Red Letter Media.....best movie reviews I have seen

[LexCorp]

http://redlettermedia.com/
That is all

 

[Still Wynning]

While I agree with you on that, there are some people on here who would disagree with you.

His The Phantom Menace review is still one of his best.

 

[Max J Power]

I haven't watched much of the Red Letter Media reviews, and my response is kind of mixed. On one hand, I can't completely get behind devoting that much time and creative energy into trashing things the guy hates. On the other, some of his jokes are hilarious and he's actually doing quality analysis of how movies work.

 

[Jackasscoley15]

I love Red Letter Media. Half in the Bag is a brilliant review show. It's like Ebert & Roeper mixed with a dopy sitcom, very entertaining.

 

[LexCorp]

I haven't watched much of the Red Letter Media reviews, and my response is kind of mixed. On one hand, I can't completely get behind devoting that much time and creative energy into trashing things the guy hates. On the other, some of his jokes are hilarious and he's actually doing quality analysis of how movies work.

Indeed.

Much of the analysis is very good and I think that is why I keep watching. He makes sense, good points and is in general pretty clear as to why he is saying what he is saying.

I do not always agree with eveything he says but for me it's appreciated just because he does spend that much effort explaining things. I don't think he trashes things all the time.

His Star Trek review was actually pretty nice. It's only the last few parts where he points out some plot holes but all in all he does not bash it too hard.

 

[SWAT]

"What's wrong with your faaaaaace!" Still makes me laugh.

 

[LexCorp]

"What's wrong with your faaaaaace!" Still makes me laugh.

Ah yes that was a great line.

"Oh my god whats wrong with your hair!"

A nice twist on the obvious line in his Trek review

Has anyone seen their new GameStation 2.0 series?

They just aired the first one.

Not as strong as Half in the Bag I think.

 

[The Morningstar]

RLM are awesome. Underneath the humour they are guys who know what they are talking about.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

So... what's the next review?

 

[jacobed]

I don't find them to be nothing special. They have ridiculously bias reviews and I don't find them funny. I'll take the Spill Crew over RLM any day

 

[Pondslider]

So... what's the next review?

He hinted at Star Trek V in the Titanic review. That's all that's been said, I think.

 

[Marvin]

The early stuff(star wars) was pretty great. However their more continuous stuff isn't anything special. Pretty much the same as any film blogger site.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

The Spill crew is pretty damn great (especially for a bad movie). But they do podcasts on average the length of two hours multiple times a week. Bit excessive. I stick to the audio reviews.

Red Letter Media lost me on the Titanic review. DiCaprio and Portman bad actors. A statement I can't get behind. Still love Half in the BAAAAAAAAG and look forward to Plinkett's next review. Hope it's something unexpected unlike Star Trek V as someone alluded to or Twilight.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Not a fan, especially since everyone quotes those stupid prequel reviews, and I really don't need someone to point out all the flaws of the prequels. Some of us do like them and think them good films, so I'll take my opinion over someone who acts so sure that they are completely right in their opinion and that there are no redeeming facotrs to the films.

I'm with the above, Spill is way better, and usually has a decently varied opinion amongst their group.

 

[Solidus]

If you're not worried about your opinion why do you let it bug you? To me a lot of his later stuff has become meh. But to me his prequel reviews had a lot of spot on analysis. Some of his opinions of course I don't fully agree with. But for the most part I loved his prequel reviews.

 

[Lord]

Sorry to bump this thread, but i think they deserve an ongoing discussion. Anybody watched their 2014 summer movie round up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpHS7_OpSk

I just warn you that there may be some swearing.

I agree with most of their reviews on Half in the Bag, their wheel of the worst episodes are also quite hilarious. I actually think they've been improving voer time, with the weekly episodes i also don't think we'll get that many Pinkett reviews, which i don't really mind.

I have to admit though, some of the reviews of Star Wars aren't that insightful and sometimes get lost in comedy instead of properly evaluating the film from start to finish.

 

[DA_Champion]

Sorry to bump this thread, but i think they deserve an ongoing discussion. Anybody watched their 2014 summer movie round up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpHS7_OpSk

I just warn you that there may be some swearing.

I agree with most of their reviews on Half in the Bag, their wheel of the worst episodes are also quite hilarious. I actually think they've been improving voer time, with the weekly episodes i also don't think we'll get that many Pinkett reviews, which i don't really mind.

I have to admit though, some of the reviews of Star Wars aren't that insightful and sometimes get lost in comedy instead of properly evaluating the film from start to finish.

I loved their Star Wars reviews but it was my first time watching/reading a high-level critique of the prequels.

Re: original movies

There are very few original movies. Pacific Rim, for example, was supposed to be an original property last summer, and it was anything but, totally derivative BS. Transcendent is an original property coming out this summer and it looks like a mishmash of Inception and The Terminator.

I found Sucker Punch and Oblivion to be largely original, but the audiences largely hated those. Audiences also hated John Carter of Mars. Finally, I expect audiences to hate Jupiter Ascending this summer, even though in my opinion it looks magnificent.

Audiences don't really want original properties, so I understand studios shying away from them. They're giving the people what they want.

 

[Lord]

Well, Pacific Rim still gave some welcome changes in blockbuster films, the main female character for example was good and we weren't beat over the head with a forced romance, we actually got two things that can be quite rare, a female main character from a minority that is well developed and well written. Kaijus vs Mechas is still a pretty fun element that isn't completelly common in Hollywood movies

Sucker Punch wasn't really very original, and it failed because it was kinda bad, Oblivion failed because it was a little boring, and i wouldn't really call it original, i know we've had a discussion about it in another thread, many of the criticisms of the movie were that besides the Drone theme, it felt a lot like a milkshake of all science fiction concepts.

I agree about originality, it's very rare to see it nowadays but i think it usually comes down to how you handle inspiration, Star Wars for example ripped of various sources, but it still created an interesting universe from that. I would say that James Cameron knows this very well.

I think the problem is when most you see are remakes, sequels and spin-offs, like Spider-Man, X-Men and Star Wars aparently getting a large expansion of their cinematic universe, this to me sounds like overkill, i'dd ratter get new properties that take inspiration from what came before like Avatar and Pacific Rim than Yoda films or studios trying to create their oun connected universes.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well, Pacific Rim still gave some welcome changes in blockbuster films, the main female character for example was good and we weren't beat over the head with a forced romance, we actually got two things that can be quite rare, a female main character from a minority that is well developed and well written. Kaijus vs Mechas is still a pretty fun element that isn't completelly common in Hollywood movies

Sucker Punch wasn't really very original, and it failed because it was kinda bad, Oblivion failed because it was a little boring, and i wouldn't really call it original, i know we've had a discussion about it in another thread, many of the criticisms of the movie were that besides the Drone theme, it felt a lot like a milkshake of all science fiction concepts.

I agree about originality, it's very rare to see it nowadays but i think it usually comes down to how you handle inspiration, Star Wars for example ripped of various sources, but it still created an interesting universe from that. I would say that James Cameron knows this very well.

I think the problem is when most you see are remakes, sequels and spin-offs, like Spider-Man, X-Men and Star Wars aparently getting a large expansion of their cinematic universe, this to me sounds like overkill, i'dd ratter get new properties that take inspiration from what came before like Avatar and Pacific Rim than Yoda films or studios trying to create their oun connected universes.

It's really hard to argue that Sucker Punch, Oblivion, Avatar, etc are any less original than Amazing Spider Man 2 is going to be. Sucker Punch is sufficiently different from what came before that people did not understand it, Oblivion dealt with drone warfare, and Avatar is perceived as unoriginal because of the Jake Sully character, when in fact it's Grace Augustine who matters more and she is very much original.

You say that you would rather see original movies, but you know, it's not what people are paying for. Spider Man 5, Marvel 10, X-Men 7, Marvel 11, 302, Sin City 2, will all make truckloads of money this year.

With that said, there are at least two 2014 original blockbusters that will have made money: Lego movie and Interstellar. One might argue that Mockingjay is original, since it's an adaptation of an original book. With that said, they are grossly outnumbered by the incomplete list above, and they in fact all have brands attached, with the brand for Interstellar being "Christopher Nolan".

 

[Deserana]

I used to really enjoy their shows but recently for me they started to turn into typical "everything big sucks" reviewers. And I'm also aware that it probably takes a while to film and do all the videos but they've only done 7 reviews this year.

 

[Lord]

With "I would prefer to see" i mean what i would prefer the studios to make, since i too will go watch the brands, Sucker Punch failed more because of the reception, and to be honest, i found it a terrible film. With Avatar i never saw that much criticism for the main characters, people usually find it unoriginal due to telling almost the exact same plot as Dance with Wolves and Pocahontas. At most, they will bring up the villains as being one-Dimensional and Cliched.

Even when a film tells something new, they may feel like what came before due to all the other similar elements, Oblivion and The Lone Ranger had some new ideas but those were mostly overshadowed due to the films feeling like everything that has come before them.

I'm not really annoyed by the brands being popular, i just don't like the idea of milking them so much that the market becomes oversaturated with spin-offs, sequels and remakes. What Marvel is doing is unique to them, but stuff like Spider-Man shouldn't be forced to spawn the same thing. I don't mind getting an Avatar 2, Transformers 4 or Star Wars 7 now and then, but at a certain points it just becomes way too much.

I also don't like how studios now make one film with a sequel already in mind, often leading into a film that seems a bit incomplete, that's something i actually apreciate in Nolan and Michael Bay, they give us a complete movie and their all.

Another thing, the more you oversaturate the market with superheroes, the more people may get tired of them sooner, it may not happen now or even in the next decade, but at this pace it will happen, some are even getting tired of the reboot shtick, as was evidenced by how TAS-M did less money than its previous films, even though it had the boost of 3D.

Film are becoming too much like tv shows, where you get a serialized adventure and rarelly get the full story.

 

[Lord]

I used to really enjoy their shows but recently for me they started to turn into typical "everything big sucks" reviewers. And I'm also aware that it probably takes a while to film and do all the videos but they've only done 7 reviews this year.

Let me guess, you're mad that they hated on The Man of Steel

 

[DA_Champion]

Let me guess, you're mad that they hated on The Man of Steel

You know, I was mad that they hated MoS, but that's a pretty funny post t:

 

[DA_Champion]

With "I would prefer to see" i mean what i would prefer the studios to make, since i too will go watch the brands, Sucker Punch failed more because of the reception, and to be honest, i found it a terrible film. With Avatar i never saw that much criticism for the main characters, people usually find it unoriginal due to telling almost the exact same plot as Dance with Wolves and Pocahontas. At most, they will bring up the villains as being one-Dimensional and Cliched.

Even when a film tells something new, they may feel like what came before due to all the other similar elements, Oblivion and The Lone Ranger had some new ideas but those were mostly overshadowed due to the films feeling like everything that has come before them.

I'm not really annoyed by the brands being popular, i just don't like the idea of milking them so much that the market becomes oversaturated with spin-offs, sequels and remakes. What Marvel is doing is unique to them, but stuff like Spider-Man shouldn't be forced to spawn the same thing. I don't mind getting an Avatar 2, Transformers 4 or Star Wars 7 now and then, but at a certain points it just becomes way too much.

I also don't like how studios now make one film with a sequel already in mind, often leading into a film that seems a bit incomplete, that's something i actually apreciate in Nolan and Michael Bay, they give us a complete movie and their all.

Another thing, the more you oversaturate the market with superheroes, the more people may get tired of them sooner, it may not happen now or even in the next decade, but at this pace it will happen, some are even getting tired of the reboot shtick, as was evidenced by how TAS-M did less money than its previous films, even though it had the boost of 3D.

Film are becoming too much like tv shows, where you get a serialized adventure and rarelly get the full story.

I agree with you on sequels and serialisation. I think it's just laziness to not resolve plot points.

TASM made less money because it was inferior. In general, I won't believe that we're saturated until the overall industry starts making less money. Last year:

Iron Man 3: 1,215 million
Man of Steel: 668 million
Thor 2: 645 million
The Wolverine: 413 million
Kick-Ass 2: 60 million

This year:
302: 325 million
Cap 2: 315 million and counting

Doesn't look very saturated, all of these movies have generously outproduced their production budgets by factors of two or more. The "free market" (hehe) is enthusiastically supporting this production.

 

[I'm Old Greg]

Redlettermedia should be hired to read scripts and give notes to film makers to make a better movie.