I'm glad he doesn't, too.

Sorry, had to say it.

Says the guy who got through an entire review of Cabin In The Woods, including mentioning Buffy, without so much as a mention of Joss Whedon. Never heard of him?

This is the second Reed review I've clicked out of curiosity why he gave such abysmally low scores to popular movies, and the second in which he's said things where he says things in his review that betray that he didn't watch the movie. "Allows paying customers to watch real people slaughtered ... the game ends only if the virgin survives"? What movie is he talking about? That isn't in Cabin In The Woods, yet he spends several sentences on it here. Once again it looks like Reed hasn't actually watched a movie he gave an abysmally low score to, or at least, didn't watch it closely enough to detect major plot points. Did he nod off while watching it?

Considering he say the kids had a "lighter" after the time the film spent explicitly showing the girl laboriously duct-taping the wooden matches to the door, and several other odd outright factual errors in this article, such as...

1) How he confuses the mid-movie flashback in which Cage destroys the pool table (which culminates in a heartfelt discussion about foiled expectations and broken dreams that is central to the theme of the movie and which Reed seems also to have somehow completely missed) and the ending in which he attacks his son in the car, not destroys the house, with the pickaxe; or 2.) the lengthy flashback in which it's clearly explained that being with his topless girlfriend in the car is a memory, not a fantasy, which explains the importance of the car and what it means that he damages it in attacking his son; or 3.) saying he never knew what year the film is set in when it goes out of its way to show technology and music cues that reveal it to be set roughly present-day;

...it certainly sounds like Reed didn't watch the movie himself at all. Maybe he had someone watch it for him and then relate plot points to him, inaccurately, or maybe he had it on in the background while he did something else and didn't give it much attention. But it's a little insulting to the reader to have someone posing as a movie reviewer but reviewing movies that he obviously either hasn't seen or hasn't watch closely enough to review.

It's no masterpiece, but, come on, guy, at least watch it before you rate it a "0".