Posted on 01/01/2010 5:18:54 PM PST by Sneakyuser
Some guy named Mike from Milwaukee, WI put together a 70-minute video review discussing the many reasons why the movie was horrible. And this isn’t your usual fanboy rant, this is an epic, well-edited well-constructed piece of geek film criticism.
This is astounding film making. Watch ALL of it.
I guess I should have put a XD
next to that phrase.
Do you know what “Slash” is? Worse than this guy’s sicker parts.
Ha.
My favorite Darth Vader line: “You have failed me for the last time”.
“There is no escape. Don’t make me destroy you.”
OK well that’s a good one too.
“I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it again.”
Still quoted frequently in our household.
No, but I can guess.
The reviewer is named Mike Stoklasa. He makes his living producing wedding videos in Milwaukee. Seems he wanted a change of pace.
More info here:
I think the chances of successfully navigating an asteroid field are 3,720 to 1. I’m not sure about that, however.
I didn’t appreciate the harsh language, but that was stunningly hilarious! I’m embarrassed to say I watched all 7 parts. The guy who put that together was obviously quite talented.
> I remember being very dissapointed after watching the ‘new’ star wars movies.
I was so disappointed in Episode I, that I never went to see Episodes II and III. I’ve only (in the last year or so) caught reruns on TV of the II and III. I would never watch Episode I again.
However, I gladly spent 70 minutes watching this guy distill all those feelings I had into incisive commentary.
The Imperial March is actually a good score. The Sar Wars theme however, is sublime. Even Beethoven wouldn’t disagree with that, I’m assuming
He’s actually amazing.
(slash has to do with homosexual relationships. Lots in Fanfiction. yuck)
Star Wars theme, I mean. Sorry, I’m geting a little loopy
“However, I gladly spent 70 minutes watching this guy distill all those feelings I had into incisive commentary.”
From the Daily Beast:
A 70-minute-long, manic, brutally critical review of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace has become an improbable YouTube sensation. Benjamin Sarlin talks to the film’s creator.
While Avatar may represent the future of filmmaking, a current Star Wars-related Internet phenomenon signifies how the Aughts’ DIY mashup approach has changed popular culture.
On paper, the viral video making the rounds recently is bizarre even by Internet standards: a 70-minute review of 1999’s Star Wars: The Phantom Menace delivered by an elderly schizophrenic who talks like a cross between Dan Aykroyd in The Blues Brothers and The Silence of the Lambs’ Buffalo Bill.
“Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son,” the narrator begins. “And while my son eventually hanged himself in the bathroom of a gas station, the unfortunate reality of the Star Wars prequels is that they’ll be around forever.”
From there, the video crisscrosses between a sprawling takedown of George Lucas’ disastrous film, touching on everything from the weak character development to tiny inconsistencies, and increasingly disturbing asides from the narrator, including live-action footage of a terrified hostage held captive in his basement. It’s hypnotic, but raises the obvious question: “Who would make something like this?”
“I don’t want to use the cliché that George Lucas ruined my childhood, because I don’t care about it that much, but it is that sort of thing,” Stoklasa said.
His video arguments against Phantom Menace are expertly prosecuted like a seasoned district attorney who is laying out a capital case before a jury, leaping from seasoned film-school critiques (Stoklasa is a graduate) to fanboy attacks on inconsistencies. In one particularly memorable sequence designed to demonstrate The Phantom Menace’s bland protagonist, the narrator challenges several friends to describe the lead characters of the original Star Wars without referring to their clothing or profession. Asked about Harrison Ford’s Han Solo, the subjects easily rattle off a list of adjectives as the film’s iconic main theme swells in the background—“womanizer,” “rogue,” “dashing.”
Then the narrator asks about Liam Neeson’s Qui-Gon Jin, the Phantom Menace’s monotonous hero. Silence—then laughter—ensues.
The video review and its hundreds of rapid cuts took eight to 10 days to produce, a project interrupted by successive bouts of flu, bronchitis, and pneumonia (he was still coughing during the interview).
“Basically, it ended up being 70 minutes because the movie was that bad,” he said. “There were things that I cut out—it could have easily been 80 or 90 minutes.”
As for the film’s increasingly psychotic narrator, Stoklasa says he invented the character out of necessity.
“The idea that people don’t know what’s going to happen next keeps them interested,” he said. “People’s attention spans have drooped a lot, it’s pretty much the consensus, so you have to do stuff like that to keep it fresh.”
The timing of Stoklasa’s film carries a special resonance given that the most anticipated special-effects movie since Phantom Menace, Avatar, is drawing adulation this month for its visual feats—and simultaneous revulsion because of its weak story. Watching the YouTube review, it’s hard not to wonder what the seven-part review of James Cameron’s blockbuster might look 10 years from now.
As for today, Stoklasa’s review is a perfect close to the innovative aughts: a genre-defying piece tailored to the Adderall-popping Internet generation that would never have found an audience in an earlier decade—let alone millions within days.
“It’s bizarre to me that some guy like me could make this and potentially George Lucas could see it,” Stoklasa said. “The gap really is closing
"Never tell me the odds!"
Well, hopefully you'll never have to use the equivalent of "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."
Hey, thanks for that review of the review.
Check out this guy’s reviews on Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, and the other ones he’s done. Hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=JamesNintendoNerd
(Profanity used)
I loved the quote from (a much younger) George Lucas at the end of part 6: “Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have tendency to confuse them as an ends to themselves. Special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing.” You said it brother. Wait! You said that?
I thought it was a typo when I read a 70 minute review of a 90 minute movie, but having just watched part one, this guy is good. I’m getting ready to go on to part two. BTW, I hope this guy is putting on an act with the way he talks and particularly what he says about his son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.