Ebert's current assertion is that games cannot be considered an artform in the foreseeable future due to their interactive nature. This is good, because he used to say up until a couple of months ago that "games could never be considered art". Supposedly he's since tried his hand at Metroid Prime, and some other classics, but IIRC he even wrote himself that he felt his newbness limited his potential enjoyment of said games considerably. Regarding this though, I'm not sure if he would appreciate this game or the trailer as an exhibit for the "games as art" debate more than, say, the noire of Max Payne (first part - the second sucked much balls).

Having said that, this does look really good to me apart from character detail (obnoxious cleavage and anime-eyes on Elizabeth, anyone?), lack of much-needed tesselation and vertex shading and lack of RPG elements that I wished were implemented to a wider extent in Bioshock 1. Other than that, wreaking havoc upon the tea-partiers' paradise ought to be a lot of fun. >> ^Xax:

Perhaps the most impressive trailer I've ever seen for a game, even if it is just a render.
And who cares if Ebert refuses to acknowledge that games are art? That's his error.

Perhaps the most impressive trailer I've ever seen for a game, even if it is just a render.

And who cares if Ebert refuses to acknowledge that games are art? That's his error.

Ebert liked it.

>> ^Xax:

I hope that's not the final logo.


And I hope the new show isn't bleh like in this demo.

Has Ebert lost his lower jaw? Poor Roger.

I'm glad he can work the voice box and that the cancer is removed.

*quality

Yeesh. Dark ages technology at its finest.

Far too easy to manipulate, it looks like Ebert was just doing the twist at the end there. Fling every possible body part in whatever direction as fast as you can, and that should technically hit your opponent more then they hit you.

It's why I hate wii boxing, too. You can keep your guard up all you want, if a 6 year old is spinning around swinging her arms wildly she'll still find a way to get through. Then gloat about it. for 3 solid goddamn years.


...I hate that kid.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Siskel, Ebert, Sylvester, Stallone, Estel, Getty, Best, Of' to 'Siskel, Ebert, Sylvester Stallone, Estel Getty, Best Of' - edited by xxovercastxx

I enjoy both the lazy comedies and the stuff that tries harder, is that bad in your opinion?

Also, do you watch Louie? Mr. C.K.'s new show is recommended (as well as the Arrested Development suggestion above).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thinker247:
What I meant by my statement was that Roger Ebert was especially harsh when critiquing dumb comedies, such as this film. I've read many of your statements about comedy sifts, and you rarely find anything funny. It's not a condemnation; merely an opinion.>> ^dannym3141:
If we're not allowed to review things unless we're professional reviewers, you better say the same to the other people who commented before me.


That's perfectly fair enough, i take it back.
You're right, i don't find many sifts funny. I'm not into boil-in-the-bag humour.. you know, x is a family man but he's got daughter y who's unruly, daughter x who's rock n roll, etc. etc. comedy ensues.
I like comedy that tries harder, where i can't predict every single damned punchline. Stuff like the office, extras. The big lebowski. mitchell and webb and peep show. Curb your enthusiasm. That kinda stuff.
I think the people who make sitcoms like friends, big bang theory are guilty of lazyness. They don't try hard enough for me and i can second guess them.

>> ^Xax:

I know it's supposed to be a funny parody, but it reminds me how incomprehensibly insane that country is. It would be fascinating and scary to be in one of their heads.


Only the falling from the sky bit is parody; they really do simply have pretty women in uniform directing traffic rather than traffic lights. Insane, yes, but also sort of awesome.

More videos:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/pages-for-twitter/north-korean-traffic-girls-and.html

Watch Arrested Development. It's fantastic.
>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^thinker247:
What I meant by my statement was that Roger Ebert was especially harsh when critiquing dumb comedies, such as this film. I've read many of your statements about comedy sifts, and you rarely find anything funny. It's not a condemnation; merely an opinion.>> ^dannym3141:
If we're not allowed to review things unless we're professional reviewers, you better say the same to the other people who commented before me.


That's perfectly fair enough, i take it back.
You're right, i don't find many sifts funny. I'm not into boil-in-the-bag humour.. you know, x is a family man but he's got daughter y who's unruly, daughter x who's rock n roll, etc. etc. comedy ensues.
I like comedy that tries harder, where i can't predict every single damned punchline. Stuff like the office, extras. The big lebowski. mitchell and webb and peep show. Curb your enthusiasm. That kinda stuff.
I think the people who make sitcoms like friends, big bang theory are guilty of lazyness. They don't try hard enough for me and i can second guess them.

Go in drag. Be all like "That's so like my life. Carrie reminds me of me. Teehee."

I'd pay good money to sift a video of that with you.

>> ^EDD:

I recently "won" (not sure if this constitutes winning) an invitation for two to the national premiere of this "film" (again, not sure if this constitutes a film) two days from now. The event is organized by American Express and they've invited somewhere around 300 of their top female clients based on account turnover. There's going to be "red carpet", tabloid "journalists" and free drinks (not sure if a cosmo constitutes a proper drink though).
Now, I am married, and the Mrs. actually saw the first movie (said it was complete rubbish). She says she'd never go see a follow-up to that garbage on her own, but she is mildly interested in seeing what the event would be like. Personally, I only want to go if I can troll the event in some way: got any suggestions for me?
Btw, here's Roger Ebert's review.

wear a cocktail dress

>> ^EDD:

I recently "won" (not sure if this constitutes winning) an invitation for two to the national premiere of this "film" (again, not sure if this constitutes a film) two days from now. The event is organized by American Express and they've invited somewhere around 300 of their top female clients based on account turnover. There's going to be "red carpet", tabloid "journalists" and free drinks (not sure if a cosmo constitutes a proper drink though).
Now, I am married, and the Mrs. actually saw the first movie (said it was complete rubbish). She says she'd never go see a follow-up to that garbage on her own, but she is mildly interested in seeing what the event would be like. Personally, I only want to go if I can troll the event in some way: got any suggestions for me?
Btw, here's Roger Ebert's review.

I recently "won" (not sure if this constitutes winning) an invitation for two to the national premiere of this "film" (again, not sure if this constitutes a film) two days from now. The event is organized by American Express and they've invited somewhere around 300 of their top female clients based on account turnover. There's going to be "red carpet", tabloid "journalists" and free drinks (not sure if a cosmo constitutes a proper drink though).

Now, I am married, and the Mrs. actually saw the first movie (said it was complete rubbish). She says she'd never go see a follow-up to that garbage on her own, but she is mildly interested in seeing what the event would be like. Personally, I only want to go if I can troll the event in some way: got any suggestions for me?

Btw, here's Roger Ebert's review.

>> ^thinker247:

What I meant by my statement was that Roger Ebert was especially harsh when critiquing dumb comedies, such as this film. I've read many of your statements about comedy sifts, and you rarely find anything funny. It's not a condemnation; merely an opinion.>> ^dannym3141:
If we're not allowed to review things unless we're professional reviewers, you better say the same to the other people who commented before me.



That's perfectly fair enough, i take it back.

You're right, i don't find many sifts funny. I'm not into boil-in-the-bag humour.. you know, x is a family man but he's got daughter y who's unruly, daughter x who's rock n roll, etc. etc. comedy ensues.

I like comedy that tries harder, where i can't predict every single damned punchline. Stuff like the office, extras. The big lebowski. mitchell and webb and peep show. Curb your enthusiasm. That kinda stuff.

I think the people who make sitcoms like friends, big bang theory are guilty of lazyness. They don't try hard enough for me and i can second guess them.

What I meant by my statement was that Roger Ebert was especially harsh when critiquing dumb comedies, such as this film. I've read many of your statements about comedy sifts, and you rarely find anything funny. It's not a condemnation; merely an opinion.>> ^dannym3141:
If we're not allowed to review things unless we're professional reviewers, you better say the same to the other people who commented before me.