Do you ever notice how online movie critics, more often than not, have snobbier tastes than professional newspaper critics?

Examples?

This could go two ways ... so, yeah, your point being?

Yes, and most of them have no business being critics. Their grammar generally stinks, they use the same old, tired cliches and they try way to hard to make themselves sound like intellects (I swear most of them scan a thesaurus to find the most obscure word that no one, including themselves, knows the definition). Oh yeah, and if you're going to use the thesaurus, find a synonym for pathos so it can be retired for overuse.

Before anyone goes crazy, I doubt I could do a better job than these hacks, which I why I don't. It will be a sad day when Roger Ebert no longer reviews movies.

I find myself agreeing with online critics 9 times out of 10, I have no problem having fun at the movies, and usually do, but when it comes to deciding whether or not the film was good and not just entertaining is when I agree with them. But yes, they are indeed snobby haha.

I don't read many film reviews written by online critics anymore. I actually like reading the "review threads" on here more than almost all online critics.

I really had high hopes for this thread, having enjoyed immensely some of Yeti4623's previous threads. However, before I even finished reading the third post, I found myself questioning both Yeti4623's talent and sanity.

The thread lacked focus and direction, meandering on its troubled way to an unsatisfactory conclusion that seemed almost pre-ordained by its slipshod beginning. Even some solid supporting post work by Brack and William Fudd could not rescue this thread from the dismal depths of banality.

1 1/2 stars.

Your comments, however, have elevated this thread to a more respectable, if still dreary, 2 stars.

I laughed, I cried ... this thread has been a rollercoaster of emotions.

Can we fix the thread title to "If you only read one DVDTalk thread this year ..."?

Most online "critics" are just fruity schmucks on the Internet with some kind of forum for their particular brand of caustic poo-pooery. They are not "critics". They are "reviewers" -- offering up quick opinions while trying to expand the context of their work to include some kind of juxtaposition with the larger cinematic fabric at large... in other words, making their work seem bigger and more erudite than what can be found in the actual content, which is 1500 words of saying "Judd Apatow SUCKS" over and over again.

These "reviewers" are worse than Pol Pot.

Thanks to the Internet, any asshole with an opinion is free to express it. I agree with Matt...there is a big difference between a critic and a reviewer.

Honestly, I only go to Ebert or DVDTalk's reviews when I'm researching on a film.

What are you talking about? Most of Apatow's films are very fresh over on RottenTomatoes. Unless those aren't the online reviewers you all are talking about?

The very mention of Pol Pot should elevate this thread by at least another 1/2 star.

Matt Millheiser loves him some hyperbole.