Now That Obama Is President…
…Does that mean white people can complain about racism now?
Hate
Hate is an interesting thing. In America’s current socio-political climate, hatred has simultaneously become the most despicable and acceptable decision-making factor in existence. There are lots of things that I’m supposed to hate, as well as many things that I’m not allowed to hate. It doesn’t make any sense to me, so in an effort to reach some kind of clarity, and to make it as easy on myself as possible, I’ve decided to narrow my “hate list” down to one and only one group.
I don’t hate black people. I don’t hate homosexuals. I don’t hate democrats or republicans. I don’t hate Barack Obama. I don’t hate religious fanatics.
I just hate everyone. I hate people. They are disgusting creatures, worthy of absolutely zero goodwill and respect.
What made me decide on this stance? I’m pretty sure it’s this whole Proposition 8 thing that did it, became the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.” People’s hate and stupidy, on both sides, made it virtually impossible for me to align myself with either side of the issue. Personal beliefs aside, it would take a moron not to see that there are good, altruistic and honorable people who are both for and against same-sex marriage. Then again, there are those who now plan to boycott Utah for California’s decision to support the proposition. There are also those who use their religion to reinforce their own feelings of intolerance and ignorance. Standing up for what you believe in is never a bad thing to do. Making decisions and forming attitudes based on ignorance is ridiculous. Both sides are clearly guilty of this.
And then there’s the whole Presidential election thing. I couldn’t really add anything to that debate that hasn’t already been said many times over, but is anyone else extremely fatigued by the divisive and irrational attitudes displayed by the two major parties in this country? If you live in this country, you’re an American first. Everything else is secondary, and that goes for party, race, gender, and even sexual orientation. We all have every reason imaginable to work together and do the best we can as a whole, but our stupid pride and fear will always stand in the way. We’ll never be truly united, and that’s a damn shame.
And then there’s racism, religion, the war in iraq and so many other issues. No point in detailing everything I’m fed up with about all these issues, because I think you get the general point of what I’m trying to say here.
I don’t hate people because they disagree. I don’t hate people who have different perspectives and values. I quite like that fact, to be perfectly honest. I hate people because they use their differences as excuses for violence, hate, prejudice, and every other negative impact possibly wrought by humanity. We’ve effectively arrested our own development, so let’s not surprised when things continue to NOT GET BETTER.
It’s a downward spiral, and we’ve thrown ourselves into it. And before you call me a hypocrite, I’d like to admit that yes, that’s exactly what I am. I’m part of the problem.
But you assholes started it.
K
Blind People HATE This Movie…
Maybe it’s because they can’t see it. But then again, that’d be way too much protesting, because they can’t see anything. I would’ve sworn this article was from the Onion if it didn’t say AP all over it. My thoughts in bold…
Blind activists plan protest of movie ‘Blindness’September 30th, 2008 @ 5:28pmBy BEN NUCKOLS
Associated Press WriterBALTIMORE (AP) – Blind people quarantined in a mental asylum, attacking each other, soiling themselves, trading sex for food. For Marc Maurer, who’s blind, such a scenario _ as shown in the movie “Blindness” _ is not a clever allegory for a breakdown in society.
Instead, it’s an offensive and chilling depiction that Maurer fears could undermine efforts to integrate blind people into the mainstream.
I never realized until now that blindness integration was an issue. Really, I didn’t.
“The movie portrays blind people as monsters, and I believe it to be a lie,” said Maurer, president of the Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind. “Blindness doesn’t turn decent people into monsters.”
Come on, now. Has anyone EVER made that claim? Adolf Hitler himself wouldn’t have even gone that far, for fear of sounding silly.
The organization plans to protest the movie, released by Miramax Films, at 75 theaters around the country when it’s released Friday. Blind people and their allies will hand out fliers and carry signs. Among the slogans: “I’m not an actor. But I play a blind person in real life.”
That slogan must sound a hell of a lot better than it reads.
The movie reinforces inaccurate stereotypes, including that the blind cannot care for themselves and are perpetually disoriented, according to the NFB.
Those are the blind stereotypes? And here I was thinking that all blind people had crazy-good senses of smell and hearing. Next you’re going to tell me… Ah, nevermind. I was just about to say something offensive.
“We face a 70 percent unemployment rate and other social problems because people don’t think we can do anything, and this movie is not going to help _ at all,” said Christopher Danielsen, a spokesman for the organization.
“Blindness” director Fernando Meirelles, an Academy Award nominee for “City of God,” was shooting on location Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to Miramax. The studio released a statement that read, in part, “We are saddened to learn that the National Federation of the Blind plans to protest the film `Blindness.’”
The statement went on to read, “But we think it’s totally retarded.”
The NFB began planning the protests after seven staffers, including Danielsen, attended a screening of the movie in Baltimore last week. The group included three sighted employees.
Really? REALLY?
“Everybody was offended,” Danielsen said.
Especially those dudes who got their ass dragged to a MOVIE that they couldn’t see. You know, on account of the blindness.
Based on the 1995 novel by Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, “Blindness” imagines a mysterious epidemic that causes people to see nothing but fuzzy white light _ resulting in a collapse of the social order in an unnamed city. Julianne Moore stars as the wife of an eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) who loses his sight; she feigns blindness to stay with her husband and eventually leads a revolt of the quarantined patients.
The book was praised for its use of blindness as a metaphor for the lack of clear communication and respect for human dignity in modern society.
Actually sounds like a pretty cool story to me. It also sounded that way to those morons who run that dog-and-pony show they call the Nobel Prize committee.
Miramax said in its statement that Meirelles had “worked diligently to preserve the intent and resonance of the acclaimed book,” which it described as “a courageous parable about the triumph of the human spirit when civilization breaks down.”
Maurer will have none of it.
“I think that failing to understand each other is a significant problem,” he said. “I think that portraying it as associated with blindness is just incorrect.”
Dude, I totally don’t understand what the hell you’re talking about.
The protest will include pickets at theaters in at least 21 states, some with dozens of participants, timed to coincide with evening showtimes. Maurer said it would be the largest protest in the 68-year history of the NFB, which has 50,000 members and works to improve blind people’s lives through advocacy, education and other ways.
Clearly a publicity stunt for a 68-year old organization that nobody has heard about until this movie came out.
The film was the opening-night entry at the Cannes Film Festival, where many critics were unimpressed.
After Cannes, Meirelles retooled the film, removing a voice-over that some critics felt spelled out its themes too explicitly.
Meirelles told The Associated Press at Cannes that the film draws parallels to such disasters as Hurricane Katrina, the global food shortage and the cyclone in Myanmar.
“There are different kinds of blindness. There’s 2 billion people that are starving in the world,” Meirelles said. “This is happening. It doesn’t need a catastrophe. It’s happening, and because there isn’t an event like Katrina, we don’t see.”
Okay, huh? I mean, I’m on your side, Meirelles, but it sounds like you and Sarah Palin have the same speechwriter.
___
Ok, I realize that I couldn’t possibly be any more offensive than I just was about blind people. Come on, though, isn’t that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever read? I’m just trying to balance out the equation. Feel free to tell me what an awful person I am.
krr.
(Oh, and here’s a link to the article itself.)
Gay Marriage
Every once in a while I’ll emerge from my cave to post something I think everyone should read.. this is one of those times.
I found this great op-ed piece from the Los Angeles Times written by a self-proclaimed “liberal Democrat”. I think it’s well worth posting in its entirety.
Protecting Marriage to Protect Children
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving. But in all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.
Los Angeles Times
By David Blankenhorn
September 19, 2008
I’m a liberal Democrat. And I do not favor same-sex marriage. Do those positions sound contradictory? To me, they fit together.
Many seem to believe that marriage is simply a private love relationship between two people. They accept this view, in part, because Americans have increasingly emphasized and come to value the intimate, emotional side of marriage, and in part because almost all opinion leaders today, from journalists to judges, strongly embrace this position. That’s certainly the idea that underpinned the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage.
But I spent a year studying the history and anthropology of marriage, and I’ve come to a different conclusion.
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
Marriage is society’s most pro-child institution. In 2002 — just moments before it became highly unfashionable to say so — a team of researchers from Child Trends, a nonpartisan research center, reported that “family structure clearly matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low- conflict marriage.”
All our scholarly instruments seem to agree: For healthy development, what a child needs more than anything else is the mother and father who together made the child, who love the child and love each other.
For these reasons, children have the right, insofar as society can make it possible, to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world. The foundational human rights document in the world today regarding children, the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically guarantees children this right. The last time I checked, liberals like me were supposed to be in favor of internationally recognized human rights, particularly concerning children, who are typically society’s most voiceless and vulnerable group. Or have I now said something I shouldn’t?
Every child being raised by gay or lesbian couples will be denied his birthright to both parents who made him. Every single one. Moreover, losing that right will not be a consequence of something that at least most of us view as tragic, such as a marriage that didn’t last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to- be has no intention of sticking around. On the contrary, in the case of same-sex marriage and the children of those unions, it will be explained to everyone, including the children that something wonderful has happened!
For me, what we are encouraged or permitted to say, or not say, to one another about what our society owes its children is crucially important in the debate over initiatives like California’s Proposition 8, which would reinstate marriage’s customary man-woman form. Do you think that every child deserves his mother and father, with adoption available for those children whose natural parents cannot care for them? Do you suspect that fathers and mothers are different from one another? Do you imagine that biological ties matter to children? How many parents per child are best? Do you think that “two” is a better answer than one, three, four or whatever? If you do, be careful. In making the case for same-sex marriage, more than a few grown-ups will be quite willing to question your integrity and goodwill. Children, of course, are rarely consulted.
The liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously argued that, in many cases, the real conflict we face is not good versus bad but good versus good. Reducing homophobia is good. Protecting the birthright of the child is good. How should we reason together as a society when these two good things conflict?
Here is my reasoning. I reject homophobia and believe in the equal dignity of gay and lesbian love. Because I also believe with all my heart in the right of the child to the mother and father who made her, I believe that we as a society should seek to maintain and to strengthen the only human institution — marriage — that is specifically intended to safeguard that right and make it real for our children.
Legalized same-sex marriage almost certainly benefits those same-sex couples who choose to marry, as well as the children being raised in those homes. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation further and perhaps definitively undermines for all of us the very thing — the gift, the birthright — that is marriage’s most distinctive contribution to human society. That’s a change that, in the final analysis, I cannot support.
David Blankenhorn is president of the New York- based Institute for American Values and the author of “The Future of Marriage.”
McCain picks…. Palin?
A quick 2 cents on the recent VP pick by McCain:
It’s no secret that I wanted Romney in the slot… though I never thought it would actually happen. I also have to admit that I was more than a little surprised by McCain’s choice, I was almost positive he was going to go with Pawlenty, but in the end I think Palin is a smart move politically. A short breakdown on why:
- The obvious boost in female votes. There are a lot of bitter Hillary supporters out there who are already eyeing John McCain. I think it’s a no-brainer that this move will seal the deal with a lot of them.
- Lower gas prices. I think the simple act alone of naming Palin his VP choice will bring gas prices down. She’s a big proponent of drilling in ANWR, and to add that to McCain’s already beating “DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW” drum can only do him some good. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to start seeing the effects of the choice at the pump almost immediately.
- It further establishes the Republican Party as the Party of Change. There’s a lot of you out there that will scoff at that statement, and I get it… but let’s be honest here for a second. The democrats have been playing the same sad song for as long as I can remember… A more pitiful lot of whiners, I’ve never seen… They are defeatists, plain and simple, and they still haven’t changed that. As much as they shout “Change!” and “Hope!”, you can almost see them wince every time they do as they’re preparing to get stepped on. The mere fact that they were handed this race on a silver platter long before it even began, and the polls are STILL a statistical tie, only demonstrates their weakness… I don’t think they’d know what to do with a lead if they had one.
- McCain needs a softer side, and Palin can be that. I’ll be the first to admit that McCain can get a little scary when he starts playing with his G.I. Joes. He needs someone who can mellow that out a little bit, and I think Palin can do a good job of it.
- Buzz… Obama choosing Biden was a good story for a day, and then it got boring. Nobody cares anymore. People will be obsessed with this choice til the end of the election, who both agree and disagree, and that’s a good thing for McCain. These are the days when elections are won or lost with clips and soundytes, and there’s going to be a lot of them spurred from this choice.
Yea, or nay?
Obama Salute?
Seriously?
This is what we’ve been waiting for?
Apparently the Obama camp, or at least a portion of it, has arrived at the conclusion that they need their own “symbol of hope” to further distance themselves from the rest of us, and reality.
According to Rick Husong of The Loyalty, Inc.:
Our goal is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future,”
His own salute… I don’t think that’s what I’ve been waiting for. It seems strangely similar to something we’ve already seen. What’s next? His own flag? Obama Youth Rallies?
Behold, the audacity of lunacy.
R.I.P. – Tony Snow
I just wanted to briefly send out my condolences to the friends and family of Tony Snow. He was an amazing man, and I had a profound respect for him.
His intelligence and his dignity went a long way towards calming the otherwise stormy political seas. He will be missed.
Feel free to observe his masterful handling of the press in the following video. He was a much needed voice of the White House during a time when communication was arguably the administration’s biggest weakness.
Review: Modern Guilt
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m pleased to inform you that our favorite eccentric/hipster/scientologist/crazy genius/musician, the man we all know and love as Beck, is back. When I say that it’s been a long time, I’m not referring to the 2-year period between MG (Modern Guilt) and 2006’s The Information. What I’m saying is that this is Beck’s best album, his first truly great album, since 2001’s Sea Change.
Teaming up with producer Brian Joseph Burton (aka Danger Mouse), Beck has made something special and unique, even for him, of his eighth studio album. Modern Guilt (which strangely shares initials with Beck’s very first album, Mellow Gold) is a rich, dense, and extremely cool album. Musically, the album takes absolutely no shortcuts, and the reward is a deeply ambitious and full sounding recording that demands repeated listens, preferably through a good set of headphones. Lyrically, Mr. Hanson is just as esoterically accessible as ever. I’ll refrain from going into further detail, for reasons I’ll explain in a minute.
Some might argue that there are no standout radio hits to be found in Modern Guilt’s 10 tracks, and they’re not necessarily wrong. I’d counter, however, that this is a better album than that. It doesn’t pander to the lazy or those of a lesser attention span. It rewards those who are willing to listen carefully and repeatedly. It may not set radio stations ablaze, but perhaps that’s because it’s a little better than 90% of what you’ll find on modern “alternative” radio.
Basically, lovers of Fall Out Boy need not apply. Also, they should grow up and stop listening to such lame, pandering, corporate crap. But I digress.
I won’t go into a track-by-track breakdown here, partially because I’m lazy, but mostly because a lot of the fun of a Beck album is the discovery of it. There’s an element of exploration involved here. There’s no accounting for taste, and it’s difficult to say whether or not most people will enjoy Beck’s newest collection of songs as much as I did. I hope you’ll give it a chance, by which I mean 2, 3 or even 4 listens, before you make up your mind.
And don’t forget the headphones.
8/10
K
Things That Are Ruining America: Bad Movies
We love movies. The dark theater (minus the jackass texting 3 rows in front of you). The box of Milk Duds. The drink that’s way too big, but you’re going to finish the damn thing anyways, because you paid $5.00 for it. The previews… ahh, the previews. Allowing yourself to leave the world behind and be swept away for 2 hours by the vision of a truly great filmmaker. Trying to figure out the ending long before you should even be worried about that. Analyzing the plots and subplots. Reaching sometimes further than we should to try to find the applicability to our own lives.
For us, film is truly one of the greatest art forms. As you should all know by now, art is kind of a big deal to us. And, there’s nothing better than the first time you see a great film, except for maybe the second or third time. Losing yourself in the art of film is an experience like none other. These experiences often leave such an impression that we’re left remembering the exact days or specific events that are connected to the watching of them. Kyle first saw the movie Fight Club on 7/25/99. He remembers clearly the ecstasy he met as the last scene unfolded, and the musical genius of the Pixies merged with the cinematic genius of David Fincher. Ben can relive the fear he felt the night he saw The Exorcist. The darkness of the night. The pouring Texas rain. How not 10 minutes after the film ended, the power was cut in his apartment, and he was left to sit on the floor in the dark for the next 3 hours. It was one of the only times in his life where he genuinely felt the effects of a scary movie. Of course, the thunderstorm and the lack of electricity helped out quite a bit.
Have we made our point? We really love movies.
As fantastic and wonderful as these great movies, nay films, can be, there is a darker side. As it says in the Bible (or maybe it’s Star Wars), you can’t have good without evil. You can’t have light without darkness. You can’t have great without terrible. We desperately wish this wasn’t the case with cinema.
Bad movies are ruining America. They’re lowering people’s expectations, tastes and IQ’s. They’re bastardizing a wonderful art form. They’re making us question the future of the human race. (Yes, we know we can be a little dramatic, but we wait until we’re tired and angry to write these posts. Somehow, it just feels right.)
And now, for your enjoyment, awareness, and education we’ll list our most hated movies. We’ll tell you why we hate them. We might even spoil the endings so that you’re not even tempted to see them. Just don’t ask us to tell you which one is worse than the others. They all suck.
Ben’s Most Hated Movies:
Titanic
At one point the highest grossing movie ever. Is it still? Don’t know. Don’t care. All I know is that whenever I would hear that ungodly Celine Dion song I wanted to down a bottle of cyanide. This, to my recollection, was the first moment in my life that I refused to take part in something that the main-stream was thoroughly enjoying. I refused to go see the film. I’m sorry to say now that I eventually caved and ended up watching the movie on a date. Stupid girls. I’ve always regretted it. How much I would enjoy being able to say today that “I’ve never seen Titanic.” I won’t make that mistake again. (See Harry Potter) Titanic = bad dialogue, pointless nudity, some of the worst one-liners of our generation (you’re not the effing king of the world), Leonardo DiCaprio’s worst acting gig ever (and yet, the one that catapulted him to a certain level of super stardom), a great example of a film that’s only “great” because enough money was thrown at it, and ammunition for all guys, everywhere, against women… She let go!
Not to mention… you did know, going into this movie, that everyone was going to die, right? It’s the freaking Titanic.
Cross Dressing Comedies
Big Momma’s House (1&2), Nutty Professor (1&2), White Chicks, The Hot Chick, Mrs. Doubtfire, Norbit, Madea’s Family Reunion
Have I forgotten any? I’m sure I have. It’s pretty satisfying to be able to kill 9 horrible movies with one stone, though. Since when did a man in a dress become instant comedy? The worst of it, in my eyes, is the volume of black comedians subjected to these rolls. If I were Al Sharpton, I would spend a little less time worrying about the “racism” of people like Don Imus and a little more time worrying about the degradation that occurs in the black community when thousands of people gather around a screen and laugh at black men in dresses.
I don’t even know where to start here. Isn’t it universally accepted that this is the bottom of the barrel? These aren’t movies. They certainly aren’t comedy. These are bad Laffy Taffy jokes, at best. Putting on a dress, and frequently a fat suit, doesn’t equal funny. Funny equals funny. Can you have comedy with cross dressing? Sure. There are truly comedic moments in the history of film and television that involve cross dressing – namely, Monty Python and Arrested Development. But these moments are funny because of the great writing, great acting, great comedy, not because some dude is wearing a dress. Putting a guy in a dress, filming him, and then expecting laughter is not only insulting to my intelligence, it’s ruining America.
And, if you’re laughing at them, then so are you.
“Scary” Movies
Blair Witch Project, The Ring 2, The Grudge (1&2), Boogeyman, Dark Water, Saw 1-25, Hostel, Captivity, and on and on and on…
I do kind of feel like I’m cheating by including two genres on my list, but it is really hard to narrow this down. You’ll also notice that I didn’t include the first Ring. That’s because I actually enjoyed that one. But, then again, that was before the cinematic saturation of young Asian girl “horror”.
To be fair, the Saw franchise could probably carry this thing alone, but the tragedy is how eager we are to shell out our money to sit through these so called “scary movies”. I think The Grudge is literally the same 10 minute scene shot at different angles and replayed 10 times. I can remember sitting in the theater during Blair Witch… laughing. It really was an amusing film to me. Some would probably credit it with opening new doors for film makers, or something idiotic like that, but the only thing that I give this movie credit for was conning millions of dollars out of our pockets. I do believe the first Saw had some of the worst acting I’ve ever seen in my life delivered by none other than the Dread Pirate Roberts (Cary Elwes) “You BASTARD!” Again… quite laughable. Captivity was actually nominated for 3 Razzies: Worst Actress, Worst Director, and Worst Excuse for a Horror Movie. It was then nominated for a Teen Choice Award for Choice Movie Actress: Horror/Thriller. See what these films are doing to the rising generation?
I see the same principle here as the comedies. Show us something stupid, expect us to laugh. Show us something gruesome, expect us to be scared. No plot necessary, don’t worry about good dialogue, just be sure to kill a lot of people and make it as bloody as possible. If there’s a young girl with a lot of dark hair covering her face… all the better.
Kyle’s Most Hated Movies:
Pearl Harbor
I’ve only walked out of the theater during one movie in my entire life. Those of you who know me know I’m not a prude, so it wasn’t due to excessive violence, language, coolness, cigarette smoking, etc. I didn’t walk out because it was merely boring, as I enjoy a good nap as much as the next guy. I walked out because this movie was so lame, so offensively sappy, so inappropriately far away from what it should have been that I just couldn’t stand it any longer. I’ll give you a hint, there’s an entire song in the Trey Parker/Matt Stone film Team America devoted to this movie’s awfulness.
That’s right, it’s Pearl Harbor. Ugh.
My hatred for Michael Bay began with this absolute abortion of a film. First of all, Ben Affleck sucks. He’s not good to watch in any role, let alone a romantic hero role. That was my first hint, before I’d even seen the movie, that it was going to be terrible.
Second of all, in a three-hour movie, how can only half an hour be devoted to the actual events of Pearl Harbor? Is the story of that fateful day so boring and lame that it just begs for a drawn out, painfully dull love story? And to make it a love triangle? Gag me with a freaking spoon. The real story of Pearl Harbor and its lasting impact is so interesting and powerful that it’s a shame we saw so little of it. It’s as if someone wrote a terribly boring love story/period piece, and then realized that people would pay to see it if the story was set around the Japanese attack on the Oahu harbor. The actual Pearl Harbor elements feel tacked on and superfluous, and they should be anything but.
Finally, I just really, really hate Ben Affleck. I feel justified in making that my first and last argument. He sometimes redeems himself in his buddy Kevin Smith’s flicks, but he doesn’t do it enough.
Holy crap, I really hate that movie. To this day, I’ve only seen the first and last half hour bits. That’s more than enough.
Epic/Date/Scary/Superhero/Disaster Movie (Also, Meet the Spartans)
There’s nothing inherently wrong with spoof movies. I’m a huge fan Monty Python, Mel Brooks and even David Zucker’s earlier stuff. Flicks like the Life of Brian, Young Frankenstein and Airplane! are silly, full of references and extreme performances. But the thing is, they’re also riotously funny, and they’ve become modern cinematic classics.
Today’s spoof movies are a different animal altogether. Lazy, unfunny and uninspired, this newest wave of Naked Gun-wannabes can be seen as only aiming for one goal: striving for the lowest common denominator in taste, intelligence, and unfortunately, humor. I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve seen more than one of these terrible, awful films. I’ve spoken with my local clergy, and I feel that I’ve been absolved of these sins, but the painful memory remains.
I don’t even want to talk about these anymore. I’ll only advise you that, if you see any movie, regardless of specific title, that reminds you of one of these, run for the hills. That is, unless it came out before 1980, of course. (I know a previous post argued against such a mentality, but in this case, it’s warranted!)
RENT
Here’s the description I found on imdb.com:
Based on Puccini’s ‘La Boheme’, ‘Rent’ tells the story of one year in the life of friends living the Bohemian life in modern day East Village, New York City, 1989-1990. Among the group are our narrator, nerdy love-struck filmmaker Mark Cohen; the object of Mark’s affection, his former girlfriend, Maureen Johnson; Maureen’s Harvard-educated public interest lawyer and lesbian lover Joanne Jefferson; Mark’s roommate, HIV-positive musician and former junkie, Roger Davis; Roger’s new girlfriend, the HIV-positive drug addicted S&M dancer, Mimi Marquez; their former roommate, HIV-positive computer genius Tom Collins; Collins’ HIV-positive drag queen street musician/lover Angel; and Benjamin Coffin III, a former member of the group who married for money and has since become their landlord and the opposite of everything they stand for. Shows how much changes or doesn’t change in the 525,600 minutes that make up a year.
I don’t want to talk about that movie anymore. Couldn’t hate it more.
And that’s our (relatively) brief and very incomplete list. We’d like to thank all the good movies out there to give us something against which to compare these terrible, terrible pieces of garbage. We’ll be back soon with yet another tirade against Things That Are Ruining America.
-b&k
