wasn't the "true" Godzilla it was a decent giant monster movie)So I guess I see him as "michal bay, good version"
Seriously I actually thought transformers was decent despite my feelings for everything else he's done, it was a fun stupid action movie but he even managed to ruin that with the sequel that was dumbed down even more. Showing a character in their underwear is funny for the nickelodeon audience I guess, but even as a kid I never thought it was that funny.

BehattedWanderer:
Look everyone, a dead thread, another sad causality to immature insults...

MovieBob:
"2012" may seem like one of the typical Hollywood blockbusters, but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

I maintain my thought from before on this on, Mr Chipman--you continue to assert that you are a hard critic to please when it comes to popular hit movies--and for all your bluster, I continue to fail to see it. Movie after movie with exuberant praise seems to make the exception the movies that end with "Don't waste your time or money", not the ones with a big yellow and black grin and a statement about how I should consider seeing this movie as opposed to something else. So, unless this is a rare example of when to be a film artist making popularly pronounced movies, I'd like to see something a bit more evidential to the repeated statement of "Even I liked it!!" It's incongruous, non sequitur, and, really, it's just not flowing for me. Apart from your adamant (and frankly, justified) view on Michael Bay, I'm just not seeing the angry film critic you claim to be. So, which is it, sir? Outraged and hard-to-please film critic who has run into a rare spell of delights despite the evidence, or a man who's not nearly as hard to please as he would have us believe?

Yeah he's not the movie version of zero punctuation, but that's not really a bad thing.
I can't stand reviewers that are too harsh on every movie and ones that are overly optimistic about every movie, I think he has a good balance. He does hate a majority of the movies out if you watch his videos, don't avoid the ones that you know sucked. They're the most entertaining.

Nomanslander:

JimmyBassatti:

ramik81:
Snip

Since you obviously don't care if you get banned or not, why don't you go create a thread that only says "fuck". Your ban/suspension would be a lot more hilarious if you got suspended from that. And, as you seem to want to use insults like that as a rebuttal, I have to ask, of what age are you?
Now, get back on topic. This is a thread about Bob's article, not your immature comebacks.

Umm...I haven't even said the f-word yet.

Anyways, you're dishing out insults yourself...so don't act like your shit don't stink either...0o

I know mine does so I'm getting tired of posting back here but you losers keep bringing me back.

Here's a dare I'm pretty sure you'll fail at, don't respond back to me...let's see if you're really here for Bob's article or to continue exchanging insults with me...0o

he's banned....that's kind of funny XP

derelix:

BehattedWanderer:
Look everyone, a dead thread, another sad causality to immature insults...

MovieBob:
"2012" may seem like one of the typical Hollywood blockbusters, but MovieBob insists there is more to it than meets the eye.

I maintain my thought from before on this on, Mr Chipman--you continue to assert that you are a hard critic to please when it comes to popular hit movies--and for all your bluster, I continue to fail to see it. Movie after movie with exuberant praise seems to make the exception the movies that end with "Don't waste your time or money", not the ones with a big yellow and black grin and a statement about how I should consider seeing this movie as opposed to something else. So, unless this is a rare example of when to be a film artist making popularly pronounced movies, I'd like to see something a bit more evidential to the repeated statement of "Even I liked it!!" It's incongruous, non sequitur, and, really, it's just not flowing for me. Apart from your adamant (and frankly, justified) view on Michael Bay, I'm just not seeing the angry film critic you claim to be. So, which is it, sir? Outraged and hard-to-please film critic who has run into a rare spell of delights despite the evidence, or a man who's not nearly as hard to please as he would have us believe?

Yeah he's not the movie version of zero punctuation, but that's not really a bad thing.
I can't stand reviewers that are too harsh on every movie and ones that are overly optimistic about every movie, I think he has a good balance. He does hate a majority of the movies out if you watch his videos, don't avoid the ones that you know sucked. They're the most entertaining.

Eh? Oh, sorry, I almost didn't recognize where this comment was from. Yeah, I've seen his stuff lately concerning awful movies. Turns out last summer/fall was just a really good time for cinema.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here