Who Wants A Pizza Roll? [RedLetterMedia Discussion]

[TheCountAlucard]

The new Plinkett review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is out. (http://www.redlettermedia.com)



At the end of the review, he hints at what his next reviews might cover - do you think you'll be looking forward to them? :smallbiggrin:

[BiblioRook]

RedLetterMedia reviews of the Twilight films? I'm really not sure what to think of that.

[Coidzor]

RedLetterMedia reviews of the Twilight films? I'm really not sure what to think of that.

Amusing things, perhaps?

[Traab]

I didnt enjoy this one as much as I did the star wars movie reviews. It went on for too long imo. I mean, the first part seemed to cover most of the important stuff, I tried to watch the NEXT 36 minutes, but got bored halfway through. Maybe I just burned out on his style? I just was saying to myself, "Ok, I get it, you didnt like it, MOVE ON!"

[KingofMadCows]

It's pretty obvious that he doesn't hate Indy 4 nearly as much as he hated the prequels. With the prequels, he mostly pointed out all the amateur mistakes that Lucas made with those films. With this review, he has a lot of criticisms aren't really specific to Indy 4. He talks much more about general mistakes that sequels tend to make. I doubt that he'll review the Twilight films or Terminator Salvation. Maybe he'll review the Matrix sequels or that dog movie.

[Dr.Epic]

Could you make the title more specific? I had no idea what you were talking about until I read the first post.

[TheCountAlucard]

Could you make the title more specific? I had no idea what you were talking about until I read the first post.Done and done.

[Dr.Epic]

Done and done.

I don't know. You could still get a little more specific. Like, not just the site, but the actual new review. Minor complaint, but it'd be helpful.

Also, another great review. Good to see more stuff to come. And I actually liked Matrix Reloaded. Plus, I should see the Twilight films. Everybody seems to hate them, but I never even seen one. I feel like I'm left out of the joke because I hardly know what those films are about.

[TheCountAlucard]

I don't know. You could still get a little more specific. Like, not just the site, but the actual new review. Minor complaint, but it'd be helpful.Well, while the reason I posted was to mention the new review, I thought that I'd leave the thread open to discussion about RedLetterMedia in general.

[Cespenar]

There must be something wrong with me, because I find this guy to be a horrible reviewer. The drawl is just painful, and the jokes are none too witty.

[Dr.Epic]

There must be something wrong with me, because I find this guy to be a horrible reviewer. The drawl is just painful, and the jokes are none too witty.

I find him very insightful and well informed when it comes to his deconstruction. The jokes, yeah, they're vulgar, but he is playing a character and I don't mind them that much. Also, the bit with the Olsen Twins films and the TV getting sprayed was so over the top and vulgar that I was lolroflmao-ing for like a good two minutes.:smallbiggrin: I'm still cracking up over it.:smallbiggrin: But it was gross.

[TheCountAlucard]

This insight really shows, by the way, during his Star Wars prequel reviews. The drawl isn't that bad; it's an affectation of the guy playing Plinkett, to represent the fact that this guy is supposed to be, like, 119 years old (though in this review, he said 116 :smallconfused:).

[Traab]

This insight really shows, by the way, during his Star Wars prequel reviews. The drawl isn't that bad; it's an affectation of the guy playing Plinkett, to represent the fact that this guy is supposed to be, like, 119 years old (though in this review, he said 116 :smallconfused:).

And when you are that age everyone is a kid compared to you, so the olsen twins can be sexy at age 8. /spews vomit. But yeah, he is really good at breaking down the movies piece by piece and showing why it was wrong, and he adds in enough humor to usually keep it interesting, even if his humor is a bit more morbid than I normally enjoy listening to.

I mean, when I watched the star wars prequels, I knew they werent very good. I knew there were parts that i didnt like, but I couldnt have come close to breaking it down like this without weeks of effort. I found myself agreeing with everything, and his style of speaking was a handy way of making these mistakes seem so basic that you wonder how the hell lucas ever managed to get the right to direct ANYTHING if he was making mistakes this fundamental. It was like he was pointing out english teachers that refuse to use punctuation or proper sentence structure.

[Cespenar]

I see. I was on my "entertainment" mode, so I probably missed the point when I didn't watch him for critical insight.

[Dr.Epic]

I see. I was on my "entertainment" mode, so I probably missed the point when I didn't watch him for critical insight.

:smallconfused: How could you still have missed it? The entire thing is him pointing out the flaws in a very educated, intellectual manner. The humor isn't all that much to the review.

[Traab]

:smallconfused: How could you still have missed it? The entire thing is him pointing out the flaws in a very educated, intellectual manner. The humor isn't all that much to the review.

The humor is only there to convince you to keep listening to a 70 minute movie review. I mean good lord, 70 minutes to tear apart everything wrong with a single film? Sure cutting out the jokes and sarcasm would have trimmed it down, probably to 55 minutes or so, but that is still a long time to sit listening to a lecture on why a movie sucks. Thats why the nostalgia critic does things his way, and his reviews are usually less than half as long!

[Dr.Epic]

The humor is only there to convince you to keep listening to a 70 minute movie review. I mean good lord, 70 minutes to tear apart everything wrong with a single film? Sure cutting out the jokes and sarcasm would have trimmed it down, probably to 55 minutes or so, but that is still a long time to sit listening to a lecture on why a movie sucks. Thats why the nostalgia critic does things his way, and his reviews are usually less than half as long!

It's still interesting. The guy is well educated and knows what he's talking about. Not to mention you probably couldn't pin point all the minor stuff he does so it's interesting to hear him bring up each point.

Plus the Nostalgia Critic and most of the reviewers at TGWTG are making these more for pure entertain, and are less so about an intellectual deconstruction (though they do provide a good feedback about what does/doesn't work).

[Another_Poet]

Yes!! Finally a new review. Thanks for letting us know.

[Cespenar]

It's still interesting. The guy is well educated and knows what he's talking about. Not to mention you probably couldn't pin point all the minor stuff he does so it's interesting to hear him bring up each point.

Plus the Nostalgia Critic and most of the reviewers at TGWTG are making these more for pure entertain, and are less so about an intellectual deconstruction (though they do provide a good feedback about what does/doesn't work).

Okay, it's an easy case, then. You watch for its analysis, so you like it. Vice versa for me.

Though, I very much believe that if the drawl and poor attempt at humor wasn't there, I might have enjoyed its intellectual deconstruction as well.

Also, I'll echo Traab for the length of the whole thing.

[Dienekes]

Okay, it's an easy case, then. You watch for its analysis, so you like it. Vice versa for me.

Though, I very much believe that if the drawl and poor attempt at humor wasn't there, I might have enjoyed its intellectual deconstruction as well.

Also, I'll echo Traab for the length of the whole thing.

Ehh, I have a particularly morbid and juvenile sense of humor, so I find him hilarious. Though my personal favorite are his inability to grasp history, which sadly he rarely does.

This one was ok, though I agree it was too long and at times his point seemed lost. His best work is still Phantom Menace and Clones, in my opinion.

[Dr.Epic]

I do like how he made a point of the prairie dogs. I hated those things too.

[TheCountAlucard]

Though my personal favorite are his inability to grasp history, which sadly he rarely does.Agreed; I also like when he misquotes people. :smallamused:

[Dr.Epic]

Wait...He did a review of Jack and Jill? I have to watch that. It has to be hilarious!:smallbiggrin:

[TheCountAlucard]

Wait...He did a review of Jack and Jill?Not quite - that's Half in the Bag, another show on there... though Plinkett is in it...

[LokeyITP]

Half in the Bag is generally pretty funny + insightful.

I didn't enjoy the Raiders review as much as the Star Trek/Star Wars reviews. Nothing like the Nadine introduction in tPM review (we'll establish a character + backstory in 30 seconds that's more compelling than any presented in the film). Haven't seen Indy4, but generally held to be much less awful in comparison than the SW Prequels and Star Trek movies (especially next gen ones)?

The Star Trek reviews are generally pretty funny, but they do a bit more nerdy setting stuff in them--i.e. this plot falls apart because of these things generally used in the tv shows--as opposed to the prequel trilogy ones which don't bother much with canon and go over why they fail as movies over why they fail as SW movies.

[Dr.Epic]

There was no "OH MY GOD! What wrong with your FACE!?!?!?" in the new review. That made me sad.

[Lord Seth]

Plus, I should see the Twilight films. Everybody seems to hate them, but I never even seen one. I feel like I'm left out of the joke because I hardly know what those films are about.Having only seen/red the first one, I can say it's very...meh. It really just doesn't provoke any real reaction from me. The level of hatred directed towards it utterly baffles me. It's just a fairly run-of-the-mill dumb romance story with some not-particularly-well-thought-out vampires tossed in. And there are some vampire series I like that might not have been made if not for its popularity, so I'll at least give it credit for that.

Truth be told though, I'm inclined to believe he isn't going to be reviewing any of the films mentioned at the end of the review, at least not immediately. I think those were just being used as examples.
I find him very insightful and well informed when it comes to his deconstruction. The jokes, yeah, they're vulgar, but he is playing a character and I don't mind them that much. Also, the bit with the Olsen Twins films and the TV getting sprayed was so over the top and vulgar that I was lolroflmao-ing for like a good two minutes.:smallbiggrin: I'm still cracking up over it.:smallbiggrin: But it was gross.I thought the joke was funny when he just referenced the films. But they kind of ruined the joke. At the start when he's watching them, it makes the joke less funny because it's overdoing it, and when the actual spraying starts, it loses all of the funny and just turns to gross.

Most frustratingly, it could've all turned around and become hysterical if it had turned out he was using a water gun or something like that.