Samuel Jackson Blasts 'Avengers' Critic & Sounds Like a Whiny Egomaniac

Eye Roll 27

While the vast majority of the reviews for The Avengers have been positive, longtime movie critic A.O. Scott dared to take the road less traveled in an unflattering article that was published yesterday. Now, some actors might have simply ignored the lone dissenter amid the nearly universal acclaim, but not Samuel L. Jackson. No SIR.

According to Jackson, enough is enough. He has HAD it with this motherf***ing reviewer in the motherf***ing New York Times.

Scott is clearly no fan of the film, from its "overblown, skull-assaulting action sequences" to the characters' "big, rough-edged egos." He wrote,

The secret of The Avengers is that it is a snappy little dialogue comedy dressed up as something else, that something else being a giant A.T.M. for Marvel and its new studio overlords, the Walt Disney Company. (...) Avengers is hardly worth raging about, its failures are significant and dispiriting. The light, amusing bits cannot overcome the grinding, hectic emptiness, the bloated cynicism that is less a shortcoming of this particular film than a feature of the genre.

Grinding, hectic emptiness. Damn, I could finger-lick my way through a thesaurus all day long and never come up with that sort of description. It's almost poetic in its dislike, wouldn't you say?

At any rate, call me crazy, but I don't think that's the part Samuel L. objected to. I'm guessing it was this line:

Mr. Jackson, with an eye patch and his well-practiced bellow, is more master of ceremonies than mission commander.


As for Jackson, he wasted no time in voicing his displeasure in a badass manner that befits a man of his reputation. That's right, he whined on Twitter:


Ah, Twitter. The modern vehicle for striking down, hashtags and all, with great vengeance and furious anger.

Obviously, it's a free country for Jackson to respond to his film's criticism however he likes, but snarkily calling for Scott's job sure seems over the line. Reviews are hardly objective, after all—they're simply published opinions for us to listen to or totally disregard. By responding this way, Jackson not only sounds like an entitled jerk who can't deal with a single opposing viewpoint on his multi-million blockbuster, it's HIS ego that comes off as big and rough-edged.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing all the extra viewership on Scott's review means his job is just fine, which is good news for those of us who actually enjoy balanced criticism. I may not agree with his take on the film, but I appreciate that it's out there. After all, if every review was an ass-licking ode to its stars, how would I have known to avoid, say, Jackson's craptacular performance in Twisted, which earned a truly impressive 2 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

What do you think of Samuel Jackson's Twitter outburst? Silly, or did The New York Times reviewer deserve it?

Image via Marvel



To add a comment, please log in with

Use Your CafeMom Profile

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Join CafeMom or Log in to your CafeMom account. CafeMom members can keep track of their comments.

Comment As a Guest

Guest comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.

lovin... lovinallofthem

LMAO!!!   oh, they just dont learn that they themselves shouldnt cast stones via twitter....

oh well, im sure he has heard worse reviews of his performances, i think he should have just left it alone, because now MORE people will WANT to read this review thus thrusting MORE spin on this guy that he doesnt like now... a bug huge DUH, Mr Jackson...

jagam... jagamama0710

LOL Uhhh no. I think the reviewer is the one with an ego problem. He sounds like a major douche. Then again, that's generally how I feel about all movie critics. I always disagree with them. How does Jackson's tweet seem whiny? It's Samuel L Jacson. He is not really known for subtlety. I haven't seen the movie yet but have heard (from the many comic "nerds" in my life lol) that it's fantastic. I think I'll trust their opinion over Mr. Scott's. 

nonmember avatar kim

As Linda pointed out, movie critics are paid to give their OPINIONS, and people can either agree or disagree. I enjoy reading diverse reviews that offer both positive & negative opinions on films. As for Jackson, it's bad manners and poor sportsmanship to get all pissy about a less-than-stellar review; afterall, you can't win 'em all, and when you are in the entertainment industry, you have to accept that there always will be good and bad reviews. Jackson should know this & his bitchy response to the review makes him seem like an ass. Besides, I read A.O. Scott's reviews regularly and find them intelligent, discerning, and thoughtful. This alone sets his (?) reviews apart from most of the other fatuous crap that gets published as well as pretty much anything I've ever heard coming from Samuel L. Jackson.

jessi... jessicasmom1

I usually like Samuel Jackson as a actor.

nonmember avatar Nikki B

Samuel L was ridiculously cool as Nick Fury. A.O. Scott is the lone dissenter because he wants attention. Kind of like when Britney Spears goes commando!

coppe... copperswifey

I think the whole thing is silly when people get in twitter wars. I think if they could stand back and look from the outside in they might see how stupid they act when they do that kind of stuff. It just seems so petty to me.

mamivon2 mamivon2

yep I can hear say it

1-10 of 27 comments 123 Last