This is mindblowingly impressive.
14
Jun
LIKED
– The Hangover justifies the hype; it is bust-a-gut funny and often, for a comedy where a guy humps a tiger, wickedly smart. If you had told me a couple of years ago that Bradley Cooper would finally make the jump to true stardom in a comedy where the funniest bits all go to Zach Galifianakis, I would probably have looked at you funny and said “how does that go again?” But it’s true, because Cooper is obviously the leading man in this movie and Galifianakis and Ed Helms are his support.
– President’s Choice makes passionfruit (and diet passionfruit) pop now? I sometimes think there is a little room at President’s Choice headquarters where there’s this one guy whose sole job is coming up with new flavors of pop. (I mean, it would explain the lychee soda they introduced last year.) But the passionfruit is easily their best entry since blackcurrant a couple of years ago (and why did they discontinue blackcurrant)?
– Holy shit, The Brothers Bloom is staggeringly good. Clever, funny, charming (even if I didn’t already have a massive crush on Rachel Weisz I would have one now), and it has plot twists that you genuinely sometimes do not see coming, which is all too rare in modern moviegoing these days. Terrific performances, dialogue, visual conception, everything. It is hard to explain how amazingly good this movie is.
– Okay, I’ll admit it: Wipeout is a guilty pleasure. The jokes have gotten better since last year (not much better, but still), and the obstacles have gotten more clever. It’s still television gone stupid, but it’s good for a laugh.
DID NOT LIKE
– Flash: Rebirth reads like Geoff Johns trying out his greatest hits album on repeat. “Hey, Green Lantern Flash is back from the dead but there’s a problem and also Sinestro Professor Zoom is not, in fact, dead but actually behind a lot of the new problems that Hal Barry face, plus everybody else who was ever a Green Lantern Flash gets to look vaguely incompetent as well.” Beyond a nice, brief interaction with Superman, this is almost more offensive than Ultimatum due to sheer badness.
13
Jun
The Pomengranate Smartphone ad is one of the better viral ads I’ve seen in a while.
Top comment: I’m sure nova scotia has everything I want, If all I want is salmon.
oooooooh, burn!!!
Take that Nova Scotia — Count Baqula
12
Jun
In the previous Mark Steyn post, Cosmo accused me of ad hominem argument, then, when I told him he didn’t actually seem to understand what ad hominem was, went and got the dictionary definition (or, well, the about.com definition, anyway) and still managed to get it wrong:
“Ad hominem is a Latin term meaning “to the man”. It is short for “argumentum ad hominem” which refers to an argument against a man. An argument that is ad hominem is one that has deviated from the claims being made and has instead focused on the person making the claims.”
Calling Steyn an asshole would most certainly qualify, as you gave no examples to back up this claim. Do you know Steyn? Ever interacted with him? Corresponded, even? Give us some evidence as to why he’s an asshole, other than because he possesses the extreme character flaw of disagreeing with your political positions.
Who’s REALLY the hack here?
I’m going to go into a little detail now, because this is one of my major pet peeves: people (on any side of the political spectrum: left, right, Ron Paul, 4chan, you name it) get this wrong all the time. So I’m taking my reply to his comment and turning it into a post. (My blog, my rules.)
An argument that is ad hominem deviates from the claims being made and focuses on the person making the claims, this is true, but is still ultimately targeted at the claims, which is why ad hominem is included as one of the classic arguments of fallacy. The generic example of an ad hominem is:
“[X]’s argument about [whatever] is wrong because he is a worthless asshole.”
That’s how ad hominem differs from insult: it takes insult, which is essentially opinion, and treats it as evidence.
For example, I think Mark Steyn is a malicious asshole. That’s opinion (and insult). But it’s not an argument. If I want to justify it and turn it into an argument (IE, “Mark Steyn is a malicious asshole because X”), I might say it’s because he oversimplifies his arguments to misrepresent the position of his opposition, or because he conflates essentially unrelated political phenomena on the basis of apparent surface similarities to create the appearance of a sustained argument where none in fact exists.(And in fact I did say just that in the original post, albeit not as eloquently.) I might go on to add that Steyn’s been cheerfully wrong about the Great Depression and the merits of Augusto Pinochet, among other things. (Those were just the first two links that reminded me of amusements past. There are plenty more; I heartily recommend his idiotic screed about the merits of Jack Kirby versus Stan Lee to comics fans, wherein he suggests that Stan Lee’s motivation for making Spider-Man a troubled individual was not because Stan Lee wanted to make the character more relatable and realistic, but because Stan Lee was a big ol’ nasty liberal.) He has a chronic inability to fact-check and racist tendencies (if you’ve read America Alone, you know he routinely and incorrectly conflates “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” with “brown” and “white”) that are moderately disgusting.
Even then, though, that’s still not ad hominem, because in that case the argument being made is specifically about the individual rather than his claims. (To wit: X is an asshole because of Y and Z.) Ad hominem occurs when the major point of argument is A) not about the specific individual referred to and B) one then fallaciously refers to negative characteristics of that individual to “prove” he is wrong.
In the context of this post, that would have been something like “Steyn wrote about Lily Ledbetter and got it totally wrong, because he is an asshole.” A reader who ignored or glossed over my paragraph about his oversimplifying Ledbetter v. Goodyear to the point of idiocy might incorrectly consider it ad hominem – but no dice. (I might still be wrong – such is the nature of argument – but it’s not a fallacious argument.)
That’s why ad hominem is one of the classic logical fallacies. Got it now?
Top comment: I hate to be the guy who focuses on the one throwaway comics reference in an otherwise political post…
…Actually, no, I don’t. I love being that guy!
Anyway, Steyn’s “EVIL STAN LEE WAS AN EVIL DEMOCRAT” thing kind of hilariously omits the fact that Kirby was a lifelong FDR Democrat himself. — Prankster
11
Jun
BEEP
You have forty-seven new messages.
BEEP
“Lucy? It’s Bertram. I know I’ve been kind of busy lately, and I know you were all on me to get a job, so I’ve been thinking – maybe I should become a professional criminal? I mean, I’m already an entomologist. That’s kind of like being a professional criminal, because I study cockroaches. Get back to me. I want your opinion on this.”
BEEP
“Lucy, Bertram again. Now, I know I could go about this the honest way and work at your father’s car wash for fifteen years to build up the money to build my robotic insect prototypes, but I want you to know that I’m thinking about us when I say I can’t do that. I mean, come on, Lucy. Our kids are going to need a real role model in their life, and you can’t do that working at the freaking car wash, you know? I – call me back, passing under a bridge…”
BEEP
“Yeah, it’s Bert. Look, robotic pest control will eliminate pesticides as an industry. They’re green! And think of the security applications. The patents are all mine. I mean, they’re all ours. We just need to seed it a bit. You see where I’m going with this, right?”
BEEP
“Lucy, does purple go with acid green? The tailor is saying they go together, but I think he just wants to offload extra fabric he doesn’t want. Get back to me ASAP on this one.”
BEEP
“I did the math and it’ll only take six, uh, you know, “jobs.” Tops. The first two build the robots for the last four, and if half of those robots survive we have enough prototypes for corporate demonstration purposes. The rest of the seed money goes toward buying a house in Denver and maybe a trip to Tahiti. Just you and me. How’s that sound?”
BEEP
“Got your note. “Bug-Eyed Bandit” doesn’t really sing to me as a name. Where’s all your stuff?”
BEEP
“Okay, now I get that the note was actually an insult. Look, just call me back, okay? We really need to talk. I don’t like “Bug-Eyed Bandit,” but if you need me to use it, I can be flexible.”
BEEP
“Dammit, Lucy, this is just classless. Your friends won’t tell me where you are, you don’t return my calls… all I want is to talk. Also, I want my universal remote back. You know the buttons on the TV don’t work properly and I haven’t seen Letterman all week because the channel is stuck on ABC. Why would you even take the remote, anyway?”
Top comment: Here’s a question….why do so many dangerously unstable individuals have degrees in science in Comicbookland?
Yes, yes….in our world too, but Oppenheimer never turned himself into a bat on a whim. — Marvinmartian
10
Jun
The top 20 is finally here! Look at them dance! Your host is Cat “best host ever” Deeley. Your judges are Nigel Lythgoe, Mary Murphy, and Adam Shankman, who just wants you to know he loves the whole world and everything in it. Be prepared for an onslaught of praise, because “top 20 week” is synonymous with “be generous to the dancers so everybody will think it is a good season regardless of how good the actual dancing is.”
– Jeanine and Philip: hip-hop. I feel that I should call Philip Philipchbeeb, because everybody thinks of him by his full name thanks to his decidedly non-average trajectory to the top 20 and also because when your last name is “Chbeeb,” you are Chbeeb for life. Anyway, he absolutely killed this. Killed it. This wasn’t a particularly hard-hitting routine by any means (come on, it’s Napoleon and Tabitha), but Philipchbeeb’s stops and starts are some of the crispest and cleanest I have ever seen, and he elevated what would have otherwise been a perfectly average Naptha lyrical faux-hop to something pretty damn good. Jeanine, for her part, was present, but Philipchbeeb partnered her very well, pointedly drawing the eye to her with his armwork on more than one occasion.
– Asuka and Vitolio: Broadway. This was god-awful shit. Asuka and Vitorio did not dance it well, and Tasty Oreo’s routine was a boring, boring, boring number (and Adam Shankman was pretty clear that he wanted to say so, but Adam Shankman is a polite nice man who loves the whole world, so clearly he could not do that). This was a mountain of suck in a mountain rage of blow-ass. Asuka clearly drew the short stick tonight, being the sole non-contemporary dancer to have to dance entirely out of her native style. But in fairness, Vitolio was stiff and generally not very entertaining either.
– Karla and Jonathan: cha cha. The judges raved about this, but I wasn’t very impressed; for a Latin ballroom dancer, Jonathan’s dancing wasn’t exactly inspired, the tricks weren’t executed very cleanly and Karla’s basics weren’t that great. On the plus side, the two of them have good chemistry, and that should carry them along for a while. On the down side, sooner or later you have to deliver, and based on this performance I’m not hopeful for delivery.
– Randi and Evan: jazz. Tasty Oreo again, but I am more generous to Tasty’s (usually good) jazz pieces than his overhyped Broadway numbers. This was a strong number, both in the choreo and in Randi and Evan’s dancing. Not as glorious as the judges made it out to be, not by any means – but it’s good. Good partnership, good chemistry, good technique, good everything. I have nothing else to say, really, because this was Perfectly Acceptable Dancing.
– Paris and Tony: hip-hop. This was pathetic. Tony was actually not as good as Paris in this, and hip-hop was, as I recall, supposed to be his specialty. This is not to say that Paris was particularly good, because she was not good; off-beat for most of the routine and hitting her beats softly. She was just better than Tony. The design of the routine itself was mediocre at best. Hopefully after this week we can have different hip-hop choreographers than Napoleon and Tabitha, because they are very nice people who very frequently choreograph very whiteboy hip-hop.
– Caitlyn and Jason: Bollywood. This felt kind of auto-pilot for me. Caitlyn in particular just seemed to be doing the steps rather than actually feeling the dance; she never really lost that look of “I’m concentrating on the routine” and got into the moment. Jason was better and sharper, but wasn’t in sync with Caitlyn for the unison movements. Still, this wasn’t a bad routine by any means, but it was very middle-of-the-road in terms of quality; good enough to get by this week (especially with the novelty factor that Bollywood still has for the voting public), but not good enough down the line. Then again, Bollywood is a hard style to do on this show, so it’s hard to assess them.
– Jeanette and Brandon: foxtrot. Brandon started out very, very stiff and eased up as the routine progressed, but never really got to that slinky glide that really good foxtrot demands; his footwork went from nervous stutter to okay-but-nothing-special steady walk. However, his lifts were nothing short of insane. He’s like one giant muscle. Also, he looks like Donald Faison on Scrubs, and Jeanette’s hairdo could make her a plausible J.D. substitute. (Not that this matters.) She, for her part, was very good. The routine as a whole was good. Not great, just good, and a promising start.
– Ashley and Kupono: jazz. It’s a Wade Robson thing about crash test dummies, and – well, Wade Robson sure does avoid the choreographer cliches, you got to give him that. This was memorable and weird and fun and danced really well. Kupono’s headbobs in particular added a lot to the piece, but Ashley was good as well. This was strong.
– Melissa and Ade: contemporary. It’s a Mandy Moore piece about falling in love, so if you’re playing the SYTYCD drinking game, take a shot. Melissa, we are reminded, is a slutty naughty ballerina who is 29 and therefore must chug Geritol every night. Ade, for his part, likes music! And this is a very strong piece indeed; the unison is dead-on for some extremely difficult portions of the dance and Ade and Melissa have excellent chemistry. Neither of these two were favorites coming in, but I think they’ve got a shot at frontrunnerdom now.
– Kayla and Maksim “Max”: samba. This wasn’t quite as good as the judgegasm would have you believe, but it was definitely very strong; Kayla’s footwork and bodywork in her role very good, especially for a ballroom novice, and she and Max played to the camera and the crowd excellently. Hot ending to the show.
Predicted bottom three couples: Asuka and Vitolio, Paris and Tony, Karla and Jonathan.
Should go home: Paris and Tony.
Will go home: Asuka and Vitolio.
10
Jun
This was requested repeatedly in comments and then in email, and I didn’t have a post planned for today, and the first competition episode of season 5 is tonight, so I decided “what the hell.”
Group dances in SYTYCD follow an interesting evolution. There weren’t any group dances in the first season (beyond a very brief reunion dance in the final episode which was all too perfunctory). They arrived in the second season as Fox decided to put more money and airtime behind the show and the producers needed something to fill time on the elimination episodes – they were the natural and logical next step after the group-sings on American Idol. This attitude was fairly prevalent during the second season’s group dances, most of which were fairly bland affairs.
However, starting in the third season, choreographers started realizing that the group dances offered them opportunities for fancier, more elaborate choreo than could be put into the brief 90-second competition routines, and started to take advantage of this fact. Still, it wasn’t really until the fourth season of the American show that group dances really started to come into their own as a distinct portion of the show’s entertainment value.
continue reading "The Best Of So You Think You Can Dance, Part Five: Group Dances"
9
Jun
People sometimes try to convince me that Mark Steyn’s drivel is worth taking seriously. As counter, I suggest people read his latest screed for Maclean’s wherein he bravely tackles the demon that is empathy:
Then-senator Obama voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts because the nominee said he saw the judge’s role as that of “umpire.” The President wants someone less hung up on the rule book. He likes to cite the case of Lilly Ledbetter, who sued Goodyear Tire for discrimination but ran up against the pesky old statute of limitations. An “empathetic” judge would presumably say, “Screw the statute of limitations.”
Now, Steyn is actually pretty smart despite his lack of ethics, so presumably he knows that the issue in Ledbetter v. Goodyear wasn’t whether or not to get rid of “the pesky old statute of limitations” but how the statute of limitations was applied, because the question was whether the statute of limitations should start running from the point that the pay discrimination that Ledbetter suffered began, or whether it should start running from the point where she became aware of it. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court decided against all common sense that it should be the former, and that the clock on Ledbetter’s ability to sue in fact began years before she even knew that she was being discriminated against.
Again, Steyn probably knows this. But I doubt he cares; it’s just one more bullet in his gun filled with the usual cheap potshots about how Palestinians are actually savage animals (which he knows because he was in the West Bank for a week this one time and he totally saw tons of convenience stores with “Martyr of the Week” posters, and just because Steyn was just busy completely mischaracterizing a well-known and entirely public legal decision two paragraphs previously, why would we ever suspect him of being a fabulist in this regard?) and then accusing Barack Obama of sympathizing with terrorists in his Cairo speech (you know, the one where he bluntly told the Arab world that violent extremism wasn’t just unacceptable, but also that Holocaust denialism was ridiculous, and that Palestinians needed to come to grips with the fact that the Israelis aren’t going anywhere, and that Muslim countries need to better ensure women’s rights).
He’s a cheap hack. He always has been, he always will be. Don’t ever forget it.
Top comment: Y’know, I notice that people keep angrily bringing up the fact that you called Steyn a cheap hack, but no-one seems to care that you called him a malicious asshole, too. — Skemono
9
Jun
In relation to Betty Cooper’s obvious insanity, I give you this, brought to my attention by Jaime Weinman:
This would be Betty, trying to murder Archie, because Archie had the temerity to blow off a date with her.
What’s worse is that Archie clearly has no idea about how crazy Betty is, and Jughead clearly sees it. Poor Jughead must spend half his time trying to warn Archie and the other half worried for his life. He sips his malteds down at the Chok’Lit Shoppe, eyes darting about, staying alert for the crazy blonde bitch who’s determined to fuck and ritually slaughter his buddy (and possibly not in that order). Does she know he knows? Is she, even now, planning his death? 1
Imagine the conversations we never see.
ARCHIE: So that Mr. Weatherbee, huh? What a crazy old guy.
JUGHEAD: Yeah, Archie, that’s great. Say, how about Betty?
ARCHIE: Right! I totally asked her out Friday night like you said I should.
JUGHEAD: I said you should go talk to the police about Betty. How did you get from that to “ask her out?”
ARCHIE: Man. I don’t know. Why should I talk to the police about ol’ Betty?
(JUGHEAD rubs his face exhaustedly.)
JUGHEAD: She painted a mural of you, naked, on the side of the school, with the words “Worship Him” underneath.
ARCHIE: Now come on, Jug ol’ pal. There was that fig leaf.
JUGHEAD: Arch, you’re not getting it. Betty is –
(Enter BETTY.)
JUGHEAD: – here! Betty! Hello! How ya doin’?
BETTY: (ignoring him) Archie, I just wanted you to know that Friday night, I’m going to do something very special for you.
ARCHIE: That’s great, Betts! Your cookies are always fantastic! But be sure to bring enough for everybody?
BETTY: …for everybody?
ARCHIE: Yeah, for the beach party? The one we’re going to? Ronnie and Moose and Reggie and everybody will be there.
BETTY: Ronnie will be there.
ARCHIE: Yeah, Jug and I were talking and –
JUGHEAD: And Archie, Archie all by himself, thought maybe the whole gang should meet up Friday. And then he went out and invited everybody without even consulting with me! Or I would have said, “Arch, maybe you should just take Betty.”
(BETTY stares at JUGHEAD, long and emotionlessly.)
BETTY: I see.
JUGHEAD: Good. That’s good.
BETTY: Well, I’ll be sure to bring plenty of… cookies Friday night. Hey, do you know what Ronnie will be wearing?
ARCHIE: She said something about a skimpy bikini.
BETTY: I bet she did.
JUGHEAD: Whoa, look at the time! We’ll be late for class!
BETTY: We can’t let that happen, can we? Bye, guys!
(BETTY exits.)
ARCHIE: Man, I can’t wait! Seeing my two best girls in skimpy bikinis!
JUGHEAD: Christ, you’re an idiot.
Top comment: You are all fooled. Archie isn’t an idiot. He knows exactly what’s going on. He’s playing the entire town because that’s how he get’s his kicks.
He knows Betty is batshit crazy and striving for attention. He knows Jughead will always be trying to warn him of stuff that is absolutely obvious. He knows Veronica is vying for his attention because she doesn’t possess him yet. He knows all this attention thrown at him makes Reggie insane with jealousy.
Betty’s not a threat to Archie because he knows that all he has to do is mention that it was Jughead that made him choose Veronica and then alert the cops to Jughead’s place. True, Jughead would be lost in the transaction, but Moose is always waiting in the wings.
Archie is playing them all like a cheap fiddle. He’s the one calling this dance. The only reason he’s giving into Veronica’s attention is because he needs money to enact his master plan.
Whatever that may be. — Zenrage
8
Jun
Simon Owens over at Bloggasm has his own response to the Blevins outing I talked about yesterday, and it’s worth reading, but I specifically wanted to address one point:
I pointed out that Whelan might have been angry because when he writes under his own name he is constantly risking his reputation, and this sometimes makes writers bitter toward their pseudonymous detractors, who are not always held accountable for their words.
Whelan writes under his own name and risks his reputation because he is paid to do that. Blevins wrote his commentary on a strictly volunteer basis. Are journalists supposed to feel bitter towards letters-to-the-editor writers now?
8
Jun
My weekly TV column is up at Torontoist.
8
Jun
Top comment: Y’know how I know he’s evil? He’s sitting on what appears to be a big, uncomfortable chair. And as far as I know, all evil beings hate comfort. — RobotKeaton
7
Jun
The recent outing of John “publius” Blevins by Ed “classless piece of shit” Whelan, while a gross invasion of privacy and obvious proof that Whelan is a limp-dicked coward, prompted me to think about the eventual downfall of psuedonymity in blogging. Because really: it’s only a matter of time.
Psuedonymity is great. Blevins explains most of the cogent reasons why he blogged anonymously (not wanting to frighten students, not wanting to have to deal with family issues, not wanting to danger his tenure) and they’re all entirely reasonable. And of course many of the net’s most notable bloggers blog either semi- or completely psuedonomously: Hilzoy at ObWi (and now the Washington Monthly’s blog as well) is the most immediate and obvious example, but consider also Digby or TBogg or Fafnir.
The problem with pseudonymity is this: it exists only by common compact. This means that, like any other protection provided by commonality, it’s only as good as everybody is willing to let it be. With an essentially infinite audience you will, sooner or later, find somebody who is both willing to fuck your anonymity over and is able to do so. And it’s basic human nature that we tend to distrust anonymity at a root level, so when you do get “exposed” as the author of your own opinions new observers will inevitably be inclined to trust you slightly less. (It’s silly, but it’s almost always the case.)
Now, of course, the rejoinder is “but nobody cares about my dithering on the blogotubes,” and this is mostly correct also. But that’s only true so long as you don’t write anything of consequence. If you strive to be the internet equivalent of a Man of Parts – and, false modesty aside, most widely-read bloggers are not just dicking around on a computer once they get up to the several-thousand-pageviews-per-day mark – it will, sooner or later, happen. If you protect your secrecy like Batman, then it will take a while. If you are like Blevins and don’t make it too hard to figure out, it won’t. And regardless of when it finally happens – when it happens, it will be a pain in your ass.
This is why I blog without a psuedonym. Yes, I know most people think of me as “MGK,” and that’s fine because nicknames are fun. But if you Google “Christopher Bird,” links that eventually come back to me show up on hits numbers two through four. (Including, as the second hit, an article I wrote for Torontoist wherein I insulted Conrad Black repeatedly and viscerally.) If you Google “Christopher Bird toronto,” the first six links are all me. I am not a hard person to find, internet-wise, and that is when I share a name with a somewhat famous deceased botanist/science writer and a recently-in-the-news ornithologist.
This wasn’t a choice I made lightly. Back when I started blogging back in 2001, I weighed the pros and cons of psuedonymity versus being open. I went with “open,” mostly on the basis that occasionally I piss off people with things I write, and when people get pissed off with somebody semi-anonymous the first thing they go for is your privacy. (The second thing they go after, as the first comment to this post illustrates, is your character.) I wanted to avoid that.
I know it’s cost me as much as it’s helped. I’m doing my applications for my post-school legal article right now, and conservatively I figure about a quarter of my potential jobs will disappear the moment they read this blog. I know for a fact that it cost me at least one firm job back when we were applying for firm jobs this summer. And that sucks, sure. But if I am being honest, the essential “no, fuck you” part of my character demands that I be open about what I do.
I’m not saying psuedonyms are wrong or stupid. I’m not even saying don’t use them. I’m just saying that I think what happened to John Blevins/publius is the inevitable end result of being really good at blogging, and if you strive to do this thing well – be prepared, or get proactive. Either/or.
7
Jun
LIKED
– Batman and Robin #1 I liked for two reasons. Firstly I liked it because it was a fantastic, fun comic and return to form for “good” Grant Morrison (as opposed to the “eh” Grant Morrison of Final Crisis). But more importantly, I liked it because now I can start a pool wherein whoever is closest to figuring out how late each of the first twelve issues is wins the pot. (I am guessing #1-3 on time, #4 a week late, #5 three weeks late, #6 five weeks late, #7-8 two months late, #9 two months two weeks late, #10-11 six weeks late, #12 one month late.)
– For Dead Set, the British miniseries about zombies attacking the set of Big Brother, I will make an exception to my “zombies are the new tired old meme” belief, because at least this is zombies with a clever twist, and so long as I don’t just get handed another frigging zombie story (which most zombie stories, let us be honest, are), I am fine with it. Come on, you have to love any series that turns Davina McCall into a zombie and does it straight up.
– Also an exception to my general zombie disinterest: Pontypool, the zombies-as-memetic-disease horror film from Bruce McDonald. Given that Bruce McDonald (Dance Me Outside, Highway 67, and so forth) is generally a pretty awesome filmmaker, I went into this with high expectations. I was not disappointed; he’s still got that same clever sense of timing that always makes his films so surprising when you don’t expect it.
DIDN’T LIKE
– I got to see Land of the Lost for free and that is about what it was worth. Why doesn’t Will Ferrell do more movies like Stranger Than Fiction? I mean, it was a critical success, did okay at the box office (not that Ferrell needs it, he’s got to be richer than Midas by this point), and Ferrell said he enjoyed making it, so why aren’t there a few more good quirky dramedies being offered to him? It would be nice to see Ferrell play something other than Loud Shouty Asshole (But Not Really An Asshole) Guy again and again.
– Got about twenty minutes into Sex Drive, which I watched because multiple people told me it was a cut above the usual dumb sex comedy, and then gave up because it is decidely not a cut above the usual dumb sex comedy. In fact it is rather below a cut. Can something be below the cut? This was below the cut.
"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more."
-- Popcrunch.com
"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization."
-- Jenn