Follow TV Tropes


Dethroning Moment / The Nostalgia Critic

Go To

He remembers it so we don't have to. But these moments makes us wish he would forget about them too.

Keep in mind:

  • Sign your entries.
  • One moment per work to a troper; if multiple entries for the same work are signed to the same troper, the more recent one(s) will be cut. For subpages that cover multiple works, it's permissible for one troper to have entries for more than one work.
  • Moments only, no "just everything he said", "the entire episode", or "this entire work," entries.
  • Advertisement:
  • No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
  • No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
  • Explain why it's a invoked Dethroning Moment of Suck.
  • No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
  • Please no He Panned It, Now He Sucks!. Someone having a different opinion than you or a small snarky jab towards a franchise you like is not nearly a good enough justification for something being seen as stupid or offensive.
  • Creator's works only. No personal experiences or moments on the creators themselves.

  • Kevin Klawitter: In his reviews of the Mortal Kombat movies, he completely ignores two important subplots in the first movie. Now, this might seem reasonable if it were simply for brevity's sake, but then he claims their absence to be plot holes. One of these subplots involves Shang Tsung killing Liu Kang's little brother. This is the reason Liu Kang enters the tournament; he wants revenge. This plot point is made incredibly obvious by the second act, and even comes back in the end. But why does the Critic say he entered the tournament? "Because he's... Asian". There's no way the critic could not have known Liu Kang's motives, but yet, he still ignored them so he could make a race-based joke.
    • PutYaGunsOn: While I'm not necessarily offended at any of the Critic's race-related humor, this one just felt cheap and thrown in there. But that pales in comparison to his cringeworthy joke about Pat Morita as Santa in Babes in Toyland. All I could see was "lol let's call him Santa Craus and name the reindeer after Chinese food lol cus he's um... Asian". I don't feel attacked by his jokes at all, it's more about annoyance at the fact that his Asian-related humor at the time hadn't really evolved much past "14-year-old who thinks it's funny to call all Asian people Jackie Chan". His recent Yogi Bear review (released years after these reviews) certainly doesn't help his case.(As Yogi and Boo Boo drag a train of picnic tables with a dog on it) "We're eating the dog too! Korean food tonight!" While I don't think Doug is necessarily a racist or hateful towards East Asians, I'm convinced he still sees us as socially acceptable targets for a cheap laugh.
  • Advertisement:
  • Vader999: I was rather surprised no one as of yet mentioned his review of Pokémon: The First Movie. Especially the part where, instead of mentioning Mewtwo's real motivation, he claims the movie never gave him one. It did: Mewtwo resented being a human-made clone Pokemon without a clear purpose for existing and hated seeing Pokemon treated like pets or experiments by humans.
  • JayJuJayMeMan: Doug Walker always says adaptations should stand on their own, but that still doesn't justify his review of Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. He blatantly ignores the fact that Robotnik's minions were all enemies Sonic fought in the games. He also ignores several other elements from the games that were imitated in the show, several of which are pretty much foregone conclusions for anybody who's ever been near the games. Perhaps he just hasn't played the games, but he should have at least done the research on them beforehand. Not liking the show is fine, but facts need to be kept straight.
  • Advertisement:
  • WillieManga: To make two things clear, I hate Bio-Dome and for the most part, I like Critic's review of it. But one thing that annoyed me is that he continually misnamed Bud, calling him Squirrel. I understand Squirrel is a nickname, but the characters call him Bud more often. With that, you'd think he would call him Bud and make things less confusing. Come on, dude!
  • Erin582: While I still have a soft spot in my heart for The Nostalgia Critic and still gravitate towards his older reviews, I am dismayed by the more mean-spirited approach he has taken in his revived series (and if the failure of Demo Reel had anything to do with this, I don't know but I can and do sympathize if true.) That being said though, while I do see that the "everyone is entitled to my opinion" edge he has taken in his newer reviews is alienating, I've come to see that he's always been like that. Case in point, his "Top 11 Scariest Performances" from 2010 had brought up Hannibal Lecter as one of his choices and included scenes from Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon to support this. Yet, when he then told fans about them questioning him as to why he didn't include Hannibal, in his reasoning he called both the film and its fans stupid and claimed his opinion was "right" without any hint of joking or irony in his voice.
  • LLSmoothJ: I usually like watching the Critic's reviews and I never thought I'd find myself adding a moment, but his Airborne review left a bitter taste in my mouth. Particularly his constant criticism of Mitchell for daring to avoid physical confrontation. Because a real man always fights, no matter how more effective talking it out like civilized people could be.
  • Eegah: Jaws: The Revenge: The joke about Michael's daughter asking about sex, given that Judith Barsi would be murdered before being old enough to learn about it herself.
  • SparkyYoungUpstart: His review of Cop and a Half started out fine enough, and I knew he was going to make a joke about how the situation (a little kid refusing to give information on a crime unless he's allowed to be a cop), but his response? A dramatization in which the kid gets beaten by a cop. Spurts of blood can be seen coming from offscreen. That's right, in a show where he normally gets pissed off at movies for being harmful to children, he actually makes a joke about child abuse so that he can force in a The Lord of the Rings reference. I couldn't even watch the rest of the review after that.
  • eneuman96: Though his post-revival episodes have quite the Broken Base, my least favorite moment of the show overall is from a pre-cancellation episode: The Avengers (1998). It starts out with the NC under the impression that he's about to review the (unreleased at the time of the review) superhero movie. When it turns out to be an entirely different movie of the same name, he gives three of the most ear-bleedingly piercing Big Nos in history in rapid succession, and they are seriously painful to listen to. There were plenty of funnier ways he could have reacted to that sort of news, and his reaction really doesn't help the common misconception that his comedy is all just screaming and yelling.
  • Captain Tedium: I lost any interest in seeing any of the Nostalgia Critic's videos when I saw the thumbnail for his review of Felix the Cat: The Movie. I know that that particular animated film wasn't very successful and that it's anyone's right to say what they want about the movie, but the image of the Nostalgia Critic grinning maliciously while handing Felix his magic bag of tricks after shitting in it was just so tasteless and juvenile. I do not take people seriously if their way of dealing with works of fiction they don't like is by making pictures of themselves befouling the belongings of characters from the work they despise. It's the lowest form of Toilet Humour imaginable.
  • Kenya Starflight: Since my new Dethroning Moment for the Critic was cut, I'm reverting back to my old one — his Raiders of the Story Arc segment that covered The Transformers. I'd been waiting for him to cover something Transformers-related besides the film franchise for some time, but the extended "Soundwave wants to be in a romantic comedy" bit spoiled it for me. The joke was way too long, out of character (which might have been forgivable had the joke been at all humorous), and the punchline far too weak to justify nearly two minutes of the review being devoted to it. If the Critic wanted to vent his spleen about the predicable nature of romantic comedies, he should have done so in a review of an actual romantic comedy, not shoehorned his rant into a Transformers review.
  • Pgj1997: His Thomas and the Magic Railroad review was definitely a low point for me. The review itself is riddled with Critical Research Failure, and the constant critisism that Thomas the Tank Engine can't be dark or depressing when that's not true at all. Now before anyone says it, I am aware that in one of his "Fuck ups" lists, he stated that the critisism towards the review was unjustified since he never said the show sucked despite him never watching it. Here's the thing though, he did. At the beginning of the review, he calls the show, quote, "the show PBS puts on when Clifford the Dog is too intimidating", not to mention calling the show "brainless" a few seconds earlier. Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch at it's finest.
    • Hylian-Highwind: I don't know how a show is less intimidating than Clifford with scenes like Henry's Crash in "The Flying Kipper" or the implications behind episodes like "Escape" and "Granpuff". This review's attitude has to go up for me as well. The thing that irritates me is that he has (or had at least) a policy that adaptations should be judged on their own, rather than in comparison to the original show, and yet he slings insults at Thomas as a whole by calling it "brainless" before getting to the film. There's other misconceptions like thinking the show's model faces look low budget (despite the idea being the narration over figures), questioning the presence of big name actors despite the series having a pedigree that included Ringo Starr and George Carlin already, wondering about bringing "normal" people as giants to Sodor despite the movie showing multiple times they'd just come out normally proportioned, and also his claim that Peter Fonda didn't need to bring his best acting, despite his The Super Mario Bros Super Show! review having him note being for kids doesn't mean you can't make something good. Other things like the awkward and unfunny "train sperm" joke got on my nerves, but the overall distain he shows for a show he didn't watch and/or had a prejudice for soured the review for me, even as someone who also hates the film.
  • Annoyed Mechanoid: While I still watch his videos from time to time, I'm very irritated that his "Top 11 Simpsons Episodes" started with a gigantic Take That to modern Simpsons episodes and unfairly painted all of them as "beating a dead horse with another dead horse" by using the infamous Kesha Simpsons intro as one of the clips (the other being the Banksy intro) to "represent" modern Simpsons as a whole. It's sad to see a NC of all people lumping almost 20 seasons of a TV show all into the same category of badness just to strengthen his own argument on what individual "classic" episodes he considers to be good. All of the episodes on that list (apart from every Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode) were from seasons 2-8. If you want to do a Top 11 on classic Simpsons episodes, just call it "Top 11 Classic Simpsons Episodes" and limit yourself to working with only certain seasons. Most importantly, don't write the rest off as bad in the process to make your own points stronger.
  • Alex The Proud Outcast: The review of Pearl Harbor is an entire DMoS, beginning with the fact that Doug completely slanders Michael Bay by claiming he worked as a porn director before transitioning into film (y'know, because all his movies amount to nothing but action porn). 100% not true, because he worked as a music video director before transitioning into film. Also, the opening of the sketch places it in 1990 Hollywood, with his agent saying that he's due to make his film debut Bad Boys. That movie came out in 1995, so the sketch should've actually taken place in around 1994. And then there's Doug doing what the entire Internet has done to Bay for years: automatically blaming him for everything wrong with every film he's involved in, culminating in one massive Misplaced Retribution moment where he gives an extended, scathing "The Reason You Suck" Speech at Bay for misrepresenting the titular attack, treating him like a insubordinate teenage son who thinks he can do whatever he wants just because he can. ("So... you can make up whatever you want.") Let me make all of what I'm going to say nice and sparkling clear: Bay is not, I repeat, NOT the one entirely to blame for the film, even though he directed it. It's the fault of screenwriter Randall Wallace (who put in the Romantic Plot Tumor), it's the fault of producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and it's the fault of Touchstone Pictures. Hell, Bay himself threatened to leave production after Executive Meddling of the film continued getting in the way of it, so that pretty much gives you an indication of him not being entirely at fault. If Doug had taken the time to do extensive research on who was responsible for the film's flaws (along with every other Internet personality), then I wouldn't be making this entry. This dead horse beating has gone on for far too long, and it'd be much appreciated if everyone can stop blasting him just because his name is attached to a project and do some goddamn research. TL;DR: Pearl Harbor was not entirely Bay's fault, and all projects involving him are not his fault, so stop bashing on him already.
  • Sailor Moon:
    • Catmuto: The video in its entirety. There are so many things wrong with it, I could not narrow it down to exactly one point in the video, so the entire review of his will be my DMoS. Let me count the ways the video was disgusting and infuriating to watch. 1) The beginning joke of the scientists mixing formulas to create successful shows was already not a very good joke. 2) The Talking Dick Scene. It's stupid, way too long and not even funny. 3) He clearly has no clue what is actually going on in the show. Now, I was willing to give him some leeway, since he was talking about the chopped-up American version (I live in Germany and we obtained an uncut, very decently translated version of the show), but he still didn't figure things out. What the heck was the point of that scene of having Darth Vader voiced by Serena? Once again, not funny. And very untrue, there are a lot of girls who watched Star Wars. He gave the Japanese version of the show just a minute mention towards the end, but clearly only to say, "Yeah, the American version is different from the original". What the bloody fuck was that whole rant about age of consent in Japan about? That had nothing to do with the show, why even bring it up? His complaint about stock footage being used for a show in the '90s. Uh, yeah, that happened at the time. Still happens nowadays. Including in his own preferred animated shows. Either complain about the stock footage there, too, or don't bring it up. He overall seemed not interested in making the video or checking out the show to begin with, which made watching it very boring and annoying. And, finally, my biggest complaint that ties in with the last point: This video, of a long running show that he clearly didn't watch beyond a few episodes and slapped his opinion on the entire show, is made by the same guy who would go on to spend months on end, keeping Vlogs of him watching and reacting to all the episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra. Critic, no. You cannot pull the latter and expect me to tolerate the first. I still enjoyed some of his newer videos at first, but this is the epitome of the worst video he has brought out to date and one of the main reasons why I stopped watching him.
    • Kitchen90: I agree with your points entirely. To add on to what you said, one of the most nagging things that I didn't like about the review was the complete overlooking of the rest of the Sailor Senshi (basically, the rest of the planets that help Sailor Moon, in case anyone who's not familiar with the series didn't know). The Critic compares the Inners gang (Sailors Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury) to the Spice Girls and Hanson because they (apparently) didn't have interesting enough characterisation — not to mention, not even telling the audience their (dubbed or original) names; he ignored Sailor Pluto entirely for a "Pluto isn't a planet anymore" joke, gave Tuxedo Mask a brief mention (but had many things to say about his civilian form Darien), and didn't tell us anything about Sailor Uranus and Neptune other than they suffered from the Hide Your Lesbians trope. The only person he talks about is Sailor Moon and how she spends the first few episodes cowering in the corner because she's been thrown into fighting creepy-looking monsters. Even her best friends from her class are given bigger screen-time yet they aren't around for most of the show's running time, and have no idea that their friend Serena dresses up as Sailor Moon and saves the world. I think that if he took time to research about everyone other than Serena (I am aware that the Canadian dub changed the characterisations as well, but there's no harm in reading about the original Japanese characters), perhaps most of his questions and criticisms would be resolved. Also, I get the feeling that the unexplained cameo from Amanda Céline Miller (the new English dub voice for Sailor Jupiter) in one of his videos after this, was an Author's Saving Throw for the backlash from this episode.
  • Eight Crazy Nights:
    • Tropers/vexer: For me it was this review, now I'm perfectly fine with people disliking that film even though IMO it's FAR from one of the worst holiday movies. The review wasn't too bad until the critic had his sidekicks appear as Happy Madison fans that laugh at anything he considers low-brow and uses them to attack people that actually like Sandler's films (and then blows them up with a grenade, sooo clever). If it was just one scene it wouldn't been so bad, but he just kept shoehorning them in, which ironically I found more irritating and unfunny than anything in the actual film itself (including Sandler's voice for Whitey, speaking of which, that gag where NC is on the phone was Sandler went for way too long). His extended Take That! towards Sandler's fans was just mean-spirited and extremely hypocritical given how the critic in the past has previously emphasized that people should "like what they like" for movies, guess people just aren't allowed to actually like Happy Madison films according to the critic's Insane Troll Logic.
    • Luna Veg 87: I have to agree. I do have annoyance with some of his other reviews/editorials, but this one is still the one that pisses me off the most. For the record, I've never seen Eight Crazy Nights, nor do I have much interest (I will admit that Little Nicky is a guilty pleasure of mine), but that he felt a need to stick it to fans of Happy Madison productions in such an immature (and not Critic's usual comedic immaturity) way left a bad taste in my mouth. So people are stupid if they enjoy stupid comedy movies? Weird how he lacks that same attitude toward movies he's reviewed as So Bad, They're Good. Not helping is that fake phone call joke that, between its going on for way too long and going from just plain dull to uncomfortable levels, wouldn't be out of place on Family Guy.
  • Lady Norbert: I enjoy a lot of the Critic's old videos. I'm just really not into the newer format. Now, in fairness, I never watched Demo Reel so I didn't have any understanding of who Malcolm and Tamara were when they started appearing in Critic videos; to me, they just seemed to come out of nowhere. I have nothing against them, they seem like nice people, but I liked it better when it was just the Critic on his own. For me, though, the DMoS is the review of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (2010). Obviously, Critic doesn't like it, while I do, but that's not the issue. The issue is that I have tried to watch this review multiple times, and I can never actually get to the review! The opening acting bit where Critic falls into Underland or whatever and runs into Alice and so forth drags on and on and on, to the point where I just can't watch it anymore. It's not entertaining, it's not funny, and as much as I'd like to see his actual review of the film, I can't sit through the original content long enough to get there.
  • DL Abaoaqu: The review of Ghost Rider when he first learns of Blackheart and gets a Bible to see if the movie is serious about the name. A verse was fabricated for the sake of a joke, but it came off as a middle finger to people who actually study it. Classy, Doug, considering that actual scholars have analyzed for decades and, when looked through linguistic and anthropological lenses, the "inconsistencies" (as you would term them) can be easily resolved. Also, way to go picking the low-hanging fruit.
  • The Farmboy: Since the Wall Banger as a whole got nixed, I figured I would post what would be a crummy moment from Nostalgia Critic. The Running Gag with Pinky and the Brain breaking up through-out The Purge review concludes with an animated short with Brain snapping and verbally chewing out Pinky. My problem with the short was that Brain blames Pinky for all of their plans failing, while completely forgetting the times where it wasn't Pinky's fault such as the Big-Ears and Noodle-Noggin episode, and the Gyp-Parody episode (where Pinky knew the answer for the final question while Brain lost all of the money). Not to mention that the show had established that Brain's plans were all doomed to fail whenever or not Pinky botches it. And I think it wouldn't make sense for Brain to keep his rage in until Pinky said one line too many, since in the show Brain would often hit Pinky whenever Pinky said something stupid. I thought I would let it slide, but overtime it grew worse in my mind. Shame that Maurice Lamarche and Rob Paulsen were roped in to reprise their roles for this.
  • The Matrix:
    • Something Eight: To his credit, Doug complimented the movie a number of times. However, his treatment of the movie's fans was just so condescending that I personally just couldn't take it. The line "I know you're out there: people who don't like The Matrix." also pissed me off, acting like he was making a big, bold claim that he would get persecution for.
    • Who Needs A Mango: That same review is the beginning of when this troper stopped watching the Nostalgia Critic. Not only were its Soapbox moments (about how Doug was so right and anybody who likes The Matrix is so wrong) annoying if not infuriating, they threw comedy aside. To hell with creative jokes, let's just make fun of the movie and its fans at every turn! This was when Doug's Fan Hater tendencies made themselves clear to me (hinted at with Man of Steel) and I completely lost faith in his so-called Nice Guy and Extreme Doormat traits. The Matrix review made it clear to me that Doug Walker is just as bad as his critic persona. And as a hardcore Frozen fan, I must agree with the entry below on something - Doug Walker is now nothing more than a self-important hypocrite.
  • "Can Hype Kill A Good Movie?":
    • TT454: I'm actually going to go with Doug's video, this video, which may as well be called "Why Frozen Is A Masterpiece And Why You Should Like It!". In the video, Doug defends Frozen's Cash Cow Franchise hyper-popularity by saying that one should ignore that aspect and appreciate it anyway. First of all, the video's title "Can Hype Kill A Good Movie?" suggests right from the get-go that everyone loved Frozen before its popularity skyrocketed (personally, I just think the film was bad). And instead of making a balanced argument about how it's okay to either love or hate Frozen, Doug talks about how certain films seem less good over time, but at the end of the day, you can't deny they are good, and people who do think things are overrated are in the wrong. In other words, "If I think something's good, you should agree with me, because I'm the critic!" It was patronizing to me. And how does he conclude his argument? By saying that "at least Frozen's better than these other movies!" - one of which is the Transformers film series. I'd honestly rather watch any of the Transformers movies than Frozen, so the video implies that the idea of liking Transformers is stupid. This was the video that made me stop watching Doug Walker's newer videos. His whole "I'm right, you're wrong, and I need to tell you why you are!" mentality is absolutely painful in this video, and it contradicts every one of his videos where he makes fun of people who passionately defend their favorite movies. Basically, he hypocritically believes that he is allowed to defend whatever movies he loves when they have enough detractors, but when he hates something and/or considers it overrated (i.e. The Matrix), the people who disagree are not allowed to.
    • Maniacaldude: I'm in definite agreement here. While it didn't completely turn me off the series, I haven't watched most of the newer episodes since and, in a way, it did hurt whatever respect I still have for Doug Walker. One of the things I liked about Doug was how he often said that "if someone likes a movie that you don't, that's fine," but a lot of his recent stuff seems to contradict this. And yeah, while he may be playing the Critic, the Critic is still an extension of Doug, and his editorials, to me, felt more Doug than Critic. But, by God, I can't stand his gushing over Frozen. I consider Frozen a mediocre movie at best (in fact, it's one of my least favorite Disney movies, bottom five easily), so it annoys me with how in-your-face he is with his obsession of this movie,; not even bothering to give a more balanced argument or see things from the point of view of people who dislike Frozen just shows how far up his ass his head has gotten.
  • Jurassic World:
    • Demon God Of Chaos 2: His review not only broke one of his rules for the reboot (not reviewing a movie still in theaters) but using improvisations of the characters in the movie with imitators of characters from the original movie as a horrible attempt at a Take That! at copyright holders. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for me, as I have no more plans to view any of his reviews in the near future after this one.
    • CJ Croen 1393: One thing I didn't like was his critique on Owen and Claire's relationship, specifically the kiss. He acts as though Claire and Owen's kiss scene was completely random and had nothing to do with the plot, when in context, Owen kissed Claire because she saved his life, something the Critic actually showed a reenactment of later in the review (which only serves to make this critique even more confusing).
    • Emperor Oshron: As a longtime Jurassic Park fan, I honestly just refused to watch the review (I'd stopped watching in general a long time ago more because I forgot than because of any disagreement with Walker's opinions) because I figured "If he's reviewing it then he's gonna be overly negative for the sake of being negative so I'm just not even gonna bother. I can still enjoy his other videos for the most part." I randomly decided to check it out one day because I was bored, just wanted some background noise while playing a mostly music-less video game. Big mistake, because it put me in a very bad mood—it made me almost immediately curse at my screen and turn the video off, so I didn't even watch the rest of the review and have no intention to, ever. Barely a minute or two into the actual review, he goes off on how the effects are apparently awful and look like cardboard cutouts. Anyone who makes a point of watching movies reliant on special effects—especially Walker, who literally makes a living on that kind of thing—should know that, even if the effects in Jurassic World are less convincing than in other films, especially in other Jurassic Park movies, they sure as hell don't look like fucking cardboard cutouts! I'd learned from word of mouth that he also complained about Indominus being "just a big raptor" because it has raptor DNA—which is also bullshit, because even non-paleonerds should be able to conjure up at least one theropod that Indominus more closely resembles than a raptor—and general hate that the film got because of Zara's horrifying death, but the complaints on the CGI blow those completely out of the water. Walker should know better considering he's reviewed films with special effects so much worse than anything in the Jurassic Park franchise, let alone in a single film, that it's not even funny. CGI is only "obvious" these days because now people know when practical effects can't produce a certain look and that's the only reason people are able to complain about it looking fake, which is exactly the problem here—in fact, the only reason he could even "get away" with saying that they looked like cardboard cutouts is because he didn't use any clips from the actual movie, which would show that he's just plain lying. With that in mind, every single person on Earth from now on should take every single one of Walker's opinions with an entire salt mine.
  • libertydude: My dethroning moment comes from his Mad Max: Fury Road review, simply because of how it showed the absolute worst aspects of modern NC: Shoehorned political and social messages, the frequent use of strawmen, and an overreliance on skits instead of criticism. The first two complaints are the worst parts, as the Critic dividing the film's supporters and detractors into two Flanderized groups just makes him seem lazy. Here he is, in the unique position of finding a base-breaking film So Okay, It's Average, which could allow him to really delve into specific aspects of the movie that do and don't work. Instead, he focuses more on the reactions of viewers, and he doesn't even do it very fairly. While the supporters of the film are portrayed as liking the film for shallow reasons, the detractors are portrayed far worse, being sexless nerds angry that there was a badass Action Girl in the movie. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of other reasons to criticize the film (the lack of focus on Max himself, the spectacle overcoming the story etc.), this really ignores the fact that there have been plenty of female action heroes that men enjoy (i.e. Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, Motoko Kusanagi, just to name a few). It just felt like Doug was really trying to invalidate negative criticism of the film by portraying the criticizers as worse as possible. It doesn't help that most of his attempted "criticisms" against the film feel really loose and shallow, just so Tara can easily knock them down and validate approval of the film. It's this dismissive and misleading attitude that really makes this episode the worst for me personally.
  • Conhale: His review of Event Horizon. A number of transgressions (insulting the cult fan base calling them "jocks briefly pretending to be into hardcore horror", describing the crew of the Lewis&Clarke as "rocket scientists" when they're a rescue team (are real life Coast Guard ships all manned by ship designers?), misrepresenting said crew as idiots as they didn't know the breakthrough science Weir invented, complaining about sudden character shifts while ignoring all foreshadowing up to that point, and so on) along with him skipping major plot points and genuinely missing moments worthy of criticism! (The initial approach, the bizarre credits music, etc). He then goes on to say the fandom is more interested in the film that could have been rather due to the one we got due to Executive Meddling, but that's fallacious as no one would care about what could have been if they didn't care about the movie actually made! This entire review comes off as pure filler, misrepresenting a film as being nonsensical in the extreme due to lies of omission and outright fabrication. Did he just need to fill a spot in his airing calendar?
  • Hocus Pocus:
    • Izzy1: I took down my old DMOS because now I have a new one. Instead of being an actual review of the film, the entire thing is just a painfully unfunny sketch referencing the film that drags out and is lost on viewers who haven't seen the movie prior (funny given how Doug feels about movies that rely on endless references, namely parodies nowadays). I can understand not using footage for films like Mad Max: Fury Road and Pixels, as those were still in theaters when he posted those reviews (still defeats the point of being the NOSTALGIA Critic, and even breaks the rules he set up for his revived series: the film has to be out of theaters, but I digress), but there wasn't really any reason for this other than to shoehorn an overly long sketch he's become known for nowadays. I've given up on the Nostalgia Critic now, as it's clear he's Jumped the Shark at this point.
    • Baby Rodent: For the most part, I thought the video was enjoyable if flawed. Then came the moment near the end where, after Kiki from Kiki's Delivery Service makes an appearance to beat up the Sanderson Sisters, Critic makes a very mean-spirited jab at Billy Butcherson by stating that he was a “useless” character who contributed nothing to the plot of the film, which is my least favorite moment of the video. First off, Billy did serve a purpose in the film and not just “walk[ed] around in silence” and “shout obscenities” (Critic’s words, not mine) when his stitches were removed—he was summoned by Winifred to go after the main characters because the witches could not step on hallowed ground. He also had a very particular grudge against Winifred for not only killing him and stitching his mouth shut, but also forcing him out of his own grave as a zombie. He wanted to get back at his former lover and is willing to help the kids break the curse so he can rest again, so I don’t see him as useless. Second off, Billy is by far one of Doug Jones’ more memorable roles and at least deserves some credit where credit is due in this review. But as is, it’s just too mean-spirited to even warrant a chuckle out of me.
  • "Conquest of the Commercials":
    • Johnnyd 2: I tolerate a lot of NC and the CA crew, but his latest Anti Pokémon rant from this video is a bit too much for me. It was such a good video up until that point with Don Bluth and Segata Sanshiro. But then all my goodwill disappeared when he went on an anti Pokemon tirade. especially the part about college people and older fans not liking Pokemon and it being a "fad". A lot of College students and people in my age like myself, including some of Doug's CA colleagues I'm betting, like Pokemon, both then and now. While I respect opinions of all kinds, Doug/NC could have at least not be such a jerk about it.
    • Jetpack Percy: I'm in the same boat here. I was enjoying the special up until the "joke" where the Nostalgia Critic watches that Nightmare Fuel-filled commercial for Pokémon Red and Blue because all the Pokémon were (supposedly) killed off (the commercial was about the bus driver squeezing all the Pokémon into a Game Boy), and cheering for their deaths for the mere crime of... annoying him in college... and then complaining the commercial had copped out by not killing them. Keep in mind, later on in the 'There are no accidents' segment, he is legitimately freaked out about the girl burning herself on hot oil. While I'm not much of a fan of the games compared to when I was younger, I still love them, and while I may respect the Critic's opinion on Pokémon, his overbearing Lack of Empathy towards the situation made me sick. Even I would draw the line at seeing my personal scrappies die violently like this. Now I'm just wondering if I should drop him altogether.
    • fairygirl567: I get Doug was joking, but this was still way too mean spirited and insulting. This was too much hatred for a show, and to say he was college when the show first aired (so he wasn't the right audience for it) is an even bigger insult to the older fans! There were older fans, so I don't see who he's acting all high and mighty about it. Secondly, him having that sadistic look as the Pokemon are being crushed was messed up, and him showing joy at the alternative ending wasn't funny at all, especially since after that he showed the Canada video where a woman gets her face burned off and he shows visual disgust at it. So something he hates, he shows glee for it dying; but the woman there is bad. Come on, Doug! At least with the Power Rangers segment, it was funny. This was just mean! I don't like North, but I don't want to see Elijah Wood's character get brutally murdered!
    • zeesims: I need a place to vent out my frustration since this has been bugging me for a while. There are several words that describe my feelings towards the Pokémon segment, infuriating, insulting, disgusting, and disrespectful. When it comes to that rant of his; about the overexposure, adults not liking it, and it being a "fad"; my main issue with this reasoning is that some of the things that he likes is also guilty of the same thing, (such as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the late 80s and early 90s, and Frozen. It just gives off the vibe that only the things he likes can be super popular). While overexposure can get annoying, is it really a good reason to hate something just for that? Then there that bit with whole adults not liking it; all this does is remind me of the "Pokémon is for kids" stigma that plagues many adult fans. Then there's the fad bit; this just screams, "I don't like it, therefore it's a fad". This is just painful to watch; knowing that the franchise has grown to be more than just a kid's fad, with the games and TGC having multiple demographic appeal. Once again the Ninja Turtles were guilty of the things mentioned above atthe height of its popularity, but knowing him, it's magically okay just because he grew up with it. Then there's this line, "we didn't know what it was, but we didn't care", so you hate it even though you know nothing about it? This whole rant just felt ignorant, arrogant, pretentious, and prejudicial to me. Then we get to the actual commercial... Ugh, this part is just ridiculous, the comments above definitely describe my feelings towards this bit, mean-spirited and unfair. How would he feel if someone pulled off the same thing with the Ninja Turtles? I've seen several comments giving him a free pass with the "just a character" excuse, because that will totally make people less angry; frankly, I don't even know how much of it is an act. Just like with the Power Rangers mentioned above, Pokémon has brought joy and inspiration to many, a community has formed and brought many people together, young and old. So to see it getting treated so cruelly like this just makes me sick; joke or not. I've grown so tired of the caustic critic accentuating the negative gimmick, and even some of his real life attitude towards certain things (such as Pokémon, Power Rangers, Cars, Sailor Moon, Moulin Rogue!) makes me regret the fact that I use to find him funny. I'm just done with him (and frankly any caustic critic) at this point.
    • Morphin Brony: Since my latest Dethroning Moment was cut, I'm renominating the Pokemon bit from Conquest of the Commercials as my Dethroning Moment for the Critic. For the most part, I thought the episode was pretty good overall (hell, I even enjoyed the Power Rangers skit, which is saying something because I am a Power Rangers fan), but the whole Pokemon segment was just unfair. Now, to be fair, I can understand where the Critic is coming from with how he feels about Pokemon. When you don't understand why something is popular and there's merchandise for it everywhere you look, you probably wouldn't be willing to give it a fair chance. This is a big part of why I'm not really a fan of Frozen. But here's the thing: even I would draw the line at burning Elsa to a crisp. To use another analogy, imagine someone who grew up in the late 70s making a video where the Ninja Turtles (which was a major Cash Cow Franchise at its peak popularity, and yet the Critic sings its praises whenever he mentions it just because he grew up with it) were horribly murdered after he went out on a rant about how much the overexposure annoyed him. To see the Critic display such petty behavior is very unpleasant, and puts a dark spot on an otherwise stellar episode. I know that Doug Walker and the Nostalgia Critic are not one and the same, but good Lord, between this and the Freddy vs. Jason review, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm sorry, Critic, but I'm never touching your newer videos again.
  • Christmas with the Kranks:
    • Space Hunter Drake Redcrest: For me, it was one particular moment in this review. At one point, his past self is watching the divisive Hocus Pocus review. His past self expresses how much he dislikes it (and with how whiny he is, it's probably a Take That, Critics! moment), and the Critic says that "It's how reviewers did it for years." No. First off, critics did not remake whatever they were reviewing, insert themselves into the story, and point out all the flaws. I don't recall the episode of Siskel & Ebert where they pretended to be North and the offensive stereotypes. Second, the jokes and comments only make sense if you've seen the movie. As Pie Guy Rulz pointed out, the jokes lack context without clips of the movie. Would Linkara's reviews of Marville be as good if he acted out the story with some friends instead of showing us what actually happens in the comic book and commenting on it? Of course not. You wouldn't understand what's from the comic and what was added for comedic effect. Point is that the way the review was done was not what critics did before, nor is it something critics do now.
    • Baeraad555: That one annoyed me quite considerably also. He kept claiming that the difference between his old stuff and his new stuff is that he's putting more "effort" into the new, which seems to translate (in my opinion) into his new stuff being more overworked and frantic. Case in point, that Hocus Pocus review that he's defending. Yes, acting out a parody surely took more "effort" than just showing clips and commenting on them, but the latter would have (also in my opinion) been more entertaining simply because the Critic is better at commenting than he is at acting (and the real actors and staging would be more photogenic than what he and his friends can set up). That old chestnut about working smarter, not harder, seems appropriate...
  • SafetySmash: I thought his review of Blade was pretty good except for a joke he said at the end. When he showed shock that Blade and Karen don’t get together he said “Quickly Tumblr, rewrite this ending so not only do they get together, but they have 20 children, all with different sexual identities, if 20 sexual identities don’t exist, make them up, you’re good at that.” I have several problems with this. Why choose Tumblr to make fun of? Why not just fanfic writers in general? It really doesn’t make sense to mock Tumblr, especially because a lot Tumblr users would love this ending. There are hundreds of posts with thousands of notes talking about how tired they are about forced love between men and women, and how surprised they are when a form of media let women and men be friends. Was the reason you singled out Tumblr was to make fun of “made up sexual identities”? And what do you consider a “made up sexuality?” Do you consider Asexuality made up? Or Pansexuality? It didn’t ruin the review for me, but it seemed unnecessary and has some Unfortunate Implications.
  • supernintendo128: While everyone and their mother's DMoS seems to be whenever the Critic attacks Pokémon and its fanbase, My DMoS is when the Critic took a rather mean-spirited jab at gamers in general in the Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over review, said joke basically amounting to "Gamers are misogynists who refuse to take orders from women lol" even though that many gamers have long since grown out of this mindset and that the gaming community has become much more welcoming towards female gamers since the 1990s and that more women than ever are playing video games. This joke didn't outright offend me but it did make me groan about how dated it was.
  • Mighty Mewtron: I love post revival Critic, sketches and all, and I've been fine with Critic's clipless reviews- I really like his Pixels review, for example. But his Ghostbusters (2016) review feels like a flop. He spends a lot of time on the controversy, which was inevitable, but he portrays every side as a straw man, including a Straw Feminist side, which looks tacky for a male reviewer to do. Admittedly he has good moments in the review, particularly the acknowledgment that little girls would find it inspiring, but exaggerating everyone's actions makes it harder to deliver the message to the fanbase (sort of like the point he was trying to make in his Lorax review). He spends so much time on this plot that it's even harder to understand the clipless parts of the review, and he mostly just repeats the same couple of criticisms over and over again about the movie cutting clips too short and ruining funny moments with unfunny moments as well as misrepresenting the characters and ideas in the movie (such as portraying the final ghost as a cutesy cartoon from the logo when the point of the ghost was that it was a terrifying rendition of that cutesy cartoon from the logo.) If the sketches were entertaining, maybe this wouldn't be as bad a problem, but instead he relies on an unoriginal "everyone on the Internet is being a jerk about this movie".
  • Freddy vs. Jason:
    • Owlorange 1995: In the review, Ash decapitating Pikachu with a chainsaw because Ash Ketchum holds him up as a shield. The Critic then interrupts the review just so he can tell the crying Ash to "suck it up." I can take the jabs and the taunts shown in earlier episodes but... look, even if you don't like Pokemon, it would still be disgusting to make a joke about cutting up a pet while his owner sobs! It's even worse to make the joke by having a child hold up his beloved and close companion as a meat shield!
    • L Dragon 2: Agreed. That whole scene just came across as yet another mean-spirited dig at the Pokemon fanbase, this time by literally murdering one of the most beloved characters from the series. The comment that Ash makes also doesn't help, not does the crying from Ash Ketchum and the death cries from Pikachu. It's like Doug's trying to tick off the audience by using a character from a series he likes to butcher another from a series he dislikes.
    • Peridonyx: Not to mention the Critical Research Failure/Fight Scene Failure — of Pikachu not just zapping Williams in self-defense, but only standing there like a deer-in-headlights while the walking lightning-rod with the chainsaw hand slowly closes in.
    • SenorCornholio: You know what? Fuck my old DMoS; this is probably worse than all the other Pokémon jabs combined. Seriously; not a minute after the intro and there's a Pokémon jab, which involves brutal dismemberment, Critical Research Failure, goes on for way too long in the background, and is just overall mean-spirited in nature. But what I especially wanted to put here was the reason as to why all these jokes exist: Doug Walker himself is legitimately amused as to how quick these fans will rush to defend their favorite franchise and intentionally puts these jokes in his reviews as a way of seeing them react (as the Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over review alludes to). They were terrible before, and came to a head with this sorry excuse for a "joke". Which is why I have to say this: Doug, I don't hate your Pokémon jabs because I'm a fan of the series: I hate them because they're old and not funny! It may be funny to you, but to the rest of us, even anti-Pokémon fans I'm willing to bet, they've run their course! They've been ground into the Earth and used as fertilizer! You making a Pokémon joke is pretty much like beating a dead Rapidash, and yet you keep forcing them in! Stop! With! The jabs! Seriously! They're annoying!
    • Asue: As of the eighth commercials episode, "War of the Commercials", he still hasn't stopped those and added a jab towards Pikachu during his analysis of the famous Super Smash Bros. 64 ad, ruining what would have been a perfect joke.
  • mariic: His "Battle of the Commercials" video was mostly fine, but I'm not going to let his attack on the Game Boy slide. He claimed that the Game Gear was "a million times better" because it had better graphics. This is the kind of crap that I expect Boring Man to say, not a professional!
  • TCgamerboy2002: Before I start, I would like to say that Balto is one of my favorite animated movies. The Critic reviewed the movie, but didn't tear it apart as harshly since he sees why people like it, but still makes fun of it like with most good movies he reviewed. That usually doesn't bother me as that's his job. My complaint mostly comes from two particular parts: The first was the part with the scene with the white wolf which, I might add, was a very important part of the movie. He apparently had no idea what that scene was about and thought he gave Balto powers because of a later scene (which is obviously a joke, but still). It rubs me the wrong way because he failed to realize that that scene represented Balto accepting his wolf side, which he initially resented because it made him an outcast in the first place. He didn't use his sense of smell at first to get back because he was avoiding said wolf side. What Boris said about a dog not being able to make it alone but a wolf can was a plot point building up to this moment. Another part was that he didn't finish his review. Instead, he points out the historical inaccuracies in the movie and ended the review with a frameskit.note  This is the same problem I have with his review of Home Alone 3 as he gives us no final thoughts about the movie. Because of this, I don't know if he likes the movie or not. Granted, these parts don't turn me off of the review, but they're very hard to ignore.
  • Asue: I really didn't find the forced "The Simpsons has jumped the shark" joke funny in his review of Monkeybone. First of all, it's clealy Padding, as the "joke" is stretched for almost a minute (with nothing funny happening during it) and it has barely anything to do with the review. Second, like with his "Top 11 Simpsons Episodes" episode, he's pushing his opinion on people who either don't even care about the show and those who keep watching it. And third, he said he stopped watching it after Season 7, yet "Homer's Enemy" was on the list of the previously mentioned NC episode. The hell, Critic?
  • emeriin: I personally couldn't deal with the "Canada's commercials are fucked up" Running Gag in the reboot commercial episodes. At least "men don't know when they're getting harassed" wasn't mentioned again and was proved complete bull by Doug talking about being harassed in real life, but he kept acting like Canada are full of killjoys by telling us that 1 in 2 girls are abused. Thankfully after a load of rape whistles himself, he seems to have stopped, but still stings as a victim.
  • Retloclive: His review for The Mummy (1999) that starred Brendan Fraser. I didn't outright hate anything, or find anything offensive about the video, but I was left in a state of major confusion as to what the Nostalgia Critic was going for regarding the way Ardeth Bay speaks. I can only imagine that the Critic was trying to get across that Ardeth's speech pauses after every line can come off awkward to sit through, but his joke that every line should have ended with "man." or "you know?" just felt like he was really reaching at some sort of criticism here. I truly don't get what the point of it was.
  • Tropers/T-Troper 24: For me it's been his lack of acknowledgement towards the two cartoons that came after the 80's one ended. I remember the first time watching the review for Out of the Shadows. The thing that ticked me off were the two instances where he began asking if either Leo or Shredder ever had a moment where he wasn't a dickhead leader, or doesn't go out like an ass in respective order. I saw a comment saying the following thing. 1) Leo not an asshole leader in the 2003 series. 2) Shredder not going out like a bitch in the 2003 series. 3) Captures everything turtles and takes itself seriously in the 2003 series. Even the 2012 series gets this right, but nope he just shows instances of both Leo and Shredder in such moments just to prove his point. Seriously both of these shows are or more or less should be vlog worthy and yet there he is exclusively binge watching both AT and SU. Correct me if I'm wrong but I watched that April fools vlog on YouTube where he jokingly talked about the first episode of FIM with some other dude on a couch. I recall reading a comment saying that he won't look at the show because it's not his thing. Fair enough I'm neutral over the show myself, however. In that same comment thread someone in a response said that he said the exact same thing about Adventure Time and yet he's still making vlogs for it. Okay let me ask a very legit question, what on earth does he plan on looking at once both of those shows end? One of which from what I hear is ending next year. And yet he barely even references either of the two TMNT cartoons that are amazing in their own right, one is faithful to the comics that started the whole franchise and the other tells it's own story how it wants. But nope he's all eh TMNT never makes Leo a good leader, nor does it make Shredder a badass. I'm not trying to say he has to look at those two shows. But some form of acknowledgement would be much appreted.
  • jaredthedecimator: His Alvin and the Chipmunks video was the final straw for me. While most of the video is just bland, the reason it’s on here is because of the ending. In one of the cringiest things I have ever seen, Doug and two other guys that aren’t important take on these fans of the CGI chipmunks by singing an unfunny parody of a song from The Chipmunk Movie. The scene where they are performing the song is probably the lowest point of the entire series. And you wanna know something funny? When Doug reviewed The Chipmunk Movie with The Nostalgia Chick a long time ago, he hated it. But in this video, he acts as if it’s a masterpiece of cinema. Make up your mind, Doug! If you want us to agree with your opinions, the least you can do is keep them consistent.
  • Ever M0re 9117: My problem with his review of The Jungle Book (2016) is that the whole thing was just an excuse to bash it. He repeatedly throws Mowgli’s relationship with the wolves under the bus when the movie shows us what we need to know rather than repeatedly tell us. Missing the point of Shere Khan’s motivation and blatantly ignoring the fact that the movie answers more than a few questions he asks. However, the final straw was his constant mockery about how this movie was supposed to be the "grown-up" or "adult version". The problem is no one called it that. Yes, it's a bit darker than the original film, but it’s nothing kids couldn’t handle (in general anyway) and it’s supposed to be an epic movie when compared the 1967 version. But no one was calling it the "adult version." If there’s any recent adaptation of The Jungle Book that’s the "adult version" it’s likely the Truer to the Text, Darker and Edgier, PG-13 rated Mowgli. But not this movie, Doug.
  • cartoonfanman: I pretty much gave up watching Nostalgia Critic after he uploaded a one hour review of Man of Steel, but somebody showed me a scene at the beginning of his It (2017) review that made legit rage. It starts with Hyper Fangirl introducing the review, and when the audience starts to boo her, she pulls out a huge machine gun and shoots the audience. Not only is it yet another unfunny and tasteless joke, but the fact that this was uploaded 1 week exactly after the Las Vegas shooting made this scene way more uncomfortable to watch. I'm usually apathetic when it comes to Nostalgia Critic but this moment alone killed any shred of respect or optimism I had for the Critic in the first place.
  • Scsigs: Since people have stated good points about my other picks; Hocus Pocus and the Hype Backlash video, I'll bring up his video about whitewashing. I get why he wanted to make the video. It was a hot button issue, especially in 2016 where everything was for little to no reason, depending on what you're talking about. However, his major talking points included live action people playing roles originally meant for people of other ethnicities or physical statures, roles played by people from other countries, and voice acting in both western animation and anime dubbing. First, the Critic is on the more liberal side of this argument, with saying various things about these topics, but succumbs to not really making any good points about them, with Critical Research Failure, double standards, and just a plain old failure to use common sense abound. He talks about whitewashing by bringing up Ghost in the Shell (2017) with casting Scarlett Johansson as the Major. I can understand this criticism, since it's a film based on a Japanese anime film and its setting is still uniquely Japanese with Asian actors in most of the other roles, but he then praises films that Race Lift white characters. Double Standards much? Then he brings up Henry Cavill and Andrew Garfield playing Superman and Spider-Man, with them both being British (although Garfield was born in America) as disqualifiers for playing these roles. What? Ethnicity and race are 2 completely different things. He then talks about The Lord of the Rings casting regular actors over little people except for back shots in some scenes in the roles of the Hobbits. What? Hobbits aren't little people, they're fully grown people that just happen to be smaller than other races. Casting regular people and using either camera tricks, green-screening, or CGI was their best bet at portraying the world most accurately to the books. That argument makes no sense. Then, he also touches upon actors of other races voicing characters in animated works, including anime dubs, that aren't Japanese or whatever race or even gender or age of their characters. First of all, there are Asian actors working in the anime dubbing industry. Second, the acting pool for anime dubs, unless paid for by a larger company, is rather low, due to usually requiring nonunion actors who'll accept the lower pay than union and prelay work, which is why we don't see many high-profile actors who'll slum for less money to do dub work that often. So, it makes sense to use not just Asian actors, who aren't probably going to settle for dubbing work anyways. Also, not every anime is set in Japan. There are several shows and films, Studio Ghibli's in particular, that are set more in worlds of multiple cultures, or just Germanic worlds, so that shouldn't matter anyways. Second, using adults to voice kids is an industry standard and the norm. It's done to maintain consistency in the characters' voices as long as possible if they don't change in any way, especially if a series goes on for multiple years where a kid's voice would break eventually, so it's a Justified Trope. However, there have been subversions of this in some productions. Third, not every child actor is going to be able to give the most believable performance out there. With how many films he's reviewed as the NC, you'd think he'd remember that. Fourth, anime dubbing is not the same as prelay. It's even challenging for experienced voice actors to do because they have to adapt to a completely different style of voice acting. Most kid actors can't act that well already, so they'd be pretty lost on what to do, though there certainly have been a few subversions here, like Aaron Dismuke as Al in Fullmetal Alchemist, since he didn't have any mouthflaps to act against, and Daveigh Chase as Chihiro in Spirited Away, but they are outliers in this case. This topic is heavily debated everywhere and Doug's serious mishandling of this situation isn't helping matters so much as they confuse them, which is why I don't like this video. You can clearly see why.
  • Ryanruff 13: "Looney Tunes Show: Good or Bad?" has a rather frustrating moment that almost felt like a parody, but the context makes it hard to use the "Nostalgia Critic is just a character" defence. I haven't really seen much of the The Looney Tunes Show, so I don't have an opinion on it, but one fairly infamous part of the review (if by "fairly infamous", I mean that it got an entry on the Wall Bangers page before Wall Banger pages were removed) was when he compares various previous spin-offs of Looney Tunes to the show, which just reeked of blatant cherry-picking to make the former look bad and the latter look hilarious (and he doesn't even succeed in doing the latter in my opinion). Especially confusing is how he tries to make the well-received Duck Dodgers look bad. It's obviously his right to an opinion if he doesn't like Duck Dodgers, but it really sours Doug's argument when he tries to use a bizarrely poor criticism of a popular show to try to support his argument, as well as trying to act like the other spin-offs were liked given their debatable status in actuality, and it's just one of the various moments that make Doug seem like a hipster.note 
    • Sir Pellucidar: What annoyed me about that review was the segment he spent on Godzilla: The Series. He spent 90% of the time bashing the movie and stating that the series must have sucked because the movie did, all the while making it obvious that he had never actually watched the show. He gave a little nod at the end to how some Godzilla fans enjoyed the cartoon, but that was it. No mention of the fact that the show is universally considered better than the movie, and Zilla Jr. is considered by most fans to legitimately deserve the title of Godzilla, unlike his father from the movie.
  • Dark4ngel: Let me say this, yes I do like Maleficent, but I do acknowledge it is very flawed and I know that everyone will have their reasons for not liking it. However, just watching a few clips of Doug's review made me wonder if he's either stupid or intentionally ignoring some things to try to make the movie look worse. Like, he says Stefan helps the king destroy the fairies, which is completely untrue. Stefan only hurt Maleficent and never did anything to the Moors afterwards. Then during the scene where Stefan cuts off Maleficent's wings he says "good thing she's such a heavy sleeper" when the movie blatantly points out that he drugged her. Did he have to clean his glasses while watching that scene and he's just blind without them? Then he makes a joke during the scene, that even haters of the movie agree is a very emotional scene (when she's crying over her wings) and says "I didn't even got to find out how they tasted" What? That's where I clicked off.
  • Dr Zulu 2010: While I prefer the pre-reboot Critic over the post-reboot one but he has some the same problem. In fact, one thing I ended up hating from his classic review of Batman & Robin is his reaction on Alfred dying of a rare disease by saying, and I paraphrase: "Now we have to care about the butler dying?" I'm sorry, but as a Batman fan myself who have watched the movie, one of its silver lining is the relationship between Bruce and Alfred with their father/son dynamic as the latter was lethally ill. In fact, a huge aspect of Batman mythos is about how Alfred is the closest thing Bruce has as a father. This would be like ignoring how Uncle Ben's and Gwen Stacy's deaths helped forming Spider-Man's philosophy of "With Great Powers Comes Great Responsibility". Hell, my favourites scenes in Gotham are about the dynamics between Bruce and Alfred and how Bruce comes to realized he almost took him for granted. So, having the Critic saying "I don't care if the butler is dying" felt like a slap to the face of a character who helped define who Batman really is.
    • kittencakes: That's the impression I always got from Doug, too. Despite claiming himself to be a Batman expert, he always dismisses all the important people in Bruce's life, like Alfred or Dick. This wouldn't be too bad if it wasn't for him saying things like "who cares about the butler dying" in his Ba R review, or claiming all Robins are "dumbasses in distress"; he's pretty much dismissing all the people that help his beloved Batman remain sane and well. I think for him Batman is only Bruce and the Joker circling over one another while Harley, Catwoman and Poison Ivy do their own thing.
  • mine4ever: While my interest in Nostalgia Critic was already decreasing, where it really took a dive was in his review of Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed. Specifically, when the character Heather Jasper Howe appears and Doug immediately says "She did it". Of course, you may be wondering how could he possible know that a character we met literally 3 seconds ago was the villain without any foreshadowing or clues. Well, here's his reasoning: the actress playing Heather, Alicia Silverstone, was a big name in Hollywood at the time this film was released. Doug figured that they wouldn't cast an A-list celebrity in such a minor role, unless she had a bigger part to play, so she had to be the villain. OK, first off, celebrities have had minor roles in media literally since the dawn of time. Take Scream, for example: Drew Barrymore was a big name at the time as well, which is why it was such a shock to so many people when she died within the first 5 minutes. Secondly, what he doesn't realize is that this movie is targeted to kids. What child watching this film would know, or even care, who Alicia Silverstone was? I was five when this film came out and I sure didn't. Hell, most of the kids watching weren't even alive when Alicia Silverstone was popular, and even if they were, I highly doubt they where old enough to see the movies she was in. At the end, he criticizes the movie for not giving kids a good mystery because it was too obvious who the villain was, but it doesn't work since it wouldn't be obvious to the target audience.
  • Alienhunter: I removed my earlier post about his Fox Kids review with the Toonami review. Starting off with an almost 10-minute skit of Critic being old and grumpy because he never really watched Toonami. Then the actual review starts off with Walter, Tamara, Heather, and Malcolm talking about each show for like two minutes. Now this could still be cool to see with focusing on the history and the specials with Tom, but nope, instead it focuses on random programs that don't really have much to do with much regarding Toonami. They would occasionally bring up anime like Sailor Moon, One Piece, and YuYu Hakusho, but most of the review was based around on shows that were more played on Cartoon Network, like The Batman, Justice League, The Powerpuff Girls, Ben 10: Alien Force and... Star Wars: The Clone Wars... What. Not helping with the Critic (y'know the reason most people watch the show) randomly sprouting one-liners about whatever show they were talking about and mostly getting screamed at by Walter in the most unfunny way. And don't get me started on the stupid "joke" they did multiple times about them all laughing obnoxiously loudly for like a minute straight, it's not funny, it's loud and, well, obnoxious. Although, I do have to admit that the costume for live-action!Tom was amazing and the voice used for him was spot-on. But that's about it for the nice things that I have for this "review".
  • Infinity League: While Christmas with the Kranks was bad enough for me to quit the show altogether (see the entries above for why), I must amend my DMOS as his Deadpool 2 review. First of all, it's another "clipless review," which isn't a review at all, but a super-low-budget remake of the movie with the Critic inserted into the plot to point out all the flaws. Look, guys, if you want to do a sketch show about movie parodies, fine, but don't call it a review when it is clearly not. Before the "review" proper starts, we get a painfully dragged-out sketch of Deadpool and Critic arguing before Rick and Morty show up for no reason other than the fact that their show was popular at the time of the review, and — after an awkward non-joke about political correctness — Rick appears frequently throughout the episode to act as Doug and Rob's mouthpiece to call Deadpool an unoriginal hack because his first movie is not the first R-rated superhero hit, the first R-rated comedy hit, or the first movie to extensively break the fourth wall... the problem is that literally nobody has ever made any of those assertions to begin with; our argument is that his movie is one of the best of all those categories, not the first, and the fact that his movie is the first to combine the three categories (an R-rated superhero comedy that breaks the fourth wall) is conveniently never addressed. The parts actually focused on reenacting Deadpool 2 are just as infuriating, because — like all clipless reviews — certain plot points are either misrepresented or left completely unaddressed all just to make the movie out to be worse than it actually is (for example: Deadpool simply shoving a criminal in front of a truck instead of attempting Murder-Suicide with him, Domino's Born Lucky powers are portrayed much more cartoonishly than in the movie, X-Force are shown as hypocrites for killing the bad guys while trying to prevent Firefist from going down his dark path, and Cable's explanation for choosing to stay behind is completely left out.) Other gripes include: every character breaking the fourth wall and not just Deadpool (which takes the uniqueness out of his character), Cable being replaced with DevilBoner so the Walkers can shove more of their schtick down our throats, and characters like Freakazoid and Kermit the Frog showing up out of nowhere to prove Rick's point that Deadpool is derivative (yeah, just ignore the fact that Deadpool was actually predates Freakazoid by five years; that Freakazoid was a completely non-serious, child-friendly show with some superhero elements while Deadpool is an adult-oriented character who's serious enough to be a genuine superhero; or that Deadpool and the Muppets have absolutely nothing in common aside from fourth wall awareness.) Again, nobody is saying that Deadpool is the first person to break the fourth wall. As you yourselves said in the Osmosis Jones review, it's not about whichever one did it first, but whichever one did it best.

Example of: