Q. I recently came across a post on gawker.com which claimed to contain an excerpt from the worst movie review of all time. The review is for the new Paul Rudd comedy "Role Models" and was written by (name withheld) of FHMOnline.com. Could this be the worst review ever done by a "professional" writer? Also, the article claimed (name withheld) was paid handsomely for writing this drivel. What does that say about the state of film criticism in America when major critics are losing their jobs while rubbish like this is published and paid for?
Ryan Murphy, Kearny, N.J.

A. Oh, it's bad, all right. It contains not one detail you'd have to actually see the movie to know. Yet it rips off our trademarked Thumbs®. Here are three sentences: "'Role Models' feels like a dysfunctional family film. It's got a lot of that warmness, but there is also cursing and boobies. It's got a good moral in the end that you would want to share with your kid, but might feel uncomfortable with the nudity, or not."

Using the link you supplied, I visited gawker.com and here's what else I read by the Gawkers: "It is possible a more terrible movie review exists somewhere, but this one is in the unfortunate position of having been read by jealous ex-staff of the former magazine. ... Our disapproving source claims the review was the product of a former FHM office assistant, now drawing down a nice salary on the 'editorial' side of FHMOnline."

Now it gets interesting. Gawker does not mention the name of the author of the review, which has no byline, but you know it. Gawker does not claim he was "paid handsomely for this drivel," but you do. Gawker did not supply a link to the offending review, but you did. And you, Ryan Murphy, used to write reviews for FHM. In fact, you were once the U.S. editor for FHMOnline, and thus in a position to know how handsomely (name) was paid.

But I agree with you. It is a terrible review. It also contains these sentences: "Seann William Scott plays a character that reminds us of a Stifler in his 20s. This may sound like a bad thing, they play their characters well, and work well together as a comedic duo. Besides, we always wondered what happened to Stifler."

Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't sound like a bad thing that "they play their characters well and work well together as a comedic duo." The bad review also observes that Scott reminds us of a Stifler in his 20s, and that "we always wondered what happened to Stifler." There is a clue in the film: THIS is what happened to Stifler! Seann William Scott played him in "American Pie"!