I saw "The Beginners" at a cinema tonight and was quite pleased by the excellent writing and superb acting. A truly flawless movie, it is the best of 2011.
I had not been out to a cinema in years. I must say the movie-going experience has gotten worse, not better. There were almost a dozen shrill, jarring commercials for products like insurance and luxury cars that made me sorry I was there. Why should I have to watch commercials after I paid for a ticket? I felt like the theater was punishing me for visiting. If I had waited for the movie to arrive via NetFlix, presto, no commercials. One of the stupid commercials played in reverse (including the soundtrack) after it had played. I do not know whether that was a technical malfunction or an intentional device. Another annoyance was that sound effects from another movie in an adjoining screen could be overheard--explosions, shots and cursing. The sound is turned up too loud.
Despite my favorable impression of the movie itself, I do not intend to go out to the cinemas again for a long time, because it is clear to me the cinema owner has zero respect for the audience. But what else is new? This has long been the case. Besides the high ticket price and the lousy and expensive food, now the audience must contend with loud, obnoxious commercials with no relation to movies. Small wonder, then, that there were plenty of empty seats. In a theater with a seating capacity of 200, fewer than twelve seats were occupied, even though the movie itself was outstanding.
The museum was little better. Among the masterpieces of artwork and sculpture, in the lobby below, a rapper was permitted to scream his tirade or whatever he calls it at a very loud volume, so that it was impossible to think about anything except for the stupid thoughts originating from his empty head concerning murder or mayhem or whatever nonsense it is that he thinks is so interesting that everyone must listen to it, whether they want to or not. It may come as a surprise, but people visit an art museum to look at the art, not listen to rap or any other type of music played at a high volume. One thing is decided. I do not plan on buying a membership to the museum in this lifetime.
Showing posts with label video reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video reviews. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Two Good Shows from the UK
Two recent excellent shows from the UK are Upstairs, Downstairs (2010) and Downton Abbey. These two shows are destined to become classics. I find them equal in quality. While they are comparable, each has elements that make it unique. The writing, I think, is slightly superior in Upstairs, because it deals with real social and historical issues rather than trivialities, while the camera work, set and costumes are better in Downton, a show with a much higher budget. Downton seems to dwell upon apolitical themes, whereas Upstairs doesn't mind getting into things with meaning. I think I find more kinship generally with Upstairs, but admire Downton because it is excellent and luxurious pure escapism. To be honest, I'm not altogether sure. It may be that I am mistaken about things, and Downton is better written. I think I'll just have to watch Downton again in order to make up my mind.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Absolutely Brilliant
I saw Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (the April 27th, 2011 episode), and he was absolutely brilliant and absolutely right. Sanders represents what is good and right in America.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
I Saw Bruno
I saw the supposedly homophobic movie Bruno, but was not offended. GLAAD urged a gay boycott of the film. I passed it by only because I'm not crazy about the Borat guy. Eventually, a year or so after its release, I decided to watch it to see what all the fuss had been about. Yes, homophobia in all of its many permutations is on full display in the film. No, I did not think it offensive. I think the movie is actually a satire on homophobes, portraying their primitive conception of gays. Of course real gays are not like Bruno. That's obvious or should it be to anybody who isn't living in a cave. Bruno plays every homophobic chord there is, and at the end of it all, the audience is thinking, "So what?" It renders mundane and non-threatening, through repetition, what may have seemed, in an earlier time, threatening. I think it's good and watched the whole thing to the end. In fact, I think the GLAAD boycott was a clever marketing strategy to give the film street cred among the homophobes. I bet it worked in large measure to lure the other side into the audience.
But there's a more important question. Was it funny? No, I didn't laugh, but I did smile. I kept watching because I wanted to see what shocking thing would happen next. That kept me going through the entire length. The best phrase I can use to describe the film is homophobic camp. As such, it has a little something to please everybody. Viewers can read the message that they want to read into the movie, but only at the risk of getting it completely wrong. I think the movie makes its message clear at the end when Snoop Dogg says, "If you're gay, okay."
But there's a more important question. Was it funny? No, I didn't laugh, but I did smile. I kept watching because I wanted to see what shocking thing would happen next. That kept me going through the entire length. The best phrase I can use to describe the film is homophobic camp. As such, it has a little something to please everybody. Viewers can read the message that they want to read into the movie, but only at the risk of getting it completely wrong. I think the movie makes its message clear at the end when Snoop Dogg says, "If you're gay, okay."
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Cretinous Critics at The New York Times?
The critics of The New York Times praise the execrable "Fringe" while condemning the good and correct "Tudors." How can this be? Are their critics cretins? No. It is likely that the hacks at The New York Times praise whoever bribes them and disparage whoever does not. Writing does not pay well, living expenses in New York City are high, and our mainstream media are no more scrupulous or high-minded than our politicians. Such a combination of factors sometimes leads to good shows being panned, and bad shows being promoted. The same general theme can be observed regarding public policy.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Come Fly with Me
Come Fly with Me is a great show featuring Matt Lucas and David Wallliams, of Little Britain fame. The first episode may have been spotty, but the show grew stronger as the episodes continued, and the last episode was the funniest. Some may not understand the cumulative effect of the comedy. When a joke first airs, it may not be funny at all, particularly if the humor is dry. As it gets repeated, it becomes funnier. The audience has to grow accustomed to the character and the situation and suspend disbelief. This takes time. A patient viewer, willing to follow the show to the end, will be rewarded. I think Come Fly with Me is just as good as Little Britain was, which is saying something.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Time Magazine on Archer
I was amused by TIME magazine labeling the new cartoon series "Archer" as "bawdy and brilliant." Bawdy, yes. Brilliant, no. TIME magazine would think it was brilliant. They are clueless about everything else, so why not television as well? TIME magazine is primarily composed of photographs, charts, graphs and extra-large fonts these days. I can read it in the amount of time I spend in a grocery store checkout line. Why would anyone buy such a magazine? It's not really a magazine, but just a collection of pictures, and not very good ones at that.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thank you, Joel Burns
Joel has said what many gay men have wanted to say for a long, long time. I only wish that an older and wiser gay man like him had told me these things when I was a severely depressed fifteen year-old living in a conservative, homophobic area. Nobody I knew was gay. I thought I was the only one in the entire world. I remember that I dog-eared the chapter on suicide in a book on psychology and read it often. My ambition was to gather enough courage to do the deed. I never came close, however. I never even progressed to cutting myself. But I thought about it often and took ridiculous chances that I should not have taken. High-risk behavior is a form of attempted suicide. Death seemed like a perfect answer to all my problems. Perhaps death is one kind of solution, but it is boring, and destroys the possibility of anything good happening. A suicide causes pain in the hearts of good people, even strangers that we do not know, who will observe the death with sorrow. It is strange to think, but true, that people that one does not know care about one's welfare. A suicide hands the ignorant, evil villains an easy victory. We must not give in to evil. And make no mistake, the bullies, the homophobes are the forces of darkness, akin to the Nazis.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
True Blood and Being Human
True Blood is the best show on television now, although that is not saying much. I do find faults in the show, but all are overcome by the generally good writing, camera work, and acting. It is a quality American show about vampires that is as good as Being Human, a British series about vampires that may be sadly defunct. Being Human was more sophisticated with better character development and more dialogue. Of the two, I prefer Being Human, and I hope the series comes back to life as do vampires. However, True Blood is sexier and intoxicating, with the same appeal as The Sopranos. An underground society is envisioned in which the laws and customs of mainstream society no longer apply, and characters do as they please in a state of anarchy due to their extraordinary personal power. There are many parallels between The Sopranos and True Blood, such as the hierarchy of vampires and the mafia hierarchy, and Eric the vampire, who owns a strip club like Tony Soprano's Ba-Da-Boom.
The dramatic scenes involving Bill and Sookie do not sound right to me. Bill seems like a twit rather than a romantic figure. However, the action scenes are good, and the catchy theme song became my ear worm. Anna Paquin, who plays Sookie, seems genuine in every scene, although she receives little support from Bill, who reminds me of Anne Rice's Louis, a somber vampire.
Why would shapeshifters bother with illegal pitbull fighting to make money? A shapeshifter could get away with almost anything by assuming the form of an animal. Shapeshifters can assume the form of birds and take to the air, or assume the form of a fish and swim in water. Why are vampires not capable of entering a house without invitation? That implies that vampires are supernatural beings, and an antagonistic supernatural force is protecting humans. What is the nature of said force? The True Blood Universe is not exclusively Christian, because a Maenad appeared in Season 2.
My predictions are that Sooki Stackhouse is a fairy, and Lafayette is a witch capable of magic. His lover is also a witch, but a better-educated one that knows how to use magic.
The dramatic scenes involving Bill and Sookie do not sound right to me. Bill seems like a twit rather than a romantic figure. However, the action scenes are good, and the catchy theme song became my ear worm. Anna Paquin, who plays Sookie, seems genuine in every scene, although she receives little support from Bill, who reminds me of Anne Rice's Louis, a somber vampire.
Why would shapeshifters bother with illegal pitbull fighting to make money? A shapeshifter could get away with almost anything by assuming the form of an animal. Shapeshifters can assume the form of birds and take to the air, or assume the form of a fish and swim in water. Why are vampires not capable of entering a house without invitation? That implies that vampires are supernatural beings, and an antagonistic supernatural force is protecting humans. What is the nature of said force? The True Blood Universe is not exclusively Christian, because a Maenad appeared in Season 2.
My predictions are that Sooki Stackhouse is a fairy, and Lafayette is a witch capable of magic. His lover is also a witch, but a better-educated one that knows how to use magic.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
On the Use of Torture to Obtain Information
I just finished watching a documentary called "Torture: America's Dirty Business," created by Channel 4 (UK). The illegal detentions and torture conducted during the Bush/Cheney years were abhorrent.
War is one thing, but torture is another. It is true that war causes more suffering to more people than torture. War is often evil, as well. But in the case of torture, the moral dilemma is clear and striking. In war, some things are necessary, but there is no necessity to torture a prisoner. There are no belligerents in a secure prison. A prisoner is powerless to resist. He cannot harm anyone. During the period of a prisoner's confinement, the State is responsible for his care. It is wicked for the State to inflict pain and suffering upon a helpless prisoner. This is not the way to gain support and influence people. Those who cannot see why torture is evil have a difficulty in grasping the difference between right and wrong.
The powers of the West cannot sink to the level of their enemies. We have a higher standard of conduct than those that we battle. When our enemies commit evil, it marks them for what they are. There is a spiritual cost to committing evil, and the cost is very high indeed. "Winning at any cost" is a bad business, because so many costs are hidden and difficult to appreciate. Torture one person, and a hundred new enemies are made, and some of these enemies might have been our allies, or at the very least remained neutral, if we had kept to the path of righteousness. Without a strict code of ethics, the distinction between who is good and who is evil is diminished. The torturer loses the support of good people by committing torture. It is more valuable to retain the good opinion of good people than to seek short-term gain through underhanded means.
From a practical standpoint (if such a consideration is even worth discussing), torture is an ineffective method of obtaining information. A person undergoing torture will say anything at all that their captor wants to hear. But that fine point pales in comparison to the ethical question.
I am pleased that Obama has reaffirmed America's opposition to human rights abuses. Foreigners should be aware that the majority of Americans disapprove of the abuses that were allowed to occur under the Bush/Cheney Administration. Such abuses proved counter-productive to American interests in every way imaginable.
War is one thing, but torture is another. It is true that war causes more suffering to more people than torture. War is often evil, as well. But in the case of torture, the moral dilemma is clear and striking. In war, some things are necessary, but there is no necessity to torture a prisoner. There are no belligerents in a secure prison. A prisoner is powerless to resist. He cannot harm anyone. During the period of a prisoner's confinement, the State is responsible for his care. It is wicked for the State to inflict pain and suffering upon a helpless prisoner. This is not the way to gain support and influence people. Those who cannot see why torture is evil have a difficulty in grasping the difference between right and wrong.
The powers of the West cannot sink to the level of their enemies. We have a higher standard of conduct than those that we battle. When our enemies commit evil, it marks them for what they are. There is a spiritual cost to committing evil, and the cost is very high indeed. "Winning at any cost" is a bad business, because so many costs are hidden and difficult to appreciate. Torture one person, and a hundred new enemies are made, and some of these enemies might have been our allies, or at the very least remained neutral, if we had kept to the path of righteousness. Without a strict code of ethics, the distinction between who is good and who is evil is diminished. The torturer loses the support of good people by committing torture. It is more valuable to retain the good opinion of good people than to seek short-term gain through underhanded means.
From a practical standpoint (if such a consideration is even worth discussing), torture is an ineffective method of obtaining information. A person undergoing torture will say anything at all that their captor wants to hear. But that fine point pales in comparison to the ethical question.
I am pleased that Obama has reaffirmed America's opposition to human rights abuses. Foreigners should be aware that the majority of Americans disapprove of the abuses that were allowed to occur under the Bush/Cheney Administration. Such abuses proved counter-productive to American interests in every way imaginable.
Monday, November 30, 2009
List of Gay Films
Wikipedia offers a great big list of gay-themed films here.
I find the list useful when searching for something new to watch, although I've begun to prefer shows that retain the same cast of characters. Recommended TV shows are Noah's Arc, Beautiful People, Queer as Folk (British and American version), Little Britain, Little Britain USA, and the first two seasons of Torchwood (the show went south in the third season, R.I.P.) Also worth a try is anything with Kathy Griffin and the Graham Norton Show. Peep Show occasionally works a gay theme into the plot as well, although none of the characters are gay.
I find the list useful when searching for something new to watch, although I've begun to prefer shows that retain the same cast of characters. Recommended TV shows are Noah's Arc, Beautiful People, Queer as Folk (British and American version), Little Britain, Little Britain USA, and the first two seasons of Torchwood (the show went south in the third season, R.I.P.) Also worth a try is anything with Kathy Griffin and the Graham Norton Show. Peep Show occasionally works a gay theme into the plot as well, although none of the characters are gay.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
It's a Party in the U.S.A.
This YouTube vid is about ninety-nine flavors of Awesome. I don't know why, but I've watched it about the same number of times.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Seinfeld
Seinfeld really is one of the better comedy shows in television history. The more times I watch the show, the more I notice the meticulous care that went into every detail, from the choice of clothing to the design of the set. I used to think Seinfeld was not such a great actor himself, but I've changed my mind. He's actually very good, but declines to overact, unlike lesser actors. In addition, Seinfeld had a knack for getting outstanding performances from all of his costars and even minor actors in the supporting cast. I've watched the same actors in other shows where they did not seem as good. Jason-Alexander, who plays the underdog "George Costanza," was the most important actor on the show as well as the most versatile. I can't see the show working without George.
Although the actors were all top-notch, the key to the show's success lies in the writing. It's ingenious. The action unfolds with such a perfect timing that it appears natural and organic, although every aspect is planned and every detail has a purpose. It's also concerned with moral issues, although it pretends otherwise. The "show about nothing" is actually about everything.
Although the actors were all top-notch, the key to the show's success lies in the writing. It's ingenious. The action unfolds with such a perfect timing that it appears natural and organic, although every aspect is planned and every detail has a purpose. It's also concerned with moral issues, although it pretends otherwise. The "show about nothing" is actually about everything.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
James Buchanan, First Gay President?
After watching the History Channel's "Presidents" miniseries of shows, I'm persuaded that James Buchanan, our 15th U.S. President, was gay.
A lifelong bachelor, he lived with a man for many years, and the two of them were referred to as "Aunt Nancies." They hobnobbed with a group of other dandies. No conclusive evidence, I grant, but one is unlikely to find conclusive evidence; had there been any, he would have been denied the Presidency.
It is possible that Buchanan went along with slavery in part due to blackmail by those Washington insiders who knew incriminating details about his personal life. This leads me to the following observation.
In societies where homosexuality is not tolerated, gays are subject to blackmail. This offers another argument in favor of toleration. Gays will always be with us. If they can be open about their sexuality, then they are just as safe from blackmail as their heterosexual counterparts. To bring this issue home, gays serving in the U.S. military are subject to blackmail at this time due to the so-called "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" policy. It would be wise to eliminate that policy along with all of the other policies that seek to meddle in the sex lives of our troops. Otherwise, blackmail remains a potent risk.
Getting back to the issue of James Buchanan, I do not believe that he was our first gay President, as the show suggested. He was our second.
A lifelong bachelor, he lived with a man for many years, and the two of them were referred to as "Aunt Nancies." They hobnobbed with a group of other dandies. No conclusive evidence, I grant, but one is unlikely to find conclusive evidence; had there been any, he would have been denied the Presidency.
It is possible that Buchanan went along with slavery in part due to blackmail by those Washington insiders who knew incriminating details about his personal life. This leads me to the following observation.
In societies where homosexuality is not tolerated, gays are subject to blackmail. This offers another argument in favor of toleration. Gays will always be with us. If they can be open about their sexuality, then they are just as safe from blackmail as their heterosexual counterparts. To bring this issue home, gays serving in the U.S. military are subject to blackmail at this time due to the so-called "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" policy. It would be wise to eliminate that policy along with all of the other policies that seek to meddle in the sex lives of our troops. Otherwise, blackmail remains a potent risk.
Getting back to the issue of James Buchanan, I do not believe that he was our first gay President, as the show suggested. He was our second.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The History Channel's "Evolve" Series
I've been watching the History Channel's 11-part "Evolve" series, each of which covers a different aspect of evolution--size, flight, skin, sex, and so on. I liked the concept of the show and had high hopes for it.
The show plays more like a music video than a science documentary. On the hypothesis that their audience suffers from ADD, "Evolve" does not allow any one human being to speak for more than thirty seconds. The show zips from clip to clip, possibly because the producers are terrified that their audience will get bored with the science. Well, the science is not boring, but their writing is. They are forever stating the obvious. For instance, in the "Flight" episode, they define what it means to fly. Ever seen a bird before? All right then. Also, there is distracting muzak playing in the background. I found myself listening to the muzak rather than the narrative and soon became lost. Finally, the producers employ a number of fancy tricks using digital technology, which better suits music videos. It seems to me that their graphic technicians are showing off just for the sake of showing off. Technology has its place, but should be used in moderation.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a documentary with a learned host, like David Attenborough. Gray hair is a plus. A host functions like a teacher, which is how most of us got our education in the first place. A teacher is a good thing. Don't discard the teacher! Nothing is better than a good teacher!
"Evolve" is by no means alone. Many of the latest science documentaries have this tawdry music video flavor about them. If this keeps up, it could prove a boon for the book market.
The show plays more like a music video than a science documentary. On the hypothesis that their audience suffers from ADD, "Evolve" does not allow any one human being to speak for more than thirty seconds. The show zips from clip to clip, possibly because the producers are terrified that their audience will get bored with the science. Well, the science is not boring, but their writing is. They are forever stating the obvious. For instance, in the "Flight" episode, they define what it means to fly. Ever seen a bird before? All right then. Also, there is distracting muzak playing in the background. I found myself listening to the muzak rather than the narrative and soon became lost. Finally, the producers employ a number of fancy tricks using digital technology, which better suits music videos. It seems to me that their graphic technicians are showing off just for the sake of showing off. Technology has its place, but should be used in moderation.
Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer a documentary with a learned host, like David Attenborough. Gray hair is a plus. A host functions like a teacher, which is how most of us got our education in the first place. A teacher is a good thing. Don't discard the teacher! Nothing is better than a good teacher!
"Evolve" is by no means alone. Many of the latest science documentaries have this tawdry music video flavor about them. If this keeps up, it could prove a boon for the book market.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Mix and Match Traits
In the History Channel's "Evolve" series, scientists discuss the possibility that in the future, parents will select the traits they want to see in their test-tube babies. Natural childbirth will be regarded as unconscionable due to the risk of birth defects. This will be a brave new world, indeed. What I've mentioned is only the beginning. Once the human genome is fully cracked and 0wn3d, there will be many among us who opt to abandon the human form altogether in favor of a more perfect outward and inward form. Every one has a different version of what constitutes perfection, however, so expect a world strewn with monsters, gods, and odd things never before imagined. This is a scary technology, and we are probably not ready for it. Nevertheless, it's coming, probably a hundred years down the road.
Friday, July 24, 2009
I Like a President That Can Apologize
What I never heard from the mouth of George W. Bush were the words, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." He never said this. Not once in his public life. According to George W. Bush, his performance was flawless, and he will go down in history as a paragon. Paragon he may be, but a paragon of what?
Obama apologized months ago over an unrelated issue, saying in a televised interview, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." Jon Stewart on the Daily Show took our President to task for appearing too self-deprecatory, which is considered unbecoming in a President. To me, there is no quality more appealing in a President than the ability to apologize, after a dismal performance like the one given by George W. Bush.
Here Obama is doing it again, which should set an example for the arrogant conservative Republicans, only it won't, because they are game-players seeking only to damage Obama's reputation, and care nothing for self-improvement. The conservative media is always desperate to latch onto one little thing or another to divorce Obama from his supporters. Will they succeed in their objective or will they only succeed in discrediting themselves?
Had Obama adhered to my advice never to use adverbs, he wouldn't be in this situation right now. Obviously.
Obama apologized months ago over an unrelated issue, saying in a televised interview, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." Jon Stewart on the Daily Show took our President to task for appearing too self-deprecatory, which is considered unbecoming in a President. To me, there is no quality more appealing in a President than the ability to apologize, after a dismal performance like the one given by George W. Bush.
Here Obama is doing it again, which should set an example for the arrogant conservative Republicans, only it won't, because they are game-players seeking only to damage Obama's reputation, and care nothing for self-improvement. The conservative media is always desperate to latch onto one little thing or another to divorce Obama from his supporters. Will they succeed in their objective or will they only succeed in discrediting themselves?
Had Obama adhered to my advice never to use adverbs, he wouldn't be in this situation right now. Obviously.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Torchwood, R.I.P.
Season Three of Torchwood is out, but don't hold your breath. The writing has taken a dive off a cliff. After watching the first two episodes, I'm not sure I want to continue.
Why, oh why, did Torchwood hatch yet another government conspiracy plot? That is so X-Files, Dr. Who, and Torchwood. The whole alien invasion theme is getting monotonous, as well. One could have hoped season three would have introduced something fresh and unusual. Is anyone else sick of the "London or Cardiff is being invaded by aliens" plot?
However, anyone who has not seen the first two seasons of Torchwood is missing a real treat. The first two seasons were splendid. If you are gay, you will love the show, but there's a little something for everyone.
Most shows go bad sooner or later. House, Six Feet Under, etc. They fall into a rut and can't seem to come up with new ideas that work.
- The show remains obsessed with Captain's Jack ability to resurrect himself from the dead. The scenes relating to Jack's regeneration are gross. I do not wish to observe partial human remains regenerating and reconnecting themselves, while the skeletal mouth screams in agony for a prolonged period.
- Where is the sex appeal, besides Gwen? The camera keeps focusing on Gwen when she is having a good hair moment. The camera is in dippy love with Gwen. Nice, but how about having intelligent words come out of her mouth, as well?
- Two of our favorite actors on the show are gone. The straight male guy and the Asian lady.
- The script is bland overall, devoid of the sexual and psychological tension we had come to expect from the first two seasons. Jack and Junto now profess to be lovers, but it just doesn't appear to work. Judging by their body language and choice of words, they don't seem to be anything more than colleagues--not even close friends. This represents a failure both in the script and in the acting.
- Once again, the government leaders are the baddies. The plot is formulaic and like a dozen other Dr. Who or Torchwood plots.
- Having characters snatching after kids and being mistaken for pervs is just weird.
- In the first two seasons, a hint of adultery (with Jack) added spice to the character of Gwen, but that seems to be gone.
Why, oh why, did Torchwood hatch yet another government conspiracy plot? That is so X-Files, Dr. Who, and Torchwood. The whole alien invasion theme is getting monotonous, as well. One could have hoped season three would have introduced something fresh and unusual. Is anyone else sick of the "London or Cardiff is being invaded by aliens" plot?
However, anyone who has not seen the first two seasons of Torchwood is missing a real treat. The first two seasons were splendid. If you are gay, you will love the show, but there's a little something for everyone.
Most shows go bad sooner or later. House, Six Feet Under, etc. They fall into a rut and can't seem to come up with new ideas that work.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Bruno: Maybe Yes, Maybe No
GLAAD has protested the anti-gay stereotypes used in the new movie Bruno.
I am not sure how I feel about this. I pay attention to what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says. They bring up important issues. However, the comedian that does Borat does not strike me as a homophobic type. His humor is crude and vulgar, but he comes across as a performer that relies upon shock and disgust overall. I have watched one of his movies in the past, and it was middling--funny in parts, but overall, tedious. I've never found him offensive, just a bit annoying. I'd have to see the scenes in question in order to judge the movie Bruno for myself. But the problem is, I don't want to see the movie. The guy just isn't that funny, and he's not eye-candy either, to be frank. So I guess I can be counted as part of the boycott. But it's on different grounds than GLAAD. Disdain, rather than disapproval.
I am not sure how I feel about this. I pay attention to what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says. They bring up important issues. However, the comedian that does Borat does not strike me as a homophobic type. His humor is crude and vulgar, but he comes across as a performer that relies upon shock and disgust overall. I have watched one of his movies in the past, and it was middling--funny in parts, but overall, tedious. I've never found him offensive, just a bit annoying. I'd have to see the scenes in question in order to judge the movie Bruno for myself. But the problem is, I don't want to see the movie. The guy just isn't that funny, and he's not eye-candy either, to be frank. So I guess I can be counted as part of the boycott. But it's on different grounds than GLAAD. Disdain, rather than disapproval.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)