New York Times Critic Hates Zoolander 2, Doesn't Find Ben Stiller Really Ridiculously Good-Looking

"...he can pass as handsome: just barely," seethes Stephen Holden in a scathing review, but is it trying to be satire?

New York Times movie critic Stephen Holden does not find Ben Stiller to be really, really ridiculously good-looking.

Actually in certain roles, Holden thinks the Zoolander 2 star "appears dwarfish and deformed with a head that's too big for his body and empty space-alien eyes." Stiller "can pass as handsome: just barely," writes Holden, but depending on the angle, he finds that the actor "swings between polarities of trollishness and desirability" (!).

So, either this is a lost attempt at subtle satire or Holden is being unnecessarily harsh. His NYT review isn't only about Stiller's looks, though—he goes on to attack the "scatterbrained screenplay he wrote with Justin Theroux, Nicholas Stoller and John Hamburg"  and how the film "bumps along on a stream of mostly unfunny jokes and awkward celebrity sightings...'

But, wait! Holden notes that Zoolander 2 "doesn't have a trace of erotic energy," writing, "A bunch of orgiasts appear ready for action, but they don't do anything beyond making faces and lightly petting one another in an ambulatory group hug."

If you re-read that last sentence, you'll note Holden describes the characters in this movie as "orgiasts" (orgiast is defined by Merriam-Webster as "one who celebrates orgies") who want action but settle for "lightly petting one another in an ambulatory group hug."

Is Holden trolling us with this review? Or is the New York Times vainer than every male model caricature combined and lacking a sense of humor entirely? Your guess is as good as ours.

In any case, Zoolander 2 hits theaters Friday.