Reviews WebVideo / The Nostalgia Critic

I have to agree. Yet, I keep going back, because I do like hearing snarky reviews of my favorite kid's shows. I just wish someone else was doing them. Cool premise, annoying creator. :(

Imagine you took acting classes, quit your dead end job so you can start an online new media review series with a real company gaining real revenue, practiced your voice, practiced singing, practiced comedy, put on a show purely for entertainment purposes, made tons of friends, proposed to your girlfriend, moved into your own house in Illinois with your ALSO engaged brother, kept at it for 3 years, gained a following, attended successful conventions... and then read an online review of your show on TV Tropes about how BAD you are.

The Critic is a very polarizing figure. Why can't the haters see that he is pretending to a character he created when he is on-screen, instead of just playing himself? He is a fan of wacky cartoons, so he models the Critic on those types of characters. If you pan him, you'll surely hate the Looney Tunes, and Animaniacs. If he wasn't good at what he does, this trope page would never be online for this long, nor would it reached as long as it has, full of obvious admiration for him. Yet the FIRST review EVER to be written about him on this page is a NEGATIVE one? Understand that.

I can see that he is pretending to be a character when he is on-screen. That character just happens to be extremely annoying.

Nevermind.

You can make anything seem bad with those lines.

This is why subjective reviews tend to suck.

Except no, he doesn't always do a "high pitched wail", he speaks normally and makes good points like seventy percent of the time. And the Care Bears review? I don't remember any OT Tness other than the first one where he acted out the villain actress getting oral. Watch the My Pet Monster/Commercials Special. No screaming, nothing over the top... you'll even find pretty well acted angst in the latter.

He's thrown his voice three times since beginning his show. Don't tell me wailing isn't a problem. Even when he isn't screaming, he still doesn't have a voice anyone would want to listen to.

^That statement is blatantly false, as there's plenty of people who do enjoy listening to his voice. Therefore, your review is invalid. Have a nice day.

I watch his videos but I can't help but review his review of the movie and I get heavily annoyed by the forced memes. To all of the people who say that he does not wail that much he wails for at least 3 mins per video.

I watch his videos but I can't help but review his review of the movie and I get heavily annoyed by the forced memes. To all of the people who say that he does not wail that much he wails for at least 3 mins per video.

How many reviews have you actually watched? The Top Elevens have no screaming, the Old vs. News have no screaming, Follow That Bird is pure squee, the Animaniacs Tribute he was fanboying the whole time, the only time you'd be right is if you've watched his old, crappy quality videos.

Pretty bad review. Barely any length, hardly elaborates on any points, and doesn't provide any back-up or examples for the claims.

Please consider expanding on or improving it.

^This. The idea that brevity makes anything better is wrong.

I'm not a fan either. His voice gets alll high and shrieking and his shtick is by the end of the review he has done some form of musical or sing-along. Plus he's kinda lost his mind at the end.

Here's your elaboration, Terminus Est ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azrPr02kx5A

@Scardoll: I hope you understand the irony of your reply being only 10 words.

^And? It makes no difference. I'm not trying to make a quality comment, you're trying to make a quality review.

I'm glad to see you actually put some more effort in.

Also, comments like That “Spiders!” guy. That is not funny. And if you thought it was funny it is guaranteed *you* aren’t funny. are guaranteed to cause pissing and moaning because they make you look like an ass. While I appreciate that you have the balls to actually state your opinion, it's not a good idea to insult your potential audience.

Changed the spiders thing. The mods have threatened me with the Banhammer before over crap like this, and I don't want to have to view this site through a proxy. :|

Also: Scardoll: irony still stands. "anything better" lol. Nice bailout attempt, though.

Fact: Plot Summaries and Reviews are not mutually exclusive to each other. Fact 2: You can make any joke sound lame by describing it as lame. The Critic actually does this all the time.

The most informative reviews tend to be objective rather than subjective. And yes, it's possible to make a mostly-objective review, even if most people can't do it.

I can understand why some people wouldn't like the Nostalgia Critic, but I'm a fan. Sure, he's a cheesy goofball of a critic that makes the obvious joke, but he's had some funny moments. (Go watch his latest review - the commercial one. I was giggling like an insane child at that one.)

I agree with the review, he simply reviews bad stuff to get hits or reviews stuff people like and lambastes it to get hits like Sterling from Destructoid does. My old roommate used to listen to the guy for hours and his voice is really annoying. Not to mention his jokes tend to get repetitive and obnoxious after a while...sorta like the movies he reviews. ZING!

Sorry, but other people aren't going to commit media suicide and publicly hate on something that everyone else likes just for you.

0. You are trying to make people NOT watch the Nostalgia Critic. Why are you providing examples of things that only a regular viewer would get? In fact, this would make someone curious on what you are talking about, and watch the Nostalgia Critic!

1. A plot summary is where you detail the plot in a passive voice; Many of the Critic's videos are bashing bad movies, usually skipping over things that are 'essential' to the plot, but overall don't change his opinion.

2. True, but it's something that I don't hate; it introduces me to other reviewers on the site, and helps show off their strengths and weaknesses.

3. There is a difference between acting with purpose, and acting to be funny. Acting with purpose is where he is a great actor but make us actually THINK that the character is truly angry and suicidal from watching this movie, and that's not funny. Acting to be funny is where the character is yelling and screaming and being dramtic over a CHILDREN movie.

4.(You should not put examples IN examples on how he is bad) How would you react if your watching a movie that is famously bad, and you are not at the point where it gets its worst credentials? His "This is not THAT stupi-OH WAIT IT IS" gag is how anyone would react!

5. Eh, I kind of like the SPIDER! guy. It's a cute little joke but is kind of one way in a sense, and I can see how you might dislike him.

6. The Bat Credit Card represents the point where the creators show that they do not take their own material (And thus, the viewers) seriously. The original joke of the Bat Credit Card was kind of over blown, but I think Linkara is mostly to blame for dragging this on for so long.

7. The overly long gags I agree with. Although, I would prefer Rob pinning down the overall horrible way Jeff Goldblum speaks rather than the Critic repeatedly saying how stupid it is. (And Santa Christ is AWESOME :'()

8. Well...YEAH. It helps to be pointing out these incredibly wierd things when we as kids didn't notice it! And even then, please use actual quotes when trying to prove that what he says is stupid.

9. And yet, the writers for the movie put in that "obvious" stupidity to begin with, and barely anyone would remember that. Just because soemthing is obvious to YOU does not mean it's that obvious to others.

10. He does not say that. You are mixing that up with the Spider-man review...unless you are thinking of Jeff Goldblums "Sara A Hah" line.

11. Well, if you think you are so smart enough to 'get' the humor of how bad it is, then why don't you rent the DVD and spend a night with your friends laughing at it? I mean, the whole point of the Nostalgia Critic is to show us bad movies and to comment on WHY it is bad.

1: His “reviews” are actually plot summaries. - So is every other review online not made by a professional critic.

2: There is a stupid, pointless cameo in every episode. - Some people find cameos funny.

3: Lame Jokes include: Badly acting during his opening catchphrase how depressed/angry/suicidal this week’s movie has made him. - That's his style of humor, and the personality of the character he plays.

“Well this movie just can’t get any stupider!” cut to stupidity. - It's Tempting Fate, and some people find that funny.

That “Spiders!” guy. - You'd get it if you watched the Lost In Space movie. That's his parody of the villain. He's a recurring character who first appeared in the review of said movie.

The Bat Credit Card. - Established his style of humor, is a big hit at cons, and it shows up a lot because human beings love repetition.

A tonne of overly long gags. Watch Rob’s Jeff Goldblum impersonation or the Santa Christ nonsense in Kickassia. - They are long because Doug likes that style of humor.

4: Stating the obvious: Care Bears: a completely arbitrary star thing appears, and Doug is like “wtf. That is like totally random! Did the writers just think “let’s be stupid here?!?”" - His reaction may be a bit much, but part of the reason people like watching him is because he reflects inner thoughts the audience may not have the guts to say out loud, or laugh at how he's overreacting.

Lost World: Jeff’s weird daughter asks him to ground her and be more parent-like. Doug is all like “What kind of kid would do that?” - Yes. What kind of kid WOULD do that? It goes against what you would normally think a little kid would complain about. Does this even need to be explained? If you were a kid, would YOU complain that your parents don't torture you by shutting you up in your room?

Lost World, again: Woman lets out a completely ridiculous scream Doug is like “What a ridiculous scream, lol!” - Yes. He mimics that because he thinks it sounds weird. It may not have anything to do with the quality of the film, but if you were watching the film, would you think that inside? I would.

I already know these things. I can see them on my screen. A talented reviewer can use movie stupidity for humour. Doug just reiterates why it’s stupid. And you should have already figured out why that is before his voice cuts in. - You'd be right at home at Busy Street.

What kind of humor DO you like? In fact, why don't you make a video review of a bad film and show us how it's really done!

^ Oh no. Please don't tell me you just did that. Please don't say you actually went Lets See YOU Do Better on the original reviewer.

I happen to disagree with most of what he said, and I find the Critic to be genuinely funny most of the time (the advertisement specials didn't do anything for me, because as a German I obviously have never seen the ads he makes fun of, and focusing on both the ads and the Critic's comments is way too much work). But that phrase is fanboy speech and does not belong here. You were well on your way to give sensible answers to most of the OP's complaints - and then in the last sentence, you shoot yourself in the foot with one of the most tired, overused and wrong-headed anti-criticism statements ever invented.

The guy is just reviewing the critic and all the fanboys come out of the woodwork...geez. Just because he doesn't like the show and he offers his opinion doesn't mean you have to try and nail him to the wall with your recycled arguments.

People are hardly nailing the guy, is asking questions and bringing up concerns with someone's argument aggressive or harsh in any way?

This is actually one of the tamer review sections, probably because Doug has a really mild fanbase compared to others.

These days, people seem to expect to be able to express their opinions without having to hear other peoples' opinions about themselves.

Look, there's just something that you have to accept, spambot.

People tend to find the NC's actions funny. It's not really so much what he does as it is the way he does it.

Errm where did spambot say that he doesn't accept it? He just said his opinion so what's the big deal? I don't find The Nostalgia Critic funny either (mainly because I don't find adults who act like hyperactive manchilds funny) and groaned when he freaked out at that stupid Bat Credit Card crap. The fans should really just relax and accept different opinions.

I read the first sentence (fragment), "Awful," and immediately knew that this was review was going to be bothersome. Yes, I know that some people don't like the Nostalgia Critic, but I would hardly call him "awful." But whatever.

Hey Spambot, why'd you pull your video? I wanted to see your better worded argument, was it getting too much negative attention?

Agreed with the review, mostly. I don't find his reviews particularly insightful either, and his behaviour nauseating to watch. I don't care if it's on purpose and in-character, I still don't like it.

That being said, I do like some of his videos, such as his lists and Old vs. New videos, but not his movie reviews.

And for the Fan Dumb commenting here: So someone posted a review saying he doesn't like the show? Well that's his opinion, get over it, it shouldn't affect yours.

Yes, but "that's your opinion" isn't a valid rejoinder. The fact is that many of his critiques are either inaccurate from the start or have been addressed and changed. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Moreover, did you just say that we shouldn't review a review of a review show?

No, there's nothing wrong with that, and some of his critiques (like the bit about plot summaries which many web original reviews indeed are) were wrong, but others like not liking the Critic's jokes, acting, or his observations are opinion.

Where did I say that? I just said you shouldn't think it's The End Of The World As We Know It when someone has a different opinion.

I disagree higly. I find his jokes hilarious, and most of the gags you mentioned aren't even used that much. And he might as well go over the plot to give us an idea of what the movie's like, and what makes it bad or good.

I dissagree about the plot summary thing. If you are gonna critisize what's wrong about what's happening in the movie, you should show what's happening in the movie. It'S different style of a review, but it is a review.

Gotta love these pathetic manchildren trying to defend their deity. I do like some of NC's videos, but you have to admit the original criticisms still stand: he has an obnoxious voice even to many fans, his reviews are often less reviews and more unrelated jokes (Linkara does those non sequitur jokes much better), and he tends to be extremely clueless.

^Thank you Peryton for your insightful summation of people who share different view than you do.

Has anyone here seen his NC editorals? They seem to be analytical and he even points out he's asking around for other's opinions in the Loki vid. This review was from two years ago, and I do think he has improved a quite a bit.

You mean the editorials where he is basically either quoting other people or making asinine points?

Like, only the Twilight one brings something new to the table.

I feel like you have an opinion on the Nostalgia Critic but I can't quite figure out if it's positive or negative, maybe you need to be a little less subtle in your adjective choice

If the "have an opinion question" was directed at me, I watched some of his older eps, dropped after the Signs one, and started watching the post reboot ones. It was better than the stuff that got me to quit (The Signs video was reusing the "I'm a bad raptor" joke from JP 2 except as a running gag). To me, his editorials are genuinely interesting.

Sorry I didn't mean to imply it was you =D I was trying to apply Peryton might be being a little extreme and aggressive with his opinion stating.

I'm actually much more a fan of NC's reviews than his editorials, I feel like a lot of them miss the point or don't contain particularly insightful new ideas. His first one was the worst for that (Is Twilight the worst thing ever?) because most people realise that Twilight isn't the Serbian Film of films and say that sort of thing as hyperbole, but he also didn't really touch on the thematic points that bother some people more seriously than a film not being particularly good. They've been better as they've gone on, the parody one provided some information a lot of people wouldn't know with the recap of the history and parody, and his conclusion wasn't what you'd immediately think from the title. Loki wasn't quite as good because I think Loki did already have a lot of popularity when Thor was released and the reason it wasn't more widely noticed was simply because Thor wasn't super successful, and a lot of his arguments were based on the idea of what changed between Thor and the Avengers.

But they are improving, I just don't think they're quite there yet (and I am essentially agreeing with Peryton here, I just think if you want to really engage in a discussion with someone, using pretty extreme language for what is still essentially just your opinion, can stifle it a bit)

I advise mostly the latter pre-reboot episodes, where he went from a ranting childish You Tube commenter to a more unique style. In the reboot, he is trying to sound smarter but 1) his points are blatant parroting and bring nothing sincerely new, and 2) he is blatantly doing this to "stay hip" rather than sincere intellectual discourse.

which parts are "blatant parroting" and trying to stay hip? I mean there was some stuff with Pearl Harbor where he said the same stuff my 10th grade history teacher said, but I don't know about parroting.

The parts of "Why Is Loki So Hot" that weren't sexist or homophobic were cribbed from the Chick's analyzing of why girls enjoy woobies and bad boys. Plus Harlem Shake jokes don't get better when you lampshade how sucky they are.

@fenrisulfur: His points on Romeo and Juliet are basically a staple of literary interpretation, the director himself of Where The Wild Things are said what the NC said years before, his comments on Seinfeld were literally copy-pasted from the forums, and do I even need to say where the Loki and "Video Games are Art" things came from?

When it comes to Romeo and Juliet...actually those weren't the points Shakespeare scholars I know like to point out (they play it up as a satire on teenagers). I enjoyed that vid partially because it wasn't just that same thing I've heard over and over. As for Seinfeld and the wild things, I haven't been able to find the forum or the interview. In interviews I've seen with Spike Jonze, he mostly just said the movie was a movie for adults about what it feels like to be a kid, and that's so general I'm not sure how I could tell the difference from a member of the audience saying it vs the director. I do know he makes the comments about Louie being the real "show about nothing" in his favorite shows vid, however.

It may be either just using older material in a different format, or even parroting, but I can't see how blatant it is.

"The guy is just reviewing the critic and all the fanboys come out of the woodwork...geez. Just because he doesn't like the show and he offers his opinion doesn't mean you have to try and nail him to the wall with your recycled arguments."

"And for the Fan Dumb commenting here: So someone posted a review saying he doesn't like the show? Well that's his opinion, get over it, it shouldn't affect yours."

"Gotta love these pathetic manchildren trying to defend their deity."

So let me see if I understand this correctly:

Criticizing a web video you don't like: Just stating your opinion. No need to get upset over it.

Criticizing a review you don't like: Pathetic, idiotic, childish, disgusting idol-worship.

Criticizing a comment you don't like: Valiantly defending the rights of others to state their opinions.

Welcome to the review section, Ading.

Hey Tom With No Numbers, he did talk at the end about the thematic elements of Twillight if you actually watch the whole thing.