It's Labor Day! And what better thing to use for a post (that is easy and makes it so that I don't have to labor very hard) than a preview from the movie "9 To 5". You remember that workplace classic, don't you? Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton all play secretaries in the most sexist workplace in all the land. And since it came out in 1980, you wouldn't really have expected that there would be what could sort of be described as a bondage scene with Dabney Coleman in it. But it's there. The trailer below doesn't really do this fabulous film justice, but it does give you some sort of an idea as to how many people wore big rings (lots of pinky rings on men, too) and how prominent the typewriter was. And trust me, you'll thank me for providing you with a trailer that doesn't have that song in it. No sense in you humming that thing all the live long day. Happy Labor Day!
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, September 5, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
Don't Mess With The Classics
There are lots of things out there that are classics. All different sorts of things can be classics. And do you know why a classic is a classic? Because it just is, that is correct. There's something about whatever it is that works. You know what that means? You don't mess with a classic, that is correct. Hey! I'm talkin' to YOU, George Lucas! Stop making changes to the original Star Wars trilogy! They're not for the better! Sure, go ahead and improve the quality of what the film looks like all you want. But everything else? Leave it alone! Don't make Darth Vader speak before he throws the Emperor over the edge! Just don't. It humanizes the character too much, am I right? Of course I am. Watch the abomination I speak of below and tell me that I'm right. And I'm right. He should have left it alone.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
It's A Trap!
I don't have any children of my own that I know of. And I'm a chick, so I think it's pretty much a given that there aren't any. But if I were to even remotely ponder birthing another human being (in a process that seems to be akin to shoving a pot roast out of one's nostril), it would be for utilitarian purposes. You know, a little extra manual labor around my walled off compound. Someone to load the catapults, keep the alligators fed, oil the drawbridge pulleys, maintain an appropriate amount of water in the moat. Stuff like that. Those gators aren't going to feed themselves. Wait. Yeah, they are. Scratch that. But the other stuff? That's what you have kids for. It's either for manual labor or for teaching them awesome things to do when they're super little. Take the little guy in the video below. His parents are clearly Star Wars nerds. And they also seem to have a pretty strong grasp on the noises that various animals make. The doggie. The kitty. The monkey. Admiral Ackbar. Wait. Admiral Ackbar? Correct. I said that they were Star wars nerds. And if you're going to like Star Wars and you're going to have kids, you had better teach your kids who says what. And Admiral Ackbar realizes that it's a trap. And these two did one heck of a job with their...son? Son. They did one heck of a job with their son. Behold!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Don't Text In The Magnited States Of America
First things first. No, I do not know why these posts are being formatted the way that they are. It sucks. I realize that. I think it has something to do with Windows Vista that I am being forced to use until my new power supply on my regular computer is installed. Whatever it is, it should only last a couple more days at the most. I hate it too. Now that I've cleared that up, onward!
You know where I want to go to see a movie? The Alamo Drafthouse Theater in Austin. You know why? Because they're awesome. Any movie theater that will kick someone out for using their phone during a movie will definitely get repeat business from me. All I have to do now is figure out how to get to Austin.
Here's the story: According to a site with the super awesome name of Film Drunk, "...a girl was recently kicked out of the Alamo without refund for
texting after she’d already been warned twice". Wow. They warn people AND they follow through and kick them out when the people don't give a crap. Awesome. Can you see why I would want to watch movies at this fine establishment? I cannot stand when I have already shelled out way too much money to watch something that will hopefully not be mediocre and then there is some a-hole sitting next to me or in front of me with their phone out and glowing the entire time. And apparently, the Alamo Drafthouse Theater knows exactly that, which is why they actually do something about the aforementioned a-holes. Now, this chick that was booted out, let's just say that she was a little inebriated. I don't know how much she had actually imbibed in, but it was enough for her to call the theater and complain about her ejection. Let's go through the content of her message, shall we?
"Yeah, I was wondering if you guys actually enjoy treating your customers like pieces of s***? Because that's how I felt when I went to the Alamo Drafthouse! (I like how she names the place when she's already calling that place. It's like she's writing a review on Yelp! or something.) Okay? You know what? I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to text in your little crappy ass theater. (You're not supposed to text in any theater, cupcake. Crappy ass or not. Though I'm relatively sure that the Alamo Drafthouse is not a crappy ass theater. It might have had a crappy ass customer, but that doesn't reflect upon the establishment at all.) It was too f***ing dark in that place for me to find my seat. All right? I was using my PHOOONNNE as a FLASHLIGHT to get to my f***in' seat. (I thought you just said that you didn't know you weren't supposed to text? But now you're using it as a flashlight? OK, then.) So EXCUSE ME for using MY phone. In USA MAGNITED STATES OF AMERICA! (The Magnited States of America. Maybe she meant 'magneted'. You know. Because all of the states are all held together.) Where yer..you are FREE to TEXT in a THE-A-TER! (You're still unclear on the concept, buttercup. You're NOT free to annoy everyone around you and text, er, use your phone as a flashlight in a theater.) I was not AWARE that I couldn't text in your theater. All right? I've texted in all the other theaters in Austin and no one ever gave a f*** about what me...I was doin' on my f***in' phone. (Oh, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with that. I'm pretty sure that MOST people gave a f*** that you were texting during their movie. You sound like a peach. I can't believe this is the first time that you've been kicked out of someplace with that attitude.) All right? And it was on SILENT. It watn't on LOUD. It wasn't BOTHERING anybody. (It isn't supposed to be on AT ALL! You're at the movies! Turn your G-D phone OFF!) You guys, obviously, were being a-holes to me. (I'll go to those a-holes theater any time if they kick out people like you.) AND I'm SURE that's what you do...you know...to rip people off. You take my money and then you throw me out. You know? I will never be comin' back to your Alamo Drafthouse or whatever. (Victory! Now I will DEFINITELY go to the Alamo Drafthouse because I know for a fact SHE won't be there.) I'd rather go to a reglear theater where people are actually polite. Annit...you know? I'm gonna tell EVERYONE about how s****y you are. And I'm pretty sure you guys are being a-holes on purpose. (If kicking you out because people like you annoy the crap out of everyone around them means that they were being a-holes on purpose, then yes. They were.) So thanks for making me fill like a customer. Thanks for takin' my money,a-hole! (Thanks for never going back, sweetheart.)
And right when you think that this couldn't get any better, it does! See, those a-holes over there at the Alamo Drafthouse are so proud of what they did (and they absolutely should be) that they took this little angel's voicemail message and made it their "Don't Text or Talk" PSA which they will be playing before all of their R-rated movies! You can check out their explanation of the events that transposed and their PSA on their website. I love this place. I've never been, but one day, I will go. If you're in the Austin area, please go see a movie at this place. It seems like a given that you won't be interrupted during your film. Awesome. Simply awesome.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
The Fuzzy Pack Is Backy Back
As yesterday was Memorial Day over here in the United States, it's been an extremely slow news day. (But if you want to read a moving article and look at some pictures that will remind you of the ultimate sacrifice of a soldier, then please click here and read Larry Downing's article over at Reuters. It's riveting.) I've got nothing. Seriously. So here's a preview for a movie that I will definitely be going to see when it comes out somewhere around the end of November. I don't know why they feel the need to show us previews this far in advance. What's the point? I'll still want to see it if you just give me the trailer a few weeks before it opens. I swear. Six months ahead of schedule really does nothing for you.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
When Harry Met Sally Part Deux
OK, so I may or may not be a little intoxicated at the moment. Fine. I am. But that's not going to stop me from making my daily post. It might stop me from making an ovelry amusing or overly interesting post, but it won't stop me from posting. Where was I? Oh, yeah. Intoxicated. Anyway, to fulfill my daily postdom, here is a video of what "When Harry Met Sally" would be like if they did a sequel. They're not drunk. I don't think. If it doesn't work or it plays something completely different, try clicking here and see if it's there. If it doesn't, I really can't help you. I'm drunk, remember?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
What's He Pointing At?
There is not crap on TV on Saturday nights. Well, there is crap on TV. Lots of it. But there isn't any crap worth watching (for the most part) on Saturday nights. Sometimes you can hope for a good movie, but for the most part, it's crap. And last night I ended up settling on watching Back to the Future III. Not crap by any means. I did notice something a little weird, though.
At the end, when Doc and Clara come back to 1985 with their two boys, Jules and Verne, they're
talking with Marty and Jennifer. And as Doc is yammering on about how no one's future is set in stone just yet (unless you're Lindsay Lohan and in that case, you're pretty much screwed) and it is what you make it, one of the boys makes this odd hand gesture toward his penis. That's right. Toward his penis. It was sort of like a 'come hither' gesture followed by very distinctive pointing. And if you've ever seen Back to the Future III then you know that it has absolutely nothing to do with a penis whatsoever! The video of it is below. I'm open to suggestions as to what the what was going on there.
talking with Marty and Jennifer. And as Doc is yammering on about how no one's future is set in stone just yet (unless you're Lindsay Lohan and in that case, you're pretty much screwed) and it is what you make it, one of the boys makes this odd hand gesture toward his penis. That's right. Toward his penis. It was sort of like a 'come hither' gesture followed by very distinctive pointing. And if you've ever seen Back to the Future III then you know that it has absolutely nothing to do with a penis whatsoever! The video of it is below. I'm open to suggestions as to what the what was going on there. Monday, March 14, 2011
You Can't Review What You Haven't Seen
I am constantly amazed by the incredible myriad of idiocy that I have to choose from every day in order to write something in this little box. And for today, from the file of "Who Thinks This Is A Good Idea?" and under the sub-heading "Who Thought Up This S*** In The First Place" we have this: Movie reviews by people who have not seen the movie.I kid you not. I am not dry shaving you. This is a real thing. I was checking out Fandango.com
yesterday because I wanted to read the reviews for the newly released Mars Needs Moms. Regardless of what the reviews turned out to be, I had planned on seeing this movie because it is based on the book by the incredibly amazing and insanely talented, not to mention rather the witty and quick with a quip Berkeley Breathed. If you're unfamiliar with Mr. Breathed's work, I suggest you stop whatever you're doing right now and wonder what you've really accomplished in your life up to this point. The answer should be "Not nearly enough, as I have missed out on the awesome humor and keen insight of the Bloom County comic strips and the subsequent Sunday strips, Outland and Opus." In short, your life has been wasted. But there's still time to save it! (Not much time, really, but I try to be optimistic in situations like these.) So there I am at Fandango and I click on the Reviews tab. As I 
began to read, I noticed that some of the reviews were strangely opinionated. So much so that it was if they hadn't seen the movie at all. And that is when I discovered that they hadn't. See, Fandango let's you review movies if you haven't seen them. I have absolutely NO idea why that would be. I am open to suggestions, however. What good does someone's opinion of something that they've never seen do for me? Not a thing, I'm thinking. But let's look at some of the reviews by people who have never seen it and see if I'm wrong. Maybe there IS something to be learned from people merely giving an opinion based on pure speculation gained from doing nothing. (There won't be, but play along, will ya? I need to draw this post out a little bit.)
began to read, I noticed that some of the reviews were strangely opinionated. So much so that it was if they hadn't seen the movie at all. And that is when I discovered that they hadn't. See, Fandango let's you review movies if you haven't seen them. I have absolutely NO idea why that would be. I am open to suggestions, however. What good does someone's opinion of something that they've never seen do for me? Not a thing, I'm thinking. But let's look at some of the reviews by people who have never seen it and see if I'm wrong. Maybe there IS something to be learned from people merely giving an opinion based on pure speculation gained from doing nothing. (There won't be, but play along, will ya? I need to draw this post out a little bit.) Let's see...oh! Here we go. Here's one that reads: "I am so excited about this movie! It is going to be hilarious!! I love the book, so this
should be epic!!! Yay! :) " Um, OK? Yeah, I loved the book too, but that doesn't mean anything. You know what other books I loved? The Cat In The Hat. The Firm. How The Grinch Stole Christmas. The DaVinci Code. Were they epic? Hardly. Were they hilarious? Kind of, but they weren't supposed to be, so that really wasn't a selling point. What boggles me ever more is that four out of six people found this "review" to be helpful. Helpful? In what way?! She hasn't seen it yet! She's merely excited! THAT is "helpful" to some folks? For cryin' out loud...(Then again, four out of nine people found a review that simply read "No no no!" to be helpful, so I think it's fair to say that we're beyond help at this point.)
should be epic!!! Yay! :) " Um, OK? Yeah, I loved the book too, but that doesn't mean anything. You know what other books I loved? The Cat In The Hat. The Firm. How The Grinch Stole Christmas. The DaVinci Code. Were they epic? Hardly. Were they hilarious? Kind of, but they weren't supposed to be, so that really wasn't a selling point. What boggles me ever more is that four out of six people found this "review" to be helpful. Helpful? In what way?! She hasn't seen it yet! She's merely excited! THAT is "helpful" to some folks? For cryin' out loud...(Then again, four out of nine people found a review that simply read "No no no!" to be helpful, so I think it's fair to say that we're beyond help at this point.) 
Next we have: "Havent seen it yet but i just no its going to be tbe biggest peice of crap anyone is ever going to see so dont watch it." This individual is apparently a cinematic clairvoyant. Too bad that all of the studios can't just hire him to look at a poster of a movie that they've made and give his opinion on the degree to which it will be a piece of crap. (ie, Big, bigger or, in this case, biggest.) And if he says that he can no that it will be such a sizeable piece of poo without having watched it, who are we to not heed his warnings? Here is more speculation, only this time, it appears to come from a
child. "I think it'll be a so so movie. I think the idea is a little too crazy, but I think people will enjoy it. It'll be good for moms because the kids ( about my age ) will learn to obey their moms. For the kids, I think they will love it for it's humor. I'm not completely sure about that, but I'll just have to go to find out!!!!" Really? You think the idea of a kid having to go to Mars to save his mother who has been kidnapped by Martians is a little too crazy, do you? Interesting. I'd never thought of that. (This is really wearing me out more than I had anticipated.)
child. "I think it'll be a so so movie. I think the idea is a little too crazy, but I think people will enjoy it. It'll be good for moms because the kids ( about my age ) will learn to obey their moms. For the kids, I think they will love it for it's humor. I'm not completely sure about that, but I'll just have to go to find out!!!!" Really? You think the idea of a kid having to go to Mars to save his mother who has been kidnapped by Martians is a little too crazy, do you? Interesting. I'd never thought of that. (This is really wearing me out more than I had anticipated.) 
From someone who seems to have just barely mastered the English language (and perhaps, even more recently, his way around a keyboard): "Don't go. This movie doesn't look that good to watch. I mean, I've seen many cartoons and most are good. I just don't think this one will be as good." Lots of cartoons are good. Some cartoons are bad. This one doesn't look good. Well, it doesn't look as good. Well, it doesn't look that good. To watch, of course. Maybe it's good if you're not watching it. But this looks bad. (Isn't this review kind of like saying, "I've had food. Most food is good. But that food doesn't look like it will be good food. Don't eat it. Even if you think it looks like something you'd like. It could be bad food that you won't like.") Never mind that it's not really a cartoon. I'm just thankful that no one found that 'review' to be useful. And finally, from the Ironic Chastising Department: "People are
funny. They write a bad review or rate a movie bad when they haven't even seen it.. Who writes a bad review based off the movie poster you're just an idiot. Go see the movie then you're allowed to say something. I'm sure this movie will be good and I'm sure the rating will change when people actually go watch it." Go to the movie and then say something. But make sure that you write your 'review' telling people that you're sure it will be good before you go see it. Yeah, sure. That makes sense.
funny. They write a bad review or rate a movie bad when they haven't even seen it.. Who writes a bad review based off the movie poster you're just an idiot. Go see the movie then you're allowed to say something. I'm sure this movie will be good and I'm sure the rating will change when people actually go watch it." Go to the movie and then say something. But make sure that you write your 'review' telling people that you're sure it will be good before you go see it. Yeah, sure. That makes sense. Really, I didn't care what the reviews were, as I was going to see it 
regardless because I can't imagine not seeing anything that Berkeley Breathed does. (To say that I am a huge fan of the man would not even do my fandom justice. I met him for the first time just a couple of years go and I almost cried. OK, I cried a little bit in line while I was waiting. But I managed to compose myself by the time I got up there, lest he thought I was the star-struck moron that I was trying so desperately to hide.) But I was just amazed that reviews for something that someone hasn't even watched are allowed on a movie site. I could see if it were someone's two-bit blog or some crap like that. (In case you were wondering, this blog is clearly at least three-bit, so don't start expecting inane movie reviews to be popping up any time soon.) But on a site that is supposed to be giving information, not speculation, about movies? I find it asinine and annoying. And you can expect my full review of Mars Needs Moms after I've seen it.
regardless because I can't imagine not seeing anything that Berkeley Breathed does. (To say that I am a huge fan of the man would not even do my fandom justice. I met him for the first time just a couple of years go and I almost cried. OK, I cried a little bit in line while I was waiting. But I managed to compose myself by the time I got up there, lest he thought I was the star-struck moron that I was trying so desperately to hide.) But I was just amazed that reviews for something that someone hasn't even watched are allowed on a movie site. I could see if it were someone's two-bit blog or some crap like that. (In case you were wondering, this blog is clearly at least three-bit, so don't start expecting inane movie reviews to be popping up any time soon.) But on a site that is supposed to be giving information, not speculation, about movies? I find it asinine and annoying. And you can expect my full review of Mars Needs Moms after I've seen it. Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Could You Please Keep It Down?
I don't like it any more than anyone else does when people make noise in a movie theater. What is wrong with those people? Why is it so hard for them to be quiet when they're in a big room filled with a bunch of other people being quiet? I mean, being quiet is pretty easy. You just sit there and don't talk and you've done it! You're quiet! It's the making noise that takes some effort. Granted, not a lot of effort, especially if everyone else is being quiet, but some effort. So, why not just be quiet? And if someone does ask you to be quiet, just do it. Simply stop the offending behavior and watch the movie. Please, whatever you do, do not resolve the issue by shooting and killing the person who was offended. That's really not going to help much.
According to our friends across the pond at The Guardian, a couple of folks at a cinema in Latvia had an encounter after one of the patrons was accused of eating his popcorn too loudly. I am not quite sure how that's possible. Popcorn isn't exactly the loudest of all of the concessions offered. Then again, some people are just pure ruffians when it comes to eating. They'd be much better off just snapping on a feed bag. Might even be quieter. Who knows?
Apparently, "The assailant, 27, reportedly had a brief argument with the man, aged 43, who was sitting next to him during a screening of Black Swan". Two guys, at the movies, watching Black Swan? Were their wives or girlfriends with them? I'm just saying. If they were each there alone, then maybe it was an unwelcomed advance gone horribly awry. Stranger things have happened. Like what happened next, for instance.
It seems that the 27-year old didn't take too kindly to the 43-year old telling him to keep his popcorn chomping down. So when the movie was over, the 27-year old pulled out a "legally registered firearm" and shot the 43-year old dead as can be. After that, he just stood around and waited to be arrested (which he was). I find it amusing that he waited until the end of the movie. It's like he was thinking, "I am going to kill that guy, but first? I need to know what's up with these little ballerinas." Very strange. Not as strange as killing the guy, but strange none the less. Note to self: Don't go to the movies in Latvia.
Friday, December 31, 2010
What Next?
I love it when this stuff just practically writes itself. So, I was reading an article over there at People.com about Natalie Portman and her latest movie, Black Swan. It's some sort of a ballerina thriller, whatever that is supposed to mean. (I wouldn't have thought that was even possible before this movie and since I haven't seen it yet, I'm still not convinced.) They quote the recently knocked up Ms. Portman as saying, "Everyone was so worried about who was going to want to see this movie...I remember them being like, 'How do you get guys to a ballet movie? How do you get girls to a thriller?' And the answer is a lesbian scene. Everyone wants to see that."I can't say I really disagree with her on that one. Who doesn't like a couple of 
chicks making out? Every guy I know finds it completely enthralling. And I, myself, find it very enjoyable. But it turns out that every guy and myself are not representative of the commenters over there at People.com. And we are certainly not representative of one specific commenter.
chicks making out? Every guy I know finds it completely enthralling. And I, myself, find it very enjoyable. But it turns out that every guy and myself are not representative of the commenters over there at People.com. And we are certainly not representative of one specific commenter. 
Allow me to share with you the comments of a one Patricia Eation. Ms Eation commented "Sick, sick, sick. Portman needs to revise her statement to read, "only the sick minded loves a lesbian sex scene". Have the "gays" taken over the entertainment industry? Next they'll be gay rappers! Bottom line, STOP trying to force a twisted choice of couples on everyone. I will never accept a behavior that God hates". Wait. What now?Gay rappers?! What the hell does that even mean? How is it that a
couple of fictional ballerinas end up making out in a movie will lead to rappers being gay? I'm failing to see the connection, but I'm finding it absolutely hilarious. Gay rappers. OK, then. (I also don't know why she has "gays" in quotation marks. Is she implying that if Hollywood had, in fact, been overtaken by homosexuals, they would be fake homosexuals, thus necessitating the usage of quotes around 'gays'? I don't get that at all. But I find gay rappers to be so absolutely hysterical so I'm going to overlook it.)
couple of fictional ballerinas end up making out in a movie will lead to rappers being gay? I'm failing to see the connection, but I'm finding it absolutely hilarious. Gay rappers. OK, then. (I also don't know why she has "gays" in quotation marks. Is she implying that if Hollywood had, in fact, been overtaken by homosexuals, they would be fake homosexuals, thus necessitating the usage of quotes around 'gays'? I don't get that at all. But I find gay rappers to be so absolutely hysterical so I'm going to overlook it.) I'm going to try to work that into conversation whenever a topic comes up that folks find simply unbelievable. I'm just going to slowly shake my head and say, "I know. I can't believe it. Next thing you know, there'll be gay rappers." It's going to be great. I've needed a new project for a while now. And I believe I've found it!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Non-Torturous Jailhouse Movies
If you're in jail, it's not supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be enjoyable. You're not supposed to be having a good time. So if you're not thrilled with the television programming that your particular place of incarceration is providing you with, please do not write letters to your local news source and complain. James Poulin, I'm talking to you. According to something called TCPalm, Mr. Poulin, who has spent the last
"...four years awaiting trial for driving-under-the-influence manslaughter", wrote to something called Florida Today complaining of "torture". Now, normally, claims of torture would be taken quite seriously. But when you realize that Mr. Poulin's definition of "torture" is that at the Brevard County Detention Center, where he is currently a resident, the "...inmates are forced to watch the same movies over and over and it is taking a toll." Wait a minute. Movies? What the...?
Correct. According to Mr. Poulin, the Sheriff of Brevard County, a one Jack Parker "...gathered up a bunch of old (movies) he had laying around and played them over and over for the next year," Poulin wrote to Florida Today. "I have seen 'Black Hawk Down,' 'Pearl Harbor,' 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Battle Front' hundreds of times each, sometimes two or three times a day. . . " Um...OK. Hmm. Anything else?
"...four years awaiting trial for driving-under-the-influence manslaughter", wrote to something called Florida Today complaining of "torture". Now, normally, claims of torture would be taken quite seriously. But when you realize that Mr. Poulin's definition of "torture" is that at the Brevard County Detention Center, where he is currently a resident, the "...inmates are forced to watch the same movies over and over and it is taking a toll." Wait a minute. Movies? What the...? 
Correct. According to Mr. Poulin, the Sheriff of Brevard County, a one Jack Parker "...gathered up a bunch of old (movies) he had laying around and played them over and over for the next year," Poulin wrote to Florida Today. "I have seen 'Black Hawk Down,' 'Pearl Harbor,' 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Battle Front' hundreds of times each, sometimes two or three times a day. . . " Um...OK. Hmm. Anything else? Of course there's something else! He's an inmate who is bitching about what
is on TV! You think it's going to stop there without some sort of ridiculous comparison to something that doesn't even make sense? Of course not! He includes "Like the old Chinese water torture, the inescapable sounds of these movies over and over works on nerves and psyche." Hey, could someone actually perform the old Chinese water torture on this guy and see how he likes his movies then? Or better yet, just waterboard the moron. I'm sure that he'll want to watch nothing but 'Saving Private Ryan' all day, every day in lieu of being waterboarded.
is on TV! You think it's going to stop there without some sort of ridiculous comparison to something that doesn't even make sense? Of course not! He includes "Like the old Chinese water torture, the inescapable sounds of these movies over and over works on nerves and psyche." Hey, could someone actually perform the old Chinese water torture on this guy and see how he likes his movies then? Or better yet, just waterboard the moron. I'm sure that he'll want to watch nothing but 'Saving Private Ryan' all day, every day in lieu of being waterboarded.
In case you were wondering, Mr. Poulin has been in jail since 2007 "...for allegedly driving and crashing his car while intoxicated, an accident that killed his female passenger." What's the hold up? Well, from what I can tell, he is the hold up. "There have been 14 motions for continuances in his case and six federal lawsuits against the jail, all of which have been dismissed." OK. I've got it now. As if it wasn't clear before, now I'm relatively sure that this guy, aside from being a cretin, is just a pain in the ass. And the same sentiments go for his lawyer, a one Assistant Public Defender Randy Moore. Mr. Moore said that "...the continuances are a strategy." I see. I'm guessing that Mr. Moore and Mr. Poulin get along just swell together. What a scumbag. You know, having to watch the movies that he's "subjected" to over and over doesn't seem that bad. It's not like they were being subjected to anything with Jennifer Aniston in it or something like that
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Mel Gibson's Horrible PR
Mel Gibson must have the worst PR people on the planet. I'm not kidding. They're horrible and he should fire them immediately. Then again, if he's so clueless that he doesn't understand the logistics of staging somewhat of a comeback after a general dislike amongst the public due to fairly harsh anti-Semitic rants after being arrested for drunk driving, then maybe it's not his PR folks and maybe it's just because he's an a-hole.
Let me just recap a few key moments in the Mel Gibson story before going on to the ridiculousness that is him being unable to grasp that people aren't quite over the whole thing just yet. Here's what happened: Back on Julyl 28, 2006, ol' Mel was arrested for DUI. He wasn't as drunk as you'd think, given his behavior which was seemingly unending swearing and cursing and a string of anti-Semitic statements which, according to TMZ consisted of, among other gems "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." Gibson then asked the deputy, "Are you a Jew?" My favorite part was when he asked a female officer "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" Priceless.
He did issue a statement afterwards which consisted of, among other apologies, "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior." He also included that "I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health." Fair enough. Gibson subsequently did whatever he was supposed to do in the eyes of the court 
and got his record expunged. That was only four years ago. Who knew that you could get your record expunged so quickly? Not me. I thought that stuff had to be on there for a minimum amount of time that I thought that time would have surely been longer than four years. You have to buy special insurance after you've had a DUI for seven years, but you can make it like it never happened after four? Interesting. Do you still have to buy the insurance? Never mind. I digress.
and got his record expunged. That was only four years ago. Who knew that you could get your record expunged so quickly? Not me. I thought that stuff had to be on there for a minimum amount of time that I thought that time would have surely been longer than four years. You have to buy special insurance after you've had a DUI for seven years, but you can make it like it never happened after four? Interesting. Do you still have to buy the insurance? Never mind. I digress. 
So, fast forward to present day where the world is waiting upon the release of Gibson's first movie since his drunken anti-Jew tirade in Malibu. Something called Edge of Darkness. Now, when you're making movies that cost a gazillion dollars, that means that you have to have at least a gazillion dollars worth of people watching the damn thing in order to make a profit. Or, at the very least, in order to commandeer the sort of salary that you do in the future. Bottom line: Mel Gibson wants people to see his movie. He also wants them to forget about everything else in the world besides his movie. That would include your life, his life and certainly his past. Over there at CNN we learn of Gibson being interviewed by a one Dean Richards of Chicago's
WGN-TV. Richards asks Gibson if he thinks that the public is ready to accept him back into their movie going lives again. Gibson appears to be perplexed by the question and actually had the audacity to ask him what he is referring to specifically. Oh, come on! Are you serious?! What in the world could he be referring to specifically?! His new cat? I don't think so!
WGN-TV. Richards asks Gibson if he thinks that the public is ready to accept him back into their movie going lives again. Gibson appears to be perplexed by the question and actually had the audacity to ask him what he is referring to specifically. Oh, come on! Are you serious?! What in the world could he be referring to specifically?! His new cat? I don't think so! 
He then gives a response that makes him sound like he just got done filming Point Break or something (it's a surfing movie, just in case you couldn't place the reference there). He says, "That's been almost four years, dude. I've moved on. But I guess you haven't." Did he just call him "dude"? I think he did. That's an odd choice of words for someone who, by my account, should be rather humble. This country isn't all that forgiving of any kind of racism, real or perceived.
Richards then tried to elaborate a bit and get more of an answer out of Mel by asking him if he thought that the public had moved on (just as much as Mel had, apparently). Mel replied with, "Well, I certainly hope so. That was a while back, and I've done all the necessary mea culpas, so ... let's move on, dude." Again with the dude. Interesting. And not the least bit apologetic for his behavior, either. Huh. 
But wait! There's more! Richards thanks him for his time. Gibson chugs down the last of his coffee or whatever it was that he was drinking. They both say goodbye. Gibson still has a live mike on him. Richards can still hear him (and so can everyone else). Gibson says clearly and directly, "A**hole." Nice.You know what, Mel? You don't get to decide when this is over. You don't! The public does. You
don't get to decide when people are supposed to stop asking you about this thing. You don't. You don't get to go out there and make a gazillion dollars off of your movies and not think that people might want to know what kind of a person that you are before they watch your movies. Granted, I don't know how many people actually make the determination about what movie they're going to see by their level of like or dislike for the star. And your being so flippant about it shows that you don't give a fat rat's ass about continuing to be apologetic about it. And it's going to make folks question whether or not you really were ever apologetic in the first place.
don't get to decide when people are supposed to stop asking you about this thing. You don't. You don't get to go out there and make a gazillion dollars off of your movies and not think that people might want to know what kind of a person that you are before they watch your movies. Granted, I don't know how many people actually make the determination about what movie they're going to see by their level of like or dislike for the star. And your being so flippant about it shows that you don't give a fat rat's ass about continuing to be apologetic about it. And it's going to make folks question whether or not you really were ever apologetic in the first place. 
I'm not saying that someone should have to go through the rest of their life having to apologize for one thing that they might have done in the middle of an extremely drunken stupor. (If that were the case, all I'd be doing is apologizing.) But I am saying that if you're a public figure and your paycheck depends on whether or not the public likes you, I suggest that you make the public like you and if that means apologizing until we're all sick of hearing it, then that's what it means. Now, if Mel had any decent PR folks, they would have told him to answer
those questions with something along the lines of "You know, every time I am asked that question or every time that comes up, I am horrified at my behavior all over again. It haunts me every time I think of it and I'm continuing to work on things every day to make sure that I'm never in such a situation again where I behave in such an atrocious manner ever again." THAT would be good. (I'm for hire, by the way. Inquire within.)
those questions with something along the lines of "You know, every time I am asked that question or every time that comes up, I am horrified at my behavior all over again. It haunts me every time I think of it and I'm continuing to work on things every day to make sure that I'm never in such a situation again where I behave in such an atrocious manner ever again." THAT would be good. (I'm for hire, by the way. Inquire within.) 
Mel can choose to handle it the way that he is choosing to do so. That's fine. He shouldn't expect a whole hell of a lot of public sympathy if that's the way he's going to go, however. And calling the reporter an a-hole? Well, that's just uncool, dude. But what's even more uncool is not even being able to man up and say that's what you did. Granted, I'm not so sure that, in his situation, that he would be able to admit it, but I'd prefer he stay quiet about it, as opposed to the current lie that he is telling which is that his "a-hole" comment was not directed at Richards, but was rather directed at "...Gibson's publicist Alan Nierob... who was "pulling faces" (at Gibson) during the interview." Oh, please.
Is that the best you can do? Seriously? And Mel came out and said that? Oh, wait. No, no he didn't. It was his jackass PR guy, that Alan Nierob, who said that on Gibson's behalf. Well. That explains everything, doesn't it? This is not going to get any better for Mel Gibson with ol' Nimrod Nierob at the helm. And I can almost guarantee that any interviews after this point that Mel Gibson does will definitely contain questions about "the incident". Seriously, who wouldn't be interviewing Mel Gibson from this point on and NOT be able to ask him about it just to see what he comes up with? (And for God's sake, those of you who do interview him, make sure that his mike is live for at least a good 30 seconds after the interview is over. I'm pretty sure there's some good stuff to be had there!)
The video of Gibson calling Dean Richards an a-hole is below. Enjoy!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Things I Don't Understand About Michael Jackson
There are a lot of things I don't get. A lot of them I just figure that neither I, nor anyone else was meant to know what they really mean. Stonehenge. The Bermuda Triangle. Geometry. All puzzles of nature that seem to be indecipherable to man. But another one that I'd like to add to that list is the continuing fascination with Michael Jackson. Where were you people when this guy was alive and kicking it? No where to be found, from what I recall. No where. But yet he's dead and suddenly, there's hubbub. And I don't understand the hub, nor the bub at all. Allow me to share with you some of my more recent head scratchers, shakers and bangers that I've run across pertaining to the recently deceased Jacko. I knew that the whole "President Barry Wins the Nobel Peace Prize" ordeal was g
oing to cause a ruckus somewhere. And it did, but in what I had considered to be an unlikely arena, that of the American Music Award nominations. From the folks over there at HitFix (and I'm not faulting them in this one, they were just the messenger) I read "American Music Award nominations: Michael Jackson snares 5, Lambert to perform." Wait. The Michael Jackson? The still dead Michael Jackson? THAT guy? Was nominated for how many? Five? Five AMAs?? For what?! Being a guy that needed elephant tranquilizers to doze off every night? Five?! How do they come up with five?! Mind you, some folks who were not nominated for an AMA award were Brittney Spears and Miley Freaking Cyrus! But the dead guy who hasn't released anything new in years (How's that Katrina relief song coming along there, Mike?) gets nominated for five AMAs. OK, then.
oing to cause a ruckus somewhere. And it did, but in what I had considered to be an unlikely arena, that of the American Music Award nominations. From the folks over there at HitFix (and I'm not faulting them in this one, they were just the messenger) I read "American Music Award nominations: Michael Jackson snares 5, Lambert to perform." Wait. The Michael Jackson? The still dead Michael Jackson? THAT guy? Was nominated for how many? Five? Five AMAs?? For what?! Being a guy that needed elephant tranquilizers to doze off every night? Five?! How do they come up with five?! Mind you, some folks who were not nominated for an AMA award were Brittney Spears and Miley Freaking Cyrus! But the dead guy who hasn't released anything new in years (How's that Katrina relief song coming along there, Mike?) gets nominated for five AMAs. OK, then. Sweet mother of God, he was nominated for Artist of the Year!! What year?! 1984?? And "Jackson’s “Number One” is also a contender for favorite pop/rock album." What is Number One? Are you kidding me?! I'm not saying that the AMAs were ever any sort of credible award. I'm not saying that any of the awards are any sort of credible award. I'm saying that nominating Michael Jackson for five AMAs is asinine. He's been dead for three months and he hadn't released anything at any point in recent memory before that. How does one get nominated for Artist of the Year when he wasn't even around for the entire year?! Is there an Artist of January - June Award that they give out? What is wrong with you people? Are you that desperate to feel good about something? What say you find something else, all right? Honestly. Look, here are the most recent photos I have found of Jacko at the AMAs. You know. Like when he would have been there because he would have been in contention for something. Here he is with Brooke Shields. You remember her. Wasn't she a Breck girl?
Here he is with Eddie Murphy (pre-Shrek)
Here he is with Elizabeth Taylor (and in the words of Joey from "Friends" Elizabeth Taylor would appear to be Michael Jackson's "identical hand twin".)
Here he is wearing his Sherlock Holmes homage whilst accompanied by his sister, Janet Jackson. I'll let you use your sharp skills of deduction to determine how recent (or not) that photo was taken. (Here's a hint: He was still black at the time.)
Here he is beaming behind Miss Ross. The point here is that none of these are recent.
Here's another thing I don't get re: Michael Jackson. The Michael Jackson movie "This Is It" (strangely missing the appropriate subti
tle, "Sucking Money From a Corpse) hits theaters for a limited engagement showing of two weeks on October 28. The preview is October 27. Today is October 18. So do tell, why in the world, when no one in the world has seen this movie yet, are there 83, yes, eighty three reviews for this movie over there at Fandango, your online ticket purchasing, uh, place. Not surprisingly, most of the reviews, the overwhelming majority of them, for a movie no one has seen yet, are positive. I haven't had faith that I'd be able to scroll through and look for the one or two negative comments without reading so many positive comments (for a movie no one has seen) without hanging myself. There's even a section for "Fans Who've Seen It" and 23 people who are obviously below a substantially substandard IQ level, have added their opinion to that section. What is wrong with you people?
tle, "Sucking Money From a Corpse) hits theaters for a limited engagement showing of two weeks on October 28. The preview is October 27. Today is October 18. So do tell, why in the world, when no one in the world has seen this movie yet, are there 83, yes, eighty three reviews for this movie over there at Fandango, your online ticket purchasing, uh, place. Not surprisingly, most of the reviews, the overwhelming majority of them, for a movie no one has seen yet, are positive. I haven't had faith that I'd be able to scroll through and look for the one or two negative comments without reading so many positive comments (for a movie no one has seen) without hanging myself. There's even a section for "Fans Who've Seen It" and 23 people who are obviously below a substantially substandard IQ level, have added their opinion to that section. What is wrong with you people?See, you can't make something great just because you want it to be
great. It could suck. And if it does, will those folks still say it's great? They probably will because they're already saying it doesn't suck and they haven't even seen it yet! Yo, Fandango folks! It would seem that your site is frequented by folks with IQs slightly below that of navel lint, so you might want to disable that "Fans Who've Seen It" portion of your show until after the movie has actually had an opportunity to be viewed. By anyone!
great. It could suck. And if it does, will those folks still say it's great? They probably will because they're already saying it doesn't suck and they haven't even seen it yet! Yo, Fandango folks! It would seem that your site is frequented by folks with IQs slightly below that of navel lint, so you might want to disable that "Fans Who've Seen It" portion of your show until after the movie has actually had an opportunity to be viewed. By anyone! Moving on to Part Three of Things I Don't Understand Surrounding 
Michael Jackson. We're entering the Autopsy Phase. What was up with that? For starters, Jacko was five feet nine inches tall. (That's 175 cm for those of you in, oh, the rest of the entire world.) He wasn't a monster (height-wise), but he wasn't short by any means. He weighed 136 lbs. at the time of croakage. (That's 62 kg for those of you still in the rest of the entire world.) I have read in every single account of this fact that being 136 lbs and standing (or, in this case, lying) five feet nine inches tall are "within normal limits." Um, no they're not! I shall cite both Metropolitan Life and something called Health Check Systems and both of their websites have height-weight charts that do not indicate that being a mere 136 pounds and MALE is "normal" if you are 5'9". Duh. Yet it's being reported as if that is perfectly fine! The Guardian goes as far to claim "Yet he was fit and well-fed." Yeah, he wasn't either of those things.
Michael Jackson. We're entering the Autopsy Phase. What was up with that? For starters, Jacko was five feet nine inches tall. (That's 175 cm for those of you in, oh, the rest of the entire world.) He wasn't a monster (height-wise), but he wasn't short by any means. He weighed 136 lbs. at the time of croakage. (That's 62 kg for those of you still in the rest of the entire world.) I have read in every single account of this fact that being 136 lbs and standing (or, in this case, lying) five feet nine inches tall are "within normal limits." Um, no they're not! I shall cite both Metropolitan Life and something called Health Check Systems and both of their websites have height-weight charts that do not indicate that being a mere 136 pounds and MALE is "normal" if you are 5'9". Duh. Yet it's being reported as if that is perfectly fine! The Guardian goes as far to claim "Yet he was fit and well-fed." Yeah, he wasn't either of those things. "The autopsy stated that he had a healthy heart and was actively producing sperm." Um, 
at the time of the autopsy he was actively doing that? I don't think he was! But regardless, do we need to know that? That he was a sperm producer? Eww! Who asked?! I didn't! I didn't ask! I'm thinking that might be a bit too much information there, Doc (or whoever else felt we needed to know that). Am I supposed to be happy at that news? Glad that he was producing a regular amount of sperm and not producing a massive amount of sperm? What if he had been producing the number of sperm for ten men? Would we then had to have heard, "He was like a sperm whale, if you will." "It's a shame that he's dead because this man had a gift!" "I've never seen anything like this! He had testicles the size of lemons!"
at the time of the autopsy he was actively doing that? I don't think he was! But regardless, do we need to know that? That he was a sperm producer? Eww! Who asked?! I didn't! I didn't ask! I'm thinking that might be a bit too much information there, Doc (or whoever else felt we needed to know that). Am I supposed to be happy at that news? Glad that he was producing a regular amount of sperm and not producing a massive amount of sperm? What if he had been producing the number of sperm for ten men? Would we then had to have heard, "He was like a sperm whale, if you will." "It's a shame that he's dead because this man had a gift!" "I've never seen anything like this! He had testicles the size of lemons!" (Wait. I can't resist. He was actively producing sperm...but what he really wanted to do was direct. Ba-da-DA! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your servers.)
The autopsy also stated that he had "...scars around both nostrils, indicating that he had had some sort of work done on his nose." Oh, really? I hadn't noticed. Work done? You don't say! Are you sure? It looked so natural! I should really find out who his plastic surgeon was because it was so discrete, almost undetectable, if I were to ever have work done so that no one would be able to figure it out (or if I were to ever hit my head real hard and wake up feeling the need to have my nose shaved down to two slits and a point), that's the guy for me!
Now here comes the fun part. Let's see how many comments I get from people who are Anonymous and who feel the need to tell me how disrespectful I am because Jacko was such a great artist, he was acquitted, etc. But before y'all comment (and y'all know who y'all are), just remember that the humor here is a) tongue in cheek and b) is saying more about the media and society than it is about Jacko. All right? So just back off if that's where you were headed. OK. I'm done now. Thanks for reading!! Have at it.
