Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Saw Lindsay Lohan‘s disaster last night.
Know what? I didn’t really think it was that bad. Sure, the story was idiotic, particularly in certain parts. Some of the scenes were gruesome. Lohan has sort of a dual role, so she gets to play both a skank and a goody-twoshoes (you get the impression neither one is much of a stretch), and ultimately does an okay job at both.
A lot of the plot points were ripped off from other things, I mean, a whole lot of them. Almost all of them. The dialog contains a lot of unnecessary lines.
All of the above, I can say about this as well. No…I don’t mean to suggest they’re equal.
I just think it’s an interesting case study in our unfortunate tendencies we show when we rate things. Supposedly, if group consensus is an indication, you should think of movies that are so bad that they’re good…like Andy Sidaris’ legacies, for example — specimens that insult the audience in every possible way, unrealistic dialog, stupid plot lines, gaping holes therein but you can say at least it’s fun to watch — and then go down a few more levels until you get no enjoyment, none whatsoever, out of the badness. And there, you’ll find I Still Know What You Did last Summer and I Know Who Killed Me.
It’s not true. The acting was okay, the torture scenes were realistic and gruesome, the serial killer was a nutjob. The story proceeded at a syrupy slow pace, but for a thriller that’s quite typical.
Yeah, we definitely tend to hide, when asked how good something was, behind our egos. We answer from the point of view of how much of the ego we have invested in the thing, rather than how good the thing really is. This is evidenced by all the folks on Internet Movie Database taking the time to stop by and say those three magic words: “Worst Movie Ever.” Ever? Ever?
I could engage in endless banter about “what about…” but I think as I came up with my offerings, the worst-movie-ever critics would look back at me with a blank stare, as they hadn’t seen any of ’em. There should be some kind of certification handed out before you can type “worst movie” into the Database. You ought to be able to demonstrate you’ve seen a couple hundred hours’ worth of bad movies. Otherwise, when you toss around the w.m.e. phrase lightly, it doesn’t mean very much at all.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.