Click here to leave a comment
End of Days is the only film I class Arnie actually acting… a little.
I’m a clone of the Devil you idiot!
end of days is a horrible movie! Predator and Terminator series dude, Predator and Terminator.
I don’t really expect Mike and Jay to ever come out and give their opinion on the issue of gay rights, but I would like to take a moment to thank them for pointing out how terrible the gay jokes are in movies like this. They do nothing other than stereotype gays, ending up as a detriment not just to comedy, but to society as well. So thank you, Mike and Jay, for standing up for the gay community.
Now that that’s out of the way…thanks again for reviewing these. I won’t have to bludgeon myself with a piece of styrofoam now, and more importantly waste my hard-earned money on these pieces of trash.
just thinking of all the stupid “hurr durr im gay! i lick balls! lol” makes me literally nauseated.
There is something wrong with Hollywood comedy in general nowadays. I refuse to go to the theaters to see a Hollywood comedy these days. That’s how I missed Tropic Thunder, which turns out to be way above the norm in terms of smarts and jokes. Generally though; you get body humor, stuff I might have thought was sort of funny in 7th grade, borderline neurotic/creepy sex references, fart jokes, bodily fluids of all kinds, intensely foul language for no particular reason, badly done slapstick, and laughing AT people who are different, because different must be funny. Basically, these movies are unwatchable for me; it’s like someone reaching out of the screen to open up my skull and shit in my brain. Since THAT is the norm for the comedy genre now, I just boycott anything labeled “comedy” as a general thing. Sad too, like I said, I’d like to have seen Tropic Thunder in theaters, it was actually worth it.
Typical tyrannical leftist who has to make everything political and who is, at heart, as much of a wannabe censor and blacklister as Joe McCarthy ever was. Now we must cleanse movies of sophomoric jokes, lest they offend a Protected Minority Class. Guess what – there’s no right to not be mildly annoyed by a dumb joke in a lowbrow comedy. Sorry, Zampolit Emilie, but if I have to put up with being insulted by the likes of Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman, and Stephen Colbert because “Hey, lighten up, it’s just jokes”, then the same applies to you.
What an asshole.
I consider myself to be a Democrat, and he’s right. If you’re so offended by jokes, you need to check yourself. I mean, good god. The fact that we have to protect every minority from the slightest offensive comment is terrible.
Get off your high horse.
Isn’t there a difference between making a joke and making a stereotype? You can make stereotypes as a joke to point out how dumb people are who buy into that stereotype, but just by itself you can’t use the excuse “Well, they’re just jokes.” They aren’t jokes, even if people think it’s funny.
Have there been any funny spoof movies at all since the Naked Gun and Hot Shots movies dried up? I recall laughing at a few of the jokes in some of the Scary Movie movies, but they’re certainly not good movies. I can’t even remember which one was which or even which specific movie any of those laugh out loud moments came from.
Tropic Thunder. I mentioned it above. It reminded me of “Spies Like Us” actually. It was surprisingly smart and funny.
Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz come to mind. I don’t know if you could actually call them spoofs, though.
Nah, movies can do jokes that make fun of gays, but they need to be more clever than just “A gay guy is acting super gay, that’s the joke!”
Well, it depends on what the joke is on. If the joke is basically ‘hey, this person is gay’, that’s just ridiculing gays.
But certainly you can make fun of people who happen to be gay, the joke just can’t be ‘they’re gay’.
But given how much there is humor like that, you need to be careful that your intent is clear.
As for stereotypes, if we lived in a society where people understood that the fey gay-guy is a stereotype, and that not all gays are like that, it wouldn’t be as harmful.
Unfortunately, a lot of people get their idea of what all gays are from movies like that, and gays who don’t fit to the stereotype and ‘act straight’ stay ‘invisible’ in society.
It’s pretty common for gays to be told ‘but you don’t act gay’, or even in some cases, be accused of trying to deceive others by not acting gay…
The joke can be any thing I want, you Nazi!
I liked disaster movie when it did come out.
(yeah its dated now.But when it did come out you gotta admit it made you luagh.)
Oh, I know which 2 films I’m not going to watch. Thanks, guys.
When will this zombie fad die already they’re not even actual zombies for fuck sake
please somebody make it stop just make it stop already jesus christ ghrfedhwgr
Who is this Huge Ackman you’re constantly referring to?
The sarcasm almost drowned me.
Hey, does someone know the purpose of the front-desk bell sound that you can occasionally hear in the background?
I hear it too. But I just assume I’m catching the crazy from Plinkett. That it is the subtle reminding bell that it is only days, maybe hours before I too must eat… Pizza Rolls.
I assumed it was part of the soundtrack.
Movie 43 was great, my friends and I had a blast. Thanks guys!
I think they were being very sarcastic about Movie 43.Obviously Mike and Jay hated it.A lot.So much so that they had to do a satirical review of it.
There are no Die Hard movies after Die Hard with a Vengeance. This film and the one before it which looked like it was written in 1994(Oh my god they’ve got computers on everything now!!!). They can use Bruce Willis and call him John McClane but it is not John McClane.
Also I would say that the first Die Hard is not simply a “perfect action movie” in the sense that it was in fact quite unique for an action film, especially in that era. Imagine 1980′s Arnold being confronted with 12 terrorists while in possession of an automatic pistol which holds 15-rounds with several clips- No problem. In real life of course, a handgun against a dozen guys armed with machine pistols puts one at a severe disadvantage, and McClane certainly portrays this. I mean what does he do for the first twenty minutes or so after the terrorists take over? He runs, he hides, he tries to contact the police- he does what a real person should do as opposed to diving into the main room there with his gun blazing(the typical action movie behavior).
The other thing about McClane which set him apart was that he wasn’t some ex-Green Beret or decorated war hero, but rather just a detective. He uses his brain to outwit his opponents, and when he does something really crazy, we see in his face that he’s aware of how crazy his actions are. He’s filled with fear and he seems to express this look of, “Oh shit why the hell did I do that?” All of this leads to tension, suspense.
Contrast that with this other “Die Hard” film where this other “John McClane” character decides that the best way to deal with the problem of a gunman in a helicopter is to somehow jump the car off a toll booth and destroy the entire chopper. Does anyone else see this trend in Hollywood, the trend of having characters do things because some dipshit director thinks it looks cool? I mean, why would a real person even conceive of destroying a helicopter in flight with their car? Why would they believe that having it ram the toll booth would make it jump? What happened here is that the moronic, drooling, window-licking film-makers were failing at using an old Die Hard trope which actually worked well, i.e. when McClane is in a tight spot and suddenly notices something which can help him. Perhaps an internal monologue would help:
Die Hard one: “How am I going to rescue Holly? I’ve got two rounds left…Wait a minute…Those rolls of tape…I’ve got an idea.”
That Movie that was like Hackers or The Net which Feature a Guy named John McClane for some Reason: “Damn that gunman in the helicopter is REALLY annoying. Perhaps I should ram my car at a toll booth so it jumps up and crashes into the helicopter.”
See, nobody’s going to come to that conclusion on their own; it’s the product of a bunch of out-of-touch Hollywood execs pitching increasingly idiotic ideas around a table. Hollywood action films are no longer about simple-yet-coherent plots, suspense, or tension. Now it’s about having a badass hero who we know is badass because he looks really cool(with the help of CGI and other effects) as he utterly destroys his enemies, and he will only get injured or hurt when the script says it needs to happen.
It’s also interesting how the main reason why Hollywood movies suck these days is because they are making films more for the international market as opposed to for US audiences but…..one of the major overseas markets is Russia. So they make a film which is going to alienate Russians with more ridiculous stereotypes. That shitty Red Dawn re-make actually changed its plot to avoid pissing off the Chinese, but with Russians it’s still open season. Hell I’m not even Russian and the stereotypes I saw in the ads alone were enough to ensure that I will never watch this.
I was going to write a big thing, but then I thought I’d just go: A-fucking-men!
Django SUCKED ASS
“killing crackers is awesome” fuck you guys
Quentin Tarrantino sucks.
love the chipmunk movie knock. f the chipmunks for temporarily derailing your last awesome streaming event.
Knocked another episode out of the park. Brilliant ending.
I don’t have a meth habit, but I am addicted to Half in the bag, which is also bad for your health.
@ The Hollywood Trends video:
You forgot Little Miss Muffet and the old woman who lives in a shoe, the next girl power team up action movie in the vein of Suckerpunch and Resident Evil.
You liked the TERRIBLE Jack the Giant Slayer yet disliked this…WOW…someone got paid off.
Oh fuck off.
Evil Dead next?
I’d say District 9 was a better hollywood si-fi movie than Oblivion.
no shit sherlock
After 20 minutes I was soooo close to shut Oblivion off. I was just so put-off by the stupidity in how things evolved in the beginning but luckily it became somewhat interesting and became quite okey for a sci-fi flick.
moore redletter videos
star trek into darkness!!!!!!!!
star trek into darkness was the best star trek revenge film since the wrath of khan!
star trek into darkness damn it review it mike and jay!
I love these videos. Any website, any vlog/Youtube channel where I find myself re-watching videos for the humor or as background whilst I do something else is a winner to me.
I’ve been a Red Letter Media fan for a few years now. As a filmmaker myself, I really enjoy your works. Great job and keep it up.
Will you guys do a “Half in the bag” episode of Star Trek: Into Darkness?
Didn’t really expect three white guys to mention it, but white-washing khan is also a thing. The guy’s name is Khan Noonien Singh and we’re supposed to believe he looks like Benedict Cumberbatch??
go back to africa, pc freak
He was called Khan so that people would associate him with someone from the original series. The filmmakers, and people who watch these movies don’t care about Khan. They care about the action. Essentially, Khan in this movie is just a guy who wants to destroy Starfleet. They could have simply made up a villain not from the show, and for the most part, that’s who he was.
The fact that they just plagiarize entire scenes with no understanding of why they worked in the first place tells us how much they cared.
I think Plinkett will do a full review once the DVD’s out and explain to us that the roller coaster plot progression is ultimately what makes the movie stupid, even on its own terms.
That’s why I don’t like Into Darkness; people rave about a movie that blatantly plagiarizes WoK. If the Sopranos decided to rip off entire scenes from the Godfather, but then say “role reversal” as a defense, no one would be happy with it, regardless of how many fantastic actors are on it.
How dense are you? His name was Khan Noonien Singh and he was supposedly from India, yet he was played by Ricardo Montalban? They never had Khan’s ethnicity right, even in the original series. Stop acting so butthurt, the movie was good.
Yes, the white-washing issue is a nonstarter. People should let that go. In the future, you don’t have to look like your name. I think that goes for the present as well, I’m not sure.
BUT… I’m sorry, the movie sucked. It sucked because it’s a big dumb action movie that stomps on Star Trek as it is supposed to be (smarter). You may or may not like TNG-era Star Trek, but I do. This movie insults my intelligence by assuming I’ll trade all that in for some splosions, some throwback references, and a shot of a blonde in her undies. Keep your childish action shlock, JJ. I want MY trek back.
Just saw Fast and Furious 6 and it was hilarious! I can’t wait to see what you guys think about it!
Great review as usual…except I think you missed the bit in the movie where it was explained that Peter Weller knew the missiles were full of the supermen, and was actually trying to get rid of all evidence he had ever used Khan and his people by destroying them all at the same time by having Kirk shoot them at Khan…or something.
Which opens up the plothole of why the Admiral didn’t just use a phaser or that long-range transporter to just remove the Super-people to begin with.
That transporter is just too overpowered for the movie.
So, like. I dunno if anyone pointed this out about After Earth, but it REALLY bothers me that everything “has evolved to kill humans” over the span of 1,000 years. Like, okay, even assuming they didn’t LITERALLY mean that everything in an ecosystem can evolve to prey on a species that is completely absent from said ecosystem . . . it takes longer than 1,000 years for major changes in evolution to occur. Blegh.
Evolution is different for all species. A year may seem like short amount of time to humans, but the Tse Tse flies will have gone through roughly 200 generations in that time period. I completely understand what your saying, but time is relative (assuming time is linear, which it probably isn’t, outside of causality matrices) to the lifespan of what is experiencing it. We’ve missed leaps in evolution in our own lifetimes that lead to ‘new’ species being discovered that are actually evolved descendants of species already recorded. This is hugely common among aphids for example.
But yeah, PLOT HOLE!!
Hey! Mike and Jay got they ‘selves a brand new sponsor! “Pabst Blue Ribbon now presents Half in the Bag; The Desolation of Plinkett” YEAH!!!!!!!
Where is the review of The Matrix trilogy by Plinkett???
Plinkett reviews usually come out around Christmas time if memory serves. Half in the bag are good too, and so are their bad movie round ups!
If the aliens can only see fear, then how do they navigate the environment? Is the grass afraid? Do rocks and buildings have fear? Why didn’t the aliens just be given the power of eye sight? Wouldn’t that be far more effective and make more sense? There’s a reason why stuff on our planet has eyes, and not “fear sense”. It actually makes sense for one, and is far more logical to have. And btw, fear is something inside us. It’s not excreted or really detectable by smell or any kind of sensor. You can tell when someone is afraid by facial expressions or actions, but that involves SIGHT. Devices can detect fear, but they work based on blood pressures and heart rates, which could easily be a bunch of other things as well, not just fear. So if the aliens have an ability similar to that, how do they not get confused by other things? When a man gets worked up, his body has the same chemical reaction as fear, mainly blood pressure and heart rate, so how can the aliens detect fear but not that? And if they have telepathy, why is it only limited to fear and not ALL electronic or brain activity?
None of this shit makes any sense. I don’t like it when shit doesn’t make sense. It’s not hard to make a movie where shit makes sense. Try harder. Give them fucking eyes or telepathy like the “Alien” aliens. Problem solved. It’s not hard. How about giving them a heat vision like the Predator; that made sense as well. Heat can actually navigate the environment and detect prey. Getting yourself cold was a logical way to cloak it. That made sense. This shit doesn’t.
So where’s the Superdouche review?
Oh there it is, cheers guys.
You guys reviewed it as NOT being the Donner films, which does technically make it a complete failure… But for something that set out to be a summer action-sci-fi, where Superman is a symbol and not a hero, it did OK. And you have to remember it was directed by Zack Snyder, who is INSANELY visual and over the top (see Watchmen, 300, and SuckerPunch). If you’ve seen the source material *cough* Superman Earth One *cough*, its that story almost pound for pound. Earth One was excellent and Man of Steel had too much contrived dialogue and exposition that knocked it down. Touché on the Messiah points though.
The film tried too hard at some points, but you must admit its not the same time period. Its not 70-80′s cheese and we all just have to get over that bit. But I’ve spoken to kids that went to see this with their parents and they loved it, so can’t bygones be bygones at this point?
That’s what everyone says about these reboots “it’s not that time period” so it has to change. Yeah but you can still tell if something sucks *cough* Into Darkness.
Exert from Wikipedia:
Other reviewers responded negatively to the book. Dan Phillips of IGN
gave the book a ‘poor’ rating, and wrote that it was “riddled with
creative decisions that’ll leave you scratching your head in disbelief”,
that Superman “becomes an angst-ridden cliché with a flimsy moral
center and an eye towards vengeance”
Sounds like a shit Superman story to me, comic book or no.
I mean, adapting a comic book isn’t anything special making the material relevant, it’s only when you adapt the RIGHT book.
For example: Dark Knight took a lot of it’s cues from The Long Halloween, which is one of the best examples of what a Batman book should be. So, of course, you got one of the best movie examples of what Batman should be as well. (Mind you, I actually don’t like Dark Knight, but that’s not because it fails as a Batman movie, it’s because it’s kind of boring and has a retarded ending).
Hollywood needs to look less to the books that have fans crying foul such as Superman Earth One, and start making the books that had fans raving like All-Star Superman.
But then again: it’s Zack Snyder, so he would have fucked it up anyway. That’s what happens with you both don’t understand and don’t respect the source material.
Why are you drinking Stella when Spotted Cow is readily available?!
fuck you we are going to keep punching these things with robots
Please review This Is the End; I can’t tell if it was funny or ridiculously stupid. Also, very belated, but I was really curious as to what you two would think of The Great Gatsby, due to the exaggerated hype around it.
I give Pacific Rim 3/10.
What keeps me from being interested in Pacific Rim is that they want to punch monsters instead of shoot them. You have giant Mechs. Let me repeat, you have GIANT MECHS. They could probably mount guns as big as buildings, the biggest cannons you can imagine. Have you heard of Battletech or MechWarrior? Ya, those Mechs fucking shoot at each other, and for good reason; it’s because if they didn’t, the ones that had guns would blow away the ones without guns without a fight.(That’s how combat works. Guns > Fists. Not complicated.) If this was something like MechWarrior vs monsters, I would have been all over this. But instead it is, from what I hear, just a punching match. I don’t want to see giant Mechs punch stuff. I want to see giant Mechs SHOOT stuff. I would have had an Atlas covered in fucking guns and laughed at all these other suckers that went into battle bare fisted. I would have had a Catapult with the nice LRM racks firing barrages into the monsters. Punching them is not a strategy. That’s what you’d do when a strategy fails or when all the bullets run out. But Why TF would that be your main battle strategy? So I ask the question, why would you NOT use guns? Does the movie explain this at all? Is there some reason why giant bullet cannons don’t work at all yet punching them with far less force does?
Please do not stop what you are doing. Your rhetoric is spot on and your twist of satire makes you a modern Siskle land Ebert.
review Fast and Furious 6
So far and overall, 2013 has sucked in film. There’s been one or two gems and maybe more to come, but it’s been generally weak. 2012 had tons of great movies comparatively speaking.
Agreed. But it looks like it might make a comeback I’ve heard good things about prisoners, don jon, rush, and gravity. Better late than never.
I was dragged to Don Jon and ended up really liking it. Also, I have a feeling Im gonna love the fuck outta Snowpiercer.
One they haven’t covered in 2013 that was excellent was Rush. Unfortunately it only got a selective release in the US, presumably because the sport of F1 isn’t as big a deal in the States.
I really miss the convention episodes.
Maaaakkke more…….yes yes, I know it’s a long process and takes a lot of work, but this is the internet and I’m greedy and I want what I want.
I’d be willing to donate a little something to your show since I’m enjoying it, but I do not have a credit card nor a paypal account. Maybe you should take bitcoin donations?
Just an idea.
Just mail them cash. That’s what I do every week.
I know they haven’t done an actual review of the film, but does anyone remember a mention of World War Z in another episode? Because I feel a little like I’m going crazy trying to find it.
I’ve been watching Half in the Bag episodes back to back, 2 or 3 episodes a day as I wait for a new review and I have to say you guys have come a
long way in your set lighting skills. Looking really good.
↑ Back to Top