You pasty fucks! Your comeuppance is coming!!
You sit there in your padded chair, clacking away at your 20-lbs. Compaq Laptop, feeling the familiar rush you get when you fool your brain into thinking you're being clever. I've got your number, you fuckturds!
I shall be dedicating this space to critiquing critics and reviewing reviewer's reviews. You've had this coming for a long time now, so stop crying. I'm calling you out on your shit, you no-talent rape-holes!
First up, A. O. Scott of the New York Times... haha.. oh, I'm sorry, I know picking on a New York Times columnist is like playing keep-away with a retarded kid's hat, but fuck that and fuck "A dot O dot". Get a name, douche!
This reviewer did not think Scott's review of 300 contained the same passion we've come to know from her...or him...or it (using initials in place of a name leaves the sexuality of the critic in a purposefully dubious position, thus alleviating their schlock from sexual bias. This also could be the designation for some sort of reviewing robot/algorhythm where the "A" stands for Artificial, the "O" for Obfuscation and Scott being a designation for the programmer who developed this self-aggrandizing piece of critiquing software). Where is the passion?? Where is the alliteration? Where are the $100 words extracted from her dog-eared Thesaurus sitting on the corner of her desk, waiting ever-patiently, to be used in a flimsy attempt to bolster her hack writing to a significant level of pseudo-sophistication which veils Scott's eyes from seeing her own failed and clumsy attempts at actual creativity. That manuscript you just can't quite seem to finish? You know the one, Scott, it's in a .txt file right next to your vague, pedantic, boorish review files. That manuscript is never going to be finished because you're no good. Your writing is sub-par, your vision myopic. You don't even understand the creative works of others, how can you expect that you would miraculously develop a coherent work of art all on your lonesome?? Honestly. Give it up.
I think all reviews should be limited in word count.
Here are some examples for future reference:
If you like a movie, but didn't think it was a truly moving or unique experience you can simply state: "It was pretty good."
If it was sub-par, but you didn't hate it: "Wait for the DVD"
If it was truly a shitstorm terrible film, like Big Momma's House or something: "Fuck you, movie!!"
And if you as a reviewer, like A. O. Scott and the film 300, if you just DON'T GET IT, the movie is just above and beyond your limited capacity for art, well, just don't say anything. If you have to, and I"m sure your editor requires something in the way of words, let's keep it clean: "I didn't get it. Instead of wasting your time trying to disregard something I don't understand and never will, I'll just say that I didn't like it. If you're retarded like me, you won't like it either"
Oh, and if you actually like something: "Put down whatever your doing and GO SEE THIS MOVIE!! NOW!!!"
You guys suck.
Fuck you and fuck your "critiques".