I'm sad that lesser critics have accumulated one grillion reviews because they are hated, but SF Debris
doesn't have any at all despite being loved. So... here I go.
I prefer to start off with criticisms, but I'm having trouble conjuring any up. I think the most important one is simply that he tends to come up with what, to him, seem better possible scenarios in his head and proffer them as alternatives to scenes or moments he doesn't like, sometimes to the point of ignoring what would have made them difficult or impossible, or how he might have had more time than the production staff. Also, his humor isn't always as politically-correct as I'd prefer, and I hate it any time a critic tries to add an "It's okay because she's hot!" justification. (To his credit, he has the humility to mock himself for doing it.)
But, aside from that, I'd go so far as to call him my ideal critic. His tastes are very broad, like mine, so he rarely hates on something out of half-informed distaste for the unfamiliar. More than his tastes, though what drew me in was his enlightened perspective. Whenever he hates on something, he likes to remind the viewer that tastes are subjective, and liking something he doesn't like doesn't make you a bad person, and whenever he hates it he says why
, rather than just ranting about how much it sucks. It's telling that I still can't figure out his political/religious/etc. views despite having watched so much of his show.
Nothing gets run over with a Bias Steamroller
. When he sees something that does work in an episode or film he otherwise doesn't care for, he's quick to note and praise it. When he offers criticism, he tries to make it constructive, proposing possible alternatives. He even notes that different films have to be judged by different metrics based on what they set out to achieve, rather than holding every film to the same standard. His review of Wall-E
is fair to the subject matter without condescending to it.
But, Chuck's an entertainer, not just a critic, and as an entertainer he's funny as h@#$. Giving examples would only ruin the surprise, plus I'm running out of words.
He calls himself a douchebag, but he's being unfair. Chuck's a good critic, a funny entertainer, and taken purely on his ability to treat people who disagree with him right, a decent human being.