Callum Nathan Thomas Edmunds / MauLer93 / MauLer - Discussion of a youtube reviewer

Are MauLer's videos too long?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 12.7%
  • No

    Votes: 120 29.3%
  • Fuck YES

    Votes: 237 57.9%

  • Total voters
    409

Idiotron

The last sane person on Earth
kiwifarms.net
I know the Voxis Productions guy does his Professor Tosspot voice on EFAP all the time, or at least most of the time.
He does but at the same time, he doesn't view himself as some mega critic and laughs at himself a lot.
Also, he can be really funny, he has some decent jokes and solid delivery.
If he did his stuff more often, he would be killing it on Youtube.

As for MauLer, I would really like to see him do an analysis of something like Mulholland Drive or Being John Malkovich, some Terrence Mallick stuff perhaps.
Something that can't just be judged based on script and plot holes and such and is a completely different experience from a formulaic movie like he's used to.
Regardless of whether you think those movies are good or not, would he be able to analyze them properly?
I don't think so.
 

Raging Capybara

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
He does but at the same time, he doesn't view himself as some mega critic and laughs at himself a lot.
Also, he can be really funny, he has some decent jokes and solid delivery.
If he did his stuff more often, he would be killing it on Youtube.

As for MauLer, I would really like to see him do an analysis of something like Mulholland Drive or Being John Malkovich, some Terrence Mallick stuff perhaps.
Something that can't just be judged based on script and plot holes and such and is a completely different experience from a formulaic movie like he's used to.
Regardless of whether you think those movies are good or not, would he be able to analyze them properly?
I don't think so.
He doesn't even know these movies exist.

He considers Birdman the most obscure film of all time.
 

Getting tard comed

kiwifarms.net
If he is criticizing the script then he is criticizing the single script that went into the finished movie, it's no use looking at a potential script because no one aside from the director and actors saw those. i think mauler is a fine critic
I wouldn't be too sure that's what he is doing. Unless you are apart of the Writer's Guild or an "official" script is published most scripts you find online are either a) older scripts that have some inconsistencies or b) a transcript of what appears on screen that isn't actually the shooting script.

The issue for both is there are usually things that influenced either the director or actors that are missing, and often times there are things that are cut out in the editing process. Meaning you are judging a script that could have missing information even if it is a transcript of what happened on film due to stage directions or character directions.

Idk if you're being serious here or not, but his methodology can't measure films where the cinematography are what make it. His value system would be better suited for criticizing books not a medium that is meant to be visual. As someone said earlier it's probably why he sticks to capeshit and blockbusters. Anything "deeper" and he will be out of his league due to the manner of ruler he is using.
 
Last edited:

Lensherr

kiwifarms.net
I think you can be objective but people are thinking about it based around Mauler's interpretation of the idea. Which is ironically, not very consistent or defined.
Objective opinions on art is possible and fine, because it's not necessarily you giving a definitive answer to the quality of a piece of art, it's you trying to judge art without personal beliefs or feelings and trying to be factual.

Issue is, Mauler flip flops from this line of thinking to "art is objective" and therefore you should treat his opinions as the definitive interpretation on art. You can't really do that with film because films have different objectives and are not made with the same intent. This is why his views on Taxi Driver are embarrassing and why he gravitates towards Hollywood blockbusters, because the latter is easier to discuss and give labels to than more experimental films like Taxi Driver, which isn't that complex but is clearly out of his league due to its intent being to study the kind of person Travis Bickle is as oppose to being simply entertainment. That requires more effort to analyze and is not really something you can just stamp a label of "good" or "bad" on. At least not how Mauler does it.
I can imagine if he watched, say, A Clockwork Orange, he probably wouldn't like it because Alex is a rapist and a murderer and he'd take that at its surface level. The film revolves around hefty ideas about societal decay, psychology, dystopian totalitarianism, and violence. To this day, the film is hard for some people to watch because of that. But he'll never try to look into those ideas because that's frankly not his M.O. and he's only interested in a literal interpretation of art.
However, I do think art can be objective in some aspects. I think writing can be objective but there is generally a lot going on for film that it's harder to give definitive answers to films not designed to be entertainment.
Where can I find his review of Taxi Driver? I’m now really interested in seeing how he fucks up reviewing it.
 

The Old Lurker

Jungle Jitters
kiwifarms.net
That's a joke right? Please tell me he hasn't actually said that.
He doesn't say that exactly, but he does call it an obscure film. It's mentioned somewhere in EFAP #2 - "SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES" and "We need to talk about Film Criticism"
Patrick Willems brings it up and at one point and Mauler says something along the lines of "He's choosing an obscure movie to reference, I've never heard of it before...Why don't you talk about something people have actually seen?" I can't find the exact quote in the EFAP since it's long as heck, but I do remember them not actually responding to the point being made and instead choosing to mock his movie example.
 

Lensherr

kiwifarms.net
It's in his EFAP on Ralph's Joker video, it's one of the first things they talk about.
IIRC, they did like it but Joker was the superior film and it was boring and Travis Bickle was unlikable.
I just finished listening to it, and my God their take on it was so basic bitch and surface-level.

The crux of their argument as to why it was subpar (at least in MauLer and Rags’ estimation) essentially boils down to the film not over-explaining itself and handing them a singular, definitive interpretation on a silver platter. Which is funny, because in the same stream they say that they liked The Lighthouse, which is similarly abstract.
 

Miller

👉⭐>👉👃
kiwifarms.net
As for MauLer, I would really like to see him do an analysis of something like Mulholland Drive or Being John Malkovich, some Terrence Mallick stuff perhaps.
Something that can't just be judged based on script and plot holes and such and is a completely different experience from a formulaic movie like he's used to.
MauLer only watches Marvel capeshit and Star Wars.
The other EFAP guy, Jay (or whatever tranny name he uses now) has never watched 2001, The Godfather, Spaceballs (he said that it's too old) or even Lord of the Rings. They had a running joke on EFAP, they would ask him if he has ever seen [insert name of a movie] and he would always say no.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
I just finished listening to it, and my God their take on it was so basic bitch and surface-level.

The crux of their argument as to why it was subpar (at least in MauLer and Rags’ estimation) essentially boils down to the film not over-explaining itself and handing them a singular, definitive interpretation on a silver platter. Which is funny, because in the same stream they say that they liked The Lighthouse, which is similarly abstract.
I couldn't take Mauler seriously as a critic after that. Hearing him call for things in a movie to be more obvious because he's either too stupid or too lazy to pay attention was insulting. It's actually funny when you consider his whole shtick revolves around writing and he literally needs baby dialogue to explain to him how he should feel about the movie.
What's even more ironic is that's the sentiment his fans had towards Glib and PSA during their Phantom Menace debate.
They have no self-awareness.
MauLer only watches Marvel capeshit and Star Wars.
The other EFAP guy, Jay (or whatever tranny name he uses now) has never watched 2001, The Godfather, Spaceballs (he said that it's too old) or even Lord of the Rings. They had a running joke on EFAP, they would ask him if he has ever seen [insert name of a movie] and he would always say no.
Did he actually say it's too old?
I'm legitimately shocked that people look at these faggots as an actual authority on film when all they talk about is capeshit. They're like what RedLetterMedia parodies in the Nerd Crew but edgier and pretending like they're above consoomers.
 

Raging Capybara

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I remember my interest in cinema started some years ago while I visited a subforum about movies in one forum that doesn't exist anymore (and it was in my mother language so you obviously would have never heard about it).

Those guys were living encyclopedias about films. I remember one in particular who used a godfather avatar, he had watched the complete Ozu filmography, a fairly obscure Japanese director who, unlike Kurosawa, was never popular in the west. This was just one guy, the others were just as knowledgeable about films. And films from everywhere!

Do you know Oldboy? Of course, everyone loves the Korean Cinema nowadays. But back in 2004, it was an extremely niche stuff. But it didn't stop the people from this forum to discuss fucking Oldboy in just two or three years after the release of the film.

And everyone was so polite (I'm lying, some arguments were very nasty, but nothing that compares to internet drama we follow here). I'm just saddened that right now, thousands of people are having they cinema discovery through some assholes like Mauler and his sycophants, A bunch of morons that have a bizarre pride from not watching films at all!
 

PenguinSuitAlice

Frosty Witch of Mad Fancy
kiwifarms.net
I'm legitimately shocked that people look at these faggots as an actual authority on film when all they talk about is capeshit. They're like what RedLetterMedia parodies in the Nerd Crew but edgier and pretending like they're above consoomers.
I doubt it would happen, but imagine if RLM did a parody podcast making fun of EFAP or the Fandom Menace types. I sure Mike or Rich would not have any great love for them. The problem is that in order for it to or a proper parody, it would be have to be 4 hours at least, and it would be hard to stay in character that long. Imagine the sheer amount of salt it would produce when their idols turn on them and expose them as a joke.
 

Duncan Hills Coffee

Oww, my byaaack
kiwifarms.net
And everyone was so polite (I'm lying, some arguments were very nasty, but nothing that compares to internet drama we follow here). I'm just saddened that right now, thousands of people are having they cinema discovery through some assholes like Mauler and his sycophants, A bunch of morons that have a bizarre pride from not watching films at all!
You and me both man. What's unfortunate is that now, there are thousands of people who will probably watch EFAP's assessment on Taxi Driver and just blindly assume that it's a mediocre movie. And that's just wrong, because Taxi Driver is a bold movie and one that requires you to actually think about the themes and what it means underneath all the grime and Travis' own warped perceptions. But since it's more ambiguous than Joker and doesn't just hand you the meaning on a silver platter, it's automatically bad in the eyes of MauLer and co. I liked Joker, it was one of my favorite movies of last year, but even I'll admit it's baby's first Scorsese, and MauLer unwittingly admitted he's not mature enough as a filmgoer to enjoy the real thing.

Not to mention their insane bias against older cinema in general. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's outdated. I get frustrated with regular people who refuse to watch older movies on the basis that they're old, but EFAP takes it to a new level because they're trying to present themselves as cinephiles who understand the art of filmmaking, and yet they won't watch anything that's older than they are, which also excludes them from decades of excellent films. Spaceballs may be "old", but it's still hilarious.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
You and me both man. What's unfortunate is that now, there are thousands of people who will probably watch EFAP's assessment on Taxi Driver and just blindly assume that it's a mediocre movie. And that's just wrong, because Taxi Driver is a bold movie and one that requires you to actually think about the themes and what it means underneath all the grime and Travis' own warped perceptions. But since it's more ambiguous than Joker and doesn't just hand you the meaning on a silver platter, it's automatically bad in the eyes of MauLer and co. I liked Joker, it was one of my favorite movies of last year, but even I'll admit it's baby's first Scorsese, and MauLer unwittingly admitted he's not mature enough as a filmgoer to enjoy the real thing.
He needed scenes where Travis gets beaten up so he can understand how to feel about him. A character can't be grey, he has to be black or white. Anything else is too hard for him.

Not to mention their insane bias against older cinema in general. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's outdated. I get frustrated with regular people who refuse to watch older movies on the basis that they're old, but EFAP takes it to a new level because they're trying to present themselves as cinephiles who understand the art of filmmaking, and yet they won't watch anything that's older than they are, which also excludes them from decades of excellent films. Spaceballs may be "old", but it's still hilarious.
What makes it even worse is how they talk down and attack people on EFAP and Twitter who clearly know more about films than they do.
 

Duncan Hills Coffee

Oww, my byaaack
kiwifarms.net
He needed scenes where Travis gets beaten up so he can understand how to feel about him. A character can't be grey, he has to be black or white. Anything else is too hard for him
You mean the opening scenes weren't enough? The beginning that displayed his crippling loneliness, his obvious mental illness, and complete lack of social graces? Those scenes do a good job garnering a mix of sympathy and pity for him because he's clearly not well. The scenes where he starts to lose it and desires violence? That's up to you. And that's the beauty of Travis as a character. He's not without sympathetic qualities and there are people in the movie worse than him, but he's also an unstable individual. MauLer not understanding how to feel about Travis is the point, but since it's entirely up to interpretation and doesn't appeal to his bullshit "objective qualities" then he rejects it.
 

Raging Capybara

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Mauler doesn't like Taxi Driver because he watched it ready to hate it, just like everything else.

And he "likes" Joker only because it triggered the libs, he obviously would not give a fuck about the film if not because of the fabricated controversy around it.

Mauler is an obese and stupid lolcow. He doesn't like movies, he doesn't even enjoy them. His only passion is petty drama.
 

Idiotron

The last sane person on Earth
kiwifarms.net
I went to efap.me and saw 2 things:

1. The total EFAP time is 791 hours as I'm typing this... Jesus fucking Christ.

2. I had a look at "EFAP approved movies".
Check this amazing list out:
- Alien/Aliens
- Avengers: Infinity War
- Captain America: Civil War
- The Departed
- The Grey
- Iron Man
- John Wick
- Joker
- Jurassic Park
- LOTR trilogy
- Mission Impossible: Fallout
- Parasite
- Predator
- The Prestige
- Star Wars OT
- Terminator 1&2
Nothing wrong with these movies, they're fine entertainment, but this is the most "basic bitch cinema" list I've seen from any Youtuber.
I've got a friend who grew up in an orthodox Muslim family and has only really started watching movies 2 years ago, the movies on that list are the kind of stuff I recommended to him during the first 6 months, the gateway drug to more advanced stuff.
Parasite is only there because it was popular, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
It's the list's equivalent of a diversity hire, only there to make them seem more cultured ("See? We don't only watch big Hollywood movies, we see deep foreign stuff too.").

Maybe I wrote this on KF already but at the very least, MovieBob has seen shit.
He introduced me to a lot of stuff, good and bad.
MauLer has introduced me to nothing.
If he has seen a movie/show or played a video game, it was popular before he did.
If it's not, he won't even bother.
791 hours of babbling about movies and it's all basic bitch popular shit.
Literally every other Youtuber has talked about something small that nobody else really had... not MauLer though, he only talks about the cinematic equivalent of corporate fast food, that's why he cries about the "death of cinema" because Star Wars/Jurassic Park/MCU/Terminator are bad in the current year.
Over 3000 movies come out every year but according to people like MauLer, cinema is dead because 10 of them suck.
 

biscuitscilia

kiwifarms.net
You mean the opening scenes weren't enough? The beginning that displayed his crippling loneliness, his obvious mental illness, and complete lack of social graces? Those scenes do a good job garnering a mix of sympathy and pity for him because he's clearly not well. The scenes where he starts to lose it and desires violence? That's up to you. And that's the beauty of Travis as a character. He's not without sympathetic qualities and there are people in the movie worse than him, but he's also an unstable individual. MauLer not understanding how to feel about Travis is the point, but since it's entirely up to interpretation and doesn't appeal to his bullshit "objective qualities" then he rejects it.
For Mauler, the film literally needs to explain the plot to him at all times.
Dialogue needs to state the themes, but only implement themes he agrees with.
The visual story telling needs to be as blatant as possible, there can be no symbolism because that's pretentious.
You also need the character to always be morally right, he cannot be questionable at all because then that's inconsistent writing.
This is what Mauler considers great writing. Even though everything listed above is often a sign of bad writing.
Take from that what you will.

Mauler doesn't like Taxi Driver because he watched it ready to hate it, just like everything else.

And he "likes" Joker only because it triggered the libs, he obviously would not give a fuck about the film if not because of the fabricated controversy around it.

Mauler is an obese and stupid lolcow. He doesn't like movies, he doesn't even enjoy them. His only passion is petty drama.
It's very obvious he only watched Taxi Driver because people kept comparing Joker to it, and most likely didn't even know the film existed until the comparisons with Joker started. He only watched it so he can dispel the comparisons, even though Joker blatantly lifts entire ideas, themes, and even some scenes from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.
 

ColdOnes

kiwifarms.net
I went to efap.me and saw 2 things:

1. The total EFAP time is 791 hours as I'm typing this... Jesus fucking Christ.

2. I had a look at "EFAP approved movies".
Check this amazing list out:
- Alien/Aliens
- Avengers: Infinity War
- Captain America: Civil War
- The Departed
- The Grey
- Iron Man
- John Wick
- Joker
- Jurassic Park
- LOTR trilogy
- Mission Impossible: Fallout
- Parasite
- Predator
- The Prestige
- Star Wars OT
- Terminator 1&2
Nothing wrong with these movies, they're fine entertainment, but this is the most "basic bitch cinema" list I've seen from any Youtuber.
I've got a friend who grew up in an orthodox Muslim family and has only really started watching movies 2 years ago, the movies on that list are the kind of stuff I recommended to him during the first 6 months, the gateway drug to more advanced stuff.
Parasite is only there because it was popular, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
It's the list's equivalent of a diversity hire, only there to make them seem more cultured ("See? We don't only watch big Hollywood movies, we see deep foreign stuff too.").

Maybe I wrote this on KF already but at the very least, MovieBob has seen shit.
He introduced me to a lot of stuff, good and bad.
MauLer has introduced me to nothing.
If he has seen a movie/show or played a video game, it was popular before he did.
If it's not, he won't even bother.
791 hours of babbling about movies and it's all basic bitch popular shit.
Literally every other Youtuber has talked about something small that nobody else really had... not MauLer though, he only talks about the cinematic equivalent of corporate fast food, that's why he cries about the "death of cinema" because Star Wars/Jurassic Park/MCU/Terminator are bad in the current year.
Over 3000 movies come out every year but according to people like MauLer, cinema is dead because 10 of them suck.
The list is so bad even r/movies would make fun of it. I'm not asking MauLer to have the tastes of a film scholar, but this guy somehow thinks he has good authority to talk about movies. For a guy who loves to proclaim cinema is dead, he has missed out a century worth of movies. I have my grievances on the state of movies in the current year, but I don't base my perspectives solely on Hollywood. I wouldn't be surprised if MauLer is the type of person to struggle to sit through a black and white movie.
 

PenguinSuitAlice

Frosty Witch of Mad Fancy
kiwifarms.net
For Mauler, the film literally needs to explain the plot to him at all times.
Dialogue needs to state the themes, but only implement themes he agrees with.
The visual story telling needs to be as blatant as possible, there can be no symbolism because that's pretentious.
You also need the character to always be morally right, he cannot be questionable at all because then that's inconsistent writing.
This is what Mauler considers great writing. Even though everything listed above is often a sign of bad writing.
Take from that what you will.
What I take from this is that movies are just scripts with visuals and actors attached. I really think he doesn't actually think that the script is the only sign of objective quality in the movie, but it's the only thing he knows how to criticize without looking like a complete layman.
 
Last edited:
Tags
None