December 18, 2009
— Ace Apparently getting a lot of hype, because it's "unprecedented," for real. One of the co-creators of Lost called it something like revolutionary film-making.
Yeah, apparently this is legit. This is an epic 70+ minute panning that describes (in a funny, but astute way) why one single movie sucked so badly.
Language/Pure Weirdness Content Warning. Not for everyone.
He nails, pretty early, one of the biggest (possibly the biggest) flaw in this fatally flawed piece of crap: The film simply has no main character.
I'm on Part II: Seriously, this guy is kind of brilliant. He's not just hilarious. He's pretty much giving a master class on movie making.
He's Actually Making a Movie: Watch Part II all the way through. He introduces drama and mystery into his review.
This guy is seriously a genius.
Okay... Finished. As Amused Observer notes, the beginning is stuff of general applicability -- general stuff about movies and story -- but around Part III he just gets into the details of PLOT FAIL, basically just ripping every poorly-thought out we're-doing-this-for-no-other-reason-than-it-says-so-in-the-script plot point.
And that stuff continues to be amusing, but I'd be lying if I said I was watching it. A lot of the times I was half-listening to it as I read news stuff.
He gets back to general stuff about movies (mixed in with personal attacks on George Lucas' basic competence) at the end.
He also does pay off that "dramatic arc" I mentioned, but doesn't stay with it as much as I thought he might.
Pretty good, and certainly one of the most weirdly ambitious and successful YouTube stunts I've seen.
Posted by: Ace at
03:29 PM
| Comments (120)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
Seriously, the movie wasn't that bad. Let me explain.
I hear a lot of complaints about The Godfather Part III. Yes, it wasn't as good as the earlier installments in the saga, but it was still a decent film compared to the rest of the crap churned out by Hollywood.
So the Star Wars prequels weren't as good as the original three movies, but they were still decent popcorn flicks and a helluva better than the crap with Robin Williams, Sean Penn, Julia Roberts, etc.
Posted by: saranwing plover at December 18, 2009 03:38 PM (00r+V)
Okay, that's kinda interesting how they describe Han Solo but they can't find a lot to say about the newer characters because Harrison Ford himself said his Han Solo character was 'thin' in respect to substance.
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 03:43 PM (00r+V)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 03:45 PM (/4E2O)
Sorry, gotta disagree with you. Star Wars wasn't meant to be comprised of "decent popcorn flicks" (and I disagree with your characterization of them as such). Lucas screwed up a good and simple story with his blind faith in the power of CGI and completely rewrote things, especially in relation to how the Force worked, to make a vague political message. When I watched the original trilogy, I thought the Force was like some sort of zen thing, where most could get into it if they had an inclination and the proper mind set. But then Lucas just backwrites the whole midichlorian thing in...ugh. And that's just the beginning. South Park did at least two decent episodes that basically sum up how Lucas screwed up Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
You can think about SW as you wish, but I think many would look at the original series and the prequals and come to the conclusion that the originals are far superior.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at December 18, 2009 03:47 PM (otlXg)
You see, this is what people fail to understand: The movies were made for children, not 40-somethings who pine for the rush they felt when they first saw Star Wars when they were 10 years old.
Keep chasing that pink dragon, middle-aged Star Wars dorks.
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 03:48 PM (00r+V)
Not that anyone'd expect deep and rich characters in a single movie, let alone a bit of summer blockbuster eye candy, but they really were boring in the Phantom Menace.
Except Jar-Jar, but "annoying f*cking useless preschool-grade-comedy sidekick" isn't what a filmmaker should be shooting for either.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 18, 2009 03:48 PM (INm7S)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at December 18, 2009 03:51 PM (mGSN1)
I thought the Force was like some sort of zen thing, where most could get into it if they had an inclination and the proper mind set. But then Lucas just backwrites the whole midichlorian thing in...
You know what? I never thought about it before, but, yeah, that really annoyed me, too. It was like The Force was for 'special' people, a closed-club, if you will. So I felt a little excluded.
Thanks for bringing that painful emotion to surface for me to re-live all over again, Kratos!
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 03:52 PM (00r+V)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 03:52 PM (/4E2O)
But what does that add? I like the review. Extraneous stuff is...extraneous. The historical asides are funny though.
Posted by: Amused Observer at December 18, 2009 03:56 PM (Uy/AI)
This is the my problem with the prequels, and in fact with the majority of CGI eye-candy in general.
I don't know if it's a consequence of the fact that these guys are working so long on the same scene over and over, they get bored and add in more and more things to keep it interesting for them, forgetting that the six weeks they're laboring over this shit actually flies by in twenty seconds during the movie, and there's no way a viewer could or should be expected to pick up all the pointless fancy stuff they've packed into it.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 18, 2009 03:56 PM (INm7S)
Posted by: Part 2 is the best. at December 18, 2009 04:00 PM (ScNOc)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 04:01 PM (/4E2O)
I'll bet...
Anyway, the problem with that is Kenobi said in the very first film that the Force surrounds all living beings. If Lucas had had the foresight to put the stupid midichorlian thing in then, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Stupid point to harp on, perhaps, but what if I had done something similar with say Harry Potter?
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at December 18, 2009 04:01 PM (otlXg)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 04:03 PM (/4E2O)
Sure, when you don't have Nazis who wear plastic penis costumes your movie isn't gonna be that good.
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 04:03 PM (00r+V)
Dan O'Bannon 1946-2009
http://tinyurl.com/yzzjcht
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 18, 2009 04:05 PM (SHKl9)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at December 18, 2009 04:07 PM (P33XN)
Ace is notorious for his terrible taste in movies.
Ask Ace what his ten favorites movies are. You'll shit a brick. I guarantee there is not a single moron here who shares more than 3 movies with Ace in their own Top Ten.
Go ahead, ask him.
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 04:10 PM (00r+V)
Thanks for mentioning Dan O'Bannon. I dropped it earlier on another thread so I'm not sure many saw it. He created lots of films morons will love.
Loved him in Dark Star.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at December 18, 2009 04:11 PM (P33XN)
Are the prequels any good? Passable, in my opinion. Very talky and overloaded with CGI aimed at the kiddies.
They made a shitload of money, though, so from that angle they were very successful.
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at December 18, 2009 04:12 PM (P33XN)
Posted by: Emperor Barry Obama at December 18, 2009 04:15 PM (P33XN)
OK, yeah, there's some laughs here. I didn't even like SW that much but this is kind of funny.
Posted by: brak at December 18, 2009 04:18 PM (W5NBA)
He addressed that humorously, by showing fake video of little kids watching the legislature debate the nuances of trade agreements. His whole point is that it is crappily written as if it is for kids (or written by kids), but it isn't for kids.
Posted by: Weird news anchor guy at December 18, 2009 04:20 PM (z9gCU)
Posted by: Amused Observer at December 18, 2009 04:23 PM (Uy/AI)
He addressed that humorously, by showing fake video of little kids watching the legislature debate the nuances of trade agreements. His whole point is that it is crappily written as if it is for kids (or written by kids), but it isn't for kids.
Posted by: Weird news anchor guy at December 18, 2009 08:20 PM (z9gCU)
Yeah this has been one of my big sticking points about the first prequel. You say its a kids movie? Well fine. But its a kids movie about a TRADE BLOCKADE! Why is that really at all interesting? The original Star Wars at least had the war already started.
I had also once read someone give the opinion that with the original trilogy it was like being in an adult world but from the view of a child. The prequels changed into it being a kids idea of what an adult world is like. Its like there's that subtle difference that takes something away that isn't needed.
Not to mention that George Lucas couldn't write a decent piece of dialogue to save his life.
Posted by: buzzion at December 18, 2009 04:39 PM (oVQFe)
Right-O! And it just gets worse. Somebody suggested that Episode 2 should be titled: "How a Bill Becomes a Law in Space". Then in Episode 3, you have several decapitations and scenes where little kids are killed (although off screen). Yeah, this movie's for kids alright...
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at December 18, 2009 04:40 PM (otlXg)
This kind of style is popular these days for reviewing crappy movies, but it was too long, although I did agree with all the reviewer's points.
Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at December 18, 2009 04:41 PM (otlXg)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 04:43 PM (/4E2O)
True, and I like the juxtaposed clips of Lucas saying something then showing the contradiction. That was rewarding.
Posted by: Amused Observer at December 18, 2009 04:43 PM (Uy/AI)
Posted by: Larry Flynt at December 18, 2009 04:43 PM (AI3Lc)
--- based on the likelihood that I'd watch them again on television were they to show up unexpected-like on the GUIDE feature , rather than my thinking "hmmm, I needs must watch ...." crap"
no particular order:
1. Patton
2. Tremors
3. Sniper
4. Ran
5. Band of Brothers, which isn't a movie, but fuck you, I explained.
6. 50 First Dates
7. Lord of the Rings
8. Any random 20 minutes of any of the Matrix movies
9. Remo Williams the Adventure Begins
10. Rustler's Rhapsody
11. My Dinner with Andre
.
so, there. I could go all film-guy and snoot out some movies Ebert-approved movies, but should any of those above-listed movies show up on the TV, my wife knows that I'm a-watchin' 'em.
That's just the way I (t)roll.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 18, 2009 04:44 PM (ruzrP)
Posted by: Larry Flynt at December 18, 2009 04:46 PM (AI3Lc)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 04:47 PM (/4E2O)
Once again, youtube loads the video about three times slower than real time. I have to hit play, turn the sound off, and come back in thirty minutes, hoping the cache didn't disappear.
The emporor had the least amount of personality of all the characters in the trilogy, and the most amount in the prequals.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at December 18, 2009 04:50 PM (f4sLg)
Well, he did that.
True, true. But in fairness, part of that reason is the credibility extended by your comments. I enjoy your movie critiques/comments, so the guy got extra time from me. It was funny, interesting, and in parts clever, but the kill your wife, tied up chick in the basement sorta dampers the 'email this to my dad whom i shared star wars with going up' urgency.
Posted by: Amused Observer at December 18, 2009 04:51 PM (Uy/AI)
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 04:53 PM (/4E2O)
FUBAR, there is a link in the info box for an part 7 that works. I mean, on the page where you can't get part 7 to load there is a link to another part 7 under his name. That works.
Posted by: Amused Observer at December 18, 2009 04:59 PM (Uy/AI)
First off, are you too fucking stupid to come up with a name? Can't even think of something like Jerry Jackass or Johnny Dumbfuck? Or was the text box marked "Name:" just too scary?
Second, why in the name of Dick Cheney do you think we give a flying fuck what you think?
Posted by: Iskandar at December 18, 2009 05:00 PM (t19oz)
The picking-over of specific scenes or plot points is interesting but does drag on, I prefer the parts where he contrasts the differences between the old and the new.
Goonga.
Posted by: Waterhouse at December 18, 2009 05:07 PM (INm7S)
First, relax.
Second, longtime lurker/commenters know that the signature hash (00r+V) is usually used by either ace's penis to post independently of ace. Generally, when ace is feeling blue.
ace and his penis have been at odds for a while.
.
Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 18, 2009 05:09 PM (ruzrP)
It's a great review. There was more drama in his basement than the entire Phantom Menace. Sucks to watch something like that with dozens of random F-bombs when you have a three year old careening in and out of the room. Parent of the Year Nominee!
Avatar may suck; don't plan to see it. The McDonalds Happy Meal toy which lights up when you make noise is a real winner however.
Posted by: Beagle at December 18, 2009 05:21 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: JackStraw at December 18, 2009 05:22 PM (VW9/y)
So why not just give all them damn clones a midichlorian shot and then you've got a Jedi clone army!
Posted by: rockhead at December 18, 2009 05:26 PM (RykTt)
Geez, name me one person on teh Intartubes that that doesn't apply to.
Posted by: nickless at December 18, 2009 05:26 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: devilish at December 18, 2009 05:37 PM (vyRPu)
So why not just give all them damn clones a midichlorian shot and then you've got a Jedi clone army!
Posted by: rockhead at December 18, 2009 09:26 PM (RykTt)
The idea of what the clone wars was before the prequels came out was much more interesting. Things that are given in the Expanded Universe gave ideas of that kind of thing. Clones gone rogue, leading to the destruction of the technology by the end of the war.
Posted by: buzzion at December 18, 2009 05:38 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Darth Randall at December 18, 2009 05:41 PM (oLULt)
Posted by: Z as in Jersey at December 18, 2009 05:46 PM (pJcTo)
Posted by: chad at December 18, 2009 05:54 PM (WNcvq)
Posted by: Banjo at December 18, 2009 06:08 PM (1DQ52)
The thing about this is........
....the folks busting on Star Wars prequels first have to play along with George Lucas and pretend that This Matters. The movie is so lazy and lame that it should die quietly like the hundreds of other lazy, lame movies that die quietly each year. But it gets special treatment. Because the same people busting on this will first labor to raise it to the level of mockery.
That is, the gag doesnÂ’t work unless itÂ’s a Star Wars Film. And it woudn't be a Star Wars Film without help of geeks that mock it.
Posted by: CJ at December 18, 2009 06:14 PM (JQtNT)
Heh. the facial expressions after the screenings were priceless.
I never could look at the Portman character without wondering whey she didn't put some Vaseline on that lip. Very distracting.
Posted by: effinayright at December 18, 2009 06:18 PM (o6Rer)
Posted by: buzzion at December 18, 2009 06:19 PM (oVQFe)
1. Patton
2. Tremors
3. Sniper
4. Ran
5. Band of Brothers, which isn't a movie, but fuck you, I explained.
6. 50 First Dates
7. Lord of the Rings
8. Any random 20 minutes of any of the Matrix movies
9. Remo Williams the Adventure Begins
10. Rustler's Rhapsody
11. My Dinner with Andre
Are you serious?
Posted by: Posted by at December 18, 2009 06:25 PM (GRgk4)
Posted by: di butler at December 18, 2009 06:27 PM (S3xX1)
Yeah CJ that's right. It doesn't matter. And football doesn't matter. And no movie matters. Nothing matters unless you place emphasis on it. It makes much more sense to just be robots that consume produce and die.
buzz,
I get that we manufacture importance to enjoy any movie or sport, etc. That's why we're movie and sports fans.
What’s different with Star Wars fans is that they have to work to “place emphasis on” unworthy works like this prequel in order to mock those same works. That is, they have to “be a robot and consume produce” of both the original works AND the challenges to the original works.
I like the MST3K approach though..
Posted by: CJ at December 18, 2009 06:44 PM (JQtNT)
Posted by: No One of Consequence at December 18, 2009 06:49 PM (tJBi7)
Posted by: Oathkeeper216 at December 18, 2009 06:52 PM (VrR45)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at December 18, 2009 07:00 PM (B5cM9)
Posted by: GregInSeattle at December 18, 2009 07:05 PM (B5cM9)
helluva better than the crap with Robin Williams, Sean Penn, Julia Roberts, etc.
Wow, that was one of the more effective ways of damning with faint praise I've read in some time. A streaming video of my dad's upcoming prostate surgery would be better than anything Julia Roberts has made in years, so it's not exactly a high bar to top. She sucks. Robin Williams is only watchable when he's playing a dramatic supporting role, or is playing against type like in Insomnia. Any other time he's a hairy gibbering idiot. Sean Penn is an overrated, Oscar-chasing egomaniacal hack who takes himself so seriously he should be installed as dictator of some backwards African banana republic. So being better than their movies is not that hard.
I have no use for movies, even popcorn summer flicks, that are all visual effects without the slightest attempt at story or character. That movie 2012 looks painfully stupid, and I'll be avoiding Avatar as if it had Sarah Jessica Parker in it.
Posted by: UGAdawg at December 18, 2009 07:05 PM (O4miG)
Posted by: Clownballoon at December 18, 2009 07:09 PM (4wcRp)
Posted by: NJconservative at December 18, 2009 07:28 PM (/Ywwg)
Posted by: runninrebel at December 18, 2009 07:30 PM (i3PJU)
Posted by: eman at December 18, 2009 07:36 PM (yf/JJ)
Posted by: Donna V. at December 18, 2009 07:38 PM (2DRRx)
Crap! I posted in the wrong thread! *Hiccup* now how the hell did I do that?
OK, OK, I'm leaving,...,
Posted by: Donna V. at December 18, 2009 07:45 PM (2DRRx)
Most of it is two 20 something women in bed, discussing the book, usually with some random guest. Then they break out to a scene taken from the book - on the assumption that these two critics don't really understand what is going on.
Posted by: Zimriel at December 18, 2009 07:47 PM (N8KrH)
Posted by: dorkafork at December 18, 2009 08:04 PM (WbRO8)
Posted by: TexasJew at December 18, 2009 08:12 PM (UIoQH)
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at December 18, 2009 08:27 PM (BRy0D)
Posted by: Lopan at December 18, 2009 09:08 PM (Ddmk1)
By the time the screening happened, though, they clearly had invested a lot of their creativity in it but hadn't had any control over the big picture, that was George's job.
At the time it came out, we all saw the shoehorning of politics into it. The "trade federation" was evil because...well, they want trade, what do you want? Selling you stuff that you want just isn't evil. It's just like Roddenberry's Ferengi. Why would somebody obsessed with profit be so unlikable? Only if they're engaging in stolen goods.
All of the other stuff, too. The little things that make no sense. A New Hope was a simple story, like those serials that Lucas loves so much. In the little ways it didn't work. Luke was a whiny little jerk. But the big story did. The politics were simple: Republic transitioning to empire. Very Roman (although I'm sure Lucas knows nothing before the Nazis). Our good guys were hereditary royalty. It made sense. His bizarre explanation for the elected royalty of Naboo was ridiculous.
He cared way too much about things that didn't matter.
I suspect that, as silly as the premise is, Cameron won't have the same issues with his vanity project.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 18, 2009 09:12 PM (T0NGe)
IN order:
10) Patton
9) Rio Bravo/Alamo (1963)
The Dark Knight7)Star Wars Original Trilogy
6)LOTR trilogy
5)300
4)Terminator 1
3)Last Stand at Saber River/ The Dawn Riders
2)Gladiator
1)Blade Runner
Note: Basically any John Wayne flick: the Seekers, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, Shootist, on and on...Also Tom Selleck's Louie Lamour Westerns.
Posted by: enter sandman at December 18, 2009 09:22 PM (zxaA2)
And Liam Neeson's Jedi Clown and the Mannequin Skywalker abomination were the worst acting duo in modern times. Makes the overtly gay Batman TV series look like Shakespeare...god awful drech...
Posted by: enter sandman at December 18, 2009 09:29 PM (zxaA2)
I miss Chuck Heston, Jimmy Stewart, Glenn Ford, John Wayne and a host of underrated screen figures who knew how to actually act and not recite bad lines from a teleprompter...yes, I'm looking at you, Urkel X, shiitingest bad actor of them all...
Posted by: enter sandman at December 18, 2009 09:35 PM (zxaA2)
Jesus, I hate fanboiz, and I detest SW fanboiz. And Trekkies get on my tits as well. You all suck.
Posted by: ms. docweasel at December 18, 2009 09:46 PM (kgwdA)
Posted by: Zimriel at December 18, 2009 10:07 PM (N8KrH)
laughed thru the whole freaking thing. My cat almost ripped my face off.
Posted by: B. A. at December 18, 2009 10:18 PM (P2NCA)
Many films that seem hokey or lightweight at first often get better or more endearing with time. By contrast, the prequel films have actually gotten worse over time. They've been in heavy rotation on some of the cable channels, such as Spike, during the past year. When I stumble upon one, I usually try watching it for a few minutes -- but the dialog and plot are so bad that I have to change the channel.
For those of you who want to really obsess over the entire history of the Star Wars movies, track down the electronic book "The Secret History of Star Wars" (the author has a website). ..bruce..
Posted by: bfwebster at December 18, 2009 10:22 PM (9LOJB)
Posted by: Star Wars Geek at December 18, 2009 10:38 PM (+FD+d)
Posted by: Jim D. at December 18, 2009 10:46 PM (vE0T0)
106. < loops the Brando sequence in Apocalypse Now!
Pretentious and precious! 10/10
Posted by: 13times at December 18, 2009 11:01 PM (/yRph)
The naboo queen always bugged me, soooo..... you "elect" your queens huh?
annnnd....you "elected" a 16 year old girl to lead your planet?
What was the campaign like?
Any opponents?
I'de like to see the political ads from that race.
Sounds like a culture that needs a good invasion and beat down.
Posted by: Vince at December 19, 2009 05:55 AM (V2KVf)
Posted by: Patrick at December 19, 2009 09:26 AM (OpnaT)
Posted by: FireHorse at December 19, 2009 10:42 AM (Vl5GH)
Posted by: Yeah... at December 19, 2009 11:14 AM (JHfD/)
Part 2 gets funnier on the second viewing. Professional script analysis. Whoever did this has either gotten or given notes before. This is as much about how bad a writer Lucas had become. The script for American Gaffiti was a timeless classic. Then he ends up with the Phantom Menace vomit. It's a career and artistic decline equal to Hunter Thompson times a million.
By the way, Hunter Thompson would've loved the review.
Posted by: Birdbath at December 19, 2009 01:40 PM (/DOcw)
Posted by: SukieTawdry at December 19, 2009 01:58 PM (+8KKR)
I fucking loved King Pizza Roll's review of The Phantom Movie, and liked his ST: Nemesis review too. The first prequel sucked so bad I swore I wouldn't pay to see the other films, and I haven't (asshole-comedian friend gives them to me for my birthday anyway). I thought Pizza Roll's voice straddled the line between Buffalo Bill and gangster Rocky's big, doofus henchman from that Bugs Bunny cartoon where he says to Bugs, "Shut up before I shuddenyaup," or something like that. LOL Funny shit, to be sure.
Top 15, all time, no particular order after #1:
1. Blade Runner (Director's Cut)
2. Alien
3. Full Metal Jacket
4. Star Wars
5. 36th Chamber of Shaolin, aka, Master Killer
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey
7. Apocalypse Now!
8. Caddyshack
9. True Romance
10. The Godfather
11. Reservoir Dogs
12. Clan of the White Lotus
13. Planet of the Apes (Heston)
14. Jaws
15. The Exorcist
Posted by: Ragnarokpaperscissors at December 19, 2009 04:23 PM (l8HqE)
Posted by: mrobvious at December 20, 2009 01:19 AM (mLXdr)
Posted by: Steve at December 20, 2009 06:54 PM (V70JD)
He actually begins making a real movie in Part II. There are characters in this review, and tension.
It's like crazy-meta.
Posted by: ace at December 18, 2009 07:45 PM (/4E2O)
Posted by: Christoph at December 21, 2009 01:37 AM (0fq7b)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.1922 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Ripoff of MST3K, maybe?
Posted by: saranwing plover at December 18, 2009 03:31 PM (00r+V)