Slant magazine provides some of the most pretentious, convoluted, obtuse, overwritten, horribly bad movie "reviews" I have ever read. Here's an example.
Basically the author dislikes the movie for being overly sympathetic to all characters and not judgmental enough. But God forbid he come right out and say that. Instead we get Death by Adjectives and phrases like "limning a milieu with extraneous humanism," which sounds like it just came from the keys of someone who has recently discovered the thesaurus [or maybe the Increase Your Word Power! section of Reader's Digest].
As you can see [if you can make any headway in the impenetrable thicket of purple prose], the reviewers make it a point to dislike pretty much everything. Then they expound on their dislike with the grandiloquent bloviation worthy of those self-important people who think that they are too stupendous to crack jokes. To a man [and I think they're all men], they're acutely allergic to clarity of expression and direct communication of ideas. They clearly believe that, the more subordinate clauses their "reviews" have, the better they are.
I like to read stuff like this occasionally, just to roll my eyes at its egregiousness. It reminds me what not
Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a milieu that needs some limning with extraneous humanism. :p
P.S. This also brings up the question -- if you hate movies, both generally as a concept and specifically as individual films, which the writers of Slant apparently do, why write about them in the first place?