Reviews: Bad Movie Beatdown

A Review of a Review Show.

We can do reviews of reviewers? Well isn't THAT a tad redundant...

Anyway, on Film Brain. There's another review about him on here that's all like, "RAH RAH RAH HE'S A BULLY!" Well, yeah, guy has a point. He does tend to be really harsh on movies. But wasn't that the point? Bad Movie BEATDOWN? Each to their own, I guess.

Now, without being hypocritical, Film Brain is one of the many reviewers on TGWTG that does the whole Accentuate the Negative thing, so his subject matter is usually critically mauled films that really need to be beaten down. He does this in a style similar to the NC, which is going along and mocking the movie's flaws as they mount, only Film Brain does this more frequently and with far more sarcasm.

He's got a great sarcastic sense of humour and the usual snark persona of a TGWTG reviewer, but he's really good when it comes to being giddy or excited about something, as seen in Kickassia and Suburban Knights. That doesn't happen a lot on his own show, which is a shame, really, but it's Bad Movie Beatdown not Good Movie Discussion.

Does he have flaws? Well, yes. For one, he has a tendency to drag his words out at the ends of his sentences which can get rather irritating at times, sort of similar to the way Emily Deschanel does as Bones. Also, he shrugs his shoulder a lot, but he's said he'll work on trying to stop that, so fingers crossed. I've also seen many note that his opinions reflect IMDB a lot, which is also true, but the bad films he covers usually have a universally bad reputation anyway, so it's hardly surprising that his opinions would agree with many others.

So is he all that bad? No. Is he a bully? Hell no. But you're all entitled to your own opinion of him, so please don't kill me for writing this.

Point, sneer, toss hair, repeat

A sign of a bad critic is unintentionally making a bad thing look good; when the critic is such an insincere bully that you feel a protective twinge toward the crap in question.

Film Brain is one of those peripheral TGWTG contributors who is just there. Like all internet comedians, he exploits every flaw, big or small, for comedy. So far so good. The problem is that Matthew Buck doesn't have any jokes. His shtick remains the same. No smiling, no content; just a haughty, arrogant voice and a scowl. And a lot of nodding. Now, this second part has always puzzled me. Why does Matt always nod at the end of every punchline? Stay with me here: I'm exercising more analysis than Film Brain ever does. The fact that every joke is delivered in the same sarcastic monotone could be evidence of Film Brain's essential inexperience and lack of confidence in front of the camera. Judging from vlogs, he's a mild-mannered nerdy guy who got into the reviewer game by aping the angry style of others. Hence, the head jerk as punctuation. I'm tempted to mail him a drum set.

It doesn't help that he wags his finger at a lot of 'stupid' things so benign that they barely warrant a quip — let alone eyerolling and and unremitting head-banging. He gets angry at characters being thrown backward by a bomb blast, for christ's sake. But hey, reviews don't write themselves.

Do I even need to talk about how SUYMBOLISM!!!1 has become Film Brain's crutch? This kid has obviously not watched The Simpsons. OK, so it was funny once. Now he pulls it out whenever anything vaguely symbolic happens. You'd think that all symbolism is nothing but pretentious wanking by directors. In truth, he's just way too over-reliant on that goofy fist-pump.

You don't laugh at Film Brain's rage; you wonder what he's getting so worked up about. If his jokes are like Pavlovian tests, and he doesn't even try to be invested in his material, how is this a good reviewer?