Snarcasm: I Hate The New ‘Suicide Squad’ Movie Because It Exists

suicide squad trailer

A new Suicide Squad trailer dropped this week, and pretty much everyone is in love with it. Everyone, that is, except for a few holdouts who are still complaining about Jared Leto for some reason.

I love Jay from IndieRevolver. For those of you who don’t know, he runs the site and posts frequently as himself.

He has a lot of personality, which makes his writing fun to read. And since his latest piece about Suicide Squad trailer called out fans to defend it, I decided to give him the Snarcasm treatment. Because as you all know, I only do that to people I either dislike tremendously or respect tremendously.

Sorry, Jay. You had to know this was coming. Just maybe not from me…


The New Suicide Squad Trailer is Here! …Cool?


Well, yeah.

Even if you don’t like the way the movie looks so far, I think it’s easy to find it cool that an actual Suicide Squad featuring lesser-known DC Comics favorites is coming to theaters in August.

But if that’s not good enough…Sweet!

Wayne’s World used the song better…

I don’t get this complaint. Both movies used it in their trailer, so they used the song the same way. Or is Jay just trying to make the argument that he likes a movie that’s been out for 23 years more than one he hasn’t seen yet? Either way, I think Wayne’s World is a weird rubric to judge our comic book movies by.

Maybe instead we should compare the music of Batman and Robin to this trailer, except everyone secretly hums Kiss From a Rose every time the light hits the gloom on the gray, so Jay’s point is actually strengthened.

Seriously, what the hell is this movie?

A movie we can’t peg yet. That means it’s different. Which means it’s exciting.

With each successive piece of this DC puzzle, I feel like we are front row for a slow motion train derailment.

From two trailers and a handful of marketing posters? I’m glad you don’t drive trains in real life, or you’d really start to freak out over nothing.

I like David Ayer and the cast he’s assembled, but nothing about this looks good at all.

“I like everything about it except for the part where things happen.”

OK, that’s unfair, but my point is that we’ve still seen very little of what the movie actually is, which Jay already pointed out above. How can you not get any value out of anything that’s being shown so far?

What would it take to please you, Jay? (Sofia Vergara voice) JAY?!

The Joker looks like a Hot Topic ad from 2000 had a baby with a Joel Schumacher directed Batman film. 

Yeah! The Joker should look, um, normal instead.

Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve never met anyone who likes Hot Topic AND is hardcore enough to have tattoos. Green hair, maybe.

I can’t think of anything I want to see less than this Joker sharing the screen with the autotuned voice of Ben Affleck.

First off, even Cinemablend agrees with me that Batfleck’s voice is downright sexy. Also, how dare you?

There are at least billions of things I want to see less than Jared Leto and Ben Affleck sharing screen time in a comic book movie. Like Ben Affleck and Christian O’Donnell sharing a screen together at all, for example.

Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn looks like the ONLY reason to watch this film.

This cracks me up. Mostly because the majority of the trailer is centered around Harley Quinn’s humor and insanity. Sure, other characters pop up, but she’s clearly the driving force. So, shouldn’t you love this trailer more?

Theoretically the DC films should be for me. Growing up I leaned toward the DC heroes more than Marvel, but these films all look terrible,

I think the problem (and I don’t say this lightly) is you, Jay. Because everything about this trailer screams the DNA of DC.

For one thing, it’s full of camp. And don’t tell me as a DC fan that Batman comics aren’t incredibly exaggerated on purpose. Also, you’re complaining about a trailer where a machine gun from a helicopter fires in sync with Bohemian Rhapsody. And it’s not good enough for you? JAY?!

We can argue about whether or not this new Joker walks the line between madness and camp. That’s a fair argument, and we haven’t seen enough to feel OK about it. But don’t tell me a movie where Harley Quinn rattles on about the voices in her head after we just watched Beard Smith fire rounds from his arms on top of a police car “doesn’t look good at all.”

which is sad because I want to love them so much.


But they lose me more as each new piece is revealed.

I think he’s also referencing the Dawn of Justice trailer, which I can agree seems a bit worrisome. Too much is revealed and Lex Luthor looks hit or miss. But come on, Jay, don’t tell me you didn’t hear the Justice League theme song when the Trinity walked in slow motion toward Doomsday. Don’t lie to me, Jay.

Who is actually excited for these DC films?

Pretty much everyone except for you and Donna Dickens. And bless her, but Dickens’ only real criticism is something we can’t even judge until the movie comes out.

Someone please explain it. Bring me back.

I guess it’s up to me.

clears throat

Jay. I want to talk to you about two little movies called Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Now, I know these were made by a different studio, but let’s be honest. DC is clearly studying these guys like a test that’s in 15 minutes.

When the first trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy came out, people were in two camps:

“Oh, this looks interesting. I’ll probably see it.”

“What? This is weird and has never really been done before. So it’ll be a disaster.”

Now, when every trailer for Ant-Man came out, people were in two camps:

“Oh, this looks interesting. I’ll probably see it.”

“What? This is weird and has never really been done before. So it’ll be a disaster.”

What about Fantastic Four? What did people say about that movie?

“Human Torch is black?”

“Give the rights back to Marvel.”

So fret not, Jay. Because even if Suicide Squad isn’t some sort of reincarnation of The Dark Knight, or worse, even if Dawn of Justice is somewhat disappointing, neither movie will be as bad as Fantastic Four.

Oh, and they’ll be (like I said earlier) different.

Not original, obviously, but different. And different is interesting. Maybe it’s a little unsettling. Maybe it’s not necessarily good. But it’ll probably be worth your time.

Besides, we all know you’re going to watch it.


Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: Supreme Leader Snoke Is Secretly Every Character in Star Wars

snoke is vader

This post contains several spoilers for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Oh sure, people liked Star Wars: The Force Awakens. But words can’t describe how much people undyingly love coming up with random theories about the movies that offer absolutely no depth outside of: Look! I was right all along and look at me and stuff!

Granted, I posted a theory about TFA just the other day, but at least what I wrote was a character analysis about the film with actual evidence and thought put into it.

What we’ve been getting lately? Well, just read the headline:

Is Supreme Leader Snoke Actually Darth Vader?

There’s an old saying among us Internet writers who’ve been at this for a while. That is, if your headline is phrased as a question, the answer is 99% going to be probably not.

Miraculously, this particular headline’s answer is a resounding are you joking?

Evan Valentine from proposes this theory, which has gained an expected amount of traction among people like me who accidentally hit the Star Wars clickbait on Facebook thinking it’s actually a recipe video from Tasty.

In a twist that would blindside many,

…for all the wrong reasons…

is it possible that the “big bad” of Star Wars Episode 7: The Force Awakens is in fact a villain that we’re quite familiar with at this point?

Put $30 down for another “He’s Darth Plagueis!” from someone who thinks they’re the first person to suggest this.

A rumor has been rumbling that the ominously massive Supreme Leader Snoke, the puppet master of both Kylo Ren and the First Order, may in fact be none other than the first Sith audiences came to know, Darth Vader!

Easy, Robot Chicken version of Shyamalan.

Also, how is Snoke “ominously massive?” It was clear from the movie that this was just an enlarged hologram, reminiscent of how the Emperor was shown to be a massive floating head in Empire Strikes Back.

While there have been a number of rumors ranging from Snoke being Darth Plagueis,

$30 richer!

 could it be possible that Snoke is a revived Anakin Skywalker, returning from the grave to try once again to “bring balance to the Force”?

How many times is Evan going to ask us what is and isn’t possible? Of course it’s possible, just like if Rian Johnson decided to devote 30 minutes of Episode XIII to a Jar Jar Binks dance number on Cloud City featuring the alien from Mac and Me.

But this is the Internet, so Evan’s main argument is going to be “Well, you internally said it was possible, so that means evidence.”

The biggest piece of evidence we are witness to are the scars on Supreme Leader Snoke’s head and face, pointed out to us by fan Joey Garza.

Who? Seriously, if you’re going to credit this ripoff, at least link to whatever Reddit post Joey threw this in.

Snoke is humanoid, albeit a completely computer generated creation for the film, but seemingly has scars and wounds that are almost identical to the ones that Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker had underneath his mask and helmet, revealed during the finale of Return of the Jedi.

Hm, OK. This is Snoke:

snoke is vader


This is Darth Vader (unmasked):

snoke is vader

Their scars are not “almost identical.” They don’t even have similar-looking heads or facial structures. Evan and the other perpetrators of this “theory” just looked at one scar and said “Close enough for half the Internet to believe this!”

Obviously, we know how Anakin received his scars, but we have no clue as to what happened with Snoke.

But who needs watching the movies over the next few years to find out. We have to pointlessly speculate with little-to-know evidence at our disposal. That’ll show Disney for trying to surprise us with silly things like plots and writing.

Their placement and appearance is downright shockingly identical

If you’re looking through the goggles of Maz Kanata, maybe.

While Snoke and Vader’s scars are similar, it could also be a method used by Snoke in order to have gotten closer to Ben Solo, eventually turning him into the monster that is Kylo Ren. Rather than actually being Vader, Snoke could have modeled his appearance after Vader’s to play on the young, inexperienced force wielder’s admiration for Anakin Skywalker

So the guy “pretending to be Vader” is going by a different name…and says nothing while Kylo Ren worships the helmet of the real Vader. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Darth Vader could potentially have come back, leading a new empire to finish what Palpatine had started in the original trilogy.

Did…did you see Return of the Jedi? Like you know what that movie is? The one where Darth Vader turns good in the end (late spoiler) and kills Palpatine?

The Plagueis story in the prequels leads credence to Vader returning from the grave,

Oh yes, the story of the Sith Lord who could prevent death in others, but failed to prevent his own death. Yeah, I’m sure that’s what lead Vader to reviving himself.

 This is however 30 years after the original trilogy, and Vader was looking quite worse for wear when all was said and done then, imagine how he’d look now and you might think of a figure close to Supreme Leader Snoke.

Yeah, especially after Luke and friends burned his entire corpse. But don’t let that little tidbit get in the way of your “evidence.” There has to be a reason, after all, why Hayden Christensen is the actor who shows up as a Force Ghost instead of Sebastian Shaw. He was busy reviving himself thinking, “Oh no! I do love Palpatine and need to turn Han’s son against him! I guess this will take 30 years.”

Kylo Ren’s devotion to both Darth Vader and Supreme Leader Snoke would also lead to the idea that they were one in the same, 

I’ll be sure to let my grandfather know he’s let me down for not being Tom Brady.

During all the events of the original trilogy, there was never even a hint that there was some older Sith who was biding his time, so the idea that Snoke is an already existing character isn’t a fantastical one to be sure.

In other words, Evan wants this to be true because having new characters would undermine the original trilogy. Seriously, that is what would undermine the original trilogy, not completely reworking the motivations of the saga’s main character.

And that’s the theory. I know, I could have easily done a takedown of “Rey is a reincarnated Anakin” or “Finn is the son of Yoda.” But for whatever reason, Supreme Leader Snoke has become one of the lynchpins of Star Wars speculation, outside of which character Rey is somehow related to.

Is it because they love Star Wars and want to share their ideas about how everything will play out?


Sure, maybe like two of them.

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: The Mystery of Love Has Finally Been Solved

snarcasm love

Each week on Snarcasm, I tackle the worst articles on the Internet. Isn’t it astounding how long it’s taken me to do an article from Elite Daily?

The alleged “voice of Generation Y” lives up to that weird promise in a piece that’s all about love, baby doll. The ultimatum of clickbait headlines is appropriately titled, “If You Can’t Answer ‘Yes’ To These 5 Questions, She’s Not The One.”

In other words, “Her failure to be your soul mate has everything to do with your knee-jerk reaction to something you just read on Elite Daily.”

Our love guru, Paul Hudson, kicks us off with something we were all on the fence about.

Love is complicated.

Pack it up, boys. Hudson has cracked it.

How do you know if the woman you’re with now is the one you should spend your life loving?

At this point, I’m wondering how the woman must feel about you after walking in on you reading Elite Daily in order to figure out who you’re going to marry.

Do you “just know,” or are there practical questions you should be asking yourself?

Gee, I don’t know. It’s not like there’s a third option where you ask practical questions to the girl you’re supposedly in love with. Best not to get her involved, though.

Is there some sort of checklist or guide?

“Can I Google it?”

“Nope, love is complicated.”

Love seems mysterious, and maybe even impossible to define.

Right, ignore those countless texts and definitions compiled over thousands of years by people who are far more intelligent than you. Love is way too complicated for your edumacation.

People often say that words fail to appropriately capture love.

Well, if people often say it, then it must be true.

I, for one, believe it isn’t the words that fail. It’s the people who use them.

OK, let’s scenario this.

“What do you think love means, honey?”

“Well, I think it has to do with that moment right before the suggested hashtags give you the one that’s spelled just right.”

“This isn’t working out.”

Point, Paul Hudson.

Love is a natural, logical result of two compatible souls meeting.

Look at that! Hudson is acknowledging how love comes from the actions of two people. What a step forwar—

The real question is: What’s “just right”?

New York accent: “How much can I get outta this whole thing, huh?”

But wait. “Love is complicated.” How can—

You can find the answer through a few simple questions.


1. Has your life drastically improved since you met her?

So, her contingency on being “the one” (which hasn’t been defined yet) depends on the quality of your life? Look, I know this is a website for millennials, but even Bieber would call that too narcissistic.

Are you happier? Do you have a better outlook on life? Do your problems seem less dire and more manageable? Do you have more good days than bad days now? If all of this is true, she may very well be “the one.” 

Paul Hudson must own Elizabethtown on Blu Ray.

This is beyond irresponsible for anyone to write and publish. Elite Daily is telling you to cross off a personal checklist of desires that could be entirely separated from anything within the control of your significant other and then telling you to dump those expectations on her.

Here’s a real question: Do you make her happier? Is her life improving? That’s a far better rubric for knowing if she deserves you, not the other way around.

2. Do you smile every time you see her, think of her and talk to her? If you do, then you’re in love — and that’s really the most important sign.

I sympathize with what Hudson is sort of not really getting at, but this is just a soft way of asking, “Is she perfect?”

Because no girl is going to make you smile EVERY time you see her, think of her, and talk to her. You’re going to fight. You’re going to have bad days when you take your significant other for granted.

Being in love has nothing to do with a perpetual state of hedonistic butterflies in your stomach. If you still care for someone even when they aren’t making you smile (because apparently women are now 90s McDonald’s) then yeah, that’s a sign of this oh, so complicated “love.”

If you feel happy just being reminded of her existence, then what you have is true love.

The first four words of that sentence sum up the pure garbage that is this entire article.

If you love her, she very well may be the one.

Oh, is that all?

3. Can you talk to her for hours on end without getting bored or feeling awkward?

Because God forbid awkward moments or times when two people are out of sync.

If talking to her is one of your least favorite things to do, why are you even dating her?

Well, that wasn’t the question. Hudson is trying to say that companionship and conversation is essential to having a good relationship, and that’s certainly true. Even 10 year olds who just read Twilight would tell you that.

But his qualifier is, “She can’t make you feel bored or awkward.”

Dating Paul Hudson must be like dating one of the townspeople from Parks and Recreation.

4. Is she there for you?

Not, “are you there for her.” That’s more of a Buzzfeed thing.

The key to finding an amazing life partner is finding someone who lives up to her role in your life.

If you’re a guy reading this and you want to grasp how absolutely insulting this is, just switch the roles for a second. Can you imagine an article telling your girlfriend to determine your worth by whether or not “you live up to your role in her life?”

Is she there for you when you need her to be? Is she someone who supports you, motivates you and keeps you on track? Or does she hang out just when it’s convenient for her?

The problem with Hudson’s line of thinking here is that real “partnerships” like this take time to develop, and he’s failing to talk about what the guy should be expecting at each point in the relationship.

Some girls aren’t going to be your fully supportive cheerleader early on in the relationship, especially if you haven’t developed a friendship yet. Sometimes, girls just want to have a relationship for the fun of it, and not feel pressured to commit fully until they’ve gotten to know you better. That’s not a reason to swear them off.

People have different expectations of how relationships progress. An honest, responsible question would be, “Have you talked to her about the future?” That’s when you can have a real conversation about whether or not you see the relationship going anywhere, and if you have the same expectations.

Instead, Hudson wants you to implant your girlfriend on a pedestal without giving her any warning or heads up. Love is complicated, alright.

5. Has she opened up to you and let you into her life?

You get it at this point, right? Hudson’s questions center around nothing but one of the most selfish definitions of love you can explore. “What’s in it for me?” is what he wants you to ask, ultimately, before deciding that someone “deserves being your one.”

You need a woman in your life who loves you with every atom in her body. Never settle for less.

Ah, now I get it. I’m reading the diary of a lovesick teenager, because that’s the only way someone could put forth ideas like this and call it true love. Fault Elite Daily however you want, but at least they have decent editors.


Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni


Snarcasm: Syndrome is Mr. Incredible’s Secret Lovechild

incredibles theory

For every Snarcasm piece, I usually feature what I brazenly call “the worst articles on the Internet.”

But this week, I’m doing something a little different.

Samuel James of ScreenPrism wrote his own “Pixar Theory,”  and asked (sort of) to get my opinion on it. I asked him if he wouldn’t mind letting me give his hard work the Snarcasm treatment, and his answer was ambiguous enough for me to just do it anyway.

Sorry, Sam. You let me ask for it.

Writing for the “Insights” column, Samuel asks the question,

Is Syndrome the Illegitimate Son of Mr. Incredible? 

Now, I know what you’re thinking. If a headline on the modern Internet poses a question, then we automatically know the answer is “NO.”

But let’s give Sam a chance to explain what he means by the words, illegitimateson, and Mr.

Since their beginning with Toy Story (1995), Pixar Animation Studios have opened an entire universe of magical films for both adults and children to enjoy.

I’m seriously nitpicking here, but Toy Story does not mark the beginning of Pixar. They started working on animated shorts and commercials nearly a decade before finishing their first feature film.

Jon Negroni has argued convincingly [link] that all 15 Pixar films, from Toy Story in 1995 to the latest Inside Out in 2015, are all connected in the same world, based on interactions on Earth between humans, animals and machines.

Aw, shucks.

The idea changed my perception of the Pixar universe, and I would love to believe Negroni is right.

Sam gets the spirit of The Pixar Theory, which I love. It’s not about this theory being right or wrong. It’s about wanting to believe it’s possible. I’m still going to be mean, though, because this. Is. Snarcasm.

 Now, I have a Pixar theory of my own to share on The Incredibles (2004): what if Syndrome, the film’s eventual antagonist, is actually Bob Parr (Mr. Incredible)’s illegitimate son from a relationship that preceded his marriage to Helen Parr (Elastigirl)?

I guess stranger theories have been made? But I can’t help but notice already that The Incredibles gives us zero insight into what Bob Parr was up to before he fell in love with Helen, so this claim is already making me think this is a stretch…

incredibles theory

Too easy?

I have considered this possibility over ten years and multiple viewings of the film, and, regardless of whether it matches Brad Bird’s intentions, this reading makes sense and the whole film more interesting.

In other words, I’m right, even if it’s obvious I’m wrong.

He has followed my work!

Obviously, Buddy is older than Mr. Incredible’s other children, as the prologue is set 15 years prior to their birth and just before Mr. Incredible’s marrying Elastigirl.

Um…the prologue isn’t set 15 years prior to their birth. That would mean they’re zero years old after the time skip. I mean, I know Dash is short, but…

One more nitpick and I’m done-ish: the prologue isn’t “just before” their wedding, it’s during their wedding. OK, I’m done…ish.

When Mr. Incredible and Buddy (Syndrome’s name as a child)

You mean, his real name?

first meet inside the former’s superhero car, there seems to be a striking resemblance.

Wait, you’re saying they look the same? How?

incredibles theory

Buddy’s ears, nose, mouth, jaw, and eyes don’t resemble Bob’s at all. Their hair isn’t even that similar, just blonde. And they’re white. Is this racist? Er-superist?

Also, Bob is probably between the ages of 25 and 30, since he goes through his mid-life crisis 15 years later. If Buddy was his son, then that means he had the kid between the ages of 10 and 15.

This is all happening too fast.

Buddy naming his unofficial alterego “IncrediBoy” already suggests a role-model connection between the two,

Suggests? Buddy straight up tells Mr. Incredible that he’s his biggest fan. It’s obvious he calls himself “Incrediboy” because he’s longing to be Mr. Incredible’s sidekick. It’s about as subtle as a Donald Trump supporter’s Facebook profile.

but the fact that they look like each other may argue there is a hidden father-son relationship that the narrative has kept as subtext.

The fact?!

It’s not a fact that they look like each other. They barely even look similar. Please don’t tell me this is the crux of your argument, because I need these Snarcasms to be more than 800 words…

As a child, Buddy seems to look up to Mr. Incredible with more intensity than he would if merely a fan.

Well, yeah, this is no secret. Again, he tells Bob that he’s his biggest fan. The intensity is even explained more later on, when Buddy feels left out and wants to rid the world of all supers, not just his alleged “father.”

incredibles theory

Wearing similar attire is just fandom, but Buddy’s angry and devastated reaction to being rejected by Mr. Incredible implies he has higher expectations of the man, and the pair could be father and son.

Sam is essentially saying that you can only have high expectations when it comes to your father.

Forget about teachers, college professors, your personal trainer, and Drake’s future choreographer. If you’re obsessed with being someone else, then that obviously means you’re related to them. That explains why Brad Pitt has so many children…

Wait. Brad Pitt…Brad Bird…It’s all connected.

Brad Bird already wrote and directed a Pixar film in which a young man finds out his true paternity –the Linguini and Gusteau relationship in Ratatouille (2007)—but in The Incredibles, this could be a hidden narrative implication.

Oh! I can do this, too! “WALL-E falls in love with a machine in his movie, so that means the hidden meaning behind Toy Story is that Andy secretly wants Woody to be his boyfriend.”

I feel gross all of a sudden.

incredibles theory

After trying to help him, Mr. Incredible rejects Buddy completely and tells the police officers, “Take this one home and make sure his mom knows what he’s been doing.” It may just be vague language assuming that kids are monitored primarily by their mothers,

Let’s just say you got it right the first time—

 but the fact he just says “mom” instead of “parents” or simply “mom and dad” could imply that Mr. Incredible either knows Buddy is from a single-parent family or knows his mother.

Or it could mean that he wants Buddy’s mom to know what he’s been doing.

This awareness could raise the idea that he once had a relationship with Buddy’s mother

I love it when just knowing who someone is means you had a complicated romance with them that resulted in a lovechild. I get that all the time.

“Hey, I know that girl!”

“Yeah? Well, how many kids do you two have, Brad?”

and perhaps even left her and Buddy behind to be with Elastigirl (which could also be Syndrome’s motive to want to kill her too).

Clearly, because it had nothing to do with Buddy’s determination to kill all supers, which is what he was already doing long before he knew Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl were married (he admits he didn’t know they were together, remember?)

In case you’re wondering what I look like right now:

incredibles theory

Buddy becomes Syndrome and extracts a plot, through Mirage, to gain revenge on Bob. Upon meeting again, Syndrome explains his traumatic childhood (after the rejection) through a brief flashback and attempts to kill him. When the attempt fails, the only adequate way to make Bob suffer, in Syndrome’s mind, is to kill his new family.

Buddy didn’t even know that his family was on that plane, Samuel. He just says, “So you do know these people?” And then he sends the missiles.

He doesn’t find out they’re Bob’s family until way later, and even then, he doesn’t kill them immediately. He just holds them in captivity like any other super villain. How many times did you watch this over the course of ten years?

This could be because Syndrome never got the childhood attention from Bob, as a father and hero, which Dash, Violent and Jack-Jack were getting.

This isn’t apparent at all. There’s no moment when Syndrome looked at the kids and seemed jealous, or wished for what they had. He just wants to see Mr. Incredible lose everything that’s dear to him.

In the climax scene at the Parr home, Syndrome doesn’t really attack or attempt to kill the family. Instead, his intention is to kidnap Jack-Jack, the youngest child. Syndrome’s motive is to rid Bob of his infant child and recreate the paternal loss that he himself experienced from childhood, even at one year old.

You just said that he apparently wants to kill Bob’s family. Which is it, then?

And Bob wouldn’t suffer “paternal loss.” He’d suffer infant loss. That’s not the same thing at all.

And Buddy says he wants to kidnap Jack-Jack to “steal” their future, just like they stole his. They didn’t steal Buddy’s “past,” which is what your theory implies.

Buddy even says mentor when he’s talking about taking Jack-Jack under his wing in a way that Bob never did. If Bob was his father, and Buddy knew this, then wouldn’t he have said father?

And, and, and, ANDDDDDD…

incredibles theory

Bob shows no remorse or sadness when Syndrome dies. This could indicate Syndrome in fact wasn’t his son, but the narrative doesn’t address Bob’s response to Syndrome’s death in depth in a particular shot or any dialogue. 

Of course it doesn’t. The guy tried to kill him and steal his kid. Would you show remorse if the guy got what he clearly deserved?

Bob shows relief. The nightmare’s over. His family is finally safe, and the villain has been defeated. No depth necessary.

This whole theory may sound crazy, but it potentially adds more depth to Syndrome/Buddy’s character,

Does it? Being related to someone adds about as much depth as you would see in a soap opera.

When Luke finds out that Darth Vader is his father, the impact is huge for more reasons than a blood test. This is the guy Luke believed killed his father. This is the guy who killed his mentor and blew up the planet of one of his friends. This is the biggest, baddest, guy in the galaxy, and Luke now has to deal with the fact that he’s the son of this man, which means he’s capable of darkness, too.

But in The Incredibles, the friction between Buddy and Bob is readily explained. It already has depth and doesn’t need an arbitrary link to explain itself or become “more sophisticated” as Sam later says. It’s not like anyone left the theater wondering why Buddy was a villain. His backstory, in this case, is quite sufficient.

incredibles theory

Maybe I’m being harsh (OK, I’m being incredibly harsh and terrible), but my point is that if you’re going to suggest that two characters in a movie (or movie universe) are related without much evidence, then at least explain why it would make the movie better. 

In this case, I can see that Sam is really trying to do that, though he definitely comes up short with the argument that true drama is just a matter of who people are sleeping with (what has The CW done to us?)

Now, if Sam can elaborate on that Brad Pitt=Brad Bird theory we stumbled onto earlier, then he certainly has my attention yet again…

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the Snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: The ‘Star Wars’ Prequels Were The Best Movies All Along

Star Wars prequels

Snarcasm is a weekly series where I encounter and try to understand the worst articles on the Internet. This week, I take on my fellow millennials who’ll say anything for a click. 

OK, we already talked about Star Wars a few weeks ago, but that was more about Piers Morgan and how irrelevant his film commentary is. That said, a similarly contentious article about the revered Star Wars saga was recently dropped on my doorstep with “It’s a trap!” scribbled across the label.

Writing for Toronto Star, Ian Gormely presents his case for why we may have been a little too harsh with the Star Wars prequels. Of course, that means his headline is…

Why the Star Wars prequels are better than the originals

And they say clickbait doesn’t write itself.

Now to be fair, the subhead is a little less sensational:

A generation of fans who grew up with the more recent trilogy make a compelling case that those are the superior films.


Alright, you have an element of an interesting think piece here because younger viewers like me gave the prequels a pass, which is arguably similar to how older fans forgave the original trilogy for its ample flaws. I don’t agree, but it’s a worthwhile argument.

Then the article starts.

The prequels never stood a chance.

Right. One of the most anticipated films of the last 20 years never stood a chance. And yet the hype surrounding The Phantom Menace was astronomical, more so than this year’s The Force Awakens (because hey, we’ve learned the hard way not to get our hopes up).

The prequels very much stood a chance. People over the age of 15 just didn’t like them.

Hampered by two decades’ worth of expectations and hype, George Lucas’s deep dive back into the Star Wars universe was destined to disappoint.

I’m sure Ian would have said the same thing about The Empire Strikes Back if it had been terrible.

Star Wars (awkwardly retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope when Lucas rereleased it in 1997) and its sequels were generation-defining movies.

Awkwardly? I grew up in this time period, too, and I don’t remember having an issue with the naming conventions. And if they had kept the name “Star Warsfor just the fourth movie, that would have been way more awkward.

Also, why even bring that up?

When Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace arrived in May 1999 fans were met with a film that was visually (computer-generated effects) and tonally (it was aimed at kids) miles away from their beloved originals.

When he says aimed at kids, he’s implying that the movie was mostly aimed at kids. Which isn’t true at all if you remember any scene from The Phantom Menace about trade negotiations, political squabbling, and multiple Jedi blathering instead of fighting until the last ten minutes.

And just to be clear, I enjoyed The Phantom Menace as much as I did Revenge of the Sith. I think they’re decent, even average movies. Their mediocrity is all the more depressing, of course, when you compare them with the original trilogy. Attack of the Clones is the only Star Wars film (in my opinion) that gets a failing grade.

 Subsequent prequels, Episode II: Attack of the Clones and Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, moved closer to Lucas’s originals, but many fans felt betrayed. This wasn’t their Star Wars.

He’s framing this argument as if Lucas was some sort of visionary trying to create something different, but those pesky fanboys were just too afraid of change. The problem, obviously, was that this change we got in the prequels was filled with annoying issues that even kids pretty much shrugged at.

Granted, we loved the prequels as kids. At the time, they were beautiful spectacles that forced us to wade through hackneyed plots to get to the stylized action. But not once did I ever consider them better than the original trilogy, solely because they were designed to be depressing departures, while the rest of the saga was filled with…well, hope.

J.J. Abrams’ upcoming seventh film, Episode VII: the Force Awakens, will reportedly hew closer in style to the original trilogy. 

Reportedly? Why did this blog spam suddenly remember it’s on a news publication?

But here’s the rub: a lot of people went to see The Phantom Menace — it made a billion dollars at the box office. Now in their 20s, this generation of Star Wars fan grew up not knowing a world without digital effects or Jar Jar Binks.

You know, unless we watched Quentin Tarantino movies instead.

To get a better sense of how they view the Star Wars universe we asked three deeply passionate fans to share their thoughts on the prequels.

Nice prank, Ian! For a second, I thought you were going to crowdsource your opinionated article with anecdotes instead of arguments—

Stuart (do you really want to know his last name? Isn’t privacy a thing in cases like this?)

Current Age: 26, which means he was 10 when Phantom Menace was released in 1999.

Why is this happening?

I’m going to leave out the heaps of personal data Ian dishes out for this guy, including his inclusion of (and I’m not joking) working for Virgin Radio.

I loved Darth Maul. The final lightsaber battle, that was the best lightsaber fight I’d ever seen.

Really? Because even my 8-year-old self still preferred Luke’s freakout in Return of the Jedi. Different strokes, but perhaps you loved that lightsaber battle more because the rest of the movie was so forgettable? Maybe?

Fans of the old series were looking for that nostalgia that they could relive. When the Phantom Menace came out, that’s when I think I was getting the experience that my dad and his generation had when the originals came out.

The problem is you think you had the same experience, but you’ll never know. And that’s fine. It’s great that you enjoyed these movies, but how can you compare that with someone’s else’s experience with a different movie during a different era? It would be like me telling my grandmother that seeing Get Hard was the equivalent of her going to see Gone With The Wind on opening night.

Ian’s next conveniently positive anecdote comes from someone who was 6 when The Phantom Menace came out (I wonder why we aren’t talking about Attack of the Clones at all?)

If you look at Star Wars as an epic Grecian tragedy, (the prequels) contextualize the original trilogy so well. It actually lends the original trilogy a lot more power when you know the history behind it

At times, this happens, sure. Notably in Revenge of the Sith when we get some solid scenes of Anakin getting seduced by the dark side. But come on, that’s a fraction of the whole film, which was mostly nonsense dialogue, deadpan characters, needless explanations of things that were better left to our imaginations, and sand, everywhere.

The worlds, the designs and the sci-fi concepts they introduce (in Attack of the Clones) are the best in all of Star Wars.


No, they are not.

No reasonable fan with a straight face can say that the worlds of Attack of the Clones — Coruscant (which we’d already seen before), Tattooine (which we’d already seen before), Naboo (which we’d already seen before), and an asteroid field (which we’d already seen before) — were superior to anything in the other films, including the prequels.

Scrap those rehashed locations and you’re left with the green screen that is Kamino and Geonosis, which was basically Tattooine with mountains and a CGI factory.

Simply put, saying Attack of The Clones has the best worlds and designs is like claiming Chappie is a better Neill Blomkamp movie than District 9.

They made the political parts of The Phantom Menace that people hated, the political intrigue, actually interesting.

Oh really? I wonder how many people can tell me (without looking it up) why Jango Fett was trying to assassinate Senator Amidala. Or how Palpatine specifically got his emergency powers. Or why the clones were working for Jango, but ended up in the hands of the Republic by the very end. Or why Dooku betrayed the Jedi. Or what Anakin’s deal is with SAND EVERYWHERE, HE’S FROM A SAND WORLD SO HE SHOULD BE USED TO IT.

Sorry. Unresolved issues.

Star Wars was an adventure story and now they give it scope. It’s more than a ragtag team trying to take on the whole world. It almost becomes a political thriller.

Now we’re just throwing words into sentences and calling them paragraphs, people.

A ragtag team? Of a girl, her stalker, and two droids who offer nothing to the plot but are only there because we remember them from other movies? Or were you referring to Obi-Wan and…um…that fat alien from the diner? Oh, those dang misfits!

Ian provides more anecdotes, and what’s funny about them is that these guys completely admit the elements of the prequels are terrible. One guy notes “the crappy love story,” but justifies it by saying people were invested and had to see what’s next. You know, like clickbait.

And that’s it! Ian ends the article…there. No conclusion…hmmm…comments are closed, that’s interesting…

I guess I missed the part where Ian and his friends actually make a case for why the prequels are better than the original trilogy. Or bring up specific things about the original trilogy. All I read was a laundry list of subjective observations and straw grasping for the sake of getting attention. That’s the Snarcasm guarantee.

Guys, I’m not trying to hate on anyone who loves the prequels. I get it. They can be guilty pleasures because we saw them at an age when all we wanted to see on the big screen was a cacophony of lightsaber fights and epic space battles. And the prequels absolutely delivered on that.

But let’s not kid ourselves, pun intended. The prequels were fan service, but for the lowest common denominator. They were the Fast and Furious movies in space, except they were intended to be more compelling, which makes them all the more cringeworthy. I don’t mind re-watching them and appreciating decent moments throughout, but you’re never going to convince true fans of any age that they’re better than what we got with the original trilogy.

And please don’t watch Chappie

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below!

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni


Snarcasm: Well, Someone Has to Hate ‘Finding Nemo’

finding nemo hate

Snarcasm is a weekly series about the worst articles on the Internet, and how we can snarcastically deal with them. 

Now that Pixar has gracefully released the first trailer for Finding Dory, I thought it would be refreshing to dive back into the fun we had with Finding Nemo 12 years ago.

In fact, I tried to find negative articles and opinion pieces about the new trailer, but I surprisingly found no one willing to be that person (outside of your friendly neighborhood comment section).

So I suppose that means Finding Nemo was universally beloved?

Ha, of course not. And that’s not a bad thing! You’ll always find someone who dislikes a movie you enjoy. But that doesn’t mean their reasons always make sense.

finding nemo hate

Back in 2003, Stephanie Zacharek (writing for Salon at the time) wrote one of the most confusing movie reviews I think I’ve ever read. And preparing for this weekly series means I have to read a lot of junk to decide what gets featured, so I hope that sinks in. OK, I’m done with the sea puns.

Anyway, Stephanie recommended her readers skip Finding Nemo altogether with the tagline,

Pixar’s latest animation wonder — a shimmery, velvety undersea coming-of-age story — sure is beautiful. But why should we spend two hours looking at it?

…because it’s beautiful?

Also, that’s not the last time she finds a way to weave in the word, velvet.

There’s no question that Pixar’s “Finding Nemo,” aglow with translucent sea flora and shimmering, iridescent creatures, is beautiful to look at.

Right, even by today’s standards.

Who wouldn’t be entranced by that corps of pink art nouveau jellyfish, twirling about in their deadly underwater ballet, or by the sight of painstakingly adorable Nemo himself, the movie’s hero, a brave little Halloween-colored clown fish with googly eyes and one shrimpy fin?

…Go on.

Every moment in “Finding Nemo” is magnificently orchestrated to tease a response from us

Oh, not this again. From Up to Inside Out, you’ll always find a film critic getting hot and bothered by the fact that Pixar uses emotion to its advantage. Then, a week later, criticize an action movie for being heartless.

and those who don’t fall for it are sure to be denounced as insensitive, blind to the magic of animation and, last but not least, pitiably unable to view the world through the eyes of a child.

So brave, Stephanie. Nothing gets a review started on the right note like defending your criticism with self-victimization.

But after years of cultivating the eyes of a grown-up, I like to think there’s something to be said for using them.

In other words, “All other critics are childish, but I’m not.”

“Finding Nemo” is lovely to look at — and time and again I found myself asking, “Who cares?”

I’d hate to go with you to the Grand Canyon.

It’s possible that “Finding Nemo” — and most computer animation in general, including other Pixar micro-masterpieces like “A Bug’s Life” and “Monsters Inc.” — offer too much of a good thing. 

Too much beauty? Is that really the criticism we’re resorting to? That’s why people should skip this?

How much microscopic detail can the human eye absorb before it stops registering that detail altogether?

“Ah! Shield my eyes! If I can’t grasp it all in one moment, there’s no way I can appreciate this!

Wait, you mean I can come back to the Grand Canyon?”

I certainly noticed that the navy-spotted back of the stingray schoolteacher in “Finding Nemo” looks so velvety it seemed you could reach out and touch it.

The horror.

When the movie’s action took us above the surface of the ocean, I noted the multihued glimmer of that surface and dutifully scribbled in my notebook, “Lovely sun-gold on blue sea.”

You just complained that there’s too much beauty to love, so now you’re bragging about everything you caught that you think everyone else will overlook?

So, not only are critics childish, but audiences are moronic.

It’s all beautiful, all right. But before long I began to feel beaten against the rocks of that beauty

This has to be a prank.

“Finding Nemo” smacks of looky-what-I-can-do virtuosity, and after the first 10 minutes or so, it’s exhausting. Written and directed by Andrew Stanton, the movie is filled with bits of cleverness to keep the adults, as well as the kids, entertained.

Let me guess: the next line is about how you like the thing you just complained about.

And yes, I did laugh at the way the seagulls squawk “Mine! Mine!” as well as at the lobsters’ distinct Boston accents.

There we go. Nothing makes your criticism look as valid as a good old fashioned contradiction. Because if you reread those last few lines, you’ll see that she first complains the movie is exhausting, then she admits that it’s clever enough to keep you entertained.

But “Finding Nemo” works terribly hard for every scrap of charm or humor it imparts. 

Now we’re mad that the movie is a hard worker. Next, we’re going to tear it to pieces for giving characters dimension and rightfully avoiding a romantic subplot.

“Finding Nemo” is teeming with lessons for parents and kids alike: Kids, you can do great things even if you have the human equivalent of a shrunken fin! Parents, don’t shelter your kids from the world to the extent that they never get a chance to live in it! In between lessons, there’s lots of peril to keep things exciting.

“But none of this good stuff matters because I hate you.”

Seriously, does she like this movie or not? Because I’ve only read about two sentences with an inkling of criticism, but they’ve been offset immediately by the rest of her comments.

Peril always equals drama in the Disney version (Disney co-produces with Pixar), and if your kids can take it, or actually like it, more power to them.

Can you imagine if kids liked dangerous situations? I sure can’t. That’s why I’m the biggest fan of Powerless Rangers.

I don’t think there’s anything particularly traumatizing in “Finding Nemo,” and admittedly, if Marlin and Dory didn’t face danger at every turn, there would be no story at all.

“It’s traumatizing, but not traumatizing at all.”

But what we get is still a snoozer.

Clearly. Since you just talked about the useful life lessons, entertaining story, dramatic situations, and beautiful imagery.

But hey, maybe she’s about to explain why it’s a snoozer! (Spoiler alert: she doesn’t).

There are lots of grown-up jokes in “Finding Nemo,” including a 12-step gag and a caravan of aged surfer-dude stoner sea turtles, both of which are sure to make adults laugh knowingly, which is surely the least fun kind of laughing there is, although it counts for something.

In one sentence, Stephanie compliments the movie, gives that compliment a caveat, criticizes the compliment itself, and then says it counts for something. I’m almost impressed.

Also, she’s actually saying that the “least fun kind of laughing” is reference humor. You read it here first. Never mind that in order for her to get it across that she doesn’t like the movie, she has to belittle the things about it the you like.

And I do confess to being at least somewhat captivated by Gill (Willem Dafoe), the tough-guy king of the fish tank who takes Nemo under his fin.

I’m just going to say this one more time, for emphasis. There are more compliments in this review than criticisms. This is actually happening.

“Finding Nemo” sure looks technically flawless,

hopes raise

for those who are impressed by such things.

Am I reading a drama essay by Doug Funnie’s sister, Judith?

I don’t really know what’s involved in making a feature that’s as clearly ambitious as “Finding Nemo” is. I can’t tell you how many hours were spent getting the picture to look just so (I’m sure it was a lot), and I would never question how much raw talent the individuals who worked on it possess (I doubt it can even be measured).

Your ignorance is noted.

Will lots of little kids (and big ones) enjoy “Finding Nemo”? Absolutely. 


 Is it an achievement? Without a doubt.

I have no words.

It’s all of those things, and less — the littlest fish in the sea masquerading as a whale, failing to take into account its conspicuous lack of warm blood.

How is this a comparison? OK, so she finishes the review here with the biting metaphor that Finding Nemo is basically a collection of small elements working together to “masquerade” as something bigger…but it’s hollow…or something.

Despite the fact that moviemaking itself is all about small elements working together to pull off an illusion. Maybe if this was Blackfish, Stephanie would find a reason to be glad this movie exists, but even then, she doesn’t even count the “lessons” she touted earlier as being very useful, anyway.

finding nemo hate

Can you see why this is one of the most confusing film reviews I’ve ever read? In it, Stephanie hardly criticizes the film at all and instead gives it vain praise like she’s one of Regina George’s underlings. Sure, her adjectives are pretty, and she found fancy ways to illustrate what works visually throughout the movie. But none of the ideas in this review give you any sense of whether or not Finding Nemo is worth seeing.

Since she gave the film less than 2 stars, however, that essentially means that she recommends you skip it. Despite all of the praise you read above, including the admission that the movie is an achievement that will be loved by children.

Nope! You need to skip this because…well, I’m not sure why.

I did a little digging into other movies reviewed by Stephanie Zacharek, and unsurprisingly, she’s pretty good at what she does. She was even nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in criticism at one point (although I think it’s fair to mention that she gave Hot Pursuit a passing grade, calling Sophia Vergara and Reese Witherspoon a terrific team).

hot pursuit
But “Finding Nemo” tries too hard.

I also dug through her reviews of animated movies, and it was pretty telling. For one thing, her criticism of Minions is identical to the line she uses in Finding Nemo, essentially stating that it’s “too much of a good thing.”

She did say that How to Train Your Dragon 2 (mostly) works, and she apparently loves the first one more than any other DreamWorks movie. But looking through her pedigree, it’s painfully clear that she just doesn’t have a thing for computer animated films, or at least the technical aspects behind them that make the movies even more impressive.

Obviously, this isn’t a big deal because this is just the opinion of one critic. My only complaint is that if you’re going to recommend that someone pass on a movie (especially one that’s universally praised), you better provide a better explanation for why.

And yes, that’s exactly what I said last week about Room. I think I’m starting to see a trend with these film reviews.

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below! 

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: There’s Only One Reason To Hate ‘Room’

room movie

Snarcasm is a weekly series about the worst articles on the Internet, and how we can snarcastically deal with them. 

Warning, this week’s Snarcasm contains spoilers for Room. Read at your own risk! 

Room is one of my favorite movies of the year, but it’s no surprise that not everyone feels that way. But my face went inside out when I read that veteran film critic of San Diego Reader, Matthew Lickona, gave it 1/5 stars.


That’s fine, I said aloud in a room full of people I didn’t know. Lickona always has his reasons. Sure, sometimes I disagree, but at least he gives good explanat—then I read the review.

Let’s start!

A cowardly movie about brave people. 

This isn’t even a sentence, but OK. Lickona begins his review with what Rotten Tomatoes will extract for a blurb. I can almost hear Lickona knocking on wood in celebration that he’s come up with the perfect “finish him” moment.

Part one is heartrendingly human, bordering on wise: a considered portrait of motherly love under extreme duress.

Well, that sounds nice.

To wit: Ma (Brie Larson) is both captive and sexual slave to a dim Midwestern monster, trapped in a soundproofed shed with a son (Jacob Tremblay) who has never seen the world outside. (Well, except on TV.)

See, this is good writing. Clear, concise, no nonsense. You know, like Lickona’s other reviews.

Wonderfully and believably, she gives the boy a life, an education, a cosmology, and a family; what is more, she manages to shield him from the horror of her own situation.

Go on…

It’s only when the boy’s innocence is threatened that she resolves to set him free. (Spoilers, of a sort, to follow.)

This is a nitpick, but that’s not entirely true. So yeah, spoilers if you don’t want to get spoiled…

Her choice to enact an escape plan isn’t solely intended to protect Jack’s innocence. The inciting event is clearly the revelation that her captor has been laid off for six months, and he’ll soon have no more money left to sustain their captivity. She’s literally fighting for their lives at this point.

Free him she does, and that’s when the film loses its nerve,

And…I can say the same for this review.

transforming from an unflinching look at love amid suffering into an embarrassing bout of wishful thinking. 

Nothing about this sentence makes sense if you’ve watched the movie or…otherwise. Because the main point of the second two acts is that they’re still suffering. But the problem is that their love for each other is strained. What is embarrassing about this? In what way is this wishful thinking on the part of anyone Lickona is referring?

It makes sense for Ma to fall apart once the ordeal is over.


But it does not make sense — psychologically, developmentally, but above all, narratively — for an anger-prone child whose entire, largely happy world has been ripped asunder to magically become both moppet and angel of salvation.

Cherrypicking. Call the child anger-prone, and you can get away with propping him up as a one-dimensional character, even though this same child is also (as we see in the first act): adventurous, loving, curious, and filled with ingenuity.

But Lickona couldn’t look past one element of his character to leave room (get it?) for a story arc.

In other words, Lickona seems to despise Room because he doesn’t think Jack should’ve adapted so easily to the world. Never mind it takes incredible acting to get that across or that the movie provokes you to rethink Jack as a character throughout the entire movie.

room movie

No, Lickona claims  Room is wishful thinking because one character reacts harshly to a tough situation, but the innocent child finds a way to thrive in the way his mother did in the first act.

Seriously. 1/5 stars.

Of course, I’ve been responding as if I accept Lickona’s premise that Jack is a moppet throughout the movie. Except, Jack doesn’t immediately adjust to the world, especially not physically. He’s quiet, hard to talk to, combative, and distant throughout the second act, which is artfully demonstrated by his physical limitations early on.

And overall, he’s not that much of a salvation for his mother, despite saving her life a second time. The film ends with her barely gripping with the fact that she was a selfish parent all along.

The true angel of salvation in this movie was Jack’s grandmother, who served as a narrative gift that Ma truly wanted for her son: someone to connect with. That moment when Jack tells his grandmother that he loves her is an earned moment, not just the words of a moppet. And then there’s that second moment when Ma sees him in the backyard connecting with someone else without her help. 

room movie

Oh, and this is the end of the review! I left nothing out. Lickona gives no basis for his assertions here, effectively saying that the film’s cinematography, score, and performances offer no merit beyond 1/5 stars. It’s a “bad” movie because Lickona got hung up on one aspect of the story that’s arguable at best. How is this a review?

Look, if you didn’t like the structure or coherence of Room, that’s one thing. I even criticized the pacing in my own review. Maybe that makes the film a 3/5, or maybe even a 2 for some. But to pan the film based on the delivery of a story for reasons that amount to your own cloudy expectations is lazy to say the least.

Now, you might be thinking, “Jon! Why should we care if one critic didn’t like Room?”

Well, what’s really got me frustrated is that someone is going to read Lickona’s lackluster review and write off a movie that deserves to be seen. A movie that person may have cherished. My point is that if you’re going to demolish a film, at least give us more than a paragraph explaining why.

Hey! If you’ve come across a silly article that deserves the snarcasm treatment, send it my way via Twitter or the comments below! 

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

%d bloggers like this: