Broom Kid said:
Hiding reasonable, justified criticisms behind something called “two-hour-rage” is ridiculously counterproductive. Why would anyone want to watch a “two-hour-rage” directed at anything?
If the criticisms are reasonable and justified what’s the benefit in presenting them as two hours of concentrated rage?
In Mauler’s defence the whole ‘Rage’ thing is a result of his initial ‘success’ being a response to his TLJ ‘rant’ - which was just that - a rant (which I personally found hilarious). After that he did a proper critique of the film over several hours, and then sought to differentiate between his ‘rants’ and his critiques. I haven’t watched this one yet but I’m assuming it’s a big combination of both approaches.
I absolutely agree with you about the post-Plinkett Internet, but I have to say I like Mauler a lot. While I don’t agree with everything he says, he seems to have a good grasp of the subjective vs the objective in his assessments. But like I said, I haven’t watched this one yet.