|
 |
Clueless CT ReviewDVD Talk has posted what I think may be the first really harshly negative review of Cinematic Titanic. I remember reviews of MST3K: The Movie that were like this. Some people are just much too personally invested in movies, I guess. I could tear this one down myself (and I may, later) but I’ll let you guys have a go at it first.
131 Replies to “Clueless CT Review”Commenting at Satellite News
We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide an "Ignore" button ( Comments are closed. |
|
Satellite News is a fan site for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 television and Netflix series. It is an independent publication written and compiled by Chris Cornell (msampo@aol.com) and Brian Henry (erhardt4@aol.com). Satellite of Love, LLC does not maintain this web site, nor is it responsible for this site's content.
All content posted on Satellite News is copyright © 2024 by Chris Cornell and Brian Henry, except where otherwise noted. This Date in MSTory is written and compiled by Steve Finley, Chris Cornell and Brian Henry. Copyright © 2024 All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce This Date in MSTory items in any form without express written permission from the authors. Items of MST3K news may be duplicated or reposted, as long as Satellite News is cited as the source. The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Satellite of Love, LLC. No warranty is expressed or implied that the information given herein is completely accurate, and in fact this information can and will change at any time. So there. Mystery Science Theater 3000, its characters and situations are copyrights and trademarks of Satellite of Love, LLC. Banner image created by Larry Lee Moniz. |
|
) to help our users cope with "trolls" and other commenters whom they find annoying. Go to our
What a hilarious, bitter review. How dare they talk over “Wasp Woman”? I’m left wondering if Stuart Galbraith IV’s ascot wrote that review complaining about them talking over Eddie Cochrane in “Untamed Youth.”
Here’s a tip: if you’re going to cite friends who do a “funnier” job, the joke you cite better be funnier *hands down* or you just look like a bitter, humorless ass. (Reading his Ann Arbor article, he hasn’t changed a whit in 20 years.)
I’m not sure what kind of humor he wants for “Wasp Woman” to be (Bee!! Oh, no!) funny for him – I thought the episode was their best yet, and quite hilarious – aside from his dismay that there actually is riffing over his beloved Corman film.
The review is more bitter than negative. The reviewer ends the review by saying “The Wasp Woman deserves better”. Really?
It seems to me that the writer is a huge Roger Corman fan? It’s almost like he purchased “The Wasp Woman” to enjoy the film itself as opposed to enjoying the riffing, and was disappointed when Joel & Co. tore into it?
The one real issue I have with the review, is where he talks about how riffing in general casts old films in a bad light. I have to strongly disagree with that statement. I can honestly say, if it weren’t for MST3K, I doubt I would have gone on a search for every film by Arch Hall Jr., or tracked down every Tor Johnson film ever made. MST3K introduced me to some wonderful B-movies, stars and film makers, and gave me an appreciation for well made B-movie of the black & white era.
Dude needs to friggin’ chill out. He acts like “Wasp Woman” is something in the same league as “The Godfather”.
Based on his history, this guy believes himself to be The Official MST3K Doubter. I can almost hear himself saying: “Everybody seems to like MST3K, but I’m gonna be ‘brave’ and trash the show. Ooooh, I am sooooo ‘rebellious’!”
Some people take humor too seriously.
as it’s been said before:
‘the right people will get it.’
or, as Louis Armstrong supposedly said when someone asked him what jazz was all about:
‘If you don’t get it, you aren’t ever going to know.’
[paraphrased]
To call Joel Hodgson and the rest of the CT crew parasites who have no talent and just feed off other’s work was a low low blow. I was insulted and I’m just a fan. Clearly this reviewer has never got it when it came to MST3K, and now CT. Personally, I’ve always felt reviewers are parsites, especially the ones that write scathing reviews of films while trying to come off as witty, or in this guy’s case just really nasty. Must be an all-around unhappy person.
As anyone involved in comedy knows, asserting that something “isn’t funny” is the easiest thing in the world. You can’t objectively prove something’s not funny, nor can you prove it is.
And to each their own. Tastes / mileage vary. Kumbaya, turn turn turn, etc. etc.
But a good general clue: experts in what’s funny aren’t usually quite so bitter and humorless themselves.
“It seems to me that the writer is a huge Roger Corman fan? It’s almost like he purchased “The Wasp Woman” to enjoy the film itself as opposed to enjoying the riffing, and was disappointed when Joel & Co. tore into it?”
If I remember correctly, DVDTalk writers have certain types of films they normally review, so he may be their B-movie guy (though he didn’t review the first two, another critic did).
My guess is he didn’t buy it, it was either suggested to him by the site’s editors or when the list of movies up for review was circulated he said “Ooh, a Roger Corman movie, I’ll take that.”
Either way, he seems like the wrong choice for this title. I wonder if the previous reviewer was busy?
I remember watching a tv interview where this guy got really pissy at Mike and Mary Jo because he was convinced that Roger Corman was a fantastic auteur. Personally, I think that regardless of the speed with which he could churn out film, he still wasn’t a very good director.
But Stuart misses the point entirely. MST3K is about celebrating film, in all its incarnations. It does quite the opposite of what he says it does. If not for MST3K, would any of us have ANY interest in the sort of films they watch?
While I don’t agree with the review, I think Galbraith at least articulately explained why he didn’t like it. When the MST3K or CT crew lob 700+ jokes at a movie, not all of them are going to hit, and I guess Galbraith expects a higher success rate. The “parasite” comment is harsh, but it’s one that’s been made of MST3K/Rifftrax/CT numerous times, and I think we must acknowledge that while we don’t agree with it, it’s not an invalid observation. They guys have, to be fair, made careers out of making fun of other people’s work, no matter how bad that work may be. I think it’s redeemed by the fact that their mockery is literate, witty, and well-crafted, but someone may disagree.
“if you own a plasma TV, this edition of The Wasp Woman is not for you; there’s a good chance it’ll burn a permanent silhouette of the cast on your TV. ”
Utter nonsense. It will take WAY longer than 70 minutes to get a screen burn-in.
You don’t often see that sort of venom outside of a Frank Rich column.
Given his stated previous dislike for the format, I’m surprised he actually took the time to watch it before writing his review. Did he think that this time he’d enjoy the riffing?
I think that any point he was trying to make goes out the window with his last line if “Even Manos deserves better”
Yes, the movie made by a fertilizer salesman on a better deserves better.
For a DVD review, he does little to talk about the actual DVD in question. In fact, he hardly even talks about CT! I guess he also doesn’t get that this is not an alternative version of The Wasp Woman, but an actual show.
And one last thing. He talks about how they’re old movies that of course won’t hold up to todays standards. But what would he think of RiffTrax?
I’ll begin my thoughts with this. My percentage is still at 100% for people who have a number at the end of their name being uptight, arrogant, “better than the rest” type of douche. Stuart Galbraith IV is no exception. He’s lucky that he has the security of hiding behind a computer monitor when he types his dribble.
“The movies that serve as the backdrops for these shows usually are in the public domain – if Casablanca or The Wizard of Oz were PD, I guarantee you they’d be “riffed,” too – and for this reason the original creators and/or their heirs do not receive licensing fees, nor is their permission required to make fun of their work.”
Stuart Ballbreath IV apparently is missing the point, or is confusing CT with RT. RT would make fun of popular non-bad movies. CT so far is only making fun of BAD movies. Stuart would probably place Wasp Woman in the same group as Casablanca and Wizard of Oz as the best movies ever made. Does Ballbreath also think that Ed Wood was the BEST director of all time?!
“Making fun of old movies because they don’t have exactly the same conventions, technology, and visual style of present-day films is truly odious thinking, and a real disservice to impressionable viewers (pre-teens are probably a big portion of this label’s audience) who, partly thanks to shows like these, develop prejudices against old movies generally, except as things to be derided.”
How about making fun of old movies because they are BAD! BAD acting, BAD scripts, or BAD directing. This can be done in ANY ERA, so using old movies as an excuse to “make fun of them” is stupid. Also, if this was the case, RT wouldn’t make fun of current movies since it is only the OLD movies that are worthy of jokes.
“It’s as if people like Hodgson et.al., lack the talent to create their own, original comedy, so instead like parasites they latch onto the efforts of others.”
At least Hodgson started TWO ideas and had one of them on the air. It is lame so-called “Reviewers” who are the parasites, since they can only critique and never actually make anything. Stuart Ballbreath IV, YOU are the parasite…trying to gain something from your pathetic attack on CT. If you were to die soon, would anyone even care? That was harsh huh? Now you know how it feels.
“it’s the cinematic equivalent of having bamboo shoots jammed up under the fingernails.”
Funny…reading your review is the equivalent of having a bamboo stick shoved up ones ass. Coincidence? Read the book.
I’m done with this hack. Stuart Ballbreath IV, you are just SO eager to attack MST3K (and now CT) that it must be one of the things that drives you to exist. I’m surprised that your name has lasted four generations. Hopefully there won’t be a fifth.
What’s odd to me is that he mentions that he wrote an anti-MST article about 20 years ago. No harm there – hey this is a fan site but I’m ok with people not liking MST.
What I don’t get is if the author -knew- he didn’t like this type of humor – why did he review the DVD? What value could there be in a review from a person predisposed to dislike the product?
(This is why I don’t review Adam Sandler movies.)
Speaking as someone who does not like CT, this review makes me feel uncomfortable. Clearly he is raging against something. There’s not much you can say to a guy that does not think the genre should exist in the first place.
Reminds me of my friend who hated MST3K because he wanted them to shut up so he could WATCH THE MOVIE.
“…so instead like parasites they latch onto the efforts of others” Isn’t that what Stuart is doing as a reviewer? Granted, I’m doing the same thing here but I’m not getting paid for it. And I think I’ll throw in a mean spirited comment myself: “Stuart Galbraith the FOURTH??? Sounds like a family tree overdue for pruning.”
You’ve really just got to laugh this stuff off, it’s way too silly to let it get you upset.
There’s NOTHING funnier than a film critic offering this line – “It’s as if people like Hodgson et.al., lack the talent to create their own, original comedy, so instead like parasites they latch onto the efforts of others.”
This guy belongs in a Christopher Guest movie about film critics.
RE: Post 18 from Aaron
How about an updated version of “Theater of Blood”?
I’m put in mind of what the director said on the interview on the disk… he was upset at first and then realized that it was great for his project. it gave it new life.
Wasp Woman… sorry guys… life’s too short for horrible movies that aren’t MySTied, Riffed or Titanicified.
probably a case of “great idea, but i didn’t come up with it, so i hate it”.
Even Manos the Hands of Fate deserved better? That proves he is nuts.
As said earlier, I wonder why they put someone on the review if that person clearly hated it, even before he saw it.
“What I don’t get is if the author -knew- he didn’t like this type of humor – why did he review the DVD?”
I’m writing this as another reviewer at DVD Talk (although I’m very, very much an MST3K fan!), but when this disc was added to the review pool, the fella doing the data entry didn’t mention that it was a Cinematic Titanic disc, and the cover art he posted was for a public domain DVD.
As far as Stuart knew, he had just requested another copy of The Wasp Woman.
I remember the one guy that told Mike and Mary Jo they should riff “good movies” and that will even things out, and Mike repeatedly kept trying to tell him they can’t afford good movies.
Adam Tyner – thanks for the clarification. That puts things in better perspective.
I will bet anyone here cash money (Up to what’s in my bank account: $0.04) that Stuart Galbraith IV is the biggest closet MSTie in the world. He’s seen every episode, built his own Tom Servo, has a huge MST poster in his bedroom, owns a worn over-read copy of the ACEG, etc.
(It’s been my experiences that the harder someone attacks something, the more they secretly like it and just wont admit it.)
First indication this reviewer is a major league douche bag: his cognomen, to wit the “IV” at the end of an already overtly aristocratic and sourpuss of a name, Galbraith.
Worst of all, he actually said that Manos: the Hands of Fate deserves better.
I wager Stuart little has erected in his one room apartment altars to The Blair Witch Project and North.
Randy
He’s definitely way off with the idea that this will put people off of old movies. Old movies are my favorite and make up the vast majority of my movie collection. I’m more familiar with actors and filmmakers from the silent era than with the current crop today and I’ve been a MSTie since ’93.
I also agree with the others who said the “Manos deserved better” comment proves he’s off his nut. Yes, an out of focus, poorly shot, poorly dubbed, even more poorly acting film deserves to held in much higher regard. How dare the Academy give an actual talented director like Fred Zinneman the Oscar that year instead of good old Hal “Fertilizer Salesman/Auteur” Warren. Hal was robbed!!! :mad:
Did he really say Manos, Hands of Fate even deserves better?
:?:
Oh, is the great Stuart Galbreath the Fourth reviewing… ?
If he thinks ‘Manos deserves better’ then he believes that all film, no matter how amateurish or vile, deserves some level of sanctity.
And, ironically, it is people like this that make riffing fun !!!
lets be honest here, this is ultimately a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. However, this fellow acts as though this is a work of art being tarnished by riffing. Look at it in this perspective, Corman was/is notorious for making films in 5-7 days. Also if it were that important to him, they wouldnt be in the public domain! he or someone would have bought the rights, wouldnt they? Thats why he is known as an EXPLOITATION director! To put this much thought and effort in rating a movie that the initial creators didnt, is somewhat inane. However, thats kind of the beauty of MST, CT, Rifftrax, etc. it puts a new dimension to the films themselves.
I agree with #3, because of MST, etc. I too have looked into other Arch Hall movies, Corman movies, and movies i wouldnt have considered without this exposure.
Ultimately we deserve better than pompous jackass reviewers telling us what we should like or not.
#29 GregS : yes he does. see ‘parting thoughts’ 3 or 4 lines above his first ( snicker ) footnote.
ooops here’s stewie’s imdb entry !!!!
imdb.com/name/nm1483213/
(In Trace’s pretentious voice:) Oooh, is the great Stuart Galbraith IV going to review the movie for us???
Personally, I have a hard time respecting the opinion of someone who doesn’t even know what DVD he is buying.
I promise no more posts for a while… but 15 years ago is not 20 years ago.
ok, need to catch my breath, have a smoke ( ha ) and get back to work.
I’m amused at his concerns that CT will perpetuate the “old movie” stereotype. If anything, MST3K made me interested and appreciative of older films in the first place. That said, not all old movies are “classics” either, as this gentleman seems to think.
To be honest, I’m not much of a CT fan but Stuart the IV is a bit too high and mighty to take his review seriously. First tip-off, he refers to himself as “this reviewer” (I guess not the other bumpkin that may have actually enjoyed the treatment).
Second tip off, he couldn’t stand watching the entire movie in one sitting? What a wuss!
Third, he admits he didn’t like MST3k so it makes little sense for him to review a movie that gets riffed via silhouette.
Joe McDoakes?! Even he deserves better than being mentioned in a diatribe by Stuart Galbraith the ivy-th.
Whoa, this guy wrote “Hopping Mad Over MST3K”?! Wow. I mean, MiSTing might not have developed if he hadn’t done that (TOM SERVO: Next week, Hopping Mad Over Rhoda!). That was one of the first early classics of the genre. Whoa.
Oh, yes, also, the Joe McDoakes shorts — and for that matter the Pete Smith Specialty shorts — deserve their respect. Heck, just So You Want To Be A Detective forgives many minor entries in the series.
This is the oldest “missing-the-point-entirely” criticism of MST3k, and should not be taken seriously.
“Why are they talking over the movie??”
@23
Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I’m kind of giggling to myself as he puts it in the dvd player and he realizes what he just signed to do a review of.
This reminds me of reading in the ACEG about their first negative review, since they talked over some guy’s song.
It’s just a show. This guy should really just relax.
Regarding Mr. Stuart’s claims that he has “watched ordinary “civilians” with no show business ambitions effortlessly come up with funnier ad-libs than this fivesome’s scripted material”: Sure, anyone can come up with something pretty funny occasionally. But how about once every seven or so seconds? Didn’t think so.
I’m from the camp that believes that there is no charm or wonder that comes from the dreadful cinema that MST3k or Cinematic Titanic riff on. I mean, yes, the movies are fun because they are so bad, but I never say, “I really like this episode, plus its a pretty good movie.” The point of MST3k is these movies deserve to be shredded, and Joel & Mike & the bots give these films their comeuppance. Some MSTies may find some charm in the movies, but they were never selected to be riffed on because of their charm, quality film-making, or any other redeemable aspect. They’re just bad movies that are fun and easy to make fun of.
I watched the Cinematic Titanic serving of “Wasp Woman” over the weekend, and it was hilarious! My second favorite in the series… and anyone, that truly believe that there is something worth savoring beyond the cheese-factor of this movie is insane! Roger Coreman is a hack and so is the knob that wrote this review. And for his review, I say skip it.
For those who want to read the MSTing of his article from 15 (not 20) years ago:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.tv.mst3k/msg/5a6c6eed9380619f?dmode=source
It was posted by somebody–apparently at Berkeley–named Daniel Rice.
MSTorical note: It was posted on the day before Joel announced he was leaving the show.
One other note: As somebody who has in fact riffed on “The Wizard of Oz” AND “Casablanca” (and had great fun doing it) I can attest that both these movies were not harmed in any way by the process.
What a tool. I don’t see where he gets that public domain nonsense. If that were entirely true then we would have all of MST3K on DVD by now. I also don’t see why he has to complain about the riffing either. He should be glad this movie is part of CT and not MST3K, since CT does show the entire movie.
Anyway, I actually found Wasp Woman to be the best of the CTs so far because the movie was actually watchable. It reminded me of an episode of MST3K. The riffing was good and the movie didn’t make me want to jump out of a window.
Bill Corbett writes:
“You can’t objectively prove something’s not funny,
Not even Corky Romano?
” … nor can you prove it is.”
I thought that was Danica McKellar’s theorem was all about.
Why didn’t DVD Talk give the disc to Brian Orndorf? He’s been very kind to everything MST, with sharp, fun writing to boot.