The 10 Worst Blockbuster Buster episodes

I believe this is the worst review he has done and here is why.

I'm going to have to "review" this review to show just how bad it is:

THE INTRO:

He says in the beginning that he loves the original trilogy, which is fine, but he says they are high quality films. I would disagree, the original films and this one are simply dumb action films, Speilberg and Lucas were inspired by dumb adventure films so these films are an homage to those, while I do think all the Indy films are good, they are no where near on par with the original star wars and Speilbergs other films. He says those films are a breath of fresh air from the Kung fu films at the time, which makes NO SENSE!! All the Kung Fu films he brings up are either from the 90's or 00's, it would've made more sense if said they were a breath of fresh air the science fiction films at the time. Then he sounds mad that they made a forth Indy film after 19 years, yes I know he hates the film but he makes it sound like he was expecting the movie to be bad.

THE REVIEW:

First he says its wierd that Indy is old, maybe it has something to do with the fact that Harrison Ford was in his 60's. He attemps to make a joke about this saying the affects of the holy grail must have worn off, even though they clearly said that if the holy grail leaves its resting place, it's powers will not work!! Then he makes the statement that the aliens in the opening scene were weird, even though they don't say in the opening that the body was alien. Then he shows the fridge scene and and starts gasping and slapping his face ignoring that stupid stuff like that always happens in Indy films. And while Doig Walker might have used the it's stupid point a lot in his temple of doom review he at least had other things to say about it! Then he skips over 30 minutes of film to show Shia Lebeofs character and the only reason he does make a big deal about it is because the movie he busted before this was transformers. Then he says two flawed statements in the same breath. First he says that th Crystal Skulls don't do anything except scare ants, which brings up another problem, he never brings up John Hurts character, who was driven to madness by the skulls, and driving people to madness is more than scaring ants. Then he says the Russians don't have a motivation, where as the villains in the earlier films did. Exept it is cleary stated that the russians want to use the skulls to know everything and to use the skulls to defeat thier enimies minds (HOW DO YOU MISS THAT). Then he says that Indy and Mutt find nothing in the graveyard scene, making it pointless. Except they found the CRYSTAL SKULL in the graveyard! How stupid do you have to be to miss that! He then makes a big deal about how the jungle being CG was dumb, which could have been a good point but the way he talks about it does not work. Basically he says "This movie was made by Speilberg and Lucas, 2 of the richest filmmakers of all time! And you're telling me they couldnt have shot this scene in a real jungle!?" He makes it sound like he thinks Speilberg and Lucas were too lazy to go to a jungle to film the scene. If he wanted to bitch about the CG jungle he could have said "One of the best parts of the original film was that they were always filmed on location or a big set, having this scene in CG just takes away from the atmosphere." There I just made a much better point than every point made in this review. Then he gives up reviewing the film, I'm not joking after this he cuts to the ants, then the monkeys and then the UFO skipping almost 1 hour of film in total. It isn't like this is the only episode he does this, he gives up in all of his first five reviews! But at least he had the decency to fill us in on what happens after he gives up! Here, he does not, and it feels incredibly nitpicky.

THE WRAP UP:

I hated the wrap up to this review as it shows exactly what happens when an immature Indy fan who will not accept this film gets ahold of a camera. First he says that this film was a f' you to all Indy fans. This statement simply is not true for many reasons. 1. Back in 2008 when this film came out he was suprised to find out that the tgwtg crew liked this film, so he knows those people weren't offended. The only reviewer to hate this film when it first came out was Spoony, and I mean HATE. 2. In the commentary that he made of this review he said he has nothing against people who like this film, so they weren't offended. And as a side note, in the commentary he says that in 2008 he planned to review it because a lot of people liked it and he didn't. This review came out in 2010, at this time every stupid fan boy was hating on this film. Then he says that the "joke" is on them because this movie made more money than Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the Jedi, and asks how that is possible. Well ERod I havesome answers 1. Why do you care if it outgrossed those films? The last time I checked you dont like Return of the Jedi and dont care for the lord of the rings franchice. While he has said that he thinks Two Towers and Return of the king are awesome, he also said that he thought Fellowship was incredibly boring! So why do you care?! Also when does making more money than a movie matter? If he thought this movie was good he would not have minded.As another example he said in his Transformers 2 review that Transformers 2 made more money than Return of the King and Jurassic park, but does that even matter? It doesn't matter how much money the movie makes, so stop with that comparison!! 2. To answer your question IT'S THE FIRST INDIANA JONES FILM IN 19 YEARS!! How do you not realize that might be why it made so much? He looks over anything he liked in the film and he says the only things he liked we're the score (which was almost exactly like the original films score, no offense John Williams) and the poster (wich isn't a part in the movie) It those are the only things he liked then what am I supposed to make of the part of his review where he acts excited at the opening action scene? Then he shows the ERod cartoon about George Lucas punching him in the face. That whole scene makes me think that ERod thinks that when Speilberg and Lucas were approached to make an Indy 4, they said "Yeah, we'll make it, and we'll make it *beep*. Yeah, it might be our own franchise, it might be one of the most influential film series's of all time, but we are going to make this one *beep* just to piss ERod off."

THE TRUTHFUL TRAILER:
For those of you who don't know he makes fake trailers that describe the actual movie, and he made one for this. The problems he makes in this are worse than the ones in the review!? Oh if only they told us Shia Lebeof was in this movie! And that the crystal skulls were alien! And that there was CG in the movie!(sarcasm) He also says in this that it is dumb for Indy to have to team up with a crazy guy and Shia Lebeof to find the treasure, as if saying Indy should only work alone without any help.

He also said in his commentary that no one will change his opinion by explaining to him the good parts of this film and the bad parts of the other 3. (Becuase what critic doesnt want to see what other people have to say about the movie and start a discussion). Well ERod I didn't do that, I explained why you made no good points about this film being bad. The only point he makes outside of the review was that even though Temple of doom has annoying characters, you still have Indy, but in this film, there is nothing. So in a film filled with annoying characters, Indy saves the movie, but in a movie with no annoying characters and a few stupid moments the movie is unsalvagable? Now yes, in his episode where he went over the 10 WTF moments he didn't put in his original reviews, he did bring up that it was weird for the magnetic alien coffin to attract the gun powder, but not the soldiers guns or belt buckles. But there are many problems to this 1. There are only 3 metals that can be magnetized, you can easily suspend your disbalief to think that their belt buckles aren't magnetic. 2. The coffin did attract the guns and bullets, once the russians got close enough. 3. This is a nitpick! Just because this was a small problem that can be proven to be not a problem at all doesn't change this movie's quality. Also, the guys at Rifftrax arent pros at pointing out problems, theyre the pros at making bad movies enjoyable. It's just another point he makes that we can add to the list of other horrible ones.

But what really got me was he said that this film inspired him to review movies, in that case you should make a 20 minute review looking over the entire plot and story, not an 10 minute rant about the little nit picks. (I am aware that YouTube had a 10 minute limit back when he made this, but he can make it a 2 parter! And that is actually what he does when he re uploads the reviews he originally put on tgwtg!) Oh thats right, these arent nitpicks! These are the reasons that this film "hit home" and "was a real kick in the balls for me" so basically his entire show is built on a lie! That is why I believe this is his worst.

Volume 1.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to put something relating to his 100th episode but this episode sucked sooooo much I had to. The biggest problem is that he put his story in front of the review.

Now look, I'm not going to hate on him for trying to review a movie that almost everyone has reviewed. I actually like watching the reviews of this movie, why? Because they all have different ways of getting their points across (watch redlettermedia's review and then confused Matthews review, you'll see what I mean) So I was hoping to see what ERod would have to say, and he says absolutely nothing. Nothing happens in this episode that can be called a review. We see a flashback showing how this film created the blockbuster buster (even though he said in another episode that Indy 4 created him) Then he shows up present day and somehow his copy of the movie is gone. So he rants about jar jar binks which was funny the first time but after that it got annoying. Also he's acting like Jar Jar is the only bad thing with this movie, if that was the case why would this movie have hundreds of reviews of it? He's made fun of Jar Jar in other films and in those reviews he also plays it like its the only thing wrong with this movie. I always thaught it meant he was saving the actual points when his review actually gets made. Apparently not. And then what? He sets up the villains for the next episode. But guess what I DON'T CARE!!! I don't care about the side characters, I don't care about the villains, I don't care about the storyline, I came here to watch a goddamn review of the phantom menace! Also it took me a minute and a half to realize that the main villain was supposed to be George Lucas, why? Because he looks nothing like George Lucas, not even 1970's George Lucas. When you cast someone worse for a part than Dev Patel as Prince Zuko You have failed as a casting director! If you haven't seen part 1 of his review yet, don't! It's a waste of time! Wait for part 2! Unless that also isn't a review then I'll really get pissed off. Since he doesnt even review anything in this suposed review it makes it worse than his AVP review by far.

Volume 2.

"Wait for part 2! Unless that also isn't a review then I'll really get pissed off." Well it also isn't a review, and yes, I am pissed off. While volume 1 is in every way terrible it at least gave me hope that parts 2 and 3 would not only give me a phantom menace review, but also some fight scenes involving ERods pointless story. Notice how I put the review first, I did that because the review should be the first thing ERod does, and then once that is done he can add some story elements of his own. NOT the other way around. And not much story happens either, the villains who I don't care about lock ERod up in a closet, this leads him to rant about the pod race, making me feel the need to defend the pod race. He makes the comparison that a cop would not bet on dog races to get gas for his car just to join in on a car race. To use the comparison he makes against him if a cop car runs out of gas, the cops in that car would get into another car and continue the chase. The Jedi don't have that luxury. He could have brought up that they could just buy a new ship, a ship that isn't being hunted by the federation. Any other comparison would have been fine, but no! Another major problem with both parts so far is that in the small areas where he does talk about the movie, he only looks at the external problems, while Jar Jar and the pod race are things that are critizied in actual reviews of this film, they are mentioned as things that make this a bad movie. But they also bring up other points to say that this is a bad star wars movie. Like space jesus, or mediclorians. Has ERod brought up those? NO! This guy is supposed to be the ultimate fan boy for gods sake! Then the reason his Elektra review sucked shows up, one of the villains becomes his ally and the episode ends. What a waste of time. I am dead serious here: DON'T WATCH THIS!!! It isn't a review and it isn't even a good story, it's bad writing and bad "reviewing". And just a shout out to whoever is playing George Lucas in this, there is a difference between acting completely ignorant, like George Lucas and sighing during every sentence! I mean god is that a terrible impression! These episodes are called "ERod vs. Episode 1" not "ERod fights villains and talks about episode 1 every now and then"

Volume 3.

The trailer for this episode shows ERod about to fight not George Lucas and then shows the text "Nuff said". Actually, it's not Nuff said. I didn't watch your reviews for stories, or fight scenes, I came for a review! Nothing in this trailer makes me think there will be any review in this, so I might as well not even bother to watch it, but there is hope that he could bring up legit points here, those chances are slim but it could happen. Once again, I was disappointed. The first 4 minutes of this is unfunny set up for poorly acted fight scenes, no review in sight. And by unfunny I mean it's literally just ERod either walking somewhere of referencing the fact that he saw the end credits scene in the avengers. I get it man! You love Joss Whedon! Will you please move on!? Then ERod fights Not Lucas and during this fight I realized how much effort was put into these. The warehouse set, getting Little Miss Gamer to do a cameo (which was awesome) having all this backstory, and it's all for nothing because there is no review here. If he replaced those 30 to 40 second rants and replaced it with a review of each act (so he can still have this be a 3 parter) then I would feel justified seeing him hit the VHS tape with a hammer, or lighting the vhs on fire. Doug Walker's review pf scooby doo is a perfect example of blending a review with a story, I'm not sure what this means for Doug's show but the episode itself was really good. Here it doesn't feel justified because the only reasons the movie sucks are jar jar, the pod race and jake lloyd. And even when he's talking about Jake Lloyd he doesnt bring up space jesus, HOW!! If you told me 4 months ago that ERod's 100th episode would have no review and instead be unfunny avengers referencing storylines, I would not have believed you, and I would have said that there is no way ERod would reward our 2 years of patience with something that terrible. But he did. These volumes are not doing well for his tgwtg reputation, he's losing fans and giving the people who dont like him even more reason to not like him. If he just reviewed the film like everyone wanted him to he would still have as many fans as he did. The lack of review makes this one of his worst but the effort put into it makes it better than his Crystal Skull review.

He just released a commentary for these reviews and I was interested to see how he would try to defend this. First, the tgwtg audience don't hate story lines, if that were the case then no one would like the tgwtg anniversary specials, the tgwtg audience hate it when story lines over power the review. He follows this up by making a good point about the movie? Yes he does. He says the biggest problem with the movie was that it never stays on point, it keeps jumping around aimlessly and pissed people off. Where was that in your review?! He then moves on to say that these episodes were supposed to be a parallel to the movie, where it never stays on point and jumps around aimlessly. Firstly these episodes don't jump around enough to be a parallel to the movie. Second, you can't parallel a plot that never stays on focus that pissed people off and not expect people to get pissed off! That makes no sense! He then says that no one should complain that he is bringing all these characters into this story, because he set them up over 99 episodes. But some of these characters were never on tgwtg, if during your hiatus you upload your Elektra review and you trilogy reviews yeah this would be a legitimate point, but no, they are only on YouTube, while yes I have seen all of his reviews you have to realize that the people on tgwtg don't want to go out of their way to look up specific videos on YouTube. He then says that these episodes are not only a parallel to the phantom menace, but also the original star wars. But only in the vaguest way possible. Also you can't parallel both Star Wars and the phantom menace! Their plots are so different that you can't connect them in the same story. He then does the right thing and says that he was only trying to entertain people, and that he himself is still proud of what he made. Amd I guess some of the parts could have worked some where else but I am glad that he is sticking to his original opinion.

This isn't like his crystal skull review where he makes no good points, in this review he makes NO POINTS AT ALL! The closest he gets to a point is how stupid the human predator relationship was and the inconsistency of the predators motives. But they aren't well explained and are not bad enough reasons for a review. He does bring up that the characters are stupid, but he doesnt give any real reasons why. Take filmbrain's much better review of this film, he makes points that hardcore alien and predator fans have pointed out, and it is sad when filmbrain voices the fanboys better than the ultimate fanboy.

So what does he do in this video? (Im not calling it a review because it isn't one) He places bets on which character will die first. Riveting

And there are a few small problems with this review that stick out in my mind. He says that after Freddy vs. Jason, Fox decided to make this movie, which doesn't make sense, not to mention that that isn't true. Freddy vs. Jason came out in 2003, a year before this, so Fox would not have had the time to make a film with this kind of budget in that short time. The real reason is because both franchises have many producers, none of which wanted to produce this film, so a new producer had to get the rights for each character. And then he had to find a good story, and picked Anderson's, which was a mistake.

I also dont get why he gives backstory into the original alien and predator films, it would make sense if this was a sequel, not a stand alone film. And if he wants to give backstory, tell us what the audience needs to know! Like what you did in you Return of Swamp Thing review. And also, do backstory of all 4 Alien films and both predator films, not just the first alien and predator film! Again, Filmbrain didn't do backstory and his review was much better for it!

And he seems to be enjoying himself while watching this movie as well. He likes the action, and enjoyed there being suspense. But keep this in mind, he doesnt like the acrion scenes in transformers because they are shot too close and are constantly changing shots, wich is just like in this movie, but aparently its okay here as he never brings it up.

His AVP-R review was 1000000000000000 better, and since there are no points made in this review it not only makes it worst than his little vampire review but also his spiderman 3 review, but at least this film didn't inspire him to review movies! But again that is another story.

The main problem with this movie review are also in his Spiderman 3 review. The Evil E character (the evil counterpart/ villain character on his show)

I'm going to say it, I hate the Evil E character mostly because of the way Erod makes him look at movies. Having a character centered around being snobby can be done well, heck the cinema snob is basically what this character is only better.

In this review Erod is praising (which translates to screen as Evil E hating) Joss Whedon for the strangest of things. Now I don't want to say this, but it is true. Just like Bryan Singer with Superman, ERod knows Firefly and Serenity are good, but he doesn't know why. The incredibly poor reasons for ERod to be making praise are a perfect way of proving this. True he understands why characters like Mal and River are good, but he doesn't understand what is good in the story. He doesn't give reason to make people want to watch this movie he just says go watch it and thats it.

First evil e hates on Whedon for mixing western elements and science fiction. And this parallels ERods thoughts on this, who apparently loves that this is genre mixing. Which is why I clearly see why who just LOVED how they mixed adventure and science fiction elements in Indy 4! Also, the way he writes this makes me think that he thinks that the only way to be original in modern day Hollywood would be genre mixing. We then get the hate/praise of the opening that tells us about the show in a nutshell, even though they never gave that explanation in the show. As the evil e character he recommends text scrolls which is why people go to movies, to read! What's wrong with text scrolls in movie I have to ask. And also he only references star wars on this, so his argument is completely invalid. Text Scrolls are what star wars does, that's their thing, true many films completely rip it off, too bad ERod wont bring that up. After that he comments on how the villain doesn't look like a villain and has no name, meaning the movie can't start selling out, of course except for the serenity comic books. Also your belief that this film does something different with the villain is also not true, because the main antagonist in the show was a totalitarian force, lord knows we've never seen that yet! Then he mentions the opening credit scene with no cuts, saying that there should be multiple cuts to keep our attention. You don't need to constantly edit, all you would need if you wanted to make a long show scene be filled with action, which Whedon did not want, simply showcase action and have the camera circle around it, like in the matrix. He then makes the statement that this movie has no major stars, which I think is an insult to Nathan Fillion and Alan tudyk, both of which are semi famous. He follows this up with the opening bank robbery scene saying that the heros should not be doing villainous things, but if he bothered to take note from the pirates of the Caribbean he can look at this as the good guys robbing the bad guys. He then brings up that Whedon should not be paralleling the American settlers thoughts on the native Americans as just savages, with the reavers. But quess what? THAT'S NOT A PARALLEL!! The settlers believed the native Americans were savages, which they weren't. The settlers in firefly and serenity look at the reavers as savages, because they ARE!! To quote Zoe in the first episode of the show "They'll rape us to death, eat our fleash, turn our skin into clothes and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order". That is one of the most chilling descriptions I've ever heard for a character, it summarizes just how terrified everyone is and it really shows in the episodes of the show that dealt with readers. But then ERod shows up and says that they were meant to be misunderstood and the white man blew everything out of proportion! Alright yes it is some what of a parralel that the native Americans were hostile towards the settlers, but not that both Reavers AND native Americans are actually peaceful beings! We then get another nod to ERod's hate for Avatar by making evil E say that Whedon should have made the reavers blue making it perfecting okay to parallel. So blue aliens who are part of a tribe who work together and don't kill willingly are not good parallels for native Americans, but zombies who can operate space ships that raid other spaceships are a GOOD parralel? Also, is making the natives blue in Avatar a bad thing? Would you rather they make it as obvious as possible? We then see clips of the chase between the reavers and the crew of serenity saying it is stupid that they shot this scene on location and should have shot the scene in front of a green screen. He then shows clips from the behind the scenes of beowulf, wich wasnt live action, so that doesn't count. And he looked at transformers as a positive, and that film shot the actions scenes on location. And Joss Whedon shot the avengers in front of a green screen. You know what? I dont care, this review sucks, and I shouldn't spend my time looking at it. The only other bull *beep* points he makes are that the love interest shouldn't be a prostitute, the main hero should always win the fights he is in, and that this science fiction film should have more lasers and less guns. I don't even need to explain why those points are horrible. Then ERod shows up for real and I first thought that he would take the rest of time and go over what he liked in the movie, but no, he doesn't! The review just stops, and do you know how far into the movie this review goes? 30 MINUTES!!!

Some of you might be thinking that I am over analyzing this as it is just an April fools day review, but that is my problem. April fools day negative or positive reviews are a waste of time. The reviewer will attempt to point problems out in good movies, or praise bad movies they almost never work and are usually made for laughs, which don't work either! (superhero rewind's review of superhero movie is the closest thing to a good april fools day review) I wish Erod did an honest review instead, because he would have looked over more of the film than he did in this *beep* review.

I thought this episode was bad but I didn't think it was incredibly bad but after watching it again I realized that it is in fact worse than his little vampire review! Basically if it has evil e in it it will be high on this list.

If your wondering why this review wasn't on this list before it was because I only saw this review once and didn't remember thinking it was bad, but after watching it again, I had no choice.

So if you've read my problems with his April fools day review you will get an idea of what I have problems with in this review. To add on to what I said about some of the better April fools day reviews, the reviewer will analyse the problems, but make up a greater meaning to it, making them slightly better (I again will redirecet you to superhero rewinds review of superhero movie) This review is literally just the annoying as hell evil E character mentioning the smallest of nitpicks and simply saying they are genius (not even NC's review of surf ninjas was that bad).

What nitpicks might I be referring to you might ask? The first thing he points out as evil e is that in the opening credits, they replaced the artwork from Spiderman 2 with video clips. He then says Peter doesnt deal with any struggles in this film, which is true (exept for him trying to stay with marry Jane, feeling guilty about his uncles death and trying to avenge his uncle) then he makes the strange point that they never explain what the venom goo is, even though it is visually shown and implied throughout the entire movie! Then he brings up they shouldn't be bringing the new goblin into the movie before establishing the venom goo, and then erase his memory, I never minded this and I agree with Doug Walker on this, I LIKED it when Harry losses his memory, it was the first time in a while that he wasn't always worrying about spiderman, and he and Peter could have fun and be friends again. He then compares the spiderman appreciation day thing to that scene in batman and robin when both batman and robin go to a public party to accept an award, this scene wasn't as bad as it was in batman and robin, and I didn't even mind, he is after all the FRIENDLY neighborhood spiderman, as apose to batman who is the symbol of the night. So yeah this comparison was unexplained and poorly done. Then he brings up how they brought sand man into this even though they established two villains already, making the plot more and more complicated. This all coming from the guy who likes x men 3, won't bust iron man 2 and regrets reviewing pirates of the Caribbean 3. He then AGAIN makes a comparison to Batman and Robin by saying there are 3 villains, even though in that movie bane was not used AT ALL. That and the villains in Spiderman 3 flow more smoothly than in batman and robin, as I never thought there was too much or too little of each villain (true venom wasn't used enough, but I think black spiderman made up for that) Now we can't have a spiderman 3 review without mentioning the dancing! Which he refers to as what Peter does now that he is evil, in the same breath as cheating on Mary Jane, hitting Mary Jane AND blowing up part of Harry's face! I have to say Peter did do some evil things besides just dancing!

Now I want to remind you all of something, all that I typed before this was said by the evil E character, from this point on, all of this is being said by ERod himself. He says it is bull *beep* that venom doesn't show up until 104 minutes in even though being advertised as the main villain. Which is NOT TRUE!! Venom was advertised as one of the main villains, not just the main villain! He then says it is unoriginal that once Venom shows up all he does is exactly what the other spidy villains, kidnap Mary Jane. Even though here he had more of a motivation. With Green goblin, he simply knew that peter liked Mary Jane and knew that it would make Peter come out as spiderman, with doctor octopus, it was because Mary Jane just happened to be there with Peter at the time she was kidnapped, and Peter was told by doc oct, to tell spiderman that he has a hostage. Here, it's because Peter took Eddies girl friend from him, so he wants to do the same to Peter. It might not be completely original, but at least it is different! Then he brings up the problem that Harry learns the truth about what really happened to his father from his butler, who has had less than a minute of screen time in the whole series. While I thought this was a small problem the butler was in the other films, so it sort of made sense for him to know. He even calls this a deus ex machina and tells the audience to look it up. But you know what? He should have looked it up because that isn't what a deus ex machina is! He then gives up reviewing this film, similar to his crystal skull review. He says quote "Ah *beep* it! Venom explodes, harry dies, sandman cries and nobody knows why!" Where do I begin? First, venom blew up because peter threw a goblin bomb at him, harry died because he was stabbed with his glider, and sandman cries because he feels sorry for peter! I cant believe you thought this, your van helsing and crystal skull review would be good enough to get you into tgwtg!

On to the wrap up. He says this movie crammed way too many characters and way too many subplots into one movie, again HE LIKES X MEN 3!!! And again we get the same "this movie made money than" bull *beep* that was on his Crystal Skull review. This time he says this film outgrossed forest gump and the lion king, and repeats the fact that this film made more money than the lion king. This time it doesn't work because he's comparing a lot of money for 1994 to a lot of money for 2007. And again IT'S A SPIDERMAN FILM WITH SANDMAN AND VENOM IN IT, that might be why it made so much. He then says that the worst part (get a load of this) is that this film has the director of the evil dead trilogy and yet he couldn't make venom scary. And says the penguin from batman returns was scarier. 1. Isn't that a good thing that the penguin was scary, that is what they were going for. 2. This is a subjective problem because when I saw this film in Theaters, I jumped a few times venom was on screen, but only a few. I didn't think Raimi was trying to make venom scary, he was simply trying to take all the stuff the studio wanted in this movie, and tried to make a good film out of it, and I think he succeeded. And that is every thing he says about it.

This simply would have made the number 4 spot if this was just a movie he hated, but no HE LIKES THIS MOVIE!! He said in the commentary he made of this review that he proudly owns this film and will watch it from time to time, but not without fast forwarding through the dancing. Then why did he bust it you might ask? Because one of his producers hates this film with a passion and wanted him to make a review of it. Well guess what mr or mrs producer? You hate it, he likes it, GET OVER IT!! If you want to review the film on your own, that is fine, but don't make someone who likes the film have to do it for you! I know that voicing the fanboys is what he does, but he has turned down highly requested films that have pissed on fan bases that he liked. This is what excels this above the little vampire as his 3rd worst review, this won't top Avp or crystal skull because this at least FEELS like a review! But that is another story.

Now I want to get something out of the way, just because I am saying the points in the review doesn't mean I am defending the movie. Yes I do like Indy 4 and Spiderman 3 and have respect for this film, I don't love them, but I still get annoyed when people hate them for bad reasons.

Onto the opening. He first goes over all the other forms of media the hulk has been in (the 70's tv show, the 2008 movie) But he doesn't say that the hulk should be just action. Stan Lee did make the hulk to be a tragedy, but the reason I bring this up is because of the way he brings up the 2008 version as the gamma radiated action film fans have wanted. Yes I was entertained by the 2008 film but the way he brings it up makes it sound like fans don't care for the story behind the hulk and just want action.

The first point he makes is that in the opening there is too much talking. Character development? What's that?! He even says that the first 30 minutes add little to nothing to the plot. But let's go over everything establishe in the first 30 minutes: Bruce dated Betty, they broke up, Betty and her father don't hang out that often, Bruce believes both his parents are dead, Bruce and Betty are testing ways to have certain species grow limbs back after being injured, and Bruce has a lot of anger built up in him. All of which is brought up throughout the film. This is a problem in some of his reviews, even his AVP-R review which is one of his best, he either doesn't go over enough plot points or says an entire period of time adds little to the story. I'm not saying all of it is useful but to say such a large chunk of time is pointless needs something to back it up! So then he shows the scene where Bruce gets hit with gamma rays and is disappointed that the hulk hasn't shown up yet. Yet later he says the hulk can only hulk out when he's angry, so what did he expect Bruce would get pissed off immediately? Then he shows the "professional douchebag" and says they don't explain why he hates Bruce, even though he doesn't hate bruce, and he justs wants to patent Bruce's work for money. Then he gets to the first scene with the hulk and says "after 42 minutes Bruce turns into the hulk, WITH NO GOOD REASON! The hulk has one gimmick, Bruce gets angry and he turns into the hulk!" 1. He did get angry, because all of his suppressed memories were coming back and he just found out his life is a lie 2. Why didn't you care that in the 2008 film they changed to just when his bloodrate gets too high. And then he gets annoyed that the villain in this movie isn't from the comics, in that case you should be pissed that in Star Trek II they replaced klingons with a guy who was in one episode of the show! He shows us the clips of The hulk meeting his dad (the villain) and plays the Brokeback mountain theme over it. Because since the film has the director of Brokeback mountain, we had to have that joke. There is just one problem with this joke, the man opposite of the hulk in this scene is his dad!! I know he meant this to be funny but for me it's just creepy. After this he goes on for two minutes simply describing what is going on, showing that this film doesn't have that many fanboy problems. Really, being boring is the only problem people have with this movie, and being boring is not enough for a review! If the dialouge being said during these boring scnes goes against the fan base, then yes, you can make a review. But here he doesnt even review the dialouge scenes! The next point he makes is that it is stupid of the miliatary to keep Bruce in a tube and piss him off, completely forgeting that the miliatary is taking precautions and is trying to patent the chemicals in Bruce's body. He then makes the point that it was stupid of the military to put Bruce and his dad in the same room since his dad did try to kill Betty. Although the military didn't prove he tried to kill her and his dad did say he would turn himself in quietly if he could see his some again. He then says that they never say why Bruce's dad can absorb things like the t-1000. I wouldn't bring this up unless they did, the movie said that the radiation in his body was unstable so to balance out he could absorb with anything. After this comes probably the worst scene in any of his reviews, he edits the movie clip to make a point. He shows the hulk under water screaming and then the gamma explosion. And says what happened was Bruce killed his dad by unleashing the gamma radiation inside of him, which he can't do in the comics. But the problem is that isn't what happens!!! The clip of the hulk screaming was him giving in to his dad letting his dad absorb the gamma radiation inside of him, making his dad incredibly unstable, the explosion was the military shot a missile at his dad unleashing the radiation. Again, this movie might be considered bad by many, but it isn't bad enough for a review!

Wrap up time. He is aware comic book movies aren't Ang Lee's feild but he says that is something that all directors should be able to adapt from project to project. That's right, ERod just said that academy award winning director Ang Lee can't adapt to diferent projects. He compares this to Steven Speilberg, who went from raiders of the lost ark to E.T., which is true, then from The Color Purple to Shindler's List, which isn't. First of all both The Color Purple and Shindler's List have a few similar themes and besides, he went from Jurassic Park to Shindler's list, NOT The Color Purple to Shindler's List! And Ang Lee did adapt, he went from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to this film, and then from this film to Brokeback Mountain. He says this film has too much substance and they go over every little detail. But isn't that in a way good? Would you rather they completely change the origins of the Hulk?

This episode really shouldn't exist.

The Terrible 10 review

Here's a good question, if these are the 10 worst films of fandom, then why does he only give ONE point for busting each? I'm serious even for Batman and Robin he gives one point! This episode feels very nitpicky not to mention ERod does in fact like some of these films (Super Mario Bros is the only one he said he completely liked but he does give good points for almost every movie) So I have to ask, why didn't he just do full reviews of these films? I believe the answer is that all of these films (except for cool world, which has no fanboy value mind you) were already reviewed by Doug Walker and ERod thought that he wouldn't be able to top his reviews. And yet he has reviewed 11 films that filmbrain has already! The way I see it either make a full review of the movies or don't review them at all!

What fan base is he voicing with this one? When I found out this would be his next review I had to ask "Why". He does briefly mention that the movie is cashing in on the 90's vampire craze, but he could have just busted Bram Stroker's Dracula, which would have voiced a few fan bases. He is very picky about the movies he reviews. In order for a movie to fit his guide lines, it has to be a theatrical release, and piss on a fan base. Even if the movie is bad, he will turn it down because it has no fanboy value (this is why he almost didn't bust Sucker Punch, but after enough requests he basically was forced to review it) but even sucker punch was a requested movie, I'm am pretty sure no one requested this movie to be reviewed.

This would not have minded me if the review was funny, which it isn't. The Troll 2 reference came out of no where as well as that stupid Teen Titans reference. It isn't like there is no material in the movie, it has vampire cows! And yet he still can't make a good joke out of it!

As far as the review itself goes, it's pretty bad. He complains about a CHILDREN'S FILM being cliche (I guess that's why he loved serenity so much [ even though it isn't that original]) There aren't any points in this review that stick out. A good review of a movie the reviewer does not like is when the points he makes will stick with you. So if you wanted to buy this film (I pray for you) you can remember "Oh yeah, ERod said this and that was bad". That is what a good review should do, this does not.

I was really looking forward to this as I really hate this film but the review is very unfunny. He doesn't make a lot references (refrenceing scenes from other movies that makes the scene in the reviewed movie look funny or stupid) and mostly just goes over minor problems with the film. He talks about how messed up the film is, but besides that, being messed up and dark are the only things he brings up, and if he were to bust movies that he thought were messed up and dark wouldn't he have busted Tim Burton's batman films? The jokes he does make are very bland like the "I Know I referenced that on purpose" line which he uses twice! The "What a Douce" line got annoying and nothing made me laugh like I was expecting. The only good thing I can say about this episode was that he finally ended his stupid obscurus lupa joke.

His impressions got way out of hand with this. And I do like his impressions and I really liked his Eragon review (the other review where he did impressions of other tgwtg reviews) but this is what made his Eragon review 1000 times better than his Atlantis review:

1. He had a good reason for being mad at tgwtg, it was because after 4 months of being around and having many views he still was not on team tgwtg. In this episode it's because no one was able to do a cameo. And why is that a major problem? This was his 3rd episode on tgwtg and he complains about not getting any cameos when in filmbrain's Equilibrium review (which was his 3rd) was able to get cameos.

2. Eragon had a fanbase that was pissed at the movie. With Eragon, they took a popular book series and instead of making a faithful adaptation made a star wars rip off. With Atlantis, Disney took the concept art of the Hellboy creator and made an animated Stargate knockoff. And also Atlantis does have a strong following so in this review he is doing the exact opposite of what he is supposed to do. And guess what? HE KNOWS THIS!! To quote a comment on his trailer for the review "You're going to get a lot of hate for this" ERod responded with "I don't care" way to listen to your audience there.

There is also the problem that at this time the tgwtg audience that wasn't aware of his YouTube career were getting pissed at him. His first review on tgwtg was Astroboy, which the audience was mad at him for not making any good points (I haven't seen the movie so I can't agree or disagree), Then he reviewd return of swamp thing, which wasn't as well received because well, not many people know of its existence. The un aware audience didnt know he didnt just review blockbusters but movies designed to be blockbusters, so for what ever reason everyone made a big deal about it. I would have thought that three weeks in he would have reviewed a more infamous and well known film. This episode might have worked if he did it 7 months into tgwtg instead of 3 weeks, but there would still be the problem of only busting it for being a Stargate knockoff.

And believe me, being a Stargate knockoff is the ONLY reason he busted this film, in his wrap up he says the movie wasn't even that bad, but if you have seen Stargate, you will spend the majority of your time comparing the two films. If he wanted to bust a movie that he didn't like that was basically Stargate, why doesn't he just review Avatar?! He has said on many occasions he doesn't like the movie so why not bust that film? Also, even though I do like this film I will admit it has major probelms. None of them are brought up here! It would be like if he were to make a review of I,Robot and instead of focusing on how that movie isn't anything like the original book (in fact it was based on a completely different book!) and instead focus on how it basically has the same plot as Who Frammed Roger Rabbit.

This review should have been more like Marzgirl's review of it which was a lot better than what he gave us!