Film Brain

I did compare and noted that his regular movements are much large air punches and his facial expressions are much more stretched and that the only thing that was "more" in that little demo was the rocking movement.

He also said "all the time". He only rocks and eyebrows that much when seriously pissed.

airpunches...what?

edited 13th Oct '10 11:42:47 AM by OldManHoOh

It's probably Attention Whoreish to do this myself but, it's on the quotes page, so here. Twitter post about us. What do you guys think?

I think us tropers are really experienced at applying tropes to works almost as soon as they are aired.

I guess this has nothing on Kickassia, though. I'm surprised that didn't end up Trope Overdosed.

Wait, so this is a trope in its own right???

I think the difference between Matthew Buck and the actors in Hudson Hawk, near as I can tell from his review since I haven't seen the damn film, is that Buck works in a medium where being a Large Ham (or Deadpan Snarker) is the norm and generally works.(Buck, compared to the Critic or the Snob, balances both pretty well in my opinion.) He's being hammy because it works with the material. Those that came before him have established this.

Hudson Hawk, on the other hand, is a parody, a comedy with a long history of deriving humor from everyone playing it perfectly straight. The only hams in parodies are those parodying hamminess itself—the original Dr. Frankenstein, for example, is a ham, therefore Young Frankenstein (FRONKENSTEEN!) must be one as well. Imagine watching Airplane or Blazing Saddles with everyone being absurdly over-the-top. It just wouldn't work. Hudson Hawk proves this.

In short, breaking from the norm is bad and no one should do it! Ever!

edited 4th Nov '10 6:39:27 PM by Wackd

I havn't seen much of work. But I loved his reviews on Ratatoing, Transmorphers and Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus. The others have seen are rather... dull.

edited 4th Nov '10 6:55:39 PM by PippingFool

Those are good reviews because they're the easiest to make fun of and are also a goldmine of material.

Yeah, those are definitely some of his funniest reviews. I like that he alternates them with more controversial picks, though - after all, if he only went after the easy targets, he wouldn't have reviewed Seven Pounds (still my favorite episode).

Shame about his Schedule Slip lately. But look - new series: Projector. Kind of a throwback to his written reviews. Thoughts, anyone?

It's not really much of a new series. He's doing what he always does, only focusing on current releases of varying quality instead of home video releases that suck, and instead of a step-by-step of the plot he skips right to the summation. Oh, and Projector is shorter.

It was fine for what it was, I was just expecting him to change things up a bit more.

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know what cover of the Transformers theme he used for the end of the Transmorphers review?

EDIT: Never mind, found out it was the 1986 movie version by Lion.

edited 9th Nov '10 5:11:29 AM by Zeether

Projector?

So OK, It's Average.

The good thing about it is that it plays to Buck's strength's—cogent analysis of technique and elements of film. It's pretty much a standard film criticism. The only "problem" I can think of is there's already plenty of that in all forms of media and then of course there's Rotten Tomatoes. However, given his venue (a site that features talent that uses bad film/comics/shows as a springboard for humor), giving a standard movie review is almost subversive.

Not so sure about that. Bum Reviews, Brads Recent Movies Vlog, Spoony's Vlog reviews.

Bum Reviews is definitely not a "normal" review show. (I was a review show once!) The focus is still clearly on the comedy, not on the critique. Considering the amount of fanwank generated whenever he does try to insert critique into Bum Reviews (District 9), I doubt that's going to... CHANGE! CHANGE!

I've only seen Brad's Twilight review, and it seems more of a personal reflection than a review proper. Still closer than the bum, though.

I also find Projector underwhelming, but I think it's because he's analysing what worked and didn't instead of mercilessly ripping movies to shreds. The latter is just more fun. :P

10,000 BC. An insultingly bad movie. FB failed to mention in the end, that maize is indigenous to America, and thus couldn't be handed to the European protagonist by an African tribesman 11,500 years before there was the first stable connection between Europe and South America.

I don't get how it's insulting. Sure, it makes absolutely no sense why the vastly different environments are so close to one another, or why there are inventions that didn't exist in 10,000 B.C., but something tells me that historical accuracy wasn't the point of the movie. Unless Word of God said it was...

It's a Roland Emmerich movie. I'm not even sure the word "accuracy" is in his vocabulary.

@Jethro: Do you dislike anachronistic stews in general, or is it just this movie?

Ooooh, I can't wait to watch this! I hated 10,000 BC; waste of my money. The plot is rushed and incomprehensibly ridiculous, the characters are so flat, uninteresting, and cliche it's like they're parodies of themselves, the end is a complete cop-out, the effects are bad, the action is stupid, nothing makes sense even in the context of a silly action movie, it's stupid, stupid, stupid.

Okay, now the rant is over, the video should be uploaded. Hooray!

@AHR: When they're this blatnat, but unaware, yes. Ananachronism for laughs? Sure. Small mistakes, or stylistic choises, sure. Corn, domesticated horses, pyramids with gilded tips and metal swords at 10,000 BC. Yeah, no.

I like how the african villagers have been presumably putting up with the raids for years now, but all it takes is one white guy to lead them and they' re up in arms.

I found the review of The Riddle picked up at around half way probably because around that point the film changes from pathetic to batshit crazy and the production values go from "We were able to afford Derek Jacobi and Vanessa Redgrave" to "We spent all our money on Derek Jacobi and Vanessa Redgrave".

edited 29th Nov '10 3:34:41 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

You've got to love Derek Jacobi. The guy can play everything from Roman emperors to medieval monks to Time Lords to Immortal Bum Murderer Charles Dickens.

The last movie Kim Basinger starred in was Charlie St. Cloud.

From dating Batman, to being Zac Efron's mother. That's quite a fall.