What are his bad takes? Even after all this time he still mostly comes across as a casual viewer that just wants to enjoy a good popcorn flick, not a typical YT cinefile pseud
I know right. I think it's because he acts like an actual fricking human with a brain that hasn't been shilled for money or whatever. Been watching for almost 10 years now. He's had some slightly shilly moments mostly with Star Wars but even the he came around and admitted to not liking The last Jedi after the shitshow died out.
Love him, hate him or anything in between, it’s undeniable that he’s the normalgay barometer.
I’ll always be impressed by his ability to keep his finger on the pulse
>I got into a little something called Warhammer forty thousand in between fury road and this film...
Oh great, another Onions Wars refugee. I'm so sick of this shit man.
What happened to critical thinking? Do you homies need a reviewer™ to tell you what to enjoy? Im still skeptical about Furiosa because >Its an unnecessary prequel that nobody asked, but it was greenlit anyways as a cash grab >Its not even about Mad Max. Furiosa was good in Fury Road, but come on. The movie series used to be called Mad Max. >Lighting and some vfx are atrocious. It screams cheap >Ana Taylor looks fricking weird as Furiosa. She is suitable mostly for feminine roles, not tomboyish ones >Chris Hemsworth is literally fricking thor but more jolly.
>What happened to critical thinking?
indeed >Do you homies need a reviewer™ to tell you what to enjoy?
I dont watch everything, so yeah, opinion of people I decently respect gives more insight than going blind based off.. nothing... just trailer?
>Its an unnecessary prequel that nobody asked, but it was greenlit anyways as a cash grab
Cliche argument or morons without any value, someone should be asking for movies? Are movies suppose to be inherently necessary? >Its not even about Mad Max. Furiosa was good in Fury Road, but come on. The movie series used to be called Mad Max.
Character does not matter much in these movies. We did not like fury road because it was mad max movie when he had so few lines. Its about how it is done, hows the world, hows the villain, hows characters interactions. >Lighting and some vfx are atrocious. It screams cheap
ok >Ana Taylor looks fricking weird as Furiosa. She is suitable mostly for feminine roles, not tomboyish ones
Yeap. She looks ugly, and weird, but now we learn she does not show up for an hour of the movie, we get younger-younger furiosa, and has no lines. This improves odds of the movie being better. >Chris Hemsworth is literally fricking thor but more jolly.
that is ok, if he is child murdering jolly thor its original enough.. its about the lines of dialogue and interaction between characters, maybe he is meh, we dunno, but so far it looks ok
>Cliche argument or morons without any value, someone should be asking for movies? Are movies suppose to be inherently necessary?
Ask every Mad Max fan, and all you will get from them is that they want another Mad Max movie starring, guess who, Mad Max.
Fury road worked because it had great cinematography with great action scenes, and because Mad Max was still in the movie. Charlize Theron being a good Furiosa was the cherry on top.
It would have been controversial if the movie didnt have Mad Max in it at all. >if he is child murdering jolly thor its original enough
Perhaps he will be original to an extent. However, I find difficult to believe that Chris being casted as a post apocalyptic Thor is a coincidence. His role is written like this because he is relatable from his mcu role as thor, and they want that capeshitty audience. Another point for the cashgrab argument.
>Ask every Mad Max fan, and all you will get from them is that they want another Mad Max movie starring, guess who, Mad Max.
Ask them if they want another movie from George Miller
who the frick are you and your hypothetical fans to go ranting what script he should choose? Feels arrogant and ignorant
>Perhaps he will be original to an extent. However, I find difficult to believe that Chris being casted as a post apocalyptic Thor is a coincidence.
he desperately wanted to be in the first one, there is no reason not to cast him
cash grab argument is also that redditor tier cliche bullshit... oh you thought fury road was a movie done for charity or something?
What people want to say when they say cash grab movies, is when there is that feeling that no one in production really cared about it, to give it some heart. Again this is that old director movie.. you think he did this for money?
>cash grab argument is also that redditor tier cliche bullshit
Sucking George Miller's dick so hearty, is as reddit as it can be you know. Nobody is immune to making mistakes. Miller's Furiosa is going to be what Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is: Soulless shit that will go down in history as and inferior prequel
Jeremy Jahns is the best reviewer on YT. No clickbait titles, or thumbnails. No stupid long ass videos being pretentious cinephile. Just simple good or bad, worth watching or not. That's all. The current gen of YT reviewers like YMS, Drinker who just make long ass reviews and act all high and mighty get so many takes wrong. Like YMS was mostly correct in the past but nowadays he is mostly just dissecting the tiniest bit of shit in every movie. I get it it's funny sometimes but not a good reviewer.
Jeremy Jahns has been consistently correct in telling which is a good movie or not. Rest is up to the viewer how good or bad they find it but if Jeremy says it sucks then it's definitely bad. If he says it's good then even if you find it above mid, he is correct.
Like YMS gave Challengers a great review and I walked in to the most dull threesome drama ever. He said the climax all emotional tensions are high but I didn't feel it because the whole spat was so fricking stupid. He even gave drive my car a good reviewer as far as I recall and it was sooooo borrrring cuck fantasy film. Yes it was good but not as good as Adum said it was
>Jeremy Jahns is the best reviewer on YT. No clickbait titles, or thumbnails. No stupid long ass videos being pretentious cinephile
I like him for keeping his standard video format, but lately he has become a little bit too vague in his movie reviews.
He never goes into specifics of what exactly does he hate about a movie, but he will go on and on saying semi-useless tidbits about it, and generally praising its good parts.
I had a YMS video recommended this morning about some Seinfeld movie I did know existed and had to turn it off because it was him seething in such a petulant manner. The movie being reviewed didn't look funny but fricking Christ, I was surprised at how even more off putting of a personality he has become
Not a good comparison. Uma Thurman has proved that not only she has range, but she also can carry a movie on her shoulders as a protagonist. Anya doesnt have range. She is only in movies because she looks good despite her ayy lmao face, and only gets semi serious roles.
>Uma
Kill bill= action protagonist
Gattaga = serious romance role
Super Ex Girlfriend= Comedy protagonist
Batman and Robin= Sexy seductress super villain >Anya Taylor
Vitch= serious horror protagonist
Queen's gambit= serious chess lady
I havent seen the rest you have mentioned, but I can safely assume she is also has a serious role there as well
>Kill bill= action protagonist
argument was why cast her there >Gattaga = serious romance role
10 lines and 3 minutes on screen time boyo >Super Ex Girlfriend= Comedy protagonist
ok >Batman and Robin= Sexy seductress super villain
yeah, probably worst performance in that category of all time
>I havent seen the rest you have mentioned, but I can safely assume she is also has a serious role there as well
and that means she was terrible cast for furiosa?
Tell us which comedy of the last years you would cast her in?
Where she could have shown us her range?
Now I do understand why people dont like her
I think she looks 100% terrible as furiosa
she looked terrible ever since that young mutans shit...
but people better have better arguments than "woman lead"
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>yeah, probably worst performance in that category of all time
have a nice day, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy was one of the best things in that movie. >Tell us which comedy of the last years you would cast her in?
To be fair, hollywood is dead and has lost its sense of humor, but since she has a good agent and gets all the roles, she could have been in Barbie.
Where she could have shown us her range?
I guess she tries the super hero protagonist approach in Mad Max, but it already backfired on her because she looks out of place
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>have a nice day, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy was one of the best things in that movie.
you could at least try to defend her better
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I did. You are the one who cant appreciate her sexiness in that movie.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>she is not shit, she is the best part in this giant pile of shit >ok, thats true but that is not a good defense
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Batman and Robin is definitely inferior to Burton's batman flicks, but it definitely works as an unintentional comedy. I had fun watching it.
Carrey is great as Nygma with his cartoony acting, Schwarzenegger is also fun as the puny Mr Freeze. Uma does her best as a sexy poison Ivy. She is probably the best casting choice in that movie.
Only george clooney and that robin guy felt a bit stiff, as if they didnt know what was going on.
chris gore and the black dude from film threat thought it was good too, but not as good as fury road. but both thought it was "a fun movie"
alan was bored.
>chris gore and the black dude from film threat thought it was good too, but not as good as fury road. but both thought it was "a fun movie"
so it's a top 5 movie of the 2020s?
>redditjohns
Leave.
I respect him for sticking to his early 2000s youtuber aesthetic after all these years
What are his bad takes? Even after all this time he still mostly comes across as a casual viewer that just wants to enjoy a good popcorn flick, not a typical YT cinefile pseud
He’s the best yt critic and it isn’t even close.
Hemsworth carries it
Accurate
I like autistic dog fricker more. his humor seems to be similar to many people here.
>He’s the best yt critic and it isn’t even close.
eh if he was so good then why isn't he making his own movie like Chris Stuckmann?
bro knows not to overextend
I know right. I think it's because he acts like an actual fricking human with a brain that hasn't been shilled for money or whatever. Been watching for almost 10 years now. He's had some slightly shilly moments mostly with Star Wars but even the he came around and admitted to not liking The last Jedi after the shitshow died out.
>admitted to not liking The last Jedi after the shitshow died out.
Man that movie did a number on all these youtube critics.
TLJ made more money for YT streaming and superchats than it did for Disney
He praised Oppenheimer.
?t=447
He was probably able to follow along.
Love him, hate him or anything in between, it’s undeniable that he’s the normalgay barometer.
I’ll always be impressed by his ability to keep his finger on the pulse
>number of lines as an argument for who was positioned as the star.
We are talking max movies, right?
>I got into a little something called Warhammer forty thousand in between fury road and this film...
Oh great, another Onions Wars refugee. I'm so sick of this shit man.
>implying that's the problem with the image
you're probably a filthy xenos lover yourself heretic
>Orka
Eh
>IMDB score is 7.9 and the film hasn’t even opened yet
It’s trash
>7.9
>Trash
Popular movie imsb scores range from 7 to 9. A score of 7.4 would be more like 1 out of 5
damn yo this flick aint bussin fr
This post? Reads like ChatGPT conversation. It's like the algorithm found a way to sneak into our conversations.
What happened to critical thinking? Do you homies need a reviewer™ to tell you what to enjoy? Im still skeptical about Furiosa because
>Its an unnecessary prequel that nobody asked, but it was greenlit anyways as a cash grab
>Its not even about Mad Max. Furiosa was good in Fury Road, but come on. The movie series used to be called Mad Max.
>Lighting and some vfx are atrocious. It screams cheap
>Ana Taylor looks fricking weird as Furiosa. She is suitable mostly for feminine roles, not tomboyish ones
>Chris Hemsworth is literally fricking thor but more jolly.
>What happened to critical thinking?
indeed
>Do you homies need a reviewer™ to tell you what to enjoy?
I dont watch everything, so yeah, opinion of people I decently respect gives more insight than going blind based off.. nothing... just trailer?
>Its an unnecessary prequel that nobody asked, but it was greenlit anyways as a cash grab
Cliche argument or morons without any value, someone should be asking for movies? Are movies suppose to be inherently necessary?
>Its not even about Mad Max. Furiosa was good in Fury Road, but come on. The movie series used to be called Mad Max.
Character does not matter much in these movies. We did not like fury road because it was mad max movie when he had so few lines. Its about how it is done, hows the world, hows the villain, hows characters interactions.
>Lighting and some vfx are atrocious. It screams cheap
ok
>Ana Taylor looks fricking weird as Furiosa. She is suitable mostly for feminine roles, not tomboyish ones
Yeap. She looks ugly, and weird, but now we learn she does not show up for an hour of the movie, we get younger-younger furiosa, and has no lines. This improves odds of the movie being better.
>Chris Hemsworth is literally fricking thor but more jolly.
that is ok, if he is child murdering jolly thor its original enough.. its about the lines of dialogue and interaction between characters, maybe he is meh, we dunno, but so far it looks ok
No mr. jungle bunny, I expect you to die.
>Cliche argument or morons without any value, someone should be asking for movies? Are movies suppose to be inherently necessary?
Ask every Mad Max fan, and all you will get from them is that they want another Mad Max movie starring, guess who, Mad Max.
Fury road worked because it had great cinematography with great action scenes, and because Mad Max was still in the movie. Charlize Theron being a good Furiosa was the cherry on top.
It would have been controversial if the movie didnt have Mad Max in it at all.
>if he is child murdering jolly thor its original enough
Perhaps he will be original to an extent. However, I find difficult to believe that Chris being casted as a post apocalyptic Thor is a coincidence. His role is written like this because he is relatable from his mcu role as thor, and they want that capeshitty audience. Another point for the cashgrab argument.
>Ask every Mad Max fan, and all you will get from them is that they want another Mad Max movie starring, guess who, Mad Max.
Ask them if they want another movie from George Miller
who the frick are you and your hypothetical fans to go ranting what script he should choose? Feels arrogant and ignorant
>Perhaps he will be original to an extent. However, I find difficult to believe that Chris being casted as a post apocalyptic Thor is a coincidence.
he desperately wanted to be in the first one, there is no reason not to cast him
cash grab argument is also that redditor tier cliche bullshit... oh you thought fury road was a movie done for charity or something?
What people want to say when they say cash grab movies, is when there is that feeling that no one in production really cared about it, to give it some heart. Again this is that old director movie.. you think he did this for money?
>cash grab argument is also that redditor tier cliche bullshit
Sucking George Miller's dick so hearty, is as reddit as it can be you know. Nobody is immune to making mistakes. Miller's Furiosa is going to be what Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is: Soulless shit that will go down in history as and inferior prequel
>go down in history as and inferior prequel
cowardly hedging your bets I see ;D
pathethic
Yeah, concession accepted. You can now go back to dick sucking.
Age quod agis.
Most trusted Youtube Critic
Did he give it Awesometacular or Worth Buying Blu Ray?
Jeremy Jahns is the best reviewer on YT. No clickbait titles, or thumbnails. No stupid long ass videos being pretentious cinephile. Just simple good or bad, worth watching or not. That's all. The current gen of YT reviewers like YMS, Drinker who just make long ass reviews and act all high and mighty get so many takes wrong. Like YMS was mostly correct in the past but nowadays he is mostly just dissecting the tiniest bit of shit in every movie. I get it it's funny sometimes but not a good reviewer.
Jeremy Jahns has been consistently correct in telling which is a good movie or not. Rest is up to the viewer how good or bad they find it but if Jeremy says it sucks then it's definitely bad. If he says it's good then even if you find it above mid, he is correct.
Like YMS gave Challengers a great review and I walked in to the most dull threesome drama ever. He said the climax all emotional tensions are high but I didn't feel it because the whole spat was so fricking stupid. He even gave drive my car a good reviewer as far as I recall and it was sooooo borrrring cuck fantasy film. Yes it was good but not as good as Adum said it was
>Jeremy Jahns is the best reviewer on YT. No clickbait titles, or thumbnails. No stupid long ass videos being pretentious cinephile
I like him for keeping his standard video format, but lately he has become a little bit too vague in his movie reviews.
He never goes into specifics of what exactly does he hate about a movie, but he will go on and on saying semi-useless tidbits about it, and generally praising its good parts.
Nooo Jeremy not you tooo.... I don't wanna watch Stuckman for reviews
>He never goes into specifics of what exactly does he hate about a movie
he does it to avoid spoilers, in a spoiler-review he doesn't hold back
Agreed, but he hasnt made a spoiler-review since forever.
I had a YMS video recommended this morning about some Seinfeld movie I did know existed and had to turn it off because it was him seething in such a petulant manner. The movie being reviewed didn't look funny but fricking Christ, I was surprised at how even more off putting of a personality he has become
Yeah only Adum and Pals is worth watching nowadays on YMS
Sure about that?
?si=ApGb4o-qm1ldx95w
Bruh
>focus on female lead
It never had a chance and you know it.
Not a good comparison. Uma Thurman has proved that not only she has range, but she also can carry a movie on her shoulders as a protagonist. Anya doesnt have range. She is only in movies because she looks good despite her ayy lmao face, and only gets semi serious roles.
>Uma Thurman has proved that not only she has range, but she also can carry a movie on her shoulders as a protagonist.
When?
And dont forget that anything you name goes against vvitch, split, thoroughbreds, queens gambit...
you are inescapably wrong in claiming uma had some bigger presence and better CV to be casted...
>Uma
Kill bill= action protagonist
Gattaga = serious romance role
Super Ex Girlfriend= Comedy protagonist
Batman and Robin= Sexy seductress super villain
>Anya Taylor
Vitch= serious horror protagonist
Queen's gambit= serious chess lady
I havent seen the rest you have mentioned, but I can safely assume she is also has a serious role there as well
>Kill bill= action protagonist
argument was why cast her there
>Gattaga = serious romance role
10 lines and 3 minutes on screen time boyo
>Super Ex Girlfriend= Comedy protagonist
ok
>Batman and Robin= Sexy seductress super villain
yeah, probably worst performance in that category of all time
>I havent seen the rest you have mentioned, but I can safely assume she is also has a serious role there as well
and that means she was terrible cast for furiosa?
Tell us which comedy of the last years you would cast her in?
Where she could have shown us her range?
Now I do understand why people dont like her
I think she looks 100% terrible as furiosa
she looked terrible ever since that young mutans shit...
but people better have better arguments than "woman lead"
>yeah, probably worst performance in that category of all time
have a nice day, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy was one of the best things in that movie.
>Tell us which comedy of the last years you would cast her in?
To be fair, hollywood is dead and has lost its sense of humor, but since she has a good agent and gets all the roles, she could have been in Barbie.
Where she could have shown us her range?
I guess she tries the super hero protagonist approach in Mad Max, but it already backfired on her because she looks out of place
>have a nice day, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy was one of the best things in that movie.
you could at least try to defend her better
I did. You are the one who cant appreciate her sexiness in that movie.
>she is not shit, she is the best part in this giant pile of shit
>ok, thats true but that is not a good defense
Batman and Robin is definitely inferior to Burton's batman flicks, but it definitely works as an unintentional comedy. I had fun watching it.
Carrey is great as Nygma with his cartoony acting, Schwarzenegger is also fun as the puny Mr Freeze. Uma does her best as a sexy poison Ivy. She is probably the best casting choice in that movie.
Only george clooney and that robin guy felt a bit stiff, as if they didnt know what was going on.
She was perfect but Kill Bill has WAY more to do with Tarantino than Thurman. It straight up doesn't work if you put another director in.
wtf this dude not only still does movie reviews but also uses the same background for how long, ten plus years? the beard is new I guess
chris gore and the black dude from film threat thought it was good too, but not as good as fury road. but both thought it was "a fun movie"
alan was bored.
>chris gore and the black dude from film threat thought it was good too, but not as good as fury road. but both thought it was "a fun movie"
so it's a top 5 movie of the 2020s?
He really glew up, he's almost handsome now.
Its very obviously dogshit. Do you Black folk have eyes?
>Do you Black folk have eyes?
My favourite blaxploitation horror spoof.
Reserving my opinion on Furiosa until my next Stuckmannizing session.