I Think Ann Coulter Should be Shot in the Face

I mention that only because Netscape has this annoying habit of giving me news articles "of interest" when I call up the browser. And today yet again I was treated to a link to another Coulter rambling, this one mentioning how maligned that drunken hypocritical assbag Joe McCarthy is because history remembers that opportunistic evil dipshit as...well, an opportunistic evil dipshit. And apparently that's bad and a big old clue that all liberals are evil or something.

And I can't be charitable like Henry Rollins. I don't think that a right-wing pundit who trashes on FDR democrats (who include my grandparents), liberal professional women (my wife) and trial lawyers (myself, my father, and my first boss out of law school) and is so ridiculous even Fox News is now trashing her should be a debased and silent love slave of an aging hard rocker...Sorry Henry.*

Nope, I think Ann should be shot in the face. Maybe it's Nick Cave singing sea shanties as I write this which is putting me in the mood, but I think the best thing for Ann is a bullet.

I know that means I can't actually be a liberal myself...after all they're all uber-sissies who shun violence and want everyone to go kiss a terrorist. Or something else Ann would say...since no one has shot her in the face yet. Shame that.

And yes, I realize that Anne is an American (technically) and lives in the US and as such is allowed to speak her mind, such as it is. I realize she has a right to publish books full of fake footnotes and make fun of 9/11 widows.

But it works both ways. That also means I have a right to express my opinions too. And the one I'm expressing right now is...stop me if you've heard this...Ann Coulter should be shot in the face.

Really, I'm allowed to say this. Trust me, I'm a lawyer.**

Course, I really don't think Ann should be shot in the face.

That's much too quick.

* For some clue what I'm talking about, Google Henry Rollins and Ann Coulter and it will become clear.

** And I write that almost unironically.

Remember What I Said...

About people's ignorance making me feel smart?

Well, that goes double for the ignorance of movie reviewers.

Long story shortly told: I'm looking for pictures to use as visual aids for a 17th Century era Buffy the Vampire Slayer game I'm going to be running soon. So I've sifting through the web looking for pictures of pirate or at least pirate like actors and actresses.

So anyhoo, I'm poking around a site that has some pictures from the 13th Warrior. Now I highly enjoy and recommend this film and the site's reviewer didn't love the film as much as I, but he did enjoy it.

After all, as he said, it was supposed to be a Norse Excalibur.

A. Norse. Excalibur.

For those who don't know, the movie follows an Arab courtier who ends up helping a bunch of Norsemen deal with a threat to a king in Geatland, Hrothgar.

So the Arab (played by Antonio Banderas) hooks up with a bunch of Vikings led by Buliwyf successor to the old king who has just died.

So the Viking get to Rthogar's Kingdom and find out a menace known as the Wendol, have been attacking the king's hall and have already killed 30 men. So wackiness ensues and the Wendol are enocuntered and one of their "claws" (a clawed war club) is hefted up over the hall's door.

Then the warriors go about trying to protect the king after a brief encounter with the king's spoiled son.

So the Wendol, in this story a tribe of neanderthal-like throwback who eat men, fight Buliwylf and his men. The whole story involves going deep into the Earth to kill the Wendol's "Mother" (a high preistess), having to swim for a really long time at one point, fight a "fire dragon" (which ends up being a long line of cavalry with torches), and ends with a big last stand where all the evils are beaten and the king to be Buliwyf dies a great hero to be always remembered.

So does any of this ring a bell. Wendol? Buliwyf? Wendol's Mother? Hanging Wendol's Claw over Hrothgar's hall? Fighting a Dragon?

Anyone? Anyone?

Here's a hint...it ain't King Arthur.

What? Has no one heard of fucking Beowulf anymore? They didn't even really try to hide it. Wendol/Grendel, Buliwyf/Beowulf, etc...

So please, film reviewers and would be reviewers of anything...know your shit. It calls your opinions into question when you don't...and it makes you look like a fucking twit.

And please don't use the "Roger Ebert reviews a super-hero film" tactic and just shrug off all your misconceptions and mistakes as things only fanboys will care about...it doesn't work when Roger does it and he's got more cred than most reviewers.

The Shadow is not a Batman rip-off*, Superman is not only vulnerable to Kryptonite**, 13th Warrior is not a riff of Arthurian myth, the excessive blood in Kill Bill was not inspired by Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself. Those are all mistakes. I know, I looked them up.

And yet I see such statements in review after review. And lest you think I'm picking on online reviewers I'll tell you the Shadow bit came from a review in the Indianapolis Star and the Superman bit was from Ebert's Superman Returns review.

So really, please, if you're going to review or critique something check a few facts or just go for the less clever but actually correct observations. Or y'know, don't...but then don't complain and cry the fanboys are after you when someone points out how damned wrong you were and rightly suggests that might not be the only error of which you could be reasonably suspected.

* He precededs him by many years in fact.

** Magic, a lack of yellow sun radiation, or just a really good pounding by someone as powerful can do wonders.

Sometimes Other People's Ignorance Makes me Feel Smart

The title here should be fairly self-explanatory but let me relate how I recently experienced this particular feeling.

So I was looking through Netflix trying to decide what to rent next when I noticed Brick. Now I own Brick on DVD, so I wasn't looking to rent it but something caught my eye. I noticed it's user rating was hovering at around 2 1/2 Stars out of 5.

Now personally I thought Brick was one of the more clever and well done films in the past year. The idea of a film noir set at a high school reminded me a bit of Veronica Mars (probably the best show on TV you're not watching if its ratings are any indicator). And I thought the use of actual 40s era slang in place of "that lingo those wacky kids use" was not only neat but an interesting commentary how all generations have their somewhat impenetrable slang and that, on some level, it's interchangeable.

But anyway, the movie had a fair number of negative ratings. Now I don't care if people didn't like it, but I was interested why they didn't. So I perused some of the 1 and 2 star ratings for the movies.

And now I fear for the future.

After about the tenth "I couldn't understand their gangspeak" or the ever popular "It was so lame that they talked older" I gave up. Some people are just...well, dumb mooks who can't get it into their biscuit that some films adopt a particular style. You don't have to like the style, but not liking it doesn't make it anything bad. Also, I suspect the people talking about "gang" slang in the film were actually too ignorant to realize that the dialouge was lifted from 1940s and 50s film noir and not today's streets. So yes, the "strange" dialogue was a conscious choice and had a point...morons.

It's like the people who watch Brotherhood of the Wolf and bitch how unrealistic it is that all the main characters know kung fu. Let me tell you something about that film for those who haven't seen it: It is established in the second scene of the whole film and was made clear by the trailers in most cases that in the setting of the film, French naturalists and American Indians knew kung fu...this was not a mystery sprung on anyone in the middle of the film. And as such, its part of the film's style and setting. If you hate it, fine. Walk out, turn it off, but in any event shut up about how silly it is just because you don't get it.

If you can't understand or even accept the aspects of a fictional work's setting once they have been laid out for you then that's really not a flaw as much as a limiting factor. And yet so many people bitch about such things because...well, I'm not sure why. Probably because all media should be for them or it's worthless and stupid.

Which prompts me to make the following list in the interest of public service. If you can't accept these aspects of a setting or story, then skip it and then I won't have to listen to people complain in an effort to sound really clever:

Jaws: A large great white shark will attack a boat with Robert Shaw on it.

Dawn of the Dead: Zombies exist, can run pretty fast, and want to eat you.

Raiders of the Lost Ark: The government will send one guy to fight Nazis, assuming that one guy is Harrison Ford.

The Killer: Chow Yun Fat can kill anyone. And he probably reloads offscreen.

Spider-Man: He can, in fact, do whatever a spider can.

Hulk, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, etc...: Radiation under the right circumstances can give you superpowers and not cancer.

Henry V: A relative small number of tired and sick British guys can kill thousands of armored French warriors and only lose a handful of their own people.*

Buffy & Angel: Vampires exist. Also, everyone in high school and LA is hot.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: Given the chance, Congress will actually try to stop graft.

Highlander: Immortal beings exist and like to try and chop off each other's heads.

Natural Treasure: Nicholas Cage can get the better of Sean Bean.

Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow: Yes, someone would actually pick the annoying girl reporter who cheated and robbed them over the hot fighter ace with her own flying fortress.

Just about Every Teen Movie Ever**: The really hot chick you'd totally go for is "ugly" as long as she has curly hair, glasses, is a goth or something else "weird", doesn't wear dresses, or is smart.

So there, I've just saved some lucky person a bunch of time. If you can't accept the above aspects of a work...skip it. And more importantly skip bitching about it. Again, I don't mind if people don't like something, but I expect the reasons to be at least a bit sensible. Or at least private.

I know what I get instead is people talking about how A History of Violence was supposed to have more action, but I can dare to dream.

* And sure you'd think people wouldn't have a problem with this seeing as how it actually happened, but I sometimes boggle at people's stupidity.

** Except for Not Another Teen Movie...which just mocks this point.