Why Devin Faraci is Unfit to Practice Journalism

I am generally quite supportive of fledgling cultural sites, both high and low. And it was with this spirit in mind that I took a quick peek at Badass Digest, a new venture run by the Alamo Drafthouse (a venue I wholeheartedly appreciate) and edited by a man named Devin Faraci, whom I now understand to be in the habit of berating people when he can’t get his way. I was unaware of Faraci’s history when I stumbled upon this erroneous report, claiming that director John Carpenter had “suffered a seizure at Florida’s Spooky Empire convention on Saturday October the 8th.” As someone who hopes that John Carpenter lives long enough to turn out a few more films, I was greatly concerned by this apparent “news.”

The problem was that Dread Central, the site that had initially reported this false rumor, got its news wrong. After someone named “Uncle Creepy” has posted the item, Carpenter’s wife had contacted Dread Central, informing the site that Carpenter did not have a seizure in Orlando and that he had collapsed from exhaustion. Dread Central had the decency to include this update (even if it did not change its misleading headline).

Badass Digest’s Devin Faraci didn’t change his headline either. Indeed, even at the onset, Faraci preferred reveling in the news with his tasteless headline, “Okay, Who Showed John Carpenter Rob Zombie’s HALLOWEEN?” (Never mind that, as interviews with both Rob Zombie and John Carpenter demonstrate, Carpenter urged Rob Zombie to make the film his own. One commenter in the thread would later point this out.)

I left this perfectly reasonable comment:

John Carpenter did not suffer a seizure. According to his wife, Carpenter had a flu and was exhausted. Dread Central updated its post. Please try doing some actual reporting (what real badasses do) rather than spreading misinformation like a common amateur.

Faraci responded in the comments:

Hi Ed. Rather than commenting like a common moron, maybe you could have noticed that this article was published on October 11th, before Dread Central updated its post. Yes, Ed, I was publishing content here before it was public. How embarrassing for you to be calling someone else out on an error when you’re in fact completely wrong. Or do you pick up copies of the New York Times from 2007 and become enraged that they refer to President Bush?

Ed, I hope you deal with the personal problems that would lead you to comb through a newly launched blog in an effort to deliver a correction. Or you can get fucked, whichever suits you best.

Never mind that I had observed in my comment that Dread Central had updated its post. I was aware that this was an October 11, 2010 item. But, on October 22, 2010, the item had not corrected the misinformation.

Indeed, as of today, the post still falsely states that Carpenter was “suffering a seizure.”

Why is this important? Well, let’s frame this as a crass thought experiment. Let us suppose that I am the “common moron” that Faraci suggests me to be. As a common moron, I am too busy to look up from my laptop to see that Faraci’s father is being raped with a night stick. Dread Central has reported that Faraci’s father is merely being kissed by another man. There is tangible experience before me that will help me to get a better handle on the story, if not aid the victim — namely, that Faraci’s father is screaming for help. But under the Faraci School, I must not believe anything else but a single source on my computer.

Just as there is a difference between “seizure” and “flu,” there is also a pivotal distinction between “raped” and “kissed.” Faraci’s father, in addition to recovering from a vicious rape that the insensitive “common moron” has failed to report properly (let alone assist in stopping), now has to spend a good deal of time attempting to clear up the misinformation that the alleged journalist has helped to promulgate.

Yet this is precisely the line of reasoning that Faraci promulgated in relation to John Carpenter. Had Faraci been an actual journalist, he would have picked up the phone. He would have called Carpenter’s people. He would have called the Spooky Empire convention. He would have contacted the hotel. He would have enlisted social networks to fish for eyewitness confirmation. He would have called the hospital. He would have talked to a doctor. In short, Faraci would have conducted actual reporting. Confirmation of rumors before reporting them.

All this would have made Faraci a journalist instead of some amateurish hack junketeer who screams at publicists like a petulant infant when isn’t given his rattle and who tells anybody calling out his slipshod standards to get fucked.

Rather than tell Faraci to get fucked, I have attempted to frame his incompetence through a crude patois he might understand. Let me attempt a more dignified approach.

Getting the details right are important. If you don’t believe this to be the case, then your blog — whether newly launched or well established — simply has no right to exist. You have no right to call yourself a news site. You have no right to be taken seriously by anyone.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t comb through Faraci’s site to find the Carpenter error. I stumbled upon it after devoting perhaps 30 seconds of my time to the site. But I think I will take up Faraci’s suggestion in an effort to demonstrate why he is unfit to practice journalism and why Badass Digest is deserving of either death or serious improvement (perhaps through a more capable employee than the incompetent Faraci).

Beyond the ignoble Carpenter gaffe, the real question here is just how much misinformation Devin Faraci can spread in one day. The unsurprising answer — based on going through a random day at Badass Digest (October 22) — is a quite considerable tally.

Adam Green post: Faraci erroneously refers to Hatchet II (Roman numeral) as Hatchet 2.

Green Lantern report: Faraci describes the forthcoming Green Lantern as “the most cosmic superhero movie ever,” proceeding to note that its “scope is so big it spans from the West Coast of the US to a planet at the center of the galaxy.” Aside from the needless hyperbole (which comes, apparently bought and purchased by studios, after Faraci had “visit[ed] the New Orleans set of the film”), if Faraci actually knew what the word “cosmic” meant, he’d understand that its extraterrestrial definition stands in sharp contrast to the earth itself, and that his vapid praise extends to misunderstanding the very modifier in question. But then Faraci is a guy so naive and unquestioning that he sees “life-sized cardboard cut outs of Tomar-Re and Kilowogg, the alien GLs who help train Hal Jordan,” and it never occurs to this incompetent that these cutouts might be red herrings to throw junketeers off. Has Faraci read the script? Has he talked with the director about this issue to get confirmation of Tomar-Re and Kilowogg’s appearances? He has not. But he has talked with the director, although not about any of the information he purports to be true (whether any of his hunches will prove to be the basis for the later report Faraci tends to file is a mystery, but his unwillingness to impart even one quote in support of his assertion should demonstrate his unquestionable indolence). Yet he is more happy to impart that “there was a Sinestro-themed cake for [Mark Strong] at lunch.” Journalism’s just desserts!

It also doesn’t occur to this profoundly naive man that he might have been invited to attend the set precisely because he had expressed his disappointment with footage at Comic Con 2010.

Faraci states that he got “the impression that Johns – the guy who has been writing Green Lantern’s comic book adventures for the past couple of years – was incredibly influential on the tone and direction of the movie.” But he never actually interviews Johns, who is standing right there, or anybody else to confirm that Johns’s Secret Origins storyline was part of the Green Lantern movie. In other words, Faraci is your typical rube taken in by flash and filigree. The writing equivalent of a baby elephant who jumps on his forelegs whenever he sees a bag of peanuts. The dog trained to salivate by Pavlov. One goes to Comic-Con to encounter dweebs like this. That they would believe themselves to be journalists merely by standing within five feet of a notable figure reveals the lax standards of present cultural journalism.

Of course, since “this isn’t the full report,” Faraci “can’t tell you too much.” Which begs the question of why he’s even bothered to file this piece in the first place. Journalism shouldn’t contain secrets. It should contain answers to questions. Quotes. Information that nobody else has. Confirmation of information. We get nothing even close to rudimentary journalism in Faraci’s blog post. But he’s happy to impart some “incredible concept art” that was given to him by the studio, urging his readership to “put this stuff on the side of a van” rather than parse it. Faraci, the used car salesman in action.

Over the Top toy story: Faraci’s lede: “Remember when Sylvester Stallone’s arm wrestling opus Over the Top changed the world for professional arm wrestlers everywhere? Probably not. In fact, if you think about cinematic arm wrestling at all you probably think about The Fly, which came out the year before, and had Jeff Goldblum snapping a fellow’s armbone [sic] through his skin during a heated bar match.” An “armbone,” eh? Is it the humerus? The forearm? Aside from the wretched prose, one is stunned that Faraci would be incapable of being more specific bout what is snapped — particularly since Brundlefly snaps his opponent’s wrist.

This lede offers some clues as to Faraci’s motivations. Here we have an aging man motivated by cinematic nostalgia, circa 1986 and 1987, that most adults have forgotten. (This pathetic nostalgia is also in place when Faraci appraises Black Francis as “one cool guy.”) Indeed, the nostalgia is so contagious that Faraci has only an approximate idea of what he’s seen rather than a working knowledge of it. Then again, this is the same misogynist who writes, “So what did you think of Paranormal Activity 2? Were Katie’s boobs as good as the first?” It is unclear whether Faraci is referring to the actress Katie Featherston or her character. One gets the discomfiting sense that this boob-hunting boob is probably referring to the former. As Joanne McNeil suggested back in September, “If you do something sexist, I think you are as dumb as the creationists. In some cases maybe even dumber.” (And Faraci says that I’m the one with personal problems.)

Faraci is indeed dumb as come. And that stupidity extends to more hypocrisy one post earlier when Faraci points to a double standard (indeed, the one that so many other journalists had brought up earlier in the day) between Mel Gibson being sacked from The Hangover 2 and Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist, appearing in The Hangover without a problem. How can a man, whose primary reason for seeing a horror film is to see if “Katie’s boobs [were] as good as the first,” even attempt to comment on such a moral issue? Faraci even closes his “editorial” by writing, “We love art and entertainment, not gossip and bullshit.”

“Were Katie’s boobs as good as the first?” The Green Lantern report laden with gossip and bullshit? Faraci’s feeble statement couldn’t be anything further from the truth.

Rabbit Hole trailer: “What else is it about? I don’t really want to know; all I need to know is that my buddy Scott Weinberg is quoted on the trailer giving effusive praise. And he’s a horror guy!”

More worthless speculation. Not only does Faraci announce how incurious and lazy he is in finding out more about the movie (“I don’t really want to know”), but the man is relying on a blurb from a suspicious review, in which Weinberg claims Rabbit Hole to be “flawless” and “quite simply, one of the best films I’ve ever seen at a festival.” Such over-the-top praise, coming from either a friend or a stranger, should make any real journalist suspicious. But Faraci, as has been clear all along, isn’t even a real writer. His puny excuse for a mind can’t even perform the most basic investigative inquiry, even if you pushed a pistol into his temple. His writing appears to have been purchased, whether by blind loyalty to a friend or blind loyalty to a studio. He doesn’t have the courtesy to link to Weinberg’s review to provide his audience with context. He doesn’t link to other reviews that might cast the film in a different light. Devin Faraci is no different from a hypnotized conformist staring into the camera, saying, “I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I’m going to see it again and again.”

Faraci also incorrectly italicizes Pulitzer. He refers to the Toronto International Film Festival as the “Toronto Film Festival.”

Spielberg a badass? If Faraci is seriously claiming Steven Spielberg, one of the most mainstream directors, to be capable of delivering “badass sci-fi,” then he clearly has no taste — particularly if he’s holding up War of the Worlds — a movie as safe as a turkey dinner — as a “badass” film.” (He makes no mention of Minority Report, which would arguably be more closer film to “badass” territory. This may be because, while Faraci apparently longs for 1980s nostalgia, his memory is worthless for any film in between what is instantaneously released and the movies he barely remembers from his wasted youth.) With typical illiteracy, Faraci doesn’t even mention Daniel H. Wilson’s name. Wilson is merely “the dude who wrote How to Survive a Robot Uprising, one of those 150 page, double spaced impulse buy novelty books that make people rich while you still work in a cubicle.” On the contrary, Wilson was a doctoral candidate at Carnegie Mellon’s Robotics Institute when he wrote the book. I’m also curious how someone can be an “ex-Buffy alum.” To my knowledge, Drew Goodard hasn’t renounced the widely regarded program which helped to kickstart his writing career. An alumni is a former member of an association. So Drew Goodard is merely a Buffy alum. Devin Faraci again demonstrates how little he comprehends the words he uses. He throws words around like a sad drunk walking into the kitchen and claims to be a culinary expert simply by recklessly swinging a hatchet.

The Spider-Man WTC poster: Once again, Faraci lets sensationalism preside over the facts. This time, he gets several facts wrong about a Spider-Man poster recall. The poster, issued before 9/11, featuring the World Trade Center reflected in Spidey’s eyes. On September 12, 2001 (not September 13, as Faraci claims), Sony issued a letter to theaters, asking:

Due to the devastating events that took place yesterday and out of respect for those involved, Sony Pictures Entertainment is requesting that all Spider-Man teaser posters and trailers be taken down and returned to the studio.

There is nothing in this statement to indicate that Sony wanted these posters to be destroyed, as Faraci suggests. But then what else can you expect from a man who uses the phrase “expense trailer?”

* * *

All of the above occurred during a 24 hour period. I shudder to think how many additional embarrassments I could find, should I decide to waste my life poring through this sad excuse for a website any longer. In one day, Faraci managed to misinform his readers, mangle the English language, fudge the facts, express casual misogyny, wiggle his sycophantic tongue in response to information he didn’t bother to investigate, get movie titles wrong, encourage his readers to blindly consume concept art that a studio fed him, wallow in nostalgia, and epitomize conformist opportunism at nearly every moment.

On August 19, 1896, when Adolph S. Ochs began to manage the New York Times, he published this announcement:

It will be my earnest aim that The New York Times give the news, all the news, in concise and attractive form, in language that is permissible in good society, and give it as early if not earlier, than it can be learned through any other reliable medium; to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interest involved; to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.

It is clear by the evidence that Devin Faraci is not only unwilling, but incapable of living by anything close to this credo. Here is a man who does not have exclusives. He cannot deliver the news impartially. He laps up any half-truth from the studios, living in fear that he will be ejected from screenings and garnering favor so that he won’t (which gives him license to shriek at publicists). He is utterly incapable of considering questions of public importance and, most importantly, incapable of inviting intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.

Should Mr. Faraci decide to respond to the claims contained in this 3,000 word essay, and I certainly invite him to do so, it is doubtful that he will have much to offer beyond “you can get fucked.” And how does that make him any different from a common thug? How does such erratic behavior, such steadfast sloppiness, and such laughable entitlement make him any more qualified than some random guy plucked from a bar?

The answer is simple: By any standard, Devin Faraci is unfit to practice journalism in any form.

[UPDATE: An earlier version of this post, apparently loaded up from WordPress through a previous draft and not the correct one, misspelled Scott Weinberg’s name at one point as “Feinberg.” That error, noted by a reader, has been corrected. Additionally, Devin Faraci, despite the fact that he told me to “get fucked” on Badass Digest, has decided to ban me from commenting further on Badass Digest. He seems to think that I have started a fight with him or that I’m trying to drum up traffic. He is wrong on both counts. I don’t hate Mr. Faraci. I merely wish for him to examine what he is doing. But any kind of examination along those lines is outside his purview. Mr. Faraci has refused to respond to this article, claiming that I have mental problems and that this post is merely “an epic accounting of my typos.” He is wrong on both counts (again), but, to paraphrase Voltaire, I will defend his right to spout forth what he wishes. Unlike Mr. Faraci, I will let the readers make up their own minds about this article. And unlike Mr. Faraci, I will certainly not tell any commenter responding to this article to get fucked.]

[UPDATE 2: So I step away from the Internet for six hours to live my life, and I return home to find that Devin Faraci is accusing me of spamming his site. When, in fact, I haven’t visited it since he banned me. Again, Mr. Faraci demonstrates that he’s more interested in false accusations than pursuing facts, which continues to support my thesis that he is unfit to practice journalism.]


  1. “He doesn’t have the courtesy to link to Feinberg’s review to provide his audience with context.”


  2. There is nothing suspicious about Scott Weinberg’s review on Rabbit Hole regardless of his taste. Do a google search on Rabbit Hole and you will find critic falling over each other for the film.

    Why are you whining about it when you really don’t want to know anything about it.

    You are a moron of the highest order.

  3. Amy: I’ll ignore your ad hominem and simply ask you a question. You really believe that a review with the sentence “quite simply, one of the best films I’ve ever seen at a festival” isn’t suspicious? That hyperbolic praise shouldn’t be greeted with a grain of salt? I must assume that you’re a Ben Lyons fan.

  4. A few comments about your piece:

    1. I agree that as a rule, a “fuck off” response to a correction offered by a reader is disproportionate and unnecessary. As a person who has himself been corrected many times by readers, even if you think they’re wasting effort and energy leaving that comment, it’s better to make the correction, and if you feel it necessary, acknowledge it and move on.

    2. Nevertheless it does your screed a disservice to catalogue Devin’s typographical errors or mistakes, especially when you include supposedly damning examples as his exclusion of the word “International” when referring to TIFF. It seems petty and small-minded to draw the conclusion that Devin is “unfit to practice journalism” with this sort of evidence.

    3. You may have personal reservations about the use of superlatives or praise that would conventionally be considered effusive, but Scott Weinberg’s credibility as a critic is above reproach. He purposefully does not conduct interviews or attend social functions at festivals or press events in order to maintain a professional distance from even the perception of a compromise of his integrity. But the question is not whether someone SHOULD say those sorts of things, it’s whether Weinberg believes it – and I believe that he does, just as he stands by the rest of his opinions in print.

    Furthermore, to presume that the use of superlatives means a critic’s taste is unreliable or untrustworthy is intellectually lazy, and quite frankly irresponsible of any reader who takes the medium of film criticism seriously. The only thing that matters is why a critic likes or does not like what he or she is discussing, and that means the reader is responsible for reading the entire review, not just the pull-quote that he volunteered or that was taken by a studio or publicist. Additionally, it does matter whether you agree with a critic on a regular basis, as in whether you feel his or her tastes sync up with your own, in which case that sort of hyperbole may mean it’s a must-see for some, a must-miss for others. But to rejoin a comment with “I assume you’re a fan of Ben Lyons” is as cavalier and disrespectful as the behavior that you ascribe to Devin.

    4. Citing an example of his behavior from three years ago as an indication of his unprofessional behavior also does not help your argument. That’s like saying that Ryan Gosling only does teenybopper work because he was once in the Mickey Mouse Club. I would agree it’s relevant if you were using that as the first example of an ongoing pattern of behavior, but one example of perceived or actual “unprofessionalism” does not make him (or anyone else categorically unprofessional. And that is also not the same as interacting, even with hostility, the members of an online community like the posters on the Chud forums. I’ve never been on the forums and I can’t attest to what he’s said or done there, but I do know that the negativity and animosity that critics endure on a daily and weekly basis is often difficult to shine on without comment. That said, sure, we’re adults, so let’s suck it up, but in an environment where a commenter is unfettered by restraints of taste, sensitivity or even identity, not to mention bolstered by a volume of agreeing voices with equal freedom, quite frankly it’s an unfair fight.

    5. If you want to discredit Devin as a journalist, targeting what you call his “80’s nostalgia” is a weak way to do that. He is under no obligation to maintain any sort of consistency with your or anyone else’s opinion or point of view about any subject, and if he thinks a movie is “badass” then that is simply his opinion. You are free, and encouraged, to disagree. (I do.) But there’s a difference between “practicing journalism” (which I still think he does better than the vast majority of his industry colleagues, at least those unaffiliated with trade outlets versed in A.P. style, etc.) and what you might consider poor writing. Unfortunately, that’s also subjective, as a conversational, or only quasi-academic style is very conventional among most entertainment-related news sites. Especially since Devin is not simply reporting news, but offering his opinions on it, which is appropriate for the outlets to which he contributes.

    6. I hope that these comments are received in the way in which they are intended – as respectful disagreement with your approach and in some cases conclusions. But as a person who has endured his share of criticisms and attacks from others that may or may not have been entirely fair, the best response you can give a writer, critic, or professional whom you don’t think can do their job in any industry is to ignore them, adhere to your own set of values and let history decide. I realize the hypocrisy in devoting this much text to defending Devin (or at least deconstructing your critique of him), but if you don’t like him, don’t read him, and don’t write 3000 words about how worthless he is. Because the only thing that you do by writing an article like this is validate him as someone who IS important. You are giving him attention, and making others interested in reading him – which presumably is not what you want.

  5. I’m no fan of Faraci’s, but this is pretty ridiculous. First, if you’re going to write a post about someone else’s capacity as a writer, you should probably check for your own spelling errors, as this post is full of them. Second, you’re using “beg the question” wrong (you can read why here: http://begthequestion.info/).

    In short, you’ve made yourself as big as a jackass as Faraci by even writing this. Why not just leave it alone and focus on being the best writer YOU can be?

  6. If you don’t understand why film journalism is heavily based in opinion than you have no idea what art is and why subjectivity is key. I am a film lover and have been reading online sites since I was a tween. I find the opinions of a fan and film devotee, especially those of intelligent and literate people like Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Faraci to be an enjoyable read and highly informative.

    To knock Mr. Weinberg for supposed ‘hyperbole’ in his review when it was obvious that the film hit him personally (like good art should) is ignorant of his review and ignorant of him personally as a writer.

    Let’s face facts, the vast majority of Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Faraci’s readership are film fans and what they understand is that people disagree about art and that the ONLY place you can speak from is one of emotion. The key in good writing is to turn your reaction into a literate and well-reasoned form, whether good or bad. Whether it’s high-high praise or vitriolic hatred.

    I shudder the thought of reading a any review with the arid nature of this article.

    Of course, you probably won’t think about my opinion my opinion but instead find a problem with my use of comma’s.

  7. On the contrary, Brandon, your more level-headed response has been far more mature than anything promulgated by either Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Faracl, who have, respectively, called me “a jerk” and told me to “get fucked” (and not, as Mr. Faraci falsely stated on Twitter, to “get lost”). I very much appreciate your more civil tone, which stands in sharp contrast to what these two men have said on Twitter.

    There’s certainly a happy place where passion and journalism meet. In case you missed it, I’m grateful that Uncle Creepy, who appears to be a more capable journalist than Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Faraci, thought to update his post (if not the headline) regarding John Carpenter. But when Weinberg resorts to hyperbole (that is, extravagant praise — “one of the best films I’ve ever seen at a festival” — it causes any serious reader to be naturally suspicious; please see context below) or, even worse, schoolboy malapropisms (“very unique and special” — please understand that “unique” stands on its own and cannot be used with those other three words), he does journalism, writing, and online film criticism a great disservice. These “film critics” undermine their purported “intelligent and literate” qualities when they fail to live up to basic journalistic standards and regularly mangle the English language. And when Weinberg uses the following language

    “What I ended up watching is, quite simply, one of the best films I’ve ever seen at a festival. I’ve always contended that there’s no such thing as a ‘flawless’ film, but now I’m going to amend that phrase to read ‘There’s no such thing as a perfect film.’ Because ‘Rabbit Hole’ is, as far as I can tell, pretty much flawless.”

    one wonders if the emotion is getting in the way of coherent thought. If Weinberg doesn’t understand that flawless, meaning “without a flaw,” and perfect, meaning “the ideal” or “without any flaws,” actually carry the same definition, then I don’t see how he can live up to your qualifier.

    If that’s the kind of criticism that you enjoy, then nobody’s stopping you from doing so. The only thing I’m asking is why the bar for online film criticism — whether for “film lovers” (I am one too, by the way) or film snobs — remains so low. Judging by the hostile responses to this article, the parties who practice online film criticism clearly have no interest in recognizing their own subliterate standards. Which is too bad. Because I think that their passion might translate into something more meaningful, given humility and the right editorial guidance.

  8. Todd: The problem here is that Faraci’s errors here aren’t merely typographic. They’re outright false in fact, in the case of Carpenter and the SPIDER-MAN poster. And I contend that if you cannot get your facts straight and you prove recalcitrant when somebody calls you out, and your response to someone bringing attention to journalistic errors is “get fucked,” you are unfit to practice journalism. And any newspaper editor would agree with me (and indeed, the many editors I’ve worked with have helped me out tremendously on this score). As for Weinberg’s credibility, I have addressed that in the above comment to Brandon. Like Faraci, Weinberg also has problems with accuracy. I believe Brandon has hit the nail on the head when he suggests that Faraci and Weinberg write for “film lovers” — which I’m guessing is more of a gushing Comic-Con crowd that wants to believe that everything is “badass” or “one of the best films I’ve ever seen at a festival.” This all started with an attempt to correct Devin Faraci of a journalistic error, which still exists on the Badass Digest post in question. And I still contend that Faraci, based on his boorish behavior on Twitter, his failure to address FACTUAL mistakes, and his failure to respond point-by-point to this essay, is unfit to practice journalism in any form. But again I very much appreciate that you and I can respectfully disagree and that there are a good share of online film critics out there who are interested in talking about these issues. So thanks again, Todd.

  9. You seem to be hiding your lack of a coherent point behind your distaste for anything less than a Webster’s definition of a word. Which is absolutely no indicator of a person’s journalistic tendencies. Are you mad at facts or are you made at fatcs?

    Your ponderance of “one wonders if the emotion is getting in the way of coherent thought,” directly contradicts your entire point and proves mine. That’s your opinion and you can disagree all you want but your disagreement in no way reflects on Mr. Weinberg’s journalistic ability.

    You agree that film journalism is opinion based yet you treat opinions as suspect. I have no idea what your argument is any longer and all I know is Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Faraci have a reputation of being honest and forthright and that is enough for me and all of their other readers. In a landscape of link-baiting and obtrusive advertising they are a breath of fresh and informed air. The only thing you seem to be informed about is the location of your dictionary. Pick your battles, sir.

    There’s nothing more I could say that Mr. Gilchrist didn’t say more intelligently or eloquently.

  10. This is a minor point, but how is Faraci’s reference to “Katie’s boobs” misogynistic? I’m sure any well adjusted human being would appreciate the obvious humor and lightheartedness in that comment. I can’t bear when people proclaim others to be prejudiced based on specious grounds. After all, these are serious claims that should never be, but always are, trivialized.

  11. This is the most amateurish “takedown” I’ve ever seen. Your critiques of all of his posts illustrate a pained attempt to pick out the slightest errors that could probably be found in most, if not all, film sites. Film lovers, like myself, do not read Mr. Faraci for flawless prose and footnoted articles that explain how he arrived at every conclusion and statement presented; we read him because he’s smart and passionate and he conveys that passion to his readers perfectly.

    He can be a bit of a jerk to his commenters, but I’ve never seen it be totally unjustified (his reply to your arrogant, condescending comment may have gone a step too far, but I don’t blame him for getting riled by it). I often disagree with him, and think he goes way too far in his praise (KICK-ASS a 10?!?! Really?!?!) but I never question that he means what he writes, and he genuinely loves what he loves. Had he not commented back you would have never felt the need to write this post, you only did it because your feelings were hurt. Time to put your energies elsewhere.

  12. I’m not always a fan of Devin’s opinions, but the way he lays them out is always great to read and chew on. There’s nothing wrong with discourse, sir.

  13. “Judging by the hostile responses to this article, the parties who practice online film criticism clearly have no interest in recognizing their own subliterate standards. Which is too bad.”

    “Which is too bad” is a sentence fragment.

  14. I started writing a large-scale evaluation of the problems in this article and stopped myself. Approaching this situation through minor details would be counter-productive. Besides, you are obviously intelligent. Better yet, you understand syntax (which in this this day and age it is something to appreciated). But the reason people read Devin Faraci is that he has historically demonstrated a remarkable capacity for clarity. Even when communicating a complicated idea, his point remains digestible. And let’s face it, it doesn’t hurt that he is often rather funny.

    So let’s compare. I have never read your work before so I went back and read the last 12 or so articles/reviews/pieces that you have written. The following paragraph which sums up the overall problem with your tendencies:

    “There are some very minor moments in which Fincher and Sorkin telegraph some of these points a bit too much, particularly with the needlessly ironic casting of Justin Timberlake as Napster founder Sean Parker. Timberlake is a charming enough screen presence, but he simply doesn’t have the sheer moth-attracting neo-blueblood light that the fast-talking Jesse Eisenberg has as Zuckerberg, much less the Harvard boy-next-door aw-shucks naivete of Andrew Garfield as Saverin. (Saverin, a business major, is so intoxicated by Facebook – even after Zuckerberg cuts loose to California without him – that he doesn’t even read the legal papers he has to sign, little realizing that he has been screwed over by Zuckerberg, his only real friend and co-founder.) But I think Fincher is smart enough to be cognizant of this imbalance. During the first meeting between Parker, Zuckerberg, and Saverin, Fincher stages a good portion of the scene with the dialogue remaining silent. Appletinis and enticing sushi are brought to the table, as yet another jagged yet rocking music cue from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross plays, leaving Timberlake to bounce war stories off the wild-eyed admirer Zuckerberg. It is Parker who serves as an encouraging older brother figure to Zuckerberg (curiously, the film doesn’t mention anything about Zuckerberg’s family), who offers perfectly sound advice (“Lose the ‘The,’” he says during the TheFacebook.com days), and who sees entrepreneur Roy Raymund’s suicide not as a parable, but as a tale to inspire empowerment.

    But I’m being needlessly pedantic…”

    You say it yourself. Not only is this pedantic, but the paragraph is purely descriptive. It builds to no larger point or construct and means that leaves your great observations falling limp. It renders the paragraph more pedantic than perhaps you even realize. I saw this almost all of your work.

    See, the density of your prose dares the reader to find a through-line, a relative point of clarity to it all. As a reader I have to have some reason for this kind of density; a justification. One possibility for this problem: I went through your archives and noticed that you’ve written a great deal about David Foster Wallace.This is evident in your writing. Don’t get me wrong. I too love DFW and consider him the best writer of his generation, but it wasn’t just his prose that made him great. It was his capacity for clarity. Regarding this situation, he spoke passionately about what he considered the biggest problem of young writers and he called it “The Fear.” It was the fear to abandoning one’s desire to demonstrate their own intellectual prowess and embrace the simplicity of clarity. In other words: to learn how to say what you fucking mean.

    It may sound odd coming from Wallace, who on the surface might seem like he’s anything but clear, but it’s all too true. It’s the reason that so many people fail in trying to ape his style. The reason DFW’s prose translated to a common reader is because he was actually making his points in the most straight-forward, almost mathematical, way possible. He was just using the extraordinary dictionary that was his mind (meaning he wasn’t the type to confuse solipsism with ego, as most of his admirers had a tendency to do) And at this moment, you are not being clear or straight forward in any of your writing. Though you wholly have the capacity to due so if you just abandon “the fear.”

    If you don’t? Forget it. You won’t evolve as a writer. You’re work will continue to read like sound and fury, symbolizing nothing.

    This perhaps makes Devin a natural foil. You fault so many errors of his errors syntax, but his work has been historically thoughtful in concept. But the bigger question is this… if you’re a self-assured and competent individual, why would you spend 3,000 words ranting about Devin Faraci and then post the link on every single one of his article? It’s behavior fitting the very behavior you are condemning. It’s renders you small and eviscerates your own worth. You’re too smart for something like that.

    If you’re not? Then the obvious difference between both you and Devin Faraci is that he seems to understand the capacity in which he is an asshole.

  15. how is Faraci’s reference to “Katie’s boobs” misogynistic?

    You may want to study the last fifty years of women’s history for the answer to that question.

    Your critiques of all of his posts illustrate a pained attempt to pick out the slightest errors that could probably be found in most, if not all, film sites.

    Again, please see the thought experiment concerning Faraci’s father being raped to understand why this isn’t just about a typo. This isn’t just about typographical errors. It’s about incompetence.

    You seem so very, very lonely and angry.

    No, not at all. I’m not angry at you. I just wish you’d show the same level of intelligent discourse as Mr. Gilchrist. But all you can do is tell me to get fucked And wait a minute, weren’t you done with me? What keeps you coming back? If you like, I can whip up some carne asada.

  16. Which is absolutely no indicator of a person’s journalistic tendencies.

    Let me spell it out. Weinberg does not know what “unique” means. You cannot call something “very unique” because, by using “unique,” you’ve already called it one of a kind. This is a second grade English lesson. And I contend that a “journalist” who does not understand what “unique” means is hardly the “intelligent and literate” person you believe him to be. Weinberg has used over-the-top language that I would expect from Ben Lyons and he does not know that “flawless” and “prefect” are synonyms. These are acceptable grounds to be suspicious of his review.

    t I never question that he means what he writes

    And I bet you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.

    Had he not commented back you would have never felt the need to write this post, you only did it because your feelings were hurt.

    My feelings were not hurt. My concern here arose out of a concern for accuracy and journalistic standards. I’d offer a similar argument to Seymour Hersh, if he had committed so many mistakes. This post emerged as an effort to clarify. Based on some of the emails I’ve received since posting this, it would appear that Mr. Faraci has not listened for quite a long time and that an assessment of this type has apparently been greatly coveted by the film community. (And to the person who spammed Badass Digest, please stop. I don’t approve of such tactics. It’s a dick move.) If anything, I view Mr. Faraci — who is now leveling false accusations at me — with pity.

  17. MIke S.: Thanks for your comments. It’s a change from the usual. The reason why people read Faraci is because he has little more to offer than obvious conclusions. From posts on October 25:

    “It’s been a while since Kahn made a movie. The director has continued to pay his bills by making lots and lots of music videos for lots and lots of popular artists. But a couple of months ago Kahn announced on his Twitter that he was going to make another film. He’s been tweeting pretty regularly throughout the making of the movie, Detention, but I’ve not quite gotten a grip on what the film is yet. I know it’s a high school story. I know Dane Cook (blech) is in it. I know that Kahn has said it would be rated R. I know that he spent his own money making it, and that he went way over schedule. ”

    All that hot air to announce that Kahn might be making another movie. Really, you’re holding this up?

    “It’ll be 1967. I think this is the most obvious one, and the one that will definitely come true. If the season doesn’t open in 67 it’ll certainly open in the waning days of 66. But I think it’s more likely that we start around the Summer of Love and bring the characters through to the tumultuous events of 1968; I also suspect that our character’s lives will follow the general thematic course of those years, starting out happy and sweet and ending in bloodshed and tears. Well, maybe not bloodshed, although you never know.”

    Rewarding this doggerel is like like giving a kindergartener a cookie for putting two and two together.

    Sir, I “fear” nothing. Read my review to the end and you’ll see that I’m writing about how the film explores the manner in which we live in a digital world, and the many sacrifices we take for granted. (Look at Katie above, who cannot fathom the quiet manner in which she supports misogyny.) What I am concerned by is people like you, who obviously possess some basic understanding of syntax and writing, but who settle for illiterate Klosterman clones like Faraci who have little more than bleeding obvious observations with which to serve up the prose equivalent of Big Macs (complete with typos and journalistic gaffes). When one is pointing to the sky and saying that it is blue, even a marsupial can resort to “clarity.” But you don’t measure a man’s worth with such pedestrian achievements.

  18. Not to further fan the flames of your outrage, but there is a difference between objectification and misogyny. Specifically in terms of Devin’s comment about Featherston’s physical attributes and your subsequent critique of Katie’s defense of it, I choose deliberately not to divine meaning from his comments in the original article (for the purposes of this response, anyway), but to equate a comment about a woman’s body with abject misogyny is an oversimplification at best, irresponsible at worst. The potential unspoken context could be “Featherston’s body is amazing, does it/ she look as beautiful in the new movie?” I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, but to presume that his comment is dismissive of her other qualities is, again, reductionist at the very least. But the bottom line is that there is NO automatic correlation between acknowledgment/ observation/ comment about a woman’s (or anyone’s) physical attributes and a misogynist attitude, unless this comment was indicative of a larger pattern of behavior. The key word being automatic. And without measurable evidence of other behavior to support that particular claim, it’s an accusation best left unlobbied. And furthermore, to defend it (and to that end, dismiss a commenter’s question/ challenge to that argument) by saying “read 50 years of women’s studies” is intellectually disingenuous, not to mention insulting to that person (which if I understand correctly is precisely what set you off in the first place with Devin’s response to your original comment). (For the record, I do have extensive experience studying feminist texts, language and the semiotic analysis of gender roles, and while I am perhaps similarly prone to react negatively to the casual objectification of a woman or her physicality, the combination of that comment’s context – at least here – not to mention a deeper knowledge of the person to whom the accusation is directed, indicates that this particular claim is specious at best.)

  19. I’m not “rewarding” Devin. I’m enjoying his sense of humor and interest in subject matter I find compelling and delightful. I do so because it is my right and something that I find enjoyable.

    I did read the whole article. Your assumption that I did not is extremely disappointing, especially because I found some of what you had to say of upstanding merit. I even admitted the part I selected was simply the best example of an unfortunate tendency that shows up in various degrees in your writing. That tendency being the manner in which you flirt with evasiveness because you’re clearly striving to say the most intellectual thing you can say and in the most intellectual manner. In other words, being “pedantic.” You show shades of it in nearly everything you write.

    I’m telling you that you do indeed fear writing something where the reader does not realize your mastery of language. It’s plain as day. If you abandon that fear you will find that your natural inclinations with prose will flow much better. If you continue to really proclaim that you “fear nothing” then I just find that heartbreaking. Do you seriously not realize you come off like a exaggerated riff on a John Hodgman character? And even if you don’t, writing is ongoing conflict within ourselves. False confidence is our enemy. Do not waver from the merits of self-doubt. You will be better for it.

    If you do truly believe that you lack “the fear” then I’ll put it another way. Your language is evasive and more significantly, lacks inclusiveness. You push the reader away. The great writers of dense prose invite the reader in; they make the reader want to look up a word they may not know, or engage a topic with new-found interest.

    From what I can tell/understand about the Katie situation. The fact that you would be so dismissive of her input and defense of the situation, is quite frankly, upsetting. It makes it seem as if you have no understanding of the reflexive nature of modern feminism, let alone any argument. It is so coldly assumptive: “You may want to study the last fifty years of women’s history for the answer to that question.” / “Look at Katie above, who cannot fathom the quiet manner in which she supports misogyny” Allow me to get angry, but what the fuck are you thinking writing something like that? Writing things like that should be completely beneath you. And you’re casting Katie in such wallowing, woebegone terms, as if she can’t read what you’ve written and something to be pitied. And you do so specifically after she makes it so clear that she does not want to be spoken for. I find that invariably more sexist then her position (which isn’t something ridiculous either. It’s basically a strain of third wave feminism. Why is that even problematic?).

    In all honesty, I wish you the best of luck. Embrace clarity. Abandon fear. Get better. You have the capacity and you need the will. But more importantly, learn to be okay with Devin Faraci’s of the world. You’ll be happier for it.

    And don’t worry about me. I’ll be just fine.

  20. Mike S.: You have employed a fallacious tactic of trying to turn this discussion to my own writing (good try at equivocation), but that isn’t germane to the argument.

    We’re discussing Mr. Faraci’s writing, his unfit qualities as a journalist, and so forth. The best that you can offer is that “he has historically demonstrated a remarkable capacity for clarity.” Well, Friday’s history, as indicated above with his GREEN LANTERN set report, his failure to report Carpenter’s true condition (much less correct the article), and the many other issues throughout, indicate that your position is wrong. You can’t even be bothered to offer examples for this “remarkable capacity for clarity,” which makes your argument void. If you cannot prove why Faraci “has historically demonstrated a remarkable capacity for clarity,” then you are resorting to secundum quid.

    You have neither debunked the claims I have offered above, nor have you offered any substantive evidence why Faraci is capable of clarity. In an effort to understand your position, I have done your work for you out of courtesy — producing examples of the apparent “clarity” you uphold, whereby Faraci “historically demonstrates” days later that he’s stating the obvious. You want lack of clarity? Here”s another Faraci sample from today:

    “A hippie western, The Hired Hand is languid and while not particularly psychedelic is completely informed by the hallucinatory rhythms of LSD and mushrooms. ”

    Well, wait a minute, if the film isn’t “particularly psychedelic,” can it be called a “hippie western?” If it is COMPLETELY informed by the hallucinatory rhythms of LSD and mushrooms (which are, incidentally, psychedelic drugs), then how can it not be “particularly psychedelic.” In one mere sentence, Faraci repeatedly contradicts himself.

    Again, I ask how such an inadequate writer, a man writing such an incoherent sentence, can be capable of clarity. Again, you fail to use examples.

    And you’ve resorted to ad hominem by suggesting that I’m an asshole.

    In short, Mike S., your argument does not hold water. Please elucidate to me, using examples from Mr. Faraci’s writing, of the so-called clarity he is capable of.

    Oh yeah, that’s right. You can’t.

  21. It’s not a tactic. I have no interest in defending Devin. I’m trying to help you. That’s all there is to it.

    I was motivated to write to you concerning one fundamental question: If I am the kind of reader who is completely predisposed to like and admire your work (in terms of style, tone, capability, and intellect), then why is it that your writing turns me off? I am your audience and yet there is a roadblock. I want to see that lifted and more importantly why don’t you want to remove that roadblock? Why do you antagonize?

    And I don’t think you’re an asshole, Edward. You’re just trying so hard to be one.

  22. Mike S.: You’re not my audience at all. You’re nothing more than a well-dressed troll. If you want to address why Devin Faraci is so brilliant, be my guest. But since you can’t, and since you have no argument, there’s really no need to respond to you further.

  23. You don’t need to conduct a survey of Faraci’s tendency to “misinform his readers, mangle the English language, fudge the facts, express casual misogyny, wiggle his sycophantic tongue in response to information he didn’t bother to investigate, get movie titles wrong, encourage his readers to blindly consume concept art that a studio fed him, wallow in nostalgia, and epitomize conformist opportunism at nearly every moment” to perform the epic take-down that was intended here. Damn son, just write about the knife that’s still hanging out of Nick Nunziata’s back. Or the conflict-of-interest gymnastics that occur when Faraci (and damn near every one of these online “journalists”) galavants around with anyone in the business who will talk to him or answer his Twitters or invite him to parties and movie sets and special events and screenings (see: Edgar Wright, Matthew Vaughn, Adam Green). Hard not to shower movies in hyperbole after all that seduction, even when the movies in question set the box office on fire like a wet fart and make the average impartial moviegoer go “huh?”. Or how about the difficulty of admitting you’re wrong when you spend months editorializing in your news articles about why a certain movie is definitely not going to be a game changer, and then when it comes out and instantly changes the game it doesn’t count because Devin Faraci said so. I mean sure, yeah, there’s also all the stuff mentioned in this article and what I will simply describe as a Mr. Grouchypants demeanor, but I think the major problem here is that Devin is ethically bankrupt as a “journalist” (and he’s not alone on the internet, obviously) but is also one of the loudest and most obnoxious voices of ethical arbitration in the internet movie news community. Write another 3000 word essay about all this stuff, there’s a mountain of evidence for anyone willing to do the research.

  24. I wasn’t planning on chiming in here, though I’ve quite enjoyed the robust exchange of wills. However, when Mike S. writes ‘I’m trying to help you’, my suspicions are aroused and my contrary nature says, oh yeah? really? As Edward full well knows, I too sometimes find his writing a tad dense (and yes, on occasion, even pedantic), but appreciate it nevertheless on its own terms. It’s one of the main reasons I read his blog – for the liveliness of mind, the sheer unexpectedness of critical insights. Do I always agree with him? Do I always like the sarcasm? Of course not. But why should I measure his prose against the yardstick of convention? Pushing the reader away, as Mike S. puts it, is in itself so vague as to be useless, in any case.

  25. Without revisiting the original article or its arguments, I just wanted to say to “The Truth” you don’t know what the f*ck you’re talking about. No matter what your opinion is of Devin, to lobby an unsubstantiated accusation that he stabbed anyone in the back is cowardly, inaccurate and idiotic. As anyone who knows anything about this business can attest, people leave, move on, move up and try new things all of the time, and Devin left Chud quietly and respectfully, writing an enormously appreciative story on the site giving Nick et al credit for him being where he is now. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE OWES NICK OR ANYONE ELSE ANYTHING IF HE FINDS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT HE’D LIKE TO EXPLORE. It’s disingenuous to suggest that a person who is empowered by a site or person should remain in their employ or stick around simply because of that fact. Not to mention that unless you are Nick or Devin or somehow have access to the actual events which transpired between them – and if you do, posting under the guise of anonymity is equally cowardly – you have no idea what happened.

    Furthermore, you can wag your own tongue as much as you want and decry the ongoing relationships that some/ many journalists have with filmmakers and equate it with a lack of credibility or a compromise in journalistic integrity, but no person who does this every day for a living – much less for the pittance that most sites pay their writers – can make that argument without the luxury of not having to worry about that (meaning you work for a site that can afford to fly you places, or pay you a lot more than most of us make), not to mention without a massive sense or superiority and self-aggrandizement. The bottom line is whether you believe a writer whom you follow maintains a sense of perspective, integrity and logic as a writer – meaning, do you believe they mean what they say, and then how effectively do they support what they say with measurable, intelligent, articulate arguments. And if that aspect of writing is not chiefly (if not solely) important to you as a reader, then you’re intellectually uncurious if not lazy, and clearly believe anything that is put down in front of you – including the suggestion that someone whom i presume you don’t know at all did, will or would stab someone else you don’t know in the back.

  26. Todd: To bring this conversation back to the issues at hand (namely, whether Devin is fit to practice journalism — which you, Devin, or any of Devin’s other friends have offered any proof for) — why are you Devn’s mouthpiece? Why can’t Devin speak directly to these important issues? When presented with facts, Devin Faraci can’t respond to the truth.

    If you truly believe that accepting a studio’s money to fly you to exotic places is a requirement to be a journalist, then you’re nothing more than a junket whore. Pure and simple. That is entirely unethical. And if that is YOUR standard, Todd Gilchrist, then you are ALSO unfit to practice journalism. I don’t give a shit what outlets you write for.

    We’ve seen in Devin’s Green Lantern report that he sees cardboard cutouts and specific people on the set. But he fails to give us any hard information on how any of this relates to NEW information that isn’t already known. It’s a narcissistic essay on Devin’s desperate need to feel important when surrounded by people with genuine creative talent. And it makes for sad reading. Utterly worthless. Except of course to the studio who needs to stroke Devin’s ego and thus purchase his opinion in advance. More recently, he claims as a “scoop” some half-baked information about who may or may not be in STAR TREK II — and this when the script hasn’t even been finalized! Is he truly stupid enough not to understand that he’s being played? Devin Faraci isn’t even worthy enough to be called a hack.

    As to your hilariously incompetent defense of Devin’s misogyny, in which you again fail to address any specific claims, I should note that, a few days ago, Devin introduced a new feature called Cineboobs featuring two women writing about movies. The accompanying graphic features suggestive graphics. A graphic featuring the naked back of a woman, her ass crack. Another woman’s lips slightly open, as if she’s about to suck Devin Faraci’s cock. It’s as if Devin Faraci can’t view a woman’s thoughts without considering how well she gives head. By not respecting Katey and Jenni for WHAT they have to say, by viewing them first in terms of their fuckability, Devin Faraci — as editor-in-chief — reveals himself to be a misogynist in the 21st century. It’s unacceptable behavior. And based on the women I’ve talked to about Cineboobs, believe me, I am not alone.

    So you’re being paid a pittance to write for a website? Uh, why should I give a shit about your livelihood exactly? Let me get this straight: if you are unethical by, say, the Society of Professional Journalists’ standards, and I correctly call you on it, I’m supposed to pull my punches because the free market (perhaps wisely) doesn’t value your labor? God, what astonishing entitlement!

    Aren’t you an adult? I’m not your father. There have been hundreds of thousands of journalists before you who worked for a pittance. But you know what? Most of them subscribed to ethical standards, either by union or self-regulation. Where the fuck are YOUR ombudsmen? Oh yeah, that’s right. You can’t be bothered to correct your misinformation. You can’t be bothered to RESPOND to a 3,000 word claim point by point. Hell, you can’t even type the word “fuck.”

    I wouldn’t trust any of you amental, self-serving incompetents to break a story if some future Daniel Ellsberg promised a Pentagon Papers that went well beyond anything disseminated by Wikileaks. You people are about as journalistic as an empty Coca-Cola bottle thrown into a landfill.

  27. Todd –

    If Devin left CHUD quietly and respectfully, Devin would have left CHUD quietly and respectfully. There wouldn’t be a trail of nuclear fallout left across the internet. If you want to refer to what happened on the day and date of Devin’s “I quit” announcement, then sure, that’s quiet and respectful. He wrote a nice little letter I guess. Everything that happened after that got stabby. I don’t even really need to recap here, it’s available for anyone on the internet to peruse at their leisure. We all know what we’d think of Maverick if he suddenly start flying MIGs for the Russians if a check bounced. But I don’t even care about that point, that’s just called “being a mensch”. Let’s get back to being a journalist.

    I can’t believe I even have to explain this to someone in your profession, but here it is. If your job is to write critical responses to films, and you become friends with people responsible for the making of those films, or are otherwise given treats and favors by the people responsible for the making of those films, then that my friend is a conflict of interest. Why? Because gee, I dunno, it’s much harder to slag a movie when the guy who made it Tweeted you a really tasty pasta salad recipe the night before. He might not send you that taco salad recipe he promised if he reads it. You met his wife, she’s really nice. You’ve talked 80s slashers with the guy. He’s your “friend”. Or you might not be invited to that set visit you really want to go to next month if you write something critical about the way the studio is handling a big franchise.

    Here’s the thing: almost no film can be considered objectively good or bad. One can come up with a logical argument to support almost any position. Robert McKee argued that CITIZEN KANE sucks, according to his widely practiced screenwriting principles. So it’s not hard for writers to come up with similarly baffling responses to films if they put their minds to it. In some cases I’m sure they are convincing themselves they are having a genuinely positive emotional response, and that the positive review that follows is genuine by extension. Take Harry Knowles’ orgasmic review for GODZILLA 98, where he might as well be reviewing a party at Times Square. In a similar vein, I am sure that all you internet writers genuinely did have a great time when you got hopped up on pixie sticks and screened KICK-ASS and SCOTT PILGRIM in rooms full of other rabid geeks. I am sure the love there is emotionally genuine, because the experience was fun. But surely I am getting to the gist of the problem, if in an admittedly roundabout way here. The value of reading reviews from the laymen of the internet used to be that the perspectives were as ground-level as our own. Print critics had earned a stuffy, pretentious reputation for being too far removed from the public’s taste. The general public doesn’t engage with film the same way a guy who goes to Cannes does. And now the same thing has happened to the internet critics, who are treated to months (sometimes years) of fun experiences leading up to a movie that your average film fan will never in a million years experience or even fully understand. And now the groupthink that goes on with the internet critic community renders most of them useless for honest, vital film dialogue.

    So no, I don’t buy your argument that only someone with “a massive sense of superiority and self-aggrandizement” (I looked that up in the dictionary and found a picture of Devin) would call the incestuous relationship between film production and film journalism into question. I don’t care that you people make a pittance, that has no bearing on your ability to do a job to a certain standard of ethics. Set visits and interviews with filmmakers and Twitter accounts and press junkets are NOT vital parts of film criticism. But there is a readership who wants to know about this stuff. So the solution is fairly simple, in my eyes. Hire one guy to watch movies in a dark room by himself and then write the reviews. Hire another guy to report on set visits and Twitter with celebrities. Don’t get them mixed up. And hope that the studios and filmmakers don’t get mad at the press guy by association with the critic guy. If there is ever a situation where someone does both, like the owner of a site, then state it clearly in the article. “In the interest of full disclosure, I went to a birthday party at Chuck-E-Cheese for the director’s son about a week ago. I’m the godfather. Our wives are currently out at Pottery Barn together. But on to the movie: I LOVED IT!”

    I’ve saved the most toxic part of your response for last. You are putting the onus of credibility on the reader? Todd, that is REALLY worrisome. One of the first things anyone who ever has to deal with a “source” learns is “don’t trust the source”. That’s obvious. I know that. I’m not sure everyone who uses the internet does, but I digress. Are you really suggesting that the reader has more responsiblity for journalistic integrity than the journalist? That the reader needs to essentially be an ethical babysitter for the journalist at all times, and can never for a moment rely on the idea that the person they’re reading has a standard of integrity and moral principles? That it is my duty to point out instances where the writer fails to “maintain a sense of perspective, integrity and logic”? TODD, IS THAT NOT EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING? AND IN YOUR OPINION THAT MAKES ME INTELLECTUALLY UNCURIOUS OR LAZY? I question everything I read, that’s why I’m here typing this. But to you guys, I’m probably a troll.

    If you can’t see the clear and obvious ethical distinctions I’m dicussing here, then shit, maybe the guy who wrote the initial rant is right and you’re unfit to practice journalism.

  28. To both Edward and “The Truth,” you’re right – it doesn’t behoove any journalist or critic, personally or professionally, to interact or become friends with filmmakers. But it does happen, just as it happens that White House reporters become acquainted with politicians (and vice versa), or in any other industry or area in which the reporting press engages with public figures on a personal and/ or ongoing level. In which case, the onus is on that professional to maintain what he or she believes is an appropriate level of distance between him or herself and that person, and further, to exert their own level of integrity when reporting on that person or their work. Although you may believe otherwise, there is no objective standard of behavior by which journalists, much less entertainment journalists, are supposed to or must behave, at least not one that is regulated with any consistency or enforced in any measurable way. And if you think that getting access to sets, actors, filmmakers, films or anything else constitutes a compromise then that is your standard, and that’s fine. But if that is your standard, then by definition every single person in this industry is guilty of betraying that. Studios are under no responsibility to show their movies before they are released, but they do. Neither are they made to provide access to any actor or filmmaker to discuss his or her work. And some people are indeed compromised by the sheer access they receive to a new movie, and/or the popcorn they receive at the free screening they were invited to attend. Again, this doesn’t mean that your standard is wrong or inappropriate. But it does mean that there is and will always be an ongoing relationship between members of the entertainment media and studios, because every part of what we do is in some way, shape or form serves as marketing for their product. And as a result, it is the personal responsibility of every journalist or critic to determine his or her threshold for what he believes is a compromise to his integrity. In which case, I’m grateful that there are people like yourselves who feel as strongly as you do about maintaining some sort of measurable standard for content and behavior. But as long as people police themselves about their own intent and integrity, you’ll be fighting a losing battle.

    Nevertheless, I apologize for providing the comments above, certainly in the sense that they were perhaps misinterpreted as personal attacks. And as I am an “amental, self-serving incompetent,” I will decline to further discuss these issues, since all I seem able to do here is invoke your anger and condescension, and that was never my intent. I wish you the best of luck finding reporters and journalists and critics in the entertainment industry who consistently are able to uphold the high standards to which you hold yourself of reporting, grammar and articulation. As I make a personal effort to focus on the positive aspects of this business, much less my career or my own life, I realize that I have engaged in a discussion which only further feeds a sense of negativity, pettiness and insult (and I mean ONLY my writing – your points are well-taken), and that’s why with respect and apologies I wish you the best, and thank you for the discussion.

  29. And some people are indeed compromised by the sheer access they receive to a new movie, and/or the popcorn they receive at the free screening they were invited to attend.

    Todd: It’s absolutely clear from this statement alone that you don’t view journalistic standards seriously at all. We’re not talking about popcorn. We’re talking about you and others taking studio money to fly onto a set and thus compromise your journalistic integrity. We’re not just talking about friendship (although that is certainly troublesome). We’re talking about a studio PAYING FOR YOU to go to a shoot. And what are the results from these junkets? Hollow journalism. So not only are you supporting lack of ethics. You are also endorsing a wholesale surrender to Hollywood forces.

    I don’t see how you can, in all seriousness, call yourself a journalist. Roger Ebert doesn’t do junkets. He’s old school, you might say. Well, Nikki Finke doesn’t do junkets. (Indeed, it is Nikki Finke, working from her home, who manages to elicit far more information than any of you people can.)

    The upshot is that you, Devin Faraci, and Scott Weinberg were rightly called out and the upshot is that none of you could offer an appropriate defense of your actions.

    I appreciate your apology for your previous nasty comments. And I, in turn, apologize for the hotheaded nature of my last comment. It seemed that there was no other way for you to get it. And I suspect that this also motivated The Truth’s comment as well. But, with all due respect, it is an act of absolute cowardice to run away from the truth. I urge you, Todd Gilchrist, to grow a journalistic conscience. I beseech you to comprehend that your actions and what you endorse do not befit ethical journalism by ANY standard. Thank you.

  30. Todd –

    Thank you for your civil response. And I also apologize for anything that could be construed as a personal attack, especially against you, since I am mainly just engaging you as a debate opponent and don’t know enough about you or Cinematical to lobby these accusations at YOUR writing.

    I’ve essentially had my say, but to respond to your latest post:

    I DO think it’s a problem that political journalists become acquainted with politicians. Although in most cases these journalists work with long-standing publications with well-established ethical manifestos (like the one Edward Champion posted from New York Times manager Adolph S. Ochs). And in most cases they don’t risk denied access to a press conference in the same way that an angry film critic risks denied access to an invite-only set visit. And in most cases these journalists don’t Twitter with the politicians about what their favorite Roger Corman movie is. Still, you’re right, there are conflicts of interest in fields of journalism much more important than entertainment. Woodward and Bernstein and the guys that broke the Pentagon papers are the exceptions, not the rule.

    You also stated my main point pretty clearly I think:

    “every part of what we do is in some way, shape or form serves as marketing for their product.”

    And I find that troubling. I understand that there needs to be a give and take with the studios, that too much biting the hand that feeds would not only mean no set-visits (not a big loss in my opinion) but no invitations to advance screenings. And if you’re trying to review a movie on the weekend it came out then you have no edge over the unwashed masses of blogspot or whatever. But surely there must be a happy medium.

    Edward Champion mentioned Ebert. Now granted, he has earned a status as an elder statesman, and he can pretty much say what he wants. And there are certainly ethical questions raised by some of Ebert’s early reviews, like his GATES OF HEAVEN pan that reads like he hasn’t even seen the movie. But nowadays it’s hard to imagine Ebert getting booted out of Fox screenings for panning AVP-R or something. The principles and the methods of his criticism are well-defined: at least once a week he sits in a screening room with other Chicago critics and watches 3-5 movies. He writes his reviews and publishes them. His reviews read like he’s not even aware there’s an internet movie news community with its own zeitgeist (read: his baffled KICK-ASS review). If he’s friends with a filmmaker, like Werner Herzog or Errol Morris, this is usually noted in his review. If he feels like going off-reservation with a tangential opinion or an editorial it gets published in his blog. Clean and simple, and almost aways reliable. I don’t need to constantly measure his integrity, because he’s proven it time and time again with action.

    Anyway, I appreciate the debate. I don’t know how the internet movie news sites can possibly be reformed in their current state. Devin himself brings up many good points about why the system is broken on his Twitter feed, that have nothing to do with anything I’ve discussed here.


  31. Ed. If you had the journalistic impulse to make a single click, you would have learned that the graphic you speak of is the Cineboobs logo. It has precisely nothing to do with Devin or his cock. Are there any straws left for you to grasp? I’m beginning to think it’s you that has a problem with women.

  32. I can’t believe you used my last name. That is confidential and information that “will not published.” Absolutely deplorable. Do you even realize how invasive that is?

  33. Edward,

    Don’t you think you’ve wasted your time here? Read through what you’ve written and then the comments, and try to see just how your coming across – really pathetically. Correcting minor grammar and pointing out some incredibly minor mistakes is no great victory.

    From this very page you come across as the angry child where Devin’s sounds more like the adult, perhaps through a bit of a jerk.

    If you really believe what you say here why not never interact with Devin again, and stop writing massive articles about him, driving traffic back to his site.

    I’m sure now I’m wasting my time.

  34. I totally buy the Rabbit Hole review. Hedwig and the Angry Inch is one of the 10 best films I have ever seen and Shortbus is just as audacious, if less successful.

  35. Spot on. The guy’s been an unprofessional hack for years, but nobody at chud.com ever seemed to give a darn.

  36. Devin Faraci is a piece of shit. There is little point in trying to have a discussion with him because if he disagrees with you, he simply called you a moron, or stupid, without backing up his assertions and if you ever tried challenging him on the C.H.U.D. forums, he’d ban you for talking back. He’s a humorless, obnoxious bully and most of the negative comments about this article are most likely from his ass kissing sycophants at the CHUD circle jerk echo chamber.

    Just look at the way he left CHUD. Nick Nunziata, CHUD’s owner, was apparently late in getting Faraci a check for some expenses and what does he do? He has a fucking fit and calls Nunziata, the man who gave him his break, a “deadbeat”. But that’s Faraci for you; a fat, hairy, borderline pedophile(?) who’s also an egotistical, amoral scumbag who will no doubt fade into obscurity just like Ain’t It Cool counterpart Drew McWeeny, another self righteous asswipe who’s presence was a pox on that website.

  37. Thanks for the tip, CreepyThinMan. Faraci truly is unprofessional. I’ve seen my share of late checks as a freelancer, but selling your content to somebody else without trying to work things out is the height of duplicity. You ALWAYS try and keep your promise to your editor, even if there are delays. The grisly details here from CHUD owner Nick Nunziata:


    “Here’s the deal:

    Devin asked for me to cover his travel for FF, which I was totally cool with.
    I sent Devin a reimbursement check for his trip about 9 or 10 days ago.
    He hasn’t gotten it yet, but I didn’t know that. Since leaving he’s not been very reachable. Not a query about the check or anything.
    Then I got an email saying the coverage he was going to do for us was going elsewhere because the check hadn’t gotten there yet. So basically he didn’t even give me the chance to help him out until the check arrived. He just decided I was too slow for him [though I did exactly what was asked of me] and decided to hawk his coverage elsewhere. One of the biggest components of communication I have seen up close is cases where people don’t communicate and prevent shit from happening, instead waiting until things are beyond repair to address it. Preventative maintenance is so rarely used. I’m a parent, so I live and die by it.
    I was pissed, since it’s not fun for me to wake up and have an email waiting for me telling me this when the last communique we had on the matter was 12 days ago and it was me prepping to send the check (which I signed the next day and it went out with the first Exorcist tickets).
    I was pissed and let it be known. Yesterday was a flurry of shitty emails from both sides.
    I felt absolutely cheated here and finally decided it did no one any good being mean about it on email, so I gave in and threw in the towel, figuring that I have enough things trying to kill me in life and didn’t need this stress. I figure discussion’s over.
    I wake up and he’s posted here about the check and the reviews are on AICN of all places.
    I conclude that basically with a lot of folks who leave here and move on to bigger and better things, I simply cannot win and just have to accept that. It simply can’t be just human and normal and with actual communication. Why leave when you can leave with a last jab?”

  38. First off, Edward, this article is a joke. In pointing out Devin’s shortcomings, you come across worse than he does. Nitpicking every little inconsistency in his articles makes you look like a crazy person, when you could have put together a solid article with just a little bit research, without looking like a whining infant.

    That said, Devin is a disgrace. He’s a textbook case of narcissism and insecurity. An ungrateful alpha nerd who vastly overstates his importance. He was given the opportunity of a lifetime with CHUD, and he barely waited a day to burn every bridge with the site that got him where he is. He writes inflammatory articles and then throws tantrums when they get the intended response. He spent years banning every dissenting voice from the CHUD message board, until he was surrounded by an echo chamber of drooling sycophants. He can’t handle conflicting opinions, and when he’s challenged, he directly insults his readership and then bans anyone who calls him out. He’s also a hypocrite of the worst order, ridiculing his readers for their interests while championing his own obsessions, like Harry Potter or Planet of the Apes.

    Devin is capable of writing some insightful reviews and articles, but someone who has built a career on controversy, he is a thin-skinned coward. That’s why he loves Twitter and Formspring, where he can should his opinions without any chance of discussion. Meanwhile, I see he’s enjoying banning people from Badass Digest as much as he enjoyed it at CHUD. That’s because he has to have the last word. And it’s already been documented above that he’s less a journalist than a PR machine for filmmakers who show him the slightest bit of attention. He has no ethics or integrity; he merely hypes films months in advance based solely on exclusive set visits. He got the job with Badass after pimping the Alamo Drafthouse and Mondo for years, but he’ll stab them in the back as soon as he establishes himself as the loudest voice on their site. He’s a liability, and one day he’ll piss off the wrong person, and that will end his career. He deserves nothing less than that.

  39. One of the things I truly love about this article… besides the complete and unerring accuracy of Ed’s take on ‘The Bearded Thing That Needs Your Validation’, is the complete lack of ‘fluffer’ comments from Faraci’s sycophants. Like the ones who fueled him and his puffed-up superiority complex over at CHUD.

    You know the ones I mean… the robotic ‘You go, Devin!’ murmurs of those flunkies that are so very desperate to include themselves in the fraternity of ‘cool kid professionals’.

    In case you haven’t noticed, most of the comments here are not positive. It’s safe to say that some people care about not being an asshole… but anyone who’s encountered Devin IRL or on the Ether knows he does not care one jot. As long as he gets his free studio swag, he’s golden like a shower.

    Anyone who could inspire this much negative feedback does so because they themselves are negative people with nothing to offer this world except their inner ugliness… which, from most of the comments, is very clear.

    But on a more personal note, Devin is a puffy little popinjay who looks like he needs to be scrubbed down with a Magic Eraser™. Also, he needs to take a razor to that pubic hair on his unpleasant and very hard to look at face.

  40. Nick Nunziata in reference to this article: ” Makes my petty squabble with Devin seem even dumber. This guy a is poopshop.”

  41. On CHUD there’s this whore called Werewolf Girl, who probably works with fellow Chuddie Cleo doing ass-to-ass gigs, who had this to say about Edward Champion – Quote “It’s awesome to imagine the total mental breakdown this guy had because Devin insulted him. I picture him combing through every single thing he ever wrote searching for something, ANYTHING, he could use as examples of incompetence.”

    The only example one needs is Faraci’s insane hatred of James Cameron, probably because Cameron had made The Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss by the time he was Faraci’s age, and how he actually advocated, on CHUD, for the family of author Poul Anderson to sue Cameron because of similarities between Avatar and a short story by Anderson titled Call Me Joe. Then there’s Faraci’s claim that Avatar would have trouble making it’s money back. HA! The sad fact is that James Cameron beat his own record to make the highest grossing movie of all time, AGAIN, while Devin Faraci remains a fat, hairy and mean spirited petulant child worshipped by people who are even bigger losers then he is.

    But here’s the best part of Werewolf Whore’s quote about Edward Champion – “Did he bathe during this frantic search? Did he sleep? I picture a smelly overweight guy hunched over his keyboard with food crumbs in his beard for weeks.”

    You mean like this guy…. http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4343/mv5bmti0odu3mju2ml5bml5.jpg

    Irony, Werewolf Whore has it, and probably herpes….

  42. Jethro,

    I’m surprised TheNunz has time to comment on anything given his full time job as Guillermo del Toro’s knob polisher? Seems Nicky’s mouth muscles got him a gig as an ASSociate Producer on Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, appropriate considering that he’s got his tongue soo far up GDT’s culo that the fat fuck doesn’t need to worry about being hosed down to get rid of the dingleberries he can’t reach. Too bad that its release date has been “Delayed Indefinitely”, as a result of Miramax being sold by Disney, because I’m sure what cinema really needed was yet another remake, of a classic 1973 TV movie, starring Katie Holmes and Guy Pearce. Feels like a future BLOCKBUSTER to me and by that I mean Direct-to-DVD, sitting next to the Lindsay Lohan section.

    Is Nunziata still pimping Steve Alten’s M.E.G.? You know if he’s still harboring delusions that M.E.G. (toilet paper disguised as a novel about a GIGANTIC PREHISTORIC KILLER SHARK™!!!) will launch his career, like Jaws did for Spielberg, maybe he should consider remaking the classic 1977 TV movie The Car (about a killer Lincoln, a customized 1971 Mark III, not Abraham) since The Beard’s first flick was Duel, a TV movie about a killer truck. It’s about what I’d expect from a creative black hole like The Nunz who has managed to sucker that Mexican sloth into believing that his video rental history qualifies him to be a filmmaker as opposed to, say, Kevin Smith who has spent the last 16 years working as a Writer, Producer, Director and Actor and got his start the old fashion way, by actually DOING IT, as opposed to sitting in front of a computer screen and kissing Hollywood ass.

    Anywho, if the whole movie making thing doesn’t work out I’m sure little Nicky can eventually pimp his daughter out to Max Hardcore but it should really be Sophie’s choice. Who knows, the money might help him get a remake of the classic 1986 TV movie Mr. Boogedy (about an ugly monster) made which would make sense since Spielberg’s first credit was a Night Gallery episode called Eyes starring Joan Crawford (an ugly monster).

  43. What a spectacular waste of time. I’m not sure what you wish accomplish by writing this. Do you think Devin is going to see the error of his ways and quit writing because of a couple of typos and the fact that you disagree on whether or not Steven Spielberg is a “badass?”

    And for the record, he is. Watch Jurassic Park.

  44. I take great offence at the mention that I was raped, I had consensual sex with my son. My son Devin was almost 30 and had still never had sexual relations, mostly due to his insecurity over having a baby penis and I simply put in my will that after my death Devin could have sex with my corpse. I’m sure he wished it was his mother but she killed herself shortly after giving birth to Devin thinking that she had bore a retarded monkey. Please story these awful rumors and leave my son alone.

  45. While I’m not going to get involved with the back and forth regarding Faraci, I will say this. I’ve checked out CHUD periodically over the years, and lurked on their message boards because they often provide interesting cinematic discussion. However, from everything I’ve seen in 5 years of perusing the site, the guy is an assh*le with a superiority complex that often manifested itself in how he treated people on the boards. It’s one thing to run off trolls and undesirables, but he ran a fascist environment where the slightest disagreement could be cause for banishment from His Highness. His sycophants who excuse every move he makes are even more pathetic. You can be a “speak my mind and have strong opinions and don’t give a shit” guy without being a condescending power hungry assh*le and Faraci has proven himself to be a petty, small person.

    It IS possible to be of the mindset that “Faraci provides interesting commentary, but his childlike tantrums and unecessary rudeness is just unexcusable, FROM ANYONE.”. However, I guess they call them sycophants because they’re incapable of criticizing their God. I don’t care WHO you are, assh*les should be called out for assh*le behavior. Period.

  46. “It proves one thing, Mr. Hooper: it proves that you wealthy college boys don’t have the education enough to admit when you’re wrong.” -Quint

    So, personally, I don’t care so much about the points made in the original article here. Grammar, misinformation, cardboard cutouts, and misogyny are all interesting to talk about, but ultimately they’re distractions from the real issue here.

    The real issue is that Devin Faraci is an asshole. It’s not a crime, nor is it even important in the grand scheme of things, but it’s there. I remember earlier this year CHUD was systematically deleting end-of-article Comment posts based on people being “trolls” or “jerks.” Which is, of course, CHUD’s prerogative. The problem with Devin was that a comment in an article written by him that asked a serious question, in a non-snarky way, that challenged his point-of-view on a subject would get deleted almost immediately, and you would be dismissed as a “troll.” However, if you were to post something like “Devin is a fat whore douchebag,” it would stay. It makes my head spin. In what reality is this acceptable? I hate to repeat what’s been said so very many times already, but it really is an inflated sense of entitlement. And ego. If you’ve got half a brain, you’re not allowed to bandy words with Mr. Faraci. No matter how you try, entering a rational discussion with the man is impossible. Don’t worry, it’s not your fault- a masturbatory narcissist can’t have you making him feel bad when he looks in the mirror. If you’re a complete dummy who has nothing more to offer than, “duh, you’re smelly,” then by all means, let the masses see it! It only makes Devin look smarter to himself and (as he sees it) the world.

    Also, let’s talk troll. Faraci loves to dismiss people who disagree with him as such. Problem is he’s the biggest troll out there. I remember back when Avatar came out. Devin didn’t like it. Which is fine- lots of people didn’t. The issue was that if you DID like it, you were treated like a complete loser in his articles, in the forums, in the comments section, on Twitter, etc. Hell, he wrote articles about completely unrelated movies MONTHS after Avatar was released that took jabs at it (and, if you’re a fan, you). This is what a troll does. I mean, if you’re going to hold up a standard for what commenters and talkbackers can and can’t do, shouldn’t you live by these standards yourself?

    Anyway, basically, dude has every right to be a journalist. Freedom of speech, and all that. Also, he’s a good writer- I used to look forward to his CHUD articles. But after awhile all I saw was the misplaced anger, the hypocritical “standards”, and, ultimately, the way he treated the fans and site that MADE him, and now I’ve completely tuned him out. Which, ultimately, is the best course of action.

  47. What an interesting page to stumble across. I must say this spectacle is especially amusing for me as Devin was always a bit of a self-absorbed cock on Makeoutclub too when all he had was a tiny and grey little corner of the internet to festoon his arrogance upon. Having said that, I’m really not sure why any film blogger would regard their opinion to be any more insightful than a moderately well written user review on a website like IMDb anyway. Since the dawn of the internet cheap opinions on pop culture are ten a penny, I don’t really know what the selling point is, amusing Top 10 lists? I’ll stick to the printed word thanks. I think all of your hot pockets should be poisoned frankly.

    Take care!

  48. I ended up here because I thought the guy is an @$$!
    I have no problem with people criticizing the film or the actor that I like. But the fact that he treated his readers who oppose his opinions with lack of respect… I thought that was highly unprofessional!

  49. I am here because i have been banned from commenting over at that hack of a site this assclown runs because i said he should not be so negative all the time.

  50. Devin is a great writer with a huge depth of knowledge of cinema. He is also a baby with a massive chip on his shoulder that confuses his superior movie knowledge for superior knowledge in general. Devin is a guy so certain of his opinions and feelings he is the movie critic equivalent of George W Bush. There is no no need to overcomplicate this discussion. We’re talking about a guy who complains that Kevin Smith shields himself from criticism while he himself seems to break down and require psychological assistance when criticism is throw his way. Still on the Kevin Smith subject, Devin is seriously obsessed with the bearded fat director. I think he secretly wants Kevin’s salami. I am almost certain he wants to play out a Kevin Smith homoerotic fantasy. Devin would obviously be the catcher. He is too passive aggressive and whiny to take the male role in that mega-coupling. Devin reminds me of my ex wife, only uglier and more effeminate in his handling of confrontation.

  51. Couldn’t agree more. Clicked some link via some Grantland retweet to thsi Faraci doofus and what a tool! The guy’s writing is appallingly juvenile. No sense of humor. No turn of phrase. I’m not “into” Hollywood so I have no clue who he is. I don’t think he’ unfit other than his paunch. It’s more after reading him once even teenagers would find him to be not even remotely “bad ass.”

  52. I came across this today while looking up Devin’s take on Inception (a position I found almost as ridiculous as I found the film) and I’ve got to say, I’m glad this was written. Devin knows some stuff, no doubt, and has a way with words. But as a person he always struck me as needlessly cruel and closed minded. He truly does create little echo chambers out of websites he writes for and his responses to critiques were insanely out of hand. Of course, now that he’s been gone from CHUD for so long the site pretty much is on it’s last legs quality wise. Every “news” piece is lifted from another site and run through one of their “writers” to give it a bit of spin.
    Someone above brought up my biggest issue with online “geek” movie critics like devin and his ilk: we have NOTHING in common with the way they experience the films they watch. They did not pay for the content they consume ( but they’ll tell you left and right that YOU should) so where’s their investment here? Meh. I’m glad he’s off my screen

  53. I’m actually somewhat surprised that someone hasn’t killed Fuckstick Faraci yet. It needs to be done for the good of all mankind.

    It would also stop him from molesting any more children.

  54. For the record, I have not engaged in any form of communication with Devin in any form. I have no personal ax to grind…

    But he is WAY up on my list of ‘Internet personalities’ that I have no wish to meet in real life. His record speaks for itself. It’s depressing to see other rational, engaging writers under his tent. He smacks of alpha male ‘bro’ bullcrap at its highest.

    I was reading him engaging ‘Bronies’ in the comments section of a Film Crit Hulk piece THAT ARGUED AGAINST THE VERY TYPE OF BEHAVIOR THAT FARACI WAS ENGAGING IN. When Faraci starts bashing ‘manchildren’…the irony is simply too much. Why do all people who outright state “I’ve grown up.” manage to be such schmucks with little empathy?

  55. Having just been banned from commenting on his web site (for reasons I am at a loss to explain), I would say that his reputation as petulant is probably well earned. I have always conducted myself with integrity and thoughtfulness in any comments section for which I participate. But if I smell bull shit, I don’t hesitate to say so. Apparently saying so is cause to be banned, however reasonable one tries to be in expressing it. It is indeed a shame that his site also hosts the talents of Film Crit Hulk. I will miss his writing the most.

  56. His behavior continues.
    Now he’s calling anti-quinn gamers worse than ISIS terrorists.
    And writing hit piece articles about how “Why I Feel Bad For – And Understand – The Angry gamers” which are just filled with underhanded attacks and dishonesty.

    He labels someone like Jordan Owen as evil without a second thought or explanation. When just a cursory look at that guys content would show it was not a justifiable charge. So either he’s labeling people as evil for disagreeing with him, or he’s doing it out of ignorance or he’s doing inspite of him knowing he’s wrong. Malicious or stupid is the question I guess.

    IT wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t referenced by the likes of eurogamer and others as a source of information about this recent issue.

    And if you haven’t heard of quinngate/gamergate….
    Quinnspiracy Theory: The Five Guys Saga

    Quinnspiracy Theory: In-N-Out Edition

    “Quinnspiracy Theory: White Castles and Ivory Towers”

    Anita Sarkeesian Debunked in Under a Minute

    #Gamergate Gamers Are Dead? No They Are Just Furious

    Anyways Thunderf00ts latest answer to all this
    “Anita Sarkeesians ‘death threats’ and Joss Whedons ‘misogyny’! ”

    Honey Badger Radio: Zoe Quinn and Feminist Mean Girls
    karen straughan

    Anita’s Police Debacle: Something Doesn’t Add Up

  57. Ya this guy is pretty insufferable.
    He’s kinda known for banning people who disagree with him, even politely disagreeing. And jumps on any soapbox that might get him noticed. Might be a nice guy as a person, but as journalist he has a real defensive chip on his shoulder.

  58. This article reeks of sour grapes. It seems childish to devote so much time nitpicking the career of someone much more pronounced in the film critique business and comes off like a childish fit. Another comment mentioned the author (whose name I’ve already forgotten even after reading it several times throughout these comments) and his verbosity in place of clarity and the pedantic nature of his writing. I love how the author’s response proved this and exemplified it by using equivocation and germane in one very clunky sentence that accomplished nothing. I understand your intention for the “Devin’s father rape analogy” but I thought that was a disgusting low blow and the kind of base comment you vilify Devin for and, regardless of your opinions on his writing, comments about him being a pedophile are baseless and ignorant. Pull up your big boy pants and focus on improving your own writing before wasting thousands of tail chasing words denouncing a great and well respected film critic. Ugh.

  59. Now I know for a fact that Devin is unfit for Journalism!!. It’s pretty damning when the director of Suicide Squad (David Ayer) gives you the ultimate middle finger in his tweet. Devin is a damn liar and shouldn’t be trusted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *