one of the most powerful figures on internet moviedom, even though metacritic.com chooses to ignore him, so we might as well discuss him here.

is harry a critic?

what makes a critic a critic anyway?

some would say it has to do with taste, writing style, etc.

the guy has been putting out movie criticisms since the 90's. it may not be of traditional style, but hey, someone who has wrote so much IS a critic, whether you like him or not.

I love Harry's writing, but all of his reviews are extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable.

There is no medium ground.

~Eccentro

quote:

---

I love Harry's writing, but all of his reviews are extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable.

---

I agree. Makes Harry's ratings rather hard to add to the Metacritic mix.

Harry tended to build things up for me too much. He saw Attack of the Clones months before it came out and he made it sound like the greatest film ever made. I remember when he said that Daredevil was one of the best comic book movies ever made. I haven't been to Harry's site since I left Daredevil on it's opening night. I respect his writing style, but I get REALLY let down when I am built up a lot.

Harry Knowles... fat, loathesome sycophant. All he does these days is write article after article about how every film he watches is one of the greatest ever made. I would encourage any person who has lost every bit of self-respect he ever had and whose life has gone down the pan to simply look at Harry Knowles. I'm confident that anyone would realise how good their life is.

F.A.G., you really need to give the guy a break. He's doing what he apparently likes doing and gets screeners of movies that I would die for. Personally I think he just has a different dimension of film criteria. He judges the story not as strong as other things like cinematics and that business. (p.s., f.a.g. was not meant to be hateful its just your initials, I hope)

>F.A.G., you really need to give the guy a break.

Yeah, maybe you're right, life must be so difficult for that smelly, ugly hunk of chronic obesity whose idea of being a productive citizen is visiting Michael Bay film sets on the condition that he writes 100 pages of ass-kissing.

>He's doing what he apparently likes doing

Whoa, achievement of the century here folks.

>and gets screeners of movies that I would die for.

Is that supposed to make me like him?

>Personally I think he just has a different dimension of film criteria.

I'd say he was stuck in a dimension where what he writes is actually considered to be film criticism.

>He judges the story not as strong as other things like cinematics and that business.

Harry's criteria is very basic

"good = films from directors who invite me to their sets

bad = the occasional turkey, films with sets which weren't big enough to fit my fat ass on"

I don't pay attention to HK (is there really a point?), but I resent people attacking people for being fat or having fat asses. I have to be much fatter than this guy, but my wife will vouch that I don't have a fat ass.

I frequent Aintitcool.com because they are focused a lot on what you might call the "geek movie" world of comic book films and fantasy blockbusters as well as the cool independent films that others fail to mention because they might lack "cinematic qualities". I could take or leave Harry's reviews, but his site generally has a pretty good inside scoop on some cool flicks.

dude, you're fatter than Harry? that can't be good. BTW, I agree with JackietheBlade

Why does every single sentence on Harry's site need to finish with 3 exclamation marks!!! Why does he always use 24 point font!!!

This kind of punctuation abuse dilutes the power of the exclamation mark!!!

I love Harry's infectious enthusiasm. He loves movies and he wants them to be great. He doesn't have room for the middle ground, average movie. To Harry it's either a good movie or it's not, simple as that.