What happened to Harry Knowles?  

He seems the same to me, and I've been visiting his site since 1998.

I think maybe you just grew up and started to recognize Harry for the joke he is. I say that as someone who used to visit the site for news.

Ah, so you're the guy.

Yeah, I pretty much go over there to read the bizarre talkbacks. I had no idea there were so many ways to call someone fat.

I always admired Harry for his enthusiasm, even if that led to some awkwardly embarrassing hyperbole in his reviews. He strikes me as a person who loves film but just lacks the eloquence of a Devin when it comes to expressing it.

I haven't taken Harry seriously for a long time.

Remember his weird Blade 2 Review?

Here's a hint. You grew older. He didn't.

I'm not sure Harry actually reviews films. He does however truly love the medium. He's a cheerleader, and I mean that in a positive way.

Now you can definitely debate other aspects of the character he's put forth on his website. My mind drifts to the time he "reviewed" the PSP for the Sony. Seriously, it was the worst example of someone shilling a product i've ever seen. It was a blatant and honestly made me respect him a lot less. It makes me view his DVD lists and holiday shopping guides with a lot of skepticism.

You can also debate the effect he's had on journalism, net ethics etc...seriously you guys debate it, I'm too tired.

I take it you missed 'Pwessie-gate' then?

In all seriousness tho Chris Spider, it's been many many years since I've visited AICN and even back in the day it was for the people around Harry rather than the big fella himself - could you cite a few examples of this degeneration you're referring to?

Harry was never a good reviewer. We've all grown up some. Although, there really is the stink of Harry being hypnotized by the shiny gew-gaws the studios have sent him now.

There are good reviewers and interviewers at Harry's site. Other than nostalgia, I don't think he brings much to the table these days.

Surely he's more mascot than webmaster these days anyway?

Really? I've kinda thought he's always been like that.

Pwessie-Gate?

A few years back when a few other sites and critics started taking Harry to task for his shameless love of "Pweasants!" and being given gift bags and the like from studios - among other charges of unethical and unprofessional behaviour.

Film Threat really went to town on him....

Read more: http://www.filmthreat.com/features/159/#ixzz17IMCh0YL

...but then, that was back when some people still considered Harry not just a legitimate film critic, but the symbol of the internets new found power in the film business.

People don't really think that about Harry anymore do they?

One word: Yoko.

Knowles didn't invent trading handjob movie reviews for set visits and swag, but he was a pioneer at doing it on the Web. The only good thing I can say about him is that he and his site are the only reason many of us have heard of the Alamo Drafthouse. I didn't think much of the Drafthouse for years, because I associated it so closely with his creepy ass.

It was also how much he publicly revelled in it that made it seem unsavoury as well, but again - that was when people still saw him as some kind of legitimate figure, I think the description earlier in this thread of him being 'the ultimate cheerleader' is much more appropriate and I'd think how most people see him now.

It certainly seems to be how he sees himself.

Critical genius!

While attending the Scott Pilgrim premiere at the SoLa Drafthouse, I was walking with a friend through the front entrance and, in my carelessness, I hit the door on a wheelchair-bound man's foot. Rather hard. I turned around to immediately apologize and it's none other than Harry Knowles. The man looked at me, a little mortified but he collected himself and told me it was okay. I tried to hold the door for him but whoever was assisting him just shook their head at me, like I had just struck royalty. Bizarre.

I've attended two screenings with him present, and was seated pretty close to him both times. The man's got spirit and he watches with boylike wonder, I'll give him that. Say what you will about his internet presence, but the man genuinely enjoys going to movies.

So does my 7 year old cousin.

as a reviewer he's completely useless, and not to be trusted...the guy is buddy buddy with filmmakers that he reviews for christ sake...i'm not going to listen to Robert Rodriguez' drinking buddy review a movie of his. same for Del Toro, Jackson, Tarantino etc. the studios for sure have him on a leash...probably successfully tempted him after he destroyed Batman and Robin and was considered a genuine threat. there's a picture of this guy somewhere under "shill".

as a film enthusiast, he's...cute. personally it's easy to go to that site and just avoid Harry, you don't have to read any of his stuff.

His reviews are worthless but his love of movies is clearly immense and to his credit his taste seems to go beyond just the 'geek' fare his target audience eats up. I always find his butt-numb-a-thon lineups interesting to read about.

But to be honest I barely find Ain't It Cool worth a glance post-moriarty, even on the guilty pleasure level I used to read it. Hardly any scoops or interesting writing. The sad thing is that I can't really be bothered to read McWeeny's 'solo' stuff either. His style was refreshing in the context of the general retardedness of the rest of AICN, but on his own he's kind of a pompous square.

Had to have hooked up with for the money. Had to have.

How did I miss that Blade 2 review? Jesus.

The thing is with Harry, they're not reviews are they? They are articles, really really long tweets even.

I don't think anyone really thinks differently, nobody goes to Aintitcool for a real review, just the opinion of some Turbo geeks (that's why I go there at least). I don't think his work is anymore more or less bizarre than it was back then. He's like a drunken conversation, I think you have to be drunk as well to enjoy him. In fact, I quiet admire that he hasn't really changed his tone, that's just Harry. I like it when he trashes a film, because his surreal hyperbole is well suited to a "rant". But reviews like his Tron Legacy, where a good 60% of the "review" is about watching Tron for the first time isn't worth reading unless you're "Father Geek" or Yoko.

God dammit, that Blade 2 review...i had forgotten all about that. (Didnt Knowles bail on reviewing Hellboy 2, now that i think about it?)
Also, the "Van Helsing" review is just mind warping.
The guy has always been just a fanboy, never a critic in my book.
However, my worst memory of the guy was his reasoning for picking "House of Flying Daggers" over "Hero" in a list; he said "Hero"'s idea of bowing to an all powerful emperor was too "bushian" for his tastes, i kid you not.

Masswyynn/Quint and Capone are okay reviewers though. But the rest of the Aintitcool site is a complete mess. There's no sense of structure or order to the articles.

I go to Comingsoon for my daily news. Aintitcool has some exclusive Audience Test Reviews, but thats about it.

Fixed that for you.

I still go to the site. Loving the Behind the Scenes pics of the day and some of Eric Vespe's articles are really good (although I dislike his attitude of not doing set visits unless it is just him). I wish Jeremy Smith would start writing long form pieces; I kind of go there everyday hoping to see him doing that. Can't stand the nicknames crap is still going on.

Would love to go to BNAT, but sorry, all the crap to go to it turns me off of it. It is basically hazing and annoying and the same crap people give fraternities shit for doing in college; but because it is for BNAT then it is ok.

Moriarty's always been that way it just was overshadowed by the stupidity around him so he looked relatively talented. The guy has no critical skills whatsoever and his writing style is god-fucking-awful.

ETA: Still miss the hell out of Jeremy here at CHUD.

At least McWeeny stopped, to quote that FT article, "spinning bullshit fantasies about himself for half the review."

I do think a highlight of McWeeny's post-AICN output was the piece on Michael Jackson.

I would like to add some Outlaw Vern love. As I never get tired of saying, his review of Chaos is, as McWeeny rightly said, the best review anyone has ever written.* I also miss Patton Oswalt's moonlighting as Neill Cumpston; his assessment of the elf scenes in one LOTR flick or another being like "being in a candle shop for twenty minutes"** made me hurt myself laughing.

Also, anybody know who Alexandra DuPont really was/is? I heard (not from talkbackers but from a pretty reliable source) that it's actually a guy writing under that persona, but said source was not forthcoming with the true identity. Anyway, DuPont, whatever her/his gender, was a class act over there.

* "Anansi the Spider." Jesus Christ. I still lose it thinking of that.

** Actual quote: "also there's some shit with the elves that's like being in a fucking candle store for twenty minutes" Fried gold, that.

Scriptgirl. ARGH. Knowles, what hath ye wrought.

I miss Mr. Beaks too, I had only found his reviews/articles after some heads-up since the AICN front page is a mess.

Beaks and Vern are the only reasons to visit AICN..

I think what winds me up about Harry is this whole "I'm just a nerd like you" thing he does. Take a look at the dudes history, he has never been just a normal nerd he's always been in a more privilaged position. Which is not a bad thing just don't try and play that card all the time someone calls you out on it.

Come to think of it, he reminds me more and more of Perez Hilton everyday.

Was it actually revealed that Oswalt was Cumpston or was that just nerd-ful wishing?

Oh god, Scriptgirl. That, along with a few times when they'd refer to people every self-respecting film geek should know as "the writer of Being John Malkovich" etc in headlines, marked the point where I realised the writers were actively writing to an audience of tards.

Taking aside the articles that rub their odiousness in your face (like those fucking Jedi Council round tables, or the ones where he'll write somebody an 'open letter' full of self-serving bullshit), I'm trying to pin down exactly what rubs me the wrong way about his writing in general. I mean, it's not like he's incoherent or anything. Part of has to be his habit of talking in cliched journo platitudes (just how often has he used a variation on "some of their finest work" to describe a performance?), and filling reviews and articles with vomitous sentimental gushing about being a father. I keep coming back to the word 'square' to describe him; He just seems like a dork, and a dork who happens to be quite full of himself.

If recent news is to be believed, Drew McWeeny got FOX to stop churning out crap and take the longer view on their library. For that alone he has my grudging respect. As far as the current crop of writers on AICN, Beaks stands at the top by a mile, but Capone's solid as hell too, and I tend to pay attention to Herc's TV recommendations.

Yes, he was Cumpston. What a hilarious parody of the internet cheerleader (that Harry has turned into a cottage industry.)

When you are at best an average writer with very little in the way of critical thinking skills you shouldn't be an arrogant, condescending little prick.

To me, it's the geek-done-well story. They tend to turn in to the guys they hated in high school but only with even less to be truly arrogant about.

BNAT is a great concept, it's just overshadowed by the fact that it's skewed toward being Harry's birthday party or some ridiculous shit.

I think he has a lot of the same problems that many of the other Cine-Web guys do. Many of them got into this because they wanted to make movies or become the center of attention. The problem is they didn't want to go about it the way the rest of us have/are...by putting in their dues and learning the actual craft. Many of them are enthusiastic, but after a while the constant self promotion rings hollow, especially when you (as a reader) actually have the least little bit of experience working in the business.

I think this is probably why people appreciate Devin's (just to name one person off the top of my head, not excluding anyone here!) work so much. He isn't trying to turn every review, interview, and interaction into a shot at his big directing break. He approaches his work as a critic.

That sounds like a long shot at best.

Apparently, he wrote an open letter to FOX and it was talked about at the studio after it was published, and it goes to explaining their recent change of attitude, especially on geek properties like, say, X-MEN. Not saying he was solely responsible, but if he played a hand in fixing this glaring flaw at FOX, then that makes me happy. My sorta point is that even Moriarty has seemed to find his voice online after leaving the carnival that is AICN.

Hahahaha ah yes his 'open letters'. I'm sure that one he wrote to the Coens after Ladykillers is directly responsible for them making good movies again as well.

I've always liked Drew's reviews; they're not as sharply written as Devin's, but he's been a pretty reliable barometer (for me, at least).

But Knowles...yeah, I really do think it's a combination of us, the readers growing up as well as the medium. AICN, thanks to boosts from EW and reasons stated above, was the first "big" online movie site. Back in the day, they actually also used to have scoops and news, even if some of that was boosted unethically from other sites.

Harry's reviews have always been crap, though; they are utterly subjective reactions, filled with maudlin memories and horrid, horrid grammar (and spelling) mistakes. The combination of his first, gushing review of GODZILLA and his confession to weeping during ARMAGEDDON were the final straws for me...and that was, what, 12 years ago? Compare them to the current group here at CHUD - especially Nick's and Renn's - or Devin's; it's clear Harry hasn't a fucking clue about the mechanics of storytelling, a good, easily articulated sense of film history, or the ability to step away from the emotional strings the filmmakers try to pull.

I do like some of the other writers there (Beaks, for instance), but Knowles' reviews mean nothing to me (when he even bothers to write and post them). The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is a neat recurring piece, and they periodically offer some sort of scoop. But CHUD, HitFix and LatinoReview are the sites I check before AICN for news or articles.

Not sure what that has to do with anything, but okay.

Pretty sure that's just wishful thinking. Did his letter get brought up at Fox meetings? Possibly. Did it change minds? Not as likely as listening to the directors and writers who actually made Fox money in the past.

And, honestly, has Fox really changed that much that it's worth crowing about?

I think the quality of the X-Men reboot and THE WOLVERINE will help answer this question.

Gonna dive in here, and yeah, I'm going to defend Harry, so feel free to skip this if you want.

Harry's online persona and his real-life persona aren't exactly the same. He's genuinely enthusiastic about film - the most enthusiastic film person I know, really - and my favorite writings of his are when he's sharing that enthusiasm. But he also writes to provoke. It's no accident that hit-wise AICN's still a juggernaut in the community. Sure, he was one of the first, but Harry and the crew have engaging online personalities that keep most people coming back.

I've known him for about 13 years now, and met him personally in 2000. I was invited to his wedding but I couldn't go - my mom was in town and it was the 20th anniversary of my dad's passing, so it was a rough weekend all around anyway. I've been to 9 of the last 11 BNATs, and am going to this weekend's 12th. I'd say that BNAT's an important event in film, but that's for a whole other discussion. I know Patricia fairly well too, and she's terrific - she genuinely loves him and they seem to be having a great time together.

Dude's helped found Fantastic Fest, probably the major genre film fest in the United States. He helped build the Alamo Drafthouse into serious prominence, and anyone who's went there probably agrees that it's one of the best theater chains in the country, if not the best. Behind the scenes, you'd be surprised at what the guy's involved in; let's just say that some of your favorite films might be radically different if not for his involvement.

As far as his Internet persona goes, all I can say is that he's different in person. Strike up a conversation with him and he defends his points articulately and with passion. He's had an interesting life, to say the least - you could just consider him the regular basement-dwelling geek but you'd be wrong. I don't know if you know about his upbringing but the dude was raised on film since an infant, and then he's had some traumatic experiences with his mom that's shaped his worldview.

I should know better by now and you'd think I would have developed a thicker skin about this but whenever I see threads like this it gets me because I know him and I know that as a person he's a very giving guy and I've been a recipient of his good nature more than once. He's helped me out in some rough times. I've written for him as much as I can and I'll continue to do so because he's a friend, since I'm not a professional writer.

As far as the BLADE 2 review, it's hilarious to me that people still get riled up about that. Fact is, GdT bet Harry after Harry told him how much he loved his movie that he wouldn't write a review that compared the movie to, erm, cunnilingus. It was a joke review and was always intended as such. You can't bet Harry not to do anything because he'll do it and take wicked glee in doing it (believe me, you should hear him cackle at some of the movies he shows at BNAT).

Do I agree with everything Harry writes? Of course not. But I don't want an echo chamber of my opinions. When he doesn't like something, he's coming from a real place and although I don't agree with his INCEPTION review I know where he's coming from with it. It's actually the essence of civil discourse on the Internet - Harry isn't attacking anyone for loving a movie, he'd never do that.

Yeah, he's a friend of mine, so view this as biased if you want to. As a writer, sure, he may not be Strunk and White, but he does have a genuine enthusiasm for what he does and if you talk to most of the Internet community, minor disagreements aside, you'd be surprised by how much respect the man still gets. As a person, I adore him and Patricia and Cargill and Eric and Jeremy and Steven and Jay, and they've been like an online surrogate family for me these past near 15 years.

I was waiting for that to happen, and I mean that with very little ill will.

I don't think anyone has questioned the guy's enthusiasm...