Dethroning Moment / The Nostalgia Critic

He remembers it so we don't have to. But these moments makes us wish he would forget about them too.

Keep in mind:

• Sign your entries.
• One moment per work to a troper; if multiple entries for the same work are signed to the same troper, the more recent one(s) will be cut. For subpages that cover multiple works, it's permissible for one troper to have entries for more than one work.
• Moments only, no "just everything he said", "the entire episode", or "this entire work," 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.
• Explain why it's a invoked Dethroning Moment of Suck.
• No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
• Please no He Panned It, Now He Sucks!. Someone having a different opinion than you or a small snarky jab towards a franchise you like is not nearly a good enough justification for something being seen as stupid or offensive.
• Creator's works only. No personal experiences or moments on the creators themselves.

---

2007- 2012 episodes (Pre-Revival)

• Kevin Klawitter: In his reviews of Mortal Kombat: The Movie and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation 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.
• 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 resented being a human-made clone Pokemon without a clear purpose for existing and hated seeing Pokemon treated like pets or experiments by humans.
• His review of Batman & Robin:
  • Dr Zulu 2010: While I prefer the pre-reboot Critic over the post-reboot one, he has some of the same problems. In fact, one thing I ended up hating from this classic review is his reaction on Alfred dying of a rare disease by saying, and I paraphrase: "Now we have to care about the butler dying?" I'm sorry, but as a Batman fan myself who has watched the movie, one of its silver linings is the relationship between Bruce and Alfred with their father/son dynamic as the latter was lethally ill. In fact, a huge aspect of Batman mythos is about how Alfred is the closest thing Bruce has as a father. This would be like ignoring how Uncle Ben's and Gwen Stacy's deaths helped forming Spider-Man's philosophy of "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". Hell, my favourite scenes in Gotham are about the dynamics between Bruce and Alfred and how Bruce comes to realize he almost took him for granted. So, having the Critic saying "I don't care if the butler is dying" felt like a slap to the face of a character who helped define who Batman really is.
  • kittencakes: That's the impression I always got from Doug, too. Despite claiming himself to be a Batman expert, he always dismisses all the important people in Bruce's life, like Alfred or Dick. This wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't for him saying things like "who cares about the butler dying" in his BaR review, or claiming all Robins are "dumbasses in distress"; he's pretty much dismissing all the people that help his beloved Batman remain sane and well. I think that, for him, Batman is only Bruce and the Joker circling over one another while Harley, Catwoman and Poison Ivy do their own thing.
• DeMac: I used to like the Nostalgia Critic alright, but his complaining about kids' cartoons got to be really ridiculous as time went on. One specific example I remember is when he reviews The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and starts complaining about the Mad Max parody. In the skit, the oil tanker that everyone is fighting over has been replaced with a tanker full of pasta sauce. Doug doesn't complain that it's unfunny, or anything like that. He complains that it makes no sense for people to fight over pasta sauce, as though a kiddie parody of an 80's action franchise is supposed to be well-plotted and perfectly logical. After that, it was hard for me to see Doug's reviews as anything but absurd nitpicking over low-hanging fruits.
• JayJuJayMeMan: Doug Walker always says adaptations should stand on their own, but that still doesn't justify his review of 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 who's 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.
• Coda Fett: I'll admit, I've not been a fan of NC for a long time but even when I was his review of TMNT just rubbed me wrong. To be as brief as possible, the biggest problem is definitely the fact that it's not really a review, even in the loose sense that was popularized by this very show. It's 10 minutes of Critic being frustrated and confused because this incarnation of the turtles is different than what he grew up with and was used to. That is not a fault of the movie and it's very clearly meant to be an indirect sequel to the much more recent 2003 series than the 1980s original or the live action versions. It's particularly noticeable with scenes of the character Karai and the faceoff with Raph and Leonardo where he stops his commentary to rant. That's not even getting into that incredibly tasteless and kinda racist rib on the voice of beloved actor Mako, which he later apologized for. I think it's mostly a bit on his part, but it stops being funny rather quickly because it makes it seem like Critic legitimately doesn't have anything bad to say about the movie and has to pad out the video.
• prettycoolguy: As someone who used to obsess over TGWTG/Channel Awesome during their "peak", for the lack of a better word, I will make the argument that, even up to today^note Though, granted, I have not seen any Doug Walker videos since #ChangeTheChannel happened, the worst moment in any Nostalgia Critic review is a joke in his review of Ernest Saves Christmas. And no, it isn't the one you think. ^note He caught flack for a bit during a moment where the future Santa is putting on a rather crummy puppet show for kids. Doug then says "Yes, I think he entertains the autistic children". This rightfully got instant and fierce backlash, and he reuploaded the episode shortly afterwards without the line. As someone on the spectrum, that "joke" was ignorant, barely logical and of horrendous taste, and a potential DMoS on its own, but it's still better than this one. It is when he reacts to a scene where Santa Claus gets thrown into a jail cell. In it, he turns around to see all the inmates walking around and giving him looks, and Santa makes a forlorn face because he is scared about the fate of Christmas. Doug, in his infinite wisdom, dubs over the scene to make it as if Santa says to the inmates "Wazzap, my n*****?". And yes, Doug actually says the word. For him as a White person to use that word is one thing, but the content of this joke, when you dissect it, is confused at best and racist at worst. First of all, if the intent is to show that Santa is uncomfortable with his surroundings and he is trying to relate with them, which is what I can best assume Doug was going for, that doesn't line up because Santa doesn't look uncomfortable in the slightest. The inmates don't do anything remotely threatening. Sure, they stare, but that's to be expected when someone is thrown into a prison cell. Second, there is the whole African-American/street gang/criminal connection. What makes this sting is that, in that prison cell shot, there are more people in the room who are White than Black! There are four White men and three Black men in the shot, and one of the Black men lying down is hardly visible. The joke probably only sprang from Doug's head because one of the Black men is directly in frame for one shot and staring at the camera. In the context of this scene, it is made clear that these are just people in a cell and there is nothing social or political or even any kind of joke to take from the scene's execution, especially in an Ernest movie. So the only way I can see that joke materializing is assumptions in Doug's mind. Was the mere thought of a Black person in a prison staring someone enough to connect with gangs and saying the n-word despite, again, there being absolutely nothing to read about the scene? Even in the generous interpretation that this is supposed to be a misguided "fish out of water" situation for Santa in-universe, even though, again, more people in the cell are White, it sure wouldn't make sense for Santa Claus to say this, considering he delivers presents to every corner of the globe. I know he grew up in the Chicagoland suburbs, which I know from experience are pretty White, but there is still no excuse to make this tone-deaf comment that reads of ignorance above all else. The fact that he apologized for the autism joke in the same video and not this makes me feel he only is considerate for other viewpoints when he is in trouble, which screams disingenuous. That phony, inertial, antagonizing feeling is something I think is universal in all the Critic's worst moments, but I feel it reared its ugliest head here.
• WillieManga: To make two things clear, I hate Bio-Dome and for the most part, I like Critic's review of it. But one thing that annoyed me is that he continually misnamed Bud, calling him Squirrel. I understand Squirrel is a nickname, but the characters call him Bud more often. With that, you'd think he would call him Bud and make things less confusing. Come on, dude!
• Nightfurywitch: I used to LOVE Doug's older reviews as a kid, but even back then there was one joke in his review of Pound Puppies and the Legend of Big Paw that I always found a bit too mean. He closes out the review by saying next time you see a sweet, innocent puppy in the shelter, you should "let it rot" (his words, not mine) so we don't get more bad movies like this. As someone who loves animals, I felt this joke was way too harsh and out of left field for what seemed to be just a bland inoffensive 80's cartoon.
• Erin582: While I still have a soft spot in my heart for The Nostalgia Critic and still gravitate towards his older reviews, I am dismayed by the more mean-spirited approach he has taken in his revived series (and if the failure of Demo Reel had anything to do with this, I don't know but I can and do sympathize if true). That being said, though, while I do see that the "everyone is entitled to my opinion" edge he has taken in his newer reviews is alienating, I've come to see that he's always been like that. Case in point, his "Top 11 Scariest Performances" from 2010 had brought up Hannibal Lecter as one of his choices and included scenes from Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon to support this. Yet, when he then told fans about them questioning him as to why he didn't include Hannibal, in his reasoning, he called both the film and its fans stupid and claimed his opinion was "right" without any hint of joking or irony in his voice.
• LLSmoothJ: I usually like watching the Critic's reviews and I never thought I'd find myself adding a moment, but his review of Airborne left a bitter taste in my mouth. Particularly his constant criticism of Mitchell for daring to avoid physical confrontation. Because a real man always fights, no matter how more effective talking it out like civilized people could be.
• Eegah: His review of Jaws: The Revenge: 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.
• SparkyYoungUpstart: His review of Cop and a Half started out fine enough, and I knew he was going to make a joke about 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.
• eneuman96: Though his post-revival episodes have quite the Broken Base, my least favorite moment of the show overall is from a pre-cancellation episode: The Avengers (1998). It starts out with the NC under the impression that he's about to review the (unreleased at the time of the review) superhero movie. When it turns out to be an entirely different movie of the same name, he gives three of the most ear-bleedingly piercing Big Nos in history in rapid succession, and they are seriously painful to listen to. There were plenty of funnier ways he could have reacted to that sort of news, and his reaction really doesn't help the common misconception that his comedy is all just screaming and yelling.
• Captain Tedium: I lost any interest in seeing any of the Nostalgia Critic's videos when I saw the thumbnail for his review of Felix the Cat: The Movie. I know that that particular animated film wasn't very successful and that it's anyone's right to say what they want about the movie, but the image of the Nostalgia Critic grinning maliciously while handing Felix his magic bag of tricks after shitting in it was just so tasteless and juvenile. I do not take people seriously if their way of dealing with works of fiction they don't like is by making pictures of themselves befouling the belongings of characters from the work they despise. It's the lowest form of Toilet Humour imaginable.
• PutYaGunsOn: While I'm not necessarily offended at any of the Critic's race-related humor, this one just felt cheap and thrown in there. But that pales in comparison to his cringeworthy joke about Pat Morita as Santa in Babes in Toyland. All I his review could see was "lol let's call him Santa Craus and name the reindeer after Chinese food lol cus he's um...Asian". I don't feel attacked by his jokes at all, it's more about annoyance at the fact that his Asian-related humor at the time hadn't really evolved much past "14-year-old who thinks it's funny to call all Asian people Jackie Chan". His recent Yogi Bear review (released years after these reviews) certainly doesn't help his case. ^{(As Yogi and Boo Boo drag a train of picnic tables with a dog on it) "We're eating the dog too! Korean food tonight!"} While I don't think Doug is necessarily a racist or hateful towards East Asians, I'm convinced he still sees us as socially acceptable targets for a cheap laugh.
• His review of Thomas and the Magic Railroad:
  • Pgj1997: This review was definitely a low point for me. The review itself is riddled with Critical Research Failure, and the constant criticism that Thomas the Tank Engine can't be dark or depressing when that's not true at all. Now before anyone says it, I am aware that in one of his "Fuck ups" lists, he stated that the criticism towards the review was unjustified since he never said the show sucked despite him never watching it. Here's the thing though, he did. At the beginning of the review, he calls the show, quote, "the show PBS puts on when Clifford the Dog is too intimidating", not to mention calling the show "brainless" a few seconds earlier. Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch at its finest.
  • Hylian-Highwind: I don't know how a show is less intimidating than Clifford with scenes like Henry's Crash in "The Flying Kipper" or the implications behind episodes like "Escape" and "Granpuff". This review's attitude has to go up for me as well. The thing that irritates me is that he has (or had at least) a policy that adaptations should be judged on their own, rather than in comparison to the original show, and yet, he slings insults at Thomas as a whole by calling it "brainless" before getting to the film. There are other misconceptions like thinking the show's model faces look low budget (despite the idea being the narration over figures), questioning the presence of big name actors despite the series having a pedigree that included Ringo Starr, George Carlin and Pierce Brosnan already, wondering about bringing "normal" people as giants to Sodor despite the movie showing multiple times they'd just come out normally proportioned, and also his claim that Peter Fonda didn't need to bring his best acting, despite his The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! review having him note being for kids doesn't mean you can't make something good. Other things like the awkward and unfunny "train sperm" joke got on my nerves, but the overall distain he shows for a show he didn't watch and/or had a prejudice for soured the review for me, even as someone who also hates the film.
  • Jackninja5SataniaLover: His “explanation” in his fuck-ups video really didn’t address what he did at all. Like Pgj1997 said, he claims he didn’t say the show sucked despite not seeing it when he did. However he goes on to present this as more of “Don’t review Thomas without seeing the show”. That wasn’t what it was about. No one is saying he should watch the show. A little research is all we ask for (although really that won’t do a lot to explain the movie in all honesty) and especially don’t say the show is brainless when you haven’t even seen it. If he did watch it and said it sucked, there’d be no actual issue because while I disagree it is his opinion. Instead he just goes for a cheap “Thomas is for babies” joke that’s ironically more juvenile than the show itself (even during the show’s worst stages).
• Kenya Starflight: Since my new Dethroning Moment for the Critic was cut, I'm reverting back to my old one — his Raiders of the Story Arc segment that covered The Transformers. I'd been waiting for him to cover something Transformers-related besides the film franchise for some time, but the extended "Soundwave wants to be in a romantic comedy" bit spoiled it for me. The joke was way too long, out-of-character (which might have been forgivable had the joke been at all humorous), and the punchline far too weak to justify nearly two minutes of the review being devoted to it. If the Critic wanted to vent his spleen about the predictable nature of romantic comedies, he should have done so in a review of an actual romantic comedy, not shoehorned his rant into a Transformers review.
• Annoyed Mechanoid: While I still watch his videos from time to time, I'm very irritated that his "Top 11 Simpsons Episodes" started with a gigantic Take That to modern Simpsons episodes and unfairly painted all of them as "beating a dead horse with another dead horse" by using the infamous Kesha Simpsons intro as one of the clips (the other being the Banksy intro) to "represent" modern Simpsons as a whole. It's sad to see NC of all people lumping almost 20 seasons of a TV show all into the same category of badness just to strengthen his own argument on what individual "classic" episodes he considers to be good. All of the episodes on that list (apart from every Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode) were from seasons 2-8. If you want to do a Top 11 on classic Simpsons episodes, just call it "Top 11 Classic Simpsons Episodes" and limit yourself to working with only certain seasons. Most importantly, don't write the rest off as bad in the process to make your own points stronger.
• JHD 0919: The Critic opens his review of Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue by hyping up the fact that tons of different characters from tons of Saturday Morning cartoons of the time were crossing over for one big special. He also brings up the fact that they went so far as to have then-President George H.W. Bush give a speech introducing the special to tons of kids across the States. Smash Cut to Simon uttering the word Marijuana (a word apparently so shocking to the Critic he replays that one split-second clip a few times) followed by the Critic's horrified realization that he's about to review an anti-drug special. Now, this entire opening sequence (as well as the fact he hated an anti-drug special that some now look back at fondly - as a crossover, at least) wouldn't normally bother me, so why am I bringing this up? Simple - he took Bush's speech out of context. Bush wasn't just talking about how a bunch of cartoon characters were interacting with each other, he explicitly pointed out that said characters were gonna be teaching the kids watching the special that Drugs Are Bad - hell, I honestly think that's the reason he was even giving the speech to begin with! What Doug did here was plain ignorance at best, and utterly dishonest at worst - and I sincerely hope it's the former, cuz if he misrepresented Bush on purpose, that's just sad.

2013- 2017 episodes

• Ryanruff 13: "Looney Tunes Show: Good or Bad?" has a rather frustrating moment that almost felt like a parody, but the context makes it hard to use the "Nostalgia Critic is just a character" defense. I haven't really seen much of the The Looney Tunes Show, so I don't have an opinion on it, but one fairly infamous part of the review (if by "fairly infamous", I mean that it got an entry on the Wall Bangers page before Wall Banger pages were removed) was when he compares various previous spin-offs of Looney Tunes to the show, which just reeked of blatant cherry-picking to make the former look bad and the latter look hilarious (and he doesn't even succeed in doing the latter in my opinion). Especially confusing is how he tries to make the well-received Duck Dodgers look bad. It's obviously his right to an opinion if he doesn't like Duck Dodgers, but it really sours Doug's argument when he tries to use a bizarrely poor criticism of a popular show to try to support his argument, as well as trying to act like the other spin-offs were liked given their debatable status in actuality, and it's just one of the various moments that make Doug seem like a hipster.^note Granted, I'll admit that in light of the recent Channel Awesome controversies, something as small as a weak defense of a cartoon is the least of anyone's problems.
• His review of Sailor Moon:
  • Kitchen90: One of the most nagging things that I didn't like about the review was the complete overlooking of the rest of the Sailor Senshi (basically, the rest of the planets that help Sailor Moon, in case anyone who's not familiar with the series didn't know). The Critic compares the Inners gang (Sailors Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury) to the Spice Girls and Hanson because they (apparently) didn't have interesting enough characterization — not to mention, not even telling the audience their (dubbed or original) names; he ignored Sailor Pluto entirely for a "Pluto isn't a planet anymore" joke, gave Tuxedo Mask a brief mention (but had many things to say about his civilian form, Darien), and didn't tell us anything about Sailor Uranus and Neptune other than they suffered from the Hide Your Lesbians trope. The only person he talks about is Sailor Moon and how she spends the first few episodes cowering in the corner because she's been thrown into fighting creepy-looking monsters. Even her best friends from her class are given bigger screen-time yet they aren't around for most of the show's running time, and have no idea that their friend Serena dresses up as Sailor Moon and saves the world. I think that if he took time to research about everyone other than Serena (I am aware that the Canadian dub changed the characterizations as well, but there's no harm in reading about the original Japanese characters), perhaps most of his questions and criticisms would be resolved. Also, I get the feeling that the unexplained cameo from Amanda Céline Miller (the new English dub voice for Sailor Jupiter) in one of his videos after this was an Author's Saving Throw for the backlash from this episode.
  • emilethetemplar: The way he seem to think the only reason guys would watch Sailor Moon is if they are sexually attracted to the characters. It's ignorant, dated, disrespectful to fans and the way he choose to say it is extremely cringy and uncomfortable. That stupid sketch involving teenage Doug and his talking dick getting an honorable mention. Dude, grow the hell up.
    • supernintendo128: As someone who enjoys traditionally "girly" things like romance stories, that scene was extremely uncomfortable. But it doesn't stop there: He also insults and mocks the opening sequence for featuring a Star Wars-esque Opening Scroll in this girl's show, because girls aren't allowed to like sci-fi flicks, apparently.
• His review of Eight Crazy Nights:
  • Tropers/vexer: For me, it was this review. Now I'm perfectly fine with people disliking that film, even though IMO, it's FAR from one of the worst holiday movies. The review wasn't too bad until the Critic had his sidekicks appear as Happy Madison fans who laugh at anything he considers low-brow and uses them to attack people who actually like Sandler's films (and then blows them up with a grenade, which was sooo clever). If it was just one scene, it wouldn't been so bad, but he just kept shoehorning them in, which ironically I found more irritating and unfunny than anything in the actual film itself (including Sandler's voice for Whitey, speaking of which, that gag where NC is on the phone with Sandler went for way too long). His extended Take That! towards Sandler's fans was just mean-spirited and extremely hypocritical given how the Critic in the past has previously emphasized that people should "like what they like" for movies, guess people just aren't allowed to actually like Happy Madison films according to the Critic's Insane Troll Logic.
  • Luna Veg 87: I have to agree. I do have annoyance with some of his other reviews/editorials, but this one is still the one that pisses me off the most. For the record, I've never seen Eight Crazy Nights, nor do I have much interest (I will admit that Little Nicky is a guilty pleasure of mine), but that he felt a need to stick it to fans of Happy Madison Productions in such an immature (and not Critic's usual comedic immaturity) way left a bad taste in my mouth. So people are stupid if they enjoy stupid comedy movies? Weird how he lacks that same attitude toward movies he's reviewed as So Bad, They're Good. Not helping is that fake phone call joke that, between it going on for way too long and going from just plain dull to uncomfortable levels, wouldn't be out of place on Family Guy.
• DL Abaoaqu: His review of Ghost Rider (2007) when he first learns of Blackheart and gets a Bible to see if the movie is serious about the name. A verse was fabricated for the sake of a joke, but it came off as a middle finger to people who actually study it. Classy, Doug, considering that actual scholars have analyzed for decades and, when looked through linguistic and anthropological lenses, the "inconsistencies" (as you would term them) can be easily resolved. Also, way to go picking the low-hanging fruit.
• Lady Norbert: I enjoy a lot of the Critic's old videos. I'm just really not into the newer format. Now, in fairness, I never watched Demo Reel so I didn't have any understanding of who Malcolm and Tamara were when they started appearing in Critic's videos; to me, they just seemed to come out of nowhere. I have nothing against them, they seem like nice people, but I liked it better when it was just the Critic on his own. For me, though, the DMoS is his review of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (2010). Obviously, Critic doesn't like it, while I do, but that's not the issue. The issue is that I have tried to watch this review multiple times, and I can never actually get to the review! The opening acting bit where Critic falls into Underland or whatever and runs into Alice and so forth drags on and on and on, to the point where I just can't watch it anymore. It's not entertaining, it's not funny, and as much as I'd like to see his actual review of the film, I can't sit through the original content long enough to get there.
• Michaelsar: One moment that always rubbed me the wrong way was the ending of his review of The Swan Princess. Basically, after spending the entire episode calling the film "Diet Disney", the Nostalgia Critic is shown a bottle of soda called "Diet DreamWorks", which features The Nut Job, the Ice Age movies, and the Rio movies. He then points out that this is the second review in a row where he's insulted Blue Sky Studios ^note The otherwise pretty funny Foodfight! review also had a pretty harsh Take That! towards the company...and then continues to do it, claiming that he should stop if they ever make something good. Then he's shown a bottle of "Diet Pixar", which features Cars 2 and Monsters University, basically just a joke about Pixar not making good movies anymore (in his opinion, anyway). We get it, Doug, you hate Pixar and Blue Sky Studios. This joke was not funny, it was just needlessly harsh.
• Dvaderstarlord 5: I used to be a fan of the Critic but an issue that I had with him back when I was a fan that has gotten stronger is his Old vs. New on the Spider-Man movies. Now this isn't that he said that the Andrew Garfield movies are better than Tobey Maguire's, though I disagree on that front, I mean of the 3 live-action Spider-Men, I think Tom Holland is the best so this is isn't a bitter fanboy. But the issue that I have is when he declares that Garfield is better as Spider-Man by connecting the times in both movie series where they hang up the cowl in Spider-Man 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 respectively where he says that Garfield has the edge because he has a more sympathetic reason for the hangup as Gwen died and he was grieving whereas with Maguire, it was the just the stress of the job and that it got hard for him. That stuck with me. The first half of Spider-Man 2 is entirely dedicated to showing just how much Peter's life sucks so that it feels earned and believable when Peter temporarily gives up being Spider-Man. In the first half of the movie, Peter gets fired, is late for his classes at college, is constantly insulted and demeaned at the job that he does have, is living in poverty, with a jerk landlord, watches as a new friend of his becomes a supervillain, his relationship with his best friend is slowly falling apart, the woman he loves moves on and gets engaged to someone else and he can't do anything about it because he believes its the right thing to stay away from her for her safety, his aunt is also in poverty, and to top it off, his powers are failing for no reason that he can discern and as such it is now an even bigger risk to his life to fight crime. That is a far thing from simply life getting hard. So yeah, I really didn't like how that got ignored so that he could say that the Andrew Garfield stuff was better. I mean if that's your opinion, fine but give some actual fact.
• The Farmboy: Since the Wall Banger page as a whole got nixed, I figured I would post what would be a crummy moment from Nostalgia Critic. The Running Gag with Pinky and the Brain breaking up through-out The Purge review concludes with an animated short with Brain snapping and verbally chewing out Pinky. My problem with the short was that Brain blames Pinky for all of their plans failing, while completely forgetting the times where it wasn't Pinky's fault such as the Big-Ears and Noodle-Noggin episode, and the Gyp-Parody episode (where Pinky knew the answer for the final question while Brain lost all of the money). Not to mention that the show had established that Brain's plans were all doomed to fail whenever or not Pinky botches it. And I think it wouldn't make sense for Brain to keep his rage in until Pinky said one line too many, since in the show, Brain would often hit Pinky whenever Pinky said something stupid. I thought I would let it slide, but overtime, it grew worse in my mind. Shame that Maurice LaMarche and Rob Paulsen were roped in to reprise their roles for this.
• His review of The Matrix:
  • Something Eight: To his credit, Doug complimented the movie a number of times. However, his treatment of the movie's fans was just so condescending that I personally just couldn't take it. The line "I know you're out there: people who don't like The Matrix." also pissed me off, acting like he was making a big, bold claim that he would get persecution for.
  • Who Needs A Mango: That same review is the beginning of when this troper stopped watching the Nostalgia Critic. Not only were its Soapbox moments (about how Doug was so right and anybody who likes The Matrix is so wrong) annoying if not infuriating, they threw comedy aside. To hell with creative jokes, let's just make fun of the movie and its fans at every turn! This was when Doug's Fan Hater tendencies made themselves clear to me (hinted at with Man of Steel) and I completely lost faith in his so-called Nice Guy and Extreme Doormat traits. The Matrix review made it clear to me that Doug Walker is just as bad as his Critic persona. And as a hardcore Frozen fan, I must agree with the entry below on something - Doug Walker is now nothing more than a self-important hypocrite.
• His review of Jurassic World:
  • Demon God Of Chaos 2: His review not only broke one of his rules for the reboot (not reviewing a movie still in theaters) but using improvisations of the characters in the movie with imitators of characters from the original movie as a horrible attempt at a Take That! at copyright holders. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for me, as I have no more plans to view any of his reviews in the near future after this one.
  • CJ Croen 1393: One thing I didn't like was his critique on Owen and Claire's relationship, specifically the kiss. He acts as though Claire and Owen's kiss scene was completely random and had nothing to do with the plot, when in context, Owen kissed Claire because she saved his life, something the Critic actually showed a reenactment of later in the review (which only serves to make this critique even more confusing).
  • Emperor Oshron: As a longtime Jurassic Park fan, I honestly just refused to watch the review (I'd stopped watching in general a long time ago more because I forgot than because of any disagreement with Walker's opinions) because I figured "If he's reviewing it, then he's gonna be overly negative for the sake of being negative so I'm just not even gonna bother. I can still enjoy his other videos for the most part.". I randomly decided to check it out one day because I was bored, just wanted some background noise while playing a mostly music-less video game. Big mistake, because it put me in a very bad mood—it made me almost immediately curse at my screen and turn the video off, so I didn't even watch the rest of the review and have no intention to, ever. Barely a minute or two into the actual review, he goes off on how the effects are apparently awful and look like cardboard cutouts. Anyone who makes a point of watching movies reliant on special effects—especially Walker, who literally makes a living on that kind of thing—should know that, even if the effects in Jurassic World are less convincing than in other films, especially in other Jurassic Park movies, they sure as hell don't look like fucking cardboard cutouts! I'd learned from word of mouth that he also complained about Indominus being "just a big raptor" because it has raptor DNA—which is also bullshit, because even non-paleonerds should be able to conjure up at least one theropod that Indominus more closely resembles than a raptor—and general hate that the film got because of Zara's horrifying death, but the complaints on the CGI blow those completely out of the water. Walker should know better considering he's reviewed films with special effects so much worse than anything in the Jurassic Park franchise, let alone in a single film, that it's not even funny. CGI is only "obvious" these days because now people know when practical effects can't produce a certain look and that's the only reason people are able to complain about it looking fake, which is exactly the problem here—in fact, the only reason he could even "get away" with saying that they looked like cardboard cutouts is because he didn't use any clips from the actual movie, which would show that he's just plain lying. With that in mind, every single person on Earth from now on should take every single one of Walker's opinions with an entire salt mine.
• Space Protagonist: Okay, so I'm a huge fan of the Nostalgia Critic and often take notes on anything I find useful, but I did notice something from his review of Osmosis Jones. Doug was doing various comparisons to Inside Out since both films had a "secret world inside the human brain" plot. Although I did kind of enjoy the Inside Out-parody segments, but I do have a minor complaint to make. Nostalgia Critic's Joy was the one who made most of the complaints about the movie, wouldn't it make more sense if his Disgust was the one doing the criticism? I mean criticism is literally her job and personality! I get that Joy was the main lead in the film, but she's meant to look on the bright side of situations and her being this negative was pretty out-of-character for her. Maybe Disgust and Joy could have had a rivalry or a battle to see who could find more upsides or downsides to the film, and then report back to Osmosis about it. This feels like a wasted opportunity.
• libertydude: My Dethroning Moment comes from his review of Mad Max: Fury Road, simply because of how it showed the absolute worst aspects of modern NC: Shoehorned political and social messages, the frequent use of Strawmen, and an overreliance on skits instead of criticism. The first two complaints are the worst parts, as the Critic dividing the film's supporters and detractors into two Flanderized groups just makes him seem lazy. Here he is, in the unique position of finding a base-breaking film So Okay, It's Average, which could allow him to really delve into specific aspects of the movie that do and don't work. Instead, he focuses more on the reactions of viewers, and he doesn't even do it very fairly. While the supporters of the film are portrayed as liking the film for shallow reasons, the detractors are portrayed far worse, being sexless nerds angry that there was a badass Action Girl in the movie. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of other reasons to criticize the film (the lack of focus on Max himself, the spectacle overcoming the story etc.), this really ignores the fact that there have been plenty of female action heroes that men enjoy (i.e. Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Motoko Kusanagi, just to name a few). It just felt like Doug was really trying to invalidate negative criticism of the film by portraying the criticizers as worse as possible. It doesn't help that most of his attempted "criticisms" against the film feel really loose and shallow, just so Tamara can easily knock them down and validate approval of the film. It's this dismissive and misleading attitude that really makes this episode the worst for me personally.
• Baby Rodent: For the most part, I thought his review of Hocus Pocus video was enjoyable if flawed. Then came the moment near the end where, after Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service makes an appearance to beat up the Sanderson Sisters, Critic makes a very mean-spirited jab at Billy Butcherson by stating that he was a “useless” character who contributed nothing to the plot of the film, which is my least favorite moment of the video. First off, Billy did serve a purpose in the film and not just “walk[ed] around in silence” and “shout obscenities” (Critic's words, not mine) when his stitches were removed—he was summoned by Winifred to go after the main characters because the witches could not step on hallowed ground. He also had a very particular grudge against Winifred for not only killing him and stitching his mouth shut, but also forcing him out of his own grave as a zombie. He wanted to get back at his former lover and is willing to help the kids break the curse so he can rest again, so I don’t see him as useless. Second off, Billy is by far one of Doug Jones’ more memorable roles and at least deserves some credit where credit is due in this review. But as is, it's just too mean-spirited to even warrant a chuckle out of me.
• "Conquest of the Commercials":
  • Johnnyd 2: I tolerate a lot of NC and the CA crew, but his latest Anti-Pokémon rant from this video is a bit too much for me. It was such a good video up until that point with Don Bluth and Segata Sanshiro. But then, all my goodwill disappeared when he went on an anti-Pokémon tirade. especially the part about college people and older fans not liking Pokémon and it being a "fad". A lot of college students and people in my age like myself, including some of Doug's CA colleagues I'm betting, like Pokémon, both then and now. While I respect opinions of all kinds, Doug/NC could have at least not be such a jerk about it.
  • Jetpack Percy: I'm in the same boat here. I was enjoying the special up until the "joke" where the Nostalgia Critic watches that Nightmare Fuel-filled commercial for Pokémon Red and Blue because all the Pokémon were (supposedly) killed off (the commercial was about the bus driver squeezing all the Pokémon into a Game Boy), and cheering for their deaths for the mere crime of...annoying him in college...and then complaining the commercial had copped out by not killing them. Keep in mind, later on in the 'There are no accidents' segment, he is legitimately freaked out about the girl burning herself on hot oil. While I'm not much of a fan of the games compared to when I was younger, I still love them, and while I may respect the Critic's opinion on Pokémon, his overbearing Lack of Empathy towards the situation made me sick. Even I would draw the line at seeing my personal scrappies die violently like this. Now I'm just wondering if I should drop him altogether.
  • fairygirl567: I get Doug was joking, but this was still way too mean spirited and insulting. This was too much hatred for a show, and to say he was college-aged when the show first aired (so he wasn't the right audience for it) is an even bigger insult to the older fans! There were older fans, so I don't see why he's acting all high and mighty about it. Secondly, him having that sadistic look as the Pokémon are being crushed was messed up, and him showing joy at the alternative ending wasn't funny at all, especially since after that, he showed the Canada video where a woman gets her face burned off and he shows visual disgust at it. So something he hates, he shows glee for it dying; but the woman there is bad. Come on, Doug! At least with the Power Rangers segment, it was funny. This was just mean! I don't like North, but I don't want to see Elijah Wood's character get brutally murdered!
  • zeesims: I need a place to vent out my frustration since this has been bugging me for a while. There are several words that describe my feelings towards the Pokémon segment, infuriating, insulting, disgusting, and disrespectful. When it comes to that rant of his; about the overexposure, adults not liking it, and it being a "fad"; my main issue with this reasoning is that some of the things that he likes are also guilty of the same thing, (such as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the late 80s and early 90s, and Frozen. It just gives off the vibe that only the things he likes can be super popular). While overexposure can get annoying, is it really a good reason to hate something just for that? Then, there's that bit with adults not liking it; all this does is remind me of the "Pokémon is for kids" stigma that plagues many adult fans. Then there's the fad bit; this just screams, "I don't like it, therefore it's a fad". This is just painful to watch; knowing that the franchise has grown to be more than just a kid's fad, with the games and TGC having multiple demographic appeal. Once again, the Ninja Turtles were guiltyof the things mentioned above atthe height of its popularity, but knowing him, it's magically okay just because he grew up with it. Then there's this line, "we didn't know what it was, but we didn't care", so you hate it even though you know nothing about it? This whole rant just felt ignorant, arrogant, pretentious, and prejudicial to me. Then we get to the actual commercial...Ugh, this part is just ridiculous, the comments above definitely describe my feelings towards this bit, mean-spirited and unfair. How would he feel if someone pulled off the same thing with the Ninja Turtles? I've seen several comments giving him a free pass with the "just a character" excuse, because that will totally make people less angry; frankly, I don't even know how much of it is an act. Just like with the Power Rangers mentioned above, Pokémon has brought joy and inspiration to many, a community has formed and brought many people together, young and old. So to see it getting treated so cruelly like this just makes me sick; joke or not. I've grown so tired of the Caustic Critic accentuating the negative gimmick, and even some of his real life attitude towards certain things (such as Pokémon, Power Rangers, Cars, Sailor Moon, Moulin Rouge!) makes me regret the fact that I used to find him funny. I'm just done with him (and frankly any caustic critic) at this point.
  • Morphin Brony: Since my latest Dethroning Moment was cut, I'm renominating the Pokemon bit from Conquest of the Commercials as my Dethroning Moment for the Critic. For the most part, I thought the episode was pretty good overall (hell, I even enjoyed the Power Rangers skit, which is saying something because I am a Power Rangers fan), but the whole Pokemon segment was just unfair. Now, to be fair, I can understand where the Critic is coming from with how he feels about Pokemon. When you don't understand why something is popular and there's merchandise for it everywhere you look, you probably wouldn't be willing to give it a fair chance. This is a big part of why I've never watched Frozen. But here's the thing: Even I would draw the line at burning Elsa to a crisp. To use another analogy, imagine someone who grew up in the late 70s making a video where the Ninja Turtles (which was a major Cash-Cow Franchise at its peak popularity, and yet the Critic sings its praises whenever he mentions it just because he grew up with it) were horribly murdered after he went out on a rant about how much the overexposure annoyed him. To see the Critic display such petty behavior is very unpleasant, and puts a dark spot on an otherwise stellar episode. I know that Doug Walker and the Nostalgia Critic are not one and the same, but good Lord, between this and the Freddy vs. Jason review, I'm glad I stopped watching his videos before the whole #ChangeTheChannel fiasco destroyed any and all respect I had for him for good.
• His review of Christmas with the Kranks:
  • Space Hunter Drake Redcrest: For me, it was one particular moment in this review. At one point, his past self is watching the divisive Hocus Pocus review. His past self expresses how much he dislikes it (and with how whiny he is, it's probably a Take That, Critics! moment), and the Critic says that "It's how reviewers did it for years". No. First off, critics did not remake whatever they were reviewing, insert themselves into the story, and point out all the flaws. I don't recall the episode of Siskel & Ebert where they pretended to be North and the offensive stereotypes. Second, the jokes and comments only make sense if you've seen the movie. As PieGuyRulz pointed out, the jokes lack context without clips of the movie. Would Linkara's reviews of Marville be as good if he acted out the story with some friends instead of showing us what actually happens in the comic book and commenting on it? Of course not. You wouldn't understand what's from the comic and what was added for comedic effect. Point is that the way the review was done was not what critics did before, nor is it something critics do now.
  • Baeraad555: That one annoyed me quite considerably also. He kept claiming that the difference between his old stuff and his new stuff is that he's putting more "effort" into the new, which seems to translate (in my opinion) into his new stuff being more overworked and frantic. Case in point, that Hocus Pocus review that he's defending. Yes, acting out a parody surely took more "effort" than just showing clips and commenting on them, but the latter would have (also in my opinion) been more entertaining simply because the Critic is better at commenting than he is at acting (and the real actors and staging would be more photogenic than what he and his friends can set up). That old chestnut about working smarter, not harder, seems appropriate...
  • Jaycie89: His effort to connect the movie to his own situation was pretty sad. He asserts that his audience prefers his traditional style purely because it's traditional and they hate change, much like the neighbors in the movie who harass Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis over breaking their usual Christmas pattern. He then goes on to say that the opinions of others are 100% irrelevant, as long as you are happy with what you are making. First of all, Doug, you should have learned from Angry Joe and Spoony what happens when a creator starts antagonizing his audience. Second of all, your audience doesn't hate change for its own sake; they hate changes that have been wasteful, unfunny, poorly produced, and uninformative. Unlike someone's house, YouTube is a platform where both the creator and the viewer have a say. You will only hurt yourself by dismissing constructive criticism out of hand.
  • Regulas314: Similar to when The Mysterious Mr. Enter spited his fans for wanting him to do requests in his Rocket Monkeys review? This felt like an attack on the fans and the very concept of constructive criticism. Specifically, those who prefer when Doug did his reviews without time consuming skits and getting into the meat of what he was talking about. Doug made it very clear that he does not care about the opinions of others in any capacity here, essentially poking his audience with a stick. Completely oblivious to why some fans do not like the new style of reviews he's done. It is honestly no wonder I stopped watching his content after this, especially after the Channel Awesome controversy.
• Cheerful Optimistic: I stopped watching Nostalgia Critic (and most Channel Awesome reviewers, prior to finding out about #ChangeTheChannel) after his review of Labyrinth. After a clip includes fairies, NC made a joke about gay pride. This wasn't a case of making fun of a marginalized group back when bigoted jokes weren't really seen as a problem, he should have known full well that this was homoantagonistic and not OK.
• SafetySmash: I thought his review of Blade was pretty good except for a joke he said at the end. When he showed shock that Blade and Karen don’t get together, he said “Quickly, Tumblr, rewrite this ending so not only do they get together, but they have 20 children, all with different sexual identities; if 20 sexual identities don’t exist, make them up, you’re good at that.”. I have several problems with this. Why choose Tumblr to make fun of? Why not just fanfic writers in general? It really doesn’t make sense to mock Tumblr, especially because a lot of Tumblr users would love this ending. There are hundreds of posts with thousands of notes talking about how tired they are about forced love between men and women, and how surprised they are when a form of media let women and men be friends. Was the reason you singled out Tumblr to make fun of “made up sexual identities”? And what do you consider a “made up sexuality”? Do you consider Asexuality made up? Or Pansexuality? It didn’t ruin the review for me, but it seemed unnecessary and has some Unfortunate Implications.
• Scsigs: Since people have stated good points about my other picks, Hocus Pocus and the Hype Backlash video, I'll bring up his video about whitewashing. I get why he wanted to make the video. It was a hot button issue, especially in 2016 where everything was for little to no reason, depending on what you're talking about. However, his major talking points included live action people playing roles originally meant for people of other ethnicities or physical statures, roles played by people from other countries, and voice acting in both western animation and anime dubbing. First, the Critic is on the more liberal side of this argument, with saying various things about these topics, but succumbs to not really making any good points about them, with Critical Research Failure, double standards, and just a plain old failure to use common sense abound. He talks about whitewashing by bringing up Ghost in the Shell (2017) with casting Scarlett Johansson as the Major. I can understand this criticism, since it's a film based on a Japanese anime film and its setting is still uniquely Japanese with Asian actors in most of the other roles, but he then praises films that Race Lift white characters. Double Standards much? Then he brings up Henry Cavill and Andrew Garfield playing Superman and Spider-Man, with them both being British (although Garfield was born in America) as disqualifiers for playing these roles. What? Ethnicity and race are 2 completely different things. He then talks about The Lord of the Rings casting regular actors over little people except for back shots in some scenes in the roles of the Hobbits. What? Hobbits aren't little people, they're fully grown people that just happen to be smaller than other races. Casting regular people and using either camera tricks, green-screening, or CGI was their best bet at portraying the world most accurately to the books. That argument makes no sense. Then, he also touches upon actors of other races voicing characters in animated works, including anime dubs, that aren't Japanese or whatever race or even gender or age of their characters. First of all, there are Asian actors working in the anime dubbing industry. Second, the acting pool for anime dubs, unless paid for by a larger company, is rather low, due to usually requiring non-union actors who'll accept the lower pay than union and prelay work, which is why we don't see many high-profile actors who'll slum for less money to do dub work that often. So, it makes sense to use not just Asian actors, who aren't probably going to settle for dubbing work anyways. Also, not every anime is set in Japan. There are several shows and films, Studio Ghibli's in particular, that are set more in worlds of multiple cultures, or just Germanic worlds, so that shouldn't matter anyways. Second, using adults to voice kids is an industry standard and the norm. It's done to maintain consistency in the characters' voices as long as possible if they don't change in any way, especially if a series goes on for multiple years where a kid's voice would break eventually, so it's a Justified Trope. However, there have been subversions of this in some productions. Third, not every child actor is going to be able to give the most believable performance out there. With how many films he's reviewed as the NC, you'd think he'd remember that. Fourth, anime dubbing is not the same as prelay. It's even challenging for experienced voice actors to do because they have to adapt to a completely different style of voice acting. Most kid actors can't act that well already, so they'd be pretty lost on what to do, though there certainly have been a few subversions here, like Aaron Dismuke as Al in Fullmetal Alchemist (2003), since he didn't have any mouthflaps to act against, and Daveigh Chase as Chihiro in Spirited Away, but they are outliers in this case. This topic is heavily debated everywhere and Doug's serious mishandling of this situation isn't helping matters so much as it confuses them, which is why I don't like this video. You can clearly see why.
• His review of Scooby-Doo: Monsters Unleashed:
  • mine4ever: While my interest in Nostalgia Critic was already decreasing, where it really took a dive was in this review. Specifically, when the character Heather Jasper Howe appears and Doug immediately says "She did it". Of course, you may be wondering how could he possibly know that a character we met literally 3 seconds ago was the villain without any foreshadowing or clues. Well, here's his reasoning: the actress playing Heather, Alicia Silverstone, was a big name in Hollywood at the time this film was released. Doug figured that they wouldn't cast an A-list celebrity in such a minor role, unless she had a bigger part to play, so she had to be the villain. OK, first off, celebrities have had minor roles in media literally since the dawn of time. Take Scream, for example: Drew Barrymore was a big name at the time as well, which is why it was such a shock to so many people when she died within the first 5 minutes. Secondly, what he doesn't realize is that this movie is targeted to kids. What child watching this film would know, or even care, who Alicia Silverstone was? I was five when this film came out and I sure didn't. Hell, most of the kids watching weren't even alive when Alicia Silverstone was popular, and even if they were, I highly doubt they where old enough to see the movies she was in. At the end, he criticizes the movie for not giving kids a good mystery because it was too obvious who the villain was, but it doesn't work since it wouldn't be obvious to the target audience.
  • Alex Andre: NC insulting those who watched this movie (during lowbrow moments), claiming that they will go on to be Subway clerks to eating their own brains. My two younger Navy brothers would like to have some stern words with you, NC.
• jaredthedecimator: His review of Alvin and the Chipmunks was the final straw for me. While most of the video is just bland, the reason it’s on here is because of the ending. In one of the cringiest things I have ever seen, Doug and two other guys who aren’t important take on these fans of the CGI chipmunks by singing an unfunny parody of a song from The Chipmunk Adventure. The scene where they are performing the song is probably the lowest point of the entire series. And you wanna know something funny? When Doug reviewed The Chipmunk Adventure with The Nostalgia Chick a long time ago, he hated it. But in this video, he acts as if it’s a masterpiece of cinema. Make up your mind, Doug! If you want us to agree with your opinions, the least you can do is keep them consistent.
• Mighty Mewtron: I love post-revival Critic, sketches and all, and I've been fine with Critic's clipless reviews- I really like his Pixels review, for example. But his review of Ghostbusters (2016) feels like a flop. He spends a lot of time on the controversy and he portrays every side as a strawman, including a Straw Feminist side, which looks tacky for a male reviewer to do and exaggerating everyone's actions makes it harder to deliver the message to the fanbase (sort of like the point he was trying to make in his Lorax review). He spends so much time on this plot that it's even harder to understand the clipless parts of the review, and he mostly just repeats the same couple of criticisms over and over again about the movie cutting clips too short and ruining funny moments with unfunny moments as well as misrepresenting the characters and ideas in the movie (such as portraying the final ghost as a cutesy cartoon from the logo when the point of the ghost was that it was a terrifying rendition of that cutesy cartoon from the logo). If the sketches were entertaining, maybe this wouldn't be as bad a problem, but instead, he relies on an unoriginal "everyone on the Internet is being a jerk about this movie".
• His review of Freddy vs. Jason:
  • Owlorange 1995: In the review, Ash decapitating Pikachu with a chainsaw because Ash Ketchum holds him up as a shield. The Critic then interrupts the review just so he can tell the crying Ash to "suck it up". I can take the jabs and the taunts shown in earlier episodes but...look, even if you don't like Pokemon, it would still be disgusting to make a joke about cutting up a pet while his owner sobs! It's even worse to make the joke by having a child hold up his beloved and close companion as a meat shield!
  • L Dragon 2: Agreed. That whole scene just came across as yet another mean-spirited dig at the Pokemon fanbase, this time by literally murdering one of the most beloved characters from the series. The comment that Ash makes also doesn't help, not does the crying from Ash Ketchum and the death cries from Pikachu. It's like Doug's trying to tick off the audience by using a character from a series he likes to butcher another from a series he dislikes.
  • Teleport_Ted: Not to mention the Critical Research Failure/Fight Scene Failure: Pikachu just stands there like a deer-in-headlights while the walking lightning-rod with the chainsaw hand slowly approaches, and doesn't simply zap Williams in self-defense.
  • Asue: As of the eighth commercials episode, "War of the Commercials", he still hasn't stopped those and added a jab towards Pikachu during his analysis of the famous Super Smash Bros. 64 ad, ruining what would have been a perfect joke.
  • RailCourt Speaking as a fan from mid-2011 who'd been having doubts about how much I enjoyed the show post-reboot, this was the moment that I tuned out for good with no regrets since.
• Tropers/T-Troper 24: For me, it's been his lack of acknowledgement towards the two cartoons that came after the 80's one ended. I remember the first time watching his review for Out of the Shadows. The thing that ticked me off were the two instances where he began asking if either Leo or Shredder ever had a moment where he wasn't a dickhead leader, or doesn't go out like an ass in respective order. I saw a comment saying the following thing. 1) Leo not being an asshole leader in the 2003 series. 2) Shredder not going out like a bitch in the 2003 series. 3) Captures everything Turtles and takes itself seriously in the 2003 series. Even the 2012 series gets this right, but nope, he just shows instances of both Leo and Shredder in such moments just to prove his point. Seriously, both of these shows are or more or less should be vlog worthy and yet, there he is, exclusively binge watching both Adventure Time and Steven Universe. Correct me if I'm wrong but I watched that April fools vlog on YouTube where he jokingly talked about the first episode of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic with some other dude on a couch. I recall reading a comment saying that he won't look at the show because it's not his thing. Fair enough, I'm neutral over the show myself; however, in that same comment thread, someone in a response said that he said the exact same thing about Adventure Time and yet he's still making vlogs for it. Okay, let me ask a very legit question. what on Earth does he plan on looking at once both of those shows end? One of which from what I hear is ending next year. And yet, he barely even references either of the two TMNT cartoons that are amazing in their own right: one is faithful to the comics that started the whole franchise and the other tells its own story how it wants. But nope, he's all "Eh, TMNT never makes Leo a good leader, nor does it make Shredder a badass". I'm not trying to say he has to look at those two shows. But some form of acknowledgement would be much appreciated.
• CutieTabootie: I'm an ex-fan of Nostalgia Critic who stopped watching after #ChangeTheChannel was released. And looking back, I just find more issues I have with his videos. But even when I was a fan, there were plenty of reviews and moments I had problems with, most of them already covered here (like the Sailor Moon video). One thing that always made me really upset was when he was making fun of Britney Spears's breakdown in 2007 during his review of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel, relating to it being mentioned in the film that the Chipettes were to open for Britney Spears. Considering everything she went through at the time (and even what she's still going through now with her conservatorship), I found it extremely mean spirited and tasteless. Every joke made at Britney's expense regarding her breakdown has been tasteless, but still doing it years after it happened was just a new kind of low and just thinking about it makes me cringe.
• TCgamerboy2002: Before I start, I would like to say that Balto is one of my favorite animated movies. The Critic reviewed the movie, but didn't tear it apart as harshly since he sees why people like it, but still makes fun of it like with most good movies he reviewed. That usually doesn't bother me as that's his job. My complaint mostly comes from two particular parts: The first was the part with the scene with the white wolf which, I might add, was a very important part of the movie. He apparently had no idea what that scene was about and thought he gave Balto powers because of a later scene (which is obviously a joke, but still). It rubs me the wrong way because he failed to realize that that scene represented Balto accepting his wolf side, which he initially resented because it made him an outcast in the first place. He didn't use his sense of smell at first to get back because he was avoiding said wolf side. What Boris said about a dog not being able to make it alone but a wolf can was a plot point building up to this moment. Another part was that he didn't finish his review. Instead, he points out the historical inaccuracies in the movie and ended the review with a frameskit.^note Which involves Tamara as the recurring smoker mother telling a story about the review to another character she plays that wraps around the video. This is the same problem I have with his review of Home Alone 3 as he gives us no final thoughts about the movie. Because of this, I don't know if he likes the movie or not. Granted, these parts don't turn me off of the review, but they're very hard to ignore.
• Asue: I really didn't find the forced "The Simpsons has jumped the shark" joke funny in his review of Monkeybone. First of all, it's clearly Padding, as the "joke" is stretched for almost a minute (with nothing funny happening during it) and it has barely anything to do with the review. Second, like with his "Top 11 Simpsons Episodes" episode, he's pushing his opinion on people who either don't even care about the show and those who keep watching it. And third, he said he stopped watching it after Season 7, yet "Homer's Enemy" was on the list of the previously mentioned NC episode. The hell, Critic?
• cartoonfanman: I pretty much gave up watching Nostalgia Critic after he uploaded a one hour review of Man of Steel, but somebody showed me a scene at the beginning of his It (2017) review that made me legit rage. It starts with Hyper Fangirl introducing the review, and when the audience starts to boo her, she pulls out a huge machine gun and shoots the audience. Not only is it yet another unfunny and tasteless joke, but the fact that this was uploaded 1 week exactly after the Las Vegas shooting made this scene way more uncomfortable to watch. I'm usually apathetic when it comes to Nostalgia Critic but this moment alone killed any shred of respect or optimism I had for the Critic in the first place.
• Retloclive: His review for The Mummy (1999) that starred Brendan Fraser. I didn't outright hate anything, or find anything offensive about the video, but I was left in a state of major confusion as to what the Nostalgia Critic was going for regarding the way Ardeth Bay speaks. I can only imagine that the Critic was trying to get across that Ardeth's speech pauses after every line can come off as awkward to sit through, but his joke that every line should have ended with "man." or "you know?" just felt like he was really reaching at some sort of criticism here. I truly don't get what the point of it was.
• Troper/{{}}: I personally couldn't deal with the "Canada's commercials are fucked up" Running Gag in the reboot commercial episodes. At least, "men don't know when they're getting harassed" wasn't mentioned again and was proved complete bull by Doug talking about being harassed in real life, but he kept acting like Canada are full of killjoys by telling us that 1 in 2 girls are abused. Thankfully, after a load of rape whistles himself, he seems to have stopped, but it still stings as a victim.

2018- Present episodes

• Dark4ngel: Let me say this, yes, I do like Maleficent, but I do acknowledge it is very flawed and I know that everyone will have their reasons for not liking it. However, just watching a few clips of Doug's review made me wonder if he's either stupid or intentionally ignoring some things to try to make the movie look worse. Like, he says Stefan helps the king destroy the fairies, which is completely untrue. Stefan only hurt Maleficent and never did anything to the Moors afterwards. Then, during the scene where Stefan cuts off Maleficent's wings, he says "Good thing she's such a heavy sleeper" when the movie blatantly points out that he drugged her. Did he have to clean his glasses while watching that scene and he's just blind without them? Then he makes a joke during the scene that even haters of the movie agree is a very emotional scene (when she's crying over her wings): "I didn't even get to find out how they tasted." What. That's where I clicked off.
• His review of The Jungle Book (2016):
  • Ever M0re 9117: My problem with this review is that the whole thing was just an excuse to bash it. He repeatedly throws Mowgli’s relationship with the wolves under the bus when the movie shows us what we need to know rather than repeatedly tell us. Missing the point of Shere Khan’s motivation and blatantly ignoring the fact that the movie answers more than a few questions he asks. However, the final straw was his constant mockery about how this movie was supposed to be the "grown-up" or "adult version". The problem is, no one called it that. Yes, it's a bit darker than the original film, but it’s nothing kids couldn’t handle (in general anyway) and it’s supposed to be an epic movie when compared to the 1967 version. But no one was calling it the "adult version". If there’s any recent adaptation of The Jungle Book that’s the "adult version", it’s likely the Truer to the Text, Darker and Edgier, PG-13 rated Mowgli. But not this movie, Doug.
  • The Zipping Eon: That review is where I ultimately just gave up on Doug for good. Him calling the writers lazy assholes because of how Akela’s death was revealed to Mowgli was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. But even before then, just like in his Alvin and the Chipmunks review, he glorifies the original animated versions despite the fact that he tore it apart pretty decently in his original Disneycember review. He also just straight up doesn’t respect the idea that people just may like the remake more than the original despite the fact that he didn’t even like the original all that much in the first place. The biggest take away from all this is that Critic is either a Kipling fanboy or a Jungle Book fanboy, but he somehow never properly addresses why the changes presented here in are problems, just that they are and leaves it at that. You would think someone who claims to love these stories as much as he does would point out the fact that Kaa was not evil in any sense of the word in the original stories, or that Baloo and Bagheera are completely backwards from how the books portrayed them (even though there is a very easy to research reason to explain this). But no, there’s none of that. He just says the books are better with no explanation, leading me to believe if he even read them in the first place. This distaste only gets exemplified in a later Disneycember where he reviewed the movie again for whatever reason and admits to only have seen the Disney version despite his praising of the Chuck Jones one. At that point, it’s like, “Well, what do we believe?” Did he watch the Chuck Jones one or not? The ending of the video implies that he has and will, but how can we really know for sure when his complaints for the Disney stories are all basic surface level? It’s all just one big mess of misinformation, lack of research, and backpedaling that really truly killed NC for me.
• His review of Deadpool 2:
  • Infinity League: While Christmas with the Kranks was bad enough for me to quit the show altogether (see the entries above for why), I must amend my DMOS as this review. First of all, it's another "clipless review", which isn't a review at all, but a super-low-budget remake of the movie with the Critic inserted into the plot to point out all the flaws. Look, guys, if you want to do a sketch show about movie parodies, fine, but don't call it a review when it is clearly not. Before the "review" proper starts, we get a painfully dragged-out sketch of Deadpool and Critic arguing before Rick and Morty show up for no reason other than the fact that their show was popular at the time of the review, and — after an awkward non-joke about political correctness — Rick appears frequently throughout the episode to act as Doug and Rob's mouthpiece to call Deadpool an unoriginal hack because his first movie is not the first R-rated superhero hit, the first R-rated comedy hit, or the first movie to extensively break the fourth wall... the problem is that literally nobody has ever made any of those assertions to begin with; our argument is that his movie is one of the best of all those categories, not the first, and the fact that his movie is the first to combine the three categories (an R-rated superhero comedy that breaks the fourth wall) is conveniently never addressed. The parts actually focused on reenacting Deadpool 2 are just as infuriating, because — like all clipless reviews — certain plot points are either misrepresented or left completely unaddressed all just to make the movie out to be worse than it actually is (for example: Deadpool simply shoving a criminal in front of a truck instead of attempting Murder-Suicide with him, Domino's Born Lucky powers are portrayed much more cartoonishly than in the movie, X-Force are shown as hypocrites for killing the bad guys while trying to prevent Firefist from going down his dark path, and Cable's explanation for choosing to stay behind is completely left out.) Other gripes include: every character breaking the fourth wall and not just Deadpool (which takes the uniqueness out of his character), Cable being replaced with DevilBoner so the Walkers can shove more of their schtick down our throats, and characters like Freakazoid and Kermit the Frog showing up out of nowhere to prove Rick's point that Deadpool is derivative (yeah, just ignore the fact that Deadpool actually predates Freakazoid by five years; that Freakazoid was a completely non-serious, child-friendly show with some superhero elements while Deadpool is an adult-oriented character who's serious enough to be a genuine superhero; or that Deadpool and the Muppets have absolutely nothing in common aside from fourth wall awareness). Again, nobody is saying that Deadpool is the first person to break the fourth wall. As you yourselves said in the Osmosis Jones review, it's not about whichever one did it first, but whichever one did it best.
  • Princesstwilight 23: I hated the Deadpool review. Like it actually hurt my head. The worse part, bar none, his Rick and Morty segments. For someone who harped on how all Deadpool cosplayers are the same, he sure did a surface-level and unfunny version of Rick and poor Malcolm... poor, poor Malcolm did a very terrible version of Morty, but at least he had an excuse. Doug was just "This movie -burp- sucks and it stole from -burp- me." Then he ends his "star quality" segment by showing his ass and doing a fake fart. There was nothing funny about it. Nothing clever. Nothing interesting. Again, for someone who spent an entire video saying all Deadpool cosplayers are just loud assholes (which they're not, someone on TikTok actually called him out on this) he sure doesn't seem to understand what Rick is like. Justin Roiland would probably be annoyed because he's seen this generic impersonation a hundred times. Actually, try to analyze the movie instead of saying it's a copy of something else. Because Doug seems to ignore he is basically a copy of every caustic critic before him. I hate how everyone in the comments was praising the performance, but if someone said it was bad they were bombarded by raging comments..
• Sir Pellucidar: What annoyed me about the Fox Kids review was the segment he spent on Godzilla: The Series. He spent 90% of the time bashing the movie and stating that the series must have sucked because the movie did, all the while making it obvious that he had never actually watched the show. He gave a little nod at the end to how some Godzilla fans enjoyed the cartoon, but that was it. No mention of the fact that the show is universally considered better than the movie, and Zilla Jr. is considered by most fans to legitimately deserve the title of Godzilla, unlike his father from the movie.
• "Toonami":
  • Alienhunter: I removed my earlier post about his Fox Kids review with the Toonami review. Starting off with an almost 10-minute skit of Critic being old and grumpy because he never really watched Toonami. Then the actual review starts off with Walter, Tamara, Heather, and Malcolm talking about each show for like two minutes. Now, this could still be cool to see with focusing on the history and the specials with Tom, but nope, instead, it focuses on random programs that don't really have much to do with Toonami. They would occasionally bring up anime like Sailor Moon, One Piece, and YuYu Hakusho, but most of the review was based around on shows that were more played on Cartoon Network, like The Batman, Justice League, The Powerpuff Girls (1998), Ben 10: Alien Force and... Star Wars: The Clone Wars... What. Not helping with the Critic (y'know, the reason most people watch the show) randomly sprouting one-liners about whatever show they were talking about and mostly getting screamed at by Walter in the most unfunny way. And don't get me started on the stupid "joke" they did multiple times about them all laughing obnoxiously loudly for like a minute straight, it's not funny, it's loud and, well, obnoxious. Although, I do have to admit that the costume for live-action!Tom was amazing and the voice used for him was spot-on. But that's about it for the nice things that I have for this "review".
  • tm465pole: Yea, the Toonami review was my breaking point too. Just the amount of non-research that went into the video stuck out like a sore thumb. No talking about the amazing promos or the various Toonami Immersion Events. No discussion about the Midnight Run or the eventual creation of Adult Swim. Barely talking about Gundam despite having six different series air on the block. Giving a ton of focus to Powerpuff Girls, which did air on the block, but never any premieres. But probably the biggest blunder was an entire segment dedicated to Thunder Cats 2011. Why? Because the episode was entirely dedicated to the pre-revival era of Toonami (a decision I was completely fine with, by the way), which ended in 2008. As you can guess by the Series title on this site, ThunderCats debuted three years after the block was cancelled! The show eventually did air on Toonami, but not until the Adult Swim revival, which the NC episode, as I said, decided not to cover. Oy.
• Samusforce: You know, I was nice during the TMNT reviews, Hocus Pocus, and Eragon, but his latest review for Percy Jackson and the Lighting Thief is without a doubt the worst one he has done! Let's ignore that he missed about a dozen and one joke opportunities. What really makes this horrible is the skit that plays during it. Calling it a "Wow, youngsters!" thing doesn't make sense in so many ways. OK, so we have Neo, Eragon, Jubilee, and Harry Potter together in a group. Why? Because they are all "outcasts who are chosen by a supernatural being to combat a threat, and what makes them an outcast gives them the ability to be a hero". What is the problem with this? First of all, Neo was an adult in the movies, had parents, and was not an outcast. Eragon was not an outcast, but a Luke Skywalker ripoff. Jubilee, while being a mutant, was loved by her parents. And Harry Potter was only an outcast with his aunt and uncle—the rest of the school loved him! He then tries to link all four with these tropes that they follow, but anyone with a passing knowledge of the source material would point out how wrong he was. Probably the only one he got right with anything was... none. He even tried to pull the "They don't do cool things while everyone else gets to be awesome." In front of Neo, who made a guy explode from the inside. That is 100% not true. But even ignoring all of that, and what puts this to second place of most hated reviews for me, was the constant smackdown of Harry Potter. I don't even read the books and haven't watched the movies in years, and the constant abuse pissed me off. It was like listening to a bad fanfic where he bashed his hated character. I know Doug constantly refused to put in any research, but this was the worst offender.
• Princesstwilight 23: I stopped watching NC because I noticed his pattern. He's overly critical: "Oh, yeah, this was okay, but why didn't they do this?" And he does that all the time, especially with passable remakes. Like his review of Mary Poppins. I didn't like the sequel by any means, but my God, I hated how he had one of those power actors he hired to play: what I'm assuming is some Pennywise, Stephen King-styled version of Mary Poppins. It was amazingly unfunny and somewhat insulting. We get it, Critic, you love suffering as humor, but here's the thing: it was not funny! At all. You just did this to praise the original! "Oh, well, back in my day she was this way!"
• K00L4: While I consider myself a fan of Doug's work, I wasn't too big on his review of The Lion King (2019). Now, while there were certainly good moments, the bad outweighed the good. For one thing, he nitpicks about very minor things. The Lions talking is the best example. Doug, just because a single aspect is unrealistic in an overall realistic movie doesn't automatically make the movie godawful. The nail in the coffin is that he disrespects the opinions of people who liked the movie. Seriously, Doug? I know that Critic is just an exaggeration of what Doug's true opinion is, but the entire video came out as pure unadulterated Narm. And not the good kind.
• His "review" of The Wall:
  • Mariic: I originally hated his "Battle of the Commercials" video for his Critical Research Failure, but now, his Wall review, which is another clipless review, fills me with the urge to defecate. He completely missed the point of the film adaptation, not to mention completely ignored the context of when the original album was released. Not to mention his album for the review has some of the songs out of order.
  • Gemidori: Seconded. I could just write off the entire episode as being one gigantic trainwreck, but to follow the guidelines, I will narrow it down to one short bit: when the Critic is told to do the actual review (after forty whole minutes of nothing but a marathon of Critical Research Failure and also cringe singing and lyrics), he gives one in about 10 seconds. That's it. And it still took him being goaded into giving it a final verdict as opposed to his intended ambiguous ending, thus trying to pull the old, tired card of "if the film can be whatever I'm perceiving it to be doing to a fault, it's only fair I do it too!" that he's pulled so many times in the past because, well, variety's no fun. And his end verdict of the film is, verbatim: "Okay! I liked it, fine. A bit full of itself, but good music and imagination." What. The. Fucking. Hell? Two things: firstly, his thoughts on the film were all anyone ever came to his show for, not for some unnecessary entire musical of backfired jokes and nearsighted guff complete with wasted talent (Corey Taylor of Slipknot and Stone Sour, to name one) or his already boring cast of - to quote his Bio-Dome review - "really unfunny people, doing really unfunny things, and confusing it for something really funny". All of this still being dubbed a "review", even if the review is not even there to begin with. Secondly, this one moment finally confirms to me that Doug never wanted to continue the series after cancelling it - he was likely so disappointed with the overwhelming backlash caused by his pet project, Demo Reel, that he wanted to inject the lifeless, drab style of that show and pump it into another one, which at this point should have ended years ago. From here on out, if I am ever going to watch another video of his (which at this point, I will probably not), it will likely be one of his editorials until he inevitably makes unwanted changes to them like he did to the actual series. There is a very solid reason why this video is dubbed "the worst film review ever" - because it is not a review. It is, simply, garbage.
  • Peace And Love: On top of him needlessly shitting on one of the greatest movies ever made, during the video's "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2" segment, Doug seems to think that the song is representative of the modern school system with the lyric "LOL so school sucks? Grow a damn pair of balls!". Uh, what? The education system in 1940s Britain was absolute hell, with teachers abusing the students and humiliating them under the guise of education, as Roger Waters himself can attest to. I mean, wow. Way to miss the point, Doug. Also, while less offensive (but still stupid), he called "Goodbye Blue Sky" an Oscar Bait song, which... doesn't even begin to make sense.
    • Stardust Soldier: I too would like to voice my displeasure over his "Grow a damn pair of balls!" comment. That's just an insenstitive thing to say at best and a downright cruel thing to say at worst.
    • The Prismatic Void: As a person who struggled with suicidal thoughts through most of high school, Doug saying "L-O-L so school sucks? Grow a damn pair of balls" like that shows a lack of understanding for the ways even modern day schools can be a horrific experience for kids and teens. In an era where people are increasingly aware of the long-term mental health effects of things like bullying and harassment, as well as schools fearmongering about how getting bad grades could potentially mean you end up working at a minimum-wage job for the rest of your life and never amounting to anything, telling your audience of mostly teenagers that their school-related struggles are not a big deal and they just need to shut up and stop whining is... at best incredibly callous and poorly thought through.
  • Zorothe Gallade: The worst moment is towards the end, where he simply stops the "review" claiming that "since the movie just ended, it makes sense to just end it here" and then makes the 39-odd minutes you just spent watching it essentially wasted as the only out-of-character "commentary" proper is summarized in not even five seconds of half-hearted banter. Besides completely ignoring the importance of the wall-breaking scene (having completely missed the point of every single thing the wall symbolized for Pink, since he didn't spend a single word looking into the meaning of any other song), and completely skipping the Outside the Wall outro, it punctuates how far removed the "review" is from the movie proper and yet still insists in trying to draw pointless parallels, most likely trying to invoke Stylistic Suck and bashing the movie by making its "review" have no flow or payoff, implying The Wall doesn't have them either.
  • Llama Adventure: As a review/parody, it's poorly researched and poorly thought out. As a musical, it's a pale imitation of the original. As a "tribute" (as Doug has claimed when shilling the album), it does nothing but tear apart the source material before giving a half-hearted "Eh, it's okay" at the end. It's far longer than anyone can tolerate. The video appeals to absolutely no one and nothing but Doug's own ego.
  • Jaycie89: I could easily pick from dozens of problems with this review, but I'll focus on one: Doug cannot write his own parody lyrics to save his life. He has no sense of scansion, he repeats the same point over and over again within a single song, and his rhymes are so lazy that a second-grader could write them (i.e. "same" with "lame"). If he ever wants to write a musical review again, he should find a way to get Brentalfloss on board.
  • SenorCornholio: A bit late to the party as I'd essentially stopped regularly checking out the Nostalgia Critic due to a multitude of reasons, but then I actually decided to check out his The Wall "review" and... well, it looks like he learned nothing from the Hocus Pocus video. Honestly, what is there to say? Immense lack of actual commentary, piss-poor jokes, a parody more shallow than a kiddie pool, a severe lack of understanding of the source material, and generally having no point aside from being a "loving parody" of the original rock opera while, at the same time, requiring you to have watched the movie to even get any of his "jokes." But since this is about moments and not entire videos, I'm gonna have to go with... ah, I know! How about "Waiting for the Point"? Regardless of what the original number is meant to be portrayed as, I highly doubt that turning a hallucination about being a Neo-Nazi (It Makes Sense in Context) into an internet flame war with the chant of "hashtag" is going to help this video's reception in the slightest. There's a difference between modernizing a movie to make sense in the present, and unintentionally dating it to the point where it's another relic of the times. At this point, it's clear that while the original The Wall will still be fondly remembered, this review and its album will ultimately fade into the sands of time where they belong.
• TT 454: The Critic has made plenty of videos about divisive films in the past. Sometimes his reviews are balanced and incorporate both sides of the argument, but other times he picks a side and deliberately twists the truth to present his own arguments as irrefutable. And in my opinion, his review of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker stands as perhaps his most deliberately biased review yet. The review shamelessly panders to the film's haters throughout by making the entire plot of the film look like a soulless Michael Bay-level farce while stereotyping the characters as bumbling idiots. Worse, he decides to make the film's fans look bad by caricaturing them as complaining, bitter nerds who love the prequels and hate The Last Jedi. Now, The Rise of Skywalker is far from perfect and has received a lot of criticism for its excessive fan service (even the people who like the movie can't ignore its negative qualities), but to outright lie about what happens in the film, skip over important plot points and argue that J. J. Abrams created it purely to please The Last Jedi haters is extremely unfair. There are plenty of Star Wars fans who enjoy all three sequels, but this review refuses to acknowledge them and instead resorts to nasty stereotypes. And if that's not bad enough, he also has the titular character of The Mandalorian in it throughout to make snarky comments about how much of an unwatchable mess he thinks the plot is compared to his show, even though that most fans of The Mandalorian know that it's also far from perfect and has its own flaws and a lot of fan service too. Furthermore, the "moral" of the review is to move on from the sequel trilogy and just watch The Mandalorian instead because it's just so good and unites fans rather than divides them. But the review itself is clearly designed to exacerbate the division, so this moral is incredibly hypocritical. The Critic does defend the film a little bit in the review and makes it clear at the end that he doesn't hate it entirely, but the review itself makes the movie look much, much worse than it actually is.

---