Red Letter Media

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 225 23.7%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 66 7.0%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 416 43.8%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 204 21.5%
  • Tim

    Votes: 354 37.3%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 190 20.0%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 245 25.8%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 22 2.3%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 474 49.9%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 52 5.5%

  • Total voters
    949
The not finishing the movie thing annoyed me too. I know, I know, you hack frauds are just too cool to watch kiddie schlock.
That kind of snobby attitude reminds me of what I didn't like about Siskel and Ebert. They would flat out refuse to review things like Transformers The Movie and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles because they found it beneath them.
 
The not finishing the movie thing annoyed me too. I know, I know, you hack frauds are just too cool to watch kiddie schlock.
That kind of snobby attitude reminds me of what I didn't like about Siskel and Ebert. They would flat out refuse to review things like Transformers The Movie and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles because they found it beneath them.
I could tolerate this from hobbyists, but when movie critics who stress how different their opinions are from the public’s because they’re professional and informed….yeah.

It makes Mike’s segments where he picks on low-hanging fruit comment reviews or AI comments that much more insufferable. We don’t always get to do the parts we love in our jobs, but it’s still our job.
 
Rate me autistic, but I find it annoying the (very few times) they've reviewed movies without finishing them. How can you review something, no matter how generic or work-a-day you think it might be, without finishing it - am I odd for holding this view? I remember the Critical Drinker got a lot of push-back when he rated a season of The Boys badly and then later admitted he hadn't actually watched it
They didn't want to review the movie, they had a topic they wanted to talk about and they used the movie as an excuse. Half in the Bag has basically turned into video essays about whatever they want to talk about, instead of a review of the actual movie.
 
They didn't want to review the movie, they had a topic they wanted to talk about and they used the movie as an excuse. Half in the Bag has basically turned into video essays about whatever they want to talk about, instead of a review of the actual movie.
Its not even interesting topics either when they go out of discussing movies since its either about "Studios relying on IPs and Brands" or "The state of Movie Theaters"

I feel the Nerd Crew did more better in discussing broader topics and was actually funny
 
Last edited:
I could tolerate this from hobbyists, but when movie critics who stress how different their opinions are from the public’s because they’re professional and informed….yeah.

It makes Mike’s segments where he picks on low-hanging fruit comment reviews or AI comments that much more insufferable. We don’t always get to do the parts we love in our jobs, but it’s still our job.
Especially when the job can be summarized as "Make fun of bad movie."
 
This is how I feel about their reviews


tenor-129440882.gif
 
The 'watch only half the movie' but was funnier when they both watched a different half of that ones Transformer movie.

I have a schizo theory about the recent Best of the Worst with Josh Robert Thompson.

At one point, Mike references a "Yes" meme (he is referring to one of Rich Evans) but before he clarifies everyone at the table looks oddly uncomfortable when saying they don't know what he's talking about.

My theory on why they look uncomfortable is they were picturing this:
1743978077214.png

and were terrified this is what mike was referencing because it could be racist/bigoted. They all breathed a sign of relief when it was clarified that Mike was referring the a gif of Rich Evans. This is just a theory.

I almost finished typing up a rant about how Josh got way too few votes in the poll before I realized it's a vote for favorite recurring member, not least favorite.
For some reason I also thought it was least favorite as well and voted Patton. Whoops.
 
I could tolerate this from hobbyists, but when movie critics who stress how different their opinions are from the public’s because they’re professional and informed….yeah.

It makes Mike’s segments where he picks on low-hanging fruit comment reviews or AI comments that much more insufferable. We don’t always get to do the parts we love in our jobs, but it’s still our job.
This is why I couldn't be a professional critic. I'd just walk the fuck out on things randomly.

I hate critics who grumble the fuck out on shit they know they need to do. Like, okay, you have to watch bad shit because you're a movie critic and most mainstream stuff is garbage. You know it, we know it, suck it up or good luck getting by on reviewing niche stuff that most of us won't watch.
 
All this "not finishing the movie" talk reminded me of something similar that Adam YMS did. Not to derail this thread, but when he was covering and reviewing movies from a film festival he did not finish many of them, but still had the gall to review them and give them ratings later on. And when his fans caught on to this he went full Linkara rant, but without the "History of Power Rangers will be out when it's out" and replace the conventions with film festivals and Oscars nominees he had to watch.
Nothing much to add but interesting to see that despite having different philosophies about how they interact with the internet they still have similar bad habits.
Edit: word.
 
Last edited:
All this "not finishing the movie" talk reminded me of something similar that Adam YMS did. Not to derail this thread, but when he was covering and reviewing movies from a film festival he did not finish many of them, but still had the gall to review them and give them ratings later on. And when his fans caught on this he went full Linkara rant but without the "History of Power Rangers will be out when it's out" and replace the conventions with film festivals and Oscars nominees he had to watch.
Nothing much to add but interesting to see that despite having different philosphies about how they interact with the internet they still have similar bad habits.
This made me consider my love of spoilers as a bit of quality control: reviewers who have spoilers would naturally have completed the films they review.
 
Mike's plan to wear Rich Evans down until he dies from the exhaustion of making contentcontentcontent non-stop for over 10 years (plus Mike always stealing his diabeetus medicine) has failed. It killed their content instead

But Rich Evans won. He survived Mike's plot. I'm okay with that
 
Back