WTF?

[yendi]

There are some damned talented folks named Scott who write intelligently about movies out there, with scottwrites and sweinberg being two obvious ones.

Boxofficemojo's Scott Holleran, on the other hand, appears to have taken a major hit on a crack pipe.

(Link ganked from thelastrobot)

Comments

[amokk]

So I take it he doesn't like Hot Fuzz?

[amokk]

Oh, and I was unaware until now that the "Death premise genre" even existed. Good to know. Now if Only I knew wtf that meant...

[yendi]

Genres are like kinks; a new one is born every day.

[amokk]

I don't know if that's the best way to look at it from a sanity-keeping point of view...

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

Wow, what a jerk. If something bothers me that much due to current events -- certainly not the fault of a movie months and months in the making -- I would refuse to review it or pass it on to someone else.

[toratio.livejournal.com]

That is unbelievable. I've seen this movie twice (I loved it) and the violence it way overdone, to the point that it's slapstick and hardly meant to be taken seriously. In fact, the murders themselves are not the source of the jokes.
I can't help but wonder if this guy even saw the movie.

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

When the Seattle daily's critic "reviewed" Cowboy Bebop, he openly admitted that he didn't see it. He walked out after fifteen minutes. But he "knew it would be stupid because cartoons are for kids" and based his negative review on that.

Roger Ebert states specifically that he reviews a movie on its own merits; if presented with a slasher flick, he writes whether he thinks it's a good slasher flick. He doesn't write about whether he likes slasher flicks or not. (At least, that's what he says.) I'd be curious to see his review of this one, and whether he was able to maintain that objectivity.

[yendi]

I think Ebert's still on sabbatical. But he's certainly shown a willingness to praise genre flicks in the past. If he hates a movie, it's because it sucks within the framework of its own genre.

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

He's doing occasional reviews -- his review of Hot Fuzz was mildly negative because it didn't live up to its premise, but his only comment about genre was that he liked the idea of mixing the American cop thriller and British rural-mystery genres. (The other review didn't even give me any indication that genre mixing was going on!)

[yendi]

I can't help but wonder if this guy even saw the movie. Maybe he wandered into the wrong theatre and caught The 300.

[scottwrites.livejournal.com]

Wow. Thanks for the props, buddy! BOMojo can suck it... :)

[yendi]

True that. Although I admit that I tend to head there before BOProphets for weekend numbers, since they tend to get 'em up faster. Just not for reviews.

[hughcasey.livejournal.com]

I love the comments further down on the page, where he talks about the three biggest movies coming out in early summer:

"A recent Century City theater audience was lukewarm to the latest Shrek trailer, a barrage of jokes featuring the franchise's typical crude humor."

Umm... OK. That wasn't the trailer *I* saw, but let's let him have his opinion, and move on...

"Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End shows the band of rogues emerging from a fog while Spider-Man 3 embraces its predecessor's dark, tortured anti-heroism with full force, with Spidey decked in black, coated by the surrounding night, looking downward."

Perhaps it's me, but when the hell was Spidey ever an ANTI-HERO!? This isn't him "embracing" his dark-side... this is him *fighting* his dark side! But then he continues...

"That's what is shaping up as Hollywood's purportedly biggest summer ever: a drunken pirate rambles, an anti-hero descends and an ogre passes gas and cracks inside jokes. There is no hooray for Hollywood's annual bunch of bankrupt blabber here. Spidey has it right; things are looking down, way down."

This guy hasn't even seen the movies yet, and he's freaking REVIEWED them already!!! Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!!

[yendi]

This guy hasn't even seen the movies yet, and he's freaking REVIEWED them already!!! Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!!

He's saved himself hours of time!

[allah-sulu.livejournal.com]

Boxofficemojo's Scott Holleran,

Somebody pissed in his popcorn. (Story at 11)

[yendi]

Heh. This just two minutes after I read last week's EW, featuring the boom mike scene from that movie.

[thegreatjohnzo.livejournal.com]

he's blaming monty python and snl for virginia tech. (because i'm an awful person, i can see that snl statement.) but seriously, monty python? maybe i'm just the only person who never thought to himself, "man, recreating that scene with the black knight would be awesome! im gonna go cause physical pain to someone else! thanks, monty python!"

why doesnt he blame rap music and kids wearing their pants too low as well? and im surprised that since the kid was asian that halleran doesnt blame anime, hero, and martial arts movies for this.

how is he able to legitimately ask the question of whether or not spiderman 3 and pirates 3 will draw people to the theaters, because he's pissed about fart jokes, alcoholic pirates, and a guy with magic superhero powers? oh, by the way, i hear we should spread the word about this sporting event coming up soon. its called the "world cup," and its only a couple of years away. i don't know if its gonna be popular or not, so you might want to tell everyone you know about it.

its like if bill oreilley met up with the critic. "it stinks!" i totally just sent halleran an email about how hes an idiot. i said things politely...until i called him a pothead. whoops...

[thelastrobot.livejournal.com]

Next he'll be blaming Shaun of the Dead. I'd say more, but I have to go beat someone to death with a pool cue. Toodles!

[ex-bookkeep.livejournal.com]

Elitist movie critics are always fun because, at the end of the day, they're still movie critics.

It's the next step in infomedia evoltuion: Jumping on the scapegoating bandwagon to support a tangentially-related crusade. Fucktard movie critic doesn't like shoot-'em-up movies and decides to use his, admittedly limited, audience for a bit of soapbox time.

The sick part of it is how larger media outlets will use this as evidence that "a new national debate has erupted over violence in the media." The media is becoming a self-licking ice cream cone.