Red Reed, everyone's most hated film critic (is he even worthy of the title?), is stirring up controversy yet again. The New York Observer writer -- the same one who blew up Twitter feeds in February over his cruel Melissa McCarthy comments, which he refused to apologize for -- has now gone too far, panning a film he didn't even see.
Reed's incredibly short, scathing review of indie horror sequel "V/H/S/2" states that he found the film so "unwatchable" that he literally did not watch it, leaving after the first of its five segments (hardly 20 minutes in). The headline of Reed's review is "G/T/F/O: V/H/S/2 Is Unwatchable From Start to Finish," yet how can he so boldly claim that if he didn't even stay till the finish?
This brings up the age-old debate over whether or not a critic has the obligation to watch a film in its entirety in order to properly review it. New Yorker dance critic Arlene Croce ignited this contention in 1994 when she refused to see a performance, yet wrote an infamously negative review of it.
So is it justified to disapprove of a film without staying till the credits roll? We say no, especially since the biggest flaw in Reed's review is that he's completely wrong. He opens his blurb-of-a-review by calling "V/H/S/2" "plotless," which he would've found to be untrue had he stayed the whole 96 minutes. The first installment in the found-footage horror series actually had no start-to-finish plot (that was kind of the point), while "V/H/S/2" differs the most by following a main story that's revisited in the end. Did Reed even see the first movie?
Read his too-terse review of "V/H/S/2" here.
[via New York Observer]