Plinkett is back

[watermelony2k]

Re: RLM reviews: "Half in the Bag"

I wish they'd keep more with the usual format. Plinkett is more hilarious when you don't see an actual face.

 

[Mach5]

Re: RLM reviews: "Half in the Bag"

OK, while that certainly was funny, that guy's obsession with Lucas is becoming a little weird. Is he going to take jabs at him in absolutely everything he ever produces?

 

[Gaith]

I didn't see it as a jab so much as a hilarious sight gag - it's not as though the gag was based on any kind of substantive complaint.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I watched the whole thing waiting for the funny part. I guess I'll be waiting forever.

 

[Mach5]

I didn't see it as a jab so much as a hilarious sight gag - it's not as though the gag was based on any kind of substantive complaint.

What ever, at least it was funny. Stoklasa hasn't made me laugh since his ST XI review, so I find this a welcome change.

 

[Bishop76]

Overall the show was pretty funny and very laid back, but definitely not as funny as the Plinkett reviews. Seems like a bit more of a regular review show rather than the long form reviews that he does with the Plinkett character. I liked it. Laid back, funny enough, and it helps that I think my taste in movies is really similar to theirs.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Meh. I like the Plinkett reviews better. If I need a sarcastic/ironic review, there are plenty of places to get it from.

I like Plinkett's more thoughtful (yeah, I know) reflections on story and character, something I'm not gonna get from schmoes talking to a camera about two films in 10 minutes.

 

[Bishop76]

When you say that Plinkett is more thoughtful, you're absolutely right - his reviews are excellent dissections of plotting, character, direction, etc. I definitely like them considerably more myself. But this is better than watching Ebert and Roeper (or whatever it's called now).

 

[Mach5]

But this is better than watching Ebert and Roeper (or whatever it's called now).

1. It's been more than five years since Ebert left that show
2. (image removed)

 

[Bishop76]

I'm very aware Ebert is no longer on the show, thanks.

 

[Neroon]

But this is better than watching Ebert and Roeper (or whatever it's called now).

1. It's been more than five years since Ebert left that show
2. (image removed)

Infraction for trolling.

 

[Professor Zoom]

When you say that Plinkett is more thoughtful, you're absolutely right - his reviews are excellent dissections of plotting, character, direction, etc. I definitely like them considerably more myself. But this is better than watching Ebert and Roeper (or whatever it's called now).

I don't know. I think I'm getting a little bored with the Sarcastic Internet Reviewer. With these guys and the annoying guy with the glasses (can't remember his name) sarcasm is getting a little over played.

I thought Ebert was good to great most of the time. He had an enthusiasm (and still does) for movies and could communicate well, and not rely on cynicism as a rhetorical tool.

 

[Bishop76]

I really liked Ebert quite a bit myself and was pretty much done watching review shows on TV when he was done with the show (Roeper was pretty much a waste of space, in my opinion) but I'll still read his reviews/blogs from time to time. I don't watch a lot of other internet reviewers, so I guess I'm still not completely burned out on sarcasm and cynicism in my reviews, particularly if a movie is bad (can't wait to see the Battle:LA review), but seeing as the internet is pretty much the home of both cynicism and sarcasm, I completely understand getting sick of them.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I really liked Ebert quite a bit myself and was pretty much done watching review shows on TV when he was done with the show (Roeper was pretty much a waste of space, in my opinion) but I'll still read his reviews/blogs from time to time. I don't watch a lot of other internet reviewers, so I guess I'm still not completely burned out on sarcasm and cynicism in my reviews, particularly if a movie is bad (can't wait to see the Battle:LA review), but seeing as the internet is pretty much the home of both cynicism and sarcasm, I completely understand getting sick of them.

It seems to be the fanboy default way of communicating. (see, cynicism, right there.)

It gets tiring because it seems more attitude than substance. That they can't say anything substantial, so they fill in the gabs with quips and sarcastic barbs.

 

[Amaris]

True, but what I like about Plinkett is it's obvious (to me anyway) that he knows film fairly well, and knows the mechanisms of the film industry from conception to distribution and everything in between. That he chooses to show it this way is a matter of personal taste, but he knows his stuff, and I enjoy his reviews. That said, I love Ebert and consider him a national treasure.

 

[watermelony2k]

The thing I most enjoy about the Plinkett reviews is that I'm listening to a thoughtful, complex dissection of character motivation, emotion, and relationships from a guy who's a maniacal serial killer. I love the little non sequitors of insanity.

 

[Bishop76]

True, but what I like about Plinkett is it's obvious (to me anyway) that he knows film fairly well, and knows the mechanisms of the film industry from conception to distribution and everything in between.

That's very true - I think a part of the reason I don't watch a lot of those other reviewers is that none of them have displayed the level of understanding and knowledge that Plinkett brings to the table. It's also why I'll probably always prefer the Plinkett reviews to the short form reviews Stoklasa's doing now. Though it'll be nice to have his take on some more current movies and more regularly than once every couple months.

And I do love Ebert, but he's no stranger to sarcasm and cynicism. His Battle:LA review was loaded with hate. My favorite was the last line:

"Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart. "

 

[Amaris]

^

Yeah, Ebert can slice you and dice you with his words and you walk away thanking him for the privilege. It's why I can't recommend this book enough:

The thing I most enjoy about the Plinkett reviews is that I'm listening to a thoughtful, complex dissection of character motivation, emotion, and relationships from a guy who's a maniacal serial killer. I love the little non sequitors of insanity.

Me too, although I like it when the maniacal scenes are rare, that way I don't tire of them and they're fun little moments in between great reviewing.

 

[Bishop76]

It's that good, huh? I've waffled on that one for a while, but I feel like I need a break from fiction and this might be solid. Does it have good re-read value?

 

[Set Harth]

Unfortunately, whatever his experience in film may be, Stoklasa's level of understanding and knowledge is somewhat lacking when it comes to the SW films themselves.