Agony Booth reviews Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter JewelsNeeJulian
- Start date
Nah. The review is really good. Lots of delicious snark in there.
Has anyone seriously read all THIRTEEN pages of that review? I'm up to page five and, despite the occasional humor and the fairly accurate assessment of the film, it seems to me that the review is far more tedious and excruciating than the film itself.
You're taking it too seriously. The intent is to do the textual equivalent of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 or Rifftrax. The point isn't to offer serious reviews, the point is to be funny. Admittedly, Agony Booth recaps (and they are recaps, not reviews) are not always successful at that goal (especially those written by the site founder), but as with MST3K, the approach calls for exaggerating the negatives for comedic effect.
I thought the ST V recap was entertaining, and it actually pointed out some logic flaws in the film that I hadn't considered before.
It's not far off really. I've tried to like it, but STV is just dire.
Woah, woah, woah. Wait. It's possible to think Albert isn't funny? Jeez. He's one of my favorite of the bunch.
The screaming probe made me laugh- it's true!
Woah, woah, woah. Wait. It's possible to think Albert isn't funny? Jeez. He's one of my favorite of the bunch.
I think that of all the reviewers, he's the one who's most often just snide and insulting rather than comedic. And he often mocks things in a way that betrays his own ignorance. Like there was a review of one movie which had a scene in Istanbul (or some Mideast city) with a muezzin issuing the morning call to prayer from a minaret. Albert whatshisname's response was to mock the word "muezzin" (which he read in the closed captioning describing the scene) as some kind of meaningless gibberish, which only showed that he's too ignorant to know what it means and too lazy to crack open a dictionary. There was nothing about that scene deserving of mockery, and people who make fun of things just because they're personally ignorant of them aren't funny, just obnoxious.
The recap you're talking about was written by Ryan Lohner:
http://agonybooth.com/recaps/Trail_of_the_Pink_Panther_1982.aspx
If you're going to bash someone, at least get your facts straight.
Oh so this is a thread where everyone thinks TFF is total crap. I get it now. And reading a massive 'snarky' review of it is fun.
JUst on the opening page his list of 'problems has multiple mis-statements:
'Jokes (plural) about bodily functions..."--------
So Kirk's one line "....an explosive combination' becomes jokes about bodily functions as if it was the only subject of the 7 minutes scene?
'Everyone betrays the captain'-------
Try watching the move---it is clear Sybok has a power over the crew, a Vulcan meld of some sort. It's not like he sat them down and in 30 seconds talked them into betrayal.
Uhura is a 'senior citizen'------
She was 54 when she filmed it Maybe he should retire if he thinks a 54 year old is a senior citizen.
Sybok violated canon---------
It was never stated anywhere that Spock was an only child. Fontana had that intent but it was never said. Nimoy played it well and carried it off---especially when Sybok died. Something a writer intended 20 years earlier in not set in stone.
'Painful reprise of the campfire scene'-------
Really? The 30 second 'bookend' scene of them back at Yosemite was painful to him?
JUst a pathetic attempt to beat down a movie that no one much really cares for. big deal. A thoughtful review is better than one where the person is trying to be a comedian.
JUst on the opening page his list of 'problems has multiple mis-statements:
'Jokes (plural) about bodily functions..."--------
So Kirk's one line "....an explosive combination' becomes jokes about bodily functions as if it was the only subject of the 7 minutes scene?
'Everyone betrays the captain'-------
Try watching the move---it is clear Sybok has a power over the crew, a Vulcan meld of some sort. It's not like he sat them down and in 30 seconds talked them into betrayal.
Uhura is a 'senior citizen'------
She was 54 when she filmed it Maybe he should retire if he thinks a 54 year old is a senior citizen.
Sybok violated canon---------
It was never stated anywhere that Spock was an only child. Fontana had that intent but it was never said. Nimoy played it well and carried it off---especially when Sybok died. Something a writer intended 20 years earlier in not set in stone.
'Painful reprise of the campfire scene'-------
Really? The 30 second 'bookend' scene of them back at Yosemite was painful to him?
JUst a pathetic attempt to beat down a movie that no one much really cares for. big deal. A thoughtful review is better than one where the person is trying to be a comedian.
Seriously, who is going to give a thoughtful review to TFF? Only hardcore fans would read it.
I happen to like TMP, but Harlan Ellison's nasty, biting evicaration of it remains wonderfully entertaining to me. Just because I like something doesn't mean I can't have a laugh at its expense.
I happen to like TMP, but Harlan Ellison's nasty, biting evicaration of it remains wonderfully entertaining to me. Just because I like something doesn't mean I can't have a laugh at its expense.
Mea culpa. But I did feel that a number of Albert's reviews have the same kind of ignorance underlying them, which is why I mistook that one for one of his.
Again, you're taking it too seriously, or perhaps too personally. It can be fun to watch an MST3K-style snarkfest or read an Agony Booth-style recap of a film or show even if you enjoyed the work in question. You just have to be able to have a sense of humor about it. Indeed, a surprising number of Agony Booth reviewers say they actually liked the films and shows they review, at least in a guilty-pleasure kind of way.
To be fair, the movie never actually comes out and says that Sybok has any kind of hypnotic control over people. That aspect is conveyed poorly in the film, so it's a valid criticism. You just have to understand that it's expressed in an exaggerated way for comic effect.
Again, this isn't a review. It's not trying to be a serious work of film criticism. It's a piece of entertainment, nothing more. You're judging it by completely the wrong set of standards -- like reading The Onion and complaining that it's shoddy and inaccurate journalism, or watching The Daily Show and accusing them of fraud because their reporters aren't actually on location but standing in front of a greenscreen.
I agee with Christopher, you are taking it a little too seriously. It's not an article meant for publication in an academic journal. Also, there's no law that says you have to be any particular age to be considered a "senior citizen". Stuff like, say, vitamin pills that are marketed to seniors are usually made for people 50 and over.
Similar threads
- Poll
