Logo

Samuel L. Jackson Lashes Out at Film Critic

May 4, 2012  •  Post A Comment

As one of the stars of the new action flick "The Avengers," Samuel L. Jackson was so angry at New York Times critic A.O. Scott’s negative review of the film that he called him out via Twitter, reports TheWrap.com.

Jackson plays Nick Fury in the movie and was incensed by Scott’s "less-than-glowing review," the story reports. Jackson tweeted: "#Avengers fans, NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!"

In response, other journalists defended Scott’s right to state his opinion, especially since it’s his job. The website The Film Nest tweeted back at Jackson — "Disappointed to hear @SamuelLJackson respond irrationally to negative review of #Avengers. People aren’t entitled to their own opinion?" — prompting the actor to respond.

Jackson tweeted: "That is My Opinion! @TheFilmNest & what’s irrational about it? They aren’t going to fire his jaundiced ass & You & I Know It!"

Ironically, the New York Times Magazine just ran a laudatory piece on the actor on April 29.

8 Comments

  1. Could be covert negative reviews to hurt the competition who after all may have there own product out today as well?????

  2. What? That post reads like it was written in English, run through Google Translate for the Slavic languages a few times with the results translated back into “English” using the same software.
    Okay, that’s not fair. To Google.
    Seriously, Bob – that sentence was constructed so badly that I wouldn’t be surprised if your Jr. High English teacher didn’t look you up to kick your ass and then dump a weekend’s worth of homework on your head. It takes a lot to get make me call someone out on their misuse of the English language but that post just made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    As for the Sam Jackson debacle – an actor doesn’t like a critic’s review and makes a statement to that effect publicly. How is that even news? AVENGERS is getting fairly good reviews (in some cases, better than it really deserves) and is probably so critic-proof that it would still open at around to $200 million even if every critic in the world hated it so much they were calling for Joss Whedon to be tried for Cinematic Crimes Against Humanity.

  3. Bob’s post was perfectly intelligible. It is you who must: get make get make check your English :0

  4. It’s common knowledge that some movie critics compair movies to Classic novels and such. They seem to avoid the fact that it’s better to review a movie for what it is. Reviewers job is to inform the viewer if the movie meets it’s expectations. Not give lopsided reviews that only serve to show how high they can stick their nose in the air. these same reviewers will drop to their knees for a” good” foreign film. Fine if they wish to put on blinders and review every film of that kind great. Don’t bother to review a film that they don’t understand or even care about. they serve no useful purpose. People will see the moves they want to see no matter what is said. but When i go to the movies I want to know if the movie is what it’s supost to be not if it;’s another “Tale of Two Cities” or ” To Kill a Mocking Bird”.

  5. It’s common knowledge that some movie critics compair movies to Classic novels and such. They seem to avoid the fact that it’s better to review a movie for what it is. Reviewers job is to inform the viewer if the movie meets it’s expectations. Not give lopsided reviews that only serve to show how high they can stick their nose in the air. these same reviewers will drop to their knees for a” good” foreign film. Fine if they wish to put on blinders and review every film of that kind great. Don’t bother to review a film that they don’t understand or even care about. they serve no useful purpose. People will see the moves they want to see no matter what is said. but When i go to the movies I want to know if the movie is what it’s supost to be not if it;’s another “Tale of Two Cities” or ” To Kill a Mocking Bird”.

  6. I understand Jackson’s viewpoint. Critics are louts, who get paid to criticize what they can’t do themselves. When one or two critics come in with a negative review, when 98% of their peers are lauding the work, there is something wrong. Either a piece of work is good, or it isn’t. If their “profession” offers so much latitude in what is and isn’t good, with no specific criteria as to what makes it a bomb versus a hit, then it shows what the critics do is nothing more than an exercise in their own vanity. Go to Rotten Tomatos and check out the so-called critics concensus. On Avengers it was almost unanamous. I feel that the few contrairians were doing to get readers to simply look at their lame review to see what they had to say that was negative. I recall the crappy piece of celluloid called “Super 8”. A mashup of ALL the previous works of Spielberg targeted at the same audience as ET, and timed to hit a new audience too young to have seen all the previous works it had ripped off. It got rave reviews and it stunk, presumably because Speilberg is a powerful man in Hollywood and can at a whim have people fired, remember Megan Fox. The irony is he the Jewish equivalent of Hitler in Hollywood and had her fired for making a similar reference. I admire Jackson for speaking out. He sees what the critic did as transparently as I do, the contrary review was simply to get readers and had nothing to do with the merit of the film.

  7. Except it’s not a question.

  8. “Supost” as a word does not exist in the English language. Also, your punctuation and capitalization are atrocious! I wouldn’t be surprised if your Jr. High School English teacher didn’t look you up to kick your ass and then dump a weekend’s worth of homework on your head. It takes a lot to get me to call someone out on their misuse of the English language but that post just made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Leave a Reply to William Barber Cancel Reply

Email (will not be published)