NationStates Jolt Archive

In the mainstream media (mainstream here meaning, "works with a national paper, magazine, or network, and is not exclusively on the Internet") which critic is the worst? It can be for anything, from books to movies, and the criteria for worst is broad, too. Their writing style, taste in what they critique, or just general swarminess can make them the worst.

Roger Ebert, because he insulted video games and is basically the only critic I know of.

Chris Garcia, but he's a critic exclusive to my area.

He gave Saving Private Ryan 2/4 stars to give you an idea on why I hate him.

Roger Ebert, because he insulted video games and is basically the only critic I know of.

Richard "I don't get the joke therefore your movie sucks" Roeper is worse.

Anthony Lane of the New Yorker. It's not so much his opinions as it is his hubris. He is the incarnation of every stereotype there is of the elitist Manhattanite.
I don't find Stephen Hunter of The Washington Post to be a reliable source when it comes to choosing movies, but he at least admits he likes dumb, popcorn-flicks, and while not humble, is at least funny.

Brian Sewell or Janet Street Porter. Gits.

Theres this guy who works (worked?) for the Sacramento Bee that is just godfuckingawful. I don't remember his name, Joe something I think.

Just fucking awful. Just for starters, it's alright not to like a genre, but if you're going to review you have to be able to review the movie in the context of the genre whether you like it or not, thats what makes you a critic and not some dude telling us about some movies you saw. Thats not even the worst of his flaws...

Theres this guy who works (worked?) for the Sacramento Bee that is just godfuckingawful. I don't remember his name, Joe something I think.

Just fucking awful. Just for starters, it's alright not to like a genre, but if you're going to review you have to be able to review the movie in the context of the genre whether you like it or not, thats what makes you a critic and not some dude telling us about some movies you saw. Thats not even the worst of his flaws...
Joe Baltake, maybe?

Chris Garcia, but he's a critic exclusive to my area.

He gave Saving Private Ryan 2/4 stars to give you an idea on why I hate him.
Well, it is utterly pants.

Brian Sewell
Mmm, he does have some strange views.

Speaking of critics... does anyone else hate it when every movie out there has "****1/2"? Who writes the reviews, Four-and-a-Half Star Review Magazine?

And the ****1/2 -star movies tend to be crappy?

Joe Baltake, maybe?

That's the bastard. You live in Sac or were you more willing to use Google than me?

I looked him up on "Rotten Tomatoes"; they have a database of critics and some of their reviews.

Critics are useful - when they say that a movie is too long and that the plot is convoluted it usually means I'll like it.

Well, it is utterly pants.

What does that mean?

It's pants?

That doesn't even make any sense!

What does that mean?

It's pants?

That doesn't even make any sense!

It does if you speak English. :D

What does that mean?

It's pants?

That doesn't even make any sense!
It's a British expression, meaning "rubbish".

Pants as in underpants, for you crazy Yanks.

Rubbish as in Saving Private Ryan.

It's a British expression, meaning "rubbish".

Pants as in underpants, for you crazy Yanks.

Rubbish as in Saving Private Ryan.

Pants is the worst excuse for an adjective ever.

Some words work, such as money. Dude, you were so money.

But pants?

No wonder those silly Brits couldn't hold onto their Empire.:rolleyes:

Pants...

that guy with the moustache and weird hair who reviews for the today show.

he's been around forever but he sure isnt a reliable judge of movies.

i prefer a guy like roger ebert, who i know well enough (and is consistent enough) that i can tell from his review--good or bad--whether or not ill like the movie even if i disagree with his opinion.

Roger Ebert.
Wow, the first reply was the correct answer, I'm impressed.
The man (Ebert) is an absolute idiot who gladly gobbles up any peice of shit that falls out of Tarantino's flaring asshole, even to the extent that he wrote an extended apology for True Romance. Even he had to admit several times that the movie was a clichéd disaster, but that didn't stop him from landing his stamp of approval on it.
He was also too stupid for The Usual Suspects and is part of that ancient and terrible conspiracy dedicated to pretending that Blue is anything more than masturbatory pap created by an ex-genius who'd shot his load doing Communist TV-miniseries.

Speaking of critics... does anyone else hate it when every movie out there has "****1/2"? Who writes the reviews, Four-and-a-Half Star Review Magazine?

And the ****1/2 -star movies tend to be crappy?

I've noticed that about 50% of all movies are "perfect". Perfect thriller, perfect comedy… with these achievements behind them, what can the film industry aspire to now?

Worst critics:

1. Rex Reed
2. Gene Shalit
3. Michael Medved

I've noticed that about 50% of all movies are "perfect". Perfect thriller, perfect comedy… with these achievements behind them, what can the film industry aspire to now?

more like 80% of all movies, but meh. No wonder there's no decent movies anymore. There's nothing to aspire to! :mad:

Richard Roeper is so dumb he gave a thumbs down to The Fellowship of the Ring. I can't think of anyone who's topped that.

Paul Tatara gave Black Hawk Down an F she desrves to be chastized.
Frankley I hate anyone on the Hollywood Reporter. They give way too many bad movies good review

Paul Tatara gave Black Hawk Down an F she desrves to be chastized.
Frankley I hate anyone on the Hollywood Reporter. They give way too many bad movies good review

Sounds more like she needs to die in a raging chemical fire.

And trust me, that is the worst kind of fire.