Jonathan Rozanski is a prolific, neurodivergent animation reviewer from Chicopee, Massachusetts. He originally started off on YouTube with a channel he called Brovania wherein he attempted to perform let’s plays of all the titles mentioned in the book 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die. However, he eventually grew disillusioned with the project. In addition to the book’s myriad factual errors, he had problems with its glaring omissions of certain classic games and inclusions of decidedly unimpressive titles. Mr. Rozanski chose to end the project prematurely, saying after the fact that he hated the book.
It was in 2013 that he found a new calling: reviewing animation. Thus, on February 20, 2013, he reemerged with a new alias: The Mysterious Mr. Enter (stylized TheMysteriousMrEnter). Mr. Enter started his new career by reviewing the series premiere episode of the popular show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. He originally stuck to discussing episodes of that show before moving onto another project in July of 2013 he called Animated Atrocities. Living up to its self-explanatory title, it was a show in which he would review pieces of animation he considered to be of a subpar quality – the first to face his wrath being the SpongeBob SquarePants episode entitled “The Splinter”. Citing Doug Walker of Channel Awesome as his chief inspiration, Mr. Enter approached the subject with all the sarcasm and vitriol one would expect from your typical, contemporary Angry Critic show host.
Animated Atrocities was intended to be a placeholder series to tide his audience over in between seasons of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Said series ended up taking on a life of its own when it became a smash hit with fans of the Angry Critic genre; his first episode eventually amassed over 900,000 views. Even better, he enjoyed making these reviews, claiming it provided much catharsis to tear into something truly heinous. As a result, Animated Atrocities became his flagship series, allowing him to build a career on the platform. Following a rough childhood and a period of adult ennui wherein he had zero prospects for the future, it seemed that things were finally looking up. He got off his Social Security disability program, and now had a lucrative job as a YouTube content creator.
Fresh off his latest acclaimed film, First Reformed, veteran director Paul Schrader was interviewed on the online magazine Deadline Hollywood about his take on the current state of cinema. I myself have always found the discussion of what decade could be said to be the high point of a given medium fascinating. Are the consensuses guided by nostalgia or did the masters of old really have something the current generation doesn’t possess? If one were to look at any given list of the greatest films ever made, one would get the impression the 1970s in particular was an exemplary decade for the medium.
When it came to films, 2017 seemed to have little middle ground between the critically beloved gems and the turkeys. Nonetheless, I could consider it one of the medium’s better years within the 2010s if for no other reason than because the critically acclaimed films had little trouble living up to the hype. It was to the point where I would argue nine nominations weren’t enough to do the year justice – especially when one considers quality works such as Good Time and Blade Runner 2049 failed to gain recognition.
My primary means of determining what film to watch would be Rotten Tomatoes. Launched in 1998, Rotten Tomatoes would appear to be a hopeful filmgoer’s best friend. Why wouldn’t it be? It aggregates what critics have to say about the film. If it gets a high score, you can safely bet you’re seeing something special. Meanwhile, if Hollywood extensively markets a film only for it to receive 20% or less, you can bet it’s the product of a particularly cynical cabal of boardroom executives attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It was to the point where Brett Ratner, known for having directed the Rush Hour series and X-Men: The Last Stand, felt it to be the “destruction of [their] business”.
I’ve always found the subject of causal fans and critics failing to see eye to eye a fascinating subject. Many people have speculated on why these disconnects exist. Some say the critics are out of touch; others feel the common moviegoer is lacking in taste. In all honesty, this phenomenon couldn’t realistically be boiled down to a single reason. Because critics inevitably watch every noteworthy film that goes their way, it stands to reason the odd, experimental titles would stand out more than the crowd-pleasing summer blockbuster – even if the former has glaring plot holes and the latter has no execution issues whatsoever.