My favorite reviewer at it again... [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums


View Full Version : My favorite reviewer at it again...

05-07-2012, 06:26 PM
He reviews Star Trek - the 2009 movie and likes it - but it's his commentary on Hollywood that is most amusing.

(Part 1 of 5) Star Trek 2009 Movie Review - YouTube (

05-08-2012, 06:30 PM
Is that his real voice or does he lower the pitch value when recording his voice?

It is kind of annoying :(

05-08-2012, 11:52 PM
Is that his real voice or does he lower the pitch value when recording his voice?

It is kind of annoying :(

I love his voice - sounds like A serial killer mixed with Garfield

05-09-2012, 05:39 AM
It took me a while to recognize that this was a thinly veiled attempt at being clever and not some horrific testament to inbreeding.

Have you two compared criteria for reviewing product? :p

05-09-2012, 07:35 AM
I find his reviews more enjoyable than most of the movies.

His Avatar review was classic - Avatar Review (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube (

Avatar Review (Part 2 of 2) - YouTube (

And Indiana Jones 4 he is quite crude at about 4 minutes - but I almost sneezed my drink through my nose.

(Part 1 of 6) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Review - YouTube (

05-09-2012, 03:16 PM
That guy does great reviews - and yeah - about 4min into the Indie review it gets a little dirty - not for those who can't take a dirty joke.

The Avatar review is classic!

05-10-2012, 01:34 AM
I liked the Phantom Menace "What's wrong with your faaaaaaace?!"

And his Star Trek Generations review was hilarious - starting with Star Trek Generations is the stupidest movie ever made.

Star Trek: Generations Review - Part 1 - YouTube (

I always liked Star Trek and found the movies to get away from the intent of the TV show.

used to go to the theaters every week - one year I saw over 60 and I was thinking of becoming a movie reviewer. This guy illustrates and reveals to a tee why most movies suck on almost every level.

His Indian Jones 4 review notes the crappy special effects blue screens and digital CGI. I agree - use CGI when nothing else can be done but in a chase sequence with the two jeeps - it looks so cheese ball and far worse than the similar chase in the 1981 Raiders. It is inexcusable for a modern film to look worse than a 30 year old movie.

But hey I watched the new The Thing and it looked like a video game - crappy. The 82 film wasn't perfect - stop motion at the end looked fake - but for the most part it holds up. The 2011 version looks no better than an episode of Smallville or Doctor Who.

When films look no better than a TV show or video games there is a problem. Credit TV for improving immensely but still... Why pay for a movie when TV offers the same or better.

Granted if the quality of the actual movies (story, acting, directing) were better than people will care less if a visual effect isn't all that great. The Original Star Wars series has visible issues but you ignore it because the characters are memorable and there is humor etc. (something the prequels were void of)

The whole idea of the prequel I knew would be a disaster because from second one you know who is not going to die. All tension is lost when you know the future.

Movies like American Beauty tell you at the beginning but they're smart enough to keep the audience engaged.

And he's right about George Lucas.