There's something very wrong about the fact that I'm more excited for this review than the first three prequels combined.
Well, Episode III is the one that a lot of people argue is the 'good one', and to be honest, I didn't realize how bad the prequels actually were until Plinkett spelled it out. I'm definitely looking forward to Sith's dressing down.
It's "the good one" in that it performs all the functions the prequels strictly needed to: end of the Jedis, Anakin's fall, Padme's death and Luke's / Leia's being hidden away.
Though actually, Anakin's fall was in full swing in the second one, and that's a problem. First prequel should have been what the recent "Star Trek" movie was: brash rookie (Kirk/Anakin) butts heads against experienced mentor (Spock/Kenobi) but they come to respect each other through trials and tribulations. Second prequel should have been Anakin's / Kenobi's deepening friendship, Anakin falling in love, Anakin showing what a fine man he has become, and everything building towards "happy ever after", until a last minute appearance of a figurative serpent in the garden of Eden. And then third prequel should have been a little Othello-y, wherein Anakin's virtues are turned to vices. But I'm not sure Lucas would have been able to pull that off, not without a lot of help anyway.
Its a fairly basic and common story act. It would have taken a good writer/director to do it justice, but it took a specularly bad one to mangle it as horribly as George.
"Lets make the first movie focus its conflict on a trade embargo that has nothing to do with the main arc. We'll keep the main characters apart for large parts of the movie, and fill that time with bad child actors and goofy CGI stereotypes. The second movie's conflict will also be mostly irrelevant to the main arc. The main character be a brooding immature sociopath who lusts for the female lead, who seduces him while saying they can't be together. It's important that they have no chemistry. Finally we'll end with our hero agreeing to trust a shady villain's insinuation he might someday save his healthy wife, in exchange for becoming a mass murderer of children. Then he kills his wife. Remember, if you're ever in doubt, just remove continuity and add CGI."
It's a fascinating film really. The orts of my childhood are splayed open and then raped. I am forced to watch it, an alien hand holds my chin. A phallic finger pushes into my mouth. It is too hard to bite down. With each shitty costume, each unbearable decision in art direction, down to the uninspired sound mixing, my life becomes less interesting.
Somewhere, I see younger versions of me (they won't even let me keep myself). They are busy trading Star Wars novels. A nine year old, a 12 year old, 15... I see the degradation of my youth, from the gangrape of Episode III to the complete dissolution of my personality in World of Warcraft, I find myself incapable of developing any kind of objective eye.
Meanwhile, in Hollywood, Joseph Campbell has become Campbell's soup. Compressed solids of sage characters, Aristotilian poetics turned printed en masse on tiny slivers of spam, a spoonful of archetypes, all interchangeable, flavorless, disconnected from the wilderness of imagination that once bore their primitive seeds.
I am forced to watch this, the finger in my mouth has been replaced by a razor, and I no longer have a voice. I am simply carried endlessly on a shittily produced river of mediocrity.
I've actually never seen this movie.
I'm starting to think that's the thesis of the whole thing - Plinkett's review has more memorable characters going for it than Star Wars 1-3. I almost feel like he's leading us to a "see, this isn't just that it let us down, it's that he failed film 101 with this movie. Look, it's not hard to understand, even this review gets the basics down" The usual motto is show, don't tell, and these reviews are both showing and telling us about the basics of storytelling.
Or it's just an excuse for rapist/serial murderer jokes, either way.
There is another copy of this in the hopper that was posted only minutes after mine. If the second one gets voted out of the hopper, please don't one star it to death.
I think I missed something, but I don't feel like going back to check, so somebody tell me.
Did he kill her baby? Is that why she's out for revenge?
To be honest, the Nostalgia Critic used to be my favorite internet reviewer, but I'm starting to like Plinkett more.
Unlike every other movie critic, and most filmmakers, Plinkett is a decent director working with competent actors
|Jet Bin Fever |
I liked this guy better before there was some subplot with women that are a 6 out of 10 at best.
You expect a welfare recipient's hookers to be a 10 out of 10? Or that the quality of a subplot depends on a woman's looks?
Actually, she looks like she may have lost some weight since Episode II.
She is looking really good in this preview you fucking retards god you are all so stupid I hate you all.
It's just that they're too drawn out and obvious to be funny. Spoofing serial killer movies isn't exactly fresh.
He got it right the first time when they were just brief asides instead of poon gambits with his art school female friends.
(though if you look back it turns out ALL his pre-Plinkett work was like this)
Let's all judge the merits of women in short films by how hot they are.
Now I feel guilty for thinking she's kind of pretty when she's not made up to look like a rape victim. You guys confuse my sexuality more than God did.
Last week I saw Carmina Burana at the Portland Opera and it was fantastic. It was paired with Pagliacci.
This is the most excited I've been over a trailer since the last one he did. I lost it at "but you know I kind of like Martin Lawrence."
Also, now i want to see a little monsters review.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|