I am going to defend MauLer in this thread. There are a lot of complaints MauLer receives. I am going to debunk the most common ones.

1. Long-Man Bad!!!

This complaint irritates me the most. Okay. A lot of people hate MauLer because he makes really long reviews or podcasts about movies he thinks are bad. Sorry but this is a terrible complaint.

Making long reviews or having long film discussions isn’t bad. Matter of fact, I would say the opposite. I think it’s great. Most of the popular YouTube reviews just make 5-10 minute short videos without bothering to explain their perspective.

Chris Stuckmann (one of the worst reviewers on YouTube imo) is a perfect example of this. Unlike those popular reviewers, MauLer actually takes the time to analyze a film in depth and discuss what works and what doesn’t work.

As a film fan, I am a huge fan of this style. If you know me well, you know that I despise writing short reviews. I only review a film on Letterboxd only if I know what exactly I want to say and if I am able to write about it in detail.

As for film discussions, I have a lot of lengthy film discussions with a good friend of mine. Sometimes, it can range from 30 minutes to 5 hours.

Also, I’ve noticed that people are only complaining about his long reviews because he doesn’t validate their opinions on films they like. The most common example would be the Sequel Trilogy.

Here’s how I know this. I made an over 10 page positive review TLJ and an over 10 page negative review of TROS. When I wrote my TLJ, they praised me for writing great reviews. However, when I shared my TROS, they hated it and a few actually mocked me for it.

Saying a movie “is good because I like” and “is bad because I hate” is not reviewing or discussing a film. Film reviews and film discussion require depth, and MauLer is one of the very few YouTube reviewers to get that right.

2. Shut Up About Plot holes!!!

Many people hate MauLer because he criticizes films for plot holes, plot conveniences, bad world building, or anything related to logical inconsistencies. They accuse him of nitpicking.

This is going to offend so many people but I don’t care. Logical consistency matters in film. It’s part of good writing. Good writing is a skill. A writer should be able to progress the plot and story that flows naturally.

A script should not rely on plot holes and plot conveniences to move the plot and story along. Regardless if you think film quality is objective or subjective, plot holes and plot conveniences are never a good thing.

If a movie relies on plot holes and plot conveniences and a reviewer criticizes it for it, that criticism is 100% valid. Even if you think the characters, storytelling, and themes are great, if a film has plot holes and plot conveniences, then that is a flaw worth addressing.

3. MauLer Harasses People

On some of MauLer’s podcasts, MauLer sometimes analyzes and critiques a person’s review or arguments. MauLer is most known for criticizing Jenny Nicholson and Cosmonaut Variety Hour (who are both really terrible movie reviewers btw).

I’m sorry but this is not harassment. This is valid criticism. Reviewers should strive to be good at analyzing film. Instead of getting offended and accusing MauLer of harassing them, Jenny Nicholson and Cosmonaut Variety Hour should learn from MauLer and strive to get better.

4. Objective Man

Many people who hate MauLer completely misunderstand how he analyzes film. When MauLer says a film is “objectively good” or “objectively bad”, they think MauLer believes he think he has the right opinion and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

No. This is not true. MauLer tries to analyze a film’s writing and filmmaking from an unbiased perspective. He tries to look at a film for what it is without emotional attachment or extrapolation.

When he says a film is “objectively good”, he thinks it is well written and well made on its own. When he says a film is “objectively bad”, he thinks it is badly written and badly made on its own. He makes strong cases for by providing detailed explanations.

Just because MauLer is saying a film is “objectively good” or “objectively bad”, he is not saying he’s right and you’re wrong if you disagree with him. Matter of fact, MauLer himself doesn’t want you to copy his film takes or the way he analyzes film.

In fact, MauLer wants you to think for yourself. MauLer is completely okay with people disagreeing with him. Matter of fact, he invites civil discussion and wants to understand other people’s perspective. You are allowed to think that film quality is subjective.

You are allowed to disagree with him on a film. The way he analyzes film and his film takes are not an attack on your films.

5. MauLer is Awesome

I used to hate MauLer. After I got to know him, now I love him. I disagree with the way he analyzes film and plenty of his film takes but MauLer is a fantastic reviewer and easily the best reviewer on YouTube.

MauLer is not toxic. He genuinely wants the best for cinema and for film reviewing. MauLer makes long reviews and criticizes certain films not because he wants attack to the filmmakers but because he wants them to learn and become better.

MauLer criticizes reviewer like Jenny Nicholson and Cosmonaut Variety Hour not because he wants to attack but because he wants to challenge their perspective and wants them to become better at analyzing film.

People like MauLer give me hope for the film community and for film as an art form. I think he will have a positive impact on cinema and film reviewing if people are willing to open minded and listen to him. MauLer is smart and there is so much to learn from him.

The MauLer haters finally showed up. They are trying to cancel me. I will not let them silence. I will voice my honest opinions. MauLer is great and people should learn from him.