Agreed!
In fact, I wish the Nostalgia Critic or Cinema Snob could re-review many of Phelous' videos. It's almost a waste of potential. This will probably anger many readers but the same goes for Obscurist Lupa In My Opinion.
I respectfully disagree, Phelous has been one of my preferred reviewers. His style may be grating or stale to some, but compared to loud and angry/shrieky persona's like the Nostalgia Critic and AVGN, for example, Phelous's laid-back sarcastic style offers a decent contrast to the wacky hijinks of his fellow reviewers. Alot of this may be a question of taste, I enjoy Phelan's work, which alot of it is in the delivery, in another reviewer's hands his stuff would be far less amusing.
Also I disagree on some of your other points, sure his material lately has been based on various christmas movies, tv shows and cartoon specials, but his original shtick was always shitty horror movies, which he is still doing. I see no problem mixing up the formula, his reviews of Mario Bros Super Show, Sonic's Christmas Special and Ghostbusters lent away from he'd normally do and made for a refreshing change, that and were pretty hilarious in their own right. Not to mention his numerous videos on the Ninja Turtle franchise, which has almost become his second main reviewing subject after horror movies and Silent Hill. Speaking of, you mentioned a lack of informative research, yet his TMNT and Silent Hill reviews especially are brimming with obvious knowledge of the subject matter which he isn't shy of showing off.
Again, it's likely all in the taste, I don't watch guys like Paw, Todd in the Shadows, Angry Joe to name a few simply because they don't appeal to me. Give me Phelous, Spoony and Yahtzee any day. And his Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde review is easily one of my favourites.
Personally, I don't think you can really compare Spoony to Phelous either (I'll take Spoony over Phelous).
each and every reviewer are pretty different, even ones which are meant to be similar, like the Nostalgia Critic and the Nostalgia Chick. Both are meant to be essentially the same yet provide completely different takes on reviewing. Critic has comedy as his main goal, mocking what he can as he goes through the movie/tv show, getting worked up the further he goes. Chick, on the other hand, takes things far more seriously, while still amusing, she quite obviously puts the review first before everything else, actually going immensely in-depth on all her videos (and I think I personally prefer her reviews to Doug's). So no, comparing reviewers means very little, much in the same way as trying to compare RoboCop 2 to Alice in Wonderland.
each and every reviewer are pretty different, even ones which are meant to be similar, like the Nostalgia Critic and the Nostalgia Chick. Both are meant to be essentially the same yet provide completely different takes on reviewing. Critic has comedy as his main goal, mocking what he can as he goes through the movie/tv show, getting worked up the further he goes. Chick, on the other hand, takes things far more seriously, while still amusing, she quite obviously puts the review first before everything else, actually going immensely in-depth on all her videos (and I think I personally prefer her reviews to Doug's). So no, comparing reviewers means very little, much in the same way as trying to compare RoboCop 2 to Alice in Wonderland.
don't know why it posted my response twice, fix?
Of course, Phelous' fans will like him. You can't argue over taste.
I agree with "son" that Phelous' videos would benefit from being re-reviewed by more qualified presenters. I often see good observations and occasionally even good jokes, but they are seldom used well. It's interesting that you bring up Obscurus Lupa. Phelous and her have a relationship and it's easy to see what attracts them to each other, because their style of comedy is more or less the same (and thus shares many of the same problems I mentioned before).
I agree with "threeballs" that both the Nostalgia Critic as AVGN can sound equally unpleasant to the ears at times. Yet, they do not sound grating all the time, while Phelous does, due to his lack of intonation. I agree he's more laidback, but to me it's more as if he just doesn't care enough about his own videos to put more effort in them. Occasionally he does provide more research filled videos, but most of the time it's just nothing else but nonsensical comedy. Which would be fine, as I wrote before, if it actually were funny material! It's true that every reviewer has his own style, but in Phelous' case there's really not much to him. And of course I'll compare him to other reviewers, because some of them uses similar styles and suffer from similar budget problems, but are much, much better than Phelous ever will be. If Phelous has his fans its either because they aren't aware there are better reviewers around (which is not their fault) or because their quality standards are pretty low (which is again a matter of taste).
As a fan of Phelous, I won't dispute that his style will only appeal to a certain niche, but I guess what you consider "putting in effort", I consider "trying too hard". While I love the Nostalgia Critic and the AVGN, I sometimes get the feeling that their self-esteem is dependent on how many people they can make laugh. As a result, their acting is constantly over-the-top and some of the jokes seem telegraphed, for lack of a better word.
With Phelous, you get the sense that he's comfortable enough with himself that he feels all he has to do is just act goofy rather than consciously ham it up to a great degree. When I watch most scripted review shows, I know I'm watching a scripted review show. I don't when I watch Phelous. He feels more natural, for better or worse.
Also, two more points.
1."Yes, they are supposed to look fake and stupid, but self-mockery doesn't clear you from the obvious fact that your own stuff is hardly any better…" It does to me, as it shows he's self-aware. I would rather watch someone who doesn't feel the need to impress people with their formula or special effects than someone who just expects the audience to pretend that their special effects are actually good or that screaming and sketches with rather obvious punchlines are necessarily funny.
2. I resent the statement that I only like the guy because I don't know any better or I have "low standards". It comes across as mean-spirited in itself, and condescending.
agreed, Robotnik. NC and AVGN especially have been upping the ante lately, trying to be as big and as best as they can, for better or worse. As a fan of these guys, I have noticed a weird drop in the natural feeling they give off, by this I mean take an AVGN episode from around 2009, during his heyday as he churned out about 2 episodes a month, and compare it to his more recent reviews, notice there is a very distinct difference. You can almost feel how hard he's trying to give the audience what they want, trying to stay in character and keep the Nerd the way he was, but it comes across as being very forced and 'acted' I'm afraid to say.
Phelous, on the other hand, while he does have the occasional loud rant mostly keeps his cool, and indeed I also resent the implication that he's more lowbrow simply because of his deadpan style, rather he's not attempting to be radical or outrageous to pull in more hits and attention as alot of other reviewers have been as of late.
Everytime I critique some of the reviewers on the site the argument is that "well the're supposed to be more serious than the Nostalgia Critic, et al". So please don't get me wrong, I don't have an issue with serious or dead pan reviews.
Phelous, in my opinion, comes off as being unnatural more than anything. Despite the fact that he's been doing this for years he doesn't really know what performance to give.
"threepoints" raises a good point that the Nostalgia Critic and AVGN can sound a bit forced and less "natural" nowadays. This is, of course, a result of their more professionalistic approach as time went on. In both cases they have reached such a wide international audience by now that it becomes difficult to voice their actual opinions or do something outrageously different, without creating a flame war among their viewers. You notice this with any artist that rises from underground to the mainstream. In the beginning they just did their videos for fun and kept everything simple. As their audience grew their technical knowledge grew too. The projects became more ambitious and professional, intended to keep this huge audience plugged in. The videos look less amateurish and everything is carefully written out. This explains why everything feels more scripted than before. You especially notice this whenever the actors around Doug Walker speak their lines. Each one of them is clearly written by no-one but himself.
Phelous just does his own thing. This can be an admirable virtue, but also the clearest indication that his stuff just doesn't catch on with the general public. Therefore he just doesn't seem to care. He knows he'll never outgrow his niche and will never become as popular as the Nostalgia Critic did. He has a small amount of fans and seems content with playing to that audience rather than winning a larger one. Whether he feels comfortable with this is difficult to answer. You notice that Doug Walker has a need to be preachy (his editorials, f.e.) and really tries to get a "message" or general consensus about divisive topics across. Phelous has no need for this. Yes, this can be seen as admirable, but at the same time this lack of ambition also makes me wonder whether he is really proud of his work? His self-mockery sounds more as an excuse for the lack of focus or quality. In that thought process I wonder why he keeps making stuff he doesn't take too seriously, while with a bit more effort he could make things that actually are more balanced, memorable and even enjoyable. I mean why are you making intentionally bad stuff while there's already so much forgettable reviewers around? Pretentiousness can be irritating, but lack of pretension is equally bad.
Also: yes, Doug Walker can be extremely hammy, but Phelous' taste for making goofy faces and equally redundant jokes on the level of a five year-old are just as narmy.
Leave a Comment:
The problem with Phelous' work in 4 points
1) His sarcastic jokes are always delivered while speaking in a slow, whiny, monotone voice. This might be funny a few times, but when it's basically part of your gimmick it quickly becomes annoying. In the beginning The Cinema Snob had the same problem. Much of his early reviews had him acting like a pissed off prick bitching in the same old whiny voice. In later reviews this persona evolved into an enjoyable snarky reviewer who isn't angry all of the time. Phelous never underwent any evolution like this.
2) Phelous often adds a lot of unfunny filler material, usually involving bathroom comedy (belches, farts,...) or making silly faces. This makes him appear very childish, rather than amusing. Even when his observations have a funny point the jokes still fall flat because there's no variety in intonation, no timing and everything is repeated to the point of overkill!
3) Most of the series and films in his reviews deserve being ridiculed. However, Phelous is doing nothing else besides poking fun at stuff in a very waspish, mean-spirited way. He often sounds just like a playground bully ridiculing other children to avoid being picked upon himself. And in his case this fear would be understandable. Phelous' videos aren't exactly quality entertainment. Indeed, he himself seems to realize this, as you often hear him mocking his own stuff. A typical video consists of him ranting in front of the camera, sometimes adding a bad greenscreen or sound effect. Yes, they are supposed to look fake and stupid, but self-mockery doesn't clear you from the obvious fact that your own stuff is hardly any better...
4) There's hardly anything that sets him apart. He just reviews random stuff, not tied to a specific genre. Phelous has no exclusive persona, unlike the Cinema Snob, the Angry Video Game Nerd, Diamanda Hagan or Todd in the Shadows, for instance. Also, he just tries to be funny. Yes, you don't have to add any informative research about the videos you review, but if you have nothing else to offer but comedy you may better hope that your stuff is actually funny! Furthermore: his videos lack variation. If you've seen one of them , then you've seen them all. Even the weakest Nostalgia Critic videos, for example, still have surprises, which make you curious enough to return each week. All these flaws makes Phelous' work instantly forgettable.