Was hoping it was going to be "Movie 43" this week.
The TV trailers for it have me thinking train wreck.
Did it come out in the US this week?

The revelation that Abrams may be the director of the new Star Wars movie places it into the "Red Box" Rental category for me. I was never a fan of Lost. I never liked Felicity. Did not care for the Star Trek reboot. Did not see Super 8.

Also, I see the parallels between Abrams and Lucas. Both still had plenty of good will saved up when they did a Star Wars movie. I'm hoping that this will kill the career of the person who wrote Gone Fishin'.

2009's Star Trek was awesome. I didn't know lens flare was a big deal until just now. So what? As for Abrams taking over for Lucas...those last 3 Star Wars movies were hot garbage. You can only go up from there. Even if it's Abrams shining a bright light in your eye for 3 hours with the occasional light saber fight sprinkled in between, it's better than those shitty Star Wars movies.

Also, I'd like to point out that Moviebob enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk, which was pure doo doo butter, so yeah...

I'm not a huge fan of J.J. Abrams myself but I thought Star Trek was okay, it had some cool moments, at least. I think he could probably make a better Star Wars film than Mr. Modern-Day George Lucas. I know Bob has been over this sort of thing before but I'd really like to see him hash this issue out into an episode of The Big Picture. I'll take any opportunity to ponder the fate of Star Wars.

Really Bob? You think this movie is sexist but Suckerpunch isn't? ..Ok, we will have to agree to disagree, because it seems like we will never see eye to eye on sexism. However we are on the same page with the Abrams thing. I can't wait for the new Starwars full of young, hip stars showing how young and hip they are every 5 mins in case you totally forgot how HIP and FRESH they are! I am sure there will be skydiving, snowboarding and (if we're lucky) Poochy may even make an appearance!!

Seriously, fuck Abram and his nonsence.

I haven't read all the forum replies so sorry if this is a bit of a recap ^^;

MovieBob... for the most part I agree with your movie reviews. You're one of the few reviewers out there I actually consider the opinion of because most other reviewers just kinda... try to go with whatever's gonna make them sound more popular, but you actually give an opinion. Thanks for that.

That being said... I understand you're aware of social issues and want your viewers to be socially conscious as well, a worthy goal, but it has its place. Is this a purely for entertainment film, not meant to be taken to anything beyond the surface? I haven't seen it but, from what I have seen, I'd assume so. I understand the whole witch hunt thing because, yes, when witch hunts were done they were horrible, horrible atrocities, put out against mostly women (some men) for no good reason. However, that's not what the movie's about, by your own admonition. It'd be like watching Van Helsing and saying, "The Catholic church persecuted so many people over the course of history! How dare they be portrayed as being good!" It's a fantasy ^^; an escape.

Maybe you're trying to look deeper into it than it has to look into. If you asked these questions of the person or people who came up with the idea for it would they say, "Well, we really wanted to be ironic in our depiction of misogyny" or would they be like, "Hey... I have no idea, I was just trying to make something funny"?

I dunno... This won't stop me from watching you still, but sometimes I wish people would take things that are purely meant to be watched (or played or read, etc) for an escape, things that have no meaning beyond what they are putting forth, and just... watch, play, or read them in that manner. Not everythign has a hidden agenda or meaning.

Based by the trailer alone I wasn't sure.
I mean the trailer looked awesome but...
Grettle was a great female character. Strong. Appears human.

Then.

Trailer: HERE SHE BECOMES THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS.

I don't know if that IS the plot. But that just made me think.... Oh great, is Hanstle going to have rescue her because she's a woman and he's a boy?

Gilhelmi:

Andrew Siribohdi:
Bob, I've been watching your videos a long time but even I'm confused by the link you have between witch hunts and this movie.

Have you heard of the Salome Witch Trials?

Long story short. In Salome, Massachusetts in the 17th (or 18th, I forget) century essencally rounded up all the women who acted differently the the State thought they should, tried them in a kangaroo court with evidence that would convict anyone breathing of being a witch, and then executed them.

It is still a sensitive subject around some people I know.

You do know that some guys were rounded up too right? Does the phrase "More weight" sound familiar?

mrblakemiller:
1. Abrams used too much lens flare ONE TIME and got hammered for it right when the film came out. Remember all the other stuff he's done that didn't have too much lens flare? Cloverfield was great. It's like cutting Al Pacino's nuts off for starring in Cruising.

2. Which came first, actual witch hunts or stories about evil witches? Mhm. And no, I don't care that some people some time used this phrase to kill people who were innocent. If I had that as a qualifier, I wouldn't be able to play the same video games all the school shooters have, would I?

3. Why is it still offensive for a man to punch a villian in the face if she's a woman? If you ask me, it's sexist in its exceptionalism. A man or woman punching a male villian in the face is just a hero punching a villian in the face, but women don't get to be "villians," they have to be "female villains." They're still an exception to the rule, still illegitimate in that role. I say thee nay. Kinda funny that this criticism happens one or two days after the Army starts talking about lifting the ban on women in forward combat positions.

But yeah, any main character getting hurt and nursed back to health twice by two different characters sounds like too much for a 90-minute film.

I think the problem was not that women get punched in the face, but that pretty much exclusively women get punched in the face.

Haven't seen it yet though, was thinking to maybe give it a rent whenever I feel like watching a shitty action movie.

xPixelatedx:
Really Bob? You think this movie is sexist but Suckerpunch isn't?

Not sure about Bob's opinion, as I'm not him, but Sucker Punch did so many things wrong that appearing sexist didn't even make the front page of offenses.

Sylveria:
Bob dislikes a movie AND is getting on his soap box about misogyny that can only be seen by people who are projecting so hard they've got a light shining from their head?

We'll I know what I'm going to see this weekend.

Here's the difference between real witch hunts and fantasy witch hunts.. real witches were women who were being persecuted for even being able to do math.. fantasy witches cast spells, curse towns and people, fly, turn in to monsters, summon demons, and kill people. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

Tell me Bob, is every single instance of a woman being the "bad person" misogynous now? Cause I have family working at a women's prison and I wan't to make sure she knows that every woman there never did anything wrong, they are just victims of a misogynistic society - even the ones that murdered their entire family in cold blood. I've also played a number of games where there's a sorceress or a witch or a female demon or some crazy bitch on a power trip trying to destroy the world, are all those misogynistic? I'd ask if stuff where there's a female lead is okay, but I know it isn't since, after all, even if a woman is the hero, she's probably showing a bit of skin or through the virtue of simply having boobs is being exploited by being in a video game.

FFS this "everything is misogynistic" bull is getting out of control.

And your "I hate everything about the new star-trek" fan-rage is getting old and is incredibly ironic on the heels of your big "I'm sick of hearing these complaints" Intermissions. But, being the massive hypocrite you are, its okay to complain about stuff you don't like, but not stuff other people don't that you do or are indifferent to.

Thank you for summing up my opinion of this review. It felt as though Bob just didn't enjoy the movie and was scratching for reasons why the movie was bad. I thought he LIKED some action flicks that are just about action and had no overarching message to deliver. This movie is all about killing crazy, evil, magical, & sadistic wome--WITCHES in new and inventive ways using steampunk technology. That's it. It sounds like it was actually quite fun if you go in to the movie expecting that.

This is honestly the first time that I've ever heard of a problem with Abram's and his lens flare. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being facetious, I'm only being honest. I can't believe you Bob, judging a movie before a single pen has hit any paper because you didn't like on of Abrams' movies. I liked Super 8 and I loved Star Trek, so I fail to see a single problem with Abrams directing a Star Wars movie. Disney obviously has a lot of faith in Abrams, as do I, because I can guarantee that I could've gotten Joss Whedon if they wanted to (which would also be another excellent choice). I am optimistic about Star Wars: Episode VII.

rottenbutter:
Aww, I was hoping you'd review John Dies at the End. I mean, I knew Hansel & Gretel would be bad, but I have no idea what to expect with JDatE.

See it. See it right now. Why are you still reading this? Go see John Dies at the End. Now. I'll go see it with you. I will buy your ticket. Just go. You want to see this movie. Trust me.

Has Jeremy Renner ever done a movie where he looks like he's having a good time? I don't think I've ever seen him smile in a movie.

erttheking:
It really baffles me what with everything that happened in the new Star Trek (which I liked) for some reason people only give a damn about the freaking lens flare.

And the only vibe I get from that complaint Moviebob is that you should always make the villain a white man to avoid unfortunate implications. Screw that.

I haven't seen Hansel and Gretel so maybe he does have a point about Gretel being beaten up a bit (maybe). But as for the witches being brutalized? He does not have a leg to stand on to complain about "misogyny". Does he ever complain when movies like 300, the Immortals or whatever feature brutal bloody and violent scenes against men (and only men) all the time? No.

As for Star Trek, I liked that movie. It wasn't great but I liked it, I didn't even notice all the damn lens flares but that's all anyone talks about. The film had much bigger problems than lens flares I'll tell you that (not very memorable villain for starters).

tehweave:
I can't be the only one who actually likes J.J. Abrahms.

(What's that? His movies make tons of money and sell tons of tickets at the box office? So I'm not the only one?)

It does seem to be a pretty common thing to poke fun at JJ's lens flare filmmaking. Yes, it's an annoying gimmick, but look past that and his movies are actually quite good. And anyone (I MEAN ANYONE) would be a better director than Lucas at this point.

Nah, you're not. To be clear, this is one of those things where Bob latches on to some tidbit of pre-release information and decides to hate a movie no matter what. In this case, his dislike for the new Star Trek remake, which by most accounts (myself included) is a pretty decent film which was in fact often criticised for aping the flashy sci-fi action tropes introduced by Star Wars rather than the more cerebral tone of the Star Trek franchise.

If anything, the issue here is that Abrams has a bit too much personality as a producer and a bit too little as a director, lens flares notwithstanding, where Star Wars has typically worked better as a producer-driven archetypical story using mercenary writers and directors to fill in the blanks (read: Marvel's Avengers franchise, rather than Nolan's Batman).

That Bob finds it so easy to lash out at him while constantly praising the very rightfully reviled Zack Snyder only shows that this is not rational at all for anybody involved. Let's just ignore it until the film comes out and decide then. That means Bob, too.

Gilhelmi:

Andrew Siribohdi:
Bob, I've been watching your videos a long time but even I'm confused by the link you have between witch hunts and this movie.

Have you heard of the Salome Witch Trials?

Long story short. In Salome, Massachusetts in the 17th (or 18th, I forget) century essencally rounded up all the women who acted differently the the State thought they should, tried them in a kangaroo court with evidence that would convict anyone breathing of being a witch, and then executed them.

It is still a sensitive subject around some people I know.

It's Salem not Salome and the motivations for the witch hunts aren't that simple. Hell it wasn't even the state doing most of the accusations anyway, it was regular townspeople. Some of it might've been for politics (and not in the "I need to kill everyone who disagrees with me" kind of way) and some of it was other personal vendettas.

Well... way to waste practically 30% of the entire video's time going on about absolutely JACK SQUAT, thanks for that.

They are witch hunters. They hunt witches. This is fiction. Those witches had black eyes and veins. The main characters are Hansel and Gretel. At what point exactly did you feel the need to go on and on with some pointless drivel, as if we are so unintelligent that we'd think this was factual for some reason?

And you are also going to bitch about JJ Abrams doing Star Wars? When George Lucas had forced the inclusion of Ewoks JUST to make a quick few bucks off the kiddies? When George Lucas constantly re-releases the same tired original trilogies, and only adding or altering about a few seconds between all three of them?

Priorities man. Get them straight.

*insert lens flare joke here*

Oh look, I'm sure I'm totally the first person to make this in the last 24 hours. LAUGH DAMN YOU.

Ugh...sorry, but really, it feels like every post I've seen in the last day from anyone is just a lens flare joke. Can we at least wait for a trailer for the thing before worrying about it?

Sorry I stopped watching after the initial comment re JJ Abrams, Bob you were the only person who didn't like Star Trek, this is a good choice!

lead sharp:
Sorry I stopped watching after the initial comment re JJ Abrams, Bob you were the only person who didn't like Star Trek, this is a good choice!

Actually, I've been seeing quite a bit of hate for Star Trek '09 since this announcement. I'm not sure if they're just vocal or if there's more people who didn't like it then I thought.

Still, it doesn't really bother me much, and that's all that matters really.

So, wait... a film that deconstructs a traditional morality judgment and asks "What if the traditional bad guys were good guys" is "disturbing"? Why is "thought-provoking" or "challenging" reserved only for deconstructions that the reviewer already agrees with, in a "It'll challenge the beliefs of any rube smart enough to buy a ticket" sense?

Anyway. Sounds like it pretty much does what it says on the tin.

DVS BSTrD:
You can be damn sure I remember the Brothers Grimm Movie Bob.
I'm pretty sure everyone remembers what the real witch hunts were like Bob, but I don't think anyone really cares in this film's context. I mean, it's not like anyone was going to this movie expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

I can only imagine this has already been done in the 3 pages of comments, but just in case it hasn't......

(Edit: Bah, the clip of that beloved Monty Python quote won't play. Suffice to say, Devious, NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! :3)

:P Sorry, just couldn't resist.

OT: My only problem with Bob's argument about the witch hunts is that when you think of the average movie-goer, just how many do you honestly believe are going to walk out of that movie saying "Wow, that was just insensitive to the horrific injusticies done to women during ACTUAL witch hunts"? If you ask me they're more likely to walk out thinking "Wow, I remember that fairy tale about the candy house and the kids that pushed the old lady into the fire. This was a fun/lame/actiony/insertadjectivehere spinoff of that story."

Bob you're clever enough to not have to make the same one liner on both Twitter and your videos. If you're really running short of original material may I suggest less tweeting, sometimes my feed is cluttered by you. Not really complaining, just saying.

I already did all my Lens Flare jokes in the thread where it was announced that Abrams would be directing the Star Wars film, I don't need to make any more.

As for the Hansel and Gretel movie, well it still looks interesting to me. Don't know if I'll get to see it though.

Gotta point this out: WHY in blazing fuck is teh Director of Star Trek doing Starw Wars???

Stricly from a standpoint of Franchise: All Directorial opinions and Talents laid to rest THAT is teh question. There is agood reason different directors handle each of the Seperate Avengers, well, SEPERATELY. And Joss Whedon for all of them together.

Wars and Trek are Diametric Opposites, and should be tackled by different people, though as Somebody pointed out, Abrams basically mad a star Wars movie out of Trek Already.

I hope he does a good job, so he can be too busy to make another Trek movie, and Trek can go to somebody who can do TOS with the story it needs to back the Cast, whom I really Liked.

Elijah Newton:

I suspect his basis for calling it on misogyny is pretty sound by the way. Haven't seen it, so if I'm wrong on any of the following consider this a pre-emptive apology.

  1) all the villains are women :: the audience need never suspect a male, but women are, by gender alone, suspicious
  2) anyone appearing 'beastial' is a woman :: women are dehumanized. Again, I'm thinking guys don't suddenly transform in this. I'm assuming the troll is inhuman to start with.
  3) violence against women. the villianous bestial women exist to be beaten. In the trailer I don't see them redeemed, helped, healed or rescued. I don't think I need to reframe this - justifying violence against women is pretty much the core of misogyny.

So by this meter stick Underworld would be Misandry (Misandristic?)

1) All the villians are guys
2) All of the werewolves are guys, never see a girl werewolf so the guys are dehumanized and are A OK to beat the fuck outa and murder?
3) Violence against guys. The villianous bestial men exist just to get murdered.

I dont think Underworld is misandr...whatever, these kind of movies are just supposed to be good ol fashioned beat em up fun.

So much for equality, because when its guys getting beaten senseless its just fun, but the moment the villians are females people like bob whine about it being misogynist.

MacNille:

anthony87:
So fighting witches is misogynist now?

Didn't you know? every part of fiction where someone punch a women in the face is misogynist now! Punching a demon lady in the face as it trying to eat ya? Misogyny. Kill a women in an act of revenge because she killed your family? Misogyny.

edit. And if a women kills a man? It is not misandry. It just show her as a strong independent women.

Gotta love all this equality in media dontcha? :P