How can these idiots get a pass for reviewing movies when they made this piece of shit movie...

how can you get a pass for reviewing movies when you haven't done anything at all?

Attached: thinking-hard.png (248x203, 21.73K)

>Sure I cut your cock off instead of removing your tonsils but what are you gonna do, critique me? You aren't a doctor!

I know OP is shitposting, but can you name one single film reviewer on the planet who has actually made a movie, any movie, of any quality?

Why would you invent such a standard if no one else can meet it? Is there a special new category of "Film reviewers who's views are worth listening to because they have made a movie that was considered extremely high quality and commercially successful"? Who's part of that group?

AVGN movie was fine as a low budget adventure movie. Helps that he had an achutuhal director and producer to help him with it and make the connections

Ugh, it's supposed to be bad. What an incel...

Attached: face.jpg (225x225, 13.81K)

Nice try faggot, they've admitted themselves they weren't happy with the result and wouldn't make a movie the same way again.

Always laughable when Jay makes jokes about how hard it is to be a real film director, lmao.
The Cinema Snob's movie was good enough to get a sequel.

the movie was ruined because rich was lead instead of mike, with jay as the old timey cop
fucking rich, he's a great support actor but he will never ever ever ever be able to lead

>Why would you invent such a standard if no one else can meet it?
You unironically shouldn't pay attention to critics, "professional" or YouTube ones,
unless you literally don't care about the art of film making and just want someone to tell you what to watch. The only people who's opinions matter are the ones that actually work in the industry and have proven themselves. Just having a "great taste" is worthless.

I havent cringed in a while but this post made it

This sums them up perfectly.

Reviewing movies is a different experience to making movies. You do not need be good at one to be good at the other. This can be applied to all artforms. Take for example Beethoven. He was famously deaf but he still made fantastic music. Him being deaf would also make him terrible at reviewing music; even his own. Just because RLM made a bad movie does not mean their film criticism is more or less valid. They are simply better at reviewing movies than they are at making them, in the exactly same way Beethoven was better at making music than reviewing music.

Is space cop by those podcast guys?

Truffaut was a critic.

I distincly remember Jay at some point saying it was in no way meant to be bad.

Watching the behind the scenes footage is even more baffling. They went to so much effort to make the sets and the props but then they wrote really awful jokes like the skeleton in the cryochamber and in the behind the scenes they are sarcastically laughing about how awful and unfunny it is...? why was this made? did someone force them to make this?

>Him being deaf would also make him terrible at reviewing music; even his own.
this is a terrible example, he could easily review through sheet music, but I get what you mean

Anyone who makes movies watches movies and anyone who watches movies has an opinion on them, its so strange to see people who can pull out really interesting criticisms of movies but then cant avoid any of the pitfalls in their own work that they commonly identify in other peoples work

>it's bad on purpose
The perfect shield for cynical fucks like RLM. They're terrified of making a sincere movie that doesn't have layers of irony

They had enough courage to start the production but not enough confidence to make a real effort to make it good. There's also the lack of talent, but their attitude plays a big part, it feels like they didn't really care for the script.

this, a bad movie made to be good will always be worth far more than a bad movie that is too afraid to try and be good and instead hides behind the "bad movie" shield. Same reason why The Room is far better than Sharknado, atleast Wiseau sincerely tried to make a good movie, rather than the cynical fucks who decided to make shit for the sake of it.

I'm a professional illustrator. I've have seen thousands of people in my life who can critique someone's artwork all day, and even among the ones who can and do create art of their own, can't even hold a handle to the people they're critiquing. The world is not so simple as "If you can identify a flaw in one thing, you are immune from such flaws in your own life." I can tell someone all day that they should eat well, go to the gym, and not spend their day shitposting on the internet, but that doesn't mean I follow any of those nuggets of wisdom myself.

Creating something, especially a film, is a messy and complicated process. Not everything is as easy as it sounds on paper, and if every creator spent huge amounts of time compiling lists of all the things that they should and shouldn't do according to theory, then nothing would ever get done.

I'm actually george lucas and I just wanted to say, I know its hard to make something but its just bizarre that the guys who use so much energy to find problems with movies so lazily make a movie filled with problems

CinemaSins is way worse at this though