He probably spent a fair amount of time on late early Cinemaphile. You can just tell from his sense of humor. IT logically follows that a Cinemaphile degen's (though he would likely never admit it) vids would resonate with other Cinemaphile degens.
The dogfricking stuff is more funny that anything, but I find his smug demeanor annoying and he genuinely has bad taste.
His comments on old cinema are fricking moronic, and while I respect that he tries to watch and bring to light cinema that is underlooked by most, festival stuff, he often himself gets filtered. His approach is very autistic he is obsessed with technical stuff, very nitpicky. This results in him getting filtered by films that employ unconventional editing and structure, also he has an aversion to magical realism for some reason.
I stopped watching him when he rated a movie that he hadn't even finished despite not finding anything wrong with it. You can have dumb or autistic opinions about cinema and they might still be interesting, but if they so half-assed that you can't even finish a movie before talking about it then I have no reason to listen to you
Recently he watched a Romanian film RMN, and he went on a rant about a scene where the characters in that film play a melody using glass jars or something like that. The rant essentially boiled down that "you can't actually play a melody this way IRL". He can't comprehend the idea of a movie otherwise realistic having a scene purposefully unrealistic for reason of expressiveness.
He also has a very close minded view on structure. He seems to be fine with slow pacing and surreal imagery but it has to be done in a certain way, where there's some obvious progression of things, where he can easily analyse everything.
For this reason he loves Jodorowsky, he loves Haneke, he likes Akerman's Jeanne Dielman (don't think he has seen anything else by her), but can't into Lynch or for a more obscure pick - Weerasethakul. Because their employment of surreal imagery defies regular analysis. They're purposefully irrational. Also his review of The Turin Horse is one of the most embarrassing things ever. Another thing is his autistic obsession with technical imperfections, particularly in sound design.
I watched him for a while because he was the only one on YouTube talking about festival cinema I am interested in, but after a while I develop an aversion to the way he views cinema.
not that anon, but i think the issue with his bias is that he is sorta smug about it, like he has this attitude where it feels like he believes there's a single "proper" way to direct something, and everything else is "sloppy" or "incompetent"
now maybe he does not believe this, but the smug presentation of his makes it seem that way
thankfully his fanbase doesn't seem to be the type to just parrot his opinions, in fact the people who challenged him on not finishing a movie but still reviewing it (i don't know what started a recent controversy, but the film I specifically am talking about is a russian movie Ayka he saw at 2018 Cannes Film Festival) are part of his fanbase
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sure he is kind of smug and snobby about his taste in films, but a lot of posters here in this very thread even are that way too, minus the YouTube channel. That's not a crime.
I agree that it's good that his audience doesn't just parrot his takes and do challenge him when he's being moronic. I do like to use his videos as recommendations for new stuff to check out because he tends to cover a lot of films that aren't just the normie offerings.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well the posters on here aren't making YouTube videos for an audience. Really, I just don't want people to start thinking that everyone who likes festival stuff views it like YMS does. I feel like people can become biased themselves from not liking his presentation.
And about finding new shit, I just track various film festival lineups. And if I like a certain film I keep track of the director. Also I browse letterboxd too, sometimes I find obscure festivals from lists on there.
fair enough but I expect a critic to be able to see things from different points of view before forming his opinion and to keep his biases into consideration when judging a product, otherwise his assessments will come off as too arbitrary
Isn't HE the troony furgay that edits his own videos?
His highlights channel is run by this guy who calls himself "Olivia."
Few months back he started faking a girly voice to read the patreons at the end and uses this pink fox fursona. It's really obnoxious, I'd see the channel had something new but it's just be fetish art for this guy's character. Very off-putting
>The sexual chemistry between Tom Hanks and Beasley the Dog is palpable... >one of the best pieces of mainstream interspecies erotica to come out in decades! >I'm giving Turner & Hooch an 8 out of 10 (closer to a 9 than a 7)!
>the expansion of the Beethoven brood was a natural path for a sequel but it's regretful they had to add a b***h into the mix >while it was a truly sexually daring choice to cast Chris the Dog's actual sister to play Missy in the movie--the sexual chemistry between the animals was wanting and took me out of the film >further, they did not show any mounting or sexual play between the animals and this was a serious misstep when it comes to audience immersion >I'm giving this one a 5 out of a possible 10. Closer to a 4 than a 6
>...grossly misleading title >I only watched the first 30 minutes of the movie but I'm comfortable giving this one a 0, the same as the actual number of dogs in the movie, out of 10
>While I appriciated the homoerotocism I was disappointed by the misleading title and would like to have seen a movie with enough courage to show the true power of the dog. >I'm giving this one a 5 out of 10 (closer to a 4 than a 6)
I like him despite the dog fricking. He's spread himself too thin and is terminally online now, wish he focused more on actually reviewing movies on time, not months afterwards.
I enjoyed his earlier reviews where he went into depth of certain Movies and tv.
His 2 part SAW video was really good, because it was a perfect blend of him analysing how the narrative was such a mess but also giving context into the filmmaking behind the scenes per release, like a documentary.
He clearly has an autistic ability to review films, the problem is that his autism can be off putting to most mainstream moviegoers who just want to watch a film without focusing too hard on it.
I watched him puke on command at the All Gas No Brakes live show in Atlanta. It was fricking incredible. Unironically one of the most amazing displays I've seen in my life.
I find it disturbing how little people in the general internet don't know that he fricked animals and is pro beastiality. Hopefully one day he gets into some controversy that makes people shine a light on him.
I think if it would've come out later on he would've been cancelled for it
Old internet didn't generally give a frick, creators didn't get cancelled, they gave up
There's no way people will be okay with it in the modern climate if the clips get spam posted on twitter or some shit
Look I don't care what he jerks off to in his spare time. His videos from 2011-2016 are still classics to me.
He probably spent a fair amount of time on late early Cinemaphile. You can just tell from his sense of humor. IT logically follows that a Cinemaphile degen's (though he would likely never admit it) vids would resonate with other Cinemaphile degens.
dogfricker
canine canoodler
fido fiddler
The dogfricking stuff is more funny that anything, but I find his smug demeanor annoying and he genuinely has bad taste.
His comments on old cinema are fricking moronic, and while I respect that he tries to watch and bring to light cinema that is underlooked by most, festival stuff, he often himself gets filtered. His approach is very autistic he is obsessed with technical stuff, very nitpicky. This results in him getting filtered by films that employ unconventional editing and structure, also he has an aversion to magical realism for some reason.
I stopped watching him when he rated a movie that he hadn't even finished despite not finding anything wrong with it. You can have dumb or autistic opinions about cinema and they might still be interesting, but if they so half-assed that you can't even finish a movie before talking about it then I have no reason to listen to you
Recently he watched a Romanian film RMN, and he went on a rant about a scene where the characters in that film play a melody using glass jars or something like that. The rant essentially boiled down that "you can't actually play a melody this way IRL". He can't comprehend the idea of a movie otherwise realistic having a scene purposefully unrealistic for reason of expressiveness.
He also has a very close minded view on structure. He seems to be fine with slow pacing and surreal imagery but it has to be done in a certain way, where there's some obvious progression of things, where he can easily analyse everything.
For this reason he loves Jodorowsky, he loves Haneke, he likes Akerman's Jeanne Dielman (don't think he has seen anything else by her), but can't into Lynch or for a more obscure pick - Weerasethakul. Because their employment of surreal imagery defies regular analysis. They're purposefully irrational. Also his review of The Turin Horse is one of the most embarrassing things ever. Another thing is his autistic obsession with technical imperfections, particularly in sound design.
I watched him for a while because he was the only one on YouTube talking about festival cinema I am interested in, but after a while I develop an aversion to the way he views cinema.
yeah he's surprisingly close-minded, he talks about interesting films but when you realize how biased his opinions are he becomes hard to listen to
An opinion, by definition, is inherently biased lol
not that anon, but i think the issue with his bias is that he is sorta smug about it, like he has this attitude where it feels like he believes there's a single "proper" way to direct something, and everything else is "sloppy" or "incompetent"
now maybe he does not believe this, but the smug presentation of his makes it seem that way
thankfully his fanbase doesn't seem to be the type to just parrot his opinions, in fact the people who challenged him on not finishing a movie but still reviewing it (i don't know what started a recent controversy, but the film I specifically am talking about is a russian movie Ayka he saw at 2018 Cannes Film Festival) are part of his fanbase
Sure he is kind of smug and snobby about his taste in films, but a lot of posters here in this very thread even are that way too, minus the YouTube channel. That's not a crime.
I agree that it's good that his audience doesn't just parrot his takes and do challenge him when he's being moronic. I do like to use his videos as recommendations for new stuff to check out because he tends to cover a lot of films that aren't just the normie offerings.
Well the posters on here aren't making YouTube videos for an audience. Really, I just don't want people to start thinking that everyone who likes festival stuff views it like YMS does. I feel like people can become biased themselves from not liking his presentation.
And about finding new shit, I just track various film festival lineups. And if I like a certain film I keep track of the director. Also I browse letterboxd too, sometimes I find obscure festivals from lists on there.
fair enough but I expect a critic to be able to see things from different points of view before forming his opinion and to keep his biases into consideration when judging a product, otherwise his assessments will come off as too arbitrary
Can't disagree with that
Dogdiddler litter-ally didn't understand Lynch and got filtered
It's very funny.
I can't watch him anymore since I know he's a gay. Also a furry which is disgusting
>his troony furgay editor tries force his garbage fursona in the reviews
No he doesn't, moron
His highlights channel is run by this guy who calls himself "Olivia."
Few months back he started faking a girly voice to read the patreons at the end and uses this pink fox fursona. It's really obnoxious, I'd see the channel had something new but it's just be fetish art for this guy's character. Very off-putting
>highlight channel
So irrelevant crap?
I tried watching his stream once and it was extremely boring, why even care.
everything he makes is fricking boring lmao imagine watching this homosexual
lol why do you lie?
Isn't HE the troony furgay that edits his own videos?
>The sexual chemistry between Tom Hanks and Beasley the Dog is palpable...
>one of the best pieces of mainstream interspecies erotica to come out in decades!
>I'm giving Turner & Hooch an 8 out of 10 (closer to a 9 than a 7)!
>the expansion of the Beethoven brood was a natural path for a sequel but it's regretful they had to add a b***h into the mix
>while it was a truly sexually daring choice to cast Chris the Dog's actual sister to play Missy in the movie--the sexual chemistry between the animals was wanting and took me out of the film
>further, they did not show any mounting or sexual play between the animals and this was a serious misstep when it comes to audience immersion
>I'm giving this one a 5 out of a possible 10. Closer to a 4 than a 6
its huskies he fricks, not horses, get it right
>...grossly misleading title
>I only watched the first 30 minutes of the movie but I'm comfortable giving this one a 0, the same as the actual number of dogs in the movie, out of 10
>While I appriciated the homoerotocism I was disappointed by the misleading title and would like to have seen a movie with enough courage to show the true power of the dog.
>I'm giving this one a 5 out of 10 (closer to a 4 than a 6)
I like him despite the dog fricking. He's spread himself too thin and is terminally online now, wish he focused more on actually reviewing movies on time, not months afterwards.
>I only lasted the first 5 minutes of this film and it's all I needed because...
>it's a "hard" 10/10
>mmmfffhhh
>mmmm-guh
>mmmm-guh
>HUNH HUNH HUNH HUNA
>AH AH AH
>MMMMMGAAAHHHHAAAHHHHHA
>hunh
>....
>10 out of 10
I enjoyed his earlier reviews where he went into depth of certain Movies and tv.
His 2 part SAW video was really good, because it was a perfect blend of him analysing how the narrative was such a mess but also giving context into the filmmaking behind the scenes per release, like a documentary.
He clearly has an autistic ability to review films, the problem is that his autism can be off putting to most mainstream moviegoers who just want to watch a film without focusing too hard on it.
>0/10
>false advertising,i was deceived
I watched him puke on command at the All Gas No Brakes live show in Atlanta. It was fricking incredible. Unironically one of the most amazing displays I've seen in my life.
He turned me in on good shit like Harmony Korine, Cool Cat, EverythingisTerrible and Kenny vs Spenny, but I hate all furries.
Autism
this disgusting homosexual was never funny or entertaining and doesn’t know shit about film
I remember finding him in FattyDragonite comments and immediately unsubscribing
What were (You) doing in FattyDragonite comments?
I find it disturbing how little people in the general internet don't know that he fricked animals and is pro beastiality. Hopefully one day he gets into some controversy that makes people shine a light on him.
I think if it would've come out later on he would've been cancelled for it
Old internet didn't generally give a frick, creators didn't get cancelled, they gave up
There's no way people will be okay with it in the modern climate if the clips get spam posted on twitter or some shit