DVD Review: I LOVE YOU, MAN (DVD; Paramount/DreamWorks)

Mike LoManaco

Studio Name: Paramount/DreamWorks
Tested Audio Track: English Dolby Digital 5.1
Starring Cast: Paul Rudd, Jason Segel

SYNOPSIS:

I see the smartasses of the site are at it again -- this time calling the review of I Love You, Man a couple of threads down from this one an official "UN-PROFESSIONAL" version just to continue mocking my individual style and throwing sea salt on an already open, bleeding wound. But no matter; I'll share my thoughts with those who are looking for a bit more detail from their information banks before plunking down their hard-earned cash on a DVD or Blu-ray rental. Assigned this title as a freelance review, I was unfortunately stuck with the standard DVD version -- but given the subject material, I have found most modern comedies look just fine upconverted from standard 480 resolution.

Let's put it this way -- if you are a fan of 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, you're going to slip into I Love You, Man like a glove or an old pair of jeans recently found at the back of the closet. The humor here is typical of the aforementioned genre busters, and you either get Jason Segel's sublime, ridiculously funny deliveries or you don't; he shares the spotlight here with the becoming-ever-so-funny Paul Rudd (Clueless, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin) in a story about being so needy around your fianc

concealer404

Mike, i enjoyed the review, and will now definitely rent the movie tonite, but here's some constructive critisism:


If you're going to write a professional-style review, it would behoove you and perhaps gain you some respect from people if you would leave the butt-pain out of the beginning of the review, and maybe fix your thread title. I also think you're looking FAR too far into the "Un-professional review" thing. I think it's helpful, and i don't think it's met as a jab against you. It's just a tag line so i know ahead of time what i'm getting into.

Just sayin'. Like i said before, none of this has a great impact on my life, but you really are taking the things said on this forum WAY too seriously.

Looking forward to the next one, though.

Knucklehead

Ok, so Im a smartass for posting my own condensed review of movies. My review of a movie is certainly "un-professional". So lets call yours what it is. " A spoiler review 2 days after the movie comes out on DVD". Believe it or not, I read your posts AFTER I see the movie to get your take on things.

Ricardo

Mike, there's already a thread for this movie

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86860

concealer404

Oh boy.

wutadumsn23

LOL, here we go again....

kuntasensei

I couldn't help myself... It was funny.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

Mike, i enjoyed the review, and will now definitely rent the movie tonite, but here's some constructive critisism:


If you're going to write a professional-style review, it would behoove you and perhaps gain you some respect from people if you would leave the butt-pain out of the beginning of the review, and maybe fix your thread title.

It was meant to be sarcastic in response to what has been happening.

I also think you're looking FAR too far into the "Un-professional review" thing. I think it's helpful, and i don't think it's met as a jab against you. It's just a tag line so i know ahead of time what i'm getting into.

Really? How so? When were these "WARNING! THIS IS AN UN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW!" thread titles EVER posted before I began posting mine and seemingly pissing people off on here who claimed that my writing style was discrediting other members just by what I provide? Can you show me where that occurred?

Just sayin'. Like i said before, none of this has a great impact on my life, but you really are taking the things said on this forum WAY too seriously.

...but what I am saying is also being "taken very seriously," apparently, so why the double standard?

Looking forward to the next one, though.

Indeed; thank you. Please let us know what you thought of this when you rent it.

Mike LoManaco

Knucklehead wrote: »

Ok, so Im a smartass for posting my own condensed review of movies. My review of a movie is certainly "un-professional".

Yeah -- my point was you began a thread with that title bait just because everyone else in this area of the forum lurks and then posts discontented thoughts and feelings about my usage of that word. You know what is funny? I have actually STOPPED using the "professional" moniker and toned the reviews down a bit in terms of length (beginning with this one) because it was sending everyone into a dizzying state of psychosis and anger, and YET STILL members like you are taking the opportunity to post "reviews" in which you poke fun of what I have called mine in the past just by calling it "UN PROFESSIONAL"...

In my opinion, what you wrote isn't even a "review;" a review consists of breakdowns on audio, visual and plot specifications. Which brings me to this:

So lets call yours what it is. " A spoiler review 2 days after the movie comes out on DVD".

Really? That's interesting; then what would you call every other "review" that's posted online for public consumption? Have you ever READ any of these? They're marketed and posted the SAME way -- breaking down the plot into lengthy analysis, comparing cast histories, director intentions, etc. etc. and then delving into the specifications on the discs themselves. Are every one of these reviewers so far off their rockers that they're just posting "spoilers two days after a film comes out on DVD"? And that assesment of my work is completely inaccurate, as well.

Believe it or not, I read your posts AFTER I see the movie to get your take on things.

That's fine; when the plot spoilers are too heady, I do include a warning at the beginning.

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

I couldn't help myself... It was funny.

Did you REALLY have THAT much time on your hands that you needed to begin a new thread mocking the entire review I wrote and posted? MY GOD...you are truly amazing; I see Patrick took care of the ridiculous **** that has been weaved over all this.

Thanks, Pat.

Kex

kuntasensei wrote: »

I couldn't help myself... It was funny.

Thank you, I was quite amused by it!

(No insult intended to OP of this thread, BTW, even if I don't read his reviews)

bobman1235

Mike, you seriously might want to reconsider mocking someone for having too much time on their hands. You're being a whiny little baby; let people have their fun, ignore them and write your reviews if it makes you happy, but pulling a hissy fit over a little dig is not gonna win you any fans.

concealer404

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

It was meant to be sarcastic in response to what has been happening.



Really? How so? When were these "WARNING! THIS IS AN UN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW!" thread titles EVER posted before I began posting mine and seemingly pissing people off on here who claimed that my writing style was discrediting other members just by what I provide? Can you show me where that occurred?



...but what I am saying is also being "taken very seriously," apparently, so why the double standard?



Indeed; thank you. Please let us know what you thought of this when you rent it.

I already addressed some double standards in the other thread.

Mike LoManaco

Kex wrote: »

Thank you, I was quite amused by it!

(No insult intended to OP of this thread, BTW, even if I don't read his reviews)

May I ask exactly what was "amusing" about what he did? Apparently, the moderators didn't find it too funny, and it was truly childish.

Mike LoManaco

bobman1235 wrote: »

Mike, you seriously might want to reconsider mocking someone for having too much time on their hands. You're being a whiny little baby; let people have their fun, ignore them and write your reviews if it makes you happy, but pulling a hissy fit over a little dig is not gonna win you any fans.

Let me see if I have this right...I sit down to provide the site (and other sites; don't get me wrong) with an overview of the title on standard DVD, then one member announces -- JUST to as you say "have their fun" -- that his is going to be "an unprofessional approach" while yet another mimics the entire review itself to make GROWN ADULTS, seemingly, laugh over it...AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT I AM THE ONE WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS AND THAT I AM PULLING A HISSY FIT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL TO DO THAT?

I'm not being a "whiny little baby;" even our moderators thought what he did was asinine and a waste of time and/or bandwidth.

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

I already addressed some double standards in the other thread.

You actually have reasons in which you outline the need for a double standard and justify continuing to support threads which mock other people's work -- even after they made the attempt to remove certain elements which were bothering members?

Kex

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

May I ask exactly what was "amusing" about what he did? Apparently, the moderators didn't find it too funny, and it was truly childish.

It caught the spirit of the moment. That's all.

concealer404

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

You actually have reasons in which you outline the need for a double standard and justify continuing to support threads which mock other people's work -- even after they made the attempt to remove certain elements which were bothering members?

Erm. No. Not so much.

I outlined the potential need for TWO threads for each movie. And then outlined the existing double standard of people bitching about your threads because there's already one out there. I.E: Oppo 83.


I'm not supporting anything here other than telling everyone to grow up and stop being so serious.

megasat16

I know this movie sucks after reading your thread title. Thanks for saving me $1 rental.

Thanks Mike!

megasat16

And Please (please please please?) move the Summary to the top of the review so it's easier to find? I know I can scroll down and it's nice to see Summary but it's probably a better format to put it at the top? Wat cha think?

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

Erm. No. Not so much.

I outlined the potential need for TWO threads for each movie. And then outlined the existing double standard of people bitching about your threads because there's already one out there. I.E: Oppo 83.

I'm not supporting anything here other than telling everyone to grow up and stop being so serious.[/QUOTE]

Jesus Christ on the F%^&*ing Cross...

People, look: We can have two threads begun of the same film -- that's absolutely no problem. Some have different takes than others. That's no problem. I just want the nonsense of these little "pot shots" stopped because it's cruel and not in the spirit of the hobbyists we are -- I always make it a point to clarify that what I am writing is in NO way a stab or discredit attempt to the original poster of a title discussion. I simply share my own thoughts in my own ways through my reviews on a film, and wish it would simply be "left alone" for lack of a better term. You don't want to read them or comment on them? Fine. There's NO problem with that; just please don't mock or poke fun at someone's style or intent. I am NOT doing that to anyone else when they post a thread about a film UNLESS it is in defense of what has been done to me, as I have done here.

Thank you; can we move on with discussing the film?

Mike LoManaco

megasat16 wrote: »

I know this movie sucks after reading your thread title. Thanks for saving me $1 rental.

Thanks Mike!

Ricardo

Just for the records, the "unprofessional" review (9/12, 12:31 AM) was posted before this one (9/13, 4:02 AM). So no, it was not in response to yours.

So if knucklehead is as paranoid as you are, probably the mods have their inbox full of complains from him.

McLoki

Mike - I rather enjoy your reviews. I do typically skip your synopsis unless I am on the fence about renting (just in case there are spoilers included) or have already seen the movie - but the video, audio quality, summary and recommendation sections are pretty interesting.

I would like to invite those who do not like your reviews to add you to an ignore list or not read them. It makes it hard for someone with my level of ADD to stay on track with all the pissing back and forth - would be much easier if some of the posts besides yours were actually about the movie. (and yes, I know some are, but less than half in most threads)

Anyway - Thanks for the review.

Michael

Knucklehead

Mike, Cmon man, Honestly, what I thought about your previous reviews were very professional movie reviews, at no point did I jump in and call you any names. You can think whatever you want, but you dont own "rights" to movie reviews. Now, you can call me childish names if it makes you feel better, Im not going their.

David

Mike LoManaco

megasat16 wrote: »

And Please (please please please?) move the Summary to the top of the review so it's easier to find? I know I can scroll down and it's nice to see Summary but it's probably a better format to put it at the top? Wat cha think?

A plot analysis/synopsis discussion should come before a "summary," wouldn't you say? The word itself means to bring together all that has come BEFORE it, don't cha think?

kawizx9r

I usually refrain from commenting on these movie reviews but Mike, I think you should take things said here with a grain of salt. Props to you for having the time and dedication to provide Club Polk with an in depth movie review, but what others are getting at is that it may just be a bit unnecessary. That in itself though is just an opinion, and if you enjoy writing these reviews then by all means keep it up! I just don't see, and I don't think I'm alone when I say this, how someone can dedicate the effort to do what you do. Such efforts are exercised doing other things, those things being a hobby of some sort. I take it this may just be a hobby you like to indulge in? That's cool though, not like any of our hobbies aren't questionable in one way or another. Anyway, keep those reviews coming, but don't waste anymore time just to throw a fit and argue over the 'net. I know I wouldn't, I'd rather sit down and enjoy the music

Edit: Listening to Metallica - Re-load

Mike LoManaco

Ricardo wrote: »

Just for the records, the "unprofessional" review (9/12, 12:31 AM) was posted before this one (9/13, 4:02 AM). So no, it was not in response to yours.

So if knucklehead is as paranoid as you are, probably the mods have their inbox full of complains from him.

Right -- and I'm not saying that it was in response to mine IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE...I KNOW he threw the "review" up before I did, but his TITLE was an attempt to mock and otherwise poke fun at what I was providing in other threads.

Here is a good example, people, of what the mods and others have been trying to nail into some members' heads, apparently with no luck: Ricardo just can't stay out of my threads unless it's to engage in some sarcastic, offrailing flame baiting which is so counter productive he hopes it will steer readers away from the point of the thread itself: TO DISCUSS A FILM RELEASE ON HOME VIDEO.

megasat16

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Well, you see...There are two things ~

1. I don't like smartasses since I am not one.
2. I always know anything with the word "smartasses sucks"

so I did myself a favor and decided to save $1 from watching this sucking movie.

I did read the Summary at the bottom of the review.

Mike LoManaco

McLoki wrote: »

Mike - I rather enjoy your reviews. I do typically skip your synopsis unless I am on the fence about renting (just in case there are spoilers included) or have already seen the movie - but the video, audio quality, summary and recommendation sections are pretty interesting.

I would like to invite those who do not like your reviews to add you to an ignore list or not read them. It makes it hard for someone with my level of ADD to stay on track with all the pissing back and forth - would be much easier if some of the posts besides yours were actually about the movie. (and yes, I know some are, but less than half in most threads)

Anyway - Thanks for the review.

Michael

Thank you for your thoughts, Michael.

bobman1235

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Let me see if I have this right...I sit down to provide the site (and other sites; don't get me wrong) with an overview of the title on standard DVD, then one member announces -- JUST to as you say "have their fun" -- that his is going to be "an unprofessional approach" while yet another mimics the entire review itself to make GROWN ADULTS, seemingly, laugh over it...AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT I AM THE ONE WITH TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS AND THAT I AM PULLING A HISSY FIT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL TO DO THAT?

Yes. That is correct. You're overreacting is calling way more attention to it than a little mocking. It may be disrespectful, but again, you're just creating more enemies by ranting and raving about it EVERY time. You write a fine review, obviously not everyone likes it and are going to rag on your for it; time to be the adult and ignore it.