For me, it’s Eric Butts.
>REACTION! Ahsoka Trailer #1 - Star Wars Disney+ Series 2023
%3D%3D
>REACTION! Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker - Teaser Trailer #1 - Daisy Ridley Movie 2019
%3D%3D
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
Favorite Movie Reviewer/YouTuber?
buy an ad
Anyone have that webm of this ugly homosexual and some other onions reaction to this gif?
so much cringe
thanks anon
Kino
Does anyone have the James Youniverise edit where he's reacting to a black guy fricking white girl?
did you check your sexual fantasies? sure it's in there.
I have never actually seen the original james youniverse video with sound anywhere I couldnt find it
soiboi reddit culture literally peaked with this webm, it was all downhill afterward
I'm sorry bruh this shit is funny, I just think about the shitposts on /wsg/ with the mii menu music lul
I've plenty
more like eric ASS, he should open every video with a shot of him pulling down his cargo shorts, mooning the camera and have it zoom directly in his butthole
I want what he's smoking injecting snorting
>I want what he's smoking injecting snorting
Whatever it is, it’s one hell of a drug.
>REACTION! Obi-Wan Kenobi Teaser Trailer #1 - Star Wars Ewan McGregor Disney+ Series 2022
%3D%3D
Roger Ebert and David Sims are the only people I can tolerate reading at all. Otherwise I always enjoy listening to filmmakers talk about films.
>Roger Ebert
Fine for opinions about Oscar bait and basic dramashit but got relentlessly filtered by genre film
Any examples you have in mind? I recall that he wrote positive, interesting reviews for genre films such as Alien, Aliens, The Exorcist, Pan's Labyrinth, Terminator 2, Blade Runner, Star Wars, Nolan's Batman movies. Of course, he didn't usually analyze genre tropes or anything, but I'm glad he didn't. Maybe he was bad with most horror?
>The Thing (2.5 stars)
>Bladerunner (only 3 stars)
>The Fifth Element (only 3 stars)
>Starship Troopers (2 stars)
>rated the second Ring higher than the first
>Gave Die Hard - thumbs down
>Once Upon a Time in the West (2.5 stars)
>Southland Tales (1 star)
>The Phantom Menace (3.5 stars)
>The Usual Suspects (1.5 stars)
>Brazil (2 stars)
>Full Metal Jacket (2.5 stars)
>Clockwork Orange (2 stars)
That's not even mentioning how often he got Lynched (Lost Highway - 2 stars, Blue Velvet - 1 star, The Elephant Man - 2 stars, Wild at Heart - 2.5 stars). He was a massive pseud and a huge midwit at best
He did change his opinion on Bladerunner, later adding it to his great movies list. I suspect he would have reevaluated The Thing as well. Is Starship Troopers really deserving of more than 2 stars? Southland tales? In the case of Die Hard and The Usual Suspects, everyone has off days.
>Is Starship Troopers really deserving of more than 2 stars? Southland tales?
Both are masterpieces in their own right and some of the biggest filters of their decades. Stop trying to excuse him, the only reason he's popular is because he connected to the lowest common denominator and used pretentious language to make himself seem smart. As with all critics he fundamentally lacked talent and in turn the ability to properly assess it. It's completely indefensible to rate Brazil and Once Upon a Time In the West lower than the fricking Phantom Menace
I don't think he used pretentious language, unlike most critics of his time. But OK, I concede that he got a lot of these wrong, but I wonder if he wouldn't have reevaluated them more favorably had he lived longer, like he did with numerous other movies. But more important to consider is his precision and recall (the statistical measures), and what he actually said about the movies that he liked. I haven't calculated those stats, but for my money his 3.5+-star reviews are a reliable indicator for a movie being good, and most movies I like he reviewed positively. And when he did write a good review, he could write with such warmth and clarity and insight.
>but I wonder if he wouldn't have reevaluated them more favorably had he lived longer, like he did with numerous other movies.
Pure cope, this just means that he realized he was so wrong he couldn't defend his position any longer without looking like a complete moron.
>statistical measures
Analytics gays ruin everything. He was an average writer at best which is why he was so bitter about so many movies.
>Pure cope, this just means that he realized he was so wrong he couldn't defend his position any longer without looking like a complete moron.
He was never concerned with consistency across decades. He had the humility to change his opinions rather often. Why should he be criticized for that? Emerson said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>Analytics gays ruin everything
This thread is (ostensibly) about favorite reviewers. It is therefore reasonable, maybe even required, to compare reviewers. If we want to compare them by taste (you initially criticized Ebert for his taste, not his writing), it is reasonable to use metrics like precision and recall. I have not actually calculated those metrics for him or any other reviewer, but my intuition is that he would score much better than most other prominent critics. But beyond the simplified projection of taste to a binary classification, his writing, particularly in his positive reviews, was excellent. There are no obvious objective measures to compare him to others in this area, but I find most other reviewers of the last 20 years nearly unreadable.
Emerson was an actual artist, Ebert was a critic who's only value was in his ability to judge films. Consistency in his work is actually valuable to the extent his work has any value (which is in actuality none). Watch F for Fake to get a little Welles directed blackpill on expert opinion regarding the arts.
>my intuition is that he would score much better than most other prominent critics.
He would score better in arbitrary areas according to some arbitrary formula which if applied would simply homogenize ratings to the extent that all critics would rate things the same way. In criticism of the arts that's not such a bad thing since the craft itself is arbitrary and capricious and as such useless. When applied to other things like sports it has also homogenized them ripping them of all soul they once had.
His writing was mediocre at best though I suppose when compared to other reviewers he may have been king of the dimwits.
I know it seems like I'm attacking you personally but I'm not. You actually seem like a decent dude by Cinemaphile standards. Critics are simply fricking hacks that can neither do nor teach so they resort to trying to catalog from a distance. I used to read a lot of reviews too, especially from Ebert, until I realized he never watches/reviews anything truly challenging (like Reflections of Evil or I-Be Area) and then I started watching more movies instead of worrying about what other people think of them.
If you want to read something about movies I'd suggest finding people who are actively trying to find obscure/lost movies or other sources more concerned with expressing love and actually expanding their horizons rather than fecklessly trying to pass of subjective opinion as objective fact
>He would score better in arbitrary areas according to some arbitrary formula which if applied would simply homogenize ratings to the extent that all critics would rate things the same way.
It's less arbitrary than you're implying.
>Precision
What % of his 3+ star reviews are actually good movies?
>Recall
What % of good movies that he reviewed did he give 3+ stars?
These apply to any classification task, which, if you squint your eyes, movie reviewing is — is the movie good or bad?
But as I reread myself, the binary good/bad label is really not at all what I like most about reading Ebert. It really is what he can say about a movie. Take this one for instance https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fireworks-1998. This may be strange example because I have not actually seen the movie, but I find the writing very compelling. It's surely not the definitive word on the movie, and reading the review, it's clearly not intended to be. He makes observations about character and structure, and avoids facile generalizations about culture or society. He's not trying to catalogue or pigeonhole, but really just make some curious, in this case rather gentle observations. I actually don't know who else approaches film criticism like this at all except David Sims sometimes.
Just watch F for Fake and realize "experts" on art don't actually know shit
>When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
>Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
>And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
>Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?
I never really got social media but I feel slightly happy that my tastes don't align with a guy who publicly cried over a Star Wars teaser.
They're talking about Roger "slackjaw" Ebert.
Watch "Life Itself" by the way, it's really good.
You had to rain on my parade. That movie better be good.
I explicitly remember him being filtered by The Mission because I guess he didn't understand that the scenes in the finale were all happening at the same time.
His gripe with Blue Velvet was moronic grandma tier thinking.
His only good contribution to the world was Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
There was a critic in my city’s paper I really liked but he got a crippling case of TDS and is useless now. He was just filling up his column with stuff about “our new national nightmare” and “kids in cages” and “my daughter is crying right now because she’s afraid there’s gonna be a another holocaust.” It’s a shame bc since he went crazy I have no critic I can trust.
Do you care to share the name? Maybe his pre-2016 stuff is okay.
Ty Burr, Boston Globe
Cool, thanks
>Butts
hehe
B U T T S
U
T
T
S
SHIFT + LEFT CLICK
BYE BYE homosexual
As a sack of shit actor I kinda like his reaction especially when he sees me and that one line they decided was great.
Tears of joy. Fricking love it and makes the the shit schedules the hangovers and fights worth it.
Go ahead and pirate shit. I could stop for ten years and still be five years in front of you. Just a job a stupid annoying job and I should of stick to being an extra.
Yes we lurk here homosexuals
Thanks the AI body scan here’s your lunch voucher now kick rocks moron.
I’m literally in the next big Star Wars show. Does this board show zero respect to the people who give you the content you watch in your cheeto underwear on Netflix and Hulu? If no new content comes out what are you going to watch? Fricking reality shows?
disney wars sucks and i hope your show gets cancelled, george buys his shit back and retcons all the trash you've been in
>implying I watch TV
I could live for 100 years more and not consume a second of what you homosexuals call "entertainment".
>I'm literally in the next big Star Wars show
That's not something to be proud of.
>the next big Star Wars show.
Star Wars shows aren't big anymore, they just drop on the floor like every other streaming show now. Nothing special, not must watch, just there
I have watched the same three shows on repeat for over 15 years
I haven’t watched a single show made in the last ten years, except for anime. What now homosexual?
Go back to plebbit if you're looking for mindless consumers to blow smoke up your ass.
>I’m literally in the next big Star Wars show.
Ahsoka? Star Wars isn't that big anymore because Disney ran it into the ground.
for people saying he's a blind shill, he actually hated Secret Invasion's trailer and went in depth why it will fail.
Look closely at the reflections in his glasses.
It's actually just some footage of a paedophile discovering the dark web that they loop over different trailers.
This guy has a wife. She literally married a guy who gave her the last name "Butts." What's your excuse?
In the star wars video I believe he got a hotel with 2 beds.
>Photos of your husband circulate the internet as the archetype of a failed male on the absolute lowest level possible
>Cursed you with the last name "Butts" so your shame is for all to see
I'm curious what his wife looks like. I've seen women on My 600lbs Life who couldn't fit through a Kroger exit door, have vastly more attractive and manly looking husbands. Surely she couldn't be that thirsty. Is he extremely wealthy?
She's not ugly but she's very odd. Female autism and not the cute kind. And yeah I think he is wealthy and lives off some kind of trust from his dad. Basically lives like a kid watching movies and buying toys all day while larping as a YouTuber.
She probably looks exactly like him but with long hair
She's not as sad looking as he is.
She’s honestly not bad looking
By sad looking i meant physically, she's obviously depressed the whole video, looks like she wants to blow her brains out, this screencap is one of the few instances where she gives a wide smile.
She looks like a Plain Jane. Probably just takes whatever money he has and spends it on her own vices, while humoring his when she has to. She must have an insufferable personality to have settled for him, when nobody else would take her
They look like brother and sister
Her last name might’ve been worse
>=ygUKRXJpYyBidXR0cw%3D%3D
data mining thread
>phoneposter is an avid consoomer of some literal eceleb homosexual
I only knew this dude as the homosexual in teh basedreaction gif before this thread. Reevaluate your life
What’s your problem? I just find his reactions to be hilarious.
My problem is dimwit phoneposting homosexuals ruining the quality of this board by trying to push their no-life interest in watching other homosexuals react to shit rather than actually discussing Television & Film
kys
Don’t worry, homosexual. We’re not going anywhere anytime soon.
🙂
We're all here forever and you'll always be an electiontourist
Calm down Bubblebass
Jenny is the best reviewer with the best insights!
I think so too. I don't listen to a word she says but she says them in cute ways.
seriously what the frick is that on his face?
Shit, just like how I'm going to poop in your mouth someday you redditfrog posting homosexual
say that to my face fricker and not online and see what happens
>seriously what the frick is that on his face?
It's known as a "Jimmy Savile cigar burn" or a "Ruby Tuesday". It's a form of low level israeli herd branding.
here he is telling the studios that they can put the star wars brand on anything and he will consider it pizza
i think they're all pretty shitty but my brother showed me this guy and i think he's fricking hilarious. i don't actually watch him but i'll give this guy a pass because he's going nuts always and it seems totally sincere.
The mark on his face is from me putting a cigarette out on it.
how come there are no soijaks of Eric? How did he escape it?
I saw this weirdo at my local Best Buy and he's every bit of a autist as you'd imagine.. Dragging his old father behind him as he poured through DVD's like a drug addict
whats that thing on his face
So what the frick is that thing on his cheek?
Damage from the incident.
mock him all you want but that song he did is catchy as hell
>mock him all you want
Don't mind if I do!
>it’s Eric Butts.
Eric Butts is a shill.
Eric Butts won.
He did. He fricking loves anything Star Wars and now Disney pumps out Star Wars trash 24/7. This world was made for him.
He's got a good head on his shoulders, not my kind of stuff but I wish him well.
for me, it's bag face. he got caught sleeping with underaged girls/rape or something and had to run across canada to escape his old life and decided to start a youtube channel
Do you think these are genuine reactions? Like do you think he actually is getting this excited? Because I’m not sure which is worse: soi-ing out that hard to Hollywood crap or pretending to in order to grift people who enjoy watching a grown man soi out.
>Do you think these are genuine reactions?
They aren't. Most reactors are clearly women who are doing it because breasts + pretending to like movies = easy money.
Wtf are you talking about lol. There’s thousands of soiboi men who react to random shit on the internet. I don’t even think I’ve seen a woman reactor
Show an incel a picture of 1000 people, if 5 of them are women they'll start screaming about how the picture has too many women in it. Shoot mental illness.
>I don’t even think I’ve seen a woman reactor
The vast majority of the film and TV reactors are women.
I guess RLM, still. No one else in the review biz is any fun to watch. Plenty of smart people with big ideas and even bigger words but so what? And then the other half are just reactors, which is it's own problem.
>why yes, I remember so you do not have to. How could you tell?
Kneel Cinemaphile
He won bros.
This guy is on too many antidepressants. That overreactivity, the mistaking the shallow for the profound...the tone of voice, I've seen and heard it all before.
>wttb tier
Welcome to the Basement
>new reviews
Brad Jones (Cinema Snob)
Doug Walker (Nostalgia Critic)
>great but they very rarely do them
Corn Pone Flicks
The Infinite Review
>background radiation
Movie Dumpster
>f
Noah Antwiler (Spoony)
Heheheh Butts
I like Dave Parka he puts out consistent videos with a lot of reviews of stuff I've never heard of
Can't wait for Wednesday's vlog Buttsbros