Two Thumbs Down



I remember turning on Clerks 2, and being immediately turned off by the technicolor-- something about it didn't feel right. The original's black and white made the convenience store where Dante works seem bleak and depressing-- made even moreso by the steel shutter that wouldn't open. It was the perfect foil for the bawdy, raucous humor that makes up the movie's narrative. However, in Clerks 2, the whole scene reminded me of Dick Tracy-- everything bright-colored and comic-like. Instead of real people having funny conversations... it suddenly felt over-the-top... fake. I didn't get that far into the movie-- a few forced bits that sounded nowhere near as natural as the "Star Wars 2nd Death Star" banter in the original. I have to say, I still haven't watched the whole thing. If someone asked me if I liked Clerks 2, I'd have to say no... but then again, I didn't watch it all.

Why am I getting into this? Well, it seems esteemed movie reviewer Roger Ebert recently wrote a savage 718-word review of the movie "Tru Loved." He bashed the acting, the directing, the script... even the concept of the movie itself. Then, in the last paragraph of his review, he dropped the bombshell:

"Full disclosure. I lifted the words "San Francisco to conservative suburbia with her lesbian mothers" straight from the plot summary on IMDb.com, because I stopped watching the movie at the 00:08.05 point. IMDb is also where I found out about Bruce Vilanch's dual role. I never did see the lesbian mothers or my friend Bruce. For "Tru Loved," the handwriting was on the wall. The returns were in. The case was closed. You know I'm right. Or tell me I'm wrong."

Well, needless to say, some readers were a little bit peeved, as, I'm sure, were those involved in making the film. 8 minutes of a 99 minute film is not a great sample size for judgement.

Ebert's defense?

"I started viewing with an open mind and my customary hope that I would enjoy it. I did not. In some way, a film must seal the deal with us. It must make us willing to watch to the end. Even when a film doesn't do that for me, I keep watching because, if nothing else, I can get evidence for a negative review.

With this film, I believed I had all the ammo I needed, not involving the movie's story, but its competence. It did not seal the deal. It left me with no confidence that it would be able to. If nothing else, I hope the review reflected the stream of consciousness that can take place when a movie loses a viewer's sympathy and goes wrong."

Now, I have a problem with this. Roger Ebert gets paid, and paid well, to be a movie critic. One reason people listen to him is that they trust him to have an objective view of the movies he sees. He watches the bad movies, so we don't have to. If we watch the first eight minutes and don't like a movie, we can walk out. But as a critic, it's his job to watch those remaining 91 minutes to see if there's any reason we should stay. How many terrible movies have you seen where one scene or one character makes the movie noteworthy? Lethal Weapon 4 was an obscene, unfunny parody of the previous Lethal Weapon films, but it stood out thanks to Jet Li's dynamic villain.

By not watching the rest of the movie, Ebert did not do his job. What he did was present us with a quick lesson in filmmaking 101, but he could have easily applied that criticism to any film. I wonder... if this had been a major studio release with brand-name actors, would Ebert have treated the movie so flippantly? I think not.

Ebert has a great job. He gets to watch movies and write about them. If he only wants to write about movies he likes, he should have a blog on myspace. But if he's going to do his JOB as a critic, he'll need to suffer through bad films the way we suffer through "team building seminars" or TPS reports at our jobs.

Plus, if the guy could sit through "Wild Wild West," (a film I gave up on after 8 minutes) he should have given this film the same courtesy.

Black Power



Interesting story on the BBC about the man who shared the Olympic medal podium with United States' sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympics, where the two Americans infamously made their "Black Panthers" salute protest. For his support of the two athletes, Australian Peter Norman was ostracized from the sport he loved.

Matt Norman, his nephew, created a documentary about the moment that changed the three men forever, Salute.

Its incredible how far we've come from that moment in history. Back then, the athletes were vilified for daring to protest against an American establishment which had yet to treat African-Americans as equal.

It took until 2008, 40 years later, but we finally have an major-party African-American nominee for President.

We should all learn a lesson from Peter Norman, someone who took on an unpopular position because it was the moral, right thing to do. People like that end up heroes... just not until many years later, when the rest of the world has caught up.

When I first heard the pundits talk about a so-called "Bradley effect," in which Obama may lose votes simply because of his skin color, I shook my head. It's 2008-- you've got hicks in Arkansas listening to Jay-Z-- how can people still be racists? Even subconscious ones? To me, it's like believing the world is flat or that the moon is made of cheese. Someone's a lesser person because they've got more pigment in their skin? Does that mean people with a lot of freckles are inferior? Come on...

But reading a story like this reminds me that those people over 40, who still hold the keys to this country, lived in a time when a white person supporting civil rights risked their reputation and livelihood. They lived in a time where a black man could be a hero while running around a track (or on a football field), but couldn't get a seat at a restaurant. I'd hope that since 1968, people have caught up with Peter, and are able to see Obama as a candidate, not as a color.

I suspect they have. It's about time that the color of a man doesn't disqualify him from the Presidency.

Next up, Jews?

Put Them All In Jail

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Days after it got a federal bailout, American International Group Inc. spent $440,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa treatments, banquets and golf outings, according to lawmakers investigating the company's meltdown.

AIG sent its executives to the coastal St. Regis resort south of Los Angeles, California, even as the company tapped into an $85 billion loan from the government it needed to stave off bankruptcy.

The resort tab included $23,380 worth of spa treatments for AIG employees, according to invoices the resort turned over to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

There's a reason we put criminals in jail. Because if we let them free without punishment, the odds are that they will continue to commit crimes. This is the basic premise of law enforcement. The threat of jail time (and the inevitable male rape that follows) is enough to make would-be criminals think twice about breaking the law.

The folks at AIG took money for insurance policies that they never dreamed would be paid out. They thought there was no way there would ever be massive mortgage defaults, the only scenario that would require them to pay the banks and lenders that bought the policies. Since AIG thought there was no chance that they'd ever have to pay, they treated the money they received as pure profit. They spent it on themselves: lavish bonuses, expense accounts... posh California retreats. Even though their policies promised that they'd pay banks and lenders money if mortgages went bad... they never planned for that event to ever happen. But it did. And the money they had promised to pay was no longer there. The executives had spent it all.

There's a name for someone who takes money that isn't theirs. Criminal.

These people should be thrown in jail. Embezzlement, mail fraud, jaywalking-- whatever sticks. Criminals should be punished for their crimes... not given $85 billion dollars so they can continue to throw parties for themselves.

Unfortunately, Congress continues to treat these executives as innocent bystanders, victimized by Joe Six-Packs who couldn't pay their mortgages. Make no mistake, the $700 billion dollar bailout didn't fail the first time on the House floor because it gave too much to executives. It failed the first time because it DIDN'T GIVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. Once the pork was added, the bill sailed through.

Until the criminals who compounded this crisis are brought to justice, they will continue the pattern of corporate irresponsibility that led to our nation's financial problems in the first place.

Unfortunately, Congress is holding hearings... when they should be demanding trials.

But what do you expect when criminals are running our government?

Google Saves Drunken E-mailers

I admit, I've sent some regrettable e-mails. You have too. Sometimes, it's just because we were emotional at the time. Most likely-- especially now that we have email on our portable iPhones and Crackberries-- we were drunk.

The folks at Google feel our pain. Or rather, they want to spare us the pain of sending a drunken email that will later come back to haunt us:

"Yeah, um, boss... about that email I sent on Saturday at 3:00 am... just kidding, I don't want to quit. And I meant to call someone else a weasel."

World, meet Mail Goggles. Turn this feature on, and every time you try and send an email late at night on a weekend, Google will present you with a few math problems to solve before it sends. The logic being-- if you're in the right frame of mind to do math, then you're in the right frame of mind to send an email:


See, your teachers were right! Math isn't useless.

Of course, Mail Goggles isn't for everyone. For instance, those bad at elementary school math. And those with Arithmophobia: you're already drunk... adding blood-curdling numbers to the mix can only make your state of mind worse.

But for the rest of us, Mail Goggles can be a very useful tool. Why not extend mind-engaging academic tests to protect us from other erroneous communication? Solve a crossword before you can send that late night "What You Up To?!?" text message to your ex. Name the 12th U.S. President before drunk dialing. Analyze the use of allegory in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" before writing on your crush's Facebook wall during a Saturday pre-dawn bender.

Imagine. Suddenly, there would be a purpose to grade school: preventing us from making asses of ourselves.

Which, apparently, was the original purpose of grade school.


Maybe The Wonder Years' Chick Is On To Something

Anyways, the Jewish holiday I'm-Sorry-Fest of Yom Kippur is happening this week, so if you have sent a regrettable email, now's the time to apologize, beg forgiveness and repent. Cause even if you're not Jewish, you want to be sure you've got your bases covered, right?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some math to study up on. I don't want to be stuck if I have to send an email this weekend.

The Money Pit

Why am I reading the most insightful analysis I've read to date of congress's 700 billion dollar bailout plan in an article written by a sports journalist?

As Congress continues to debate whether they are going to hand over $700 billion of your money to the wealthy who screwed up Wall Street and the banking industry, you will be relieved to learn that top executives of the bailed-out firms temporarily will be limited to a strict $500,000 a year in tax-subsidized income. Surely you receive $500,000 a year in tax-subsidized income, don't you? Anyway, supposing we assume the bailout is required, here is what bothers me about the plan so far: Taxpayers don't get stock, what they get is warrants that can be exchanged for stock, and nonvoting stock to boot. This means that once media attention switches to the next crisis that everyone will claim in retrospect to have seen coming, the Wall Street rich can quietly lobby to have the warrants never called, thus keeping the entire bag of gold for themselves. Even if the warrants are called, taxpayers get no voting positions -- meaning the boards of directors of the bailed-out firms can do anything they damn please with taxpayers' money.

A week ago, Warren Buffett rescued Goldman Sachs by injecting $5 billion in capital. Did Buffett bargain for warrants that can be exchanged at an unknown later date for nonvoting shares? No: He is not a fool. Buffett gave Goldman Sachs $5 billion in return for senior preferred stock, the kind that votes and also is more valuable than ordinary shares. That is to say, he used his money to buy something. Goldman can now employ the cash to fix its liquidity problems. The United States Congress and the White House should use the public's $700 billion to buy something, namely senior preferred shares. Why are Congress and George W. Bush not simply following the road map laid out on this problem by the smartest investor of our era? Either Congress and the president are a bunch of blithering fools -- or what they actually want is to insure the public's money is never seen by the public again.

Gregg Easterbrook for congress?? We need somebody in there with an ounce of intelligence, rather than stooges who do whatever big business tells them to do.