I will confess to not having watched rent either, but then, isn’t the point still that maximal enjoyment of the review is reliant on you knowing movies/plays similar to reality bites or its themes, instead of just being able to appreciate how awful Reality Bites is?
Yes, the reviews show us that Ethan Hawke is a self-satisfied knowitall hipster, but just assumes that that’s enough to make me appreciate that he’s an absolutely despicable piece of filth. Lindsay even starts off the review by stating that he even “abuses the love of his life” – where the hell did that show? I was waiting for some scenes to be shown that would illustrate just how loathsome he was, but in the end I’m supposed to hate him basically because he has a snarky answering message, can’t define Irony, and Lindsay told me to. Likewise with the gasoline thing, it’s the only thing we get as hate-bait for Winona Ryders character, and Lindsay even tells us that before we see it.
What I’m getting at is that my issue isn’t that I don’t get Lindsays points, its’ more how her format works in terms of getting laughs. That’s a major advantage of the linear review if you want to make jokes off the movie; the viewer follows the reviewer, sees the movies faults for him/herself, and can thus appreciate the jokes/points more. Let the movie show why its worthy of ridicule, let it give examples of your gripes, and someone totally unfamiliar to the source material will still be right behind your rant. For instance, I’d never even heard of Simon Sez or Dane Cook until I saw the review, but because they let me see his awful scenes for myself, I can still vouch for how godawfully annoying he was. It’s much more effective than just telling me “Dane Cook is annoying. Have a two second clip of him, and then another clip from another property entirely that illustrates my point.
Incidentally, the only laugh the Matilda review got from me and my girlfriend was the “you’re a jesus Harry!” joke, because we are closely familiar with the stories and character. I don’t think any such joke would’ve worked with Matilda herself, because the most exposure I felt I got to the character was when they tried illustrating the supposed “sexual tension” with another character I didn’t know. Before watching the review, all I knew of the movie was that it was about a little girl with magic powers, versus an evil teacher. After watching it I learned that the evil teacher was an ex-athlete, and that they throw water balloons at her at one point. Whereas with Simon Sez I can now appreciate the ridiculous Monks, the shittyness of Dane Cook, the awful special effects, over the top villain and hamfisted hero/heroine relationship.
So yeah, I guess what I’m saying is just that Lindsays reviews – or rather, “analysis’s of a topic or trend present in the movie on the title card”- are fine for me if I know the movie in question, but are not as easily accessible if you just want 15 minutes of jokes made at the expense of a shitty movie you’ve never heard of before.