“One! You’ve killed one Mummy!
“Yeah! Twice!”
Michelle Yeoh, pondering why she's in this film
or something. Have movie reviewers just completely given up? I think Ebert now gives any studio non-comedy three stars just for being screened (he’ll also give a movie with nice any tits at least three stars, but that’s another matter). Seems like no matter how shitty the summer blockbuster, critics around the country will consistently hand out apologetic “B” grades to all comers. These reviews tend to start out something like, “this is the retarded-est fucking movie ever made, and it hurt my ears, but it is what it is, so blah blah blah I’m calling this film above average-cakes.” What’s annoying is that any schlocky summer flick gets this treatment, but screen something indie or off-beat with a tiny amount of edge, and some critics will have no problem ripping it to shreds. I mean, really Roger, do you still think the fucking X-Files sequel is a star and a half better than Fight Club?
Side note: The Onion A.V. Club has really gone downhill lately. Their film reviews are all over the place and their film features (like “My Year of Flops” or “The New Cult Canon”) are starting to read like the overlong, overwritten ramblings of a second-year film student. Specifically, a second-year film student who’s not good at writing. And these are the same film writers who’ve been on the site for years. It’s bizarre and kind of ticklish to watch their skills deteriorate before our eyes. And maybe this is expecting too much from the dumb masses of the intertubes, but you’d think a site as witty as the Onion would have at least marginally sharp commenters in the A.V. Club article threads. As it is, I think the A.V. Club board people might actually be even stupider than AICN talkback.
Side note II: Skarkey’s Revenge!: It’s sad that Salon.com’s Stephanie ‘Thank God for Camille Paglia or I’d be the worst writer on this site!’ Zacharek gave a bad review to The Mummy 3 and I’m actually surprised by it. I mean, I can’t see how anyone could give this movie a good review, but she’s been so off-mark for so long that I was sure she’d spin some bullshit reason to like it. You know, like the A.V. Club and Ebert did. Three stars? Really?? Get the fuck out. Although really, Stephanie, how can you praise Hellboy Fucking 2 but not this?
This is what Tracy looks like when she's talking about under-sampled gender study results
Salon.com should just let some of their Broadsheet writers do the movie reviews instead. Speaking of which, my internet crush on Tracy Clark-Flory just got a little bit bigger. But she doesn’t even know I exist!
Epilogue: Have you ever sidled up and eavesdropped on the proles when they talk movies? It’s fascinating and soul-crushing and fascinating. And soul-crushing. I once heard a radio shack guy telling his co-worker about this awesome movie he saw the night before. He actually motioned for the other dude to stop what he was doing and pay attention so that he could earnestly tell him, “The thing about that movie is: it makes you think.” Solemn nodding all around. The movie in question? The Sum of All Fears.
It makes you think.
Nice post. I think we need to start an Internet Crushes category here. Also, Tracy Clark-Flory is cute in a kind of evil way. Which makes it nicer.
Also, Stephanie Zacharek: Ha ha!
Figures that Stephanie of all people would nitpick Wall-e to death. btw, in addition to my list of movies that I’m compiling that are a hidden indicator of bad taste, I’m starting to look for the opposite as well. One candidate: Juno. If you didn’t like that movie you’re a fucking robot or you have Problems with Women.
yeah, maybe we should start an internet crushes sidebar on top of those worthy of scorn. any other suggestions? If I were a chick, I would definitely have an internet crush on Ken Tremendous.
Internet crushes. Man, this could be a whole post of it’s own. For starters, the top of that list would be Molly Young and Molly Lambert, both of This Recording. They perfectly define beauty and amazingness both in the physical and intellect. Lena Chen initially interested me just because I found her to be so honest and unconflicted and refreshing about who she is. Those things may have lead me to an internet crush. Emily Gould too, a little, as I’ve mentioned. Also, Occam Razor. We should call him viagra cause he just hands out boners, you know what I mean?
eh, Lena Chen stares at her belly button a little too much for my tastes. It’s, I don’t know, it’s a certain east coast self-important media thing that rubs me the wrong way.
That’s not untrue, but wouldn’t you like to be somewhere in that field of vision? Ha ha. Maybe romance is dead. Ugh.
I worry that anyone who writes on the internet skirts too close to the self important. But only some of the self important look good in skirts! Again: Ugh.
yeah, the great thing about the nets is that you’re as important as you want to be, but there’s a certain je ne sais quoi to the upper right coast that causes them to run solemn features on funerary sports memorabilia on ESPN, bleeding edge “satire” cartoons of Obama on the cover of the New Yorker or MoDo in general. With no basis in reason at all, I’m going to blame this on the Columbia University journalism program. This is why Salon.com is one of my favorite news sites.
Even as you say that, I was urinating in the direction of NYU and Harvard. Why? Just cause. If I ever cast my gaze over to the left coast’s upper intellectual media savy sinners, I might shake it off on Standford.
ah, Stanford’s just a school for rich kids who couldn’t get into UC.