Matrix Reloaded Review

I’m really looking forward to this movie.

Okay, I just read the review in detail and that barely constituted a review.

It was more of a splat.

I’d say any “review” from that site barely constitutes any kind of review at all.

Yeah, that particular reviewer (“Niell Cumpston” - they are never real names, but I don’t know if this pen name is a reference to anything) is more of a spectacle than anything - he gets overly excited likes dishing out silly expressions (“Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a twat-rocket!”) and over-the-top metaphors, typically having to do with sex, fluids and/or human excretions (“This movie is a pillowcase with soda cans inside that beats the living mule-fuck out of you” - okay, no sex in this one, but you get the point).

But he is amusing. And, after you’ve seen the movies, his reviews make a little more sense.

But before the movies? No sense at all - just silliness.

Having said that, I of course am also waiting for Matrix Reloaded, and his over the top review didn’t curb that.

That review sounds like he read the press packet, did some meth, hooked a car battery to his genitals, and pounded this out at a typewriter in a vibrating room. Totally useless.


They often have legitimate reviews and nearly always admit it when they received a fake.

I’m not a huge defender of Harry Knowles, but I will say that a huge percentage of stuff on his page turns out to be accurate and that only the fake stuff gets attention.

Obviously, that was a terribly written review, but the screening he attended did inded take place. They were sworn to not post reviews on the web and only Neil did.

Some of the things I remember being legit on his site were:

A very early script review of Phantom Menace, an early review(by Harry) of Attack of the Clones, the first legit review of the Two Towers, and plenty of other things.

I’m not a huge fan of the site, but just saying that we shouldn’t just shrug of everything from it.

Wow - really? I disagree. Yes, some reviews are regularly submitted by people who either went to advanced screenings or are in the entertainment biz but are not pro reviewers - their reviews are often poorly written, not insightful, etc…However, the regular reviewers - Harry Knowles, Moriarity, Quint and a few others - do a good job and are pretty well schooled on cinema history. Sure, they can get very “fanboy” about certain things (e.g., Harry was way over the top with Lord of the Rings, but was correct that it was a well-done movie worth seeing), but every reviewer has their soft spots. I just factor that in.

Mahaloth, my point was not that the site has inaccuracies (couldn’t care less one way or the other). My point (to you and WordMan) was that the word “review”, to me, implies a certain critical acumen, an acute understanding of the medium, and not only a discriminating taste, but an ability to articulate all these factors coherently.

I have never read a review on AICN (even by Knowles, Moriarity, et al.) that comes even close to meeting these standards. HK suffers from the worst diarrhea-of-the-keyboard I’ve ever read. But even a ruthless editor could not save the fact that, despite the odd cinematic word or historical reference he presents, he appears to like just about everything. Moriarity, too. And no, saying Rollerball or Battlefield Earth are bad movies does not show signs of honesty or integrity, they are just proof that you don’t have serious brain damage.

Yes, there are plenty of movies (I’m sure) they diss, but they’re always movies that are safe to diss. Harry operates on such an edge-of-your-seat visceral mode that you feel he’s about to wet his pants at any minute. All critics have biases, but most critics either acknowledge them or try to rein them in. Harrow just unapologetically wallows in them. Which is fine for a fanboy, but in my mind, doesn’t make him a “critic”.

Of course, the problem is that most “critics” (the ones that get blurbed the most, the ones that are shadow shills) aren’t much better. There are few critics I read anymore. For me a good critic challenges the way I see a movie, and even opinions I don’t agree with I get something out of. Harry & co. coat everything in hyperbole and anecdote, yet they’re often to timid to take real stands (or at least gutsy ones); they qualify their opinions, they make exceptions to exceptions, and they ultimately come across as extremely pleased with themselves for having an opinion at all.

Anyway, I’m bumping this thread because I finally did read the link in the OP, and even though it’s really not a review at all, the turns-of-phrase and writing style do make for very entertaining reading (again, unusual for AICN, where talking about the Lab and Harry’s childhood and such are always tedious slogs).

Two more reviews have come around, one of which is by a guy who has some credit to him.

Sounds as if the second guy feel the story is far weaker than in the first one. Both are amazed by the visuals, though.