Hes not talking about hardcore movie fans hes talking about the casual mainstream audience. Those kind of people are usually not interested in new and different and original stuff and just want the same things over and over again and those people usually dont care about the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. There is a big difference between more hardcore fans and casuals but it seems like people here dont understand that.
@@CyberLance26nah i disagree he is talking about hardcore fans you don't get to shift blame to other people you guys have lost that privilege a long time ago
@@seyio1717 Who exactly do you think he is blaming then if he is not blaming casuals? And are you saying that hardcore fans used to have some kind of privilege and now we lost it for some reason?
@@CyberLance26 maybe it could be a passive aggressive insult to both. Him looking down on “casuals”, while also assuming the hardcore audience are stuck in the past (AKA the guys who immediately think LGBT equals the WOKE meme)
@@CyberLance26You realize that your argument, his going after the casual fans and audiences, doesn't exactly make Chris look better, right? So first off, I have to hardcore disagree that people aren't wanting to be challenged with something new or original, as we're seeing franchise fatigue left, right, and center, the ones suffering the most are Disney and Warner Bros. with their endless superhero schlock! People are so desperate for something new and challenging that Godzilla -1, a foreign film, was nominated several times for awards including best picture! Second, Chris is low-key insulting his audience by going this route, which is not surprising since he likes to claim that he's a filmmaker on par with the greats apparently, and this is more than likely cope with the fact that his projects aren't really all that successful: "People don't like my stuff, that must mean they don't want to be challenged!" That's how he's coming off as
If Chris hates things that are simple and unchallenging why doesn’t he make a more in-depth reviews instead of having the most simple surface level videos.
I remember his Sonic 2 review especially feeling that way. I understand if he’s not a fan of the games but there’s so many moments in that review where it felt like he was struggling to find positives. His reviews feel like general consensus than his own thoughts.
Lost all respect for him when he openly said he was no lonher going to be critical of movies because "Oh it takes so much effort to make a movie, so I wont be harsh" literally after he annou ced he was making an actual novie and got his foot in the industry
AKA "I get paid by woke movie studios and get perks/premier events so i will absolutely shill and not criticize these garbage new movies from Hollywood " Chris Stuckmann
It takes a lot of effort to become a doctor, but I wouldn't hesitate to criticize a botched surgery. Like dude, you went through the schooling, had all tools you needed to get the job done, and you fucked it up. Take the criticism.
I used to follow Chris Stuckmann loyally, for years. Loved his personality and his reviews and his hilariocities. But the further he went on the more obvious it became that he was more on Hollywood's side as a filmmaker than the audience's side as a film critic. He made it clear what kind of person he was and who's side he was on about a year ago.
This is obvious when he said the reason people don't go to the movies is due to piracy. Despite the fact that during the dvd pirating days people where still going to the movies in droves.
What kind of person he is? Wtf? He's not a movie critic anymore man, his "reviews" are obviously efforts to fund his filmmaking career. You make it sounds like he's some sort of monster with your wording
@@alphshift7857 "What kind of person he is" hardly translates to "monster." It just means he's lost integrity as a critic now that his priorities have shifted. It's disappointing to someone like myself who once enjoyed his reviews. That's all.
I like the idea that MauLer tracked down Wolf, captured him, dragged him back to Longman Hole in Welshland, chained him to a computer in his basement and forced him to do EFAP Highlights.
The true canon is that I needed a way to test videos I edit for MauLer for copyright, but I needed a certain amount of views/subs to upload videos over 15 minutes (uploading the videos in 15 minute segments didn't work, as the copyright detection systems works differently for longer videos). You'll likely notice a lot of editing hiccups on the Saw IV - Spiral videos where there are clips cut short or the EFAP logos being layered overtop each other; the reason for that being that MauLer had to re-edit what I sent him because I couldn't see what was being detected on my end, and since he didn't have the raw editing file I had, it got a little sloppy. The only reason Saw X was a different story was because I went hyper autistic on it, flipping the footage, adding color effects and lens flares, zooming in, slowing footage, etc. in any attempt possible to trick the system (which, thankfully, worked - he didn't need to do any re-edits on that one). That left only two ways to check for copyright to avoid that issue in the future: I could either come back to UA-cam and make my own videos again, or do something else. Since I really enjoyed the YMS Highlights channel, I pitched the idea for EFAP Highlights to the guys and spent a few months digging around old EFAPs and working with the guy who designed the EFAP logo to make this channel's logo, banner, and thumbnail templates. MauLer had originally planned to make a Highlights channel back when EFAP started, but just never had the time to get it up and running, so I've got quite a bit of catching up to do. TL;DR this channel basically only exists because I needed a way to check for copyright on completely different videos.
It's still really funny that Chris is willingly to give up on his responsibility as a film critic to be honest and harsh on films that need it, all because he went through the hollywood machine with his film. Becoming Mr. Nothing Burger has been the worst thing that's happened to his channel.
@@AfutureVWatch the movie is at least one of them. Some might take it further by reading the book or playing the game a film is based on, but that's optional.
@@AfutureV His responsibility as a film critic is to offer his opinion as a critic of film. Therefore, at minimum, he should have critical opinions about film.
@@AfutureVI would argue that a critic has the responsibility not to willfully or negligently mislead their audience about the nature their review, or the content of the media they're reviewing. So, if you describe an event in a movie, you have a responsibility to describe the event accurately, and not to change or remove important context. In addition, if a you haven't finished the entirety of a piece of media, you have a responsibility to tell the audience at what point you stopped watching, reading, playing, etc. If a reviewer wants to prioritize talking about positives, or negatives, it's fine to do that, but but they have a responsibility to signpost that fact to their audience. Most people expect a review to be an even handed look at both positives and negatives, and if your review is not intended to be that, you need to make that clear.
The thing is they didnt specifically call him a prick, they called out "that prick with the red background" which could have referred to any number of online media commentators. The fact that Chris immediately assumed they were talking about him says more about him than Rich Evans.
@@dragonforks93well if you actually watch the video you would see they did display Chris up and changed the color of his background which is why he got upset because he was a big fan of RLM and always praised there channel, I think Chris even had a link to there channel on his website. I believe he put it back up because he reached out and asked if they meant it or not and they said no it was just a joke.
The thing about Chris Stuckman, is that he always seems to be hedging his opinions on movies so that he 1. Appears to have more refined taste in cinema than the plebs. and 2. so that he is careful not to run a ground with opinions that go against the grain or...are *gasp* perceived as problematic. This has only gotten worse through the years, especially as he has attempted to enter the industry himself. Its why I appreciate reviewers like Jeremy Jahns, who always gives his true feelings on a movie whether it goes with the grain or against it. He also makes no pretenses that he is some elite cinephile who enjoys high art. He is just a dude who likes movies, and gives his thoughts on it.
As Siskel & Ebert once said, wanting to be liked and political correctness are death to a critic because you cannot muster the courage to say what you honestly think about a film.
I believe, there was a time back when he was on Collider, Jahns had a choice... either fall in line with the corporate machine or go back home to his You Tube channel and stay true to his roots as an honest reviewer. The word back in the day was the break-up with Perri is what caused him to leave Hollywood but i think it was only part of it. If he liked that scene out there in hollyweird he would have stayed in the biz... but he would've had to compromise his integrity. That's what i believe happened and thankfully, he made the right choice.
More refined taste in cinema is exactly why he likes Transformers Rise of the Beasts and The Flash. He has such a refined taste for art. Big robot go shoot and boom haha get Stuckmannized.
Stuckmann doesn't do negative reviews anymore because he's scared of upsetting his "Hollywood" friends. Although he's not a sickening as Campea when it comes to shilling
That’s why I don’t watch marvel anymore, because it’s just too challenging for my lowly and ignorant brain. Not to mention bigoted, sexist and racist brain. Matter of fact I’m going to turn myself in.
You are correct. I used to love his channel with Jeremy Jahms, and he gave a lot of insightful and passionate analyses about modern movies and those in the past. I still consider his Alien franchise episodes one of the finest on UA-cam. And his analysis of What is wrong with modern Horror and Action movies is also spot on. In my opinion, he has fallen from grace because he became too famous and all the money started rolling in. Drinker himself admits when his career start rolling in, he wrote books, kept up with his UA-cam channel, and take on the task. I honestly don't care much about his channel and since the quality of his content doesn't seem insightful anymore. He lost touch, and if he doesn't care, why would anybody else? I don't think anybody cares about his movie Shelby Oaks at this point. @awhellnah__
its hilarious that these people tout "but the Cinema industry will DIE if you don't go!" as if he thinks I care if Hollywood ever makes another movie ever again, and people like me are growing, we have other, better hobbies, and still besides, I'd rather all of Tinsel Town blow up than give them another Nickel for propaganda flicks.
Stuckmann needs to read some Macchievelli. It's better to be feared than loved, people can choose who they love at their own whims, not who they fear. No one respects a cuckold.
I used to watch Chris Stuckmann because I thought he was a reasonable reviewer when I discovered him in 2016. But looking back I should’ve unsubscribed from the guy when he said Ghostbusters (2016) was better than Ghostbusters 2. I didn’t because I respectfully disagreed with him and I found his reviews enjoyable. I unsubbed from him in 2021 after watching his Cowboy Bebop review because it took me that long to realize he was full of it.
I subscribed to him, I think, around the same time. I can't remember when I unsubscribed, or what movie he was reviewing that spurned me to do it, but now I absolutely cannot for the life of me figure out why I ever respected his take. It's so bizarre to me, it feels like one of those Mandella effect moments, like I know there were some decent reviews at some point in time but none of them exist now.
It was 2016/2017 for me as well when I subscribed. I think his reviews were so short and to the point that it was easy to digest. His Hilariocity reviews were fun as well and he had a few good deep dive videos that were well done. But it became increasingly noticeable that he wouldn’t critique certain films/franchises or bring up certain topics and played things as safe as possible, whether it be to preserve his channel in the UA-cam algorithm or because he had filmmaking aspirations. Probably both. I’m still subscribed to him because I don’t think he’s a bad guy and I still enjoy some of his old videos, but I think he’s kind of an intellectual coward and will end up having virtually no impact or legacy because of it.
It was him gushing about how brave and stunning Fat Thor was in Endgame and how a depressed alcoholic was such an amazing example of positive representation that finally got me to unsubscribe to him.
He lost me when he said he was pansexual I still watch the guy...cause he highlights movies I haven't yet heard of... but pansexual? Bruh..you mean bi. You wanna fuck whatever turns you on
it's funny I have the same thing but also with Mauler As much as Chris has mellowed his Reviews, Mauler and co has also just increasingly gone off the cliff in Hate commentating and content to the point of uselessness and non critical thinking
If he knows about as much about film as he says he does, then he should know that film has been in FAR WORSE situations. The 1940s had the end of Studios controlling actor's careers and movie theaters and the birth of television. The 1960s had the failures of mega epics and musicals with the rise of the new Hollywood. The 1980s had the end of New Hollywood. The 2000s had the birth of new media and the internet. Hollywood will be fine. What was the solution in the 1940s? Musicals and Romantic films with bigger spectacles. The 1960s gave us Independent cinema. The 1980s gave us toys and franchise films. The 2000s adapted to the internet and gave birth to Cinematic Universes. Hollywood always recovers. This paranoia about recent issues is nothing compared to the jump between silent and sound films.
I think the issue I have with the examples you gave is that they represent cinema having to adapt to a new format or to incorporate a new concept. You're right, Hollywood did eventually adapt to those new conditions. Most of those scenarios you mentioned represented either a technological/cultural leap forward or an innovation in marketing strategy, both of which present clear benefits in opposition to their costs. The problem Hollywood is facing right now is the opposite. They have not innovated much since the advent of the internet (and really all that did is provide viral marketing opportunities), and their over-reliance on franchising/remaking/cgi becomes increasingly apparent with each passing year. I don't think there's really been any major leap forward since the introduction of CGI, just a refinement of existing techniques/technology, but eventually the dazzle wears off and you start to see these movies for the transparent shlock they largely are. So, while I'm willing to admit to some recency bias, I'm not seeing a clear path forwards here. Maybe an injection of outsider art like the 60's and 70's had with their independent films. I think we've run the technology well dry for the moment. People are also getting sick of the constant franchise films as well I think, so Hollywood's major marketing ploy is also on a timer. I think innovation will have to come from outside of Hollywood, because I just can't see their corporate puppetmasters allowing them to take risky ventures. I may not agree with Stuckman's phrasing or blaming it entirely on the audience (they are not blameless though), but I do think the idea of "Hollywood is playing it too safe" is very valid.
@@Doc_Fun disagree with the "refinement of existing techniques/technology" part. We are getting cameras in Hollywood that can film at higher frame rates, but none of them have refined techniques that require acting skills in mind to that. In fact practical effects and stunts stick out like cgi as sore thumbs under these new cameras. Hollywood hasn't really adapted to the new technologies, cause ironically all the innovation has to come from the human side rather than the tech. Which would mean actors and prop designers have to step up their game. It's just the new crop of actors, directors, props, costumes, etc don't give as much of a damn in Hollywood. Who cares if a sword duel looks artificially slow even compared to films back in the 1970s? Who cares if a Napoleonic war film has WW1 style Trenches? Who cares if the costumes of a military uniform doesn't have the correct rank insignia, or isn't even correct for the time period? Who cares if a sequel fim doesn't get the prop from the previous film right? Who cares if the alien costume looks more out of place than a Halloween costume? Hollywood hasn't really done any innovating since the early 2010s. They still stick to techniques that don't fit with the new tech and are still getting outpaced by it to this day. Practical effects are overrated by the audience that as long as directors hide how much VFX they actually used, they placate the loud vocal minority that couldn't really tell you a practical effect from a film even from the 1980s. Nor do they understand that practical effects are just a tool like CGI. The champions of Practical effects forget that they are just as, if not more expensive than CGI. But I guess everyone forgot how much of a box office failure John Carpenter's The Thing was when it first came out, and most of its budget was because how expensive the Practical Effects were to make even back then. I do agree that true innovation is more likely to come from outside Hollywood than within. The real question though is when that happens, will Hollywood actually step up its game, or will it just throw money at its outside competition in order to control it for themselves?
In EFAP, a consistent trend is "Whenever a UA-camr says something about subjectivity or good/bad, they will contradict it". This video is living proof. Chris somehow doesn't have an idea of BASIC logic, like "Criticism is necessary" or "Cutting things isn't always bad".
90% of the 'challenging movies' are challenging to Those Guys, not Our Side. When was the last time a big-budget Hollywood movie challenged American Democrats? I'd love to see each of these critics provide a list of 10 movies that challenged them. I suspect most of their picks would coincidentally support their existing prejudices.
He doesn't want to be negative towards movies but is happy to be negative toward audiences for making movies the way they are. That's still being negative towards movies! Just in a less direct and more insulting way. How is that better?
I'm glad Mauler saw me bringing up EEAAO. It's one of those movies that at first just seemed to be riding the safe superhero trend with multiverse stuff, but also is weird and complex, which is what some other weird movies failed at, like Beau is Afraid, unfortunately. EEAAO is one that could've been too weird, or safe and boring, but the GOOD writing is why I've rewatched it 7+ times. I love that movie and I hope it becomes a timeless classic for people.
Probably unrelated to what Chris Stuckmann was referring to, but I loathe the usage of the term "challenge" when it comes to film. "Challenge" implies that it presents you with an obstacle that you can prepare for and choose to engage in. Movies and TV shows have mostly ATTACKED their audience, either directly or indirectly, as evidenced by the bait and switch marketing that's been going on for like a decade almost. Nobody is truly against the idea of a movie that challenges them and makes them think and consider things they wouldn't normally think about, or even want to think about. That's been par for the course in storytelling for ages, and that hasn't changed. But you can't sucker punch someone and call it a fair fight, and similarly you can't go out of your way to deliberately upset people to stir up controversy, and then call them weak for not wanting to engage in it.
Stuckman reviewed the first two episodes of Rings of Power, said he LOVED Galadriel and found the show promising, then didn't review the rest of the season. Clearly the guy's compromised. He wants to be a filmmaker and must therefore toe the line. He needs to stop critiquing films since he can't be trusted and no longer has credibility.
_“Don’t be afraid to be challenged… A healthy Kino Diet sometimes means to watch Astral Sorcerers indulge in dairy products of alien origin and pretend it’s what you wanted….”_ *-Epictetus*
Chris jumped the shark when he wouldn't criticize movies anymore and he gave some lame excuse that he doesn't want to be negative. It really came across like he was kissing Hollywood a@@.
@@spiderleenie Yeah but Nolan himself has said that he doesn't believe he could make it as an up and coming director in the current state of the business. It also got more memed because of a perfect storm of its subject matter, the matching yet contradicting aesthetic with Barbie and the casts. The film would've still been a success but it wouldve probably made something like Tenet money if it hadn't been for all of that. Speaking of which, Tenet is proof Nolan isn't that infallible, given it flopped.
@@armedraptor5114 Tenet came out in 2020, in the midst of covid when almost nobody was going to the movie theater at the time. Tenet was also Nolan's attempt at a generic action movie.
After watching this stream, I'm entirely convinced that Chris Stuckman is a AI-generated content creator before AI-generated content existed. Like a precursor to test the viability of it's utilization and Chris is the result of this.
Did he ever have an original thought that wasn't parroted by another critic or UA-cam content creator? I watched his review of Fury, and he came off as someone who never saw a war film. Never saw The Longest Day, A Bridge too Far, heck even bad ones like Anzio all addressed the same things he praised Fury for, and more. I never understood why anyone took him seriously.
So we all have our preferences for film and generally I have my moments where I enjoy a comfy watch and times where I want to fully engage with a film. Yet the best films are those that have both. Creators/filmmakers look all we want you to do is put in as much as thought and your soul into your work as possible. It doesn't have to be some ground breaking story. I recently watched a great review of The Rescuers and how the film is explaining/exploring how important self worth is. It's also got a message about how no matter no small you are, you can help. It shows what greed can do to someone. You can watch that film and pick up on none or hints of those but you can also take a minute and look at what the writers were trying to tell/teach you. You then see how well the writers did what they wanted because it's all right there in front of you if you wish to engage your brains. It's designed to be a fantastic film for kids yet has plenty for an adult to chew on. That's how a story should be. A plot that is fun packed and logically sound yet also underneath is asking/raising a question to the audience. Making them think whether that's about the plot, the world, characters, themes or something else.
Hey just wanted to say thank you for all your work. I love the full streams but I do appreciate having bite sized EFAPs to have in moderation once in a while
@@xburninginwaterx7959 highly disagree it has the same kind of tone, Style, and pacing as the "sicario" film while also tackling the same type of subject matter as the film "taken" but this time with children, and it doesn't take a detective to piece this together, 1,chris reviews films look at his reviews around the time the sound of Freedom released he did Oppenheimer and Barbie right before and after the sound of Freedom released, 2, many of his subscribers were asking him to review it but he never responded🤔. 3, his buddy corey from Double Toasted they seem to have the same kind of political allegiances towards a specific side that often ignores the sound of freedom and that type of subject matter which means Double Toasted did not review that film either hmm🤔. 4, then you have little Chris making his movie I'm willing to bet especially since again this is around the same time the sound of Freedom came out he was specifically told and ordered not to talk about and review such a film🤷♂️ bro the writing's on the wall unless you're an idiot and you know what's funny I see this word being thrown around in regards to the sound of Freedom "Qatar" or something like that and it seems like that word is being directed towards people who believe it or not have a problem with young children being trafficked and f**k**. Call me crazy but I wouldn't be down with that type of thing either🤷♂️ I'm not a Democrat or Republican I'm just a humble respectful guy who knows right from wrong, real from fake and enjoys movies especially movies that shed light on such dark topics to help spread awareness something Chris could have done since he's a parent now but he chose not to🤷♂️ Chris stuckmann and Double Toasted are prime examples of insincere politically biased untrustworthy fools who have one job review movies both old and new like they have always done on their channels except for when they're told not to AND THAT IS WEAK AF but then again that's what paper thin men like Chris are
@atfbproductions7458 mate I did not like the movie that's all and the tone you set in your reply is what alot maybe this chris guy didn't review it because if he disagreed with it ppl would dogplile him and call him a nonce and I love movies the same like look at "spotlight" same subject and had Michael keaton if not seen I would recommend, that said the star spangled banner sung by children is ripped from spotlight by with amazing grace and it's powerfull and creepy
@@xburninginwaterx7959 If he was able to review left behind he was definetly able to review Sound Of Freedom. Plus the movie has an important message.
People shouldn't be bashing Chris. He's very useful. You can watch his reviews to know how to give lukewarm takes at work or elsewhere to blend in and not come off as someone "hateful" and "problematic".
It took me a second to realise you meant veteran and not like an animal vet...and I'm like...what's so brave about a vet? I mean...cat might bite you I guess 😂😂
Yes....I'm afraid of being challenged by every movie putting a chick in it and making her gay and lame The only challenging thing to these movies these days is how much it pushes my patience
You see, people are afraid of being challenged by the concept of bad movies, because if they are like me and dont call out bad things then everyone will like everything! XD
Honestly, seeing EFAP take down Chris Stuckman gives me such a massive joygasim since I really hate this guy. With Red Letter Media, they come up with their own logic based on what they believe. Stuckman on the other hand, just regurgitates what the common and popular opinion of a movie is. That's why many people consider Stuckman an absolute shill and a fraud because he'll frame whatever false narrative, throw any group of people under the bus and even throw his own family under that same bus just to generate the most sympathy and likes. The dude lacks any form of self awareness that he contradicts his own principles and rules just to cater to the popular mindset and he even wound up saying the very thing Red Letter Media mocked (the very same channel that he previously praised and looked up to): the sentiment that big studios don't want audiences to ask questions, just consume product and be excited for next movie. That's why I hate Chris Stuckman: He's an absolute shill, weasel, treacherous snake and pathological liar. How this guy became a big named UA-cam movie critic for how little intellectual thought he puts into his review astounds me since he's an insult to the profession he's supposed to uphold: giving an honest, unbiased critical analysis of a product that informs the audience of the quality of said product. And this video further proves my point as he's a movie critic...who doesn't critically analyze movies anymore. I'm sorry, what? That's the equivalent of being a photographer who doesn't take any photos, a boxer who doesn't fight or a ballerina who doesn't dance. What a worthless video from a worthless critic. He's the literal embodiment of everything opposite of what EFAP represents: Honesty, objectivity, logic, reasoning and principle. These are reasons why I watch EFAP and not garbage tier critics like Stuckman: Don't tell me your feelings on the movie. Show me the reasons why it does or doesn't work. I might not always agree with the assessment considering that there's context for a particular criticism that might redeem or break scenes. But at least these guys try to do the best that they can to assess the media they cover.
@@CSorgini I guess you hadn't read my previous comment since I literally layed everything out about why I hate this guy. But let me give the abridged reason why I hate Chris Stuckman and why nobody should listen to him: He's disingenuous, emotionally manipulative, a liar, a hypocrite, a bully, a shill and a grifter. I've seen enough of his content to know that he's every bit as untrustworthy as Anita Sarkeesian and Amber Heard.
@@WoahLookAtThatFreak from the top of my head it was him regurgitating the usual "Its a ripoff of Taxi Driver King of Comedy" vomit, then he meandered about the glass of the telephone cabin scene cracking being CGI and some cloud-yelling about how comic book fans are annoying him and having an issue with Alfred's actor which spawned the "Is that supposed to be Alfred?" meme Overall I remember it being a standard bad Joker review, go rewatch that EFAP I guess
Always loved this whole "let's pretend disinterest equals fear" rhetoric. Such an insightful opinion and totally not a pathetic attempt at elevating yourself by shitting on others.
He is part of the problem, he completely salivates over dumb simple movies and excuses any criticisms. Watch his review of TFA, he definitely was like a dumb clapping seal throughout.
To be fair I think he has changed his thoughts on SW in places, I recall him doing a more recent video of him saying he doesn't truly despise the Prequels and that he respects how at least George was allowed to do his thing the way he envisioned it unlike how conflicted and micro-managed the Disney Era has being. He could still be enjoy TFA for finding it an entertaining film tho, I dunno and don't reall feel like looking back now
I dont want to be Challenged at the Cinema.I have enough of that finding the money to pay for for petrol and paying on my ring go ap for a parking spot without a surcharge finding a car park without water filled pot holes not being mugged getting out of the car or getting hit by a vehicle while crossing the road,I don't want to be "Challenged" Chrissy baby.
This presupposes that the "challenging" movies that were released in the past years were somehow more than just attempts at making money by getting a rise out of people
I lost interest on the seriousness of Chris criticism when he became a complete shill to Disney's Star Wars and then acted surprised with what happened with ROS. And now apparently he doesn't rate movies anymore and makes the same expression in his thumbnails.
If people are afraid to be challenged why are movies like Fight Club, Schindler's list, Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, 2001: Space Odyssey, Citizen Kane, Requiem for a Dream and many others considered among the best of all time when they are anything but easy or simple? lol
Don’t tell us you don’t realize all of those movies are from 23-55 years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of modern audiences couldn’t tell you what these movies were about, let alone name them
@@WoahLookAtThatFreak Not really, if people didn't like to be challenged no one would remember those movies after 20 years so my point stands. The fact they don't make those movies doesn't mean it's because people don't like them, it's because they are way more risky and require more thought put into them than having a popular superhero fight a disposable cgi army before the main bad guy turns on the skybeam.
I havent watched his channel in probably close to 5 years now. He started bothering me back then but this is hilarious. He doesnt understand anything it seems
I'm still holding out hope for Chris. I've been a fan of his for so long. I want to see what his channel becomes after his movie is available to public scrutiny. Based on how he handles the criticism, I will decide if it's time to move on or not.
@Butwhythough881 Not all of them. Not this one. I'm pretty positive his movie is going to be bad - though I hope I'm wrong (hurray for indies). I just hope he doesn't answer valid criticism with, "Well, don't be mean because everyone worked hard on this." At that point, I unsub.
@@andrejuarez I know but I think when someone who gets big on the internet goes and makes a product like a book or movie and it ends up flopping or is widely disliked, their fans will fight the creator’s battle for them saying things like “why don’t you try making a movie?” “Your opinion is invalid.” “This is great because they made it.”
@Butwhythough881 Of course. But my lazer pointer is on Chris not his fans. Unless he literally lets them speak for him on his channel. Like he makes a medley of positive reviews from fans with some cringe sh*t title like, "these are the only reviews I care about."
I think people are only scared of being challenged by art because they don't know what makes good art. Hopefully someday we'll get a video that can explain to us what makes good art...
Mr. Wolf can you please make a highlight of Tonald saying how "Kratos beats a little clown boy". It is the only thing that brings me joy in life. Thank you for maintaining this channel, sir.
I thought Beau Is Afraid was about the DMT hallucination of dying man that had a history of chronic anxiety and psychological abuse from his mother: the stadium court where he dies is a combination of his memories of his mother’s restraining order case & his regrets all coming back to haunt him (the whole movie feels like someone’s memory coming back to haunt them before death).
Hey Wolf, hope you're doing well. Would you be able to put a cut from when Mauler learned about the Isle of Mann and their flag? I think that would be a fun highlight to put up.
Hi Wolf, can you make a highlight of when you and the guys reacted to Eric Butts reacting to the Rise of Skywalker trailer? I've been looking for it and I would love to see that again. Hope you're doing well!
Ever since he 'came out' as pan-sexual (not a real thing), I've had a hard time taking him seriously about anything. The fact he NEEDED to make a video about it, was nothing I cared to know about. You're a reviewer, STOP IT. Jump harder on the bandwagon daddy.
“Challenge” is one of the go-to excuses for pretentious art snobs everywhere, partly because it’s so vague. What did Patrick Willems mean when he said art criticism needs to “challenge” its readers? What do Thomas Kinkade’s haters mean when they condemn his paintings for “not challenging” viewers? And what does Stuckmann here mean when he claims audiences don’t like being “challenged”? I’ve found that people who whip out the idea of “challenge” are always trying to pull something over on me. They dislike whatever they’re talking about for totally personal reasons, but they have just enough self-awareness to realize how elitist it’ll sound if they pass their subjective distaste off as objective criticism. So they use vague “challenge” to seem more magnanimous.
I started a video that was title something like, "What You MISSED In Puss In Boots: The Last Wish". And it was literally just saying the most obvious things and why children should maybe not watch it. An example: This movie has a theme of coming to terms mortality, something young children can't really process. And it dedicated a whole chapter to that. There was nothing that was missed in that video.
Would love a highlight of the RE:Village stream, specifically of the criticisms against Ethan Winters and the potential of Heisenberg. Peak Moriarty in that episode.
Most of the points he made on the video are not objectionable for how simple they were, but this one was just strange. You can call it fear if you want, but having preferences for what types of films you watch is nothing new. It is also kind of a paradox because if people watched more “obscure” or weird movies then they would no longer be obscure. So then a new set of films would become the new “weird” ones and the cycle continues. What would have worked better in the video is him explaining the virtues of the theatrical experience over other forms and why watching “challenging” movies can be valuable even as a causal moviegoer. He did neither.
But being afraid of being challenged by weird and experimental movies brings me the only joy in my life.
How dare you say that! Accepting challenges is the only thing that brings me joy in MY life!
"Moviegoers Are Afraid to be Challenged"
Translation: People won't accept stupid decisions corporations make that ruin movies and mock audiences.
Hes not talking about hardcore movie fans hes talking about the casual mainstream audience.
Those kind of people are usually not interested in new and different and original stuff and just want the same things over and over again and those people usually dont care about the stuff that goes on behind the scenes.
There is a big difference between more hardcore fans and casuals but it seems like people here dont understand that.
@@CyberLance26nah i disagree he is talking about hardcore fans you don't get to shift blame to other people you guys have lost that privilege a long time ago
@@seyio1717 Who exactly do you think he is blaming then if he is not blaming casuals?
And are you saying that hardcore fans used to have some kind of privilege and now we lost it for some reason?
@@CyberLance26 maybe it could be a passive aggressive insult to both. Him looking down on “casuals”, while also assuming the hardcore audience are stuck in the past (AKA the guys who immediately think LGBT equals the WOKE meme)
@@CyberLance26You realize that your argument, his going after the casual fans and audiences, doesn't exactly make Chris look better, right?
So first off, I have to hardcore disagree that people aren't wanting to be challenged with something new or original, as we're seeing franchise fatigue left, right, and center, the ones suffering the most are Disney and Warner Bros. with their endless superhero schlock! People are so desperate for something new and challenging that Godzilla -1, a foreign film, was nominated several times for awards including best picture!
Second, Chris is low-key insulting his audience by going this route, which is not surprising since he likes to claim that he's a filmmaker on par with the greats apparently, and this is more than likely cope with the fact that his projects aren't really all that successful: "People don't like my stuff, that must mean they don't want to be challenged!" That's how he's coming off as
If Chris hates things that are simple and unchallenging why doesn’t he make a more in-depth reviews instead of having the most simple surface level videos.
Gotta abuse that algorithm
Cause longman bad
I remember his Sonic 2 review especially feeling that way. I understand if he’s not a fan of the games but there’s so many moments in that review where it felt like he was struggling to find positives. His reviews feel like general consensus than his own thoughts.
@@SlightlyIrreleventAustralian Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason. I’m sure he thinks about EFAP all the time.
He is the Stuck Man.
*"Having no distinct personality or strong opinions is the only thing that brings me joy in life..."*
-a man who got stuck
Lost all respect for him when he openly said he was no lonher going to be critical of movies because "Oh it takes so much effort to make a movie, so I wont be harsh" literally after he annou ced he was making an actual novie and got his foot in the industry
I absolutely hate that, like be honest about why ur changing your reviews, say that its because u became a sellout and not straight up lie to us
AKA "I get paid by woke movie studios and get perks/premier events so i will absolutely shill and not criticize these garbage new movies from Hollywood " Chris Stuckmann
It takes a lot of effort to become a doctor, but I wouldn't hesitate to criticize a botched surgery. Like dude, you went through the schooling, had all tools you needed to get the job done, and you fucked it up. Take the criticism.
You had respect for him? 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@mouthofmania yup, him and Jeremy were my go to guys,now its jjst Jeremy and Drinker
I used to follow Chris Stuckmann loyally, for years. Loved his personality and his reviews and his hilariocities. But the further he went on the more obvious it became that he was more on Hollywood's side as a filmmaker than the audience's side as a film critic. He made it clear what kind of person he was and who's side he was on about a year ago.
Your mistake is thinking that film critics are on the audience's side.
This is obvious when he said the reason people don't go to the movies is due to piracy. Despite the fact that during the dvd pirating days people where still going to the movies in droves.
What kind of person he is? Wtf? He's not a movie critic anymore man, his "reviews" are obviously efforts to fund his filmmaking career. You make it sounds like he's some sort of monster with your wording
@@alphshift7857 "What kind of person he is" hardly translates to "monster." It just means he's lost integrity as a critic now that his priorities have shifted. It's disappointing to someone like myself who once enjoyed his reviews. That's all.
@@jodi2847 fair and valid
I like the idea that MauLer tracked down Wolf, captured him, dragged him back to Longman Hole in Welshland, chained him to a computer in his basement and forced him to do EFAP Highlights.
This is canon and not even Disney buying out EFAP can change this.
@@arkoa0000 I picture it like Hephaestus in God of War 3
@@baseddugalle1838
"Longman! You conspire against me?!"
--Wolf
The true canon is that I needed a way to test videos I edit for MauLer for copyright, but I needed a certain amount of views/subs to upload videos over 15 minutes (uploading the videos in 15 minute segments didn't work, as the copyright detection systems works differently for longer videos).
You'll likely notice a lot of editing hiccups on the Saw IV - Spiral videos where there are clips cut short or the EFAP logos being layered overtop each other; the reason for that being that MauLer had to re-edit what I sent him because I couldn't see what was being detected on my end, and since he didn't have the raw editing file I had, it got a little sloppy. The only reason Saw X was a different story was because I went hyper autistic on it, flipping the footage, adding color effects and lens flares, zooming in, slowing footage, etc. in any attempt possible to trick the system (which, thankfully, worked - he didn't need to do any re-edits on that one).
That left only two ways to check for copyright to avoid that issue in the future: I could either come back to UA-cam and make my own videos again, or do something else. Since I really enjoyed the YMS Highlights channel, I pitched the idea for EFAP Highlights to the guys and spent a few months digging around old EFAPs and working with the guy who designed the EFAP logo to make this channel's logo, banner, and thumbnail templates. MauLer had originally planned to make a Highlights channel back when EFAP started, but just never had the time to get it up and running, so I've got quite a bit of catching up to do.
TL;DR this channel basically only exists because I needed a way to check for copyright on completely different videos.
@awhellnah__ The last I heard the channel is not monetized yet. But it is close.
It's still really funny that Chris is willingly to give up on his responsibility as a film critic to be honest and harsh on films that need it, all because he went through the hollywood machine with his film. Becoming Mr. Nothing Burger has been the worst thing that's happened to his channel.
There is no inherent responsibility to being a film critic.
@@AfutureVWatch the movie is at least one of them. Some might take it further by reading the book or playing the game a film is based on, but that's optional.
@@AfutureV His responsibility as a film critic is to offer his opinion as a critic of film.
Therefore, at minimum, he should have critical opinions about film.
@@AfutureVI would argue that a critic has the responsibility not to willfully or negligently mislead their audience about the nature their review, or the content of the media they're reviewing.
So, if you describe an event in a movie, you have a responsibility to describe the event accurately, and not to change or remove important context.
In addition, if a you haven't finished the entirety of a piece of media, you have a responsibility to tell the audience at what point you stopped watching, reading, playing, etc.
If a reviewer wants to prioritize talking about positives, or negatives, it's fine to do that, but but they have a responsibility to signpost that fact to their audience. Most people expect a review to be an even handed look at both positives and negatives, and if your review is not intended to be that, you need to make that clear.
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917 Not really. A critic that has the most milquetoast of opinions can still be a critic.
Remember when Chris got mad because Redlettermedia called him a prick as a joke?
no lol. I gotta look this up
The thing is they didnt specifically call him a prick, they called out "that prick with the red background" which could have referred to any number of online media commentators. The fact that Chris immediately assumed they were talking about him says more about him than Rich Evans.
@@dragonforks93well if you actually watch the video you would see they did display Chris up and changed the color of his background which is why he got upset because he was a big fan of RLM and always praised there channel, I think Chris even had a link to there channel on his website. I believe he put it back up because he reached out and asked if they meant it or not and they said no it was just a joke.
@@dragonforks93I don't see why that upset. Getting insulted by Rich Evans is almost like a badge of honor.
Guess he didn't like to be challenged by that joke lol
The thing about Chris Stuckman, is that he always seems to be hedging his opinions on movies so that he 1. Appears to have more refined taste in cinema than the plebs. and 2. so that he is careful not to run a ground with opinions that go against the grain or...are *gasp* perceived as problematic. This has only gotten worse through the years, especially as he has attempted to enter the industry himself.
Its why I appreciate reviewers like Jeremy Jahns, who always gives his true feelings on a movie whether it goes with the grain or against it. He also makes no pretenses that he is some elite cinephile who enjoys high art. He is just a dude who likes movies, and gives his thoughts on it.
As Siskel & Ebert once said, wanting to be liked and political correctness are death to a critic because you cannot muster the courage to say what you honestly think about a film.
But that's the point tho, chris is trying to get to Hollywood while still giving "reviews" and jeremy isn't
I believe, there was a time back when he was on Collider, Jahns had a choice... either fall in line with the corporate machine or go back home to his You Tube channel and stay true to his roots as an honest reviewer.
The word back in the day was the break-up with Perri is what caused him to leave Hollywood but i think it was only part of it.
If he liked that scene out there in hollyweird he would have stayed in the biz... but he would've had to compromise his integrity.
That's what i believe happened and thankfully, he made the right choice.
Jeremy is the GOAT
More refined taste in cinema is exactly why he likes Transformers Rise of the Beasts and The Flash. He has such a refined taste for art.
Big robot go shoot and boom haha get Stuckmannized.
Stuckmann doesn't do negative reviews anymore because he's scared of upsetting his "Hollywood" friends.
Although he's not a sickening as Campea when it comes to shilling
I agree, Stuckmann is very disappointing but Campea is trash on so many levels and he doesn't think his s@@t smells.
i hunted! i hunted to see....
That’s why I don’t watch marvel anymore, because it’s just too challenging for my lowly and ignorant brain. Not to mention bigoted, sexist and racist brain. Matter of fact I’m going to turn myself in.
😂🎉
The only thing Marvel challenges is how dumb it can get.
Stuckman has fallen from grace a long time ago the moment he joined the accredited critique boy band.
@awhellnah__well at least for me personally I do genuinely think so
You are correct. I used to love his channel with Jeremy Jahms, and he gave a lot of insightful and passionate analyses about modern movies and those in the past. I still consider his Alien franchise episodes one of the finest on UA-cam. And his analysis of What is wrong with modern Horror and Action movies is also spot on. In my opinion, he has fallen from grace because he became too famous and all the money started rolling in. Drinker himself admits when his career start rolling in, he wrote books, kept up with his UA-cam channel, and take on the task. I honestly don't care much about his channel and since the quality of his content doesn't seem insightful anymore. He lost touch, and if he doesn't care, why would anybody else? I don't think anybody cares about his movie Shelby Oaks at this point.
@awhellnah__
Judging from from former fan views he did
Chris “the most unchallenging movie critic” Stuckman said that audiences are afraid of being challenged huh?
:D Irony is strong in this one.
Mr. “Tell that to Zod’s snapped neck” is saying we want simple and afraid when his writing is the most entry level self referencing key jangling ever
Lol I remember when he thought his rewrite of the BvS scene was hot shit until people started mocking his writing and made him upset and throw a fit.
😂😂😂
its hilarious that these people tout "but the Cinema industry will DIE if you don't go!" as if he thinks I care if Hollywood ever makes another movie ever again, and people like me are growing, we have other, better hobbies, and still besides, I'd rather all of Tinsel Town blow up than give them another Nickel for propaganda flicks.
Based and red pilled
He is just afraid of making enemies in the industry. It's absolutely obvious.
Stuckmann needs to read some Macchievelli. It's better to be feared than loved, people can choose who they love at their own whims, not who they fear. No one respects a cuckold.
Getting guilt tripped into visting the cinema by someone that can put the price of a ticket down as a business expense on their taxes.
I used to watch Chris Stuckmann because I thought he was a reasonable reviewer when I discovered him in 2016. But looking back I should’ve unsubscribed from the guy when he said Ghostbusters (2016) was better than Ghostbusters 2. I didn’t because I respectfully disagreed with him and I found his reviews enjoyable. I unsubbed from him in 2021 after watching his Cowboy Bebop review because it took me that long to realize he was full of it.
I subscribed to him, I think, around the same time. I can't remember when I unsubscribed, or what movie he was reviewing that spurned me to do it, but now I absolutely cannot for the life of me figure out why I ever respected his take. It's so bizarre to me, it feels like one of those Mandella effect moments, like I know there were some decent reviews at some point in time but none of them exist now.
It was 2016/2017 for me as well when I subscribed. I think his reviews were so short and to the point that it was easy to digest. His Hilariocity reviews were fun as well and he had a few good deep dive videos that were well done.
But it became increasingly noticeable that he wouldn’t critique certain films/franchises or bring up certain topics and played things as safe as possible, whether it be to preserve his channel in the UA-cam algorithm or because he had filmmaking aspirations. Probably both.
I’m still subscribed to him because I don’t think he’s a bad guy and I still enjoy some of his old videos, but I think he’s kind of an intellectual coward and will end up having virtually no impact or legacy because of it.
It was him gushing about how brave and stunning Fat Thor was in Endgame and how a depressed alcoholic was such an amazing example of positive representation that finally got me to unsubscribe to him.
He lost me when he said he was pansexual
I still watch the guy...cause he highlights movies I haven't yet heard of... but pansexual? Bruh..you mean bi. You wanna fuck whatever turns you on
it's funny I have the same thing but also with Mauler
As much as Chris has mellowed his Reviews, Mauler and co has also just increasingly gone off the cliff in Hate commentating and content to the point of uselessness and non critical thinking
If he knows about as much about film as he says he does, then he should know that film has been in FAR WORSE situations. The 1940s had the end of Studios controlling actor's careers and movie theaters and the birth of television. The 1960s had the failures of mega epics and musicals with the rise of the new Hollywood. The 1980s had the end of New Hollywood. The 2000s had the birth of new media and the internet. Hollywood will be fine.
What was the solution in the 1940s? Musicals and Romantic films with bigger spectacles. The 1960s gave us Independent cinema. The 1980s gave us toys and franchise films. The 2000s adapted to the internet and gave birth to Cinematic Universes. Hollywood always recovers. This paranoia about recent issues is nothing compared to the jump between silent and sound films.
I think the issue I have with the examples you gave is that they represent cinema having to adapt to a new format or to incorporate a new concept. You're right, Hollywood did eventually adapt to those new conditions. Most of those scenarios you mentioned represented either a technological/cultural leap forward or an innovation in marketing strategy, both of which present clear benefits in opposition to their costs. The problem Hollywood is facing right now is the opposite. They have not innovated much since the advent of the internet (and really all that did is provide viral marketing opportunities), and their over-reliance on franchising/remaking/cgi becomes increasingly apparent with each passing year. I don't think there's really been any major leap forward since the introduction of CGI, just a refinement of existing techniques/technology, but eventually the dazzle wears off and you start to see these movies for the transparent shlock they largely are.
So, while I'm willing to admit to some recency bias, I'm not seeing a clear path forwards here. Maybe an injection of outsider art like the 60's and 70's had with their independent films. I think we've run the technology well dry for the moment. People are also getting sick of the constant franchise films as well I think, so Hollywood's major marketing ploy is also on a timer. I think innovation will have to come from outside of Hollywood, because I just can't see their corporate puppetmasters allowing them to take risky ventures. I may not agree with Stuckman's phrasing or blaming it entirely on the audience (they are not blameless though), but I do think the idea of "Hollywood is playing it too safe" is very valid.
@@Doc_Fun disagree with the "refinement of existing techniques/technology" part. We are getting cameras in Hollywood that can film at higher frame rates, but none of them have refined techniques that require acting skills in mind to that. In fact practical effects and stunts stick out like cgi as sore thumbs under these new cameras.
Hollywood hasn't really adapted to the new technologies, cause ironically all the innovation has to come from the human side rather than the tech. Which would mean actors and prop designers have to step up their game. It's just the new crop of actors, directors, props, costumes, etc don't give as much of a damn in Hollywood.
Who cares if a sword duel looks artificially slow even compared to films back in the 1970s?
Who cares if a Napoleonic war film has WW1 style Trenches?
Who cares if the costumes of a military uniform doesn't have the correct rank insignia, or isn't even correct for the time period?
Who cares if a sequel fim doesn't get the prop from the previous film right?
Who cares if the alien costume looks more out of place than a Halloween costume?
Hollywood hasn't really done any innovating since the early 2010s. They still stick to techniques that don't fit with the new tech and are still getting outpaced by it to this day.
Practical effects are overrated by the audience that as long as directors hide how much VFX they actually used, they placate the loud vocal minority that couldn't really tell you a practical effect from a film even from the 1980s. Nor do they understand that practical effects are just a tool like CGI.
The champions of Practical effects forget that they are just as, if not more expensive than CGI. But I guess everyone forgot how much of a box office failure John Carpenter's The Thing was when it first came out, and most of its budget was because how expensive the Practical Effects were to make even back then.
I do agree that true innovation is more likely to come from outside Hollywood than within.
The real question though is when that happens, will Hollywood actually step up its game, or will it just throw money at its outside competition in order to control it for themselves?
Hollywood will be fine so long as the small hatted ones need a mechanism for influencing culture and the funds to finance it.
Did Stuckmann eat his integrity? My god. He looks awful.
I feel that it is the producers and directors who are afraid to be challenged... as evidenced by how they react to being challenged.
Exactly. This is an elitist mentality. They're afraid of the little peasants like us usurping their authority
It all comes down to projection.
In EFAP, a consistent trend is "Whenever a UA-camr says something about subjectivity or good/bad, they will contradict it". This video is living proof.
Chris somehow doesn't have an idea of BASIC logic, like "Criticism is necessary" or "Cutting things isn't always bad".
They do that shit themselves. All commentary people are hypocrites
Clowns.
@@ObiWanShinobi67 nobody asked your name bud
@@sarov7658 corny ass response
@@ObiWanShinobi67 yes, you are a clown, though I didn’t realize there were more than 1 of you.
90% of the 'challenging movies' are challenging to Those Guys, not Our Side.
When was the last time a big-budget Hollywood movie challenged American Democrats?
I'd love to see each of these critics provide a list of 10 movies that challenged them. I suspect most of their picks would coincidentally support their existing prejudices.
Name 10 movies that challenge you
He doesn't want to be negative towards movies but is happy to be negative toward audiences for making movies the way they are. That's still being negative towards movies! Just in a less direct and more insulting way. How is that better?
I love Oliver Harper's Film Retrospectives. He discusses how the film was made, the score and media attached to it. So good!
Oliver Harper's videos are fantastic. Always learn something new even about films that I think I know a lot about.
I used to watch Harper, but only because richard and duncan were hilarious
Viva Val Verde!
I'm glad Mauler saw me bringing up EEAAO. It's one of those movies that at first just seemed to be riding the safe superhero trend with multiverse stuff, but also is weird and complex, which is what some other weird movies failed at, like Beau is Afraid, unfortunately. EEAAO is one that could've been too weird, or safe and boring, but the GOOD writing is why I've rewatched it 7+ times. I love that movie and I hope it becomes a timeless classic for people.
It made my cold heart be warm again and made me teary eyed, such a beautiful movie.
I can’t wait to see the academy award winning short film “Man who Loves Family Needs Umbrella” starring the voice talents of Mewbschlie
Only Chris Stuckman thinks Chris Stuckman has anything of worth to say
He’s perhaps the least insightful movie “reviewer” that I’ve seen.
@@hpw101jeremy jahns is way better
@@immoderatusrex4368jahns is also funny, stuckman is a cringe manbaby
Why do his videos get so many views then you think?
@@AfutureV Why does Hasan? Or any other braindead internet person?
Being challenged is both one of my fears AND the only thing that still brings me joy in life 😂😂😂😂
If Chris wanted us to save cinema, why did he not review Sound of Freedom. A small film that had a great success, good movie too
Please do more Stuckmann reacts. These are kino
i grew up watching stuckman review...
Probably unrelated to what Chris Stuckmann was referring to, but I loathe the usage of the term "challenge" when it comes to film.
"Challenge" implies that it presents you with an obstacle that you can prepare for and choose to engage in.
Movies and TV shows have mostly ATTACKED their audience, either directly or indirectly, as evidenced by the bait and switch marketing that's been going on for like a decade almost.
Nobody is truly against the idea of a movie that challenges them and makes them think and consider things they wouldn't normally think about, or even want to think about. That's been par for the course in storytelling for ages, and that hasn't changed. But you can't sucker punch someone and call it a fair fight, and similarly you can't go out of your way to deliberately upset people to stir up controversy, and then call them weak for not wanting to engage in it.
Stuckman reviewed the first two episodes of Rings of Power, said he LOVED Galadriel and found the show promising, then didn't review the rest of the season. Clearly the guy's compromised. He wants to be a filmmaker and must therefore toe the line. He needs to stop critiquing films since he can't be trusted and no longer has credibility.
_“Don’t be afraid to be challenged… A healthy Kino Diet sometimes means to watch Astral Sorcerers indulge in dairy products of alien origin and pretend it’s what you wanted….”_
*-Epictetus*
chris stuckmann pretentiously stuckmannizing me and telling me i'm too simple to watch movies, is my only joy in life
Normie Perspective: That was a weird movie. I will never think about it again.
Chris jumped the shark when he wouldn't criticize movies anymore and he gave some lame excuse that he doesn't want to be negative. It really came across like he was kissing Hollywood a@@.
So we just gonna ignore that Oppenheimer almost made a billion dollars?
Stuckmann with another bad take ... In other news, water is wet.
Joker also made over a billion. And it had complex narratives, and was rated R. So there goes that excuse.
Barbenheimer was a success because it got memed into an event. It really isn't a norm.
@@armedraptor5114 What's part of the reason why it was memed though? Christopher Nolan-- a director who makes serious movies that make money.
@@spiderleenie Yeah but Nolan himself has said that he doesn't believe he could make it as an up and coming director in the current state of the business. It also got more memed because of a perfect storm of its subject matter, the matching yet contradicting aesthetic with Barbie and the casts. The film would've still been a success but it wouldve probably made something like Tenet money if it hadn't been for all of that. Speaking of which, Tenet is proof Nolan isn't that infallible, given it flopped.
@@armedraptor5114 Tenet came out in 2020, in the midst of covid when almost nobody was going to the movie theater at the time.
Tenet was also Nolan's attempt at a generic action movie.
After watching this stream, I'm entirely convinced that Chris Stuckman is a AI-generated content creator before AI-generated content existed. Like a precursor to test the viability of it's utilization and Chris is the result of this.
Did he ever have an original thought that wasn't parroted by another critic or UA-cam content creator?
I watched his review of Fury, and he came off as someone who never saw a war film. Never saw The Longest Day, A Bridge too Far, heck even bad ones like Anzio all addressed the same things he praised Fury for, and more.
I never understood why anyone took him seriously.
So we all have our preferences for film and generally I have my moments where I enjoy a comfy watch and times where I want to fully engage with a film. Yet the best films are those that have both.
Creators/filmmakers look all we want you to do is put in as much as thought and your soul into your work as possible. It doesn't have to be some ground breaking story. I recently watched a great review of The Rescuers and how the film is explaining/exploring how important self worth is. It's also got a message about how no matter no small you are, you can help. It shows what greed can do to someone. You can watch that film and pick up on none or hints of those but you can also take a minute and look at what the writers were trying to tell/teach you. You then see how well the writers did what they wanted because it's all right there in front of you if you wish to engage your brains. It's designed to be a fantastic film for kids yet has plenty for an adult to chew on. That's how a story should be. A plot that is fun packed and logically sound yet also underneath is asking/raising a question to the audience. Making them think whether that's about the plot, the world, characters, themes or something else.
I guess there's a reason he's called stuckmann!😆😂
Hey just wanted to say thank you for all your work. I love the full streams but I do appreciate having bite sized EFAPs to have in moderation once in a while
Chris stuckmann very blatantly ignored reviewing the sound of freedom... NUFF SAID
Tried it and was mid at best the pace was all over place and acting was wooden as so I don't blame him alot of people I know passed on it
@@xburninginwaterx7959 highly disagree it has the same kind of tone, Style, and pacing as the "sicario" film while also tackling the same type of subject matter as the film "taken" but this time with children, and it doesn't take a detective to piece this together, 1,chris reviews films look at his reviews around the time the sound of Freedom released he did Oppenheimer and Barbie right before and after the sound of Freedom released,
2, many of his subscribers were asking him to review it but he never responded🤔.
3, his buddy corey from Double Toasted they seem to have the same kind of political allegiances towards a specific side that often ignores the sound of freedom and that type of subject matter which means Double Toasted did not review that film either hmm🤔.
4, then you have little Chris making his movie I'm willing to bet especially since again this is around the same time the sound of Freedom came out he was specifically told and ordered not to talk about and review such a film🤷♂️ bro the writing's on the wall unless you're an idiot and you know what's funny I see this word being thrown around in regards to the sound of Freedom "Qatar" or something like that and it seems like that word is being directed towards people who believe it or not have a problem with young children being trafficked and f**k**. Call me crazy but I wouldn't be down with that type of thing either🤷♂️ I'm not a Democrat or Republican I'm just a humble respectful guy who knows right from wrong, real from fake and enjoys movies especially movies that shed light on such dark topics to help spread awareness something Chris could have done since he's a parent now but he chose not to🤷♂️ Chris stuckmann and Double Toasted are prime examples of insincere politically biased untrustworthy fools who have one job review movies both old and new like they have always done on their channels except for when they're told not to AND THAT IS WEAK AF but then again that's what paper thin men like Chris are
@atfbproductions7458 mate I did not like the movie that's all and the tone you set in your reply is what alot maybe this chris guy didn't review it because if he disagreed with it ppl would dogplile him and call him a nonce and I love movies the same like look at "spotlight" same subject and had Michael keaton if not seen I would recommend, that said the star spangled banner sung by children is ripped from spotlight by with amazing grace and it's powerfull and creepy
@@atfbproductions7458damn you cooked
@@xburninginwaterx7959 If he was able to review left behind he was definetly able to review Sound Of Freedom. Plus the movie has an important message.
People shouldn't be bashing Chris. He's very useful. You can watch his reviews to know how to give lukewarm takes at work or elsewhere to blend in and not come off as someone "hateful" and "problematic".
I would like to see this guy lecture a vet about how much braver he is then him because he watches movies.
It took me a second to realise you meant veteran and not like an animal vet...and I'm like...what's so brave about a vet? I mean...cat might bite you I guess 😂😂
Chris Stuckmann is the best example of someone who straight up sold their integrity to the Hollywood machine
Yes....I'm afraid of being challenged by every movie putting a chick in it and making her gay and lame
The only challenging thing to these movies these days is how much it pushes my patience
To a degree, I am afraid to be as challanged as Stuckmann is.
No wonder cinema is kill.
The only challenge I get from modern movies is trying to stay awake in the theaters..
Chris Stuckmann sucks. What an awful and untrustworthy reviewer
0:58
That's ME, THAT'S ME! I'm on TV doing the funny man popcorn throw!
You see, people are afraid of being challenged by the concept of bad movies, because if they are like me and dont call out bad things then everyone will like everything! XD
Honestly, seeing EFAP take down Chris Stuckman gives me such a massive joygasim since I really hate this guy. With Red Letter Media, they come up with their own logic based on what they believe. Stuckman on the other hand, just regurgitates what the common and popular opinion of a movie is. That's why many people consider Stuckman an absolute shill and a fraud because he'll frame whatever false narrative, throw any group of people under the bus and even throw his own family under that same bus just to generate the most sympathy and likes. The dude lacks any form of self awareness that he contradicts his own principles and rules just to cater to the popular mindset and he even wound up saying the very thing Red Letter Media mocked (the very same channel that he previously praised and looked up to): the sentiment that big studios don't want audiences to ask questions, just consume product and be excited for next movie. That's why I hate Chris Stuckman: He's an absolute shill, weasel, treacherous snake and pathological liar. How this guy became a big named UA-cam movie critic for how little intellectual thought he puts into his review astounds me since he's an insult to the profession he's supposed to uphold: giving an honest, unbiased critical analysis of a product that informs the audience of the quality of said product. And this video further proves my point as he's a movie critic...who doesn't critically analyze movies anymore. I'm sorry, what? That's the equivalent of being a photographer who doesn't take any photos, a boxer who doesn't fight or a ballerina who doesn't dance. What a worthless video from a worthless critic. He's the literal embodiment of everything opposite of what EFAP represents: Honesty, objectivity, logic, reasoning and principle. These are reasons why I watch EFAP and not garbage tier critics like Stuckman: Don't tell me your feelings on the movie. Show me the reasons why it does or doesn't work. I might not always agree with the assessment considering that there's context for a particular criticism that might redeem or break scenes. But at least these guys try to do the best that they can to assess the media they cover.
why do you hate this guy, you dont even know him 🙄
@@CSorgini I guess you hadn't read my previous comment since I literally layed everything out about why I hate this guy. But let me give the abridged reason why I hate Chris Stuckman and why nobody should listen to him: He's disingenuous, emotionally manipulative, a liar, a hypocrite, a bully, a shill and a grifter. I've seen enough of his content to know that he's every bit as untrustworthy as Anita Sarkeesian and Amber Heard.
@@CSorginibecause he pretends to be this smart important guy and he has fuck all to add to the discussion
@@GigaChadh976how does he pretend to be the smart important guy?
Anyone else remember Ralphthemoviemaker? Dude imo had some of the most entertaining and funny movie review videos of all time.
Rags was fantastic on that stream
@awhellnah__ agreed but gotta admit his content was good tho
@awhellnah__What was so awful about Ralph's take on Joker?
@@WoahLookAtThatFreak from the top of my head it was him regurgitating the usual "Its a ripoff of Taxi Driver King of Comedy" vomit, then he meandered about the glass of the telephone cabin scene cracking being CGI and some cloud-yelling about how comic book fans are annoying him and having an issue with Alfred's actor which spawned the "Is that supposed to be Alfred?" meme
Overall I remember it being a standard bad Joker review, go rewatch that EFAP I guess
Can we get a highlights of every Wolf/Rags fight to elevator music? Og Efap reference
Already in the works 👌
Nobody is challenged by woke movies. They are entirely predictable and overly simple. Theyre every Hollywood cliche times a hundred.
Always loved this whole "let's pretend disinterest equals fear" rhetoric. Such an insightful opinion and totally not a pathetic attempt at elevating yourself by shitting on others.
He is part of the problem, he completely salivates over dumb simple movies and excuses any criticisms. Watch his review of TFA, he definitely was like a dumb clapping seal throughout.
what's TFA?
To be fair I think he has changed his thoughts on SW in places, I recall him doing a more recent video of him saying he doesn't truly despise the Prequels and that he respects how at least George was allowed to do his thing the way he envisioned it unlike how conflicted and micro-managed the Disney Era has being.
He could still be enjoy TFA for finding it an entertaining film tho, I dunno and don't reall feel like looking back now
You guys are so eager to talk about it behind his back, maybe you should tell it to Zod's snapped neck.
Chris was good back in the day but now he shell of himself 😂
I dont want to be Challenged at the Cinema.I have enough of that finding the money to pay for for petrol and paying on my ring go ap for a parking spot without a surcharge finding a car park without water filled pot holes not being mugged getting out of the car or getting hit by a vehicle while crossing the road,I don't want to be "Challenged" Chrissy baby.
This channel is the only thing that brings joy to my life.
This presupposes that the "challenging" movies that were released in the past years were somehow more than just attempts at making money by getting a rise out of people
I lost interest on the seriousness of Chris criticism when he became a complete shill to Disney's Star Wars and then acted surprised with what happened with ROS. And now apparently he doesn't rate movies anymore and makes the same expression in his thumbnails.
This guy thinks Patrick Williams makes good videos. Just let that on sink in for a moment.
If Chris ever sees this video, he's going to release a new crying video
don't blame the drop in quality on the filmmakers , blame it on the audiance lmao
I've seen his take on some recent movies, the brain rot has taken deep deep root. Just bad reviews and defending objectively poor quality
If people are afraid to be challenged why are movies like Fight Club, Schindler's list, Clockwork Orange, Pulp Fiction, 2001: Space Odyssey, Citizen Kane, Requiem for a Dream and many others considered among the best of all time when they are anything but easy or simple? lol
Don’t tell us you don’t realize all of those movies are from 23-55 years ago. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of modern audiences couldn’t tell you what these movies were about, let alone name them
Those are older movies that don't appeal to a large audience. I don't think they made a lot of money.
to be fair fight club was a box office flop and only made its money back through dvd and vhs sales
The fact you didn't name a movie that came out less than 20 years ago kind of proved his point 😂
@@WoahLookAtThatFreak Not really, if people didn't like to be challenged no one would remember those movies after 20 years so my point stands.
The fact they don't make those movies doesn't mean it's because people don't like them, it's because they are way more risky and require more thought put into them than having a popular superhero fight a disposable cgi army before the main bad guy turns on the skybeam.
So, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's great seeing all the Wolf love.
Moviegoers are not afraid, scared are only the movie makers and studios, worrying about reception and profit.
I havent watched his channel in probably close to 5 years now. He started bothering me back then but this is hilarious. He doesnt understand anything it seems
I'm still holding out hope for Chris. I've been a fan of his for so long. I want to see what his channel becomes after his movie is available to public scrutiny. Based on how he handles the criticism, I will decide if it's time to move on or not.
He won’t need to handle the criticism, his fans will.😅
@Butwhythough881 Not all of them. Not this one. I'm pretty positive his movie is going to be bad - though I hope I'm wrong (hurray for indies). I just hope he doesn't answer valid criticism with, "Well, don't be mean because everyone worked hard on this."
At that point, I unsub.
@@andrejuarez I know but I think when someone who gets big on the internet goes and makes a product like a book or movie and it ends up flopping or is widely disliked, their fans will fight the creator’s battle for them saying things like “why don’t you try making a movie?” “Your opinion is invalid.” “This is great because they made it.”
@Butwhythough881 Of course. But my lazer pointer is on Chris not his fans. Unless he literally lets them speak for him on his channel. Like he makes a medley of positive reviews from fans with some cringe sh*t title like, "these are the only reviews I care about."
Chris is done. Let him go.
Mauler completely describing Critical Drinker’s “review” style and saying he hates it 😂🤣😆
The irony
He really said Martin Scorseses comments weren’t negatively implied bruh he wants to work for Disney lol
I think people are only scared of being challenged by art because they don't know what makes good art. Hopefully someday we'll get a video that can explain to us what makes good art...
Tell that to Zod’s snapped neck.
Movie goers are nowhere near as 'scared to be challenged' as Stuckman's scale is to be used.
this hurts my brain
He used to be pretty good. Sad to see what he's become.
Mr. Wolf can you please make a highlight of Tonald saying how "Kratos beats a little clown boy". It is the only thing that brings me joy in life. Thank you for maintaining this channel, sir.
Thats hilarious coming from Chris "tell that to Zod's snapped neck" Stuckman
I'm afraid of EFAP Highlights Challenging my longman experience.
I thought Beau Is Afraid was about the DMT hallucination of dying man that had a history of chronic anxiety and psychological abuse from his mother: the stadium court where he dies is a combination of his memories of his mother’s restraining order case & his regrets all coming back to haunt him (the whole movie feels like someone’s memory coming back to haunt them before death).
Hey Wolf, hope you're doing well. Would you be able to put a cut from when Mauler learned about the Isle of Mann and their flag? I think that would be a fun highlight to put up.
Doug Walker even said "You don't want to be challenged?" in his TLK 2019 review.
I want a well-written story.
Hi Wolf, can you make a highlight of when you and the guys reacted to Eric Butts reacting to the Rise of Skywalker trailer? I've been looking for it and I would love to see that again. Hope you're doing well!
I'm reviewing games since I can remember and the same corruption plagues the gaming industry. I always despised shifty mainstream media.
Ever since he 'came out' as pan-sexual (not a real thing), I've had a hard time taking him seriously about anything. The fact he NEEDED to make a video about it, was nothing I cared to know about. You're a reviewer, STOP IT. Jump harder on the bandwagon daddy.
The 3 Sly games really are so cool.
Sly 2, Vice City & CoD Finest Hour are my favorite PS2 games
“Challenge” is one of the go-to excuses for pretentious art snobs everywhere, partly because it’s so vague. What did Patrick Willems mean when he said art criticism needs to “challenge” its readers? What do Thomas Kinkade’s haters mean when they condemn his paintings for “not challenging” viewers? And what does Stuckmann here mean when he claims audiences don’t like being “challenged”?
I’ve found that people who whip out the idea of “challenge” are always trying to pull something over on me. They dislike whatever they’re talking about for totally personal reasons, but they have just enough self-awareness to realize how elitist it’ll sound if they pass their subjective distaste off as objective criticism. So they use vague “challenge” to seem more magnanimous.
I started a video that was title something like, "What You MISSED In Puss In Boots: The Last Wish". And it was literally just saying the most obvious things and why children should maybe not watch it. An example: This movie has a theme of coming to terms mortality, something young children can't really process. And it dedicated a whole chapter to that. There was nothing that was missed in that video.
DOING GREAT ON THIS CHANNEL
Where is Shelby Oaks? Chris has gone completely silent on the subject.
Would love a highlight of the RE:Village stream, specifically of the criticisms against Ethan Winters and the potential of Heisenberg. Peak Moriarty in that episode.
Most of the points he made on the video are not objectionable for how simple they were, but this one was just strange. You can call it fear if you want, but having preferences for what types of films you watch is nothing new. It is also kind of a paradox because if people watched more “obscure” or weird movies then they would no longer be obscure. So then a new set of films would become the new “weird” ones and the cycle continues.
What would have worked better in the video is him explaining the virtues of the theatrical experience over other forms and why watching “challenging” movies can be valuable even as a causal moviegoer. He did neither.
The real challenged is not to fall asleep in moder movies
I fear the fck to up dreams to scrips may cause in my subconsuius