Phantom of the Opera – Nostalgia Critic

Shark Jumping joins the NC to look at the botched musical from Joel “Bat Credit Card” Shumacher. The Nostalgia Critic and company look at the Phantom of the Opera.

Donate to One Step Camp here! Get this review’s Soundtrack Here! Subscribe to Beth and Tim (Shark Jumping) on YouTube!

About Doug Walker

Creator of 5 Second Movies, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews and more.


  1. MidnightScreeningsman2014

    RockmanX3, not first,its me again ?

    • Damn Yoooouuuuu XD

    • MidnightScreeningsman2014

      Also can we have one of these type of reviews where in the comment section people don’t bitch about it being a clipless review?

      • You know, if Doug put something to tell people this would be a clipless review like, for example, the words “CLIPLESS REVIEW” in the title of the video, then the people who don’t like clipless reviews wouldn’t show up. Because, otherwise, how the heck are we supposed to know until like a minute into the actual review???

        • MidnightScreeningsman2014

          You bring up a real good point
          Maybe I’ll ask Rob if Doug can do that next time he post a clipless review to the site

        • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

          Why do you need a warning? Do you not understand that’s like putting a “GAY” sign around a gay person’s neck?

          • I’m not seeing the logic there, Gay people are nothing to fear, but a lot of us just don’t like these clipless reviews.

            I didn’t actually know this was a clipless review till right now, not gonna bitch about it, just not gonna watch it.

          • no. not it isn’t. 8|

          • It’s nothing like that at all. Some people don’t like clipless reviews and would want to know ahead of time and other people DO like clipless reviews and might want to know as well since they want to see Doug’s skits and stuff parody the entire movie all the way through. And, unlike something like being gay or having a specific religious belief or something, whether or not a review is clipless DOES effect which people will and won’t enjoy the review and it should have something to differentiate it from the normal NC videos because of that.

            Pretty much just like he’s done with the vlogs and Sibling Rivalry. Which, by the way, are both series where I’m pretty positive that you’ve never complained about them being labled differently than his normal NC videos, right?

          • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

            If it affects you so much that you feel betrayed when it’s a clipless review, that’s your problem, not his. Vlogs and Sibling Rivalry are separate series. A Nostalgia Critic review is still a Nostalgia Critic review

        • It takes, as you said, about a minute to find out its clipless. You wasted an entire minute of your time. You have on average 39,420,000 of them in your life, not counting leap days. You won’t miss the couple it took you to find out some reviews are clipless. Also the video tells you its gonna be a 41 minute video, you’re already going to waste 41 minutes of your day (1440 total) watching someone bash a movie you probably don’t care for to begin with, so I think we’ve all got them to spare. You didn’t get physically or mentally damaged, and Doug and crew put a lot of effot into these, so whats the real harm here?

        • Or at the very least have it in the tags for the video

      • Sure. I for one promise not to bitch about it. When it’s a review with clips. You know, the kind of review we subscribed/follow for? THe kinds of reviews he did for years? Yes. I understand the copyright flag bullshit #WTFU drama going on, but, I do not care. If I wanted a skit show from the Awesomeites, I would have watched Demo Reel. Which, I’ll point out, almost no one did.

        I do understand the copyright flag bullshit, I really really do, but, that does not change what I came here to see. If Tex/Mex suddenly became illegal, or, heavily contrabanned, I would NOT keep going to Taco Bell just because they started offering pizza. I do not come to this site to see the Critic and his admittedly talented co-stars play amateur theater. I come for reviews of the kind I have been watching for years, and I’m not going to passively lay down and ignore a dramatic change in format just because that’s ‘the way things are now’ .

        That said, bitching about it every time does get old fast, and other than mentioning it once back in the Hocus Pocus feature, I have not commented, but, I don’t like the thought of people with a valid complaint about a change being told to pipe down, even when there is a valid reason for the change.

        • Although, after posting this, I realize it’s been like…. 3 years since I actually went to a Taco Bell anyway, but, that’s beside the point.

        • Oh, so content creators are supposed to follow YOUR rules for what they should/shouldn’t create? The Critic has no right to change his format because YOU don’t want him to? I didn’t realize you were his employer or that he’d signed a binding contract stating that he could only do the kind of reviews YOU want him to do. Silly me.

          • If Doug were smart, he’d address the dislike for them in full instead of saying next to nothing about it. Keep in mind that it’s his fans that gave him the ability to make a living off of this type of stuff. If they’re not happy and decide to move on, his career as a critic is going to suffer.

          • If a majority of his fans expressed a dislike of clipless reviews, then yes, it would be smart of him to figure out something else. Out of all his followers, how many people have actually said they hate the clipless reviews?

        • “I do understand the copyright flag bullshit, I really really do, but, that does not change what I came here to see.” – Well, it does kinda change things… you cannot possibly ask of critic to do something illigal, or something that can really hurt well-being of his family he has to feed. His not doing clipless reviews because he likes it better that way, i thought he had stated that pretty clearly. he is doing it because the mediea and censorship makes him do it that way. if you relly have a problem, it should be with corporations, not the critic himself. i would suggest writing to your local officials, or organazing a protest aginst exploits of fair use of some sort. that of course implying that you live in the US. i would do just that, but my hands are tied because i am not an american citizen. refering to your “taco bell” reference – you wouldn’t go there, but you wouldn’t possibly expect from them to sell you the same stuff after it’s illegal? that would be just not fair – it’s not their fault, really

          • The point is that regardless of what the critic can or cannot do, doesn’t change what someone likes in the critics videos. It doesn’t change what he came here to see, because sympathy and understanding don’t change taste. I personally don’t like clipless reviews, because I think it kills the point of an angry review. If I can’t see what I’m supposed to be laughing at, and have to be told what the joke is, or stretch my imagination to see their angle, then the surprise and punch of the joke is lost. I don’t want to see that. Those kinds of videos aren’t what I started following the critic for. Regardless of whether his hands are tied, my preferences aren’t going to change. No, I don’t expect him to hurt his career, but he could just not review a movie he doesn’t think he can show clips of. And pleading to law makers doesn’t do shit. Doing so is about as useful as yelling about it into the sky.

          • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

            “He should limit himself to what I want him to do!”–You

        • btw don’t have taco bell where i live, is it good?

        • So one minute passes big whoop. There’s a zillion other videos on this site you can watch. Having an NC review with or without clips isn’t the end of the world, while yes the fans have helped Channel Awesome blossom into what it is doesn’t mean any of us were the ones doing the actual work. We get to sit here and watch, and if you don’t want to watch then that’s your choice, click on something else. Tagging things helps as well as hurts too.
          Like if a chocolate cake says vegan on it people are less likely to choose it because the large opinion is that it won’t taste as good when really it just tastes like chocolate cake but you’d never know because you let a preconceived notion of what vegan (meaning the hypothetical ‘clipless’ or ‘clipped’ tag on Doug’s future videos) chocolate cake tastes like.

          • It’s not a big issue, but page views seem to equal likes, and since i’m not interested at all in this kind of reviews I’d rather not be part of that.

    • First to comment = last to get laid.

    • Hey, when did this feud start up??!!?! I was feuding first!!


    • MidnightScreeningsman2014

      Pretty good review granted not as good as the other musical reviews bit still a pretty good review and heck I lost what I was gonna say. Eh until next time I suppose

    • Nobody wants Vessel,it doesn’t play on as many devices as even obscure video players,and we can get opinions for free constantly,it’s the internet

    • Excellent work from everyone involved and one of the best NC’s this year. I didn’t find it as good as the Moulin Rouge review since I’m unfamiliar with Phantom of the Opera, but excellent review nonetheless.

      Since I don’t know anything about Phantom of the Opera, the sketches and songs were the real saving grace of this video and I almost didn’t care about any of the movie plot explanation and stuff like that. I just wanted to see everyone act and sing and you guys delivered.

      Great job Doug and co, and Shark Jumping!

      Chester’s not dead, is he?

  2. supersmashbro596

    dammit another clipless review….
    i love your work doug but these are probably your second weakest videos. next to the game “reviews”

    • kirbystarwarrior

      Personally, I feel that the only bad game review he did was Bart’s Nightmare. His Dragon’s Lair, Blues Brothers, and especially Bebe’s Kids reviews were pretty good.

    • The clipless reviews I’ve seen haven’t really been weak at all. You do realize you not liking it doesn’t equal weak, right?

      • No, one person not liking it does not equal weak, but, if you have been here, say, the past few months, you may have noted that there is a sizable backlash against the skit reviews. It’s not one person.

        • Two minimum! (me included)

        • I for one happen to appreciate the effort that goes into them. It takes more creativity than sitting behind a desk bashing a film. I mean I like that as well, but I am by no means against a clipless review. I only get agitated when the film is still in theaters like Fury Road was and I hadn’t seen it yet so I couldn’t watch his review. Sadly I STILL haven’t seen that or the review…

        • Acetylsalicilique

          It’s the internet. If it’s new, there’s a backlash against it.

    • I think this one kind of worked, seeing as how his musical reviews are more centered on the musical numbers he puts on rather than the clips of the movie.

  3. Eeeee, I am excited! 😀

  4. Woo hoo! We haven’t had a big musical review in such a long time. (Or at least it feels like it)

  5. I wonder if they got the situation on YouTube sorted out for this video.

    • I think it’s obvious they didn’t. They don’t use any copyrighted footage, and they even say that they’re not going to because of how brutal copyright claims still are. if the situation had been sorted out, I would LIKE to assume that they would have used clips like normal, (like how the format of review that the world has come know as a “Nostalgia Critic” review is SUPPOSED to work).

      • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

        Hes talking about something else. Channel Awesome uploaded it privately to YouTube last week. The video uses all original music but it still managed to get a fraudulent copyright claim from a company uninvolved with the film. The claim only got released today.

  6. …Well crap. I have a problem or two with this review sadly. Frankly, this is one of the weaker acted out reviews (I’m sure there’s a real term for reviews where you show no clips from the movie, but I can’t remember it.) Jurassic World, Mad Max Fury Road, Pixels, and Star Wars the Force Awakens were all great, but this reminds me more of Hocus Pocus, where I just don’t feel comfortable recommending it to friends who I know haven’t seen the movie.

    The other problems is, well, I agree with Paw. I like this movie…well, most of it. I wouldn’t call it a guilty pleasure, but I acknowledge that it has a lot of problems. I’m not nearly blind enough to think Gerard Butler is a good singer, but I honestly think Emmy Rossum hits it out of the park.

    • i think the acting was supposed to be bad to show how bad it was in the movie

      • That’s just honestly stupid. If you want to show how bad the acting is and you can’t use the clips, then just don’t bother even bringing up the bad acting! It’s like complaining about a song being bad by trying to re-sing the song on your own, it just doesn’t make sense.

  7. Oh for fuck’s sake another clipless review.
    I don’t give two fucking shit about the copyright problems this is not the solution love you something else with not as heavy copyright until the copyright problem isn’t as big

    • MidnightScreeningsman2014

      The copyright shit isint that big on them as it was say when they started this wheres the fair use trend so don’t talk do much about that being the problem

    • So you want them to stop doing videos until the copyright problem magically disappears? Because unless he starts reviewing public domain movies it’s all going to have copyright.

      • We just had SEVERAL reviews using footage before this video. Don’t act like “Oh, this is the only thing they could possibly do right now to review movies”, that’s a bullshit excuse and everyone knows it since the evidence is literally RIGHT in their faces!

        • There have been standard, clip-heavy reviews, but, in cases like this movie and like, Hocus Pocus, both are made by lawsuit-happy production studios well known for abusing the copyright flag system.

          • Then just don’t review movies like this one and Hocus Pocus. This honestly isn’t a huge problem for him to deal with, Doug is the one who personally dictates what he does and doesn’t review, so just put them on the “Do Not NC Review” list and go for something else because there’s plenty of films out there with stuff to make fun of that he could do just as easily without having this issue.

        • Do you pay for these? I mean I don’t. I know Doug Walker gets paid through YouTube and whichever website is hosting his videos, but I know as far as I go, these are free. He doesn’t HAVE to do anything, for anyone. You don’t want to watch it? Then don’t. It took me only about 2 minutes to find out it was going to be a clipless review, and still I watched it because honestly they probably take even more effort on the creators part. This world we live in where people feel the need to bitch about something FREE is crazy to me. So you didn’t like it, at least you didn’t pay $10 at the movies.

      • I said not as heavy copyright.
        Cats and dogs
        Lady In the water
        The happening
        All had clips from the movie

  8. Curiously enough, Roger Ebert gave this movie 3 out of 4.

    • anonexistentuser

      The thing to keep in mind about Ebert is that he was largely a fan (“fan” isn’t the right word, but close enough) of visuals; he gave “Phantom Menace” 3.5/4, saying “Unlike many movies, [the “Star Wars” movies] are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled ‘The Phantom Menace’ with wonderful visuals”, “mostly I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen”, and “I’ve seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They’re called “Star Trek” movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day”. This all is despite the fact that if you took his (two-star) review of “Attack of the Clones” and swapped out that title with “Phantom Menace”, most people would probably think he was talking about Episode I.

      • Snorgatch Pandalume

        Oh no, Ebert LIKED Phantom Menace, so that immediately renders his opinions about anything and everything stupid, because NOBODY can like Phantom Menace, even if they provide a perfectly valid reason for doing so, like it’s a VISUALLY spectacular movie, and film is a VISUAL medium. NO, NO, NO, WE ALL MUST HATE ON PHANTOM MENACE BECAUSE DOUG AND ALL THE OTHER WHINY LITTLE SW FANBOYS DO! CONFORM! CONFORM! BAA! BAA!
        Seriously, I have had it with Doug and everyone else bashing Phantom Menace. It’s gotten so old that doing it now is just plain lazy. Phantom Menace is not a great movie–it’s not even a great Star Wars movie–but it does deliver amazing visuals, and that’s what I watch Star Wars movies for. It sure as hell isn’t for the dialogue or acting, which were pretty dreadful in ALL of them (yes, that includes the original trilogy). Watch Attack of the Clones (arguably the worst of the series) with the sound turned off, and that movie rocks.

        • First off, film is visual and audible, a movie isn’t an art gallery. Even silent films had music playing with the movie that usually helped provide tone to it. Second I don’t think anonexistentuser was saying We can’t trust Ebert because he liked Phantom Menace and he’s an idiot, I think he was making the case that similar to TPM, Phantom of the Opera was big on visuals as well. so he would lean more towards liking it. Even in this review, NC says the cinematography is well done, those aren’t the parts he’s critiquing. Nobody was hating on Ebert, or anyone who liked TPM, just because.
          And last, if you have to watch a film with the sound off to enjoy it, its not a good film. Its just pretty pictures.

          • anonexistentuser

            Thank you, Erick, you nailed my point perfectly.

            For another example of Ebert’s seemingly all-overwriting love of visuals, see his 3* review of “The Haunting”.


  10. Well, I did certainly enjoy this review… but man I wish you could’ve used the clips, said ‘screw youtube’ just this once and leave it off there, using the film footage in the Vessel version. Some of the critiques didn’t make sense to me since I’ve never seen any variation of this story, so I have no idea what’s being satirised specifically sometimes without a point of reference.

    Ahh well… like I said, it was still enjoyable, and you got a better balance of original parody recreation to critique of the film than, say, the Hocus Pocus one, and I think you got across the gist most of the time.

    Good work, even if I prefer clipped reviews over clipless.

  11. The only film versions of Phantom of the Opera I ever saw are the 1925 silent film, and the 1943 colored film. I was also shoced to learn that this movie was directed by Joel “a Bat credit card” Schumacher.

    • “Let’s just throw in the guy from 300.” …Uh, last I checked, this movie was made BEFORE 300.

      Damn, Beth is an awesome singer. I mean this is Susanna Foster as Christine DuBois in the 1943 movie good.

      Schumacher casted Gerard Butler, because of his role in Dracula 2000? …And we though he learned his lesson after casting George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger as Batman and Mr. Freeze.

      I think I have a good operatic singing voice. I mean I use it whenever I hear Bohemian Rhapsody on the radio.

      I’ve actually heard of the sequel to Phantom of the Opera. I even heard they made a sequel to the 1943 film called The Climax, but the finished film had nothing to do with it.

      I think Michael Crawford’s Phantom should have had more RRRRRHEUMATISM!

      Nice crossover, guys. Yet another great musical review.

  12. Liked the review… though it’s probably the weakest of the musical trilogy – with Moulin Rogue and Les Mis.

    No Brentalfloss?

  13. I do wanna point out that your Michael Crawford impression is amazingly spot-on X’D

  14. ….alright, that’s enough. watched ten minutes of this to try and give it a fair chance. the verdict? didn’t laugh once. this was boring, uninteresting, and since I’ve never seen the movie OR the play, OR read the book that apparently exists of this, this was also confusing. half the time I had no idea what they were even talking about, or for that matter WHO was even talking. who’s Shark Jumping? and why am I forced top watch them when I’m pretty sure I meant to click on a Nostalgia Critic review.

    look, I get it, this copyright youtube claim bullshit is making you not want to show any copy righted material. but isn’t giving into that fear kinda letting them win? you’re agreeing to play by the abusive broken fair use system of youtube’s terms by just surrendering your right to use copyrighted footage. whatever happened to #WTFU? I know you don’t have a lot of options, but these stupid sketches that barely even make sense half the time, or practically require people to have already seen the original film themselves are not working. I am now, at this moment in time, more entertained by and looking forward to your Steven Universe Vlogs than I am the Nostalgia Critic. and that’s not a good thing. I really hate to say it, but if you guys are so scared of copyright claims, maybe NOW would be the better time to think about retiring the Nostalgia Critic. I agree that the last time you tired to do it, you weren’t actually done yet, you just burned yourself out and needed some time to recharge, but now…..well, you seemed to have already retired the Nostalgia Critic. Because these lame wannabe-SNL Demo Reel leftover videos you seem to keep doing on average at least once a month, these are NOT the Nostalgia Critic. so just retire that name and make another show where all you do is make fun of movies and actors by doing nothing but dressing up in silly costumes and dancing around in front of a green screen the whole time. because that’s basically what you’re already doing.

    • MidnightScreeningsman2014

      To be fair I’m not really a big of a fan of these clipless reviews+granted I still like’em) but at least he took a three month break before doing one of these and if that keeps up I’m not gonna mind every 3 months having an NC clipless review

    • Isn’t suggesting that he keep doing the same thing he was before resulting in YouTube taking down the videos due to copyright issues in the vain hope that it will magically change things really fucking stupid? After all I’m pretty sure the way this works is “more views = more money.” Thus if the video is taken down for copyright issues he doesn’t make any money.

      • They’re already not making money off of their youtube channel and all these clipless reviews are doing is costing them much more money and time to film while alienating a notable chunk of their audience that does NOT like this new format. I’d call THAT pretty stupid, honestly.

    • Honestly, I’m not a big fan of Shark Jumping, and yes, I’ve watched two of their reviews.

    • umm…you do know these clipless reviews are big hits right? Jurassic World is still one of the most watched reviews and also one of my favourite Nostalgia Critic episodes. Yes I didn’t care much for this review, mainly because I am not a fan of musicals like the Moulin Rouge review and…I forgot what the other one was. Keep in mind, he has a budget now and needs to adapt to times. He can’t keep making money of him talking in the camera in the basement and posting it like everybody else does, hell even I can do that! You gotta understand that this is his job. These clipless reviews don’t come out that often, so I am sure you can try to handle it every now and then or not watch it at all. I really enjoy these, especially the Force Awakens, Mad Max, Jurassic World and so on.

      • But talking to a camera in a basement is what he does best. I go to the critic when I want to see a strangely dressed man over react at a bad movie for thrty minutes, and while these clipless reveiws can be fun, they need extra effort to be as good as a regular reveiw, and the pacing of the skits just is not quick enough to keep up with his humor. The Mad Max reveiw is one of my favorites, but extra effort is needed, effort not demonstrated in these recent clipless reviews.

    • then watch the damn movie.

    • Did you watch any of the Fair Use videos they made on this site? I didn’t know about the situation, but I watched most of the creators videos about it. It sounds like if he just says “damn the rules” as you say he should, he could be forced at some point to stop posting videos entirely. Now he puts a lot of effort into these, as I discovered after watching some behind the scenes and one video on how they actually make a…video. It would appear this is his primary source of income. So while the Fair Use deal on YouTube is lame, and while they should continue to fight it, as it seems to stand now they HAVE to follow the rules, or risk losing pretty much everything, as YouTube seems to be ALMOST a monopoly on the situation, at least as much so as its not worth going exclusive to another host website.


    I haven’t even seen the movie or the musical for that matter, so I can’t really understand what’s going on here

  16. At first I was kind of disappointed that this would be another clipless review, especially since you went quite a while without one this time, but on the other hand, I really enjoyed this one. You actually did mention a lot of things wrong with the film and, yeah, the musical numbers were great, arguably the best I’ve seen from one of these reviews. I still think you should make an original musical for an anniversary special as you guys have the talent for it. (And not as your Internet personas, but as your own characters. And if possible, maybe write 100% original songs instead of parodies of already existing songs. I know that’s asking a lot, but still, I honestly believe you guys could pull it off)

  17. Here’s the thing, I’m reasonably versed in musicals, I’ve even performed in several throughout HS an college, and I really don’t get the hate towards Phantom and its music nowadays. I won’t go so far as to say it’s “flawless,” but the melodies are gorgeous, the emotion shines through, and the “repetitiveness” is done creatively to showcase different elements of the emotions being portrayed. I know it’s probably not everyone’s cup of tea, but I think it’s unfair to suddenly jump on a bandwagon of “oh, I hate it now because a whole bunch of people hate it now.” Literally, I feel like that’s happening with lots of productions on stage and screen.

    Maybe I’m just a sucker for my childhood favorites, but I think Phantom (musical, not movie….it’s crap), really gets a lot more flack nowadays than it deserves.


    I think the scariest thing is Bulter actually sing great in How To Train Your Dragon 2.

  19. He should go back to doing Nostalgia reviews of ’80s & ’90s movies.
    There are still plenty of good ones which he hasn’t reviewed.
    Like “Batteries Not Included”.
    Or “Crocodile Dundee”.

  20. Alright I’ve been waiting a week to ask this question ever since I saw the review, but just who are those characters in the beginning who apparently bought all the color? I just don’t recognize them and would love to know. Could someone please tell me? I’d be ever so grateful.

  21. Does this mean you are not doing any more Bum Reviews?

  22. behonest…they did sing really good in the review. also i did like the green screen effect

  23. Amazingly the book had a horse in the tunnels, too, and it was actually explained quite well. The Opera has stables attached and horses are sometimes included in performances, so the Phantom snatched one of those. And the actual trip through the winding catacombs was so long that there was a marginal need for one, too, especially since the Phantom wanted the whole thing to come off as surreal and magical.

    • I think the house on the lake was also A.) significantly larger and B.) more like an actual fucking house, so as to accommodate things like torture chambers. I imagine the movie version’s torture consists mostly of, “into the sewer water you go!”
      Also why, why, /why the fuck are the modern adaptions whiter than the book?/ The character they couldn’t force whiteness onto was cut out entirely (regardless of being a much needed check on Erik) and half blended into /another/ character who probably wasn’t supposed to be white (and if my memory serves could’ve even been cast as black) but was cast as white anyway, and this is more dubious, I don’t remember a lot of Erik’s book backstory, but I’m remembering him as Rromani? Just. What the hell.

  24. Victoria Heckman

    Funny enough, I knew of the original novel when I was only a kid, via an episode of “Wishbone”. (Anyone else here who watched that show?) And this was before I knew there was even a musical. I am not kidding, I was just that sheltered and cut off from most popular culture.

    Having recently watched one of the stage versions of Phantom, I’m glad to see this review.
    Aside from wanting to sing along with the song parodies, adaptations are always fun to look at because it’s interesting to see where the plot-holes might have sometimes originated from the source material.

  25. Look, I think a lot of people here have never seen the movie, let alone watched the actual musical.
    So forcing a clipless review on something most people don’t have a grasp on is stretching it.
    And while there are some genuinely good jokes in here, the overall review falls flat because a lack of knowledge of what occurs in the movie/musical.
    I wish I could’ve enjoyed this more, but I ended up pushing the fast-forward button a lot and ended the review unsatisfied. Not the desired effect, I suppose.

  26. Well this was underwhelming.
    It feels more like this movie is being shitted on just for the sake of it being a Shumacher film rather than being ”bad” on it’s own.
    I’m also getting kinda tired of all these crossover videos. They almost never have any point aside from working as a advertisement for the other reviewers. The only exception being the Man of steel review since Joe’s commentary actually added to the review since he had a different point of view.

  27. Ok that horse NEEDS to become a regular character.

  28. Ohh god…. Jeez, Doug! Another clipless review!??! I get that copywrite sucks and this is a film you want to do, but come on! There’s so many other reviews you could do on older movies without that issue. Jus- REALLY??? Freaking really????? At least put “clipless review” in the title so I know not to even bother getting excited about the episode next time.

  29. Oh Seriously Doug, fuck you! When are you gonna get it through your head almost nobody likes these clipless reviews except for you? SKIP!

    • He doesn’t have a choice. Webber would sue him.

      • Nobody FORCED Doug to review Phantom of the Opera, he specifically chose to do it fully knowing that he would have to do it like this while completely ignoring the fact that a large group of his viewerbase don’t like these clipless reviews and are pretty vocal about not liking clipless reviews.

        There honestly is no real excuse at this point, this is like the 4th or 5th clipless review he’s done or something so he would have to be aware of this viewpoint and we KNOW he’s aware of the legal problems because he makes it in the video before he REVEALS that it’s going to be a clipless review, so Doug’s pretty much brought any hatred or bad feelings from this purely on himself.

        • 6th, actually. I was actually getting my hopes up that after 3 uninterrupted months of no clipless reviews, he’d finally leave them to a minimum at least. Guess I’ll just have to skim through the comments with EVERY video to find out if it has clips or not if Doug is insistent on tricking us into watching this shit. I know I said that I wasn’t going to complain about these types of reviews anymore, but I at least would like a heads-up BEFORE I click on the video.

          • ThatManWithTheHeadband12

            Or you can watch the videos and like them because you’re definitely not going to get any special treatment

    • Probably about the same time as the same half dozen self-righteous whiners realize that “loud minority =/= ‘everybody.'”

    • Don’t try to be “everyone’s” voice, since there are quite a bit of people who do enjoy these type of reviews.

      Plus, unless YOU know of an answer that won’t get a copyright strike AT ALL on YouTube, he has to pull reviews like these since so many companies are getting more and more trigger happy for issuing take downs and more.

      Let’s see your answer for this situation, otherwise, clam it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.