Even though I like this movie; I still think NC is on point through most of his review. The book is my all time favorite work of fiction, so for any Hollywood adaptation to match my standard is a very tall order. I'm only 30 years old so I would like to see a better adaption some time before I die.
shareOK, I'm just 7 minutes into this drivel and I'm convinced this sh!thead is a misanthrope who puts down the entire universe other than himself.
I have a very low opinion of professional film critics in general. Nostalgia Critic has brought that opinion to a new low.
And as long as we're talking about critics and quotes by Theodore Roosevelt:
“It’s not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and who comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best in the end knows the triumphs of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at the least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be among those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” -- Theodore Roosevelt
In spite of his official title, which flagrantly declares him a critic, I think the term satirist better befits NC. He isn't a critic, least of all a professional one, because the purpose of professional critics is to inform the audience about whether or not a film is worth forking out on. NC's main purpose is to entertain and be amusing (hence the skits). He may 'review' films, but what he's really looking for is to instigate laughter, not to persuade viewers to see the film. The context doesn't really matter; he just wants to evoke cheap laughs. For the most part, he succeeds here.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
[deleted]
I laughed once or twice in a Sheldon Cooper-type snicker at NC's remarkably shallow intelligence, but otherwise no. Although, perhaps the cheap humor would have been viable if the idiot didn't place ridiculous emphasis on miniscule occurrences. Doing a small jab here and there about the over-the-top moments, such as the room painting scene, is reasonable. However, looping the "damns you to Hell" scene to create a point that doesn't even exist, stressing over the use of "dead meat" and gum, complaining about the dramatized rope swing excitement when that is how kids feel, plus completely overlooking the symbolism/connection of the Dark Master, lesson of open-mindedness and sympathy involving Janice's situation as well as stating "I don't know if this was acceptable back in the '70s" regarding the teacher and student personal outing, and much more makes it real clear about the Critic's attention span, priorities, and, again, (lack of) intelligence.
Edited a blatant grammar mistake
----------------------------
W-a-a-a!..W-a-a-a!..How do you like it?!?..W-a-a-a!
Indeed, that's a good way of putting it. He's not exactly a critic, all he does is snark his way through recounting the plot. What little analysis he gave is long gone now and unfortunately his template became the norm among wannabe youtube film reviewers.
share
T-H-A-N-K Y-O-U-!
After reading all of the praise for this... person... in the other thread (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398808/board/nest/219794146), I'm glad someone finally said the truth.
Even so...
At first I too felt NC was simply a moron doing a poor performance of old comedy bits, which it is, but then/now I feel a tiny bit bad for him. It seems as if he's socially detached and probably living with his parent(s). The point is, I think, the guy just needs a real friend or a pat on the head and a positive reinforcement comment so that perhaps he doesn't feel the need to do this in your face, witty, and otherwise "cool" 10-year-old boy blog-like project for attention.
----------------------------
W-a-a-a!..W-a-a-a!..How do you like it?!?..W-a-a-a!
I have a very low opinion of professional film critics in general. Nostalgia Critic has brought that opinion to a new low.
I liked the movie also but I too think that the Nostalgia Critic is more or less on point with his identified weaknesses of the film.
To those who disagree with the NC, could I ask for a specific example of some specific criticism the NC levels which you believe is not fair.
(I am assuming we can look beyond the NC's exaggerated manner of presentation and instead nonetheless identify that which he wishes to draw to our attention).
KW.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/bridge-to-terabithia/
Perhaps, before so scrupulously identifying the faults of a simple, innocent children's film, NC should first analyse himself and evaluate his own weaknesses and ineptitudes- though we'd be here all day, so manifold these weaknesses are- for, as William Hazlitt once so ingeniously stated, those who are at war with others are not at peace with themselves. It's baffling how such a exploitative and pernicious individual can so aptly nitpick and pinpoint all the flaws in something, however insignificant or irrelevant these issues might be, whilst being incapable of acknowledging his own stupidity. I find it difficult to believe he is unaware of how insufferable he is to anyone who enjoys the benefit of a brain, so I assume he merely hides behind an infuriating guise, appearing supercilious to mask his lack of self-belief, and chooses to feign confidence and arrogance rather than address his many weaknesses and consequently remedy them. Such behaviour is pathetic and immature, concurrent with his equally childish sense of humour and poor understanding of, well, anything. Before I criticise something, especially when it is entirely a subjective opinion (case in point; he finds dancing cheesy, whereas others do not), I always make sure I am thinking about how eligible I am to comment when there are people trying their utmost to make a good film, and this is coming from someone who is often accused of appearing cold, cynical and lacking in empathy and respect. Constructive criticism is always the best option, and where this is impossible keeping your mouth shut is an adequate alternative. But making dreadful jokes to entertain airheads who couldn't understand allegory if it arrived on their doorstep and shook their hand? Not good. Not good at all.
Theodore Roosevelt had the right idea.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
Moving beyond the messenger - in this case the NC - is there any critique you can pull from his zaney rhetoric that you believe does not speak to an actual weakness in the film?
That, it seems to me, is more interesting that deconstructing his character.
http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/bridge-to-terabithia/
The bit about the black Nazi (Hitler was racist and as such would never even have considered enlisting a black person). The bit about the shoes. The bit about raising the 'whiteness' level to One Direction. The bit about the character being schizophrenic. The bit about the Disney princesses plotting to assassinate AnnaSophia Robb (I agreed with him here, but it's still a monumental deviation and is not a valid criticism of the film). The bit where he sings and tilts his head from side to side jubilantly whilst on the toilet, attempting to imitate the frivolity and eccentricity of children. If I were to watch it again, I'd pinpoint some more, but for now (I watched the thing about three months ago and didn't bother watching it again) these seem sufficient.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
Thank you for the response.
I thought a lot of his rhetoric was ... stupid ... and you have done a good job of reminding me of some examples but, and perhaps I am giving him too much credit, I though more substantially that he did fundamentally exposes the weaknesses of the adaptation and, for that reason, I think he has offered a fine catalogue of failings.
[url]http://mymusingsonfilm.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/bridge-to-terabithia/[url]
You guys DO realize that NC is a fictional character, right? The creator, Doug Walker, has recognized on multiple occasions that his opinions are very often not the ones expressed in his reviews. His videos are seldom to critique the movie, but to create humor at the movie's expense. And also, Doug Walker is not loud, obnoxious, and whiny like the NC either. He's actually pretty quiet most of the time of you watch his vlogs. Judging Doug based on a character he portrays is pretty unfair.
shareYou guys DO realize that NC is a fictional character, right?
i know this is an old post and you are not likely to see this reply, but STFU. Rosseanne is one of the best sitcoms ever and Married With Children is hilarious. New Girl sucks even though I due like Deschenel.
Honestly the Conners are not even close to nasty. Sorry they not the Leave it to Beaver characters and they actually act like human beings.
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
The lateness of this post is hardly its biggest problem.
Firstly, I just love the way in which you swoop straight in with that fateful acronym, going from an ostensibly calm and civil opening clause to an unsubstantiated insult with precious little provocation.
Secondly, I must have missed the ceremony in which you were anointed sovereign master of the subjective realm. What gives you the right to irascibly slag him off and then present your own set of highly-contentious opinions (I conjecture, anyway, that 'Roseanne' is one of the best sitcoms ever' is unlikely to be an opinion shared by too many people)? How can you possibly, within reason, go from condemning another's judgement to immediately making highly questionable judgements of your own without acknowledging your own hypocrisy? Anyhow, since you're so convinced of your own total inerrancy, why don't you go add a few books to the Bible or something before coming back next year to tell us all another set of objective, television-related truths?
Thirdly, is any of this really relevant at all? There are boards representing each of the shows you listed, and if you were feeling argumentative and really wanted to stick it to MadTom, you could have just messaged him directly.
I understand I've been largely restricted to making ad hominem arguments as a result of not having watched any of the shows listed, but comedic ignorance is, sometimes unfortunately, no obstacle to common sense.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
I never said my opinions were fact, but saying Roseanne is "sick" or whatever he said (I have him on ignore now not because I disagree with him, but have looked at his other posts and they seem rather obsessive) is lunacy, their's no crude humor on Roseanne,
Joseph Chastainme
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marks-the-series/806493646056177
I've never seen the show but I'll take your word for it, seeing as you're such a big fan.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
The fact that the Nostalgia Critic may or may not be a fictional character of Doug Walker's inception is totally irrelevant- people create characters or alter egos (a la Eminem's Slim Shady, who is notorious for misogynistic, homophobic lyrics and irrepressible anger) as a mechanism through which they can vent their own frustrations and prejudices, displacing controversy on the basis that it's not really their perspective; it's simply the viewpoint of a character they created who just happens to be twice as vehement, twice as contentious and twice as irritating as they are. It's rather infantile, really. Most people, or characters, who appear overly gregarious on YouTube are not accurate representations of their real-life personalities- alter egos are created to facilitate the professions of shy, reticent people like Walker or Eminem who really just want to exact their wrath upon humanity but haven't the audacity or the depth of character to do so. Alter egos are devices to conceal insecurity and are means to often controversial ends; they should not be used to excuse someone's behaviour.
If God gives you lemons, make lemonade. If given melons, return them and tell God he needs glasses
Kinda funny, but kinda dumb as well. I got some laughs out of it, which is what the whole point of the review is. I do agree with him about the rope swing close-up face thing, but the joke got old at the end. I liked what he said about Jess punching the bully, pretty funny.
shareI've seen it and while I agree with Doug saying the death scene was handled maturely and the bully's remark of Jess being the fastest kid in the class after Leslie's passing was insensitive but I didn't notice certain elements Doug perceived as outdated (the use of, "dead meat" and Jess's teacher taking him to the museum), I didn't see the world of Terabithia as an overly-whimsical place, just right, and the social effects are worthwhile
Animation for life