TMBTM said:
His humor is my kind of humor I must confess. I like the idea of a brainless, stupid, dangerous and horrible geek person making "expert" movie reviews. I think it's fun. I don't mind the basement scene but it is a bit distracting and too long. I like his "ex wife" and family jokes because they are just quick lines. When he starts making little movies inside the reviews, I don't think he is as funny. You know, it's like those stand up comedians, so hilarious when they are on stage, but usualy kind of average on movies.
My reading of his taking on this persona to make these reviews was that the archetype of the fanboy (or fangirl) who hangs around discussion forums passionately dissecting films, television and just about any aspect of cult culture is very similar to the archetype of the Hollywood serial killer.
They have their lairs full of fetishistic totems, they are isolated, insular, quiet in the outside world but if someone messes with their magic realm they become enraged and 'virtually' violent (we all have encountered people on discussion forums who appear to have or try to project more than one personality).
Neither archetype is 100% accurate but I can see the point he seemed to be making and it's a framework on which he has picked to hang his critique on.
He could have picked a similarly potentially offensive framing device like a Star Wars Jihadi extremist offended at the blasphemy of the PT (or the blasphemy of the Star Wars heretics who dare to question the orthodoxy of Almighty George) or he could have picked a character who wasn't potentially offensive at all (which is possibly impossible) or just delivered a conventional review (but even conventional film reviewers develop idioms which their audience become familiar with...A Mark Kermode review has certain definable traits that a Roger Ebert review does not).