>Likes Jupiter Ascending >Defends The Dark Knight Rises

>>87327121
you're still butthurt about this? it's been more than a year. let it go

>>87327121
do you seriously give that much of a shit

File: hnngg.gif (109KB, 205x260px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 205x260px

>>87327121
>hack OP hack'ing a thread about a hack that shills about a bunch of hacks who make hack movies

I can't even all this hackery

Anything that is bland and campy they'll like. It's why they've never given an MCU movie a bad review

Space Cop was terrible with no redeeming qualities

>>87327121
he also hates escape from new york. also space cop was fucking garbage even as ironic it was garbage.

>>87329234
Wasn't that the point?

File: mike plfft.png (121KB, 316x362px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 316x362px

Their (and by that I mean all three, Mike, Jay and Rich) reasoning behind why they thought R1 was shit is incredibly flawed. Their main arguments in the half in the bag video were the following:
1. It wasn't what they expected. Therefore bad.
2. It is Star Wars and contains typical Star Wars elements. Therefore bad.
3. Star Wars fans enjoyed the movie. Therefore bad.

In the plinkett review they try to retroactively prove (to themselves foremost) that it's a bad movie by going into character. They criticize the film for its lack of backstory, which is a point unfair of them to make at the time considering they seemed to completely ignore most if not all the details while watching it. All that stuff about motivation, what the characters are thinking/feeling is all there. Is it brilliantly written? No, but it is there. Conveniently they also fail to mention that there are indeed "quips" in that action sequence (which essentially their plinkett review rests on). Characters do make their thoughts/feelings known during the action like in A New Hope; characters do have arcs in the movie.

They got called out on their bullshit, so naturally they made this video to try and poorly defend themselves (with flawed reasoning again). And even after that they tried once again to defend their opinions on the audio commentary track, but by just spouting even more bullshit. Anyone can reduce a movie to trivial notions using flawed reasoning, especially while ignoring large parts of the story.

I'm not saying this movie is brilliant. I'm not saying people have no right to dislike it. But if you attack this movie in a review like they do, you should have good reasons to back up your opinions. Unfortunately this is something that RLM does not do, but I guess has never done either. They review films primarily on how they feel without actually putting any thought into it.

>>87329551
I can't imagine being so absolutely assblasted at someone's opinion of a space movie for children that you're still sperging about it a year later

File: jay bauman taste 2.png (2MB, 1600x968px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x968px

>>87329632
I can't believe being such an RLM shill

>>87329347
why would that be the point? it wasnt entertaining in it's awfulness, it was just awful.