Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dec 10, 2012.
I only just started it.
He'll examine why it's great, and why it sucks!
Fantastic! Looking forward to a new Plinkett review!
That was ok. He didn't rip it to sh*t as much as I hoped he would. Look forward to his possible Star Trek V review.
Finished part 1 - definitely a weaker review. I'll catch the second part tomorrow, but I would have rather he reviewed something else. I just have no connection to this movie, positive or negative I guess.
He ripped it enough, but I'm actually glad he praised it in certain areas.. particularly script call-backs (Cameron is very good at such pay-offs) and the attention to SFX and detail. It would have been negligent for him to just bash the film. Regardless of whether you hate it or not, there was a lot to praise about the film.
Who releases a much-anticipated video late on a Sunday night?!
... Or maybe that's intentional? A way of discouraging server overload?
Did anyone here watch Sunday's streaming event that the site put on leading up to the new review. I'm so happy to have seen Galaxy Warrior after seeing clips on Half in the Bag.
Yeah, the review itself was underwhelming. Without Star Wars, Half in the Bag and their other projects have become much more interesting than the Plinkett reviews.
I think they did it in concert with their "stream day."
I find it odd to see people kind of disappointed with this review because it wasn't a total scathing review. People may be disappointed that the whole murder-hooker thing has been diluted a bit. To both counts, I think Plinkett was wise. He still has a lot of the latter humor peppered in there but he doesn't want it to take away from the actual film critique. And the film itself, like it or not, is significant in film history, for how it used effects, how it ignored the cynicism that creeps into most modern films, how it used effects, and what it meant to people who watched it. Simply pounding the film would make him seem rather short sighted. RLM might make a lot of jokes, and they might not take themselves too seriously, but they most certainly are interested in all aspects of film making,
He rarely does reviews these days in his traditional fromat.
I'm fine with him not slamming it. It definitely has merit, despite not being a favorite of mine. It just didn't seem like that interesting a film choice to make. There's NOT a lot to rip on but there's not a lot to heavily praise either. I didn't dislike it because it wasn't scathing. In fact, his Trek 09 review was almost entirely positive and I enjoyed that one quite a bit. I just think this was a rare miss. Looking forward to the next one (and I am enjoying Half in the Bag in the meantime).
I love Plinkett, and I thought this review was okay. I'm a fan of Titanic, and have many wonderful memories tied to seeing it. I think that, as usual, he hit all of the right notes on why it was good and bad. One of the things I like about Plinkett's reviews is the addition of insight. He explains why a shot is good or bad, which gives me a peek into how movies are made, and what goes into them. So on that score, he did great as always.
Still, for some reason, it fell a little flat for me. I think because this review felt less organized. It didn't have that same tight clip that his other reviews have. Watch one of his Star Wars reviews, and then the Titanic review, and you'll see what I mean. This one feels almost "lazy" in a sense, though I doubt that Plinkett would be lazy in his reviews for even a second.
That said, I enjoyed it, and always look forward to his next review.
That's because it lacks the "fast music" during the compilation parts. LOL you know what I mean!
lol - I DID miss that! But I actually felt like there wasn't a whole lot of insight. I think most people know what was good and what was bad about Titanic. I think Santa Hooves hit the nail on the head - Plinkett movies usually have some nifty insight, but where I differ is that I don't think that insight was in this one for me.
Actually I find that (I'm not pointing to anyone in particular) that people that hate Titanic tend to say that they hate everything about it. Or people that like it just like it without knowing that it's flawed. I think Plinkett's goal was showing how there is justification to actually being of two minds about the subject.
I think he's lost nothing in his editing skills, particular side by side comparison bits. He could have compared Titanic to other important films more, kind of how he did the whole Episode 3/ Citizen Kane thing.
Fair enough. Again, it wasn't shit and I'm not hating on it. It's just probably the weakest Plinkett review of the lot, in my opinion.
I just think the jokes weren't as good in this review. I love the insight (These guys know their stuff) but I mostly watch RLM for the Rich Evans goofball comedy stuff. This review just wasn't as funny as many of the others.
I'm not slamming them though. I still enjoyed the video greatly. I also think the website is really on top of it's game right now. Half in the Bag has really become something special and I can't wait for them to start filming Space Cop. Hell, I've bought their dvds and an autographed poster.
Hate to say it, but this review was a big letdown - not unwatchable, but a bit dull, and I don' think I'll ever revisit it. I guess Stoklassa didn't want to go the obvious route of reviewing a Matrix sequel or Trek V, but Titanic really is a poor choice for anal-sis - its virtues and flaws are immediately apparent, and hard to elaborate on.
Still, here are some interesting points he could have discussed, but didn't:
- The dialogue is heavily melodramatic, yes, and, contrary to what he suggested with the Casablanca clip, not more so than much of "Old Hollywood" style. But the dialogue serves the story, and the story, however contrived, gives us a nearly complete tour of the ship in the course of one narrative through-line without ever feeling like a checklist-ticking scavenger hunt. Surely this was intentional. Does that make the movie better?
- Did Rose make the right choice in dealing with the diamond? So long as her ex and his relatives were around, using or donating it could have been very tricky and unpleasant, but by the time of the framing story, surely no one would question her ownership of it. A good time, in other words, to donate it to some kind of charity?
- To what extent, if any, were/are any charges of exploiting a human tragedy for popcorn entertainment justified?
- Does the movie represent a step backward for Cameron's line of badass female heroines?
... Etc. Instead, the review was bloated, meandering, and, apart from the callbacks section and the interesting if not terribly relevant comparison to other Titanic works, really pretty lightweight. I am dissapoint.
I'm not sure what's going on but my Chrome browser consistently crashes about 4 minutes into Plinkett's review.
Separate names with a comma.