The tag line underneath Lou Lumenick's name should read, "Will provide sh*tty film reviews for fifty cents because that's about as much as my opinion is worth." Lumenick, who writes film reviews for the New York Post, is easily the worst critic of 2008 so far -- and, unlike his reviews, I'm actually going to back up that statement.

Lou reviewed The Promotion on Friday and gave it Zero stars. Look, I'll be the first to tell you The Promotion is in no way the greatest film of all time, but it's charming, humorous, human and has a lot of heart. But this has nothing to do with The Promotion, and everything to do with performing the job assigned to you.

Fine. Zero stars. We'll go with that; perhaps Lou spotted enough flaws to warrant the rating. But then I actually read Lumenick's "review" of The Promotion, which starts out saying the film's tagline should change to read, "No Laughs." Really? Because I've watched this film with two different audiences in two different states, and each time the audience was laughing ... a lot. Did you watch it with an audience, Lou? Probably not. But let's move on ...

... to the film analysis. Why is it so bad, Lou? Tell us. Criticize! "Reilly and Scott waste considerable effort playing a pair of obnoxious losers with anger-control issues competing for the managership of a Chicago supermarket by playing dirty tricks on each other." Okay, interesting analysis there -- except if you had actually watched (and payed attention) to the film, you'd have realized that a) neither character is obnoxious in any way, shape or form, b) neither character has anger control issues; they're actually both quite calm throughout until things boil over right at the end, and c) neither plays dirty tricks on the other -- they both dig their own holes. So where'd you get all that, Lou? Did you watch the movie? Or does the NY Post -- my hometown paper -- allow its critics to review films they completely make up on the spot?

But I'll give Lou the benefit of the doubt ...

... and maybe you didn't remember the film as clearly as you should've, seeing as, ya know, you're a major film critic in a major market -- one of only three showing The Promotion this weekend, mind you. Back to the criticism!

"You know a movie's in serious trouble when comic pros such as John C. Reilly and Seann William Scott can't make it work, even fitfully."

How so? Oh, you didn't follow that up with anything. Nevermind.

"The script by Steve Conrad (who wrote the excruciating Nicolas Cage vehicle "The Weather Man") is lame, its flaws magnified by Conrad's thoroughly inept and lethargic directing debut."

How so? How is it lame, Lou? What? Tell us? How was Conrad's directing debut "inept and lethargic" And is it so much of me to ask a major film critic like Lou Lumenick to explain these harsh claims? Am I allowed to do that as a reader and moviegoer? Oh wait, I think he's about do give us an example ...

"For starters, he's totally clueless about how to set up a joke, either verbally or physically."

Nope. Just another blanket statement. How is he clueless? Which joke didn't work, and how did it not work? What could've been done to help it work? Mmmm, you don't tell us, do you? No. You just go on to say ...

"Not only does "The Promotion" make "Employee of the Month" look like David Mamet by comparison, this is perhaps the first movie shot in Chicago that looks like it was photographed on the cheap in Canada."

Again, EXPLAIN. He just throws these random sentences out and hopes something sticks. They don't feel connected at all; reading his review is like the equivalent of watching two seventh graders in a "Yo Mama" battle. And the sad part is that many New Yorkers will see the zero stars and stay away from The Promotion (which, in all honesty, is a pretty damn good flick) because this jackass writes for a major newspaper in a major market where this tiny film needs to do decent business in order to expand.

But I bet Lou doesn't think about that. He doesn't like to help his readers understand why something should receive zero stars, he just wants to play annoying guy at the baseball game who screams obscenities at the players until someone finally turns and tells him to shut the f*ck up.

And with all these print critics getting fired lately, hopefully someone will eventually force Lou Lumenick to shut the f*ck up. He's ruining films, he's giving all print critics a bad name and he's being paid to do it ... by a major newspaper in a major market! I will say this, Lou: When you're canned, don't come running to Cinematical -- because, unlike the NY Post, we actually require our critics to watch the movie they're reviewing, and then -- wait for it -- back up their criticisms with a well thought-out review of the film's strengths, weaknesses or both.

It's cool, though. You can bash the online critics all you want. Meanwhile, I'll remain here content in knowing that Lou Lumenick's review of The Promotion makes Cinematical's review of The Promotion look like David Mamet by comparison.

You want to publicly call The Promotion the worst film of the year so far, Lou? Well, I'll publicly call you the worst film critic of the year so far. Enjoy the honor.