Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 209 - 70 Comments
From: Swerb Entered on: July 25, 2004 10:47 PM
I wonder if Revenge of the Sith will eventually be changed to Return of the Sith... and I'm sure I'm not alone when I wish that Lucas would stop dicking with the fucking original trilogy. It's bad enough that we're not going to get the original versions on DVD, but now he's added more pointless junk to them. Infuriating.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 25, 2004 11:28 PM
They should digitally add Jar Jar into Empire Strikes Back. That would be sweet! Or maybe sans sweet. What an unfortunate name (see "Steve Sansweet" in article above).     That could be a new term of ridicule: "You're a real Steve Sansweet with that haircut."
From: Ross Entered on: July 26, 2004 7:48 AM
The only change I want to see is the restoration of the original Han/Greedo scene, the worst of all possible tamperings. I had heard about the Christensen shot at the end of RotJ months ago, and hoped it was just a bad rumor. Hate it when that happens. As I was saying to someone else about it just last night, why do we see a young Anakin but an old Obi-Wan at the end? Is it because you're seeing the face that he had before he became disfigured? What's the threshold? What if you just lost an ear or something? Would we see your pre- or post-ear version? It's a bunch of fucking bullshit.     Yes, Lucas has lost his mind and there's nothing we can do but hope that Episode III (the title is good at least) is not Catwoman Bad.
From: Swerb Entered on: July 26, 2004 8:24 AM
Next thing you know, Lucas will go to everybody's house who bought the old Anakin action figures (I think I got mine free in the mail after sending in UPC codes), rip their heads off and replace them with Hayden Christensen heads. Thing is, it didn't make any sense to have an old guy play Anakin in the original trilogy in the first place, because it's a what-if-he-didn't-turn-into-Vader-and-grew-old-normally face - because isn't Anakin relatively young when he becomes the bad guy? So I guess it makes some sense to add Christensen's face, even though I don't want it to happen.     And Jack: "Sansweet" could be the opposite of Swerb Sweet - that is, literally translating the guy's name, "sans sweetness."
From: Ross Entered on: July 26, 2004 9:28 AM
Here is some more info on the DVDs:     http://www.millenniumfalcon.com/     Swerb, I'm not sure what you mean. Vader was old - his face should necessarily be old when we see his ghost. But we see young Christensen's face, which sucks.
From: Swerb Entered on: July 26, 2004 11:10 AM
But then why is the ghost's face not all fucked up and scarred like Vader's? That's how he looked when he died. Did the apparition have cosmetic surgery and a toupee? My point is, Anakin never looked like that in reality, only in the afterlife.
From: Ross Entered on: July 26, 2004 11:23 AM
Good point. Maybe then it's the apparitions choice as to how to appear. So I guess he could look like whatever he wants. I concede that there is no rationale for how this should work - it's fucking ghosts anyway - this is probably why ghosts don't exist in the first place - they can't figure out what to look like.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: July 26, 2004 2:29 PM
They should digitally cut out Alec Guiness' face and paste Ewan over all the Obi-Wan shots. I know I don't like him, but apparently a lot of y'all think Ewan is a better Obi-Wan... Then I could officially stick a fork in the whole Star Wars library.
From: Ross Entered on: July 26, 2004 2:34 PM
Wait - who said that? Just because we don't share your indefensible hatred for McGregor doesn't mean we necessarily think he's the greatest actor, or even better than Alec Guinness. For what it's worth, I don't think I prefer one over the other. Since the two are playing Obi-Wan at very different stages of life, they're not exactly in direct competition in my mind.
From: The Bone Entered on: July 26, 2004 9:48 PM
Sir Alec Guiness is sweet as hell. I think McGregor did a decent job at convincing me he was a younger version of Guiness (at least in Phantom Menace). He had the speech and mannerism down pretty well.     I think Lucas has done enough process fornicating already. I despise the alteration of the Han/Greedo scene. If he needed to do anything, it would have been to edit the Ewoks out of Jedi.     I'm fairly soured by the whole affair. I can only imagine super nerd fans are contemplating suicide at this point.
From: Swerb Entered on: September 22, 2004 9:28 PM
Well, I've plowed through a lot of the Star Wars DVD box, and it's pretty (of course) sweet. About the first 2/3 of the documentary is excellent, and the video and sound quality are phenomenal. I listened to the commentary on Empire, and it's a bit dry, although Carrie Fisher's comments are usually pretty damn funny. She even makes fun of the "hold me" scene in Jedi, and on several occasions, she accuses Lucas and the producers of making her lose weight for the role. Unfortunately, her comments are few and far between - instead there's mostly fairly dry stuff from Lucas and the sound and effects guys (and Irving Kershner is a lunatic, I've deduced, even if he did the best directing job out of the whole series).     The bad news: The Greedo scene is even worse. Lucas "fixed" it to make Han dodge the shot, and it looks like a shitty editing mistake - one second he's dodging, the next, he's all nonchalant. It just doesn't work. Sticking the ghost Hayden Christensen in a the end of Jedi is lame, and they re-shot the Emperor's scenes in Empire with Ian McDarmid - in fact, he tells Vader that Luke is the son of Anakin Skywalker. Why, I don't know. To quote Obi-Wan: Curious.     Oh yeah: The Vader doc/preview of ep. III is not just sweet, it's a Jack-approved SWEET! McGregor and Christensen supposedly sparred for hours and hours and hours to prepare for the big showdown. It gave me goosebumps...
From: The Bone Entered on: September 22, 2004 10:01 PM
Greedo shoots first? BULLSHIT! Everyone knows Han is cold blooded badass. I can stand it.
From: Swerb Entered on: September 23, 2004 8:57 AM
I just read in a magazine where George Lucas explained it by saying, "Han Solo is not a murderer." It's just more politically correct bullshit, like Spielberg digitally removing guns from guys' hands in "E.T." Very lame.
From: Ross Entered on: September 23, 2004 10:52 AM
Murderer? How is it anything other than self-defense! Lucas is off his fucking rocker!     Anyway, I talked to Roche last night about the Christensen-as-Vader snippet. He was worried that he didn't look quite right. I disagree. We only see him in costume for 2 brief shots. The first looked a little off mostly because he was gesticulating like a kid, kind of excited. But when you see him in the second shot, walking up the steps, he looks exactly as he should. I do not fear that the look of Vader in the next movie will be anything but sweet.     I've watched just over half the big documentary (pretty good) but I haven't watched any of the movies yet. I can't wait - but I've been super busy and I want Heather to watch them with me so coordination has been difficult. Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate her...
From: Ross Entered on: October 26, 2004 4:34 PM
It appears that we'll get our first official peek at Revenge of the Sith on November 4!     http://www2.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0& this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338 &obj_id=42740
From: Swerb Entered on: October 26, 2004 11:41 PM
Bert, I know this is off-topic, but thought you might enjoy this:     http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/article.aspx?ne ws=171313
From: Ross Entered on: October 27, 2004 8:18 AM
Cool! Here's the page they're referring to. They didn't pick the best shots, really...     http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2004482828,00. html
From: Jackzilla Entered on: October 27, 2004 9:11 AM
BOOBIES!!!
From: Swerb Entered on: October 27, 2004 10:52 AM
Perhaps I shouldn't view that page at work.
From: Creeko Entered on: October 27, 2004 11:00 AM
She got pretty naked and even pissed herself in a film called ?Holy Smoke!? which I mistook for the third installment of Harvey Keitel?s ?Smoke? and ?Smoke; Blue in the Face? (both OK movies, the first better then the last).   Despite the fact of being let a down for it not being the movie I thought it was supposed to be, it?s still not good enough to see even if you just want to see Kate?s boobies. I?m sure Ross will agree since it only got a 35% on the tomatometer. (is that pronounced like thermometer or is it me·ter?)
From: Ross Entered on: November 6, 2004 12:19 PM
Well boys, the preview for Revenge of the Sith is out! If you go see The Incredibles you will likely see the preview (which means Swerb has probably seen it by now if he knows what's good for him). The vid is not offiically available for download but I have procured it, it's a 5MB QuickTime file:     http://rossjohnson.org/movieclips/starwarsep3_lg.mo v     Or you might have better luck with a torrent file:     http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2962/star.war s.ep.3.quicktime.torrent     It's pretty sweet, I have to say, and yes, I know that I've ALWAYS said that when I see the previews for the other prequels. I have tried to be objective and determine if there's anything different this time, and I think there is. Don't get me wrong, I still am going to err on the side of preparing for disappointment, but there is some sweet shit in this preview, not least of which is Darth Vader himself.     The main difference is that in retrospect, when you go back and watch the trailers for the other prequels, you can see the spots that even seem dull in previews, and they're 10 times duller in the movies. This trailer has none of that - it moves too fast. Furthermore, the shit that's going on is exactly what you expect, there's no side-plots (except the Wookies) like the Trade Federation of Assholes and whatnot. Maybe they're still in the movie, but this preview shows fans what they want to see - major plotline advancement and tons of action. Thumbs up.
From: Swerb Entered on: November 6, 2004 4:36 PM
Ha ha... I'm going to see The Incredibles in an hour. No Swerb Sweetness this week.     And now that you've hyped it up, my experience of the trailer can only be disappointing. :)
From: Swerb Entered on: November 6, 2004 4:44 PM
Ok, I just watched the downloaded version, and crapped my pants. I take back that last comment...
From: Swerb Entered on: November 6, 2004 10:44 PM
Once again, I have soiled my undergarments. I had goosebumps seeing the trailer on the big screen. I wanted to see it again, immediately.     BTW, The Incredibles is fucking hilarious. I loved it. I give it the thumbs!
From: Ross Entered on: November 8, 2004 10:31 AM
The preview is finally on www.starwars.com in better quality. I suggest you all go watch it now.
From: Ross Entered on: November 13, 2004 2:58 PM
Just got back from the Incredibles. Damn those Pixar bastards are good. This might be my favorite one yet. It blew away the Shrek movies, too, as far as I'm concerned.
From: Swerb Entered on: December 10, 2004 8:58 AM
This is sweet!     http://www.starwars.com/clonewars/about/news/news20 041206.html
From: Ross Entered on: December 10, 2004 9:21 AM
Fantastic! And I can't wait to see the new ones!
From: Swerb Entered on: January 18, 2005 12:18 PM
Check this out:     http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/17/people .jackson.ap/index.html
From: Ross Entered on: January 18, 2005 1:56 PM
That's sweet, and I'm sure I will enjoy it, but something is wrong. Whereas now I look forward to seeing sweet fight scenes with Jedi vs Sith, when you look back at the old trilogy, that's obviously not what made them great (wars not make one great!). I should be looking forward to the way in which Anakin slips to the dark side and how this ties into the two trilogies as a whole, and to some extent I am, but why is it that the only thing that I'm relatively sure that I will enjoy about these movies are the fight scenes? That's no good...
From: Swerb Entered on: January 18, 2005 3:00 PM
That's because you've accepted the fact that Lucas can't write a screenplay. I don't think it's a coincidence that Empire, hands-down the best film of the series, gave Lucas only a "story" credit, while other, more capable guys directed and wrote it. Lucas' skills have always been a bit questionable - and now, more than ever. I hesitate to give him too much credit for the sweet fight scenes in the new films, because I'm sure he surrounds himself with people who can take his ideas and turn them into badass Jedi battles.
From: Ross Entered on: February 7, 2005 8:55 AM
To whet everyone's appetite for Revenge of the Sith:     http://www.hawtalta.com/media.php?wmv=swe3_small
From: Ross Entered on: February 12, 2005 10:57 AM
More great Star Wars humor. This time from Swerb's favorite hangout, a Star Wars convention:     http://www.livejournal.com/users/krautboy/243291.ht ml
From: John Entered on: February 13, 2005 6:07 PM
I too have accepted the fact that Lucas's power to manipulate the force has diminished. The fight scenes should be sweet though.
From: Swerb Entered on: March 10, 2005 11:23 PM
Did anyone else see the new Ep III trailer on TV? (Ordinarily, I would never, ever record The O.C.) It's fucking sweet!!! I judge trailers by how high the goosebump ratio is, and this was pretty fucking high. Bert, this is where you find the new trailer online, and post the link so we can watch it at our leisure...
From: Ross Entered on: March 11, 2005 7:16 AM
I don't think it's online yet and I didn't even know about it being on TV. Someone mentioned it to me but I completely forgot.     Okay, I found some links on the bottom of this page, downloading now:     http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/secretdisplay.cgi? id=19607
From: Ross Entered on: March 11, 2005 7:27 AM
I just watched it. What can I say? It looks sweet as hell. But I've said it before. I just don't know what to think. I remain neutral in these matters...
From: Jackzilla Entered on: March 11, 2005 8:02 AM
I can't wait to see the whole thing adapted into LEGO form:     http://www.jackassery.com/viewcomments.jsp?type=pho to&id=165#1562
From: The Bone Entered on: March 11, 2005 9:49 AM
I saw the trailor moments after turning my TV on. I though it might blow my TV up due to a sweetness overload.
From: Ross Entered on: March 11, 2005 10:15 AM
Here is a torrent for it:     http://www.btefnet.net/gettorrent/star.wars.episode .3.trailer.ws.pdtv.ac3.xvid-fqm.%5BBT%5D.torrent
From: Swerb Entered on: March 21, 2005 11:59 PM
By the way, the new Clone Wars series aired Monday night. 7 p.m. (eastern time) on Cartoon Network, all this week, and I guess they're gonna air all of them continuously this weekend. The first one is pretty sweet, but more talky and less action-heavy than the early episodes. The new ones are 12 min. long, and are a direct lead-in to Episode III.     Also, the Clone Wars DVD comes out today! First 20 episodes, all stitched together into one long movie. Buy it, motherfuckers!
From: Ross Entered on: March 22, 2005 6:02 AM
I'm on it!
From: Ross Entered on: April 25, 2005 6:48 PM
There are a shitload of new TV spots out for Revenge of the Sith. I haven't watched them all yet but they have some sweet shit going on from what I've seen so far - though the announcer is particularly annoying. Anyway, check them out:     http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/trailer /
From: Swerb Entered on: April 25, 2005 11:08 PM
So. Looks like I'm seeing a press screening of Revenge of the Sith on May 5. I will save Bert the trouble and tell me to go fuck myself.     However, I think I deserve such sweetness for having to sit through XXX: State of the Union this evening. It didn't just suck, it su-HUCKed. One of the dumbest movies I've seen in recent memory. I'm sure my sentiments aren't surprising.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 25, 2005 11:24 PM
I got sent a bunch of free passes of XXX2 and couldn't even give them away. So not only does the movie suck, nobody even cares. Give us Barbershop 3 Ice Cube!     Angie, Will and I will be taking advantage of my other free passes and seeing The Hitchhiker's Guide on Tuesday. Perhaps the Swerb will be there.
From: Ross Entered on: April 26, 2005 7:39 AM
I used to be a Cube fan back in the day when he was making MUSIC instead of craptacious movies. That's hilarious that you couldn't even give them away, Jack. Swerb: was it so bad it was good, or just bad?
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 26, 2005 8:07 AM
Jack was able to give away passes to me. I sat through the stank fest with N8 Dog, my buddy from France. Luckily for me, we had some beers at Fridays beforehand. I actually slept during a lot of the movie, waking up time to time to marvel at the turd.     Sam Jackson - Fuck him. I rank him as shitty now. He will take any role as long as he gets to play a cool, tuff, black guy with attitude. He is so lame. Mr. 'I want my saber purple' to be different, try taking on a different character to be different.     Or it might be Hollywoods fault - casting all Black men as cool, tuff, black guys with attitude. Where are the Steve Erkles anymore????
From: Swerb Entered on: April 26, 2005 12:06 PM
I'll see you dudes at the Hitchhiker's Guide sneak tonight. Fatty, were you at the XXX screening at Cinemark in Grandville? I didn't see you there.     Bert: XXX was occasionally so bad it was good, and other times just bad. Probably half and half. I will post my review when I'm done writing it.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 26, 2005 1:16 PM
All right, by popular demand, here is my XXX review, before it has my editors' fingerprints on it:     ?XXX: State of the Union?   (one star)   Rated: PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence and some language   Cast: Ice Cube, Samuel L. Jackson, Willem Dafoe, Scott Speedman   Director: Lee Tamahori   Run time: 101 minutes     Two minutes into ?XXX: State of the Union,? and the body count is already in the double digits. Five minutes in, and the sets have been shot up and blown to bits. Ten minutes in, and the characters start spewing atrocious dialogue, and we can?t wait for them to shut up, strap on a bazooka and speed off on a jet ski or something.     In other words, this ?XXX? sequel is your run-of-the-mill action movie where the anti-hero launches a boat off a ramp onto a bridge and lands on a car which explodes and surely burns up a few cops, then walks away (in slow motion, of course) without a scratch.     It also has your basic action-movie plot in which the evil Secretary General of the United States sends his henchmen who look like Snake Eyes from the ?80s ?G.I. Joe? cartoon to take out a top-secret branch of the National Security Agency so it won?t interfere in his plot to kill the President, Vice President and the Secretary of State during the State of the Union address so he can rule the country. Such political maneuvering makes overzealous neo-con Republicans look like nancy boys. Filibustering is for wimps, man.     One should expect a ludicrous story when tuning in for the cheep thrillz ?XXX: State of the Union? offers. The film is a melange of classic bad action movie elements (cheesy one-liners, flaccid running gags) and modern bad action movie elements (chase and fight sequences filmed in quick-cut Confuse-o-Vision and enhanced by chintzy CGI).     I didn?t see the original ?XXX? out of self-respect, so this isn?t going to be a compare-and-contrast essay. This fact, however, didn?t stop me from ?enjoying? ?State of the Union,? which is the kind of baloney that comes remarkably close to achieving greatness. It inspires such ridicule, it makes a person giddy.     This new ?XXX? tale announces the death of the Vin Diesel character (who kicks the bucket in a short on the new super-ultra-uber-deluxe collector?s edition DVD of the first movie), and replaces him with new super agent Darius Stone, played by Ice Cube, who has terrific screen presence (see: ?Three Kings?), even in stupid movies. Darius has one character trait, summed up in a single line of dialogue: ?I don?t blend.? In one scene, he?s warned to treat a situation delicately; cue the rocket launcher.     Obviously, stealth isn?t his forte. When NSA honcho Augustus Gibbons (Samuel L. Jackson, reprising the role) breaks Darius out of prison, they are both far outside of government jurisdiction, and they need to keep a low profile. So they speed off in a pimped-out ?67 GTO with an iridescent paint job, eventually trading it in for a slightly sleeker cousin of the Grave Digger monster truck.     The action sequences exist in a realm outside of remote plausibility, not to mention physics. Darius infiltrates the bad guys? stronghold with minimal resistance, and commandeers a tank, which he pilots like it?s a Ferrari. He also breaks into Gibbons? old NSA headquarters for no discernable reason other than so the producers could keep the movie within its budget by recycling set pieces from earlier scenes.     Meanwhile, the President is under gunpoint, half of Maryland has exploded, and the heroes continue to exchange wisecracks. There?s a vague, incoherent backstory behind the carnage, something involving a past military job partnering Darius and the Secretary General (played by Willem Dafoe, who should know better). Also exhibiting the production?s general cheapness is the casting of Scott Speedman as an NSA honcho required to bark orders Tommy Lee Jones-in-?The Fugitive?-style; Speedman has a lisp.     I will indulge in the art of understatement and call ?XXX: State of the Union? preposterous, silly, brainless and just-plain-dumb. It?s a mess enhanced by a craptacular hodgepodge of a score and the most wilted, cliche-ridden script since the Schwarzenegger/Stallone blow-?em-up heyday in the ?80s. But the cynics will say that movies like this are judged by the body count, and in that context, it deserves a flazillion stars. It?s not so easy for film critics ? I?m asked to use a grading scale of one to four stars, but this film deserves either a negative-three or a 12.
From: Ross Entered on: April 26, 2005 4:22 PM
Are the editors going to let "craptacular" fly? I wonder....     All I can think of while reading this is that "Darius" was the name of my roommate during freshman orientation at MSU - we were grouped by last name, both of us being Johnsons. He was a pudgy black dude, much like Cube. However, he also suffered from the worst snoring I've ever heard - or heard OF, for that matter - from a human being. I didn't sleep one bit that night I was there with him. I told him the next morning with a totally straight face that if he was my roommate for real, I would kill him in his sleep. He made as much noise as a loud yell - you would have to make an effort to make as much racket as he made while sleeping. Anyway, picturing him as the star of XXX Stank of the Onion makes me want to see it just that much less.
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 26, 2005 8:45 PM
THE FATZ MOIVE REVIEW - NOW MUCH QUICKER THAN SWERBS!     We saw 'The Hitchhiker's Guide...' tonight with the full crowd from Rookies. I found it to be quite the boring turd. It is silly, but not funny. But, I must admit, I did not read the books and there were many people that seemed to really enjoy the movie. At one point, a guy in front of me laughed very loud and exclaimed 'Thats awesome.' I thought he was insane. The crowd favorite was the stupid robot. All he did was act depressed. They lapped it up like a kitten does milk. Really? Is it *that* funny? A robot that acts depressed? What are we British???     I give it the full thumbs down and a fart.
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 26, 2005 8:50 PM
Oh, did I mention.... After the movie there was a dude with the book reading an excerpt. The couple he trapped tried to looked interested, but too bad for them he was too nerdy to realize.     Judging from the audience reaction, the book must be pretty good. This movie is not worth two shits unless you bring the unconditional love of the book along.     Note to Swerb - If the editor gives craptacular the green light, try two shits next or giant turd.
From: Ross Entered on: April 26, 2005 10:04 PM
What's the last movie you've liked, Fats? I read the Hitchhiker's back around high school/college and liked it okay. I've been meaning to pick it up again but probably won't before I see the movie. I'm on the fence as to whether to see it in theaters or not. Hmm... could this be a valid reason to consult the Tomatoes? I wouldn't want to incur Bone's wrath so I'll keep my reasonings to myself henceforth on this one.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 26, 2005 10:25 PM
Fatty, Fatty Fatty... I can see that Hitchhikers is not for everyone. It's British comedy very much in the Monty Python vain: Silly rules. I read the original trilogy back in high school so my memory was foggy on a lot of it but the movie does capture the humor of the book well. If you liked the book, you'll certainly enjoy this. I think Fatty was tired and not in the right mood to enjoy this one. It's certainly not a turd (that would be something like "Without A Paddle").
From: BigFatty Entered on: April 26, 2005 10:42 PM
Thats what I said, if you liked the book, the movie should be good for you. For the record, I spent 4 months watching BBC programming. I am a bit familiar with British Humour, Govenor/     My fav movies seen previously - The Chorus (French Film - but highly recommended), MDB, The Incredibles!!, and Harold and Kumar. SO I am not all piss and vinegar. XXX and this movie just were not hitting.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: April 27, 2005 7:50 AM
More on Hitchhikers: Whenever Angie and I saw Marvin the depressed robot with his slouched head we heard the sad Peanuts song in our heads (as used in "Arrested Development"). That made the robot funny to us. There's also a short moment when all the characters are made of yarn. That had Angie decided that there should be a movie entirely composed of people made of yarn. I found it hard to argue with her on that point.
From: Swerb Entered on: April 27, 2005 8:42 AM
The all-yarn movie gets my vote.     Now, I'm a big fan of the Hitchhiker books - read 'em many times. But the movie didn't extract much response out of me other than "meh." It starts off really well, but then treads water for an hour. The tangential and Very British Humour of the books often doesn't translate well to the movies... they deviated from the original story to make it more linear and conventional, which disappointed me. I blame the suits in the marketing department....
From: Ross Entered on: April 28, 2005 9:23 AM
Okay, I will not be going to the theater, then. Sounds like a DVD "rental"
From: TallPat Entered on: April 29, 2005 5:59 PM
"Are the editors going to let "craptacular" fly? I wonder.... "     The answer to your question Ross, is yes. I just read the review in the paper... and not having read this thread previously, did not realize a sneak preview was already available to the Jackassery viewing public.     As soon as I finished that last paragraph it was quite obvious that the greatest sentence ever to be printed by the Grand Rapids Press is:     "It?s a mess enhanced by a craptacular hodgepodge of a score and the most wilted, cliche-ridden script since the Schwarzenegger/Stallone blow-?em-up heyday in the ?80s."     There were a number of times throughout that review that I said to myself, "Huh, they pretty much let Swerb write whatever he wants." I guess I am just too used to John Douglas' lame old man reviews.     Anyway, great review. I may never even see the movie, but the review is a classic.
From: Ross Entered on: April 29, 2005 6:06 PM
Another good treatment of XXX from the Flick Filosopher, also hilarious:     http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2 005/xxxstateunion.shtml
From: Swerb Entered on: April 29, 2005 9:18 PM
Heh... yeah, they left "craptacular" in there, I assume because it's towards the end of the article instead of at the beginning. That's one of the unwritten "editor rules" - anything potentially offensive at the top of a story gets chopped, and if it's near the bottom, well, most people don't read that far anyway.     Here's my Hitchhiker's Guide review, if anybody cares:     http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grpress/index.ss f?/base/entertainment-0/1114786049240770.xml     Finally, word has come down: I am officially seeing Episode III on Thursday. But get this: I get an e-mail today saying Douglas gets to review it, and I get to write all the bazillion other articles pertaining to it. I doused the flames shooting out of my ears, but have to sit on my craptacular feelings until Monday when I get to hear the lame fucking reasons WHY. My weekend will be ruined by my dumb, unrealistic fantasies about quitting this stupid part-time job purely out of spite.
From: Swerb Entered on: May 3, 2005 1:14 PM
Good news: Swerb gets to review Star Wars! Sort of. All three of our critics are going to see it, and we're all writing mini reviews. I will issue a vague report immediately following, unless anyone doth protest...
From: Ross Entered on: May 3, 2005 1:40 PM
I trust you to keep it relatively spoiler-free. When are you seeing it? This Thursday?
From: Swerb Entered on: May 4, 2005 9:00 AM
Yeah, I'm seeing it tomorrow already. Go figure.     And yes, fuck me sideways, etc.
From: Swerb Entered on: May 5, 2005 9:13 PM
OK, I saw it. Ummmm..... don't really know where to begin... I almost hate to comment on it because I don't want to raise or lower anybody's expectations, because that's something EVERYBODY takes into the theater with them. BUT, I must say I was somewhat disappointed. There is some fucking awesome super sweet stuff in the movie, and there's some fucking craptacular stuff in it, too. I... I think it's the best of the new trilogy, but not by much. It's very similar to Ep. I and II in many ways, stylistically, etc. - not much of a surprise, I know, but I'll just leave it at that.     You know, a lot of people are envious of me because I get to see it early, but it's rather torturous to not be able to talk about the movie, too. Yeah, I know: Boo fucking hoo.     The only advice I have to give is, DON'T READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU SEE IT. Some of the stuff I read ahead of time, especially in the last couple days, ruined some major plot points for me, and there wasn't a spoiler warning in sight. Some writers are total fucking assholes who spoil things with apparent impugnity. Dicks.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: May 5, 2005 11:21 PM
Here's something that just kinda bugs me about the new movies: Everything's too clean. I'm talking mainly about everyone's clothes. It's like watching a Western where everyone's clean shavin'. You know what I mean? They should dirty that shit up. If you're a Jedi running around and mixing it up, you're bound to get some stank on your cloak.
From: Swerb Entered on: May 6, 2005 9:26 AM
Yeah, Jack, I wondered the same thing during Ep. III, when, after Obi-Wan is in this really intense fight, and in the scene immediately following, his hair is neatly combed and styled. Dumb, yes, but it bugged me.
From: Ross Entered on: May 6, 2005 9:29 AM
Interesting. This only confirms my suspicions all along. Well, I will try to avoid all reviews and possible spoilers. I agree with you, Swerb - I don't think I'd want to be in your shoes at this point, because if I saw it and couldn't talk about it, what would be the point?
From: Ross Entered on: May 11, 2005 8:11 AM
I saw some footage on a TV in the gym this morning of RotS and I actually got goosebumps. It was both the Anakin/Obi-Wan fight (which I still maintain cannot be as sweet as the Darth Maul fight) and the space battle which was just chock-full of explosiony goodness. I can't help it!
From: Swerb Entered on: May 11, 2005 1:48 PM
I won't comment on those specific scenes, Bert, but my LACK of goosebumps is the precise reason why I was vaguely disappointed with the movie.