The Worst Movie reviewers

[Bat Attack]

and Catwoman a B

...

 

[ToddIsDead]

Plus Ebert's melting face scares me.

Me too

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'll say Ebert and anyone from Ain't it Cool news. Oh and the EW critic's.

 

[Gamma Ray]

EW is a crappy with ratings. The reviewers use their personal vendettas in their reviews. For example, the guy who reviewed Family Guy has a bad history with Seth Macfarlane.

 

[ultimatefan]

Devin Faraci, from CHUD. Someone who gives Batman Begins a negative review and Fantastic Four a positive one doesn´t belong to the same species as I do... I stopped reading CHUD after that...

Oh, and Scott Holleran from Box Office Mojo... I been reading his later reviews and man, does that guy like ANYTHING?

 

[ultimatefan]

SooOOOOOoooo TRUE!
I feel as if I wrote that post myself.
He is truly repulsive. I used to listen to his radio show and you could feel his smug, seething only barely containable sense of superiority just dripping out of the speakers.
When he debates, he's just got this transparent childish thing where you know that deep down it isn't really about the issue at hand or trying to exchange ideas but just mainly that he gets an addictive adrenaline rush from being right/proving someone else wrong. He's such a psychologically ****ed up guy.

When you have a good reviewer, who isn't a maniacal zealot, they have the ability to watch, say, a dumb teen comedy, but to analyze it and say "this is not my thing, but as for the target audience they will enjoy it and as an example of this genre, it's well done."

But with him, if a gay character is depicted as a hero, then *bam* it was a terrible MOVIE.
If a priest is depicted as a psycho, *POW*, the film had no artistic merit.

He is turd-for-brains.


How ever, he is intelligent enough to speak his own language.
The WoOOOOorst reviews I have ever read (and that includes the ones in my junior high school paper) were by HARRY KNOWLES.

He is a certified ****** and consistently you have to skim through 4 or 5 pages of, "Well, I got up the morning of the screening and couldn't decide whether to have bacon, or eggs for breakfast, so finally it dawned on me, "I'll have bacon AND eggs!" So I had an ass-rash and wasn't looking forward to sitting through a three hour movie, but my nephew needs to be exposed to the work of this director and since my grandpa twisted his ankle I wouldn't be able to go until after Sam and I get back from our fishing trip..."


S.T.F.U.

So, that's bad enough, but then...you know how a stupid person or a foreigner writes something and you have to read the same 3 sentences 5 times because you honestly can't even imagine what they were trying to say, you just have no idea what the hell you just read, because it bears very little resemblance to anything remotely ENGLISH???
He writes like that all the time. He writes stuff that is so geniusly beyond stupid and outside the bounds of even remedial grammar that, I can't even...I'm trying but I can't even think on that level long enough to try and think up an example, just, insane run-on and on sentences and mixed metaphors and mis-used words like freaking Crazy.

The thought of that moron having a.n.y. success in his field just...blows my mind.

One thing I hate about Knowles is how he´s reviewing a movie and he constantly keeps quoting obscure movies just to show off what a big movie buff he is.

 

[Addendum]

One thing I hate about Knowles is how he´s reviewing a movie and he constantly keeps quoting obscure movies just to show off what a big movie buff he is.

It only shows off that he was unable to get laid, hence the endless obscure movie knowledge

 

[BT18]

Some ****e from Entertainment Weekly gave The Matrix a C! What a clueless b**ch!

The Matrix was a boring bohemoth of queerness, it deserved a D

I'd say the worst who come to mind are:

James Berardinelli (ridiculously listed second only to Roger Ebert in most IMDB "external reviews" lists. The only reviewer on Rottentomatoes to give Dazed and Confused a negative review. Has probably seen a 1 and a half real vaginas in his life at the most, atleast a decent one attatched to a toned and unhairy body, the vast majority of the movies on his top list are boring, overblown sausage fests.)

Roger Friedman (just a high school newspaper level writer who in addition to his utter lack of journalistic ability tows the Rupert Murdoch right-wing-idiot line. Atleast Medved is sort of smart, albeit misguided and annoying as hell. The definition of a hack.)

Michael Wilmington (a piss poor replacement for Gene Siskel who can't seem to go 3 reviews without putting false information about a movie in his convoluted, overlong reviews)

A.O. Scott (just as much of a predictable, unfun, sheltered, prudish, upper crust a$$hole as he looks from his rottentomatoes picture.

 

[Darthphere]

EW is a crappy with ratings. The reviewers use their personal vendettas in their reviews. For example, the guy who reviewed Family Guy has a bad history with Seth Macfarlane.

Family Guy isnt a movie last time I checked.

 

[Asr]

Harry Knowles.

 

[Flexo]

Family Guy isnt a movie last time I checked.

There was a Family Guy movie.

 

[Darthphere]

There was a Family Guy movie.

On DVD, which is another reviewer differently.

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

While a great reviewer most of the time, Roger Ebert is bad when it comes to superhero movies, at least in my opinion.

how so? he gave a thumbs up to batman begins to spidey 2 thumbs down to catwoman, how is he bad?

 

[terry78]

People just don't like Ebert because he's popular, and also because he can be unpredictable with movies. Movies that can be deemed horrible he likes on occasion, and it confuses people.

 

[Sentinel X]

Mick la Sale...this reviewer is a fake I believe.He never likes the good movies but likes just about anything WB spits out.He gave Catwoman a B+

i used to hate Tom Long from the detroit freepress, but then he gave hills have eyes a B+, i forgive him now

If he gave the hills have eyes a B+ he deserves no regonition...

 

[Movies205]

I enver really pay attention to a single reviewer reviews, though I like Roger Ebert's reviews because he always include some lovely movie trivia I don't know what's with all the hate toward movie reviewers around here, it's as if they hated on one fanboy movie whether it be Serenity or Sin City and there instantly '******ed" or something, get over it people.

 

[jaydawg]

Personally, the sole reviewer I actually pay attention to is Roeper, because for most films, not all, he usually agrees with me and we have similar tastes.

Surprised no one has posted that one ridiculous christian film review website.

 

[Flexo]

Personally, the sole reviewer I actually pay attention to is Roeper, because for most films, not all, he usually agrees with me and we have similar tastes.

Surprised no one has posted that one ridiculous christian film review website.

Someone already did.

But we don't mind that one because we find it entertaining.

 

[Sandman138]

Some ****e from Entertainment Weekly gave The Matrix a C! What a clueless b**ch!

If that "****e" you're talking about is Lisa Schwarzbaum, you are dead wrong. Lisa and Owen Gleiberman are the two best reviewers along with Ebert. They actually know what they're talking about, and even if you disagree with them about liking a film its almost always impossible to fault them for how they came to their conclusions.

 

[Darthphere]

If that "****e" you're talking about is Lisa Schwarzbaum, you are dead wrong. Lisa and Owen Gleiberman are the two best reviewers along with Ebert. They actually know what they're talking about, and even if you disagree with them about liking a film its almost always impossible to fault them for how they came to their conclusions.

No, im sorry, shes a horrible reviewer. She gave X3 a B- because she thinks Hugh Jackman is hot.

 

[The Chairman]

If that "****e" you're talking about is Lisa Schwarzbaum, you are dead wrong. Lisa and Owen Gleiberman are the two best reviewers along with Ebert. They actually know what they're talking about, and even if you disagree with them about liking a film its almost always impossible to fault them for how they came to their conclusions.

I'm a weekly subcriber for EW, and I hate Lisa Shwarzbaum. I remember a few years back when she did a review for the move Pay It Forward. She didn't like it so shee gave away the end. What a moron.

 

[The Hero]

A bad critic is someone who cannot put their opinions across eloquently, not someone who doesn't like the films you do.

But if a critic consistently likes films that are unanimously agreed to be bad,he loses credibility.And what do you get when you strip a critic of all credibility?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

But if a critic consistently likes films that are unanimously agreed to be bad,he loses credibility.And what do you get when you strip a critic of all credibility?

A critic would only lose credibility in the eyes of those who disagree with his comments. Everybody has their own opinions. We're all movie critics when we say what we thought of the movie after seeing it. Professionals are just the ones who have to tell everybody what they thought. There is no right or wrong.

If I read a critic who said that Batman & Robin, ID4, Catwoman, Speed II, etc, etc were all good movies and The Fellowship of the Ring, Batman Begins and Goldfinger were all awful, I'd certainly read why. To me he wouldn't loose any credibility, he just has different opinions to mine.

I look at Alien 3 and see a great movie. And I appreciate some people see a terrible one.

The problem is that newspaper critics are employed not just to say what they thought of a movie, but whether the general public should pay to see it.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I remember when Ebert didn't like spidey because it had too much of spidey swinging around. WTF!!!

 

[C.F. Kane]

I remember when Ebert didn't like spidey because it had too much of spidey swinging around. WTF!!!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020503/REVIEWS/205030303/1023


I didn't get that from his review. Did he say it on his show?

And I agree with what Ebert says here. The effects in the first Spider-man were a bit cartoonish and lightweight. And they certainly improved with the sequel; the Spidey-Ock battles actually looked like they were doing damage.

But he's still a fine critic. He has a great understanding of cinematic techniques and can fully explain why he does or does not enjoy a film. He's made some mistakes, certainly (four stars to The Phantom Menace, not liking Blade Runner, an opinion which he later retracted) but he knows his cinema, and he knows how to tell it.

BTW, he thought Spider-man 2 deserved a Best Picture nomination. Don't call him unfair with comic book movies