Chris Matthews: Drunk or Retarded

There are many visitors to this blog who are much smarter than me, so I wonder if some of you can explain what the hell is wrong with Chris Matthews?

You can follow the link below for details, but here is the relevant quote:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: "Yeah, but he says his wife knew. He laid it out on her."

JOHN FEEHERY, Republican strategist: "Which is a terrible, terrible mistake."

MATTHEWS: "Well, maybe she's partly responsible if she knew about it?"

RealClearPolitics - Video - Chris Matthews On Weiner's Wife: "Maybe She's Partly Responsible"

Its' one thing for Anthony 'Hey, wanna see me Twitter my crotch around the world?' Weiner to try to somehow blame his wife for his indiscretions and low character--the guy has shown himself to be a dishonest, dimwitted cretin, an empty suit of a politician worthy of the Age of Obama--but shouldn't a journalist like Matthews be just a tiny bit smarter?

Is there something I'm missing? Is Matthews retarded, does he go on the air drunk, or is there some other malfunction coming into play here?

Is that his knee, or is Anthony Weiner just happy to be here?

moreless

Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham "slut" on air

According to The Daily Caller (as called to my attention by Feo Amante) mega-asshole radio and TV personality Ed Schultz has called competing radio talk host Laura Ingraham a "slut" during his broadcast. Not once, but twice. Click here for the details.

I admit to getting many laughs from Laura Ingraham when her show aired here in the Seattle area during a time I was driving in the car, so I am irked. Even if I didn't like Ingraham, Schultz's comment is uncalled for.

But I take solace in the fact that Ed Schultz will get the same treatment that Don "nappy-haired hoes" Imus got from the media establishment.

What? You're saying I shouldn't hold my breath, because there's one standard for the Obamunists and another standard for the rest of us? And that it's okay to call a woman a slut so long as she's not an " oppressed minority"? Oh. You're probably right.

Ed Schultz, being a dumb-ass

moreless

This is CNN (!?!)

I can think of one person who will never be trusted with weekend copy-editing duties again.

That's a screen shot of a real headline from a CNN website. A headline that was fed to dozens of other sites that have set up auto-syndication with CNN.

I wouldn't have let a headline like that on the page of the college newspaper section I edited 20+ years ago, yet there it is on a dozen websites, brought to us by what is supposedly a major news organization.

I knew journalistic standards have slipped, but I had no idea how far. Maybe I should be applying for editorial jobs at newspapers and websites. Apparently, you don't actually need to possess any level of decorum or respectability. Looks like I should get back into the journalism field on a professional level, because I'd fit right in these days.

moreless

Must be one of those affirmative action students

A graduate student in Communications at Louisiana State University was shouted down by a crowd while he read a statement instead of his Facebook-announced burning of an American flag when he failed to get a "local burn permit" from the city.

Mob Chases Would-be Flag Burner From LSU Campus

I can only assume that this student, whose name is Benjamin Haas, is either a high-functioning retard who has been pushed through college and into graduate school in order to fill some sort of affirmative action quota related to "people with disabilities," or he's attended some of the worst colleges in the United States. Including the one he's currently at.

Benjamin Haas: Noted poet, would-be flag-burner,
 and the pride of LSU (okay, maybe not that last bit)

Why else would he want to destroy the symbol of the United States of America and the Constitution that guarantees his freedom of expression--a right his field of study and many future career opportunities revolve around? (The answer is probably that he is intending to go into politics and that's he's one of those beautiful people with the attitude that free speech only applies to those who agree with him. Which, of course, means that real freedom of expression matters jack-all to him.)

It could also be that Haas never intended to burn the American flag in the first place. That thought occurred to me when reading the transcript of his address that was published by the LSU campus paper.

Regardless of what led Haas to not burn the American flag today, here is an amateur video from the "event".



While I despise Haas, I don't have much more respect for the crowd and the mob mentality they exhibited. I love the fact that there appeared to be only a small handful there to support Haas and a hundreds there to protest the promised flag burning, but I would have preferred Haas's drivel being heard. For the very reason expressed in this video (also from Benjamin's Big Day... the partially seen woman is one of the people standing alongside Haas in the other video):



It appears to me that the crowd didn't even give Haas a real opportunity for them to "tell him to shut the fuck up." That's a problem.

moreless

There's bad...

... and then there's Christina Aguilera performing the National Anthem at the 2011 Super Bowl.

She couldn't even get the lyrics right... and one has to wonder if she even knows what they mean, given where she placed inflections.



She should have rehearsed a couple of times before stepping in front of a national audience. Well, at least she was fully clothed, so she didn't endanger anything but her own reputation.

moreless

Who caused the Tucson shootings? Mojo Nixon!

Just listen to this horrible, horrible anti-government and anti-censorship song, "You Can't Kill Me"! He even calls for an armed insurrection! And if you couple it with the terrible imagery of American flags, it's clearly an incitement to violence.



(If you're insane.)

...

Oh! And then there's "Redneck Rampage"... a song that glorifies guns and bombs in the hands of retarded rednecks! And the computer game it came from is obviously one big code for hatred against immigrants!



(If you're a lunatic. Or Keith Olbermann.)

...

If there is any doubt whatsoever that Mojo Nixon is responsible for the horrible attack, "Destroy All Lawyers" will dispel it. Rarely has there been such a clear-cut incitement of hatred against an entire class of people.



(If you're stupid. Like Michael Moore.)

...

Or maybe Andrew over at Who Wants Taters??? placed the blame where it belongs in his "Commies And Fascists" post.

moreless

Another documented case of Islamophobia?

NPR today fired commentator Juan Williams for uttering the following words:

But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

Or maybe they fired him because CAIR issued this demand, via the premiere press release masquerading as news articles service.

If it's the former, why is a partially taxpayer-funded organization carrying water for Muslims in an effort to chill and silence the national debate? And if it's the latter, why are a bunch of Islamophobes in charge of a partially taxpayer-funded organization?

For more, check out this editorial at Big Journalism.

Juan Williams' comments amounted to nothing more than the way he feels. And they're rather silly feelings, because even the dumbest terrorist is unlikely to board a plane in his full Afghan outback costume for the very reason that he'll attract suspicion. But they're hardly words and feelings that should get an otherwise decent reporter like Williams dismissed from his job. (Now, it is entirely likely that Williams' fears may not be as silly as all that. It is very likely that some Lion of Islam may publically cross-dress in his gay lover's burka, because he's certain to be able to smuggle all sorts of goodies onto the plane. A burka plus his well-expanded anal cavity almost guarentees he'll get anything on the plane that won't set off a metal detector.)

moreless

In which I do Roger Moore's research for him....

There's a documentary that's reportedly critical of the Obama administration's financial policies opening this Friday on 500 screens here in the United States. Titled "I Want Your Money," it appears to have gotten very little advanced publicity, something that seems to bother movie critic Roger Moore.

Moore, in a brief preview that can read here, frets over the fact that he hasn't heard of the film until now, a few days before its release. He also frets over the fact that he doesn't know who has funded or produced the film. Equally disturbing to him is that it's "agitprop in a far right vein."

Agitprop? Really? I skimmed Moore's reviews of "Sicko," "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Religilogous," three "agitprop" films of a leftward bent, but he didn't see fit to describe them in that fashion. Yet he applies such a negatively loaded word to a film he knows nothing about, save what's in the preview.

As far as I can tell, the producers and director of this film are motivated by the same impulses that drive Michael Moore, except they are coming at topic of economics and politics from the conservative side of the political spectrum.

I didn't see Roger Moore complaining about not knowing who was funding Michael Moore's movies. Is that because they're major studio releases who are run by executives who fund Moore's favorite political figures? Or might he have issues with filmmakers working outside the Hollywood studio system? Why is Moore concerned here, but not in the other cases? Or maybe he's stung by the fact that Obama the Sainted is perhaps being criticized?

As far as the shadowy, perhaps even sinister, funding sources behind "I Want Your Money," a simple visit to IMDB.com reveals the film is a joint production between RG Entertainment and Reminiscent Films, with Ray Griggs, owner of RG Entertainment, serving as the film's executive producer and director. Ray Grigg makes no bones about being a conservative.

By visiting the film's website, I also learned that the film apparently "contrasts the two paths the United States can take using the words and actions of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan" and tries "to tell the story in the plainest terms of the choice between the Obama and the Reagan views of the role of the federal government in our society."

Maybe Roger Moore, journalist and respected film critic that he is, should read up on a movie instead of posting off-the-cuff screeds? The off-the-cuff screeds and wild speculation is my job!

I will most likely not be reviewing this film when it opens, not only because it's not my cup of tea, but because there doesn't appear to be any theater in the Seattle area that are showing it.

To learn more about "I Want Your Money!", click here to visit the official site.

moreless

A case of genuine Islamophobia?

This editorial was just called to my attention:

Greg Gutfeld: ‘WaPo’ Pulls Muhammad Cartoon That Doesn’t Show Muhammad

It is either another example of either base cowardice and hypocrisy that is rampant among American media people, or one of  the few cases of true Islamophobia that exist.

Whichever it is, this comment from the editor who apparently wets himself when he even gazes upon the almighty name of Muhammed in print, is particularly disgusting. He must think the world is inhabited by idiots.

Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, “it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message.” He added that “the point of the joke was not immediately clear.”

 The very fact that he pulled the cartoon is clear evidence that he did get its point. Which is why his cowardice or Islamophobia wouldn't let him print it.

Oh.... and just in case you don't want to click on that link, here's the horrible cartoon that was too offensive (yet utterly obscure in its meaning) to print in the "Washington Post":

Makes me even more content and comfortable with the concept of Mohammed Mondays. I'm more convinced than ever that I'm not going too far. In fact, I may not be going far enough. Maybe keeping out the pigs and the scatological humor was a bad call.

moreless

Al-Qaeda and radical environmentalists: Green peas in a pod?

Osama bin Laden and his groupies lay awake at night and masturbate to fantasies of murdering anyone who doesn't agree with them. So, apparently, do members of some well-funded environmental groups. How else can one explain this little video?



The group that created the video has posted a statement on their website that "apologizes" for it and calls it a "mistake." My guess would be that they regret revealing what their true and sincere dreams are for anyone who doesn't worship as they do, just like members of al-Qaeda... only with less courage of their convictions.

moreless

The white-washing of Zachary Chesser

I shouldn't be at all surprised, but it looks like members of the press--the same folks who won't call a terrorist a terrorist, but instead refer to the likes of al-Qaeda and Hamas as "militants", are going to be working very hard at turning Zachary Chesser from the terrorist asshole and wanna-be murderer that he is into a victim. Consider the headline on the article linked below:

'South Park' critic due in court on terror charges

Yep, according to the Associated Press and the Washington Post, Chesser is no different than Roger Ebert or me... just another critic expressing his view on arts and entertainment. In fact, when they consider him, this is probably what comes into their minds:

If not, they're going to work very hard to make you think of him that way.

But don't let them snow you. Who knows for what diseased reason they're referring to a terrorist and would-be murderer as a "critic," but when you hear or read the name Zachary Chesser, remember that this is the image that should come to mind:


















Or, if that seems a bit much to you, this:



But he is no "critic." Critics don't threaten murder over a work of art they don't like. Chesser is not the harmless, hapless little kitten that the media is going to try to portray him as. He is a would-be murderer, and the only reason he got caught before he killed is that he is also a fucking moron.

Zachary "Abu Talhah" Chesser threatened murder over a cartoon show. He was arrested while trying to board a plane so he could sign up with a gang of killers that he admired and shared religious faith with--Islam. He tried to use his infant son as cover for his attempt. Don't forget that, even if the Associated Press is going to working to make you forget.

Remember, this is what Abu Talhah believes in:

moreless

‘Captain America’ Director: ‘This is not about America…’

From John Nolte's blog-post regarding comments made by the director of the forthcoming "Captain America" movie:

“We’re sort of putting a slightly different spin on Steve Rogers,” said Joe Johnston. “He’s a guy that wants to serve his country but he’s not a flag-waver. We’re reinterpretating sort of what the comic book version of Steve Rogers was.”

Well, I think I can safely say that this is one Marvel movie that is going to suck. Johnston is apparently trying to beat Ang Lee to the bottom of the pile.

Or he's trying to show that he's yet another ignorant Hollywood twat who can't actually be bothered to READ the source material he's adapting.

Will someone tell Palooka Joe here that he should READ "Essential Captain America" Vol. 1--not just look at the pictures--to see that he doesn't have to "reinvent" Steve Rogers.

Steve Rogers was NEVER a "my country, right or wrong" sort of guy, except for a very brief period during some comics from the 1950s, which Marvel Comics later "revealed" as being a fake Captain America (as seen in "Essential Captain American" Vol. 3). Steve Rogers has always believed in the ideal the United States represents--the idea of freedom and justice for all--and that is always what he has been fighting for.


What is it with these dumbasses who think they are superior to those filthy little hacks who created characters that have stood the test of time, dumbasses who think they can improve on the stories of Joe Albano and Michael Fleisher, or even Will Eisner for God's sake?!

I simply do not understand the out-of-control ego that motivates such ignorant, arrogant ass-hattery. I understand that there must be some changes when material is adapted from one medium to another. I understand that updates may have to take place at times. I've been involved in that process more than once. What people like Johnston engage in is change for the sake of change... and they implement their changes in ignorance.

For Nolte's full column, click on the link.

Big Hollywood: ‘Captain America’ Director: ‘This is not about America…’

moreless

Top Forensic Experts Claim Gibson Audio Tapes Are Edited

I'm not going to defend Mel Gibson's behavior. The guy seems like an abusive jerk and a mean-tempered drunk. However, from the beginning of this latest incident, a thought has been recurring to me: Aren't their laws in California against making these sorts of recordings and then releasing them? Isn't GIBSON the victim here? Why isn't this being brought up by the reporters, since it was their favorite thing to mention back when that guy dressed up like a pimp and showed those ACORN employees for the scum that they are?

I also wondered how in the world Oksana Girgorieva, the supposed victim of abuse at the hands of Mel Gibson, could remain so calm and yet continue egg Gibson on. It smelled like a set-up from the get-go to me, but I never saw that angle discussed anywhere.

And as other tapes were released--we're up to three now, I think--another thought occur ed to me: Why are these coming out in drib and drabs like this... whenever the story starts to fade, another tape is released. Perhaps Gibson is a REAL victim here. Perhaps this wench and her friends in the press are actively going after him? And how did the conversation start? Do we know what was said to provoke him? Do we know how these tapes have been edited?

No one in the press seems to have asked those questions. Until now. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one wondering.

Hollywood Life: Top Forensic Experts Tell Us Mel Gibson’s Threatening Audio Tapes Have Been Tampered With!

Maybe a "serious journalist" will do a follow-up on his or her Gibson bash-fest to explore the reasons for why the tapes were edited? Why Gibson sounds like he's on a speaker-phone while Girgorieva sounds like she's carefully miked? Perhaps someone in the media can even ask to hear the original tapes, in their entirety and from the beginning of the phone call?

Although that's probably asking for too much, since these same "serious journalists" have been fretting about the fact that Mel Gibson uses some pretty vile language during his rants, while almost simultaneously producing orgasmically joyful articles about the fact that convicted child rapist and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski will never again see the inside of a US courtroom or prison again.

moreless

FOXNews.com - Islam Becomes Taboo Topic

More and more, it's apparent that common citizens need to stand up to the Islamic terrorists. The news organizations and entertainment industry is more than happy to Submit to the Religion of Peace.

This needs to stop. They cannot be allowed to silence ANYONE.

FOXNews.com - Islam Becomes Taboo Topic on TV in Wake of 'South Park' Threats and Times Square Scare

Posted using ShareThis

moreless

Tale of Two Directors, Part Two: Leftist Hollywood Doesn’t Give a Damn About Human Rights in Iran

Earlier this week, I posted a link to Part One of John T. Simpson's feiry op-ed on the difference between the Hollywood celebretards' reactions to the just arrest of convicted child rapist and fugitive from justice director Roman Polanski, and the unjust and baseless imprisonment of director Jafar Panahi. Here's Part Two.

Tale of Two Directors, Part Two: Leftist Hollywood Doesn't Give a Damn About Human Rights in Iran

It's been interesting to read some of the reaction to Simpson's column on other blogs (to which I'm not going to bother to link because I'm lazy). But, generally speaking, the attitude of Simpson's detractors irritate me the way all apologists for Polanski irritate me. The fact that he drugged and raped a child isn't a big deal to them because he is a Great Artist and/or a money-maker for film studios and actors.

Polanski is a rapist and a coward. Panahi is a political activist and a brave man who stands up for his convictions. One is a scumbag who should be in a deep, dark hole. The other should be helming film productions.

moreless

The Celebretard and the Media Moron

As I've said previously, I think Jesse James is an asshole and a diwmit. However, there's no reason for the idiocy that's been stirred up around this picture:



Click here to see the hysterical gossip article that was written to go with the above photo. Apparently, for the writer, the photo raises the following question: "Is James -- who has since checked into rehab -- a neo-Nazi?"

How does one draw that conclusion from that photo? Looks to me like James is trying to be funny rather than respectful of Hitler and Nazis. To me, that photo looks like the sort of thing any number of people might do if they were among friends and trying to get a laugh.

A more interesting question would be why the "friend" who took that picture would leak it to the media.

I suppose similar dimwits might draw the conclusion that I'M a neo-Nazi because of my upcoming observance of the destruction of the Third Reich, or because I always played the German when we played soldiers as kids because I owned a toy Luger.

moreless

Dropping even the pretense of an independent media

ABC is going to be broadcasting prime-time "news" from the White House, all about the Obama plan for health care. Supposedly, viewpoints other than those put forth by our Glorious Leader will provided by everyday citizens in attendence at a "town-hall style" event where Our Glorious Leader will take uncensored, unedited questions.

When the Republicans pointed out that a "news broadcast" in an environment dictated and controlled by Our Glorious Leader's press office and security staff, ABCNews' Senior Vice President Kerry Smith offered this very disingenious response:

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Those out there who think for yourselves will be wondering HOW ABC is going to select who will be in the audience and who will ge to ask questions given that the Secret Service (or anyone really) can deny anyone access to the environment around our Glorious Leader by labeling them a security risk. ABC News has NO control over ANYTHING within the White House. To claim otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

It's tragic that we no longer have a truly independent media in this country. One more half step, and we will have an oligarchical dictatorship.

moreless

Vatican newspaper at odds with Catholic League

"Angels and Demons" opens tomorrow, the latest Tom Hanks-starring, Ron Howard-directed, Dan Brown novel-based movie. The leader of the Catholic League has called for the film to be boycotted because of its anti-Catholic bigotry.

This means that I will be seeing it at as early a screening as my schedule allows, and that I will have a review posted here by tomorrow evening at the latest.

Interestingly, as is usually the case when morons call for a movie to be boycotted sight unseen, those who have actually seen it don't think it's as bad as all that.

Today, WENN says that film reviewers at The Vatican's newspaper "L'Osservatore Romano", who attended a special screening earlier this month, dubbed the film inaccurate but "harmless". (The film's storyline reportedly deals with a renegade element within the Catholic Church dishing out death and mayhem to protect its secrets and gain revenge.)

Also quoted by WENN is one of the movie's stars, Ewan McGregor. He stated, "there's no anti-Catholicism or anti-Christianity in the movie - otherwise I wouldn't have made it."

All in all, it sounds like the overly sensitive and/or publicity seekers are once again giving free (if false) advertising to another movie that already has hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars behind it.

I guess we'll all know the truth tomorrow. Please check in for my review.

moreless

Latest 'Valkyrie' non-controversy controversy

As the puff pieces promoting the Tom Cruise WW2 vehicle "Valkyrie" become more and more prevelent, we're starting to see the first reviews... and a few columns featuring quotes from negative reviews.

A couple such columns have been penned by Roger Friedman of Fox News, who, at the earliest moment possible, did a round-up of negative commentary about "Valkyrie" in this column.

That column made sure he wasn't invited to the private New York press screening of "Valkyrie." Friedman followed it up with another column that focused on negative comments about the movie and its star, which you can read here.

I went and read Friedman's columns expecting to write a post about the habit that certain critics have in regards to watching and reviewing movies they know they're going to hate. With so many films to choose from, why bother writing up a film that you know you're going to pan? If you don't like Tom Cruise, why let your editor waste your time and his precious page space on sending you to see a movie that you're not going to give a fair shake?

The same goes for critics who pan every sci-fi or horror flick they see, no matter how good a film might be; they dump on it, because they are not the intended audience and they often don't get the film. I continue to think back with a warm, fuzzy feeling about how many critics revealed their cultural and literal illiteracy when they panned "Nacho Libre" and/or "Balls of Fury" as nothing more than a sports comedies when the first gets most of its humor from the fact that it's a blow-by-blow retelling of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" (as well as slavishly following Joesph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" theory) while the second is more of a spoof of 1970s Kung Fu flicks than sports movies. So many critics revealed themselves to be fairly ignorant and fairly untrustworthy thanks to those movies.

I'd figured I'd be able to grouse about Friedman in such terms based on his "Valkyrie" coverage. After all, Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times quoted United Artists marketing chief Michael Vollman publicist as saying, "If he'd [Friedman] indicated a desire to be open-minded and not telegraphed his intentions ahead of time, we would've acted differently. But when someone says 'I'm going to hate this movie,' you get the impression they have a closed mind."

He also stated that "Screenings are a privilege, not a right."

I agree with Vollman that screenings are a privilege not a right, and I also agree that one COULD interpert Friedman's column as telegraphing his intention to pan the movie; he was choosing his subject matter for a reason after all.

However, it is somewhat cowardly to silence potential critics before they've even really spoken out. UA's publicity department has shown themselves to have little faith in their product by not inviting Friedman to their screening. My guess is they didn't do themselves any favors, because all it got them was him writing another column full of negative quotes about "Valkyrie."

And they're not very interesting quotes at that, something that may be driving home the point that is further underscoring the sorry state of entertaiment journalism. Is that really the best Friedman could come up with for his spite-filled follow-up hit-piece on the film? Nitpicky little trifles that are neither insightful nor surprising as far as the criticism of Cruise's performance goes?

Of course, the quotes also reveal (or are out of context and thus make it appear) that Todd McCarthy is either petty or dim, because he seems to be blaming Cruise for something that's a flaw of the script. Quote the quote: "Cruise makes Stauffenberg a stalwart, flawed and honorable man, but reveals little sense of his stellar intellectual, artistic and family background."

McCarthy further coes on to kvetch about Cruise's American accent in a cast of otherwise British accents. Would he really rather that they all put on German accents like the actors in "Hogan's Heroes" and "Hitler, Dead or Alive"? I'm not sure what critic reveals himself to be the pettier--McCarthy for writing the initial criticsm or Friedman for quoting it.

I'm no fan of Tom Cruise. He surprised me in "Collatoral" and "Tropic Thunder", but otherwise I've been unimpressed by him as an actor. Yet the most insightful criticism that the oh-so-intelligent film critics can come up with is that he's not much of an actor, something that I observed long, long ago? And UA's publicist felt the need to ban Friedman from the screening for quoting a true statement?

Tom Cruise was a movie star. His star is fading. Based on the comments quoted by Friedman--comments that both Friedman and UA apparently felt were negative and damning but which I feel are words that Cruise and his agents should consider and take to heart when choosing his future roles--it seems that Cruise did a decent job as part of the ensemble cast that drives "Valkyrie." Cruise is starting to settle in where he should have been all along and in roles more fitting for his level of talent.

But, I digress.

Was it unkind of Friedman to do a column featuring quotes that said bad things about Cruise and "Valkyrie"? Sure. But that's a far cry from telegraphing that he was going to write a negative review about the movie. (He probably was going to, but I'm not convinced that one can draw that conclusion from the first column... unless one is already thinking that the movie sucks.)

UA were fools to not invite him. Hell, those who might be so inclined might even say that they were behaving true to the traditions of the Nazis that Col. Stauffenberg was so disgusted by in "Valkyrie"--they are trying to silence critics before they have a chance to speak out. Or, I suppose, one could say they are behaving like a Scientology propaganda machine. If one was prone to think such things.

Me, I'll make up my mind like I do with every movie that seems interesting to me--when I've seen it. If I thought I was going to hate, I'd not waste my time on it, something the so-called real critics and reviewers should consider doing. I will be seeing "Valkyrie" around the same time that Roger Friedman does, and we'll probably be posting our stories around the same time. (Although... please cry a tear for Roger Friedman. As he states in the second column on "Valkyrie" coverage, the poor baby will have to see the movie with the grubby hoi-poloi! Oh, the shame! Oh, the horror!)

moreless

Someone should sue Warner Bros and JK Rowling

Warner Bros. has sued an Indian film company for releasing a movie called "Hari Puttar: A Comedy of Terrors." They say the title is too similar to their Harry Potter movies,and they want the other movie stopped.

This is where whoever owns the rights to the Charles Band-produced "Troll" movie steps up and sues Warner, JK Rowling and Scholastic for stealing the whole concept of a boy named Harry Potter living and existing in a world where magic secretly co-exists in a modern setting.

In "Troll," Noah Hataway played a kid named Harry Potter Jr. and Michael Moriarity played his father, Harry Potter.

What is it with these assholes who get it in their heads that they own a name and a concept that appears to have been ripped off in the first place?

moreless