deleted imdb reviews

Most of the time these are referred to as "comments" but when they are deleted the alert refers to them as "reviews." So I'll stick with that wording.

I'm not entirely sure why one or the other was deleted, except by another user.
I'll modify them when I get the chance and re-post, but for now I'll just paste them here as they were. The second one, for a terrible spoof movie, is a justifyable deletion. I think I pasted some wording from a critic's blurb. I don't fully recall. I thought I had changed the context of it. I recognize the first wording (for good or ill) as my own though at first skim.

Iron Man 2 (2010)
Skip the reviews; watch the movie, 7 May 2010
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

An ongoing pet peeve of mine is the ease with which critics publish falsehoods. I don't even mean subjective arguments with which I disagree, but unqualified statements contrary to the evidence on screen. Here is an example, having looked at a review of Iron Man 2 before seeing it, since I was thrown by a claim that caught my eye. Ordinarily I avoid reviews of movies I already intend to see.

False statement number one is that Mickey Rourke doesn't have enough screen time. Fact: he has exactly the right amount of screen time for a primary movie heavy. Does he have as much as in The Wrestler? No. Does he have as much as Nicholson's Joker in the 1989 Batman? Of course not, because there was no writer's strike during the shooting of Iron Man 2 and Tim Burton doesn't always know when enough Jack is enough. Jack had way too much screen time in that flick, entertaining as he was.

False statement number two is that we don't see Iron Man in the suit enough. This might actually be offered as proof the critic didn't even see the movie. We see as much of Iron Man in full costume as the story permits, which is exactly the right amount. Then we also get to see War Machine in his own similar costume, and Mickey again in something still similar. Not to mention the collection of Iron man suits on display in Stark's home. This of course is even clear to people who have seen the trailers. No spoilers here.

I could go point for point through the whole "review," but those were the to most laughable that drifted into my thoughts as I was watching them be disproved during the film. Proof once again that a movie should be seen as cold as possible (despite the omni-present trailer) and there is no point having a critic's nonsense rattling around in your head.

Let's face it, you are in better hands with the team behind Iron Man 2 than with even a competent critic. The themes are well explored, the character flaws of Stark are exploited for substance, and it is as it should be. I don't think I'll show up for any Stark parties or Expos, but I will keep showing up to his movies. If there's a quibble, it can be for the hurdles placed before the filmmakers by the studio when it announced the release date of this flick before telling its director - who then had to round out whatever draft of a script with an ongoing workshop with his cast. Let's hope they are given more time for part 3, but they managed to maintain the standard of the first one to a large extent.

I'm really only posting a comment at this point as a way to vent. I may never have the time to compile an archive website of disprovable quotes from critics, and there is the danger anyway that it might inadvertently promote their names.

Meet the Spartans (2008)
the first "place holder" movie, 28 January 2008
(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user)

Some writers write what they call place holders when they know a movie could use something here or there or an explanation or a name for a character. . .This is the first time I've noticed someone let a whole movie go through the process and keep the place-holders.

It's a generic piece of crap with nothing to say, least of all anything to say about the pop culture it references. I love spoofs. I love satire too. Naked Gun, Airplane, Mel Brooks, even the last couple of Scary Movie installments. This isn't even an attempt. It reminds me of an old TV charity event "Night of a Hundred Stars" which ended up cramming people in by having them step out and bow, one at a time if you are lucky. Except that this is not as inspired, hasn't got the stars, and hasn't got the charity.

The closest thing to a decent quote I can find is :
"Meet The Spartans makes Epic Movie look like Scary Movie."

Good quote # 2:
"The movie follows the essential narrative of 300, with some obvious detours.
It plays as if someone handed over a laundry list of popular-culture flotsam, and the recipient took it to be a script."

That's about all the good that has come from this movie being made.

A series of walk-ons for one look-alike after another.

It is made by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Any film that indicates these names as directors can be guaranteed to suck. What they do right is they say yes to distributors and get something shot which can be marketed close to a better film it is trying to ape. They keep the budgets around 20 million dollars and they make a profit in the first weekend before the teen audience realize that on every website the films are rated maybe two or three out of ten, and with single-digit percentages on the tomatometer. They are a brand name of suckage. Sadly a decent Canadian musical about vampires called Suck received no theatrical release and yet these garbage merchants crank out a place-holder called Vampires Suck and it gets between 2000 and 3000 screens. Why do Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer still get hired? They really have nothing to say about anything they are ostensibly spoofing. There are Second City improv troops who can whip up a 90 minute spoof on any topic or movie in much less time than it takes these dweebs. The studio heads need to get out more. The Kentucky Fried Theater was running for a while before Zucker Abrahams and Zucker ventured into film spoofs. Mel Brooks cut his teeth with the best of the best in live television. These putzes don't know how to generate comedy. I can watch hours of student films for all the energy and urgency and experimentation but I can't sit through the films of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer for free on the internet or on a DVD that is handed to me or when I am forced to hang tight with others who are watching their crap. I have forced myself a couple of times and it is rough going.

--

Okay, by the time I was done reading over my post I realized it was not worth reposting something that had been an inexplicable word-count of mostly a published review someone else wrote. I decided to trash that and rip on the two dudes who have ruined spoof movies for half a decade.

Seriously thinking about deleting this blog or just posting elsewhere for obvious reasons. But at least it's a place to paste some useless observations while procrastinating about my own crap.