I gotta say as well, (Warning: Rant about his content, not the drama) even besides all of this shit. I never got why people liked YMS' reviews. They're no better than cinemasins or nostalgia critic in terms of critical depth, and unlike those two which mainly focus on being humorous, YMS has this facade of being a serious critic while just doing the basic 2000s-2010s youtube "critic" approach of "Screenplay is all that matters, I will only talk about the screenplay and maybe the acting".
That entire approach to criticism is just retarded. Film is a compound medium of multiple different arts, just the music of a film alone has enough critical potential to make entire hours of critique over (The youtuber "Sideways" is one example of that), I don't mind focusing on the screenplay but at least then make that the focus of your review rather than pretending you have anything of value to say about anything else. It might seem semantic but when you say "movie review", I am going to expect a review of the entire compound experience that the film brings and at least give a few minutes of thought to each aspect. Most of these people don't even talk about the direction for fucks sake, blaming every poor acting decision on the actors rather than the director (Generally shitty acting is the result of the director, at least when the actors have a track record of otherwise competent acting) sometimes they even blame writing decisions on the director even though the director didn't even write the film and treat the director as this single mind who created the entire thing when this is almost never the case.
That being said, his review of Blade Runner 2049 is truly the thing that made me completely stop taking critiques from youtube seriously, which is ironic because it technically comments on a lot of things that I would want him to comment on. But there is one comment that just fucking infuriated me. I was a teen when i watched it, and honestly even then I was baffled. It's specifically what he said about the cinematography; I personally think that there is a lot to critique there as it often feels more preoccupied with aesthetics and pretty pictures rather than actually communicating anything with it. Ironically Deakins' cinematography for that film fits the criticism "It insists upon itself". Not to say that it's horrid, it's just kind of pretentious to me, especially when there are films that have pretty visuals that do a lot more with them. Though I am open to hear if anyone disagrees. I am not claiming that my belief on that is fact, I just think that it's definitely open to criticism and I would expect a serious critic to at least give some detailed commentary on it given how central and important visuals are to film.
Adam's comment on it? "Every frame looks like it would make a great desktop wallpaper".
a
fucking
desktop
wallpaper
That critique still fills my soul with rage, how the fuck can you call yourself a critic when you make such a uneducated philistine statement on the ENTIRE VISUAL CONTENT OF A FUCKING FILM. Especially when you think that something being a desktop wallpaper is a fucking PRAISE. And the fact that this did not get him laughed off the fucking internet is the biggest thing, nobody cared that a supposedly high-brow film critic said such a fucking embarrassing statement. After that I just stopped giving a shit. I sincerely do not believe Adam or any of his orbiters actually care about cinema as an art and are just the film equivalent of RYMtards who perceive art as a fashion statement rather than a form of genuine expression.
And if this was not what should have killed his career as a critic, "citizen kane is the first film with a plot" definitely should have instead as that's the equivalent of someone saying Beethoven invented sonata-allegro form.
