The true irony of this movie is that the comedians and actors interviewed become the hecklers of hecklers and critics. For the most part I sympathize and agree with what the comedians are saying. But when Eli Roth just makes fun of a fat chick in Cleveland as though anyone who doesn't live in Hollywood or like his movies is a dumb worthless piece of sh*t, he becomes the bully (heckler) he's complaining about. Another bit of irony is that I am writing this "review" about a movie that essentially just becomes a sob fest of actors complaining about bad reviews they've received. After a half hour of this I started having a hard time feeling sorry for them no matter how right they were and just got bored. It really just shows how self obsessed some of these people are. Do they ever disagree with a good review? Sorry some of your movies are really, really sh*tty and you know they are sh*tty. Does that mean people shouldn't or won't watch them? Hell no. People love bad movies and I love tons of 'em, but don't get your p*nties in a bind if somebody calls your piece a sh*t a piece of sh*t. Just count your cash all the way the bank and get your agent on the horn, because I'm sure there's another piece of sh*t waiting for you to star in. Anyway, I give this movie 2 1/2 waffles. ;)

While I understand the point of this movie being to address the unnecessary ways of heckling and/or critics, what seems to be missed is... They are nothing without the critics. You must know darkness to recognize light or the absence thereof, correct? I would have enjoyed this movie if they would have actually looked at their point in a collective way. Unfortunately, their argument is too invalid (as they say about the critics interviewed and mentioned) because not a single person ever says how they want to be addressed.If you are going to say you don't like how a person is addressing you, tell them how you'd like to be addressed then. If you don't like how these critics are doing their job (which is oh so very relevant to yours) then tell them how you'd like them to do it the "right" way.

It's sort of weird to criticize a movie about criticism of the arts, such as this documentary, but the act of writing this review emphasizes our right to do so in a free society. My personal opinion about why criticism on the internet about movies and art became so popular is to either warn potential movie-goers or music fans about a particularly tasteless or unoriginal movie, actor, musician, or other artist…or to gain notoriety and fans of their reviews and taste, to be the one that others can turn to for the closest representation of their own feelings and taste.In this documentary, comedian and actor Jamie Kennedy explores how criticism of his onstage, comedic works have transcended into an internet frenzy of opinions and reviews without censorship or, at times, deeper thought. He goes directly to the source of internet-hate and loathing for his works, calling out bloggers face-to-face who are trying to gain their own reputation for scathing, no-nonsense reviews. He explores old clips of comedians handling hecklers in creative and not- so-creative (and sometimes racist) ways, as well as interviews with other public figures such as dancers, musicians, and even sports stars.I think Jamie did a great job by including such a broad stance on the arts and what criticism means to the artists involved. Ultimately, it's best to never Google yourself or remind yourself as an artist that even bad publicity is good publicity. As long as your name is out amongst other well-known names in any way, people will try and form an opinion about someone they keep hearing about, which means they will look you up on YouTube or somewhere else on the internet to find out what your art is really about.But it's a natural reaction to dislike and try to convey your feelings about things you consumed and were not happy with to others. Jamie can never change this. If I bought a pair of $300 sneakers and found out afterwards how bad they made my feet feel, I'm going to review them and warn others, "Hey, don't buy these shoes. Here is my opinion…" That's what EVERYONE should be doing: tell other human beings how your experience was and make your voice heard. Comedians should work on a tighter set if they're getting blasted by randoms in the crowd night after night, never giving them a chance.So in the end, I felt that this was more a movie about Jamie Kennedy's maturing process as an actor/comedian amongst other actor/comedians and how he deals with the inescapable criticisms he faces by choosing to act or perform a specific way. It happens to all of us in some way in our lives, but we learn to get over it, which I think he did by the end.

This film takes a look at the heckler, the critic, and those they target for praise or derision. The film draws from a wide variety of individuals, who share their experiences as members in the entertainment industry, and in the world of sports.While the film is interesting and entertaining, I found the enjoyment factor to be significantly reduced due to the approach adopted by Jamie Kennedy throughout the film. Rather than using an empirical approach to explore the issues, Jamie Kennedy seems to go for a more personal and emotional approach, seemingly designed to garner sympathy. In my opinion, this approach was not effective, and tarnished the film as a whole.I found it interesting to hear how individuals from a wide variety of careers handle the criticism that comes with their chosen profession. Most seem to share a healthy outlook on criticism and take it for what it is, an opinion. Others, however, are not as mentally resilient, and are seriously impacted by negative comments written about them by any given stranger, from any given outlet.This film asks the question, "What makes a critic qualified to be a critic?". While seemingly a simple question, I don't believe it's possible to quantify WHAT and WHY anybody likes OR dislikes any given performance. We all have our likes and dislikes, which is why there is so much diversity in the world of entertainment and sports.The film makes a valid point about the nature of criticism, in that rather than addressing what they liked and disliked, and why, many critics simply make unsubstantiated personal attacks that have little to do with the project they are critiquing. Fair enough.Sadly, the film didn't address the enormous amount of "fake praise" by critics (EASILY observed here on IMDb), nor did they address the impact critics actually have on potential customers.Who actually goes off of what a "professional" critic says? I don't.I make my decisions based on the performers in the project, the subject, and the opinions of like minded friends and associates. I can honestly say that I have NEVER made a decision to see ANYTHING based on the opinion of ANY "professional" critic.In the end, this film is worth a watch, and if you can ignore the "emo / wounded" approach used by Jamie Kennedy throughout the film, you'll find it even better than I did.I'd give it 7 of 10 stars, however, I became annoyed with the whiny vibe put out by Jamie Kennedy throughout the film, so I'm taking 2 stars back from the total.End total: 5 of 10 stars.