Oh boy. They are not angry in any way. Nor are they "fanboys" (Mike and Rich are Trek fans, sure, but they're certainly not fanatic about it). Maybe you should at least try to watch the damn review. It's funny and insightful. It's 40 minutes long, because they had fun talking about it for that length. It's just like seeing the movie with a bunch of friends and talking about it afterwards over a few drinks. I sure discussed the movie a whole lot longer than 40 minutes with my buddies.
So please, get over it. It's just a bunch of guys talking about a movie. They didn't hate it and they didn't love it. And if you're interested, they tell you why. If you're not, fine. But man, why hate on them like that? Some act like they charge you money for watching their damn videos.
Speaking only for myself, I'm not really a fan of reviews on video (or of anything on video when text would suffice, for that matter.) In my experience, many of the YouTube reviewers do
seem to be angry or ranty a lot and the majority of them go on for far too long. Most of them are terrible at expressing themselves clearly and concisely, and all but a handful are just plain poor reviewers besides.
That said, I did manage (a couple of years back) to get through the RLM/Plinkett review of Star Trek
and found that he actually did have a lot of insightful things to say about the movie and demonstrated a fair depth of knowledge about filmmaking. The first couple of Star Wars reviews he did were similarly insightful.
However, the signal-to-noise ratio in even the Star Trek
review was poor, and in other Plinkett reviews I've checked out it's utterly atrocious. While his criticism may be sound, the "Plinkett" character shtick is badly in the way; it's simply not worth it to me to invest that much time in wading through so much dross, and my sampling of the first couple of "Half in the Bag" sessions did nothing to improve that impression. Yes, it's probably the characterization which sets him apart from any other reasonably-competent reviewer, but it's not something I find very entertaining - certainly not enough so that I'd willingly suffer through forty minutes' worth in order to glean five or ten minutes of actual review content. If he'd provide a separate link to a text review with all of the shtick excised, I might be willing to give that a try.