TV Tropes Org
site search

A review is one person's opinion. TV Tropes doesn't have an opinion. The person who signed the review does.

sort by: type:
correct subject add a review about reviews
One of the most relevant analysis of pop culture ever made
What strikes me is not how she finds the main problems and assets of a show/movie and then follows those like a hounddog makes an enjoyable review of it. It isn't how clever and hilarious her reactions can be and the strong impact that her hilarious nonsensical humor can make when showing the cons from the art evolution since the 80s.

What I love is how each of the characters is hilarious and deserves to be here, mostly during the Dark Nella thingy. Nella the cute, excited fangirl with no self-confidence reminds each one of us of our shames and obsessions and how they are acceptable and should be embraced, The Chick shows us the danger of being obsessed with self-esteem, a cerebral outlook and reputation. Elisa Hansen is a wonderful, underestimated actress who can portray the look-obsessed, ageist and sexist side of society as the Makeover Fairy, as well as share her enthusiasm and realism about the new vampire craze as the Maven Of The Eventide. Her Dr. Tease is sometimes wonderfully off, in a way that represents some modern Americans's hubris and fantasm-fueled routine in a hilarious, but delightfully creepy way.

All in all, just wonderful. Beware of creepy humor ! Also, she might conquer, if not the world, at least North America someday soon.
  # comments: 0
flag for mods
Lord of the Rings-or "We must do Research"
I have been a longtime watcher of her vids, but I don't know if I'd call myself a fan. I really enjoyed her "Dark Nella Saga," which actually was one of a few webshows to actually maintain a plot. I also did like her discussion of Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game. It was a thoughtful and well planned piece.

Now there's something new on the horizon, I've seen it in a few of her vids previously but not this heavily. In her (now) most recent video Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, she only does a partial discussion on the film and book. Here's the thing: If she wanted to discuss a film, she needs more of a focus. We have a brief discussion on the history of the film, and that's fine, but she talks about LOTR as if it was the only successful fantasy franchise, we don't get a mention of Harry Potter, or smaller but very successful franchises like Charmed or Buffy. She then discusses the genre of Fantasy and says she doesn't get the comparison of fantasy and sci fi, stating fantasy is all history based and sci fi is all future based. Okay... but what about urban fantasy, fantastic realism, steampunk, or alternate history? Lastly, she starts making comments about how the film relates to the book.

Fine, that's her prerogative as a critic, but when she says she doesn't understand why Elrond looks old, I would like to point out, that is explained in the book. The same books she just mentioned reading. In all of these instances, we have one major issue: It's a half done review. Just googling "Successful fantasy film franchises" can tell you that Harry Potter and LOTR were produced at the same time, and the HP franchise has grossed and netted far more than LOTR. Thus her statement that LOTR is the reason people think Fantasy is profitable now is a very shaky one. She could just google "Fantasy and Sci Fi" and she would have the entire theory of speculative fiction explaining why they are lumped together. Google or Tvtropes could tell her that all fantasy isn't history or sci fi is futurism.

Long story short, If all her LOTR videos have this level of research/effort, I probably pass her vids over for a better researched web show, like Brows Held High or SF Debris. I can't entertain arguments that lack the support of basic research. I think she could be truly great, but she needs to take some more time in making her episodes.
  # comments: 9
flag for mods
Usual Attempt At 'Nostalgia' Humor
Lindsey Ellis, better known as 'The Nostalgia Chick,' strikes again by continuing her trend of pandering to fans with ill-conceived humor.

Ellis recently critiqued fictional Disney titles and sequels in a parody of actual Disney sequel DTV releases. While these films are generally derided as terrible, they are in fact appreciated by a significant subset of Disney fans and acknowledged as having merits on this very wiki. This demonstrates a poor understanding of Disney and its fandom from Ellis, which is an all too common issue in her critiques.

One such fictional film was "Disney's Anne Frank," as discussed on this page. The jokes on the film were disrespectful and in poor taste, which is the same type of humor exercised here.

All-in-all, watch out for her future reviews. She won't be getting any better.
  # comments: 17
flag for mods
In Defense
The Nostalgia Chick is a very individualistic presenter with her own particular style. Her comedy is more sarcastic and her reviews more analytical than most other presenters on the site of That Guy With The Glasses. This sets her apart in a positive way. Some of the Channel Awesome presenters are merely trying to imitate the Nostalgia Critic without actually being funny, interesting or memorable. Others have found their own particular and genuinely entertaining and interesting style. The Nostalgia Chick is one of them. Whether you like her style is a matter of personal taste, but at least she does research about her topics and only her pseudonym resembles the Nostalgia Critic. Her reviews go beyond the usual "that scene was cool, just because" opinions of MANY Internet reviewers. And compared with a lot of her rivals she at least remains critical about her subject matter, without pandering off into the "I loved this film as a child and therefore I cannot say anything negative about this" territory. Even as a Disney fan, I'm glad that at least SOMEBODY dares to criticize the company and its output with good and solid argumentations. There are already millions of people who simply worship anything by Disney, simply because they are easily pleased by any cute, bland, routinical Disney product and cannot look any further than their own personal infantile nostalgia.

  # comments: 5
flag for mods
Okay.
Actually, the whole reason why I was watching her was because I wanted to see the characterization tropes. I didn't care too much about the reviewing thing. I know, it's a stupid reason to watch someone- but each to their own, right?

When I watched her review of Pocahontas, I was just pissed. That witch just snarked at a CLASSIC. I was all but ready to flame her- until I rewatched the video again. That was when I calmly considered her arguments and actually AGREED with them.

At first, when you see a video of hers, she just seems like the stereotypically cynical critic, the one who's bent on deconstructing anything that has only even an ounce of idealism. But when you get over the initial disgust and consider her analysis, you find that she's actually talking sense.

Well, by 'you', I'm actually meaning 'me'. But whatever.

The jokes are okay. They're nothing too funny. I appreciate her sarcasm, but I couldn't care too much. I find that her analytic criticism of old classics is actually her strongest point. Nella and that vampire chick (forgot her name), her buddies, are HUGE assets to the show; they represent the idealistic fans of Disney/chick flicks. They make me feel as if I'm not the only one who thinks the Chick's being a bit too mean at times.

That, right there, shows that the Nostalgia Chick isn't considering only her opinions; she's also considering other people's as well. If that isn't human, then I don't know what it is.

Her newest style of discussing tropes is okay. As long as she keeps on feeding us her strong, well-justified examples and reasons, I'm okay with basically anything she criticizes. Not only does she TELL it like it is, she also SHOWS it like it is. And you can't ask for anything more than that either.

So the Chick's a-OKAY in my book.
  # comments: 5
flag for mods
Typical, Misguided 'Nostalgia' Humor
I had previously already written a review for this 'work' of fiction, but it was apparently removed despite much discussion in favor of my perspective. I will now review the work again.

Both the Nostalgia Critic and Nostalgia Chick seem to have a habit of poorly reviewing works with little to no understanding of that works intention or context. They focus on one element and overly criticize it not matter how inaccurate or unfair this criticism is.

The Nostalgia Chick's "Disney's Anne Frank" is no different. It's intention was to criticize Disney's past efforts towards poor sequels to their classics as well as whitewashed, simplified tales of historical events. However, she misses the point of how and why those Disney films failed in favor of the lowest common denominator of humor that offends.

This page itself is indicative of the mentality that comes with comedic stylings that focus around dismissing the validity of interpretations in favor of outright mocking of mass murder and the tragic loss of a young girl's life. Ellis and her fans have lost sight of the true critique of nostalgic films and fallen into exactly the same errors that arose when they were made.
  # comments: 6
flag for mods
back to article
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy