James Hardon posted:

Senior Woodchuck posted:

Nah, he just whines and spouts gibberish from a teenager's half-assed theory of comedy. I guess it's kinda funny, in a "kid with the helmet can't open his juice box" way.

But back to the topic of movie reviews: Isn't caring about stuff the worst, you guys? And having thoughts and opinions? And like, expressing them? As if it's a reviewer's job to tell people what they thought of the movie they saw, amirite?

Triticum Guzzler posted:

The essence of the criticism of the criticism that has been ongoing, at least on my part, is that it is bad. It is not good. It is really not very informative. It is not that it is bad to "care".

If you actually legitimately care about film, there is a good chance you do not post about it on this web site, because if you look at the movie forum (or the book forum, etc) you see that largely there's an incredible fixation on really childish products (and they are usually products rather than films) with a corresponding lack of taste. I'm sure it's an idea that's unfamiliar to you, as a grown man who wants to surgically replace his dick and balls with a coin operated motorised Donald Duck ride who is about 3 wispy chin hairs away from being a convicted rapist, but when criticism is coming from a really juvenile place about a less-juvenile subject it can seem very superficial and difficult to respect. Like when they allow kids to do news reports on the actual news.

This is one side of the coin here. Some of the reviewers present as, essentially, children of varying extreme largeness. But even if you read what they have to say about children's movies, it's still incredibly basic analysis of a film seen through a lens of a culture who are obsessed with identity politics in all things.

For example, if you read this week's review of The Boxtrolls, all you will learn is:

- The reviewer liked Coraline and Paranorman, but this film has a worse story
- There are trolls who wear boxes, also there are two characters who have names
- The film is nominally about the trolls who wear boxes, however it focuses on one of them who isn't REALLY a troll, but is actually a boy. This is a "big problem".
- The villain is avaristic and ugly. He pretends to be a woman, this is also a big problem, but we're not told why. Just that tumblr dislikes that and they're right to do so.
- The animation is good, kids will like it.

The only thing gleaned from this review that you won't get from the trailer is a number score and at some point a man wears a dress. It's an 800 word sideways glance at a movie and it really does not do a good job reviewing it outside of conveying the general sentiment that it's sort of not bad. I don't respect this, and I don't much care what this person has to say about other movies especially if they're more complicated than this movie for 6-year-olds.

On top of which the reviews are completely joyless, on a comedy web site. It's not just that it's really out of place, it's poorly executed in its own right. I'm not trying to illegally troll or insult them so please do not electronically beat me up, but I don't think they're cut out for this.

Thank you for reading this wearying post. As a reward, here is a picture of the cast of Duck Tales taking public transport so you can finally blast the biggest load of your life you mewling piece of poo poo idiot

no they will not posted:

I think it'd be pretty cool if lyle did a review - something for the authors to consider.

Black Bones posted:

Oh I missed this gem:


The implication is that children reading the news is bad. But kid's news is adorable and pretty much as informative as adult news. Hard-hitting facts about local animals!


The last is an exaggeration, I only wear it once a week before I need to wash it (I sweat A LOT). The rest is accurate.


Yes I noticed. It is beautiful - it functions as a stark example of superior/inferior shitposting: Mine is strong and full of muscles, whereas "yer a fag" is weak nerds mad about getting sand kicked their face. Don't be a wuss, be a Hero of the Beach!


Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. I was attempting to provide a quick example of when children's art can be cool and interesting, so I thought I'd read the characters of Jungle Book as representing the underclasses of the inner city. Like, Baloo is obviously homeless, Bagheera is a manic street preacher (a Black Panther!), the wolves/vultures are street punks, Louie is a gangster or lounge singer (jazz? I dunno, some kinda old-timey stuff), Kaa is I guess a pimp, Shere Khan a murderer of some sort, the elephants would be cops. All these groups want to claim the orphan Mowgli in some fashion.

To be clearer, Baloo's culture-gender mixing is good. He is a hero, who successfully seduces Louie and topples his palace, freeing Mowgli.


Yes, I demand this. Are you unwilling, or just unable? After all, if Clumsy's review is sooo crazy and dumb, it shouldn't be very difficult to argue against. So far, all we have are vague appeals to it being "bad". How so, gentle goons?

Like, Professor Clumsy hated the newest Godzilla iirc. So I think he's wrong about that, cuz it's easily the best movie of the year so far, but his review was helpful to me in deciding to see it. A good review is when the writer explains why they reacted the way they did to the film - so you, the viewer, can decide if it's the sort of thing that you would like to see, regardless of how they felt about it.


I have the heart of a warrior, and it is filled with joy.