13: 17 - When the Critic mentions that every time Klark's father opens his mouth is just saying how much of a messiah he is.
At first Joe has a good point mentioning that part when his father says "Maybe let them die" is good cause truly his father doesn't know how to respond cause its either do it and show the world what his son is or keep his son's secret but let the kids die, even if Joe had trouble to express it.
But then at 14:43 the Critic explains his point, that everyone sees to just talk how important he is . Joe's answer to that? "He said it differently though..." and doesn't say why or give a counter argument.
16:05 - Angry Joe tries to defend Lois lane's character
Like he says she, at first, is a stronger character, actively looking for answers and has no time for the military's stupidity. Until, like the Critic says, seems like she got hit by the Nolan ray, turning into a cold thing who only talks about how everything around here is SO VERY IMPORTANT GUYS in that distinctive monotone tone.
Joe's answer? talk about how life sometimes can be "like that", life can be cruel and mentions the Lobster costume joke. And that's it, he doesn't make a point proving that the Critic was wrong that they aren't like that, just makes a joke about it and move on.
21:20 - Klark's father sacrifices himself for no reason.
Again the critic makes a good point, Klark's father sacrifices himself even though Clark could have easily saved the dog without using his power and in the worst case scenario he would be fine. But nooooo he had to let the tornado kill him so teach some sort of lesson to Clark.
And once again Joe's answer is dump and empty, he just says that Clark's father think he is right when Critic answers Joe proceeds to just confuse him, not content with that Joe says "that this move is deeper than you think, its raising question", sadly Critic just moves on and doesn't put him on his place. Like what kind of questions? how stupid and self important Clark's father is?
27:50 - Superman is Jesus
Once again Joe talks like he is right. When Critic mentions how heavy the symbolism and comparisons to Superman and Jesus are Joe just rambles about how "It's to show how he would be like more god or man? to show hes humble" Except it just doesn't, it's just to show Superman is god and we should bow to him, seriously did he really had to leave the ship in a cross shaped pose? like this is a video game and his model glitches into a T-pose.
My Problem with this Review is that Angry Joe talks more like a dump fanboy who think he is right, ignores obvious flaws and when said flaws are shown he tries to distract you from them. The only time Joe is right is at 33:00 the critic admits that the fight scene near the end is amazing, cause yeah it actually is a really cool fight.
I wanted the Joe who puts aside his fanboy within if something clearly sucks, points out flaws and recognizes the good things even in the worst of games. Take for example his Review of Injustice where he explain how he likes how he can keep the Super Hero Superman idea intact but he would have respected if they kept with their guns and went with the Evil Superman idea, or points out how the Good Superman at one point blast vehicles with people still in them cause Black Adam is throwing them at him.
Or his review of Halo 5: Shut up grown up are talking. The whole review discussing the few good points it has and how sad it is to be bogged down by its flaws like a boring story, stupid AI and the loss of the iconic split screen, CoD: Advanced Warfare, with its flaws, has a functional split screen for online that doesn't mess with the online experience, in my 5 year old Ps3 with a phone connection what's your excuse halo seriously.
Or perhaps you want an older review? like his top 10 (32) Reasons Fable III sucks, opening with how torn he was cause despite how much he loves the Fable Series he cant like Fable III for all the flaws it has. That Review was in 2011.
I want Joe to respect the words he said during his Halo review, many times. That he is the real fan of it cause he seen the flaws and want to inform them so they can fix them, not just gosh about how awesome and perfect everything is. I dont say he has to be agressive or just say that it sucks. If Joe likes the movie or not i want him to express his points, give counter arguments, give proof of his points. I want Joe to try and convince me to be on his side.
As a last example i want to point out the recent crossover of Bennett the Sage and Nostalgia Critic to review Speed Racer the movie. In it they make a good job at establishing that yes Bennett likes the movie, its not perfect and when NC points out flaws that Bennett can't deny, he agrees but when he sees something he likes, he defends it. Bennett even explains in the end why he doesnt hate Speed Racer as much as the rest, cause while it sucks at east you can see the effort that went into making it unlike other movies that are just directives (Dragon Ball Evolution anyone?).
In the End all i want to say is that, dont be a fanboy Joe, plz dont be a freaking fanboy.
If you like this or not just leave your comments, its just something i wanted to get out of my chest, i would gladly discuss my points though if im wrong.
Looks like he's done it for me, kek.
