Mockbuster Mockery: Street Racer Review

@KennyFarino
Which is not to say that James can't go in depth or make valid points. I mean, hell, I will admit that I'm a huge fan of his Monster Madness, Top 10s and Spike.com film reviews, 'cos there's no fake cussing, obnoxious guests or needless special effects — just good ol' James being passionate about the stuff he loves and actually cares about!

@radjack
Not sure if that was supposed to be a compliment (no, really, what's up with all the random remarks today?), but thanks anyway!

Well I watch the video, CineMax. I understand what this guy saying. But a lot of people want their hobbies to be their job. Like my sister. She is hoping to be a cartoonist someday. As for the internet video reviews. They won't go way. They been around since the late 90's and early 2000's. If the video reviews do go way. I can still read articles on TIME, IGN or Roger Ebert.com

God this thread is giving me a headache. I'm assuming that these 'random' comments are just people voicing the breeds of internet reviews that they like.

I should never have posted that 'oral report = video reviewer' comparison so we can keep this f***ing topic on track.

Thread derailed. Please re-rail it.

Geese, LM! That's not what my comment is saying. I'm trying to say is people can have their hobbies as their jobs. Like I said before, my sister wants to be a cartoonist because she loves to draw and loves to make people laugh! As for the video review thing. I just want to enjoy the video. That's all.

I don't remember addressing anyone's specific comment... well maybe CineMax's "no, really, what's up with all the random remarks today?" remark. If you're reading into my 'derailed' comment being directed towards your talking about your sister, it wasn't, it just got caught in the middle of another 'internet reviewer' fanwar.

Another TGWTG hate/love fight comes close to breaking out, no surprise.

I don't care who likes/hates them, or why, because, like I told Ken, it's all just wasted energy fighting over it. It's cool that everyone's voicing their favorite types of reviewers, and why, but it's still off topic, and I blame myself for even hitting the ENTER key last night. Can we just get back to the topic at hand (Mockbuster Mockery's latest episode) instead of gradually wandering back towards (specifically) a TGWTG comparison?

So chill. Relax. Treat yourself to a Vicodin White Russian drink like I intend to do tonight after reading EVERYONE'S comments after the comparison theory I wrote last night.

EDIT: I 'get' that some people are just saying "I like X-type of review more than Y-type" but these debates never end well, so let's just keep the focus on this one series, please.

It didn't seem that the other members were necessarily fighting or debating the great unnameable nemesis, but I can agree that perhaps it is better to play it safe and advert our attentions towards the subject at hand.

I had watched the Street Racer Review last Sunday and it was an improvement upon even the Snakes On A Train Review, and on par with the review of Universal Soldiers. In other words, it is a significant improvement over Six Guns and The DaVinci Treasure.


An excellent observation. In contrast to the lengthy Snakes On A Train Review, Street Racer succeeds in not overstaying its welcome by substituting lengthy plot details in favor of more of the noticeable highlights of the film while emphasizing inconsistencies and general laziness by the films director and producers. The result is a more detailed and comprehensive, yet compact and conservative review.

In addition you never stray far from the goal of proving to the audience that Street Racer is an uninspired film that borrows from common tropes and trite plot devices rather than offer a unique spin. Unfortunately, the potential of movies with street car racing as its central theme are confined to plots involving crimes, albeit kidnapping, drugs, or crooked police officers, because street racing is itself an illegal activity, and that a movie featuring legalized racing would have little to separate itself from a carbon copy of Tom Cruise's Days of Thunder where legalized racing is confined to NASCAR and the only character motivation suitable for a NASCAR movie is personal glory. On the other hand, it appears that every possible plot device for a criminal racing movie has been wedged into one incoherent and over saturated film.

Including more of your own thoughts along these lines would only improve every episode, if you so wish. I don't want to suggest radical changes to your formula lest the series suffers another noticeable negative change in direction such as when some suggested decreasing the frequency of your expressive images, which, as a result, significantly lost its comedic impact.

It just occurred to me that we haven't seen you in any of the recent reviews. Is this a change in direction or is it just a strange coincidence? I will admit that I think that your photo making cameos sparingly through the course of a review is not as jolting as your live action segments from your earlier work.

Don't be so hard on yourself. If there's anyone to blame — it's definitely me. Had I simply written "Gee, thanks, LaughingMan! I'll make sure to keep up the good work!" instead of that pointless, lengthy prattle about the 'Downfall of Internet Reviewers', it wouldn't have instigated Kaleb; he, in his turn, wouldn't have started the usual 'Leave Internet reviewers alone' moral speech; everyone wouldn't have started 'taking sides' etc., etc., etc.

Right! So, I'm the asshole, this discussion never happened — let's move on, people, 'cos, frankly, this pointless debate with no end is even starting to give me a headache! Oh, and yes, I'm pretty much aware of the hypocrisy, thank you...


...and you had me waiting here, super-glued to the screen in anticipation for your verdict all this time?! Nah, just kidding! Thanks!

Also, I'll probably never understand why you people liked the 'Snakes on a Train' review so much. I mean, sure, in comparison to the '6 Guns' and 'The Da Vinci Treasure' ones it's miles, miles ahead in terms of both criticism and humour, but still! I don't know, maybe it's just 'cos I'm one of those writers who instantly disown from his previous work, no matter how good or well-accepted it could be, the moment he starts working on a new one...


Well, that's one of the reasons why I decided to deal with mockbusters on this show: No matter the setting, time period, general idea, these films always — and I mean always — yield the absolute worst in this or that genre, which, in its turn, allows me to go into more detail about my own personal favorites, provide an insightful outlook on this or that popular modern trend in the film industry, and etc.

Still, as you yourself have said, I need to be careful with these 'derailments', 'cos if there's one thing my 'The Da Vinci Treasure' review taught me it's that I should never make them the core part of the review, 'cos otherwise... Well, you all know how that ended.


Frankly? I just don't see the point. On one hand, you're right when you say that certain live-action segments enlivened the review or even further emphasized my points (i.e., see the "Wanna know how a bunch of unarmed losers manage to defeat a twenty-five feet tall monster snake? How about the good 'ol power of Christ, huh?" segment in my Snakes on a Train review). On the other, I figure that most of them just served to connect one part of the review like, say, the plot with the other like, say, the acting (e.g., see my 6 Guns review).

I mean, don't get me wrong: It's flattering to hear people commending my, err, spontaneous, I guess, personality, but when these segments don't really contribute anything substantial to the review and only (depends how you look on it) break the overall rapid, uninterrupted flow — why bother?