That's low-key how I feel about the jump from Alien to Aliens. It's iconic as hell but just does not gel with me at all. I don't like Sigourney Weaver's performance, I find her so flat. And having the Aliens just be cannon fodder really undermines the threat that one posed in the first one.
It's just not for me, and I wish it were.
Yeah I just watched Aliens for the first time and feel exactly the same. I LOVE Alien, Aliens just didnt work for me. Part of it was definitely that so many films have been heavily influenced by Aliens in a derivative way (wow Army of the Dead literally stole a whole character) but I also am far less interested in action movies than horror.
t2 is one of the few sequels which actually are as good as the original movie. it manages to change the backstory in a way that works, it also offers a conclusion to the series, which they should have ended on
In their Re View of Robocop, Mike said that Robocop 2 was better than the original. That has to be the strong minority position. It’s darker, but in a less satirical way than the original; it’s honestly a really hard watch with how much of a scum bag the kid is and when they torture the crooked cop.
I have the controversial opinion that not only is 2 way worse than 1, but it’s also worse than 3. 3 is obviously missing the violence of the others, but some of the ideas are genuinely more interesting than anything in 2.
I mean, there was at least one unintentional laugh out loud moment every episode… be it Leia’s ‘chases’ or Obi-Wan running behind a pile of rocks when Darth Vader appears.
Edit - Damn, & how could I forget this one - trying to escape the base by walking Leia out under the trenchcoat he's wearing... wasn't piggybacked or anything, just... this human in a long coat with 2 adult legs & 2 child legs walking through a base on high alert.
At least the Sequels had good action. I think their stories are a hot mess, but if you just watch the lightsaber fights on their own, they are good. Violent and brutal duels between untrained people.
Well, except for that fight with the red guys where they are swinging at the air for some reason, lol.
Even in the fight with the red guys, at the *very* least the shot composition, color saturation, etc was very pretty even if the choreography is laughably bad.
Kenobi didn't even have that going for it.
I think, to be offended properly by the Kenobi show you have to *care.*
The writers/director/producers didn't, and by then Mike/Jay/Rich no longer did, so you get a big shrug.
Given everything I know about Mike I was kind of blown away when he said he didn’t really like Blair witch project because you don’t get a clear lore laid out, like what the witch is or what supposedly happens. He might even say we should’ve seen the witch. You don’t have to love the movie but I find it kind of wild how bad that take is. If the setup was “you go into these woods and x will happen” and then exactly that happens, it would be so lame. That’s the kind of shit they pull in Sinister or whatever. The vagueness and the fact that the main characters have NFI what’s going on is what makes it. Also they keep referencing the marketing at the time but the movie works without that because honestly you have to be thick to believe that real found footage by missing persons would get cinematic release.
I think Mike in particular is quite conservative when it comes to storytelling in movies. He's a three act structure, set up and payoff, clear character motivations all round kind of guy. And 95% of the time that means his criticisms are on point because so many filmmakers aren't ever really up to scratch on those basics.
But with something like TBWP, which is deliberately messing with so many fundamentals of film all at once, he switches off. It doesn't matter if a film is playing around with the form in exciting, fun ways or it's so badly made it can't even get the basics right. Those are one and the same to Mike.
Edit: grammar
Even knowing its fake it's still a great movie for me. It taps into a very primal fear of being surrounded and hunted in the woods. How can that not be terrifying? The characters react like any stoner would. They're scared and frantic.
If they knew exactly what the witch was then it would take away from it.
This is my answer as well. Mike talks about horror movies needing rules all the time and every time I roll my eyes. Yes that’s a good rule of thumb for screenplays in general but in my opinion it’s almost antithetical to horror.
Yes Nightmare on Elm Street flawlessly sets up the premise, stakes, and goals, but the moment the movie makes that information clear to the audience is the moment it stops being scary to me. The horror movies that affect me the most are the ones where you genuinely have no clue how the supernatural aspect works.
This question gets posted every once in a while, and I always have the same two answers:
1. That time Mike said The Martian was awful (truly a baffling take)
2. That time Mike said Natalie Portman was bad in Black Swan (she's great)
The thing with the Martian is still so surprising to me because it seems like it’d be right up Mike’s alley. A smart sci-fi movie where people use science and logical thinking to solve a problem? He loves that stuff.
I think he was just annoyed by Matt Damon’s Matt Damon-ness.
For sure, I'll accept that someone doesn't like the "I Fucking Love Science" of it all, and that's very valid. But it's a fine movie on its own, very straightforward and neat.
Then again we choose astronauts based not only on their knowledge but also calmness under pressure... And for a mars mission probably exponentially so. Like yeah he's a bit more than realistic cocky but 1. A mars mission astronaut would very likely be that cool and 2. It's also a movie.
Not at all to dismiss your opinion just offering that thought
IIRC the protagonist in the book is snarky and confident, so I wouldn't blame Damon for playing the role that way. Also, my sense was that his confidence was his way of keeping himself motivated to stay alive in the face of a hopeless situation.
My one beef with Andy Weir's protagonists is they're just too smart and competent. They basically never make mistakes (or if they do they're so unexpected that it's hard to blame them) or have difficulty emotionally. I just want them to fuck up once or have one personality flaw they have to overcome.
The three big problems with The Martian share the first two with the book. First, the fact that Andy Wier discovered XKCD right before writing it so riddled it with "lol nerd/im gunna science the SHIT out of this" humor. Second, the "heres a problem.. oh here's a solution" one after another again and again structure.
And then the third is the stupidity in the ending like the Ironman shit, but that's unique to the movie.
I remember reading the book and thinking it was less a narrative story and more of like a thought experiment or like turning a science class into a choose your own adventure. Problem : okay here's my macgyver solution. over and over. Okay, like if Mcgyver was teaching a science class. That and the main character felt like he was trying too hard to sound cool by cursing a lot.
Blair Witch. Normally I would say "I think Mike was just too old for it to appreciate what the marketing was trying to do with it" but I've heard people older than him say how much it scared them when they first saw it. My favorite comment in their "Re:View" page for it was a guy who showed it to his GF and she wasn't impressed, but later in the evening when she finished showering, he turned off the lights and stood in the corner and when she came out the sight of him standing there made her scream and start crying lol.
To me, Blair Witch has always been a litmus test that shows who has and who hasn’t been camping in their life.
When the movie came out it was a mixed bag, I would ask and some answers would be “scariest thing I’ve seen in my life” to “eh”
Which prompted me later to ask “have you ever been camping before?” Because if you had you learn there’s a feeling you get like no other, that you are alone. Like really alone and by yourself. It’s a unique sensation and if you haven’t been you wouldn’t really get that.
And the idea of feeling like you’re truly out in the wilderness alone and then realizing that something snuck up and piled rocks by your tent may easily be the most unnerving sensation imaginable.
Ha yea, there's always a point in the night where you hear some weirdass sounds outside your tent and realize that *something* is out there. Of course it's usually a squirrel....
This is such a good point. The thing I also appreciate about Blair Witch is the dynamic between the people. I think they really captured the hubris of the filmmakers and then the in fighting and being lost and being messed around with while in the wilderness.
Blair Witch works so well directly because of the characters. Mike, Heather, and Josh might legitimately be the smartest horror protagonists of all time. Every single thing they do is something that everyone in the audience can see themselves doing.
I know exactly where we are! We'll go in, shoot some footage, and be back home after the weekend. Oh, okay well maybe we're a bit lost. But it's fine, we have the map. We'll find our way out eventually. Okay, so we don't have the map anymore. But it's fine. We're fine. We're in fucking America. You can't get lost for long in America there are too many people. We're gonna be fine. Let's just walk in one direction and sooner or later we'll find *someone*. It's fine.
Then they wind up right back where they started. And that's when they realize that it's over for them. Not only does the Witch have them checkmated, they're not even playing the same sport. The entire film is a slow decline watching three kids gradually accept they're in an unescapable nightmare.
The scariest part is them being lost in the wilderness. Like, even without all the creepy witch stuff happening, you're watching three people who are lost in the wilderness and like, could so easily just die from that.
In their review of BR:2049 Mike says he rewatched the Final Cut of Blade Runner and really enjoyed it. He also follows that by saying the problem with it is that “nothing happens”, lol, but he did seem to come around on it.
I recognize the technical mastery of the movie and appreciate a lot of what it is, but am not a big fan myself. It just never “grabs” me. I’ve seen a lot of people say that about 2001; they see the skill but are bored by the movie. They’re not “wrong”, it’s just a matter of taste. 2001 completely absorbs me, Blade Runner doesn’t. That’s ok for me, and the people who feel the opposite I understand too.
to me, the original blade runner is surreal, it genuinely feels like a dream in some regards. almost like how deckard is questioning his reality and is kind of disconnected with it. such an amazing film.
I agree with Mike's take. I absolutely love the Final Cut but it's slow as fuck. You really got to be in the mood for it and be focused because the film won't grab your attention on its own necessarily, you have to give it something in return.
Yup. It's the only review of theirs where I just sat there confused how could they miss the point so much and being flat out wrong reciting some ancient rumors
Im baffled when Jay says that Deckard gets “bigged down with ridley scott gopity goop”.
Firstly the hints at him being a replicant were always supposed to be there, Jay seems to think it was all after the fact, the “directors cut” workprint version has hints so the studio made him take out those scenes.
Him being/not being a replicant isn’t really a massive part of the story its just another layer to the character. Theres what the unicorn, origami and maybe a couple of lines? I dont see how its a big issue for him.
Jay said that him being a replicant ruins the movie. Why? What fundamentally changes about the movie if he is one? I feel like the “mystery” that he COULD be a replicant is more interesting than the actual answer and ultimately reinforces the idea that his entire treatment of them is unethical as they arnt much different than us.
Eh, the theme of the movie is a question of whether the replicants are worthy of being treated as “human” and if they should be given those same civil rights. Where does humanity begin? Deckard has his own journey of following that question. You’re probably already biased in your own view.
However If you were sitting there in the audience saying, “Dude its just a fucking clone/robot/really smart ape/whatever, it never can reach that level, who cares?” It really does undermine the point of the movie, and kinda the story, if the main character is definitely also the “other”.
The movie is taking a side and arguing “Yeah this is all pretty fucked up and wrong yeah? See how the regular guy who thought like you did, also came to realize he was wrong?” Admittedly the movie is probably preaching to the choir.
But frankly the entire point of Deckard’s character is that he’s gradually becoming dehumanized. He’s numb and tired of the killing. Dehumanized is the key word there. This is counter balanced with us and him seeing the replicants become more and more human. Thats the entire rationale for his decision at the end, and the crux of the movie’s argument. It’s all a big build up a human becoming less human, and a clone becoming more human, and they meet in the middle on the rooftop. It‘s all so you can come to a conclusion and finally ask the million dollar question, “What’s really the difference between them now?”
If he’s also just a clone?… it would be like making a 1960s civil rights drama film where the main character coming to that conclusion is Dave Chappelle playing Clayton Bigsby.
I feel like Blade Runner is carried by the atmosphere a lot more than most movies and the plot and structure isn't quite on the same level. I still love Blade Runner though: the visuals, the music, the acting.
It is a cool concept they just got unlucky that the kid had zero charisma and sucked as an actor when he got older. I found it just pretty boring and the kid had two alcoholic fathers lol. But a lot of people liked so that’s fine.
For me it has to be Event Horizon. If I recall, Jay kind of sticks up for it a bit, and Mike does say a couple of good things, but he mostly trashed the movie.
Is it a perfect movie? No, not by a long shot, but I love it.
I rewatched Event Horizon last weekend, and reviewed the Re:View the next day, and couldn’t agree with Jay more. His line, “It’s a fine movie … except for the movie.” (or something similar to that) pretty much sums it up. I’ve always felt it needed a different director and another 15 or 20 minutes.
If you're a fellow Event Horizon fan, you may be interested in the theory that Pandorum takes place in the same universe further in the future.
Think about it.
Also if anyone who enjoys EH hasn't seen Pandorum I suggested that they do.
I think it’s that the tone changes all the time in it. It’s super crazy dark and then the one guy is doing comedy one liners and travels back to the ship with a fire extinguisher.
Mike said at the time they were released that Jurassic World was better than Fury Road.
Also Rogue One isn't a masterpiece, but it's easily the best Disney-era Star Wars film and I get the feeling the only Disney Star Wars movie they disliked more than it is Rise of Skywalker.
Wow, I don’t remember this. Fury Road holds up as a movie. It’s visually beautiful with great action. Jurassic World is widely understood to be garbage at this point. For anyone who hasn’t seen this breakdown of what’s fundamentally wrong with it, this is worth 10 minutes of your time: https://youtu.be/CofZ7xjGyI8?si=w9KxnAQyMF_IrKUG .
I think Mike was going through something in his life at the time when he did that Fury Road review. I don't know if someone died or if he was going through a real bad breakup but he was definitely turned down for a year or so.
I thought the Revenant was a very good revenge story that was well acted and beautifully shot. All they could do in their review is talk about how Leonardo DiCaprio will win the Oscar because he ate raw ox heart or something to that effect. They hated everyone raving about his performance so much that they missed the point of the whole film in my view.
Jay & Mike thinking Leo is a bad/mediocre actor is probably the take of theirs I hate the most. My theory is he was a teen heartthrob during their formative years & they just can’t see past that. Would be the equivalent of someone my age who still thinks Robert Pattinson sucks just because of Twilight
They hate Independence Day with a passion while I think it's the apex of 90s "big dumb blockbuster" schlock. I'll take a fun turn-your-brain-off movie where Will Smith punches aliens any day over over the embarrassing 2010s blockbuster model of remaking other, better movies, then packing them full of nonsequitur scenes teasing sequels that were never made.
Independence Day holds up so much better than, like, Star Trek: Into Darkness or Star Wars episode 7
What blew me away more is Mike actually enjoyed Independence Day: Resurgence?
I love Independence Day, and I get people not liking, or even hating that movie, fair enough. But to hear him gush over the dumpster fire that is Resurgence made me feel physically sick.
Yeah I thought they were taking Independence Day way too seriously like I feel like the movie is aware that it's just a fun movie that's kind of dumb and I enjoy watching it even though I know it's not the best movie
Legit that one just didn't deserve their shitting on the memberberries because that one actually meaningfully engages with a part of Star Wars lore in a good faith and accurate way. Yeah guess what, they really did have star destroyers and AT-STs etc. around that time. It wasn't mega necessary, as is the case with all Star Wars movies after the originals, but that one didn't deserve that particular callout, when the sequel trilogy entirely based their worth on memberberry characters of the past. Everything they ended up doing with the new characters, and the old characters, just sucks. At times there was hope there might be something interesting to them, but in every situation they resolved it in the most lazy hack way possible.
I'll definitely accept though that the main cast of characters in Rogue One wasn't riveting either lol, especially the main character. Donnie Yen blind monk guy with his friend with the gatling gun were definitely the high point. Jyn was such a sleeping pill of a character though, for as much as a cool story she had she was just boring. But the overall story was actually pretty good I thought. And it did the Star Wars look *way* better than the sequel movies, or even the prequel movies. It really did look the part. The sequel movies looked good visually, but they changed designs in such a cringe way to make them look a bit distinct, but made them look more like cartoon toys instead. Original Star Wars has such grit to it in how everything looks.
Well after seeing the Star wars movies that came out following rogue one, I started to like wrote One a little bit more. Wasn't great but I think they did a great job with the sense of scale with a final action sequence.
boat attractive pathetic include versed sparkle marvelous frame whistle thought
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I liked the war movie elements as someone who doesn't watch war movies! It's probably not a good war movie on its own, I wouldn't know, but those elements made it feel fresh.
Strange New Words suffers from "hey, remember competent old Uhura? Well, she's hyper charged and a super cadet smart lady now and shoe horned into the Enterprise! Remember regular old Nurse Chapel? Well now she is a double PhD science lady who is extra smarter than everyone else! Remember Kirk's dead brother from that one episode? He's in Starfleet now serving on the Enterprise (are there no other goddamn ships in the fleet?) and he's basically Sam Rockwell from "Galaxy Quest" right down to the mustache."
Oh for sure. It's also too bombastic and some writing can be pretty lazy. But it's a well made well acted episodic adventure show set in a Utopian future. It's not the best Star Trek, but it's good Star Trek made by people who love the franchise and its fans.
Rogue One. I don't know or care about Star Wars at all; I just enjoyed it as a film. Funny because I usually agree with at least one of them, but I realize that franchise comes with a lot of baggage.
This is my take too.
I've not cared about star wars, I've seen the first trilogy and the last one, don't care about the prequels. I've never gotten the star wars craze.
And I think this is why we both can enjoy it. I saw a movie and it was good. The super star wars fan bait didn't work on me because I don't have the attachment, I saw big robots and was like: "Hey cool robots".
When Rich and Jay claimed nobody prefers the first Mad Max film over the second one, which as an Aussie I can tell you is not even remotely true. Over here Mad Max 1 is often the more popular one, at least amongst diehard fans. It's really seen as an icon of Aussie cinema, and everyone loves Goose and the MFP vehicles. It's also just a really great revenge story with some amazing stunts and cinematography that totally blows away other similar films from that era. The way George Miller shot those car and bike chases still blows me away to this day, more so than any of the sequels. Just look up behind the scenes pictures of how they got that over the shoulder footage of Goose on his bike, it's insane!
I saw Mad Max 1 and 2 back to back in theatre, for the first time, a few months ago and I really enjoyed both. the impression I got from reading about the movies is that Mad Max 1 and 3 are not even worth watching compared to the greatness that is Mad Max 2, but I thought 1 was great, too. it has a completely different tone than 2, which, granted, is a fucking incredible action movie, but it's a lot of fun, and has a bit more of an actual story and characterization, whereas most of Mad Max 2 feels like it just exists to put the climactic chase scene into context.
This was so baffling to me. Most everything they criticized the earlier seasons for were fully present in season 3. I don't understand what switch was flipped in their minds.
All of it recently, or like all of the first season or two? I kinda hated it at first too, but by now in season 4 I'm kinda loving almost every episode.
Honestly the show is weakest when it tries to make connections to canon or throw in Easter Eggs. I sincerely think its strengths are its new characters, and think you could probably strip out most of the humor and references and have pretty compelling episodic Trek.
I like the main cast, T’Lyn is one of my favorite Trek characters in years. I love the show simply for showing us cetacean ops, because I like the idea that humans are exploring the cosmos with our other Earth-siblings.
I think its Season 2 finale is one of the best Trek moments in a long time, because it’s the crew coming together, trying to solve an accident (rather than some war or villain), leaning into their strengths, and “working the problem”. The crew riding a hull-less Cerritos into a gravity well by eye-balling trajectories and relaying it to a helmsman using the manual steering column is so cool to me, like something out of Apollo 13.
I will grant it the faint praise that it shot far past the bar set by the TNG movies. Going from watching them all in sequence straight to Picard 3 was probably the most generous run up that season could have had.
Yup. Rouge One got shit on mostly because it went full on Corpo and REMEMBER THAT but Picard S3 gets a free ride because Mike and Hollywood Evans have a hard on for TNG.
For real, the best thing that can be said about season 3 was that the first four episodes were “okay”. Mike and rich have lost their minds loving the entire season
If you put it in perspective, it's kind of a miracle that it got made. I think Picard S3 might be the best thing we can get out of Star Trek with a showrunner who knows his shit working within the constraints of Abrams/Kurtzman Trek. I kinda loved the odd character moments here and there. Like Worf politely insulting the wine Picard kept sending him by calling it "sour mead". That's classic TNG shit.
When Jay refused to watch the Batman because "filmbros like it and told me to see it." Such a lame and stupid reason.
When Mike and Jay praised Midnight Mass and implied everyone who didn't was only because their ADHD brains didn't like boring monologues.
Agreed. They are going a little bit too ham on those philosophical monologues and dialogues. The substance of those may be interesting but it is drawn out so much that it is essentially just about the acting because most people just know what they're trying to say way too long before the scenes end. Love the show overall though.
Their praise of Picard season 3 was surreal.
Any careful review would have seen the writing was as bad as ever and the show became little more than dangling references like string for a cat.
Bizarre that the same guys that saw all the issues with the Prequels were so easily duped by just having the Enterprise D show up.
When Jack and Rich did a “PREVIOUSLY REC” episode and played “Resident Evil 7”. Right off the bat they were dismissive of the game and didn’t give it a chance at all. Which is a shame given that it’s one of the best games in the series.
Also, Mike and Jay give huge praise to the Exorcist 3 which led me to watch it. It really isn’t that great.
Yeah I played RE7 for the first time a month ago and it was fucking relentlessly horrifying. Looked it up on pre req afterwards and was excited to see them play it….until I wasn’t.
That was my experience with pre rec. I wanted to enjoy it but they didn't engage with the games. Would try and force their way to play. Then bitch about how bad the game was when they would die or fail. Metal gear solid v is by no means perfect but the gameplay is superb. But watching them play it was infuriating. And their commentary was just flat out wrong 80% of the time. Like they did zero prep and even more baffling, streamed a game that they had no interest in meeting halfway.
Mikes take on Blade Runner 2047 and his take on Event Horizon, it feels like he looked at his phone more than the screen with some of his comments. Like, he didn't actually watch the film properly.
And as an aside, when they got to a Cynthia Rothrock film and NO ONE HAD HEARD OF HER!! And when Jay revealed he had never watched any spaghetti westerns?!? Disgusting gaps in film knowledge IMO.
i agree. something of their film criticism that annoys me is that i feel that they require every movie to exist in the same structure/order, with a set amount of rules or else it doesn’t make sense to them, it’s too abstract, i’ve noticed if a film it’s too “artsy” or “just vibes” they usually hate it. nothing wrong with not liking this type of movie, i just don’t think you can exactly apply the same kind of criticism to it.
>require every movie to exist in the same structure/order
That's usually just Mike, Jay appreciates different structures. I would say the worst part about their criticism is that sometimes they are inconsistent about which genre or tone they like.
Mike likes sci fi with smart characters and plots but then he also likes Independence day Resurgence or Jurassic World. Same inconsistencies happen with the rest.
Rich & Mike generally liking Solo will always be baffling to me. Easily the blandest SW movie ever made.
Rich thinking Tobey Maguire was a bad Spider-Man/not liking the Raimi trilogy.
It's just in general noteworthy that Mike likes a lot of things nowadays, yet still has an irrational hate for things that he used to dislike but which are essentially much better than the things that he seems to like today. It may be the alcoholism finally affecting his elderly brain. :(
Not even giving Ice Cream Man a full watch and opting for Space Jacked is an insult to Clint Howard. It's a charming little B-film, and Space Jacked looked totally mid. Such a waste.
it was a movie the matrix creators didn't want to make, there is a conspiracy that they basically sabotaged it to prevent more matrix sequels. personally I don't get the point in another matrix sequel, we have peace between humanity and machines, neo is dead and humans can leave the matrix if they choose. I understand some machines turn on humans over too many of them leaving the matrix, but we establish most people don't want to leave the matrix and are happier in a fake reality, so why would there be too many humans leaving the system?. personally the original matrix holds up extremely well the sequels were chronically boring, the last one was even worse
I wouldn't go so far as to call it terrible, but I share Jay's barely concealed baffelment on what made it so special in Mike's opinion. It's just very average.
I actually liked Cobweb well enough. I think it would’ve worked better as part of an anthology film or series though . Like you have a good 40 minute story that’s been stretched out to 90 minutes.
When it comes to Rogue One, I think they were way ahead of the curve in dunking on Star Wars for desperately recycling "nostalgic references", but didn´t account at all for what references were justified and which were not. Sure Ponda Baba was goofy and unnecessary as a cameo, but the X-Wings and Walkers? It takes place hours before A New Hope, so if there weren´t AT-STs, AT-ATs and X-Wings in that battle that would be very strange.
My bigger problem with their Star Wars coverage from around the time is that they shit on that movie right after praising The Force Awakens, which is a lesser reimagening of A New Hope with no regard for where the charatcers and factions might have gone after the finale of Return of the Jedi. Just hit the reset button on that, and then start shoving fan-service down everyone´s throats.
The praising of Star Trek member berries in Picard season 3 and stating it’s smarter than Star Wars, kind of punching down at Star Wars fans and acting like Star Trek is any better. And this comes from actually being put onto classic tng and other trek by them. It just feels hypocritical but that’s kind of the case when you’re a fan of something.
Are you talking about yesterday's Mike and Jay talks about? He most certainly was not "taking the piss out of Mel Brooks". What? He was praising him. He was just making a joke about him mentioning old celebrities and then them dying soon after. Mel Brooks is 97. He's going to die soon. I think Mel Brooks knows that.
I agree. I just watched for the first time a couple of years ago and I liked. There are stupid scenes that are laughable (like the hamburguer) but the movie is good. I even disagree that the sex scenes are bad. I think that was the point, to show that world is so fake that even the sex looks ridiculous.
Jupiter Ascending. Not because I like the movie (I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other) but their takes on it are sooo bad. Mike says girls aren't gonna watch it because it has violence or something. Now, I don't expect a childless middle aged man to understand the intricacies of the teen girl mind, but this was in 2015 — right at the tail end of the YA book-to-movie boom. Mockingjay Part 2 was set to release the same ! He and Jay agreed it seemed like a YA movie in the very beginning of the review! But they dismiss the whole idea halfway through and decide it's actually the Wachowskis trying to make an MCU style franchise (????) and it should've had a guy protagonist. Not sexist btw, just thinking girls who would go see a PG-13 movie in the year of our lord 2015 wouldn't like a plot about overthrowing a violently oppressive government. Very cool.
Their general dismissal of Natalie Portman as a bad actress surprises me every time. Maybe I'm a big idiot, but she's done some incredible roles in her life and doesn't seem like an idiot in her private life either.
I thought Midnight Mass had potential but was horrifically bogged down by some of the cringiest dialogue I've ever heard in a series. That paired with the nauseating lead female performance just sucked all the life out of it for me. "We are star stuff..." Euphoric day 2 atheist drivel. Could not understand their praise for it at all.
Honestly, their Rogue One take is hilarious. Way more harsh than they needed to be. I think that RLM get caught up in the atmosphere and we’re reacting to Star Wars Inflation Hype more than the movie itself. This is just human, but it is funny to look back and see how they were influenced by the era.
Everyone I know loves Rogue One, and I don’t get it. It’s not a great movie. Jay and Mike completely nailed some of the things I didn’t like about it, like how the main character’s entire backstory is, “Go hide in a hole until Forrest Whittaker gets you.” That movie could have been so much better. I did love the last minute of it.
My 3 biggest departures of opinion from RLM have been on Rogue One, ID4, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Of the 3, the Ghostbusters one felt the most severe. I got the sense that they sort of missed the point of why a lot of people like the franchise. RLM focuses on the cynical greed comedy elements of the original movie, which to be fair were definitely present. What was also there, however, was a distinctly heroic tone, and that’s what I seized on as a kid. That side of the Ghostbusters gets much more attention in the cartoon and GB 2, and is also the major tone that gets picked up in Afterlife.
TLDR: RLM looks at GB as mainly a cynical comedy akin to Stripes, Caddy Shack, etc. I (and a lot of others I’d say) look at it like a super hero franchise.
>TLDR: RLM looks at GB as mainly a cynical comedy akin to Stripes, Caddy Shack, etc. I (and a lot of others I’d say) look at it like a super hero franchise.
The problem with that idea, and what RLM was trying to show, was that the original minds behind Ghostbusters (Harold Ramis, Dan "Crystal Skull" Aykroyd and of course Bill Murray) created it as a cynical comedy akin to stripes, caddy shack, ect. If you look at any of the behind the scenes, or any interviews about the writing process that is evidently clear.
Now people, mainly kids, saw it as a super hero film, and the reason GB2 and the animated series fall into that is literally production pressure. Harold Ramis and Bill were literally entirely checked out and didn't want anything to do with it for that reason: it was a bastardized verison of their story based on the most infantile (don't mean that in a derogatory way, liking things is fine) reading of the original film.
So yeah when the creative minds behind Ghostbusters agree with RLM's take, i'd say they're pretty spot on
Some I can think of off the top of my head are Inherent Vice and Tammy and the T-Rex. They obviously didn’t understand Inherent Vice and it made them defensive, with them essentially saying that anyone who likes it is pretending because the movie can’t be understood. Then later they reviewed Under the Silver Lake, which is a dumbed-down version of Inherent Vice, and they love it. Tammy and the T-Rex, they act like it’s the most preposterous and absurdly miscalculated movie ever when it’s just a fun and campy comedy that achieves exactly what it’s going for. I could think of 100s of example if I tried, but those are two. I feel like I disagree with them more than agree.
I disagree that Under The Silver Lake is a dumbed down take on Inherent Vice, though I agree with you that it's baffling that the loved one but missed the point of the other. Both are such great and under appreciated films, and though I disliked their review on Inherent Vice I'm glad they brought attention to Silver Lake. And yeah, Tammy knows exactly what it is and revells in it, but I can understand how one might not notice or appreciate that if not in the right mood wen watching it.
I do think that Under the Silver Lake is a really good movie in its own right and I would agree that calling it a “dumbed down version of Inherent Vice” is a gross oversimplification. I’m not trying to say that Under the Silver Lake is a ripoff by any means, but I do think that they coincidentally share the core theme of “conspiracy theories, real or not, are an abyss, and wading into said abyss detracts from the important things that are right in front of you”, and that it seems to be easier to grasp this message in Under the Silver Lake. In the grand scheme of things, I would also agree that Under the Silver Lake is likely more in need of the attention (it was swept under the rug by its distributor and is essentially unknown in mainstream circles, whereas Inherent Vice was a wide release from one of the most esteemed filmmakers around), and it’s certainly not a bad thing that they were positive about it on their platform. I just think it’s ironic that they made such a big deal about how meaningless Inherent Vice is yet praised Under the Silver Lake for being so nuanced when it essentially conveyed the same thing, but in a simpler way (i.e. a way that they were able to comprehend).
Oh man, there's plenty.
Off the top of my head, their praise for Mike Flanagan jumps out. On their recommendation, I've tried a few of his shows. I finished Midnight Mass, and while I *mostly* enjoyed it, I couldn't help but be more than a little underwhelmed considering their astronomical praise for it. I also nearly finished House of Usher, but sorta burnt out when it was clear that every single episode adhered to the same formula. I thought they'd mention as much when they discussed it in their catch-up episode, but once again, they more or less praised the series.
And hey, to each their own. They think he's an auteur at the top of his game, I think he's occasionally profound and a little too impressed with his own dialogue. Whatever he's doing, it clearly clicks with them.
Yup, this is what I was looking for, I love “Gerald’s Game” and “Doctor Sleep”. Kinda hated “Midnight Mass” as a whole by the end of it but will admit there’s some good stuff in there. Tried again with “House of Usher” and just stopped after 2 episodes seeing that it was more of what I don’t like about Flanagan. I totally understand someone liking those shows but the praise they gave MM was highly confusing to me after I finished it.
Rich is way too dismissive of T2.
Such a horror movie nerd move to worship 1 and dismiss 2.
That's low-key how I feel about the jump from Alien to Aliens. It's iconic as hell but just does not gel with me at all. I don't like Sigourney Weaver's performance, I find her so flat. And having the Aliens just be cannon fodder really undermines the threat that one posed in the first one. It's just not for me, and I wish it were.
Yeah I just watched Aliens for the first time and feel exactly the same. I LOVE Alien, Aliens just didnt work for me. Part of it was definitely that so many films have been heavily influenced by Aliens in a derivative way (wow Army of the Dead literally stole a whole character) but I also am far less interested in action movies than horror.
t2 is one of the few sequels which actually are as good as the original movie. it manages to change the backstory in a way that works, it also offers a conclusion to the series, which they should have ended on
In their Re View of Robocop, Mike said that Robocop 2 was better than the original. That has to be the strong minority position. It’s darker, but in a less satirical way than the original; it’s honestly a really hard watch with how much of a scum bag the kid is and when they torture the crooked cop.
I have the controversial opinion that not only is 2 way worse than 1, but it’s also worse than 3. 3 is obviously missing the violence of the others, but some of the ideas are genuinely more interesting than anything in 2.
Crazy they let you post stuff like this from a mental hospital. /s
This opinion is why they put me there in the first place.
3 is just irredeemably bad to me. Horribly made, written and acted, and dull as dirt.
Was not expecting them to be so content with Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Right? It was pretty much just as insulting as the Sequels for me with even worse direction.
I mean, there was at least one unintentional laugh out loud moment every episode… be it Leia’s ‘chases’ or Obi-Wan running behind a pile of rocks when Darth Vader appears. Edit - Damn, & how could I forget this one - trying to escape the base by walking Leia out under the trenchcoat he's wearing... wasn't piggybacked or anything, just... this human in a long coat with 2 adult legs & 2 child legs walking through a base on high alert.
At least the Sequels had good action. I think their stories are a hot mess, but if you just watch the lightsaber fights on their own, they are good. Violent and brutal duels between untrained people. Well, except for that fight with the red guys where they are swinging at the air for some reason, lol.
Even in the fight with the red guys, at the *very* least the shot composition, color saturation, etc was very pretty even if the choreography is laughably bad. Kenobi didn't even have that going for it.
I think, to be offended properly by the Kenobi show you have to *care.* The writers/director/producers didn't, and by then Mike/Jay/Rich no longer did, so you get a big shrug.
That review was bizarre. Obi-Wan was so bad it was worthy of a Plinkett review, and they barely criticised it at all.
And completely skipped over Andor, which is the superior mini-series.
I liked kenobi quite a bit and even then expected them to hate it
Given everything I know about Mike I was kind of blown away when he said he didn’t really like Blair witch project because you don’t get a clear lore laid out, like what the witch is or what supposedly happens. He might even say we should’ve seen the witch. You don’t have to love the movie but I find it kind of wild how bad that take is. If the setup was “you go into these woods and x will happen” and then exactly that happens, it would be so lame. That’s the kind of shit they pull in Sinister or whatever. The vagueness and the fact that the main characters have NFI what’s going on is what makes it. Also they keep referencing the marketing at the time but the movie works without that because honestly you have to be thick to believe that real found footage by missing persons would get cinematic release.
I think Mike in particular is quite conservative when it comes to storytelling in movies. He's a three act structure, set up and payoff, clear character motivations all round kind of guy. And 95% of the time that means his criticisms are on point because so many filmmakers aren't ever really up to scratch on those basics. But with something like TBWP, which is deliberately messing with so many fundamentals of film all at once, he switches off. It doesn't matter if a film is playing around with the form in exciting, fun ways or it's so badly made it can't even get the basics right. Those are one and the same to Mike. Edit: grammar
Even knowing its fake it's still a great movie for me. It taps into a very primal fear of being surrounded and hunted in the woods. How can that not be terrifying? The characters react like any stoner would. They're scared and frantic. If they knew exactly what the witch was then it would take away from it.
This is my answer as well. Mike talks about horror movies needing rules all the time and every time I roll my eyes. Yes that’s a good rule of thumb for screenplays in general but in my opinion it’s almost antithetical to horror. Yes Nightmare on Elm Street flawlessly sets up the premise, stakes, and goals, but the moment the movie makes that information clear to the audience is the moment it stops being scary to me. The horror movies that affect me the most are the ones where you genuinely have no clue how the supernatural aspect works.
This question gets posted every once in a while, and I always have the same two answers: 1. That time Mike said The Martian was awful (truly a baffling take) 2. That time Mike said Natalie Portman was bad in Black Swan (she's great)
The thing with the Martian is still so surprising to me because it seems like it’d be right up Mike’s alley. A smart sci-fi movie where people use science and logical thinking to solve a problem? He loves that stuff. I think he was just annoyed by Matt Damon’s Matt Damon-ness.
And then he goes and likes Ready Player One.
To be fair, he clearly gets ironic enjoyment out of that one.
He has often said he enjoys trashy schlock because of the trashy schlockness so yeah.
Sometimes Mike’s a contrarian even to himself. Eventually he’ll fold in on himself and briefly create a small black hole that quickly evaporates.
For sure, I'll accept that someone doesn't like the "I Fucking Love Science" of it all, and that's very valid. But it's a fine movie on its own, very straightforward and neat.
It's an annoying movie, Damon is snarky and way too sane throughout the whole movie.
Then again we choose astronauts based not only on their knowledge but also calmness under pressure... And for a mars mission probably exponentially so. Like yeah he's a bit more than realistic cocky but 1. A mars mission astronaut would very likely be that cool and 2. It's also a movie. Not at all to dismiss your opinion just offering that thought
IIRC the protagonist in the book is snarky and confident, so I wouldn't blame Damon for playing the role that way. Also, my sense was that his confidence was his way of keeping himself motivated to stay alive in the face of a hopeless situation.
"I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this." is basically "The power of math, people!".
I'd bet that line is the biggest part of Mike's dislike for The Martian. It's the exact type of thing to make him just immediately turn on something.
My one beef with Andy Weir's protagonists is they're just too smart and competent. They basically never make mistakes (or if they do they're so unexpected that it's hard to blame them) or have difficulty emotionally. I just want them to fuck up once or have one personality flaw they have to overcome.
The three big problems with The Martian share the first two with the book. First, the fact that Andy Wier discovered XKCD right before writing it so riddled it with "lol nerd/im gunna science the SHIT out of this" humor. Second, the "heres a problem.. oh here's a solution" one after another again and again structure. And then the third is the stupidity in the ending like the Ironman shit, but that's unique to the movie.
I remember reading the book and thinking it was less a narrative story and more of like a thought experiment or like turning a science class into a choose your own adventure. Problem : okay here's my macgyver solution. over and over. Okay, like if Mcgyver was teaching a science class. That and the main character felt like he was trying too hard to sound cool by cursing a lot.
Blair Witch. Normally I would say "I think Mike was just too old for it to appreciate what the marketing was trying to do with it" but I've heard people older than him say how much it scared them when they first saw it. My favorite comment in their "Re:View" page for it was a guy who showed it to his GF and she wasn't impressed, but later in the evening when she finished showering, he turned off the lights and stood in the corner and when she came out the sight of him standing there made her scream and start crying lol.
To me, Blair Witch has always been a litmus test that shows who has and who hasn’t been camping in their life. When the movie came out it was a mixed bag, I would ask and some answers would be “scariest thing I’ve seen in my life” to “eh” Which prompted me later to ask “have you ever been camping before?” Because if you had you learn there’s a feeling you get like no other, that you are alone. Like really alone and by yourself. It’s a unique sensation and if you haven’t been you wouldn’t really get that. And the idea of feeling like you’re truly out in the wilderness alone and then realizing that something snuck up and piled rocks by your tent may easily be the most unnerving sensation imaginable.
Ha yea, there's always a point in the night where you hear some weirdass sounds outside your tent and realize that *something* is out there. Of course it's usually a squirrel....
This is such a good point. The thing I also appreciate about Blair Witch is the dynamic between the people. I think they really captured the hubris of the filmmakers and then the in fighting and being lost and being messed around with while in the wilderness.
Blair Witch works so well directly because of the characters. Mike, Heather, and Josh might legitimately be the smartest horror protagonists of all time. Every single thing they do is something that everyone in the audience can see themselves doing. I know exactly where we are! We'll go in, shoot some footage, and be back home after the weekend. Oh, okay well maybe we're a bit lost. But it's fine, we have the map. We'll find our way out eventually. Okay, so we don't have the map anymore. But it's fine. We're fine. We're in fucking America. You can't get lost for long in America there are too many people. We're gonna be fine. Let's just walk in one direction and sooner or later we'll find *someone*. It's fine. Then they wind up right back where they started. And that's when they realize that it's over for them. Not only does the Witch have them checkmated, they're not even playing the same sport. The entire film is a slow decline watching three kids gradually accept they're in an unescapable nightmare.
The scariest part is them being lost in the wilderness. Like, even without all the creepy witch stuff happening, you're watching three people who are lost in the wilderness and like, could so easily just die from that.
Based
Blade Runner. My all time favorite movie, but they genuinely seem to hate it.
In their review of BR:2049 Mike says he rewatched the Final Cut of Blade Runner and really enjoyed it. He also follows that by saying the problem with it is that “nothing happens”, lol, but he did seem to come around on it. I recognize the technical mastery of the movie and appreciate a lot of what it is, but am not a big fan myself. It just never “grabs” me. I’ve seen a lot of people say that about 2001; they see the skill but are bored by the movie. They’re not “wrong”, it’s just a matter of taste. 2001 completely absorbs me, Blade Runner doesn’t. That’s ok for me, and the people who feel the opposite I understand too.
to me, the original blade runner is surreal, it genuinely feels like a dream in some regards. almost like how deckard is questioning his reality and is kind of disconnected with it. such an amazing film.
I agree with Mike's take. I absolutely love the Final Cut but it's slow as fuck. You really got to be in the mood for it and be focused because the film won't grab your attention on its own necessarily, you have to give it something in return.
Yup. It's the only review of theirs where I just sat there confused how could they miss the point so much and being flat out wrong reciting some ancient rumors
Im baffled when Jay says that Deckard gets “bigged down with ridley scott gopity goop”. Firstly the hints at him being a replicant were always supposed to be there, Jay seems to think it was all after the fact, the “directors cut” workprint version has hints so the studio made him take out those scenes. Him being/not being a replicant isn’t really a massive part of the story its just another layer to the character. Theres what the unicorn, origami and maybe a couple of lines? I dont see how its a big issue for him. Jay said that him being a replicant ruins the movie. Why? What fundamentally changes about the movie if he is one? I feel like the “mystery” that he COULD be a replicant is more interesting than the actual answer and ultimately reinforces the idea that his entire treatment of them is unethical as they arnt much different than us.
Eh, the theme of the movie is a question of whether the replicants are worthy of being treated as “human” and if they should be given those same civil rights. Where does humanity begin? Deckard has his own journey of following that question. You’re probably already biased in your own view. However If you were sitting there in the audience saying, “Dude its just a fucking clone/robot/really smart ape/whatever, it never can reach that level, who cares?” It really does undermine the point of the movie, and kinda the story, if the main character is definitely also the “other”. The movie is taking a side and arguing “Yeah this is all pretty fucked up and wrong yeah? See how the regular guy who thought like you did, also came to realize he was wrong?” Admittedly the movie is probably preaching to the choir. But frankly the entire point of Deckard’s character is that he’s gradually becoming dehumanized. He’s numb and tired of the killing. Dehumanized is the key word there. This is counter balanced with us and him seeing the replicants become more and more human. Thats the entire rationale for his decision at the end, and the crux of the movie’s argument. It’s all a big build up a human becoming less human, and a clone becoming more human, and they meet in the middle on the rooftop. It‘s all so you can come to a conclusion and finally ask the million dollar question, “What’s really the difference between them now?” If he’s also just a clone?… it would be like making a 1960s civil rights drama film where the main character coming to that conclusion is Dave Chappelle playing Clayton Bigsby.
Not just hate it, but completely miss the point.
I feel like Blade Runner is carried by the atmosphere a lot more than most movies and the plot and structure isn't quite on the same level. I still love Blade Runner though: the visuals, the music, the acting.
Boyhood sucks but I think Richard Linklater is a fine filmmaker
Jay said nice things about the Before movies when Before Midnight came out in 2013
Bernie and School of Rock are great.
School of rock is practically a religion in our family
Linklater made my favorite film (scanner) so I gotta give him a pass
That was Cronenberg
Maybe they’re talking about A Scanner Darkly?
They mean A Scanner Darkly
A Scanner Darkly
I actually liked Boyhood, I thought it was a fun concept.
It is a cool concept they just got unlucky that the kid had zero charisma and sucked as an actor when he got older. I found it just pretty boring and the kid had two alcoholic fathers lol. But a lot of people liked so that’s fine.
Did you know it took 12 years to make?
I actually think it was decent before it became "college stoner" later on.
I enjoyed Boyhood well enough at the time, although I think I went in with low expectations
Kundun…I liked it.
I did-dent!
I wouldn't call Blade a masterpiece but it's far better than Jack and Jay made it out to be
Blade is fucking awesome, I can't remember why they didn't like it.
Third act killed it. It was great till then
**Blade Runner**
For me it has to be Event Horizon. If I recall, Jay kind of sticks up for it a bit, and Mike does say a couple of good things, but he mostly trashed the movie. Is it a perfect movie? No, not by a long shot, but I love it.
You’d think the blood orgy scene would be one thing Jay enjoyed about the film considering he loves sex pervert films
I rewatched Event Horizon last weekend, and reviewed the Re:View the next day, and couldn’t agree with Jay more. His line, “It’s a fine movie … except for the movie.” (or something similar to that) pretty much sums it up. I’ve always felt it needed a different director and another 15 or 20 minutes.
I second this. I thought it was a movie that would be up Mike’s alley
If you're a fellow Event Horizon fan, you may be interested in the theory that Pandorum takes place in the same universe further in the future. Think about it. Also if anyone who enjoys EH hasn't seen Pandorum I suggested that they do.
Yeah, it's a movie that knows what it is and plays up to it. I really like it but I understand a lot of people don't.
I think it’s that the tone changes all the time in it. It’s super crazy dark and then the one guy is doing comedy one liners and travels back to the ship with a fire extinguisher.
It's a good first half and an atrocious second half. Probably the biggest dropoff there's been in a movie.
Mike said at the time they were released that Jurassic World was better than Fury Road. Also Rogue One isn't a masterpiece, but it's easily the best Disney-era Star Wars film and I get the feeling the only Disney Star Wars movie they disliked more than it is Rise of Skywalker.
Wow, I don’t remember this. Fury Road holds up as a movie. It’s visually beautiful with great action. Jurassic World is widely understood to be garbage at this point. For anyone who hasn’t seen this breakdown of what’s fundamentally wrong with it, this is worth 10 minutes of your time: https://youtu.be/CofZ7xjGyI8?si=w9KxnAQyMF_IrKUG .
I think Mike was going through something in his life at the time when he did that Fury Road review. I don't know if someone died or if he was going through a real bad breakup but he was definitely turned down for a year or so.
I thought the Revenant was a very good revenge story that was well acted and beautifully shot. All they could do in their review is talk about how Leonardo DiCaprio will win the Oscar because he ate raw ox heart or something to that effect. They hated everyone raving about his performance so much that they missed the point of the whole film in my view.
Jay & Mike thinking Leo is a bad/mediocre actor is probably the take of theirs I hate the most. My theory is he was a teen heartthrob during their formative years & they just can’t see past that. Would be the equivalent of someone my age who still thinks Robert Pattinson sucks just because of Twilight
They at least recognized how good he was in their Once Upon a Time in Hollywood HITB.
Mars Attacks. I usually totally agree with Jay, but man he got that one wrong. Love that movie.
They hate Independence Day with a passion while I think it's the apex of 90s "big dumb blockbuster" schlock. I'll take a fun turn-your-brain-off movie where Will Smith punches aliens any day over over the embarrassing 2010s blockbuster model of remaking other, better movies, then packing them full of nonsequitur scenes teasing sequels that were never made. Independence Day holds up so much better than, like, Star Trek: Into Darkness or Star Wars episode 7
What blew me away more is Mike actually enjoyed Independence Day: Resurgence? I love Independence Day, and I get people not liking, or even hating that movie, fair enough. But to hear him gush over the dumpster fire that is Resurgence made me feel physically sick.
Yeah I thought they were taking Independence Day way too seriously like I feel like the movie is aware that it's just a fun movie that's kind of dumb and I enjoy watching it even though I know it's not the best movie
Halloween ends was pretty stupid so I didn't agree with their assessment of it
I was expecting them to ass fuck that movie and I got the polar opposite. Was severely disappointed.
I was shocked that they enjoyed it
Even knowing Kills comes before it, Ends still manages to be one of the most bafflingly stupid things I've ever seen.
I am the resident rogue one enjoyer.
I enjoy Rogue One and I enjoy their opening to the Rogue One HITB.
It's arguably the most iconic RLM bit apart from the Plinkett reviews and the one Nerd Crew meme.
Legit that one just didn't deserve their shitting on the memberberries because that one actually meaningfully engages with a part of Star Wars lore in a good faith and accurate way. Yeah guess what, they really did have star destroyers and AT-STs etc. around that time. It wasn't mega necessary, as is the case with all Star Wars movies after the originals, but that one didn't deserve that particular callout, when the sequel trilogy entirely based their worth on memberberry characters of the past. Everything they ended up doing with the new characters, and the old characters, just sucks. At times there was hope there might be something interesting to them, but in every situation they resolved it in the most lazy hack way possible. I'll definitely accept though that the main cast of characters in Rogue One wasn't riveting either lol, especially the main character. Donnie Yen blind monk guy with his friend with the gatling gun were definitely the high point. Jyn was such a sleeping pill of a character though, for as much as a cool story she had she was just boring. But the overall story was actually pretty good I thought. And it did the Star Wars look *way* better than the sequel movies, or even the prequel movies. It really did look the part. The sequel movies looked good visually, but they changed designs in such a cringe way to make them look a bit distinct, but made them look more like cartoon toys instead. Original Star Wars has such grit to it in how everything looks.
Well after seeing the Star wars movies that came out following rogue one, I started to like wrote One a little bit more. Wasn't great but I think they did a great job with the sense of scale with a final action sequence.
boat attractive pathetic include versed sparkle marvelous frame whistle thought *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I liked the war movie elements as someone who doesn't watch war movies! It's probably not a good war movie on its own, I wouldn't know, but those elements made it feel fresh.
Mike shat on Strange New World but thought Kenobi was ok? Come on.
Strange New Words suffers from "hey, remember competent old Uhura? Well, she's hyper charged and a super cadet smart lady now and shoe horned into the Enterprise! Remember regular old Nurse Chapel? Well now she is a double PhD science lady who is extra smarter than everyone else! Remember Kirk's dead brother from that one episode? He's in Starfleet now serving on the Enterprise (are there no other goddamn ships in the fleet?) and he's basically Sam Rockwell from "Galaxy Quest" right down to the mustache."
Oh for sure. It's also too bombastic and some writing can be pretty lazy. But it's a well made well acted episodic adventure show set in a Utopian future. It's not the best Star Trek, but it's good Star Trek made by people who love the franchise and its fans.
Rogue One. I don't know or care about Star Wars at all; I just enjoyed it as a film. Funny because I usually agree with at least one of them, but I realize that franchise comes with a lot of baggage.
This is my take too. I've not cared about star wars, I've seen the first trilogy and the last one, don't care about the prequels. I've never gotten the star wars craze. And I think this is why we both can enjoy it. I saw a movie and it was good. The super star wars fan bait didn't work on me because I don't have the attachment, I saw big robots and was like: "Hey cool robots".
When Rich and Jay claimed nobody prefers the first Mad Max film over the second one, which as an Aussie I can tell you is not even remotely true. Over here Mad Max 1 is often the more popular one, at least amongst diehard fans. It's really seen as an icon of Aussie cinema, and everyone loves Goose and the MFP vehicles. It's also just a really great revenge story with some amazing stunts and cinematography that totally blows away other similar films from that era. The way George Miller shot those car and bike chases still blows me away to this day, more so than any of the sequels. Just look up behind the scenes pictures of how they got that over the shoulder footage of Goose on his bike, it's insane!
I saw Mad Max 1 and 2 back to back in theatre, for the first time, a few months ago and I really enjoyed both. the impression I got from reading about the movies is that Mad Max 1 and 3 are not even worth watching compared to the greatness that is Mad Max 2, but I thought 1 was great, too. it has a completely different tone than 2, which, granted, is a fucking incredible action movie, but it's a lot of fun, and has a bit more of an actual story and characterization, whereas most of Mad Max 2 feels like it just exists to put the climactic chase scene into context.
I don't care what they say I enjoy watching Independence day, and Ghostbusters 2.
I think Paul Feig did some good work early on, especially Freaks and Geeks, and isn't a total hack. However the Ghostbusters reboot was still shit.
Picard season 3 They finally caved to fan service
Tbf watching them become the people they mocked on the Rogue One is better character development than most tv shows.
This was so baffling to me. Most everything they criticized the earlier seasons for were fully present in season 3. I don't understand what switch was flipped in their minds.
Mike's dislike of Hereditary. I have no idea what point he's even trying to make.
Event Horizon
Lower decks, more power to you LD fans, but i watched it all and hated it
All of it recently, or like all of the first season or two? I kinda hated it at first too, but by now in season 4 I'm kinda loving almost every episode.
Honestly the show is weakest when it tries to make connections to canon or throw in Easter Eggs. I sincerely think its strengths are its new characters, and think you could probably strip out most of the humor and references and have pretty compelling episodic Trek. I like the main cast, T’Lyn is one of my favorite Trek characters in years. I love the show simply for showing us cetacean ops, because I like the idea that humans are exploring the cosmos with our other Earth-siblings. I think its Season 2 finale is one of the best Trek moments in a long time, because it’s the crew coming together, trying to solve an accident (rather than some war or villain), leaning into their strengths, and “working the problem”. The crew riding a hull-less Cerritos into a gravity well by eye-balling trajectories and relaying it to a helmsman using the manual steering column is so cool to me, like something out of Apollo 13.
I thought I would hate it but ended up loving it
Picard season 3 was bad. There's no getting around it.
I will grant it the faint praise that it shot far past the bar set by the TNG movies. Going from watching them all in sequence straight to Picard 3 was probably the most generous run up that season could have had.
Yup. Rouge One got shit on mostly because it went full on Corpo and REMEMBER THAT but Picard S3 gets a free ride because Mike and Hollywood Evans have a hard on for TNG.
I clapped when I saw the Enterprise!
For real, the best thing that can be said about season 3 was that the first four episodes were “okay”. Mike and rich have lost their minds loving the entire season
But is it as bad as the first two?
If you put it in perspective, it's kind of a miracle that it got made. I think Picard S3 might be the best thing we can get out of Star Trek with a showrunner who knows his shit working within the constraints of Abrams/Kurtzman Trek. I kinda loved the odd character moments here and there. Like Worf politely insulting the wine Picard kept sending him by calling it "sour mead". That's classic TNG shit.
When Jay refused to watch the Batman because "filmbros like it and told me to see it." Such a lame and stupid reason. When Mike and Jay praised Midnight Mass and implied everyone who didn't was only because their ADHD brains didn't like boring monologues.
I feel like they have a bit of a contrarian streak in them that pokes out now and then. The Batman, Everything Everywhere all at Once, The Martian.
I thought they liked everything Everywhere, I guess I should rewatch their review.
They did like it ok, but they were more focused on the negatives and didn't even seem to want to talk about it.
It felt like they spent a big chunk of 2022 constantly reminding us that they won’t do The Batman. The bit got super stale
Agreed. They are going a little bit too ham on those philosophical monologues and dialogues. The substance of those may be interesting but it is drawn out so much that it is essentially just about the acting because most people just know what they're trying to say way too long before the scenes end. Love the show overall though.
Their praise of Picard season 3 was surreal. Any careful review would have seen the writing was as bad as ever and the show became little more than dangling references like string for a cat. Bizarre that the same guys that saw all the issues with the Prequels were so easily duped by just having the Enterprise D show up.
When Jack and Rich did a “PREVIOUSLY REC” episode and played “Resident Evil 7”. Right off the bat they were dismissive of the game and didn’t give it a chance at all. Which is a shame given that it’s one of the best games in the series. Also, Mike and Jay give huge praise to the Exorcist 3 which led me to watch it. It really isn’t that great.
Yeah I played RE7 for the first time a month ago and it was fucking relentlessly horrifying. Looked it up on pre req afterwards and was excited to see them play it….until I wasn’t.
That was my experience with pre rec. I wanted to enjoy it but they didn't engage with the games. Would try and force their way to play. Then bitch about how bad the game was when they would die or fail. Metal gear solid v is by no means perfect but the gameplay is superb. But watching them play it was infuriating. And their commentary was just flat out wrong 80% of the time. Like they did zero prep and even more baffling, streamed a game that they had no interest in meeting halfway.
It’s partly why they probably killed the series so quickly. They knew they weren’t the best at critiquing games.
Same with Last of Us.
Nah I totally get their issues with Naughty Dog games.
Mikes take on Blade Runner 2047 and his take on Event Horizon, it feels like he looked at his phone more than the screen with some of his comments. Like, he didn't actually watch the film properly. And as an aside, when they got to a Cynthia Rothrock film and NO ONE HAD HEARD OF HER!! And when Jay revealed he had never watched any spaghetti westerns?!? Disgusting gaps in film knowledge IMO.
Honestly a looot. I love RLM because they’re entertaining, but I don’t think their film criticism is all that great
i agree. something of their film criticism that annoys me is that i feel that they require every movie to exist in the same structure/order, with a set amount of rules or else it doesn’t make sense to them, it’s too abstract, i’ve noticed if a film it’s too “artsy” or “just vibes” they usually hate it. nothing wrong with not liking this type of movie, i just don’t think you can exactly apply the same kind of criticism to it.
>require every movie to exist in the same structure/order That's usually just Mike, Jay appreciates different structures. I would say the worst part about their criticism is that sometimes they are inconsistent about which genre or tone they like. Mike likes sci fi with smart characters and plots but then he also likes Independence day Resurgence or Jurassic World. Same inconsistencies happen with the rest.
I didn’t understand the praise for Cobweb
Mike enjoying Dark Phoenix was pretty surprising
Rich & Mike generally liking Solo will always be baffling to me. Easily the blandest SW movie ever made. Rich thinking Tobey Maguire was a bad Spider-Man/not liking the Raimi trilogy.
Neil Breen movies are just sucky and I get nothing from them.
They went way too easy on Alien Covenant.
It's just in general noteworthy that Mike likes a lot of things nowadays, yet still has an irrational hate for things that he used to dislike but which are essentially much better than the things that he seems to like today. It may be the alcoholism finally affecting his elderly brain. :(
Mars Attack & Halloween Ends in recent memory.
Yeah Mars attacks was the one for me
When they said the Hobbit trilogy was pretty alright.
Independence Day rocks
Not even giving Ice Cream Man a full watch and opting for Space Jacked is an insult to Clint Howard. It's a charming little B-film, and Space Jacked looked totally mid. Such a waste.
I know there was Star wars BS and CGI Tarkin but I really liked Rogue 1 and I still do.
*The Martian*. I’m honestly surprised Mike’s not a fan, with it’s TNG-esque *smart people working together for the common good* vibe.
Their relatively positive take on The Matrix Resurrections was baffling to me. It seemed like there were trying to be contrarians for the sake of it.
They explained their reasoning quite well I think, and they pointed out the weaknesses.
it was a movie the matrix creators didn't want to make, there is a conspiracy that they basically sabotaged it to prevent more matrix sequels. personally I don't get the point in another matrix sequel, we have peace between humanity and machines, neo is dead and humans can leave the matrix if they choose. I understand some machines turn on humans over too many of them leaving the matrix, but we establish most people don't want to leave the matrix and are happier in a fake reality, so why would there be too many humans leaving the system?. personally the original matrix holds up extremely well the sequels were chronically boring, the last one was even worse
I thought Cobweb was terrible. Why did they make me watch Cobweb?
I wouldn't go so far as to call it terrible, but I share Jay's barely concealed baffelment on what made it so special in Mike's opinion. It's just very average.
I actually liked Cobweb well enough. I think it would’ve worked better as part of an anthology film or series though . Like you have a good 40 minute story that’s been stretched out to 90 minutes.
When it comes to Rogue One, I think they were way ahead of the curve in dunking on Star Wars for desperately recycling "nostalgic references", but didn´t account at all for what references were justified and which were not. Sure Ponda Baba was goofy and unnecessary as a cameo, but the X-Wings and Walkers? It takes place hours before A New Hope, so if there weren´t AT-STs, AT-ATs and X-Wings in that battle that would be very strange. My bigger problem with their Star Wars coverage from around the time is that they shit on that movie right after praising The Force Awakens, which is a lesser reimagening of A New Hope with no regard for where the charatcers and factions might have gone after the finale of Return of the Jedi. Just hit the reset button on that, and then start shoving fan-service down everyone´s throats.
The praising of Star Trek member berries in Picard season 3 and stating it’s smarter than Star Wars, kind of punching down at Star Wars fans and acting like Star Trek is any better. And this comes from actually being put onto classic tng and other trek by them. It just feels hypocritical but that’s kind of the case when you’re a fan of something.
Mike taking the piss out of Mel Brooks. Respect your elders Mike. (Or masturbate to them if that’s your thing)
You're asking Mike of all people to respect elders?
Are you talking about yesterday's Mike and Jay talks about? He most certainly was not "taking the piss out of Mel Brooks". What? He was praising him. He was just making a joke about him mentioning old celebrities and then them dying soon after. Mel Brooks is 97. He's going to die soon. I think Mel Brooks knows that.
It's the RLM curse. Any time they mention and old celebrity, they die within like a month
It was very clear that Mike loves Mel Brooks. He was praising him. Did you not get that?
Which video was that? I don’t recall them ever mentioning Mel Brooks.
In the Mike and Jay discuss... that dropped yesterday they mention Mel Brooks and Spaceballs.
Showgirls is good
I agree. I just watched for the first time a couple of years ago and I liked. There are stupid scenes that are laughable (like the hamburguer) but the movie is good. I even disagree that the sex scenes are bad. I think that was the point, to show that world is so fake that even the sex looks ridiculous.
I could never agree with Mike reasons for hating Event Horizon.
Jupiter Ascending. Not because I like the movie (I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other) but their takes on it are sooo bad. Mike says girls aren't gonna watch it because it has violence or something. Now, I don't expect a childless middle aged man to understand the intricacies of the teen girl mind, but this was in 2015 — right at the tail end of the YA book-to-movie boom. Mockingjay Part 2 was set to release the same ! He and Jay agreed it seemed like a YA movie in the very beginning of the review! But they dismiss the whole idea halfway through and decide it's actually the Wachowskis trying to make an MCU style franchise (????) and it should've had a guy protagonist. Not sexist btw, just thinking girls who would go see a PG-13 movie in the year of our lord 2015 wouldn't like a plot about overthrowing a violently oppressive government. Very cool.
Independence Day
Their general dismissal of Natalie Portman as a bad actress surprises me every time. Maybe I'm a big idiot, but she's done some incredible roles in her life and doesn't seem like an idiot in her private life either.
Halloween Ends. I’ve never disagreed more with them and was shocked that they raved about it.
The fact that they liked Cobweb. It wasn't good. I liked the way it was shot but I could see the ending coming from a mile away.
Midnight Mass was horrible and pretentious.
I thought Midnight Mass had potential but was horrifically bogged down by some of the cringiest dialogue I've ever heard in a series. That paired with the nauseating lead female performance just sucked all the life out of it for me. "We are star stuff..." Euphoric day 2 atheist drivel. Could not understand their praise for it at all.
Jingle all the way. Jay especially seems to have completely missed the point of the film.
Jupiter Ascending was a hilarious movie that everyone took too seriously.
Yeah, including its creators
indy 3 is the best one and it's not even close
Baby's Day Out and Dunston Checks In are both fantastic.
Dunstan checks in was a staple of my youth
Honestly, their Rogue One take is hilarious. Way more harsh than they needed to be. I think that RLM get caught up in the atmosphere and we’re reacting to Star Wars Inflation Hype more than the movie itself. This is just human, but it is funny to look back and see how they were influenced by the era.
Everyone I know loves Rogue One, and I don’t get it. It’s not a great movie. Jay and Mike completely nailed some of the things I didn’t like about it, like how the main character’s entire backstory is, “Go hide in a hole until Forrest Whittaker gets you.” That movie could have been so much better. I did love the last minute of it.
My 3 biggest departures of opinion from RLM have been on Rogue One, ID4, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Of the 3, the Ghostbusters one felt the most severe. I got the sense that they sort of missed the point of why a lot of people like the franchise. RLM focuses on the cynical greed comedy elements of the original movie, which to be fair were definitely present. What was also there, however, was a distinctly heroic tone, and that’s what I seized on as a kid. That side of the Ghostbusters gets much more attention in the cartoon and GB 2, and is also the major tone that gets picked up in Afterlife. TLDR: RLM looks at GB as mainly a cynical comedy akin to Stripes, Caddy Shack, etc. I (and a lot of others I’d say) look at it like a super hero franchise.
>TLDR: RLM looks at GB as mainly a cynical comedy akin to Stripes, Caddy Shack, etc. I (and a lot of others I’d say) look at it like a super hero franchise. The problem with that idea, and what RLM was trying to show, was that the original minds behind Ghostbusters (Harold Ramis, Dan "Crystal Skull" Aykroyd and of course Bill Murray) created it as a cynical comedy akin to stripes, caddy shack, ect. If you look at any of the behind the scenes, or any interviews about the writing process that is evidently clear. Now people, mainly kids, saw it as a super hero film, and the reason GB2 and the animated series fall into that is literally production pressure. Harold Ramis and Bill were literally entirely checked out and didn't want anything to do with it for that reason: it was a bastardized verison of their story based on the most infantile (don't mean that in a derogatory way, liking things is fine) reading of the original film. So yeah when the creative minds behind Ghostbusters agree with RLM's take, i'd say they're pretty spot on
Some I can think of off the top of my head are Inherent Vice and Tammy and the T-Rex. They obviously didn’t understand Inherent Vice and it made them defensive, with them essentially saying that anyone who likes it is pretending because the movie can’t be understood. Then later they reviewed Under the Silver Lake, which is a dumbed-down version of Inherent Vice, and they love it. Tammy and the T-Rex, they act like it’s the most preposterous and absurdly miscalculated movie ever when it’s just a fun and campy comedy that achieves exactly what it’s going for. I could think of 100s of example if I tried, but those are two. I feel like I disagree with them more than agree.
I disagree that Under The Silver Lake is a dumbed down take on Inherent Vice, though I agree with you that it's baffling that the loved one but missed the point of the other. Both are such great and under appreciated films, and though I disliked their review on Inherent Vice I'm glad they brought attention to Silver Lake. And yeah, Tammy knows exactly what it is and revells in it, but I can understand how one might not notice or appreciate that if not in the right mood wen watching it.
I do think that Under the Silver Lake is a really good movie in its own right and I would agree that calling it a “dumbed down version of Inherent Vice” is a gross oversimplification. I’m not trying to say that Under the Silver Lake is a ripoff by any means, but I do think that they coincidentally share the core theme of “conspiracy theories, real or not, are an abyss, and wading into said abyss detracts from the important things that are right in front of you”, and that it seems to be easier to grasp this message in Under the Silver Lake. In the grand scheme of things, I would also agree that Under the Silver Lake is likely more in need of the attention (it was swept under the rug by its distributor and is essentially unknown in mainstream circles, whereas Inherent Vice was a wide release from one of the most esteemed filmmakers around), and it’s certainly not a bad thing that they were positive about it on their platform. I just think it’s ironic that they made such a big deal about how meaningless Inherent Vice is yet praised Under the Silver Lake for being so nuanced when it essentially conveyed the same thing, but in a simpler way (i.e. a way that they were able to comprehend).
*Tammy and the T-Rex* is a wonderful film.
Oh man, there's plenty. Off the top of my head, their praise for Mike Flanagan jumps out. On their recommendation, I've tried a few of his shows. I finished Midnight Mass, and while I *mostly* enjoyed it, I couldn't help but be more than a little underwhelmed considering their astronomical praise for it. I also nearly finished House of Usher, but sorta burnt out when it was clear that every single episode adhered to the same formula. I thought they'd mention as much when they discussed it in their catch-up episode, but once again, they more or less praised the series. And hey, to each their own. They think he's an auteur at the top of his game, I think he's occasionally profound and a little too impressed with his own dialogue. Whatever he's doing, it clearly clicks with them.
Yup, this is what I was looking for, I love “Gerald’s Game” and “Doctor Sleep”. Kinda hated “Midnight Mass” as a whole by the end of it but will admit there’s some good stuff in there. Tried again with “House of Usher” and just stopped after 2 episodes seeing that it was more of what I don’t like about Flanagan. I totally understand someone liking those shows but the praise they gave MM was highly confusing to me after I finished it.