The DVD Shelf Movie Reviews

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Yeah, its why I can't complain about how infrequent they come up. At the end of the day, its BECAUSE he spends so much time and work on making them that they turn out as good as they do. Its one of the best examples of quality over quantity.

[No-Personality]

I watched about 6 of his reviews last week because I'd never heard of him before. And, well... I'm sorry but I don't think his actual reviews are that good. He may have a positive viewpoint and a lot of monologue but... if I picked the right movie, I could talk for 30 minutes about behind the scenes info, etc. So, of the episodes I watched (UHF, Scrooged, Prince of Darkness, Arachnophobia), the only one I thought he really nailed was The Great Outdoors. This one because the clips and music cues helped in making his insights entertaining as connect-the-dots. He's lacking focus, a point (other than- this is what I like), and a personality. He's kind of dull.

Frankly... his style is a little more technologically advanced than Bad Good Flicks, but I'd recommend GBF - http://blip.tv/goodbadflicks/good-bad-flicks-episode-53-friday-the-13th-part-vii-the-new-blood-5166735 - over DVD Shelf Reviews.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I watched about 6 of his reviews last week because I'd never heard of him before. And, well... I'm sorry but I don't think his actual reviews are that good. He may have a positive viewpoint and a lot of monologue but... if I picked the right movie, I could talk for 30 minutes about behind the scenes info, etc. So, of the episodes I watched (UHF, Scrooged, Prince of Darkness, Arachnophobia), the only one I thought he really nailed was The Great Outdoors. This one because the clips and music cues helped in making his insights entertaining as connect-the-dots. He's lacking focus, a point (other than- this is what I like), and a personality. He's kind of dull.

That's fine, but I disagree with you completely. I think his reviews are entertaining and informative, a real hard combination to make. In terms of monologues, I don't mind it when I find the actual material interesting. At the same time he is very humbled and doesn't let a lot of bias get in the way of his reviews. In contrast, I find reviewers like the Nostalgia Chick to be very insightful, and I appreciate the research put into her videos, but most of those videos completely fail to capture my interest and I find her to kind of be up her own ass at times to a point that kind of annoys me.

At any rate, there's nothing wrong with having completely different opinions, but I think this is a case where mostly everything you view as weaknesses in these reviews I view as strengths. Its not dull for me specifically because I prefer this style of review. Mostly I'm just interested in the background about the making and meaning of good movies, and I honestly don't care that much about other people's opinions, because mine are the only ones that matter to me, in the end. Its why I'm just not a fan of most Internet reviewers these days. In the end, they are all just people giving out their own opinions and either trying to be humorous or serious about it, but in most cases they just don't interest me. I like that David Rose typically tends to present more objective information in his reviews, and keep the subjective stuff to a minimum. I realize I'm in the minority there, but that's just what appeals to me more than the typical style of reviews.

[No-Personality]

I don't know what else to tell you. I know of plenty of reviewers who are informative but unless you're looking for a review to just say: oh, here's a random movie for me to review and the only thing it has in common with any other review I've done is that I recommend it... well, Welshy does the same thing and much better. I'm sorry, E-ken, but you need to know the reviewer. Subjective opinions are important since most of these series are run by personality of the reviewer. Unless they have a gimmick like Obscurus Lupa or Oancitizen where the films they review are all of a specific variety, thereby attracting viewers based on content of the movies they review, bias is kind of key.

I'm sure David is a nice guy. The overwhelming impression I get of him is: nice guy. But that is nowhere near enough for me to sing his praises. He does adequate research on the episodes I've seen but does not have staying power. In fact, from your very first post you've really been making a very big deal out of "he's positive and talks about the good in movies." So much so that I don't completely trust that you're valuing his ability over his attitude. And, yes you're right- I'm a big fan of The Nostalgia Chick. But it doesn't matter how far up her own ass you think she is, she is extremely engaging. Easily the most engaging reviewer on the internet that I've seen. Bar none. I say this after having sat through several of her videos as many as 6, 7 times a piece. In fact, as a practice I watch every video she's done multiple times so I know what I'm talking about when I defend her. They're reviews and pieces of entertainment both. And it's not just the research that speaks for itself, you see- she has a context. And a very interesting one. She doesn't just evaluate films and television by isolating them. She cracks the field of analysis open to the people watching them, the time in which they were made, why they might have been made, how they affected the industry in terms of success breeding copycats or recurring trends, etc. Research just sits there. As David proves conclusively with his style. Lindsay picks up the research and sees what a person can do with it. She's had her share of dud videos but even then, maybe 7 were of the sort I would never recommend anyone watch once.

That said, David seems to have some VERY long reviews on things like Godzilla. If he's an expert on that, it's possible he has a special niche that he just hasn't explored much yet. I will watch more of him and we'll see if I change my mind. But I can tell you, right about now, he needs a gimmick or to sharpen his analysis. Just sharing a buttload of behind-the-scenes info isn't enough.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Dude, if you're trying to start a conversation or debate or argument or whatever about this stuff, you should know that I REALLLLLY don't care that much about the subject-matter to bother with it. I can respect your opinion and all, but at the end of the day I still disagree with it. Look, I just like David's reviews because at the bare essence of everything, they are interesting to watch and entertaining. I find most of the more frequent and popular reviewers to be highly obnoxious and quite frankly very boring and stuck-up. That's my firm stance on the subject, and I really don't care what anyone else says to me because Internet reviewing as a whole isn't a subject I care about nearly enough to get into a thoughtful debate about what's good and what's not.

[No-Personality]

Do what you have to do.

Me on the other hand? I actually think calling these people stuck-up is absurd. And again another way to try and reward geniality over talent. If the former is chief in your definition of not boring, I'm not sure you have a firm stance on the subject so much as a different stance.

[Avaitor]

I have to admit, while I do like Rose's videos, I can see where NP is coming from. His Ed Wood video in particular barely touches on the movie, and is almost exclusively a history lesson about Wood's movies, which he occasionally connects to the Burton film, but barely got into its critical aspects.

Also, if I was doing a series like this, I don't think I'd go as detailed into each filmmaker's previous and later works like Rose seems to, since in a lot of cases, I'm sure that I'll come back to them again and don't want to tread water so easily. But his recapping of Nolan's history in Following doesn't feel so redundant in comparison to his Dark Knight vid, so maybe he's fine with what he does.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Do what you have to do.

Me on the other hand? I actually think calling these people stuck-up is absurd. And again another way to try and reward geniality over talent. If the former is chief in your definition of not boring, I'm not sure you have a firm stance on the subject so much as a different stance.

Or, Maybe you can just learn to stop being an ass and understand that other people don't always have the same opinion as you. I've seen you come across with your opinions with the same attitude on other subjects, and its quite frankly the main reason why I'm not interested in debating this with you. Your rewarding "geniality over talent" comment is an example of that. Maybe that sounds clever in your head, but to me it just sounds needlessly condescending and obnoxious.

Also, I never claimed to have a "firm" stance on the subject in the sense that I'm saying that my view is right (because that would just be ignorant). Of course its "different," as that's the point of having a subjective view on something, which I don't quite think you seem to understand based on your clear tone that there must be a right and wrong about everything. If you want to just have this be about you being right and the other person being wrong, then suit yourself, you're free to see it that way. If you're going to try and force me to say that my way of viewing things is objectively wrong, then sorry to disappoint you, but that's not going to happen.

Either way, I don't see why you can't just let this whole thing go. You've already made your opinion clear, and I'm fine with that, but there's a point when you have to realize that I'm just not interested in having an argument about this stuff.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I have to admit, while I do like Rose's videos, I can see where NP is coming from. His Ed Wood video in particular barely touches on the movie, and is almost exclusively a history lesson about Wood's movies, which he occasionally connects to the Burton film, but barely got into its critical aspects.

Also, if I was doing a series like this, I don't think I'd go as detailed into each filmmaker's previous and later works like Rose seems to, since in a lot of cases, I'm sure that I'll come back to them again and don't want to tread water so easily. But his recapping of Nolan's history in Following doesn't feel so redundant in comparison to his Dark Knight vid, so maybe he's fine with what he does.

I can respect that way of viewing things, but what you mention is the element that I like about these videos. Most people might not care so much about the nitty-gritty details behind the making of a film beyond what you might find the the DVD special features, but personally that stuff fascinates me. His Ed Wood review is not exactly one of my favorites, either, but its not like I'm saying that everything he does is perfect, either (I still did love the history aspect of that video all the same, though). Personally I love his reviews of films like They Live and Godzilla, though, but once again those are more like history lessons first with Rose's thoughts taking a back-seat, but as I've expressed earlier, I love that kind of stuff. Maybe its not proper to call them reviews other than for the sake of having a convenient word to label them under, but my point is that I like Rose's videos and style of narrating. Personally, I don't mind how long some of his videos are because I honestly don't get bored with them. That said, I can totally accept that they are not for everyone, but even if I'm in the minority, I will still gladly continue to watch and enjoy his videos as he releases them.

[No-Personality]

I never claimed to have a "firm" stance on the subject in the sense that

All I know is that you said "firm stance," those exact words. No attempt to take you out of context.

As for your opinions on me, I disagree. I just have a real passion for this format. You've already said you don't care enough about the subject to debate it. Now... you're saying it's just that you don't want to debate it with me. Seems if the latter were true, you would have said that up front.

But if you want this to be over, fine. Let it end here.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So, a new episode is up today. This time its on The Twilight Zone - The Movie. I haven't watched the review itself yet, but I'll post my thoughts on it as soon as I get around to seeing it. I will say that as a fan of the original TV series, I never really cared for this film, but from what I can gather it has always had pretty mixed opinions with people's thoughts on it differing between hating it, disliking it, liking it, or flat-out loving it. Personally I just dislike it but not strongly enough to say that I hate it. It'll be interesting to see David's thoughts on the movie, though.

[No-Personality]

It's wildly inconsistent, true. But very nostalgic for that whole E.T., Poltergeist, Gremlins era of the early-80's.

As an anthology film- the first 2 stories/segments aren't so great, the 3rd is full-on Joe Dante in his prime (which means excellent in every language), and the 4th is the best of the film. (Also excellent.)

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I just saw the video. Its not one of this best videos, but still of his usual level of quality, in that I like his detail on the background of the Twilight Zone series and Rod Serling, as well as how he had a brief introduction to both the background of each segment of the movie and the directors behind them. On that end I still found it to be an enjoyable video.

It's wildly inconsistent, true. But very nostalgic for that whole E.T., Poltergeist, Gremlins era of the early-80's.

As an anthology film- the first 2 stories/segments aren't so great, the 3rd is full-on Joe Dante in his prime (which means excellent in every language), and the 4th is the best of the film. (Also excellent.)

I like the idea of an anthology film myself (and choosing to do that for a Twlight Zone movie WAS definitely the right choice), but I suppose this one just didn't click with me as well as something like Creep Show did. That said, there are things that I appreciate about the film.

In a very unpopular opinion of my own, I actually kind of like the first segment of the movie, if only because its an original piece. Its no doubt that the controversy surrounding that piece really affected its quality, but I still found that for new material in the Twilight Zone Universe, it was surprisingly more faithful to Rod Serling's vision of the show than I would have expected it to be. Granted that you can see the clear differences in style and in how it portrays its message, but its till did feel like a convincing Twilight Zone episode to me, in the end. Its by no means a great piece, but I appreciated it.

The second short is easily the weakest one, and its based on an episode that I didn't even really care for in the original series, to be honest. So, there isn't really much I can say to it beyond that. I would also maybe chalk it up to Spielberg's emotional state at the time, but I am by no means excusing it for that. I don't mind so much that its trying to be upbeat, but it just doesn't feel even remotely close to something that Rod Serling or one of the original writers for the Twlight Zone would ever write, even though it is based on an original TZ episode, which I think says a lot.

The 3rd segment is enjoyable for what it is, but here is the problem with having these other segments be remakes (at least for me): I have no choice but to compare them to the original material, and I can admit that I'm incredibly biased as hell, so it ends up hampering my overall enjoyment of the piece. Its a Good Life is one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes, and I can't help but feel that this segment skews the message of that episode in a way that I don't care for, especially with the ending. On that note, though, while I thought the ending to the original episode was perfect, I do have to give credit to Dante for not flat-out copying it, so on that note I can just conclude that its not for me. I will say that I found the special effects to be absolutely amazing for its time, and even today they still hold a particular charm for me.

The final short is easily the best one, and once again based on one of my favorite episodes from the original series. Now, many people would say that William Shatner's performance in the original episode was a bit too hammy, and I'd certainly agree, but I still feel that he conveyed his character well enough to be taken seriously. The performance in the remake, IMO, was just as hammy, anyways, which I'm actually OK with as that was also part of the charm of the segment for me in the first place. One thing I will say in favor of the remake is that the design for the Gremlin was MUCH better than the joke of a design in the original episode. That alone probably gives that segment a pass for me, but because I'm biased, I still personally prefer the original short for various other reasons.

As it stands for now, I'm still not a fan of the movie, but this review has convinced me to give it a re-watch at some point in time.

[No-Personality]

If you saw the WB DVD or Blu-Ray, you've seen the movie in the best quality you ever will. I don't love the movie myself either but I always get excited when I rewatch it. It's a serious shot of nostalgia. Unavoidable. In fact, I like to call it my favorite Spielberg film... even though I don't like his segment in it anyway / either. And Jurassic Park is better. The reason why is pretty obvious: Joe Dante. And I look at the story, the characters, everything through The 80's Lens. I'm positive that even if I'd seen the original episode, I could separate it from this remake. Especially since Anthony really is A Type. Fully entrenched in his own time; he's perfectly sandwiched right between Henry Thomas in E.T. and Barrett Oliver in The Never-Ending Story. As for the story and flow, I look at is as a special effects showcase and a crazed funhouse of lights, colors, and cartoonish monsters. Frankly, this movie with its format is the perfect excuse for this since the film doesn't have to commit to a feature length threaded story like Poltergeist or, more importantly since I think the FX turned it into an all-out freakshow, John Carpenter's The Thing. The perfect excuse before Tim Burton at least.

I don't really care to label or stamp the Landis segment but I do think it's tied for weakest with Spielberg's. The two have a perfect split contrast. Landis's is so dark and stark (didn't mean that to rhyme) that it turns into a shock piece. Which, unfortunately, dates poorly instead of lasting as entertainment. The heart was in the right place but that's the best thing I can say about it. Spielberg's is so freaking cutesy and harmless that when I saw it for the first time... I assumed the twist would be malicious. And so instantly I thought Scatman was some brand of bad or evil. Which made him pretty creepy well before I think I finally realized: no twist. Although I still thought the last little kid (the caped adventurer one) was going to die or something. It's pre-Cocoon but Cocoon was better. Except for the racist/xenophobe story, the whole movie is hammy. By comparison, Lithgow could get away with murder. But... you have seen him in Ricochet and Raising Cain, haven't you? Those were formal auditions for 3rd Rock from the Sun compared to this movie (an audition for Footloose). Agreed about the gremlin. HOLY SHIT!!! I never saw him as a kid, you know? I must not have been paying attention. I saw the movie twice on cable and never noticed his face. Maybe it was a bad print or something. Bad reception. Clear as a bell on DVD thought and WOAH!!

[Avaitor]

Okay, I wish Rose would tone down his reviews. I'm watching his Godzilla review now, and wow, it's about 80 minutes long. Does he really need this much time just for a history lesson?

Edit: I was being way too harsh on Rose, but I do think that he's a little hit or miss with his reviews. But I very much like his Godzilla review. He gets a lot of interesting facts out, AND goes into its critical weight. Thumbs up.