There are subjectives, and then there are these. While you may believe a work fits here, and you might be right, people tend to have rather vocal, differing opinions about this subject. Please keep these off of the work's page.
Dethroning Moment: That Guy with the Glasses
Explain, Critic! EXPLAIN!
With as many reviewers it has, it should come as no surprise That Guy with the Glasses has a few missteps in its history.
Keep in mind:
Sign your entries
One moment per reviewer to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
Moments only, no "just everything he said" entries.
No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
No ASSCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
JayJuJayMeMan: Doug Walker always says adaptations should stand on their own, but that still doesn't justify his review of The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. He blatantly ignores the fact that Robotnik's minions were all enemies Sonic fought in the games. He also ignores several other elements from the games that were imitated in the show, several of which are pretty much foregone conclusions for anybody whose ever been near the games. Perhaps he just hasn't played the games, but he should have at least done the research on them beforehand. Not liking the show is fine, but facts need to be kept straight.
SparkyYoungUpstart: His review of Cop and a Half started out fine enough, and I knew he was going to make a joke about how the situation (a little kid refusing to give information on a crime unless he's allowed to be a cop), but his response? A dramatization in which the kid gets beaten by a cop. Spurts of blood can be seen coming from offscreen. That's right, in a show where he normally gets pissed off at movies for being harmful to children, he actually makes a joke about child abuse so that he can force in a The Lord of the Rings reference. I couldn't even watch the rest of the review after that.
Vader999: I was rather surprised no one as of yet mentioned his review of Pokémon: The First Movie. Especially the part where, instead of mentioning Mewtwo's real motivation, he claims the movie never gave him one. It did: Mewtwo was tired of seeing Pokémon treated as pets.
Eegah!: His talking about Roy "Schneider" in Jaws: The Revenge . Of all his mispronunciations of people's names, for some reason this one is especially annoying. Also, the joke about Michael's daughter asking about sex, given that Judith Barsi would be murdered before being old enough to learn about it herself.
Kevin Klawitter: In his reviews of the Mortal Kombat movies, he completely ignores two important subplots in the first movie. Now, this might seem reasonable if it were simply for brevity's sake, but then he claims their absence to be plot holes. One of these subplots involves Shang Tsung killing Liu Kang's little brother. This is the reason Liu Kang enters the tournament; he wants revenge. This plot point is made incredibly obvious by the second act, and even comes back in the end. But why does the Critic say he entered the tournament? "Because he's... Asian". There's no way the critic could not have known Liu Kang's motives, but yet, he still ignored them so he could make a race-based joke.
Tari Silmarwen: What the hell was up with repeatedly calling Taylor Swift a bitch in the "Mine/Whip My Hair" review? There are plenty of legitimate criticisms one can make about Taylor's music but he only mentioned two pretty common ones ("Mine" sounding like all her other songs, and not having much emotional depth to it) and spent the rest of her segment calling her a phony and making cracks about the video. It was very jarring, it wasn't funny, and it soured the mood for the rest of the review.
Baronobeefdip: While I'm indifferent towards The Distressed Watcher and I do admit to find his videos to be Guilty Pleasures, I did find one DMOS in one of his earlier "Trailer Failure" videos. Long story short, during his talk about the movie Legion, he pretty much stops talking about the movie itself (IE: The actors, the plot, the effects, etc.) to rant about religion for five straight minutes just because Legion is a movie with a religious theme (IE: God sending angels to wipe out humanity). Look, I'm an Atheist myself, but I don't complain like a crazed loon whenever something contains any sort of religious reference. It's like someone complaining that there's robots in a Terminator movie. Just...really? Really?
Ipdf3. Speaking of the Distressed Watcher. I find that his material had been decreasing in quality but it didn't truly get bad until "Lolita Covers". You'd expect DW to handle something as controversial as Lolita with his trademark anger and provocative analytic style, but no it's just a rather tepid "Hey look at these book covers. They're all different, isn't that mildly interesting?" It's just boring commentary about not very interesting things. Plus, his summary of Lolita made it sound like he'd never actually read the book but instead only read the first few lines off the back of the cover and then watched the movies. The book makes no attempt to condemn the actions of its protagonist? Maybe that's because the protagonist is also the narrator, of course he's not going to condemn himself. The opening of the book even makes it clear that Humbert Humbert has addressed his novel to the "ladies and gentleman of the jury." This kind of sloppy research and new commenting rather than reviewing style really doesn't work for DW and I hope he goes back to his old style soon.
stacey: His comment on how everyone who enjoyed Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen belongs in a death camp. Because that's really a sensible thing to say there's Jewish people on a site you belong to and when the guy who got you on in the first place has it as a Guilty Pleasure. What an asshole.
Donna: That open letter to Kevin Smith about Cop Out being worse than the death of his father. How on earth did he think that anyone would find that funny?
Jenx: While I generally don't watch most of DW's videos, I did watch his two part review of Dungeons & DragonsThe Movie and my god was this bad. Not only did the first part consist of "Maaaan, does this seem racist to you? No ooookaaaay" which was kinda funny the first time and then it just became annoying the several other times he did it after that, or the badly delivered "get it rod = dick!" jokes. Let's not even talk about the insistence to sticking to the tired old stereotype that people who play RPGs are socially awkward dorks, or the fact that he obviously has close to no actual understanding of Dungeons & Dragons. I was almost willing to leave all that slide, until the second part. What pissed me off probably more than it should have was his slimy, ripe with cheap sarcasm "apology" for the all the jokes I listed from the first part. I can not stand people who talk that, regardless of what they are talking about. I've stopped watching all of his videos completely from that point onward.
Pannic: Also, someone who doesn't watch many of his videos. I did, however, watch his "top ten movie speeches," and it ended with an outlandishly pompous rant about how the movies aren't as intellectual as they used to be. Also in that video there was an annoying lack of research when he talked about the speech from Henry V, saying that aside from that, he wanted to keep it confined to speeches that were specifically from movies. The problem is that A Few Good Men was a play, too.
emeriin: For The Nostalgia Chick, I can understand why anyone would be upset at her now taken-down video "Rapping about Rape". Unlike her other dark humor, there really wasn't much effort put into it so it was ridiculously unfunny and her reaction of apologizing not for the content but for the fact that it was put up too soon, didn't really help.
stacey: I hope this doesn't come off as too sensitive, but I was really bothered by her "autistic temper tantrum" joke in the Enchanted Christmas review. Like the Critic's, why was it needed? Even more bothersome was while people were angry with her, it was just swept under the rug and never mentioned again while Critic and his brother apologized eventually.
SHAXlhzer: For me, it was The Nostalgia Chick's Transformers review. Now, before you start throwing accusations of sexism at me, hear me out. She didn't seem to have any knowledge of the movie you couldn't get from the the Michael Bay movies. The first half is just her showing some half-assed recap of the G1 cartoon (With a meh-ish cameo by Doug himself) and the rest of it is just her making unfunny jokes and saying "I don't know what's going on" and "Yeaaaaah" (Which are justifiable, but if you're going to review something, at least have some prior knowledge of the damn thing). All culminating in an unfunny Take That at Michael Bay.
bobdrantz: Her "Disney vs. Dreamworks" \ videos in which she states that Shrek was created due to Dreamworks' hatred of Disney. It's a blatant fuck-up in terms of research for this reason: while Shrek does contain some jabs at Disney, the movie in and of itself is mainly an Affectionate Parody of classic fairytales (as are the sequels).
Eegah: For me, it was the appearance of Douchey McNitpick in her review of The Fifth Element. It's fine if Lindsay wanted to defend her use of the term MacGuffin, but she really didn't need to paint all the complainers as a bunch of trolls for thinking Hitchcock was a better authority on the term than George Lucas (having, you know, invented it and all).
nerdrager: I love the Chick, but holy shit was her review of The Last Unicorn bad. It was half-assed, the other girl wasn't as funny as Nella or Elisa, she obviously didn't have much to say (she even said herself that she hadn't watched it in a while) and even though I usually enjoy her demonstrative approach to reviewing, there was no point to just walking around a forest obviously out of breath. Plus the ending: "Oh I found my bowtie." That's it? Poor showing, Lindsay.
fluffything: While her Top 10 Songs About F*cking (In Musicals) was pretty bad to begin with, the real DMOS I had with it was when she talked about The Rocky Horror Picture Show. First of all, it starts off with "Sweet Transvestite", so you'd think that would be her #8 choice, right? Nope. Instead it switches halfway through to "Touch-a Touch-a Touch Me". Ok, then why bother having "Sweet Transvestite" playing for over half of the segment if that's not even the song of choice? Second, she barely covers her actual choice at all and pretty much just glances over it without going over the whole point of the song or it's importance to the storyline. And, finally, and worst of all, she calls the plot a "tragic tale about a child molester played by Tim Curry". No, just....dear sweet Riff Raff, no. Dr. Frank N. Furter is NOT a "child molester" by any stretch of the imagination. As a Rocky Horror fan, I'm thoroughly disgusted at this.
stacey: I like Spoony, and I'm aware that he doesn't always equal Noah, but he can come up with pretty sexist stuff sometimes. Like saying "If you actually liked Eyes on Me, you are officially a complete pussy. No-no, if you were even able to sit through Eyes on Me, you are a pussy. You see this? These are your man-cards. And these are your man-cards, listening to Eyes on Me. You're a pussy! And that's not a slam against women. You're a pussy! There's a difference! Women have more balls than you." ...that's a weird way of honoring females, there.
ignuszwei: His TRON: Legacy review is probably his worst video yet: He makes it very clear that he didn't pay attention to the fairly simple plot, couldn't come up with any good explanation for plot holes, doesn't even try to be funny with his ranting raving and facepalming, and preempts any counter-argument by implying that anyone who disagrees with him is a rabid, idiotic fanboy. The majority of the feedback he got proved him wrong: everyone that liked the movie agreed that it wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but they still enjoyed the movie nonetheless. The tone throughout the video makes it clear that isn't Spoony hilariously ranting for our amusement: this is Noah Antwiller himself trolling everyone and being a dick.
Manwiththe Plan The last part of his Final Fantasy X review. Aside from some funny bits like pointing out Seymour's Villain Decay, it was mainly him rushing through the rest of the game while still Completely Missing the Point on several aspects (Yes Spoony, towards the end the game makes it clear that it's Tidus' story and he will be important to the outcome) only to go into a stupid, unfunny skit resolving the Black Latern Spoony subplot. Tidus' appearance felt like something out of a Seltzer and Friedberg movie with him shouting things out of context ("This is MY story!" "I'm the star player of the Zanarkand Abes! AH-HA-HA-HA-HA!"), Spoony fights him to give him the "graphic, painful death he deserves" except that he doesn't; Tidus is still alive by the end and Dr Insano just takes him to be tortured in his experiments, and of course the Big Lipped Alligator Moment with the cloaked pumpkin masked guy dancing around. The resolution for Black Latern Spoony is also very abrupt and unsatisfying.
Tropers/Qwertz: During the third session of Lord Kat's Wyrmwick campaign (which is part of Lord Kat's output for his website), the group faces guards. Jason wanted to give them an animal motif, so he used a random generator and the result he got and went with was the bee. The group then laughed their asses off at that idea. Then Spoony (who didn't participate in the campaign) interrupted them and attacked the players for "taking a shit over Jason's campaign" and defended the bees because "he liked the bee-theme and considers stealing it", "out of all the animals in the US, bees kill the most humans" and he "understands respect for the bee". I mean, what the fuck? First, even if bees do kill people, it doesn't make guards with bee-insignia or whatever less ridiculous, cows kill more people than sharks but you would hardly be intimidated by that. Second, he is well aware of Linkara's "Bee's, my God!" running joke. Third, he makes a shit-ton of bee-jokes in his review of The Wicker Man, including lines like Ross tells him that he's in the manor of Sister Summers Isle, and that she's expecting him outside...outside, with the horrible, evil bees....
fluffything: His written review of AKIRA is a big DMOS for me mostly due to the blatant Bias Steamroller and research goofs. First of all, he spends over half of the review making fun of the Anime fandom (Say, Spoony, what was that you said about how you hated that Roger Ebert was making fun of video game fans? Hypocrisy much?) and "joking" (in the loosest sense of the word possible) about how "(insert Japanese word here) means (insert "Anime Sux LOL" comment here)". Second, he claims that he didn't bother to read the original Manga to understand what's going on because it's "too long" and complains that the movie was too confusing. Spoony, you do realize you could've just looked up the movie on the internet and gotten useful footnotes on the plot and characters, right? Third, speaking of plot, he overlooks important plot elements (Like that Akira was a human being whose psychic powers went out of control destroying Tokyo in the first place) in favor of a poorly-written summary that sounds like what would happen if one were to watch an episode of Dragon Ball Z on fast-forward. If he didn't like the movie, fine. He's entitled to his opinion. But, would it kill him to actually put some effort into his review instead of complaining about something he could've easily learned more about by doing five minutes of research on Wikipedia?
Xaris: Normally, Linkara is among my favorite reviewers on the site, but in his double review of The Others #1 and Brute Force #1, he makes a joke decrying media bias.... For no discernible reason. Honestly, I don't mind the political jokes, in fact, one of my favorite of his bits is his global politics bit in his and the Nostalgia Critic's Superman IV review even though I actually disagree with his suggestion that nuclear weapons were the main reason why the Cold War never escalated into full scale conflict. However, the media bias joke was an unnecessary bit that felt horribly shoehorned in for the sake of making a political point. It had nothing to do with the comic nor the context that lead up to the joke and left a bitter taste for the rest of the review.
Red And White: The Power Rangers Zeo episode. I'll admit, I haven't been a great fan of the Vyce arc anyway (as people keep saying, the pacing has been awful and its a case of "must be more epic") but the fight just smacked of huge self-indulgence. It's a really big shame, because the last showdown he had with Mechakara was brilliant, scary and just generally a Crowning Moment Of Awesome.
Archduke Cthulhu: In the collaborative One Moment In Time review, I enjoyed it for his massive Take That of Quesada like his reviews of Countdown for DC, but the opening bugged me. He and his friend (The Last Angry Geek) beat up a guy who enjoyed One More Day and force-fed him his trade edition. That wasn't Comedic Sociopathy, that was being an obnoxious fanboy douchebag.
JFP 1986: His review of the Godyssey wasn't truly bad, but I think he seriously dropped the anecdotal ball there. No mention whatsoever of Rob Liefeld currently being a born again Christian, the much publicized relaunch of Avengelyne that actually looks pretty cool, or that Alan Moore wrote some issues of Glory. And I was just a bit bothered when Linkara said we shouldn't care about Liefeld's departure from Image. As an aspiring comic book and popculture historian, I happened to be fascinated with Image Comics history. And saying that Liefeld shouldn't work for any company because he only did the cover art for the Godyssey (which isn't entirely true, he also help plot it) is an unbelievably weak argument. I know these are just jokes, but it gives me the impression that for the most part, Linkara doesn't care for the history of any comic books that aren't Marvel Comics, DC Comics, Transformers, Star Trek or Doctor Who.
bobdrantz: His review of Atari Force #1. The main reason is that he decided to do it live. Look, Linkara, I'm sure you thought you were doing someting special for the fans. But, when I can't hear you over all the people screaming in the audience, there's a problem. It may have been a good idea at the time, but, it was poorly executed. Next time, Linkara, just stick to the multi-part specials instead.
So We Ate Them: Silent Hill: Dying Inside #1-2. Three little words: "Special Needs monster." Linkara makes a point out of being one of the site's most tactful members. So why did he think that making a joke The Nostalgia Critic couldn't get away with was a good idea?
fluffything: I like AT 4 W, but his recent review of NBC Comics just didn't feel quite right compared to his other works. Sure, it was funny, but, there was one aspect of it that really bothered me. Mainly that his biggest complaint was that the comics were all "to be continued..." stories in which the reader would have to watch the respective shows the comics were based on to find out what happens next. To me, this is just an example of laziness on Linkara's part. Why? Because "to be continued" storylines are actually pretty common in fiction. Heck, there are even entire FRANCHISES based on various parts of the story being told in multiple media to get a full understanding of what's going on. Plus, um, Linkara reviews comics, right? Did he forget that there are SEVERAL comic arcs that end in "to be continued" and that they don't have any resolution until the next chapter?
Mosquito Man: I took Todd's perspective on the songs in a different light than the above, but there's a part where Todd shows a picture of a guy with weird hair and says he needs to die. Todd considers that man a mistake on the part of God, and an example of one of the "mistakes God makes all the time". Given how Todd acts in the commentaries, it was probably all meant as a joke, but I found it DMOS-worthy to say what amounts to, "God makes mistakes all the time, like this guy here, this guy needs to die".
fluffything: I happen to be a fan of Todd in the Shadows as well, but even I couldn't sit through the entire review for Bruno Mars' "Lazy Song". The main reason being that he spends several minutes complaining about what he calls "White boys playing acoustic guitar" songs and stating that people only write/sing "mellow" songs to "get laid". Listen, Todd, I like your videos, I find them to be entertaining. But, I want to know what you think of whatever specific hit single is out on the pop charts, not hear you whine about some genre you happen to dislike. Second, um, isn't "getting laid" one of the reasons why a lot of people write/sing songs for pretty much any genre?
Mimimurlough: His treatment of Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" was bad, but to date nothing can really top the double standard he put on "Born This Way". After years of reviewing artists who rubs their very (and sometimes aggressively) heterosexual desires in our faces, he looks at what is possibly the first mainstream song that is dedicated to LGBT people and calls it pandering? Apparently not even members of the community can acknowlege that it even exists in their works without getting berated for it.
UltimaThule: Angry Joe's "Transformers 2 Review: Joe & Fans vs. The Critics". It's not just that he misses the point on a lot of criticisms he points out. It's not just that when he says that Michael Bay was "trying to please everybody," he fails to acknowledge what trying to please everyone usually results in. It's not just that he outright insults everyone who didn't enjoy Revenge of the Fallen, making us look like humorless snobs (I for one can, in fact, enjoy mindless thrill movies but I just didn't likeRotF; though I don't go so far as to call people idiots for liking it). Joe forgets that Opinion Myopia goes both ways; in insulting people who are blind to others' opinions, he only makes himself look bad, and he automatically assumes that the viewers completely agree with him. Add to that the fact that he plays the flimsy "If you didn't like this movie you're a sissy!" card throughout, displaying an overly macho attitude that detracts from his credibility. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that only "real men" are capable of enjoying anything. Our star producer, ladies and gentlemen: a hypocritical Jerk Ass with a messiah complex.
DudeL: Angry Joe's "Top 32 Reasons Why I Hate Fable III". Oh God...I know Fable III deserves it's your mileage may vary status and it would have been okay if he just did a rational, fact-based negative review with some humorous anger. But no, he had to go on a twenty-five minute rant where he makes the game sound like the nadir of all that ever was. While he does point out some legitimate flaws like the game's short length and the fact that you need the exact same DLC as someone to play co-op with them, most of the flaws he complains about are small, subjective, or simply things he didn't look into more. He complains about the loading screens between areas (not every studio has the tech to reduce the amount of loading, and the loading screens aren't even long), he calls melee combat pointless because enemies block your attacks (they don't block 100% of the time and he forgets you can charge up your attack for an unblockable one), he says that the co-op is flawed because, while it's up to par with what Fable 2 deserved, it isn't up to par with what Fable 3 deserves, he doesn't like the expression system because he would prefer to have an actual conversation with the npcs (not every game needs Dialogue Trees Joe) and because he thinks the fart and dance expressions are silly (it's a humorous game Joe! Do you not get that those silly expressions are supposed to be silly?), he doesn't like the customization options because he thinks they are limited i.e. he can't get the exact style of facial hair he wants, and Jesus Christ it goes on.
bobdrantz: While I find her reviews for the The Land Before Time films to be poor for several reasons, it pales in comparison to what she says in her review for The Land Before Time X; The Great Longneck Migration. How so? Well, during the review, she points out a scene where an elderly Longneck gets severely injured, and she complains that the main heroes decide to help him instead of just leaving him behind. Mull that over for a moment; She actually suggested that a bunch of innocent children who are shown to be good moral people, erm, dinosaurs should just leave their new friend to die a horrible death. That's just disgusting.
fluffything: Speaking of The Land Before Time, her review of Day of the Flyer had a moment where I couldn't help but just sit there in utter shock and disgust. At one point in the film, Cera's baby step-sister Tricia accidentally falls into a river and nearly drowns. How does MarzGurl respond to this? She says, and I quote "Because she's dumb and a toddler like that". That's right, a movie shows a baby in grave danger and her response is to essentially call the infant "stupid." That's not how you react to an infant's drowning, fictional or otherwise.
distantsun: LordKaT's comment about Terry Pratchett's "brain degenerating into mush" in his 10 Hardest Adventure Games video, in light of Pratchett's diagnosis with Alzheimer's, was at best an astoundingly bad accidental choice of words and at worst an unfunny, offensive attempt at a joke. I know a lot of LK's humor is on the dark, controversial side, and usually I can appreciate it, but this seriously crossed a line for the sake of an offhand comment that wasn't even particularly amusing even if you're not offended by it.
troxe: For me it's "Batman & Robin in 5 seconds". Unlike the other 5 seconds movies this one is just gross and pointless.
Shadoboy: In my opinion, Video Game Confessions: Duke Nukem. Doug already made clear in Bum Reviews why he disliked Avatar, fair enough. Then as the Nostalgia Critic he made a throw-away joke reminding us why he disliked it. Pointless, but not bad. But then comes this. Was it really necessary to have an episode of Video Game confessions that was only a several minutes long joke with the punchline being "By the way, I didn't like Avatar" and worse, explaining everything again?
fluffything: While Suburban Knights'' has been pretty middle-ground in terms of entertainment (Some parts are genuinely funny where as others are, well, not), I find the scene with the mother complaining her kid can't play on the playground while Spoony's team is battling to be one of the most poorly-written scenes in the special so far. The woman playing the mother is a terrible actress, the gag feels forced and unfunny, and there's really no reason for it to happen other than for some poorly-written gag to occur. Also, the girl playing the woman's daughter is a horrible actress. She just keeps smiling and giggling for no reason at all and it's very distracting.
fluffything: Normally, I like Bennett The Sage's Anime Abandon series and it's interesting to see his views on hilariously bad Anime from the late 80s-early 90s. But, I just pretty much said "Fuck it" after the first few minutes of this Vampire Wars review. Why, you may ask? Because of his "I hate vampires" rant. Now, it's not the fact that he doesn't like vampires that bothers me. What I found to be a DMOS was his reasoning for hating the vampires. It pretty much boiled down to "because I don't like the fandom" and "vampires are popular", and then he acts all smug and hip stating how he was hating vampires before it was "cool to like vampires". Again, apart from bashing the fandom, he gives no other reason to hate vampire fiction. Look, if you don't like something, fine. But, for Alucard's sake, give a more legitimate reason to dislike vampires (IE: The mythos, the various media portrayals, etc.) themselves rather than just whine about the fandom.
Plasma: The entire Santa-Christ section of the six-part film, Kickassia, was complete rubbish! Aside from having about 3 jokes in the 15 minutes of time dedicated to him, it was also used as an excuse for a very over-extended sequence of cameos just saying "I believe in Santa-Christ" culminating in a very predictable parody of those kind of things. And then he just comes back anyway, for no reason (enforcing Status Quo Is God in the process) and acts as a blatant Deus ex Machina.
fluffything: Normally, I like What the Fuck Is Wrong with You? and I find Nash (and Tara) to be pretty funny. But, good gods of bacon do I have a problem with the ending of the Regret At Leisure episode. Three words: Arlo's Pony Paradise. This isn't a good-natured joke at the series itself. No, it's a mean-spirited Take That towards the fandom. It basically boils down to "Bronies (and Pegasisters) are stupid for taking a cartoon geared towards little girls seriously!". And, yes, that is Nash's actual opinion on the fandom. Look, if you don't like a show, fine. But being a total dick towards a fandom you don't like. Just because they like to discuss the mythos and everything in a serious and mature discusion doesn't make them stupid.
So We Ate Them: Phelous' review of A Serbian Film. It's essentially ten straight minutes of him saying the film sucks and is disgusting. He admitted that he'd done little to no preparation for the review, (justifying it in that the film sucks) and that he was resorting to overused jokes. He obviously did little to no research beyond a Wikipedia page he waved at the camera just to convince us he did research, nor did he take any notes over the course of the one time he watched the movie, as nobody (not even the director) besides Milos is referred to even once as something other than a Fail O'Suckyname variant of "sick fuck." Look. I know A Serbian Film is one of the greatest tests of wills this side of Rectified Anonymity, But for Pete's sake, If you're going to do a gag review, do a gag review, and if you're going to do a proper review, carry out the usual procedures, take the notes, and for the love of God, don't half-ass it, regardless of your opinion on the film.
* InTheGallbladder: Brows Held High gave a great review of Vase de Noces, but there's one part I don't like about it: The closing cameo bit. It felt like an attempt to advertise the two cameos (particularly when the host name-drops the urls to both their websites in the dialogue) didn't contribute anything to the review proper, and beyond that, it's just another Take That to the concept of "reviewer dibs," on which several members of site had already made their views clear.
X Spectre Grey X: While I don't think Sage is a good games reviewer at all, his review of Halo 4 is completely horrible. At the beginning, he made it perfectly clear that he did not care for the series, so of course he wouldn't know what's going on. He never mentions this during his review, instead just being deadpan and bored. His complete lack of enthusiasm for the game is so obvious and overpowering, that it makes it impossible to take him seriously. It felt like he went into this game not liking it because, well, it's Halo. It also doesn't help that he actually says that he dislikes modern shooters, so he's already going in bias. He goes as far as to say that the weapons are mere reskins of each other, which is an outright lie. It's not even hard to determine the difference between most of the guns (even those in the same type, e.g the rifles). Sage just didn't care enough to look deeper. Halo 4 was made for Halo fans, and really, can only be appreciated fully by them, or at the bare minimum, someone's who's played a few games in the series.
GGGG: Weekly Manga Recap from the 4th of September 2012, previously titled "Tobi isObito!" This was just after the non-legal scans hit the web and the massive title was spread across the TGWTG banner in huge lettering, meaning anybody who followed the Naruto manga legally (from Shonen Jump, etc.) or was following the anime had the big reveal spoiled. They were nice enough to change it later to "Tobi is...!" It felt like they were punishing the Naruto fandom who wanted to receive the story in a legitimate way.
dsneybuf: Paw Dugan's review of South Pacific feels like the most disappointing episode of Music Movies I ever saw. As soon as I saw the runtime total only about 13 minutes, I feared that he wouldn't do one of my favorite Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals justice. Indeed, he skipped nine songs. Some of these not only sounded nice, but they also represented major plot points, such as love blooming between the Beta Couple. He didn't even discuss the changes made to the script, or say whether he prefers the longer or shorter cut of the movie. As for the songs he did discuss, he didn't put each of them into proper context. This could make the review seem confusing. I feel sorry for people who used this seemingly rushed video as their primer to South Pacific.